Back to DC Water and Sewer Authority main page
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND THE ENVIRONMENTREPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONDUCT AND OPERATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY RELATING TO LEAD IN DRINKING WATER AND ITS LEAD SERVICE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMCouncilmember Carol Schwartz December 21, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTIONA. BackgroundIn 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300(f) (SDWA), in an attempt to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above-ground or underground sources. The SDWA authorized EPA to establish safe standards of purity and required all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with primary (health-related) standards.1 State governments, which assume this power from EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary standards (nuisance-related).2 In response, the EPA established the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program under the authority of the SDWA. The EPA Region III Office, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has primacy over the District of Columbia and administers the PWSS program in the District. EPA also regulates how often public water systems (PWSs) monitor their water for contaminants and report the monitoring results to the states or EPA. Generally, the larger the population served by a water system, the more frequent the monitoring and reporting requirements. The Lead and Copper Rule, which became effective on December 7, 1992, requires treatment of drinking water when lead and/or copper in the water exceeds certain levels.3 The actual action level has been determined to be 15 parts per billion (ppb). Lead enters drinking water mainly from the corrosion of lead pipes. The Lead and Copper Rule does not require the public water supply system to immediately replace pipes in homes or businesses. When the concentration of lead or copper reaches the action level in ten percent or more of the required samples, the public water supplier is required to carry out the water treatment requirements. These consist of optimization of the water treatment process, replacement of the lead service lines over a multi-year period and the undertaking of a public education program. In 1985, D.C. Inventory identified 28,161 lead service lines in the District. In 1986, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) lead service line replacement effort began. During 1990, the lead service replacement program was terminated due to District budget limitations after the replacement of approximately 2,800 service lines. During the testing periods in 1993 and 1994, the District exceeded the EPA action level. From 1994 through 1996, efforts which were made to optimize corrosion control in late 1994 brought results below the action level. From 1996 to 2001, the District's drinking water remained below the action level. On November 1, 2000, EPA approved the use of chloramines by the Washington Aqueduct as a disinfectant to maintain protection against microbial contamination in the District's water distribution system. Combining chlorine and ammonia produces chloramines. At extremely high levels, chloramines can be toxic, however at the levels used for drinking water disinfection they pose no health concerns to humans. EPA originally approved this change of the water chemistry to reduce the concentration of disinfectant byproducts called trihalomethanes (THMs). According to health officials as well as EPA, trihalomethanes have proven to be carcinogenic. In 2002, WASA, in compliance with the SDWA, collected 53 samples of tap water from residents in District communities. Of those samples, 26 exceeded the lead action level. Since WASA triggered the action level under 40 CFR § 141.85, a public service announcement was required to be submitted to five or more radio and television stations every six months. The regulations also required that public education materials be included in water bills, and that notice be given on the water bills themselves. Furthermore, after triggering the action level, WASA was required to undertake a lead service line replacement program. WASA was also required to replace at least seven percent of the lead service lines that existed in public space and offer the homeowners the chance to replace the portion that existed on their private property, at cost. B. Committee ActionsOn January 31, 2004, the public and District officials were made aware that two-thirds of the 6,118 residences that WASA tested during the summer of 2003, or 4,075 homes in the District, had tap water that exceeded the lead action level set by EPA. District government officials were outraged by the lack of notice as to the lead contamination. Chair Schwartz of the Council of the District of Columbia, Linda Cropp, stated in a February 1, 2004 article in the Washington Post "the only way you can solve a problem is to know that there is one." Additionally, Councilmember Jim Graham noted that although he assisted a constituent with lead pipe replacement after it was discovered that the home tested above the EPA action level, during a long meeting he had with WASA officials it was never disclosed that there was a city-wide problem. In immediate response to the unfolding issue of lead in water, Councilmember Carol Schwartz, Chair of the Committee on Public Works and the Environment ("Committee"), convened the first public roundtable hearing on the issue on February 4, 2004. During that roundtable, which lasted nine hours, District residents and Councilmembers expressed dismay at WASA's handling of the lead in water crisis. Chair Schwartz forcefully expressed her outrage to representatives of WASA. She noted that Glenn S. Gerstell, Chairman of the WASA Board, said that they had adequately warned residents. "Are you coming from outer space?," Chair Schwartz asked Mr. Gerstell. "Do you call this candid and open?" She, like residents before her, told WASA that she thought they had covered up the problem and minimized it to the extent that, while the agency did note excessive lead levels in its report to the public, it was underplayed so much that no one would notice or consider it a problem. To further prove her point of inadequate notice, Chair Schwartz showed WASA's Drinking Water Quality Report of 2002, published in June 2003 (See Appendix D). The report informed District residents that "your drinking water is safe." In the seven pages of text of the report, the lead and copper monitoring program was discussed in seven sentences, the last three of which state that WASA regularly monitors samples from consumers' taps and that of 53 samples drawn, 26 showed lead levels over the action level. Yet the report prominently said that "all contaminants in the District's drinking water are considerably below the maximum limits." Across the District, concern was widespread regarding the health effects of ingesting lead-contaminated water into the human body. To shed light on this matter, testimony was offered by Dr. Jerome Paulson, M.D., Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment and Medical Advisor for the Children's Environmental Health Network. Dr. Paulson stated that "it was unlikely for children to sustain blood lead levels in the 20s and above from the water alone."4 However, he said, "it is also obvious that the children are at risk for sustaining blood lead levels from the single digits into the teens." This is a critical finding because researchers are finding that even low levels of lead intoxication can lead to adverse health effects, he said. (For a complete listing of witnesses that testified at the Committee's eleven Public Hearings and their written testimony, please see Appendices A and B.) On February 10, 2004, Chair Schwartz held the second public hearing on the lead in water issue, which again lasted nine hours. At this hearing, maps were produced by WASA as requested by Chair Schwartz and additional experts in the health field testified about the effects of lead on children and pregnant women. Chair Schwartz also requested the presence of Ms. Seema Bhat, a former manager of the Water Quality Division at WASA. Ms. Bhat testified under oath that she advised WASA to inform the public of the emerging problem of lead in drinking water and claimed she was fired by WASA as a result of her efforts to bring the lead issue to light. Her testimony suggests that WASA was reluctant to fully inform the public of this problem. On February 11, 2004, Mayor Anthony Williams and Councilmember Carol Schwartz, Chair of the Committee on Public Works and the Environment, formally announced the formation of the Interagency Task Force on Lead in Drinking Water for the purpose of bringing agencies together to find solutions to the lead in water issue and to improve public communication by WASA and EPA regarding this issue. The Task Force was co-chaired by Mayor Williams and Councilmember Schwartz, and included representatives from the Water and Sewer Authority, the Washington Aqueduct, the District Emergency Management Agency, the District Department of Health and the District Department of Transportation. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments generously provided staff assistance. On February 13, 2004, Chair Schwartz, along with the Mayor, wrote to Congressman Tom Davis, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and requested that he hold a hearing on the lead issue. Acknowledging their request, Congressman Davis held an oversight hearing on the issue on March 5, 2004. The second meeting of the Interagency Task Force occurred on February 19. Chair Schwartz held the third public hearing on the lead in water matter on February 25, 2004, which lasted for 4 hours. On that day, Chair Schwartz set the date for a fourth public hearing on this matter, and co-chaired the third meeting of the Task Force. On February 27, 2004, Chair Schwartz held a press briefing at the beginning of her regularly scheduled budget oversight hearing to formally announce a special investigation into WASA's management of the lead program and her request for an independent audit of WASA's testing protocols. On that date, she also wrote Austin Andersen, Acting Inspector General of the Office of the Inspector General, requesting that an independent analysis of the levels of lead in District drinking water be performed (that analysis remains underway), and together with the Mayor, wrote to Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, requesting that he hold an oversight hearing on the lead issue. Senator Inhofe called Councilmember Schwartz and said that the matter had been referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, chaired by Senator Mike Crapo, who subsequently held a hearing on the matter on April 7, 2004. Also on February 27, 2004, a press briefing was held by the Task Force regarding the issuance of water filters to the vulnerable population and the opening of D.C. General Hospital for lead testing. In addition, it was announced that mobile testing units would cover different wards of the city on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. During the next two public oversight hearings on February 10 and February 25, 2004, Chair Schwartz addressed WASA's initial failure to adequately notify the public of the high levels of lead contamination in some District residents' tap water, and promised to continue holding hearings into the Lead Pipe Replacement Program administered by WASA to learn more. In March of 2004, Chair Schwartz met with representatives of the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice ("Appleseed") and asked that they perform a review of regulations with respect to water contamination as well as conduct a comparison of water authority structures around the country. Anticipating that DC Appleseed was working on a national comparison, the Committee began a review of regional water authorities and their structures, which is included in this report. A press conference at D.C. General Hospital was held on March 1, 2004 in order to provide an update of the progress on the lead in water issue. In addition, on that date, the Committee approved a resolution, the "Committee on Public Works and the Environment Investigation into the Conduct and Operations of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Resolution of 2004," to conduct an investigation of WASA regarding the lead in water matter. That investigation is the subject of this report. On March 2, 2004, the full Council unanimously adopted the investigation resolution as a Special Project, warranting the expenditure of up to $50,000 for the hiring of additional staff to conduct the investigation. (The Committee eventually expended only $13,533.41 on this investigation, instead of the $50,000 allocated.) Also on March 2, 2004, the fourth meeting of the Task Force was held. On March 3, 2004, the Task Force established tri-weekly press briefings on the lead in water matter, to be held on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Also on that date, Chair Schwartz requested that the Office of the Inspector General look into the management of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, as she wanted to ensure that fundamental controls were in place and that sufficient detection and correction actions would be taken in the future (See Appendix C). At the behest of the Task Force, beginning on March 6, 2004, the District's Emergency Management Agency distributed water filters at the Reeves Center to pregnant women, nursing mothers, and parents of children under the age of six that have lead service lines. On March 8, 2004, the fifth meeting of the Task Force took place. Chair Schwartz met with the Lead Coalition, an ad hoc group of representatives from environmental organizations and the community, on March 15, 2004. On that date, the sixth meeting of the Task Force occurred. On March 17, 2004, the fourth public hearing on the Lead Service Replacement Program was held. The Task Force then heard input from the Lead Coalition regarding community involvement and increased outreach with respect to the lead in water issue before its regularly scheduled meeting, its seventh, on March 22, 2004. On March 31, 2004, the eighth meeting of the Task Force took place. On that date, Chair Schwartz also called on WASA to provide water filters to the approximately 20,000 residences with unknown service line compositions. The fifth public hearing on matters concerning the issue of lead in District drinking water and the Lead Service Replacement Program was held by Chair Schwartz on April 1, 2004. In addition, on that date, Chair Schwartz called on WASA to cancel any future meetings regarding proposed rate increases. On April 2, 2004, Chair Schwartz participated in an online chat session on the lead issue with Washington Post readers. On April 19, 2004, the sixth public hearing on the lead issue was held by Chair Schwartz. Chair Schwartz held the seventh public hearing on the lead issue on May 5, 2004, and the eighth public hearing on this issue on May 26, 2004. On June 17, 2004, the ninth public hearing on the lead issue was held by Chair Schwartz. On June 27, 2004, the Council unanimously passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Support Act offered by Chair Schwartz and Councilmember Harold Brazil entitled the "Lead Service Line Priority Replacement Assistance Emergency Act of 2004." The purpose of this fund is to provide grants to eligible District homeowners of up to $2,500 to assist them in the replacement of the portion of their lead service line that is located on their private property (See Appendix F). In addition, Bill 15-980, the "Multiple Dwelling Residence Water Lead Level Test Act of 2004," authored by Chair Schwartz and Councilmember Sharon Ambrose, was unanimously approved on December 7, 2004 by the Council. This legislation, already enacted by the Council on emergency and temporary bases, authorizes the Mayor to require the owner of a multiple dwelling, upon written request by a rental tenant or owner-occupant of that dwelling, to order a water lead level test kit for that tenant or owner-occupant within 15 calendar days of receiving the written request. It also allows the tenant or owner-occupant to collect a sample of their tap water and have it tested for lead, ensures that the result is provided to the tenant or owner-occupant and any other rental tenant or owner-occupant of the dwelling who requests a copy and conspicuously posted on the premises, and establishes a penalty for failure to comply (See Appendix G). On July 8, 2004, Chair Schwartz held the tenth public hearing on the lead in water issue and announced that the next hearing would occur after the Council's recess, on September 22, 2004. C. Investigatory GoalsThe goals of the Committee on Public Works and the Environment's Special Project, which was authorized by the Council on March 2, 2004, were to:
In accordance with the above stated objectives, the Committee is issuing this report on its Special Project investigation. This report of the Special Project investigation contains an executive summary of the overall findings of the investigation, a national perspective concerning the issue of lead in water as it relates to other jurisdictions and municipalities and detailed hearing summaries for all Council public hearings held to date on this issue. The purpose of the summaries is to give the public a better understanding of how this issue was handled and addressed by the relevant agencies of the District and federal governments. The section entitled Committee Actions gives a detailed analysis of the activities undertaken by the Committee thus far to educate the public about lead in water and to help resolve this issue. Lastly, the conclusion offers recommendations based upon the findings of the Committee during its Special Project. II. A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVEA. An Overview of Lead RegulationsThe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply.5 The SDWA was amended in 1986 and 1996. This Act vests the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the responsibility for regulating the quality of drinking water served by public water systems, which are defined as systems that have at least 15 service connections or serve at least 25 people per day for 60 days each year.6 Under the SDWA, EPA is required to set maximum contaminant level (MCL) goals which are intended to limit contaminants in drinking water to levels that will have no adverse effect on human health.7 When an MCL is set, EPA imposes monitoring and reporting requirements on public water systems which vary depending on the contaminant.8 Once the MCL is established, individual states are given the opportunity to take primary enforcement responsibility for that standard.9 States are given primary enforcement authority if they can demonstrate that they will adopt standards at least as stringent as EPA's and make sure that individual water systems meet those standards.10 The SDWA includes many components intended to ensure that drinking water is safe. The Act includes source water protection, treatment, distribution system integrity and public information. Water systems treat their water and must test their water for the specified contaminants and report these results. If standards are not being met, it is the responsibility of the water supplier to notify the customer. The 1996 amendments to the SDWA require that community water systems prepare annual consumer confidence reports on the source of their drinking water and the levels of contaminants found in the drinking water. This report is to be mailed to all water system customers. Lead is one of the major contaminants of concern in drinking water, with infants and young children being particularly susceptible to adverse health effects. To address this, EPA, under the authority of the SDWA, promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule in June 199111. The purpose of this rule is to protect public health by minimizing lead and copper levels in drinking water. The primary means to minimize these levels is through the reduction of water corrosivity. Under this rule, an action level for lead of 15 parts per billion (ppb) was established. This action level is based on the 90th percentile level of tap water samples. Therefore, when the water is sampled, 90% of the samples must be below the action level. The number of samples collected is based on the population served by the water system. Initially, samples are collected for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods after which sampling is reduced to once per year for 3 years, then ultimately to once every 3 