<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:94604.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-504
DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
AND WATER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
APRIL 7, 2004
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
S. Hrg. 108-504
DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
AND WATER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 7, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-604 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 7, 2004
OPENING STATEMENTS
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 49
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 3
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida,
prepared statement............................................. 165
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 49
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 7
Strauss, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator (Shadow) from the District of
Columbia, prepared statement................................... 165
Warner, Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth
of Virginia.................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Best, Dana, M.D., director, Smoke Free Homes Project; medical
director, Healthy Generations Program; assistant professor,
George Washington University School of Medicine and Health
Sciences; and Children's National Medical Center............... 147
Prepared statement........................................... 290
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 302
Senator Jeffords......................................... 302
Borland, Gloria, DuPont Circle Parents........................... 141
Prepared statement........................................... 268
Response to additional question from Senator Jeffords........ 283
Grumbles, Benjamin H., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water, Environmental Protection Agency......................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 166
Jacobus, Thomas P., general manager, Washington Aqueduct,
Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 247
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 268
Senator Inhofe........................................... 267
Senator Jeffords......................................... 267
Johnson, Jerry, N., general manager, District of Columbia, Water
and Sewer Authority............................................ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 179
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 191
Senator Jeffords......................................... 184
Lanard, Jody, M.D., risk communication consultant................ 144
Prepared statement........................................... 284
Lucey, Daniel R., interim chief health officer, District of
Columbia Department of Health.................................. 56
Prepared statement........................................... 192
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 243
Senator Jeffords......................................... 241
Welsh, Donald, Director, Region III, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 169
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 177
Senator Inhofe........................................... 173
Senator Jeffords......................................... 174
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Environmental Health................................... 129
Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water & Drinking
Water...................................................... 131
Journal of the CAI-NEV AWWA:
Lead Leaching from Brass Water Meters Under Pressurized
Flow Conditions, UNC-Ashville Environmental Quality
Institute.............................................370-383
Lead Leaching from In-Service Residential Water Meters: A
Laboratory Study, UNC-Ashville Environmental Quality
Institute.............................................368-369
The Washington Post:
City Officials Say Lead in Water Poses Problem in
Palisades Section of NW, November 3, 1986.............152-154
District Residents Applaud Planned Inquiry By Senate, by
Nakamura, David, staff writer, March 28, 2004.......... 385
Fear of Lead in D.C. Water Spurs Requests for Tests,
December 6, 1986......................................155-156
Lead Found in Water of Many City Homes; Contamination May
Affect 56,000 Houses, January 23, 1987................159-160
Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory, June 9, 1893.................. 385
Potomac Water and Lead Pipe, September 15, 1895.......... 385
Tests on Lead in D.C. Water to Take 3 Months, December
21, 1986..............................................157-158
Letters from:
Capacasa, Jon M., director, Water Protection Division,
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 386
PureWater DC................................................. 9-43
Senator Jeffords............................................. 46
Senator Wyden................................................ 48
Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia; Schwartz,
Carol, councilmember, at-large, chair, Committee on Public
Works and the Environment..................................4, 384
Reports:
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Advisory Committee,
Turning Lead Into Gold: How the Bush Administration is
Poisoning the Lead Advisory Committee at the CDC..........100-127
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector
General, EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite
Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings, March 5, 2004.......324-343
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3; Washington
Aqueduct; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Action Plan to Reduce
the Occurrence of Lead Leaching from Service Lines, Solder,
or Fixtures Into Tap Water in the District of Columbia and
Arlington County and Falls Church, VA.....................249-266
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Bone Lead Levels in
Adjudicated Delinquents.................................... 92
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 17, 2003,
Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead
Concentrations Below 10 mg per Deciliter................... 69-98
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords:
Jablow, Valerie, parent...................................... 283
McKeon, Christopher, parent.................................. 283
Statements:
Bellinger, David C., Ph.D., M.Sc., Children's Hospital
Boston, Harvard Medical School, supplemental article....... 344
Brannum, Robert Vinson, parent............................... 321
Bressler, Andy, resident, District of Columbia............... 318
Keegan, Mike, policy analyst, National Rural Water
Association................................................ 353
Maas, Richard P., and Patch, Steve C., UNC-Asheville
Environmental Quality Institute............................ 357
Olson, Erik D., senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council.................................................... 303
Wolf, Muriel, M.D., Children's Medical Center, George
Washington University Medical School....................... 318
Timeline for the Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule in
the District of Columbia 2000 to 2004.......................... 320
DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Warner, Clinton, Jeffords [ex
officio], and Inhofe [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner [assuming the chair]. The hearing will come
to order.
We are in the process of voting and I will start the
hearing simply by giving my statement.
I feel very strongly about this subject and have spent a
good deal of time on it and would like to express a few
thoughts.
I thank all for bringing this hearing together. It is an
issue that directly impacts my constituents in Virginia. I must
say I work very closely with the Nation's capital and the
governmental authorities there as I have through these 26 years
that I have been privileged to be a Senator. Therefore, this is
a hearing that affects a good deal of my interests and my
career.
My constituents, particularly in Arlington County and the
city of Falls Church, because they are the primary customers of
the Washington Aqueduct System along with the District of
Columbia. The facts of this situation as they have unfolded
over the past 2 months are really very disturbing. It is even
more disturbing, however, that we and the public became aware
of this ongoing problem only after reports in the local media.
Every one of the government officials sitting before us on the
first panel, the EPA, the Corps, the Water and Sewer Authority,
had some measure of knowledge that testing showed some level of
lead. That level we will hear more about today and that that
water was used for drinking.
The levels we understand here on the committee exceeded the
Federal action levels. The rest, we know there was no immediate
action taken even though that knowledge was in the hands of
responsible government officials. We will have the opportunity
today to give a full explanation of that.
We must start correcting the problem. We will have time to
address the past but in short, the Corps must determine if a
better treatment regime will reduce the leaching of lead from
service lines. The Water and Sewer Authority must take
immediate steps to provide filters to residents who are served
by the over 37,000 service lines that are ``undetermined.''
Those are residents in the category where WASA does not know if
they have had lead service lines. If water sampling of some of
these residents with ``undetermined'' service lines reveal lead
contamination above the 15 ppb action level, all of these
residents, in my judgment, must be provided with water filters.
If WASA does not provide the filters for those with
undetermined service lines, EPA must exercise its emergency
authority to ensure that this occurs because of the imminent
public health threat.
I also call on EPA to examine the need to set an
enforceable maximum contaminant level, MCL, for lead in
drinking water instead of the current 15 ppb. Such an approach
may be the only recourse to protect public health and ensure
that all necessary steps are taken to reduce lead contamination
in drinking water. In this situation, it does not appear that
the additional regulatory requirements that should have been
implemented when sampling showed high lead levels were enforced
by either the EPA or WASA, but you will be given that
opportunity today to set the record in your own perspective.
The first order of business that must be taken by
responsible agencies before us today is restoring the public
trust. I underline that. You have a long way to go and can
start with your commitment to provide water filters to all
persons served by undetermined service lines. You must also
look to ways to finance the full replacement of lead service
lines all the way up to the home, not just that portion of the
lead service line that is owned by WASA.
I say to my colleagues, I look forward to working with the
leadership of this committee to see that we do the responsible
thing here in the Congress.
As you see, the second vote has been called and I must go
over and make that vote. The committee will stand in recess
until the Chairman appears.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this important hearing this
morning. It is an issue that directly impacts my constituents in
Arlington County and the city of Falls Church because they are the
primary customers of the Washington Aqueduct system along with the
District of Columbia.
The facts of this situation, as they have unfolded over the past 2
months are very disturbing. It is even more disturbing, however, that
we and the public became aware of this ongoing problem only after
reports in the Washington Post.
Every one of the government officials sitting before us on the
first panel--the EPA, the Corps, and the Water and Sewer Authority--
knew that testing showed lead levels in the drinking water were
exceeding the Federal action levels. No one took action. No one
properly notified the public. And, it seems that you are still finger
pointing at each other as to who's to blame.
We must start correcting the problem. In the short-term, the Corps
must determine if a better treatment regime will reduce the leaching of
lead from service lines. The Water and Sewer Authority must take
immediate steps to provide filters to residents who are served by the
over 37,000 service lines that are ``undetermined.'' Those are
residents in a category where WASA does not know if they have lead
service lines. Yet, water sampling of some of these residences with
``undetermined'' service lines reveal lead contamination above the 15
ppb action level. All of these residences must be provided with water
filters.
If WASA does not provide filters for those with ``undetermined''
service lines, EPA must exercise its emergency authority to ensure that
this occurs because of the imminent public health threat. I also call
on EPA to examine the need to set an enforceable maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for lead in drinking water instead of the current 15 parts
per billion action level. Such an approach may be the only recourse to
protect public health and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to
reduce lead contamination in drinking water. In this situation, it does
not appear that the additional regulatory requirements that should have
been implemented when sampling showed high lead levels were enforced by
either EPA or WASA.
The first order of business that must be taken by the responsible
agencies appearing before us today is restoring the public trust.
You've got a long way to go. It can start with your commitment to
provide water filters to all persons served by ``undetermined'' service
lines. You must also look to ways to financing the full replacement of
lead service lines all the way up to the home, not just that portion of
the lead service line that is owned by WASA.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on the specific
challenges facing this region. I also share your concerns that this
could be a public health problem confronting any city with lead service
lines.
[Recess.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my understanding Senator Warner
already convened the hearing so he could make his statement and
go vote. Those of us who are here have been on the floor and
have voted and we will now officially convene the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works' hearing of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water.
This is an oversight hearing on the detection of lead in
the DC drinking water system, focusing on the needed
improvements in the public communications and the status of
short- and long-term solutions.
Today's hearing will review the detection of lead in DC
drinking water, specifically on needed improvements in the
communication and the status of immediate actions and long-term
solutions. Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia
and Council Member Carol Schwartz were among those who
requested that we hold this hearing. I appreciate their efforts
and look forward to working with them and others to address the
immediate risks of this situation.
Mayor Williams joined me yesterday in a meeting with city
residents and Council Member Schwartz has been very helpful and
would have come with us but for a regularly scheduled
legislative session. Council Member Schwartz has also forwarded
to my attention the letter that she and Mayor Williams wrote to
the Appropriations Committee last week which, without
objection, will be entered in the record.
[The referenced document follows:]
April 1, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
127 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
156 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid: We are writing you
in support of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's written request to
you for $12,145,000 in response to the elevated lead levels in the
District of Columbia's drinking water. The total projected cost to the
District for FY '04 is $25,824,101.
As you are aware, the Government of the District of Columbia and
the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) have expended
considerable effort and resources to deal with the presence of elevated
levels of lead in the drinking water of some residences in the
District. The lead appears to be entering the water through corrosion
of lead service lines that connect water mains to residences. Although
the lead service lines have been in place in most cases for more than
fifty years, the elevation of lead levels in the water is a very recent
phenomenon.
The District is requesting this Federal support because this
drinking water crisis was apparently created by Federal action:
specifically by the actions of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The
apparent cause for this recent rise in lead levels is a change in the
treatment chemistry initiated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers' Washington Aqueduct, the provider of the District's water,
and an agency over which your Subcommittee has jurisdiction, and
approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the regulator of the District's water. EPA regulates the District's
water because, unlike 49 of the States, the District does not have
primacy for regulation in this area, despite multiple requests for such
in the past 25 years. Thus, the responsibility and funding for
regulation of the District's drinking water is delegated by EPA to its
regional office in Philadelphia, rather than to the District.
The total costs that the District is projected to incur for fiscal
year 2004 are $25,824,101. We are requesting funding from the Energy
and Water Development Subcommittee in the amount of $12,145,000 to help
replace lead service lines that are currently part of the District's
drinking water infrastructure.
As it now stands, the significant expenditures associated with
addressing the lead problem will have to be borne by the District's
taxpayers and WASA's ratepayers, which is inherently unfair.
By this letter, we are requesting full reimbursement to both the
District and to WASA for these cost.
The regulatory decisions of EPA appear to have generated these
costs, and the resources to address them reside within EPA. It would be
wholly inappropriate and unjust for the people of the District to bear
these costs. Even had the actions of EPA not been the cause of this
problem, the structural imbalance the District faces due to its unique
situation relative to the Federal Government leaves it with
insufficient resources to support its basic needs, let alone
extraordinary demands such as have been created by the lead in water
problem.
We are working with Congresswoman Norton to advance this critical
issue. On behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, we
respectfully request a prompt and favorably reply.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
Carol Schwartz,
Councilmember, At-Large,
Chair, Committee on Public Works and the Environment.
Senator Crapo. Many members of this committee also
advocated for this hearing. First, let us recognize the
obvious. Clean water is everyone's need and everyone's
priority, even though we may sometimes take it for granted.
Second, we must appreciate this subject is both complex and
emotional. We must proceed accordingly without covering the
facts with hard feelings and without disregarding hard feelings
with factual arguments.
There is a lot of work to do, some technical and some
digging up service lines. In order to do these jobs correctly,
we need clear heads, clear messages and clear agreements. We
need to fix this problem and we must fix it now. An important
fact already in evidence is that lead is toxic but
historically, it was used for plumbing and as an ingredient in
paint and automotive fuel. Because plumbing, paint chips, dust
and exhaust fumes surround most Americans, lead is very
troubling.
We have made progress by phasing out leaded gasoline and
more slowly rehabilitating lead painted homes. Lead in plumbing
represents an enormous part of the Nation's need to replace and
rehabilitate its water system. Health risks of lead are
generally widely accepted and a recent study may add new
concerns. Lead poisoning delays physical and mental development
in children and in adults, causes increases in blood pressure
and after long-term exposure, damages kidneys.
Another important fact is that many people were surprised
in January of this year when they read in the newspaper that
lead levels were high, in some cases very high in many homes in
Washington, DC. The fact that people were surprised means that
to communicate effectively from now on, we must communicate
differently from now on. In addition to the obvious reason for
communicating risks to the public, it is especially important
in managing lead. By the nature of the problem, we will be
living with lead in our home environments for a long time.
Therefore, it is particularly important that we are vigilant.
The members of the first panel are here to explain efforts
to repair missed communications with the public, to review
lessons learned to date and to explain intended efforts or
policy changes for better communication of risks in the future.
Every Senator and staff member knows the challenge of
communicating risks because we have been evacuated, some of us
twice, from our offices when attacked with anthrax and ricin.
Since those episodes, we have installed an announcement
procedure by which we hear immediately of every suspicious
substance found in our buildings. Even though most of these
announcements are followed by an all clear message, we are
prepared for the sight of a safety team wearing protective
clothing as they hurry to investigate. People should have the
information they need to judge risks for themselves.
In addition to the issue of communication, we also want to
hear the latest developments in finding and eliminating lead.
Also, I am specifically interested in how the public will be
included in deliberations and decisions about this problem.
The second panel is here to describe health risks of lead,
a personal experience with this issue, and professional advice
about how communications can be improved.
I appreciate the witnesses from every perspective and their
commitment to join us today. I strongly encourage the first
panel to remain to hear what the second panel has to say. To
all those who are following this issue, remember that this
situation is a specific and serious example of a national
issue. Depending on where you live and work, your water
infrastructure is anywhere from 40 to 140 years old. That means
many Americans are already experiencing either the problems of
an aging system or the limits of a small system.
All systems need to work reliably everywhere and for
everyone. To accomplish this will require more money than we
currently have. In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network
estimated that current infrastructure needs could cost around
$1 trillion over the next 15 to 20 years. That is around $20
billion per year more than current spending.
The EPA's own GAP analysis from 2002 estimates almost $300
billion in infrastructure resource shortfalls over 20 years. I
raised this issue on the Senate floor and won unanimous
approval to increase available spending authority for water
infrastructure and I am pushing to retain this amendment in the
budget resolution conference.
Today's hearing is about Washington's particular reasons
for a new effort to upgrade the Nation's water systems. I
encourage all cities to heed the warning and to listen to the
call.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]
Statement of Hon. Michael D. Crapo, U.S. Senator from the State of
Idaho
Today's hearing will review the detection of lead in DC drinking
water; specifically on needed improvements in communication and the
status of immediate actions and long-term solutions.
Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia and
Councilmember Carol Schwartz were among those who requested that we
hold this hearing. I appreciate their efforts and look forward to
working with them and others to address the immediate risks of this
situation.
Mayor Williams joined me yesterday in a meeting with city residents
and Councilmember Schwartz has been very helpful and would have come
with us but for a regularly scheduled legislative session.
Councilmember Schwartz has also forwarded to my attention the
letter that she and Mayor Williams wrote to the Appropriations
Committee last week.
Many members of this committee also advocated for this hearing.
OVERVIEW ON THE ISSUE
First, let us recognize the obvious: clean water is everyone's need
and everyone's priority, even though we may take it for granted.
Second, we must appreciate that this subject is both complex and
emotional. We must proceed accordingly, without coloring facts with
hard feelings, and without disregarding hard feelings with factual
arguments. There is a lot of work to do: some technical and some
digging up of service lines. In order to do these jobs correctly we
need clear heads, clear messages, and clear agreements. We need to fix
this problem, and we must fix it now.
An important fact already in evidence is that lead is toxic, but
historically was used for plumbing and as an ingredient in paint and
automobile fuel. Because plumbing, paint chips and dust, and exhaust
fumes surround most Americans, lead is very troubling. We have made
progress by phasing out leaded gasoline and--more slowly--
rehabilitating lead-painted homes. Lead in plumbing represents an
enormous part of the Nation's need to replace and rehabilitate its
water system.
Health risks of lead are generally widely accepted, and a recent
study may add new concerns. Lead poisoning delays physical and mental
development in children and, in adults, causes increases in blood
pressure and--after long-term exposure--damages kidneys.
Another important fact is that many people were surprised in
January of this year when they read in the newspaper that lead levels
were high--in some cases very high--in many homes in Washington. The
fact that people were surprised means that to communicate effectively
from now on we must communicate differently from now on.
In addition to the obvious reason for communicating risks to the
public, it is especially important in managing lead. By nature of the
problem, we will be living with lead in our home environments for a
long time; therefore, it requires particular vigilance.
CHARGE TO THE FIRST PANEL
The members of the first panel are here to explain efforts to
repair missed communications with the public, to review lessons learned
to date, and explain intended efforts or policy changes for better
communicating risks in the future.
Every Senator and staff member knows the challenge of communicating
risks because we have been evacuated from our offices--some of us
twice--when attacked with anthrax and ricin. Since those episodes we
have installed an announcement procedure by which we hear immediately
of every suspicious substance found in our buildings. Even though most
of these announcements are followed by an ``all clear'' message, we are
prepared for the sight of a safety team wearing protective clothing as
they hurry to investigate. People should have the information they need
to judge risks for themselves.
In addition to the issue of communication, we also want to hear of
the latest developments in finding and eliminating the lead. Also, I am
specifically interested in how the public will be included in
deliberations and decisions about this problem.
CHARGE TO SECOND PANEL
The second panel is here to describe the health risks of lead,
relate personal experiences with this issue, and offer professional
advice about how communications could be improved. I appreciate your
commitment to join us today. I strongly urge the first panel to remain
to hear what the second panel has to say.
THE NATIONAL NEED
To all who are following this issue, remember: this situation is a
specific and serious example of a national issue. Depending on where
you live and work, your water infrastructure is anywhere from 40 to 140
years old. That means many Americans are already experiencing either
the problems of an aging system or the limits of a small system. All
systems need to work reliably everywhere and for everyone.
To accomplish this will require more money than we currently have.
In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network estimated that current
infrastructure needs could cost around $1 trillion over the next 15-20
years.\1\ This is around $20 billion per year more than current
spending. The EPA's own ``Gap Analysis'' from 2002 estimates almost
$300 billion in infrastructure resource shortfalls over 20 years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Water Infrastructure Network. April 2000. Clean and Safe Water
for the 21st Century. Link from http://www.win-water.org/; direct from:
http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/advocacy/winreport/winreport2000.pdf.
\2\ EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure
Gap Analysis. Link: http:
//www.epa.gov/owm/ (click ``Featured Information''); direct: http://
www.epa.gov/owm/gapreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I raised this issue on the Senate floor and won unanimous approval
to increase available spending authority for water infrastructure--and
I am pushing to retain this amendment in the Conference on the Budget
Resolution.
Today's hearing is about Washington's particular reason for a new
effort to upgrade the Nation's water systems. I encourage all cities to
heed the warning and answer the call.
Senator Crapo. At this point, we will turn to our Ranking
Member, Senator Jeffords, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon to everyone.
I would like to start by thanking Senator Crapo and
Chairman Inhofe for granting the Minority's request to hold
this hearing. The residents of Washington, DC deserve to get
answers from Federal and local officials on why there is lead
in the DC water and why residents were not notified that safe
drinking is a right, not a privilege.
This committee has oversight responsibilities for the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, as
well as, the Safe Drinking Water Act. Each of us in the Senate
has a special oversight responsibility for the District and its
residents. I have lived in Washington for a long time and I
take this responsibility seriously. At one time, I was kind of
de facto Mayor for a while but that was a long time ago.
Many of us have switched to bottled water. I am disturbed
because bottled water is not regulated in that manner, the tap
water is. We cannot even find out what is in bottled water.
Yesterday, Senator Crapo and I met with a group of
Washington parents. Their outrage and sadness at the effect on
their children was unanimous. Their charges to us were, ``fix
this situation and don't let it happen again.'' I am committed
to doing everything in our power to solve this problem and I
know the Chairman of the subcommittee agrees with me.
My overriding question today for our witnesses is how did
we get here? How did we get to the point where the future of
the children living in our Nation's capital are threatened
every day by the water in their faucets and bath tubs? How did
we get to the point where water tests were conducted revealing
startlingly high lead levels, but yet that information was
never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed
themselves, their unborn children and their children to lead
contaminated water? How did we get to the point where it takes
congressional hearings and newspapers to expose this action?
How did we get to the point where 2 years after the fact, EPA
announces that WASA did not comply with the requirements of the
lead and copper rule? How did we get to the point where the
research from over a year ago showed that lead exposure levels
below the current standard of 10 ppb have an adverse effect on
children's intelligence level and yet the Federal Government
has not responded?
Lead is a serious health threat to children and to pregnant
women. It is particularly dangerous for children who retain
about 68 percent of the lead that enters their bodies while
adults retain only about 1 percent. Children exposed to lead
experience low birth weight, growth retardation, mental
retardation, learning disabilities and other effects. It is an
also particularly harmful drug for women in pregnancy.
I have already mentioned our meeting yesterday with a group
of DC parents and I want to take this chance to share a few
more thoughts from other concerned parents. I ask unanimous
consent that a letter and petition from PureWater DC, an
Internet-based site for parents concerned about ongoing water
issues in DC be placed in the record--13,077 people signed this
petition expressing their concern and the expectation for
District officials to take action quickly to fix the problem.
Senator Crapo. Without objection, the petition will be made
a part of the record.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.035
Senator Jeffords. I believe it is imperative that during
each moment of today's hearing, we all remember that real
parents, children and babies are being affected by this
situation as we speak.
Today's hearing is just the first step in what I hope will
be a long list of actions that we can take to help solve DC's
lead problem and prevent this from occurring elsewhere in this
Nation. Today, I requested from my colleague, Senator Graham of
Florida, and Representatives Dingell and Solarz that the
General Accounting Office conduct an investigation into the
Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the Safe
Drinking Water Act lead provisions, using Washington, DC as a
case study.
During the questioning for EPA today, I will urge the
Agency to immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure
that we do not have an undetected national lead problem. In the
coming days, I will be introducing legislation that will take
action to overhaul the current regulatory regime for lead in
drinking water. My bill will modify the Safe Drinking Water Act
to improve public communications, to require immediate
notification of all homes with elevated lead level results, to
require public water systems to provide in-home filters where
lead is a problem, to prohibit lead in plumbing fixtures, to
require immediate nationwide testing of public water systems,
to eliminate lead service lines and lead pipes and to increase
water infrastructure funding.
I was struck by the question posed by one resident. Can you
actually help fix this problem? I hope the answer to that will
be a resounding yes. Today is step No. 1 in that direction.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
I would like to start by thanking Senator Crapo and Chairman Inhofe
for granting the minority's request to hold this hearing. The residents
of Washington, DC deserve to get answers from Federal and local
officials on why there is lead in DC water and why residents were not
notified. Safe drinking water is a right, not a privilege.
This Committee has oversight responsibilities for the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Each of us in the Senate has a special oversight responsibility for
the District and its residents. I've lived in Washington for a long
time, and I take this responsibility seriously.
Many of us live in Washington. We certainly all work in Washington.
Our family, friends, children and grandchildren drink the tap water
here daily.
Many of us have switched to bottled water. I am disturbed that
because bottled water is not regulated in the same manner that tap
water is, we cannot even find out if our bottled water is safe.
Yesterday Senator Crapo and I met with a group of Washington
parents. Their outrage and sadness at the effect on their children was
unanimous. Their charge to us was: Fix this situation and don't let it
happen again. I am committed to doing everything in our power to solve
this problem.
My overriding question today for our witnesses is--How did we get
here? How did we get to the point where the futures of children living
in our Nation's capital are threatened every day by the water in their
faucets and bathtubs? How did we get to the point where water tests
revealed startlingly high lead levels, but yet that information was
never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed themselves, their
unborn children, and their children to lead-contaminated water?
How did we get to the point where it takes Congressional hearings
and newspaper exposes to get action? How did we get to the point where
2 years after the fact, the EPA announces that WASA did not comply with
the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule?
How did we get to the point where research from over a year ago
showing that lead exposure at levels below the current standard of 10
parts-per-billion have an adverse effect on children's intelligence
levels, and yet the Federal Government has not responded?
Lead is a serious health threat to children and pregnant women. It
is particularly dangerous for children, who retain about 68 percent of
the lead that enters their bodies, while adults retain about 1 percent.
Children exposed to lead experience low birth weight, growth
retardation, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and other
effects. It is also particularly harmful during pregnancy.
I have already mentioned our meeting yesterday with a group of DC
parents, and I want to take this chance to share a few more thoughts
from some other concerned parents. I ask unanimous consent that a
letter and petition from PureWater DC, an internet-based site for
parents concerned about the ongoing water issues in DC. Thirteen-
hundred and seventy-seven people signed this petition expressing their
concern and the expectation for District officials to act quickly to
fix the problem.
I ask unanimous consent that the many letters and e-mails I have
received from DC residents be included in the record, and I ask that
the record remain open for 2 weeks to allow more people to provide
their views.
I believe it is imperative that during each moment of today's
hearing, we all remember that real parents, children, and babies are
being affected by this situation as we speak.
Today's hearing is just the first step in what I hope is a long
list of actions that we can take to help solve DC's lead problem and
prevent this from occurring elsewhere in the Nation.
Today, I requested with my colleagues Senator Graham of Florida and
Representatives Dingell and Solis that the General Accounting Office
conduct an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's
enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act's lead provisions, using
Washington, DC as a case study.
During the questions for EPA today, I will urge the Agency to
immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure that we do not have
an undetected national lead problem.
In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation that will
take action to overhaul the current regulatory regime for lead in
drinking water.
My bill will modify the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve public
communication, to require immediate notification of all homes with
elevated lead test results, to require public water systems to provide
in-home filters where lead is a problem, to prohibit lead in plumbing
fixtures, to require immediate nationwide testing of public water
systems, to eliminate lead service lines and lead pipes, and to
increase water infrastructure funding.
I have requested a hearing on the childhood lead poisoning in the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I sit to
ensure that the Centers for Disease Control is aggressively addressing
childhood lead poisoning.
I was struck by the question posed by one resident--can you
actually help fix this problem? I hope to answer that question with a
resounding ``yes.''
Today is step No. 1. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.236
Senator Crapo. We will now turn to the Chairman of our
committee, Senator Inhofe, who has been very strong in
encouraging us to hold these hearings.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing.
In deference to our witnesses, I will submit my statement
for the record and move on.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
I like to thank Chairman Crapo for holding this hearing, like most
of my colleagues, when I'm not back in my home State, I stay here in
the District of Columbia. And while the lead levels in the drinking
water probably won't shorten my life expectancy, I do have grand kids
who come to visit and don't want to put them at any added risk.
First I think that it's important to put the risk from lead
exposure into perspective. While high blood lead levels are a cause for
concern, the blood lead levels of the children in the District of
Columbia are far lower than those we experienced nationwide just a
generation ago.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines
for lead exposure, their level of concern for blood lead is 10
micrograms per deciliter. Twenty years ago, the vast majority of
children in America would have exceeded that level. A nationwide study
conducted by CDC in the early 1980s, 88 percent of the children in the
survey exceeded the current CDC level of concern.
From the mid-1920s until the mid-1980s motor gasoline contained an
additive, tetraethyl-lead, that improved fuel performance by preventing
pre-ignition in the cylinders of the engine. This lead was released as
a gas and in the form of a very fine dust. Even today, areas around
busy roads and highways may contain elevated levels of lead.
Because of concern over lead in the drinking water the CDC recently
conducted a study of residents in the District whose tap water had the
highest lead levels, above 300 parts per billion. Not one person had
lead levels in their blood above CDC's level of concern.
The current tempest over DC's drinking water raises several
pressing questions. First and foremost is, What caused the sudden jump
in lead levels seen in the water samples? Hopefully our witnesses will
have some answers.
But equally important, is the longer-term question of whether or
not our system properly responded to the incident. It has been almost 2
years since the first water samples tested high in lead.
What we know for certain is that somewhere between the source and
the spigot, something went wrong. What we need to know is why is it
taking 2 years to solve this problem.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. I want to thank you and Chairman Inhofe
for this hearing. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords
for his strong interest and leadership on this issue.
With your consent, I will submit the entire statement for
the record but I want to make a few additional points.
There is no safe level of lead and recent studies, one
concluded last April published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, followed 172 children in Rochester, NY and measured
blood lead levels at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months and
tested their IQs at 36 and 60 months. The study found that most
of the reduction in IQ attributable to lead occurred at blood
levels below 10 mpd which is the level that the Centers for
Disease Control considers to be the threshold level for health
effects.
The researchers found that IQ scores of children who had
blood lead levels of 10 mpd were about seven points lower than
for children with levels of 1 mpd. An increase in blood levels
from 10 to 30 mpd were associated with a small additional
decline in IQ. While this is only one study, there are a number
of other research findings that suggest what we currently
consider to be a safe level for lead is in fact too high. That
underscores the seriousness of the issue we are here to talk
about today.
Lead exposure comes from a variety of sources and lead in
drinking water accounts for only about 20 percent of lead
exposures, but if no level of lead is safe then any source of
lead needs to be taken very seriously. To the DC residents who
are here, and that includes many of us who serve in this body
who live part-time inside the District boundaries, I think you
have a right to be disturbed and have an absolute right to have
your questions answered.
I don't think it is productive in this hearing to try to
assess blame but at some point, we need to get specific
questions answered. Why did WASA not notify residents about
elevated lead levels as soon as it had the test results? Why
did the DC Health Department engage in this issue when notified
of the problems? Why did EPA take so long to get involved? How
is it possible that WASA or no agency has accurate records
about who has lead service lines and in the absence of such
records, why is WASA refusing to provide water filters to homes
for which it does not have information one way or the other?
These are some of the questions I have. I look forward to
this hearing but I have to conclude by saying one of the great
benefits of living in our country over many, many decades has
been that we could count on the water we drank and the food we
ate to be safe much more so than in other countries in the
world. For the capital of our Nation to have this problem is
deeply concerning. I am grateful we are having this hearing and
I also look forward to working with Senator Jeffords on his
legislation.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Clinton.
Without objection, full statements of any of the Senators
will be made a part of the record.
At this point, we would like to call our first panel. We
thank you all for joining us.
Before we begin, I would like to address a few of the rules
of the committee to all witnesses today. You will notice there
is a clock in front of you. You should have been informed you
should keep your oral testimony to 5 minutes. We thank you for
your written testimony, those of you who provided it, and we
assure you we will carefully review your written testimony.
However, 5 minutes goes by quickly and if you are like most
witnesses, you will find your 5 minutes goes by before you are
done saying everything you have to say. We encourage you to
watch the clock. If you do forget, I will lightly tap the gavel
to remind you to look down at it.
The reason for that is because we want to have the
opportunity to have dialog and discussion with you. You will
find you will have an opportunity to make a lot of your points
that you didn't get to in your first 5 minutes as we get
engaged in that dialog. So please pay attention to the clock.
With that, let me introduce our first panel. We will ask
you to speak in the order I introduce you. We first have
Benjamin H. Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water, EPA; Donald Welsh, Director, Region III, EPA in
Philadelphia; Jerry Johnson, general manager, District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; Dr. Daniel Lucey, interim
chief health officer, District of Columbia Department of
Health; and Thomas B. Jacobus, general manager, Washington
Aqueduct, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Gentlemen, we thank you for coming and for your
preparation. Mr. Grumbles, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Thank you. Thank you for having this hearing and for
putting together such a balanced presentation of witnesses to
cover all the perspectives and issues we are all facing here.
I want to say on behalf of EPA that we, like you, are
asking a lot of tough questions of ourselves as well as
questions of our colleagues. We want to focus on collaborating
together, not finger pointing, coming up with solutions,
concrete actions, restoring the quality of the water and the
confidence of the public here in the District and making sure
that this situation doesn't happen in other places throughout
the country.
I would like to touch on a few things, then I will turn to
Don Welsh, who is the Regional Administrator, and has a more
local perspective in terms of what is happening in the District
itself. I just wanted to touch on a few items from the national
perspective.
The first thing I would like to say is that EPA places a
very high priority on reducing exposure to lead. As you all
pointed out very eloquently, it is a neurotoxin, a very
dangerous poison and it is all of our jobs to ensure that
exposure to lead is prevented or reduced.
The next point I would like to make is that the 1991 Lead
and Copper Rule signaled a fundamental change in that we went
from having a 50 ppb MCL at the treatment plant itself to a
different approach which would try to take into account the bad
things that can happen once the water leaves the treatment
plant and goes through the distribution systems to the homes
and buildings in communities. That resulted in an action level
and the focus of the rule is on corrosion control, monitoring,
public education and if necessary, lead service line
replacement.
I am asked repeatedly whether this a national problem. I
would say from the data we have, it is not so much a national
problem as it is a localized problem and a national
opportunity. This is an opportunity to look hard at the
existing regulatory framework, to look particularly hard at the
monitoring and public education requirements and really focus
on what we can all do, not just from a local perspective with
respect to the District of Columbia, but also from the national
perspective.
EPA is doing several things. One is that we have initiated
a national compliance review to determine whether or not there
is a national problem, what success there has been since the
1991 rule, and also to determine how well the current rule is
being implemented, focusing particularly on monitoring, public
education and communication. We are also reviewing within our
Office of Water, various aspects of current policy and also
issues associated with the rule to determine whether or not the
policies or the regulation itself should be revised. We are
establishing several work groups with the benefit of experts to
look at simultaneous compliance issues, sampling protocols and
possibly also public education, how best to advance what we did
in 2002 and that was to issue guidance on public education for
lead and drinking water, how to communicate and keep
communities informed.
We are very concerned and want to be very proactive with
respect to lead and drinking water at schools and day care
facilities. I have written to all the State Environmental and
Public Health Commissioners asking them to share with us what
they are doing on that front. Do they test regularly for lead
in drinking water at schools, what protocols they are
following, what results they are finding, what EPA could do
recognizing our limited legal authorities when it comes to
schools and day care facilities, to provide additional guidance
or leadership?
The last thing I would say is that from a national
perspective, if there is a silver lining in this lead problem
in the District, it is that it gives us all an opportunity to
focus on areas such as public education, communication and
monitoring and the importance of water infrastructure.
So we look forward to working with you, your colleagues and
all the stakeholders and concerned citizens on this issue.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles.
Mr. Welsh.
STATEMENT OF DONALD WELSH, DIRECTOR, REGION III, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Welsh. Good afternoon. I am Don Welsh, the Regional
Administrator for USEPA, Region III.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the important issue of lead in the tap water of
District of Columbia residents and the steps that EPA and other
agencies are taking to resolve the problem on a short- and
long-term basis.
Elevated levels of lead in the environment, whether in
drinking water or lead paint, can pose significant risks to
health, particularly to pregnant women and young children.
Reducing exposure to all sources of lead is vital to protecting
the health of our citizens.
It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District
continue to live with fear and uncertainty over the quality of
the water they drink. At EPA, we will not be satisfied until
all aspects of this problem are resolved. There is no higher
priority for my office than to work with the city to protect
the residents.
To that end, EPA and the District of Columbia have
directed, and are closely monitoring, a series of interim
measures with firm deadlines to ensure that residents have safe
drinking water and a proper precautionary guidance. At the same
time, a multi-agency Technical Expert Working Group is acting
as quickly as possible to identify and correct the cause of the
elevated lead levels.
The city and EPA have had regular meetings and
conversations to monitor progress and to ensure necessary
actions are being taken.
By way of background, EPA's Lead and Copper Rule requires
systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent lead and
copper from leaching into drinking water. To assure corrosion
control is effective, the rule establishes an action level of
15 parts per billion for lead. If lead concentrations exceed
the action level in more than 10 percent of the taps sampled,
the system must intensify tap water sampling and undertake a
number of additional actions to control corrosion and to
educate the public about steps they should take to protect
their health. If the problem is not abated, the system must
also begin a lead service line replacement program.
The results of DC's required tap monitoring exceeded the 15
ppb action level for 10 percent of taps monitored during 6 of
15 reporting periods since January 1992, 3 times prior to 1994
and 3 times since 2002. An Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
limit implemented by the Aqueduct appeared to be effective in
minimizing lead levels until the sampling period between July
2001 and June 30, 2002. According to reports filed by WASA, the
90th percentile value had increased to 75 ppb during that
period and registered at 40 ppb and 63 ppb for 2 subsequent
monitoring periods.
On October 27, 2003, EPA Region III received results from a
separate lead service line sampling program conducted by WASA
indicating that 3,372 of 4,613 service lines tested had numbers
exceeding the action level, many by a large margin. The
information was reviewed by our technical staff with an eye
toward determining how to address the underlying cause of the
corrosion problem.
As indicated, WASA and the District of Columbia Government
are undertaking a series of actions outlined by EPA to address
the public health threat posed by lead in drinking water. WASA
will ensure delivery by April 10 of certified water filters and
consumer instructions to occupants and homes and buildings with
lead service lines. Periodic replacement of the filters will
also be assured.
Additional tap water sampling has begun in schools as part
of a broader program to test a representative group of
facilities that are not served by lead service lines to
determine the full scope of the problem. WASA has committed to
an accelerated schedule for physically replacing lead service
lines in the District. WASA is expediting notification to
customers of the results of water sampling at their residences,
committing to providing results in 30 days or less.
As EPA, the District and WASA continue to expand outreach
efforts to provide important information to consumers, WASA is
providing an enhanced public education plan to reach all
sectors of the population in an effective way. EPA is
undertaking a compliance audit of WASA's lead service line and
public education actions. In letters to WASA last week, EPA
asserts instances in which requirements were not met, ,and as
part of the enforcement process, requires WASA to provide
information to EPA responding to those findings.
In a separate initiative, an internal EPA team is
evaluating WASA's prior outreach efforts, a process to be
completed by month's end that involves a review of materials,
interviews with residents and public officials and a survey of
best practices from public water systems around the country.
It is clear that WASA was ineffective in informing the
public of the magnitude of the lead problem in drinking water
and in conveying the steps families and individuals should take
to protect themselves. Mass media tools, including direct
contact with media representatives, as is recommended in EPA
guidance, were not used effectively.
The Region is also taking a critical look back at how we
could have done a better job in our oversight capacity to
ensure the public interest is being served by WASA's actions.
There will continue to be lessons learned that will benefit the
agency in the future. The Technical Expert Working Group made
up of representatives from the public and private sectors is
making progress in identifying the cause of the elevated lead
levels. By next week, EPA is scheduled to receive a proposal
from the technical team for a water chemistry change to reduce
corrosion and maintain other protections. Under the proposed
timetable, a partial system test is currently planned for June
1 followed by full system implementation on or about September
1. EPA has formed an independent peer review group to check the
team's findings.
In closing, working closely with the District of Columbia,
our public service partners and concerned citizens, we will
continue to aggressive act to protect residents and resolve the
lead problem. We are taking action to hasten the day when the
citizens of the District of Columbia can once again be
confident in the safety of their drinking water.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information
this afternoon. I am pleased to answer any questions that you
have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Welsh.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon.
I am Jerry Johnson, general manager of the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. I am pleased to be here to
provide testimony about WASA's endeavors relative to lead
replacement program and the issues of elevated lead levels in
some homes in the District of Columbia.
It goes without saying that these issues are of the utmost
importance and this is an excellent opportunity to reassure
this panel and the residents of the District of Columbia that
working expeditiously to find lasting solutions is absolutely
WASA's highest priority.
There are several critical areas I wish to cover today and
answer the questions members of the committee have. I will
attempt to follow the outline as put forth in your letter of
invitation. First, WASA has undertaken an aggressive effort to
distribute filters to residents it believes have lead service
lines in the District of Columbia. As of today, WASA has
distributed filters to all of these households, some 27,000 of
them, and will provide replacement filters for a 6-month
supply. In addition, over 200 filters have been distributed to
home day care centers with lead service lines.
Second, WASA is working tirelessly to keep customers
informed regarding all facets of the lead issue. WASA recently
expanded its lead service hotline, a program we initiated in
January 2003, to facilitate direct communication with our
customers. We have added personnel to allow us to staff
operations for 12 hours a day, Monday through Friday and 9
hours a day on weekends. Since February, the hotline has
fielded over 45,000 calls and 6,200 e-mails. Our website, which
is continuously updated, averages about 1,700 visits per day.
The March and April edition of our monthly newsletter, ``What's
on Tap,'' which is distributed to 125,000 plus residents of the
District, focuses on the lead issue and provides advice to
customers.
Also, since February 2004, WASA has supported 10 joint
public information meetings across the city, along with the DC
Department of Health and the Washington Aqueduct and another 15
to 16 ANC and civic association groups where we have also had
joint appearances. It is estimated that approximately 1,500
residents have attended these meetings. In addition, in
February WASA sent mailings to every address in the District of
Columbia, over 360,000, residents regarding the lead issue.
The mailings, which were multilingual, contained a
Department of Health fact sheet, general information about the
subject of lead and water and contained precautions that
residents should take regarding the use of water. WASA has also
made available brochures and maps in all libraries and
community centers throughout the center. We are currently in
the process of contacting by mail, residents we believe are
served by lead service pipes to provide additional information
on flushing and encourage those residents who have not already
done so, to avail themselves of tap water testing at no cost to
them.
We are also contacting approximately 21,000 as opposed to
37,000 residents for which there is no record of the pipe
materials our customers have in the data base. That is simply
because we are maintaining historical records that date back to
1901 and they are just not all in place. In addition, a
direction communication with customers, WASA has conducted
media briefings and representatives for the board and
management have appeared before congressional committees,
hearings and briefings of the DC Council, the Mayor and
attended regular mayoral press briefings.
Additionally, WASA has reached agreement with the George
Washington University School of Public Health, Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health to provide the Authority
with assistance and advice in a number of health related areas.
Third, getting to the root problem by conducting research
as to why there is an increase in some homes and which specific
homes are affected will continue to be a priority for WASA.
Currently we are working with EPA, the Washington Aqueduct, the
DC Department of Health, and respected scientists and experts
on this problem.
We have also increased the number of lead service pipes in
public space that are to be replaced this year, adding about 50
percent to those with an addition of $7 million that has been
provided by the Board of Directors, putting the lead
replacement number from 800 to 1,300 this year with an
additional 300 that we expect to be undertaken by the District
of Columbia through its Road Replacement Program.
In addition, the Board has been considering, through a
resolution adopted at its last meeting, a $350 million proposal
to replace every one of the estimated 2,300 lead service lines
in the District by 2010. Community input on this proposal will
be sought over the next 2 months. Since lead service pipes are
in both public space and private space, we will work with
homeowners to replace those in their space and are working
currently with the District in an effort to find financial
assistance and looking at options for these citizens having
difficulty in paying that cost.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will end my testimony. I noticed
the red light is on and rather than your dropping the gavel, I
would be glad to respond to any questions you have but we want
you to know it is WASA's intention to address this challenge in
a manner that works for our city, for our residents, for the
visitors who come to our city and to implement the solution as
quickly and as reasonably as possible. We at WASA are firmly
committed to doing this and welcome the collaboration of our
partners, some of whom are here today.
Thank you. I am prepared to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Dr. Lucey.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. LUCEY, INTERIM CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Dr. Lucey. Good afternoon.
My name is Daniel Lucey. I am the interim chief medical
officer for the DC Department of Health. In the next 5 minutes,
prior to responding to your questions, I would like to
summarize my background and list several key points about the
lead issues in Washington, DC.
I am a physician trained in adult medicine and infectious
diseases with a Master's Degree in Public Health. After serving
in the military as a physician, I joined the Public Health
Service while working at the National Institutes of Health and
the Food and Drug Administration.
During 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, I was the
Chairman of the Infectious Disease Service at the nearby
Washington Hospital Center in DC and subsequently in 2002, was
involved with the smallpox vaccination program and in 2003 with
SARS, traveling to Hong Kong, working in a hospital in Toronto
with patients with SARS, and in 2004, earlier this year with
avian influenza.
On February 10 of this year, I began work at the DC
Department of Health with a focus on biodefense. On February
13, 3 days later, I attended a Lead Task Force meeting. Every
day since then, I have worked on lead issues. Although not a
lead expert, I have approached learning about the lead issues
through an intensive process much like learning about other
previously unfamiliar to me diseases such as anthrax, SARS and
avian influenza.
On President's Day, Monday, February 16, I contacted the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr.
Julie Gerberding, to request advice from lead experts at the
CDC. Her response was immediate that day and since then, we
have received outstanding CDC assistance. In fact, even today,
there are CDC experts onsite with us at the Department of
Health.
On February 26, 2004, the city administrator, Mr. Robert
Bob, instructed me to direct the Department of Health response
to lead issues. Later that day, I completed and signed a health
advisory letter from the Department of Health to the
approximately 23,000 residences in DC with lead service lines.
The letter is Attachment I and has been translated into six
languages. The advisory contained recommendations about
drinking water and measuring blood lead levels in persons most
at risk for lead poisoning.
In order to assess the health impact of increased lead
concentrations in the water, to knowledge no such widespread
health advisory on lead in drinking water has ever been issued
in the United States. Our findings may be useful to other
cities if they find increased lead concentrations in their
drinking water.
In order to provide blood lead level testing by the
Department of Health starting on the 28th of February at DC
General Hospital, we mobilized many persons within the
Department of Health. In addition, on Monday, March 1, I
contacted the U.S. Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Dr. Richard
Carmona to request additional personnel assistance. He
responded immediately that day and via Admiral Babb and the
Commissioned Corps Readiness Force, provided a team of public
health service officers over the next 4 weeks who worked very
long hours with us in clinics all across the District of
Columbia. They also went with us to several hundred homes of
persons at high risk of lead poisoning in the District. On
March 30, the DC Department of Health, the Commission Corps
Readiness Force and the CDC published our preliminary findings
on blood lead levels in the CDC's publication called
``Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.''
I would like to summarize six key points. First, none of
the 201 persons we tested for blood lead levels who live in
homes with the highest measured levels of lead in the drinking
water, greater than 300 ppb, have had elevated blood lead
levels defined as Senator Clinton said by 10 mpd for children
and 25 mpd for adults.
Second, from 2000 to 2003, the percentage of children less
than 6 years of age with elevated blood lead levels continued
to decline in the District of Columbia, both in homes with and
homes without lead service lines. The percentage of children
with blood lead levels greater than or equal to 5 mpd did not
decline in homes with lead service lines although this percent
did decline in homes without lead service lines.
Third, only 2 of the initial 280, less than 1 percent, of
children in home child care facilities with lead service lines
have had elevated blood lead levels.
Fourth, of the initial 4,106 persons who came to our
clinics across the District of Columbia for free blood level
testing in our laboratory, 1,277 were young children less than
6, of which 16 had elevated blood lead levels. The initial 14
children have been found to live in homes with dust and/or soil
lead levels exceeding EPA and HUD guidelines. The homes of the
other two children are currently being evaluated.
Fifth, according to the CDC from 1976 to 1980, nearly 9 of
10, that is 88.2 percent of children at that time age 1 to 5
years of age and therefore now adults 24 to 28, had blood
levels that today are considered elevated, namely at least 10
mpd.
Sixth, the EPA ``action level'' for lead in drinking water,
15 ppb, is not a health-based recommendation. I would like to
quote from the website that has been devoted to the Washington,
DC area on the drinking water issue.
``The action level was not designed to measure health risks
from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a
statistical trigger that if exceeded requires more treatment,
public education and possibly lead service line replacement.''
Thank you for your time and I would be pleased to respond
to your questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucey.
Mr. Jacobus.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON
AQUEDUCT, BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Jacobus. Good afternoon.
I am Tom Jacobus, the general manager of the Washington
Aqueduct. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Washington Aqueduct, which is part of the Baltimore
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a public water
utility. We are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III in Philadelphia. Washington Aqueduct
provides potable water, not just to the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, but also to Arlington County, VA and
the city of Fall Church's service area and Virginia as well.
All funds for the operation and capital improvements for the
Washington Aqueduct come from its customers. The provisions of
the Safe Drinking Water Act and its associated regulations are
the basis for all operations concerning the production, storage
and transmission of the drinking water produced and sold by
Washington Aqueduct to its wholesale customers. The primary
objective of the treatment process is to produce and deliver
water to the tap that is free of contaminants and pleasant to
drink. To achieve that objective, we do three things
simultaneously. We kill harmful bacteria, we remove organic and
inorganic contaminants and we provide optimal corrosion
control. Corrosion control treatment is designed to reduce lead
and copper leaching into drinking water and to keep the
concentrations below the action level in accordance with the
lead and copper rule.
For many years we have accomplished that by the use of lime
to adjust the pH of the water, but the recent sampling in the
District of Columbia has resulted in unexpectedly high lead
levels. Therefore, the corrosion control treatment needs to be
reevaluated based on intensive analysis of current operations
and the use of analytical models. Our team of engineers and
scientists has recommended adding a phosphate-based corrosion
inhibitor to the treatment process. We anticipate that EPA will
approve this change by May 1 so that by June 1 we can apply a
new chemistry to a portion of the distribution system.
The full system application will begin by September 1. Our
cost estimates for the work are $925,000 for research and
engineering analysis and laboratory studies; $250,000 for the
partial system application and $3.1 million for interim
facilities for full scale application. The additional chemical
costs will be about $1 million per year. While it will take
several months to measure the effects, we have confidence that
this change will be effective in reducing the lead leaching.
I have one additional point I think is important to mention
as we move forward. Washington Aqueduct and its wholesale
customers have standing financial and technical working groups
that regularly address ongoing operations and evaluate capital
improvements. Based on our experience in the last 8 weeks, we
see opportunities to improve data sharing among the customers
pertaining to lead and copper corrosion. We intend to take the
necessary steps to do that.
This concludes my introductory remarks. I will be happy to
respond to your questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Jacobus.
I will begin with questions. We are going to do 5 minute
rounds but we will do a number of rounds so that all the
Senators have an opportunity to get out their questions.
My first question is for you, Mr. Grumbles. You mentioned
the national review you are conducting right now on lead. Can
you tell me what this review has already revealed about how the
rule on lead is performing, how it is working and how it is
being complied with?
Mr. Grumbles. So far, what we have done is reviewed the
data that we have in the SDWIS. What we have found is that only
4 of 199 systems serving more than 50,000 people have exceeded
the 15 ppb action level since 2000. One of those was the
District of Columbia. All of the systems except the District
are now back below the action level. For systems serving
between 3,300 and 50,000 people, 56 of the 1,761 systems have
exceeded the action level since 2000 and only 14 reported to
exceed the level since 2002.
I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that we are not
comfortable with the amount of data we have received to date.
One of the things that is part of our national compliance
review is to write to and encourage the States to provide more
information on compliance pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the Lead and Copper Rule. The point is that while so
far the numbers are indicating to us through the SDWIS Program
that it is not a crisis, we do need to get more information
from the systems. I think only 22 percent of them have provided
that information and there are several States, 23, who have not
provided that information on the 90th percentile reporting.
Senator Crapo. So this is preliminary information which is
certainly not complete at this point.
Mr. Grumbles. That is correct.
Senator Crapo. This question is for either you, Mr.
Grumbles or Mr. Welsh. I would like to go into the action level
and exactly what it means. Dr. Lucey quoted it in his
testimony. That quote in the EPA's statement is that,
``The action level was not designed to measure health risks
from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a
statistical trigger that if exceeded requires more treatment,
public education and possibly lead service line replacement.''
Whichever of you feels most qualified to respond, explain
what does it mean when we identify that an action level has
been exceeded?
Mr. Grumbles. I think what Dr. Lucey has said is an
important point. The action level is not health based in the
sense of an maximum contaminant level or MCL. When it was
established, when the number 15 ppb was established, there were
health factors taken into account. There were also feasibility
factors in terms of what steps could be taken after that was
reached. The analysis in the preamble to the 1991 rule
describes how health factors were considered.
It triggers actions, specific requirements for optimizing
corrosion control, for carrying out additional monitoring and
for doing a very specific, detailed, public education or public
notification process. It also requires at the end of that
process, if you are still exceeding that 15 ppb, a specific
lead service line replacement study and program replacing 7
percent of your lead service lines a year.
Senator Crapo. If I understand correctly, please be sure
you correct me if I am incorrect, the level and the action
level has been set at such a point that when it is triggered,
there is still time for an effective response if there is a
response forthcoming to avoid a serious health risk? Is that
correct?
Mr. Grumbles. That is correct. There are dozens of cities
and towns across the country that have exceeded that 15 ppb.
The good news is from the data we have, most of those cities or
towns have reduced the action level and we are finding it is
not exceeding it in those cities and towns but again, I want to
caveat that one of the lessons we are learning from this
experience is that the decisions we make and the determinations
of compliance are only as good as the amount of data and
sampling that we have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I see my first 5 minutes are up.
We will turn to Senator Jeffords now.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
I have been frequently told by parents if I had only known,
I would have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the
witnesses to tell me how you are responding to this question,
what explanation are you giving parents of children who were
unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking water and what
steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of
Washington, DC?
Let me give you my own personal experience. We moved here
20 some years ago. I, being a macho man, drank this water and
my wife came down with the kids and said, ``no, we are going to
get bottled water to make sure the kids get good water''. We
did that. Then the other day I said, ``do you test the bottled
water'' and I found out no. I wonder if we are doing anything
about the options to make sure when I go out and pay good money
for bottled water, is that healthy or do you know?
Mr. Grumbles. Two points. One is in 2002, EPA recognized
that the success of the Lead and Copper Rule depends on the
ability to communicate effectively the timely and accurate
information to the citizens of the community, so we developed a
Lead Public Education Guidebook, a guidance document, because
of the importance of communicating on that front.
With respect to bottled water, as you know the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act set up a framework
where the Food and Drug Administration regulates the quality of
the bottled water industry and to the extent EPA has
established maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the FDA is required to impose a standard on the
bottled water industry. I believe I understand that for lead,
the FDA has established a 5 ppb standard for bottled water.
I think your point about ensuring consumer confidence in
the country is a key one. The 1996 amendments to the Act which
establishes the consumer confidence reports, the value of which
continues to be realized over and over again because it is the
public citizens, the mothers, the parents, the families who are
actually in the best position to monitor the success of the
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. Obviously the
regulatory agencies, EPA, is entrusted and has that
responsibility but the consumer confidence reports and the
public education components of the Lead and Cooper Rule are
critical to avoiding situations like we find ourselves in
today.
Senator Jeffords. Is there any requirement that the bottled
water has to let you know what is in it?
Mr. Grumbles. I honestly don't know what the requirements
are on the bottled water industry. I know the Food and Drug
Administration has that statutory responsibility.
Senator Jeffords. I understand there aren't, but I just
wanted to know.
Mr. Grumbles. From an EPA perspective, we have an interest
just like you in understanding and in being able to provide an
answer to that question. We will commit to doing that.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask each one of you to answer two questions
briefly for me. No. 1, looking backward, what mistake did you
or your agency make in handling this matter? No. 2, looking
forward, what is the one thing that you believe should be done
in order to remedy the situation we find ourselves in? Why
don't we start with Mr. Jacobus?
Mr. Jacobus. We have a wholesale/retail relationship with
our customers. Every day we have great visibility over the
bacteriological content of the water throughout all three
distribution systems--Arlington, Falls Church service area, and
the District of Columbia. We test the water in our laboratory
from samples at the plant, samples from the distribution
system, either that we take ourselves or are brought to us for
35,000-40,000 tests a year. We have great visibility on the
bacteriological and the chemical contaminants in the water
leaving the treatment plants, disinfection byproduct rule
compliance, all of that.
The mistake, to answer your question, is that we did not
have the same visibility for the lead and copper samples. The
samples are taken in a different way. They are taken throughout
a period of the year. It is not a go/no-go on each individual
sample. So we did not have all the samples collected at our
organization; they were at different locations in two different
jurisdictions under the State of Virginia's Health Department
and EPA's regulatory responsibilities for the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.
We had the ability and we will take the initiative to bring
that data together so that we can help all our customers and
give them the benefit of our systemwide look. Even though every
day, we paid attention to the optimal corrosion control
treatment and that the water leaving the plant was at the
specification for what we had agreed in our scientific-based
study with EPA of how to treat the water and we were getting
anecdotal evidence occasionally of a high reading. It wasn't
until the spring of 2003 when EPA, reacting to WASA's results
in 2001 and 2002, said we need to open this and start looking,
so we started down that road.
We did not have perfect knowledge of the big picture. We
can get that knowledge even though it is regulatory, but
because we think it is a responsible thing to do. I hope that
answers your question.
Senator Clinton. It certainly does and I appreciate that.
Perhaps it would help if it were required by regulation so that
at least all the players, all the stakeholders are at the
table, but I appreciate that very much.
Dr. Lucey.
Dr. Lucey. Looking back, again, I have been here since
February 10 but nevertheless, I think looking back what we
might have done differently was to have the type of face-to-
face, verbal and phone interactions within the Department of
Health, with EPA and with WASA and with Washington Aqueduct to
discuss the issue about the action level has been exceeded.
What does that mean? Is that a health-based risk or is it not?
It is not, but could there be health implications? Yes, there
could be. How are we going to answer that question? For me it
is a clinical or medical approach and I think the folks that
initially heard about the elevated water lead concentrations
within the Department of Health were not the clinical and
medical folks.
As you know, there is new leadership now in the DC
Department of Health. The top two people are no longer in the
Department of Health as of two Fridays ago and I think the new
interim leadership is very, very strong. That is one
recommendation I have made to the new leadership, to have more
involvement within the Department of Health of the clinical and
non-clinical individuals.
