You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The combination of growing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the international maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel. For decades, LNG tanker ships have been capable of burning boil-off gas from their LNG cargoes as a secondary fuel. However, using LNG as a primary fuel is a relatively new endeavor; the first LNG-powered vessel—a Norwegian ferry—began service in 2000. Several aspects of LNG use in shipping may be of congressional interest. LNG as an engine, or "bunker," fuel potentially could help the United States reduce harmful air emissions, it could create a new market for domestic natural gas, and it could create economic opportunities in domestic shipbuilding. However, U.S. ports would need specialized vessels and land-based infrastructure for LNG "bunkering" (vessel refueling) as well as appropriate regulatory oversight of the associated shipping and fueling operations. The storage, delivery, and use of LNG in shipping also has safety implications. These and other aspects of LNG bunkering may become legislative or oversight issues for Congress. One bill in the 115 th Congress, the Waterway LNG Parity Act of 2017 ( S. 505 ), would have imposed excise taxes on LNG used by marine vessels on inland waterways. This report discusses impending International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards limiting the maximum sulfur content in shipping fuels, the market conditions in which LNG may compete to become a common bunker fuel for vessel operators, and the current status of LNG bunkering globally and in the United States. A broader discussion of oil market implications is outside the scope of this report. The IMO is the United Nations organization that negotiates standards for international shipping. Its standards limiting sulfur emissions from ships, adopted in 2008, have led vessel operators to consider alternatives to petroleum-based fuels to power their ships. In 1973, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Annex VI of the convention, which came into force in 2005, deals with air pollution from ships. The annex established limits on nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emissions and set a 4.5% limit on the allowable sulfur content in vessel fuels. In 2008, the IMO announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels from 4.5% to 0.5% by January 1, 2020. Annex VI requires vessel operators to either use fuels containing less than 0.5% sulfur or install exhaust gas-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's sulfur oxide (SO x ) emissions to a level equivalent to the required sulfur limit. MARPOL is implemented in the United States through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (). The United States effectively ratified MARPOL Annex VI in 2008 when President Bush signed the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act ( P.L. 110-280 ). The act requires that the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly enforce the Annex VI emissions standards. MARPOL's Annex VI requirements are codified at 40 C.F.R. §1043. They apply to U.S.-flagged ships wherever located and to foreign-flagged ships operating in U.S. waters. In addition to its global sulfur standards, MARPOL Annex VI provides for the establishment of Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), which are waters close to coastlines where more stringent emissions controls may be imposed. The North American ECA limits the sulfur content of bunker fuel to 0.1% of total fuel weight, an even lower bar than that set by the IMO 2020 standards. This standard is enforced by Coast Guard and EPA in waters up to 200 miles from shore. Currently, most ships operating in the North American ECA meet the emissions requirements by switching to low-sulfur fuels once they enter ECA waters. The European Union also has an ECA with a 0.1% limit on sulfur in bunker fuels, and the Chinese government is considering putting the same standard in place. The IMO 2020 emissions requirement applies to vessels of 400 gross tons and over, which is estimated to cover about 110,000 vessels worldwide. However, analysts indicate that many of the smaller vessels in this group already burn low-sulfur fuel. Accounting for these smaller vessels, one estimate is that about 55,000 vessels currently burn high-sulfur fuel. Ship owners have two main options for meeting the emission requirements with existing engines: burn low-sulfur conventional fuel (or biofuels) or install scrubbers to clean their exhaust gases. Alternatively, ship owners may opt to install new LNG-fueled engines to comply with the IMO standard. The simplest option for vessel owners to comply with the IMO sulfur standards, and the one that appears most popular, is switching to low-sulfur fuel oils or distillate fuels. Although switching to low-sulfur fuels would increase fuel costs compared to conventional, high-sulfur fuels, it would require little or no upfront capital cost and would allow ocean carriers to use existing infrastructure to bunker ships at ports. Anticipating widespread adoption of this approach, many analysts predict that the implementation of the IMO 2020 regulations will drive up demand for low-sulfur fuel and, therefore, significantly increase its price above current levels. Such a trend could also reduce demand for high-sulfur fuels, increasing the price spread between low- and high-sulfur bunkers fuels. Switching to lower-sulfur fuel could increase fuel cost across the industry by up to $60 billion in 2020 for full compliance with the IMO standards. Moreover, while it may allow vessels to meet the existing IMO sulfur standards, low-sulfur fuel does not necessarily support compliance with potential future IMO emissions standards, especially with respect to greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) discussed later in this report. Scrubbers are systems which remove sulfur from a vessel's engine exhaust emissions. A ship with a scrubber would be capable of meeting the IMO 2020 standard while using conventional high-sulfur fuel. Retrofitting a scrubber on an existing engine can cost several million dollars, however, before factoring in the lost revenue from taking the ship out of service for a month for the installation. Therefore, while using a scrubber will allow a ship to continue using (currently) cheaper high-sulfur fuel, it may take years to recover the initial investment. For example, one industry study estimates that, in the case of a typical tanker, a scrubber installation could cost $4.2 million with a payback time of approximately 4.8 years. Furthermore, scrubbers installed to capture sulfur emissions might have to be further refitted or replaced to comply with any future IMO standards for GHG emissions. The rate of scrubber adoption could affect the financial impacts of installing them in terms of fuel costs. Scrubbers ultimately offset some or all of their initial costs because they allow vessel operators to continue using relatively inexpensive high-sulfur fuel. However, the return on investment for scrubbers depends on the relative prices of high- and low-sulfur bunker fuels. The demand—and therefore, prices—for low-sulfur and high-sulfur fuels will be affected by how many vessels use the respective fuels under the IMO standards that take effect in 2020. For example, limited scrubber adoption could result in more vessels demanding more low-sulfur fuel oil, creating upward pressure on low-sulfur fuel prices. Under such a scenario, scrubbers would provide greater fuel cost savings for vessels that installed them. Alternatively, high-sulfur fuel could become more costly due to refinery production cutbacks (because shippers will not be allowed to burn it without scrubbers). In this case, the economic benefits of scrubbers would be diminished. Given the uncertain fuel supply and demand dynamics, it is difficult for vessel operators to know how big the market distortions from scrubber installation could be or how many other operators may choose to install scrubbers. As of September 2018, there were approximately 660 ships retrofitted with scrubbers and over 600 ships under construction with plans to install scrubbers. By 2020, projecting additional construction orders, some analysts predict about 2,000 vessels could have scrubbers installed. However, even with higher demand for the technology, the ability of vessel owners to install scrubbers is constrained; analysts estimate that current maximum capacity for installing scrubbers is be between 300 to 500 ships per year. Another option for ship owners to comply with the IMO 2020 sulfur standards is to switch to engines that burn LNG as a bunker fuel. LNG-fueled vessels emit only trace amounts of sulfur oxides in their exhaust gases—well below even the 0.1% fuel-equivalent threshold in some of the ECA zones—so they would be fully compliant with the IMO standards. As a secondary benefit, using LNG as an engine fuel also would reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions relative to both high- and low-sulfur marine fuel oils. Furthermore, LNG vessels have the potential to emit less CO 2 than vessels running on conventional, petroleum-based fuels. However, LNG vessels would have the potential to result in more fugitive emissions of methane, another GHG, because methane is the primary component of natural gas, further discussed below. Installing an LNG-fueled engine can add around $5 million to the cost of a new ship. Retrofitting existing ships appears to be less desirable because of the extra space required for the larger fuel tanks (new ships can be designed with the larger fuel tanks). The costs of retraining crews to work with LNG engines could also factor into a vessel operator's decision about switching to LNG. However, apart from their lower emissions, LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with fuel cost advantages over engines burning petroleum-derived fuels. These savings would depend on the price spread between natural gas and fuel oil—which has been volatile in recent years. The likelihood that switching to LNG will produce long-term fuel costs savings relative to conventional fuels is, therefore, a critical consideration for many vessel owners. The 1920 Merchant Marine Act (known colloquially as the Jones Act) requires that vessels engaged in U.S. domestic transport be built domestically. Many newly built domestic ships receive a federal loan guarantee under the Maritime Administration's so-called "Title XI" program. In 2014, the program was modified to include the use of "alternative energy technologies" to power ships as part of the relevant criteria in evaluating a loan application. The Maritime Administration counts LNG-fueled engines as an "alternative energy technology" and may be more likely to approve loan applications for ships with LNG-capable engines. Since the North American ECA was established in 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG. The three Jones Act operators that ship dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U.S. shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX. Harvey Gulf International has put into service five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels that service offshore oil rigs. Some Jones Act tanker operators that have recently built or ordered vessels have chosen to install LNG-ready engines while other operators have chosen to install scrubbers on their existing fleet. Ship engines and scrubbers for the Jones Act fleet do not have to be manufactured in the United States because they are not considered an integral part of the hull or superstructure of a ship. Seagoing barges, known as articulated tug barges, are also a significant portion of the domestic coastal fleet, especially for moving liquid cargoes. However, these vessels traditionally have burned lower-sulfur fuels and thus the ECA has not prompted fleet conversions. IMO fuel requirements do not apply to river barges operating on the nation's inland waterway system, although this fleet potentially could be a market for LNG as fuel. Bunkering vessels (small tankers with hoses for refueling ships) in U.S. waters must also be Jones Act compliant. Barges are the predominant method for bunkering ships in U.S. ports. An LNG bunkering vessel for the Port of Jacksonville—the first Jones Act-compliant LNG bunkering vessel to enter service in the United States—was built in 2017 by Conrad Shipyards in Orange, TX. Recent energy sector trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long-run than petroleum-based, low-sulfur fuels. However, these price movements are correlated to some extent. Many existing long-term LNG contracts link LNG prices to oil prices (although such contract terms are on the decline), even in the spot market. Starting in 2008, the advent of shale natural gas production dramatically decreased natural gas prices in the United States. Natural gas spot prices in the United States at the Henry Hub—the largest U.S. trading hub for natural gas—averaged around $3/MMBtu (million British Thermal Units) in 2018, about a quarter of the peak in average price a decade before, just prior to the shale gas boom ( Figure 1 ). Liquefying natural gas into LNG adds around $2/MMBtu to the production cost. Including additional producer charges and service costs would bring the total cost of LNG available at a U.S. port (based on the 2018 average price in Figure 1 ) to approximately $6/MMBtu. Shipping of LNG from the United States to Asia or Europe adds from $1 to $2/MMBtu, so, based on the 2018 average cost in Figure 1 , LNG delivered to a port overseas would cost on the order of $7 to $8/MMbtu under long-term contracts, depending upon timing and location. Higher or lower prices could occur for specific long-term contracts and in the LNG spot market (i.e., for individual cargoes), based on the location and the supply and demand balance at the time. In general, the U.S. market will have the lowest-priced LNG. Northern Asia will have the highest LNG prices due to the region's comparative lack of pipeline gas supplies and its distance from LNG suppliers. Figure 2 compares LNG spot market prices in the Japan LNG market—the highest-priced LNG market—to spot prices for two common petroleum-based bunker fuels, low-sulfur gas oil and high-sulfur fuel oil. As the figure shows, over the last five years, Japan LNG generally has been cheaper than low-sulfur fuel and more expensive than high-sulfur fuel on an energy-equivalent basis (i.e., per MMbtu). However, Japan LNG and high-sulfur fuel prices converged in 2018. As the figure shows, spot prices for LNG deliveries to the Japan market fell below $6/MMBtu in 2016 from a high above $16/MMBtu in 2013. Likewise, low-sulfur gas oil prices have doubled, and high-sulfur fuel oil prices have tripled, since 2016. The volatility of the bunker fuel markets and the global LNG market lead to considerable unpredictability about the relative prices among fuels going forward. LNG may become increasingly price-competitive versus low-sulfur fuel as the 2020 IMO sulfur standards take effect. As discussed above, many analysts predict prices for low-sulfur gas oil, which are already higher than those for high-sulfur fuel oil, to increase significantly after 2020 due to a standards-driven rise in demand. Although fuel prices as shown in Figure 2 indicate favorable economics for LNG versus low-sulfur fuel, if prices for high-sulfur fuel oils collapse as some expect after the 2020 IMO regulations enter into force, it is possible that LNG could lose its price advantage over residual fuel oils. Likewise, the price spread between low-sulfur gasoil and high-sulfur fuel oil would increase, incentivizing more carriers to install scrubbers to capitalize on the savings in fuel costs by continuing to burn high-sulfur fuel. An additional complication is the variability of LNG prices by region. Many shipping lines are global operators seeking low-priced fuel worldwide, but unlike the global oil market, natural gas markets are regional. Because the price of LNG can vary significantly by region, the relative economics of LNG versus other bunker fuels would also vary by region. Another uncertainty in the market for LNG bunkering is the discrepancy between the spot price for traded LNG and the price for LNG sold as bunker fuel in ports. Added costs associated with marketing, storing and transporting LNG in bunkering operations (discussed below) would likely require ports to charge a rate for LNG bunker fuel above spot market prices. These additional overhead costs are likely to vary among ports. Before factoring in any effect of IMO standards on fuel prices, and assuming a favorable LNG-fuel oil price spread, it still could take years for the savings generated by using LNG to pay back the capital costs of switching fuels. Through May 2018, there were 122 LNG-powered vessels in operation and another 135 ordered or under construction. Many of the first LNG vessels delivered and ordered were Norwegian-flagged vessels, as the Norwegian government has subsidized LNG-fueled vessels with a "NO x Fund." The fund provides LNG-operated ships with an exemption from the country's tax on NO x emissions. As an alternative to committing to LNG as a fuel, some vessel owners may hedge their bets by opting to install "LNG-ready" engines, which can burn low-sulfur fuel oil currently, but are designed to make future LNG conversion easier. The number of LNG ships that may be in operation by 2030 is difficult to predict. First, as noted above, growth in LNG powered vessels is likely to be driven primarily by new builds rather than retrofits. However, the shipping industry has experienced nearly a decade of vessel overcapacity and slow growth. Weak growth in the shipping industry could result in slower growth in vessel orders overall and, therefore, fewer orders for LNG-powered vessels. Of new vessels ordered, or set to