years.12 An action level exceedance can trigger additional requirements including water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring/treatment, public education and lead service line replacement. Water quality parameter monitoring is used to determine water corrosivity and to help identify the type of corrosion control treatment to be installed if needed.13 Monitoring is done for pH, alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, orthophosphate, silica and temperature.14 Corrosion control treatment is required for all systems that exceed the action level. Once it is determined what corrosion control treatment to utilize, the public water system has 24 months to install it.15 All systems that exceed the lead action level must collect source water samples to determine the contribution from source water to the total tap water lead levels.16 Public education is also required for systems where the lead action level is exceeded.17 The purpose of the public education requirement is to inform the public water system customers about lead health effects, sources and what can be done to reduce exposure. Information includes billing inserts sent directly to customers, pamphlets and brochures distributed to hospitals and other locations that provide services to children and pregnant women. and public service announcements submitted to television and radio stations.18 B. Nationwide Exceedances of LeadIn the United States, there are approximately 170,000 public drinking water systems.19 Each of these systems varies widely in size, age, organization and treatment technologies utilized. However, the majority of people in the United States get their water from these public water systems.20 Under the Lead and Copper Rule, public water systems are required to conduct monitoring of lead from customer taps. For each monitoring period, a system must report the lead level at the 90th percentile of homes monitored. The Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version contains the information that water systems are required to submit to their states. Since 2002, states have been required to report to EPA the 90th percentile lead concentrations recorded by water systems.21 90th percentile data for systems serving more than 3,300 people must be submitted regardless of whether the system is over the action level.22 As of April 28, 2004, EPA had received data for 714, or 85.1%, of the 838 active systems that serve more than 50,000 people.23 Since 2000, 22 systems, or 3.1%, have exceeded the action level for lead.24 Only eight of the systems exceeded the action level during 2003.25 The total population served by systems that exceeded the action level for one or more monitoring periods since 2000 is 5.2 million people.26 This data demonstrates that the District is not alone in its struggle with lead in water problems. The District and WASA confront problems related to an antiquated water system distribution infrastructure with miles of lead service lines. Changes in water treatment programs have compounded problems by causing increased corrosivity in these lead service lines which, in turn, has increased lead levels in first draw and flush sampling results. Similar to the District, other municipalities over 50,000 people have experienced exceedances in lead in water levels. As is the case here, these exceedances are often the result of an antiquated water system distribution infrastructure. Many of these cities have also experienced increased corrosivity of lead service lines because of changes in water treatment. Changes in water treatment are often undertaken to address increased public concerns about microbial contamination in water and/or the adverse health effects of chlorine disinfection by-products. The 22 public water systems serving more than 50,000 people which have exceeded the lead action level since January 2000 are distributed throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.27 These systems range from smaller cities in the southeast like Henderson, North Carolina, to the large Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which provides service to 28 cities and towns in the Boston metropolitan area.28 Three of these public water systems with reported exceedances were selected for a more detailed case study for this report. These systems are the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the Portland Water District in Maine and the Saint Paul Regional Water Services in Minnesota. These systems were selected because they exhibit many of the same characteristics of the District and WASA. Specifically, these systems are operated by public, often municipal or quasi-municipal, authorities. Additionally, all of these systems serve older cities with antiquated water treatment distribution systems which include miles of lead service lines. Further, these systems serve many diverse communities which include populations that speak different languages and have varied socio-economic conditions. By focusing on how these systems addressed their lead in water exceedances, the Committee sought to determine how these systems addressed corrosion control issues and the replacement of water distribution infrastructure, how they responded to the public and cultivated relationships with other key stakeholders, and how public education efforts were coordinated and delivered. C. Case Study One – Saint Paul Regional Water ServicesWater System OverviewThe Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) supplies drinking water to the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota and eight of the city's suburbs, including Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Roseville, Maplewood, Mendota Heights and West St. Paul.29 The utility employs 250 people, has an operating budget of about $33 million and is governed by the Board of Water Commissioners, which consists of three members of the Saint Paul City Council, and four public members (two Saint Paul residents, one Maplewood resident one Falcon Heights resident.)30 Administration of the day-to-day operation of the utility is under the direction of a general manager, who is appointed by and responsible to the Board.31 The SPRWS is entirely self-supporting with revenue obtained through the sale of water and payment for services provided to other entities.32 State law establishes the Board and provides that the rates charged be adequate to cover all costs of operation and maintenance.33 Therefore, no taxes are used to support the utility. The SPRWS operates one water treatment plant.34 This plant was built in the early 1920s and has been enlarged and modernized at various times to provide up-to-date treatment techniques.35 Nature of Lead-in-Water ProblemThe SPRWS most recently exceeded the lead action level at the end of the monitoring period on June 30, 2000.36 SDWIS/FED data for public water systems serving more than 50,000 people indicated that the SPRWS had a lead 90th percentile measure of 19 ppb during this period.37 These levels have fallen over the past four years, going from 15 ppb at the end of December 2000 to the most recent testing data of 11 ppb.38 The water system has "consistently been below the action limit for the past four years."39 The SPRWS also had 23,923 full and partial lead service lines in use throughout their water distribution system as recently as 1998.40 Lead Reduction Measures ImplementedAccording to a representative of the SPRWS, this water system began to implement its lead in water mitigation program in 1992.41 Overall, the SPRWS's control strategy included a three-pronged approach: adjustment of water treatment methods, carrying out an aggressive lead service line replacement program and offering incentives to property owners to replace lead plumbing on private property.42 It was the assessment of the SPRWS representative that this overall program implementation was a direct result of the enactment of the Lead and Copper Rule in 1991.43 However, measures had "long been underway" within the water distribution system to replace lead service lines as they were encountered during routine street excavation activities.44 To decrease the corrosivity of the water in its distribution system, the SPRWS made some adjustments to its treatment methods. First, the utility adjusted the pH level from an initial pH of around 8.4 to 9.2.45 This higher pH level is near the minimum lead solubility pH of 9.4, but is low enough to prevent excessive scaling in the distribution system.46 However, according to a representative of the Minnesota Department of Health, the effectiveness of this pH adjustment has not been completely consistent.47 Specifically, in her words, "pH adjustment does well in wintertime but not so well in summer. The November round of sampling typically met the lead action levels but with the warmer months of sampling, the samples failed."48 Additionally, pH adjustment "leads to too much calcification in hot water pipes which causes a smaller diameter in the pipes, with a loss of water pressure."49 This calcification also proved to impact many of the system water meters because they clogged up and could not accurately measure water flow.50 An additional corrosion control measure was taken by SPRWS by the incorporation of stannous (tin) chloride into the pipe scale, making it less prone to lead leaching.51 Basically, "tin hardens the pipe scale."52 The second prong of the SPRWS's control strategy revolved around a water service line replacement program. In 1992, it began replacing lead services in areas where the city's Public Works Department was reconstructing the streets.53 By 1996, the SPRWS began a "coordinated effort" to directly work with the Public Works Department to "prioritize replacement projects by selecting areas that had a high number of lead service lines."54 According to officials, this coordinated effort worked well in directing limited city resources to areas with streets needing reconstruction or repaving which often were over the "problem lines." By 1998, the SPRWS was required by the Minnesota Department of Health to implement the lead service replacement program outlined in the EPA's Lead and Copper Rule "because they failed to meet the action level for lead within the allotted time."55 Each year, until the water authority meets the action level for lead, it was required to replace 7% of the system's total lead service lines. According