As far as looking forward, I think although there are many
things that could be done to try to remedy this situation and
any others developed in the future, I think a major one is to
have the types of interactions we have had for the past couple
months within the Department of Health and outside with EPA,
with WASA, with Washington Aqueduct in terms of discussion of
what is the best advice we can do and how we can best
communicate that to the public?
For example, briefly, how to prioritize lead service line
replacements if that is what is going to happen, as we have
heard it is on an accelerated basis. In my opinion, it is very
important not only for the Department of Health to be involved
in that decisionmaking but to work with the new clinical team
coming on board with WASA from George Washington University to
work directly with EPA in the formulation of the prioritization
of lead service line replacement, as well as with the
Department of Transportation and everyone else who needs to be
involved. Do that right now from the beginning and we are doing
that.
Senator Clinton. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and as I look
back over this issue and consider mistakes that were made, I
think probably the one that is most resounding was our focus on
trying to comply with Federal regulations as opposed to looking
at a broader picture in terms of where our customers were, what
they were thinking and the need to get information to them
perhaps sooner.
Early on in this process, we were only working with a small
sample base of 50 homes in the District and did not have a
clear fix on what that meant for the broader district. I felt,
and it was my decision, I assume responsibility for it, that at
that point, it was not appropriate to raise a flag and begin to
alarm people in the District about a problem we were having. As
you know, we went forward and did a broader base of sampling
than has ever been done in the United States of America. That
showed some results that were concerning to us. We didn't know
what the results meant, we are not the medical experts, not the
regulatory experts. We think we got that information to them in
a timely fashion and we believe with all sincerity we did make
all the efforts that were required and I won't go through the
list of things in front of me to comply with Federal
regulations.
An audit subsequently conducted by EPA suggested that there
were some technical issues we may not have meant requirements
and we will go back and respond to those over the next 21 days.
I think that would be the mistake. I think we should have been
focused more on the community in the District of Columbia than
we were on the regulators but if you are regulated, you have to
meet certain other requirements.
As we go forward, I think the two points made by both Dr.
Lucey and Mr. Jacobus are very valid. I think there needs to be
a more formalized relationship established between the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, the District's Health
Department in order for us to grab these issues early on in the
process and be able to have a stronger collaborative
relationship. We had focused on the relationship between
Aqueduct and their customers in Virginia who are also partners
of ours in that business relationship. We began, when this
issue first came up, to start looking at the water. I think we
probably could have pursued that as another mistake. We
probably could have pursued that more aggressively when the
first 50 samples came back to take a look at that the
production side of it and the chemistry of the water.
As we go forward I think that kind of collaborative
relationship is very important and I really think the District
ought to look at the possibility of having primacy in this
area. The USEPA has primacy in two jurisdictions for water
distribution systems, the District of Columbia and I believe in
Wyoming, so there are different relationships that get
established with the regulatory bodies when you are working
with a local entity that has a better sense of what is
happening in that community and how that community needs to
respond.
I am sorry for being so long-winded but that is a very
important question.
Mr. Welsh. I believe when there is an exceedance of the
action level, the spirit of the Lead and Copper Rule is to make
sure that any of the citizens who might be exposed to a higher
level of lead understand that fully, know that they might be
exposed and have good information in their hands about how to
reduce their exposure to lead. That goal is clearly what was
not met in this instance. As Jerry mentioned, WASA took actions
to get information into peoples' hands and in our review, we
determined that some of the specific requirements weren't met
fully, but the larger issue is that the information that was
put out wasn't really getting home to the folks who needed to
have that information so they fully understood it was important
to them, they should pay attention and follow the directions
put in there so they would know what they were exposed to and
understand how to limit their exposure.
Looking backward, we weren't aggressive enough, we weren't
thorough enough and didn't find those deficiencies soon enough,
both in the letter of what was required under the rule but also
in that larger question of even if the language is put out
there and made available in documents, is it a message that is
getting home to folks and are they really understanding it.
Going forward, we want to change our review procedures in
the region so that we do not only a thorough job of checking
the letter of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule but that
we also take the time to make the judgment about whether that
message is being received, much in the way marketing folks do
when their commercials and advertisements go out, they can
measure in the public whether that message is being received.
So we have changed our operating procedure so that it is
not just the technical person in the Drinking Water Branch who
reviews the reports for whether they have complied with the
rule, but that we also call in the communications expertise
that we have available in the region as well as if necessary to
do contracts for folks on the outside who are experts in the
area of communications to make sure not only in the future that
the reg is fulfilled, but that also the message is being
effective and that we measure out in the public do you folks
who need to know this know? That is what we would like to do
going forward.
Mr. Grumbles. I couldn't have said it better. From the
national perspective, the EPA does want to also acknowledge
that it is not just following the letter of the rule, it is the
spirit of the rule and that is partly our responsibility too,
to be proactive and help oversee that not just the letter, but
the spirit, the public education and other aspects of the Lead
and Copper Rule are followed. That is certainly one of our
objectives, acting proactively.
The other one is this whole issue of simultaneous
compliance. Providing drinking water to the public can be a
tricky balancing act, given various regulations and
requirements. We plan to have a workshop in May with national
experts. You have the Disinfection Byproduct Rule, you have the
Lead and Copper Rule. How do you ensure it is all working
together and there are not unintended consequences?
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Let me proceed a little further. As many of
you probably know, yesterday, Senator Jeffords and I and Mayor
Williams and several others joined some of the constituents
here in Washington, DC and discussed with them their concerns.
One of the concerns they raised was that under the testing
procedures, it was difficult for them as individuals in
individual homes to find out the results of the tests on their
own homes. Until certain statistical levels had been reached,
individual findings for individual homes didn't trigger a
response.
First of all, is that true? Is that the way the system
works, an individual or family can have a test in their home
and not be able to find out the results of those tests or not
be able to get effective action on the basis of one home
getting a negative test or a test that exceeds the limits?
Mr. Johnson. I assume that question is for me?
Senator Crapo. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. I would respond that when we started doing the
testing we had what we thought was an effective approach for
getting test kits out to people, getting them back and it was
sort of a Cadillac service where we delivered them by FedEx, we
went by and picked them up physically, took them to the lab and
had them sampled.
When we started moving into tens of thousands of tests as
opposed to a couple hundred, we simply did not change the
system rapidly enough and there were some delays in getting
tests back to people. I would concede that. I think we have a
very effective approach for doing that now and have corrected
that. As this problem has evolved because there is no road map
or blueprint, we have had to change things and learn as we have
gone along. I think there are very effective measures now for
getting those tests results back and we generally guarantee
them within about 30 days. Usually it is about a 3 to 3\1/2\
week turnaround in reality.
With respect to explaining what they meant, we at the Water
and Sewer Authority simply did not have the capacity to explain
what they meant. I was around when the Lead and Copper Rule was
done working in water utility back in the late 1980s and early
1990s when that rule was put in place. I knew there was not a
health-based standard for that, so we were not capable of
explaining what the health impacts are, what this elevated
level meant. All we could do was get something back to the
person and explain to them you are over the action level which
is in the 90th percentile of that 15 ppb and would have relied
on health experts to provide that kind of followup and
information to the customer.
Senator Crapo. So if I understand, you have a system in
place now where within 30 days an individual who has their home
tested, can get their results back for that home. Is that true
about not only the response testing, but also the standard
routine samples of 50 homes that are done on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Johnson. Because we have exceeded the trigger level, we
have one group of homes that are regulatory samples and we
treat those separately from the ones we are doing upon demand
and request. The regulatory sample set is 100 in the spring and
100 in the fall and they are being managed in a totally
different process than the ones we are doing as random tests or
tests upon demand.
Senator Crapo. Are the people in the regulatory sample
notified about how their homes are qualified?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. They are.
Senator Crapo. So everyone, whether they are in the demand
or the regulatory test is getting the notice as to what the
results are for their home within the 30 days?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Another issue that came up yesterday, you indicated you had
already distributed about 27,000 filters. Those filters are
distributed on the basis of those who are identified as having
a lead pipe delivery system to their home, correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, sir.
Senator Crapo. One concern that was raised yesterday is
that there are something like 37,000 homes for which there are
no records as to what the delivery pipes consist of. The people
in that category are not able to get a filter. They don't know
whether they have a lead pipe distribution system and they are
not able to get a filter or a support from WASA in terms of
dealing with what they perceive to be a lead problem.
What is in place to help those who fall in that category of
the 37,000 homes for which we don't have information?
Mr. Johnson. We have been working for a couple of months in
an effort to try to clean up some historical records where
information has never been compiled before in the District of
Columbia with respect to service pipes. We have a period of
time where everything was recorded, we know the plumber paid a
dollar to make the tap connection, what the material was and
who the plumber was. We have some records that only show a date
that it was done. We had to go through what existed manually
and after going through those, we found about 21,000 as opposed
to the 37,000, I would like to correct that number and I am not
sure how 37,000 got created some time ago, it is about 21,000.
We are notifying those people by a letter that has already been
translated into the standard six languages and those letters
will be going out to those residents either late this week or
early next week, along with a postage-paid return card asking
them to send that to us and we will get a water test kit out to
them on a priority basis so they can test their water and
determine if they have high lead levels.
There are a number of those addresses that have been
compiled in those historical records that simply some of them
don't exist anymore. If you have been living in Washington for
a while, you know there has been a great deal of redevelopment.
These records go back a good ways in time. Some have changed
their use. There are a number of different circumstances. We
are unable, except to go out on the street, to identify those.
We think this is the most efficient way.
Anyone who shows an elevated level in the second draw of
that test will automatically be mailed a filter with all of the
instructions. We think having a two-part process is the most
efficient and effective way of pursuing that.
Senator Crapo. One last quick followup. Is it possible,
under the system you now have in place, for any resident of the
District who may feel your records are inaccurate or they fall
in the category of homes where there is no information or are
just really concerned about this issue, for them to request a
test kit, have the test conducted and if the test shows their
home has high levels, get a filter?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. So any resident of the District has that
right?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We have set aside resources to do a
number of tests, something in excess of $2 million and are
prepared to handle it. If we get an onslaught and a heavy
volume, we can't do it but we would urge those persons with
lead service lines to be the first priority. We do know many of
our records are very, very accurate. Anything that was built
after 1950 is not likely to have a lead service line because
those lead service lines were outlawed after that time. We feel
comfortable with anything that came during that period.
If there is something other than a 2 inch going into a
house, we are 99 percent certain that would not be a lead
service line because they just didn't make them much larger
than 2 inch--we aren't aware that they main service lines
larger than 2 inches. We think it is a single family
residential phenomena that we are working with. In the case of
apartment buildings, anything that is a fourplex or better is
going to have something larger than a 2 inch line. So there are
a number of things we can do to eliminate certain numbers.
If you notice, we have 130,000 customers in the District
and the numbers we have talked about in terms of lead is
somewhere around 23,000 that we feel fairly comfortable with
and we have this other group. The others, we are fairly
certainly, are not lead service lines.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Grumbles, your answer to Senator
Crapo's question about the 15 ppb standard, you described the
evolution of that standard. Can you describe why the EPA set
the maximum contaminant level goal which is a health-based
standard at zero?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, I can. When we regulate contaminants
such as lead under the Safe Drinking Water Act, we start with
the process of a maximum contaminant level goal. For lead there
is no safe level, certainly no safe level we can point to and
say with a margin of safety that there would not be some
adverse health effect. So we did establish zero as the MCLG for
lead.
Senator Jeffords. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I
have asked the Senate Health, Education and Labor and Pensions
Committee--which I formerly chaired--to hold a hearing on
childhood lead poisoning. I know we are not spending an
extended time today discussing children's blood lead levels but
I have one question for you on that.
The Centers for Disease Control Advisory Committee on
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention is currently undertaking a
review of its blood lead level standard to 10 mpd. Recent
findings published in the April 17, 2003 edition of the New
England Journal of Medicine show that blood lead levels below
the standard of 10 are linked with declines in IQ. The study
also shows that relative reduction of IQ is greater at lower
concentrations of lead than at higher concentrations. These
findings suggest that even low levels of lead can have
devastating effects on children. I ask that this study be
included in the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.057
Senator Jeffords. New research also shows that there may be
an identifiable link between childhood lead exposure and
educational achievement and social behavior. I ask unanimous
consent to include several articles on this subject by Dr.
Herbert Needleman.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.064
Senator Jeffords. I ask unanimous consent that a report by
the CDC Advisory Committee be included in the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.074
Senator Jeffords. The Heavy People 2010 Initiative of CDC
calls for the elimination of childhood lead poisoning by 2010,
yet the CDC website provides three reasons why blood levels
should not be reduced. It states that it is difficult to
measure blood lead level concentrations below 10. I ask
unanimous consent to include in the record a paper by Herbert
Needleman which refutes this claim and describes the technology
advances that have lowered the least observable effect level
until it approaches zero.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.091
Senator Jeffords. The CDC website also states that no
clinical inventions can reduce blood lead levels below 10 and
that there is no evidence of a threshold below which adverse
health effects are not experienced. Then the CDC draws a
conclusion that any effort to reduce the standard would provide
uncertain benefits, even though there appears to be ample
evidence that no levels of lead in the blood is safe. This
website appears to completely ignore the fact that blood lead
poisoning is preventable and that in places like Washington,
DC, the standard is used as a determining factor for which
families receive assistance from the DC Department of Health.
The CDC identifies two focus areas to combat lead
poisoning, lead paint and lead end products. There is no
mention of lead drinking water. Given the apparent consensus
that there is no level of lead exposure that is safe, this
situation is not understandable. I can't understand it. The
EPA's own website indicates that the agency estimates that 20
percent of childhood lead poisoning is due to exposure through
drinking water. The agency set the maximum containment level
for lead in drinking water at zero because that was the only
level where no adverse effects will be experienced. I ask
unanimous consent that the relevant CDC and EPA websites be
included in the record also.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.240
Senator Jeffords. Finally, what has EPA done to coordinate
with CDC on its elevation of the blood lead level standard to
ensure that it is reflective of the science consensus on this
issue, on the CDC's plan to combat lead poisoning and on the
Healthy People 2010 goal of eliminating lead poisoning by 2010?
Do you believe the lead exposure in children can be eliminated
in this country without addressing lead in the drinking water
problems and the plumbing factors?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, I can appreciate your interest and
your leadership on this issue in terms of reducing exposure to
lead in drinking water, particularly to children. I would say
on the first part of the question about the relationship with
CDC, we have been working with CDC, we certainly have
established very close working relationships with them in the
context of responding to this situation here in the District.
With respect to the overall question of the No. 10 in
measuring blood lead levels and the safety of that, it is one
of the items that we intend to discuss and explore and review
the scientific literature you have as we go about looking at
what is the existing guidance and what is the existing
regulation because we do share your interest in the most
important bottom line and that is, what is the impact on human
health. How much lead in the drinking water is too much? We
welcome that and look forward to working with you on that.
Senator Jeffords. I look forward to working with you and
communicating with you.
Mr. Welsh. May I mention something we are doing locally,
not on the national scale but in Philadelphia in Region III we
piloted a program called Lead Safe Babies where we worked with
the National Nursing Centers Consortium to actually have health
professionals who go out into homes to talk to mothers and
families about the possible sources of exposure to lead that
exists in their homes. We thought that was very successful in
Philadelphia and we are expanding that funding and it will be
called Lead Safe DC, to work with the DC Department of Health
not to supplant but to augment efforts they are doing to get
better information actually into the hands of people in their
homes about what their exposures to lead might be so that we
can take a look at the holistic issue of lead exposure, paint,
dust, soil, as well as drinking water. We felt that was very
successful in Philadelphia and are happy to expand that to DC
to try to help improve the public's knowledge about those
risks.
Senator Crapo. Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Mr. Johnson, I want to make sure I
understood your comment at the end of the previous question
from the Chairman. This is, in your view, primarily a single
family home problem, not a multiple unit problem?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Clinton. One thing I think might be worth
considering on the part of the DC Government, since there is
some confusion about the number of service lines that are of
unknown composition and I think the historical record problem
is such that we may never get to the bottom of that, it might
be worth considering some action that would provide filters for
families in these categories of uncertainty or even go to the
extent of permitting a family to purchase this filter and
attach the receipt to their property tax return and deduct it
from their costs. I think something needs to be done to take
action more quickly and to restore confidence.
The confusion that now exists over how many lead service
lines there are and how many unknown composition lines there
are and whether people are going to get tested and after they
get tested, how soon they can get a filter, there might be a
way to short circuit that and go ahead and absorb the cost now.
We can argue later about whether the EPA and the Federal
Government should help to reimburse since we have primary
responsibility, but at least move to get as many filters
installed as quickly as possible.
I live in the District, my house was built in 1950, so I am
right on the cusp and I have had an ongoing dispute about
whether we do or do not have lead service lines but we have
discovered that we have lead lines in the house. So even if I
have an unknown composition line coming from the street, once
it gets into the house, I have lead lines. So I think there are
perhaps several ways you could short circuit this and also
restore some confidence and provide some reassurance.
Finally, with respect to the overall review that I
understand the EPA may be engaged in, Mr. Grumbles and Mr.
Welsh, I would appreciate your looking at the level of testing
that is required. In New York City it falls into a system
serving more than 100,000 households and we have 8 million
people living in New York City. In order to meet that standard,
we test 100 households and that is sufficient but, there are
more than 100 neighborhoods. Some are single family
neighborhoods, some are duplex neighborhoods, some are
apartment neighborhoods, some are public housing neighborhoods.
We have as many different kinds of housing as you can find
anywhere in the country.
As you are going through this review, I want you to look at
the level of testing that is adequate for large systems,
particularly a system as large as New York and in light of the
problem we have had in DC, you think the regulations which
allow systems to test every 3 years for lead are adequately
protective. We only test 100 sites every 3 years. Given what we
are finding out, given the fact we are changing the makeup of
the chemicals put into the water, we need to be checking on
this more frequently. I appreciate Mr. Jacobus' comment that we
need to make it more transparent so that people know what is
going on so we can immediately bring people together to
respond.
This is a matter of such great concern to all of us, the
quality of our drinking water, I share Senator Jeffords'
concern about bottled water. Based on my review of the FDA,
there is not very much testing and not very much regulation. A
lot of people are spending literally hundreds of dollars a year
to buy bottled water which may or may not be better or safer
than what comes out of their tap.
We need to find out. People need information to make their
own judgments. We need some kind of transparency that provides
us information so that a concerned mother, a concerned pregnant
woman, a concerned anybody can go somewhere, a website, a
hotline and find out what he or she needs to find out.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I can't stay for the
next panel buy I want to thank Gloria Borland and Jody Lanard
and Dr. Best. I read their testimony. I highly recommend that
WASA and everyone else read Dr. Lanard's testimony about risk
communication. In fact, I think everybody in any position of
public responsibility should read his testimony. It provides a
very useful guideline about how to deal with crisis situation,
some of which is counterintuitive. The immediate response is,
we don't want to panic people, we want to give people
reassurance. I ran into this with the World Trade Center. We
got into a big problem because EPA and the White House didn't
want to tell people that we had more particulates and problems
in the air around Ground Zero than they wanted us to know, so
we didn't have the urgency that would have convinced a lot of
the workers and volunteers at Ground Zero to wear that
protective equipment.
I think given the high level of risk that we live with in
the world today, risk communication is central and it is
counterintuitive because I think the natural human feeling when
you are in a position of responsibility and you take it
seriously is I don't want people to panic. Given the world
today, it may be better to err on the side of more rather than
less information. We have a lot of very mature, very active
people who then can draw their own judgments.
One of the things I face all the time at Ground Zero now is
construction workers, firefighters and others who say if they
had told me, I would have left the mask on. Well, they were
kind of told it was dangerous, they could smell it was
dangerous but the EPA was saying it was OK. This is the
conflict and I appreciate the conflict, but I think we need to
get to a point where we level with people, we provide
information transparently and I think we have to look at the
laws and regulations because if we can't provide safe drinking
water in our Nation's capital, that is a terrible indictment of
all of us, particularly given the fact that the Federal
Government oversees DC for better or worse, it is our
responsibility.
Thank you so much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to ask a couple more questions. Mr. Welsh, the
first is for you. My question is, based on the work of the
Technical Expert Working Group, how would you describe the
status of the options we have for long term solutions at this
point?
Mr. Welsh. The Technical Working Group is working hard to
identify what actually caused the change in corrosion and to
run through what the possible fixes are to that. In fact, we
recently received an update of the Technical Working Group.
They did a desktop analysis and got a contractor's report back
just last week with a recommended treatment option. The full
Technical Expert Working Group is going to be considering that
report and by April 15, they will be recommending a treatment
option to EPA.
When we receive that recommendation, we would like to take
the opportunity to talk to the public and review that
information with the public and get their input but we are
trying to move as quickly as we can. It is in everyone's
interest to bring about a solution as quickly as possible. So
we are encouraged by the work the Technical Group has been able
to do. They have forwarded this report with a recommended
treatment option and we hope by May 1, we will be able to
approve the selected treatment option.
The schedule we are on would call for that treatment
option, once it is identified, to be tested in a limited part
of the system beginning June 1. Our schedule was for full
system implementation if all of the studies that are ongoing at
the same time that we do that confirm that it is going to be
effective and the correct solution, to go systemwide with that
by September 1.
In addition to the Technical Expert Working Group, we have
also had an independent peer review group of experts look at
the same work and based on some of their comments, we are
hopeful we may be able to accelerate the date for that full
system implementation. So we are encouraged that we are moving
toward the correct answer, but no final determination has been
made yet as to what the correct treatment option will be, but
we are getting close to that day.
Senator Crapo. Thank you and we will look with great
interest on that report as well to see what direction we should
take.
I have two more quick questions. One, Dr. Lucey, is for
you. I am looking at the summarized points you gave. In your
summaries in the first couple of points, it indicates to me
that a number of children in homes with identified elevated
lead levels in their water were tested but a very low
percentage of them, according to these tests, had elevated
blood lead levels. Is that correct?
Dr. Lucey. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator Crapo. Then my question is I think the obvious one.
Why? Wouldn't we have expected higher blood lead levels in
these children?
Dr. Lucey. Because of the lead in the water?
Senator Crapo. Because of the lead in the water?
Dr. Lucey. I think that is the essential question from a
public health point of view. That is really why the Department
of Health sent the letter on February 26 to the 23,000 homes
that I signed with an abundance of caution that we should offer
blood level testing because this has never been done before in
the United States, it is widespread blood testing to assess the
health impact of lead in the water, increased amounts of lead
in the water. It is not in the textbooks. There is no clear
correlation between a concentration of lead in the water and
the concentration of lead in the blood.
Senator Crapo. Is that because of a question of whether it
is, I have heard the word bioavailable in the body when it is
consumed by water?
Dr. Lucey. That is part of it. It also depends on the age
as Senator Clinton mentioned in terms of a child absorbing and
retaining more lead than an adult. That is why children are
most at risk, particularly young children with developing
nervous systems where lead act to the nervous system like
calcium and that is bad for the nervous system of the child.
Senator Crapo. So we don't actually have the data
foundation or whatever to make scientific conclusions at this
point?
Dr. Lucey. Scientific answers through a series of test
hypotheses, get results and those studies have to be confirmed
or refuted. So that is what I think we are contributing here in
the District both for the District and for the country if other
cities find elevated lead concentrations in the water. That is
why I think it is very good the EPA is involved with the
national perspective and also the Centers for Disease Control
as I mentioned has been very involved with us onsite here today
and multiple other times. The lead expert, Dr. Mary Jean Brown,
has been up to visit with us. Dr. Gerberding, the Director of
the CDC, has been very supportive.
I should say though that as I have tried to emphasize in
the multiple press conferences we have had and multiple
community meetings that Mr. Johnson mentioned, the way I look
at this is in terms of the scientific data, these are pieces in
the puzzle. One piece of the puzzle is the homes that have the
highest levels of lead, more than 300 ppb. We went to those
homes because we were afraid folks in those homes weren't
coming to us to get their blood tested, so we didn't have the
results. We found that none of 201 people had elevated blood
levels.
The other very high risk group is the young kids, young
children who live in day care facilities, who have lead service
pipes. So we went to those facilities, provided the filter, the
consent form for the parents to sign. If they signed it, we
came back within a few days or a week to draw blood. Two of the
children out of 280, less than 1 percent, have had elevated
blood lead levels. These are two parts of the picture.
Another part of the picture is the approximately 4,500
people who have come to see us but there is another important
part of the puzzle. In addition to the study that was published
in the Centers for Disease Control Morbidity/Mortality Report
on March 30, and that is Children's National Medical Center
here in the District measures blood lead levels. They are
currently in the process of doing a comparison looking at blood
lead levels over the last 10 years. It is independent of the
Department of Health but they have invited us to participate in
the planning and we did on March 17. That is another part of
the analysis that I think Dr. Best will refer to. The results
aren't back yet.
I am trying to emphasize it is important to put together
all the parts of the puzzle to make sure they are all
consistent.
Senator Crapo. You are working to expand the parts of the
puzzle that we have to look at?
Dr. Lucey. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. The last question I have is for you, Mr.
Jacobus, and that is, in addition to the changes in procedure
that you described, I am aware that residents are now receiving
notice of a flushing program that involves changes at the
aqueduct. Could you explain how that all fits into this issue?
Mr. Jacobus. Yes, sir. To some extent, it does not fit at
all but in another way it does. Let me be specific.
The distribution system is made up of pipes of all
different sizes, there are cast iron pipes, there are steel
pipes, there are concrete pipes. The pipes are not sterile,
there can be sediment in them from lime that settles out, the
pipes can have rust on the inside of them, oxidation from that,
so it is good management practice every spring to open fire
hydrants in the distribution system and push water through the
lines and essentially clean and blow out the lines. That
removes the debris and sort of cleans up the inside of the
pipe.
If you were to go inside a pipe and run your hand along it,
you might feel what we would call biofilm. That could be a
harboring location for bacterial growth in the pipe. The
disinfectant in the pipe in the water, the chlorine-based
disinfectant that is put into the distribution system to
protect the water all the way to the tap, and the water can
stay in the distribution system 3 or 4 days before it is
consumed, so it is important to have that disinfectant residual
there, the bacteria that might be out there, and we are
measuring for those all the time, but the bacteria we might
find out there if you are using a chloramine-based disinfectant
as your secondary disinfectant, it is standard and common
industry practice in the springtime after the roads would not
freeze, to switch the disinfectant for a few weeks back to free
corine rather than the corine ammonia complex. That kind of
confuses the bacteria, shocks the system and that in
conjunction with the flushing process cleans the system and
gives good distribution system maintenance for the rest of the
year, especially for the summer months when bacterial growth
could be prompted by the temperature. That would be a normal
practice.
Since we changed to chloramine, we have been doing that. We
did that in 2002 and 2003, are doing it again in 2004. I say
we, I mean we in conjunction with all of our wholesale customer
partners.
When we go to a phosphate-based inhibitor as an additional
chemical to go after the lead leaching problems in the lead
service pipes, we know from other cities' experience that when
you change the chemistry on the distribution system, you might
get some reaction inside the pipes. With the pipes being as
clean and as blown out if you will as possible, that will help
make the corrosion inhibitor not have any secondary effects
like creating red water which would be rusty effects.
So it is the chloramine disinfectant change and back and
forth and the flushing as a standard practice but it blends
very nicely into what we are about to do in June and then the
full system in September.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Dr. Lucey, using 10 mpd as a standard,
your testimony provides several data points indicating
relatively small numbers of children had what you define as
``elevated'' blood lead levels. How do you define ``elevated''
and how did you select that number?
Dr. Lucey. As you noted, the Centers for Disease Control
has used that number of 10 mpd for children under the age of 6
but also children from the ages of 6 to 15 and also for women
who are pregnant and nursing because the primary concern is
with the unborn baby or the newborn baby. The CDC refers to
that level as a level of concern or the definition of an
elevated blood level. For an adult, it is a higher value, 25
mpd. So it is really a national guideline.
Senator Jeffords. I have already mentioned the April 17,
2003 study which shows harmful effect from blood levels well
below 10. Based on that information, do you feel it is
appropriate to ignore children and families with blood level
test results above zero but below 10?
Dr. Lucey. I am aware of that paper. Dr. Lamphere is in
Cincinnati and was the senior author. He is a well-respected
person in the research community with regard to lead. I think
that was a very important paper last April in the New England
Journal of Medicine. I think it needs to be corroborated like
anything in medicine. Its findings need to be duplicated to
show they are reproducible but I know that is a very important
finding.
At this time, I have been in contact regularly with the
Centers for Disease Control with regard to whether that level
is going to be changed--the 10 mpd--or not anytime soon. To the
best of my knowledge it is not at this time. I think, as in
most things in medicine, there is a state of knowledge today
and then there is what the state of knowledge or the standard
practice might be in the future. Sometimes it is clear which
way things are going and sometimes it is not so clear.
If I could mention briefly, perhaps to illustrate even
better your point, I mentioned in point No. 5 that in the
United States 1976-1980, in Attachment 5, 88.2 percent, 9 out
of 10 children in the United States who were then 1-5 years of
age, now 24-28 years of age, had blood lead levels of 10 mpd or
higher. How could that be acceptable? At that time the level of
concern was much higher, 40 mpd. I think that provides some
historical context. I am not saying what happened then was good
or not compared to now but it is some historical context.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson, I have a couple questions
for you.
In placing lead service lines in WASA and moving the
location of the meter, and if so, how is it affecting the link
to the service line that you are replacing and the associated
costs?
Mr. Johnson. If I understand your question, you are asking
if we are removing the service line--what is the differential
in the cost of moving the service line for the meter versus
another location?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Currently the cost or the EPA requirement has
us to remove the service line that we have control or
responsibility for. The District of Columbia law defines that
as being that portion of the service line in public space.
Frequently the terminus of where public space might exist where
the meter is may be a very different point. So the Health
Department expressed some concern about cutting the line at
that point and then adding the copper line to it and suggested
that we go directly to the first joint which would be the
meter. We agreed and think that is a much better practice
because you don't get particulate lead in that system.
The cost of doing a service line in public space, we have
estimated at an average of about somewhere between $10,000-
$14,000 per service line. That is because we have to do
substantial rebuilding of the street and the roadway system
when we do the excavation to meet the District's standards. The
total cost we have estimated for doing all the service lines is
about $350 million in public space and we believe and estimate
for the cost of going on the other side of that meter and
getting the portion that is in the private space which would
normally be the responsibility of the homeowner to average
about $2,000-$3,000. Because we think the preference again is
to go to that threaded joint which would frequently be inside
the foundation wall or in the building itself, we think that
cost is probably going to average around $3,500.
Senator Jeffords. Recently WASA undertook a program to
replace aging water meters. Can you describe the program for
me? Indicate if you installed lead-free water meters and
indicate if WASA uses lead-free parts when replacing parts
through its system.
Mr. Johnson. That is somewhat of a technical question,
Senator but I will attempt to answer it on the basis of what I
understand the case to be.
The water meters we installed are considered by EPA and are
characterized as lead-free meters. As I understand it, most
metal components of things in this universe have some small
portion of lead in them. You will find some of your metal
faucets and brass parts and the like will have some metal in
them but this classification of lead-free takes it down to a
level where if water is moving through it, typically it does
not leach and doesn't create a problem. So we replaced all the
meters in the system.
Meters have not changed a great deal over time, so the
technology is basically the same. We added a piece of
technology to it so that we could read the meters remotely
using a cell phone technology so we can read the meters without
having someone to physically go on the street every day.
The question has been raised in removing those meters and
changing them, why didn't you look down in the hole and see
whether you had a lead service line. The answer to that is the
meters are mounted on something called a riser. That is a
device that comes from the service line, coming from the main
as well as the line coming from the house and literally is a
riser the meter is mounted in, so you don't really have a
chance to expose the full line.
In response to one of your earlier questions, we are doing
a series of dig ups in cases where we have undetermined service
lines and trying to explore those and see what is actually
there when we don't have good information.
Senator Jeffords. I would join the Chairman's request that
you grant us the privilege of having you sitting here while we
have the next panel.
Mr. Johnson. I will certainly do that, sir.
Senator Crapo. With that, we would like to excuse this
panel. We want to thank you all for your attendance today and
for your attention to this issue. There very well may be
questions from Senators who were not able to get here or
further questions from those of us who were here. We would ask
you to be very responsive to us if we forward those questions
to you in writing.
Thank you very much. This panel is excused and we will call
our second panel.
Our second panel consists of Gloria Borland, who is a
member of the Dupont Circle Parents; Jody Lanard who is a Risk
Communication consultant; and Dana Best, director, Smoke Free
Homes Project, medical director, Healthy Generations Program,
and assistant professor, George Washington University School of
Medicine and Health Sciences with the Children's National
Medical Center.
Senator Jeffords. If I can take a moment to give Dr. Dana
Best from the Children's National Medical Center a special
welcome. During my time as Chairman of the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee, Dr. Best worked for me as a
Fellow. It is nice to see you here again. She did her residency
there and is from my home State. I am so pleased to have you
here now.
Dr. Best. Thank you very much. I am thrilled to be here. To
bad it is about such a nasty topic.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Ladies, we appreciate your coming
and participating with us in our second panel. Were all of you
here when I gave my strong lecture about paying attention to
the clock. We do appreciate your doing that because it does
give us the opportunity with the limited time we have to engage
in some dialog. Again, I encourage you to try to pay attention
to that clock and stick to the 5 minutes to summarize your
written testimony. Your written testimony is a part of the full
record. We have already read it and I believe every Senator
will read it before the week is out.
Ms. Borland, are you ready to start?
STATEMENT OF GLORIA BORLAND, DUPONT CIRCLE PARENTS
Ms. Borland. I want to thank all the Senators on the
committee and also all the parents that are here today. I am
here representing Dupont Circle Parents. I am a mom to a 22
month-old girl who has lead in her blood at twice the national
average.
We parents are angry and full of anxiety because we don't
know what the long term implications of lead poisoning in our
water will have on our children, brain damage, lower IQ,
behavioral problems, and I will defer to the experts who will
be speaking next on that topic.
There are three points I want to make but in the interest
of time, I would like to start with the third point first. The
problems with our water here in DC are so huge, the cost to
solve the problem is very expensive, the organization managing
it right now is so dysfunctional that the only answer is to put
WASA under Federal leadership in our opinion. Only under
Federal Government control will you be able to restore the
trust we parents need in our water system.
Drastic action? Yes, but look at the victims. Look at all
the young children here in the audience and out in the hallway.
See our babies, see their faces and that is why we are asking
for Federal receivership to make sure they are safe.
I want to give you a couple of examples of communication.
First of all, communication and trust must go hand in hand. I
am sure if the Washington Post's David Nakamura had not exposed
this scandal, our young children today on April 7 would still
be drinking leaded water and WASA would still be hiding this
crisis from us.
Communicating is not rocket science. It is the easiest and
simplest thing to do when there is leadership and an
organization willing to do it. The problem is not in the
process of communication, the problem lies in deception. They
deceived us. They tried to hide extraordinarily high levels of
lead poison in our water supply thus putting our young children
at risk. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers went along
with this deception in violation of their Federal oversight
responsibilities.
How was this crisis communicated to us? For most DC parents
of young children, our day of infamy was Saturday, January 31,
2004 when we read the headline of the Washington Post that
morning and we were hit with the shocking bomb that our
infants, toddlers and young children had been secretly poisoned
by the lead in the drinking water in our homes.
Lead in young children lowers their IQs and the experts can
go into all that. I was pregnant in 2001 and 2002 when the high
lead levels first became noticed by WASA. The right and legal
thing for WASA to do was to issue an emergency warning to the
public and to obstetricians and pediatricians to warn their
patients not to drink tap water. It does not matter that WASA
hadn't identified the source of the problem; that kind of
research could take months, even years. In the interest of
public safety, you issue the warning to the public to take the
precaution first and take the time and the money and the
resources to figure out the cause.
It is just like when a fireman sees a house burning, their
first priority is to save lives. Put the fire out, then they
figure out what caused the blaze. WASA got it backward. Because
they got it backward, they wanted to figure out the cause of
the lead crisis first and that was putting our babies' lives at
risk. All WASA had to do was warn me and other mothers, don't
drink your water without a filter or buy bottled water. All
they had to do was warn me. When I learned about the lead in
the water, I wanted to cry. I had been so careful. I even gave
up coffee, for God's sake and I hear about lead in our water.
My daughter attends a very good pre-school day care center
in Dupont Circle. There are 77 students and the building was
built in 1989 so it is a modern building. For their national
accreditation, there was no problem when the water was tested.
Lat year, WASA dug up the streets and it caused $2,000 worth of
damage in the center but more importantly, when this crisis
broke, the executive director tested the water and in the
building some of the fountains had 3,100 ppb and 5,900 ppb.
When I saw the letter she sent to the parents, I thought it
was a typo, thousands not like 15 ppb which is the threshold
but thousands, almost 6,000 ppb in the drinking fountain and 77
students at one of the best day care centers in the city? As of
today, no one from WASA has contacted the director of our day
care center. She has not received a phone call or letter. All
this talk about reaching out to day care centers is baloney.
The day care center at their own expense immediately went to
bottle water and you can see.
Most parents have been perplexed as to why an entity
entrusted with public safety would lie and then cover up their
lies. What is their motive? When I spoke over the weekend to my
very wise friend, Joe Louis Ruffin III, father of a 3-year-old
boy living in Chevy Chase, I asked, how could this happen. Joe
said, ``WASA wanted to protect their bond ratings.
Communicating the truth would have brought their assets down''.
So this is like Enron. Enron was only about money, this is
about money, bond ratings, but the consequences here, the
innocent victims are the lives of our next generation.
I want you, Senators, to see the victims--our young
children. When bond ratings get in the way of public safety,
look into the faces of our babies, see the photos on display,
look around the room. When bond ratings get more important than
our babies' brain development, their nervous system and IQ, we
have a serious problems.
Here are some stories from parents all over the city. This
is Paul McKay, co-founder of www.purewaterdc.com and his son.
He is the one that launched the website.
This is Theresa Brown who lives in LeDroit Park. This is
her daughter, London, who is 1 years old. Theresa told me on
Friday, I feel completely and utterly betrayed. They have a
responsibility to the citizens of the city, especially to those
young babies and children who are completely defenseless. You
cannot put a price on brain damage. How about if we
deliberately caused brain impairment to their kids or grandkids
and see how they liked it.
This is from Denise Senecal, a Dupont Circle mom. Can
anyone at WASA assure me that my son will not suffer harmful
effects from this exposure of lead?
This is from Desa Sealy Ruffin, wife of Joe who I mentioned
earlier. Desa told me on Friday, I can only say I think the
District, WASA and EPA have all broken a real fundamental
covenant with the citizens in the District of Columbia and I no
longer trust them to do anything. I think the three agencies
conspired to keep us in the dark. They should be facing
criminal charges.
This is from Valerie Jablow, a mother on Capitol Hill. She
says her son likes to go to the libraries, the public pool,
stores, restaurants in our neighborhood and she is not sure how
the water will be when she goes out with her child in the
neighborhood.
This is Parker. Parker is 16 months old. His father,
Terrance sent me this on Sunday. He said, his son, Parker, was
adopted and thus was bottle fed water and formula as a toddler.
Early this year they learned that his first lead screening
resulted in very high elevated levels of lead in his blood.
This is Ronnette Bristol who lives in northeast DC in an
apartment building. She has four kids and says, ``We are buying
lots of bottled water until someone can come out and test our
apartment building.''
This is Lyubov Gurjeva originally from Russia. She told me,
I never believed DC water was safe to drink. This is from
someone from Russia.
This is Xin Chen and they were notified by WASA that they
had lead service lines. She has an infant, a newborn, and a 3-
year old. She says, ``I don't trust them, I don't trust their
test results. No trust at all with every parent I spoke to.''
Same thing with Maria DePaul and her husband, Ethan, who
live on the Hill, the same thing. Her husband said, ``WASA will
find legal loopholes so they do not have to help you out''.
Many parents complained about the cost of buying expensive
filters and bottled water. People don't mind buying bottled
water in an emergency for a couple of days or couple of weeks,
but when a couple of weeks turns into a couple of months with
still no end in sight, people are beginning to feel the
financial burden of buying bottled water for every day use.
You talk about how to restore trust. My feeling and that of
other parents is that day of infamy is outrage. We expected our
elected leaders in the District to quickly step in, fire the
managers at WASA and respond with swift action to fix our water
crisis. Instead, they didn't. I hope the EPA and Army Corps
leaders remember the faces of our young babies when they carry
out their daily oversight duties from now on.
The seat of the problem here is management culture
instilled by Jerry Johnson, Mike Marcotte and board chairman,
Glenn Gersten. To restore trust, do what is done in the private
sector, remove managers for extremely poor judgment and failed
performance and put in new management. These are the necessary
first steps toward restoring trust with the parents here in the
District of Columbia. New managers are now in place like Enron,
Adelphia and Worldcom and Gersten is a Wall Street attorney so
he understands why you need to clean house in order to restore
public confidence in an institution.
We know our Mayor is asking the Federal Government for more
money to solve this problem. I don't think it makes sense to
put good money in the hands of bad managers. The problems and
dysfunction at WASA are so huge, they require Federal
intervention. We parents encourage the U.S. Senate to institute
its powers to begin the process of putting WASA under Federal
control, Federal receivership. A new management team and new
board of directors needs to be put in place to work on solving
this lead crisis. We need to make sure the Army Corps and the
EPA are listening to our demands for better communication, a
two-way dialog with the public they are entrusted to serve.
Yes, we need Federal help and Federal dollars to solve this
crisis, but that goes hand in hand with new management and
Federal control of the system until our water is deemed
drinkable again.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Ms. Borland.
Before we go to Dr. Lanard, I want to correct an oversight
of mine. Earlier I should have noted that we have with us Mr.
Paul Strauss, who is the U.S. Shadow Senator for the District
of Columbia who has also submitted testimony and was also with
us yesterday as we met with local residents. Mr. Strauss, I
apologize for my oversight at the beginning in acknowledging
your presence here.
Dr. Lanard.
STATEMENT OF JODY LANARD, M.D., RISK COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT
Dr. Lanard. I will use part of my 5 minutes to make one
comment about Ms. Borland's magnificent statement on behalf of
the stakeholders. The desire to fire everybody and start anew
is very understandable but I have seen in my work with other
officials who have really screwed up communication that
sometimes the reformed sinner who has learned the hard way
becomes one of the best managers and officials I have ever
seen. Their attention is focused on the issue they have screwed
up more than anybody who is going to come in and start anew. So
I hope maybe you will cut them a little slack and notice if
they ever start to learn to do it the way you hope they will. I
don't know whether they will or not but I am hopeful they could
learn.
I am Jody Lanard, a risk communication specialist from
Princeton, NJ. Thank you, Senator Crapo, for inviting me here
today.
My written testimony includes a list of 25 communication
strategies that underlie my critique of WASA's handling of this
issue. If I run out of time, I invite you to ask me during the
question period to give you some examples of really wonderful
risk communication practices from other officials and other
issues.
Some of the communication strategies that WASA should pay
attention to are, and these are very counter intuitive, as
Senator Clinton said, ``Don't over reassure people'', err on
the alarming side (which in this case would have meant
informing early, not waiting for a red flag but hoisting the
yellow flag, giving people a heads up even before you know what
is going on), acknowledging uncertainty. The general public,
and even I when I am outside my own field, think other people
know much more in their field than they actually do. The public
thinks doctors know much more than they do. We all think
officials know much more than they do, and officials collude
with this by being so paternal sometimes and by over-reassuring
us,
Go out of your way to acknowledge uncertainty and break the
cycle of being so over reassuring and then having us be shocked
when you tell us later, ``We are learning new and interesting
things every day.''
I am going to cut to the chase and tell you the whole list
of 25 is in my written testimony. The two other most important
things are: No. 1, not to aim for zero fear. The public is much
more resilient than you think. I am working on this with
several different groups and trying to persuade them that panic
is very rare. Anxiety happens, even a little bit of hysteria
happens, but we are very resilient. Look at how the people in
Washington reacted after the Pentagon was attacked. People were
not panicking, people were bearing it. They felt panicky but
they were not actually panicking. And, No. 2, in this case,
most of all, if any of these officials want to be rehabilitated
in the eyes of their citizens, they have to acknowledge all the
errors, deficiencies, mistakes and misjudgments they made and
they have to apologize for them a hundred times more than they
think they need to. It is not for them to say when it is time
to put this behind us. So they should wallow in their apologies
until people get sick of hearing them. First they have to
understand more about what they need to apologize for.
I am as upset as everybody else about WASA not notifying
people early when those first 53 houses were found to have high
lead levels, surprising high lead levels. Fifty percent of
those houses had high lead levels, but in the brochure where
WASA tried to tell everybody about this, or they think they
tried to tell everybody about this, they say, ``Some houses had
high lead levels.'' They didn't say, ``Fifty percent of the
sample that year had high lead levels.'' So it came across as
minimizing.
I am going to give you an analysis of this brochure for as
long as I can get it in to explain how they worked really hard
not to scare people, but unfortunately they were allying with
peoples' apathy instead of trying to find a way to get their
attention.
The brochure WASA put out in October 2002, which they cite
to say they were not trying to hide the lead problem from the
public, was entitled, ``The District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority and the District of Columbia Department of
Health Acknowledge Lead Awareness Week and Its Impacts on Your
Health.'' The purpose of the brochure is to acknowledge Lead
Awareness Week. There is this awareness week, that awareness
week, every week there is some awareness week. This did not
look like a warning, even a very subtle warning.
The brochure has absolutely excellent educational content
but it only weakly signals to the public that there are new
reasons to take this issue seriously. The title makes it sound
like the PR Department decided to use National Lead Awareness
Week as a news peg for sending out good information about what
to do about lead. It has a pretty picture of water on the
cover, it has a smiling pregnant woman on the second page and
it is not until you get to the third page that they say really
low down, some homes in the community have lead levels above
the EPA action levels. By the time a reader gets to that
sentence, the context of the brochure suggests that ``some
homes'' are very few and ``above the EPA action level'' is only
a little above. The cheerful informative tone of the preceding
pages in the context of the celebratory title of the brochure
does not signal ``Do something, this is a surprising change in
our findings. Take this seriously.'' It is as if Paul Revere,
and I will tell you this in risk communication terms, announced
in celebration of National Freedom Awareness Week. ``There is
no need to panic, but some British are coming: Hey, meet me at
the old North Bridge.'' I hope that is not too irreverent for a
committee hearing.
Senator Crapo. I think we can handle it.
Dr. Lanard. Good. You are resilient, I know that.
The two main things that WASA did wrong, one before the
story broke, the other after the story broke. Before the story
broke, other than not announcing the story themselves and
helping the public get ready for this problem, they tried to
use facts to attack apathy. Using facts alone is not a good way
to attack apathy. I think I will go on to the next point
because I think I have made it there.
I want to give you an example of what WASA could have said
instead of this. I would like someone at WASA to say,
``I am so sorry to tell you that we are finding a lot of
unexpected high lead levels in water coming out of the taps in
our 53 sample homes this year, 26 out of 53 is half. We don't
know yet why this is happening; we don't know yet whether any
people, especially children have increased blood levels because
of this; we don't even know all the recommendations we want to
make to you but because we feel you deserve to get this
information quickly, we will give you some preliminary,
precautionary recommendations. We will be learning things over
the next weeks that we will wish we had known months ago. We
may make mistakes or retract things we have already said.''
This is called anticipatory guidance, warning people about
what might happen.
``We may make mistakes. New information is going to come in
but we are committed to sharing this with you early. We know
you will be worried. We share that worry and we will bear this
together and get through it.''
This would have expressed confidence in the public and that
is a compliment the public might well have returned along with
its appropriate anger at WASA and its anxiety. Telling the
public you don't think they can handle bad news is insulting,
it is patronizing and it generates mistrust. Now, I hope in the
questions you will ask me for some really good examples.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Dr. Lanard.
Dr. Best.
STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., DIRECTOR, SMOKE FREE HOMES
PROJECT; MEDICAL DIRECTOR, HEALTHY GENERATIONS PROGRAM;
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES; AND CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER
Dr. Best. Thank you for providing this opportunity to
discuss the harms of lead poisoning in children.
I am a pediatrician and preventive medicine physician with
expertise in pediatric environmental health from Children's
Hospital. The Children's system provides primary care for
thousands of DC children, particularly those of low
socioeconomic status.
The history of lead provides some interesting background
for today's hearing. Lead's utility has been recognized for
thousands of years. The dangers of exposure to lead have been
recognized almost as long. Unfortunately, the two primary
sources of lead in our environment, leaded gas and lead in
paint, were not banned until decades after reports of harm from
their use. While the impact of leaded gas has declined
significantly since its banning, lead paint continues to be the
primary source of lead poisoning today.
Because of the number of homes that still contain lead
paint, discriminating between lead poisoning from lead paint
and from lead contaminated water is difficult, particularly
since many of the homes with lead pipes also have lead paint.
The focus on children and lead poisoning is because
children are more likely to ingest lead than adults and because
they are undergoing critical periods of development at the same
time they are ingesting lead. Toddlers put everything in their
mouths, including lead laden soil and paint chips. They live
closer to the floor where the lead dust settles. They breathe
faster, eat and drink more per body weight and absorb lead more
efficiently than adults. Their rapid growth means their bones
absorb calcium at a higher rate than adults and since lead is
similar enough to calcium it can be stored in bone resulting in
lifelong stores of lead in some cases. These stores can
contribute to the lead poisoning of the next generation when
pregnant and breast feeding women release lead into their blood
stream during their pregnancy or the nursing period. Lead
crosses the placenta and is readily incorporated into breast
milk.
There are many effects of lead poisoning from death to
subtle but significant changes in cognition and behavior. No
study has determined a lead level below which an effect is not
seen. Even at levels under 10 mcg/dl, the current action level
in children, IQ scores have been shown to decline four to five
points. That loss of four to five points can mean the
difference between normal and subnormal intelligence and the
ability to function independently. Other studies have
demonstrated similar effects, some even under 5 mcg/dl.
The behavior changes associated with lead exposure include
increased distractibility, decreased reaction time, poor
organizational skills, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
and poor classroom performance. Unfortunately no treatment has
been shown to reverse the lifelong effects of lead poisoning
and the primary treatment for severe lead poisoning has been
implicated in decreasing IQ itself. Many studies have shown
persistent cognitive and behavioral effects long after lead
levels have dropped to those considered low. Prevention, not
treatment, is the only solution to lead poisoning.
In the District, lead poisoning is part of the larger
picture of children's health risks. Many of the lead poisoned
children are the same children living in poverty, exposed to
tobacco smoke and without health insurance, all conditions
which can add to the impact of lead poisoning. The recent CDC
report of lead levels in DC residents indicated that the long
term decline in children's lead levels halted in the year 2000
when chloramines were added to the water. This disturbing
indication needs to be confirmed. At Children's we have begun
an analysis of the last 10 years of lead tests performed in our
laboratory. We will look at the average lead level, noting any
changes, and look for associations between lead levels and
household water supply, lead paint in the home, insurance
status and other potential influences. This study is an
extremely high priority and we will inform Congress and the
District of Columbia of our results as soon as they are
available.
There is no safe level of lead. Prevention is the only
solution. There is no way to place a dollar value on the harm
from lead poisoning of DC children, no matter the source,
water, paint or otherwise. The harms of lead poisoning have
been known for thousands of years, with many missed
opportunities to remove lead from the environment in a timely
fashion. We should not add the District of Columbia to this
history.
All potential lead sources should be eliminated including
reduction of lead concentrations in drinking water to below the
EPA action level. This is the law. The children of the District
of Columbia deserve this and nothing less.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Borland, I would like to start with you. I was very
interested in the example you gave of the day care center which
if I understand you correctly, it was constructed in 1989 and
in the initial tests of the water, there was no problem.
Ms. Borland. Right.
Senator Crapo. And then there was some kind of construction
in the streets?
Ms. Borland. Last year is what the director said. My
daughter just started in June, so I don't know all the history
but it was last year.
Senator Crapo. There was some kind of construction.
Presumably it had to do with the water delivery system and then
very high levels of lead were found in the water. You may not
know the answer to this but I was curious about that because of
the earlier testimony, that we tend to think that the earlier
dates when we stopped using lead pipes were safe for buildings.
Do you know whether that level of high lead in the water has
maintained and whether they have continued testing and it
stayed high or did it spike?
Ms. Borland. They had a private firm test it about 2 or 3
days after the story broke. I don't know if they have tested it
since but they immediately went to bottled water.
Senator Crapo. I am sure we can have our authorities check
that facility because obviously if that kind of dynamic can
happen at a facility constructed in 1989, that indicates there
may be a potential risk issue there that we are not paying
attention to which gets back to some of the questions I was
asking earlier to the first panel about whether anybody can ask
for a test to be made and if that shows a high lead level in
the water regardless whether the home fits into a category that
would be considered at risk, then they can get the necessary
response to address the issue.
You also indicate in your testimony that you feel the
Federal regulations seem to be in place for communicating with
the public but the regulations were simply not followed and the
protections in place were ignored by WASA, correct?
Ms. Borland. I am not an expert on legislation and you can
probably put in new legislation that you have to have a public
press release immediately but if the managers don't want to
follow that, it is the leadership integrity, if it is not
there, it is not going to happen, the final loophole. It is our
opinion that it is a management structure problem, not the
process but a management problem of the people involved and
lack of integrity.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Dr. Lanard, you asked me to ask you for some examples. Do
you want to give us a few?
Dr. Lanard. These are examples I love. I much prefer to
teach by good examples than by bad examples. These are some
imitatable examples from real live experts. Jerry Johnson and
Glen Gerstell had been quoted as saying they believe in using
facts to overcome fears to educate the public. I hope some of
these examples will convince them to use even the scary facts
and to go beyond the facts to help people bear their fears,
because that is part of the job as Rudy Giuliani showed on
September 11.
The first two examples are from State epidemiologist Jeff
Engel in North Carolina. In June 2003, North Carolina had its
only confirmed SARS patient, one of only eight confirmed SARS
patient in the United States. Dr. Engel responded with a series
of news conferences. At one, a reporter asked if all the news
coverage had the potential to cause more hysteria and fear. The
reporter asked this kind of hopefully; reporters like hysteria.
Dr. Engel replied,
``We need to involve our community in all aspects of public
health. Certainly a disease like SARS, so new, so frightening,
should instill fear. Fear is an appropriate response, for me as
a public health physician, for everyone in the community. We
need to transfer that fear into positive energy and keep the
facts in front of the hysteria. SARS is a new disease, it
spreads person to person, it can kill. That is newsworthy.''
I am trying to prove that is not an accidental kind of
statement. That is a decision he made to make that kind of
statement.
Two months later, he made essentially the same kind of
statement about Eastern Equine Encephalitis of which there had
been less than one case a year in North Carolina. He said,
``The State has only documented 12 or 13 infections since
1964, the most in one year was 3 in 1989. Nevertheless, fear is
appropriate. My God, here you have a mosquito that can kill.
What we are trying to do through you guys, the media, is to use
that fear in a positive way.''
Dr. Engel told me 2 days later that the local Wal-Mart sold
out of insect repellant right after that news conference. So he
generated preparedness, not panic.
My final two stories are from Julie Gerberding, the master
of the universe at risk communication. She did not start out as
the master of the universe during anthrax. In fact, I am not
sure she was allowed to say very much during anthrax. She
learned risk communication by the time SARS came along. This is
also to prove it is learnable. She was asked early on whether
SARS could be bioterrorism. She answered, ``while we have lots
of reasons to think the SARS outbreaks are not due to
terrorism, we are keeping an open mind and being vigilant.''
Many other officials were asked the exact same question and
answered, ``There is no evidence of a terrorist attack.'' They
didn't say the other half. So Dr. Gerberding's version is
paradoxically more reassuring. We know she is actually paying
attention to the possibility of terrorism. Later in the SARS
outbreak, she reassured us and cautioned us at the same time.
``Although we haven't seen community transmission of SARS, we
are not out of the woods yet.'' So she reassured them in the
first half and cautioned them in the second half.
When people hear these kinds of examples, these real life
ones or the ones I make up when I am trying to tell officials
how they should have said it, they say to me, ``aren't some
people naturally inclined to do good crisis communication or is
this something you can really learn?'' I usually answer by
telling them this final story.
One day during SARS, there was a really weird newspaper
article quoting an astrobiologist from Wales that SARS and
other viruses might come from outer space on meteor dust. It
had to be a very quiet day on the SARS front when the
newspapers had space for this. At a CDC telebriefing, CNN's
reporter Miriam Falco, a very professional reporter, said,
``Dr. Gerberding, I just have to ask you about this outer space
thing. I am embarrassed but what do you think?'' Dr. Gerberding
answered with a wicked twinkle in her eye but an absolutely
straight face, ``Although we have no evidence that SARS is from
outer space, we are keeping an open mind.''
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lanard. So crisis communication is learnable. That is
one of my main messages to you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Doctor. My time is up
so I will turn to Senator Jeffords for his questions.
Senator Jeffords. I don't mean to start with you right
away.
Dr. Lanard. I gave away all my good examples.
Senator Crapo. And they were good.
Senator Jeffords. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking
water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents
were quoted as saying ``The runaround has been unbelievable. No
one in the bureaucracy has even begun to take this seriously.''
The Director of Water for the city stated, ``Premature to
contact residents throughout the city before the city developed
a plan to handle and finance free testing.''
I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper
articles on this topic into the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.100
Senator Jeffords. Given this repetitive failure, what
recommendations do you have for how to improve the situation?
Dr. Lanard. I have one very concrete recommendation I am
very pleased to pass on to you. After the CDC had its
communication problems during anthrax, that focused their minds
and they developed an extremely intense risk communication
training program which they have now packaged into a CD-ROM and
a series of roaming 3-, 4-, and 5-day trainings. People can use
this training program, local agencies can use it. It is called
``Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication.'' I helped my
husband, Peter Sandman, work on it for 18 months. They also
hired some of the other top risk communication people in the
world. They paid us good money, it is all there now and belongs
to the people of the United States. We don't get any more money
if people use it. We just get the satisfaction of seeing people
learn it. ``Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication, CD
Cynergy'' is available from the CDC. They will also come and
give seminars at agencies. The actual CD-ROM costs like nothing
and the seminars are very cheap. They are run by extremely
experienced, unfortunately experienced because of hard lessons,
CDC personnel.
One of my main lessons is to take a little training. It is
the cheapest training you can get because it has already been
paid for.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Borland, I want to thank you again
for testifying before the committee. I want to thank Senator
Crapo for agreeing to allow a DC resident to speak today.
Gloria, if there were three or four actions you could have
the government agencies immediately take that were represented
here today, what would they be?
Ms. Borland. Again, because the problem is so huge, people
still don't know where the lead pipes are. It is a huge
problem. The costs are going to be enormous, the receivership.
You need to really clean house and start over. It really needs
to have that outside management come in, outside people and
just that drastic action. That will instill the trust that is
needed here in the District of Columbia from parents.