be delivered, in 2018 or after, 13.5% (by tonnage) are LNG-fueled—up from 1.4% in 2010. If this trend continues, demand for LNG from the shipping industry could still be relatively high, even if overall growth in the shipping industry remains slow. Because LNG bunkering infrastructure among global ports is currently limited, vessels that use large amounts of fuel and travel predictable routes—along which LNG is available—are the most suitable for LNG fuel. For this reason, cruise ships, vehicle ferries, and container ships initially may be the most likely vessel types to adopt LNG as bunker fuel. Order books have reflected this assessment: one quarter of all cruise ships on order by tonnage at the end of 2017 were LNG-powered. Likewise, a major container ship line, CMA CGM, recently announced that it was ordering nine extra-large container ships powered by LNG. The carrier stated that the fuel tanks will displace space for "just a few containers" and said it intends to refuel these ships just once on their round trip voyages between Asia and Europe. Conversely, LNG fuel adoption may be less likely for oil tankers. Half the global oil tanker fleet operates on the shipping spot market (also known as the "tramp" market), meaning that ship owners enter into contracts with cargo owners only for a single voyage. In this kind of trade, many oil tankers lack a consistent route. Having to limit spot contracts only to ports that may bunker LNG could reduce the arbitrage opportunities of tankers. Dry bulk cargo vessels (carrying grain, coal, and other commodities) also typically operate in the tramp market. LNG-powered vessels have lower direct exhaust emissions than comparable vessels using petroleum-derived fuels. However, the lifecycle—or "well-to-wake"—GHG emissions (especially of methane) and of volatile organic compound emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction complicates the comparison. One study in 2015 concluded, "performing a ['well-to-wake'] GHG study on LNG used as a marine fuel is more complex than previously thought. Further studies are needed ... to investigate this subject." A 2016 study found that the relative GHG emissions benefits of LNG versus conventional fuel oil on a "well-to-wake" basis was highly dependent upon fugitive methane emissions in the LNG supply chain. A 2017 study funded by NGVA Europe, an association which promotes the use of natural gas in vehicles and ships, concluded that LNG as a bunker fuel provides a 21% well-to-wake reduction in GHG emissions compared to convention fuel oil. Evaluating such studies is beyond the scope of this report, although they indicate uncertainty about environmental benefits of LNG fuel, which may require further examination. Despite concerns over lifecycle emissions from the natural gas supply chain, in the short term, ships that pair LNG engines with newer vessel designs could reduce onboard GHG emissions. However, whether these GHG emission reductions would be sufficient to meet the future standards could become another issue for ship owners. The IMO has set a provisional goal of reducing GHG emissions from ships by 50% by 2050. Depending upon the state of engine technology, LNG-fueled ships might become less viable if GHG limits were to be established well before 2050. Concerns about such GHG limits might lead to a decrease in orders of LNG-powered ships over time. Commercial vessels have a typical lifespan of over 20 years, so firms ordering new ships have to take into account compliance with potential standards issued decades in the future. If renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, become more available and cheaper in the coming decades, renewable fuel-powered ships may take over part of the market that LNG-powered ships could occupy. A key requirement for ocean carriers to adopt LNG as an engine fuel is the availability of LNG bunkering facilities. Because LNG is extremely cold (-260 °F) and volatile, LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and fuel delivery to vessels. Depending upon the specific circumstances, LNG bunkering could require transporting LNG to a port from an offsite liquefaction facility for temporary storage at the port, or building an LNG liquefaction terminal on site. Alternatively, LNG could be delivered from offsite facilities directly to vessels in port via truck or supply vessel ( Figure 3 ). Truck-to-vessel LNG bunkering, in particular, provides some fueling capabilities without large upfront capital investments. LNG tanker trucks could also bring LNG to a storage tank built on site at the port, which could then bunker the LNG to arriving ships via pipeline. Supplying LNG using tanker trucks in this way may face capacity limitations due to truck size, road limitations, or other logistical constraints, but it has been demonstrated as a viable approach to LNG bunkering at smaller scales. The predominant method of bunkering today with high-sulfur fuel is vessel to vessel, either by a tank barge or smaller tanker. The type of infrastructure needed to temporarily store (if needed) and deliver LNG within a given port would depend on the size and location of the port, as well as the types of vessels expected to bunker LNG. Truck to ship bunkering is best suited for supporting smaller and mid-sized vessels, such as ferries or offshore supply vessels (OSVs) that support offshore oil platforms. Liquefaction facilities built on site can provide the greatest capacity of any LNG bunkering option, for example, to provide fuel for large vessels in transoceanic trade. However, constructing small-scale liquefaction facilities to produce and deliver LNG on site requires considerable planning and significant capital investment, in one case on the order of $70 million for a mid-sized port. Each LNG bunkering option in Figure 3 may be a viable means to begin LNG bunkering service in a given port. However, ports may face practical constraints as bunkering increases in scale. For example, a container port of significant size typically has multiple terminals, so even with an on-site liquefaction facility, it may need additional infrastructure or supply vessels for moving LNG to other port locations where a cargo ship might be berthed. There may also be port capacity and timing constraints upon the movement of LNG bunkering barges trying to refuel multiple large vessels in various locations around a crowded port. To date, the LNG bunkering operations already in place or in development are comparatively small, but scale constraints could become a factor as LNG bunkering grows and might require additional bunkering-related port investments. Early adoption of LNG bunkering occurred in Europe, where the first sulfur ECAs were created in 2006 and 2007. Through Directive 2014/94/EU, the European Union requires that a core network of marine ports be able to provide LNG bunkering by December 2025 and that a core network of inland ports provide LNG bunkering by 2030. This mandate has been promoted, in part, with European Commission funds to support LNG bunkering infrastructure development. In addition, the European Maritime Safety Agency published regulatory guidance for LNG bunkering in 2018. Over 40 European coastal ports have LNG bunkering capability currently in operation—primarily at locations on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and in Spain, France, and Turkey. These locations include major port cities such as Rotterdam, Barcelona, Marseilles, and London. Another 50 LNG bunkering facilities at European ports are in development. LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port. Singapore has agreed to provide $4.5 million to subsidize the construction of two LNG bunkering vessels. The Port of Singapore plans to source imported LNG at the adjacent Jurong Island LNG terminal, loading it into the bunkering vessels for ship-to-ship fueling of vessels in port. Singapore also has signed a memorandum of understanding with 10 other partners—including a Japanese Ministry and the Chinese Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan—to create a focus group aimed at promoting the adoption of LNG bunkering at ports around the world. In Japan, one consortium is implementing plans to begin vessel-to-vessel LNG bunkering at the Port of Keihin in Tokyo Bay by 2020. Japan's NYK line, a large ship owner, recently announced that it had reached an agreement with three Japanese utilities to add LNG bunkering to ports in Western Japan. Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, currently have around 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development. Some LNG bunkering operations in Europe and Asia are associated with existing LNG marine terminals, which already have LNG storage and port infrastructure in place. However, many smaller operations—including most of the projects in development—employ trucking, dedicated bunkering vessels, on-site liquefaction, and other means to extend LNG availability beyond the ports with major LNG terminals. LNG bunkering is not so advanced in South America, although with nine operating LNG marine terminals (one for export), and another six in development, South America also could support significant LNG bunkering operations in the near future. LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in two locations—Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third bunkering facility under development in Tacoma, WA. The LNG facilities in these ports serve the relatively small U.S.-flag domestic market. Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL. However, ports in North America have significant potential to expand the nation's LNG bunkering capability. Jacksonville is the largest LNG bunkering operation at a U.S. port. One bunkering facility at the port, developed by JAX LNG, initially began truck-to-ship refueling operations in 2016 for two LNG-capable container ships. (The LNG is sourced from a liquefaction plant in Macon, GA. ) In August 2018, upon delivery of the Clean Jacksonville bunker barge, the facility began to replace truck-to-ship bunkering with ship-to-ship bunkering. In the future, the barge plans to source LNG from a new, small-scale liquefaction plant which JAX LNG is currently constructing at the port. A second facility at Jacksonville's port, operated by Eagle LNG, provides LNG bunkering sourced from a liquefaction plant in West Jacksonville. Eagle LNG also is constructing an on-site liquefaction and vessel bunkering facility in another part of the port, expected to begin service in 2019. Taken together, the JAX LNG and Eagle LNG facilities is expected to establish Jacksonville as a significant LNG-bunkering location with the capability to serve not only the domestic fleet but larger international vessels as well. In 2015, Harvey Gulf International Marine (Harvey) began LNG bunkering operations in the Gulf of Mexico to fuel its small fleet of LNG-powered offshore supply vessels serving offshore oil rigs. Harvey has since constructed a $25 million facility at its existing terminal in Port Fourchon to store and bunker LNG sourced from liquefaction plants in Alabama and Texas. The facility can provide truck-to-ship bunkering services for LNG-fueled offshore supply vessels, tank barges, and other vessels. A Harvey subsidiary has ordered two LNG bunkering barges to enable ship-to-ship fueling in the future. Puget Sound Energy has proposed an LNG liquefaction and bunkering facility at the Port of Tacoma, WA. Vessels traveling between Washington and Alaska typically spend the entire journey within the 200-mile North America ECA. Consequently, vessel owners operating along these routes have been interested in LNG as bunker fuel. TOTE Maritime, for example, a ship owner involved in trade between Alaska and the lower 48 states, has begun the process of retrofitting the engines of two of its container ships to be LNG-compatible. The proposed Tacoma LNG facility would be capable of producing up to 500,000 gallons of LNG per day and would include an 8 million gallon storage tank. The facility would serve the dual purposes of providing fuel for LNG-powered vessels and providing peak-period natural gas supplies for the local gas utility system. Its total construction cost reportedly is expected to be $310 million. Community and environmental concerns have slowed the progress of the proposal, which is still under regulatory review. Puget Sound Energy originally planned to put the LNG facility into service in late 2019; however, permitting issues appear likely to delay its opening until 2020 or later—if it is eventually approved. Q-LNG Transport, a company 30% owned by Harvey, has placed orders for two LNG bunkering barges to provide ship-to-ship LNG fueling as well as "ship-to-shore transfers to small scale marine distribution infrastructure in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and abroad." Q-LNG's first barge initially is expected to provide fuel to new LNG-fueled cruise ships based in Port Canaveral (and, potentially, Miami), while service from its second barge is still uncommitted. Initial plans are for the LNG to be sourced from the Elba Island LNG import/export terminal near Savannah, GA—approximately 230 nautical miles away—although the company may seek to develop an on-site LNG storage facility in the future. As noted above, U.S. LNG bunkering activities thus far have been limited to a handful of vessels in domestic trade and tourism. LNG bunkering for the much larger fleet of foreign-flag ships carrying U.S. imports and exports is still to be developed. As in Europe and Asia, domestic ports located near major LNG import or export terminals may serve as anchors for expanded LNG bunkering operations. Figure 4 shows existing LNG import and export terminals in North America. LNG can be liquefied from pipeline natural gas (or imported natural gas) and stored in large quantities at these facilities. The LNG can then be bunkered on site or transported to bunkering facilities elsewhere in the region by truck, rail, or barge. As discussed above, the distance between Port Canaveral and Elba Island in Q-LNG's bunker sourcing plan is 230 nautical miles. Taking this distance as a measure of how far away LNG can be sourced and barged economically, it is possible to extrapolate which U.S. ports are within reach of a potential supply of LNG for vessel bunkering. Table 1 lists the top 20 U.S. container shipment ports in the United States and their proximity to existing LNG import/export terminals. Of these top 20 ports, 12 are less than 230 nautical miles from an operating LNG terminal. Distances between LNG terminals and the other East Coast ports are not much greater, suggesting that LNG for vessel bunkering could be within reach of every U.S. port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—the two largest U.S. ports—are relatively close to the Costa Azul LNG import terminal in Ensenada, MX. Seattle and Tacoma are far from Ensenada, but would be served by the proposed Tacoma LNG bunkering project, if constructed. LNG bunkering for Seattle and Tacoma alternatively could be sourced from an existing LNG port facility around 100 nautical miles north in Vancouver, BC, which is expanding to provide LNG bunkering services to international carriers. Alaska's existing LNG export terminal currently is inactive, but potentially could supply LNG bunker fuel in the Pacific Northwest as well. Although existing LNG import or export terminals in North America could supply LNG for regional bunkering operations, such activities would require additional investment for infrastructure such as LNG transfer facilities and bunker barges. CRS is not aware of any public announcements among the LNG terminals above to develop bunkering operations. However, at least one LNG terminal owner, Cheniere Energy, which operates LNG terminals in Louisiana and Texas, identifies vessel bunkering as one source of future LNG demand growth worldwide. The IMO adopted safety standards for ships using natural gas as a bunker fuel in 2015. The standards, which took effect in 2017, apply to all new ships and conversions of ships (except LNG tankers, which have their own standards). The IMO standards address engine design, LNG storage tanks, distribution systems, and electrical systems. They also establish new training requirements for crews handling LNG and other low flashpoint fuels. As is the case for the sulfur standards, the IMO LNG safety standards apply to all IMO member nations, including the United States. In addition, a number of U.S. federal agencies, especially the Coast Guard and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, have jurisdiction over specific aspects of domestic LNG storage infrastructure and bunkering operations. The Coast Guard has the most prominent role in LNG bunkering, given its general authority over port operations and waterborne shipping. In 2015, the Coast Guard issued two guidelines for the handling of LNG fuel and for waterfront facilities conducting bunkering operations. In 2017, the Coast Guard issued additional guidelines to Captains of the Port, the local Coast Guard officials responsible for port areas, for conducting safe LNG bunkering simultaneously with other port operations. The guidelines advise on quantitative risk assessment of facilities bunkering LNG, which allows Captains of the Port to assess the risks posed to crews and facilities. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plays a role in LNG bunkering due to its jurisdiction over the siting of LNG import and export terminals under the Natural Gas Act of 1938. Specifically, FERC asserts approval authority over the place of entry and exit, siting, construction, and operation of new LNG terminals as well as modifications or extensions of existing LNG terminals. Notwithstanding this siting authority, FERC reportedly does not intend to assert jurisdiction over the permitting of LNG bunkering facilities, but it may require amendment of permits it has issued for LNG import or export terminals to account for bunkering operations added afterwards. In addition to the Coast Guard and FERC, other federal agencies may have jurisdiction over specific aspects of LNG bunkering operations in U.S. ports under a range of statutory authorities. For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation regulates the safety of natural gas pipelines and certain associated LNG storage facilities (e.g., peak-shaving plants). LNG facilities also may need to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals. Other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Transportation Security Administration, may regulate other aspects of LNG bunkering projects. CRS is not aware of new regulations to date among these agencies specifically addressing LNG bunkering. World production of LNG has been rising rapidly over the last few years, driven by growth in the natural gas sector in new regions—especially Australia and the United States. According to one industry analysis ( Figure 5 ), global LNG supply is expected to increase from 300 to 400 million metric tons per annum (MMtpa) from 2017 to 2021 based on new LNG liquefaction projects already operating or under development. An additional 150 MMtpa appears likely to come online after that. Collectively, LNG supply from these new liquefaction projects could exceed projections of demand, which would put downward pressure on LNG prices. While increases in the global supply of LNG do not necessarily translate directly into an increase in LNG available for bunkering, such increases could provide options for LNG bunkering in more ports. Estimating potential demand for LNG in the maritime sector is complicated and uncertain. One study of future LNG demand for bunkering, specifically, projects that LNG-powered vessels in operation and under construction as of June 2018 will require between 1.2 and 3.0 MMt of LNG per year. The study's review of several LNG consumption forecasts in the maritime sector shows a consensus projection between 20 to 30 MMt per year by 2030. This level of demand growth implies an increase in LNG-powered vessel construction from the current rate of around 120 ships per year to between 400 and 600 new builds per year. If these levels were reached, they could create a significant new market for LNG suppliers. Assuming a Henry Hub spot market price of $4/MMBtu in 2030, the annual market for LNG in shipping could be worth $2.9 billion to $5.8 billion, before accounting for liquefaction and transportation charges. Some studies have projected the LNG bunkering market to be even larger and to grow more quickly. However, key variables—such as the prices of Henry Hub natural gas and crude oil, the number of new vessel orders, and the future costs of emissions technology—are notoriously hard to predict with accuracy. Thus, it is not assured that natural gas consumption in the maritime sector will absorb more than a small amount of the global liquefaction capacity in development. The IMO sulfur standards apply to ship owners globally, as does the development of new LNG supply and bunkering infrastructure. In addition to these factors, domestic LNG bunkering also may be influenced by considerations more specific to the United States. These considerations include growth of the U.S. natural gas supply, domestic shipbuilding opportunities, and LNG safety and security. Because of its leading role in global natural gas production, the United States has a particular interest in any new source of natural gas demand. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 2009, when it surpassed Russia. In 2017, increases in production outstripped increases in domestic gas consumption, leading to the United States becoming a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in nearly 60 years. As discussed above, North America (primarily the United States) is expected to add the most new LNG production capacity through 2030 when including projects that are operating, under construction, and likely (according to investment analysts). Past increases in U.S. LNG exports were driven by greater throughput at the Sabine Pass LNG export terminal—the only operating U.S. LNG export terminal in 2017. In March 2018, the Cove Point terminal in Maryland became the second operating U.S. LNG export terminal. Four additional projects under construction or commissioning are set to nearly triple U.S. liquefaction by the end of 2019. This increase in liquefaction capacity likely will motivate LNG producers to secure new buyers. Figure 6 shows estimated LNG prices for various locations around the world as of October 2018. As the figure shows, LNG prices are substantially lower in North America than in Asia, Europe, and South America. Even after adding $1.00 to $2.00/MMBtu to transport the LNG to overseas ports, LNG produced in the United States is globally competitive at these prices. If LNG from the new liquefaction capacity coming online can be produced and delivered with similar economics, the cost advantage may create an opportunity for U.S. LNG in bunker supply. There are over 400 petroleum fuel bunkering ports in the world, but 60% of bunkering in recent years has happened in six countries: Singapore, the United States, China, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Of these countries, only the United States is a significant LNG producer. Therefore, the United States could be a favorable source of LNG for domestic bunkering and for bunkering at the other major ports. While the LNG industry historically has had a good safety record, there are unique safety risks associated with LNG in vessel operations. Leakage of LNG during LNG shipping or bunkering can pose several hazards. LNG is stored at temperatures below -162 °C (-260 °F), far below the -20°C at which the carbon steels typically used in shipbuilding become brittle. Consequently, extreme care must be taken to ensure that LNG does not drip or spill onto ship hulls or decking because it could lead to brittle fracture, seriously damaging a ship or bunkering barge. LNG spilled onto water can pose a more serious hazard as it will rapidly and continuously vaporize into natural gas, which could ignite. The resulting "pool fire" would spread as the LNG spill expands away from its source and continues evaporating. A pool fire is intense, far hotter and burning far more rapidly than oil or gasoline fires, and it cannot be extinguished; all the LNG must be consumed before it goes out. Because an LNG pool fire is so hot, its thermal radiation may injure people and damage vessels or property a considerable distance from the fire itself. Many experts agree that a large pool fire, especially on water, is the most serious LNG hazard. Leaks of boil-off gas (the small amount of LNG that vaporizes in storage) can also release natural gas into a port area and cause fires or explosions. Major releases of LNG from large LNG carriers would be most dangerous within 500 meters of the spill and would pose some risk at distances up to 1,600 meters from the spill. While a bunkering barge or a vessel using LNG for fuel contains far less LNG than large LNG carriers, LNG spills in bunkering operations could still be a significant concern. Risks associated with bunkering LNG are complicated in ports seeking to engage in "simultaneous operations" during the bunkering process. Simultaneous operations entail loading and unloading cargo and personnel from a ship, maintenance, and other logistical operations performed while a ship is bunkering. Accidents that occur during such operations (for example, the operation of heavy machinery near pipes transporting LNG) can result in a spill of LNG which can threaten workers positioned near the site of operations. LNG tankers, bunkering vessels, and land-based facilities could be vulnerable to terrorism. Bunkering tanks or vessels might be physically attacked to destroy the LNG they hold—and vessels might be commandeered for use as weapons against port or coastal targets. Potential terrorist attacks on LNG terminals or tankers in the United States have long been a key concern of the public and policymakers in the context of large scale LNG imports or exports because such attacks could cause catastrophic fires in ports and nearby populated areas. For example, a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office stated that, "the ship-based supply chain for energy commodities," specifically including LNG, "remains threatened and vulnerable, and appropriate security throughout the chain is essential to ensure safe and efficient delivery." Affected communities and federal officials continue to express concern about the security risks of LNG. The potential risks from terrorism to LNG bunkering infrastructure may be different than those of larger LNG import or export operations due to smaller quantities of LNG involved, but the risks may become more widespread if LNG bunkering operations are established in more locations. The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P.L. 107-295 ) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code give the Coast Guard far-ranging authority over the security of hazardous materials in maritime shipping. The Coast Guard has developed port security plans addressing how to deploy federal, state, and local resources to prevent terrorist attacks. Under the MTSA, the Coast Guard has assessed the overall vulnerability of marine vessels, their potential to transport terrorists or terror materials, and their use as potential weapons. The Coast Guard has employed these assessments to augment port security as necessary and to develop maritime security standards for LNG port facilities. The IMO's overall framework for controlling vessels emissions (MARPOL Annex VI) has been in place since 2005. While the United States, as an IMO member, is subject to the IMO's 2020 sulfur standards, the international standards apply equally to all parties and all vessels. The impacts of sulfur standards on bunker fuel have been an important consideration, but IMO member nations have agreed to the standards independent of any particular energy policies. Moreover, MARPOL Annex VI preceded the U.S. shale gas boom, so commitment to that initial IMO framework could not have anticipated United States' current role as a dominant energy producer. Any changes within the international shipping fleet to install sulfur scrubbers, fuel engines with LNG, or switch to other low sulfur fuels, are being driven primarily by market forces in fuel supply, shipbuilding, and shipping—not by any particular push to favor one fuel over another. Nonetheless, given its particular status, the question arises whether the standards may create an economic opportunity for the United States, in energy or otherwise. More specifically, could international adoption of LNG as a bunker fuel create an important new market for U.S. natural gas producers, shipbuilders, or infrastructure developers? As discussed above, depending upon the adoption of LNG bunkering in the global fleet, the LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030. If U.S. LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U.S. natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction. Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most of this occurs overseas, with the exception of Jones Act vessels. In the latter case, demand for domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one significant area of economic growth. Engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop new port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer. While likely limited in number, such port facilities could be complex, high value projects costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to complete. Such projects could create jobs in engineering, construction, and operation, which could be important to local communities. Although LNG bunkering could present the United States with new economic opportunities, it may pose challenges as well. Rising demand for LNG in the maritime sector could increase natural gas prices for domestic consumers. In addition to being the world's largest natural gas producer, as of 2018, the United States is also the world's largest producer of crude oil and the second largest bunkering hub. Consequently, while vessel conversion to LNG bunkering may increase demand for U.S.-produced natural gas, it could be partially offset by reduced demand for U.S.-produced crude oil or refined products. Exactly how changing demand in one sector could affect the other is unclear. Furthermore, while LNG can reduce pollutant emissions from vessels, emissions and environmental impacts from increased natural gas production and transportation could increase overall emissions. Much of the net environmental impact depends upon practices in the natural gas industry, which are the subject of ongoing study and debate. Although new LNG bunkering infrastructure can create jobs, as the Tacoma LNG projects shows, the construction of such port facilities can be controversial for reasons of safety, security, and environmental impact. Overarching the considerations above is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time. This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy. LNG-fueled ships still account for only a fraction of the U.S. and global fleets, and it may take several decades for significant benefits of LNG-powered vessels to be realized. It is also possible that alternative ship fuels, including biofuels, electric engines, and hybrid engines, will become more economically viable in coming years. Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of LNG as a ship fuel, it is hard to predict the potential benefits or costs that LNG bunkering may provide to the United States. Until now, the private sector has added LNG-fueled vessels to fleets in the United States in a piecemeal manner under existing federal statutes and regulation. Congress could encourage the growth of LNG bunkering by various means, such as providing tax incentives to support the construction of LNG bunkering facilities and vessels, addressing any statutory or regulatory barriers to bunkering facility siting or operations, and providing funding for technical support to domestic carriers seeking to adopt LNG technology. Alternatively, Congress could seek to encourage competing bunker fuel options, such as biofuels, by incentivizing them in similar ways. In addition, Congress could also affect growth in LNG bunkering through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole. Changes in federal regulation related to natural gas production, or changes to the Jones Act, for example, while not directed at LNG bunkering, could nonetheless affect its economics. Therefore, evaluating the potential implications on LNG bunkering of broader energy, environmental, or economic objectives may become an additional consideration in congressional oversight and legislative initiatives. If LNG bunkering expands significantly in U.S. ports, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities.

 

 Report 2:
According to Education, 50.3 million students were enrolled in more than 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools nationwide in the 2014- 2015 school year. These individual public schools are overseen by approximately 16,000 local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) which are, in turn, overseen and supported by state educational agencies. School districts can range in size from one school (for example, in rural areas) to hundreds of schools in large urban and suburban areas. For example, the 100 largest districts in the United States together have approximately 16,000 schools and enroll about 11 million students. In addition, charter schools are public schools created to achieve a number of goals, such as encouraging innovation in public education. Oversight of charter schools can vary, with some states establishing charter schools as their own school district and other states allowing charter schools to be either a distinct school district in themselves or part of a larger district. Charter schools are often responsible for their own facilities; these may be located in non-traditional school buildings, and may lease part or all of their space. Typically, state educational agencies are responsible for administering state and federal education laws, disbursing state and federal funds, and providing guidance to school districts and schools across the state. State educational agencies frequently provide funds for capital improvements to school facilities, which school districts may use to address issues related to lead in school drinking water, among other things. Different state agencies, including agencies for education, health, and environmental protection, may provide school districts with guidance on testing and remediation of lead in school drinking water. Within a school district, responsibility for water management may be held by individuals in different positions, such as facilities managers or environmental specialists. Lead is a neurotoxin that can accumulate in the body over time with long- lasting effects, particularly for children. According to the CDC, lead in drinking water can cause health effects if it enters the bloodstream and causes an elevated blood lead level. Lead in a child’s body can slow down growth and development, damage hearing and speech, and lead to learning disabilities. For adults, lead can have detrimental effects on cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive systems and can prompt memory loss. In pregnant women, lead stored in bones (due to lead exposure prior to and during pregnancy) can be released as maternal calcium used to form the bones of the fetus, reduce fetal growth, and increase risk of miscarriage and stillbirth. The presence of lead in the bloodstream can disappear relatively quickly, but bones can retain the toxin for decades. Lead in bones