Councilmember Carol Schwartz
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Statement for Public Roundtable on the "Lead Replacement Program of 2004."
Good afternoon my name is Carol Schwartz and I am Chair of the Council's Committee on
Public Works and the Environment. The time is now ___ p.m. and I would like to call to
order this emergency meeting of the Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of
Councilmembers _____ and _____.
The Committee is holding this emergency roundtable on the Water and Sewer Authority's
(WASA) management of its Lead Replacement Program. WASA apparently has uncovered a
significant problem with elevated levels of lead in DC tap water, and apparently has been aware
for some time that the problem could be widespread. It was only when the Washington
Post called last Thursday did I become aware of the magnitude of the excess lead problem.
I did not receive one E-mail, one phone call, one letter or one drop-in visit from a constituent
about lead contamination. This is highly unusual when something like this happens. The
usual routine is countless E-mails, phone calls, letters and drop-in visits. Why didn't this
happen? Because constituents did not know about it. WASA kept them, and us, in the dark.
Not until after the articles appeared in the Post, which then lead to news stories on TV and radio,
did the e-mails, phone calls, and letters start to arrive.
(February 2003 letter???)
In June 2003 -just this past summer - WASA issued a "Water Quality Report" for 2002 to all
D.C. consumers that prominently stated on the cover that "Your Drinking Water Is Safe." (Hold
up report).
This report has 7 pages of text, with topics ranging from a brief article about the Potomac
River being the area's main water supply source to information about water treatment procedures
to a list of helpful phone numbers. In a one paragraph summation on what I guess to be page
3 of this report, the "Lead and Copper Monitoring Programs" are briefly discussed.
The paragraph is seven sentences. The last three sentences state:
"WASA regularly monitors for elevated lead and copper concentrations by collecting water
samples at consumer taps. During 2002, concentrations found in these sampling
programs exceeded (the Environmental Protection Agency's) action level based on
analysis of 53 samples collected with the assistance of customers. WASA has embarked
on remedial programs to meet EPA's requirements. Infants, young children and
pregnant women tend to be more vulnerable to lead than the general public."
On another page of the report is a chart with a list of possible drinking-water contaminants,
including lead. In the introduction to the chart, the reader is told, "Note that the concentration
of all detected contaminants in IBC's drinking water were considerably below EPA-established
maximum limits. "
However, we now know that 26 of the 53 samples taken from customer taps in 2002 tested
above acceptable EPA levels for lead, but apparently not at "established maximum limits."
And we also know that further testing by WASA has indicated that the problem is, indeed,
widespread. The information was buried, minimized, or de-emphasized in such a way to
make it look insignificant - and, I must say with disappointment that it appears that this was
WASA's intent.
WASA, while probably good intentioned, did include a newsletter in its August 2003 bills
which devoted two whole pages to the issue of Lead in Drinking Water. (Hold up newsletter).
Still though, the information failed to disclose the magnitude of the problem saying only,
"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 or 0.015
milligrams of lead per liter of water. "
Truly, how many of us actually take the time to read the inserts in our monthly bills, unless it
says LIFE OR DEATH in big bold red letters? At the very least this information should have
come in a separate letter from WASA, and the information certainly should have been
conveyed with some sense of urgency.
With all that said, I was surprised - to say the least - when I received a call from a reporter
seeking comment about the 4,075 District households (out of 6,118) that had excessive
lead in samples of water tested by WASA.
Over the months that this testing was conducted, the major issues that the management of WASA
has brought to my attention had nothing to do with excess lead levels. I have been hearing
from WASA about its $1.3 billion storm water management program which includes the
replacement of 125,000 water meters. Obviously, this issue is related to lead issues, but
not specifically to the matter before us today.
Now, I worked with WASA to ensure that the federal government bear its share of the long
range capital improvement project to our antiquated stormwater runoff system, which
contributes mightily to the pollution in our waterways. In each of the past two years, I have
personally helped to secure $50 million (for a total of $100 million) for the improvement of
our stormwater management system. So, see... when I have knowledge any knowledge I try
to help.
In 2002, when the water meter replacement program started, WASA launched a
comprehensive public relations campaign to tell us that the new meters would end billing errors
and save money by allowing meters to be read electronically. During a hearing on the matter
that I convened, print material was shared with the Committee that clearly explained the
purported benefit of the new meters. We were told that the new meters could generate reports
giving us a daily reading of our use of water. WASA was able to replace the 125,000 water
meters, which indicated to me that when the agency commits to something, they get the job
done.
Bottom line, WASA is clearly capable of advertising what and when it wants to.
However, in the urgent matter before us today - the excessive lead levels in our tap water - I
have not seen yet seen the type of commitment from WASA that I believe is merited, deserved
and paid for, and that is what we are going to be discussing today.
The law that established WASA created it as a quasi-independent agency. The Mayor chooses
the District representatives on the WASA board and they are confirmed by the Council. Neither
the Mayor nor the Council can change the budget of WASA. By law this Committee has
only legislative oversight of the operation of WASA.