Senator Jeffords. Dr. Best, Dr. Lucey implies in his
testimony that there is not a problem with the elevated blood
levels citywide based on the voluntary testing program that has
been conducted. Can you give me your evaluation of the adequacy
of the set of self-selected samples to determine the extent of
citywide problems?
Dr. Best. I want to first emphasize that Children's is
working closely with the Department of Health and would like to
continue to do so.
From statistical soundness, however, a self-selected sample
is not representative of any population, including the sample
that Children's has which goes back for 10 years. That is not a
representative sample. The only way to do a representative
sample is to pick out a grid and use your random number
generator to pull out an appropriate number of houses and find
an appropriate number of children.
On the other hand that is very expensive and these are data
we have here in our pockets so to speak, which we can produce
quickly. To generate the data that would be truly
representative we would need several years and probably $1
million.
Senator Jeffords. Dr. Best, what other factors,
environmental or social for example, might compound the
negative health effects of lead exposure in children?
Dr. Best. If you are trying to overcome a small drop in IQ,
outside of preventing the drop, the best thing you can do is
provide the most enriching environment you can possibly
provide. Unfortunately this is where one of those socioeconomic
strata define themselves. Those of us who are educated and are
more affluent can provide those environments without having to
completely demolish our lives.
Many of our children in DC, however, do not have those
advantages. Sixty percent of children in DC live in poverty or
some huge number. Those children do not have the opportunity to
go to the best day care center in the city. They often have to
attend poorly maintained, poorly funded schools. Their parents
may need to work two or three jobs if they are lucky to have
two parents at home. Those parents are not reading to them
every day, those are the advantages that we as more affluent
people have over the other families. You can't buy that.
Senator Jeffords. Is there an acceptable level for lead
concentrations?
Dr. Best. No.
Senator Jeffords. Is there a safe level?
Dr. Best. No.
Senator Jeffords. CDC notes on their website that there is
no level at which adverse effects are not expected and that
aiming for lower standards would be arbitrary and provide
uncertain benefits. Can you comment on that assessment?
Dr. Best. Since the first article that noted a loss of IQ
in children subjected to levels lower than 10 which was the
first really strong article in 2000, there has been a big
discussion about whether or not the CDC should lower their
level of 10. Even the CDC doesn't call that level a threshold
level. It is a level above which you need to take some action
to educate the family, to make sure they understand the harms
and the need for action, good risk communication.
CDC's point is that when they wrote that, testing is not
accurate below 10 mcg/dl. I suggest strongly now that is no
longer true. We have instruments at Children's Hospital that
can measure with a great deal of specificity levels below 5 and
in fact, we would consider a level of 1 or higher to be an
accurate level.
However, that still doesn't excuse this misleading
indicator. When I tell parents your child has a lead level of 3
and they say, ``Oh, is that OK?'' I have to say we are not
going to take any action because there is nothing we can do. We
don't have a treatment for low lead levels. we don't have a
treatment until your lead level gets up to 45 mcg/dl. Then that
treatment, as I stated in my testimony, can actually reduce
your IQ as well.
The only thing we can do is prevent and the CDC argued in
that article that they are advocating prevention. I am not sure
that is the right approach. I think we should lower the level
at which we start doing this increased education. I think that
should be zero.
Senator Jeffords. I guess I don't quite understand why?
Dr. Best. Because if your child has a measurable lead
level, you should be doing what you can to reduce exposure to
that child.
Senator Jeffords. I think that is what ought to happen.
Dr. Best. You should be figuring out whether you have lead
paint in your house, doing the appropriate abatement procedures
for lead paint which is not necessarily removing the paint. It
is covering up paint that is chipping, wiping down surfaces so
your toddler doesn't go eating all the dust in the house,
checking the water supply so you can make sure that is not
contributing to the source and checking the dirt around your
house where children play.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you all. I am sure the Chairman
agrees with me we have had wonderful testimony and very helpful
to us.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I have one more question and Dr. Best, it is for you as
well and kind of follows the same line that Senator Jeffords
has been pursuing just now. That is, I understand the point
about self-selected testing and so forth. However, I am still
perplexed a little as I look at the numbers that were reported
here by Dr. Lucey--that of the 201 persons who were measured,
who lived in homes with the highest levels of lead in the
drinking water, which was 300 ppb or more, none had elevated
blood levels and the same kind of things came through in a
number of other different ways of singling out even though they
were self-selected, singling out those who had been drinking
water.
Dr. Best. That 300 sample would not be self-selected
because they looked at the water first and then went back and
looked.
Senator Crapo. That is the point I was getting at. When you
analyze it that way, they wouldn't really be self-selected,
would they?
Dr. Best. Not that sample but it is still not
representative of the DC population as a whole.
Senator Crapo. I understand that.
Dr. Best. It is only representative of the houses tested.
Senator Crapo. Clearly if you are trying to get a sample of
the DC population as a whole, but if you are trying to look at
the question of what is the impact on the blood level of
drinking water that has lead in it, wouldn't those numbers tell
us something?
Dr. Best. What they tell us is that in a sample of 300
cases where children--how old were the children?
Senator Crapo. It doesn't say in this report here.
Dr. Best. They were under six I think.
Dr. Lucey. Can I comment?
Senator Crapo. Certainly.
Dr. Lucey. This is everyone. We went out to their homes.
Senator Crapo. This is not just children?
Dr. Best. Is this adults as well?
Dr. Lucey. Yes.
Dr. Best. That is even a more important point because
children absorb lead more efficiently than adults, so if you
have a sample with any adults in it, then you skew it to the
lower end of the lead levels because they are not as efficient.
Senator Crapo. When we talk about issues like paint or fuel
or dust or water, have there been sufficient studies in the
country to rank those risks?
Dr. Best. No. That is only because we haven't had a history
like we have in DC. One of the good outcomes of this I hope is
a better understanding of lead and water and how it is ingested
and absorbed by children. Hopefully we will find that it does
not make a large contribution to lead poisoning of children. It
is still not safe. There is no way I can say that it is safe
and I am sure there is no one else who will admit they think it
is safe.
Senator Crapo. Certainly.
First of all, we have gone over some so both Senator
Jeffords and myself are late to other important
responsibilities, so we are going to have to wrap up now.
Unfortunately I don't know if you will be able to stick around
afterwards, Senator Jeffords. I am going to have to rush to get
to another responsibility.
I did want to thank all of you for coming. Ms. Borland, I
met with some of the residents whose pictures you have shown
there today and listened to their stories in person. You raise
very, very important points and actually put a very human face
on this issue. I think that is very helpful.
Dr. Best, your scientific knowledge and Dr. Lanard, your
scientific knowledge and your suggestions are both very helpful
to us as well as the information we received from the other
panelists. I did note, Dr. Lanard, when somebody says to me,
``I have no evidence of such and such'', I am left wondering
whether they have studied it or whether they are going to. If
somebody says, ``we have no evidence but it is a concern and we
will be looking at it'', I can see how that leaves you with a
much more comforting feeling. Those very simple and sometimes
counter intuitive points are very helpful for us in
communication. We appreciate that.
At this point, I am going to conclude the hearing. Again, I
want to thank all our witnesses today. I want to thank all the
people of the community here in Washington, DC and others
involved who have brought this to our attention and who are
continuing to work with us. This panel will continue its
oversight responsibilities and will continue to work with all
the appropriate authorities to make sure we identify the
problem, get immediate solutions put into place for those at
risk and then move forward to deal with the question of what
caused it, how can we solve that and resolve the issue so we
can safely drink our water here in Washington, DC.
Both Senator Jeffords and I have noted to each other as we
have talked, we both live here in Washington, DC.
Senator Jeffords. I got my home in 1970. It was constructed
in like 1812.
Senator Crapo. My home was constructed in 1890. So we are
way on the other side of that scale.
We really do appreciate your attention and concern today,
all of you.
This hearing will be adjourned but our focus on this issue
is certainly not ended.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. I share the
concerns of the families here today, as well as everyone who lives in
DC, about the condition of the water supply in our Nation's capital and
throughout the United States. We have all observed the recent finger
pointing of the relevant agencies, but today is about sorting through
the rhetoric, getting some answers, and finding some real solutions for
DC residents. The dangerous effects of lead are well documented. Major
government agencies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that lead in
drinking water can cause a variety of adverse health effects,
particularly dangerous for children under 6.
Despite this risk, the responsible agencies failed to inform the
public about the lead problem in a timely or appropriate manner. The
District of Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) and the EPA
first became aware of the lead problem in 2002. WASA, however, failed
to notify homeowners of the problem until more than a year later, at a
public meeting in November 2003. Even when announcing the meeting, WASA
officials neglected to tell citizens the gathering would be discussing
the lead issue. This long-delayed public education program has
essentially failed failed to provide district residents with timely or
thorough information.
Another issue is the role of the EPA in this situation. EPA has a
primary oversight role over WASA and is responsible for the lead
testing programs. We must ask, is there a problem with the testing
standards issued by EPA that delayed this result? Additionally, are the
current EPA water composition standards safe for the varying water
infrastructure of this Nation? Is it possible that these standards need
revisiting?
The first panel of this hearing, comprised of EPA and WASA
officials, will have an opportunity to address these issues. I look
forward to hearing their suggestions for next steps for information
gathering, providing that information to the public, and most
importantly, a strategy to solve the lead problem.
Today, we will also hear from witnesses who live in the district. I
am interested to get their perspectives on how the exchange of
information can be improved. What were the mistakes and how are they
going to be fixed?
It seems incredible during this day and age, with all the
technologies available, that we are having problems communicating. WASA
must improve its public communication program. How should this be done?
What role will the EPA and the Department of Health play in this
process? We need to know what the new strategy will be.
The health and safety of the community is second only to its faith
in those in power to provide them with useful and updated information.
I want to make sure that we learn from these mistakes and not repeat
them during the next phases of fixing the problem.
Thank you again for conducting this hearing. I look forward to
hearing the testimony from our witnesses.
__________
Statement of Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator (Shadow), District of Columbia
Subcommittee Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Jeffords, and others on
this subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the
District of Columbia, and the father of two little girls, I would like
to express my deepest concern about the safety of our region's drinking
water. Because of the potential health problems for local residents, it
is imperative that this issue is promptly addressed.
I particularly want to thank you Chairman Crapo, and Senator
Jeffords for taking the time yesterday, to join me and my Mayor at a
very moving meeting with local residents right here in the community.
It was extraordinary that some of the most influential members of the
U.S. Senate sat down in a living room with ordinary residents of the
District of Columbia to hear their concerns. This gesture has set a
productive tone for these hearings, and demonstrated a level of
personal concern on your part, which makes me hopeful that meaningful
solutions are truly on the way.
District of Columbia's problems have had an anti-home rule
sentiment. They tend to have a limited focus that examines only the
failures of our local officials. This is not what this situation calls
for. It is instead time for full cooperation and support to
appropriately address this emerging problem. I want to emphasize that
there is a need for real solutions, not finger pointing.
When it is appropriate to do so, DC residents are more than capable
of criticizing the response of their own government. We do not need the
assistance of Congress when it comes to complaining, we need your help
to solve this problem. Gratuitous District bashing will not help, and
neither will new restrictions on our local autonomy.
The DC Water and Sewer Authority has estimated that 23,000 homes
have lead lines and more than 5,000 homes have water with lead levels
exceeding the Federal limit. As it is well known, lead disrupts
production of hemoglobin, which leads to anemia, can cause cognitive
problems, affects kidneys, which can lead to hypertension and even
renal failure. Lead is considered to be one of the top environmental
health dangers for children 6 and under due to the future health risks
that can arise from its exposure. In pregnant women, lead crosses into
the placenta and is absorbed by the fetus.
While the District's response to this problem has been far from
perfect, the Mayor is quickly moving in a new direction. It is
important to remember that the majority of these service lines were
installed not by our elected home-rule government, but placed at a time
when it was Congress itself that had actual control over the District
of Columbia. A more significant reality is that DC is not unique when
it comes to this problem. This is a national problem, a problem that we
have to find real solutions for. The unfortunate truth is that the
municipal drinking water in DC is probably not appreciably worse than
the water in many other areas of the United States. It has been
estimated that the costs for the needed improvements on a national
level could exceed one trillion dollars. None of our States and
localities can afford this kind of effort without Federal financial
assistance. I urge the members of this committee to work with your
colleagues on the Appropriation's committees to see that the resources
needed will be made available.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding
this important hearing. I particularly would like to thank Senator
Crapo for his commitment to leave this hearing record open so that DC
residents, despite their lack of equal representation in the U.S.
Senate, can at least place written statements in the record. This will
at a minimum permit their concerns to be documented and hopefully
addressed. If you have not already done so, I would like to include
with this statement a petition signed by over 600 of my constituents
who are urging actions on this issue. My office intends to followup
with those other constituents of mine who wanted to attend today's
hearing, but are not able to. Finally, I would like to thank Regina
Szymanska and Paola Nava, of my staff for their assistance in preparing
this statement. I look forward to further hearings on this topic, and
I'm happy to respond to any requests for additional information that
you or any member of this subcommittee may have.
__________
Statement of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I welcome this
opportunity to discuss the issue of lead in drinking water, the
specific situation related to elevated lead levels in the District of
Columbia's (DC's) drinking water, and actions that EPA is taking at the
national level to address the matter.
LEAD AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN
EPA places a high priority on reducing exposure to lead. This
contaminant has been found to have serious health effects, particularly
for children. Health effects may include delays in normal physical and
mental development in infants and young children; slight deficits in
the attention span hearing, and learning abilities of children; and,
high blood pressure in some adults (which may lead to kidney disease
and increased chance of stroke). But pregnant women and children are
our primary concern. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) has identified a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter
as the level of concern for lead in children.
Lead exposure in young children has been dramatically reduced over
the last two decades. According to a 2003 CDC report [Surveillance for
Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children--United States, 1997-2001.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance Summaries,
September 12, 2003. MMWR 2003:52 (No. SS-10)], 88 percent of children
between the ages of 1 to 5 were estimated to have blood lead levels
that exceeded 10 g/dl for the period between 1976-1980. By 1999-2000,
this estimate had decreased to approximately 2 percent. This decrease
is largely due to the 1973 EPA regulation to phaseout lead in gasoline
between 1973 and 1995, and to the reduction in the number of homes with
lead-based paint from 64 million in 1990 to 38 million in 2000. Some
decline was also a result of EPA regulations reducing lead levels in
drinking water and banning lead from paint. Other reasons include bans
on lead in food and beverage containers and reductions in lead in
industrial emissions, consumer goods, hazardous waste, and other
sources. There are several EPA programs that continue to be successful
in reducing the public's exposure to lead in the environment.
The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead
in paint in older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it
generates. [see Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,
Dust and Soil (EPA 747-R-97-006, June 1998] This is primarily from
housing built in the 1950s and homes with pre-1978 paint. Several
Federal programs and surveillance and prevention programs at the State
and local level continue to work toward reducing exposure to lead. In
addition, EPA works with Federal agencies--mainly the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Justice
through the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks to Children--on implementing a Federal strategy to
virtually eliminate childhood lead poisoning.
LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
Although the greatest risks are related to paint, lead in drinking
water can also pose a risk to human health. As indicated in EPA's
public education language for the Lead and Copper Rule, approximately
20 percent of a person's exposure to lead can come from drinking water.
The level of exposure can be greater for children and infants,
particularly when tap water is used to mix juices and formula. EPA has
set a maximum contaminant level goal of zero for lead in drinking water
and has taken several actions over the last 20 years to reduce lead in
drinking water. The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) effectively banned the new use of lead solder and leaded pipes
from public water supply systems and plumbing, and limited faucets and
other brass plumbing components to no more than 8 percent lead. To
address lead in schools, the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of
1988 recalled drinking water coolers with lead-lined water reservoir
tanks, and banned new drinking water coolers with lead parts. The 1986
SDWA Amendments also directed EPA to revise its regulations for lead
and copper in drinking water.
An interim standard for lead in drinking water of 50 micrograms per
liter, or parts per billion (ppb), had been established in 1975.
Sampling of customer taps was not required to demonstrate compliance
with this standard. In 1988, the Agency proposed revisions to the
standard and issued a final standard in 1991. The revised standard
significantly changed the regulatory framework. Unlike most
contaminants, lead is not generally introduced to drinking water
supplies from the source water. The primary sources of lead in drinking
water are from lead pipe, lead-based solder used to connect pipe in
plumbing systems, and brass plumbing fixtures that contain lead.
Setting a standard for water leaving the treatment plant fails to
capture the extent of lead leaching in the distribution system and
household plumbing.
EPA requires public water suppliers to meet the regulations
governing treated water quality distributed via the public water
system. The regulations do not require homeowners to replace their
plumbing systems if they contain lead. To reduce consumers' lead
exposure from tap water, EPA used its available authorities to require
public water suppliers to treat their water to make it as non-corrosive
as possible to metals in their customers' plumbing systems. These
treatment requirements were issued in EPA's Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
on June 7, 1991.
The rule requires systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent
lead and copper from leaching into drinking water. Large systems
serving more than 50,000 people were required to conduct studies of
corrosion control and to install the State-approved optimal corrosion
control treatment by January 1, 1997. Small and medium sized systems
are required to optimize corrosion control when monitoring at the
consumer taps shows action is necessary.
To assure corrosion control treatment technique requirements are
effective in protecting public health, the rule also established an
Action Level (AL) of 15 ppb for lead in drinking water. Systems are
required to monitor a specific number of customer taps, according to
the size of the system. If lead concentrations exceed 15 ppb in more
than 10 percent of the taps sampled, the system must undertake a number
of additional actions to control corrosion and to inform the public
about steps they should take to protect their health. The rule was
subsequently revised in 2000 to modify monitoring, reporting and public
education requirements, but the basic framework, including the action
level, was not changed.
The LCR has four main functions: (1) require water suppliers to
optimize their treatment system to control corrosion in customers'
plumbing; (2) determine tap water levels of lead and copper for
customers who have lead service lines or lead-based solder in their
plumbing system; (3) rule out the source water as a source of
significant lead levels; and, (4) if action levels are exceeded,
require the suppliers to educate their customers about lead and suggest
actions they can take to reduce their exposure to lead through public
notices and public education programs. If a water system, after
installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment, continues to
fail to meet the lead action level, it must begin replacing the lead
service lines under its ownership.
Although we are currently seeing problems in the District, the LCR
has proven to be successful in reducing levels of lead in drinking
water. Following issuance of the rule in 1991, EPA required medium and
large systems to conduct initial rounds of monitoring by December 1992.
The results from the first round of sampling for large systems (serving
more than 50,000) conducted in 1991 showed that 130 of 660 exceeded the
action level of 15 ppb. We recently reviewed Consumer Confidence
Reports for 109 of the systems that were on the list and found that
only 9 were above the action level within the last few years (one of
which was DC). Thus it would appear that the actions taken by systems
to reduce corrosion through appropriate treatment have significantly
reduced the public's exposure to lead in drinking water. However, even
though we have had success in reducing exposure, we must remain
vigilant to ensure that treatment continues to control corrosion and
that information on potential risks is communicated to the public.
THE CURRENT SITUATION IN DC
In the District of Columbia, WASA failed to achieve the intended
objectives of the the regulatory framework that EPA established. Within
the last few years lead concentrations have increased significantly.
Public education efforts were not effective in reaching the people who
needed to know about the problem or in conveying the risks posed to
some customers by elevated levels of lead in the water.
The provision of safe drinking water is not an easy task. Treatment
processes must be balanced to address multiple risks. EPA has developed
guidance to assist systems in achieving simultaneous compliance with
different standards to, for example, balance treatment processes
between the need to control corrosion within a system and also avoid
harmful byproducts that can result from disinfection processes. As
Regional Administrator Welsh will describe, EPA is working with WASA
and the Washington Aqueduct, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, which supplies water to WASA, to determine if changes in
treatment processes to reduce disinfection byproducts resulted in
elevated lead levels. The situation in DC appears to be unique. In
surveying States and regions, we have not identified a systemic problem
of increasing lead concentrations in tap monitoring conducted by public
water systems. However, we will continue to investigate this matter in
the weeks ahead.
ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY EPA HEADQUARTERS
This event is a reminder of what we take for granted--that we can
turn on our faucets, whenever we want, to draw a glass of clean, safe
water. I also see it as indicative of the challenges in managing the
Nation's water infrastructure. We face the possibility of interruptions
in service quality and public health protection as a result of
deterioration of aging infrastructure or outdated components, such as
the lead service lines serving older homes in the District. This will
require significant levels of coordination on the part of local, State
and Federal Governments, and an understanding of the true investment
needs on the part of customers.
With respect to the situation here in DC, I fully understand the
concerns that congressional Members and committees and city leaders
have regarding timely and effective public notification. EPA is
reviewing the actions taken by all parties to ensure that we use the
lessons learned to prevent such an event from taking place in the
future--here in DC and in other communities across the Nation.
Staff from my program and EPA's Office of Research and Development
are currently working closely with the Region to provide technical
assistance and are participating on the Technical Expert Working Group
(TEWG) evaluating potential technical solutions to elevated lead
levels. I directed staff to convene a peer review panel that is
conducting an independent review of the TEWG's Action Plan released on
March 10 and which will also review subsequent reports. Staff are also
participating in a review of WASA's public education material and are
working with the Region on communication issues in the District.
As the head of the national water program, I have undertaken a
number of actions to address the specific issue of lead in drinking
water from a national perspective.
All of us want to ensure that the Nation's school children are not
exposed to elevated lead levels in their drinking water. While States
and schools may have acted immediately to remove harmful lead lined
coolers in accordance with the 1988 Lead Contamination Control Act,
lead solder and plumbing fixtures can still contain low levels of lead.
States and schools should continue to monitor their water outlets to
ensure that children are protected using EPA's recommended protocol for
testing water in schools for lead. On March 18 I sent letters to every
State's Director of Health and Environmental Agencies seeking their
help in understanding and facilitating State and local efforts to
monitor for lead in school drinking water. We want to know if
additional guidance might help States and local governments conduct
more comprehensive monitoring in schools and day care facilities.
I am also working with our enforcement and regional drinking water
program managers to embark on a thorough review of compliance with and
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. Our initial focus is to
ensure that EPA has complete and accurate information on the Lead and
Copper Rule in its Safe Drinking Water Information System. States were
required to report specific results of monitoring (i.e., 90th
percentile lead levels) to EPA for systems serving populations greater
than 3,300 people beginning in 2002. On March 25, I sent a memorandum
to Regional Administrators asking them to work with the States to
ensure that all available information is loaded into the data system by
the end of June.
With more complete information, we will be able to work in
consultation with enforcement and regional staff to assess national
compliance and implementation. Our review will attempt to answer three
questions: (1) Is this a national problem? Does a large percent of the
population receive water that exceeds the lead action level? Do a large
number of systems fail to meet the lead action level? (2) How well has
the rule worked to reduce lead levels in systems over the past 12
years, particularly in systems that had demonstrated high lead levels
in the initial rounds of sampling? (3) Is the rule being effectively
implemented today, particularly with respect to monitoring and public
education requirements?
We expect this analysis to continue throughout the year and will
release interim reports as results become available. Part of the
analysis will include a review of the existing requirements of the rule
and associated guidance. To help the Agency obtain additional
information from experts, we have scheduled workshops in May to discuss
sampling protocols for the rule and utility experiences in managing
simultaneous compliance with multiple drinking water rules. Workshops
on additional subjects may be scheduled later in the year.
The compliance review, expert workshops and other efforts underway
will help us to determine whether it is appropriate to develop
additional training or guidance or make changes as part of our review
of existing regulations. Our immediate goal is to ensure that systems
and States have the information they need today to fully and
effectively implement the rule and minimize risks to public health.
Mr. Chairman, this reminds us all of the importance of
communication--especially with the public. To maintain public health
and confidence, information communicated to the public must not only be
accurate, but timely, relevant and understandable. While I believe that
communication efforts on the part of the Region, the District's
Department of Health and WASA have improved, there is still much to be
done to ensure that the city's residents are aware of the steps they
can take to protect their health. As you will hear from Mr. Welsh, the
Region is completing a thorough review of WASA's and the Aqueduct's
activities to determine if any violations of environmental law have
occurred. EPA will take the appropriate steps to protect public health,
both by enforcing existing regulations and by using its additional
authorities to address imminent and substantial threats to public
health, as appropriate.
We will work closely with the Region, our public service partners
and concerned citizens to investigate the situation in DC and to review
implementation of the rule nationwide. EPA wants to ensure that
citizens across the country are confident in the safety of their
drinking water.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I am
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Donald Welsh, Director, Region III, Environmental
Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Donald Welsh, Regional Administrator for Region III of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue
of lead in the tap water of District of Columbia residents, and the
steps EPA and other agencies are taking to resolve the problem on a
short-and long-term basis.
Elevated levels of lead in the environment, whether in drinking
water or lead paint, can pose significant risks to health--particularly
to pregnant women and young children. Reducing exposure to all sources
of lead is vital to protecting the health of our citizens.
It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District
continue to live with fear and uncertainty over the quality of the
water they drink. At EPA, we will not be satisfied until all aspects of
this problem are resolved. There is no higher priority for my office
than to work with the city to protect residents.
To that end, EPA and the District of Columbia have directed--and
are closely monitoring--a series of interim measures to ensure that
residents have safe drinking water and proper precautionary guidance.
At the same time, a multi-agency Technical Expert Working Group is
acting as quickly as possible to identify and correct the cause of the
elevated lead levels.
The city and EPA have had regular meetings and conversations to
monitor progress and to ensure necessary actions are being taken. While
we are satisfied at this point that the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority (WASA) is taking the required steps to deal with the
immediate threat to public health, EPA reserves the right to use
enforcement authorities to compel action if necessary.
Among a host of immediate steps being taken to safeguard public
health, WASA is delivering certified water filters to occupants in the
estimated 23,000 homes and businesses with lead service lines, and
conducting additional tap water sampling to fully identify the extent
of the problem in the District. There also are expanded outreach
efforts underway to ensure residents have essential information to
protect themselves and their families. Details of these and other
actions will be provided later in this testimony.
HISTORY AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IN DC
In the District of Columbia, the regulatory framework established
in EPA's 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) did not achieve key aspects of
its intended objectives. The LCR requires systems to optimize corrosion
control to prevent lead and copper from leaching into drinking water.
To assure corrosion control is effective, the rule establishes an
action level of 15 parts per billion for lead in drinking water. If
lead concentrations exceed the action level in more than 10 percent of
the taps sampled, the system must intensify tap water sampling and
undertake a number of additional actions to control corrosion and to
educate the public about steps they should take to protect their
health. If the problem is not abated, the system must also begin a lead
service line replacement program.
Within the last couple of years in the District of Columbia, lead
concentrations in tap water in many homes increased well above the 15
parts per billion action level. In addition, public education efforts
were ineffective and, we believe, not fully compliant in all instances
with EPA rules.
By way of background, two public water systems are responsible for
complying with provisions of the LCR in the District. The Washington
Aqueduct owns and operates two water treatment plants which provide
finished drinking water to WASA, as well as to Arlington County and the
city of Falls Church in Virginia. The Aqueduct is responsible for all
corrosion control treatment for its three customer systems. WASA, which
distributes water from the Aqueduct to customers in the District, is
responsible for monitoring lead and copper at its retail customers'
taps. EPA's Region III office in Philadelphia has primary oversight and
enforcement responsibility for public water systems in the District.
The results of DC's required tap monitoring exceeded the 15 ppb
action level for 10 percent of taps monitored during six of 15
reporting periods since January 1992--three times prior to 1994 and
three times since 2002.
During the 1990s, several studies were conducted by WASA, the
Aqueduct, and EPA to support identification of an optimal corrosion
control treatment (OCCT) for the drinking water supplied by the
Aqueduct. EPA gave the Aqueduct conditional OCCT approval in 1997 and,
after reviewing results from several required reports, provided final
approval in 2000. Later that year, the Aqueduct replaced its secondary
disinfection treatment by converting from free chlorine to chloramines,
primarily to ensure compliance with EPA's more stringent requirements
to combat serious health consequences related to disinfection
byproducts.
The OCCT implemented by the Aqueduct appeared to be effective in
minimizing lead levels until the sampling period between July 2001 and
June 30, 2002. EPA received a final report from WASA on August 27, 2002
indicating that the 90th percentile value had increased to 75 ppb
during that period. The high level required that WASA conduct more
frequent monitoring and carry out public education. The lead action
level was also exceeded for subsequent monitoring periods in 2003, with
90th percentile values at 40 ppb (January 1 to June 30, 2003) and 63
ppb (July 1 to December 31, 2003).
In 2003, EPA Region III worked through an EPA Headquarters'
contractor to hire Professor Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech to help
analyze the situation and make recommendations to assist the region in
working with WASA. Professor Edwards' draft report delivered in October
2003 provided key input to the evaluation of the problem during the
fall of 2003 and continues to aid the expert technical team convened by
EPA to identify the underlying causes for elevated lead levels.
In addition to the stepped up monitoring, when WASA exceeded the
action level, the authority was required to undertake a lead service
line replacement program. The LCR requires that a system replace at
least 7 percent of the lead service lines the system owns annually
until all of the lines have been replaced, or until tap water
monitoring indicates that its 90th percentile lead level is equal to or
less than 15 ppb. If the sample for a service line shows a
concentration below the action level, the line serving that house is
considered to be replaced.
Starting in March 2003, WASA began an expanded lead service line
sampling program to determine the concentrations of lead contributed by
individual lines. Region III received sampling results from this
program on October 27, 2003. The information was reviewed by our
technical staff with an eye toward determining how to address the
underlying cause of the corrosion problem. The results indicated that
385 lead service lines had been physically replaced and that an
additional 1,241 lines were considered replaced because they had
monitoring results below the 15 ppb action level. The report also
indicated that 3,372 of 4,613 lead service lines tested through
September 30, 2003 had lead levels that exceeded the lead action level.
In many cases, lead levels from customer taps were very high, with
levels above 300 ppb in nearly 3 percent of lines and above 100 ppb in
18.5 percent of lines. Frequently, several months passed between when a
sample was collected and information was provided to homeowners who
participated in the expanded sampling program. In addition, the
notifications were not effective in relaying to the customers the
significance of the problem.
INTERIM STEPS BEING TAKEN TO PROTECT RESIDENTS
As indicated earlier, WASA and the District of Columbia government
are undertaking a series of actions outlined by EPA to address the
immediate public health threat posed by lead in drinking water. The
actions include:
<bullet> WASA will ensure delivery by April 10 of the NSF
International-certified water filters and consumer instructions to
occupants in homes and buildings with lead service lines. Periodic
replacement of the filters also will be ensured.
<bullet> Additional tap water sampling has begun in schools as part
of a program to test a representative group of homes and other
buildings that are not served by lead service lines to help determine
the full scope of the problem. The city began the school testing
program on March 27 based upon EPA's approval of the sampling protocol,
and as of last Friday (April 2) WASA had anticipated the completion of
sampling at approximately 150 schools. WASA has agreed by today (April
7) to address EPA questions on the sampling plan for other facilities
in the city so that we can authorize WASA to move forward on that
initiative.
<bullet> WASA has committed to an accelerated schedule for
physically replacing lead service lines in the District. WASA has
agreed to complete 1,615 actual service line replacements during the
compliance period that ends September 30--a far greater pace than was
met during the prior compliance period. As part of EPA's annual grants
to the District, the agency is providing a total of $11.3 million to
WASA for lead line replacement this year.
<bullet> WASA is expediting notification to customers of the
results of water sampling at their residences, committing to providing
results in 30 days or less. WASA has stated that residents now receive
a letter that provides more detail about their sampling results, and
those with high lead levels are referred to the DC Department of
Health.
<bullet> As EPA, the District and WASA continue to expand outreach
efforts to provide important information to consumers, WASA will
provide to EPA for our review no later than today (April 7) an enhanced
public education plan to satisfy a directive that communications on the
lead issue convey the proper sense of urgency and concern for public
health. The goal is to reach all sectors of the population in an
effective way. WASA already has committed to a series of activities,
including placing advertisements in ethnic and foreign language
newspapers, developing and distributing public service announcements to
radio stations, and taping a program this week on the District's cable
channel that will be shown in a variety of venues. WASA also will
continue to meet with various community groups and organizations.
EPA is undertaking a compliance audit of WASA's lead service line
and public education actions. In letters to WASA last week, EPA
identifies instances in which requirements were apparently not met and,
as part of the enforcement process, requires WASA to provide
information and documentation to EPA responding to those findings. Once
EPA receives the requested information, we will officially determine
whether there have been violations and take the appropriate action.
In a separate initiative, an internal EPA team is evaluating WASA's
prior outreach efforts--a process to be completed by month's end that
involves a review of materials, interviews with residents and public
officials, and a survey of best practices from public water systems
around the country.
It is clear that WASA was ineffective in informing the public of
the magnitude of the problem of lead in drinking water and in conveying
the steps families and individuals should take to protect themselves.
The spirit of the LCR encourages robust communication focused on the
public's right to know. Mass media tools, including direct contact with
media representatives, as is recommended in EPA guidance, were not used
effectively.
The Region is taking a critical look back at how it could have done
a better job in its oversight of WASA. There will continue to be
lessons learned that will benefit the agency in the future. We have
revised our oversight procedures to assure that shortcomings in public
outreach are identified earlier and corrected. We are more closely
monitoring WASA's activities to ensure that system-wide notices
effectively inform customers about the lead risk and we will ensure
that information provided in WASA's next Consumer Confidence Report to
customers is clear with respect to information about lead levels in
drinking water.
In addition to our collaborative efforts with the city, EPA has
taken a number of actions to provide information to residents and
others on the issue of lead in the District's drinking water.
The Region has created a new program with the National Nursing
Centers Consortium, called Lead Safe DC, at an initial cost of
$100,000, to bring lead education information, home visits and blood
level testing to District neighborhoods. The consortium is the Nation's
only network of nurse-managed community healthcare centers, and has
enjoyed great success with a similar lead information program with EPA
in the city of Philadelphia.
The Region has created a comprehensive Web site that includes
advice for consumers, frequently asked questions, health effects
information, and links to informational hotlines, WASA and the DC
government. It can be accessed at www.epa.gov//dclead.
EPA has dispatched community outreach specialists to provide
information and get input on the lead issue from community groups and
individual residents in the District. EPA has a National Safe Drinking
Water Hotline, and the region is proactively providing consumer
information to radio stations for use in the District. Nearly a dozen
regional employees have volunteered to assist with translation to
Spanish of written and broadcast materials.
ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND CORRECT SOURCE OF HIGH LEAD LEVELS
The Technical Expert Working Group from the public and private
sectors is in the midst of its investigation to identify the cause of
the elevated lead levels and present a solution as quickly as possible.
The team already has met early milestones in the process. EPA is
scheduled to receive a proposal by April 15 from the technical team for
a water chemistry change to reduce corrosion while maintaining the
optimum protection against other harmful contaminants that can be found
in drinking water. The preliminary recommendation is to conduct a
partial system test using orthophosphates at WASA's Fort Reno pumping
station and thereafter, a full system test by feeding orthophosphates
at the Dalecarlia and McMillan water treatment plants. Under the
proposed timetable, the partial system test is currently planned for
June 1, followed by full system implementation on or about September 1.
To review the team's findings, EPA has formed an independent peer
review group made up of experts who are not involved in the planning.
Until the revised treatment process is in place and lead levels in
tap water are reduced, all consumers are advised to follow appropriate
tap flushing recommendations and to heed the District Department of
Health's advisory that pregnant or nursing women and children under 6
years of age who live in homes that have a lead service line should not
drink unfiltered tap water.
CONCLUSION
In closing, working closely with the District of Columbia, our
public service partners and concerned citizens, we will continue to
aggressively act to protect residents and resolve the lead problem. We
are taking action to hasten the day when the citizens of the District
of Columbia can once again be confident in the safety of their drinking
water.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information this
afternoon. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Donald Welsh to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. When did EPA first know of elevated lead levels in DC
tap water?
Response. DC exceeded the 15 ppb action level during three
reporting periods between 1992 and 1994 before it installed corrosion
control treatment (CCT). The CCT implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Washington Aqueduct (Aqueduct), and given interim approval by
EPA Region III in 1997 and final approval in 2000, appeared to be
effective in minimizing lead levels until the reporting period between
July l, 2001 and June 30, 2002. EPA received a final report from the DC
Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) on August 27, 2002 indicating that the
90th percentile value had increased to 75 ppb during that period. The
high level required that WASA conduct more frequent monitoring every 6
months. The lead action level was also exceeded for subsequent
monitoring periods in 2003, with 90th percentile values of 40 ppb
(January 1 to June 30, 2003) and 63 ppb (July 1 to December 31, 2003).
Question 2. Has EPA identified any specific events or system
changes that would have caused these high lead levels?
Response. EPA is reviewing past reports and performance data
related to how the water was treated and how water chemistry changed in
the Aqueduct wholesale customer's distribution systems. The review will
investigate several factors which could have affected pH within the
distribution system or otherwise affected chemistry in such a manner so
as to increase corrosion. The areas that will be reviewed include, but
are not limited to:
<bullet> the process change from chlorine to chloramine
disinfection in November 2000 and potential impact of nitrification,
<bullet> the potential impact of drought during the period 2001-
2002 on pH, comparing to changes observed in chemistry during the
drought of 1998-99,
<bullet> the effects of water distribution system maintenance and
operation practices, and
<bullet> the effects of corrosion control treatment management
practices.
The Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG), which includes
contractors for EPA, WASA and the Aqueduct and staff from WASA, the
Aqueduct and EPA's Region III Headquarters and Cincinnati offices is
assessing the possibility that some or all of the above factors
contributed to the failure of the approved optimal corrosion control
treatment to keep lead concentrations below acceptable levels.
Question 3. What actions did EPA initiate to determine the
proximate cause of the higher lead levels?
Response. Following notification of WASA's exceedance of the lead
action level in August 2002, EPA met with WASA staff in September 2002
to discuss activities that WASA needed to undertake to comply with the
LCR. The main requirements were implementation of public education and
lead service line replacement programs. WASA also agreed to resume full
lead and copper tap sampling. EPA, WASA, and the Washington Aqueduct
also discussed potential causes of the lead level changes and the need
for a review of the corrosion control treatment process to determine
what could have caused the lead action level exceedance and what could
be done to correct it.
In January 2003, EPA Region III began the process of conducting the
review on the behalf of WASA and the Aqueduct. WASA later decided to
engage its own contractor to conduct a similar review. EPA developed a
work assignment to conduct the corrosion control review under the scope
of an existing contract and circulated it to WASA, the Aqueduct,
Arlington County and the city of Falls Church to ensure that the
concerns of all parties involved would be addressed. Work began in May
2003. WASA's contractor began working at about the same time. The
Aqueduct assisted in this process by providing data and technical
information required by the reviewers. In the fall of 2003, the
contractors recommended that additional studies be conducted to better
identify the cause of the lead action level exceedance so that the
proper corrosion control treatment could be applied. WASA began
implementing these studies in December 2003. Analyses of WASA's lead
service line testing results in December 2003 found high lead levels
which appear to be caused by the lead service lines.
EPA and WASA continue to use their contractors to implement the
planned studies, review the results, and recommend new corrosion
control treatment. A Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG), which
includes contractors for EPA, WASA and the Aqueduct and staff from
WASA, the Aqueduct, EPA's Region III, Headquarters and Cincinnati
offices, the District of Columbia Department of Health, and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention has also been formed to more fully
investigate the matter.
Questions 4 and 5. What recommendations did Region 3 make to WASA
or the Corps in terms of changes to the operations of the water system
to mitigate for high lead levels?
Did EPA recommend adding zinc orthophosphate, or another phosphate
additive to the water?
Response. In June 1994, the Aqueduct submitted a corrosion control
treatment (CCT) study to EPA, in compliance with the requirements of
the LCR for all large public water systems (serving more than 50,000
people) which recommended that pH adjustment be used to control
corrosion. In 1995, EPA engaged a contractor to conduct a sanitary
survey of the District's drinking water storage and distribution
system. EPA included a task to evaluate the CCT recommendation in the
Aqueduct's corrosion treatment study. The sanitary survey recommended
that additional consideration be given to the use of a phosphate
corrosion inhibitor.
In 1996, EPA engaged a contractor to review: (1) the Aqueduct's CCT
study and recommendation, (2) observations and recommendations of the
sanitary survey, and (3) additional data about the District's
distribution system water quality, particularly with respect to the
coliform bacteria problem the District had experienced over the
previous few years. Because the contractor had concerns that a
phosphate corrosion inhibitor might have adverse effects on water
quality in an older water system such the District's, he recommended
against use of a phosphate corrosion inhibitor. The contractor believed
that it would be more appropriate for the Aqueduct to refine its pH
adjustment so that it could maintain pH at a higher level.
In 1997, EPA conditionally designated pH adjustment as the optimal
corrosion control treatment (OCCT) for the Aqueduct. WASA conducted tap
sampling during 1997 to 2001 and sample results did not exceed the lead
action level. In 2000, EPA designated pH adjustment as the OCCT for the
Aqueduct.
With respect to the current elevated levels, EPA has been working
with the Technical Expert Working Group to determine what changes
should be made to the operation of the water system to reduce lead
levels. Based on the recommendations of that group, Region III has
approved an interim modification of the approved OCCT for the Aqueduct
and WASA to allow for an initial application of a phosphate-based
corrosion inhibitor. The April 30, 2004 approval letter from the Region
to WASA and the Aqueduct, which outlines the process is available on
the EPA web site at http://www.epa:gov/dclead/corrosion_letter_4-
30.pdf. If the trial application is successful and does not cause any
other unanticipated treatment concerns, full system application could
begin as early as mid-July.
______
Responses by Donald Welsh to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. What explanation are you giving to parents whose
children were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking
water and what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens
of Washington, DC?
Response. As Regional Administrator Welsh noted in testimony before
the subcommittee, it is unacceptable to EPA that many families in the
District are living with fear and uncertainty over the quality of the
water they drink. The goals of the Federal requirements for the lead
and copper rule are to ensure that the public is informed about
potential risks and the steps they can take to minimize exposure. In
its outreach efforts, WASA did not fulfill its responsibility to
effectively inform all affected parties about a problem with their
water. Notifications to individual residents were often not timely and
did not achieve the goal of getting information to those who needed to
know. Mass media tools were not used as effectively as they could have
been. There should have been more widespread and urgent communication
of the problem District-wide.
In hindsight, EPA could have more quickly assessed the timeliness,
effectiveness and impact of WASA's public notification program and more
promptly directed WASA to correct its deficiencies. We have revised our
oversight procedures to assure that any shortcomings in public outreach
are identified early and corrected. We are also investigating potential
violations of the regulatory requirements relating to public education.
An EPA team has completed a report that reviewed the effectiveness
of WASA's public education efforts. The report contains recommendations
to enhance the effectiveness and delivery of public education under the
lead and copper rule. It was transmitted to WASA on May 16, 2004. This
report also included recommendations for EPA Region III to improve its
oversight of WASA's public education program. We are more closely
monitoring WASA's activities' to ensure that system-wide notices
effectively inform customers about the lead risk and we will ensure
that information provided in WASA's next Consumer Confidence Report to
customers is clear with respect to information about lead levels in
drinking water. WASA has been directed to submit an Enhanced Public
Education Plan by May 21, 2004.
We are also taking our own actions to provide information to the
public. EPA Region III dispatched community outreach specialists to
provide information and get input on the lead issue from community
groups and individual residents in the District. We continue to provide
information on our Regional and National web sites and the National
Safe Drinking Water Hotline. We have provided public service
announcements, in English and Spanish, to media outlets in the
Washington, DC area and have held or participated in 10 public meetings
since early February. We have also been meeting with a coalition of
environmental and consumer groups--the Lead Emergency Action for the
District (LEAD) coalition, to both hear their concerns and to identify
how to better communicate with the general public.
Question 2a. How was it that the EPA was able to identify these
incidents of non-compliance [with respect to public education] 2 years
after the fact but failed to identify them at the time they mattered
most--when the public needed to have accurate information about the
potential risks associated with lead contaminated drinking water?
Response. The technical staff in EPA Region III were focused on
solving the problem of elevated lead levels. Staff noted that, public
education activities were undertaken by WASA, but did not conduct a
detailed review of the public service announcement. After the lead
problem was observed to be more widespread, additional staff were
assigned to perform an audit of all of WASA's public education
materials and actions. This group conducted an onsite file review of
WASA's records in March, 2004. The review team identified several
potential violations which were outlined in a March 31, 2004 ``show
cause'' letter from the Region to WASA and an information request
letter to determine if there are any additional violations. The audit
is ongoing.
As Regional Administrator Welsh mentioned in his testimony,
standard procedures for handling and reviewing WASA's, as well as the
Washington Aqueduct's compliance documentation have been revised. This
was done to ensure that more detailed reviews of relevant materials are
conducted by staff from the program office as well as the enforcement
office. Public education materials will also be reviewed by those with
experience in public outreach, writing and education to help ensure
that WASA's outreach and education materials' are sufficient to gain
the attention of customers so that they may take appropriate actions to
reduce their exposure risks to lead or other contaminants.
Question 2b. How can you provide this Committee and the American
people with any true assurances that our environmental laws are being
enforced given the Agency's record on enforcement of environmental laws
under this Administration, and the Agency's performance on this DC lead
issue?
Response. EPA continues to work with our State partners to take
appropriate steps to ensure that public health is protected. With
respect to the provision of safe drinking water, this is accomplished
by enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act and its implementing
regulations; including the use of EPA's authority under the Act to
address situations that may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health. In fiscal year 2003 alone, EPA took 419
formal enforcement actions to address noncompliance by public water
systems. Over the past 6 years, EPA has taken more than 4,000 formal
enforcement actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act (to address
public water systems and underground injection control). EPA also uses
compliance assistance where appropriate as a tool to address drinking
water noncompliance. EPA remains committed to ensuring that clean safe
drinking water is available to every person, every day, no matter where
they are in the Nation.
Regarding lead issues in particular, EPA's enforcement and
compliance assurance program, in Headquarters and in the Regions, is
actively participating in ongoing review of compliance with the Lead
and Copper Rule. EPA Region III is working closely with the District of
Columbia government to ensure that the Water and Sewer Authority takes
appropriate actions to protect public health immediately and to ensure
that their future actions are effective and meet both the intent and
the letter of the regulations. If, at any time, EPA feels that the
current intervention efforts are not working, Region III will issue an
administrative action or take other appropriate action to enforce
public health protections provided by our laws and regulations.
Question 3. Can you describe how the WASA action plan was developed
and is that a public document? What actions will EPA take if WASA
diverts from the contents of the plan and what oversight is the Agency
conducting to ensure that the plan is executed?
Response. On March 4, 2004, EPA Region III issued a letter to the
District of Columbia government listing ten actions that the Region
believed were necessary to (1) reduce the public's risk of lead
exposure, (2) improve the knowledge base on lead levels in tap water by
conducting widespread testing and (3) improve the effectiveness of
public education. The District's City Administrator's office
transmitted a letter to WASA ordering that these ten actions be met and
requiring that WASA submit plans to address each of the ten areas.
Action plans were required to be submitted at different times depending
on the action item to be addressed. WASA has developed and submitted
each of the required plans. The Region and the District of Columbia
have requested further clarification or more details on some of these
plans. The letters and the plans are considered public documents and
are available from EPA Region III's DC lead in drinking water website
located at www.epa.gov/delead.
Question 4. [Re: inaccurate testing instructions from WASA]. Can
you comment on your assessment of the importance of providing residents
with accurate testing instructions and a description of how you have
corrected this problem?
Response. EPA believes that it is critical that WASA provide
accurate sampling instructions to residents. The data generated by this
sampling is used to prioritize lead service line replacements, identify
the people in the ``unknown service line'' category who should receive
water filters and help inform residents about potential exposure. The
data obtained from monitoring conducted using faulty sampling
instructions distributed by WASA in early March 2004 is nearly useless
for the purposes outlined above.
Upon being alerted to errors in the testing instructions, EPA
Region III staff sent e-mail messages on March 11, 2004 to the Deputy
General Manager and to the water quality manager of WASA describing our
concerns. These e-mail messages requested that WASA immediately correct
the instructions, identify who received the incorrect instructions with
their sampling kit and describe a plan to correct the problem. EPA
Region III staff held a conference call with WASA's water quality
manager the following day to discuss the instruction sheet and data
generated with its use. Although the water quality manager was not
involved in this effort, which was managed by a WASA contractor, he
confirmed to EPA Region III staff that WASA would not use these data
for any compliance purposes and that he would work with others within
WASA to identify which residents received sampling kits with the faulty
instructions and send out new kits. The water quality manager sent, via
e-mail, the corrected version of the instruction sheet to review by the
end of the day on March 12, 2004.
On March 16, the Regional Administrator sent a letter documenting
the previous correspondence between his staff and WASA and required
that WASA report back to him on the number of people who had received
sampling kits with faulty instructions. He also requested that WASA
send out new kits to all persons so identified. WASA, in a March 24th
letter to the Region, responded that more than 2,000 residents had
received the faulty instructions and that new sampling kits with the
corrected instructions would be shipped to all of them via UPS by March
27th, with delivery to be completed by the end of the following week.
WASA has since confirmed to the Region that this schedule was met.
Question 5. [Re: Lead service line replacement only required for
public portion]. I am interested in your views on whether public water
systems or private homeowners should bear the responsibility for lead
service line replacement?
Response. Where corrosion control is effective, removal of a lead
service line may be unnecessary. However, when removal of the line does
become necessary, EPA believes that removing the entire service line is
the most prudent approach to assure public health protection. However,
current legal authorities are limited to requiring water utilities that
enter into the lead service line replacement phase of the Lead and
Copper Rule to replace only the portion of the line that is under their
control. The rule does not, however, preclude a utility from replacing
the private portion at no expense to the homeowners if they determine
it is appropriate. Our regulations require a utility to notify property
owners at least 45 days prior to partial line replacement and to offer
to the homeowner the opportunity to replace the private portion of the
line at the same time.
The decision on who should pay for the private portion of the line
replacement is a local, legal and policy decision. The Region knows of
one instance where residents were required to replace their privately
owned portion of the lead service line; at property owners' own
expense. Because its source water chemistry poses challenges in
implementing corrosion control treatment, Madison, Wisconsin began a
program to replace all of the lead service lines in the city. The local
government passed an ordinance that requires the property owner to
replace their privately-owned portion of the service line, at the
property owner's expense, when the water utility replaces the
publically owned portion to ensure that all of the lead service lines
are replaced on an accelerated schedule.
Question 6. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the
Palisades section of Washington, DC. Did anyone here refer to previous
instances of lead contamination in the District when formulating a
response plan? If so, please describe how you used this information,
and if not, why not?
Response. None of the staff working on this issue in EPA Region III
were in the drinking water program in 1986. Our records for that time
period have been archived or destroyed according to EPA records
management protocols. As a result, current staff had no knowledge of
the 1986 incidents related to lead in the tap water within the
Palisades area of the District. The Regional Administrator has asked
his staff to research this incident to determine if there are any
lessons to be learned from it.
______
Responses by Donald Welsh to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. In testimony, you suggested that EPA would like to
judge more accurately whether public messages are received about the
risks of lead contamination in drinking water. You alluded to
professional marketing practices for measuring the effectiveness of
commercials and other advertisements. What measures such as this have
you identified?
Response. At the request of the Regional Administrator, EPA staff
conducted a review of the education and outreach activities which
occurred in response to elevated levels of lead in the District's
drinking water during 2002 and 2003. The report is entitled
``Recommendations for Improving the Washington DC Water and Sewer
Authority Lead in Drinking Water Public Education Program.'' It was
transmitted to WASA on May 6, 2004 and made available to the public
through our Internet site.
The review was undertaken to advise the Regional Administrator of
potential areas for improvement by both WASA and EPA so that our
agencies may implement the most effective outreach and education
programs on the important issue of safe drinking water. The report was
prepared by a team from various offices of EPA with expertise in
drinking water on technical and regulatory issues, as well as outreach,
education and risk communication. The report identified several steps
that WASA can take to move toward more effective public education and
outreach on the subject of lead in drinking water. In carrying out
research for this report, we gathered input through interviews
conducted with District of Columbia residents on their impressions of
WASA's public education efforts and how best to reach them through a
revamped education program.
A major recommendation in this report was that, in addition to
following mandatory requirements and making use of EPA guidance, WASA
should hire internal or consultant expertise in the areas of marketing
research and risk communications. This expertise is needed to help the
utility in assessing the audience to be reached, making recommendations
for design and content of materials to be used, as well as delivery
methods. The authors also suggested that these consultants assist with
conducting a communications audit, developing a strategic
communications plan and creating a tracking/measurement tool to assess
the effectiveness of education efforts. Additionally, use of an outside
consultant may help at least partially address the trust factor
mentioned by some of those interviewed.
These recommendations should be viewed as a key input to WASA's
continuing efforts to plan and carry out enhancements to drinking water
education efforts both for regulatory compliance and ``beyond
compliance'' efforts.
In order to have a clear path for the future, we requested that
WASA prepare an Enhanced Public Education Plan in one central document
to be submitted to EPA by May 21, 2004. We suggested that the Enhanced
Plan incorporate the input of the report, as well as other
recommendations that have been made as an outcome of other reviews and
internal WASA reviews.
Question 2. What is the status of the Lead Safety DC program, which
you mentioned in testimony? You described the program as an outgrowth
of a pilot project in Philadelphia called Lead Safe Babies.
Response. The Region has created a new program with the National
Nursing Centers Consortium, called Lead Safe D.C., at an initial cost
of $100,000, to bring lead education information, home visits and blood
level testing to District neighborhoods. The consortium is the Nation's
only network of nurse-managed community healthcare centers, and has
enjoyed great success with a similar lead information program with EPA
in the city of Philadelphia.
The Lead Safe Babies (LSB) pilot served approximately 100 new/
pregnant mothers in North Philadelphia on the issues of lead poisoning
prevention. The program consisted of an initial home visit where the
care taker is given a pre-test knowledge questionnaire, and
clarification and/or additional education is provided regarding lead
poisoning prevention. The visit includes detailed education about
preventing lead poisoning; including but not limited to, the importance
of hand washing, washing toys, house cleaning for lead dust, avoiding
peeling paint, and good nutrition. When the child is approximately 8
months old, a second home visit is conducted where a post-test
knowledge questionnaire is given to determine the knowledge retained by
the care taker and to encourage initial blood lead testing for the
child and each year subsequently until their sixth birthday. Due to the
success of the pilot, another grant was awarded that expanded LSB to
all of Philadelphia with an emphasis on high risk zip codes.
In 2002, the LSB program was expanded to five additional counties
in Pennsylvania and the NNCC conducted an analysis of the effectiveness
of the LSB program so that the program could be improved and easily
adopted by community organizations. The analysis of the program showed
that the average blood lead levels of children in the LSB program were
much lower than compared to the average blood lead level of children in
the same census tracts. An analysis of the LSB Program shows that in
the four participating health care centers, the average LSB blood lead
level ranged from 3.7 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) to 9.5 ug/dL on
the first test (at approximately 8 months of age) as compared to
neighborhood averages (neighborhood where the centers are located) of
16.56 ug/dL to 24.10 ug/dL. The second test is conducted at 2 years of
age when children are more mobile and are at increased risk for
exposure to lead. There were only two centers that had enough data from
the second tests to show results which indicated that there was an
average of 10 ug/dL to 10.75 ug/dL for LSB program children versus
14.72 ug/dL to 15.42 ug/dl for the neighborhood.
To date the LSB program has served over 1,100 at-risk infants. Last
year, the Centers for Disease Control awarded the city of Philadelphia
along with NNCC and its member nurse-managed facilities funding to
continue in home visits to approximately 1250 mothers in the
Philadelphia area. The LSB materials have also been translated into
Spanish. We look forward to bringing the program to the District and
hope to achieve similar levels of success.
Question 3. You testified to the need for better teamwork if the
Lead and Copper Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your
agency and the other authorized agencies are working very closely in
what has become a closely-scrutinized effort, what improvements in
teamwork have you leanred? Also, how will you change routine procedures
for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water
system returns below the action levels?
Response. We learned that, internally, EPA can improve our
oversight of the District's water supplies by better utilization of our
resources and by involving expertise from elsewhere within the Agency.
This expertise should be tapped even when monitored parameters are
within acceptable ranges. As mentioned in previous testimony, internal
procedures in EPA Region III have been changed so that data and
compliance reports are reviewed and tracked by several technical staff
rather than one program manager. Education and outreach materials are
being reviewed by communications and public relations staff members.
WASA has agreed to share their materials in draft form so that EPA
can review outreach documents and offer suggestions not only on
compliance with the regulations, but on clear, concise messages related
to obtaining the public's attention. My staff have already begun the
process of gathering input from State agency staff who deal with many
public water supplies and have decades of experience in monitoring
normal water supply operation parameters. We have improved our
coordination and communication on drinking water issues with the
District Department of Health, WASA, and the Aqueduct, and have
committed to maintain this closer relationship. We have also learned
how important it is to get local community groups involved early in any
issue affecting the general public, whether it is EPA or WASA garnering
their involvement.
__________
Statement of Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager, District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, Washington, DC
Good afternoon, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Graham and other
members of the Committee. Good afternoon, Chairman Crapo, Ranking
Member Graham and other members of the Committee.
Thank you for your invitation to the Authority to provide
information to the Subcommittee on the exceedance in the District of
Columbia of the action level under the Lead and Copper Rule.
I am Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager of the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, and I am accompanied by the Authority Chief
Engineer and Deputy General Manager, Michael Marcotte.
I know that you have many questions, so I will be very brief.
Providing high quality services under the Safe Drinking Water Act for
people who live in, work in and visit this city, has been, and
continues to be our top priority.
WASA'S MISSION
The Board of Directors only recently updated WASA's Strategic Plan
for 2003 through 2005.
WASA's vision of its future is to be the industry leader and
environmental steward in providing excellent water service and
wastewater collection and treatment services for all customers.
The mission of WASA is to serve all it regional customers with
superior service by operating reliable and cost effective water and
wastewater services in accordance with best practices.
Among our values are to be respectful and sensitive to the needs of
our customers, ethical in professional and personal conduct, and
committed to equity, trust and integrity in all that we do.
In facing the current challenge, we pledge every effort to: (1)
understand the phenomenon of increased levels of lead concentration in
certain households; (2) allocate the necessary resources and work with
the District government and our partner agencies to address the
problem; (3) be candid with the public and with you about the
information we have and about our plans.
WASA'S HISTORY, GOVERNANCE, AND OPERATIONS
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, or ``WASA'',
was created as an independent agency of the District of Columbia in
1996 following an extended period of disinvestments in the critical
infrastructure serving the District and the diversion of over $80
million in water and sewer ratepayer enterprise funds for unrelated
expenditures.