may be released into the blood, re-exposing organ systems long after the original exposure. The concentration of lead, total amount consumed, and duration of exposure influence the severity of health effects. The health consequences of lead exposure can differ from person to person and are affected by the cumulative dose of lead and the vulnerability of the individual person regardless of whether the lead exposure is from food, water, soil, dust, or air. Although there are medical therapies to remove lead from the body, they cannot undo the damage it has already caused. For these reasons, EPA, CDC, and others recommend the prevention of lead exposure to the extent possible, recognizing that lead is widespread in the environment. The SDWA authorizes EPA to set standards for drinking water contaminants in public water systems. For a given contaminant the act requires EPA to first establish a maximum contaminant level goal, which is the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety. EPA must then set an enforceable maximum contaminant level as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is feasible, or require water systems to use a treatment technique to prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible. Feasible means the level is achievable using the best available technology or treatment technique. In 1991 EPA issued the LCR, which it revised in 2000 and 2007, establishing regulations for water systems covered by the SDWA. Lead concentration in water is typically measured in micrograms of lead per liter of water (also referred to as “parts per billion” or ppb). The rule established a maximum contaminant level goal of zero, because EPA concluded that there was no established safe level of lead exposure. EPA decided not to establish an enforceable maximum contaminant level, concluding that any level reasonably close to the goal would result in widespread noncompliance, and therefore was not feasible. Instead, the rule established an “action level” of 15 micrograms of lead per liter (15 ppb) in a one liter sample of tap water, a level that EPA believed was generally representative of what could be feasibly achieved at the tap. The action level is a screening tool for determining when certain follow-up actions are needed, which may include corrosion control treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. Sample results that exceed the lead action level do not by themselves constitute violations of the rule. If the lead action level is exceeded in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring period (that is, if the 90th percentile level is greater than the action level), a water system must take actions to reduce exposure. Several amendments to the SDWA are relevant to testing for lead in school drinking water. In 1988, the SDWA was amended by the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA), which banned the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks containing more than 8 percent lead; the statute defined a drinking water cooler as containing 8 percent lead or less as “lead-free.” The LCCA also required states to establish testing and remediation programs for schools. However, in 1996 a federal circuit court held that this requirement was unconstitutional. In 2011, Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which amended the SDWA by lowering the maximum allowable lead content in “lead-free” plumbing materials such as pipes. This provision became effective on January 4, 2014. In 2016, Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act which, among other things, amended the SDWA, to establish a grant program for states to assist school districts in voluntary testing for lead contamination in drinking water at schools. As a condition of receiving funds, school districts are required to test for lead using standards that are at least as stringent as those in federal guidance for schools. In March 2018, Congress appropriated $20 million to EPA for this grant program. Lead can enter drinking water when service lines or plumbing fixtures that contain lead corrode, especially where the water has high acidity or low mineral content. According to EPA, lead typically enters school drinking water as a result of interaction with lead-containing plumbing materials and fixtures within the building. Although lead pipes and lead solder were not commonly used after 1986, water fountains and other fixtures were allowed to have up to 8 percent lead until 2014, as previously mentioned. Consequently, both older and newer school buildings can have lead in drinking water. Some water in a school building is not for consumption, such as water from a janitorial sink or garden hose, so lead in these water sources presents less risk to students. (See fig. 1.) The best way to know if a school’s water is contaminated with lead is to test the water after it has gone through a school’s pipes, faucets, and other fixtures. To facilitate testing efforts, EPA suggests that schools implement programs for reducing lead in drinking water and developed the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools: Revised Technical Guidance (3Ts guidance) in 2006, which provides information on: (1) training school officials about the potential causes and health effects of lead in drinking water; (2) testing drinking water in schools to identify potential problems and take corrective actions as necessary; and (3) telling students, parents, staff, and the larger community about monitoring programs, potential risks, the results of testing, and remediation actions. The purpose of the 3Ts guidance is to help schools minimize students’ and staffs’ exposure to lead in drinking water. The guidance provides recommendations and suggestions for how to address lead in school drinking water, but does not establish requirements for schools to follow. According to the guidance, if school districts follow the procedures described in guidance, they will be assured their facilities do not have elevated levels of lead in their drinking water. The guidance recommends taking 250 milliliter samples of water from every drinking water source in a school building and having the samples analyzed by an accredited laboratory. Based on the test results of the samples, the guidance recommends remedial action if the samples are found to have an elevated concentration of lead, which is identified by using an action level. While school districts may have discretion to set their own action level, the 3Ts guidance strongly recommends taking remedial action if a school district finds lead at or above 20 ppb in a 250 milliliter sample of water. School districts can take a variety of actions including replacing pipes, replacing fixtures, running water through the system before consumption (known as flushing), or providing bottled water. However, since the amount of lead in school drinking water may change over time for a variety of reasons—for example, the natural aging of plumbing materials or a disturbance nearby, such as construction—the results obtained by one test are not necessarily indicative of results which may be obtained in the future. With no federal law requiring testing for lead in school drinking water, federal agencies play a limited role: Education’s mission includes fostering educational excellence and promoting student achievement, and the agency disseminates guidance to states and school districts about lead in school drinking water, but does not administer any related grants. EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides voluntary guidance to schools on how to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, as part of EPA’s mission to inform the public about environmental risks. In addition, EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection is responsible for working with EPA’s 10 regional offices via their healthy schools coordinators, who communicate with schools and help to disseminate the 3Ts guidance. CDC administers the School Health Policies and Practices Study, a periodic survey to monitor national health objectives that pertain to schools and school districts. The 2016 data, the most recent available, provide information on the number of school districts that periodically test for lead in their drinking water. Under the 2005 memorandum signed by these three agencies to encourage lead testing and remediation in schools, Education’s role includes working with EPA and other groups to encourage testing, and disseminating materials to schools. EPA agreed to update guidance for schools, and provide tools to facilitate testing for lead in school drinking water. CDC’s role includes identifying public health organizations to work with and facilitating dissemination of materials to state health organizations. Lead in School Drinking Water Survey Results at a Glance An estimated 43 percent of school districts tested for lead in school drinking water, but 41 percent did not, and 16 percent did not know. o Some districts tested drinking water in all sources of consumable water in all of their schools, while other school districts tested only some sources. o Among the reasons for not testing, school districts said they either did not identify a need to test or were not required to do so. Of those that tested, an estimated 37 percent of school districts found elevated lead levels—levels of lead above the district’s threshold for taking remedial action—in school drinking water. o School districts varied in terms of the threshold they used, with some using 15 ppb or 20 ppb and others using a lower threshold. School districts varied in whether they tested for lead in school drinking water and whether they discovered elevated levels of lead. For example, an estimated 88 percent of the largest 100 school districts tested compared with 42 percent of other school districts. All school districts that found elevated lead reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead, including replacing water fountains or providing bottled water. Nationwide, school districts vary in terms of whether they have tested for lead in school drinking water, with many not testing. According to our survey of school districts, an estimated 43 percent tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months, while 41 percent had not tested. An estimated 35 million students were enrolled in districts that tested as compared with 12 million students in districts that did not test. An estimated 16 percent of school districts, enrolling about 6 million students, reported that they did not know whether they had tested or not. (See fig. 2.) Of school districts that tested for lead in school drinking water, some tested all consumable water sources in all of their schools, while others may have only tested some sources in all schools or all sources in some schools. Among the reasons provided by survey respondents for not testing in all schools, some said the age of the building was the primary consideration. For example, an official in one school district we visited told us they began testing in buildings constructed before 1989, but after receiving results that some water sources had elevated lead levels, the district decided to test all of their school buildings. Other reasons reported for testing some, but not all, schools included testing schools only when a complaint about discolored water was received or testing only new schools or schools that were renovated. In addition, school districts varied in whether they sampled from every consumable water source, or just some of the sources, in their schools. For example, one district official told us they took one sample from each type of water fountain in each school, assuming that, if a sampled fountain was found to have an elevated level of lead, then all of the other fountains of that type would also have elevated lead levels. However, EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends that every water source that is regularly used for drinking or cooking be sampled. Further, stakeholders and environmental and educational officials we interviewed said that results from one water fountain, faucet, or any other consumable water source cannot be used to predict whether lead will be found in other sources. In our survey, the median amount spent by school districts to test for lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which tests were conducted (see table 1). School districts may have paid for services such as collecting water samples, analyzing and reporting results, and consultants. For example, an official in a small, rural school district—with three schools housed in one building—told us his district spent $180 to test all eight fixtures. In contrast, officials in a large, urban school district told us they spent about $2.1 million to test over 11,000 fixtures in over 500 schools. Some school districts, especially larger ones, incurred costs to hire consultants to advise them and help design a plan to take samples, among other things. EPA’s 3Ts guidance recommends determining how to communicate information about lead testing programs with parents, governing officials, and other stakeholders before testing. Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water in our survey, an estimated 76 percent informed their local school board and 59 percent informed parents about their plans to test; similar percentages provided information about the testing results. We identified a range of approaches to communicating testing efforts in the 17 school districts we interviewed. Some school districts reported issuing press releases, putting letters in multiple languages in students’ backpacks, sending emails to parents, holding public meetings, and releasing information through social media. Before testing, one district created a website with a list of dates when it planned to test the drinking water in every one of its schools. In contrast, other school districts communicated with parents and the press only upon request. Officials in one district we visited said they did not post lead testing results on their website, because they wanted to avoid causing undue concern, adding that “more information isn’t necessarily better, especially when tests showed just trace amounts of lead.” School districts generally have discretion to determine how frequently they test for lead in school drinking water except when prescribed in state law, and most school districts responding to our survey had no specific schedule for recurring testing. Specifically, an estimated: 27 percent of school districts plan to test “as needed,” 25 percent have no schedule to conduct recurring tests, and 15 percent do not know. The remaining school districts reported a range of frequencies for conducting additional tests or said they were developing a schedule to conduct tests on a recurring basis. School district officials and stakeholders we interviewed told us that it is important to test for lead in drinking water on a recurring basis, because lead can leach into school drinking water at any time. In our survey, we asked school districts reporting that they had not tested for lead in school drinking water in the last 12 months (41 percent of districts) to provide us with one or more reasons why they had not tested. Of these school districts, an estimated 53 percent reported that they did not identify a need to test and 53 percent reported they were not required to test (see fig. 3). Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 37 percent of districts found elevated levels of lead in school drinking water, while 57 percent of districts did not find lead (see fig. 4). Of those that found lead in drinking water, most found lead above their selected action level in some of their schools, while some districts found lead above their action level in all of their schools. For example, officials in one large school district told us they tested over 10,000 sources of water, including drinking fountains and food preparation fixtures, and found that over 3,600 water sources had lead at or above the district’s action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). The findings resulted in extensive remediation efforts, officials said. Further, district officials reported different action levels they used to determine when to take steps such as replacing a water fountain or installing a filter. School districts generally may select their own action level, resulting in different action levels between districts. Of school districts that reported testing for lead in school drinking water, an estimated 44 percent set an action level between 15 ppb and 19 ppb. The action levels chosen by the rest of the school districts ranged from a low of 1 ppb whereby action would be taken if any lead at all was detected to a high 20 ppb where action would be taken if lead was found at or above 20 ppb. (See appendix II for the estimated percentage of school districts that set other action levels.) Though fewer than half of school districts reported testing for lead in school drinking water, our analysis of school districts’ survey responses shows that these estimates varied depending on the size and population density of the district as well as its geographic location. For example, among the largest 100 school districts, an estimated 88 percent reported they had tested for lead in school drinking water in at least one school in the last 12 months compared with 42 percent of all other districts nationwide. An estimated 59 percent of the largest 100 school districts that tested discovered elevated levels of lead compared to 36 percent of all other districts that tested (see table 2). In addition, an estimated 86 percent of school districts in the Northeast region of the United States tested for lead in school drinking water, compared to less than half of school districts in other geographic regions. Similarly, about half of school districts in the Northeast and about 8 percent in the South found elevated levels of lead, compared to their selected action level. (See fig. 5.) In our survey, every school district that reported finding lead in school drinking water above their selected action level reported taking steps to reduce or eliminate the lead. For example, an estimated 71 percent said they replaced water fountains, 63 percent took water fountains out of service without replacing them, and 62 percent flushed the school’s water system (see fig. 6). School districts officials we interviewed told us they took a range of remedial actions generally consistent with those reported to us in our survey. For example, an official in one district told us that 129 of the 608 fixtures tested above the district’s action level of “any detectable level.” He said they installed filters on all of the 106 sink faucets with elevated lead and replaced all of the 23 drinking fountains with elevated lead. The district official explained that they re-tested fixtures after the filters and new fountains were installed, and did not detect any lead in their drinking water. Officials in another school district told us that approximately 3,600 of their fixtures were found to have lead above their action level of 15 ppb. They told us the district turned off the water at the affected fixtures as an interim measure and provided bottled water to students and staff. Though they had not yet finalized their plans at the time of our interview, they said they were planning to replace the fixtures and replace old pipes with new pipes. District officials said they plan to pay for their remediation efforts using local capital improvement funds from a recently-approved bond initiative. Similar to the cost of testing, the median amount spent by school districts to remediate lead in school drinking water during the past 12 months varied substantially, depending on the number of schools in which a district took action to remediate lead (see table 3). The median expenditure for school districts taking action in one to four schools was $4,000 compared to a median expenditure for school districts taking action in 51 or more schools of $278,000. EPA regional officials provided examples of eight states that have requirements for schools to test for lead in drinking water as of September 2017: California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. State requirements differ in terms of which schools are included, testing protocols, communicating results, and funding. (See fig. 7.) (For a list of testing components for the eight states, see appendix IV.) According to stakeholders we interviewed, most state legislation on testing for lead in school drinking water has been introduced in the past 2 years. Of the eight states, three states have completed one round of required testing, while other states are in the early stages of implementation or have not yet begun, according to state officials. School districts in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York completed a round of testing for lead in school drinking water by December 2017. Testing in the District of Columbia was in progress as of April 2018. Minnesota requires school districts to develop a plan to test by July 2018 and California requires that water systems sample all covered public schools in their service area by July 2019. According to state officials, schools in Maryland must test by July 2020. In Virginia, no timeline for testing is indicated in the requirement. In addition, requirements in these eight states vary in terms of covered schools and frequency of testing. For example, in Maryland, all schools, including charter and private schools, are required to test their water for lead by July 2020 and must re-test every 3 years. After regulations were approved in July 2016, New Jersey required testing within a year in all traditional public schools, charter schools, and certain private schools, and re-testing every 6 years, according to state officials. Illinois’ requirement is for public and private elementary schools constructed before 2000 to test their drinking water for lead, and does not mandate re- testing. Seven of the eight states include at least some charter schools in their testing requirements (New York does not). State testing requirements also differ in terms of action level, sample sizes, and number of samples, according to state documents. States can choose their own lead threshold or action level for remediation, and the eight states have chosen levels ranging from any detectable level in Illinois to 20 ppb in Maryland. Six of the eight states have chosen to use 250 milliliter samples of water, while California is using a one liter sample size, and Virginia delegates to school districts to choose their action level and sample size. Some states specify that all drinking water sources in a building must be tested, such as in New York and New Jersey, or allow a smaller number of samples to be tested, such as in California, which recommends that water systems take between one and five samples per school. To implement its testing requirement, the District of Columbia has installed filters in all school drinking water sources, and plans to test the filtered water from each fixture for elevated lead annually. The responsibility for the costs of testing and remediation also differ by state. According to state officials, in Minnesota, the costs of testing may be eligible for reimbursement from the state, and in the District of Columbia, the Department of General Services is responsible for the cost. California requires that public water systems cover the cost of testing for all public schools in their jurisdiction. In all other states we looked at, schools or school districts are at least partially responsible for the costs of testing. Additionally, most schools or school districts are responsible for the costs of remediation, although Minnesota, New York, and the District of Columbia will provide funds to help with the costs of remediation as well. Seven of the eight state requirements have a provision for communicating the results of lead sampling and testing in schools. For example, Minnesota requires all test results be made public and New York requires that results be communicated to students’ families. Maryland and New Jersey require that results above the action level be reported to the responsible state agency, such as the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education, and that sample results that find elevated levels of lead be communicated to students’ families. Illinois requires that all results be made available to families and that individual letters to families also be sent if lead levels over 5 ppb are found. In contrast, Virginia does not include a provision to communicate testing results in its testing requirement for schools. According to stakeholders and state officials we interviewed, states have several other common issues to consider in implementing a state testing and remediation program. First, states need to ensure that their efforts, which can be significant given the thousands of schools that operate in each state, can be completed with limited resources and by a legislated deadline. Second, coordination between relevant state agencies, which will vary by state, may be challenging. Because of the nature of testing for lead in school drinking water, multiple government agencies may be involved, necessitating a balance of responsibilities and information- sharing between these state agencies. Finally, state officials told us that imposing requirements without providing funding to implement them may be a challenge for schools in complying with testing and remediation requirements. Apart from the states with requirements to test for lead in school drinking water discussed in this report, at least 13 additional states had also provided funding or in-kind support to school districts to assist with voluntary lead testing and remediation, according to EPA regional offices. Those states are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. In Massachusetts, for example, officials told us the state used $2.8 million from the state Clean Water Trust to fund a voluntary program for sampling and testing for all participating public schools in 2016 and 2017. Massachusetts contracted with a state university to assist schools with testing for lead in drinking water. When the program completed its first round of testing in February 2017, 818 schools throughout the state had participated, and the state has begun a second round of sampling with remaining funds from the Clean Water Trust. In Oregon, officials told us the state legislature provided funding for matching grants of up to $8 million to larger school districts for facilities improvements, and made $5 million of emergency funds available to reimburse school districts for laboratory fees associated with drinking water testing as part of the state’s efforts to address student safety. States can also provide technical assistance to support school districts in their efforts to test for and remediate lead in drinking water. The five states we visited provided a range of technical assistance to school districts. For example, to implement the voluntary assistance program in Massachusetts, the contracted university told us they hired 15 additional staff and assisted schools in designing sampling plans, taking samples, and sending them for testing. University officials told us they oversaw the sampling of all drinking water sources in each participating school and sent the sample to state certified laboratories for analysis. State officials encouraged schools to shut off all fixtures in which water tested at or above the action level of 15 ppb and provided guidance on actions to take, such as removing and replacing fixtures, using signage to indicate fixtures not to be used for drinking water, and implementing a flushing program. The state developed an online reporting tool so that all test results could be publicly posted. State officials also supported schools in communicating lead testing results to parents and the community. Other states we visited provided technical assistance to school districts through webinars, guidance documents, in-person presentations, and responding to inquiries. In Oregon, the state Department of Education and the state Health Authority collaborated in 2016 to provide guidance to schools on addressing lead in drinking water. The Governor issued a directive requesting all school districts test for lead in their buildings and the Health Authority requested that districts send them the results. In Texas, officials at the Commission for Environmental Quality have made presentations to schools on water sampling protocols and provided templates for school districts to communicate results. Officials told us that an increased number of school districts have contacted them in the past year seeking guidance, and, in response, they directed districts to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and a list of accredited laboratories. In Illinois, state officials partnered with the state chapter of the American Water Works Association to provide a guidance document for drinking water sampling and testing to assist schools in complying with new testing requirements. In Georgia, officials at the Department of Natural Resources told us they promote the 3Ts guidance on their website and have offered themselves as a resource on school testing at presentations with local water associations. EPA provides several voluntary resources, such as guidance, training, and technical assistance, to states and school districts regarding testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, but some school districts we surveyed and officials we interviewed said more information would be helpful. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 (LCCA) required EPA to publish a guidance document and testing protocol to assist schools in their testing and remediation efforts. EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water issued its 3Ts guidance which provides information on training school officials, testing drinking water in schools, and telling the school and broader community about these efforts. Of the school districts that reported in our survey using the 3Ts guidance to inform their lead testing efforts, an estimated 68 percent found the guidance extremely or very helpful for conducting tests. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water also developed an additional online resource—known as the 3Ts guidance toolkit—to further assist states and school districts with their lead in drinking water prevention programs by providing fact sheets and brochures for community members, among other things. Some states have used the 3Ts guidance as a resource for their state programs, according to EPA officials. For example, a New York regulation directs schools to use the 3Ts guidance as a technical reference when implementing their state- required lead testing and remediation programs. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water provides training to support states and school districts with their lead testing and remediation programs. In June 2017, EPA started a quarterly webinar series to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. These webinars include presentations from school officials and key partners that conducted lead testing and remediation. For example, on June 21, 2017, officials from Denver Public Schools and Denver Water presented on their efforts to test for lead in the public school system. EPA’s approach to providing guidance and technical assistance to states and school districts is determined by each of the 10 EPA regional offices. Some EPA regional offices provide the 3Ts guidance to school districts upon request and others conduct outreach to share the guidance, typically through their healthy schools coordinator when discussing other topics, such as indoor air quality and managing chemicals. EPA regional offices also provide technical assistance by request, typically through phone consultations with school districts that have questions regarding the 3Ts guidance, according to EPA headquarters officials. Officials also indicated that the agency has received more requests for technical assistance from schools over the past few years regarding lead in drinking water. Officials in EPA Regions 1 in Boston and 2 in New York City told us they provided technical assistance to school districts by conducting lead testing and analysis in school facilities and Region 9 in San Francisco provided technical assistance by reviewing school district testing protocols. For example, EPA Region 2 officials said between 2002 and 2016 they worked with one to two school districts per year to assist with their lead testing efforts. As part of this effort, the regional office provided funding for sampling and analysis. Officials said they prioritized school districts based on population size and whether the community had elevated blood lead levels. Other EPA regional office approaches included identifying resources and guidance for relevant state agencies and facilitating information sharing by connecting districts that have tested for lead with districts that are interested in doing so. However, most EPA regional offices do not provide technical assistance in the form of testing, analysis, or remediation to school districts, and some do little or no outreach to communicate the importance of testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water. According to federal standards for internal control, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Each EPA regional office’s approach to providing resources to states and school districts varies based on differing regional priorities and available resources, according to EPA headquarters officials. Additionally, officials said that this decentralized model of providing support and technical assistance related to lead testing and remediation in schools is appropriate because of the number of schools across the United States. However, based on our survey we found school district familiarity with the 3Ts guidance varied by geographic area (see fig. 8). An estimated 54 percent of school districts in the Northeast reported familiarity with the 3Ts guidance, compared with 17 percent of districts in the South. Furthermore, the Northeast was the only geographic area with more school districts reporting that they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance than not. This awareness corresponds with the efforts made by the state of Massachusetts and EPA’s regional offices in the Northeast to distribute the 3Ts guidance and conduct lead testing and remediation in school districts. By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to schools to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices included in the 3Ts guidance, EPA regional offices that have not focused on this issue could leverage the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support. EPA’s 3Ts guidance emphasizes the importance of taking action to remediate elevated lead in school drinking water, but the agency’s guidance on a recommended action level for states and school districts is not current and contains elements that could be misleading. Although the guidance recommends that school districts prioritize taking action if lead levels from water fountains and other outlets used for consumption exceed 20 ppb (based on a 250 milliliter water sample), EPA officials told us when the guidance was originally developed in response to the 1988 LCCA requirement, the agency did not have information available to recommend an action level specifically designed for schools. Furthermore, EPA officials told us that the action level in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard. However, there are statements in the guidance that appear to suggest otherwise. For example, the guidance states that EPA strongly recommends