to the Minnesota Department of Health representative, the SPRWS was not in compliance with the lead action level from 1998 to 2000.56 During this time, the system replaced a total of 2,927 lead service lines.57 The replacement of lead service lines requirement was lifted when the SPRWS met the action level in late 2000. However, both the representative of the Minnesota Department of Health and the SPRWS noted that this water system still voluntarily continues the replacement program.58 Specifically, this program continues "when we see a lead service line during the course of street replacement or services, we take it out and replace it."59 The final prong of the SPRWS's control strategy involves an effort to reduce lead plumbing in private properties within its service area.60 The representative of the SPRWS assessed the problem by stating that "the largest portion of our service area consists of older properties that still have lead plumbing."61 To help reduce lead plumbing in these private properties, the water system began an incentive program for property owners to have their plumbing replaced.62 This incentive program works by allowing for homeowners to assess the cost of the lead replacement for a period of up to 20 years at a low interest rate (currently 4.75%).63 The Minnesota Department of Health had no involvement in this program as there is "no federal or state funding for this program; it is solely a water authority program".64 Community Relations/Outreach EffortsUnder the Lead and Copper Rule, public education and outreach is required to be conducted by systems when the lead action level is exceeded. The purpose is to inform the water system's customers about lead health effects, sources of contaminants and what can be done to reduce exposure. Information includes billing inserts sent directly to customers, pamphlets and brochures distributed to hospitals and other locations that provide services to pregnant women and children, and public service announcements submitted to television and radio stations. The representative of the Minnesota Department of Health stated that the SPRWS was in full compliance with these Lead and Copper Rule public education requirements during the period up until 2000, when the system was not meeting the action level.65 Public education efforts included public radio and television spots in three different languages: Spanish, English and Mong.66 The SPRWS stated that it mailed out multiple informational flyers and brochures which were produced in different languages.67 "The SPRWS was required to certify to the Minnesota Department of Health that it conducted these public outreach/education initiatives, which it did do."68 Neither representative could provide any first-hand knowledge of whether or not any public information sessions were conducted by either the SPRWS or the Department of Health. Other outreach efforts included a "Get the Lead Out Campaign," which was started in the mid-1990s.69 This outreach effort was coordinated and spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Health. The SPRWS decided to participate in this program after being approached by the Department of Health.70 The actual level of the system's involvement is not well defined. However, much of the outreach materials, including a refrigerator magnet and advertisements on grocery bags, were paid by in-kind donations or by the Department of Health.71 These outreach materials generally stated "that the customer needs to get their water tested, and to let the water run before using." Contact information was also provided on these materials.72 SPRWS continues to provide information about lead in water on their public website.73 This information includes details on why testing for lead is conducted, how lead gets into household water and why lead is a public health problem. SPRWS also provides details on how to have household water tested by a private laboratory. Specifically, citizens are encouraged to contact the customer service department to obtain a list of certified labs. The website also details what the SPRWS is doing about lead. These steps include testing the source water from rivers, lakes and wells for lead contamination, treating the water in the system to reduce the amount of lead absorbed from plumbing, and replacing lead service lines in the water supply system as needed. The website also recommends that customers let the water run for three to five minutes to clear the lead from the pipes. Also, customers are instructed to not use hot water directly from the faucet for cooking or drinking because hot water dissolves lead more quickly than cold water. SPRWS issued two press releases in 2000 in response to lead issues. These press releases are posted on the SPRWS public website.74 On January 24, 2000, the SPRWS highlighted that it had begun efforts to address lead in water exceedences. These efforts included "replacing the public portion of lead services to about 1,000 homes a year." This press release also stated that the SPRWS was "establishing a program that makes it easier financially for property owners … to replace the portion of the lead water services that is on their property." SPRWS also addressed corrosion control by changing the corrosion control strategy from pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide to the use of phosphate inhibitors, which limits the release of lead from plumbing into the drinking water. A press release from July 18, 2000 also highlights the above efforts under the headline "SPRWS continues to address lead issues." Lessons LearnedIn the assessment of the SPRWS representative, its lead in water control strategy has worked very well.75 She highlighted the proactive efforts undertaken by the water system, including the homeowner assessment program that continues today.76 Specifically, in 2003, approximately 150 property owners took advantage of this program.77 Further, she also highlighted the fact that the SPRWS had been replacing lead service lines "before they were required to do so under the Lead and Copper Rule."78 Additionally, "this program continues today voluntarily." Coordinating these replacement efforts with the city's Public Works Department has "focused and streamlined the line replacement efforts, which is a win-win for all stakeholders."79 She encouraged other cities' water utilities to work closely with their public works departments in line service replacement efforts. For 2004, the SPRWS lead service replacement program calls for replacing 400 services in paving areas.80 Another 200 are scheduled for replacement for other reasons (leaking pipes or where property owners have already replaced their portion).81 It was the assessment of the Minnesota Department of Health representative that the "SPRWS has been very proactive in all of their lead control strategies. Our department is not required to provide them with much feedback."82 She also applauded the voluntary lead replacement line program that continues today. It was her assessment that the individual homeowner program "has not been very successful, as cost is still a big issue."83 Specifically, "high out-of-pocket costs are two to three thousand dollars per household, and many of these homes are in older, low-income communities." During 1999-2000, the peak year of the assessment option, about 400 property owners took advantage of the program.84 According to the Minnesota Department of Health, this equals close to a "20% participation in this program."85 No specific suggestions were given as to how to improve this program. D. Case Study Two -- Portland Water District, MaineWater System OverviewThe Portland Water District (PWD) serves nearly 200,000 people – 47,000 customers in 11 Greater Portland communities.86 PWD delivers water service to Falmouth, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland and Standish and provides water and wastewater service to Cape Elizabeth, Cumberland, Gorham, Portland, Westbrook and Windham.87 PWD has 190 employees and a 140 square mile service area with a daily average of 25 million gallons of water delivered.88 There are approximately 900 miles of pipe in the service line system. Sebago Lake, a natural lake west of the City of Portland, is the water source for the majority of the PWD customers. Sebago Lake is clean enough to be exempt from the expensive filtration processes required with most surface water sources.89 PWD is a completely unfiltered system. The PWD is a "quasi-municipal authority."90 The authority is comprised of a Board of Trustees, with the board members individually elected by each of the PWD participating communities.91 According to the PWD representative, the Board of Trustees "has had no active role in the lead issues. They set the policy for the authority but left it up to the technical staff to address actual water quality issues."92 Individual PWD staff provides monthly reports to the Board members.93 During the lead in water exceedances, these monthly reports included updates on the status of the implemented control programs.94 Nature of Lead-in-Water ProblemThe PWD most recently exceeded the lead action level of 15 parts per billion at the end of the monitoring period in December 2000.95 SDWIS/FED data for public water systems serving more than 50,000 people indicated that the SPRWS had a lead 90th percentile measure of 16 ppb during this period.96 These levels have fallen significantly over the past 10 years, going from 66 ppb in 1997 to 43 ppb in 1998 and 19 ppb in 1999.97 Results of water lead levels from 2002 and 2003 have fallen even further.98 PWD reduced monitoring sites last year with 50 homes now being tested on an annual basis.99 Lead Reduction Measures ImplementedAccording to a representative of the Maine Bureau of Health, Drinking Water Section, the PWD was using orthophosphate for water treatment until the early 1990s.100 When the Lead and Copper Rule was issued, the PWD made the decision to hire a consultant, Wright Pierce Associates. This consultant assisted the PWD in looking at different treatment strategies to address the elevated lead levels. A decision was made to adjust the treatment to zinc orthophosphate. However, this treatment strategy led to problems with the quality of the water treatment sludge. Therefore, throughout the mid-1990s, PWD decided to use other water treatment blends that would also work to raise pH and reduce corrosivity