WASA is an independent, quasi-governmental regional entity that is
governed by an eleven-member board of directors that is appointed by
the Mayor of Washington, DC and confirmed by the District of Columbia
Council. Six of the Board members, including its chairman, are District
residents chosen by the Mayor. Five members, though named by the Mayor,
are selected by the county executives from surrounding jurisdictions.
WASA's Board has fiduciary responsibility for the Authority, which
has independent bond authority and a ``double A'' bond rating. In
fiscal year 2003, operating revenues totaled approximately $255
million. Capital expenditures reached approximately $200 million for
the year, and are part of a $1.8 billion 10-year capital reinvestment
infrastructure program.
WASA provides wastewater treatment services for the District of
Columbia, and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland, as
well as portions of Loudon and Fairfax Counties in Virginia at Blue
Plains, the largest advanced wastewater treatment plant in the world.
WASA also operates the District of Columbia's 1800-mile storm water and
wastewater collection systems.
As you know, WASA purchases treated drinking water from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Washington Aqueduct for delivery through the
District's 1300 mile distribution system to retail customers in the
District of Columbia.
DISTRICT HISTORY IN EXCEEDING THE LEAD & COPPER RULE
Since 1991 when EPA promulgated the current Lead and Copper Rule,
the District of Columbia, like other municipalities, routinely tested
water for lead concentrations in a small number of homes.
The District of Columbia exceeded the action level in the period
1993-1994, and WASA's predecessor agency began taking steps to address
the chemical makeup of the drinking water.
The Washington Aqueduct implemented a corrosion control regime that
alleviated the problem of lead leaching in 1994, and lead levels
remained below the action level for several years. The EPA
conditionally approved the corrosion control approach in 1997.
When WASA began its operations in 1997, annual compliance testing
from 1996 through 2001 indicated that DC did not exceed the action
level. In fact, in 1999, the EPA offered, and WASA accepted, a reduced
regular sampling program. As a consequence, the number of samples
required for compliance monitoring was reduced to 50 households sampled
annually.
THE RECENT EXCEEDANCE
In May 2002, EPA approved the revised optimum corrosion control
program.
In August 2002, WASA provided the official notice to the EPA that
for the first time since WASA was created, but the second time since
1993-1994, water in the District exceeded what is now well known, but
still sometimes misunderstood, the ``action level''.
The action level is a regulatory trigger of 15 ppb that no more
than 10 percent of the samples can exceed. The 50 samples taken in the
District for that compliance period included 23 samples over 15 ppb.
EPA then requires that a utility take three basic steps until there
is a reduction in the number of samples that test above 15 ppb to fewer
than 10 percent of the total: (1) begin a public education campaign to
inform the public about lead as an environmental contaminant; (2) begin
a program to replace or test 7 percent of the public section of the
known inventory of lead service line pipes that take water from the
public water mains to the individual properties; and (3) undertake
immediate steps to achieve optimum corrosion control of the treated
water.
STEPS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE (2002-2003)
WASA is a regulated utility, and it is accountable not only to the
customers and broader public that we serve, but to the Board of
Directors, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The District of
Columbia Council also maintains legislative oversight over WASA.
I believe the culture of this organization is one that is
consistent with the mission statement I shared with you earlier.
Clearly, there are also a number of entities to which we are
accountable and which share this common interest.
In this regulated environment, as in all others, every locality is
in some respects unique. We've worked hard to make sure our regulators
understand the specific operational challenges we confront. We share
information, we ask questions, we seek guidance and instruction, and
then we take what we understand to be appropriate action with the full
knowledge of the regulator. Again, regulatory compliance is of
paramount concern. We undertook a serious effort to ensure compliance
under the Lead and Copper Rule in 2002. As a consequence, in:
<bullet> August 2002--WASA determined/reports to EPA that action
level was exceeded;
<bullet> October 2002--DCWASA/DCDOH jointly release ``Living Lead
Free in DC;'' Brochure is delivered to customers and editorial
departments of Washington Post and Washington Times, as required (at
this time, WASA was not issuing monthly bills);
<bullet> October 2002--WASA releases Public Service Announcement
raising awareness and encouraging testing;
<bullet> June 2003--EPA approves first year of replacement program,
but changes compliance date from 12/31/03 to 9/30/03;
<bullet> June 2003--WASA's 2002 Drinking Water Quality Report
includes information on lead monitoring and exceedance (language
approved by EPA);
<bullet> July-October 2003--WASA begins intensive sampling program
to accompany the first 400 physical replacements undertaken within
timeframe that was shortened by EPA;
<bullet> August 2003--``What's on Tap'' Customer Newsletter
contains focus on lead;
<bullet> September 2003--Initial program year completed with 1615
services replaced or cleared by sampling;
<bullet> September 2003--``An Information Guide on Lead in Drinking
Water'' developed by WASA and EPA and distributed by WASA in two
languages (schools, clinics, libraries, ANC Chairs, DCDOH);
<bullet> September 2003--WASA again releases public service
announcement encouraging testing;
<bullet> October 2003--Washington Post advertisement: ``WASA and
EPA recommend that you have your water tested for lead''; and
<bullet> December 2003--Meeting held by WASA to discuss projects
funded by Safe Drinking Water Act, including lead replacement program.
OPTIMAL CORROSION CONTROL
Apart from the gradual replacement program, and the public
education program, reducing the corrosivity of treated water is a
principal objective of a water utility once the action level has been
exceeded. WASA, in conjunction with the Washington Aqueduct and the EPA
has pursued this goal.
Optimizing corrosion control in the treatment process has, and
continues to be the critical next step in addressing this issue.
I am very pleased to report that there has been measurable progress
on that front. There is now a draft plan that is being circulated for a
15-day comment period. Consensus on this draft plan will lead to
concrete steps that can be taken in the treatment process within the
next few months and into the fall.
STEPS TAKEN BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE
The Water and Sewer Authority, however, went beyond the
requirements of the regulation, principally by working directly with
customers. This effort resulted in our responding openly to many
individual inquiries, but also to our responding to media inquiries,
requests for participation in community meetings and to participation
in some of the active community listserves. Specifically, in:
<bullet> October 2002--Responded to media inquiries on the
exceedance (Washington City Paper, article, ``The District Line--
Plumbing the Depths'');
<bullet> October 2002--WASA notifies DCDOH that action level was
exceeded;
<bullet> January 2003--Lead Services Hotline begins--providing
specific information to customers;
<bullet> February 2003--Written communication to Mayor and all DC
Council members advising of likelihood of constituent calls that result
from lead replacements;
<bullet> March 2003--WASA sends letter of notice of replacement
program and an invitation to meet and discus with WASA (transportation
provided) to Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner chairs and civic
association leaders;
<bullet> May 2003--WASA holds two community meetings on lead
replacement program;
<bullet> November/December 2003--Three neighborhood meetings held
by DCWASA to discuss replacement program;
<bullet> December 2003--Meeting held by WASA to discuss projects
funded by Safe Drinking Water Act, including lead replacement program;
<bullet> December 2003--Full summary of 2003 test results compiled
by DCWASA; and
<bullet> December 2003--WASA requests that DCDOH provide additional
assistance.
Starting in April 2003, between 14,000 and 15,000 WASA customers
were contacted and solicited to participate in the sampling program to
test the concentration of lead in the water at the tap. Sampling was
undertaken by volunteers (residents), and no customers were forced to
participate in the program.
Initially the customers were contacted by mail. After an initial
low response, customers were offered a $25 incentive to participate.
From April 2003 through September 30, 2003, about 3200 customers were
contacted by telephone. Approximately 11,000 sampling kits were sent to
customers by Federal Express through September 2003.
Lead Services Sampling Program 2003--Direct WASA Customer Contacts
[Direct WASA Customer Contacts]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Letters/No Incentive................................ 8,000
Sample Letter/Incentive ($25-$50).......................... 6,000
Phone Solicitation......................................... 3,200*
Sample Kits Shipped by Fed Ex.............................. 11,000
Approx. Total Contacted.................................... 14,800
Total Samples.......................................... 6,131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Partial overlap w/letters.
By the end of 2003, WASA had also created a customer e-mail
account, wqp2003@dcwasa.com, for customers to make inquiries and
express concerns. WASA also implemented extended call center hours in
September 2003 to include Saturdays.
MULTIPLE LEAD SERVICES REPLACEMENT PROGRAM INQUIRIES
On March 4, 2004, the DCWASA Board of Directors announced that it
has retained a law firm to investigate WASA's management of elevated
lead level sampling and notification. The investigation will be
conducted by Covington & Burling, an internationally recognized law
firm headquartered in Washington, DC. Heading the investigation is
Covington partner Eric H. Holder, Jr., the former U. S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia and former Deputy Attorney General of the
United States. The investigation is expected to be completed and
results published in the first weeks of May.
The other inquiries of which we are aware, include the:
<bullet> U.S. General Accounting Office;
<bullet> District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General;
<bullet> District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and
the Environment;
<bullet> House Committee on Government Reform; and
<bullet> House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials.
The Authority continues to believe that it took appropriate steps
to comply with the Lead and Copper Rule. Our efforts took place as we
continued our efforts to consult with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the District of Columbia Department of Health.
We have, none-the-less, been severely criticized by some public
official and citizens. We acknowledge this criticism, and it is our
obligation to listen and to understand.
We await the outcome of each of these inquiries, and we are
prepared, speaking on behalf of the management and the Board of
Directors in this instance, take whatever actions are appropriate.
CONTINUING COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman and every other member of this
committee that with this, as on any other challenge this relatively
young agency has been confronted with, we seek to learn from the past
and continually improve our services.
Building and maintaining public confidence in this vital service
with which we have been entrusted on a continual basis must be an
integral part of what we do.
In the past 10 weeks:
WASA has shipped filters to every residence that is believed based
on our records to have a lead service line pipe. This latest step was
undertaken in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency and
Mayor Anthony Williams.
WASA will also supply replacement cartridges.
On Saturday, February 14th, working closely with the District of
Columbia public schools we tested all of the District's public
schools--an extra precaution even though we believe the pipes leading
into the schools are lead free. WASA has trained DC Public School staff
to conduct another round of public school tests which is underway.
I recommended and the Board of Directors supported a decision to
increase the number of lead service pipes in public space that we
replace this year by more than 500. These physical replacements will be
at properties with the highest concentrations and where a pregnant
woman or where a child under the age of six lives.
The Board approved a resolution and is distributing for public
comment new steps it may take to address this issue in the long term.
Two examples include the question of replacing lead service lines in
public space with a timetable that goes beyond the requirements of the
EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, and the difficult challenge of financing
the replacement of service lines in private space.
The Lead Services Hotline, a program that EPA did not require, was
initiated in January 2003 to facilitate direct communications with our
customers. Since February 5, we expanded with more personnel allowing
us to staff the operation for 12 hours Monday through Friday and for 9
hours on weekends. Since February 4, 2004 the Hotline received 45,746
calls, and 6,233 e-mail messages. We have shipped over 19,000 test
kits.
A summary of the 2004 Sampling Program results is attached, for
your information. We have now conducted a total of over 11,000 tests of
water provided by our customers, and we are processing several thousand
more results in a much-improved process that minimizes customer
inconvenience.
As you may know, Mayor Williams established and co-chairs with the
DC Council Committee on Public Works and the Environment Chairman,
Carol Schwartz, an Interagency Task Force. This body has been
enormously helpful in coordinating the efforts of District agencies in
response to this challenge.
We have worked closely with the District of Columbia Emergency
Management Agency and Department of Health. WASA is, for example,
providing DC DOH with $1.5 million in expenses for the DOH blood lead-
level testing program and associated activities to improve their data
processing systems. WASA has budgeted $1.7 million for WASA, DOH and
other joint outreach/communications initiatives, excluding $1.5 million
for expanded Lead Services Hotline command center operations.
WASA is continuing our efforts to communicate effectively with our
customers and the general public. We continue to update our web site,
www.dcwasa.com, which is averaging over 1,700 visits daily. Our April
customer newsletter, What's On Tap, includes information on lead, our
flushing advice, as well as the annual distribution system citywide
flushing program. This newsletter is distributed to between 125,00 and
130,000 customers, and the March and April editions both focus on the
lead issue.
Since February, we sponsored about ten joint meetings with the
Department of Health and the Washington Aqueduct all across the city.
These meetings have been advertised and nearly 1,000 residents have
attended these WASA sponsored events. WASA has also participated in
many civic group meetings to discuss the lead issue.
In early February, WASA sent over 300,000 letters in English and
Spanish with information to every address in the District of Columbia.
This letter included a DOH Fact Sheet, again in Spanish and English,
general information on the subject of lead in water, as well as
precautions for potentially affected properties. This letter was mailed
in a specially printed envelope with a large letter message printed on
the front (``Please Read: Important Lead Information'').
RECENT OUTREACH EFFORTS
Our work continues as we speak, Mr. Chairman. The last two editions
of the WASA customer newsletter, ``What's On Tap'' (March and April),
have also been devoted to this issue.
WASA is currently contacting by mail the residents that reside in
homes that are believed served by a lead service line pipe. We are
providing up to date information on service line pipe flushing. The
letter also urges those that have not yet had their tap water tested to
use our testing process at no cost to the individual customer.
Similarly, we are contacting the residents who live in properties
for which the WASA customer information system has no record for
service line pipe material. As you may know, the only way to determine
the service line pipe material with certainty at this time is to dig it
up.
Finally, WASA has also reached a preliminary agreement with the
George Washington University School of Public Health Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health to provide the Authority with
assistance and advice on lead in drinking water issues.
ADDRESSES WITH NO RECORD OF SERVICE LINE PIPE MATERIAL
The Authority has been working to more carefully define and fine-
tune our initial inventory of properties that rely upon a lead service
line pipe. You may know of the Weston Study, undertaken in 1990 by the
District, and which was used by WASA and EPA to establish the initial
inventory of addresses with likely lead service line pipes. WASA has
accelerated efforts to gather all the information available to us on
addresses that may be served by a lead pipe, but the Weston Study
provides the only estimate of the overall number of lead service lines
in the District.
It is our continuing challenge to refine our information and the
specific addresses that are most likely among those with lead services.
There have been media reports that there are as many as 40,000 to
50,000 addresses with no record of a pipe material. Those numbers are
greatly exaggerated.
WASA is now contacting by mail the approximately 21,000 customers
at addresses for which we have no record of a pipe material. We are
urging them to use our testing program to sample their tap water,
recognizing that a number have already been sent test kits. We are also
urging those residents to take the same precautions as residents with
known lead service line pipes--following the flushing recommendations.
WASA is also undertaking some test ``dig-ups'' where test results
suggest the presence of a lead service line, and we are now developing
an appropriate plan to provide filters to additional properties that
are likely relying upon lead services, and we will work with these
customers and the Task Force in the coming weeks on any related issues.
On Friday, April 2, 2004, the Board of Directors approved a
resolution that addresses future WASA policy with respect to the
replacement of lead service lines, separate and apart from the EPA
requirements. The Board has planned three community meetings in the
next few weeks in order to obtain community comment on this topic.
Earlier I mentioned the number of public meetings we have
participated in and hosted. Since February, the Board has also
conducted four media briefings. We appeared at the House Government
Reform Committee hearing, four DC Council hearings, twice weekly
Mayoral Press Briefings and three congressional staff briefings. As I
hope you can see, the Water and Sewer Authority is actively engaged, we
are continuing to learn, we are sharing information, and working hard
to openly communicate in an environment that has been especially
challenging.
Each one of these appearances is another opportunity to share facts
and improve public understanding of a fairly complex set of health,
regulatory, engineering, chemistry and policy issues.
On behalf of the Authority and its Board of Directors, I wish to
express our appreciation for this Committee's interest and contribution
to this effort.
We will be happy to respond to any questions.
______
Responses by Jerry N. Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents--If I had only
known, I could have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the
witnesses at the table to tell me how you are responding to this
question--what explanation are you giving to parents whose children who
were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking water and
what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of
Washington, DC?
Response. The Water and Sewer Authority's highest priority has been
and continues to be to ensure that it delivers safe and high quality
drinking water to residents and visitors to the District of Columbia.
The Lead and Copper Rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth, in
detail, the type and form of information that the EPA deemed
appropriate to disseminate to the public. WASA followed the guidelines
of the public education program set forth in the Lead and Copper Rule.
In February of 2004 it became clear that the proscribed public
education program did not reach all residents.
Following is a summary of the type of information we continue to
share with the public, particularly populations believed to be most
susceptible to harmful lead exposure.
In 2002, the results of EPA required annual compliance sample
testing, indicated that the ``action level''--a regulatory trigger that
informs water authorities that optimum corrosion control is not being
achieved--had been exceeded. The data was provided in a timely manner
to the Environmental Protection Agency as required under the Lead and
Copper Rule. In fact, the information was provided informally 3 months
prior to the end of the compliance reporting period. The DC Department
of Health was also notified. The exceedance of the action level
indicated that the Water and Sewer Authority should begin:
<bullet> working with the EPA and the Washington Aqueduct to
achieve optimum corrosion control (WASA is a customer of the Aqueduct--
buying water for retail distribution to consumers in the District of
Columbia);
<bullet> a program of public education about the hazards of
environmental lead exposure from water and other sources;
<bullet> a program to replace (or test to clear) 7 percent of the
lead service line pipes in public space yearly until the action level
was no longer exceeded, and;
<bullet> implement an expanded compliance monitoring program.
WASA worked with the District of Columbia Department of Health to
develop and widely distribute a brochure that provided information to
residents about the risks associated with environmental lead exposure,
including lead concentrations in water. WASA also distributed public
service announcements and prepared pamphlets in English and Spanish
providing information to populations at greatest risk, including
information on flushing, tap water testing, and other information; all
in accordance with the proscribed EPA public education program. WASA
conducted several informational meetings throughout 2003 designed to
increase WASA's outreach.
In 2004, WASA significantly expanded its outreach program. High-
level managers have attended countless public meetings, answering
questions and disseminating information. WASA has been working with the
media (including seeking many corrections) in an attempt to make sure
correct and helpful information is published. WASA has written and
submitted for publication articles and letters to the editor.
WASA has continued its free testing program--any single-family
residence in the District may have its water tested for lead
concentrations. WASA has sent letters to all addresses believed to have
a lead service line, encouraging participation in the sample testing
program, and alerting them to the flushing procedures. Property owners
for which we have no information on service line pipe material have
also been contacted and provided the same information.
WASA has distributed water filters to residences that we believe
are likely to have a lead service line pipe. Any residence that
participates in the sample test program with a test result that exceeds
15 ppb will be sent a filter. WASA intends to continue its filter
program until at least next spring.
WASA has retained and is working with a national expert on
corrosion control. WASA has participated in the Aqueduct's planning for
a treatment approach to reduce the corrosivity of the water.
Also in 2004, out of an abundance of caution, and before the blood
level testing had yielded significant data, the Department of Health
advised pregnant or nursing women and children under six with a lead
service line to avoid drinking unfiltered water. The District of
Columbia Department of Health has conducted over 5000 blood level
tests, including over 1,500 tests of the targeted population. Thus far,
the test results indicate that there has been no general increase in
elevated blood levels in the population. Also, for those households
that have undergone environmental assessments where a very limited
number of individuals have been found to have registered elevated blood
lead levels, other significant environmental exposures (paint and dust)
exist.
Consistent with Department of Health findings and conclusions
announced to date, Dr. Tee Guidotti, Professor and Chair of the
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public
Health and Health Services, and Director, Division of Occupational
Medicine and Toxicology School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The
George Washington University Medical Center, has advised the Water and
Sewer Authority that children who already have a body burden of, BPb
>10 g/dL are most susceptible to harm from heightened levels of lead.
Dr. Guidotti has also indicated that:
<bullet> Drinking water is at most a minor source of lead for
children (seven percent of total exposure for toddlers, children aged 2
years);
<bullet> Concentration in water does not translate directly in BPb;
<bullet> EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake and BioKinetic Model
predicted that BPb in infants exceeded 10 g/dL only when 100 percent
of water consumed contained 100 ppb on a sustained basis; and
<bullet> A discernable effect on BPb of children requires at least
sustained levels of 300 ppb.
WASA is moving forward with its lead line replacement program. By
September 30, 2004, WASA will have physically replaced over 1,600 lead
service line pipes in public space in the District. WASA's Board of
Directors is considering a plan to increase the pace of the service
line replacement--more than doubling the amount that will be replaced
yearly.
Question 2. I am pleased that WASA has hired a George Washington
University toxicology team to advise the agency. Does this team contain
anyone with pediatric experience on this team or anyone with risk
communication experience and if not, why not? Will this group be a
permanent part of WASA and what role with this group play in your day-
to-day operations?
Response. Dr. Tee Guidotti is the Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic
Center for Children's Health and the Environment, a pediatric
environmental health specialty unit. The team of professionals working
with WASA from the George Washington University team also includes
individuals with experience in risk communication. Members of the team
participate in weekly meetings with WASA executive management. They
also participate in select community and interagency meetings involving
the local and Federal Government officials. The partnership with the
University is on a contractual basis, and the Board of Director's has
not yet determined that a permanent engagement is required.
Question 3. WASA recently undertook a program to replace aging
water meters. Can you describe this program for me, indicate if you
installed lead-free water meters, and indicate if WASA uses lead-free
parts when replacing parts throughout its system? In addition, have you
cross-referenced your data for those homes with high lead levels and
those that have received a new meter, and if so, what are your
conclusions?
Response. The meter replacement program installations total 110,047
of 124,298 meters through March 2004. The meters are certified lead
free by the manufacturer, consistent with EPA requirements. Any contact
with the service line during the installation would be unusual. The
installation of the meters does not require direct contact with the
service line pipe because the old meters are removed from and the new
meters are placed on a parabola-shaped meter ``setter'' that ties into
either end of the service line pipe. Also, the fact that ten of the 25
compliance samples taken in the first half of the compliance year 2001-
2002 exceeded 15 ppb clearly indicates that the meter replacement
program is not related to the exceedance because this sampling was
completed about 6 months before the meter replacement program began.
Question 4. I know people who have homes with elevated lead levels,
but not above 15 parts per billion. I know people who have homes with
elevated lead levels well above 15 parts per billion who are not on
your inventory of ``known lead service lines.'' Given what we know
about the harmful effects of lead, what is WASA and the DC Department
of Health doing to help those residents take appropriate health
precautions?
Response. The EPA has indicated that 15 ppb is not a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) indicating the highest level of an contaminant
that is allowed in drinking water, nor is it a maximum contaminant
level goal (MCLG), the level of a contaminant in water below which
there is no known or expected risk to health. Rather, it is a an
``action level''. An action level is a concentration of a contaminant
that, if exceeded, triggers actions a water system must undertake.
Sample test results that exceed 15 ppb do not indicate that a
service line pipe is necessarily made of lead, just as a test result
that is below 15 ppb does not necessarily mean that a service line pipe
is made of a non-lead material. WASA continues to work to provide
accurate information, address public concern and to correct
misinformation. For example:
<bullet> Any resident who is concerned about lead water
concentrations is encouraged to use a flushing protocol, and this
information has been repeated on a monthly basis in the customer
newsletters, frequent media briefings, and dozens of community
meetings, hearings, and community newspaper ads.
<bullet> Pregnant and nursing women and children under six have
been advised to avoid drinking unfiltered water if they have reason to
believe that they may have a lead service line.
<bullet> WASA has directly and strongly encouraged households with
a lead service line to participate in the sampling program.
<bullet> Residences for which we have no record of a pipe material
have been contacted directly, and encouraged to participate in the
sampling program.
<bullet> Despite the fact that 15 ppb is not a health standard,
WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to any residence
that participates in the sampling program and tests above 15 ppb.
<bullet> WASA has participated in over 24 community meetings.
<bullet> WASA continues to share information with the public by
seeking major electronic media interviews.
Question 5. Under current regulations, public water systems are
only responsible for replacing the portion of lead service lines in
public ownership. In replacing lead service lines, is WASA moving the
location of the meter, and if so, how is this affecting the length of
the service line that you are replacing and the associated costs?
Response. WASA is responsible for the maintenance, and replacement
as necessary, of a service line pipe in public space. WASA is not
routinely moving water meters as a part of the physical replacement of
lead service line pipes, and the position of a meter does not affect
our responsibility for maintaining the service line pipe that rests in
public space.
Occasionally, while undertaking other work, WASA determines that a
meter is located in private space and some distance away from the
property line. WASA repositions such meters from a private yard to an
area closer to the property line (usually the sidewalk or ``tree box'')
because it is a sound business practice and a matter of efficiency.
This action helps avoid any potential conflict with a homeowner with
respect to determining responsibility for any water usage (leaks) that
occur on private property, regardless of the location of the meter.
Repositioning the meter, when necessary, also allows WASA to conduct
routine maintenance without entering private property.
Through 2003, WASA's physical replacement program resulted in the
removal of a lead service line pipe in public space, specifically from
the water main in the street to the property line as is consistent with
Federal and local requirements. However, recently WASA has replaced
approximately 400 service lines from the water main up to the next
threaded joint. This practice was adopted in conjunction with the
Department of Health and the EPA, based on the known likelihood of a
temporary spike in lead concentrations in tap water following the
cutting and reattachment of an existing lead pipe at the property line
and its reattachment to a copper pipe in public space. In order to
avoid creating this temporary spike, WASA, pending a new finding by the
Department of Health, will replace a service line from the water main
to the next threaded joint, regardless of the placement of the meter.
Question 6. In your cooperation with the other municipalities you
serve or during the Washington Aqueduct Wholesale Customer Board
Meetings, did you ever discuss with or notify those communities of the
results of your lead testing?
Response. The Water and Sewer Authority is the retail distributor
of water to residents of the District of Columbia. WASA does not
provide retail water services to suburban jurisdictions. The suburban
jurisdictions, like WASA, are direct wholesale customers of the
Washington Aqueduct. In the fall of 2002, following the trigger of the
action level, there were discussions with EPA and the Aqueduct
regarding a study of the optimal corrosion control methodology and why
it was no longer being achieved.
Question 7. Several weeks ago, I notified the EPA that several
residents of the District had received inaccurate testing instructions
from WASA. It seems to me that incorrect testing instructions could
invalidate the entire sampling plan that WASA had in place before the
lead was identified and the entire sampling plan that is ongoing to
further evaluate the severity of the lead crisis in DC. Can each of you
comment on your assessment of the importance of providing residents
with accurate testing instructions and a description of how you have
corrected this problem?
Response. Clearly, it is important to provide clear instructions to
ensure adherence to any testing protocol. The Lead and Copper Rule does
not, and prior to your inquiry EPA did not provide specific direction
with respect to the protocol or the instructions for the non-compliance
sampling program. Because this is an important issue, WASA has modified
these instructions in response to questions or concerns, including
concerns expressed by non-compliance sampling program participants, in
order to make them clearer and more understandable.
Specifically, we have modified in conjunction with the EPA the
instruction that you believe may have caused confusion has been
modified. Participants who received that instruction sheet have been
asked to submit new samples.
With respect to the validity of the compliance sample tests, the
instruction item about which your office inquired is relevant only to
the second draw sample that is part of the free sampling program
offered to District residents. It was not pertinent to the Lead and
Copper Rule compliance sampling program in effect prior to or following
the District's exceedance of the action level.
In the current compliance year, the test results have been used to
help determine the potential need to take steps to limit potential
exposure. For example, any residence with a test result that exceeds
the regulatory action level of 15 ppb receives a water filter and
replacement cartridges.
Question 8. Can you describe exactly why you believe that lead
contamination in drinking water in apartment buildings is not a problem
and what evidence you have to support that claim?
Response. WASA's policy is to replace service lines for multi-
family units that are known to be lead as a high priority. However,
WASA's best information is that larger multi-family properties are
served by service line pipes that exceed 2 inches in diameter. Lead
pipes are very malleable but have very thick-walled cylinders with
small diameter interiors, and are therefore, a poor choice for uses
that require the deliver of large amounts of water to a large multi-
family dwelling or commercial property.
The principal concern for larger properties (those bigger than a
single-family sized dwelling) are the internal plumbing components
(lead solder in the plumbing or brass fixtures). WASA proposed a test
plan to EPA that will test these assumptions. EPA approved the plan and
WASA has begun implementation of the test plan.
WASA discourages individual tenants from seeking to participate in
the sampling program, but encourages owners or managers of multi-family
units to have their water tested. When an investigation (CIS, Lead
Information System, as-built plans or direct observation) indicates
that the line is likely lead or was unknown, additional steps are
taken. EPA protocols for water sample testing in such facilities are
not the same as those for water utilities under the Lead and Copper
Rule. However, WASA will provide a limited number of sample test kits
in coordination with a building owner or property manager.
Question 9. How is the Action Plan being made available to the
public?
Response. WASA has held 12 community meetings since February, and
participated in as many civic, ANC and other community group meetings.
The District of Columbia Department of Health and the Washington
Aqueduct are usually also represented. WASA also attends Mayor Anthony
Williams' press briefings that have routinely occurred twice weekly.
The steps WASA is taking on the lead services program have also been
noted in the General Manager's Monthly Report to the Board of Directors
and Water and Sewer Authority press notices. Information is routinely
updated on the Authority web site www.dcwasa.com. The lead services
program is routinely on the agendas of the monthly meetings of the
Board of Directors and the Board committee meetings, including
operations, finance and budget and customer. These meetings are open to
the public (calendars and agendas are published). WASA has issued
public service announcements, and is preparing ads for publication in
local community newspapers.
Question 10. I know people who live on Capitol Hill in houses with
elevated lead level, but not above 15 parts-per-billion. The 15 parts
per billion is not a health-based standard. Are you providing filters
to those homes with lead service lines with test results below 15, but
above zero, and if not, why not?
Response. WASA is not providing filters to residences with sample
test results that do exceed 15 ppb. As you may know, lead
concentrations below 2 ppb are not easily measured (non-detectable),
and as you state, 15 ppb is a regulatory trigger, not a health
standard. Fifteen (15) ppb is, therefore, not directly tied to a
specific measure of exposure that is linked directly to health risk.
Also, the second draw service line concentrations suggested in sample
test results may not easily extrapolate into sustained rates of
exposure noted by some public health experts when discussing risks of
environmental lead exposure.
WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to sample
program participants whose tap water sample tests exceed 15 ppb out of
an abundance of caution and an effort to address public concerns.
Question 11. I understand that you are also not providing filters
to those residents whose homes have tested high for lead that are not
in your data base of homes with a confirmed lead service line. Are you
providing filters to those homes that are outside of this data base but
have tested high for lead?
Response. WASA is providing water filters and replacement
cartridges to residences that participate in the sampling program whose
test results exceed 15 ppb, regardless of the service line pipe
material composition.
Question 12. I understand that there is a lack of certainty about
whether or not about 37,000 service lines are lead or not. What are you
doing to eliminate this uncertainty and what are you doing to ensure
that those residents take appropriate health precautions?
Response. The 37,000 estimate reported in the media is inaccurate.
WASA has no information on service line pipe material for approximately
21,000 addresses. Based on experience gained from test pits and
physical public space replacements that allowed actual physical
observation of service line pipes in 2003, the initial inventory, based
principally on the Weston Report, of likely lead service lines is
accurate approximately 80 percent of the time (generally, of 100
service lines identified as lead, 80 of the service lines are actually
made of lead.) WASA does have other sources of information that provide
some data on pipe material. The WASA customer information system
includes a record of pipe material on most but not all of the customer
accounts. This information, again based upon actual physical
observation following an excavation, is accurate about 60 percent of
the time.
At this time, the only means of identifying service line pipe
material with certainty remains direct observation. A WASA consultant
is currently working to develop a technology that will permit WASA to
more accurately identify/confirm service line pipe material without an
excavation. This technology is being field tested over the next 6-12
months. WASA is also investigating other approaches to help identify
service line pipe material more efficiently.
WASA has mailed letters to each of the properties for which we have
no information on service line pipe material. Eve though we expect that
a very small proportion of these addresses actually have lead service
line pipes, we have provided to them the same precautionary information
provided to residences with a lead service line. The letters invited
these residences to participate in the water lead sampling program
(post card requesting UPS delivery of the test kit). These residences
will be sent a filter and replacement cartridges if test results exceed
15 ppb.
Question 13. Can you describe the progress WASA has made sending
out water filters to lead-affected homes? How effective does WASA judge
these filters to actually be in controlling lead exposure for its
customers?
Response. WASA completed the major program to distribute filters to
all households believed to have a lead service line on April 6, 2004.
About 300 of the filters could not be delivered despite a requirement
that UPS attempt three deliveries at each address and obtain a
signature receipt. Filter and replacement cartridge distribution
continue consistent with a distribution plan already discussed.
WASA provides filters that are certified by the National Sanitation
Foundation to adequately address lead water concentrations of 150 ppb,
as noted in the manufacturers' information accompanying the filters.
WASA has provided additional instructions with the filters that
reiterate the flushing instructions to which the Department of Health
and the Environmental Protection Agency have agreed. The filters
together with the proscribed flushing instructions that WASA includes
in the packaging with the filters substantially reduce lead level
concentrations.
Question 14. One of the issues here is who bears the responsibility
to replace lead service lines. Under current regulations, the homeowner
bears the responsibility for the lead service lines between the meter
and the house. This troubles me because it does not seem appropriate
for the ability to pay for this pipe replacement to be the determining
factor in who gets lead-free water. In addition, I know that the city
bore some responsibility in knowingly selecting leaded pipes--I would
like to submit Washington Post stories from 1893 and 1895 discussing
the concerns over lead pipes and their impact on public health. It
appears that over 100 years ago this city knew of the danger and
continued to use lead pipes. I am interested in your views on whether
public water systems or private homeowners should bear the
responsibility for lead service line replacement?
Response. WASA did not exist before 1996, and although its
immediate predecessor, WASUA, was responsible for water distribution
for many years, the division of responsibility between Federal and
local authorities for this function has evolved over time.
Today, WASA is responsible for maintaining the portion of a service
line pipe that rests in public space. The Lead and Copper Rule requires
that WASA replace only the portion of the service line pipe that rests
in public space (specifically addressed in relatively recent local
law). It is important to remember, however, that it is a property owner
that constructs the water service line pipe that must pass through
public space in order to tie a private residence to a public water
main. There are local jurisdictions in the United States that do not
require that the local public water utility exercise responsibility for
this privately constructed and financed component of the infrastructure
that serves only an individual property.
WASA is an independent agency of the District of Columbia. The
Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia exercise legislative
oversight of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, and
have established a very clear policy in this matter. Legislation
recently introduced by District Council member Harold Brazil, would if
approved, provide governmental assistance (general fund) to some
homeowners in replacing lead service line pipes that rest on private
property. The legislation includes income eligibility criteria that
suggest that questions of equity in the allocation of public resources
may be relevant to the discussion.
With respect to the Lead and Copper Rule, careful and complete
implementation of its provisions, regardless of whether the action
level has been exceeded, will not guarantee lead free tap water. Full
compliance with the provisions of the rule, regardless of whether the
action level has been exceeded, should prompt a water system to seek
and maintain optimum corrosion control treatment, or ``OCCT.'' OCCT is
intended to minimize corrosion, and subsequent leaching into tap water
from any pipe material.
Question 15. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the
Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were quoted as saying,
``The runaround has been unbelievable. . . . No one in the bureaucracy
has even begun to take this seriously.'' The Director of water for the
city stated that it was, ``. . . premature to contact residents
throughout the city'' before the city developed a plan to handle and
finance increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several
newspaper articles on this topic into the record. I find it
unbelievable that no one at this witness table learned anything from
this previous experience. Did anyone here refer to previous instances
of lead contamination in the District when formulating a response plan?
If so, please describe how you used this information, and if not, why
not?
Response. After the fact, WASA management was aware of the issues
that arose in 1986 (WASA did not exist until 1996.)
In 2002, the Water and Sewer Authority and the EPA determined that
for the compliance period that ended in 2002, the data from the
compliance samples indicated that the ``action level''--a regulatory
trigger that optimum corrosion control is not being achieved--had been
exceeded. The data was provided in a timely manner to the Environmental
Protection Agency as required under the Lead and Copper Rule. The DC
Department of Health was also notified. The material provisions of the
regulation, and the response by the EPA and local public health
authorities did not indicate that the steps WASA had taken in
implementing a lead services program under the Lead and Copper Rule
were inappropriate. Specifically, the exceedance of the action level
indicated that the Water and Sewer Authority should begin:
<bullet> working with the EPA and the Washington Aqueduct to
achieve optimum corrosion control;
<bullet> a program of public education about the hazards of
environmental lead exposure from water and other sources;
<bullet> a program to replace (or test to clear) 7 percent of the
lead service line pipes in public space yearly until the action level
was no longer exceeded.
Since January 2004, WASA's public education efforts have vastly
expanded, but the newspaper articles to which you refer suggest that
WASA's response to the exceedance in 2003 was very aggressive relative
to those efforts undertaken in 1986. WASA's response was also
undertaken in a different environment (OCCT plan approved by EPA in
2002). The public education materials were shared with regulators in
advance of publication, and in one instance, Living Lead Free In DC,
was prepared in collaboration with the District Department of Health.
WASA also, for example, responded to media inquiries (Washington City
Paper, 10/18-24/2004), published a newspaper ad, participated in
community meetings, and contacted several thousand residents by mail to
solicit their participation in an expanded sampling program.
Question 16. During the hearing, you mentioned that residents who
receive filters would be provided with a 6-month supply. How many
replacement filters does that include and what is the average cost of a
6-month supply?
Response. Two filter cartridges provide a 6-month supply (in excess
of 80 gallons). The cost for two filter cartridges, including shipping,
is approximately $22.
Question 17. What priority system is WASA using to determine which
homes will have lead service lines replaced first, and does that give
consideration to the presence or absence of vulnerable populations such
as pregnant women, infants, and children?
Response. The physical replacement schedule of addresses in 2004
was established in calendar 2003, and was based upon the initial
inventory of lead service line pipes submitted to EPA. The sample data
collected in 2003 had not been analyzed when the schedule for
replacements in 2004 was developed. Among the important factors the
Authority considered included the number of services per block in order
to maximize the number of replacements that could be undertaken while
causing as little disruption of residential traffic and parking
patterns as possible.
WASA has made provision for 500 ``priority'' physical replacements
in 2004. These priority replacements of lead service line pipes in
public space will target day care centers, residences with people
having elevated blood lead levels, and also be based on the presence in
a household of a member of the at risk populations (children under the
age of six and women who are pregnant or nursing). This schedule of
replacements will be selected in coordination with the Department of
Health.
Question 18. What priority system is WASA using to determine which
homes will receive filters, and does that give consideration to the
presence of absence of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women,
infants, and children?
Response. WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to
sample program participants whose tap water sample tests exceed 15 ppb
out of an abundance of caution and an effort to address public
concerns. Recall that the action level of 15 ppb is not directly tied
to a specific measure of exposure that is linked directly to health
risk. Also, the second draw service line concentrations suggested in
sample test results may not easily extrapolate into sustained rates of
exposure noted by some public health experts when discussing risks of
environmental lead exposure.
Question 19. What is the status of your water filter distribution?
Have all 23,000 homes believed to have lead service lines received
them? If not, when will all 23,000 homes receive them?
Response. WASA completed distribution of filters to residences
identified as likely having a lead service line pipe, and will provide
replacement cartridges through next spring. WASA is also providing
water filters and replacement cartridges to residences that participate
in the sampling program whose test results exceed 15 ppb, regardless of
the service line pipe material composition or the presence of a member
of the target population.
Question 20. How many of the homes tested that are not part of the
23,000 homes with known lead service lines have tested above 15 parts
per billion for lead?
Response. For calendar 2004 through April 24, 10,526 property
owners participated in the sample program. Of these, 7,266 of the
addresses were identified as having a material other than lead. As you
may know, the second draw sample is intended to capture the sample from
water that has rested in the service line pipe for over 6 hours. Of
these non-lead second draw samples:
<bullet> 6,238 tested 0-15 ppb;
<bullet> 642 samples tested >15-50 ppb;
<bullet> 264 samples tested >50-100 ppb;
<bullet> 85 samples tested >100-150 ppb;
<bullet> 37 samples tested over 150 ppb.
Question 21. During lead service line replacement, I understand
that WASA is offering to also replace the homeowner's section of the
lead service line at the homeowner's cost. One of the major benefits of
this approach is that the entire lead service line is replaced AT THE
SAME TIME. If a homeowner chooses to pay to have their portion of the
lead service line replaced by WASA during replacement of the rest of
the lead service line, are both portions replaced simultaneously? If
not, why not, and how long are homeowners being asked to wait? Have you
evaluated any health effects of not replacing them simultaneously given
that it is commonly believed that replacing portions of lead service
lines can actually increase lead levels for at least a short period of
time?
Response. If a homeowner chooses to pay for replacing the private
side replacement (inclusive of responding to WASA's initial inquiry,
acceptance of a contractor's estimate, entering into a contract within
necessary timeframes) both portions are replaced simultaneously.
The practice of cutting a lead service line in order to reattach it
to copper pipe during the replacement of a lead service line pipe in
public space is understood to result in temporarily elevated lead
concentrations in tap water. Those elevated concentrations are
understood to fall very dramatically following high water usage in the
context of a proscribed program of customer flushing that follows the
physical replacement. WASA relies upon the guidance of the EPA and the
District of Columbia Department of Health with respect to the
determination of any health effects, and we have suspended the practice
of cutting lead pipes pending a determination from DOH.
______
Response by Jerry Johnson to Additional Question from Senator Crapo
Question. What training in risk communication have you implemented,
and does it include the CD-based program available from the Centers for
Disease Control called, CDCynergy: Emergency Risk Communication?
You testified to the need for better teamwork if the Lead and
Copper Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your agency and
the other authorized agencies are working very closely in what has
become a closely scrutinized effort, what improvements in teamwork have
you learned? Also, how will you change routine procedures for working
together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system
returns below the Action Level?
Response. WASA has not used the CD-based program, CDCynergy:
Emergency Risk Communication.
WASA has employed for a number of years Beverly Silverberg
Communications, Inc. which has provided advice and training in crisis
communications. WASA has also obtained the services of a team headed by
Dr. Tee Guidotti, Professor and Chair of the Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and
Health Services, and Director, Division of Occupational Medicine and
Toxicology School of Medicine and Health Sciences, the George
Washington University Medical Center. Dr. Guidotti is also the Co-
Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the
Environment, a pediatric environmental health specialty unit. The team
of professionals working with WASA from the George Washington
University also includes individuals with experience in risk
communication.
The audit being undertaken by EPA and other inquiries that are
currently underway will provide important information with respect to
improving communication and coordination among relevant agencies. One
conclusion that we believe we share with EPA even at this relatively
early stage is that both the relatively routine communications on this
issue that have been relatively frequent but informal are made more
structured and formal.
__________
Statement of Daniel R. Lucey, Interim Chief Medical Health Officer,
District of Columbia Department of Health
Good afternoon. My name is Daniel R. Lucey, MD, and I am the
Interim Chief Medical Officer for the DC Department of Health. In the
next 5 minutes, prior to responding to your questions, I would like to
summarize my background and list several key points about the lead
issues in Washington, DC.
I am a physician trained in adult medicine and infectious diseases
with a Masters degree in Public Health. After serving in the military
as a physician I joined the U.S. Public Health Service while working at
the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration.
During 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks I was the Chairman of
the Infectious Disease Service at the Washington Hospital Center in DC.
In 2002 I was involved with the smallpox vaccination program, in 2003
with SARS (traveling to Hong Kong and mainland China, and working in a
hospital in Toronto), and in 2004 with avian influenza.
On February 10, 2004 I began work at the DC Department of Health
(DOH) with a focus on biodefense. On February 13th I attended a Lead
Task Force meeting. Every day since then I have worked on lead issues.
Although not a lead expert, I have approached learning about the lead
issues through an intensive process, much like learning about other
previously unfamiliar diseases such as anthrax, SARS, and avian
influenza.
On February 16th, I contacted the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Julie Gerberding, to request
advice from lead experts at the CDC. Her response was immediate and
outstanding. CDC assistance has been ongoing since that time.
On February 26th, the City Administrator, Mr. Robert Bobb,
instructed me to direct the Department of Health response to lead
issues. Later that day I completed and signed a Health Advisory letter
from the Department of Health to the approximately 23,000 residences in
DC with lead service lines. (Attachment 1) The advisory contained
recommendations about drinking water and measuring blood lead levels in
persons most at risk for lead poisoning in order to assess the health
impact of increased lead in the water. To our knowledge, no such
widespread health advisory on lead in drinking water has ever been
issued in the United States. Our findings may be useful to other cities
that find increased lead concentrations in their drinking water.
In order to provide blood lead level testing by the Department of
Health, starting on February 28th at DC General Hospital, we mobilized
many persons in the Department of Health. In addition, on March 1st, I
contacted the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Carmona, to request personnel
assistance. He responded immediately, and via Admiral Babb and the
Commissioned Corps Readiness Force (CCRF), provided a team of Public
Health Service officers over the next 4 weeks who worked long hours
with us in clinics across DC. They also went to several hundred homes
of persons at high risk of lead poisoning. On March 30th the DC DOH,
CCRF and CDC published our preliminary results on blood lead levels in
the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
To summarize key points:
1. None of the 201 persons we tested who live in homes with the
highest measured levels of lead in the drinking water (i.e. > 300 parts
per billion (ppb)) had elevated blood lead levels. (Attachment 2 MMWR
March 30, 2004).
2. From 2000-2003 the percentage of children less than 6 years of
age with elevated blood lead levels (* 10 mcg/dl) continued to decline
in DC both in homes with and without lead service lines. The percent of
children with blood lead levels * 5 mcg/dl did not decline in homes
with lead service lines, although this percent did decline in homes
without lead service lines. (Attachment 2 MMWR March 30, 2004).
3. Only 2 of the initial 280 children in home childcare facilities
with lead service lines had elevated blood lead levels (Attachment 3).
4. Of the initial 4,106 persons who came to our clinics across DC
for free blood lead level testing in our laboratory, 1,277 were young
children < 6 years old, of whom 16 had elevated blood levels. The
initial 14 children have been found to live in homes with dust and/or
soil lead levels exceeding EPA/HUD guidelines. The homes of the other 2
children are currently being evaluated. (Attachment 4).
5. According to the CDC, from 1976-1980, nearly 9 of 10 (88.2
percent) children 1-5 years old (adults now 24-28 years old) in the USA
had blood lead levels that today are considered elevated, namely at
least 10 micrograms/ deciliter (``* 10 g/dl''). (Attachment 5).
6. The EPA ``action level'' for lead in drinking water of 15 parts
per billion (or 0.015 mg/Liter) is not a health-based recommendation.
According to the EPA:
``This action level was not designed to measure health risks
from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a
statistical trigger that, if exceeded, requires more treatment,
public education and possibly lead service line replacement''
(Attachment 6).
Thank you for your time and I will be pleased to respond to your
questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.147
Responses by Daniel R. Lucey to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents--If I
had only known, I could have taken precautions. I want to ask
each of the witnesses at the table to tell me how you are
responding to this questions--what explanation are you giving
to parents whose children were totally unnecessarily exposed to
lead in their drinking water and what steps are you taking to
regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?
Response. Yes, I have been asked the same questions at many
of the DC-wide community meetings in which the Department of
Health has participated. Since I only started working at the DC
Department of Health on February 10, 2004, I cannot explain
much of what happened in the Department of Health before that
time, and I do not try to do so. Once I was designated on
February 26th by the DC City Administrator, Deputy Mayor Robert
Robb, to be the primary person at the DC Department of Health
responsible for the lead-in-the-water issues then I emphasized
what actions we are taking now, why we are taking these
actions, and what the results are as we go forward together. I
wrote and signed the February 26th letter to the approvimately
23,000 persons with lead-service lines and therein made
specific Public Health recommendations that to my knowledge had
never been made before on this scale. I spoke with both the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
with the U.S. Surgeon General to request the respective
expertise that their organizations were willing to provide
immediately to the residents of the District of Columbia.
Efforts to regain trust included participating and
answering questions in many community discussion groups across
the city (please see attachment #8 in my April 7th testimony),
speaking at many press conferences along with the Director of
the DC Emergency Management Agency, DC Council members, the
City Administrator, and with the Mayor. In addition we made
multiple other educational efforts including the use of written
pamphlets in multiple languages and significantly expanding
lead-related information on our website. We worked with DC
pediatric lead experts including those at Children's National
Medical Center, Howard University Medical Center, Georgetown
University Medical Center, and Georgetown University Medical
Center. I also consulted with Obstetricians at Washington
Hospital Center and with the American College of Obstetrics and
Gynecology (ACOG) about lead issues.
Question 2. I know people who have homes with elevated lead
levels, but not above 15 parts per billion. I know people who
have homes with elevated lead levels well above 15 parts per
billion who are not on your inventory of ``known lead service
lines.'' Given what we know about the harmful effects of lead,
what is WASA and the DC Department of Health doing to help
those residents take appropriate health precautions?
Response. I am not sure I understand the first part of the
question because 15 parts per billion (ppb) is the definition
of a home with a lead level above the EPA action limit. Should
I understand this first part of your question to refer to the
issue I have sometimes been asked at DC community meetings
about homes with lead service lines, but measurements of lead
in their drinking water that are not above 15 ppb? If so, then
I emphasize that the original letter I wrote and signed on
February 26, 2004 was sent to all approximately 23,000 District
residents who had lead service lines regardless of whether
their water lead concentrations were measured above or below 15
parts per billion. Free water filters to remove lead in the
drinking water were given to everyone with a lead service line
by WASA and free blood lead levels were offered by the DC
Department of Health as specified in the February 26 letter. On
the other hand, if you meant there are people ``with elevated
lead levels'' in homes with water lead concentrations ``not
above 15 parts per billion'' then I would reply that we provide
the identical offer to everyone with an elevated blood lead
level, namely a home environmental assessment to look for other
sources of lead such as lead paint, or lead ceramics, or lead-
containing stained glass, or certain medications, cosmetics,
candies or other potential sources of lead exposure. The DC
Department of Health made that commitment to look for other
sources of lead, including lead paint, on page two of our
February 26, 2004 letter.
Regarding homes with elevated lead concentrations over 15
ppb, even if they are not listed by WASA as having a lead
service line, then WASA provides them with a water filter to
remove the lead. The DC Department of Health continues to offer
free blood lead level testing at five (5) standing clinics in
DC, including one at the Department of Health on 51 N Street,
NE. Another one of these five clinics is at the former DC
General Hospital outpatient urgent-care clinic that is open 7
days a week, including evenings. A calendar for the month of
May listing the locations and times of operation for these five
clinics is attached as a document titled: District of Columbia
Department of Health--Lead Blood Screening Schedule--May 2004.
Question 3. Your testimony provides several data points
indicating that relatively small numbers of children had what
you define as ``elevated'' blood lead levels. How do you define
``elevated'' and how did you select that number?
Response. The DC Department of Health uses the same
definition of an elevated blood lead level, or level of
concern, as that provided by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), namely 10 micrograms/deciliter ( g/dl) or
higher.
Question 4. Based on the information in the April 17, 2003
New England Journal of Medicine study regarding blood lead
levels in children, do you feel it is appropriate to ignore
children and families with blood lead level test results above
0 but below 10?
Response. As a physician and Department of Health official
who has worked and published for years in both laboratory and
clinical research, I appreciate the value of studies such as
the one cited. In particular, when medical papers have passed
the peer-review process that is required for publication in one
of the very best medical journals in the world, such as the New
England Journal of Medicine, they warrant our attention. All
scientific studies, however, require independent confirmation
studies. The CDC is certainly aware of the paper you have
cited. We have consulted regularly with lead experts at the CDC
on this specific issue. We recognize that historically the
value defining an elevated blood lead level has been set much
higher by the CDC, such as between 1976-1980 when the CDC
reported that 9 of 10 children (88.2 percent) between the ages
of 1-5 years had blood lead levels of
10 g/dl or higher.
Question 5. Can you describe in detail the testing program
that the DC Department of Health has in place, any new testing
programs that the Department has completed or has underway as a
result of the lead in drinking water issue, and what your
findings are?
Response. During the time I worked as the interim Chief
Medical Officer at the DC Department of Health, from February
10-April 30 of this year, over 90 percent of my time was
devoted to the lead-in-the-water issues, including development
of the blood testing program. I am glad to summarize those
testing programs. We established an Incident Command Structure
for all lead-in-the-water issues (see attachment #14 in my
April 7th testimony for the specific command structure
details). In addition please find attached a table titled
``Blood Lead Level Screening Results'' with total results for
5,293 persons who have been tested at the DC Department of
Health laboratory through our screening program as of May 6,
2004. The results include the fact that 37 children, two
nursing mothers, and zero pregnant women have had an elevated
blood lead levels. Of the 37 children, 13 live in homes with
lead service lines and 24 do not. With one exception still
under investigation, all homes of children and nursing mothers
with elevated blood have shown lead dust and/or soil levels
that exceed EPA and HUD guidelines. This environmental work on
lead has been supervised by Lynette Stokes, Ph.D. at the DC
Department of Health.
Also, please find attached a color graph that plots blood
lead levels for 1,924 persons who are less than the age of 6,
or women who are pregnant or nursing. The lowest measurable
value in our laboratory assay is 1 g/dl. The number of people
at each value of blood lead level decreases at each blood lead
level from 1 g/dl to 9 g/dl, with the mean (average) value
being 3.0 g/dl.
Since May 1st, Thomas Calhoun, M.D., is the physician
responsible for lead-in-the-water issues at the DC Department
of Health. I have consulted with him about the new testing
programs since May 1st. There are now five (5) DC clinics where
free blood lead level testing is provided. In addition, Dr.
Calhoun has worked with a 6th site, at Children's National
Medical Center, to offer free blood lead level testing to young
persons at DC schools where elevated water lead concentrations
were found. Dr. Calhoun is coordinating a program whereby the
DC Department of Health will go visit these DC schools and
offer free blood lead level testing to children under 6 years
of age starting the week of May 17th. The April 29th letter
that I wrote regarding water lead levels in DC schools, as well
as the letter of February 26th, is posted with other lead-
related information on our web site at www.dchealth.dc.gov.
Question 6. Your testimony implies that there is not a
problem with elevated blood lead levels in children due to
drinking water exposure. I believe you are basing that
conclusion on the results of the voluntary testing program
conducted in the city. I have read critiques indicating that it
is impossible to judge the presence of a city-wide trend
depending only on self-selected samples. Dr. Best also raised
concerns with this approach during our discussions on the
second panel.
During that panel, Senator Crapo and I both asked questions
about your test results and the apparent conclusion that the
people you have tested that were exposed to high lead levels do
not show, in an overwhelming proportion, high blood lead
levels. In our discussions with Dr. Best on this topic, you
indicated that the majority of the people you tested were
adults. Children, of course, are at the greatest risk of lead
poisoning due to the higher rate at which they retain lead in
their bloodstream when compared to adults.
Please explain how the Department of Health can draw
conclusions about the severity of the issue at hand when they
appear to be based only on self-selected, voluntary blood
tests, or an evaluation of a primarily adult population which
we know has a lower retention rate for lead in the body? Do you
have any plans to conduct more widespread testing?
Response. In addition to the many clinics we set up all
across the District for voluntary blood lead level testing
since February 28th, we also went directly to the homes of two
populations of people we considered potentially at high risk
for lead toxicity. These two groups are persons living in homes
with the highest levels of lead in their drinking water (> 300
parts per billion) and very young children in childcare
facilities with lead-service lines. My April 7th testimony
(attachment #2) provided data showing that none of 201 persons
tested in homes with > 300 ppb of lead in their water had
elevated blood lead levels as we published with the CDC in
their March 30th Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
Dispatch. In addition, in the same April 7th testimony
(attachment #3) I included data showing that only 2 of 280 of
the young children in these DC childcare facilities had
elevated blood lead levels. These two specific outreach efforts
are combined with the open blood lead testing program where
adults are tested as well as children, an effort that now
includes 1,752 children less than 6 years of age. Finally, we
do plan to test more children under the age of 6 years,
starting May 17-21, in DC schools where elevated levels of lead
were reported on April 29th.
Question 7. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water
in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were
quoted as saying, ``The runaround has been unbelievable . . .
No one in the bureaucracy has even begun to take this
seriously.'' The Director of water for the city stated that it
was, ``. . . premature to contact residents throughout the
city'' before the city developed a plan to handle and finance
increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several
newspaper articles on this topic into the record. I find it
unbelievable that no one at this witness table learned anything
from this previous experience. Did anyone here refer to
previous instances of lead contamination in the District when
formulating a response plan? If so, please describe how you
used this information, and if not, why not?
Response. When I started working this February 10th at the
DC Department of Health I was not aware of the 1986 events at
the Palisades. My immediate impression at the time was that as
the Incident Commander for the Department of Health, to
response to the crisis I needed to learn as much as possible
about lead issues and take rapid action by offering free blood
lead level testing. The then Director of the Department of
Health, and his highest Deputy, were replaced by March 26th,
2004.
Responses by Daniel Lucey to Additional Questions
from Senator Crapo
Question 1. You testified to the need for better teamwork
if the Lead and Copper Rule is to be implemented effectively.
Now that your agency and the other authorized agencies are
working very closely in what has become a closely scrutinized
effort, what improvements in teamwork have you learned? Also,
how will you change routine procedures for working together to
implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system returns
below the Action Level?
Response. The exchange of information, and the critique of
that information, has significantly improved both within the
Department of Health and between other involved organizations
as of February 2004. Medical aspects of the Department of
Health have been better coordinated with the engineering
aspects of the lead-in-the-water issues. Moreover, direct
interaction between the DC Department of Health and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has increased
substantially, including on the Public Health and medical
issues. This is an important change that needs to continue as
part of routine procedures going forward.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.150
Statement of Thomas P. Jacobus, General Manager, Washington Aqueduct,
Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Good Morning, Chairman Crapo and Members of the Committee.
I am Tom Jacobus, the general manager of Washington Aqueduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Washington Aqueduct, which is a part of the Baltimore
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a public water
utility. We are regulated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's Region 3 in Philadelphia.
Washington Aqueduct provides potable water not just to the
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, but also to
Arlington County, Virginia and the city of Falls Church in
Virginia as well. All funds for the operations and capital
improvements at Washington Aqueduct come from its customers.
The provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its
associated regulations are the basis for all operations
concerning the production, storage, and transmission of the
drinking water produced and sold by Washington Aqueduct to its
wholesale customers.
The Potomac River is the source of all water treated by
Washington Aqueduct at its Dalecarlia and McMillan treatment
plants. The treatment consists of chemically induced
sedimentation using aluminum sulfate as the coagulant;
filtration in dual media sand and anthracite coal filters; and
disinfection using chlorine as the primary disinfectant and
chloramines as a secondary disinfectant.
The primary objective of the treatment process is to
produce and deliver water to the tap that is free of
contaminants and pleasant to drink.
Three processes are simultaneously occurring to achieve
that objective. First, organic and inorganic contaminants are
removed during treatment. Then the water is disinfected so
microorganisms that may have been in the raw water are killed.