While the Council's control is limited to oversight, this control can have quite an impact
because we are able to conduct hearings before the public, which are aired on local Cable
Channel 13 and can be viewed by WASA's customers. We already had a regularly
scheduled hearing to perform oversight of the WASA's budget and performance during Fiscal
Year 2003 and thus far in 2004, and we will still be conducting that hearing as scheduled at 2:30
on Tuesday, February 10, 2004. Needless to say, finding lead in our city's drinking water is a
very grave concern of this Committee, and that is why I scheduled this emergency roundtable in
addition to the hearing I am convening next week. Holding these hearings is my way of
exercising the limited control I have, and my way of following up on the concerns off the
constituents I represent, a number of whom have contacted me after news of the excess lead
reached the media.
Needless to say, many of these individuals have families with young children or pregnant
women. One call in particular deeply troubled me because it shows the dramatic impact this
issue is having on our residents. This constituent's wife is six months pregnant, and
now the family is worried that their child may have physical or mental disabilities due to the
apparent excessive levels of lead in their water. This family must now worry about the potential
consequences of lead contamination in their water. Worrying about what is or is not in their
drinking water should be the very last thing a couple worries about during what should be a
very joyous time for them.
I find this reprehensible. I want and intend to get answers.
Now, before we start with questions, I would like to turn to my colleague(s) for their opening
statements. Councilmember ____?
Back to top of page
Chairman of the WASA Board of Directors
To the
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
Council of the District of Columbia
On
Questions on Lead in Our Water Supply
February 4, 2004
Good Afternoon Madam Chairman, Committee Members and
Members of the Council:
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority has
four simple points we want to tell our customers and the Council:
-
one, the safety of our water
supply is our top priority;
-
two, the drinking water we process
and send through our pipes throughout Washington IS safe;
-
three, we pledge every effort to
try to understand why there has been an increase in lead levels in samples we have taken from some homes in the
District; and
-
four, we will continue to be
completely open and candid with the Council and the public about what information we have and what our plans are.
That has been and will continue to be our policy. We
have tried to publicize this but it is obvious from the news of the
past few days that our message didn't get through. We will redouble
our efforts to make sure our citizens get the information they need
and deserve. The Authority can and will do a better a job in
communicating with the public and government officials. I and the
other volunteer board members live here too; our families drink the
water and we want our questions about water quality answered to our
full satisfaction just as you do.
While I know we can improve in the communications area,
there shouldn't be any doubt that all of us at the Authority regard
the safety of the water supply in our homes, our schools and our
offices as our number one priority. We are absolutely committed to
ensuring safety and that at all times we are in full compliance with
all federal and local rules.
And I am pleased that we can say that we are, and have
continuously for years now been, in full compliance with rules on
water quality. That fact is very important and needs to come through
to our citizens. I don't say that to pat ourselves on the back, but to
reassure the public about the safety of our water supply system. The
Authority and the US Army Corps of Engineers run hundreds of tests
every week on our drinking water throughout the 1,300 miles of water
pipes under DC streets. Those tests show we are meeting and surpassing
federal standards as to biological contaminants and have no sign of
contamination by lead or copper or other inappropriate elements.
But our drinking water system consists of more than
just the Authority's water mains - it includes service lines to
buildings and the privately owned pipes and fixtures inside buildings.
For the vast majority of the public who drink our water in offices,
schools, hospitals, apartment houses and private homes, the water that
comes out of the faucet is safe. But for some 15% of our customers, we
need to look at this more closely. We know that samples of water from
some homes in the District showed elevated levels of lead. We are
concerned about this and take it very seriously. We need to do more to
find out what is causing these high readings.
When some samples in 2002 showed higher lead levels,
after years of showing low results, the Authority decided last year to
obtain thousands of more samples than were required by federal rules
because we wanted to try to understand the scope of the potential
problem. Last year we dug up and replaced almost 400 old lead pipes
connecting homes to our water mains. We are going to continue that
lead pipe replacement program. We are complying with the rules of the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding lead pipe replacement. Let's
be very clear on the scope of this issue - what we know right now is
that the problem seems to involve only the 15% of our customers - some
23,000 single-family homes - connected to lead service lines. Most of
those homes were built in the early 1900's, in the 1930's or during
the World War II copper shortage, when lead was a popular choice for
small-diameter water pipes.
Most importantly, we want to provide information and
answer your questions. After elevated lead readings were noticed in
2002, we distributed a brochure as an insert to the Washington Post
and the Washington Times and issued an announcement encouraging
testing. In March and May of 2003 we had community meetings and
meetings with local ANC commissioners about our lead service pipe
replacement program. We can improve these communications and make them
even more specific.
Over a year ago, we set up a lead hotline, at (202)
787-2732, for citizens to call and we want to publicize that again. We
want our customers to call that number and we will tell you if our
records show whether your home is one of the 23,000 homes in the
District that are connected to our water mains by a lead service line.
If it is, the Authority will provide you within two days a free test
kit for your home tap water, we'll pick it up and analyze it for free
and give you the test results within 30 days. Or you can email us at wgp2003@-dcwasa.com.
This free testing isn't anything new but again, we want to make sure
the word gets out. We'll continue to publicize this and give you
updates in mailings and on our website at DCWASA.COM.
We appreciate this opportunity to tell the Council and
the people who live and work in Washington about the safety of our
water supply. Thank you.