of the water. Polyphosphate was used but proved to be not effective for lead as there continued to be exceedances. Polyphosphate also caused problems for major industries because it was "going through the ion exchange and causing damage." PWD then decided to use a different form of zinc orthophosphate which was no longer causing problems with sludge quality. The representative of the Maine Bureau of Health added that these continual changes in the water treatment processes led to consistent problems with elevated lead levels because "every time we make a change in pH or dosage, the next round of sampling went higher than the following round."101 By the late 1990s, levels of lead in water were coming down and were close to passing the 90th percentile exposure levels. However, PWD was concerned about the health effects of the water disinfection by-products. A decision was made to add ozone and chloramines, which served to impact corrosion control. Specifically, ozone is a natural oxidizer that saturates the system with oxygen, resulting in added corrosiveness affecting water chemistry. "Any time you change water chemistry, you need to regularly test and be aware of your distribution system and make adjustments accordingly."102 PWD has also been "very proactive" in the replacement of lead service lines.103 According to the representative of the Maine Bureau of Health, PWD began replacing these lead service lines in the mid to late 1980s, basically "doing this work before they had to." As recently as seven years ago, PWD had replaced all but seven service lines. Today, PWD does not have any lead service lines. Lead is only found on privately owned lines. A representative of the PWD stated that there are five of these privately owned lead lines.104 He stated that the water authority has been proactive in contacting the owners of these lines advising them to replace them. Specifically, certified letters were sent out to the property owners with information on how these lines could be replaced. However, PWD did not offer or participate in any low-interest loan incentive programs for these homeowners. The representative of PWD stated that the number of impacted homes was too few to justify the provisions of incentive programs. Recent follow up with these affected property owners determined that all but one of the lines have been replaced. PWD's water distribution network still does have some "lead goose necks" (a type of soldering) which are scattered throughout the system.105 PWD has replaced most of the wrought iron galvanized pipe but not all of these have lead goose necks. According to the PWD, "efforts will continue on an as needed basis, replacing these goose necks as they are no longer functional."106 Community Relations/Outreach EffortsAs previously mentioned, the Lead and Copper Rule mandates that public education programs be implemented for systems when the lead action level is exceeded. The purpose of the public education is to inform the water system's customers about lead health effects, sources of contamination and what can be done to reduce exposure. Information includes billing inserts sent directly to customers, pamphlets and brochures distributed to hospitals and other locations that provide services to pregnant women and children and public service announcements submitted to television and radio stations. According to the representative of the Maine Bureau of Health, the PWD took an "aggressive" public relations approach to reach out to customers.107 It sent out information, including a pamphlet on lead in water, with the Customer Confidence Reports (CCR). This pamphlet says to "run water for at least one minute and do not use hot water and don't use water for making baby formula." This information was sent out annually and went to "every household versus every customer because some households do not actually pay the water bill, specifically renters." The representative of the Maine Bureau of Health also stated that the PWD might have also included an informative letter with these CCR mailings.108 All told, in his assessment, the PWD "did a more aggressive approach than what was required by the lead and copper rule, which helped to stamp out any potential fires." Neither the PWD nor Maine Bureau of Health representatives recalled if any public hearing or public information sessions were held. Lessons LearnedThe PWD representative stated that lead in water exceedances have been distributed throughout their system, so it was "necessary for us to be very proactive about the lead problem. Since day one we have been upfront with our customers. We established trust, so that they know we are doing the best we can to protect their interests."109 He recommends that other water authorities communicate "open and freely" with their customers when any problems arise. The PWD representative also stated that it has a good community outreach program coordinated by a public relations person who "is always distributing information to our stakeholders. She deals with press directly and refers them to the technical experts accordingly." These technical experts assist in working with stakeholders to resolve any issues. The PWD also was proactive in "getting out and replacing lead service lines in the early 1980s" doing this "before they had to."110 As a result, there are no lead service lines in their system today. The representative of the Maine Bureau of Health also was generally positive in his assessment of the efforts of the PWD.111 He specifically commended the efforts to send out CCR reports to every household instead of every customer, which made it possible for the information to reach all of the affected consumers, including property renters. E. Case Study Three – Massachusetts Water Resources AuthorityWater System OverviewThe Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) is a Massachusetts public authority established by an act of the Legislature in 1984 to provide wholesale water and sewer services to 2.5 million people and multiple large industrial users in 61 metropolitan Boston communities.112 It serves 890,000 households and supplies an average of 255 million gallons of water per day.113 The MWRA is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the Governor or directly or indirectly elected officials in the MWRA customer communities.114 Nature of Lead-in-Water ProblemMWRA had been steadily bringing down lead levels. Beginning in the early 1990s, lead levels approached 50 ppb.115 However, with the exception of the year 2002, the MWRA has never been in compliance with the lead action level of 15 ppb.116 In 2002, the authority met the EPA's action level with 90th Percentile values of 11.3 ppb.117 In 2003, values increased to 16.2 ppb with the following communities exceeding the action level: Everett, Framingham, Lynnfield Water District, Medford, Melrose, Newton, Norwood, Somerville, Winthrop and Weston.118 The representative of the MWRA attributes this increase to "a couple of bad samples for tested households" but was adamant in stating that this sampling was "not reflective" of the improvements that MWRA has made.119 He added that for 2004, lead in water levels are coming back down, as the 90th percentile was 14 ppb. The MWRA is now in the process of conducting a second round of tests. In addition to these lead in water exceedances, the MWRA has also been found by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to not be collecting the appropriate number of drinking water samples on a historical basis.120 Specifically, in 2003, the MWRA only collected 425 of the required 440 drinking water samples.121 MWRA comprises over 23 communities, each with different sampling numbers required. To add more complexity to the situation, when DEP told EPA that MWRA was in violation of EPA's monitoring requirements and therefore could not do an accurate 90th percentile reading, EPA responded that its "current guidance is no longer accurate despite the fact that it is still posted on the EPA website."122 A Notice of Non-Compliance was issued to MWRA by DEP because of the failure to collect the appropriate number of samples.123 Pursuant to this notice, MWRA was required to do the following: (1) provide public notice to all of its customers, including notification in newspapers in the service area as well as a notification insert in the CCR (the actual insert includes "federally mandated language");124 (2) revise its sampling plan so that it obtains the appropriate number of samples, and; (3) conduct lead service line replacements.125 The actual plan of action for this replacement program has not yet been submitted by the MWRA to DEP.126 MWRA stated that it is still working on its approach, which will necessitate the participation of the individual municipalities in the service area.127 Lead Reduction Measures ImplementedThe Boston metropolitan area has conditions which make it susceptible to elevated lead in water levels. Specifically, MWRA obtains its drinking water from two "high quality, beautiful reservoirs in Central Massachusetts, which happen to be low in pH, with low alkalinity which make the water naturally corrosive."128 This factor, in combination with an "old housing stock and lead service lines/piping, leads to elevated levels."129 It is estimated that a minimum of 10% of water service lines within the MWRA distribution system contain lead pipes.130 In 1992, when elevated results were first discovered from the initial testing rounds, MWRA hired a "team of national experts" to address the problem.131 The MWRA has a solid working relationship with EPA Region I, DEP and the Massachusetts Department of Health and worked closely with these agencies to receive and implement corrective actions. "When we built the corrosion control facility, we fully implemented recommendations of all of our consultants and EPA and worked closely with all of these folks."132 The team "tested different treatment technologies and strategies in 1993-1994."133 This testing led to the decision to build the Interim Corrosion Control Facility in Marlborough, which became fully operational in 1996. This facility works to raise water chemistry pH to 9.1 and alkalinity to 40 parts per million, reducing corrosivity. In the span of less than 10 years, in the MWRA representative's assessment, this facility has been "extremely successful" in reducing levels from 50 ppb into the teens. In