A disinfectant is carried along in the water (chloramine in
this case) so that if the water encounters any bacteria in the
distribution system or the building plumbing, the bacteria will
be killed. Finally, the drinking water chemistry is adjusted as
it leaves the treatment plants to make it less corrosive to the
metals it will encounter in the distribution system and
building plumbing.
The Washington Aqueduct's corrosion control has been
accomplished by the use of lime to adjust the pH of the water.
Tests done in conjunction with the promulgation of the Lead and
Copper Rule and reported to EPA in 1994 demonstrated that pH
control would be sufficient to achieve Optimal Corrosion
Control Treatment for Washington Aqueduct's customers. In the
years since it was first proposed, there has been a continuing
involvement with EPA to refine the Washington Aqueduct's
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment and report on our ability
to meet the pH targets.
However, the District of Columbia Water And Sewer
Authority's sampling in accordance with the Lead and Copper
Rule in the District of Columbia in 2001 and 2002 and the most
recent intensive sampling in 2003 of water that has resided in
lead service lines indicate that Washington Aqueduct must take
immediate steps to adjust its optimal corrosion control
treatment so that different results are achieved in the
District of Columbia water distribution system.
To address this issue EPA Region 3, the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and Washington Aqueduct's
other wholesale customers in Virginia, the District of Columbia
Department of Health, and Washington Aqueduct have formed a
Technical Expert Working Group and developed an action plan to
address the lead issue. I have attached a copy of the action
plan dated March 10, 2004, as an enclosure to this testimony. A
peer review panel appointed by U.S. EPA is reviewing this plan
and their recommendations will be incorporated in a subsequent
update.
In addition, teams have been formed to address production
operations, distribution system operations, and risk
communication to the public. Representatives of different
agencies lead each of these teams. EPA leads the risk
communications team; the District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority leads the distribution system operations team; and
Washington Aqueduct leads the production operations team.
Representatives of all of the agencies participate on all of
the teams. These teams will make a recommendation to be adopted
by the technical expert working group that will result in a
treatment change. While the exact type and dosage will be
determined in the next couple of weeks as a result of the
ongoing scientific analysis, it appears that the use of a
phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor will be adopted.
Current plans are to begin a partial system application of
a revised optimal corrosion control treatment this June
followed by a full system application by September. There is
optimism that this change will be effective in reducing the
lead leaching, but it will take several months to measure the
effects. Laboratory studies will be ongoing for many months in
parallel with the revised treatment that may be used to further
refine the change in treatment.
I would like to address the role of the Washington Aqueduct
Wholesale Customer Board as it pertains to water treatment
decisions. The Wholesale Customer Board governs the Washington
Aqueduct's financial and strategic planning. The Board is
comprised of the general manager of the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, the Arlington County manager and
Falls Church city manager. As part of the Board's oversight,
there are technical committees that meet to evaluate
engineering and financial operations throughout the year.
The board and the committees have worked very effectively
to address difficult issues such as a new solids management
strategy to meet a new discharge permit and to develop a
disinfectant strategy to meet changes to the Disinfection
Byproducts Rule. Based on what we have learned in the last 8
weeks, we will add corrosion control management as a permanent
agenda item, just like we do now with filtered water turbidity,
Total Coliform Rule compliance and Disinfection Byproduct Rule
compliance. By doing this we will have a procedure in place for
the Washington Aqueduct customers to share lead and copper
data.
As the general manager of Washington Aqueduct, I intend to
take two other actions. First I will make an adjustment to the
structure of the Washington Aqueduct organization to integrate
an existing water quality office and the capability of our
plant operations branch, including our water quality
laboratory. Second, I will ask our customers to participate in
more frequent and more structured meetings that will improve an
ongoing information loop involving them and our water quality
office.
In the other two important treatment areas I mentioned
earlier (i.e., disinfection and contaminant removal) we have
worked very effectively with our customers to know at all times
what the conditions are at the treatment plants and in their
distribution systems and to implement systems responses on
their behalf. The experience of the last several weeks
concerning the application of the lead and copper rule
indicates we need to give the third element (i.e., corrosion
control) the same visibility.
I am confident Washington Aqueduct working with its
customers and EPA can accomplish that.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I
will be happy answer your questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.168
Responses by Thomas P. Jacobus to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. How much would it cost to add zinc orthophosphate to
the water produced at the Washington Aqueduct on a per household basis?
Response. Since our testimony on April 7, we have continued to
develop the design and refine our cost estimates. We now expect that
the engineering and construction costs to implement the addition of
zinc orthophosphate and to conduct studies involving pipe loops made
from lead service lines taken from the District of Columbia
distribution system will be approximately $3,000,000. Since this
corrosion inhibitor is a new chemical not previously used, its cost
will have to be added to our chemical supply budget. We expect to pay
in the range of an additional $1,100,000 per year to add zinc
orthophosphate to the treatment process. Washington Aqueduct is a
wholesaler that serves approximately 1,000,000 people in our service
area of the District of Columbia, Arlington County and Falls Church. We
do not bill on a household basis and are unable to provide costs on
that basis.
Question 2. With respect to the addition of other forms of
phosphate, does zinc add a secondary anti-corrosive or protective
property that would be beneficial for a system such as Washington's?
Response. Initially the Technical Expert Working Group made up of
representatives of the District of Colombia Water and Sewer Authority,
Washington Aqueduct, Virginia customers of Washington Aqueduct, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the District of
Columbia Department of Health recommended phosphoric acid as the
corrosion inhibitor. EPA organized an Independent Peer Review panel
consisting of nationally renowned experts on corrosion control who had
direct experience with similar situations. Members of the peer review
panel suggested that the zinc orthophosphate might work more quickly to
passivate the lead service lines and solder joints and brass and bronze
fixtures. Both phosphoric acid (commonly known as orthophosphate) and
zinc orthophosphate operate similarly and we would expect both to work.
Since, however, the reduction of lead concentration in tap water is of
utmost concern, we chose to take the advice of this panel and selected
the zinc orthophosphate as the corrosion inhibitor to be used.
Question 3. How quickly could the Corps implement the addition of
zinc-orthophosphate?
Response. We plan to do a partial system application in a small
portion of the District of Columbia distribution system starting June
1, 2004 followed by a full system application on or about July 15,
2004.
Question 4. Do you know of any water systems that have had a
problem with elevated lead levels after they began adding zinc
orthophosphate?
Response. Because the chemistry of the water inside the pipes of
the distribution system is complex and it is influenced by the nature
of the source water, it is not possible to make a firm prediction of
how soon the passivation will occur and lead levels will decrease.
Consultants working with Washington Aqueduct have reported that in some
cases there might be a slight increase in lead levels before the
eventual decrease begins. In most cases, after 6 to 18 months,
utilities saw a decrease in lead concentrations after the addition of
zinc orthophosphate. This reduction was eventually sufficient for those
systems to be in compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule's action
level at the 90th percentile.
______
Responses by Thomas P. Jacobus to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents--If I had only
known, I could have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the
witnesses at the table to tell me how you are responding to this
question--what explanation are you giving to parents whose children who
were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking water and
what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of
Washington, DC?
Response. Washington Aqueduct is a wholesaler of water and does not
deal directly with the citizens in its service areas in the District of
Columbia or Virginia unless it does so in conjunction with the
appropriate water utility officials. Certainly in this current
situation that has been widely reported and discussed since February,
Washington Aqueduct has accompanied the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority along with the District's Department of Health to many
public meetings to explain exactly the nature of the problem and the
interim and longer-term actions being taken to protect public health.
We believe that the public's trust will be gained on an individual-by-
individual basis once they understand what caused the elevated levels
to occur and the steps we are taking to change the water chemistry and
the time that we expect to take. Through a variety of means (e.g.,
pubic meetings, City Council hearings, information sent directly to
households as well as doing the science and engineering to make the
chemistry changes at the treatment plants) we are fully involved and
committed to rebuilding that trust.
Question 2. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the
Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were quoted as saying,
``The runaround has been unbelievable. . . . No one in the bureaucracy
has even begun to take this seriously.'' The Director of water for the
city stated it was, ``. . . premature to contact residents throughout
the city'' before the city developed a plan to handle and finance
increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper
articles on this topic into the record. I find it unbelievable that no
one at this witness table learned anything from that previous
experience. Did anyone here refer to previous instances of lead
contamination in the District when formulating a response plan? If so,
please describe how you used this information, and if not, why not?
Response. The Lead and Copper Rule, which went into effect in 1991,
was designed to overcome the situation you described in the Palisades
in 1986. In meeting the requirement of that rule, Washington Aqueduct
includes corrosion control treatment as an integral part of its overall
treatment process. That treatment, referred to as Optimal Corrosion
Control Treatment (OCCT) was approved by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, with the expectation, based
on scientific analysis conducted by Washington Aqueduct and reported to
EPA, that lead concentrations in tap water would be below the action
level in accordance with the rule. In the current situation with
elevated levels beyond the permissible action level the Washington
Aqueduct's response plan on the treatment side has been to reevaluate
OCCT. In so doing Washington Aqueduct is working with EPA and its
wholesale customers and consultants. The response has been rapid and
targeted on the problem at hand. We expect that the partial system
application of revised chemistry will begin in a portion of the
District of Columbia's distribution system on June 1, 2004 with the
full system application to begin on or about July 15, 2004.
______
Responses by Thomas P. Jacobus to Additional Questions
from Senator Crapo
Question 1. You testified to the need for better teamwork if the
Lead and Copper Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your
agency and the other authorized agencies are working very closely on
what has become a closely scrutinized effort, what improvements in
teamwork have you learned? Also, how will you change routine procedures
for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water
system returns below the Action Level?
Response. We have had a very strong working relationship internal
to the Washington Aqueduct organization as well as with technical and
management officials representing our Wholesale Customers. It is
designed to quickly react to situations in the treatment process or
within the distribution system that could cause a violation of a
regulatory threshold. But compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule is
not measured by a single event or exceedance as are other rules
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore we now realize
that we need to schedule regular periodic meetings to evaluate
specifically the effectiveness of our corrosion control treatment and
ask the customers to share their distribution sampling data with us at
the same time they send it to their regulatory agencies. This will
allow all four entities, Washington Aqueduct, the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, Arlington County and Falls Church, to
understand trends in each other's jurisdictions. Since there is no
chemical difference in the water produced by Washington Aqueduct as it
goes to all customers, we need to be prepared to make adjustments that
are appropriate and effective in each of the systems.
__________
Statement of Gloria Borland, Dupont Circle Parents
I am here because I am the Mother of a 22 month-old girl, who has
lead in her blood at twice the national average. I have been a DC
resident for 22 years and a homeowner in Dupont Circle for 15 years.
Most of the people you see here in the audience today are DC parents
worried about lead from the water harming their young children.
Your letter asked me to tell you what we parents believe ``would be
the most effective way for government to communicate and respond to the
sort of information that is now slowly coming to light.'' Also, what do
we parents ``suggest the DC government must do to reinstate the trust
of the citizens in their water supply?''
First of all, communication and trust--those two must go hand in
hand.
I'm sure if the Washington Post's David Nakamura had not exposed
this scandal, our young children today on April 7 would still be
drinking leaded water. And WASA would still be hiding this crisis from
us.
Communicating is not rocket science, it is the easiest and simplest
thing to do when there is leadership in an organization willing to do
it. The problem is not in ``the process'' of communication, the problem
lies in deception. WASA leaders wanted to operate under the radar
screen.
WASA has a public relations department right below the chain of
command of their General Manager. WASA managers, lawyers, and board of
directors made the decision to not communicate truthfully, to cover up
and manipulate for years. They deceived us. They tried to hide
extraordinarily high levels of lead poison in our water supply, thus
putting our young children at risk. The EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers went along with this deception, in violation of their Federal
oversight responsibilities.
How was this crisis communicated?
For most DC parents of young children, our day of infamy was
Saturday, January 31, 2004, when we read the headline of the Washington
Post that morning and were hit with the shocking bomb that our infants,
toddlers and young children have been secretly poisoned by lead in the
drinking water in our homes.
We discovered that lead in the water can stunt fetus' and young
children's growth and mental development, and cause learning
disabilities. Formula-fed infants my get as much as 40 to 60 percent of
their lead exposure from water. Lead in young children lowers their IQ.
Lead has a negative effect on children's ability to learn--lowers
average IQ 5-15 percent depending on severity and length of exposure.
When lead enters the brain of a child, it causes long-term learning and
behavioral problems. Once the baby's brain has been damaged by lead, it
is irreversible. Lead can remain in the child's body for decades.
I was pregnant in 2001 and 2002 when high lead levels first became
noticed by WASA. The right and legal thing for WASA to do was to issue
an emergency warning to the public, and to obstetricians and
pediatricians to warn their patients not to drink tap water. It does
not matter if WASA hadn't identified the source; that kind of research
could take months, even years. In the interest of public safety, you
issue the warning to the public to take the precaution, and then you
take the time and spend the resources to figure out the cause. When
firemen see a house burning, their first priority is to save peoples
lives, put the fire out, then they begin their investigation into the
cause of the blaze. WASA got it backward. They wanted to figure out the
cause of the lead crisis first, before trying to save our babies'
lives.
All WASA had to do was warn me and other mothers, don't drink your
water without a filter or buy bottled water. I had a PUR water filter
back when I was pregnant. But I wasn't diligent about changing the
cartridge all the time. Like most Moms, we drank plenty of water, we
were so very careful about everything. I nursed my baby, but I also
gave her formula with tap water. When I learned about lead in the
water, I wanted to cry. I had been so careful, I even gave up coffee
for Gods sake, and now I hear about the lead!
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.170
My daughter attends a very good pre-school and day care center in
Dupont Circle. The Early Childhood Development Center has an enrollment
of 65 students from infants to 4 year-olds and is run by the First
Baptist Church at 16th and O Streets N.W. When the building was built
in 1989, as part of receiving its national accreditation, they had an
outside firm test the water. There was no harmful levels of lead in
their water and the center passed with flying colors.
Last year, WASA tore up the street next to the center and changed
or repaired some pipes. WASA did their construction work without
warning and without cooperation with the center. The staff came to work
the next day and found the gymnasium floors had been flooded; the mats
had to be replaced costing the day care center $2,000. WASA's work
caused a classroom toilet to back up feces, and that room had to be
steam cleaned at the center's own expense.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.172
When this current lead crisis in the water broke, the center's
executive director Helen Henderson did the responsible thing and called
back the same private firm to re-test the water in the day care center.
Some of the sinks and water fountains had high levels of lead at 3,100
parts per billion and 5,900 parts per billion. When I saw the letter
Mrs. Henderson sent to all the parents with the water test results, I
thought there must have been a typo. This was not 15 parts per billion,
the legal threshold for high lead levels, but in the thousands!!! I
couldn't believe the lead in their water almost reached 6,000 ppb!
The center immediately went to bottled water. Brita water filters
remove lead up to 150 ppb--filters don't work when lead is in the
thousands.
As of Monday April 5, no one from WASA has contacted Mrs.
Henderson, nor has anyone from the District government sent her a
letter or even made a phone call. Since this crisis broke, no one from
WASA or the District has offered to help her. All this talk of the city
reaching out to day care centers is baloney.
I know there is some controversy on what are safe numbers: 15 ppb,
is it too low, is it too high? I saw the Fox News Channel story last
week that the push by environmentalists to crack down on chlorine
caused DC lead problems. While scientists can still debate what are
proper lead levels in water, there can be no doubt that 5,900 ppb is an
emergency! Especially at a Day Care center with 65 young children.
how could this have happened to our young children?
Most parents have been perplexed as to why an entity entrusted with
public safety would lie, and then cover up their lies; what is their
motive? When I spoke over the weekend to my very wise friend Joe Louis
Ruffm, III father of a 3-year-old boy, living in Chevy Chase, DC. Joe
said WASA wanted to protect their bond rating. Communicating the truth
would have brought their assets down.
So this is like Enron! Enron was only about money. This is about
money, bond ratings. But the consequences here, the innocent victims
are the lives of our next generation.
I want you Senators to see the victims--our young children, when
bond ratings get in the way of public safety. Look into the faces of
our babies (see the photos on display): they paid the price for
managers who decided bond ratings were more important than our babies
brain development, their nervous system and their IQ.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.173
STORIES FROM PARENTS
Here are some stores from parents all over the city. This lead
water crisis has a dramatic impact on every parent of young children.
To prove that this is wide spread, there is a petition with over 1,000
signatures from DC parents being presented to the Senate today.
When the lead crisis erupted, parents quickly responded by signing
a petition on www.purewaterdc.com, that demanded the city take
immediate action to restore safety in our water system. The petition
also called for the firing of WASA managers and the reinstatement of
the whistle-blower, Seema Bhat. The petition was a way for parents to
fight back and to let our officials know we were outraged. Over 1,000
signatures were added in just 2 weeks.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.174
Theresa Brown lives in LeDroit Park, right near Howard University.
She says,
``I am the mom of London, she just turned one last week. I am
outraged, and would like to know if any of the WASA officials
had wives, daughters, daughters-in-law, sisters who were
pregnant or had young children during this heinous cover-up and
how they feel about allowing their families to be exposed. And
if they don't have relatives or loved ones at risk, then
perhaps that explains their ineptitude.
I feel completely and utterly betrayed. They have a
responsibility to the citizens of this city, especially to
those young babies and children who are completely defenseless.
You cannot put a price on brain damage . . . how about if we
deliberately caused brain impairment to their kids or grandkids
and see how they like it?''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.175
I am writing to express my anger that my family, particularly my
two children aged 7 and 3, has been drinking and cooking using
contaminated water for an unknown length of time, and that WASA
officials knew of this problem but did not inform us. It is
unconscionable that these officials allowed families to expose their
babies and young children to lead. Over the past 4 years, my son has
been exposed to lead contamination in utero, through breastfeeding,
through his formula, and now through even the drinking fountains at his
daycare. Can anyone at WASA assure me that my son will not suffer
harmful effects from this exposure?
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.176
Desa Sealy Ruffin (wife of Joe, who is mentioned earlier) lives in
Chevy Chase, DC. She says,
``I have been so mad that I haven't really been able to speak
all that much. I can only say that I think the District, WASA
and EPA have all broken a really fundamental covenant with the
citizens in the District of Columbia and I now no longer trust
them to do anything. I think they are evil or as a Jamaican
friend put it so aptly, wicked. I know a friend was horrified
because she was pregnant during this whole thing. The fact that
the head of WASA didn't want to spend the money to replace the
lead service lines burns me up beyond belief. I think that the
3 agencies conspired to keep us in the dark. They should be
facing criminal charges.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.177
Valerie Jablow, mother of Charlie Horn, lives on Capitol Hill and
she says,
``I live in a city that is full of taps dispensing water with
high lead levels. My son drinks water from his daycare every
day of the week, and they don't know what the lead levels there
are. Similarly, we like to go to the libraries, the public
pool, stores, and restaurants in our neighborhood all the
time--and who knows if the water they dispense is full of lead
and thus unsafe to drink? In a few years my son will go to the
public school a few blocks from our house--in addition to
wondering about the quality of his education, I now will have
to worry about the quality of the water he drinks while
there.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.178
Terrance Heath is father to 16-month old Parker, living in Logan
Circle. Terrance says,
``I am writing to express my outrage at the discovery that my
family, and particularly our 16 month old son, have been
drinking and cooking with water potentially contaminated with
lead: I am dismayed because after 10 years as a DC resident it
never occurred to me that my family actually lives in a city
where we cannot or should not drink the water; I am outraged
because I found out about this potential contamination not from
WASA, but from the Washington Post. Our son is adopted, and
thus was bottle fed (water mixed with formula) as an infant,
and as a toddler. Early this year we learned that his first
lead screening result indicated elevated lead level.
As a DC resident and parent, I have no faith in WASA
officials to make decisions for the benefit of my family's
health. I believe that oversight is clearly needed, since WASA
officials cannot be trusted to do their jobs. Beyond that, I
believe that those responsible at WASA should be held
accountable for the harm that has resulted or may result from
their decisions. There can be no excusing the decision to put
our children at risk.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.179
Ronnette Bristol, lives in Northeast DC in an apartment building.
She has 4 children ranging in age from 3 to 9, and just found out that
her building has not been tested for lead. She says, ``we are buying
lots of bottled water, until we can get someone to come out and test
our apartment building.''
Ronnette is very worried about the quality of water in her
apartment and she wants her children to have the cleanest and safest
water possible.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.180
Lyubov Gurjeva is originally from Russia. She says,
``I never believed DC water was safe to drink. When I arrived
in DC 2 years ago friends told me that there had been numerous
problems earlier. But the fact that the situation has been bad
for a long time does not make it more acceptable. I am glad
this matter has attracted so much public attention this time.
We need safer water for DC.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.181
Dupont resident Xin Chen and her husband Brett Sylvester were
informed by WASA last August that they had a lead service line and told
to test their water. They submitted two sets of water samples for
testing on August 15, 2003. They never received their test results.
When,
``the lead story broke out, every time we talked to them on
their hotline, we got different answers. Sometimes they told us
they lost our samples. Sometimes they said our results were OK
but they couldn't give them to us on the phone, sometimes they
simply said we should re-test. We've just had the most
unpleasant experience with WASA. I don't trust them and I don't
trust their test results''
(No picture provided)
Maria DePaul and her husband Ethan Premysler live on Capitol Hill.
They have a 3-year-old son and they are expecting the birth of their
second child any day now. Their son has elevated lead levels in his
blood. They have an exposed basement and they clearly see a lead water
main. Maria and Ethan examined their pipes and believe it is an old
lead line. When they called WASA, they were told their house was
classified with a copper line and not a lead line. Maria and Ethan
called numerous times to argue that they did indeed have a lead line
and that WASA's records were wrong. WASA would not budge. Maria and
Ethan requested that WASA send someone over to take a look, and see
that they indeed had lead pipes, but WASA refused. Ethan says he is
completely frustrated, ``you are completely on your own, we called so
many times, so many times, so many times. WASA will find legal loop
holes so they do not have to help you out.''
Many parents complained about the cost of buying expensive filters
and bottled water. People don't mind buying bottled water in an
emergency for a couple days or a couple weeks. But when a couple weeks
turns into a couple months, with still no end in sight, people are
beginning to feel the financial burden of buying bottled drinking water
for every day use. When parents heard that WASA managers now want to
raise rates 5 percent, they were aghast at the absurdity of the
request. This move clearly shows WASA managers still don't get it.
HOW TO RESTORE TRUST
My feeling and that of other parents since that day of infamy is
outrage! We expected our elected leaders in the District to quickly
step in, fire the managers at WASA and respond with swift action to fix
our water crisis. That. would have been a rightful first step on the
long journey of restoring trust with the citizenry. Instead our
District government leaders made the political decision to protect WASA
managers, and engage in a finger-pointing game directed at everyone
else. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers were supposed to be looking out
for our interest by being the watch dog over WASA. Instead it appears
they looked the other way and our children today have to suffer the
consequences. I hope EPA and Army Corps leaders remember the faces of
our babies when they carry out their daily oversight duties.
Senators, the Federal regulations you already have in place for
communicating to the public, I think are fine. The problem here was not
a failure of process, but a problem of cover up, fire anyone on staff
who become a whistle-blower, perhaps to protect their bond ratings.
When I hear Jerry Johnson say ``In hindsight, maybe we should've
done more to inform people,'' my blood boils. The pat answer prepared
by lawyers and PR people are not going; to fool the thousand families
who signed that petition. We are not stupid. We know your bond ratings
were more important to you than having our babies get lead in their
nervous system.
Senators, we are not soccer Moms, or NASCAR Dads, we are a new
demographic.
We are urban by choice. We're smart, we're parents with young
children and because of our children we are involved in our
neighborhood communities. We understand the need for companies to make
a profit. Many of us own stocks and bonds for our children's 529
college plans. But when you endanger the lives of our babies, we are
going to fight back with incredible force.
WASA, Don't think by hiring an outside health consultant, we will
go away satisfied. We know a PR stunt when we see one. This just
reinforces the premise that current managers don't possess the
mandatory basic knowledge of ``what is safe water to drink,'' and thus
they have no business working in the water industry.
The seed of the problem here is a management culture instilled by
Jerry Johnson, Mike Marcotte and board chairman Glenn Gersten. To
restore trust, do what is done in the private sector, remove managers
for extremely poor judgment, failed performance, and put in new
management. These are the necessary first step toward restoring trust.
New managers are now in place at Enron, Adelphia and Worldcom. Gersten
is a Wall Street attorney, so he understands why old board members at
the NYSE had to be replaced in order to restore public confidence in
the institution. Martha Stewart maybe going to jail for covering up her
lie. This management cover up has caused more damage to the public than
Martha: they put the lives of our young babies at terrible risk.
We know our mayor is asking the Federal Government for more money
to solve this problem. I don't think it makes sense to put good money
in the hands of bad managers.
Drastic action needs to take place to restore safety in our water
supply. I am an entrepreneur and believe in the free enterprise system.
So I don't say this lightly. Most of the parents that signed the
petition presented to you today also believe in the private markets. We
don't normally seek government help for every little problem. But the
problems and dysfunction at WASA are so huge, they require Federal
intervention.
We parents encourage the U.S. Senate to institute its powers to
begin the process of putting WASA under Federal control, Federal
receivership. A new management team and new board of directors needs to
be put in place to work on solving this lead crisis. And we need to
make sure the Army Corps and EPA are listening to our demands for
better communication, a two-way dialog with the public they are
entrusted to serve.
Yes, we need Federal help and Federal dollars to solve this crisis,
but that goes hand-in-hand with new management and Federal control of
the system, until our water is deemed drinkable again.
Thank you.
(In addition to raising her daughter, Gloria Borland is also a media
entrepreneur. She is currently developing a new national television
series profiling women entrepreneurs called ``She's the CEO''
www.sheceo.com. Gloria was born in Kodiak, Alaska, raised in Honolulu,
Hawaii and chooses to live in the Nation's Capitol.)
______
Response by Gloria Borland to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the
government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at
the hearing), what would they be?
Response. (1) Immediately fire the top leadership of WASA; (2)
Publicly develop a lead removal process that's transparent; and (3)
Have DC water certified by an independent authority every year--very
important.
______
Response by Christopher McKeon to Additional Question
from Senator Jeffords
Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the
government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at
the hearing), what would they be?
Response. No one at WASA has been reprimanded, fined, demoted, or
fired because of what happened with DC's water. Ditto for EPA. Ditto
for Army Corps. They all had something to do directly with the lead
crisis. But that level of unaccountability is unacceptable: what if
this hadn't been lead but something more immediately harmful? So here
is what needs to happen, in the order it needs to happen in:
(1) The EPA, working with the DC Department of Health, needs to put
new people in charge at WASA. Now.
(2) Army Corps of Engineers needs to get folks from the community--
not just elected officials, or WASA people, but regular folks--involved
with their decision making in regard to the District's water. More
specifically, citizens of DC need to be in on *every* decision that
Army Corps makes in regard to our water, and they need to have a voice
there equal to that of WASA and the army corps itself.
(3) The EPA Region 3 office is too far away to deal effectively
with DC's water. EPA should form a new office here in the District to
have oversight over District water. Given our role not only as the
Nation's Capital but also as a major tourist destination for people
from all over the world, Washington, DC deserves to have real oversight
over its water, not a half-hearted rubber stamping of every WASA
decision, as shown in the lead crisis.
Ok, that's my two cents' worth--thanks Gloria. Let me know what
transpires.
______
Response by Valerie Jablow to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the
government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at
the hearing), what would they be?
Response. (1) EPA: More stringent notification requirements for
water contamination, i.e., a one-page letter listing the actual
contamination level; and the changes in the so-called acceptable
contamination levels to better protect women and children. Public
notification would be triggered at these lower levels; Changes in the
testing guidelines which allowed WASA to replace higher lead water
samples with lower lead samples. (2) DC Department of Health: better
monitoring and enforcement of environmental hazards related to children
and daycares. For example, we are required to provide lead testing data
on our children's health forms but this data is not being analyzed or
tracked to understand potential problems.
The DC Department of Health should be responsible for informing
parents and offering testing services on a much wider basis than was
actually done.
There should also be significant monitoring of (and penalties for
non-compliance) public utilities providing services to daycare centers
and schools--i.e. no mobile lead testing unit was sent to FBC, no one
seems concerned about putting FBC on a priority list, and WASA should
have tested (and be planning to replace) the piping and water systems
at daycare centers and schools first.
Lastly, I just want to reiterate the issue that parents now have a
lack of confidence in WASA and their management, and would like to see
another agency or entity monitoring this situation to ensure that
decisions and improvements are made moving forward.
Statement of Jody Lanard, M.D., Risk Communication Consultant,
Princeton, NJ
Senator Crapo and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you so much for asking me to testify about needed
improvements in public communications regarding the detection of lead
in Washington DC water.
I am Jody Lanard, a psychiatrist from Princeton, New Jersey,
specializing for almost 20 years in the rapidly evolving field of risk
communication. My own contributions are mostly in the crisis
communication branch of the field. I work independently, with my
husband Peter Sandman, a former academic who is one of the early
founders of risk communication. My biography and c.v. follow the
testimony.
Here is a list of the crisis communication strategies which
underlie my critique of WASA's communications with the public. Expanded
descriptions of these strategies, references to articles from which
they were derived, and references to case studies using (or failing to
use) these strategies are appended at the end of this statement.
1. Don't over-reassure.
2. Put reassuring information in subordinate clauses.
3. Err on the alarming side.
4. Acknowledge uncertainty.
5. Share dilemmas.
6. Acknowledge opinion diversity.
7. Be willing to speculate.
8. Don't overdiagnose or overplan for panic.
9. Don't aim for zero fear.
10. Don't forget emotions other than fear.
11. Don't ridicule the public's emotions.
12. Legitimize people's fears.
13. Tolerate early over-reactions.
14. Establish your own humanity.
15. Tell people what to expect.
16. Offer people things to do.
17. Let people choose their own actions.
18. Ask more of people.
19. Acknowledge errors, deficiencies, and misbehaviors.
20. Apologize often for errors, deficiencies, and misbehaviors.
21. Be explicit about ``anchoring frames.''
22. Be explicit about changes in official opinion, prediction, or
policy.
23. Don't lie, and don't tell half-truths.
24. Aim for total candor and transparency.
25. Be careful with risk comparisons.
(Adapted from Sandman and Lanard's crisis communication articles)
I'm going to tell you about some good and bad risk communication
practices, and give you my critique of the DC Water and Sewage
Authority's public communications. But first, here's my bottom line:
for the most part, WASA did fairly typical, rather ordinary, well-
intentioned public relations-oriented communication--as most agencies
are inclined to do, despite the fact that it regularly backfires. My
colleague Peter Sandman and I like to call this, only half-joking, a
``knee-jerk under-reaction,'' as a way of turning the tables on
officials who often feel the public responds to scary new situations
with ``knee-jerk over-reactions.'' Sometimes investigation reveals a
genuine intentional cover-up, but much more often, the communication
strategy is based on false beliefs:
<bullet> about how the public learns new information,
<bullet> about responsible early speculation,
<bullet> about how much anxiety the public can bear,
<bullet> about how reassuring to be in the face of uncertainty.
For instance, WASA's outrage-inducing delay in informing the public
was rationalized by WASA officials in at least two conventional ways:
the desire to have ``complete'' information before releasing it, and
the desire to prevent public panic. WASA's communication practices are
misguided approaches when used in uncertain, potentially scary
situations. It is painful to watch agencies walk over the public
relations cliff in a crisis communication situation, especially given
what other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control, have
worked so hard to learn and to distill into easily accessible nearly
free training programs.
The U.S. EPA was one of the first agencies to take the new field of
risk communication seriously, publishing articles about it when it
barely had a name, starting in the mid 1980s. And the American
Waterworks Association put out a risk communication training video in
1992, entitled ``Public Involvement: a Better Response to People's
Concerns About Water Quality,'' subtitled: ``an interview with Peter
Sandman on how water providers can translate risk communication
concepts into mechanisms to build effective relationships with the
public.'' So risk communication is not a new concept in environmental
and water management. But each new generation of managers discovers it
anew--often as a result of botching a crisis.
What WASA did was, unfortunately, common every-day bad risk
communication. I have had no access to internal agency documents or
communications, so if there was deliberate self-serving intent to hide
important information from the public, I do not know it. But officials'
public comments so far suggest only that WASA was unskilled in the
difficult, counter-intuitive strategies of crisis communication--and
despite the ramping up of crisis communication planning and training
since September 11, this is extremely common.
RISK COMMUNICATION
My analysis of WASA's communication rests partly on Sandman's re-
definition of risk, drawing on the risk perception work of Slovic,
Fischoff, and others, that states: Risk = Hazard + Outrage. This notion
was first published in the EPA Journal in 1987. The rest of my analysis
is informed by the crisis communication work I and others have done
since September 11, 2001.
Health and safety workers usually define risk as ``probability
times magnitude''--How bad is the worst case? How likely is it to
happen? The public--including the experts when they are at home--mostly
see ``risk'' in terms of what Sandman calls ``outrage factors,'' and
others more recently call ``fear'' or ``dread'' factors: Is this hazard
being imposed on me voluntarily? Do I have control over it? Is it
industrial, or is it natural? Can I trust the people who are managing
the hazard? Have they been open and honest with me? Do they show
concern for my worries? Does the hazard effect particularly vulnerable
populations, like children? Does it disproportionately fall on
oppressed and powerless groups? Is it particularly dreaded, like cancer
or AIDS?
On most risks, most of the time, people are apathetic or in denial.
That was the starting position of most of the Washington DC population
about lead, in October 2002 when WASA first widely released information
about elevated lead levels in some homes' water. Normally, you can't
easily scare people about such hazards as obesity, high blood pressure,
not wearing seatbelts, not wearing condoms--or lead poisoning. So when
people suddenly get upset about a risk they have long been ignoring,
there are usually new ``outrage factors'' (or ``fear factors'') driving
the reaction.
The main problems with WASA's communication about lead in the water
were: initially, trying to attack apathy with information alone, and
without scaring anyone; and later, neglecting public outrage--
especially its outrage at them, the official sponsor of the outrage.
1. Trying to attack apathy with information alone
Trying to attack apathy--let me define this as a profound lack of
outrage--with information alone--especially information that doesn't
signal a change in a familiar situation--is a big reason for
communication failure when people are not upset about a potentially
serious risk. This is what WASA failed to factor in, in its October
2002 Lead Awareness Week brochure. WASA cites this brochure to
demonstrate that it did not try to hide the lead problem from the
public--and technically they didn't hide it. And they did send notices
to the actual homes which tested high for lead in the water. But they
did not signal that it was a potential problem for the public at large.
WASA's brochure was entitled, ``The District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority and the District of Columbia Department of Health
Acknowledge National Lead Awareness Week and Its Impacts on Your
Health. Living Lead-Free in DC.'' The explicit purpose of the brochure,
based on its title, was to acknowledge National Lead Awareness Week.
This brochure has excellent educational content. But it only weakly
signals to the public that there are new reasons to take this
information seriously. The title makes it sound like the PR department
decided to use ``National Lead Awareness Week'' as a news peg for
sending out information about what to do about lead--major lead sources
like paint and dust; less significant sources like lead in the water.
Pretty picture of water on the cover. A smiling pregnant woman holding
a glass of water on page 2. Low down on page 3 comes this sentence:
``However, in the annual monitoring period ending June 30,
2002, the lead results indicate that although most homes have
very low levels of lead in their drinking water, some homes in
the community have lead levels above the EPA action level of 15
parts per billion.''
By the time a reader gets to this sentence, the context of the
brochure suggests that ``some homes'' are very few, and ``above the EPA
action level'' is only a little above. The cheerful, informative tone
of the preceding pages, in context with the celebratory title of the
brochure, does not signal, ``DO something! This is a surprising change
in our findings! Take this seriously!''
The next mention of the actual water problem is at the bottom of
page 7: ``Despite our best efforts mentioned earlier to control water
corrosivity and remove lead from the water supply, lead levels in some
homes or buildings can be high.'' CAN be high? Didn't they know? How
many homes or buildings so far? HOW high? You cannot tell from the
brochure. But on January 31, the Washington Post reported that ``some
homes'' meant 4,075 homes, and ``how high?''--2,287 homes were above 50
parts per billion, way over the EPA action level. A much scarier way
for the public to find this out. Yes, public anxiety would have
increased at any point that they heard about this, and public anger
too; but WASA lost the opportunity to help the public cope with its
anxiety, and WASA generated much more anger, by letting the story break
unexpectedly. Feeling blindsided gets translated into a belief that the
hazard is much more serious: this is a very robust finding in risk
communication research.
I can understand WASA's reluctance to lay out this information
explicitly early on. On March 2, The Washington Times wrote that WASA
General Manager Jerry Johnson ``wanted more comprehensive analysis of
the test data before unnecessarily alarming the public.'' Well, they
still don't know the full extent of the problem. They still do not know
if many people, especially, children, have been affected. They wouldn't
even get much of a hint until March 30, when the CDC published a small
amount of mostly reassuring data. It's hard to tell people bad news,
and then add, ``Not only that, but we don't know how bad, and we don't
know what it means, or what to do!''
But an official at WASA trained in crisis communication could have
shared the anguish of this uncertainty with the public:
``I'm so sorry to tell you that we're finding a lot of
unexpected high lead levels in water coming out of the taps in
lots of homes. We don't know yet why this is happening. We
don't know yet whether any people, especially children, have
increased blood lead levels because of this. We don't even know
all the recommendations we want to make to you, because we feel
you deserve to know this information quickly, so we'll just
give you some preliminary precautionary recommendations. We'll
be learning things over the next weeks that we'll wish we had
known months ago. We may make mistakes, or retract things we've
already said, or change our minds as new information and
guidance come in. But we're committed to sharing this with you
early. We know you'll be worried; we share that worry; and we
will bear this together and get through it.''
This would have expressed confidence in the public--a compliment
the public might well have returned, along with its appropriate anger
at you, and its anxiety. You can't skip the part where they are angry
at you, you can only manage it better. But telling the public you don't
think they can handle bad news--``we didn't want to panic people''--is
insulting, patronizing, and it generates mistrust.
The third mention of an actual problem is on page 10.
``WASA's recent Lead and Copper Program hosted 53 volunteers
who have single-family residences that are served by either
lead services, internal lead plumbing or copper pipes with lead
solder installed after 1982. During WASA's last sampling
program in the summer of 2001 and June 2002, some of these
homes tested above 15 ppb. In the District of Columbia, there
are approximately 130,000 water service lines and 20,000 of
these are lead services.''
As an imaginary recipient of this brochure, I react to this
thinking:
``Well, if they knew this in the summer of 2001 and in June
of 2002, and they are only telling me now in the context of
acknowledging National Lead Awareness Issue, and they are not
mentioning how elevated the levels were, this must be not be
very important new information.''
You cannot tell if officials are even a little worried about a
developing situation. I'd love to know data about how many people
responded to this brochure by testing their water, or testing their
houses for lead, or screening their children. It was a very good
brochure in terms of what to do if you are worried about lead, which
many people should be. It just didn't give readers a new reason to do
it, if they were not worried about lead to start with.
In my Mandarin Chinese classes at Princeton University, we learned
a little word that you put at the end of a sentence to signal, ``New
situation! Not business as usual!'' The word is ``le.'' There is no
``le'' in the brochure. Terrific information. Lots of action people can
and should take. But no alarm bells, just business as usual.
2. Neglecting public outrage--especially outrage at ``you'', the
official sponsor of the outrage
Neglecting or disparaging the public's outrage is one of the main
problems in poor risk communication when people are already angry or
upset.
By February 5, WASA and other officials were sounding defensive--
the beginning of their own knee-jerk reaction to the public's outcry
over the story. Spokesman Johnnie Hemphill insisted,
``We certainly didn't do anything to hide this information. .
. . we have done everything we were supposed to, from beginning
to end . . . It's clearly a challenge for WASA and homeowners,
but it isn't a crisis.''
Not recognizing and acknowledging that this was indeed a crisis--a
crisis of public confidence and fear--was insulting to the public. Not
as bad as ``There's no need to panic,'' but still disrespectful.
Hemphill was leaning on the technical side of hazard versus outrage--
the actual effort to assess and mitigate the lead hazard. If the
October brochure suggested that WASA did not know how to send a signal
to apathetic people that a new problem had arisen, WASA statements
after January 31 revealed that they didn't know how to listen or talk
to angry people either.
Since I have watched many good officials do this wrong and then
learn, I am probably more sympathetic to how hard it is, how counter-
intuitive it is, to engage in compassionate, responsive, human crisis
communication when people are attacking you! You feel like a good
person, engaged in thankless tasks with inadequate resources; you feel
like you've been trying to get people to take lead seriously forever
and suddenly they are accusing you of not taking it seriously! And you
get defensive. (I just illustrated a risk communication strategy called
``telling people stories about themselves,'' very useful when trying to
get through to angry worried people.) Hemphill's reactions are as
natural as the public's reactions. I hope I can help some of the people
who are angry at WASA to understand this, just as I hope I can help
WASA see that they genuinely did a lot of communication things wrong,
and made public outrage and fear much worse than it could have been,
and that there are learnable strategies for doing it better.
On February 13, in a letter to its customers, WASA General Manager
Jerry Johnson sounded like he was minimizing the extent of the
potential problem:
``There are about 130,000 water service pipes in the
District. . . . The vast majority of those are not lead service
pipes. Our initial efforts are concentrating on the relatively
small percentage of our customers served by lead service lines.
. . . 23,000 homes . . .'' That's about 18 percent of the
homes. I'm sure that doesn't sound relatively small to WASA
when they try to figure out a budget for mitigating all those
lead service lines, and it doesn't sound relatively small to
the public when they live in a neighborhood served by lots of
these lines. So Johnson sounds defensive, like he's minimizing
the problem. In a world where we don't want a single child to
be damaged by lead, it sounds callous and uncaring to refer to
23,000 homes as ``a relatively small percentage.'' I will bet
that Jerry Johnson is not actually callous and uncaring, but in
his defensive posture, he sounded that way.
In the same letter, Jerry Johnson says that the houses served by
lead service lines ``may have increased levels of lead in their tap
water.'' He certainly must mean that all of those houses are at risk--
which is the right message. But he still isn't saying how many houses
he already knows have elevated lead in the water. And in the next
paragraph he discusses how in spring and summer of 2002, ``samples
indicated that some households experienced increased lead levels above
the [EPA] `action level' ''. The indefinite words--``may have,'' ``some
households,'' ``increased lead levels''--all sound evasive, and are
likely to evoke both alarm about the extent of the exposure, and anger
about an attempt to minimize it. Can you imagine the U.S. Postal
Service saying, ``Out of the billions and billions of letters mailed
every day, we have found `some letters' which contain anthrax spores''
? Or the U.S. CDC saying, ``We have found `some patients' with SARS'' ?
The crisis--not the hazard crisis, but the outrage crisis, the crisis
in confidence--was in full swing by February 13, and WASA was still
doing mostly public relations, trying to reassure.
We have come up with a concept called the Risk Communication
Seesaw. If you--the official--sit on the over-reassuring, minimizing
side of the seesaw, I--the public or your critics--will heavily sit on
the alarming side. If you sit more toward the fulcrum, and share some
of my fears, and validate my anger, and openly acknowledge the
worrisome news while also giving me information that is hopeful or
reassuring, I will put it in perspective better, I will feel less
patronized, I will bear my worries better, and paradoxically I will
blame you less--after I get through telling you how angry I am! You
can't skip that step with the public.
Now I heard that WASA held a lot of public hearings where they let
people yell at them. This is excellent crisis management. But most of
the quotes I've read of officials responding at those meetings sound
defensive, bureaucratic, and technocratic. The public gave you outrage
and you gave them back hazard. I'm not saying to respond only to the
outrage--you have to address the hazard, but you are in no danger of
forgetting to do that. But bend over backward to acknowledge and
validate people's feelings, show some of your own anguish, express your
wishes that you had responded differently, express your regrets,
express your hopes about managing the problem, ask people even more for
their ideas and for their help, tell them stories about what other
members of the public have told you (and I do not mean complimentary
stories)--these are all ways officials can let the public feel they
have been heard and even understood. Learn how to apologize--
``I'm so sorry we didn't break this story months ago, so
people would have been spared months of drinking so much leaded
water. I'm so sorry we tried to deal with this ourselves
instead of involving the public early, so people could take
their own precautions sooner.''
Using good risk communication, Johnson could have written to his
customers:
``I have been appalled for months that about 4,000 houses--
out of about 6,000 tested--had elevated lead in their water.
That's about 66 percent! We can only guess that about the same
percentage of the rest of the houses served by lead service
lines may have elevated levels too. Even though most of
districts homes are not served by lead lines, there are 23,000
homes I am worried about until we find out if they have
elevated lead too. I wish I could tell you not to worry while I
work on this problem. But it's your drinking water, and of
course you have a right to be worried.''
Two other examples of neglecting outrage:
On February 19, WASA posted an alert on its website entitled,
``Lead Service Line Flushing Clarification,'' outlining a change in
previous guidelines for how long to let taps run before drinking the
water. The recommendation increased in an alarming direction--from
``one or 2 minutes'' to ``10 minutes to protect against high levels of
lead in drinking water.'' Why the first recommendation was now seen to
be inadequate is not clear; issues on this recommendation between WASA
and EPA are not clear; but they are not my focus when reading this
``clarification.''
The word ``clarification'' is odd: the previous recommendation was
clear, and the new recommendation is equally clear. The new
recommendation isn't a clarification, it is a change. A revision. The
old recommendation may or may not have been an error. The new
recommendation may be based on evolving knowledge, or a re-thinking of
old knowledge. But a clarification it isn't. Tell us what it is!
This alert notice let people know that the precautions they thought
were adequate for quite a while had not been adequate, and therefore
they had been exposing themselves to more hazard than they thought.
This is upsetting! WASA's alert, while clearly for the purpose of
telling people the new recommendation, could have added a couple lines
of regret that the new recommendation hadn't been made sooner, and an
acknowledgment that it is frustrating and upsetting for people to find
that their precautions had been inadequate.
Dr. Vicki Freimuth, who was director of communications for the CDC
during the anthrax attacks and the SARS outbreak, describes how during
anthrax, evolving knowledge was perceived as mistakes--and that this
was largely because of failure to acknowledge uncertainty all along.
Several important risk communication strategies to reduce public alarm
in response to changing information are:
<bullet> use anticipatory guidance: warn people that information
and recommendations are likely to change as we learn more, or have more
time to analyze what we already know, or consult with more experts;
warn people (regretfully!) that some of what we know will turn out
wrong.
<bullet> acknowledge uncertainty all along.
<bullet> show your own humanity: express the wish that you knew
more, and that you didn't have to put the public through anxiety-
provoking changes.
While some of these techniques can raise anxiety at first, they
also let you share the public's worry, and help them bear it, rather
than trying to squelch the public's worries and leaving them alone with
their fears.
My last example of WASA ignoring public outrage and fear comes from
a statement by Glenn S. Gerstell, Board Chairman of WASA, on about
February 27. In this statement, Gerstell says he is ``pleased'' that
nearly 99 percent of school water samples are below the EPA action
level, and he is ``pleased'' that WASA has caught up with its backlog
of voicemails. ``Pleased'' is a PR kind of word. I'd vote for
``relieved.'' This is a minor quibble, but I use it to illustrate that
PR and crisis communication are different. Gerstell also wrote that he
and other top officials ``have conducted numerous media interviews to
communicate facts and findings as we get them.'' Separate from my
comment that the ``facts'' very often did not include numbers of houses
affected, or degree of lead elevation, I want to point out that this
view of communication--communicating facts to the public--is probably
less than half of good crisis communication. Listening to the public,
acknowledging human feelings--your own and the public's--is a very
large part of what makes crisis communication work when people are
angry and afraid.
3. Some examples of spectacular risk communication from other crises
WASA General Manager Jerry Johnson has been quoted as saying he
believes in using ``facts to overcome fears'' to educate the public. I
hope I can convince him to use even the scary-sounding facts, and to go
beyond the facts and help people bear their fears. It is part of the
job, as Mayor Guiliani demonstrated so magnificently on September 11,
and as superb risk communicators in public health do.
Here are some examples of very good risk communication, which
illustrate validating public emotion, acknowledging uncertainty, using
anticipatory guidance, showing your own humanity, and not prematurely
over-reassuring people.
In June 2003, North Carolina had its only confirmed SARS patient.
State Epidemiologist Jeff Engel responded with a series of news
conferences. At one of them, a reporter asked if all the news coverage
had the potential to cause more hysteria and fear. Dr. Engel replied:
``We need to involve our community in all aspects of public
health. Certainly a disease like SARS, so new, so frightening,
should instill fear. Fear is an appropriate response for me as
a public health physician, for everyone in the community. We
need to transfer that fear into positive energy, and keep the
facts out in front of hysteria. . . . I think [the media's]
response is appropriate. This is a new disease, it spreads
person to person, it can kill, it has a high case-fatality
rate. That is newsworthy!''
Two months later, Dr. Engel made essentially the same empathic
statement about Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE). Here he is in the
August 24, 2003 Fayetteville Observer:
Dr. Jeff Engel, a State epidemiologist with Health and Human
Services, said the State has documented ``only 12 or 13 human
infections since 1964.'' The most in one year was three in 1989. . . .
Though human infections are rare, Engel emphasized precautions.
``Fear is appropriate. I mean, my God, here you have a mosquito
that can kill,'' Engel said. ``What we are trying to do through you
guys, the media, is use that fear in a positive way. We are trying to
get information out there.''
The local Wal-Mart sold out of insect repellant after the EEE news
conference. Dr. Engel generated preparedness, not panic.
On March 14, 2003, 2 days after the World Health Organisation
issued a rare global alert, WHO spokesman Dick Thompson said:
``With relatively few SARS deaths, one might think we are
overreacting but when you don't know the cause, when it strikes
hospital staff, and moves at jet speed . . . until we can get a
grip on it, I don't see how it will slow down . . . It's highly
contagious. It's bad.''
And one of the best risk communicators I know, CDC Director Dr.
Julie Gerberding, often acknowledges uncertainty, and balances
reassuring information with caution, by putting the reassurance in a
subordinate clause. This shows what we mean by balancing on the fulcrum
of the risk communication seesaw.
Early in the SARS outbreaks Dr. Gerberding was asked if SARS could
be bioterrorism. She answered, ``While we have lots of reasons to think
that the SARS outbreaks are not due to terrorism, we're keeping an open
mind and being vigilant.'' Other officials said only the first half:
``There is no evidence of a terrorist attack.'' Dr. Gerberding's
version is paradoxically more reassuring; we know she is still looking,
just in case.
Later in the SARS outbreak, Dr. Gerberding reassured us and
cautioned us at the same time, saying, ``Although we haven't seen
community transmission of SARS, we're not out of the woods yet.''
Sometimes, when people hear my examples, or my re-writes of what I
think officials should have said, they ask me, ``Well, aren't some
people just naturally inclined to do crisis communication well? Is it
really something you can learn and practice?'' I usually answer by
telling them my favorite Julie Gerberding story:
One day during SARS, there had been a really weird newspaper
article quoting an astrobiologist from Wales that SARS and other
viruses might come from outer space, on meteor dust. (It had to be a
very quiet day on the SARS front when newspapers had space for this
strange notion.) At a CDC telebriefing, CNN's Miriam Falco said, ``Dr.
G., I just have to ask you about this outer space thing. What do you
think?'' Dr. G. answered, with a wicked twinkle in her eyes, ``Although
we have no evidence that SARS is from outer space, we're keeping an
open mind.'' The reporters in the room roared with laughter--in
recognition of her signature way of acknowledging uncertainty and not
over-reassuring.
Crisis communication is hard, but learn-able. As a field, it is a
moving target; we are learning and trying out new strategies all the
time, and seeing what works--and what doesn't work. I'm not sure if
WASA officials can learn it, but I am hopeful they can. Some of what I
recommend may backfire on you too--and I will feel terrible when that
happens. Some of it may turn out wrong. I wish I knew everything there
was to know about crisis communication, and I wish it was easier to
learn.
So even though WASA officials think they are doing good
communication, I hope they will be keeping an open mind as they
consider other ways. And even though many in the public think that WASA
did egregious communication (the closest I come to agreeing with that
is the delay in informing the general public), I think WASA mostly did
ordinary conventional ``bad'' risk communication. And this applies to
me too: Even though I think WASA's communication mistakes are pretty
run-of-the-mill, I will be keeping an open mind as I learn more about
how they actually managed the lead crisis.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Dana Best, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Smoke Free Homes
Project, Medical Director, Healthy Generations Program, Assistant
Professor, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health
Sciences, Children's National Medical Center
Lead's Effects on Children, Pregnant Women, and Nursing Mothers
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to you today
regarding the effects of lead on children, pregnant women and nursing
mothers. I am a board-certified pediatrician and preventive medicine
physician, with expertise in pediatric environmental health. I hope
that I can provide the committee with some useful and important
information about lead, lead poisoning, and current research on the
topic.
Children's Hospital is a 279-bed pediatric inpatient facility
located in the District of Columbia. For more than 130 years,
Children's has served as the only provider dedicated exclusively to the
care of infants, children, and adolescents in this region. It is our
mission to be preeminent in providing health care services that enhance
the well-being of children regionally, nationally, and internationally.
The Children's system includes a network of nine primary care health
centers located throughout the city, and a number of pediatric
practices throughout the region, providing stable medical homes for
thousands of children. We operate numerous regional outpatient
specialty centers in Maryland and Virginia, providing access to high
quality specialty care in the communities we serve. We are proud to be
the region's only Level I pediatric trauma center. Children's Hospital
serves as the Department of Pediatrics for George Washington University
School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and runs a highly respected
pediatric residency program, providing education and experience to the
next generation of pediatricians, pediatric subspecialists, and
pediatric researchers. We conduct significant research within the
Children's Research Institute, with funding from the National
Institutes of Health, the Health Resources Services Administration, the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
many other public and private funders.
INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF HISTORY
Lead is a bluish-white metal of atomic number 82. Its isotopes are
the end products of each of the three series of naturally occurring
radioactive elements. It is soft, malleable, and resistant to
corrosion, which makes it ideal for use in plumbing, pottery, tools,
etc. Alloys of lead include pewter and lead solder.\1\
Use in ancient Rome. Lead pipes used as drains from the Roman baths
and bearing the insignia of Roman emperors, are still in service.\1\
Debate over the contribution of lead poisoning to the fall of the Roman
Empire persists, but it is generally accepted that lead was widely used
in plumbing, pottery, and cooking vessels. One potential source of lead
poisoning in Roman times was the practice of boiling unfermented grape
juice in lead pots. The resulting sugar and lead-laden syrup was added
to wine to improve taste. The Romans recognized that lead was harmful,
and identified the dangers of breathing fumes from lead furnaces and
drinking water from the areas of lead mines; the connection of lead
cooking vessels to lead poisoning is less well-described.\2\
Use in gasoline. Tetraethyl lead, the ``antiknock'' compound in
leaded gasoline, was first described in 1854. In 1921, the emerging
auto industry found it to be an effective, inexpensive gasoline
additive that reduced engine ``knock'', a pernicious problem. Even in
1921 the poisonous effects of lead ingestion had been described and
many public health authorities warned against this use of tetraethyl
lead, particularly since other effective anti-knock gasoline additives
were available. Nevertheless, due to cost reasons, tetraethyl lead was
used. In 1922 the U.S. Public Health Service warned of the dangers of
leaded fuel, and the scientific community added further concerns. In
1923, Thomas Midgley, the primary proponent of leaded fuel, suffered
from acute lead poisoning and several workers at plants that made
tetraethyl lead died.
In 1926, a committee appointed by the U.S. Surgeon General to
review the harms of tetraethyl lead called for regulation of the
product and for further studies funded by Congress. Those studies were
never funded and never performed. Further evidence of the harms of lead
continued to be published, but leaded gasoline was not phased out until
1986, and lead-containing motor fuel additives were not banned until
1996.\3\ This belated public health success resulted in a significant
drop in the blood lead levels of U.S. children: in 1976, when the
standards were implemented, the average blood lead level in children
was 15 mcg/dl; in 1991, those levels had dropped to 3.6 mcg/dl.\1\
Use in paint.\4\ Lead has been used for centuries to make paint
whiter, last longer, and cover better. The harm from lead in paint to
children was first noted in the English literature in 1887.\5\ In 1904,
child lead poisoning was linked to lead-based paints,\6\ and as a
result, many countries began banning lead-based interior paints. Lead
continued to be used in paints in the U.S., however, including paint
used on cribs. In 1914 the death of a Baltimore boy due to lead
poisoning from chewing on his crib railing was described, and other
cases continued to be reported.<SUP>7,}8</SUP> In 1992 the League of
Nations banned lead-containing interior paint but the United States did
not adopt the ban. In 1943 it was reported that eating lead-containing
paint chips causes physical, neurological, behavior, learning and
intelligence problems in children. Finally, in 1971, the Lead-Based
Paint Poisoning Prevention Act was passed and finally implemented in
1977. As a result of these delays in banning leaded paint, many U.S.
homes still contain lead paint. With the banning of leaded fuel, lead
paint is now the primary source of childhood lead poisoning in the U.S.
Lead in water. Federal regulation of drinking water quality began
in 1914, when standards for bacteriological levels were set; lead as a
water contaminant was not regulated until much later, in 1962.\9\ Most
of the lead in water comes from industrial releases, urban runoff, and
atmospheric deposits. While these sources of environmental lead are
small, in comparison to other sources such as leaded gasoline, they can
be significant, depending on water conditions. pH, grounding of
household electrical systems to plumbing, and water additives can
increase the leaching of lead from pipes and increase the solubility of
the leached lead.\3\ In most cities in the U.S., lead in tap water is
due to the corrosion of lead-containing materials, such as lead pipes,
in water distribution systems and household plumbing.\10\ In terms of
lead in water as a source of childhood lead poisoning, discussions of
oral lead ingestion do not separate dust sources or paint chips from
lead in the water supply, making it extremely difficult to discriminate
between lead poisoning from household paint and lead poisoning from
lead-contaminated water supplies. It is highly likely that lead-
contaminated water can contribute to lead poisoning of children.
However, no studies of lead in water as the sole source of
environmental lead were found.
Lead in other sources. Other sources of lead include cosmetics
(such as kohl), folk remedies, pottery, cans with lead-soldered seams,
contaminated vitamins, and herbal remedies. In communities in which
lead smelters or other industrial applications of lead exist, special
attention should be paid to contaminated air, water, and workers'
clothing. Anyone who works with lead should change clothing and shoes
and shower before leaving work. Lead soldiers, hand-made munitions, and
other hobbies can be a source of lead. Vinyl mini blinds were
identified as a source of lead and removed from the market in 1996.