Back to top of page
Chairman of the Board of Directors
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
Before the Committee on Public Works and the Environment
Carol Schwartz, Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Tuesday, February 9, 2004
Council Chambers, The John A. Wilson Building
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
5000 OVERLOOK AVENUE, S. W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20032
Good afternoon Madam Chairman, and other members of the
Council. Thank you for this opportunity to help the public better
understand the issue we are confronting with respect to elevated lead
concentrates in some District properties. The subject of water quality
is of wide spread interest and I would like to take this opportunity
to tell you what we are doing to address this issue. I am announcing
five steps the Water and Sewer Authority is taking.
I want to assure you that providing safe and clean
water to our community is our highest priority and this is
particularly true with regard to our children, who can be especially
sensitive to exposure to lead. We live in the District of Columbia,
our children are here, and we are vitally concerned with taking the
necessary actions to assure public safety and our children's safety.
First, we are working closely with the District of
Columbia public schools and beginning this Saturday, February 14th, we
will test all of the District's public schools. We are taking the
extra precaution even though we believe the pipes leading into the
schools are lead free. Results of those tests will be back by the end
of the month and we will share those results with the public as soon
as we have them.
We will also cooperate with private schools in the
District that wish to have their water tested.
Second, we will increase the number of lead service
pipes that we replace this year by more than 50 percent. When tests of
drinking water at houses in the District showed higher lead levels in
2002, we immediately began compliance with federal rules requiring the
replacement of old lead service pipes. It's believed that those pipes
- typically connecting the city's water mains to single-family homes
built before 1950 - are the most likely cause of the problem. We've
replaced about 400 pipes so far and are doing everything that federal
law requires. But we are doing more.
I have conferred with the other members of the Board of
Directors and they support management's recommendation to reallocate
already approved funds from other projects adding $7 million to the
Lead Service Line Replacement Program budget. These additional funds
will be targeted to replace service pipes in homes with the highest
lead readings, where a pregnant woman or where children under the age
of six live.
Third, we will send sample water testing kits upon
request to homes with known lead service pipes. And if it's requested
and we don't know whether the service pipe is made of lead, we will still send a testing kit. In all of
these cases, WASA will pay for the testing.
Fourth, the District's Health Department (DOH) has
begun canvassing door-to-door at those homes where tests showed lead
levels exceeding 300 ppb (there are about 150 of these already
identified.) The Health Department will conduct free blood tests for
people at risk in these homes.
Fifth, in addition to the guidance from the Health
Department, we are working to obtain the advice and counsel on this
issue from the George Washington University School of Public Health.
We welcome their cooperation and look forward to working with both the
Health Department and George Washington University to get accurate,
up-to-date information about the health impact of lead in drinking
water to the public.
A week ago, I told you we would make every effort to
improve our communications with the public on the issue of lead in
drinking water. That has begun. We have tripled the number of phone
lines devoted to the lead services hotline and staffed them with
additional trained customer service representatives. I am pleased to
tell you we have responded to every one of the more than 4000 calls
we've received. We have also responded to over 1600 e-mails and more
than 100 web site inquiries.
Today, for most callers to the hotline there is no wait
to speak to a customer service representative and calls received
overnight are promptly returned the next business day. We have been
extending the hotline hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends.
Another important step we have taken is to send a
letter in both English and Spanish, with accompanying information
about this issue, to every resident of the District. We will also
continue to inform the public about lead in water through both print
and broadcast media. A copy of the letter and other informational
material is in your press kit.
We are considering other measures to address lead in
water including use of filters. We are also working with the District
government to pursue funding assistance options for the replacement of
privately owned portions of lead service lines. As we have said, the
Water and Sewer Authority has the responsibility and right to replace
only the portion of the pipe that lies under the streets and public
property; the part that lies underneath private property is the
responsibility of the homeowner. We will work with homeowners to
replace their portion of lead service pipes at cost if they ask us to.
In addition, we are briefing District and Federal
government officials about our progress and answering their questions
about the issue of lead in water. We will continue to meet with them
and keep them informed.
Getting at the root of the problem, conducting research
on the question of why there is an increase in levels of lead in some
homes will continue to be a priority for WASA. We are aggressively researching this subject with EPA, the
Army Corps of Engineers and respected scientists and academic experts.
We will continue to do so until we get answers. We expect a
preliminary report from this investigation in 30 days. We will use
this information to guide our actions on behalf of the public.
Finally, I would appreciate your assistance in
providing good advice to our customers and your constituents. Please
advise anyone concerned about the possibility of lead in their water
supply to follow a simple two-step process. It is likely that lead is
getting into the tap water when that water sits for a long period of
time in the lead service pipe or is otherwise in contact with lead
joints. So the way to minimize it is to run some water through your
home system. First, when you get up in the morning or anytime water
has been sitting unused for six hours or more, flush the old water out
of the system by using some water in the home for showering or
bathing. Second, run water from the tap for about one minute before
using for drinking or cooking. It is a simple, inexpensive measure any
one can take.