addition to this corrosion control facility, the MWRA has also worked to replace lead service lines. Close to 90% of the lead service lines in the City of Boston have been replaced and some of the outlying communities in the MWRA system have no remaining lead service lines.134 As part of the 2003 exceedences, under a Massachusetts DEP Consent Order, the 10 communities that are over the limit will have "some mandatory element for lead service line replacement."135 Specifically, 7% of these lines must be replaced on an annual basis until these communities come into compliance. As part of the replacement efforts, the individual towns need to establish actual plans for replacement and mail out a letter 45 days in advance to homeowners detailing the efforts. These letters also state that the homeowners may elect to use the contractors to fix and replace their own interior connections at a cost to the homeowner. MWRA has established a no-interest loan program to these impacted communities to assist in the replacement of these water lines.136 Approximately 25 million dollars has been made available per year to these communities under this program.137 The challenge remains "what to do about the connections in private homes."138 There is no low interest loan program to assist the individual homeowners with the replacement of their connections.139 Community Relations/Outreach EffortsIn response to the public education requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule, MWRA implemented a "massive public relations campaign."140 This outreach campaign included the placement of public service announcements on television and radio. With these announcements, customers were informed to "let the water run before using [it]."141 MWRA also has produced informative brochures which have been "extensively mailed to customers as part of both the water bills and CCRs,"142 and has posted this informational brochure on its public website and on the websites of all of the communities comprising their service area.143 MWRA has participated in Women and Infant Children (WIC) programs, where refrigerator magnets were distributed informing this affected population to "let the water run."144 This refrigerator magnet included an attached informational brochure. According to the representative of the MWRA, most of these public outreach campaigns have been conducted in different languages, including Spanish. There has also been outreach to social service organizations serving the communities. MWRA also established a phone line, 242-LEAD. This phone line used to be referred to as the "Lead Line" but is now called the "Water Quality Hotline."145 The MWRA representative stated that "the same people have been staffing this hotline over time, which makes it really effective and informative." 146 Conversations with a Water Quality Hotline staffer revealed that this hotline is staffed 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 5 days a week, and utilizes a voice mail system to intercept after- hours calls.147 Two people work the hotline full time. The hotline has been around "for at least 20 years" and typically fields approximately two to three calls per day. Most of the callers are pregnant women or people with small children. However, with the recent publicity about lead in water, specifically in the District, the hotline has seen a large increase in the number of calls received per day. "We get calls when articles about lead in water appear in local papers." The hotline staffer also stated many of the callers ask whether or not their homes have lead service lines. She tells them that the MWRA does not maintain these types of records and recommends for them to contact their local town public works departments. She also refers callers to the MWRA website in order to both obtain a list of certified drinking water testing labs and access the posted informational brochure. Conversations with the MWRA representative revealed that this list of labs is updated frequently.148 He also stated that some of the individual communities even pay for private home testing. The MWRA representative did not know which communities paid for this testing but stated that the MWRA as an entity does not pay for any testing. Despite these many outreach efforts, there was an assessment in some segments of the service area population that these efforts were not successful. This assessment was voiced by a representative of the Clean Water Action Group. The Clean Water Action Group is a leading nationwide non-profit environmental organization which has a local Boston office. The representative voiced that the outreach efforts of MWRA have been generally poor.149 He stated that "there is no concrete information out there for the public." They "just tell people to run their water for a few seconds." The representative of DEP differed considerably in his assessment of the MWRA's outreach efforts. It was his opinion that the "MWRA public outreach and communication programs have been extremely effective."150 III. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND THE ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC OVERSIGHT HEARING SUMMARIES ON THE LEAD IN WATER MATTERSummary of February 4, 2004 Public RoundtableOverviewThe first public roundtable hearing by the Committee on the issue of lead in water was held by Chair Schwartz on February 4, 2004. At this roundtable, Chair Schwartz publicly announced that she was working with the Mayor to create a Task Force to review the problem and begin to develop solutions to it. The roundtable had three primary results: (1) it provided an opportunity for District residents and the Council to express their dismay and concern and to ask questions of WASA, EPA, the Washington Aqueduct and DOH; (2) information provided at the hearing described the extent of the problem and what was known and not known, and; (3) and potential solutions began to emerge. Councilmember Adrian Fenty pressed WASA to identify the homes in his Ward that had lead service lines and to more clearly explain the sampling methods used in the lead tests. Chair Schwartz recommended that WASA provide each Councilmember with large-scale maps that identify the areas of the city with lead service lines. Councilmember Graham closely questioned WASA officials about "where to draw the line" regarding what level of lead contamination should prompt real concern and what level is of less concern. He was told that WASA officials did not know, and, in fact, knew little about the consequences of lead contamination. They said they had not worked with DOH or other authorities to learn the health effects. "You didn't know the health consequences? That's astounding! Why didn't you find out?," asked Councilmember Graham. Councilmember Kathy Patterson pressed WASA to pay special attention to schools and group homes in the water lead level testing. Councilmember Phil Mendelson also attended the hearing. Summary of Public Witness TestimonyPublic testimony at the roundtable was critical of WASA. Public concern centered on three points: the lack of a clear and attention-getting warning from WASA, continuing difficulty in getting information about what the public should do, and the health effects of lead poisoning. Charles F. Eason, Jr. stated that "WASA used our children as lab rats." He was accompanied by his young grandson who Mr. Eason said often spent time at his house. Mr. Eason furthered stated, "my own involvement in this issue began when [WASA] wrote me in August of last year and asked that I participate in a water testing program. Nothing in that letter indicated previous WASA tests had detected elevated lead levels, or that WASA believed, as they apparently did, that homes such as mine with lead service lines were at an increased risk for lead contamination." Evanna Powell requested that the Council increase its oversight of WASA for the benefit of her and other District citizens, residents, taxpayers and WASA ratepayers. Ms. Powell went on to suggest that the Council order the reinstatement of Ms. Bhat (the former WASA employee who testified at the Committee's February 10 hearing) at WASA as well as order WASA to improve the quality of drinking water in the District. At the conclusion of Ms. Powell's testimony, Chair Schwartz stated that she appreciated Ms. Powell's testimony but that the Council could not order WASA to do anything because WASA is a quasi-independent agency. Chair Schwartz discussed legislation introduced by Chairman Cropp during the present legislative session which would make WASA a public utility. Chair Schwartz recognized that this legislation would again make WASA a for-profit entity and that she had concerns about that. However, she also said that at times like this, she is taking a second look at WASA's structure. Paul Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator for Clean Water Action, stated that "WASA's communications with the public were inadequate and must improve." He also said that WASA needed to take several other steps to safeguard the water supply and improve its treatment system. Mr. Schwartz suggested that WASA upgrade filtration plants, repair and replace the reservoirs and pipes, do more to protect the surface water source (the Potomac River), institute waterborne disease surveillance, and create a District Water Citizens' Utility Board. In response to Mr. Schwartz's testimony, Councilmember Patterson asked if he could provide a context for the problem that the District was experiencing. "Are we worse or better than or the same as other jurisdictions and surrounding municipalities? Please help us understand," asked Councilmember Patterson. Mr. Schwartz responded that in a big city like New York, which has a tremendous budgetary problem and shares the same needs as our city, and which conducted over 20,000 free lead tests, it indicates a much more proactive fulfillment of the lead and copper rule and public education and outreach. It also helped to arm those who have a problem with information, because 15% of those residences tested in New York had high lead levels. Mr. Schwartz concluded that there needs to be a sea change at WASA, by listening to people and putting public health and the environment first. Councilmember Fenty asked Mr. Schwartz what he would say to someone who says that the drinking water throughout the District is safe. Mr. Schwartz answered that he thinks most people, other than small children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and the frail or elderly should be able to drink the water without worrying about health impacts. He said that the revelation about high lead levels is some District drinking water rattles the confidence people have and wastes the good work that has been done by WASA over the past years in terms building good community relations. Mr. Schwartz cautioned people not to panic and use bottled water or home filtration systems that may not address the issue. He said that bottled water is less well regulated than tap water. In response, Councilmember Fenty asked that, if given the fact that two-thirds of the houses tested had water lead levels above 15 parts per billion, is it fair for someone continue to say that the water in the District of Columbia was safe. Mr. Schwartz answered, "No, it's not fair for those people in all 23,000 households that have been identified with having lead service lines. They should be proactively contacted by WASA, they should go out and get tests for them and they should make more information about this available city-wide and not just individual to individual, in order to reassure people about what they are doing. WASA inherited this problem; they didn't lay the lead pipes down. The corrosion control program that they operate with the Washington Aqueduct and the rate in which they are prioritizing spending money for lead service replacement lines all of that is all brought into question. There are huge amounts of infrastructure needs for our drinking water, wastewater and storm water and we do not have the money on our own to get it." Satu Haase Webb expressed her outrage and distress as a District resident and mother, after learning that the water that she and her family had been drinking was unsafe. Her drinking water contained over 20 times the allowed levels of lead set by the EPA. Christopher Hawthorne, President of AFGE Local 872 and Commissioner of ANC 8E03, stated, "I am deeply disgusted with the manner in which [WASA] clearly downplayed the issues surrounding the excessive levels of lead in our water supply." Mary C. Williams, Commissioner of ANC 6D03, stated that WASA officials contend that they complied with EPA standards by notifying the affected residents of the problem and that they did not call a press conference to alert the public because they did not want to be "alarmists." She said that WASA contends that they were acting "responsibly," but pointed out that WASA did not comply with EPA standards because it did not notify all of the affected residents of this hazard, and that this failure to communicate the seriousness of this problem is viewed as negligent. Erik D. Olson, Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, chastised WASA for its "lack of candor." He further stated that WASA needs to notify all 23,000 homes that are identified as having lead service lines and offer them free service line replacement. In addition, he said free blood tests should be offered. In order to provide better public supervision of WASA and the Aqueduct, Mr. Olson suggested two levels of oversight – first, a blue ribbon panel of citizens and experts to review WASA's performance and, second, a citizen utility board which would act as an independent review board and which would be instituted after the blue ribbon panel to provide a continuous review of WASA and the Aqueduct's work. He said that the review of WASA and the Aqueduct should go beyond the lead level and investigate microbial contamination and watershed protection. Lastly, Mr. Olson said WASA and the Aqueduct should act fast to deal with the problem of aggressive corrosion. Jerome A. Paulson, M.D., Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment and Medical Advisor for the Children's Environmental Health Network, testified about the effects of lead on human health and recommended actions that can be taken to manage the medical aspects of the problem of lead contaminated drinking water in the District. Dr. Paulson then gave recommendations for action on preventing lead exposure. These included:
Paul McKay said that he figured that many residents were scrambling to find answers to lead problems. In response to this, Mr. McKay designed and launched a website, www.purewaterdc.com, that he hoped would be helpful to District residents. David Roodman testified that he volunteered for the original testing done by WASA as early as August of 2003, but got no response. At this point, Mr. Roodman admitted that he was worried for his children, who are still developing. Faith Wheeler stated that "my plumbing company of many years tells me that, although I have replaced all of the lead pipes inside my home, the pipe outside my house is lead. Furthermore, the portion leading from my house to the meter in my front yard is my responsibility, not WASA's to replace if I wish. However, the portion of the outside pipe between the water meter and the main is the responsibility of WASA." Nicole Rosen told the Council that she was six months pregnant. "Since becoming pregnant, I haven't had one alcoholic beverage, I avoid smoky environments, I don't eat mercury-infected fish or soft cheeses that can contain bacteria, I have increased my intake of fruits and vegetables and have done everything I can to ensure that my baby is developing in as healthy an environment as he or she can. That included, up until Saturday, I was drinking 60 to 80 ounces of water a day to prevent fetal dehydration, which, it now turns out, was possibly one of the worst things I could have done for my baby," she told the Council. "I'm of course, absolutely appalled that WASA kept this contamination a secret from the majority of its customers for 2 years or more," said Ms. Rosen. She went on to say, as Mr. Eason had said, that she still found it very difficult to get information from WASA. Summary of WASA TestimonyGlen Gerstell, Chairman of the Board of Directors, WASA, testified that he had four simple points that WASA wanted to tell their customers and the Council:
Mr. Gerstell said, "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. [WASA] can and will do a better in communicating with the public and government officials. I and the other volunteer board members live here, too; our families drink water and we want our questions about water quality answered to our full satisfaction just as you do." Mr. Gerstell also stated, "I am pleased that we can say that we are, and have continuously for years 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. [WASA] and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers run hundreds of tests every week on our drinking water throughout the 1,300 miles of water pipes under District 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." Furthermore, Mr. Gerstell pointed out that after elevated lead readings were noticed in 2002, WASA 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, WASA had community meetings and meetings with local ANC commissioners about the lead service pipe replacement program. Chair Schwartz stated to WASA officials that she was furious at the way this entire issue was handled or, in effect, covered up. She then read from a recent Washington Post article in which Mr. Gerstell stated that WASA had mailed a letter (See Appendix H) to all thirteen District Councilmembers last February noting that initial tests had exceeded the EPA action level, and that WASA did not hold a press conference to report its results. Chair Schwartz went on to point out that the letter sent to the Council by WASA neglected to address the exceedance of the lead action level for some District homes. Furthermore, she mentioned that the letter also lacked a serious sense of urgency to educate the public, and that it simply addressed the lead service line replacement program and gave the regulatory procedures:
Holding up the 2002 Drinking Water Quality Report, Chair Schwartz noted that the contradiction between the title of the report, "Your Drinking Water is Safe" and the paragraphs in the text that mention only the dangers of lead, but nothing that would alarm anyone. She said that the text was so nondescript that no one would see it. Next, Chair Schwartz held up a bill insert from August 2003 and asked Mr. Gerstell if he would read it if it wasn't a life or death situation. "Some I would, some I would not," answered Mr. Gerstell. "Well, you are in the minority, I assure you," stated Chair Schwartz. After reading the opening paragraph of the insert, Mr. Gerstell added that this particular notice received a lot of attention because it was about a rate increase. Chair Schwartz went on to point out the lack of urgent notice within the bill insert and strongly criticized Mr. Gerstell for the lack of notice to District residents. Councilmember Graham expressed his appreciation for Chair Schwartz's comments and her outrage on this issue, which matched that of his constituents. Councilmember Graham suggested that WASA should have called an emergency press conference to lay before the people as forthrightly as possible all the problems. Michael Marcotte, Deputy Director and Chief Engineer of WASA, told the Committee that the introduction of chloramines in order to reduce cancer-causing byproducts of the disinfection process was coincident with the increase in the lead concentrations. He said WASA tests suggest that the major part of the lead in water comes from the lead service lines. Mr. Marcotte said that WASA plans to expand lead monitoring and will continue testing. He said that the goal is to test all 23,000 homes thought to have lead service lines, and that the testing program is being streamlined in order to provide homeowners their test reports within 30 days. In addition, Mr. Marcotte stated that WASA will continue to
replace lead service lines. He said that experience shows that it
costs $10,000 to replace a service line in the public space and
between $2,000 and $3,000 on private property. Mr. Marcotte noted
WASA's advice that people run water for several minutes before using
it if the water has been sitting unused in the pipes for six hours
or more and said that he expected people might be skeptical and
might see the advice as a ploy to increase water use and revenue to
WASA. To avoid waste, he suggested that people shower or do laundry
before using water for drinking or cooking.