(See Appendix 1)
LEAD POISONING, OR, ``THERE ARE NO SAFE LEVELS OF LEAD''
Critical periods in human development.\11\ The developing embryo,
fetus, and child are growing and changing rapidly. If, during this
rapid period of change, the fetus or child is exposed to a poison of
some kind, development can be deranged. These ``critical windows of
exposure'' are specific periods of development during which the embryo
or fetus is undergoing some process, such as the development of arms
and legs between days 22-36 of pregnancy, when thalidomide damages
their development.<SUP>12,}13</SUP> There are many other examples of
this effect, including tobacco smoke and behavioral effects, and
alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome. The critical period associated with
harm from lead poisoning is brain and nervous system development, which
begins in early pregnancy and continues until at least age 3 years.
Since different parts of the nervous system are responsible for
different functions, and since these different nervous system parts
develop at different times, the timing of lead exposure can lead to
different effects.\14\
Differences between children and adults. Children's behaviors
expose them to more lead dust through hand-to-mouth exploration,
greater exposure to potentially lead-laden soil, and closer contact
with lead dust and paint chips on the floor. Children also absorb lead
more efficiently than adults through their digestive systems: children
absorb 40-50 percent of ingested lead while adults only absorb 10-15
percent.\15\ In addition to greater absorption of lead from the
digestive tract, the bones of infants and children are absorbing
calcium at a high rate as they grow. Lead is chemically similar enough
to calcium that it can be stored in bone, to be released gradually into
the blood stream, providing an ``internal source'' of lead
poisoning.\16\ There is similar evidence that lead and iron can occupy
the same molecular sites, contributing to anemia and providing another
``internal source'' of lead. Another significant difference between
children and adults is in the rate of their metabolisms. Children have
significantly faster metabolisms, which means that they breathe faster
and ingest proportionately more food and water.\16\ This difference
means that in similar environments, children are exposed to a greater
extent to contaminants. For example, the average infant drinks 5 oz of
breast milk or formula per kilogram of body weight, an amount
approximately equivalent to 20 liters of fluid for an adult. If formula
is reconstituted using lead-contaminated tap water, that infant will
receive a significant dose of lead. Similarly, breast milk can be
contaminated with lead if the mother's primary source of water is lead-
contaminated.
The disease of lead poisoning is also different in children than in
adults. (See Figure 1.) In adults, many of the effects are reversible,
such as peripheral neuropathies (a loss of sensation or increased
sensitivity in the arms or legs); in children, effects persist
throughout their life, even after chelation (the drug treatment for
severe lead poisoning). Because of these differences, our understanding
of lead poisoning in adults cannot be extrapolated to children.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.182
Lead's effects on children. The effects of lead poisoning differ
depending on many factors: dose, acuity or chronicity of poisoning,
gender, age, nutritional status, the presence or absence of an
enriching environment, developmental assets and supports, other
toxicants in the body, and genetics. Lead levels typically peak around
age 2 years, when normally developing children undergo a major change
in dendrite<SUP>*</SUP> connections. This time-related association
between peak lead levels and major brain development leads to the
theory that lead interferes with this critical process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ A dendrite is a part of a nerve cell that conducts nerve
impulses sent by adjacent nerve cells towards the body of the recipient
nerve. During early brain development, many more connections between
nerves develop than exist in adult brains. Many of theses connections
disappear as the child grows. Many experts believe that this
``surplus'' of nerve connections makes it possible for the brains of
children to develop functions as they are needed, and also lead to the
improved recovery of children, compared to adults, from any brain
damage that occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When studied in the laboratory, lead has been shown to alter basic
nervous system functions, such as calcium modulated signaling, even at
very low concentrations. Other effects of lead include interference
with the synthesis of heme molecules (the oxygen-carrying molecules in
red blood cells), leading to anemia, which has also been shown to
affect intelligence. One study of lead levels in African American and
Mexican American girls suggests that environmental exposure to very
small amounts of lead (3 mcg/dl) can delay growth and puberty.\17\ This
study contributes to the growing literature on environmental toxins and
effects on human endocrine (hormonal) systems. Lead has also been shown
to damage kidneys.\18\
The effects of lead poisoning on neurocognitive skills have been
identified since at least 1966. Canfield\19\ showed that at even very
low blood lead levels, children's IQ scores were negatively affected.
This study also showed that the effects on IQ were proportionately
greater at lower levels than at higher levels. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2. IQ as a Function of Lifetime Average Blood Lead
Concentration.\19\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.183
A 4-5 point decrease in IQ can mean the difference between normal
and sub-normal intelligence and the ability to function independently;
over the long term, it can mean a significant decline in the average
intelligence of the affected population. Many other studies have
demonstrated similar effects of blood lead levels under 10 mcg/dl; some
have shown effects under 5 mcg/dl.\20\
Behavior and psychosocial effects. In addition to effects on IQ,
distractibility, decreased reaction time,\21\ poor organizational
skills, hyperactivity (including ADHD, or Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder), and poor classroom
performance<SUP>22,}23</SUP> have been linked to lead poisoning. These
effects have been recognized since at least 1976.\24\ The Port
Pirie<SUP><dagger></SUP> Cohort Study, a prospective study of the
association of lifetime lead levels and emotional, behavioral, and
cognitive effects, repeatedly showed significant, permanent, declines
in cognition, behavior problems, and emotional problems that persisted
throughout childhood to at least age 11-13 years.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\<dagger>\ Port Pirie, Australia, is the home of a lead smelter. A
group of children born and raised in Port Pirie were studied from birth
through age 11-13 years for the effects of lead poisoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term effects. Chronic exposure to lead has been linked to
cerebrovascular and kidney disease, more often seen in adults. Lead has
been linked to cancers in persons with lifetime lead exposures above 15
ppb in water.\10\
At higher levels.\11\ Fortunately, clinical lead toxicity, meaning
patients that present with symptoms of lead poisoning such as
headaches, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, constipation, clumsiness,
agitation, decreased activity, or somnolence is increasingly rare.
These symptoms indicate central nervous system involvement that can
rapidly proceed to vomiting, stupor, convulsions, encephalopathy, and
death. These symptoms typically present in children with blood lead
levels higher than 60 mcg/dl. Anyone with these symptoms should be
treated for a life-threatening emergency.
LEAD IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND NURSING MOTHERS
Because lead is chemically similar to calcium, it is incorporated
into bone, which can result in a significant accumulation of lead in
bones. If, during pregnancy and breastfeeding, maternal intake of
calcium is not sufficient, these stores of lead and calcium are
mobilized to supply calcium to the growing fetus and produce human
milk.<SUP>26,}27</SUP> Lead in maternal blood easily crosses the
placenta,\28\ resulting in lead exposure of the fetus, and is readily
incorporated into breast milk, leading to lead-contaminated breast
milk.<SUP>29,}30 </SUP>The long-term effects of these exposures are
difficult to quantitate in an environment in which many other sources
of lead exist. However, one study of breastfed infants linked maternal
lead stores to decreased weight gain in the first month of life,\30\
and a second concluded that the primary source of lead in infants under
age 6 months is dietary, including breast milk and formula.\31\ These
studies are particularly relevant to the situation in the District of
Columbia. At very high levels of maternal lead, pregnancy loss has been
reported.\12\
TREATMENT OF LEAD POISONING
The treatment of lead poisoning in children has been described in
the CDC's document ``Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young
Children.''\32\ Unfortunately, no treatment for lead poisoning in
children has been shown to reverse the long-term neurocognitive and
behavioral effects,\33\ and the primary treatment for significant lead
poisoning, chelation with succimer,<SUP>=</SUP> has been implicated as
causing a small decrease in IQ.\34\ Many studies have shown persistent
cognitive and be-
havioral effects long after blood lead levels have dropped to levels
considered
``low.''<SUP>25,}35,}36</SUP> Prevention of lead poisoning is the only
solution to this disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\=\ Succimer, or dimercaptosuccinic acid, is an oral treatment for
chelation of lead in children. It tastes and smells like rotten eggs,
making the treatment difficult to administer for children and
caregivers alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARING THE RISK OF LEAD POISONING TO OTHER CHILD HEALTH RISKS
The CDC estimated that in 2000, there were 454,000 children in the
U.S. with blood lead concentrations higher than 10 mcg/dl. Depending on
the quality of these children's environments, we can estimate that each
of these children lost at least 4-5 IQ points, and a significant
proportion suffer from hyperactivity, behavioral and learning
difficulties, and other long-term effects of lead poisoning. Comparing
these losses to other child health risks is difficult, for there is no
way to measure or place a value on how a person's life would be if they
had not been exposed. In terms of the overall health of children in the
District of Columbia, the following comparisons can be made:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of Percent of DC Children
Preventable Condition Estimate Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood lead level greater than or 2002 3.8 percent of children
equal to 10 mcg/dl. tested at Children's
hospital; average
level 3 mcg/dl\37\
Exposure to environmental tobacco 2002 46 percent\38\
smoke. (compared to 38
percent
nationwide)\39\
Children living in poverty.......... 2003 29 percent (compared to
17 percent
nationwide)\40\
Children without health insurance... 2003 12 percent (compared to
12 percent
nationwide)\40\
Children living in the Spring Valley/ 2002 zero\41\
American University area whose
hair had higher levels of arsenic
than the general population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these figures seem reassuring at first look, with ``only''
3.8 percent of District children having a lead level 10 mcg/dl or
higher, the reader should remember that even at values of 5 mcg/dl or
lower neurocognitive and behavioral effects have been documented. Many
of the children whose lead levels are 10 mcg/dl or higher are the same
children living in poverty, exposed to environmental tobacco smoke,
and/or without health insurance. These conditions add to the effects of
lead poisoning; for poverty reduces educational opportunities,
environmental tobacco smoke exposure has adverse effects on health,
intelligence, and behavior, and lack of health insurance reduces access
to the health care that might assist families in reducing lead
poisoning and other harmful environmental exposures.
COMPARATIVE RISK BY SOURCE OF LEAD
Since the banning of leaded fuel, lead paint has become the primary
source of lead poisoning in the United States. While lead in water has
been described, the proportion of lead ingested via water versus lead
dust and other sources from lead paint has not been determined.
Unfortunately, lead pipes are found in the same older homes in which
lead paint is found, making it extremely difficult to separate the
contribution of each source. Since there is no level of lead considered
to be without negative effect, and since the population most at risk
from lead poisoning is the same population that suffers from poor
nutrition, inadequate schools, lack of developmental enrichment, and
other consequences of poverty, our responsibility is to remove any and
all sources of lead poisoning from these children's environments. The
harms of lead have been known for thousands of years; with many missed
opportunities to remove lead from the environment due to cost concerns.
There is no way to place a dollar value on the harm from lead poisoning
to children in this city, as well as to children throughout the U.S.
and the world, no matter what source, water or paint.
TESTING FOR LEAD
The standard procedure in most laboratories for testing lead in
body fluids is the electrothermal atomization atomic absorption
spectrophotometry assay. This method replaces less sensitive methods
such as the free erythrocyte protoporphyrin, erythrocyte porphyrin, or
zinc protoporphyrin tests.\32\ There are newer products on the market
for testing lead levels in body fluids at this time; the sensitivity,
specificity, and validity of these methods have not yet been completely
determined, particularly at low levels of lead. Testing of hair,
fingernails, and teeth should not be done because they are subject of
external contamination, making test results uninterpretable.\32\ On
occasion, an abdominal radiograph (``X-ray'') is useful for determining
if a child has a significant amount of chipped paint in his or her
digestive tract. If present, the paint chips can be removed.
Radiographs of bones looking for ``lead lines'' are not useful.\32\ A
new technique, K X-ray fluorescence, is entering the field of lead
research. This instrument measures long-term lead deposits as densities
in bone, similar to measurements of bone density for the diagnosis of
osteoporosis.\42\ There are consumer test kits for lead in paint,\43\
and many professional lead testing services exist. Reliability of test
results varies considerably, so consumers should follow guidelines such
as those from the Consumer Product Safety Commission in testing for
lead, selection of a method of abatement if lead paint exists, and
careful abatement procedures. See Appendix B.
RESEARCH AND LEAD IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER
On March 30, 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
published a report on blood lead levels in residents of homes with
elevated lead in tap water in the District of Columbia. This study
indicated that a long-term decline in the blood lead levels of children
living in homes with lead service lines had halted in 2000, the year
chloramines were added to water in the District of Columbia. While
there are several limitations to this study, primarily due to the speed
with which it was performed, the results are disturbing. The CDC
recommends that public health interventions focus on eliminating lead
exposures in children, and that lead concentrations in drinking water
be below the EPA action level of 15 ppb.\44\
Children's has begun an analysis of the last 10 years of lead test
results performed in our laboratory. We will look at the average lead
level during the 10-year period, noting any changes in the average. We
will also look for associations between lead levels in the children
tested and lead levels in household water supply, the presence of lead
paint in the home, insurance status, and other potential influences.
This study is an extremely high priority; we will inform Congress and
the District of Columbia of our results as soon as they are available.
SUMMARY
The children of the District of Columbia deserve a safe environment
in which to grow and develop into adults contributing to DC's future.
The effect of lead poisoning, even at levels not yet considered to be
``poisonous,'' is to reduce the potential of yet another generation of
children. There is no way to place a value on this loss of potential;
however, we do know that the loss of IQ points and changes in behavior
are measurable and significant. We also know that the resources
available to many of the District's children are fragmented, in some
instances non-existent, and rarely adequate to the challenges presented
by poverty, race and ethnicity, and violence found in this city. This
combination sentences the District's children to yet another generation
of poverty and poor health. The law says lead levels higher than 15 ppb
need to be abated. The children deserve this.
Thank you for this opportunity to inform you about lead and
children, pregnant women and breastfeeding women. I am available for
questions today or in the future.
______
Appendix A.--News from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Office
of Information and Public Affairs, Washington, DC 20207, June 25, 1996,
Release 96-150
CPSC FINDS LEAD POISONING HAZARD FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN
IMPORTED VINYL MINIBLINDS
Washington, DC.--After testing and analyzing imported vinyl
miniblinds, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has
determined that some of these blinds can present a lead poisoning
hazard for young children. Twenty-five million non-glossy, vinyl
miniblinds that have lead added to stabilize the plastic in the blinds
are imported each year from China, Taiwan, Mexico, and Indonesia.
CPSC found that over time the plastic deteriorates from exposure to
sunlight and heat to form lead dust on the surface of the blind. The
amount of lead dust that formed from the deterioration varied from
blind to blind.
In homes where children ages 6 and younger may be present, CPSC
recommends that consumers remove these vinyl miniblinds. Young children
can ingest lead by wiping their hands on the blinds and then putting
their hands in their mouths. Adults and families with older children
generally are not at risk because they are not likely to ingest lead
dust from the blinds. Lead poisoning in children is associated with
behavioral problems, learning disabilities, hearing problems, and
growth retardation. CPSC found that in some blinds, the levels of lead
in the dust was so high that a child ingesting dust from less than one
square inch of blind a day for about 15 to 30 days could result in
blood levels at or above the 10 microgram per deciliter amount CPSC
considers dangerous for young children.
``Some of the vinyl blinds had a level of lead in the dust that
would not be considered a health hazard, while others had very high
levels,'' said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown. ``Since consumers cannot
determine the amount of lead in the dust on their blinds, parents with
young children should remove these vinyl miniblinds from their homes.''
CPSC asked the Window Covering Safety Council, which represents the
industry, to immediately change the way it produces vinyl miniblinds by
removing the lead added to stabilize the plastic in these blinds.
Manufacturers have made the change and new miniblinds without added
lead should appear on store shelves beginning around July 1 and should
be widely available over the next 90 days.
Stores will sell the new vinyl blinds packaged in cartons
indicating that the blinds are made without added lead. The cartons may
have labeling such as ``new formulation,'' ``nonleaded formula,'' ``no
lead added,'' or ``new! non-leaded vinyl formulation.'' New blinds
without lead should sell in the same price range as the old blinds at
about $5 to $10 each. CPSC recommends that consumers with young
children remove old vinyl miniblinds from their homes and replace them
with new miniblinds made without added lead or with alternative window
coverings. Washing the blinds does not prevent the vinyl blinds from
deteriorating, which produces lead dust on the surface.
The Arizona and North Carolina Departments of Health first alerted
CPSC to the problem of lead in vinyl miniblinds. CPSC tested the
imported vinyl miniblinds for lead at its laboratory. The laboratories
of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the Army's Aberdeen Test
Center used electron microscope technology to confirm that as the
plastic in the blinds deteriorated, dust formed on the surface of the
blind slats. This testing also established that the dust came from the
blinds and not from another source. CPSC laboratory tests confirmed
that this dust contained lead.
``This lead poisoning is mainly a hazard for children ages 6 and
younger,'' said Chairman Brown. ``Adults and older children generally
are not at risk because they are not likely to ingest lead dust from
the blinds.''
______
Appendix B.--Consumer Product Safety Commission--What You Should Know
About Lead Based Paint in Your Home: Safety Alert CPSC Document 5054
Lead-based paint is hazardous to your health. Lead-based paint is
a major source of lead poisoning for children and can also affect
adults. In children, lead poisoning can cause irreversible brain damage
and can impair mental functioning. It can retard mental and physical
development and reduce attention span. It can also retard fetal
development even at extremely low levels of lead. In adults, it can
cause irritability, poor muscle coordination, and nerve damage to the
sense organs and nerves controlling the body. Lead poisoning may also
cause problems with reproduction (such as a decreased sperm count). It
may also increase blood pressure. Thus, young children, fetuses,
infants, and adults with high blood pressure are the most vulnerable to
the effects of lead.
Children should be screened for lead poisoning. In communities
where the houses are old and deteriorating, take advantage of available
screening programs offered by local health departments and have
children checked regularly to see if they are suffering from lead
poisoning. Because the early symptoms of lead poisoning are easy to
confuse with other illnesses, it is difficult to diagnose lead
poisoning without medical testing. Early symptoms may include
persistent tiredness, irritability, loss of appetite, stomach
discomfort, reduced attention span, insomnia, and constipation. Failure
to treat children in the early stages can cause long-term or permanent
health damage.
The current blood lead level which defines lead poisoning is 10
micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. However, since poisoning may
occur at lower levels than previously thought, various Federal agencies
are considering whether this level should be lowered further so that
lead poisoning prevention programs will have the latest information on
testing children for lead poisoning.
Consumers can be exposed to lead from paint. Eating paint chips is
one way young children are exposed to lead. It is not the most common
way that consumers, in general, are exposed to lead. Ingesting and
inhaling lead dust that is created as lead-based paint ``chalks,''
chips, or peels from deteriorated surfaces can expose consumers to
lead. Walking on small paint chips found on the floor, or opening and
closing a painted frame window, can also create lead dust. Other
sources of lead include deposits that may be present in homes after
years of use of leaded gasoline and from industrial sources like
smelting. Consumers can also generate lead dust by sanding lead-based
paint or by scraping or heating lead-based paint.
Lead dust can settle on floors, walls, and furniture. Under these
conditions, children can ingest lead dust from hand-to-mouth contact or
in food. Settled lead dust can re-enter the air through cleaning, such
as sweeping or vacuuming, or by movement of people throughout the
house.
Older homes may contain lead based paint. Lead was used as a
pigment and drying agent in ``alkyd'' oil based paint. ``Latex'' water
based paints generally have not contained lead. About two-thirds of the
homes built before 1940 and one-half of the homes built from 1940 to
1960 contain heavily-leaded paint. Some homes built after 1960 also
contain heavily-leaded paint. It may be on any interior or exterior
surface, particularly on woodwork, doors, and windows. In 1978, the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission lowered the legal maximum lead
content in most kinds of paint to 0.06 percent (a trace amount).
Consider having the paint in homes constructed before the 1980s tested
for lead before renovating or if the paint or underlying surface is
deteriorating. This is particularly important if infants, children, or
pregnant women are present.
Consumers can have paint tested for lead. There are do-it-yourself
kits available. However, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
has not evaluated any of these kits. One home test kit uses sodium
sulfide solution. This procedure requires you to place a drop of sodium
sulfide solution on a paint chip. The paint chip slowly turns darker if
lead is present. There are problems with this test, however. Other
metals may cause false positive results, and resins in the paint may
prevent the sulfide from causing the paint chip to change color. Thus,
the presence of lead may not be correctly indicated. In addition the
darkening may be detected only on very light-colored paint.
Another in-home test requires a trained professional who can
operate the equipment safely. This test uses X-ray fluorescence to
determine if the paint contains lead. Although the test can be done in
your home, it should be done only by professionals trained by the
equipment manufacturer or who have passed a State or local government
training course, since the equipment contains radioactive materials. In
addition, in some tests, the method has not been reliable.
Consumers may choose to have a testing laboratory test a paint
sample for lead. Lab testing is considered more reliable than other
methods. Lab tests may cost from $20 to $50 per sample. To have the lab
test for lead paint, consumers may:
<bullet> Get sample containers from the lab or use re-sealable
plastic bags. Label the containers or bags with the consumer's name and
the location in the house from which each paint sample was taken.
Several samples should be taken from each affected room (see HUD
Guidelines discussed below).
<bullet> Use a sharp knife to cut through the edges of the sample
paint. The lab should tell you the size of the sample needed. It will
probably be about 2 inches by 2 inches.
<bullet> Lift off the paint with a clean putty knife and put it
into the container. Be sure to take a sample of all layers of paint,
since only the lower layers may contain lead. Do not include any of the
underlying wood, plaster, metal, and brick.
<bullet> Wipe the surface and any paint dust with a wet cloth or
paper towel and discard the cloth or towel.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
recommends that action to reduce exposure should be taken when the lead
in paint is greater than 0.5 percent by lab testing or greater than 1.0
milligrams per square centimeter by X-ray fluorescence. Action is
especially important when paint is deteriorating or when infants,
children, or pregnant women are present. Consumers can reduce exposure
to lead-based paint.
If you have lead-based paint, you should take steps to reduce your
exposure to lead. You can:
<bullet> Have the painted item replaced. You can replace a door or
other easily removed item if you can do it without creating lead dust.
Items that are difficult to remove should be replaced by professionals
who will control and contain lead dust.
<bullet> Cover the lead-based paint. You can spray the surface with
a sealant or cover it with gypsum wallboard. However, painting over
lead-based paint with non-lead paint is not a long-term solution. Even
though the lead-based paint may be covered by non-lead paint, the lead-
based paint may continue to loosen from the surface below and create
lead dust. The new paint may also partially mix with the lead-based
paint, and lead dust will be released when the new paint begins to
deteriorate.
<bullet> Have the lead-based paint removed. Have professionals
trained in removing lead-based paint do this work. Each of the paint-
removal methods (sandpaper, scrapers, chemicals, sandblasters, and
torches or heat guns) can produce lead fumes or dust. Fumes or dust can
become airborne and be inhaled or ingested. Wet methods help reduce the
amount of lead dust. Removing moldings, trim, window sills, and other
painted surfaces for professional paint stripping outside the home may
also create dust. Be sure the professionals contain the lead dust. Wet-
wipe all surfaces to remove any dust or paint chips. Wet-clean the area
before re-entry.
<bullet> You can remove a small amount of lead-based paint if you
can avoid creating any dust. Make sure the surface is less than about
one square foot (such as a window sill). Any job larger than about one
square foot should be done by professionals. Make sure you can use a
wet method (such as a liquid paint stripper).
<bullet> 4. Reduce lead dust exposure. You can periodically wet mop
and wipe surfaces and floors with a high phosphorous (at least 5
percent) cleaning solution. Wear waterproof gloves to prevent skin
irritation. Avoid activities that will disturb or damage lead based
paint and create dust. This is a preventive measure and is not an
alternative to replacement or removal.
<bullet> Professionals are available to remove, replace, or cover
lead-based paint.
<bullet> Contact your State and local health departments lead
poisoning prevention programs and housing authorities for information
about testing labs and contractors who can safely remove lead-based
paint.
<bullet> The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
prepared guidelines for removing lead-based paint which were published
in the Federal Register, April 18, 1990, page 1455614614. Ask
contractors about their qualifications, experience removing lead-based
paint, and plans to follow these guidelines.
<bullet> Consumers should keep children and other occupants
(especially infants, pregnant women, and adults with high blood
pressure) out of the work area until the job is completed.
<bullet> Consumers should remove all food and eating utensils from
the work area.
<bullet> Contractors should remove all furniture, carpets, and
drapes and seal the work area from the rest of the house. The
contractor also should cover and seal the floor unless lead paint is to
be removed from the floor.
<bullet> Contractors should assure that workers wear respirators
designed to avoid inhaling lead.
<bullet> Contractors should not allow eating or drinking in the
work area. Contractors should cover and seal all cabinets and food
contact surfaces.
<bullet> Contractors should dispose of clothing worn in the room
after working. Workers should not wear work clothing in other areas of
the house. The contractor should launder work clothes separately.
<bullet> Contractors should cleanup debris using special vacuum
cleaners with HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters and should
use a wet mop after vacuuming.
<bullet> Contractors should dispose of lead-based paint waste and
contaminated materials in accordance with State and local regulations.
Government officials and health professionals continue to develop
advice about removing lead-based paint. Watch for future publications
by government agencies, health departments, and other groups concerned
with lead-paint removal and prevention of lead poisoning.
References
1. http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pb/
key.html. Accessed March 31, 2004.
2. http://itsa.ucsf.edu/snlrc/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/
leadpoisoning.html. Accessed March 31, 2004.
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry PHS, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Toxicological Profile for
Lead. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
1999.
4. Markowitz G, Rosner D. ``Cater to the children``: the role of
the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900-1955. Am J Public
Health. Jan 2000;90(1):36-46.
5. Stewart MD. Notes on some obscure cases of poisoning by lead
chromate manifested chiefly by encephalopathy. Medical News.
1887;1:676-681.
6. Gibson JL. A plea for painted railings and painted walls of
rooms as the source of lead poisoning amongst Queensland children.
Australian Med Gaz. 1904:149-153.
7. Thomas HM, Blackfan KD. Recurrent meningitis, due to lead in a
child of 5 years. Am J Dis Child. 1914;8:377-380.
8. Kitman JL. Timeline: 8,500 Years of Lead--79 Years of Leaded
Gasoline. The Nation; 2000.
9. United State Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of the
Safe Drinking Water Act: History and Trends: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 1999.
10. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html. Accessed
April 2, 2004.
11. Etzel RA, Balk SJ, eds. Pediatric Environmental Health. 2d ed.
Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003.
12. Brent R. Environmental causes of human congenital
malformations: the pediatrician's role in dealing with these complex
clinical problems caused by a multiplicity of environmental and genetic
factors. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):957-968.
13. Sadler TW. Langman's Medical Embryology. 6th ed. Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins; 1990.
14. Mendola P, Selevan SG, Gutter S, Rice D. Environmental factors
associated with a spectrum of neurodevelopmental deficits. Ment Retard
Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002;8(3):188-197.
15. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Exposure Analysis
Methodology and Validation. Washington, DC: Air Quality Management
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.; 1989.
16. Plunkett LM TD, Rodricks JV,. Differences between adults and
children affecting exposure assessment. In: Guzelian PS HC, Olin SS,
ed. Similarities and Differences Between Children and Adults:
Implications for Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: ILSI Press; 1992:79-
94.
17. Selevan SG, Rice DC, Hogan KA, Euling SY, Pfahles-Hutchens A,
Bethel J. Blood lead concentration and delayed puberty in girls. N Engl
J Med. Apr 17 2003;348(16):1527-1536.
18. Solhaug M, Bolger P, Jose P. The developing kidney and
environmental toxins. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):1084-1091.
19. Canfield RL, Henderson CR, Jr., Cory-Slechta DA, Cox C, Jusko
TA, Lanphear BP. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead
concentrations below 10 microg per deciliter. N Engl J Med. Apr 17
2003;348(16):1517-1526.
20. Bellinger D. Lead. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):1016-
1022.
21. Hunter J, Urbanowicz MA, Yule W, Lansdown R. Automated testing
of reaction time and its association with lead in children. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health. 1985;57(1):27-34.
22. Thomson GO, Raab GM, Hepburn WS, Hunter R, Fulton M, Laxen DP.
Blood-lead levels and children's behaviour--results from the Edinburgh
Lead Study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Jul 1989;30(4):515-528.
23. Fulton M, Raab G, Thomson G, Laxen D, Hunter R, Hepburn W.
Influence of blood lead on the ability and attainment of children in
Edinburgh. Lancet. May 30 1987;1(8544):1221-1226.
24. Needleman HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A, et al. Deficits in
psychologic and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine
lead levels. N Engl J Med. Mar 29 1979;300(13):689-695.
25. Burns JM, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, McMichael AJ, Tong SL.
Lifetime low-level exposure to environmental lead and children's
emotional and behavioral development at ages 11-13 years. The Port
Pirie Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. Apr 15 1999;149(8):740-749.
26. Gulson BL, Jameson CW, Mahaffey KR, Mizon KJ, Korsch MJ,
Vimpani G. Pregnancy increases mobilization of lead from maternal
skeleton. J Lab Clin Med. Jul 1997;130(1):51-62.
27. Gulson BL, Mahaffey KR, Jameson CW, et al. Mobilization of lead
from the skeleton during the postnatal period is larger than during
pregnancy. J Lab Clin Med. Apr 1998;131(4):324-329.
28. Goyer RA. Transplacental transport of lead. Environ Health
Perspect. Nov 1990;89:101-105.
29. Gulson BL, Jameson CW, Mahaffey KR, et al. Relationships of
lead in breast milk to lead in blood, urine, and diet of the infant and
mother. Environ Health Perspect. Oct 1998;106(10):667-674.
30. Sanin LH, Gonzalez-Cossio T, Romieu I, et al. Effect of
Maternal Lead Burden on Infant Weight and Weight Gain at One Month of
Age Among Breastfed Infants. Pediatrics. May 1, 2001 2001;107(5):1016-
1023.
31. Gulson BL, Mizon KJ, Palmer JM, et al. Longitudinal study of
daily intake and excretion of lead in newly born infants. Environ Res.
Mar 2001;85(3):232-245.
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing Elevated
Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; 2002.
33. Liu X, Dietrich KN, Radcliffe J, Ragan NB, Rhoads GG, Rogan WJ.
Do children with falling blood lead levels have improved cognition?
Pediatrics. Oct 2002;110(4):787-791.
34. Rogan WJ, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, et al. The effect of chelation
therapy with succimer on neuropsychological development in children
exposed to lead. N Engl J Med. May 10 2001;344(19):1421-1426.
35. Tong S, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, Burns J, McMichael AJ.
Declining blood lead levels and changes in cognitive function during
childhood: the Port Pirie Cohort Study. Jama. Dec 9 1998;280(22):1915-
1919.
36. Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C. Cognitive deficits
associated with blood lead concentrations <10 microg/dL in U.S.
children and adolescents. Public Health Rep. Nov-Dec 2000;115(6):521-
529.
37. Soldin O, Pezzullo J, Hanak B, Miller M, Soldin S. Changing
trends in the epidemiology of pediatric lead exposure:
interrelationship of blood lead and ZPP concentrations and a comparison
to the U.S. population. Ther. Drug Monitor. 2003;25:415-420.
38. Moon RY. Personal communication. May 18, 2002.
39. Gergen P, Fowler J, Maurer K, Davis W, Overpeck M. The burden
of envi-
ronmental tobacco smoke exposure on the respiratory health of children
2
months through 5 years of age in the United States: Third National
Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Pediatrics.
1998;101(2):http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/102/e108.
40. http:/ /aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action = profile&area =
District + of + Columbia. Accessed April 4, 2004.
41. http://www.atsdr.cdc.goc/statefactsheets/sfs-dc.pdf. Accessed
April 4, 2004.
42. Todd AC, McNeill FE, Fowler BA. In vivo X-ray fluorescence of
lead in bone. Environ Res. Dec 1992;59(2):326-335.
43. Meyers P. Cranky Consumer: Scouring the Home for Lead Paint.
The Wall Street Journal. Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2004:D2.
44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blood lead levels
in residents of homes with elevated lead in tap water--District of
Columbia, 2004. MMWR. March 30, 2004 2004;53:1-3.
______
Response by Dana Best to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question. Do you believe that lead poisoning in children can be
completely eliminated in this country without addressing lead in
drinking water?
Response. No. However, lead in drinking water is not the primary
source of lead--lead paint is. Abatement of lead paint in homes and
other settings in which children spend time should be our first
priority. Abatement of lead in drinking water should be pursued
simultaneously because of the potential scope of impact on entire
populations. Information on lead abatement in homes can be found at:
<bullet> The Office of Lead Hazard Control of the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes Lead Paint Safety--A
Field Guide for Painting, Home Maintenance and Renovation Work. This
booklet can be ordered by calling 1-800-424-5323 or by downloading from
www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html. HUD also offers a one-hour, web-based
training course on visual inspection of paint at www.hud.gov/lea/
lbptraining.html.
<bullet> The Center for National Lead-Safe Housing provides
information about safe home repair at www.leadsafehousing.org/html/
tech_assistance.htm.
<bullet> The Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning provides
information about safe home repair at www.aeclp.org/painting/
index.html.
______
Responses by Dana Best to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. When a patient at Children's Hospital is found to have
lead in his or her bloodstream, what typically happens to address this
problem? Do organizations or agencies other than the Hospital become
involved?
Response. All lead levels are reported to the DC Department of
Health by Children's laboratory staff. The DC Department of Health
typically makes a home visit when a blood lead level is 15 mcg/dl or
higher, to suggest abatement, determine the source of the exposure,
etc. For further details about these visits, please contact the DC
Department of Health.
If a child has a lead level higher than 10 mcg/dl, the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention are usually followed. These recommendations can be found at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/CaseManagement/caseManage_main.htm.
The following table is from page 41 of that document:
Blood Lead Level (BLL) (mcg/dL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-14 15-19 20-44 45-69 >70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead education.................. Lead education.... Lead education.... Lead education.... Hospitalize and
Dietary......................... Dietary........... Dietary........... Dietary........... commence
Environmental................... Environmental..... Environmental..... Environmental..... chelation
therapy.
Follow-up blood lead monitoring. Follow-up blood Follow-up blood Follow-up blood Proceed according
lead monitoring. lead monitoring. lead monitoring. to actions for 20-
Proceed according Complete history Complete history 44 mcg/dL.
to actions for 20- and physical exam. and physical exam.
44 mcg/dl if:. Lab work;......... Lab work:.........
A follow-up Bll is Hemoglobin or Hemaoglobin or
in this range at hematocrit. hematocrit.
least 3 months Iron status....... Iron status.......
after initial ................ FEP or ZPP........
venous test. Environmental Environmental
................ investigation. investigation.
or Lead hazard Lead hazard
BLLs increase..... reduction. reduction.
Neurodevelopmental Neurodevelopmental
monitoring. monitoring.
Abdominal X-ray Abdominal X-ray
(if particulate with bowel
lead ingestion is decontamination
suspected) with if indicated
bowel Chelation therapy.
decontamination
if indicated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following actions are NOT recommended at any blood lead level:
<bullet> Searching for gingival lead lines
<bullet> Testing of neurophysiologic function
<bullet> Evaluation of renal function (except during chelation with
EDTA)
<bullet> Testing of hair, teeth, or fingernails for lead
<bullet> Radiographic imaging of long bones
<bullet> X-ray fluorescence of long bones
Question 2. Recognizing that cases vary in their particulars, what
important examples can you provide of atypical treatment situations?
Response. There are bizarre cases in which the recommendations do
not apply. For instance, there was a patient here at Children's who had
been shot by a ``stray'' bullet at age 3. Since the bullet lodged near
the child's spinal column, it could not be removed. At age 10 the child
was still undergoing regular chelation due to chronically elevated lead
levels. (This case illustrates two of our city's major problems.)
__________
Statement of Erik D. Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I am Erik
D. Olson, a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), a national non-profit public interest organization dedicated to
protecting public health and the environment, with over 500,000
members. I am Chair of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking
Water, an alliance of over 300 medical, public health, nursing,
consumer, environmental, and other groups working to improve drinking
water protection. I also serve on the steering committee of a new
organization called Lead Emergency Action for the District (LEAD), a
coalition of local and national civic groups, environmental, consumer,
medical, and other organizations and citizens urging a stronger public
response to the DC lead crisis. I testify today only on behalf of NRDC.
The drinking water lead crisis in Washington DC poses serious
public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital
area, and casts a dark shadow of doubt over the ability, resources, or
will of Federal and local officials to fulfill their duty to protect
our health. Preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention recently found that there are reasons to be
concerned about lead in DC tap water. While severe acute lead poisoning
due to drinking water was not found, blood lead levels in DC children
who drink water in homes served with lead lines did not decrease,
whereas they did decrease in children served by non-lead lines. This
suggested to health experts that lead in tap water is likely
contributing to higher blood lead levels in some children in the
District. Because of deficiencies in the DC blood lead monitoring
program design, and because blood lead levels begin to drop fairly
shortly after exposure is stopped (with time much of the lead deposits
in bone and tissues), it is quite possible that more serious problems
were not detected. Mary Jean Brown, the lead poison prevention chief at
the CDC and a co-author of the report said in releasing the report
that,
``there is no safe level of lead . . . Even a small
contribution, especially in small children, is not something
that we want to happen. . . . We don't want to increase the
blood lead levels of those individuals by even 1 microgram if
it can be prevented.''
See Avram Goldstein, ``Blood Lead Levels Affected by
Disinfectant,'' Washington Post, March 31, 2004, available online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37404-2004Mar30.html and
CDC study at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm53d330al.htm.
It is important to note that new data published in major medical
journals the past few years show that even at levels below 10 g/dl in
blood, lead has been linked to reduced cognitive function in children,
and surprisingly, the most significant effects are seen at levels below
10 g/dl. See CDC Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention, Evidence of Health Effects of Blood Lead Level <10 g/dl,
available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/meetingMinutes/
lessThan 10MtgMAR04.pdf.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary
responsibility for protecting drinking water only in Washington DC,
Wyoming, and a few U.S. territories. EPA has failed to fulfill its
obligation to aggressively oversee the safety of DC's water supply, to
ensure that the public is fully apprised of the health threats posed by
our drinking water, and to enforce the law.
This raises important questions about the adequacy of EPA's
drinking water program not only for the Nation's Capital, but also for
the whole Nation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct
Division (the Corps) has failed to treat the water it delivers to DC
and neighboring Northern Virginia communities sufficiently to assure
that the water is not corrosive, in order to reduce lead contamination.
The DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has failed to act promptly or
adequately on the lead contamination crisis, and has repeatedly
confused and mislead the public about the lead problem. To date, the
local and Federal response has been far too slow and manifestly
inadequate. The Nation's capital's water supply should be the best in
the world, an international model. Instead, it is among the worst big
city supplies in the Nation.
It should not be assumed that Washington is the only city in the
U.S. affected by lead or other important tap water problems. We are now
learning of lead problems in Northern Virginia, and there are several
other cities have struggled with lead contamination in recent years,
including:
<bullet> Seattle, Washington (19 ppb 90th percentile lead according
to Annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) issued in 2003, citing 1997
data).
<bullet> Portland, Oregon (17 ppb 90th percentile according to CCR
issued in 2003)
<bullet> St. Paul, Minnesota (45 ppb 90th percentile in 1996,
reportedly brought down through treatment to 25 ppb in 1999, 20 ppb in
2000, and I 1 ppb in 2003).
<bullet> Bangor, Maine (6-8 ppb 90th percentile from 1993-1999,
increased to ``15 ppb'' in 2001 after switch to chloramines and
subsequent nitrification problem; reportedly reduced since then after
additional treatment-compliance issue boiled down to 1 ppb in one home
out of 38 tested).
<bullet> Madison, Wisconsin (22.2 ppb 90th percentile lead level,
city is now doing lead service line replacement, according to February
2004 report available online at http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/water/
Report%20PhaseII%2OS.pdf).
<bullet> Greater Boston, Massachusetts communities (most recent
Mass. Water Resource Authority's 2003 CCR reports system-wide
(consolidated) 90''' percentile lead level has dropped from 65 ppb in
1992 to 11 ppb in 2002, but MWRA's 2001 CCR reported, on a community-
by-community basis, that 13 Boston area communities substantially
exceeded the 90th percentile level. It is unclear why MWRA stopped
reporting these community-by community data in its annual CCRs
thereafter.)
<bullet> Newark, New Jersey (2001 90th percentile in Wanaque system
was 24 ppb and 13 ppb in Pequannock system; 2002 level reportedly
changed to 12 and 14, respectively, with new corrosion treatment).
<bullet> New York City (2002 and 2001 90th percentile levels
reported in CCR at 15 ppb, with levels up to 3,555 ppb in 2001;
compliance issue boils down to 1 ppb in one home out of 107 tested in
all of NYC).
<bullet> Oneida, New York (2002 CCR reported 19 ppb 90th percentile
level, reportedly doing lead service line replacement).
As several of these examples highlight, there are opportunities to
``game'' the system by slightly altering the monitoring program. Though
there is evidence that this may have happened in Washington DC, we are
not aware of any evidence of this elsewhere, though the temptation
could be large, and the lack of serious EPA oversight makes detection
of such problems unlikely. If the compliance of a system serving
millions of people boils down to less than 1 ppb measured at one or a
few homes out of about 100 tested, this raises significant issues.
Many other cities have had similar lead problems to those noted
above. However, incredibly EPA maintains no accurate up-to-date
national information on this issue. Some of these cities will assert
that they are now in compliance with EPA's lead action level despite
recent documented problems, but EPA has done little to aggressively
ensure that this is correct.
School systems in many cities across the country including in
Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Montgomery County, Maryland,
and many others have found serious lead contamination problems, but
often have been slow to inform parents and resolve the problem. Many
other States and school systems have entirely failed to comply with the
Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988s' mandate to test school water
for lead and replace coolers that serve lead-contaminated water. EPA
and many States have done a poor job of assuring that the EPA lead
rule, and the school testing and cooler programs are fully implemented.
The EPA Inspector General has recently issued a stinging report
finding that EPA's national drinking water data base mandated by
Congress and EPA rules is woefully incomplete and out of date, and that
EPA has repeatedly mislead the public about drinking water quality and
compliance because violations are seriously underreported.\1\ EPA has
acknowledged that there are major problems with State reporting of all
violations and specific lead levels to EPA--indeed, NRDC has learned
that fully 20 States have not been reporting any required information
on lead rule compliance, contrary to EPA rules. Yet EPA has has failed
to crack down on States that are not complying with Federal reporting
rules, making effective Federal tracking, oversight, and enforcement
impossible. Moreover, the Washington crisis and experience in other
cities highlight that the EPA lead rule and public education
requirements are manifestly inadequate and almost designed to be
difficult to enforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Inspector General, ``EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water
Quality Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings,'' Report
2004-P-0008, available online at www.epa.gov/reports/2004/20040305-
2004-P-0008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, we summarize some key problems with the response to the lead
crisis, and the actions that need to be taken to resolve the problem
locally and to avoid possible repetition of the problem nationally:
EPA. The EPA bears a special responsibility for addressing the DC
water crisis, since EPA has primary responsibility for drinking water
protection only in Washington, DC and Wyoming. EPA must take emergency
enforcement action against WASA and the Corps. EPA's recent notice of
violation issued to WASA was extremely long in coming. EPA's deals with
WASA and the Corps lack the clarity, detail, and enforceability that
are needed to assure this problem is promptly resolved. Only years
after the alleged violations, of which EPA was well aware, and only
after a barrage of 2 months of adverse publicity, did EPA take this
feeble action of issuing an NOV. An emergency enforcement order should
be issued that would not only mandate immediate actions to deal in the
short-term with the lead crisis, but should also require a
comprehensive top-to-bottom third party review of both WASA and Corps
operations.
EPA has failed to ensure prompt and accurate public education and
reporting on lead problems, and there are substantial questions about
whether EPA adequately oversaw WASA's lead monitoring and sample
invalidations. EPA failed to promptly and adequately review, or to
insist upon the updating the Corps' corrosion control program. It is
unclear whether EPA insisted upon an adequate and accurate materials
survey, and EPA reportedly allowed WASA to avoid lead service line
replacement by taking advantage of a regulatory loophole.
EPA has been slow to force WASA to redo its manifestly invalid and
misleading school testing, or to mandate testing of day care centers or
private schools. The EPA lead rule itself, which is drafted in a way
that makes it extremely difficult to enforce, needs to be substantially
strengthened. In addition, as noted above, EPA's data reporting systems
are woefully inadequate, to the point that EPA management cannot
accurately and timely answer simple questions such as ``which public
water systems are above the lead action level and which are replacing
lead service lines?'' EPA also has done little to ensure that school
testing for lead has been carried out nationally, perhaps in part due
to a court ruling casting doubt on the program (Acorn v. Edwards, 81
F.3d 1387 (5h Cir. 1996)). EPA's inspection and enforcement program for
drinking water has always been weak, but has gotten demonstrably worse
during the Bush Administration, as is shown in graphs a the end of this
testimony.
Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has failed to ensure that its
water is adequately treated to reduce its corrosivity and to thereby
reduce lead levels in Washington and the Northern Virginia suburbs that
it serves. The Corps has repeatedly responded to water quality problems
by adopting the cheapest and often least effective band-aid solutions.
Instead of using orthophosphate or other sophisticated corrosion
inhibiters as recommended as best by its consultants, the Corps chose
to simply adjust water pH with lime, a cheaper and apparently less
effective alternative.
Instead of moving toward advanced treatment such as granular
activated carbon filters and UV light or ozone disinfection, or
membranes to reduce cancer-causing (and possibly miscarriage and birth
defect-inducing) disinfection byproducts, and to more effectively
remove the dangerous parasite Cryptosporidium and other contaminants,
the Corps opted for the cheapest and least effective choice. It simply
added ammonia to its chlorine to make chloramines. The switch to
chloramines did slightly reduce chlorination byproduct levels, but also
appears to have increased corrosivity of the water and therefore
increased lead problems. It should be noted that contrary to the
inaccurate assertions of some critics, the EPA rules setting new limits
on disinfection byproducts were not the result of wild environmental
extremists, but were negotiated by a diverse regulatory negotiating
committee over a several-year period. The committee included major
water utility trade associations, chlorine manufacturers, health
departments, public health.experts, States, local officials, and
environmentalists (see 1998 agreement in principle at http://
www.ena.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpagre.html).
WASA. WASA's response to the lead crisis has been slow, plagued by
misleading statements to the public and even to senior DC officials,
and often characterized by missteps and at best grudging compliance
with EPA rules. Whether it is the alleged firing of a WASA employee for
reporting lead problems to EPA, or the failure to notify customers with
high lead levels for many months after samples were taken, or the
failure to effectively notify the Mayor, City Council, and all city
residents of the extensive and serious lead problem until the
Washington Post broke the story, WASA has a lot to answer for. EPA has
recently listed six alleged violations of Federal regulations that may
have contributed to the lack of public knowledge. See EPA Non
Compliance Letter to WASA, dated March 31, 2004, available online at
http://www.epa.gov/dclead/johnson-letter2.htm.
WASA's conflicting advice to customers (such as a February 9 letter
to all customers telling them to flush their water for 15-30 seconds,
followed by a public announcement a few days later to flush lead lines
for 10 minutes, followed a few days later by a recommendation that
pregnant women and children under six served by lead service lines
should use a filter) has confused and justifiably outraged citizens.
WASA's invalid and misleading testing of city schools, in which
virtually all samples were taken after water was flushed for 10 minutes
(with the likely effect of reducing or eliminating lead levels),
necessitates a re-conducting of a valid school and day care testing
program. At the mayor's and EPA's insistence, WASA has now said it will
do additional school testing.
In addition, it appears that WASA's partial lead service line
replacement program may be making matters worse, increasing lead levels
in some homes' water. Since local and Federal authorities have approved
and encouraged the use of lead service lines in DC for over 100 years,
we believe that WASA should fully remove all of the lead service lines
at its expense (with Federal assistance, see ``Congress'' below),
instead of stopping at the property line. A comprehensive third-party
public review of WASA's lead program and all water quality operations
also is desperately needed.
Congress. We urge Congress to help DC and EPA to fund the response
to the lead crisis, including lead service line replacement and
upgrades to the DC and Corps water infrastructure. Congress also should
respond to the national water infrastructure problem through national
legislation and increased appropriations. In addition, Congress should
vigorously oversee EPA's drinking water program, including its national
implementation of the lead rule and its enforcement and data collection
programs. Members of this Committee should urge their colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee to increase funding for EPA drinking water
programs, and particularly for drinking water enforcement. We also urge
Congress to insist that EPA take emergency enforcement action against
WASA and the Corps, as discussed below.
Specifically, among the actions that we believe Congress should
take to address problems raised by the lead crisis are:
<bullet> Water Infrastructure or Grants/Trust Fund Legislation
<bullet> Congress should substantially increase the Safe
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund authorization and
appropriations (now funded at $850M; authorization of $1B
expired in 2003).
<bullet> Congress should adopt broad water infrastructure bill
and/or water infrastructure trust fund legislation.
<bullet> Congress should adopt targeted legislation for lead
rule compliance/lead service line replacement and filters for
DC residents at least, since the Federal Government approved
and oversaw the installation of the lead lines.
<bullet> The Corps of Engineers should pay for DC lead service
line replacement since Corps built the system, and operates the
treatment plant that is providing corrosive water. Also,
Federal agents (federally appointed Commissioners and
engineers) approved and sometimes required lead service lines
in DC.
<bullet> Congress should adopt new legislation that provides
grants to needy water systems, like Reid-Ensign bill (S. 503,
107th Congress).
<bullet> Fix Lead Pipe and Fixtures provision in the SDWA
<bullet> Congress should redefine ``Lead Free'' in SDWA
Sec. 1417(d) to mean really lead free (i.e. no lead added, and
no more that 0.1 or 0.25 percent incidental lead--as required
by L.A., Bangor, Maine, etc.).
<bullet> Congress should fix the public notice provisions in
SDWA Sec. 1417(a)(2), which clearly have been inadequate (as
shown by the DC experience).
<bullet> Fix the SDWA lead in schools and day care provisions (SDWA
Sec. Sec. 1461-1463)
<bullet> Congress should redefine lead free in the Lead
Contamination Control Act (LCCA), which added SDWA Sec. 1461,
to mean really lead free (0.1 percent or 0.25 percent, see
above).
<bullet> Congress should order an EPA review of Sec. 1462
implementation and effectiveness of lead fountain recall
provision in all States.
<bullet> Congress should clarify Sec. Sec. 1461-63 to
eliminate any constitutionality doubts raised by Acorn v.
Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996).
<bullet> Congress should require ongoing retesting of all
schools and day care centers in light of Acorn and widespread
non-compliance, and new info on lead leaching.
<bullet> Fix the EPA Lead Rule & Associated Regulations
<bullet> Adopt a 10 or 15 ppb MCL at the tap. There was an MCL
(50 ppb) until 1991.
<bullet> As a clearly second-best alternative, the rule needs
serious overhaul:
<bullet> Require immediate review of corrosion control
programs for systems that make treatment changes, and
also require review periodically;
<bullet> Change monitoring requirements so systems
cannot go for years without testing, and to clarify and
strengthen test methods, site selection, and number of
tests (50 or 100 per city are not enough);
<bullet> Strengthen/overhaul public education and
public notice requirements in 40 CFR 141.85 which are
obviously inadequate;
<bullet> Require full lead service line replacement,
or at a minimum require that water systems that
approved, authorized, or required use of lead service
lines to replace those lines if they are contributing
to lead over action level;
<bullet> Require in-home certified filters to be
provided to high-risk people who have high lead levels,
with water system-supplied maintenance in accordance
with 40 CFR 141.100;
<bullet> Eliminate the loophole that allows systems to
count homes tested at below 15 ppb as is their lead
service lines were replaced in implementing the 7
percent/year lead service line replacement provision;
<bullet> Require an overhaul/upgrade of EPA's
compliance & data tracking.
<bullet> Fix the Consumer Confidence Report & Right to Know
Requirements
<bullet> WASA's report said on the cover ``Your Drinking Water
is Safe'' and buried the facts. No one knew of the problem.
Similar problems have been ocumented for water systems across
the country. EPA's right to know and consumer confidence report
rules need to be overhauled & strengthened.
<bullet> Fix SDWA Standards Provisions
<bullet> Congress should require that standards to protect
pregnant women, children, vulnerable people.
<bullet> Congress should overhaul the new contaminant
selection & 6 year standard review provisions. These provisions
have been complete failures since 1996.
EPA'S RESPONSIBILITIES
EPA has known, at least since the mid-1990s, that lead
contamination of tap water is a significant issue in Washington, and
that the public was ill-informed about the problem. In 1995-1996, in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request, NRDC learned that
many homes across the city had lead levels well in excess of the EPA
Action Level, and that those homeowners had not been informed of the
contamination. The Washington Post ran a story about the issue in April
1996. Meanwhile, the Corps' filed its corrosion control plan with EPA,
and EPA substantially delayed in its approval, well beyond the legal
deadline. Finally, EPA apparently simply accepted the Corps' plan to
use only pH adjustment, rather than requiring the Corps to further
study-or use orthophosphate or other more sophisticated corrosion
inhibiters recommended by some consultants. When the Corps later
switched to chloramines as a disinfectant, EPA made the serious mistake
of not insisting upon a full review of the corrosion control plan in
light of the apparently more corrosive disinfectant.
Even when the lead Action Level was exceeded in Washington in 2001,
EPA required no changes in corrosion control, went along with WASA's
plan to replace only a small number of lead service lines, and did not
insist that WASA conduct an effective public education program. There
also are substantial unresolved questions about whether EPA allowed
WASA to ``invalidate'' lead samples and avoid an exceedence of the
Action Level, as alleged by a former WASA employee who was reportedly
fired for informing EPA of the lead problem. Additionally, while EPA
has issued a notice of violation recently to WASA for failing to comply
with public notification and public education rules, EPA has never
challenged the adequacy of WASA's water quality reports sent to all
consumers in June 2003 boldly proclaiming that ``YOUR DRINKING WATER IS
SAFE,'' despite the exceedence of the lead Action Level.
Moreover, while EPA enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) has never been strong, this testimony documents that nationally,
it has substantially dropped off since President Bush took office (see
Figures at the end of this testimony). EPA's drinking water
inspections, administrative penalty orders, administrative penalties,
and other measures of enforcement activity generally have taken a
substantial downturn in the past 3 years. We understand there is only
one EPA staffer in EPA's Washington enforcement office dedicated to
drinking water enforcement (though there are pieces of a few others who
spend small amounts of time on drinking water enforcement), and that
the dedicated drinking water enforcement staffing in the EPA's regions
is small and dwindling. This enforcement downturn may have contributed
to the lack of action in this case, compared to a far more vigorous EPA
enforcement response to previous DC water crises in 1993-1994 and 1995-
1996. There is a serious need for a major infusion of resources and a
will to enforce in EPA's drinking water and enforcement programs.
The only solution to the DC water crisis is for EPA to initiate a
full civil and criminal investigation, and to immediately issue
emergency administrative orders to WASA and the Corps. The orders
should mandate that they address the multitude of problems with their
response to the lead crisis and other water quality problems, including
enforceable deadlines for:
(1) expedited, valid testing of all schools and day care centers;
(2) expanded testing of multiple family and single family homes and
apartments beyond those with lead service lines;
(3) reissued accurate, understandable notices to consumers of lead
levels, health risks, and options to avoid lead;
(4) professional installation and maintenance of certified filters
for homes with lead service lines or high lead levels in their water,
and that have young children, pregnant women, women who expect they may
become pregnant, and other high risk individuals;
(5) an aggressive, honest, ongoing public education campaign
developed with public input;
(6) a comprehensive third-party review of all available records and
archives to determine whether the DC materials survey correctly
identifies all locations where lead components were used;
(7) an expedited third-party review of the Corps' corrosion control
and disinfection byproduct control strategy, with mandatory
implementation of solutions by specified dates certain; and
(8) a top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA and the
Corps' water quality, source water, and overall performance, including
a detailed review of their implementation of past consultant
recommendations, Comprehensive Performance Evaluations, and sanitary
surveys, and recommendations for long-term compliance with current and
upcoming rules and water quality objectives. The review should seek
public input and should be published.
(See LEAD coalition recommendations below for a more detailed
discussion of the terms of possible orders). Finally, EPA must overhaul
its lead rule, and its overall and substantially better fund its
drinking water and enforcement program's oversight, sampling, data
collection, and legal enforcement to ensure that this or other similar
problems are not repeated in other cities around the country.
THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' RESPONSIBILITIES
The Corps has repeatedly opted for the cheapest, easiest way out of
water quality problems, even if the ``solution'' is manifestly
inadequate. Thus, instead of following consultants' advice to consider
aggressive and sophisticated corrosion inhibiters such as
orthophosphates to reduce lead problems, the Corps chose merely to
adjust pH. Instead of addressing the underlying problem creating the
high chlorination byproduct contamination of city water by installing
advanced treatment such as activated carbon and ozone or UV
disinfection, or membranes, the Corps opted for a cheap ``band-aid''
solution of using chloramines alone, apparently exacerbating the
corrosion problem with our water. As noted above, EPA should
immediately issue an emergency order to the Corps requiring: (1) a
comprehensive and public third party expert review of the Corps'
corrosion control and water treatment problems; (2) enforceable
deadlines for completion of the review and implementation of recommend
solutions; and (3) a longer-term top-to-bottom third party review, with
public input, of the Corps' water quality and treatment.
DC WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY'S (WASA) RESPONSIBILITIES
WASA has bungled its response to the DC lead problem. In addition
to violating EPA rules, WASA's public education and public notice
efforts have been conflicting, confusing, misleading, and manifestly
woefully inadequate. The direct notices provided to customers whose
water was tested and confirmed to be highly contaminated was misleading
and failed to provide any sense of health risk or urgency. The WASA
water quality reports issued to the public proclaiming that ``YOUR
DRINKING WATER IS SAFE,'' despite evidence to the contrary, was highly
misleading, as were a variety of other WASA public communications.
WASA's changing advice on how long and whether to flush tap water, and
whether filters are necessary, has confused the public.
WASA's program testing about 750 samples from over 150 city
schools' fountains and faucets was fundamentally flawed and either
completely inept or intentionally misleading. WASA admits that contrary
to standard EPA regulatory protocol and standard scientific practice,
they ran the water for 10 minutes before taking school samples, thereby
likely substantially reducing lead levels in the samples. No child runs
water for 10 minutes before drinking it. WASA's press conference
portraying the results as demonstrating that there is no lead problem
in DC schools was highly misleading and likely false. The Mayor and EPA
have now told WASA to redo this testing. It should be done for all
school and day care center faucets and fountains used by children for
consumption.
In addition, there are serious unanswered questions about when WASA
first learned of the lead problem, whether WASA ``invalidated'' lead
samples to avoid exceeding the Action Level, and whether WASA fired an
employee allegedly for notifying EPA of water quality problems (as has
been found by a U.S. Department of Labor whistleblower review). It is
also unclear whether the city's materials survey (intended to identify
lead components in the system) adequately documents where lead service
lines and high risk homes are located. The WASA lead sampling plan and
monitoring program clearly are inadequate, since to date they have not
sought to document the extent of the lead problem in homes not served
by lead service lines.