Back to top of page
The Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health
& the Environment
A Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit
Affiliated with the George Washington University School
of Public Health & Health Services
and the Children's National Medical Center
2100 M Street, NW
Suite 203
Washington, DC 20052
202-994-1166 www.health-e-kids.org 1-866-330-1200
Co-Directors Benjamin Gitterman, MD
Tee L Guidotti,
MD, MPH
Jerome A. Paulson, MD
Testimony of
Jerome A. Paulson, MD
before the City Council of Washington DC
on the matter of Lead in Drinking Water
4 February 2004.
Councilmember Schwartz and other members of the
Washington, DC City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony today. I am Dr. Jerome A. Paulson. I am a pediatrician
and one of the Co-Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's
Health & the Environment. We are one of eleven Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units in the US and we are based at the
George Washington University School of Public Health and Children's
National Medical Center. I am the Medical Advisor for the Children's
Environmental Health Network. I also practice primary care pediatrics
here in the District of Columbia.
The Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the
Environment, which serves the District of Columbia and the five states
in the Mid-Atlantic region, has two goals: 1) the education of health
professionals and others about the scientific and medical aspects of
environmental health problems effecting children, and 2) providing
advice to physicians, nurses, public health officials, parents, school
professionals and others about children who have been, or may have
been, exposed to environmental health hazards.
The Children's Environmental Health Network is a
national multi-disciplinary, non-profit organization, based in
Washington, DC whose mission is to protect the fetus and the child
from environmental health hazards and promote a healthy environment.
Lead in the drinking water in some homes in the
District of Columbia is a public health problem and the Washington DC
Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) needs to resolve this problem as soon
as possible. On the other hand, this is not a public health emergency
for all of the residents of the District of Columbia who receive their
water from WASA.
I will first talk about the toxicity of lead, then the
specific issue of lead in water, then the problem of lead in drinking
water confronting the District of Columbia and then the overall, and
sorely neglected, problem of lead poisoning in the District.
Lead Toxicity
People are exposed to lead through ingestion or
inhalation of lead contaminated food, water, or air. When lead enters
the body, either via the lungs or the gastrointestinal tract, it moves
into the blood stream. Because it is chemically similar to the
ubiquitous chemical calcium, it replaces calcium in various bodily
processes. Lead then exerts its toxic effects by inactivating crucial
enzymes and so halting biochemical pathways essential to normal
functioning. The enzymes most sensitive to the effects of lead are in
the organ system where we most commonly see symptoms of lead
poisoning: the brain. Other organ systems are also at risk from lead
toxicity due to enzyme inhibition and impaired iron uptake and
processing. These systems include the kidneys, the auditory system,
the reproductive system, and red blood cell production.
It is important to recognize that children drink more
water per pound of body weight per day than do adults; therefore, if
the water is contaminated, they get a larger dose of the contaminant.1
In addition, children absorb a larger proportion of the lead that they
ingest than do adults.2
The greatest potential for harm from lead occurs in the
immature brain; i.e., in children prior to birth and during the first
several years of life. Therefore, the offspring-of-pregnant-women and
young children who have been drinking lead tainted water are
particularly at risk. However, the
risk cannot be directly related to the concentration of
the lead in the water. The risk is related to how much lead builds up
in a child's body.
Blood lead levels above 80 mcg/dL, which would be
exceedingly unlikely from exposures to lead in drinking water alone,
have been associated with coma,, convulsions and death. Intermediate
blood lead levels, which I also would not expect to occur from this
type of exposure, are also associated with significant health effects.
Recent research indicates that even children with blood levels below
10 mcg/dL, the level of concern as defined by the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention sustain a small loss of IQ points. In
addition, it is very important to note that many children with
elevated lead levels develop attention deficits, language problems,
reading difficulties and other learning problems as a result of their
exposure to lead. Some children have hearing deficits, short stature,
and/or significant behavior problems as a result of their exposure to
lead. The behavior problems may be severe enough to result in
involvement with the juvenile justice system. These problems may have
a greater impact on long-term outcome than the IQ loss. It is lead
levels in this range, particularly if the children are also exposed to
other sources of lead in their environment, such as lead-based paint,
that I believe may occur as a result of drinking lead-tainted water.
Measurable central nervous system injury from lead
poisoning does not occur in every instance of exposure. However, if it
occurs, it is irreversible. There is no approved medical treatment for
children with blood lead levels in the range that we are discussing.
Some of the lead will be stored in the body and some will be slowly.
excreted, but there is no medication or other intervention that will
safely remove the lead from the body or reverse any damage that might
have been done.
There is at least one case report in the literature of
a child sustaining elevated lead levels as a result of lead in water
used to dissolve powdered baby formula.3
Lead in Water
Lead is going to be a problem in drinking water, if it
is present in the source water; but that is not the situation here. In
our situation, lead is present in the pipes that carry the water or
some of the joints of those pipes or the faucets and other fittings.
When lead is present in the pipes, joints, faucets, or fittings then
the lead can dissolve into the water as the water sits in the pipes.
How much dissolves depends on various chemical characteristics of the
water and the amount of time that the water remains in contact with
the pipes, joints, faucets, or fittings. The most common cause is
corrosion, a reaction between the water and the lead pipes or solder.
Dissolved oxygen, low pH (acidity) and low mineral content in water
are common causes of corrosion. Presumably, it is one or more of these factors that have changed
and have caused the increase in the number of homes showing elevated
tap-water lead levels in the WASA sampling.
Lead in Water in the District of Columbia
WASA indicates that "[a]pproximately 23,000
properties, about 15% of our customer households, have lead service
lines ..." It is these homes that are likely to be at highest
risk of elevated lead levels in the drinking water coming out of the
tap. It is these homes that should be targeted for intervention.