that all water outlets in all schools that provide water for drinking or cooking meet a “standard” of 20 ppb lead or less and that school officials who follow the steps included in the document, including using a 20 ppb action level, will be “assured” that school facilities do not have elevated lead in the drinking water. The use of the terms “standard” and “assured” are potentially misleading and could suggest that the 20 ppb action level is protective of health. Further, state and school district officials may be familiar with the 15 ppb action level (based on a 1 liter water sample) for public water systems aimed at identifying system-wide problems under the LCR, which may also create confusion around the 20 ppb action level included in the 3Ts guidance. According to our survey, an estimated 67 percent of school districts reported using an action level less than the 20 ppb recommended in the 3Ts guidance. We found that nearly half of school districts used action levels between 15 ppb and 19 ppb. Although these action levels— the 20 ppb from the 3Ts guidance and the 15 ppb from the LCR—are intended for different purposes, the difference creates confusion for some state and school district officials. Also, according to our survey, an estimated 56 percent of school districts reported they would find it helpful to have clearer guidance on what level of lead to use as the action level for deciding to take steps to remediate lead in drinking water. In addition, officials we interviewed in four of the five states we visited said there is a need for clearer guidance on the action level. EPA officials agreed that the difference between the two action levels creates confusion for states and school districts. In addition to wanting clearer guidance on choosing lead action levels, about half of the school districts we surveyed said they would also like additional information to help inform their lead testing and remediation programs. Specifically, school districts reported that they want information on a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs (see fig. 9). For example, an estimated 54 percent of school districts responded that they would like additional information on a testing schedule, as did officials in 10 of the 17 school districts and one of the five states we interviewed. EPA’s 3Ts guidance does not include information to help school districts determine a schedule for retesting their schools. Officials in one school district told us they need information for determining retesting schedules for lead in their school drinking water, and that—without guidance—they chose to retest every 5 years, acknowledging that this decision was made without a clear rationale. Further, an estimated 62 percent of school districts reported wanting additional information on remedial actions to take to address elevated lead. For example, officials from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection told us that they would like additional guidance on evaluating remedial actions to address elevated lead in the fixtures or the plumbing system. Officials with EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water hold quarterly meetings with regional officials to obtain input on potential improvements to the 3Ts guidance, but have not made any revisions. EPA has not substantially updated the 3Ts guidance since October 2006 and does not have firm plans or time frames for providing additional information, including on the action level and other key topics such as a recommended schedule for testing. EPA officials said that they may update the 3Ts guidance before the LCR is updated, but did not provide a specific time frame for doing so. EPA has efforts underway to reconsider the action level for the LCR, which may include a change in the action level from one that is based on technical feasibility, to one that also considers lead exposure in vulnerable populations such as infants and young children, which EPA refers to as a health-based benchmark. EPA anticipates issuing comprehensive revisions to the LCR by February 2020. While the 3Ts guidance is not contingent on the LCR, EPA officials told us they would consider updates to the 3Ts guidance, including the 20 ppb action level, as they consider revisions to the LCR. By updating the 3Ts guidance to include an action level for school districts that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures, EPA could have greater assurance that school districts are able to limit children’s exposure to lead. EPA has emphasized the importance of addressing elevated lead levels in school drinking water through its 3Ts guidance, but has not communicated necessary information about action levels and other key topics consistent with the external communication standard under federal standards for internal control. According to EPA, CDC, and others, eliminating sources of lead before exposure can occur is considered the best strategy to protect children from potential adverse health outcomes. EPA officials also told us that clear guidance is important because testing for lead in drinking water requires technical expertise. But without providing interim or updated guidance to help school districts choose an action level for lead remediation EPA will continue to provide schools with confusing information regarding whether to remediate, which may not adequately limit potential lead exposure to students and staff. Furthermore, without important information on key topics, such as a recommended schedule for lead testing, how to remediate elevated lead levels, and information associated with testing and remediation costs school districts are at risk of making misinformed decisions regarding their lead testing and remediation efforts. Education has not played a significant role in supporting state and school districts efforts to test for and remediate lead in school drinking water, and there has been limited collaboration between Education and EPA, according to officials. In 2005, Education, EPA, CDC, and other entities involved with drinking water signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities (the memorandum) to encourage and support schools’ efforts to test for lead in drinking water and to support actions to reduce children’s exposure to lead. According to the memorandum, Education’s role is to identify the appropriate school organizations with which to work and facilitate dissemination of materials and tools to schools in collaboration with EPA. In addition, EPA’s role is to update relevant guidance documents for school districts—resulting in the production of the 3Ts guidance in 2006—raising awareness, and collaborating with other federal agencies and associations, among other things. Education officials told us that the agency does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum. However, Education and EPA officials were not aware of the memorandum being terminated by either agency and told us the memorandum remains in effect. Although Education does not have any ongoing efforts related to implementing the memorandum, the agency’s websites, including the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center (REMS TA Center) website, and the Green Strides portal, provide links to EPA guidance and webinars on lead testing and remediation. The REMS TA Center website, which is largely focused on emergency management planning, includes a link to EPA’s 3Ts guidance and other resources on lead exposure and children, but does not provide information regarding the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water. Education’s Green Strides portal includes a link to a number of EPA’s webinars on lead in school drinking water, but does not include all of the quarterly webinars started in June 2017 to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. An Education official told us that these EPA webinars are identified by Education without coordinating with EPA officials. Further, when searching on Education’s website for lead in school drinking water, the 3Ts guidance does not show up. Education officials acknowledged that information regarding lead testing and remediation is difficult to find on Education’s website and they could take steps to make federal guidance on lead in school drinking water more accessible. The federal government has developed guidelines to help federal agencies improve their experience with customers through websites. One such resource is Guidelines for Improving Digital Services developed by the federal Digital Services Advisory Group. It states that federal agencies should take steps to make guidance easy to find and accessible. Making guidance easy to find and accessible such as by clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance on Education’s websites could help raise school district awareness of the guidance, which is currently low in most areas of the country. Many school districts are not familiar with EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation. Specifically, an estimated 60 percent of school districts reported in our survey that they were not familiar with the EPA’s 3Ts guidance. Most school district officials from our site visits told us they did not have contact with EPA prior to or during their lead testing and some said they would not have thought to go to EPA for guidance. Likewise, EPA officials reported they had received feedback from school district officials indicating that they do not know where to go for information about testing for and remediating lead in drinking water. Rather, school district officials may look to their state educational agency or Education for guidance on lead testing and remediation, as they might do when looking for guidance on other topics. Education and EPA do not regularly collaborate to support state and school districts’ efforts related to lead in school drinking water, according to EPA and Education officials. Education officials said the agency does not have a role in ensuring safe drinking water in schools, and that the mitigation of environmental health concerns in school facilities is a state and local function. Therefore, the agency does not collaborate with EPA to disseminate the 3Ts guidance beyond posting links to related guidance on their websites and newsletters. EPA officials told us they do not know which office they should collaborate with at Education. EPA regional officials also said they do not collaborate with Education to disseminate the guidance to states and school districts. However, in the 2005 memorandum, EPA and Education agreed to work together to encourage school districts to test drinking water for lead; disseminate results to parents, students, staff, and other interested stakeholders; and take appropriate actions to correct elevated lead levels. There are many school districts that have not tested for lead in school drinking water, and some conducted testing without the assistance of federal guidance—although the large majority (68 percent) of school districts who use the guidance reported finding it helpful. Officials in 11 of 17 school districts we interviewed that had conducted lead testing told us they were familiar with the 3Ts guidance and 9 of those districts said they found it helpful for designing their lead testing programs. Increased encouragement and dissemination of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water by Education and EPA could help school districts test for and remediate lead in drinking water using good practices and reduce the potential risk of exposure for students and staff. Children are particularly at risk of experiencing the adverse effects of lead exposure from a variety of sources, including drinking water. While there is no federal law requiring lead testing for drinking water in most schools, some states and school districts have decided to test for lead in the drinking water to help protect students. However, there are a number of school districts that have not tested for lead and some that do not know if they have tested for lead in their drinking water, according to our nationwide survey. Even in states and school districts that have opted to test, officials may choose different action levels to identify elevated lead and may choose different testing protocols that do not test all fixtures in all schools. EPA has developed helpful guidance—3Ts—and webinars for states and school districts to support efforts to test and remediate lead in school drinking water. However, some EPA regional offices have not communicated the importance of testing for and remediating lead to states and school districts. By promoting further efforts to communicate the importance of lead testing to school districts to help ensure that their lead testing programs are in line with good practices, including the 3Ts guidance, regional offices that have not focused on this issue could build on the recent efforts of other regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance and other forms of support. State and school district officials can use EPA’s 3Ts guidance to help ensure that their drinking water testing and remediation efforts are in line with good practices and said that it has been helpful for establishing their programs. However, statements in the guidance—which has not been updated in over a decade—that suggest the action level described will ensure that school facilities do not have elevated lead in their drinking water are misleading. In addition, state and school district officials told us that additional guidance—including information on a recommended schedule for retesting as well as on costs associated with testing and remediation—could help school districts make more informed decisions regarding their testing and remediation efforts. Without providing interim or updated guidance, EPA is providing schools with confusing and out of date information, which can increase the risk of school districts making uninformed decisions. EPA officials said they would consider updates to the 3Ts action level while the revisions to the LCR are being completed. However, the longer school districts are without the additional information they need to conduct their efforts in line with good practices and continue to rely on confusing and misleading information, the more challenges they will face in trying to limit children’s exposure to lead. After EPA revises the LCR, the agency would have greater assurance that school districts are limiting children’s exposure to lead by considering whether to develop, as part of its guidance, a health-based level for schools that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures. Finally, although Education provides information to states and school districts on lead testing and remediation through the agency’s websites, that information is difficult to find. Further, Education’s website does not include all of EPA’s quarterly webinars to highlight school district efforts to test for lead. By making guidance accessible, Education could improve school district awareness of EPA resources about lead in school drinking water. In addition, EPA and Education should improve their collaboration to encourage and support lead testing and remediation efforts by states and school districts. EPA has the expertise to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to states and school districts, while Education, based on its mission to promote student achievement, should collaborate with EPA to disseminate guidance and raise awareness of lead in drinking water as an issue that could impact student success. Although over one-third of districts that tested found elevated levels of lead, many districts have still not been tested. Unless EPA and Education encourage additional school districts to test for lead, many students and school staff may be at risk of lead exposure. We are making a total of seven recommendations, including five to EPA and two to Education: The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should promote further efforts to communicate the importance of testing for lead in school drinking water to address what has been a varied approach by regional offices. For example, the Assistant Administrator could direct those offices with limited involvement to build on the recent efforts of several regional offices to provide technical assistance and guidance, and other forms of support. (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide interim or updated guidance to help schools choose an action level for lead remediation and more clearly explain that the action level currently described in the 3Ts guidance is not a health-based standard. (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should, following the agency’s revisions to the LCR, consider whether to develop a health-based level, to include in its guidance for school districts, that incorporates available scientific modeling regarding vulnerable population exposures and is consistent with the LCR. (Recommendation 3) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water should provide information to states and school districts concerning schedules for testing school drinking water for lead, actions to take if lead is found in the drinking water, and costs of testing and remediation. (Recommendation 4) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should improve the usability of Education’s websites to ensure that the states and school districts can more easily find and access federal guidance to address lead in school drinking water, by taking actions such as clarifying which links contain guidance; highlighting new or important guidance; improving their websites’ search function; and categorizing guidance. (Recommendation 5) The Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA’s Office of Water and the Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection should collaborate with Education to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. This effort could include further