Summary of Washington Aqueduct TestimonyThomas P. Jacobus, General Manager of the Washington Aqueduct (which supplies water to WASA for delivery to customers), testified that all water treatment decisions had been done in coordination and compliance with EPA. He said the current corrosion control plan, which is the primary approach used to minimize exposing water customers to lead and copper contaminants in water, relies on controlling the pH (acidity or alkalinity) of water. He noted that it was developed in conjunction with EPA. Mr. Jacobus said that tests have found that lead service lines, lead in solder joints and lead in plumbing fixtures are the sources of lead in some of the drinking water. He said that to reduce corrosion, the Aqueduct was looking at changes to its corrosion control plan. Summary of DOH TestimonyWalter Faggett, M.D., Interim Chief Medical Officer at DOH and a practicing pediatrician in the city, said that there was a difference of opinion within the medical community on the risks of elevated lead in water for small children and pregnant women and fetuses. He said that lead in water is less of a hazard than peeling lead paint. Dr. Faggett noted that children with lead poisoning can be asymptomatic and that concerned parents should have children tested. He said that new information brochures have been prepared by DOH to educate District residents about the risks of lead exposure and steps to take to lower the risk of exposure. Summary of the February 10, 2004 Public RoundtableOverviewAt the second public roundtable hearing to investigate the response to the revelation that the District's public water supply had lead levels that exceed the EPA's action levels, held on February 10, 2004, Chair Schwartz stated, "Last week we focused on the lack of adequate notification from WASA officials about the high levels of lead in our drinking water. It was only on Wednesday of last week that the public and the Council got to hear the story as told by WASA. Today, we are going to focus on how we can best address the lead issue." Chair Schwartz then asked a series of questions pertaining to addressing the problem. Councilmember Patterson raised the question of who should take the lead in getting health and action information to the public. Jerry Johnson, General Manager of WASA, answered that WASA would pay for materials and distribution but that experts needed to provide the information. Additionally, Councilmember Patterson wanted to know what the WASA Board knew about this matter and when. She also asked what steps were taken and what direction was given. Mr. Gerstell stated, "How did we get in a situation where there is a crisis of confidence? The issue came to our attention in the fall of 2002. Fifty samples had come back and were elevated. This triggered the requirement to do more sampling. Sampling was done, and only this past December or January did the results of the sampling and the large numbers become available and known to the Board." Councilmember Graham questioned WASA as to what level of lead in water should a homeowner be concerned about and at what level should blood tests be given. WASA answered that health officials had no consensus about the dangers of lead ingestion. Councilmember Graham then chastised Mr. Gerstell for sluggish Board action on this issue and questioned why no emergency Board meetings had been held. Mr. Gerstell responded that the committees had met and that there had been phone conferences, but no Board meeting. Summary of Public Witness TestimonyPierre Wielezynski testified that he and his wife purchased a house in the Takoma section of NW Washington eighteen months ago to raise their daughter Emilie, and believed that the drinking water was safe up until the day they read the story in the Washington Post. "From that day on, we have been going through very traumatic tests for both my pregnant wife and Emilie. Luckily for us, neither of them had lead in their system. However, an independent lab confirmed that our water had twice the maximum legal [lead] level, exposing our family to serious health hazard," said Mr. Wielezynski. Lorig Charkoudian, Ph.D., is a mother of a 9 month-old child. She said that she received a "voluntary testing kit" from WASA in September 2003, the day after the tests it contained needed to be submitted. Dr. Charkoudian said that she called and asked if she should do the tests and was told she needed to wait until next year. She asked why the test kit was put on her doorstep and only then was told she had lead service lines and may have elevated lead levels in her drinking water. She got the name of a private lab, sent in her tests and learned her water had lead above the action level. Dr. Charkoudian said that "I spent fifteen hours on the phone and internet trying to get answers regarding what I could do to make the water safe for drinking, washing food and bathing babies. I spoke with three people at WASA, over ten people in [DOH] and several supervisors. No one had answers. I also called the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, the National Lead Information Center, the Agency for Toxic Substances and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Lead Poisoning Prevention Line. Finally, I was told that a filter on my tap was probably my best option, but not perfect, and no one could tell me about whether bathing presented any dangers." When she asked about the lack of notice about the potential problem, Dr. Charkoudian said that she was told by WASA that residents had been informed of the problem two years ago in a bill insert. However, she is new to the District and asked what is done to inform such individuals. She says she was told that there was no plan in place to inform them. "I am amazed and appalled at the amount of time I have spent to get answers which still seem incomplete," said Dr. Charkoudian. Muriel Wolf, M.D., Senior Pediatrician, Child Health Center at Children's National Hospital Center, stated, "I see many of the children with lead poisoning. In the 1970's, we hospitalized over 100 children a year with markedly elevated levels of lead. Currently, we hospitalize less than five children per year. Because of the awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning, we screen our children at one year of age and again at two years of age so that we can intervene in preventing markedly elevated levels of lead. In the lead clinic now, we see some twenty children per year whose levels of blood lead are over 20 micrograms per deciliter (mg/dl)." Dr. Wolf continued by saying that "Lead poisoning has serious consequences for our children. Even a level of 10 to 20 mg/dl can cause lowering of the I.Q. There have been studies suggesting that levels between 10 and 20 can lower the intelligence quotient of the general population from 3 to 5 intelligence units. Lead above 20 [mg/dl] can affect the learning ability of children. These children can become easily distracted in their reading. There is an association of elevated lead levels with hyperactivity and attention deficient disorder. Lead poisoning can cause hearing deficits and interfere with growth." Dr. Wolf concluded her testimony by stating, "There is evidence from one recent article not yet confirmed by other investigations that blood leads between the level of 5 and 9 [mg/dl] may lower the I.Q." In response to the alarming statistics given by Dr. Wolf, Chair Schwartz, along with her colleagues, questioned Dr. Wolf about the severity of the situation:
Joyce Saucier, President of the King's Court Condominium Association, stated that she has been having difficulty with WASA concerning the matter of the composition of service lines and that she too wanted to weigh in on the issue of lead in water. Ms. Saucier stated that it is not a very healthy situation to have lead in water, or to cover it up. Dr. Millicent Collins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Howard University College of Medicine, stated that lead is a heavy metal that occurs naturally in the earth's crust and that it has no known role in the functioning of the human body. She said that if one is exposed to lead, many factors determine whether that person will be harmed. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long) and how one comes in contact with it. One must also consider the other chemicals they are exposed to and one's age, sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle and state of health. Dr. Collins said that when lead enters the body, it travels in the blood to "soft tissue" such as the liver, kidneys, lungs, brain, spleen, muscles, and heart. After several weeks, most of the lead moves into the bones and teeth. In adults, about 94% of the total amount of lead in the body is contained in the bones and teeth. About 73% of lead in children's bodies is stored in their bones. Dr. Collins testified that some of the lead can stay in bones for decades, however some lead can leave your bones and reenter your blood and organs under certain circumstances such as during pregnancy and periods of breastfeeding, after a bone is broken and during advancing age. She also informed the Committee that if a patient reaches a blood lead level of 45 mg/dl, then an environmental assessment would need to be performed as well as treatment with medication. "I would advise people with lead levels above 15 parts per billion to have a blood lead level test," said Dr. Collins. Jerome Paulson, M.D., Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment and Medical Advisor for the Children's Environmental Health Network, who had testified on the lead issue at the hearing on February 4, 2004, stressed the fact that there are thousands of homes in the District of Columbia that contain lead-based paint. He said that as a result, there are hundreds of children every year in the District who sustain brain damage as a result of exposure to paint. Dr. Paulson then concluded his testimony by stating that, "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." Summary of WASA TestimonyGlen Gerstell, Chairman of WASA's Board of Directors, reported that WASA had taken the following actions to improve communications:
Mr. Gerstell further stated that WASA will:
The hearing revealed that the projected cost of replacing all lead service lines is $300 million. There are an estimated 23,000 lead service lines. This is an average cost of slightly more than $13,000 per line. WASA recommended that citizens who want to replace their section of a lead service line coordinate with WASA when it replaces the public section of the line. WASA said that it will do this work at cost. If the homeowner chooses to hire its own contractor, however, WASA suggested that he or she seek a contractor who is fully licensed and insured should expect to pay $1,000 to $2,000 for the work. Chair Schwartz asked Michael Marcotte, WASA Chief Engineer and Deputy General Manager, about the cost of replacing the lead services and what other jurisdictions had done to combat this problem:
|