Recommendations for managing medical aspects of the
problems of lead-contaminated drinking water in the District of
Columbia
Because irreversible Prevention of further problems
should be the primary means of dealing with this problem from hear on
out. That means reducing the amount of lead present in the water that
comes out of the tap. There are methods for chemically treating water
to decrease its corrosive potential and thereby decrease that amount
of lead that will dissolve in the water. WASA should be required to
implement those changes if it has not already done so.
Replacing lead water lines will also reduce this
problem in the future, but it will not be a rapid solution to the
problem. WASA is required by US EPA regulations to replace 7% of the
lead water lines per year. At that pace, in 10 years, there will still
be thousands of lead service lines in use. In addition, WASA is only
required to replace the line from the street to the property margin.
The homeowner is responsible for the remainder. That is going to be a
very expensive proposition for some District homeowners. To help
homeowners, the District Government should consider developing a
system to provide financial aid to enable them to afford to replace
these lead lines. Consideration should also be given to whether the
District can require a more rapid replacement off lines than is
required by the federal government.
WASA should be required, within the next month, to test
water samples from all remaining places with known lead service lines.
This should not be a passive exercise with WASA relying on homeowners
to get test kits, mail them in and interpret the results. Rather, this
should be an active program. WASA needs to collect the samples, insure
quality control, notify the homeowner of the specific results and
publish the overall results.
WASA should be required, within the next 2-3 weeks to
directly communicate with all of the properties that it knows to have
lead service lines. Those living in the properties should be
instructed that they should: 1) run their water for several minutes
before using it for drinking or cooking and 2) only use cold water for
drinking and cooking. They should be instructed that boiling water
will not remove lead and will, in fact, increase the concentration of
lead in the water. They should be instructed not to make baby formula
with water directly from the tap until the water has been documented
to be safe. Those living in the properties should be told that there are water filters that will remove lead and be supplied
with a list of those filters certified by NSF International to remove
lead.
Probably the most important question from a health
perspective is whether there is anything that needs to be, and can
usefully be, done now to assess the potential health impact of this
lead exposure on the offspring of women who have been pregnant while
consuming lead contaminated water or on children who have been
consuming lead contaminated water. The US Environmental Protection
Agency has published The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
for Lead in Children (IEUBK) ( http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/ieubk.htm).
This computer model attempts to predict blood-lead concentrations (PbBs)
for children exposed to lead in their environment. Using this model
and entering concentrations of lead in water at the levels that have
been reported by WASA, it is obvious that it is unlikely for children
to sustain blood lead levels in the 20s and above from the water alone
(See appendix). It is also obvious that the children are at risk for
sustaining blood lead levels for, the single digits into the teens.
There would be particular concern about children who
are at risk of having elevated blood lead levels from other reasons,
most likely lead based paint in their homes. The elevation of their
blood lead level from the water would be on top of the elevation of
their blood lead level from paint. In these children, who live in
older homes, the homes more likely to have lead service lines, the
incremental increase in their blood lead levels may be sufficient to
increase their risk of permanent brain damage from the lead exposure.
Unfortunately, it is also important to recognize that
there is no approved medical treatment for children with blood lead
levels in the range that we are discussing. Some of the lead will be
stored in the body and some will be slowly excreted, but there is no
medication or other intervention that will safely remove the lead from
the body or reverse any damage that might have been done.
Given these facts, should any of the people who have
been exposed to lead in drinking water see their physician, have
medical tests or any medical interventions? I would recommend that the
following criteria be used to decide the answer to this question.
- Only people living in, or spending many hours per
day in, homes with lead service lines should be considered for further
evaluation. WASA needs to notify everyone whose home is of concern.
- Of those people, only those living in, or spending
many hours per day in, homes that are known to have had elevated tap
water lead levels should be considered for further evaluation.
Therefore, it is very important for WASA to complete the water
analyses as rapidly as possible as indicated above.
- Of those people, the greatest risk will be to the
children who were born to women pregnant during this episode who
consumed WASA water during their pregnancy and children, in the first
several years of life, who themselves consumed WASA water.
- Of those people, based on the information from The
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children I
would recommend that
- children under 6 who lived in homes with water lead
levels greater than 300 ppm have a blood lead level done
- children under 6 who lived in homes with water lead
levels less than 300 ppm and greater than 100 ppm and who live in a
home built prior to 1950 or some other significant risk factor such as
a neurologic problem or developmental delay have a blood lead level
done
- other children not have a blood lead level done.
- children who have had blood lead levels within the
last six months, or who are scheduled to have a blood lead level done
within the next one to two months do not need to have a blood lead
level done at this time, but should have a blood lead level when next
scheduled
- all blood lead levels should be drawn as venous
blood samples.
There are a number of caveats that need to accompany
these recommendations:
- They have not been peer reviewed for scientific
soundness
- Different inputs into The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) will lead to different results, and
perhaps, different recommendations.
Lead Poisoning in the District of Columbia
I realize that this is a hearing about lead
contamination of drinking water in the District of Columbia. However,
I cannot let this opportunity go by without reminding the members of
the Council that there are thousands of homes in the District of
Columbia that contain lead-based paint. As a result, there are
hundreds of children every-year in the District of Columbia who
sustain brain damage as a result of exposure to this paint.
At the present time we have an inadequate law in the
District of Columbia that requires screening of children from 6-9
months of age and again in the second year of life. Screening at 6-9
months is too early to identify children with elevated lead levels.
Moreover, and more importantly, screening children
means that we are using children to identify. unsafe homes in the
District of Columbia. Since there is no known safe level of lead,
identifying children with elevated lead levels means identifying
children after the damage may have been done.
The District of Columbia needs to work to identify and
repair, or have repaired, dwellings that are unsafe for children
before the children are harmed. There are ways to do this. The federal
government will predicate its future funding for lead programs on this
type of approach.
The District needs to change its current law and stop
the unethical process of using children to identify unsafe housing.
The City Council should convene hearings in the near future to review
the entire issue of lead poisoning in the District of Columbia. Major
changes need to be made in the way the District and the private sector
operate so that children are protected from a problem which is
preventable and about which children and their parents have very
little control. Council members need to be aggressive and forceful
leaders on this issue.
Deciding on further medical evaluation of individuals
who may have been exposed to lead-tainted water.
Does the home a lead water pipe?
Yes No - no further evaluation
Does the home have an elevated water lead level?
Yes No - no further evaluation
Are there children in the home who are under 6 years of age or a woman who is pregnant?
Yes No - no further evaluation
Is the lead level in the water greater than 300 ppm?
Yes - have a venous blood lead level done on No - see
below the child or the infant born to the mother.
Is the lead level in the water greater than 100 ppm but less than 300
ppm?
Yes - determine if there are other risk factors (Other risk factors include a home built prior to 1950,
a child with a neurological or developmental problem)
Are
there other risk factors?
Yes - have a venous blood lead level done on No - no
further evaluation the child or the infant born to the mother.
Is the lead level in the water less than 100 ppm?
Yes - no further evaluation
Appendix to the testimony of Jerome A. Paulson, MD
before the City Council of Washington DC on the matter of Lead in Drinking Water, 4 February
2004.
The material in this appendix was generated by Dr.
Paulson using The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead
in Children (IEUBK). This software is available at httv://www.epa.Rov/superfund/programs/lead/ieubk.htm.
Each page represents portions of the results generated by the
software. Each page differs in the amount of lead that was assumed to
be in the drinking water. Particular attention should be paid to the
columns headed Blood (ug/dL).
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 4.000 ug/L
Concentration of Lead
in Flushed: 1.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from Fountains:
0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.557
|
0.000
|
0.231
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
2.655
|
0.000
|
0.574
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
3.009
|
0.000
|
0.603
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.926
|
0.000
|
0.621
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.869
|
0.000
|
0.656
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
3.046
|
0.000
|
0.697
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
3.373
|
0.000
|
0.711
|
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL0
|
.5-1
|
4.067
|
6.876
|
3.7
|
1-2
|
6.417
|
9.681
|
4.0
|
2-3
|
6.479
|
10.153
|
3.8
|
3-4
|
6.551
|
10.165
|
3.6
|
4-5
|
4.940
|
8.532
|
3.0
|
5-6
|
4.475
|
8.311
|
2.6
|
6-7
|
4.239
|
8.415
|
2.4
|
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 15.000 ug/L
Concentration of Lead
in Flushed: 3.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from Fountains:
0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.540
|
0.000
|
0.827
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
2.622
|
0.000
|
2.042
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
2.977
|
0.000
|
2.146
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.897
|
0.000
|
2.215
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.843
|
0.000
|
2.342
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
3.020
|
0.000
|
2.487
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
3.346
|
0.000
|
2.538
|
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL)
|
.5-1
|
4.041
|
7.429
|
4.0
|
1-2
|
6.340
|
11.038
|
4.6
|
2-3
|
6.408
|
11.593
|
4.3
|
3-4
|
6.488
|
11.666
|
4.1
|
4-5
|
4.896
|
10.148
|
3.5
|
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 100.000 ug/L
Concentration of
Lead in Flushed: 10.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from
Fountains: 0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.432
|
0.000
|
4.837
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
2.420
|
0.000
|
11.516
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
2.768
|
0.000
|
12.198
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.715
|
0.000
|
12.685
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.677
|
0.000
|
13.476
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
2.853
|
0.000
|
14.355
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
3.171
|
0.000
|
14.701
|
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL)
|
.5-1
|
3.868
|
11.158
|
6.0
|
1-2
|
5.851
|
19.822
|
7.9
|
2-3
|
5.960
|
20.988
|
7.7
|
3-4
|
6.080
|
21.547
|
7.4
|
4-5
|
4.611
|
20.831
|
6.9
|
5-6
|
4.192
|
21.493
|
6.5
|
6-7
|
3.986
|
21.951
|
6.2
|
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 200.000 ug/L
Concentration of
Lead in Flushed: 20.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from
Fountains: 0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED
BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/dL) (ug/day) (ug/day)
(ug/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.316
|
0.000
|
9.215
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
2.226
|
0.000
|
21.179
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
2.563
|
0.000
|
22.591
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.533
|
0.000
|
23.662
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.509
|
0.000
|
25.254
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
2.681
|
0.000
|
26.982
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
2.990
|
0.000
|
27.725
|
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL)
|
.5-1
|
3.685
|
15.237
|
8.1
|
1-2
|
5.380
|
28.820
|
11.3
|
2-3
|
5.518
|
30.735
|
11.2
|
3-4
|
5.671
|
31.933
|
10.9
|
4-5
|
4.320
|
32.149
|
10.5
|
5-6
|
3.939
|
33.696
|
10.1
|
6-7
|
3.758
|
34.567
|
9.6
|
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 300.000 ug/L
Concentration of
Lead in Flushed: 30.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from
Fountains: 0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED
BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.215
|
0.000
|
13.215
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
2.068
|
0.000
|
29.522
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
2.394
|
0.000
|
31.656
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.379
|
0.000
|
33.345
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.365
|
0.000
|
35.717
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
2.534
|
0.000
|
38.254
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
2.834
|
0.000
|
39.415
|
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/dL)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL)
|
.5-1
|
3.523
|
18.974
|
10.0
|
1-2
|
5.000
|
36.625
|
14.2
|
2-3
|
5.155
|
39.268
|
14.2
|
3-4
|
5.328
|
41.119
|
13.9
|
4-5
|
4.073
|
42.222
|
13.6
|
Alternate Water Values Used
Values:
Percent of Total Consumed as First Draw: 50.000%
Concentration of Lead in First Draw: 400.000 ug/L
Concentration of
Lead in Flushed: 40.000 ug/L
Percentage of Total Consumed from
Fountains: 0.000
Concentration of Lead in Fountain Water: 10.000 ug/L
CALCULATED
BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
|
Air (ug/dL)
|
Diet (ug/day)
|
Alternate (ug/day)
|
Water (ug/day)
|
.5-1
|
0.021
|
2.124
|
0.000
|
16.899
|
1-2
|
0.034
|
1.938
|
0.000
|
36.890
|
2-3
|
0.062
|
2.253
|
0.000
|
39.716
|
3-4
|
0.067
|
2.249
|
0.000
|
42.022
|
4-5
|
0.067
|
2.242
|
0.000
|
45.140
|
5-6
|
0.093
|
2.407
|
0.000
|
48.443
|
6-7
|
0.093
|
2.698
|
0.000
|
50.027
|
Year
|
Soil+Dust (ug/day)
|
Total (ug/day)
|
Blood (ug/dL)
|
.5-1
|
3.379
|
22.423
|
11.7
|
1-2
|
4.686
|
43.549
|
16.8
|
2-3
|
4.851
|
46.882
|
16.8
|
3-4
|
5.036
|
49.373
|
16.6
|
4-5
|
3.861
|
51.310
|
16.3
|
5-6
|
3.536
|
54.479
|
16.0
|
6-7
|
3.391
|
56.209
|
15.4
|
1. For example, when an infant drinks six ounces of
formula or breast milk per kilogram of body weight daily, it is
equivalent to an adult male drinking 35 cans of soda in a day.
2. Children 0-2 years absorb about 50% of the lead
they ingest. Children 2-6 years absorb about 35% of the lead they
ingest. Childrne 6-7 years absorb about 20% of the lead they ingest.
Adults absorb about 10% of the lead they ingest.
3. Shannon M. Graef JW. Lead intoxication from
lead-contaminated water used to reconstitute infant formula. Clinical
pediatrics. 28(8):380-2 1989 Aug.
Back to top of page
4455 Connecticut Avenue, NW ∎ Suite A300 ∎ Washington, DC
20008-2328
(202) 895-0420 ∎ FAX (202) 895-0438 ∎ E-MAIL: CWA@cleanwater.org
Testimony of Paul Schwartz
National Policy Coordinator
Clean Water Action
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
Oversight Hearing on DC WASA & Lead in Drinking Water
February 4, 2004
Good Afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Committee on Public Works and the Environment on
the topic of lead in the District of Columbia's drinking water. My
name is Paul Schwartz, Clean Water Action's Water Policy Coordinator.
Clean Water Action is a public health and environmental advocacy group
with two dozen offices and 700,000 members nationwide. We represent
thousands of members who live and work in Washington DC, many of whom
are DC WASA ratepayers.
DC WASA was born out of a crisis of confidence in how
the District government was handling its responsibilities to protect
our community's health and environment. Today we see a new crisis of
confidence. WASA's communications consistently reassure residents and
consumers that DC water meets all federal regulations and that they
did not have to be vigilant. We now know how wrong that assumption
was.
Pregnant women, parents of small children and others
are wondering about irreversible harm being done right now and are
wondering about the costs of WASA's behavior to their families and
children's future. Many people, who may or may not have a lead problem
in their home, are abandoning City drinking water by turning to costly
and possibly less protective alternatives such as bottled water and
point of use and point of entry household filtration devices. I live
in the 4th Ward in the old neighborhood of Takoma DC. wo of my close
neighbors are in their second trimester of pregnancy; four of my
neighbors have kids up to three years old who are especially
vulnerable to drinking water contamination.
Particularly since the 1993 "boil water"
alert, Clean Water Action has worked with allies like the Natural
Defense Council and others in the public health and environmental
community to find solutions to Washington DC's drinking water issues.
WASA, Region III EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers which runs the
Washington Aqueduct and the DC Department of Health need to do a
better job of protecting our drinking water sources, upgrading our out
of date water filtration plant and repairing, replacing and
maintaining our old and broken system of reservoirs and distribution
pipes. Some progress has been made, but we often encounter resistance
on these fundamental issues as well as on issues of communication with
the public.
The problem of lead in DC's water is not new. At a
national press conference last June 11, 2003, Clean Water Action noted
that DC WASA continued to have problems with a range of contaminants
including lead. We noted that inclusion of the drinking water consumer
should not be an afterthought, and lack of action to address the
problems would result in increasing health problems for the District's
residents and workforce. It is imperative that consumers be informed
about and involved in solving DC's drinking water problems. The
situation we find ourselves in today might have been avoided with
better communication and more timely action.
Beyond our concerns about other contaminants regularly
found in the District's drinking water, there are other problems,
including the lack of funding, an inadequate source water protection
effort, no waterborne disease surveillance program, an aging and out
of date filtration and disinfection system, aging and failing pipe and
little inclusion of the rate payer/drinking water consumer. How can we
change this picture and address some of these long standing problems?
We ask this committee to use its authority to take a
number of steps to address the current situation and to put in place
structures to ensure clean, safe and affordable water over the long
term:
- DC WASA should share all relevant information about
the extent of the lead problem in DC's drinking water;
- DC WASA should reveal all of its lead testing data
to the public;
- DC WASA should notify all homeowners of any positive
lead tests;
- DC WASA should publish a map showing the
distribution and amount of lead found throughout the city;
- DC WASA should notify all homeowners who have been
identified as having lead service lines:
- DC WASA, along with the Washington Aqueduct (WA),
should investigate and re-tune their corrosion control program;
- DC WASA should make permanent the free lead testing
program it has recently established and extend the service to any
household that requests a test;
- DC WASA should end the practice of including
prominent, unqualified and misleading statements about the water's
safety in its annual Water Quality or "Right to Know"
Report;
- The DC City Council and Mayor should appoint and
convene a panel of experts, consumers and advocacy organizations to do
a through review of DC WASA and the WA's conduct regarding lead and
numerous other pressing drinking water, storm water and sewage issues;
- The DC City Council should enact a bill authorizing
the creation of a DC Water Citizen's Utility Board (DC CUB), an
ongoing, independent, citizen advocate review panel with express
oversight authority over DC WASA and the WA, and the Mayor should sign
into law.
Back to top of page
Committee on Public Works and the Environment
Carol Schwartz, Chair
Public Roundtable
The Lead Service Replacement Program
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
1:00 pm
The Wilson Building
Room 412
Good Afternoon Chairman Schwartz, Members of the
Committee and the Environment and other Council Members. Thank you for
convening this important forum to discuss the Water and Sewer's
Authority's management of the lead service replacement program.
I am Dr. Walter Faggett, Interim Chief Medical Officer,
District of Columbia Department of Health and a practicing
pediatrician in the city. My remarks today will focus on potential health risks of lead exposure.
Lead Poisoning: Health Risks
- Children: In regard to the potential health risks to
children in the District of Columbia There is a difference of opinion
on the risks of elevated lead in water for small children and
developing fetuses. There is a general consensus that extremely large
amounts of water would have to be consumed to have a clinical impact
on the health of our residents. The Medical Community has evidence
that lead intoxication can lower IQ scores and cause behavior problems
such as ADHD and behavioral problems such as aggressive behavior,
school problems and adolescent adjustment disorders.
- Information on the health risks of lead poisoning.
Lead in the water is less of a hazard that peeling lead
paint, which small children eat. The levels in those children would be
predictably much higher than those children exposed to water with high
levels of lead. The EPA does estimate that drinking water can make up
20% of a person's total exposure to lead.
Lead can cause damage to the many body systems with
high exposure and moderate or low but chronic exposure can affect the
developing nervous system of young children ( <6yo) in subtle but
clinically significant ways.
Signs and symptoms associated with toxicity of ongoing
lead exposure vary from asymptomatic at low levels of exposure (
<10 mcg ) to ADHD seizures, paralysis and brain damage at extremely
high
Blood levels (150mcg and above). The American Academy
of Pediatrics has published screening, prevention and treatment
guidelines which the DOH recommends to DC providers serving our
residents.
Excessively large amounts of water with lead levels 15
parts per billion would be required to reach the toxic levels
resulting in Severe signs and symptoms
I repeat that Children exposed to lead may be
asymptomatic and concerned parents should have their children tested.
Likewise, pregnant women, senior citizens or anyone with concerns
should be tested as well.
Dr. Janelle Goetchus of Unity Clinic reports no recent
increase in lead levels in that patient population in areas of
elevated water levels to date.
The current lead levels in the water are cause for
concern. However, anyone with concerns should visit their doctor for a
lead test.
DOH Contact Information:
The DC Department of Health can provide more
information about the health effects of lead and how you can have your
child and family tested. For general information please call
202-671-0733: For information on screening please call 202-535-2690 or
202-535-2626.
New information brochures have been prepared by the
Department of Health to educate DC residents about the risks of lead
exposure and steps
to take to lower the risk of exposure. DOH fact sheet
is submitted as part of testimony.
Thank you for your continued
|