WASA's lead service line replacement program is insufficiently
aggressive and will not promptly resolve the city's lead problems. In
addition to the slow pace of replacement (at WASA's current rate, it
will take about 15 years to complete), it also is becoming apparent
that partial lead service line replacement (leaving the lead line on
the homeowner's property in place) may actually make lead problems
worse. Partial service line replacement can exacerbate lead problems by
shaking loose lead particles during and after the replacement process,
and by creating galvanic corrosion (similar to a battery) caused when
two pipes made of different metal are connected. We believe that WASA
should pay for--with Federal assistance--full lead service line
replacements.
A long history of problems with the operation and maintenance of
the DC water distribution system, including past city-wide boil water
alerts during the microbial crises in 1993-1994 and 1995-1996, and
WASA's inability or unwillingness to candidly inform customers and
apparently even senior city officials about water quality problems
makes clear the need for EPA to issue an emergency order mandating a
comprehensive top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA's water
quality and operations, with public input and public release of the
fmdings, and a schedule for implementation of the recommendations.
HISTORY OF RECENT LEAD CRISIS IN DC
On Saturday January 31, 2004, residents of the Nation's Capitol
picked up their morning papers and were stunned to learn that thousands
of homes' drinking water in the District was seriously contaminated
with lead. Officials at the DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) and at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had known about the lead
problem for over a year, and probably longer, but had failed to
effectively notify the public about the problem. The Mayor, City
Council, Members of Congress, and the general public were caught by
surprise that over 4,000 of 6,000 homes whose water WASA tested was
contaminated with lead at levels above EPA's action level-the safety
level at which Federal rules require prompt action to reduce lead
levels. There has been over a month of front-page stories, saturation
TV and radio coverage, hostile City Council hearings, public outrage,
and repeated (albeit often conflicting) WASA public statements that
there was no serious health threat. Finally, WASA recommended on
February 25 that pregnant women and children under age six whose homes
were served by lead service lines should not drink city water, fueling
further public concern, confusion, and outrage that WASA and EPA had
known about the health threat for so long and never previously told
pregnant women and parents of young children not to drink the water.
WASA also held a press conference in late February to announce that
school drinking water was safe, based upon testing of over 750
fountains and faucets in DC schools. It then came out that the results
were seriously misleading because in almost all cases, WASA flushed the
water lines for 10 minutes, likely removing most lead from the water,
contrary to EPA rules and all scientific protocols for lead testing. No
child stands at a fountain flushing water for 10 minutes before taking
a drink. WASA refused to retest DC school drinking water, or to
comprehensively test day care centers, posing a serious health risk to
DC school and preschool children, until ordered to do so by the Mayor
and EPA.
Now we are learning that it appears that similar problems may be
plaguing Northern Virginia communities that also receive their water
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct Division
(the Corps). The Corps changed its disinfection practice to use
chloramines in 2000, a switch many experts believe may account for
increased corrosivity of the water and therefore more lead leaching
into tap water. Chloramines are a ``band-aid'' that modestly reduce
cancer-causing chlorination byproducts, but only a switch to modern
water treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon plus UV
light or ozone disinfection will actually solve both the chlorination
byproduct problem.
The February 25 ``don't drink the water'' advice, though necessary,
is woefully inadequate. Citizens are infuriated that they have been
mislead and given conflicting advice. District leaders announced, as
this scandal erupted in early February, that they would name an
``independent'' blue ribbon panel to investigate. However, this was
followed days later by an announcement of a panel consisting entirely
of WASA and other District government officials, with no independent
experts and no citizens, environmentalists, or consumer
representatives. The District government's retreat from its promise
that there would be an independent review showed a lack of commitment
to swiftly resolve this serious health problem or to get to the bottom
of why WASA continues to fail in its duty to protect the public.
The decisions to approve the use of lead service lines were made
with the explicit approval and oversight of Federal officials, who were
overseeing the construction of the city's water lines and supply. There
had been a vigorous public debate about the safety of lead service
lines stretching back to the 1890s, yet Federal officials who ran the
city supply decided to use lead lines. Thus, the Federal Government
bears some culpability for the problem.
CONCLUSION
We urge members of this Committee to consider the legislative and
oversight recommendations noted above. Without changes in applicable
statutory provisions, and aggressive Congressional oversight, it is
likely that problems like those in Washington, DC could happen in many
cities and towns across the country. Public health protection requires
increased vigilance by EPA, Congress, health authorities, and water
utility professionals, and increased public awareness.
______
APPENDIX A
LEAD COALITION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Lead Emergency Action for the District (LEAD), a coalition of local
and national health, environmental, and other citizen organizations of
which NRDC is a member, recommended the following actions in February;
only part of a few of these recommendations have been carried out:
1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the
responsibility to immediately take enforcement action against WASA to
ensure our health is protected, and should initiate a full criminal and
civil enforcement investigation.
The EPA has primary responsibility for overseeing the safety of the
District's drinking water supply. Unlike its vigorous actions to
resolve microbiological threats a decade ago, the agency has shirked
its responsibility in response to the recent lead problem. The EPA
should immediately initiate an enforcement action under its emergency
order authority (which allows the EPA to enforce when there is an
imminent health threat, requiring no finding of a violation of law),
and should initiate a parallel criminal and civil enforcement
investigation. The EPA order should mandate several specific actions,
including enforceable deadlines for:
(1) Expedited, valid testing of all schools and day care centers,
both first draw and flush samples.
(2) Expanded testing of homes beyond those with lead service lines.
WASA should arrange free water lead tests for all DC residents. (This
is what the New York City Department of Environmental Protection has
been doing for more than 10 years.) Notice of these free lead tests
should be drafted in consultation with EPA and the public, and should
note the health implications of elevated lead levels in water and the
threat from lead paint in DC
(3) Reissued accurate, understandable notices to consumers of lead
levels, health risks, and options to avoid lead, by mail and through
broadcast media. WASA should be required to immediately notify all DC
households whether they are believed to have lead service lines or not,
what the risks are, and should arrange for free lead testing of any tap
water on request. Notices similar to those recently sent to lead
service line customers should be sent to customers who are not believed
to have lead service lines noting that there still may be a risk of
lead contamination, and offering to arrange for free lead testing.
(4) Professional installation and maintenance of certified filters
for homes with lead service lines or high lead levels in their water,
and that have young children, pregnant women, women who expect they may
become pregnant, and other high risk individuals.
(5) An aggressive, honest, ongoing public education campaign
developed with public input. This should include several specific
requirements, such as:
a. WASA should send all DC residents a detailed city-wide map of
all areas with known or suspected lead service lines with accompanying
health and other explanations.
b. WASA must acknowledge the public's right to know and issue a
city-wide map of lead levels detected on a detailed map, and should
provide real time monitoring results for lead and all contaminants
found in its water.
c. WASA must notify any home with a lead service line that has been
found to have excessive lead in an appropriate water test that it is
eligible for free lead service line replacement, and the schedule for
replacement. The notice should also note whether WASA is responsible
for only part of the service line replacement or full service line
replacement under DC law.
d. EPA and WASA must issue notices that publicly recommend that
those pregnant women, or parents of young children, with lead service
lines or whose water lead levels are in excess of EPA's Action Level
(or some other reasonable safety level), should obtain blood screening
for lead for their children. This is not an emergency that would
require going to the emergency room, but it is a matter of importance,
and blood tests for lead levels should be provided by the DC Department
of Health.
(6) A comprehensive third-party review of all available records and
archives to determine whether the DC materials survey correctly
identifies all locations where lead components were used;
(7) An expedited third-party review of the Corps' corrosion control
and disinfection byproduct control strategy, with mandatory
implementation of solutions by specified dates certain; and
(8) A top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA and the
Corps' water quality, source water, and overall performance, including
a detailed review of their implementation of past consultant
recommendations, Comprehensive Performance Evaluations, and sanitary
surveys, and recommendations for long-term compliance with current and
upcoming rules and water quality objectives. The review should seek
public input and should be published.
2. EPA should immediately take enforcement action against the Army
Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct and order it to aggressively
treat the water to reduce lead leaching.
The EPA's 1991 lead and copper regulations require the Washington
Aqueduct to treat our water in order to reduce its corrosivity; less
corrosive water should mean less lead leaching from pipes. While the
Corps and WASA do have a corrosion control program (albeit one that
reportedly was reviewed by the EPA far later than envisioned by the
1991 rules), it is obvious that it must be critically examined and
improved. Recent changes in water treatment at the Washington Aqueduct
(apparently made after the corrosion control plan went into effect),
aimed at reducing disinfection byproducts, may have altered the
chemistry of the city's water. An urgent independent review of the
corrosion control plan is warranted, with EPA-ordered steps to
implement recommended actions. Deadlines should be established for
completion of the review and implementation of its recommendations, and
the results should be made public as soon as they are completed. When
WASA was constituted, it entered into a governance agreement with the
city of Falls Church and Arlington County over Washington Aqueduct,
with oversight over expenses and actions. WASA and other customers
should long ago have insisted upon improvements in the Washington
Aqueduct's corrosion control program.
3. WASA must re-conduct its testing of District school water to be
sure that all drinking water fountains and all faucets used for
consumption in District schools and day care centers are tested--both
first draw and flushed samples--within 2 weeks.
WASA's recent water test results were highly misleading because
more than 97 percent of the samples taken were from faucets and
fountains flushed for 10 minutes. Since no student flushes a fountain
for 10 minutes before taking a drink, flushing water for a test sample
would create misleading samples and test results. (Flushing often will
reduce or eliminate lead levels in large buildings.) Since infants and
young children are most vulnerable to lead poisoning, schools and day
care centers should be top priorities for testing.
4. EPA and Congress should help WASA and the DC government fund
home treatment units or bottled water for pregnant women and infants
under age 6 in households that have lead service lines or lead in the
drinking water at levels above the EPA action level.
There are likely thousands of pregnant women and young children
under the age of 6 who are drinking tap water that contains lead at
levels higher than 15 parts per billion, EPA's action level. These
people need a safe alternative water supply until the problem has been
resolved. The DC government, EPA and Congress should fund alternative
water supplies for high-risk water drinkers. Bottled water is not
necessarily any safer than tap water unless it is independently tested
and confirmed to be pure, and many filters are not independently
certified to remove the levels of lead found in many DC homes' water.
Therefore, EPA should assist residents by assuring that any alternative
water supply (such as bottled water) is indeed free of lead and other
harmful contaminants, or that a filter is independently certified (see
www.nsf.org) to take care of lead. It should be noted that NSF
certifies only that lead levels up to 150 ppb will be reduced to below
10 ppb; there is no guarantee for reducing levels above 150 ppb.
Finally, it is critical that WASA and other officials involved ensure
that there is a followup program for maintenance of filters, since
poorly maintained filters can fail to remove lead or even make
contamination worse.
5. WASA should expedite replacement of lead service lines, and the
City Council should review policies on replacement of the homeowner's
portion of the line.
Under EPA's lead and copper rule, WASA reportedly has begun to
implement its obligation to replace 7 percent of the District's lead
service lines (or to test and clear homes served by lead service lines
as containing less than 15 ppb lead in their water) each year. At this
pace it will take nearly 15 years--until about 2018--for WASA to
replace all the city's lead service lines. In the meantime, thousands
of pregnant women, infants and children could be consuming water with
excessive lead levels. We strongly urge that the lead service line
replacement program be aggressively expedited. A schedule should be
published, with objective criteria for which lines will be replaced
first (presumably based primarily upon replacement of those lines
posing the greatest public health risk first). Federal and city general
funds should be set aside for this program to augment promised rate
increases on our water bills. WASA customers should not foot the entire
bill, since the decisions to approve the use of lead service lines were
made with the explicit approval and oversight of Federal officials who
were overseeing the construction of the city's water lines and supply.
There was a vigorous public debate about the safety of lead service
lines stretching back to the 1890s, yet Federal officials who ran the
city supply decided to use lead lines. District officials also should
consider using the city's multimillion dollar rainy-day fund to help
pay for service line replacements.
In addition, the City Council should review WASA's and the city's
policy about lead service line replacement for the portions of the line
that are supposedly owned by homeowners. Evidence is mounting that
partial lead service line replacement often will not solve the problem,
and actually can make lead levels worse by shaking loose lead in the
pipes and causing galvanic corrosion that may exacerbate lead problems.
Under recent EPA rule changes, it is apparently up to the City
Council to determine how much of the service line should be replaced by
WASA. In 1991, EPA originally required full lead service line
replacement unless the water utility could prove that it did not
control part of the line, in which case it was to replace only that
portion that the utility controlled. After being sued successfully by a
water industry group, the EPA changed the rules to provide that it is
largely a question of local law what portion of the lead service line
is the responsibility of the water utility. We believe that it is only
fair that since many of the lead service lines were installed from the
1890s through the 1940s under the direction, approval and control of
the District and Federal officials, those authorities should be
responsible for replacing them, not homeowners. The cost to homeowners
of their portion of lead service line replacement could be thousands of
dollars, but it is far more efficient and cost-effective to replace the
entire service line at once, rather than digging up yards twice. This
is a question that deserves a full public airing by the City Council.
6. The City Council should create a permanent citizen water board
for water to oversee WASA and the Washington Aqueduct, to address
longstanding problems with DC's water supply.
In 1996, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Water
Action (CWA), and the DC Area Water Consumers Organized for Protection
(DC Water COPs) issued a report, based in large part on city and
Federal records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. That
report found serious ongoing problems with the District's water, and
identified likely problems that could occur in the future. Among the
current and future problems noted were lead contamination, bacteria and
parasites, cloudiness (turbidity) in the water--which may indicate poor
filtration and can interfere with disinfection--and disinfection
byproducts that cause cancer and may cause birth defects and
miscarriages. The report also noted that the Washington Aqueduct's
water treatment plants need a major infusion of funds to modernize and
upgrade treatment, and that the District has ancient and deteriorating
water pipes leading to water main breaks, regrowth of bacteria, and
lead problems. Those pipes must be replaced. In addition, the WASA-
operated sewage collection and treatment systems have serious
inadequacies, including major problems whenever stormwater runoff
overloads the treatment plant's capacity, causing raw sewage to flow
into the Anacostia and Potomac rivers.
In the wake of the DC citywide boil-water alerts in 1993 and 1996
due to turbidity and bacteria problems, and EPA's enforcement orders
issued thereafter, comprehensive sanitary surveys and engineering
reviews by outside contractors found a series of serious problems with
our water treatment and distribution system. These reviews recommended
hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements in the city's water
supply system.
While the city has addressed some of the most pressing problems, it
has not made many of the important investments needed to repair local
water infrastructure. We strongly recommend that the City Council
establish a citizen water board to oversee the city's water supply and
sewer system. The board should oversee not only steps to improve our
drinking water system, but also WASA's storm water and sewer
obligations, because of the overall competition for water
infrastructure dollars and need to focus on whole watershed and ``sewer
shed'' solutions. This board--like those created by some States to
oversee electric and other utilities--should be funded with a small
surcharge on water and sewer bills, and should be wholly independent of
WASA and the Washington Aqueduct. It should include independent
engineering and public health experts and citizen activists interested
in drinking water, and should issue an annual progress report on WASA's
and the Washington Aqueduct's performance, progress and problems.
7. The City Council must improve its oversight of WASA.
The District's City Council is responsible for overseeing WASA's
day-to-day activities, and has failed to do its job over recent years
to make sure that WASA is carrying out its responsibilities to deliver
safe drinking water and to safely collect and fully treat city sewage.
More aggressive City Council oversight is needed to avoid continued
problems with WASA.
8. The mayor should make tap water and all environmental protection
a high priority.
The mayor should make drinking water safety, sewage collection and
treatment and environmental protection a high priority. The mayor bears
some responsibility for ensuring that WASA is doing its job. He has
many ways to influence WASA's board and daily operations, and should
insist on regular briefings and updates on how the city is fulfilling
its obligations to provide these most basic city services.
9. Consumers, health, and citizens groups should be on the blue
ribbon commission, and should recommend people to serve on the panel.
The announced ``independent'' panel to review WASA's embarrassing
performance in addressing the lead problem has instead morphed into an
internal review panel of city officials, including two of the WASA
officials who so obviously have failed to do their jobs. In order to
avoid a panel that merely papers over the problems and whitewashes the
lead crisis, LEAD is calling upon city officials to name independent
experts, consumers, citizen groups and environmentalists to the panel.
10. The EPA, CDC, the DC Dept of Health and the City Council should
establish a joint task force with citizen participation, to evaluate
the extent of lead poisoning from all sources in the District, and its
environmental justice implications, particularly for low-income
AfricanAmerican and Latino households.
According to expert estimates, the District has widespread lead
poisoning, affecting perhaps tens of thousands of District children.
Because of the city's demographic and economic realities, most of these
children are African American and Latino. The District and Federal
officials should establish a joint task force, with citizens and
medical experts, to evaluate the extent of the problem and its
environmental justice implications, and to recommend actions to remedy
it.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.187
Statement of Muriel Wolf, M.D., Children's Medical Center,
George Washington University Medical School
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony to you
today regarding the effect of elevated lead levels and lead poisoning.
My name is Dr. Muriel Wolf. I am an Associate Professor of Pediatrics
at George Washington University Medical School, and Attending in
Pediatrics and Cardiology and Senior Pediatrician at Children's
National Medical Center in Washington, DC. I have taken care of
children with elevated lead levels and lead poisoning for over 30
years.
Fortunately, the health care landscape has changed significantly
since the 1970s when we admitted over 100 children per year with
elevated lead levels of over 60 mcg/dl. Now, we admit fewer than 5
children per year with elevated lead levels at this number.
The problem of lead in the water in the District of Columbia has
alerted all of us about the possibility of elevated blood lead levels.
But as of this writing, there is no strong evidence that the lead in
the water has caused any serious elevation of blood lead levels.
While the issue of lead in the District water supply is an
important one, let it not be lost that most elevated lead levels in
children are due to lead paint in old houses. Children exposed to an
environment where there is peeling or flaking lead paint are at risk
for elevated blood lead levels. Small amounts of lead paint chips or
dust can cause blood lead levels to become elevated. Because of the
presence of lead paint in old houses, the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has recommended in cities where more than 20 percent of the
houses were built before 1970, children should be tested for elevated
blood lead at age one, and then again at 2 years of age. In DC, over 50
percent of the housing was built before 1970. Accordingly, all District
children should have blood lead tests at 1 and 2.
Lead can cause significant health problems. Currently the
acceptable blood lead level according to CDC guidelines is 9mcg/dl or
less. Very high blood lead levels (over 50 to 60 mcg/dl) may cause
serious health problems such as marked learning disability and mental
retardation. Even higher blood lead levels can be associated with brain
swelling and seizures. Elevated blood lead levels may cause significant
anemia and kidney damage.
Children with blood lead levels above 20 mcg/dl may have learning
disabilities and attention deficit disorder problems, and hearing and
growth may even be affected. More recent studies have shown that even
mild elevations of blood lead levels between 10 and 20 mcg/dl may
minimally lower the IQ by 1 to 3 points.
The goal is to prevent elevated blood lead level, and currently
those elevated levels almost always come from exposure to lead paint
and dust. Homes with lead paint should be screened for lead hazards
where there is peeling and flaking paint. Windows and doors should be
wiped with high phosphate soap. Floors should be. wet-mopped rather
than vacuumed so that the lead in the dust is not spread throughout the
room. Children and adults should frequently wash their hands to prevent
environmental exposure to lead dust. Finally, the paint causing the
problem should be sealed or removed.
Lead paint remains the most serious source of lead problems at this
time. But lead in the water is a significant issue as well--especially
if the CDC decides to lower the acceptable level of lead for children.
Lead in the water may contribute to elevated lead levels, but nobody
knows for sure. It has not been shown so far in DC to be the cause of
elevated lead levels beyond the 10 mcg/dl level. Of the 14 patients
identified in the District with elevated lead levels above 10 mcg/dl,
all lived in environments where there was lead paint and tested
positive on dust wipes.
Current research reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in
April 2003 suggested that lead levels of 5-9 mcg/dl can indeed lower IQ
by 5-7 points. If this research can be corroborated by other studies,
then we should be significantly concerned that lead in the water in the
District of Columbia may be contributing to elevated lead levels.
It is appropriate to study the issue of lead in the water in the
District of Columbia, but the lead found in housing is the major
problem at the current time.
__________
Statement of Andy Bressler, Resident, District of Columbia
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Committee, I
want to thank you for holding this important hearing.
I would like to tell you about my family. My name is Andy Bressler.
My wife Shellie and I have lived on Capitol Hill for the past 7 years.
Some of you may recognize our sons Adam and Casey. Back in February,
our family was profiled in the Washington Post. I ask that the
article\1\ be included in the record. You may have also seen them in
the halls of these buildings when they come to visit and to have lunch
with their Mommy who works in the Hart Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The article referred to may be found in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years ago, we had the great fortune of adding twin boys to
our household. Despite some of the obstacles urban living entails, we
have enjoyed living in the city and have looked forward to being able
to enjoy everything that city life offers. Little did we know that we
were exposing our children to potential health hazards through lead-
poisoned drinking water.
Imagine our shock a little over a year ago to hear from our
pediatrician that our healthy, thriving recently turned 2 year olds had
tested over the CDC recommended level for lead. We immediately
contacted the DC Department of Health's Office of Lead and requested an
inspection of our home. A test was conducted on our 125 year old house
it was determined there was no lead paint exposure on the interior,
but, there was a limited area of lead paint on an exterior door. We
then proceeded to have that door replaced. When we inquired about the
possibility of lead in our water, the inspector reassured us that that
DC water was fine and safe to drink, and that could not be the source
of the lead problem.
Months later, my wife and I took the boys in for their 3-year
checkup. The next afternoon, my wife received a call from the doctor's
office to say that once again the boys lead levels had not declined,
and in fact had risen. Casey tested at 14; Adam tested at 12 (both at
levels above the 10 mg threshold). In knowing we had done work to
remediate the problem months early, the doctor asked if the boys drink
water. When we replied that we use it to water down their juice and to
cook with, he advised us to stay away from unfiltered tap water and to
solely use bottled water for their cups and in preparing their meals.
The next day, we contacted the DC Lead Hotline at WASA to request a
water test for our home--this was in mid-January 2004. Through the Moms
on the Hill group, we had learned that there had been some concern
about lead in DC water, and that there had been some testing going back
6 months or more. A few days later, the Washington Post broke the story
about the extreme lead levels found in DC water. We waited over 2 weeks
for someone from WASA to return our multiple phone messages. We finally
had our water tested by WASA, and it does show significant elevated
lead levels (24 ppb).
Between our own research and speaking with experts, we have learned
that that there is no cure or antidote for our sons' exposure level. By
eliminating the exposure, it would eventually leave their bodies. But,
we understand that it will likely take years before the lead is out of
their system. We have taken all possible steps to rid our house of the
lead, and little did we know that every time we gave our children
something to drink, we were exposing them once again to the lead.
Another uncertainty is the long-term effects these levels of
exposure will have on our children. Experts have testified that at
their level of exposure, minimally they will lose precious IQ points.
Other problems could include learning difficulties, attention
disorders, and/or general behavior problems. These symptoms would not
present themselves until years later once they are in elementary and
middle school.
As parents of twins, we have been cautioned not to compare
developmental milestones with other children their age. We were told
that our children would reach these steps at their own pace. As a part
of human nature, it is very difficult not to compare and wonder. At
this time, our greatest concern that each time one of them has
difficulty in grasping a subject matter in school or an unexplained
emotional outburst, we will question if it is long-term effect of being
exposed to leaden water up until their third birthday.
Some of the issues that we would like to see addressed by Congress,
EPA, WASA, and the City:
<bullet> Let's move quickly to a solution--if it means replacing
the lead pipes, then let's get on with it!
<bullet> We need much better oversight from both Congress and the
EPA--It is obvious that there have been failures over the last several
years, as both the EPA, WASA, and the WASA board have failed the public
by not coming forward sooner, and moving toward a solution sooner.
<bullet> We are also disappointed that the ``Task force'' working
on this issue is not open to the public, nor does it have
representation from citizens affected by this severe problem.
<bullet> There needs to be real accountability for the lack of
leadership and management oversight at WASA, EPA, and especially the
Board of WASA, who were appointed to represent the public.
<bullet> From what we understand, this is not a new issue, as DC's
water had a lead problem back in the late 1980s, and early 1990s. At
that time, WASA undertook steps and developed a plan to fix the lead
pipe problem. However, it appears that since that time WASA and its
Board abandoned those efforts, and we would very much like to
understand why they did not follow through on those plans.
<bullet> We also are concerned about the continually changing
advice that we have received from WASA regarding how to reduce the lead
levels in our water (such as how long to run the water--1 minute, 5
minutes, 10 minutes??). In addition, WASA's hotline has given us
conflicting information regarding whether the service line leading to
our house is lead or not (it appears as though it is).
<bullet> Scientists have stated incidences leaching are higher in
warmer weather. Now that summer is approaching, what can be done in the
immediate future to help alleviate the high lead exposure levels in the
water.
<bullet> Finally, we understand there is a plan to begin replacing
lead service lines, and we would like to have a better understanding
and guidance as to how WASA is prioritizing these replacements.
Thank you for holding this hearing, and we would be pleased to
speak with you or your staff regarding any of these issues, or our
experiences with the DC government and WASA.
Thank you.
__________
Timeline for the Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule in the
District of Columbia 2000 to 2004
Nov. 1, 2000: The Aqueduct replaced its secondary disinfection
treatment by converting from free chlorine to chloramines.
2001-2002: DCWASA initiates massive water meter replacement
program; some 18,000 water meters were replaced with new, remote read
capability units.
July 30, 2002: EPA first receives preliminary information that
DCWASA exceeded the lead action level; final report submitted August
27, 2002. EPA advises DCWASA that it has to return to regular sampling
frequency and sample site numbers (100 samples every 6 months),
beginning with next compliance period (January 1, 2003), conduct lead
public education program and initiate lead service line replacement
program.
October 2002: DCWASA conducts lead in drinking water public
education program within required timeframe. On October 30 and 31,
2002, DCWASA sent:
<bullet> lead brochure mailed to every residence via Washington
Post circulation department;
<bullet> brochure and public service announcement delivered to
Washington Post's and Washington Times' editorial boards;
<bullet> brochure and PSA sent to 8 television stations; 18 local
radio stations and the AP;
<bullet> brochure to city libraries, DC public schools and Board
of Education, DC Department of Health, and to 12 hospitals and clinics;
<bullet> DC Council members Patterson and Cropp; and
<bullet> brochures to all lead sampling volunteer homeowners (hand
delivered).
From November 4-December 14, 2002 brochures were delivered
to remaining hospitals, libraries and schools.
Jan. 1, 2003: DCWASA begins routine tap sampling program with
increased monitoring frequency and increased sample site numbers.
Jan. 24, 2003: EPA receives first report on DCWASA's public
education program: due November 10, 2002; report received January 24,
2003).
May 5, 2003: EPA obtains the services of corrosion expert, Marc
Edwards of Virginia Tech, through a HQ level of effort contractor to
assist EPA Region III in analyzing data and to make recommendations to
EPA and to DCWASA for potential treatment options--assistance to WASA
that is above and beyond EPA's responsibilities.
May 21, 2003: Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) program plan
submitted showing DCWASA's intended implementation of the LSLR program.
Due September 30, 2003; Received May 21, 2003 (four months early).
June 27, 2003: EPA Region III approved DC WASA's LSL Replacement
program plan on June 27, 2003.
July 30, 2003: Lead and copper tap monitoring shows action levels
exceeded for monitoring period January-June 2003. EPA advises DCWASA
that Lead service line replacement and public education program must
continue.
Sept 2003: The public education program was conducted by DCWASA
(program report was due October 10, 2003; report received October 14,
2003).
<bullet> brochure insert in water bills sent to all billing units
in August 2003 bills, with highlighted message on bill face.
<bullet> pamphlet and brochure mailed Sept 30, 2003 to Mayors'
office of Latino Affairs, Dept. of Health, all ANC Chairpersons, DC
Public schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics.
<bullet> Newspaper ad placed in Washington Post Sept 30, 2003.
<bullet> PSA's faxed to TV and radio stations Sept 30, 2003.
Oct. 2003: The public education program was conducted by DCWASA
(program report was due November 10, 2003; report received early on
October 14, 2003).
Sept. 30, 2003: EPA receives LSLR preliminary report; official
report received October 27, 2003. (program report was due September 30,
2003).
Oct. 17, 2003: Region III's contractor, Marc Edwards, submits his
draft report on his research which recommends that DCWASA conduct
specific research in several areas.
Nov. 19, 2003: EPA Region III completed the initial review of DC
WASA's LSLR report.
Jan 26, 2003: DC WASA conducted full lead and copper tap monitoring
during July-December 2003 compliance period. EPA instructs DCWASA to
continue LSL replacement and public education programs.
Nov 11, 2003: Marc Edwards presents findings and recommendations to
DCWASA, Washington Aqueduct, and EPA Region III.
January 21, 2004: DCWASA presents to Washington Aqueduct and
Virginia wholesale customers preliminary research plan containing
actions recommended by Marc Edwards and study results to date.
Feb. 5, 2004: Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG) formed on
conference call.
Feb. 9, 2004: First face to face meeting of the TEWG conducted at
the Washington Aqueduct offices, outline of the research action plan
developed.
Feb. 11, 2004: EPA ORD in Cincinnati begins analyzing lead service
line pipe scale with X-ray defraction techniques to begin preliminary
analysis of pipe conditions.
Feb 16, 2004: DCWASA staff and their contractors meeting with Steve
Reiber at University of Washington in Seattle, who now is EPA's
external corrosion expert through contract. Purpose of meeting is to
learn set up for electro-chemical testing of pipe loops. Equipment to
be shipped back to District of Columbia to run tests on pipe specimens
with actual District tap water.
Feb 25, 2004: First draft action plan due to be ready for briefing
to DC City Council.
March 10, 2004: Final Research Action Plan due (30 days past
initial meeting).
__________
Statement of Robert Vinson Brannum, Parent
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Mr.
Chairman let me introduce myself to you and other members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Robert Vinson Brannum. I am a parent of an
eleven-year old son and a proud native Washingtonian. I am also a
resident of Ward 5 and the historic Bloomingdale community along the
North Capitol Corridor. I have served three terms as president of the
Bloomingdale Civic Association. As a member of this African American
and greater Washington community, I believe in the spirit of
volunteerism and community service. I am happy to have been invited by
the Subcommittee to submit this statement for its official record and
review.
In the aftermath of recent disclosures regarding high levels of
lead discovered in the DC water system, this afternoon the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water will hold an oversight hearing on the
detection of lead in DC drinking water, focusing on needed improvements
in public communications and the status of short-and long-term
solutions.
It is disturbing in the year 2004 to have questions raised about
the quality of the drinking water in my home city--the Nation's
Capitol. I would rather have a conversation about full voting rights
rather than talking about how long to let my faucet run each morning
when I rise and each evening when I return from work. Good and safe
drinking water not only sounds good, but also it serves as an indicator
of a healthy society.
On 22 March 2004, I submitted water samples for testing. I have not
received the results. There are many District of Columbia residents who
wonder what happened, how did it happened and why it took so long for
the information to become public? What did our Federal and local
officials know about the lead levels, when did they know it, and what
did they do when they learned about it?
Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Washington Aqueduct, the DC Water And Sewer Authority (WASA), and the
DC Department of Health must answer these questions and many more.
However, in the search for answers I do hope we do lose focus on the
critical issue of solving the problem while directing our sights to
responsibility and accountability. As a parent and a teacher, I am
naturally concerned about the impact of high lead levels on the
physical and cognitive development of our children, particularly
African American children. As a community activist, I am concerned
about the increased cost of maintaining safe water for daily
consumption by those who are on low and fixed incomes.
There are many who do not trust WASA to perform ongoing tests. Like
so many other concerned parents, I am not a scientist or a chemist.
Yet, from all I have read it appears the issue is not the actual tests
conducted, but rather the apparent delay in the notification of the
public by WASA and EPA. From what I have been able to read and have
been told, lead is not being exposed to the water at the Aqueduct and
distributed by WASA. By most accounts, the water becomes exposed to
lead via the lead service lines or lead soldered joints.
Other residents of this community have expressed to me their
concerns about the water. Several residents have paid to have the lead
pipes from the service line to their homes and they are still not
comfortable about the safety of the water. Some residents feel WASA has
the records to determine where all the lead service lines are and
should pay for the replacement. Still others believe there should be a
moratorium on water bill payments until the problem is resolved. There
was almost a unanimous view the Army Corps of Engineers should review
the current chemical make-up of the water to make certain that change
was not the principal cause of the lead.
If it becomes necessary to repair or replace all the lead service
lines, I do not feel the costs should be borne by the residents of the
District of Columbia or the Government of the District. Historically,
Presidential appointed commissioners governed the District of Columbia
and the U.S. Congress directed all municipal functions of the District.
Even to this day, the District of Columbia does not have complete
control of its own municipal operations let alone its own water system.
It is my expectation the Federal Government would bear the complete
cost of the service line replacement. I do hope the subcommittee will
support an appropriation to cover the Federal Government's
responsibility in this crisis.
Many who have voiced questions about the lead have expressed
concerns because of its negative affect on children, particularly
African American children. If the statement of the DC Department of
Health are correct, none of the children tested and found to have high
led levels were exposed to lead from water. All of children were
exposed to lead because of lead paint and lead dust in the home.
To this day no one is able to state with presumptive certainty how
the lead got into the water. However, this fact has not diminished the
critics of the District of Columbia government. In addition, I,
personally find it incredulous for EPA to assert the lead notification
problem has been the sole responsibility of WASA and EPA bears no
accountability.
The water distribution in the District of Columbia is the
responsibility of WASA. There are some, as an expression of their
disappointment in the conduct of WASA during this lead crisis who feel
the governance of WASA has to be restructured to exclude any local
District government involvement. As a resident of the District, I
cannot support the idea of a Federal takeover of WASA to the agency
that may have contributed to the current crisis and may be seeking to
recreate history to absolve itself of any responsibility or
accountability.
In a discussion with students, their questions regarding the lead
issue are simple. How did the lead get into the water? Why did it take
so long to the people? Can there be a double filtration system of the
water? Is this just a ploy for the water companies (commercial) to get
more money? How can you ever know if the water is safe?
Mr. Chairman, this committee, along with WASA, EPA, and the DC
Department of Health has a duty to assure the public and our young
people the water is safe to drink. This can only happen when all
entities stop finger-pointing to one another and worked closely to
solve the lead in the water problem. I do not shrink to no one on the
urgency to solve this matter. However, I am troubled by the rush to
judgment and the push for the concept of a ``Federal takeover'' of
WASA. I feel District officials; particularly Deputy Mayor and City
Administrator Robert Bobb should be given the opportunity to respond
and to determine the best course of city action. Deputy Mayor Bobb has
assembled District agency directors and he has taken a ``clear hands''
on approach to lead the District government response. The District
Government is engaged at the highest levels.
Lead service lines are not unique to the District of Columbia. It
is my understanding major cities such as New York City, Chicago, and
Richmond have lead service lines in their city systems. Just as in the
District of Columbia, high lead levels have been found in the water of
suburban jurisdictions and schools in Maryland and Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, everyone wants to have safe drinkable water for all
who live, work and visit the Nation's Capitol. Unfortunately, no one is
able to identify the source of the lead. All our immediate efforts
should be to find the cause and solve the problem before casting blame.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.207
Statement of David C. Bellinger, Ph.D., M.Sc., from the Children's
Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Lead (Supplemental Article)
ABSTRACT
Children differ from adults in the relative importance of lead
sources and pathways, lead metabolism, and the toxicities expressed.
The central nervous system effects of lead on children seem not to be
reversible. Periods of enhanced vulnerability within childhood have not
consistently been identified. The period of greatest vulnerability
might be endpoint specific, perhaps accounting for the failure to
identify a coherent ``behavioral signature'' for lead toxicity. The
bases for the substantial individual variability in vulnerability to
lead are uncertain, although they might include genetic polymorphisms
and contextual factors. The current Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention screening guideline of 10 g/dL is a risk management tool
and should not be interpreted as a threshold for toxicity. No threshold
has been identified, and some data are consistent with effects well
below 10. Historically, most studies have concentrated on
neurocognitive effects of lead, but higher exposures have recently been
associated with morbidities such as antisocial behavior and
delinquency. Studies of lead toxicity in experimental animal models are
critical to the interpretation of nonexperimental human studies,
particularly in addressing the likelihood that associations observed in
the latter studies can be attributed to residual confounding. Animal
models are also helpful in investigating the behavioral and
neurobiological mechanisms of the functional deficits observed in lead-
exposed humans. Studies of adults who have been exposed to lead are of
limited use in understanding childhood lead toxicity because
developmental and acquired lead exposure differ in terms of the
maturity of the organs affected, the presumed mechanisms of toxicity,
and the forms in which toxicities are expressed.
______
Key Words: lead toxicity <bullet> children <bullet> toxicology
<bullet> epidemiology
Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Although children are viewed as the most vulnerable segment of the
population with regard to lead poisoning, recognition of lead as an
adult toxicant preceded by thousands of years the first description of
childhood lead poisoning.\1\ For millennia, exposure to lead was
primarily via occupation, but the introduction of leaded paint for
residential use in the 19th century brought large amounts of this metal
within easy reach of children.\2\ The later use of lead as a gasoline
additive, begun in the 1920s and lasting into the 1990s in the United
States,\3\ contributed further to the contamination of environmental
media with which children have intimate daily commerce, including air,
dusts, and soils.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHILDREN AND ADULTS IN LEAD SOURCES, METABOLISM,
AND TOXICITIES
Children and adults differ somewhat in the relative importance of
different lead exposure sources and pathways, in aspects of lead
metabolism, and in the specific ways in which toxicities are expressed.
To a greater extent than adults, young children normally explore their
environment via hand-to-mouth activity, behaviors that are likely to
increase the lead intake of a child who lives in an environment with
hazards such as leaded paint in poor repair or elevated levels of lead
in house dust or yard soils.<SUP>4,}5</SUP> The average fractional
gastrointestinal absorption of lead is much greater in infants and
young children than in adults,\6\ and absorption is increased in the
presence of nutritional deficiencies that are more common in children
than in adults (eg, iron, calcium).<SUP>7,}8</SUP>
In both children and adults, lead toxicity can be expressed as
derangements of function in many or an systems. Although lead causes
central nervous system abnormalities in adults,<SUP>9,}10,}11</SUP>
peripheral neuropathies tend to be more prominent. In the developing
nervous system, in contrast, central effects are more prominent than
peripheral effects.\12\ Moreover, peripheral nervous system effects in
adults tend to reverse after cessation of exposure,<SUP>13,}14</SUP>
whereas the central effects in children seem not to do
so,<SUP>15,}16,}17,}18</SUP> perhaps because lead perturbs the complex
processes by which synaptic connections are selected and modified.\19\
Even pharmacotherapy, at least succimer administered to young children
who present with blood lead levels of 20 to 44 g/dL, does not seem to
reduce or reverse cognitive injury.\20\ An important exception to these
generalizations is that neurobehavioral deficits associated with modest
elevations of prenatal lead levels, if ever present, seem largely to
attenuate by the time children reach school age.\21\
CRITICAL WINDOWS OF VULNERABILITY AND INTERINDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN
SUSCEPTIBILITY
It is difficult to identify discrete windows of enhanced
developmental vulnerability to lead exposure. The intraindividual
stability of blood lead level over time is substantial, particularly in
lead-rich environments such as the inner city or areas around lead
smelters, where many of the major epidemiologic studies have been
conducted.<SUP>22,}23</SUP> In addition, under many exposure scenarios,
the half-life of lead in blood is greater in children than in
adults.<SUP>5,}24</SUP> When blood lead levels do vary over time, age
at exposure and magnitude of exposure are often highly confounded, with
blood lead level peaking in the age range of 1 to 3 years.\25\ This is
probably because this period encompasses both the onset of independent
ambulation and the time when a child's oral exploration of the
environment is greatest. As a result, if a study were to find that
blood lead level measured at age 2 is most predictive of some critical
neurocognitive outcome at school age, then it would be difficult to
ascertain whether this reflects a special vulnerability of the central
nervous system at age 2 or that blood lead levels tend to be highest
during this period. Some studies support the former hypothesis,\26\
whereas others have found that school-age neurocognitive outcomes are
most strongly related to recent or concurrent blood lead
levels.<SUP>22,}27</SUP> The findings of yet other studies fail to
provide evidence for the existence of any critical periods of
vulnerability.\28\
Another reason that it is difficult to identify a single critical
period of heightened vulnerability to lead toxicity is that there might
be many such periods, depending on the particular endpoint of interest.
Using primate models, Rice <SUP>29,}30</SUP> demonstrated that the
timing of developmental lead exposure affected the nature and the
severity of deficit on a variety of tasks (spatial discrimination
reversal, nonspatial discrimination reversal, and a fixed-interval
response operant task). In contrast, performance on a spatial delayed
alternation task was not affected by age at exposure.\31\ Morgan et
al\32\ observed different expressions of attentional dysfunction in
rats depending on the timing of lead exposure. It seems eminently
plausible that this fundamental principle of toxicology applies to
children as well, although the evidence is meager. This is likely to be
attributable, in no small measure, to the absence in most human
epidemiologic studies of sufficiently detailed exposure data that
capture, at least, features such as timing, duration, and dose. If the
specific effects of lead do differ according to exposure scenario, then
this lacunae in exposure data would account, at least in part, for the
general lack of success in discerning a coherent ``behavioral
signature'' of lead exposure in children.\33\ This suggests, however,
that we should not necessarily expect strict consistency across studies
in the patterns of neurocognitive impairment associated with
lead.<SUP>33,}34</SUP>
An individual's vulnerability to neurodevelopmental injury is also
likely to vary according to host characteristics that are, at present,
largely unknown. Individuals differ widely in the blood lead level at
which signs of clinical intoxication appear, with some individuals
seeming well at a blood lead level that in others results in
encephalopathy or even death. Plots of ``subclinical'' blood lead level
and endpoints such as covariateadjusted IQ reveal tremendous scatter of
observations around the regression lines (eg,\35\), with low R\2\
values associated with the regressions, suggesting that children are
variable in their responses to lower levels of exposure, as well. An
important implication is that children with the same blood lead level
should not be considered to be at equivalent developmental risk.
The potential sources of individual variability in lead-associated
neurodevelop-
mental risk are legion, although none has been confirmed with even a
modest degree of certainty. One type of explanation focuses on
toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic factors. It is assumed that blood lead
level, the biomarker of internal dose that is most often used, is a
valid index of the biologically effective dose at the brain, the
critical target organ for neurotoxicity. The many intervening steps
that link the internal dose and the response in the brain, however,
provide many opportunities for interindividual differences in
sensitivity to arise.\36\ Certain genetic polymorphisms involved in
lead metabolism are thought to affect individual vulnerability,
including those for the vitamin D receptors\11\ and for lead-binding
red blood cell proteins such as amino levulinic acid
dehydratase.<SUP>37,}38</SUP> Supportive evidence is sparse,
however.\39\ Gender differences have been reported in the
immunotoxicity of gestational lead exposure in rats.\40\ In humans,
gender differences in neurotoxicity have been
reported,<SUP>41,}42,}43,}44,}45</SUP> although in some studies, it is
male individuals who seem to be more vulnerable, whereas in others it
is female individuals. Co-exposure to other toxicants is another
candidate explanation for individual differences in susceptibility,
although greater attention has been paid to the potential of co-
exposures to be confounders than to be effect modifiers. In a rodent
model, the effect of lead on mortality, spatial learning, and the N-
methyl-D-aspartate receptors differed depending on whether pups were
exposed to lead alone or in combination with magnesium and zinc.\46\
Finally, characteristics of a child's rearing environment might
influence the toxicity of a given lead dose.\47\ Lead seems to be
similar to other biological risks, such as low birth weight, in that
children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and
supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than do children
from more optimal environments<SUP>45,}48</SUP> and show less recovery
after exposure.\43\
FUNCTIONAL FORM OF THE DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP: A THRESHOLD?
A threshold value below which lead has no apparent adverse
developmental effect has not been identified. The 1991 Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statement on childhood lead
poisoning\49\ set 10 g/dL as the screening action guideline. Although
this blood lead level was intended to serve as a risk guidance and
management tool at the community level, it has been widely--and
incorrectly--imbued with biological significance for the individual
child. Indeed, it often seems to be interpreted as a threshold, such
that a level <10 g/dL is viewed as ``safe'' and a higher level as
``toxic.'' The truth is unlikely to be so simple, however. No single
number can be cited as a threshold, divorced from a context that
specifies factors such as the endpoint of interest, the age at exposure
and at assessment, the duration of blood lead elevation, and
characteristics of the child's rearing environment. Although few data
were available at the time on putative effects below 10 g/dL, the 1991
CDC statement stated that adverse effects are likely to occur in this
range (p. 9). This should not be surprising given that even after 2
decades of steady decline in population blood lead levels,\50\ the mean
still lies between 1\51\ and 2\52\ orders of magnitude greater than
estimates of natural background levels in humans. It strains credulity
to conclude that the threshold for neurotoxicity lies within the narrow
and, in an evolutionary sense, still quite elevated range of present-
day blood lead levels. Data reported since the 1991 CDC statement
support this position. Among children in the Boston prospective study,
for whom the mean blood lead level at age 2 years was 7 g/dL (90th
percentile, 13 g/dL), a significant inverse association was found
between blood lead level and both IQ and academic achievement at 10
years of age.\26\ No point of inflection in this relationship was
identified when nonparametric regression models were fitted, and the
data were most consistent with a linear (ie, nonthreshold) model
extending to the lowest blood lead levels represented in the cohort (<1
g/dL).\53\ In the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey sample, among 4,853 6- to 16-year-old children, current blood
lead was inversely associated with 4 measures of cognitive function,
even when the sample was restricted to children with blood lead levels
<5 g/dL.\54\ Blood lead histories of the children were not available,
however, so it is possible that their levels had been much higher at
younger ages and that it was those levels that were responsible for the
later performance deficits of the children with higher concurrent blood
lead levels. Moreover, measures of key potential confounders such as
parent IQ and home environment were not available, although strong
confounding by these factors within such a narrow range of blood lead
levels is unlikely. These limitations were addressed in the study of
Canfield et al.\55\ In the subgroup of 101 children whose blood lead
levels were <10 g/dL at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of age,
significant covariate-adjusted associations were observed between blood
lead level and IQ at ages 3 and 5. Chiodo et al\56\ also reported
significant inverse associations between neuropsychological function
and blood lead levels <10 g/dL. In the Canfield et al\55\ study,
moreover, the slope of the association was greater in the subgroup of
children whose peak blood lead was <10 g/dL than it was in the
complete study sample that included children whose teak blood lead
levels exceeded 10 g/dL. Reanalyses of the Boston prospective
study\57\ suggested the same pattern. Collectively, these new studies
provide compelling evidence that 10 g/dL should not be viewed as a
threshold. The precise shape of the dose-effect relationship in the
lower portion of the exposure range remains uncertain, however.
Although the data are consistent with the slope being steeper below 10
g/dL than above 10 g/dL, a convincing mechanism has not been proposed.
NONCOGNITIVE EFFECTS OF LEAD: BROADENING OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS BEYOND IQ
The neurocognitive effects of pediatric lead toxicity have garnered
the greatest attention from both researchers and regulators, perhaps
for reasons of ease of measurement by the former and ease of
interpretation by the latter. Indeed, enough studies provide data on
endpoints such as IQ to make meta-analyses
feasible,<SUP>21,}58,}59,}60</SUP> with all such efforts reaching
similar conclusions, viz, that an IQ decline of 1 to 5 points is
associated with a 10- g/dL increase in blood lead (eg, from 10 to 20
g/dL). Many studies have identified distractibility, poor
organizational skills, and hyperactivity as possible reasons for the
reduced global cognitive function of more highly exposed
children.<SUP>61,}62,}63,}64,}65,}66</SUP>
Recently, the range of outcomes examined in relation to childhood
lead exposure has been expanded, building on older reports of serious
behavioral pathologies in case series of children with
subencephalopathic lead poisoning. In 1 of these early reports, Byers
and Lord\67\ noted that poor school progress among children who were
previously treated for lead poisoning was attributable not only to
their cognitive deficits but also to their aggression and explosive
tempers. Within the past decade, several studies have suggested that
even ``subclinical'' lead exposure is a risk factor for antisocial,
delinquent behaviors. For example, a history of childhood lead
poisoning was the strongest predictor of adult criminality among male
individuals in the Philadelphia subsample of the Collaborative
Perinatal Project.\68\ Needleman et a1\69\ found that male adolescents
with increased bone lead levels self-reported more delinquent acts and
were rated by both their parents and teachers as having scores that
exceeded clinical cutoffs on the Attention, Aggression, and Delinquent
Behavior scales of the Child Behavior Checklist. Furthermore, between
ages 7 and 12, the behaviors of boys with higher bone lead levels
deteriorated more than did the behaviors of boys with lower bone lead
levels. Among adolescents in the Cincinnati Lead Study, the frequencies
of self-reported delinquent and antisocial behaviors were significantly
associated with both prenatal and early postnatal blood lead
levels.\70\ In a case-control study, adjudicated delinquents had
significantly higher bone lead levels than did community control youths
and were 4 times more likely to have a bone lead level at the 80th
percentile of the distribution (approximately the detection limit).\71\
Finally, in a set of historical analyses, Nevin\72\ reported striking,
provocative concordances between temporal trends in the amount of lead
used commercially and in violent crime and unwed pregnancies. Although
such ecologic analyses provide a weak basis for causal inference, they
do suggest hypotheses that should be evaluated in settings in which
information is available on exposure, outcome, and potential
confounders at the individual rather than the community level. Much
work remains to be done to clarify the potential contributions of lead,
as well as other environmental pollutants, to child psychiatric
morbidity.<SUP>73,}74</SUP>
UTILITY OF ANIMAL STUDIES
Because studies of children's environmental lead exposure must
necessarily be observational rather than experimental (apart from
randomized clinical trials comparing alternative treatment modalities),
much of the controversy surrounding their interpretation has focused on
the possibility that residual confounding, rather than lead toxicity
itself, explains the associations between higher body burdens and
reduced function. Such discussions are difficult to conclude to
everyone's satisfaction because there is no logical conclusion to the
line of argument that posits a succession of unmeasured factors that
might be responsible for creating such spurious associations. Moreover,
errors in model specification can result in bias toward the null
hypothesis in the estimate of lead's neurotoxicity, if statistical
adjustments are made for factors that are in the causal pathway between
lead and poor outcome. For this reason, animal behavioral models of
lead toxicity, in which the possibility of confounding (in either
direction) is reduced by random assignment to exposure groups and by
active control of relevant (known) genetic and environmental factors,
are crucial elements of the total data base to which regulators can and
should appeal in setting exposure standards. The inference that low-
level lead exposure causes human behavioral morbidity becomes more
plausible when behavioral changes are also observed after lead is
administered to animals under experimental conditions. Indeed, the
striking similarities between the general pattern of behavioral
abnormalities in lead-exposed animals and in ``free range'' lead-
exposed children provides support, albeit indirect, for the inference
that the relationships observed in humans are causal.<SUP>33,}75</SUP>
The converse is true, as well, in that sometimes the results of
animal studies suggest that an association observed in humans might not
reflect a causal influence. For instance, analyses of the Second
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data set suggested
that very modest elevations in current blood lead level, well within
the range of community exposures, were associated with increased
hearing threshold in children.<SUP>76,}77</SUP> Although some studies
of animal models provide limited evidence of a modest effect at high
blood lead levels,\78\ the results of a recent study in 31 rhesus
monkeys with blood lead levels of 35 to 40 g/dL for the first 2
postnatal years cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion that low-
level lead exposure causes hearing deficits in children. In this study,
no lead-associated effects were detected on any level of auditory
processing using tympanometry (middle ear function), otoacoustic
emissions (cochlear function), or auditory brainstem-evoked potentials
(auditory nerve, brainstem pathways).\79\ This might explain why recent
studies of 2 cohorts of Ecuadorian children with substantially elevated
blood lead levels (means of 40 and 52 g/dL) failed to find a
significant association between blood lead level and hearing
threshold.<SUP>80,}81</SUP>
One reason that animal models of lead toxicity are so useful in
understanding childhood lead toxicity is the deep level of analysis
that they allow in the effort to identify the behavioral mechanism(s)
of functional deficit. The assessments included in most human
epidemiologic studies tend to be global or apical tests of cognition
and achievement rather than experimental, laboratory tests. One reason
for this is that exposure-associated decrements on such tests are more
highly valued by risk analysts and regulators as bases for exposure
standards. Although poor performance on global tests is often strongly
predictive of adaptive difficulties in school or the workplace,\82\ the
mere fact of poor performance provides relatively little insight into
the reasons for it, i.e., about the underlying ``behavioral lesion.''
For example, in many studies, higher lead levels are associated with
reduced scores on a design-copying task. A child might perform poorly
on such a task for many reasons, however, including poor visual-
perceptual skills, poor fine motor control, metacognitive or
organizational deficits, poor impulse control, anxiety, or a depressed
mood. In a diagnostic clinical evaluation, the relative merits of these
various hypotheses can be explored using a test battery tailored to the
child's presentation and modified on the basis of the tester's
observations as the evaluation proceeds. In a field epidemiologic
study, an investigator might have 1-time access to a child for perhaps
3 hours, needing to administer a fixed battery to all children to
ensure comparability of the data and the circumstances of its
collection. Under such constraints, dissection of a behavioral deficit
by means of a detailed process analysis is not feasible, and an
exposure-associated decrement in performance on apical tests tends to
be ``explained,'' inappropriately, in terms of a deficit in a complex
construct such as ``attention'' or ``memory.'' Limited efforts to
deconstruct such global constructs have been conducted in lead-exposed
children. Application of an assessment battery based on a
neuropsychological model of attention\83\ revealed that elevated
dentine lead levels were associated with deficits in 2 of the 4
elements of attention in this model: the ability to select a focus and
carry out operations on it, and the ability to shift focus in a
flexible and adaptive manner.\39\ The continuous accessibility of
experimental animals makes them an ideal resource for explicating the
bases for the global deficits observed in human subjects. They are
literally a captive audience from whom cooperation and consent for
repeated testing is not required and who do not need to miss work or
school to participate. Fine-grained process analyses of the behaviors
of lead-exposed primates, for instance, are consistent across,
laboratories and with the limited human data available,\39\ in
identifying several specific aspects of the global construct
``attention'' that are sensitive to lead: a tendency to be distracted
by irrelevant stimuli, to respond in a perseverative manner, an
inability to inhibit inappropriate responses, difficulty changing
response strategies when reinforcement contingencies shift, and
difficulty abstracting general rules (i.e., ``learning how to
learn'').\33\ No substantial obstacles stand in the way of efforts to
administer to children batteries that would allow similarly fine-
grained dissection of behavior, and investigators are currently working
toward this goal.<SUP>84,}85</SUP>
Animal models are also better suited than human studies to the task
of testing limits to evaluate the effects of lead on the ability to
weather ``periods of behavioral transition,'' \86\ as well as to
identify factors that exacerbate or reduce lead toxicity (ie, effect
modification). In the laboratory, one can ``program'' life histories to
explore the impact of different factors on the severity and nature of
lead-associated deficits and to see whether the point at which and the
way in which an animal's behavior breaks down over time or under stress
are affected by previous lead exposure. Animal models can also be
helpful in probing the nature and bases of individual differences in
sensitivity to lead toxicity.\29\
Animal models are of relatively little help, however, in evaluating
lead's effects on the ability to manipulate symbolic or abstract
systems, such as reading or mathematics, that have no compelling
nonhuman analogues. In addition, studies of lead's effects on
behavioral systems that tend to be species specific (eg, communication,
affect, reproduction, social behaviors) are less relevant to
understanding childhood lead toxicity than are nonhuman models of
systems with strong cross-species parallels in the morphology of
behavior, such as problem solving and learning.\87\
UTILITY OF ADULT STUDIES
Studies conducted on adults are likely to be of limited relevance
in understanding lead toxicity in children, particularly with regard to
nervous system effects. This organ continues to undergo substantial
changes well into the second decade of postnatal life, involving the
establishment of hemispheric dominance, the completion of myelination
(particularly in the frontal lobes), synaptic pruning, and synaptic
reorganization. As a result, the impact of an acquired brain lesion in
an adult can differ dramatically from the impact of a similar lesion
incurred during development.\88\ Even in the absence of an insult, the
brain-behavior relationships underlying complex cognitive processes can
differ substantially between adults and children. For example, lesions
that spare language in proficient speakers can impair language
acquisition, suggesting that the neural substrate for language
processing is not as highly localized in children as in adults.\89\ A
functional magnetic resonance imaging study of performance on a verbal
fluency task identified the expected regions of activation in both
children and adults (left inferior frontal cortex, left middle frontal
gyrus) but more widespread cortical activation among children than in
adults, particularly in the right hemisphere (right inferior frontal
gyrus).\90\ This seems not to be attributable simply to age-related
differences in competence but to age-related differences in functional
neuroanatomy. In another functional magnetic resonance imaging study,
comparing visual lexical processing in adults and 7- to 10-year-olds,
different patterns of activation were found in children and adults,
even when the 2 age groups were matched in terms of accuracy on the
task.\91\ This suggests that, to some extent, the specific regions of
the brain enlisted to solve a particular problem change with age. Thus,
it seems that the adult and the developing child differ in so many
critical respects that few lessons about pediatric lead neurotoxicity
can be gleaned from studying adult lead neurotoxicity.
CONCLUSION
Conceptually, excessive lead exposure in children poses a
relatively simple problem. We know where the most important hazards are
in the environments of young children, the major pathways of exposure,
the range of effects (to a level of detail far greater than for any
other environmental pollutant), and at least the general features of
the dose-effect relationships for the most intensively studied
endpoints. Studies continue to describe apparent effects that were
previously unknown, as well as show that known effects can be detected
at lower and lower levels of exposure. Fortunately, even as these
advances in knowledge were being achieved, children's exposures to lead
were in dramatic decline, with the mean blood lead level now barely >2
g/dL.\92\ Although much is known about the effects of lead on brain
chemistry and physiology, we nevertheless lack a unifying model of the
mechanisms of lead neurotoxicity. It is not obvious, however, that
additional evidence on the health effects of lead or the mechanisms of
its protean toxicities is needed to motivate public health
interventions to reduce children's lead exposure. In terms of housing
and community interventions, apart from the obvious immediate and long-
term benefits of complete residential lead abatement, if conducted
properly, as a way to reduce childhood exposures, we know relatively
little about other environmental, nutritional, or social interventions
that are effective (including cost-effective). Given the apparent
absence of commitment at a societal level to eradicate this entirely
preventable childhood disease even in the face of economic analysis
that demonstrates it to be cost-effective,\93\ it seems that the answer
to the question posed 10 years ago, ``Lead toxicity in the 21st
century: will we still be treating it?'' \94\ is, sadly, ``Yes.''
FOOTNOTES
Received for publication Oct. 7, 2003; accepted Oct. 20, 2003.
Reprint requests to (D.C.B.) Children's Hospital, Farley Basement
Box 127, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston MA 02115. E-mail:
david.bellinger@childrens.harvard.edu.
REFERENCES
1. Gibson JL, Love W, Hardine D, Bancroft P, Turner AJ. Note on
lead poisoning as observed among children in Brisbane. In: Huxtable LR,
ed. Transactions of the Third Intercolonial Medical Congress of
Australasia. Sydney, Australia: Charles Potter; 1982:76-83.
2. Markowitz G, Rosner D. ``Cater to the children'': The role of
the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900-1955. Am J Public
Health. 2000; 90:36-46 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
3. Rosner D, Markowitz G. A ``gift of God''? The public health
controversy over leaded gasoline during the 1920s. Am J Public Health.
1985; 75:344-352 [ISI][Medline].
4. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ, James RC, Roberts SM. Soil ingestion: a
concern for acute toxicity in children. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;
105:1354-1358 [ISI][Medline].
5. Manton WI, Angle CR, Stanek KL, Reese YR, Kuehnemann TJ.
Acquisition and retention of lead by young children. Environ Res. 2000;
82:60-80 [ISI][Medline].
6. Ziegler EE, Edwards BB, Jensen RL, Mahaffey KR, Fomon SJ.
Absorption and retention of lead by infants. Pediatr Res. 1978; 12:29-
34 [ISI][Medline].
7. Wright RO, Shannon MW, Wright RJ, Hu H. Association between iron
deficiency and low-level lead poisoning in an urban primary care
clinic. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89:1049-1053 [Abstract].
8. Bradman A, Eskenazi B, Sutton P, Athanasoulis M, Goldman LR.
Iron deficiency associated with higher blood lead in children living in
contaminated environments. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109:1079-1084
[ISI][Medline].
9. Stollery BT. Reaction time changes in workers exposed to lead.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1996; 18:477-483 [ISI][Medline].
10. Muldoon SB, Cauley JA, Kuller LH, et al. Effects of blood lead
levels on cognitive function of older women. Neuroepidemiology. 1996;
15:62-72 [ISI][Medline].
11. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Bolla KI, et al. Past adult lead
exposure is associated with longitudinal decline in cognitive function.
Neurology. 2000; 55:1144-1150 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
12. National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in Infants,
Children, and Other Sensitive Populations. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press; 1993.
13. Baker EL, White RF, Pothier LJ, et al. Occupational lead
neurotoxicity: improvement in behavioral effects after reduction of
exposure. Br J Ind Med. 1985; 42:507-516 [ISI][Medline].
14. Yokoyama K, Araki S, Aono H. Reversibility of psychological
performance in subclinical lead absorption. Neurotoxicology. 1988;
9:405-410 [ISI][Medline].
15. Needleman HL, Schell A, Bellinger D, Leviton A, Allred E. The
long-term effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood: an 11-
year follow-up report. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322:83-88 [Abstract].
16. White RF, Diamond R, Proctor S, Morey C, Hu H. Residual
cognitive deficits 50 years after lead poisoning during childhood. Br J
Ind Med. 1993; 50:613-622 [ISI][Medline].
17. Tong S, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, Bums J, McMichael AJ. Declining
blood lead levels and changes in cognitive functioning during
childhood: the Port Pirie Cohort Study. JAMA. 1998; 280:1915-1919
[Abstract/Free Full Text].
18. Stokes L, Letz R, Gerr F, et al. Neurotoxicity in young adults
20 years after childhood exposure to lead: The Bunker Hill experience.
Occup Environ Med. 1998; 55:507-516 [Abstract].
19. Johnston MV, Goldstein GW. Selective vulnerability of the
developing brain to lead. Curr Opin Neurol. 1998; 11:689-693
[ISI][Medline].
20. Rogan WJ, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, et al. The effect of chelation
therapy with succimer on neuropsychological development in children
exposed to lead. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344:1421-1426 [Abstract/Free Full
Text].
21. Pocock S, Smith M, Baghurst PA. Environmental lead and
children's intelligence: a systematic review of the epidemiological
evidence. BMJ. 1994; 309:1189-1197 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
22. Dietrich KN, Berger O, Succop P. Lead exposure and the motor
developmental status of urban 6-year-old children in the Cincinnati
Prospective Study. Pediatrics. 1993; 91:301-307 [Abstract].
23. McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA, Robertson EF, Vimpani GV, Wigg NR.
The Port Pirie cohort study: blood lead concentrations in early
childhood. Med J Aust. 1985; 143:499-503 [ISI][Medline].
24. Succop PA, O'Flaherty EJ, Bomschein RL, et al. A kinetic model
for estimating changes in the concentration of lead in the blood of
young children. In: Lindberg SE, Hutchinson TC, eds. International
Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment. Vol 2. Edinburgh: CEP
Consultants, Ltd; 1987:289-291.
25. Brody DJ, Pirkle JL, Kramer RA, et al. Blood lead levels in the
U.S. population. Phase 1 of the Third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988 to 1991). JAMA. 1994; 272:277-283
[Abstract].
26. Bellinger DC, Stiles KM, Needleman HL. Low-level lead exposure,
intelligence and academic achievement: a long-term follow-up study.
Pediatrics. 1992; 90:855-861 [Abstract].
27. Tong S, Baghurst P, McMichael A, Sawyer M, Mudge J. Lifetime
exposure to environmental lead and children's intelligence at 11-13
years: the Port Pirie cohort study. BMJ. 1996; 312:1569-1575 [Abstract/
Free Full Text].
28. Wasserman GA, Liu X, Popovac D, et al. The Yugoslavia
Prospective Lead Study: contributions of prenatal and postnatal lead
exposure to early intelligence. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000; 22:811-818
[ISI][Medline].
29. Rice DC. Lead-induced behavioral impairment on a spatial
discrimination reversal task in monkeys exposed during different
periods of development. Toxicol Appl Phannacol. 1990; 106:327-333
[ISI][Medline].
30. Rice D. Lead exposure during different developmental periods
produces different effects on FI performance in monkeys tested as
juveniles and adults. Neurotoxicology. 1992; 13:757-770 [ISI][Medline].
31. Rice DC, Gilbert SG. Sensitive periods for lead-induced
behavioral impairment (nonspatial discrimination reversal) in monkeys.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1990; 102:101-109 [ISI][Medline].
32. Morgan RE, Garavan H, Smith EG, Driscoll LL, Levitsky DA,
Strupp BJ. Early lead exposure produces lasting changes in sustained
attention, response initiation, and reactivity to errors. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 2001; 23:519-531 [ISI][Medline].
33. Bellinger D. Interpreting the literature on lead and child
development: the neglected role of the ``experimental system.''
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995; 17:201-212 [ISI][Medline].
34. Rice D. Behavioral effects of lead: commonalities between
experimental and epidemiologic data. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;
104(suppl 2):337-351 [Medline].
35. Wasserman GA, Liu X, Lolacono NJ, et al. Lead exposure and
intelligence in 7-year-old children: the Yugoslavia Prospective Study.
Environ Health Perspect. 1997; 105:956-962 [ISI][Medline].
36. Links JM, Schwartz BS, Simon D, Bandeen-Roche K, Stewart WF.
Characterization of toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics with linear
systems theory: application to lead-associated cognitive decline.
Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109:361-368 [ISI][Medline].
37. Smith C, Wang X, Hu H, Kelsey K. A polymorphism in the delta-
aminolevulinic acid dehydratase gene may modify the pharmacokinetics
and toxicity of lead. Environ Health Perspect. 1995; 103:248-253
[ISI][Medline].
38. Schwartz BS, Lee BK, Lee GS, et al. Associations of blood lead,
dimercaptosuccinic acid-chelatable lead, and tibia lead with
polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor and delta-aminolevulinic acid
dehydratase gene. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108:949-954.
39. Bellinger D, Hu H, Titlebaum L, Needleman HL. Attentional
correlates of dentin and bone lead levels in adolescents. Arch Environ
Health. 1994; 49:98-105 [ISI][Medline].
40. Bunn TL, Parsons PJ, Kao E, Dietert RR. Exposure to lead during
critical windows of embryonic development: differential immunotoxic
outcome based on stage of exposure and gender. Toxicol Sci. 2001;
64:57-66 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
41. Dietrich KN, Krafft KM, Bornschein RL, et al. Low-level fetal
lead exposure effect on neurobehavioral development in early infancy.
Pediatrics. 1987; 80:721-730 [Abstract].
42. Pocock S, Ashby D, Smith MA. Lead exposure and children's
intellectual performance. Int J Epidemiol. 1987; 16:57-76 [Abstract].
43. Bellinger D, Leviton A, Sloman J. Antecedents and correlates of
improved cognitive performance in children exposed in utero to low
levels of lead. Environ Health Perspect. 1990; 89:5-11 [ISI][Medline].
44. McMichael AJ, Baghurst P, Vimpani G, Robertson E, Wiig N, Tong
S-L. Sociodemographic factors modifying the effect of environmental
lead on neuropsychological development in early childhood. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 1992; 14:321-327 [ISI][Medline].
45. Tong S, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA. Interactions between
environmental lead exposure and sociodemographic factors on cognitive
development. Arch Environ Health. 2000; 55:330-335 [ISI][Medline].
46. Newman HM, Yang RSH, Magnusson KR. Effects of developmental
exposure to lead, magnesium and zinc mixtures on spatial learning and
expression of NMDA receptor subunit mRNA in Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol
Lett. 2002; 126:107-119 [ISI][Medline].
47. Bellinger D. Effect modification in epidemiological studies of
low-level neurotoxicant exposures and adverse health outcomes.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000; 22:133-140 [ISI][Medline].
48. Bellinger DC, Leviton A, Waternaux C, Needleman HL, Rabinowitz
M. Low-level lead exposure, social class, and infant development.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1988; 10:497-503 [ISI][Medline].
49. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Preventing Lead Poisoning in
Young Children. Atlanta, GA: U.S. CDC; 1991.
50. Pirkle JL, Brody DJ, Gunter EW, et al. The decline in blood
lead levels in the United States. The National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). JAMA. 1994; 272:284-291 [Abstract].
51. Mushak P. New directions in the toxicokinetics of human lead
exposure. Neurotoxicology. 1993; 14:29-42.
52. Flegal AR, Smith DR. Lead levels in preindustrial humans. N
Engl J Med. 1992; 326:1293-1294 [ISI][Medline].
53. Schwartz J. Low-level lead exposure and children's IQ: a meta-
analysis and search for a threshold. Environ Res. 1994; 65:42-55
[ISI][Medline].
54. Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C. Cognitive deficits
associated with blood lead concentrations <10 g/dL in U.S. children
and adolescents. Public Health Rep. 2000; 115:521-529 [ISI][Medline].
55. Canfield RC, Henderson CR, Cory-Slechta DA, Cox C, Jusko TA,
Lanphear BP. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead
concentrations below 10 g per deciliter. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:1517-
1526 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
56. Chiodo LM., Jacobson SW, Jacobson JL. Neurodevelopmental
effects of postnatal lead exposure at very low levels. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 2004, in press.
57. Bellinger DC, Needleman HL. Intellectual impairment and blood
lead levels. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:500 [Free Full Text].
58. Needleman HL, Gatsonis C. Low-level lead exposure and the IQ of
children. JAMA. 1990; 263:673-678 [Abstract].
59. Schwartz J. Beyond LOEL's, p values, and vote counting: methods
for looking at the shapes and strengths of associations.
Neurotoxicology. 1993; 14:237-246 [ISI][Medline].
60. World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical
Safety. Environmental Health Criteria 165. Inorganic Lead. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1995.
61. Needleman HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A, et al. Deficits in
psychologic and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine
lead levels. N Engl J Med. 1979; 300:689-695 [Abstract].
62. Yule W, Urbanowicz M-A, Lansdown R, Millar I. Teachers' ratings
of children's behaviour in relation to blood lead levels. Br J Dev
Psychol. 1984; 2:295-305 [ISI].
63. Thomson GO, Raab GM, Hepburn WS, Hunter R, Fulton M, Laxen DP.
Bloodlead levels and children's behaviour--results from the Edinburgh
lead study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1989; 30:515-528
[ISI][Medline].
64. Bellinger D, Leviton A, Allred E, Rabinowitz M. Pre- and
postnatal lead exposure and behavior problems in school-aged children.
Environ Res. 1994; 66:12-30 [ISI][Medline].
65. Wasserman G, Staghezza-Jaramillo B, Shrout P, Popovac D,
Graziano J. The effect of lead exposure on behavior problems in
preschool children. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88:481-486 [Abstract].
66. Burns J, Baghurst P, Sawyer M, McMichael A, Tong S. Lifetime
low-level exposure to environmental lead and children's emotional and
behavioral development at ages 11-13 years: the Port Pirie Cohort
Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 149:740-749 [Abstract].
67. Byers RK, Lord EE. Late effects of lead poisoning on mental
development. Am J Dis Child. 1943; 66:471-494.
68. Denno DW. Biology and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 1990.
69. Needleman HL, Riess JA, Tobin MJ, Biesecker GE, Greenhouse JB.
Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. JAMA. 1996; 275:363-369
[Abstract].
70. Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Succop PA, Berger OG, Bornschein RL. Early
exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2001;
23:511-518 [ISI][Medline].
71. Needleman HL, McFarland C, Ness RB, Fineberg SE, Tobin MJ. Bone
lead levels in adjudicated delinquents: a case-control study.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002; 24:711-717 [ISI][Medline].
72. Nevin R. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ,
violent crime, and unwed pregnancy. Environ Res. 2000; 83:1-22
[ISI][Medline].
73. Rice DC. Parallels between attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and behavioral deficits produced by neurotoxic exposure in
monkeys. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108(suppl 3):405-408 [Medline].
74. Bellinger DC. Future directions for neurobehavioral studies of
environmental neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicology. 2001; 22:645-656
[FISI][Medline].
75. Davis JM, Otto DA, Weil DE, Grant LD. The comparative
developmental neurotoxicity of lead in humans and animals. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 1990; 12:215-229 [ISI][Medline].
76. Schwartz J, Otto D. Blood lead, hearing thresholds, and
neurobehavioral development in children and youth. Arch Environ Health.
1987; 42:153-160 [ISI][Medline].
77. Schwartz J, Otto D. Lead and minor hearing impairment. Arch
Environ Health. 1991; 46:300-305 [ISI][Medline].
78. Rice DC. Effects of lifetime lead exposure in monkeys on
detection of pure tones. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997; 36:112-118
[ISI][Medline].
79. Lasky RE, Luck ML, Torre P, Laughlin N. The effects of early
lead exposure on auditory function in rhesus monkeys. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 2001; 23:639-649 [ISI][Medline].
80. Counter AS, Vahter M, Laurell G, Buchanan LH, Ortega F,
Skerfving S. High lead exposure and auditory sensory-neural function in
Andean children. Environ Health Perspect. 1997; 105:522-526
[ISI][Medline].
81. Buchanan LH, Counter AS, Ortega F, Laurell G. Distortion
product oto-acoustic emissions in Andean children and adults with
chronic lead intoxication. Acta Otolaryngol. 1999; 119:652-658
[ISI][Medline].
82. Neisser U, Boodoo H, Bouchard TJ, et al. Intelligence: knowns
and unknowns. Am Psychol. 1995; 51:77-101 [ISI].
83. Mirsky A, Anthony B, Duncan C, Ahearn M, Kellam S. Analysis of
the elements of attention: a neuropsychological approach. Neuropsychol
Rev. 1990; 2:109-145.
84. Paule MG, Chelonis JJ, Buffalo EA, Blake DJ, Casey PH. Operant
test battery performance in children: correlation with IQ. Neurotoxicol
Teratol. 1999; 21:223-230 [ISI][Medline].
85. Chelonis JJ, Daniels-Shaw JL, Blake DJ, Paule MG. Developmental
aspects of delayed matching-to-sample task performance in children.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000; 22:683-694 [ISI][Medline].
86. Cory-Slechta DA. Exposure duration modifies the effects of low
level lead on fixed-interval performance. Neurotoxicology. 1990;
11:427-442 [ISI][Medline].
87. Paule MG, Adams J. Interspecies comparison of the evaluation of
cognitive developmental effects of neurotoxicants in primates. In:
Chang LW, ed. Principles of Neurotoxicology. New York, NY: Marcel
Dekker; 1994:713-731.
88. Bellinger DC. Perspectives on incorporating human
neurobehavioral endpoints in risk assessments. Risk Anal. 2002; 22:487-
498 [ISI][Medline].
89. Stiles J. Neural plasticity and cognitive development. Dev
Neuropsychol. 2000; 18:237-272 [ISI][Medline].
90. Gaillard WD, Hertz-Pannier L, Mott SH, Barnett AS, LeBihan D,
Theodore WH. Functional anatomy of cognitive development. fMRI of
verbal fluency in children and adults. Neurology. 2000; 54:180-185
[Abstract/Free Full Text].
91. Schlagger BL, Brown TT, Lugar HM, Visscher KM, Miezin FM,
Petersen SE. Functional neuroanatomical differences between adults and
school-age children in the processing of simple words. Science. 2002;
296:1476-1479 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
92. Stephenson J. CDC report on environmental toxins: some
progress, some concerns. JAMA. 2003; 289:1230-1233 [Free Full Text].
93. Grosse SD, Matte TD, Schwartz J, Jackson RJ. Economic gains
resulting from the reduction in children's exposure to lead in the
United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110:563-569
[ISI][Medline].
94. Needleman HL, Jackson RJ. Lead toxicity in the 21st century:
will we still be treating it? Pediatrics. 1992; 89:678-680
[ISI][Medline].
__________
Statement of Mike Keegan, Policy Analyst, National Rural
Water Association
The Solution to Lead in the Water is More Local Control
Mr. Chairman, if you relied on the newspapers, television accounts,
or commentary from the national environmental groups to understand the
situation with lead in the District's drinking water supply, you would
only be hearing one perspective. From these sources, you have heard
that the only way to solve the lead problem is by removing local
authority and transferring it to the Federal Government. This is one
solution, however, it is not the only policy that Congress should
consider--and by no means, does it have any greater rate of success in
solving local problems.
The lead crisis now shrouding the District is a product of a 30-
year effort to build a dysfunctional Federal environmental system whose
key principal is the antithesis of Home Rule; to take authority away
from the local citizens and transfer it to Federal bureaucracies and
the interest groups who control them.
The National Rural Water Association has over 23,000 small and
rural community members who supply drinking water or wastewater to
their communities. These communities are governed by locally-elected
officials; they don't make profits and their families drink the water
they supply. Therefore, unlike commercial enterprise, there is no
incentive nor any reason to supply anything but the safest water
possible. The Safe Drinking Water Act, in many instances, directs EPA
to override the desired local health policy of these communities--and
forces them to pay for EPA's decision. They all have to comply with the
EPA Lead and Copper Rule just like the District of Columbia (DC) and
the Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). We urge you to not let this
incident be the predicate for removing more of our local authority to
determine local policies to the Federal level.
WHY THE CURRENT LAW IS UNWORKABLE
The country's water protection program (Safe Drinking Water Act)
relies on a uniform regulatory compliance program--at the expense of
the judgment of locally elected officials--that is too complex and
arbitrary to handle local individual problems. This program was
guaranteed to fail because (1) it can't possibly manage future local
crises that were not dreamed of when it was designed and published in
the Federal Register, and (2) it doesn't consider the unintended
consequences of its mandates--it operates in a vacuum of reality, and
(3) it can't balance competing local priorities. These three flaws
appear to have contributed to the current situation in the District.
Now when there is a crisis that needs civic leadership--no one is
responsible; and the Federal Register isn't talking.
WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE DISTRICT?
Local judgment was overridden by the Federal regulatory system,
which was too arbitrary and inflexible to deal with the situation.
One theory, is the EPA Rule to reduce byproducts from disinfection
steered the WASA to a new disinfection regiment that caused a change in
the water chemistry that resulted in corrosion and increased lead
concentrations. The relationship between the correlation rules is not
adequately considered when applied in the real world because EPA, in a
vacuum, implements them. Additionally, the law prohibits the District
from balancing the competing objectives of the two rules.
Another theory, a mechanical action disrupted homeowners' plumbing
enough to cause a temporary spike in lead samples. If this were the
case, the regulations contain a solution (and public notification
protocol) based on the long-term problem including corrosion control
and replacing some lead service lines which would not fit if this
theory were correct.
The Act and the regulations don't fit in the either case. If the
cause is something else, why are we mandating particular solutions for
problems we don't understand?
These necessary balancing judgments are beyond the capability of
static regulations and beyond the abilities of regulators charged only
with the enforcement of the specific regulations. Regulators can only
regulate the letter of the law, they can't think beyond compliance--
which is critical in determining public health policy. It is essential
to realize that meeting regulations is not synonymous with public
health protection. In the District example, it is likely that WASA and
EPA would have looked at the situation differently. EPA was forced to
focus on enforcement, regardless of unintended consequences. On the
other hand, if WASA retained authority, it would have had the
discretion to be more concerned with the overall public health
implications and the ability to be more cautious in changing water
treatment regimes. It is only elected policy makers with the authority
to look at public policy in a holistic manner that can balance public
health risks.
Once the lead levels started to increase, WASA and EPA probably
knew that the higher lead levels were not as alarming as the
environmental community and media would claim because of the
conservative nature of the standards, and that this may be a temporary
problem which the Federal public notification requirements would not
convey. In all of WASA's actions, it appears that after months off the
situation, which EPA was aware of reportedly, WASA only violated the
public notification elements of the regulations, not any water quality
criteria. Just how sacrosanct is the exact application of Federal
regulations?
<bullet> EPA allowed Columbus, Ohio out of some of the compliance
details of the lead rule that was not provided to WASA. EPA's ruling in
Columbus\1\ shows that they think some higher lead levels in water are
not a health risk. They allowed Columbus a safe harbor if they had
higher levels. Why was Columbus (allowed this special exemption) and
not DC? And more importantly, how much higher than the Federal
standards can you go before there is a health risk? This common sense
question is one that EPA can't answer.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the past, the City of Columbus made certain changes to the
method it uses to treat drinking water. Inadvertently, the treatment
change caused an increase in the level of lead in the drinking water. .
. . Through this Agreement, the U.S. EPA would suspend the lead service
lines sampling and replacement provisions for up to three years
beginning if and when the City exceeds the lead limit . . .'' Federal
Register: July 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 145) [Page 46166-46167].
\2\ In a March report, EPA did not find that arsenic concentrations
above their standard necessarily present an ``unreasonable risk to
health.'' [USEPA, Exemptions & the Arsenic Rule, March 2002, p. 11,
#7]. Instead of identifying the levels of arsenic that are ``protective
of the public'' [42USC300g-1(b)(15)(B)l or don't present ``an
unreasonable risk to health'' [42USC300g-5(a)(3)] as named in the Safe
Drinking Water Act and that the Agency was requested to name by several
Congressmen, EPA creatively chose to identify what these levels are
not. ``EPA is . . . determining what does not pose an unreasonable risk
to health with respect to arsenic, rather than address the much more
complex issue of what does constitute an unreasonable risk to health.''
[USEPA, Exemptions & the Arsenic Rule, March 2002, p. 11, #7].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Considering the extreme valves in DC's water that exceeded
EPA's action level by a factor of over 20, numerous homes tested over
the lead action level, all the media uproar over this issue, and the
alarm it has fomented in the public, would you ever think the CDC would
have said the following just last week: ``. . . although lead in tap
water contributed to a small increase in BLLs in DC, no children were
identified with BLLs >10 g/dL, even in homes with the highest water
lead levels.'' \3\ Does this finding by CDC seem consistent with the
level of alarm being portrayed to the public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Blood Lead Levels in Residents of Homes with Elevated Lead in
Tap Water--DC, 2004, March 30, 2004 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION (VIOLATIONS VS. PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS)
The public notification process is another area in the Safe
Drinking Water Act that is flawed. Since the relationship between
``violation'' and public health risk must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. Mandatory public notice requirements for all violations can
be used to mislead the public. Some violations are worse than others
and it is the health impact and degree of malice that needs to be
conveyed to the public more than the simple fact that there was a
violation. The current Federal standard for lead in drinking water is
15 parts per billion (ppb) [based on a percentage of homes tested].
Does that mean that 14.5 ppb is safe and 15.5 ppb is comparably unsafe?
It certainly does not. However, this is how the issue is presented to
the public. The news reports of the situation commonly report that
water with lead levels above 15 ppb is ``contaminated'' and,
inferentially, anything below as not contaminated. Safe, clean,
polluted, and contaminated are all characterizations and can be
misleading and inflammatory. There is no bright line of concentrations
in the parts per billion when lead levels become safe or unsafe. The
actual health effects are uncertain and are dependent on the amount of
water consumed, age of the person, amount of time exposed and other
variables. This is why more public information is better--not just the
alarming news. In this instance, the public should have known all along
the levels of lead in every test and the balancing that was going on in
the water chemistry. This constant public discussion and disclosure
would lessen the ability of the media or interest groups to create an
appearance of a cover up when there was none.
The public needs to understand that removing all lead from the
water supply is technologically impossible and not necessary to protect
the public. So the civic policy has dealt with how much lead we can
live with and what is the most economical way to get it to acceptable
levels. This can be different for separate communities, with unique
circumstances, economies, natural environments, demographics,
extraordinary local considerations, etc. For example, a community with
lead at 16 ppb in their water and numerous public housing units with
lead paint should not be forced into the same compliance measures as
community with 300 ppb of lead in the water and no houses with lead
paint.
THE SOLUTION CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER
Ask yourself who cares more about the health of the children in the
District (and is more responsive to those families), the local mayors
or an EPA regional employee in Philadelphia? If the mayors, or the
regional governments of WASA, had the authority over managing the
health policy underlying the water supply--we would likely not be in
the situation we are in now because they are elected for the exact
reason of managing issues that have many variables and impacts. Mayors
can manage the balancing of local priorities in a way that regulatory
enforcers cannot. Now you are being asked to give more authority to EPA
at the expense of the local mayors.
Congress or EPA can expand the regulatory program and require more
Federal uniform mandates on locals in response to the District
experience. This has been the history of national drinking water
legislation. However, this will not solve the problem of drinking water
protection because the Federal Government cannot possibly design a
program that foresees the infinite challenges that local communities
face in providing safe water. The problem with the Safe Drinking Water
Act is that improving drinking water in small communities is more of a
RESOURCE problem than a REGULATORY problem.
The best way to avoid threats is to have the most educated and
responsible local officials overseeing the water supply. We urge you to
consider this alternative perspective of local governments and their
citizens. The key to finding the best public health policy to tackle
the lead issue is for it to be derived and supported by the people that
benefit from a safe drinking water and have to pay for the service. If
the locals don't like the results, they can elect a new government.
THE ROLE OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN LOCAL ISSUES
Why do the environmental groups support a Federal control program?
The answer is because they can control it better. Most of their polices
would not be accepted at the local level (by the people) if there was
an open public health debate. Therefore, the groups have made an
expertise at getting national legislation enacted that they can exploit
through lawsuits as well as intimidating bureaucrats into publishing
over-zealous regulations.
Many interest groups petition this committee to authorize more and
more, ever-stringent Federal unfunded mandates on small communities
with the intention of improving public health on the community's
behalf. Unfortunately, this does not work and things are not that
simple. The key to long-term improvement is local support, local
education and available resources. We continually ask for the list of
the communities that need to improve their drinking water and are not
willing to take the steps to do it. Such a list does not exist. We
encourage organizations that advocate increasing unfunded mandates on
communities to take their case directly to the local community. If they
can get the community's support, then we would back any new standard or
policy. The problem has been that communities do not support most of
these policies at the local level because they waste limited resources
on non-priority projects.
A CURRENT EXAMPLE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE SDWA
It appears that the Stage I rule was the rule that caused WASA to
change their treatment to chloramines and resulted in the increase in
lead concentrations in the drinking water. The National Rural Water
Association is urging EPA to rethink finalizing the Stage 2
Disinfection and Disinfection By-Products (Stage 2) and Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (LT2) Proposed Rules in light of the
recent chloramines study released by the EPA Office of Research and
Development. The study concluded that alternatives to drinking water
chlorination, such as chloramines, may produce ``increased
concentrations'' of some byproducts.
We are concerned that this rule may result in unintended
consequences including exposure to the public of ``certain
dihalogenated disinfection by-products and iodo-trihalomethanes.''
We are particularly concerned by the report's following finding:
``Important observations included finding the highest levels
of iodotri-
halomethanes (THMs) at a plant that used chloramination without
pre-chlorination . . . Another important observation involved
finding the highest concentration of dichloroacetaldehyde at a
plant that used chloramine and ozone disinfection. Therefore,
although the use of alternative disinfectants minimized the
formation of the four regulated THMs, certain dihalogenated
DBPs and iodo-THMs were formed at significantly higher levels
than in waters treated with chlorine. Thus, the formation and
control of the four regulated THMs is not necessarily an
indicator of the formation and control of other halogenated
DBPs, and the use of alternative disinfectants does not
necessarily control the formation of all halogenated DBPs, and
can even result in increased concentrations of some. Moreover,
many of these halogenated DBPs--including certain dihalogenated
and brominated species--were not studied in the ICR. ''
The proposed rules will likely require a significant number of
water supplies to switch from their current disinfection process to
chloramines which, according to the EPA's recent findings, may have
unknown public health risks and may be more harmful than chlorine.
__________
Statement of Richard P. Maas and Steve C. Patch, UNC, Asheville
Environmental Quality Institute
Update on Research Regulations and Proposition 65 Litigations Related
to Lead discharge from Brass Water Service Parts and Meters
HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO LOW LEVEL LEAD EXPOSURE: A CONTINUING
ENLIGHTENMENT
<bullet> Between 1987 and 1991, Needleman, McMichael and others
first discovered that infants and young children even with very low
blood lead levels (BLLs) exhibited IQ deficits.
<bullet> Infants born with BLLs below 3 g/dL scored higher on
cognitive development Index tests at age 2 than infants born with BLLs
of 6-7 g/dL or 10-12 g/dL.
<bullet> Nine-year-olds with moderately elevated BLLs (10 g/dL)
were found to have higher drop-out rates, behavior problems and
criminal behavior at age 19 than 9-years olds with BLLs below 5 g/dL.
<bullet> Numerous recent studies have found that low level lead
exposure not only causes IQ reductions but also causes increases in
learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder and aggressive
behavior.
<bullet> Most recently Dr. Bruce Lamphear in a major study (2001)
found IQ and learning (esp. reading) deficits in children (ages 6-16)
with BLLs as low as 2.5 g/dL.
<bullet> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) has
reviewed and validated this study.
<bullet> The USEPA upon review of these studies has officially
adopted the position that there is no threshold dose below which lead
does not cause neurologic damage in infants and young children. Thus,
the EPA has set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for lead in
drinking water of zero.
THE VERY LATEST NEWS ON LEAD POISONING (APRIL 17, 2003: NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE)
Researchers from Cornell University, Cincinnati Children's
Hospital, and University of Rochester (funded by the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences NIEHS) were ``surprised'' to find that
the IQ scores of children who had BLLs of 10 g/dL were about 7 points
lower than children with BLLs of 1 g/dL.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.208
Most previous studies focused on children with BLLs of 10-30 g/dL
and extrapolated back to lower levels.
It now appears that most of the neurological damage is caused by
the first 10 g/dL.
One in ten North American children (ages 1-5) have BLLs above 5 g/
dL
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.209
<bullet> For modeling the effects of low level lead exposure in
infants and young children, the EPA has calculated a BLL increase of
0.16 g/dL for each g/day of lead ingested.
<bullet> Various studies have found IQ deficits of 2-6 points for
each 10 g/dL increase in BLLs (mean approx. 6 4 pts). Therefore, a
young child drinking 2 liters/day of water with just 10 g/L of lead
(20 g/day) would experience a BLL increase of approximately 3.2 g/dL
(1.3 IQ point deficit) even if they had no other sources of lead
exposure.
<bullet> The USEPA estimates that 14-20 percent of total U.S.
childhood lead exposure is from drinking water, although nearly all
lead exposure could easily come from tapwater in any particular
residence.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.210
CHRONOLOGY OF REDUCTION OF LEAD IN DRINKING WATER: CALIFORNIA
HAS BEEN THE LLEADER
<bullet> 1988: Federal Lead Ban. Elimination of leaded-solder in
new buildings (most buildings will continue to have leaded solder for
decades to come).
<bullet> 1994: Use of leaded brass in submersible well pumps banned
nationally by the USEPA.
<bullet> June 1998: Kitchen and lavatory faucets. CA Prop 65
settlement agreement requires that residential faucet fixtures meet a
very low lead discharge std. (Achievable only with no lead or very low
lead alloys) Adopted nationally by most faucet companies.
<bullet> March 2000: CA Prop 65 settlement agreement to eliminate
the use of leaded-brass alloys in residential water meters. Specifies
Federalloy or Sebiloy (aka EnViroBrass) alloys. (Now available from
Schlumberger and others.)
<bullet> 2001-present: Ca Prop 65 litigation to require no-lead or
very low lead alloys in residential gate valves, ball valves, backflow
preventers, and pressure reducing valves. Reportedly close to final
settlement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.211
<bullet> 2002: Virtually all leaded brass plumbing components have
now been banned from use in residential and most other building
plumbing systems at least in California. Only leaded-brass water
service parts such as curb valves, meter stops, tail pieces, elbows and
main (corporation) stops have not been addressed.
<bullet> October 10, 2002: A 60-day CA Prop 65 notice was filed
with the appropriate CA Public Enforcement Agencies against Mueller,
A.Y. McDonald, Ford Meter Box, and James Jones for illegally
manufacturing and selling leaded-brass water service components in the
State of California.
<bullet> January 3, 2003: This lawsuit was expanded to include all
distributors of leaded-brass water service parts in California.
Environmental Quality Institute Laboratory Study of Lead Discharge from
Water Service Parts (Leaded-Brass vs. No-Lead Brass)
METHODS
<bullet> Mueller, James Jones, A.Y. McDonald, Ford, Cambridge Brass
purchased in CA.
<bullet> Parts included different types of curb stops, elbows, main
stops and compression Ts.
<bullet> Extraction water made to simulate average CA public water
in terms of lead corrosivity (pH = 8.04, hardness: 100 mg/L, Alk: 82
mg/L, CI residual: 1.0 mg/L.)
<bullet> Experiments run for 19 days with samples taken after 16-
hour overnight dwell.
<bullet> Days 17, 18, 19: shorter dwell time samples of 10 min, 30
min, and 2 hours.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.213
results
Lead is initially leached quickly from the parts and the rate slows
down over time.
<bullet> 16-hr dwell = 100 percent
<bullet> 2-hr dwell = 58 percent
<bullet> 30 min dwell = 31 percent
<bullet> 10 min dwell = 19 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.214
Table 5.--Comparison of Lead Discharge (g/L) From ``No-Lead'' Parts Versus Similar Leaded Brass Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean `Q'
`Q' Stat Stat for Factor
No-Lead Comparable Leaded Brass ID #s for Non- Leaded Dif. in
lead Brass Lead
Part Parts Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB1........................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45........... 0.91 20.7 22.8
CB2........................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45........... 0.60 20.7 34.5
CB3........................................... 18, 24, 28, 38................... 0.53 8.81 16.6
CB4........................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45........... 0.78 20.7 26.5
CB5........................................... 17, 22, 40, 43................... 2.81 17.8 6.35
CB7........................................... 15, 20, 26, 30................... 1.79 5.90 3.30
CB8........................................... 14, 19, 25, 29................... 2.64 16.5 6.25
CB9........................................... 31, 35, 36, 39................... 1.64 47.8 29.1
CB10.......................................... 34, 44, 45, 47................... 1.31 32.9 25.1
CB12.......................................... 16, 21, 27, 32................... 5.48 56.70 10.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mean...................................... 18.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
approximate calculations of lead exposure from water service parts
Assumptions:
<bullet> 30 water uses/day (1 overnight 4 2-h, 15 30-min, 10 10-
min).
<bullet> 2 L/day as 8 250 ml ingestions.
<bullet> 4.5 liters storage in plumbing system (80 ft of \1/2\,,
interior plus 20 ft of \3/4\,, service line.
<bullet> system contains a main stop, elbow, straight coupling,
curb stop, also tail pieces and water meter).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.216
results
Total Pb discharge (Day 19)
<bullet> No lead: No water meter and tail pieces = 28 g.
<bullet> No lead: With lead-free water meter and tailpieces = 50
g.
<bullet> Leaded: No water meter and tail pieces = 205 g.
<bullet> Leaded: With water meter and tail pieces = 332 g.
Table 7.--Calculated Daily Lead Ingestion for Various Brass Water Service Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Calculated
Lab ID # of Part Calculated Daily Lab ID # of Part Calculated Daily Lab ID # of Part Daily Lead Lab ID # of Daily Lead
Lead Ingestion Lead Ingestion Ingestion Part Ingestion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB1.......................... 0.12............ CB13............ 1.19............ CB25............ 1.11........... CB37........... 17.21
CB2.......................... 0.10............ CB14............ 2.30............ CB26............ 0.32........... CB38........... 1.82
CB3.......................... 0.08............ CB15............ 1.13............ CB27............ 2.16........... CB39........... 8.10
CB4.......................... 0.12............ CB16............ 0.95............ CB28............ 1.54........... CB40........... 2.18
CB5.......................... 0.24............ CB17............ 1.49............ CB29............ 1.02........... CB41........... 13.96
CB6.......................... 0.26............ CB18............ 1.43............ CB30............ 0.16........... CB42........... 1.43
CB7.......................... 0.08............ CB19............ 1.79............ CB31............ 2.48........... CB43........... 2.23
CB8.......................... 0.21............ CB20............ 1.19............ CB32............ 1.92........... CB44........... 4.63
CB9.......................... 0.20............ CB21............ 1.82............ CB33............ 0.92........... CB45........... 1.47
CB10......................... 0.11............ CB22............ 2.15............ CB34............ 2.18........... CB46........... 13.18
CB11......................... 0.40............ CB23............ 0.95............ CB35............ 2.38........... CB47........... 1.58
CB12......................... 0.10............ CB24............ 0.82............ CB36............ 1.82...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--Total Calculated Daily Pb Exposures, Childhood Blood Lead Level Increases, and IQ Deficits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Daily BLL g/dl IQ Deficit
Lead Ingestion -------------------------------
Water Delivery System Type ----------------
Mean 90th% Mean 90th% Mean 90th%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No lead......................................................... 1.15 1.86 0.18 0.30 0.12 0.21
Conventional leaded brass....................................... 5.20 9.50 0.83 1.52 0.58 1.07
Conventional leaded-brass in most corrosive 20% of CA system 12.5 22.8 2.00 3.65 1.40 2.56
(approx. pop. = 5 million).....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We are now aware that even very low lead exposures cause neurologic
damage, especially in infants and young children, resulting in IQ
reductions, attention deficit disorders, aggressive behavior and
reading disabilities.
Leaded-brass water service parts represent a small to moderate
additional source of lead exposure to infants and young children.
Leading to early measurable BLL increases and IQ deficits of about 0.33
to 1.5 points, along with other lead-related neurological problems.
Some infants and young children, due to unfortunate water
consumption habits, will receive lead exposure from drinking water much
higher than those estimated from this study.
While the increase in childhood lead exposure from leaded-brass
water service parts is usually relatively small, this is a needless
extra exposure with the effects additive to other lead exposures.
We have nearly eliminated lead from our drinking water systems, and
soon it will be illegal to manufacture and sell leaded-brass water
system parts of any type in California.
The city of Los Angeles and many other towns nationwide are already
purchasing only no-lead water service components.
What is the Extra Cost of Switching to No-Lead Water Service Parts?
Example: City with Service Area Population of 50,000 people--
20,000 residential services.
Approximate Cost of Conventional Leaded and No-Lead Brass Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaded No-Lead
(USD) (USD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Corporation Stop................................. $ 29.50 $ 36.88
2. Curb Stop........................................ 40.50 50.63
3. Tail Pieces (2).................................. 12.00 15.00
4. Water Meter Casing............................... 20.00 25.00
-------------------
Total............................................. $102.00 $ 127.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price Differential = $25.50 / service.
<bullet> Assume City adds new services at 1 percent per year and
replaces 1 percent of existing services due to breakage, distribution
line upgrades, etc.
<bullet> 20,000 services <greek-e> 2 percent <greek-e> $25.50 =
$10,200/yr.
<bullet> Spread over the 20,000 residential services, this will add
51 cents per year to each family's water bill, or about 4.3 cents per
month.
but my water service parts are compliant with nsf-61 section 8!
<bullet> NSF-61 Section 8 protocol and standards were developed
primarily by the plumbing industry to ensure that most 5 percent and 7
percent brass parts would pass.
<bullet> NSF-61 Section 8 is not a health-based standard. It allows
a 100mL volume brass part to discharge up to 450 g/L of lead and still
receive verification!
<bullet> Children will still receive very substantial doses of lead
in drinking water in a home with NSF-61 Section 8 compliant service
parts.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS
1. Given our recent knowledge about health effects of lead, and
considering that leaded-brass water service parts installed today will
be in service discharging lead for the next 20-40 years, is it not time
for public water suppliers to ``do the right thing'' by voluntarily and
proactively eliminating this last source of lead to our customers?
2. When the next wave of media publicity about the irreversible
health effects of low level lead exposure comes to public attention, do
we want to have to explain to our customers why we were still
installing leaded-brass parts in 2003 when lead-free parts were readily
available?
3. Class Action Suits and Personal Injury Suits have gotten
completely out of control in the U.S. (78 percent of our Congress are
lawyers!). If public water suppliers are shown to have been still
installing leaded-brass parts even after all the parts in residences
were converted to no-lead brass, how vulnerable could we be to these
types of legal actions?
Public Water Suppliers have led the way in reducing lead in
drinking water. Let's finish the job!
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4604.233
[From the Washington Post (1877-1954), Sept. 15, 1895]
Potomac Water and Lead Pipe
SOURCE OF DANGER WHERE SUCH A PIPE HAS BEEN USED A LONG TIME
A. W. Dow, inspector of asphalt and cements, yesterday made his
report to the Engineer Commissioner. In it he says considerable change
has been made in the past year in asphalt pavement by the addition of a
fine sand to a sand similar to that formerly used. Under the present
circumstances this is the best that can be done. The only fine sand now
available is that dredged off the foot of Seventeenth street.
The inspector deals also with the public wells analyzed. There were
found to be 96 good ones, 41 suspicious, and 57 condemned.
The most interesting part, of the report deals with the
investigation of the action of Potomac water on lead pipe, to determine
if enough lead is dissolved by the water to be injurious to public
health. In order to have all conditions corresponding as near as
possible with those of actual service, the inspector had one new 40-
foot lead service pipe in Anacostia and 50 feet of new lead pipe
attached to the high service main at the U street pumphouse. From the
investigation the inspector concludes that the only great source of
danger is where the coating becomes detached by a rapid flow of water
after the pipe had remained unused for some time. He will continue the
investigation.
______
[From the Washington Post (1877-1954), June 9, 1893]
Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory
LOOKING FOR A GOOD SANITARY PIPE FOR SUPPLYING WATER
Capt. Powell, the Engineer Commissioner, has determined that a
substitute must be found for lead pipes which, according to the present
plumbing regulations, must be used in providing a water service for
residences. The general fear that such pipes might cause lead poisoning
under certain conditions makes their general adoption in the District a
menace to the health of the people.
It has been shown that the chemical character of Potomac water
causes such pipes to become coated on the inside with an insulation of
carbonate of lime, soda, and clay, held in solution in the water. This
coating, it has been argued, is a sure protection from danger of lead
poisoning, but the engineer department has decided that it is too ???
safeguard. It is probable that the city's supply of water will be
filtered at some future day, as sand filtration of drinking water has
been adopted in many large cities abroad and is rapidly becoming
popular.
Just what effect the filtered water may have on the coating of lead
pipes has not been determined. The fact that iron pipes become thickly
rusted on the inside, which causes a material loss of water pressure,
makes their use unsatisfactory. Yesterday, Capt. Derby, in charge of
the division of water and sewers, examined the first substitute for
lead pipe that has been presented since the investigation began. It was
what is known as the improved BoWar-Barff process, being a steel pipe
coated inside and out with black oxide of iron. Capt. Derby reported it
as ``worth experimenting with,'' and tests of the pipe will be
commenced at once. Several other styles of pipe are to be examined.
__________
[From the Washington Post, March 28, 2004]
District Residents Applaud Planned Inquiry by Senate
(By David Nakamura, Staff Writer)
A U.S. Senate subcommittee has scheduled an oversight hearing for
April 7 to investigate the Federal role in the lead contamination of
the District's drinking water, residents were told at a special meeting
on the contamination yesterday. The Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), will hear
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the DC Water and Sewer Authority, a staff member
confirmed later. The Senate's involvement comes after the House
Government Reform Committee held a hearing March 5, at which members
blasted the two Federal agencies and WASA for failing to provide a safe
water supply and to inform the public of the health risks. So far,
tests have shown that at least 5,000 DC homes have water with lead
levels that exceed the Federal limit. The problem is caused by lead
leaching off pipes and plumbing fixtures.
At the meeting of environmentalists and residents yesterday at Van
Ness Elementary School in Southeast Washington, some parents cheered
the news of the Senate's action. Government leaders ``are not moving
fast enough,'' said Liz Pelcyger, who lives on Capitol Hill and has
year-old twins. Valerie Jablow, a Capitol Hill resident who has a 2-
year-old son, said that she had met with staff members of Sen. James
Jeffords (I-Vt.), the Ranking Minority Member on the committee. ``They
urged us to be present at the hearing,'' Jablow told about 40 residents
at the meeting yesterday. ``They need to hear from ordinary citizens on
this issue.'' Members of the coalition that organized yesterday's
meeting said they want to force District and Federal leaders to include
residents in decision-making as they deal with the lead contamination
problems. Damu Smith, executive director of the National Black
Environmental Justice Network, part of the coalition, told the audience
that it is unfair that DC leaders had assembled an interagency lead
task force that includes no ordinary citizens. ``We need to drive this
process,'' Smith said. ``This is not an issue the politicians or agency
should be leading. They are responsible for the crisis in the first
place. We'll meet with them and work with them.'' The only District
leader at the meeting was DC Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1),
whose staff handed out free water test kits.
Graham criticized his colleague, DC Council member Carol Schwartz
(R-At Large), who co-chairs the task force with Mayor Anthony A.
Williams (D), for not including residents and for holding meetings
behind closed doors. Schwartz has argued that the task force can move
faster to combat the lead problems if members are not distracted by
reporters or residents. Last week, Schwartz allowed Smith and other
environmentalists to meet with the task force for an hour. Not everyone
was critical of the way city leaders are handling the crisis. Robert
Brannum, who lives in the Bloomingdale neighborhood, cautioned
residents to ``be careful before we cast the blame. We can talk about
getting the lead out of the water, or we can cast blame and be
political.'' But most other residents voiced less patience. Michael
Smith, a firefighter from Northeast, said, ``I do not have any
confidence in WASA's ability to manage this.'' Ethel Meachum of
Southwest said she was outraged that the agency, which first knew of
lead problems during the 2001-2002 testing period, had ``waited 3 years
to tell me about this.'' Another woman complained that she has ``gone
all over the world and the first thing people tell me is, `Be careful
of the water.' Now I find that in DC the water is just as bad.''
__________
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Philadelphia, PA.
Jerry N. Johnson,
General Manager,
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority,
5000 Overlook Ave., SW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Johnson: As you may be aware, over the past several weeks,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III (``EPA'')
has been conducting an audit of the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority's (``DCWASA'') compliance with the Lead and Copper
Rule, specifically focusing on 40 C.F.R. Sections 141.84, 141.85 and
141.90. That compliance audit remains ongoing, and EPA is continuing to
evaluate additional information as it becomes available.
Based on the information reviewed to date, EPA believes that DCWASA
failed to comply with the provisions listed below. As EPA's continues
to review DCWASA's compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA may
identify other areas of non-compliance.
1. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the lead
service line replacement sampling requirements of 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 141.84(d)(1), by failing to conduct follow-up sampling within 72
hours after the completion of the partial replacement of a lead service
line during the compliance period ending September 30, 2003.
2. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the
Public Education requirements of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.85(b) by failing to
use the required language for public service announcements submitted to
television and radio stations for broadcasting during the 6-month
compliance periods ending October 2002, April 2003, and October 2003.
3. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the
Public Education requirements of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(i) by
failing to use the required language in notices inserted in each
customer's water utility bill during August 2003.
4. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to conduct public
service announcements every 6 months as required of 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 141.85(c)(3) during the compliance period beginning April 2003.
5. On information and belief, Respondent failed to submit tap water
monitoring for lead and copper within the first 10 days following the
end of the monitoring period ending June 30, 2002, as required of 40
C.F.R. Sec. 141.90(a).
6. On information and belief, Respondent failed to comply with the
Public Education reporting requirements of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.90(f) by
failing to send written documentation to EPA within 10 days after the
end of each period in which the system is required to perform public
education during the compliance period ending October 31, 2002.
If DCWASA believes it has not violated the provisions set forth
above, or if DCWASA has any information relevant to its compliance with
the provisions set forth above that it believes EPA should consider,
please provide any relevant information to EPA within twenty-one (21)
days of receipt of this letter. If this information has been provided
in your response to the Information Request dated March 31, 2004,
please note which response provides documentation of compliance. The
information should be sent to: Karen D. Johnson (3WP32), Chief, Safe
Drinking Water Act Branch, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
We appreciate your cooperation, and the cooperation of your staff,
in connection with EPA's compliance audit. Please be aware that neither
this letter nor EPA's decision to conduct a compliance audit limits
EPA's ability to take an enforcement action against any person,
including, but not limited to DCWASA. If you have any questions, please
contact Karen Johnson at (215) 814-5445. Thank you for your cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jon M. Capacasa, Director,
Water Protection Division.
______
Information Request
This information is requested pursuant to Section 1445(a) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300j-4(a). The Instructions and
Definitions for responding to this Information Request are as follows:
A. INSTRUCTIONS & DEFINITIONS
1. A separate narrative response must be made for each question set
forth below, and for each subpart of each question.
2. Precede each answer with the corresponding number of the
question and subpart to which it responds.
3. Provide all documents in your possession which relate to the
responses given. With respect to each document, identify the date,
author, addressee, current location, and custodian and identify the
question or subpart to which it relates.
4. Provide documents in both hard copy and electronic form, where
available. The term ``document'' refers to ``writings,'' ``recordings''
and ``photographs'' as those terms are defined in Rule 1001 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. Documents should be produced as they are
kept in the usual course of business.
5. If any question cannot be answered in full, answer to the extent
possible along with an explanation of why the question cannot be
answered in full. If your responses are qualified in any manner, please
explain.
6. If information or documents not known or not available to you as
of the date of submission of your response to this request should later
become known or available to you, you must supplement your response to
EPA. Moreover, should you find at any time after the submission of your
response that any portion of the submitted information is false or
misrepresents the truth, you must notify EPA of this fact as soon as
possible and provide a corrected response.
7. The term ``you'' or ``your'' refers to the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority (``DCWASA'').
8. The term ``LCR'' refers to EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, 40 C.F.R.
Sections 141.80-.90.
9. The term ``lead service line'' means ``a service line made of
lead which connects the water main to the building inlet and any lead
pigtail, gooseneck or other fitting which is connected to such lead
line.'' See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.2.
10. To the extent you provide information in electronic format,
contact Karen D. Johnson at (215) 814-5445 prior to providing the
information in order to verify compatibility with EPA's equipment.
11. The following certification must accompany each submission
pursuant to this request and must be signed by a management
representative of DCWASA authorized to respond on behalf of DCWASA:
``I certify that the information contained in or accompanying
this submission is true, accurate, and complete. As to the
identified portion(s) of this submission for which I cannot
personally verify its truth and accuracy, I certify as the
company official having supervisory responsibility for the
person(s) who, acting under my direct instructions, made the
verification, that this information is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of
fines and imprisonment.''
12. All information shall be submitted within twenty-one (21) days
of receipt of this Request for Information to: Karen D. Johnson (MC
3WP32), Chief, Safe Drinking Water Act Branch, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
B. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
DCWASA is hereby required, pursuant to Section 1445(a) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300j-4(a), to submit the following
information pursuant to the Instructions set forth above:
1. With regard to the person providing answers to these questions,
State your name, business address, business telephone number and
position with DCWASA.
2. With regard to any person who participated in or contributed to
DCWASA's response to this Request for Information, provide that
person's name, business address, business telephone number, and
position with DCWASA, including whether the person is an employee or a
contractor.
3. (a) Provide all results from lead sampling or monitoring
performed on drinking water supplied by DCWASA in the District of
Columbia since January 1, 1994. This request includes all results in
the possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or representatives
(including contractors) regardless of whether the sampling and/or
analysis was performed by DCWASA, a representative or agent of DCWASA
(including a contractor), a homeowner or building owner, a
representative of the Washington Aqueduct, a representative of any
other Federal or District of Columbia agency, or by any other person.
This request seeks all results from lead sampling or monitoring in the
possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or representatives
(including contractors) regardless of whether the sample was taken from
a building served by a known or suspected lead service line or not.
This request seeks all results from lead sampling or monitoring in the
possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or representatives
(including contractors) regardless of whether the samples were required
by EPA's Lead and Copper Rule (``LCR''), 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.80, et
seq., or whether the samples were used to calculate the 90th percentile
pursuant to the LCR. This request seeks all results from lead sampling
or monitoring in the possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or
representatives (including contractors) regardless of whether or not
those samples were invalidated.
(b) To the extent any samples taken to determine the concentration
of lead in drinking water provided by DCWASA were invalidated, DCWASA
shall identify the invalidated samples, the lead concentration of each
sample, and provide an explanation as to why the samples were
invalidated. Such explanation shall include the procedures followed for
such invalidation, including but not limited to identifying who in
DCWASA made the decsion to invalidate the sample, and who if anyone at
EPA approved the invalidation. Provide copies of all approvals by EPA
for any lead sample invalidation.
4. Identify all lead service lines within DCWASA's service area
that were physically replaced from 1996 to the present for any reason,
including lead service lines physically replaced in connection with
normal maintenance and/or other road work.
(a) Provide all work orders, daily construction reports, or any
other documents reflecting physical replacement of lead service lines
from 1996 to the present.
(b) With respect to all lead service lines physically replaced from
1996 to the present, state what portions of the lead service lines were
physically replaced and what portions were not physically replaced (for
example, those portions downstream of the property line). When the lead
service line was replaced only up to the property line, identify what,
if any, portion was replaced by the homeowner and/or building owner.
(c) Provide the location of each lead service line that has been
replaced. Identify all lead samples taken following full or partial
replacement of lead service lines from 1996 to the present, including
but not limited to those taken to comply with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. Sec. 141.84(d)(1).
(d) With respect to each lead service line that has been replaced
from 1996 to the present, State the reason the line was replaced (i.e.,
exceedance of EPA action level for lead of 0.015 mg/L, routine
maintenance, etc.)
5. Provide the locations by address of all known or suspected lead
service lines. This may be provided in electronic or written format.
6. (a) Provide the location of all lead service lines that have
been tested for lead since 2000. This may be provided in electronic or
written format.
(b) Identify each lead service line that has tested below the EPA
action level for lead of 0.015 mg/L and been counted by DCWASA toward
fulfilling the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.84. This may be
provided in electronic or written format.
(c) Provide the location of all lead service lines that have
exceeded the EPA action level for lead of 0.015 mg/L. This may be
provided in electronic or written format.
7. Identify the type and composition of any pipe, collar or shut
off valve used for service line replacement since January 1, 1994.
8. Provide copies of all instructions provided by you to residents
from December 1999 to the present for the purpose of obtaining samples
for compliance with the lead action level under the LCR, sampling in
connection with DCWASA's lead service line replacement program,
sampling after physical replacement of a lead service line, or any
other purpose related to sampling for lead in drinking water. Provide
all versions of these instructions. To the extent the instructions
changed over time, provide all versions and identify the timeframes in
which each version of the instructions was used.
9. Provide all lead service line replacement sampling results from
2000 to the present, including the date the lead service line was
replaced, when the sample was taken, when the sampling results were
received from the laboratory, and the date the results were sent to the
homeowner and/or residents served by the lead service line. Provide
representative samples of all notification provided from 2000 to the
present to homeowners and/or residents served by a service line that
exceeded 0.015 mg/L of lead. Provide the addresses that received the
notice and the dates of such notices.
10. Provide representative samples of all transmittals of lead
sampling results to residents sent by you since December 1999,
including the cover letter(s) and any attachment(s). To the extent
different versions of the cover letter were used to transmit lead
sampling results to different populations (i.e., residences sampled for
compliance with the LCR, lead service line sampling, post-replacement
sampling, or any other purpose), provide samples of each version. To
the extent the wording of the transmittals changed over time, provide
all versions and identify the timeframe(s) in which each version was
used. State whether sample results were transmitted to all residences
that were sampled or only to a subset (such as residences that tested
over the LCR action level).
11. (a) Provide copies of all documents (including bill inserts)
produced or distributed by you since December 2000 in any language for
the purpose of educating the public about lead in drinking water.
(b) Produce all information regarding lead in drinking water used
as a reference by persons answering telephone help lines for DCWASA in
any language other than English since December 2000.
12. Provide copies of all newspaper advertisements you have
purchased since December 2000 for the purpose of educating the public
about lead in drinking water. Identify the newspaper(s) in which each
advertisement was published and the date(s) of publication.
13. (a) Provide copies of all transmittal documents, letters or
other documents since December 2001 that accompanied any document or
public service announcement regarding lead in drinking water
distributed by DCWASA to television stations, radio stations,
newspapers, the Department of Health of the District of Columbia,
libraries, hospitals, clinics, City Council or any other person or
agency pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.85(c).
(b) Provide copies of all public service announcements regarding
the lead content of drinking water distributed by DCWASA since December
2001 to television stations, radio stations, newspapers, the Department
of Health of the District of Columbia, libraries, hospitals, clinics,
City Council or any other person or agency pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 141.85(c).
(c) Identify the date each public service announcement was
distributed and provide any document demonstrating the date each public
service announcement was distributed.
14. Provide copies of all policies and/or procedures that DCWASA
has for lead testing, lead service line replacement and public
notification/education regarding the presence of lead in drinking
water.
15. Provide copies of all preliminary, draft and final reports for
all tap water monitoring for lead and copper submitted by DCWASA to EPA
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.90(a) since December 2001.
16. Provide copies of all written documentation submitted by DCWASA
to EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.90(f) since December 2001.
<all>