dissemination of EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so. (Recommendation 6) The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should collaborate with EPA to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. This effort could include disseminating EPA guidance related to lead testing and remediation in schools or sending letters to states to encourage testing in all school districts that have not yet done so. (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to EPA, Education, and CDC for review and comment. EPA and Education provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes VII and VIII respectively. EPA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. CDC did not provide comments. We also provided relevant excerpts to selected states and incorporated their technical comments as appropriate. In its written comments, EPA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them. For example, EPA said its Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is holding regular meetings with regional offices and other EPA offices to obtain input on improving the 3Ts guidance. Potential revisions include updates to implementation practices, the sampling protocol, and the action level, including clarifying descriptions of different action levels and standards. Also, EPA said that while it has not yet determined the role of a health-based benchmark for lead in drinking water in the revised LCR, it sees value in providing states, drinking water systems, and the public with a greater understanding of the potential health implications for vulnerable populations of specific levels of lead in drinking water. EPA said it would continue to reach out to states and schools to provide information, technical assistance, and training and will continue to make the 3Ts guidance available. EPA also said it would work with Education to ensure that school districts and other stakeholders are aware of additional resources EPA is developing. In its written comments, Education stated that it agreed with our recommendations and noted a number of actions it plans to take to implement them. In response to our recommendation to improve Education’s websites, Education said it would identify and include an information portal dedicated to enhancing the usability of federal resources related to testing for and addressing lead in school drinking water. Also, Education said it is interested in increasing coordination across all levels of government and it shares the view expressed in our report that improved federal coordination, including with EPA, will better enhance collaboration to encourage testing for lead in school drinking water. Education said it would develop a plan for disseminating relevant resources to its key stakeholder groups and explore how best to coordinate with states to disseminate EPA’s guidance on lead testing and remediation to school districts. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact us at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov or (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. In this report, we examined three objectives: (1) the extent to which school districts are testing for, finding, and remediating lead in school drinking water; (2) the extent to which states require or support testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water by school districts; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies are supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead. To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of school districts, interviews with selected state and school district officials, a review of applicable requirements in selected states, a review of relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviews with federal agency officials and representatives of stakeholder organizations. We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through July 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. To examine the extent to which school districts are testing for and remediating lead in school drinking water, we designed and administered a generalizable survey of a stratified random sample of U.S. local educational agencies (LEA), which we refer to as school districts throughout the report. The survey included questions about school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water, such as the number of schools in which tests were conducted, the costs of testing, and whether parents or others were notified about the testing efforts. We also asked questions about remediation efforts, such as whether lead was discovered in school drinking water, the specific remediation efforts that were implemented, and whether parents or others were notified about the remediation efforts. Further, we asked about officials’ familiarity with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidance entitled 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools, (3Ts guidance) whether the guidance was used, and the extent to which it was helpful in conducting tests, remediating lead, and communicating with parents and others. We directed the survey to school district superintendents or other cognizant officials, such as facilities directors. See appendix II which includes the survey questions and estimates. We defined our target population to be all school districts in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Indian Education. We used the LEA Universe database from Department of Education’s (Education) Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2014-2015 school year to our sampling frame. For the purpose of our survey, our sample was limited to school districts that: were located in the District of Columbia or the 50 states; had a LEA type code of 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; had one or more schools and one or more students; and were not closed according to the 2014-2015 School Year. The resulting sample frame included 16,452 school districts and we selected a stratified random sample of 549 school districts. We stratified the sampling frame into 13 mutually exclusive strata based on urban classification and poverty classification. We further stratified the school districts classified as being in a city by charter status. We selected the largest 100 school districts with certainty. We determined the minimum sample size needed to achieve precision levels of plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer, at the 95 percent confidence level. We then increased the sample size within each stratum for an expected response rate of 70 percent. We defined the three urban classifications based on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) urban-centric locale code. To build a general measure of the poverty level for each school district we used the proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as indicated in the CCD data and classified these into the following three groups: High-poverty – More than 75 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; Mid-poverty – Between 25.1 and 75.0 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; and Low-poverty – 25 percent or fewer students in the school district were eligible for FRPL. We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by reviewing existing documentation about the data and performing electronic testing on required data elements and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our report. We administered the survey from July to October 2017 (the survey asked school districts to report information based on the 12 months prior to their completing the survey.) To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we sent reminder emails to nonrespondents and contacted nonrespondents over the telephone. We identified that four of the 549 sampled school districts were closed and one was a “cyber-school” with no building, so these were removed from the sample. Of the remaining 544 eligible sampled school districts, we received valid responses from 373, resulting in an unweighted response rate of 68 percent. We conducted an analysis of our survey results to identify potential sources of nonresponse bias using a multivariate logistic regression model. We examined the response propensity of the sampled school districts by several demographic characteristics. These characteristics included poverty, urbanicity, and charter status. We did not find any other population characteristics significantly affected survey response propensity except those used in stratification (charter schools and the largest 100 school districts). Based on the response bias analysis and the 68 percent response rate across stratum, we determined that estimates based on adjusted weights reflecting the response rate are generalizable to the population of eligible school districts and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system. As we began to develop the survey, we met with officials from seven school districts to explore the feasibility of responding to the survey questions. We then pretested the draft instrument from April to June 2017 with officials in eight school districts—including one charter school district—in cities and suburbs in different states. In the pretests, we asked about the clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey. The EPA also reviewed and provided us comments on a draft version of the survey. Based on feedback from the pretests and EPA’s review, we made revisions to the survey instrument. To further minimize non-sampling errors, we used a web-based survey, which allowed respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument. Using this method automatically created a record for each respondent and eliminated the errors associated with a manual data entry process. We express the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 10 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. To analyze differences in the percentages of school districts that reported they tested for lead in school drinking water and those that discovered lead, we compared weighted survey estimates generated for school districts in different levels of the following subgroups: Poverty: low poverty, mid poverty, and high poverty; Racial composition: majority-minority and majority white; Region: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West; Population density: urban, suburban, and rural/town; Urban charter school: in urban areas, charter district and non-charter Largest 100: largest 100 districts (based on student enrollment) and all other districts. For each subgroup, we produced percentage estimates and standard errors for each level and used these results to confirm the significance of the differences between weighted survey estimates. To examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we conducted site visits in five states—Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas—from February to October 2017. We selected these states because they varied in the extent to which they required testing of school drinking water for lead and they are located in geographic areas covered by different EPA regional offices. Within these states, we selected 17 school districts that had tested for lead in school drinking water and to achieve variation in the size and population density (urban, suburban, and rural) of the district as well as including one charter school district. Site visits generally consisted of interviews with officials in state agencies and school districts and officials in the local EPA regional office: State interviews: We interviewed officials in state environment, education, and health agencies, depending on whether they had information related to school district testing for lead in school drinking water in their state. The topics we discussed were the agencies’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, any related state requirements, policies, and guidance, communication and public notification about testing and remediation efforts and, as appropriate, coordination among multiple state agencies. We also discussed similar topics related to lead-based paint. In Massachusetts, we interviewed representatives with the University of Massachusetts, because of their role in implementing the state’s program to support school district efforts to test for lead in school drinking water. School Districts: Within the five site visit states, we interviewed officials in 14 school districts in person and in three school districts by phone (because we were not able to meet with them in person). We also selected one charter school that functions as its own school district which had conducted tests for lead in school drinking water. Similar to our school district survey, the interview topics we discussed with district officials included testing for and remediation of lead in school drinking water, use of guidance (such as the 3Ts guidance) and efforts to communicate or coordinate with any federal, state, or local agencies, including any other school districts. Within 13 of the school districts, we visited at least one school in which the district had tested for lead in drinking water and, as needed, took remedial action in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their testing and remediation efforts. EPA Regional Offices: We interviewed officials in all 10 EPA Regional offices. We met in-person with officials in the regional offices 1, 4, 5, and 6 and conducted phone interviews with officials in regional offices 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. We generally discussed EPA officials’ roles and responsibilities related to testing for lead in school drinking water and paint and efforts in states and school districts in their region. Information we gathered from these interviews, while not generalizable, represents the conditions present in the states and school districts at the time of our interviews and may be illustrative of efforts in other states and school districts. As part of our effort to examine school districts’ testing and remediation efforts and state support of those efforts, we reviewed related state requirements. To determine whether states had related requirements, we asked all EPA regional offices if states in their region had requirements related to testing for lead in school drinking water. EPA provided examples of eight states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that had such requirements. We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policy documents for these states. We then confirmed the details of the related requirements with the appropriate state officials via structured questionnaires. Also, we used available documentation to corroborate and verify the testing requirements of the states that EPA identified. GAO did not conduct an independent search of state laws. To examine the extent to which federal agencies have collaborated in supporting state and school district efforts to test for and remediate lead, we reviewed relevant federal laws, including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, and the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988; regulations, such as the Lead and Copper Rule; and guidance, such as the 3Ts guidance. We also reviewed documentation including the Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities signed in 2005 by EPA, Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Federal Partners in School Health Charter; EPA training webinar information; and other relevant guidance including the 3Ts guidance tool kit. We interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Children’s Health Protection and officials in all 10 of EPA regional offices regarding their approach to providing support to states and school district on lead testing and remediation. We interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students and officials from the CDC. During these interviews, we interviewed officials about the Memorandum of Understanding and about the Federal Partners in School Health initiative, both of which represent collaborative efforts that address lead in school drinking water, among other topics. We evaluated federal efforts to collaborate and support lead testing and remediation in schools against federal standards for internal control, which call for agencies to communicate quality information to external parties, among other things. We also evaluated federal efforts against the Memorandum of Understanding, in which EPA, Education, and CDC agreed to encourage testing drinking water for lead and communicate with key stakeholders, among other things. To inform all of our research objectives, we interviewed representatives with the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Center for Healthy Housing, National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the 21st Century School Fund. We also attended a workshop entitled “Eliminating Lead Risks in Schools and Child Care Facilities” in December 2017. The questions we asked in our survey of local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts) are shown below. Our survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all survey questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information on responses provided to the open-ended questions. Estimates noted with superscript “a” are based on 20 or fewer responses and were not included in our findings. For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology, see appendix I. 1. Do any schools in your local educational agency (LEA) obtain drinking water from a public water system such as a city or municipal water plant? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 20) Don’t know (Skip to 20) Section B: Testing for Lead in School Drinking Water 2. Is there a requirement that the drinking water in your LEA’s schools be tested for lead? (Please answer “Yes” regardless of whether that requirement comes from your state, municipality, local educational agency or any other governmental entity.) (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3. Regardless of whether your LEA is required to test for lead in school drinking water, have tests been conducted for lead in the drinking water in at least one of your schools in the past 12 months? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If yes to 3: 3A. What is the number of schools in which tests were conducted in the past 12 months? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3B. About how many samples were taken from sources of drinking water such as water fountains and sinks in each school? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 3C. Did any of the following develop the sampling plan, draw the samples of water, and analyze the samples? (Check all that apply.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 3D. What size samples were taken? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3D: What sample size was used? 3E: To the best of your knowledge, did the personnel drawing or analyzing samples follow a testing protocol that offers guidance on developing the sampling plan, drawing samples of water, or analyzing samples? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) No (Skip to 3F) Don’t know (Skip to 3F) If ‘yes’ to 3E: a. To the best of your knowledge, were any of the following entities involved in developing the protocol? (Check one per row.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Contractor / water testing company EPA or another federal government agency A local government agency (aside from your LEA) If ‘other’ to 3Eh: What other entities were involved in developing the protocol? 3F. If tests were conducted in some schools in your LEA in the past 12 months—but were not conducted in every school—how was it determined which schools would be tested? (Check one per row.) Not applicable: tests were conducted in every school (Skip to 3G) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3Fe: In what other ways did your LEA use to determine which schools would be tested? 3G. How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on testing for lead in school drinking water in the past 12 months? (Please answer this question for lead testing only; the survey asks about expenditures to address concerns identified through testing later. Also, please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead testing in your estimate.) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 3H. Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding for the testing in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3H: What other sources of funding did your LEA use? 3I. In the past 12 months, did your LEA notify the following groups that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 3I: What other groups did your LEA notify that it was planning to test for lead in school drinking water before conducting the tests? 3J. In the past 12 months, did your LEA report the testing results to the following groups after completing the tests? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 3J: To what other groups did your LEA report the testing results? 3K. If ‘no’ to 3: Were any of the following a reason your LEA did not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 3K: For what other reasons did your LEA not conduct any tests in any schools in the last 12 months? 4. Does your LEA have a schedule for recurring tests to determine the amount of lead in the drinking water in your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Section C: Remediation of Lead in School Drinking Water 5. Has your LEA discovered any level of lead in the drinking water of any of your schools (as a result of testing) in the last 12 months? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5A. What lead concentration (measured in “parts per billion” or “ppb”) did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5A: What lead concentration did your LEA use to initiate remedial action? 5B. In the last 12 months, how many schools had at least one test result–including as few as one sample in one school–greater than the lead level your LEA used to initiate action? (Please answer regardless of whether these results were discovered in the first of multiple rounds of testing.) 5C.To address lead discovered in school drinking water, has your LEA taken any of the following actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 5D. If ‘no’ to every item in 5C: What are the reasons why your LEA has not taken actions in any of your schools in the past 12 months? 5E. If ‘yes’ to any item in 5C: How much do you estimate your LEA has spent on taking actions in the past 12 months? (Please include materials, labor, and any other expenditures related to lead remediation in your estimate.) Estimated Number (Median) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 5F. Did your LEA use any of the following sources of funding to take actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other’ to 5F: What other sources of funding did your LEA use to take actions in the past 12 months? 5G. Did your LEA notify the following groups about its actions in the past 12 months? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) General public (e.g., media) If ‘other’ to 5G: What other groups has your LEA notified about its remedial actions in the past 12 months? 6. Does your LEA have a schedule to flush the water system as a result of concerns about lead in drinking water in at least one of your schools within any of the following time frames? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) 7. Does your LEA have plans to take actions to eliminate or reduce lead in school drinking water (for example, replace drinking water fountains, replace pipes) in at least one of your schools? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘according to a schedule’ to 7: how would you describe the schedule that your LEA has developed? Section D: Guidance Regarding Lead Testing and Remediation 8. Prior to receiving this survey, were you familiar with guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools”? (Please answer “Yes” if you had read or used the”3Ts” prior to receiving this survey.) (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8: did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) follow or refer to “3Ts” during your efforts to test for or remediate lead in school drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for conducting tests for lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for remediating lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘yes’ to 8A: How helpful was 3Ts for communicating with parents and other stakeholders about lead in your schools’ drinking water? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What else, if anything, would make 3Ts more helpful? 9. Did your LEA (or a contractor working on behalf of your LEA) use any other guidance (for example, best practices, manuals, protocols, webinars) in your LEA’s efforts to test for lead in your schools’ drinking water, take remedial actions, or for notification purposes? (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) What other guidance was used? 10. Would your LEA find any of the following helpful? (Check one per row). 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) Clearer guidance on a level of lead in school drinking water at which we should take action Additional guidance on determining a schedule for 41 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) regularly testing for lead in school drinking water Additional guidance on actions to take if lead is found in school drinking water Information on the costs of testing for lead in school drinking water Information on the costs of remediating lead in school drinking water 18 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (percentage) If ‘other guidance or information’ to 10: What other guidance or information would be helpful? Section E: Inspecting Schools for Lead Based Paint Section F: Remediation of Lead Based Paint in Schools Section G: Other Questions 16. How many schools are owned or operated by your LEA? Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 17. How many schools in your LEA were built before 1986? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building.) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 18. How many schools in your LEA were built before 1978? (If a building has additions, we mean the original structure/the original part of the building.) Estimated Number (Mean) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (number) 95 percent confidence interval – upper bound (number) (Respondent reported number) 19. Is there anything else you would like to share with us regarding lead testing, inspection, or remediation efforts in your school or LEA (drinking water or paint)? 20. What is the name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of the person responsible for completing this survey? Section H: Completion 21. Please check one of the options below. Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are official and final. Your answers will not be used unless you have done this. (Check one.) 95 percent confidence interval – lower bound (percentage) Charter schools comprise a small but growing group of public schools. In contrast to most traditional public schools, many charter schools are responsible for financing their own buildings and other facilities. As a result, charters schools vary in terms of whether they own their own building or pay rent, and whether they operate in buildings originally designed as a school or in buildings which have been redesigned for educational purposes. Sometimes charter schools may also share space in their building with others, such as non-profit organizations. In addition to differences in facility access and finance, charter school governance also varies. In some states, charter schools function as their own school district, while in other states, charter schools have the option to choose between being a distinct school district or part of a larger school district. To determine the extent to which charter school districts were testing for lead in school drinking water and finding and remediating lead, our survey included charter school districts in two ways: our sampling design included three strata specifically for charter school districts in urban areas; in addition, charter school districts were retained in the sampling population, such that they could be randomly selected in our other strata. While we generally received too few responses from charter school districts to report their data separately, we are able to estimate that about 36 percent of charter school districts tested for lead in school drinking water. To learn more about experiences of charter schools, we visited one charter school district and interviewed representatives of the DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB). The charter school district we visited consisted of one charter school in a building it leased. The school had 10 sources of consumable water, all of which were tested in 2016 and were found to have lead below the district’s selected action level of 15 parts per billion. Before testing, district officials met with the building owner who agreed to cover the cost of any remediation. Officials with the DC PCSB told us that it paid to have tests conducted in every charter school in the District of Columbia. According to DC PCSB officials, between March and June 2016, 95 charter schools were tested, and lead above their action level of 15 parts per billion was discovered in 20 schools. Officials estimated their testing costs to be about $100,000, which was subsequently reimbursed by the District of Columbia’s Office of State Superintendent of Education. They also said that charter schools were responsible for taking steps to remediate the lead and recommended schools flush their water systems and use filters. Communication of results Not specified 5 ppb in a 250 ml sample (from filtered fixture) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on its website for the public on lead in drinking water. EPA’s website includes, among other documents, a December 2005 brochure for the public and school districts entitled “3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools” (see fig.10). In addition to the individuals named above, Diane Raynes (Assistant Director), Scott Spicer (Assistant Director), Jason Palmer (Analyst-in- Charge), Amanda K. Goolden, Rich Johnson, Grant Mallie, Jean McSween, Dae Park, James Rebbe, Sarah M. Sheehan, and Alexandra Squitieri made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, David Blanding, Mimi Nguyen, Tahra Nichols, Dan C. Royer, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Kim Yamane. Lead Paint in Housing: HUD Should Strengthen Grant Processes, Compliance Monitoring, and Performance Assessment. GAO-18-394. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2018. Drinking Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule. GAO-17-424. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2017. Environmental Health: EPA Has Made Substantial Progress but Could Improve Processes for Considering Children’s Health. GAO-13-254. Washington, D.C.: August 12, 2013. Lead in Tap Water: CDC Public Health Communications Need Improvement. GAO-11-279. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2011. Environmental Health: High-level Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue Progress toward Protecting Children from Environmental Threats. GAO-10-205. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2010. Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination. GAO-06-148. Washington, D.C.: January 4, 2006.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: The combination of growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel. The use of LNG as an engine ("bunker") fuel in shipping is also drawing attention from federal agencies and is beginning to emerge as an issue of interest in Congress. In 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels to 0.5% by January 1, 2020. Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships requires vessels to either use fuels containing less than 0.5% sulfur or install exhaust-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's airborne emissions of sulfur oxides to an equivalent level. An option for vessel operators to meet the IMO 2020 standards is to install LNG-fueled engines, which emit only trace amounts of sulfur. Adopting LNG engines requires more investment than installing scrubbers, but LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with operating cost advantages over conventional fuels. Savings would depend on the price spread between LNG and fuel oil. Recent trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long run than conventional fuels. LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and delivery to vessels. To date, the number of ports worldwide that have developed such infrastructure is limited, although growth in this area has accelerated. Early adoption of LNG bunkering is occurring in Europe where the European Union requires a core network of ports to provide LNG bunkering by 2030. LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port. Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, have about 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development. LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third facility under development in Tacoma, WA. Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships using barges also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL. The relative locations of other U.S. ports and operating LNG terminals suggest that LNG bunkering could be within reach of every port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, are near the Costa Azul LNG terminal in Ensenada, MX. Seattle and Tacoma are adjacent to the proposed Tacoma LNG project. Since 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG. Shippers of dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U.S. shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX. Another company operates five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels built in Gulfport, MS. Depending upon LNG conversions, the global LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030. If U.S. LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U.S. natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction. Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most shipbuilding occurs overseas, although domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one area of economic growth. Finally, engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer. However, while vessel conversion to LNG fuel may increase demand for U.S.-produced natural gas, it partially could be offset by reduced demand for U.S.-produced crude oil or refined products. Furthermore, while LNG can reduce direct emissions from vessels, fugitive emissions and environmental impacts from natural gas production and transportation could reduce overall emissions benefits. While the LNG industry has experienced few accidents, the Coast Guard has been developing new standards to address unique safety and security risks associated with LNG in vessel operations. The overarching consideration about LNG bunkering in the United States is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time. This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy. Although Congress has limited ability to influence global shipping, it could influence the growth of LNG bunkering through the tax code and regulation, or through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole. Evaluating the potential implications of LNG bunkering within the context of broader energy and environmental policies may become an additional consideration for Congress. If LNG bunkering expands significantly, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities.