S. HRG. 108–504

DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING

WATER SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,

AND WATER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 7, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–604 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 108–504

DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING

WATER SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,

AND WATER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 7, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

RON WYDEN, Oregon

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

APRIL 7, 2004

OPENING STATEMENTS

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........ 49

Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ........................... 3

Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 165

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 49

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 7

Strauss, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator (Shadow) from the District of Columbia,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 165

Warner, Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES

Best, Dana, M.D., director, Smoke Free Homes Project; medical director,

Healthy Generations Program; assistant professor, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences; and Children’s National

Medical Center ..................................................................................................... 147

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 290

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 302

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 302

Borland, Gloria, DuPont Circle Parents ................................................................ 141

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 268

Response to additional question from Senator Jeffords ................................ 283

Grumbles, Benjamin H., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166

Jacobus, Thomas P., general manager, Washington Aqueduct, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................... 58

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 247

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 268

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 267

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 267

Johnson, Jerry, N., general manager, District of Columbia, Water and Sewer

Authority ............................................................................................................... 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 179

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 191

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 184

Lanard, Jody, M.D., risk communication consultant ............................................ 144

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 284

Lucey, Daniel R., interim chief health officer, District of Columbia Department of Health ..................................................................................................... 56

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 192

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 243

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 241

Welsh, Donald, Director, Region III, Environmental Protection Agency ............ 52
Page

IV

Welsh, Donald, Director, Region III, Environmental Protection Agency—Continued

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 169

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 177

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 173

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 174

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Articles:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health ............................................................................................... 129

Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water & Drinking Water ........ 131

Journal of the CAI–NEV AWWA:

Lead Leaching from Brass Water Meters Under Pressurized Flow

Conditions, UNC-Ashville Environmental Quality Institute.......... 370–383

Lead Leaching from In-Service Residential Water Meters: A Laboratory Study, UNC-Ashville Environmental Quality Institute.......... 368–369

The Washington Post:

City Officials Say Lead in Water Poses Problem in Palisades Section

of NW, November 3, 1986.................................................................. 152–154

District Residents Applaud Planned Inquiry By Senate, by

Nakamura, David, staff writer, March 28, 2004 ................................. 385

Fear of Lead in D.C. Water Spurs Requests for Tests, December

6, 1986................................................................................................. 155–156

Lead Found in Water of Many City Homes; Contamination May

Affect 56,000 Houses, January 23, 1987 .......................................... 159–160

Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory, June 9, 1893 ................................................ 385

Potomac Water and Lead Pipe, September 15, 1895 ............................. 385

Tests on Lead in D.C. Water to Take 3 Months, December 21,

1986 ..................................................................................................... 157–158

Letters from:

Capacasa, Jon M., director, Water Protection Division, Environmental

Protection Agency ......................................................................................... 386

PureWater DC ..................................................................................................... 9–43

Senator Jeffords ................................................................................................ 46

Senator Wyden .................................................................................................. 48

Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia; Schwartz, Carol,

councilmember, at-large, chair, Committee on Public Works and the

Environment .................................................................................................. 4, 384

Reports:

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Advisory Committee, Turning

Lead Into Gold: How the Bush Administration is Poisoning the Lead

Advisory Committee at the CDC.............................................................. 100–127

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector General, EPA

Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality

Shortcomings, March 5, 2004 ................................................................... 324–343

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3; Washington Aqueduct; U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers; District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Action Plan to Reduce the Occurrence of Lead Leaching from

Service Lines, Solder, or Fixtures Into Tap Water in the District of

Columbia and Arlington County and Falls Church, VA ........................ 249–266

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Bone Lead Levels in Adjudicated

Delinquents ................................................................................................... 92

The New England Journal of Medicine, April 17, 2003, Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead Concentrations Below 10 μg

per Deciliter ................................................................................................... 69–98

Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords:

Jablow, Valerie, parent .................................................................................... 283

McKeon, Christopher, parent .......................................................................... 283

Statements:

Bellinger, David C., Ph.D., M.Sc., Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard

Medical School, supplemental article .......................................................... 344

Brannum, Robert Vinson, parent .................................................................... 321

Bressler, Andy, resident, District of Columbia .............................................. 318

Keegan, Mike, policy analyst, National Rural Water Association ................ 353
Page

V

—Continued

Maas, Richard P., and Patch, Steve C., UNC-Asheville Environmental

Quality Institute ........................................................................................... 357

Olson, Erik D., senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council .......... 303

Wolf, Muriel, M.D., Children’s Medical Center, George Washington University Medical School .................................................................................. 318

Timeline for the Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule in the District

of Columbia 2000 to 2004 .................................................................................... 320

(1)

DETECTION OF LEAD IN THE DC DRINKING

WATER SYSTEM

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Crapo, Warner, Clinton, Jeffords [ex officio],

and Inhofe [ex officio].

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Senator WARNER [assuming the chair]. The hearing will come to

order.

We are in the process of voting and I will start the hearing simply by giving my statement.

I feel very strongly about this subject and have spent a good deal

of time on it and would like to express a few thoughts.

I thank all for bringing this hearing together. It is an issue that

directly impacts my constituents in Virginia. I must say I work

very closely with the Nation’s capital and the governmental authorities there as I have through these 26 years that I have been

privileged to be a Senator. Therefore, this is a hearing that affects

a good deal of my interests and my career.

My constituents, particularly in Arlington County and the city of

Falls Church, because they are the primary customers of the Washington Aqueduct System along with the District of Columbia. The

facts of this situation as they have unfolded over the past 2 months

are really very disturbing. It is even more disturbing, however,

that we and the public became aware of this ongoing problem only

after reports in the local media. Every one of the government officials sitting before us on the first panel, the EPA, the Corps, the

Water and Sewer Authority, had some measure of knowledge that

testing showed some level of lead. That level we will hear more

about today and that that water was used for drinking.

The levels we understand here on the committee exceeded the

Federal action levels. The rest, we know there was no immediate

action taken even though that knowledge was in the hands of responsible government officials. We will have the opportunity today

to give a full explanation of that.
2

We must start correcting the problem. We will have time to address the past but in short, the Corps must determine if a better

treatment regime will reduce the leaching of lead from service

lines. The Water and Sewer Authority must take immediate steps

to provide filters to residents who are served by the over 37,000

service lines that are ‘‘undetermined.’’ Those are residents in the

category where WASA does not know if they have had lead service

lines. If water sampling of some of these residents with ‘‘undetermined’’ service lines reveal lead contamination above the 15 ppb action level, all of these residents, in my judgment, must be provided

with water filters. If WASA does not provide the filters for those

with undetermined service lines, EPA must exercise its emergency

authority to ensure that this occurs because of the imminent public

health threat.

I also call on EPA to examine the need to set an enforceable

maximum contaminant level, MCL, for lead in drinking water instead of the current 15 ppb. Such an approach may be the only recourse to protect public health and ensure that all necessary steps

are taken to reduce lead contamination in drinking water. In this

situation, it does not appear that the additional regulatory requirements that should have been implemented when sampling showed

high lead levels were enforced by either the EPA or WASA, but you

will be given that opportunity today to set the record in your own

perspective.

The first order of business that must be taken by responsible

agencies before us today is restoring the public trust. I underline

that. You have a long way to go and can start with your commitment to provide water filters to all persons served by undetermined

service lines. You must also look to ways to finance the full replacement of lead service lines all the way up to the home, not just that

portion of the lead service line that is owned by WASA.

I say to my colleagues, I look forward to working with the leadership of this committee to see that we do the responsible thing here

in the Congress.

As you see, the second vote has been called and I must go over

and make that vote. The committee will stand in recess until the

Chairman appears.

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this important hearing this morning. It

is an issue that directly impacts my constituents in Arlington County and the city

of Falls Church because they are the primary customers of the Washington Aqueduct system along with the District of Columbia.

The facts of this situation, as they have unfolded over the past 2 months are very

disturbing. It is even more disturbing, however, that we and the public became

aware of this ongoing problem only after reports in the Washington Post.

Every one of the government officials sitting before us on the first panel—the

EPA, the Corps, and the Water and Sewer Authority—knew that testing showed

lead levels in the drinking water were exceeding the Federal action levels. No one

took action. No one properly notified the public. And, it seems that you are still finger pointing at each other as to who’s to blame.

We must start correcting the problem. In the short-term, the Corps must determine if a better treatment regime will reduce the leaching of lead from service lines.

The Water and Sewer Authority must take immediate steps to provide filters to

residents who are served by the over 37,000 service lines that are ‘‘undetermined.’’

Those are residents in a category where WASA does not know if they have lead
3

service lines. Yet, water sampling of some of these residences with ‘‘undetermined’’

service lines reveal lead contamination above the 15 ppb action level. All of these

residences must be provided with water filters.

If WASA does not provide filters for those with ‘‘undetermined’’ service lines, EPA

must exercise its emergency authority to ensure that this occurs because of the imminent public health threat. I also call on EPA to examine the need to set an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead in drinking water instead of

the current 15 parts per billion action level. Such an approach may be the only recourse to protect public health and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to reduce lead contamination in drinking water. In this situation, it does not appear that

the additional regulatory requirements that should have been implemented when

sampling showed high lead levels were enforced by either EPA or WASA.

The first order of business that must be taken by the responsible agencies appearing before us today is restoring the public trust. You’ve got a long way to go. It can

start with your commitment to provide water filters to all persons served by ‘‘undetermined’’ service lines. You must also look to ways to financing the full replacement

of lead service lines all the way up to the home, not just that portion of the lead

service line that is owned by WASA.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on the specific challenges facing this region. I also share your concerns that this could be a public health problem

confronting any city with lead service lines.

[Recess.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. This hearing will come to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my understanding Senator Warner

already convened the hearing so he could make his statement and

go vote. Those of us who are here have been on the floor and have

voted and we will now officially convene the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works’ hearing of the Subcommittee on

Fisheries, Wildlife and Water.

This is an oversight hearing on the detection of lead in the DC

drinking water system, focusing on the needed improvements in

the public communications and the status of short- and long-term

solutions.

Today’s hearing will review the detection of lead in DC drinking

water, specifically on needed improvements in the communication

and the status of immediate actions and long-term solutions. Mayor

Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia and Council Member

Carol Schwartz were among those who requested that we hold this

hearing. I appreciate their efforts and look forward to working with

them and others to address the immediate risks of this situation.

Mayor Williams joined me yesterday in a meeting with city residents and Council Member Schwartz has been very helpful and

would have come with us but for a regularly scheduled legislative

session. Council Member Schwartz has also forwarded to my attention the letter that she and Mayor Williams wrote to the Appropriations Committee last week which, without objection, will be entered in the record.

[The referenced document follows:]
4

April 1, 2004.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,

Committee on Appropriations,

127 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. HARRY REID, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,

Committee on Appropriations,

156 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI AND RANKING MEMBER REID: We are writing you in

support of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s written request to you for

$12,145,000 in response to the elevated lead levels in the District of Columbia’s

drinking water. The total projected cost to the District for FY ’04 is $25,824,101.

As you are aware, the Government of the District of Columbia and the District

of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) have expended considerable effort

and resources to deal with the presence of elevated levels of lead in the drinking

water of some residences in the District. The lead appears to be entering the water

through corrosion of lead service lines that connect water mains to residences. Although the lead service lines have been in place in most cases for more than fifty

years, the elevation of lead levels in the water is a very recent phenomenon.

The District is requesting this Federal support because this drinking water crisis

was apparently created by Federal action: specifically by the actions of the United

States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection

Agency. The apparent cause for this recent rise in lead levels is a change in the

treatment chemistry initiated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct, the provider of the District’s water, and an agency over which your

Subcommittee has jurisdiction, and approved by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the regulator of the District’s water. EPA regulates the

District’s water because, unlike 49 of the States, the District does not have primacy

for regulation in this area, despite multiple requests for such in the past 25 years.

Thus, the responsibility and funding for regulation of the District’s drinking water

is delegated by EPA to its regional office in Philadelphia, rather than to the District.

The total costs that the District is projected to incur for fiscal year 2004 are

$25,824,101. We are requesting funding from the Energy and Water Development

Subcommittee in the amount of $12,145,000 to help replace lead service lines that

are currently part of the District’s drinking water infrastructure.

As it now stands, the significant expenditures associated with addressing the lead

problem will have to be borne by the District’s taxpayers and WASA’s ratepayers,

which is inherently unfair.

By this letter, we are requesting full reimbursement to both the District and to

WASA for these cost.

The regulatory decisions of EPA appear to have generated these costs, and the

resources to address them reside within EPA. It would be wholly inappropriate and

unjust for the people of the District to bear these costs. Even had the actions of EPA

not been the cause of this problem, the structural imbalance the District faces due

to its unique situation relative to the Federal Government leaves it with insufficient

resources to support its basic needs, let alone extraordinary demands such as have

been created by the lead in water problem.

We are working with Congresswoman Norton to advance this critical issue. On

behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, we respectfully request a prompt

and favorably reply.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,

Mayor.

CAROL SCHWARTZ,

Councilmember, At-Large,

Chair, Committee on Public Works and the Environment.

Senator CRAPO. Many members of this committee also advocated

for this hearing. First, let us recognize the obvious. Clean water is

everyone’s need and everyone’s priority, even though we may sometimes take it for granted. Second, we must appreciate this subject

is both complex and emotional. We must proceed accordingly with-
5

out covering the facts with hard feelings and without disregarding

hard feelings with factual arguments.

There is a lot of work to do, some technical and some digging up

service lines. In order to do these jobs correctly, we need clear

heads, clear messages and clear agreements. We need to fix this

problem and we must fix it now. An important fact already in evidence is that lead is toxic but historically, it was used for plumbing

and as an ingredient in paint and automotive fuel. Because plumbing, paint chips, dust and exhaust fumes surround most Americans,

lead is very troubling.

We have made progress by phasing out leaded gasoline and more

slowly rehabilitating lead painted homes. Lead in plumbing represents an enormous part of the Nation’s need to replace and rehabilitate its water system. Health risks of lead are generally widely

accepted and a recent study may add new concerns. Lead poisoning

delays physical and mental development in children and in adults,

causes increases in blood pressure and after long-term exposure,

damages kidneys.

Another important fact is that many people were surprised in

January of this year when they read in the newspaper that lead

levels were high, in some cases very high in many homes in Washington, DC. The fact that people were surprised means that to communicate effectively from now on, we must communicate differently

from now on. In addition to the obvious reason for communicating

risks to the public, it is especially important in managing lead. By

the nature of the problem, we will be living with lead in our home

environments for a long time. Therefore, it is particularly important that we are vigilant.

The members of the first panel are here to explain efforts to repair missed communications with the public, to review lessons

learned to date and to explain intended efforts or policy changes for

better communication of risks in the future. Every Senator and

staff member knows the challenge of communicating risks because

we have been evacuated, some of us twice, from our offices when

attacked with anthrax and ricin. Since those episodes, we have installed an announcement procedure by which we hear immediately

of every suspicious substance found in our buildings. Even though

most of these announcements are followed by an all clear message,

we are prepared for the sight of a safety team wearing protective

clothing as they hurry to investigate. People should have the information they need to judge risks for themselves.

In addition to the issue of communication, we also want to hear

the latest developments in finding and eliminating lead. Also, I am

specifically interested in how the public will be included in deliberations and decisions about this problem.

The second panel is here to describe health risks of lead, a personal experience with this issue, and professional advice about how

communications can be improved.

I appreciate the witnesses from every perspective and their commitment to join us today. I strongly encourage the first panel to remain to hear what the second panel has to say. To all those who

are following this issue, remember that this situation is a specific

and serious example of a national issue. Depending on where you

live and work, your water infrastructure is anywhere from 40 to
6

140 years old. That means many Americans are already experiencing either the problems of an aging system or the limits of a

small system.

All systems need to work reliably everywhere and for everyone.

To accomplish this will require more money than we currently

have. In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network estimated that

current infrastructure needs could cost around $1 trillion over the

next 15 to 20 years. That is around $20 billion per year more than

current spending.

The EPA’s own GAP analysis from 2002 estimates almost $300

billion in infrastructure resource shortfalls over 20 years. I raised

this issue on the Senate floor and won unanimous approval to increase available spending authority for water infrastructure and I

am pushing to retain this amendment in the budget resolution conference.

Today’s hearing is about Washington’s particular reasons for a

new effort to upgrade the Nation’s water systems. I encourage all

cities to heed the warning and to listen to the call.

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Today’s hearing will review the detection of lead in DC drinking water; specifically on needed improvements in communication and the status of immediate actions and long-term solutions.

Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia and Councilmember Carol

Schwartz were among those who requested that we hold this hearing. I appreciate

their efforts and look forward to working with them and others to address the immediate risks of this situation.

Mayor Williams joined me yesterday in a meeting with city residents and

Councilmember Schwartz has been very helpful and would have come with us but

for a regularly scheduled legislative session.

Councilmember Schwartz has also forwarded to my attention the letter that she

and Mayor Williams wrote to the Appropriations Committee last week.

Many members of this committee also advocated for this hearing.

OVERVIEW ON THE ISSUE

First, let us recognize the obvious: clean water is everyone’s need and everyone’s

priority, even though we may take it for granted.

Second, we must appreciate that this subject is both complex and emotional. We

must proceed accordingly, without coloring facts with hard feelings, and without disregarding hard feelings with factual arguments. There is a lot of work to do: some

technical and some digging up of service lines. In order to do these jobs correctly

we need clear heads, clear messages, and clear agreements. We need to fix this

problem, and we must fix it now.

An important fact already in evidence is that lead is toxic, but historically was

used for plumbing and as an ingredient in paint and automobile fuel. Because

plumbing, paint chips and dust, and exhaust fumes surround most Americans, lead

is very troubling. We have made progress by phasing out leaded gasoline and—more

slowly—rehabilitating lead-painted homes. Lead in plumbing represents an enormous part of the Nation’s need to replace and rehabilitate its water system.

Health risks of lead are generally widely accepted, and a recent study may add

new concerns. Lead poisoning delays physical and mental development in children

and, in adults, causes increases in blood pressure and—after long-term exposure—

damages kidneys.

Another important fact is that many people were surprised in January of this

year when they read in the newspaper that lead levels were high—in some cases

very high—in many homes in Washington. The fact that people were surprised

means that to communicate effectively from now on we must communicate differently from now on.

In addition to the obvious reason for communicating risks to the public, it is especially important in managing lead. By nature of the problem, we will be living with
7

1Water Infrastructure Network. April 2000. Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century. Link

from http://www.win-water.org/; direct from: http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/advocacy/

winreport/winreport2000.pdf. 2 EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. Link: http:

//www.epa.gov/owm/ (click ‘‘Featured Information’’); direct: http://www.epa.gov/owm/

gapreport.pdf.

lead in our home environments for a long time; therefore, it requires particular vigilance.

CHARGE TO THE FIRST PANEL

The members of the first panel are here to explain efforts to repair missed communications with the public, to review lessons learned to date, and explain intended

efforts or policy changes for better communicating risks in the future.

Every Senator and staff member knows the challenge of communicating risks because we have been evacuated from our offices—some of us twice—when attacked

with anthrax and ricin. Since those episodes we have installed an announcement

procedure by which we hear immediately of every suspicious substance found in our

buildings. Even though most of these announcements are followed by an ‘‘all clear’’

message, we are prepared for the sight of a safety team wearing protective clothing

as they hurry to investigate. People should have the information they need to judge

risks for themselves.

In addition to the issue of communication, we also want to hear of the latest developments in finding and eliminating the lead. Also, I am specifically interested in

how the public will be included in deliberations and decisions about this problem.

CHARGE TO SECOND PANEL

The second panel is here to describe the health risks of lead, relate personal experiences with this issue, and offer professional advice about how communications

could be improved. I appreciate your commitment to join us today. I strongly urge

the first panel to remain to hear what the second panel has to say.

THE NATIONAL NEED

To all who are following this issue, remember: this situation is a specific and serious example of a national issue. Depending on where you live and work, your water

infrastructure is anywhere from 40 to 140 years old. That means many Americans

are already experiencing either the problems of an aging system or the limits of a

small system. All systems need to work reliably everywhere and for everyone.

To accomplish this will require more money than we currently have. In 2000, the

Water Infrastructure Network estimated that current infrastructure needs could

cost around $1 trillion over the next 15–20 years.1 This is around $20 billion per

year more than current spending. The EPA’s own ‘‘Gap Analysis’’ from 2002 estimates almost $300 billion in infrastructure resource shortfalls over 20 years.2

I raised this issue on the Senate floor and won unanimous approval to increase

available spending authority for water infrastructure—and I am pushing to retain

this amendment in the Conference on the Budget Resolution.

Today’s hearing is about Washington’s particular reason for a new effort to upgrade the Nation’s water systems. I encourage all cities to heed the warning and

answer the call.

Senator CRAPO. At this point, we will turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Jeffords, for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to everyone.

I would like to start by thanking Senator Crapo and Chairman

Inhofe for granting the Minority’s request to hold this hearing. The

residents of Washington, DC deserve to get answers from Federal

and local officials on why there is lead in the DC water and why

residents were not notified that safe drinking is a right, not a privilege.
8

This committee has oversight responsibilities for the Army Corps

of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as, the

Safe Drinking Water Act. Each of us in the Senate has a special

oversight responsibility for the District and its residents. I have

lived in Washington for a long time and I take this responsibility

seriously. At one time, I was kind of de facto Mayor for a while but

that was a long time ago.

Many of us have switched to bottled water. I am disturbed because bottled water is not regulated in that manner, the tap water

is. We cannot even find out what is in bottled water.

Yesterday, Senator Crapo and I met with a group of Washington

parents. Their outrage and sadness at the effect on their children

was unanimous. Their charges to us were, ‘‘fix this situation and

don’t let it happen again.’’ I am committed to doing everything in

our power to solve this problem and I know the Chairman of the

subcommittee agrees with me.

My overriding question today for our witnesses is how did we get

here? How did we get to the point where the future of the children

living in our Nation’s capital are threatened every day by the water

in their faucets and bath tubs? How did we get to the point where

water tests were conducted revealing startlingly high lead levels,

but yet that information was never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed themselves, their unborn children and their

children to lead contaminated water? How did we get to the point

where it takes congressional hearings and newspapers to expose

this action? How did we get to the point where 2 years after the

fact, EPA announces that WASA did not comply with the requirements of the lead and copper rule? How did we get to the point

where the research from over a year ago showed that lead exposure

levels below the current standard of 10 ppb have an adverse effect

on children’s intelligence level and yet the Federal Government has

not responded?

Lead is a serious health threat to children and to pregnant

women. It is particularly dangerous for children who retain about

68 percent of the lead that enters their bodies while adults retain

only about 1 percent. Children exposed to lead experience low birth

weight, growth retardation, mental retardation, learning disabilities and other effects. It is an also particularly harmful drug for

women in pregnancy.

I have already mentioned our meeting yesterday with a group of

DC parents and I want to take this chance to share a few more

thoughts from other concerned parents. I ask unanimous consent

that a letter and petition from PureWater DC, an Internet-based

site for parents concerned about ongoing water issues in DC be

placed in the record—13,077 people signed this petition expressing

their concern and the expectation for District officials to take action

quickly to fix the problem.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection, the petition will be made a

part of the record.

[The referenced document follows:]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Senator JEFFORDS. I believe it is imperative that during each moment of today’s hearing, we all remember that real parents, children and babies are being affected by this situation as we speak.

Today’s hearing is just the first step in what I hope will be a long

list of actions that we can take to help solve DC’s lead problem and

prevent this from occurring elsewhere in this Nation. Today, I requested from my colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, and Representatives Dingell and Solarz that the General Accounting Office

conduct an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act lead provisions,

using Washington, DC as a case study.

During the questioning for EPA today, I will urge the Agency to

immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure that we do not

have an undetected national lead problem. In the coming days, I

will be introducing legislation that will take action to overhaul the

current regulatory regime for lead in drinking water. My bill will

modify the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve public communications, to require immediate notification of all homes with elevated

lead level results, to require public water systems to provide inhome filters where lead is a problem, to prohibit lead in plumbing

fixtures, to require immediate nationwide testing of public water

systems, to eliminate lead service lines and lead pipes and to increase water infrastructure funding.

I was struck by the question posed by one resident. Can you actually help fix this problem? I hope the answer to that will be a

resounding yes. Today is step No. 1 in that direction.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

I would like to start by thanking Senator Crapo and Chairman Inhofe for granting

the minority’s request to hold this hearing. The residents of Washington, DC deserve to get answers from Federal and local officials on why there is lead in DC

water and why residents were not notified. Safe drinking water is a right, not a

privilege.

This Committee has oversight responsibilities for the Army Corps of Engineers,

the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Each of us in the Senate has a special oversight responsibility for the District and

its residents. I’ve lived in Washington for a long time, and I take this responsibility

seriously.

Many of us live in Washington. We certainly all work in Washington. Our family,

friends, children and grandchildren drink the tap water here daily.

Many of us have switched to bottled water. I am disturbed that because bottled

water is not regulated in the same manner that tap water is, we cannot even find

out if our bottled water is safe.

Yesterday Senator Crapo and I met with a group of Washington parents. Their

outrage and sadness at the effect on their children was unanimous. Their charge

to us was: Fix this situation and don’t let it happen again. I am committed to doing

everything in our power to solve this problem.

My overriding question today for our witnesses is—How did we get here? How did

we get to the point where the futures of children living in our Nation’s capital are

threatened every day by the water in their faucets and bathtubs? How did we get

to the point where water tests revealed startlingly high lead levels, but yet that information was never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed themselves,

their unborn children, and their children to lead-contaminated water?

How did we get to the point where it takes Congressional hearings and newspaper

expose ́s to get action? How did we get to the point where 2 years after the fact, the
45

EPA announces that WASA did not comply with the requirements of the Lead and

Copper Rule?

How did we get to the point where research from over a year ago showing that

lead exposure at levels below the current standard of 10 parts-per-billion have an

adverse effect on children’s intelligence levels, and yet the Federal Government has

not responded?

Lead is a serious health threat to children and pregnant women. It is particularly

dangerous for children, who retain about 68 percent of the lead that enters their

bodies, while adults retain about 1 percent. Children exposed to lead experience low

birth weight, growth retardation, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and other

effects. It is also particularly harmful during pregnancy.

I have already mentioned our meeting yesterday with a group of DC parents, and

I want to take this chance to share a few more thoughts from some other concerned

parents. I ask unanimous consent that a letter and petition from PureWater DC,

an internet-based site for parents concerned about the ongoing water issues in DC.

Thirteen-hundred and seventy-seven people signed this petition expressing their

concern and the expectation for District officials to act quickly to fix the problem.

I ask unanimous consent that the many letters and e-mails I have received from

DC residents be included in the record, and I ask that the record remain open for

2 weeks to allow more people to provide their views.

I believe it is imperative that during each moment of today’s hearing, we all remember that real parents, children, and babies are being affected by this situation

as we speak.

Today’s hearing is just the first step in what I hope is a long list of actions that

we can take to help solve DC’s lead problem and prevent this from occurring elsewhere in the Nation.

Today, I requested with my colleagues Senator Graham of Florida and Representatives Dingell and Solis that the General Accounting Office conduct an investigation

into the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water

Act’s lead provisions, using Washington, DC as a case study.

During the questions for EPA today, I will urge the Agency to immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure that we do not have an undetected national lead

problem.

In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation that will take action to overhaul the current regulatory regime for lead in drinking water.

My bill will modify the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve public communication, to require immediate notification of all homes with elevated lead test results,

to require public water systems to provide in-home filters where lead is a problem,

to prohibit lead in plumbing fixtures, to require immediate nationwide testing of

public water systems, to eliminate lead service lines and lead pipes, and to increase

water infrastructure funding.

I have requested a hearing on the childhood lead poisoning in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I sit to ensure that the Centers

for Disease Control is aggressively addressing childhood lead poisoning.

I was struck by the question posed by one resident—can you actually help fix this

problem? I hope to answer that question with a resounding ‘‘yes.’’

Today is step No. 1. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
46
47
48
49

Senator CRAPO. We will now turn to the Chairman of our committee, Senator Inhofe, who has been very strong in encouraging

us to hold these hearings.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

In deference to our witnesses, I will submit my statement for the

record and move on.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I like to thank Chairman Crapo for holding this hearing, like most of my colleagues, when I’m not back in my home State, I stay here in the District of Columbia. And while the lead levels in the drinking water probably won’t shorten my life

expectancy, I do have grand kids who come to visit and don’t want to put them at

any added risk.

First I think that it’s important to put the risk from lead exposure into perspective. While high blood lead levels are a cause for concern, the blood lead levels of

the children in the District of Columbia are far lower than those we experienced

nationwide just a generation ago.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines for lead exposure, their level of concern for blood lead is 10 micrograms per deciliter. Twenty

years ago, the vast majority of children in America would have exceeded that level.

A nationwide study conducted by CDC in the early 1980s, 88 percent of the children

in the survey exceeded the current CDC level of concern.

From the mid-1920s until the mid-1980s motor gasoline contained an additive,

tetraethyl-lead, that improved fuel performance by preventing pre-ignition in the

cylinders of the engine. This lead was released as a gas and in the form of a very

fine dust. Even today, areas around busy roads and highways may contain elevated

levels of lead.

Because of concern over lead in the drinking water the CDC recently conducted

a study of residents in the District whose tap water had the highest lead levels,

above 300 parts per billion. Not one person had lead levels in their blood above

CDC’s level of concern.

The current tempest over DC’s drinking water raises several pressing questions.

First and foremost is, What caused the sudden jump in lead levels seen in the water

samples? Hopefully our witnesses will have some answers.

But equally important, is the longer-term question of whether or not our system

properly responded to the incident. It has been almost 2 years since the first water

samples tested high in lead.

What we know for certain is that somewhere between the source and the spigot,

something went wrong. What we need to know is why is it taking 2 years to solve

this problem.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

Senator Clinton.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator CLINTON. I want to thank you and Chairman Inhofe for

this hearing. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords for his

strong interest and leadership on this issue.

With your consent, I will submit the entire statement for the

record but I want to make a few additional points.

There is no safe level of lead and recent studies, one concluded

last April published in the New England Journal of Medicine, followed 172 children in Rochester, NY and measured blood lead levels at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months and tested their IQs at

36 and 60 months. The study found that most of the reduction in

IQ attributable to lead occurred at blood levels below 10 mpd which
50

is the level that the Centers for Disease Control considers to be the

threshold level for health effects.

The researchers found that IQ scores of children who had blood

lead levels of 10 mpd were about seven points lower than for children with levels of 1 mpd. An increase in blood levels from 10 to

30 mpd were associated with a small additional decline in IQ.

While this is only one study, there are a number of other research

findings that suggest what we currently consider to be a safe level

for lead is in fact too high. That underscores the seriousness of the

issue we are here to talk about today.

Lead exposure comes from a variety of sources and lead in drinking water accounts for only about 20 percent of lead exposures, but

if no level of lead is safe then any source of lead needs to be taken

very seriously. To the DC residents who are here, and that includes

many of us who serve in this body who live part-time inside the

District boundaries, I think you have a right to be disturbed and

have an absolute right to have your questions answered.

I don’t think it is productive in this hearing to try to assess

blame but at some point, we need to get specific questions answered. Why did WASA not notify residents about elevated lead

levels as soon as it had the test results? Why did the DC Health

Department engage in this issue when notified of the problems?

Why did EPA take so long to get involved? How is it possible that

WASA or no agency has accurate records about who has lead service lines and in the absence of such records, why is WASA refusing

to provide water filters to homes for which it does not have information one way or the other?

These are some of the questions I have. I look forward to this

hearing but I have to conclude by saying one of the great benefits

of living in our country over many, many decades has been that we

could count on the water we drank and the food we ate to be safe

much more so than in other countries in the world. For the capital

of our Nation to have this problem is deeply concerning. I am

grateful we are having this hearing and I also look forward to

working with Senator Jeffords on his legislation.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Clinton.

Without objection, full statements of any of the Senators will be

made a part of the record.

At this point, we would like to call our first panel. We thank you

all for joining us.

Before we begin, I would like to address a few of the rules of the

committee to all witnesses today. You will notice there is a clock

in front of you. You should have been informed you should keep

your oral testimony to 5 minutes. We thank you for your written

testimony, those of you who provided it, and we assure you we will

carefully review your written testimony. However, 5 minutes goes

by quickly and if you are like most witnesses, you will find your

5 minutes goes by before you are done saying everything you have

to say. We encourage you to watch the clock. If you do forget, I will

lightly tap the gavel to remind you to look down at it.

The reason for that is because we want to have the opportunity

to have dialog and discussion with you. You will find you will have

an opportunity to make a lot of your points that you didn’t get to
51

in your first 5 minutes as we get engaged in that dialog. So please

pay attention to the clock.

With that, let me introduce our first panel. We will ask you to

speak in the order I introduce you. We first have Benjamin H.

Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, EPA;

Donald Welsh, Director, Region III, EPA in Philadelphia; Jerry

Johnson, general manager, District of Columbia Water and Sewer

Authority; Dr. Daniel Lucey, interim chief health officer, District of

Columbia Department of Health; and Thomas B. Jacobus, general

manager, Washington Aqueduct, Baltimore District, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.

Gentlemen, we thank you for coming and for your preparation.

Mr. Grumbles, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ACTING ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Thank you. Thank you for having this hearing and for putting

together such a balanced presentation of witnesses to cover all the

perspectives and issues we are all facing here.

I want to say on behalf of EPA that we, like you, are asking a

lot of tough questions of ourselves as well as questions of our colleagues. We want to focus on collaborating together, not finger

pointing, coming up with solutions, concrete actions, restoring the

quality of the water and the confidence of the public here in the

District and making sure that this situation doesn’t happen in

other places throughout the country.

I would like to touch on a few things, then I will turn to Don

Welsh, who is the Regional Administrator, and has a more local

perspective in terms of what is happening in the District itself. I

just wanted to touch on a few items from the national perspective.

The first thing I would like to say is that EPA places a very high

priority on reducing exposure to lead. As you all pointed out very

eloquently, it is a neurotoxin, a very dangerous poison and it is all

of our jobs to ensure that exposure to lead is prevented or reduced.

The next point I would like to make is that the 1991 Lead and

Copper Rule signaled a fundamental change in that we went from

having a 50 ppb MCL at the treatment plant itself to a different

approach which would try to take into account the bad things that

can happen once the water leaves the treatment plant and goes

through the distribution systems to the homes and buildings in

communities. That resulted in an action level and the focus of the

rule is on corrosion control, monitoring, public education and if necessary, lead service line replacement.

I am asked repeatedly whether this a national problem. I would

say from the data we have, it is not so much a national problem

as it is a localized problem and a national opportunity. This is an

opportunity to look hard at the existing regulatory framework, to

look particularly hard at the monitoring and public education requirements and really focus on what we can all do, not just from

a local perspective with respect to the District of Columbia, but

also from the national perspective.

EPA is doing several things. One is that we have initiated a national compliance review to determine whether or not there is a na-
52

tional problem, what success there has been since the 1991 rule,

and also to determine how well the current rule is being implemented, focusing particularly on monitoring, public education and

communication. We are also reviewing within our Office of Water,

various aspects of current policy and also issues associated with

the rule to determine whether or not the policies or the regulation

itself should be revised. We are establishing several work groups

with the benefit of experts to look at simultaneous compliance

issues, sampling protocols and possibly also public education, how

best to advance what we did in 2002 and that was to issue guidance on public education for lead and drinking water, how to communicate and keep communities informed.

We are very concerned and want to be very proactive with respect to lead and drinking water at schools and day care facilities.

I have written to all the State Environmental and Public Health

Commissioners asking them to share with us what they are doing

on that front. Do they test regularly for lead in drinking water at

schools, what protocols they are following, what results they are

finding, what EPA could do recognizing our limited legal authorities when it comes to schools and day care facilities, to provide additional guidance or leadership?

The last thing I would say is that from a national perspective,

if there is a silver lining in this lead problem in the District, it is

that it gives us all an opportunity to focus on areas such as public

education, communication and monitoring and the importance of

water infrastructure.

So we look forward to working with you, your colleagues and all

the stakeholders and concerned citizens on this issue.

Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles.

Mr. Welsh.

STATEMENT OF DONALD WELSH, DIRECTOR, REGION III,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. WELSH. Good afternoon. I am Don Welsh, the Regional Administrator for USEPA, Region III.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of lead in the tap water of District of Columbia residents and the steps that EPA and other agencies are

taking to resolve the problem on a short- and long-term basis.

Elevated levels of lead in the environment, whether in drinking

water or lead paint, can pose significant risks to health, particularly to pregnant women and young children. Reducing exposure to

all sources of lead is vital to protecting the health of our citizens.

It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District continue to live with fear and uncertainty over the quality of the water

they drink. At EPA, we will not be satisfied until all aspects of this

problem are resolved. There is no higher priority for my office than

to work with the city to protect the residents.

To that end, EPA and the District of Columbia have directed,

and are closely monitoring, a series of interim measures with firm

deadlines to ensure that residents have safe drinking water and a

proper precautionary guidance. At the same time, a multi-agency
53

Technical Expert Working Group is acting as quickly as possible to

identify and correct the cause of the elevated lead levels.

The city and EPA have had regular meetings and conversations

to monitor progress and to ensure necessary actions are being

taken.

By way of background, EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule requires

systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent lead and copper

from leaching into drinking water. To assure corrosion control is effective, the rule establishes an action level of 15 parts per billion

for lead. If lead concentrations exceed the action level in more than

10 percent of the taps sampled, the system must intensify tap

water sampling and undertake a number of additional actions to

control corrosion and to educate the public about steps they should

take to protect their health. If the problem is not abated, the system must also begin a lead service line replacement program.

The results of DC’s required tap monitoring exceeded the 15 ppb

action level for 10 percent of taps monitored during 6 of 15 reporting periods since January 1992, 3 times prior to 1994 and 3 times

since 2002. An Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment limit implemented by the Aqueduct appeared to be effective in minimizing

lead levels until the sampling period between July 2001 and June

30, 2002. According to reports filed by WASA, the 90th percentile

value had increased to 75 ppb during that period and registered at

40 ppb and 63 ppb for 2 subsequent monitoring periods.

On October 27, 2003, EPA Region III received results from a separate lead service line sampling program conducted by WASA indicating that 3,372 of 4,613 service lines tested had numbers exceeding the action level, many by a large margin. The information was

reviewed by our technical staff with an eye toward determining

how to address the underlying cause of the corrosion problem.

As indicated, WASA and the District of Columbia Government

are undertaking a series of actions outlined by EPA to address the

public health threat posed by lead in drinking water. WASA will

ensure delivery by April 10 of certified water filters and consumer

instructions to occupants and homes and buildings with lead service lines. Periodic replacement of the filters will also be assured.

Additional tap water sampling has begun in schools as part of a

broader program to test a representative group of facilities that are

not served by lead service lines to determine the full scope of the

problem. WASA has committed to an accelerated schedule for physically replacing lead service lines in the District. WASA is expediting notification to customers of the results of water sampling at

their residences, committing to providing results in 30 days or less.

As EPA, the District and WASA continue to expand outreach efforts to provide important information to consumers, WASA is providing an enhanced public education plan to reach all sectors of the

population in an effective way. EPA is undertaking a compliance

audit of WASA’s lead service line and public education actions. In

letters to WASA last week, EPA asserts instances in which requirements were not met, ,and as part of the enforcement process, requires WASA to provide information to EPA responding to those

findings.

In a separate initiative, an internal EPA team is evaluating

WASA’s prior outreach efforts, a process to be completed by
54

month’s end that involves a review of materials, interviews with

residents and public officials and a survey of best practices from

public water systems around the country.

It is clear that WASA was ineffective in informing the public of

the magnitude of the lead problem in drinking water and in conveying the steps families and individuals should take to protect

themselves. Mass media tools, including direct contact with media

representatives, as is recommended in EPA guidance, were not

used effectively.

The Region is also taking a critical look back at how we could

have done a better job in our oversight capacity to ensure the public interest is being served by WASA’s actions. There will continue

to be lessons learned that will benefit the agency in the future. The

Technical Expert Working Group made up of representatives from

the public and private sectors is making progress in identifying the

cause of the elevated lead levels. By next week, EPA is scheduled

to receive a proposal from the technical team for a water chemistry

change to reduce corrosion and maintain other protections. Under

the proposed timetable, a partial system test is currently planned

for June 1 followed by full system implementation on or about September 1. EPA has formed an independent peer review group to

check the team’s findings.

In closing, working closely with the District of Columbia, our

public service partners and concerned citizens, we will continue to

aggressive act to protect residents and resolve the lead problem.

We are taking action to hasten the day when the citizens of the

District of Columbia can once again be confident in the safety of

their drinking water.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information this

afternoon. I am pleased to answer any questions that you have.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Welsh.

Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY

Mr. JOHNSON. Good afternoon.

I am Jerry Johnson, general manager of the District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority. I am pleased to be here to provide testimony about WASA’s endeavors relative to lead replacement program and the issues of elevated lead levels in some homes in the

District of Columbia.

It goes without saying that these issues are of the utmost importance and this is an excellent opportunity to reassure this panel

and the residents of the District of Columbia that working expeditiously to find lasting solutions is absolutely WASA’s highest priority.

There are several critical areas I wish to cover today and answer

the questions members of the committee have. I will attempt to follow the outline as put forth in your letter of invitation. First,

WASA has undertaken an aggressive effort to distribute filters to

residents it believes have lead service lines in the District of Columbia. As of today, WASA has distributed filters to all of these

households, some 27,000 of them, and will provide replacement fil-
55

ters for a 6-month supply. In addition, over 200 filters have been

distributed to home day care centers with lead service lines.

Second, WASA is working tirelessly to keep customers informed

regarding all facets of the lead issue. WASA recently expanded its

lead service hotline, a program we initiated in January 2003, to facilitate direct communication with our customers. We have added

personnel to allow us to staff operations for 12 hours a day, Monday through Friday and 9 hours a day on weekends. Since February, the hotline has fielded over 45,000 calls and 6,200 e-mails.

Our website, which is continuously updated, averages about 1,700

visits per day. The March and April edition of our monthly newsletter, ‘‘What’s on Tap,’’ which is distributed to 125,000 plus residents of the District, focuses on the lead issue and provides advice

to customers.

Also, since February 2004, WASA has supported 10 joint public

information meetings across the city, along with the DC Department of Health and the Washington Aqueduct and another 15 to

16 ANC and civic association groups where we have also had joint

appearances. It is estimated that approximately 1,500 residents

have attended these meetings. In addition, in February WASA sent

mailings to every address in the District of Columbia, over 360,000,

residents regarding the lead issue.

The mailings, which were multilingual, contained a Department

of Health fact sheet, general information about the subject of lead

and water and contained precautions that residents should take regarding the use of water. WASA has also made available brochures

and maps in all libraries and community centers throughout the

center. We are currently in the process of contacting by mail, residents we believe are served by lead service pipes to provide additional information on flushing and encourage those residents who

have not already done so, to avail themselves of tap water testing

at no cost to them.

We are also contacting approximately 21,000 as opposed to

37,000 residents for which there is no record of the pipe materials

our customers have in the data base. That is simply because we are

maintaining historical records that date back to 1901 and they are

just not all in place. In addition, a direction communication with

customers, WASA has conducted media briefings and representatives for the board and management have appeared before congressional committees, hearings and briefings of the DC Council, the

Mayor and attended regular mayoral press briefings.

Additionally, WASA has reached agreement with the George

Washington University School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health to provide the Authority with

assistance and advice in a number of health related areas.

Third, getting to the root problem by conducting research as to

why there is an increase in some homes and which specific homes

are affected will continue to be a priority for WASA. Currently we

are working with EPA, the Washington Aqueduct, the DC Department of Health, and respected scientists and experts on this problem.

We have also increased the number of lead service pipes in public space that are to be replaced this year, adding about 50 percent

to those with an addition of $7 million that has been provided by
56

the Board of Directors, putting the lead replacement number from

800 to 1,300 this year with an additional 300 that we expect to be

undertaken by the District of Columbia through its Road Replacement Program.

In addition, the Board has been considering, through a resolution adopted at its last meeting, a $350 million proposal to replace

every one of the estimated 2,300 lead service lines in the District

by 2010. Community input on this proposal will be sought over the

next 2 months. Since lead service pipes are in both public space

and private space, we will work with homeowners to replace those

in their space and are working currently with the District in an effort to find financial assistance and looking at options for these citizens having difficulty in paying that cost.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will end my testimony. I noticed the

red light is on and rather than your dropping the gavel, I would

be glad to respond to any questions you have but we want you to

know it is WASA’s intention to address this challenge in a manner

that works for our city, for our residents, for the visitors who come

to our city and to implement the solution as quickly and as reasonably as possible. We at WASA are firmly committed to doing this

and welcome the collaboration of our partners, some of whom are

here today.

Thank you. I am prepared to answer any questions you may

have.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

Dr. Lucey.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. LUCEY, INTERIM CHIEF HEALTH

OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Dr. LUCEY. Good afternoon.

My name is Daniel Lucey. I am the interim chief medical officer

for the DC Department of Health. In the next 5 minutes, prior to

responding to your questions, I would like to summarize my background and list several key points about the lead issues in Washington, DC.

I am a physician trained in adult medicine and infectious diseases with a Master’s Degree in Public Health. After serving in the

military as a physician, I joined the Public Health Service while

working at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and

Drug Administration.

During 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, I was the

Chairman of the Infectious Disease Service at the nearby Washington Hospital Center in DC and subsequently in 2002, was involved with the smallpox vaccination program and in 2003 with

SARS, traveling to Hong Kong, working in a hospital in Toronto

with patients with SARS, and in 2004, earlier this year with avian

influenza.

On February 10 of this year, I began work at the DC Department

of Health with a focus on biodefense. On February 13, 3 days later,

I attended a Lead Task Force meeting. Every day since then, I

have worked on lead issues. Although not a lead expert, I have approached learning about the lead issues through an intensive process much like learning about other previously unfamiliar to me diseases such as anthrax, SARS and avian influenza.
57

On President’s Day, Monday, February 16, I contacted the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie

Gerberding, to request advice from lead experts at the CDC. Her

response was immediate that day and since then, we have received

outstanding CDC assistance. In fact, even today, there are CDC experts onsite with us at the Department of Health.

On February 26, 2004, the city administrator, Mr. Robert Bob,

instructed me to direct the Department of Health response to lead

issues. Later that day, I completed and signed a health advisory

letter from the Department of Health to the approximately 23,000

residences in DC with lead service lines. The letter is Attachment

I and has been translated into six languages. The advisory contained recommendations about drinking water and measuring

blood lead levels in persons most at risk for lead poisoning.

In order to assess the health impact of increased lead concentrations in the water, to knowledge no such widespread health advisory on lead in drinking water has ever been issued in the United

States. Our findings may be useful to other cities if they find increased lead concentrations in their drinking water.

In order to provide blood lead level testing by the Department of

Health starting on the 28th of February at DC General Hospital,

we mobilized many persons within the Department of Health. In

addition, on Monday, March 1, I contacted the U.S. Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Dr. Richard Carmona to request additional personnel assistance. He responded immediately that day and via Admiral Babb and the Commissioned Corps Readiness Force, provided

a team of public health service officers over the next 4 weeks who

worked very long hours with us in clinics all across the District of

Columbia. They also went with us to several hundred homes of persons at high risk of lead poisoning in the District. On March 30,

the DC Department of Health, the Commission Corps Readiness

Force and the CDC published our preliminary findings on blood

lead levels in the CDC’s publication called ‘‘Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.’’

I would like to summarize six key points. First, none of the 201

persons we tested for blood lead levels who live in homes with the

highest measured levels of lead in the drinking water, greater than

300 ppb, have had elevated blood lead levels defined as Senator

Clinton said by 10 mpd for children and 25 mpd for adults.

Second, from 2000 to 2003, the percentage of children less than

6 years of age with elevated blood lead levels continued to decline

in the District of Columbia, both in homes with and homes without

lead service lines. The percentage of children with blood lead levels

greater than or equal to 5 mpd did not decline in homes with lead

service lines although this percent did decline in homes without

lead service lines.

Third, only 2 of the initial 280, less than 1 percent, of children

in home child care facilities with lead service lines have had elevated blood lead levels.

Fourth, of the initial 4,106 persons who came to our clinics

across the District of Columbia for free blood level testing in our

laboratory, 1,277 were young children less than 6, of which 16 had

elevated blood lead levels. The initial 14 children have been found

to live in homes with dust and/or soil lead levels exceeding EPA
58

and HUD guidelines. The homes of the other two children are currently being evaluated.

Fifth, according to the CDC from 1976 to 1980, nearly 9 of 10,

that is 88.2 percent of children at that time age 1 to 5 years of age

and therefore now adults 24 to 28, had blood levels that today are

considered elevated, namely at least 10 mpd.

Sixth, the EPA ‘‘action level’’ for lead in drinking water, 15 ppb,

is not a health-based recommendation. I would like to quote from

the website that has been devoted to the Washington, DC area on

the drinking water issue.

‘‘The action level was not designed to measure health risks from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a statistical trigger that if exceeded requires more treatment, public education and possibly lead service line replacement.’’

Thank you for your time and I would be pleased to respond to

your questions.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucey.

Mr. Jacobus.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER,

WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. JACOBUS. Good afternoon.

I am Tom Jacobus, the general manager of the Washington Aqueduct. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Washington Aqueduct, which is part of the Baltimore District of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a public water utility. We are

regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

in Philadelphia. Washington Aqueduct provides potable water, not

just to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, but

also to Arlington County, VA and the city of Fall Church’s service

area and Virginia as well. All funds for the operation and capital

improvements for the Washington Aqueduct come from its customers. The provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its associated regulations are the basis for all operations concerning the

production, storage and transmission of the drinking water produced and sold by Washington Aqueduct to its wholesale customers. The primary objective of the treatment process is to

produce and deliver water to the tap that is free of contaminants

and pleasant to drink. To achieve that objective, we do three things

simultaneously. We kill harmful bacteria, we remove organic and

inorganic contaminants and we provide optimal corrosion control.

Corrosion control treatment is designed to reduce lead and copper

leaching into drinking water and to keep the concentrations below

the action level in accordance with the lead and copper rule.

For many years we have accomplished that by the use of lime to

adjust the pH of the water, but the recent sampling in the District

of Columbia has resulted in unexpectedly high lead levels. Therefore, the corrosion control treatment needs to be reevaluated based

on intensive analysis of current operations and the use of analytical models. Our team of engineers and scientists has recommended

adding a phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor to the treatment process. We anticipate that EPA will approve this change by May 1 so
59

that by June 1 we can apply a new chemistry to a portion of the

distribution system.

The full system application will begin by September 1. Our cost

estimates for the work are $925,000 for research and engineering

analysis and laboratory studies; $250,000 for the partial system application and $3.1 million for interim facilities for full scale application. The additional chemical costs will be about $1 million per

year. While it will take several months to measure the effects, we

have confidence that this change will be effective in reducing the

lead leaching.

I have one additional point I think is important to mention as

we move forward. Washington Aqueduct and its wholesale customers have standing financial and technical working groups that

regularly address ongoing operations and evaluate capital improvements. Based on our experience in the last 8 weeks, we see opportunities to improve data sharing among the customers pertaining

to lead and copper corrosion. We intend to take the necessary steps

to do that.

This concludes my introductory remarks. I will be happy to respond to your questions.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Jacobus.

I will begin with questions. We are going to do 5 minute rounds

but we will do a number of rounds so that all the Senators have

an opportunity to get out their questions.

My first question is for you, Mr. Grumbles. You mentioned the

national review you are conducting right now on lead. Can you tell

me what this review has already revealed about how the rule on

lead is performing, how it is working and how it is being complied

with?

Mr. GRUMBLES. So far, what we have done is reviewed the data

that we have in the SDWIS. What we have found is that only 4

of 199 systems serving more than 50,000 people have exceeded the

15 ppb action level since 2000. One of those was the District of Columbia. All of the systems except the District are now back below

the action level. For systems serving between 3,300 and 50,000

people, 56 of the 1,761 systems have exceeded the action level since

2000 and only 14 reported to exceed the level since 2002.

I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that we are not comfortable

with the amount of data we have received to date. One of the

things that is part of our national compliance review is to write to

and encourage the States to provide more information on compliance pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Lead and

Copper Rule. The point is that while so far the numbers are indicating to us through the SDWIS Program that it is not a crisis, we

do need to get more information from the systems. I think only 22

percent of them have provided that information and there are several States, 23, who have not provided that information on the 90th

percentile reporting.

Senator CRAPO. So this is preliminary information which is certainly not complete at this point.

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is correct.

Senator CRAPO. This question is for either you, Mr. Grumbles or

Mr. Welsh. I would like to go into the action level and exactly what
60

it means. Dr. Lucey quoted it in his testimony. That quote in the

EPA’s statement is that,

‘‘The action level was not designed to measure health risks from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a statistical trigger that if exceeded requires more treatment, public education and possibly lead service line replacement.’’

Whichever of you feels most qualified to respond, explain what

does it mean when we identify that an action level has been exceeded?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think what Dr. Lucey has said is an important

point. The action level is not health based in the sense of an maximum contaminant level or MCL. When it was established, when

the number 15 ppb was established, there were health factors

taken into account. There were also feasibility factors in terms of

what steps could be taken after that was reached. The analysis in

the preamble to the 1991 rule describes how health factors were

considered.

It triggers actions, specific requirements for optimizing corrosion

control, for carrying out additional monitoring and for doing a very

specific, detailed, public education or public notification process. It

also requires at the end of that process, if you are still exceeding

that 15 ppb, a specific lead service line replacement study and program replacing 7 percent of your lead service lines a year.

Senator CRAPO. If I understand correctly, please be sure you correct me if I am incorrect, the level and the action level has been

set at such a point that when it is triggered, there is still time for

an effective response if there is a response forthcoming to avoid a

serious health risk? Is that correct?

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is correct. There are dozens of cities and

towns across the country that have exceeded that 15 ppb. The good

news is from the data we have, most of those cities or towns have

reduced the action level and we are finding it is not exceeding it

in those cities and towns but again, I want to caveat that one of

the lessons we are learning from this experience is that the decisions we make and the determinations of compliance are only as

good as the amount of data and sampling that we have.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I see my first 5 minutes are up. We

will turn to Senator Jeffords now.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

I have been frequently told by parents if I had only known, I

would have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the witnesses

to tell me how you are responding to this question, what explanation are you giving parents of children who were unnecessarily

exposed to lead in their drinking water and what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?

Let me give you my own personal experience. We moved here 20

some years ago. I, being a macho man, drank this water and my

wife came down with the kids and said, ‘‘no, we are going to get

bottled water to make sure the kids get good water’’. We did that.

Then the other day I said, ‘‘do you test the bottled water’’ and I

found out no. I wonder if we are doing anything about the options

to make sure when I go out and pay good money for bottled water,

is that healthy or do you know?
61

Mr. GRUMBLES. Two points. One is in 2002, EPA recognized that

the success of the Lead and Copper Rule depends on the ability to

communicate effectively the timely and accurate information to the

citizens of the community, so we developed a Lead Public Education Guidebook, a guidance document, because of the importance

of communicating on that front.

With respect to bottled water, as you know the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act set up a framework where

the Food and Drug Administration regulates the quality of the bottled water industry and to the extent EPA has established maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the

FDA is required to impose a standard on the bottled water industry. I believe I understand that for lead, the FDA has established

a 5 ppb standard for bottled water.

I think your point about ensuring consumer confidence in the

country is a key one. The 1996 amendments to the Act which establishes the consumer confidence reports, the value of which continues to be realized over and over again because it is the public

citizens, the mothers, the parents, the families who are actually in

the best position to monitor the success of the implementation of

the Lead and Copper Rule. Obviously the regulatory agencies, EPA,

is entrusted and has that responsibility but the consumer confidence reports and the public education components of the Lead

and Cooper Rule are critical to avoiding situations like we find ourselves in today.

Senator JEFFORDS. Is there any requirement that the bottled

water has to let you know what is in it?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I honestly don’t know what the requirements are

on the bottled water industry. I know the Food and Drug Administration has that statutory responsibility.

Senator JEFFORDS. I understand there aren’t, but I just wanted

to know.

Mr. GRUMBLES. From an EPA perspective, we have an interest

just like you in understanding and in being able to provide an answer to that question. We will commit to doing that.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. Senator Clinton.

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask each one of you to answer two questions briefly for me. No. 1, looking backward, what mistake did you or your

agency make in handling this matter? No. 2, looking forward, what

is the one thing that you believe should be done in order to remedy

the situation we find ourselves in? Why don’t we start with Mr. Jacobus?

Mr. JACOBUS. We have a wholesale/retail relationship with our

customers. Every day we have great visibility over the bacteriological content of the water throughout all three distribution systems—Arlington, Falls Church service area, and the District of Columbia. We test the water in our laboratory from samples at the

plant, samples from the distribution system, either that we take

ourselves or are brought to us for 35,000–40,000 tests a year. We

have great visibility on the bacteriological and the chemical contaminants in the water leaving the treatment plants, disinfection

byproduct rule compliance, all of that.
62

The mistake, to answer your question, is that we did not have

the same visibility for the lead and copper samples. The samples

are taken in a different way. They are taken throughout a period

of the year. It is not a go/no-go on each individual sample. So we

did not have all the samples collected at our organization; they

were at different locations in two different jurisdictions under the

State of Virginia’s Health Department and EPA’s regulatory responsibilities for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.

We had the ability and we will take the initiative to bring that

data together so that we can help all our customers and give them

the benefit of our systemwide look. Even though every day, we paid

attention to the optimal corrosion control treatment and that the

water leaving the plant was at the specification for what we had

agreed in our scientific-based study with EPA of how to treat the

water and we were getting anecdotal evidence occasionally of a

high reading. It wasn’t until the spring of 2003 when EPA, reacting

to WASA’s results in 2001 and 2002, said we need to open this and

start looking, so we started down that road.

We did not have perfect knowledge of the big picture. We can get

that knowledge even though it is regulatory, but because we think

it is a responsible thing to do. I hope that answers your question.

Senator CLINTON. It certainly does and I appreciate that. Perhaps it would help if it were required by regulation so that at least

all the players, all the stakeholders are at the table, but I appreciate that very much.

Dr. Lucey.

Dr. LUCEY. Looking back, again, I have been here since February

10 but nevertheless, I think looking back what we might have done

differently was to have the type of face-to-face, verbal and phone

interactions within the Department of Health, with EPA and with

WASA and with Washington Aqueduct to discuss the issue about

the action level has been exceeded. What does that mean? Is that

a health-based risk or is it not? It is not, but could there be health

implications? Yes, there could be. How are we going to answer that

question? For me it is a clinical or medical approach and I think

the folks that initially heard about the elevated water lead concentrations within the Department of Health were not the clinical

and medical folks.

As you know, there is new leadership now in the DC Department

of Health. The top two people are no longer in the Department of

Health as of two Fridays ago and I think the new interim leadership is very, very strong. That is one recommendation I have made

to the new leadership, to have more involvement within the Department of Health of the clinical and non-clinical individuals.

As far as looking forward, I think although there are many

things that could be done to try to remedy this situation and any

others developed in the future, I think a major one is to have the

types of interactions we have had for the past couple months within the Department of Health and outside with EPA, with WASA,

with Washington Aqueduct in terms of discussion of what is the

best advice we can do and how we can best communicate that to

the public?
63

For example, briefly, how to prioritize lead service line replacements if that is what is going to happen, as we have heard it is

on an accelerated basis. In my opinion, it is very important not

only for the Department of Health to be involved in that decisionmaking but to work with the new clinical team coming on board

with WASA from George Washington University to work directly

with EPA in the formulation of the prioritization of lead service

line replacement, as well as with the Department of Transportation

and everyone else who needs to be involved. Do that right now

from the beginning and we are doing that.

Senator CLINTON. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and as I look back

over this issue and consider mistakes that were made, I think probably the one that is most resounding was our focus on trying to

comply with Federal regulations as opposed to looking at a broader

picture in terms of where our customers were, what they were

thinking and the need to get information to them perhaps sooner.

Early on in this process, we were only working with a small sample base of 50 homes in the District and did not have a clear fix

on what that meant for the broader district. I felt, and it was my

decision, I assume responsibility for it, that at that point, it was

not appropriate to raise a flag and begin to alarm people in the

District about a problem we were having. As you know, we went

forward and did a broader base of sampling than has ever been

done in the United States of America. That showed some results

that were concerning to us. We didn’t know what the results

meant, we are not the medical experts, not the regulatory experts.

We think we got that information to them in a timely fashion and

we believe with all sincerity we did make all the efforts that were

required and I won’t go through the list of things in front of me

to comply with Federal regulations.

An audit subsequently conducted by EPA suggested that there

were some technical issues we may not have meant requirements

and we will go back and respond to those over the next 21 days.

I think that would be the mistake. I think we should have been focused more on the community in the District of Columbia than we

were on the regulators but if you are regulated, you have to meet

certain other requirements.

As we go forward, I think the two points made by both Dr. Lucey

and Mr. Jacobus are very valid. I think there needs to be a more

formalized relationship established between the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, the District’s Health Department

in order for us to grab these issues early on in the process and be

able to have a stronger collaborative relationship. We had focused

on the relationship between Aqueduct and their customers in Virginia who are also partners of ours in that business relationship.

We began, when this issue first came up, to start looking at the

water. I think we probably could have pursued that as another

mistake. We probably could have pursued that more aggressively

when the first 50 samples came back to take a look at that the production side of it and the chemistry of the water.

As we go forward I think that kind of collaborative relationship

is very important and I really think the District ought to look at

the possibility of having primacy in this area. The USEPA has pri-
64

macy in two jurisdictions for water distribution systems, the District of Columbia and I believe in Wyoming, so there are different

relationships that get established with the regulatory bodies when

you are working with a local entity that has a better sense of what

is happening in that community and how that community needs to

respond.

I am sorry for being so long-winded but that is a very important

question.

Mr. WELSH. I believe when there is an exceedance of the action

level, the spirit of the Lead and Copper Rule is to make sure that

any of the citizens who might be exposed to a higher level of lead

understand that fully, know that they might be exposed and have

good information in their hands about how to reduce their exposure

to lead. That goal is clearly what was not met in this instance. As

Jerry mentioned, WASA took actions to get information into peoples’ hands and in our review, we determined that some of the specific requirements weren’t met fully, but the larger issue is that the

information that was put out wasn’t really getting home to the

folks who needed to have that information so they fully understood

it was important to them, they should pay attention and follow the

directions put in there so they would know what they were exposed

to and understand how to limit their exposure.

Looking backward, we weren’t aggressive enough, we weren’t

thorough enough and didn’t find those deficiencies soon enough,

both in the letter of what was required under the rule but also in

that larger question of even if the language is put out there and

made available in documents, is it a message that is getting home

to folks and are they really understanding it.

Going forward, we want to change our review procedures in the

region so that we do not only a thorough job of checking the letter

of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule but that we also take

the time to make the judgment about whether that message is

being received, much in the way marketing folks do when their

commercials and advertisements go out, they can measure in the

public whether that message is being received.

So we have changed our operating procedure so that it is not just

the technical person in the Drinking Water Branch who reviews

the reports for whether they have complied with the rule, but that

we also call in the communications expertise that we have available in the region as well as if necessary to do contracts for folks

on the outside who are experts in the area of communications to

make sure not only in the future that the reg is fulfilled, but that

also the message is being effective and that we measure out in the

public do you folks who need to know this know? That is what we

would like to do going forward.

Mr. GRUMBLES. I couldn’t have said it better. From the national

perspective, the EPA does want to also acknowledge that it is not

just following the letter of the rule, it is the spirit of the rule and

that is partly our responsibility too, to be proactive and help oversee that not just the letter, but the spirit, the public education and

other aspects of the Lead and Copper Rule are followed. That is

certainly one of our objectives, acting proactively.

The other one is this whole issue of simultaneous compliance.

Providing drinking water to the public can be a tricky balancing
65

act, given various regulations and requirements. We plan to have

a workshop in May with national experts. You have the Disinfection Byproduct Rule, you have the Lead and Copper Rule. How do

you ensure it is all working together and there are not unintended

consequences?

Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Let me proceed a little further. As many of you

probably know, yesterday, Senator Jeffords and I and Mayor Williams and several others joined some of the constituents here in

Washington, DC and discussed with them their concerns. One of

the concerns they raised was that under the testing procedures, it

was difficult for them as individuals in individual homes to find out

the results of the tests on their own homes. Until certain statistical

levels had been reached, individual findings for individual homes

didn’t trigger a response.

First of all, is that true? Is that the way the system works, an

individual or family can have a test in their home and not be able

to find out the results of those tests or not be able to get effective

action on the basis of one home getting a negative test or a test

that exceeds the limits?

Mr. JOHNSON. I assume that question is for me?

Senator CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would respond that when we started doing the

testing we had what we thought was an effective approach for getting test kits out to people, getting them back and it was sort of

a Cadillac service where we delivered them by FedEx, we went by

and picked them up physically, took them to the lab and had them

sampled.

When we started moving into tens of thousands of tests as opposed to a couple hundred, we simply did not change the system

rapidly enough and there were some delays in getting tests back

to people. I would concede that. I think we have a very effective

approach for doing that now and have corrected that. As this problem has evolved because there is no road map or blueprint, we

have had to change things and learn as we have gone along. I

think there are very effective measures now for getting those tests

results back and we generally guarantee them within about 30

days. Usually it is about a 3 to 31⁄2 week turnaround in reality.

With respect to explaining what they meant, we at the Water

and Sewer Authority simply did not have the capacity to explain

what they meant. I was around when the Lead and Copper Rule

was done working in water utility back in the late 1980s and early

1990s when that rule was put in place. I knew there was not a

health-based standard for that, so we were not capable of explaining what the health impacts are, what this elevated level meant.

All we could do was get something back to the person and explain

to them you are over the action level which is in the 90th percentile of that 15 ppb and would have relied on health experts to

provide that kind of followup and information to the customer.

Senator CRAPO. So if I understand, you have a system in place

now where within 30 days an individual who has their home tested, can get their results back for that home. Is that true about not

only the response testing, but also the standard routine samples of

50 homes that are done on an ongoing basis?
66

Mr. JOHNSON. Because we have exceeded the trigger level, we

have one group of homes that are regulatory samples and we treat

those separately from the ones we are doing upon demand and request. The regulatory sample set is 100 in the spring and 100 in

the fall and they are being managed in a totally different process

than the ones we are doing as random tests or tests upon demand.

Senator CRAPO. Are the people in the regulatory sample notified

about how their homes are qualified?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. They are.

Senator CRAPO. So everyone, whether they are in the demand or

the regulatory test is getting the notice as to what the results are

for their home within the 30 days?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Another issue that came up yesterday, you indicated you had already distributed about 27,000 filters. Those filters are distributed

on the basis of those who are identified as having a lead pipe delivery system to their home, correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, sir.

Senator CRAPO. One concern that was raised yesterday is that

there are something like 37,000 homes for which there are no

records as to what the delivery pipes consist of. The people in that

category are not able to get a filter. They don’t know whether they

have a lead pipe distribution system and they are not able to get

a filter or a support from WASA in terms of dealing with what they

perceive to be a lead problem.

What is in place to help those who fall in that category of the

37,000 homes for which we don’t have information?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have been working for a couple of months in

an effort to try to clean up some historical records where information has never been compiled before in the District of Columbia

with respect to service pipes. We have a period of time where everything was recorded, we know the plumber paid a dollar to make

the tap connection, what the material was and who the plumber

was. We have some records that only show a date that it was done.

We had to go through what existed manually and after going

through those, we found about 21,000 as opposed to the 37,000, I

would like to correct that number and I am not sure how 37,000

got created some time ago, it is about 21,000. We are notifying

those people by a letter that has already been translated into the

standard six languages and those letters will be going out to those

residents either late this week or early next week, along with a

postage-paid return card asking them to send that to us and we

will get a water test kit out to them on a priority basis so they can

test their water and determine if they have high lead levels.

There are a number of those addresses that have been compiled

in those historical records that simply some of them don’t exist

anymore. If you have been living in Washington for a while, you

know there has been a great deal of redevelopment. These records

go back a good ways in time. Some have changed their use. There

are a number of different circumstances. We are unable, except to

go out on the street, to identify those. We think this is the most

efficient way.
67

Anyone who shows an elevated level in the second draw of that

test will automatically be mailed a filter with all of the instructions. We think having a two-part process is the most efficient and

effective way of pursuing that.

Senator CRAPO. One last quick followup. Is it possible, under the

system you now have in place, for any resident of the District who

may feel your records are inaccurate or they fall in the category of

homes where there is no information or are just really concerned

about this issue, for them to request a test kit, have the test conducted and if the test shows their home has high levels, get a filter?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAPO. So any resident of the District has that right?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We have set aside resources to do a number of tests, something in excess of $2 million and are prepared to

handle it. If we get an onslaught and a heavy volume, we can’t do

it but we would urge those persons with lead service lines to be the

first priority. We do know many of our records are very, very accurate. Anything that was built after 1950 is not likely to have a lead

service line because those lead service lines were outlawed after

that time. We feel comfortable with anything that came during that

period.

If there is something other than a 2 inch going into a house, we

are 99 percent certain that would not be a lead service line because

they just didn’t make them much larger than 2 inch—we aren’t

aware that they main service lines larger than 2 inches. We think

it is a single family residential phenomena that we are working

with. In the case of apartment buildings, anything that is a

fourplex or better is going to have something larger than a 2 inch

line. So there are a number of things we can do to eliminate certain numbers.

If you notice, we have 130,000 customers in the District and the

numbers we have talked about in terms of lead is somewhere

around 23,000 that we feel fairly comfortable with and we have

this other group. The others, we are fairly certainly, are not lead

service lines.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Grumbles, your answer to Senator

Crapo’s question about the 15 ppb standard, you described the evolution of that standard. Can you describe why the EPA set the

maximum contaminant level goal which is a health-based standard

at zero?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, I can. When we regulate contaminants

such as lead under the Safe Drinking Water Act, we start with the

process of a maximum contaminant level goal. For lead there is no

safe level, certainly no safe level we can point to and say with a

margin of safety that there would not be some adverse health effect. So we did establish zero as the MCLG for lead.

Senator JEFFORDS. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I

have asked the Senate Health, Education and Labor and Pensions

Committee—which I formerly chaired—to hold a hearing on childhood lead poisoning. I know we are not spending an extended time
68

today discussing children’s blood lead levels but I have one question for you on that.

The Centers for Disease Control Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention is currently undertaking a review

of its blood lead level standard to 10 mpd. Recent findings published in the April 17, 2003 edition of the New England Journal of

Medicine show that blood lead levels below the standard of 10 are

linked with declines in IQ. The study also shows that relative reduction of IQ is greater at lower concentrations of lead than at

higher concentrations. These findings suggest that even low levels

of lead can have devastating effects on children. I ask that this

study be included in the record.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection.

[The referenced document follows:]
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

Senator JEFFORDS. New research also shows that there may be

an identifiable link between childhood lead exposure and educational achievement and social behavior. I ask unanimous consent

to include several articles on this subject by Dr. Herbert

Needleman.

[The referenced document follows:]
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99

Senator JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that a report by the

CDC Advisory Committee be included in the record.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection.

[The referenced document follows:]
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

Senator JEFFORDS. The Heavy People 2010 Initiative of CDC

calls for the elimination of childhood lead poisoning by 2010, yet

the CDC website provides three reasons why blood levels should

not be reduced. It states that it is difficult to measure blood lead

level concentrations below 10. I ask unanimous consent to include

in the record a paper by Herbert Needleman which refutes this

claim and describes the technology advances that have lowered the

least observable effect level until it approaches zero.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection.

[The referenced document follows:]
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128

Senator JEFFORDS. The CDC website also states that no clinical

inventions can reduce blood lead levels below 10 and that there is

no evidence of a threshold below which adverse health effects are

not experienced. Then the CDC draws a conclusion that any effort

to reduce the standard would provide uncertain benefits, even

though there appears to be ample evidence that no levels of lead

in the blood is safe. This website appears to completely ignore the

fact that blood lead poisoning is preventable and that in places like

Washington, DC, the standard is used as a determining factor for

which families receive assistance from the DC Department of

Health.

The CDC identifies two focus areas to combat lead poisoning,

lead paint and lead end products. There is no mention of lead

drinking water. Given the apparent consensus that there is no level

of lead exposure that is safe, this situation is not understandable.

I can’t understand it. The EPA’s own website indicates that the

agency estimates that 20 percent of childhood lead poisoning is due

to exposure through drinking water. The agency set the maximum

containment level for lead in drinking water at zero because that

was the only level where no adverse effects will be experienced. I

ask unanimous consent that the relevant CDC and EPA websites

be included in the record also.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection.

[The referenced document follows:]
129
130
131
132
133

Senator JEFFORDS. Finally, what has EPA done to coordinate

with CDC on its elevation of the blood lead level standard to ensure that it is reflective of the science consensus on this issue, on

the CDC’s plan to combat lead poisoning and on the Healthy People 2010 goal of eliminating lead poisoning by 2010? Do you believe

the lead exposure in children can be eliminated in this country

without addressing lead in the drinking water problems and the

plumbing factors?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, I can appreciate your interest and your

leadership on this issue in terms of reducing exposure to lead in

drinking water, particularly to children. I would say on the first

part of the question about the relationship with CDC, we have

been working with CDC, we certainly have established very close

working relationships with them in the context of responding to

this situation here in the District.

With respect to the overall question of the No. 10 in measuring

blood lead levels and the safety of that, it is one of the items that

we intend to discuss and explore and review the scientific literature you have as we go about looking at what is the existing

guidance and what is the existing regulation because we do share

your interest in the most important bottom line and that is, what

is the impact on human health. How much lead in the drinking

water is too much? We welcome that and look forward to working

with you on that.

Senator JEFFORDS. I look forward to working with you and communicating with you.

Mr. WELSH. May I mention something we are doing locally, not

on the national scale but in Philadelphia in Region III we piloted

a program called Lead Safe Babies where we worked with the National Nursing Centers Consortium to actually have health professionals who go out into homes to talk to mothers and families

about the possible sources of exposure to lead that exists in their

homes. We thought that was very successful in Philadelphia and

we are expanding that funding and it will be called Lead Safe DC,

to work with the DC Department of Health not to supplant but to

augment efforts they are doing to get better information actually

into the hands of people in their homes about what their exposures

to lead might be so that we can take a look at the holistic issue

of lead exposure, paint, dust, soil, as well as drinking water. We

felt that was very successful in Philadelphia and are happy to expand that to DC to try to help improve the public’s knowledge

about those risks.

Senator CRAPO. Senator Clinton.

Senator CLINTON. Mr. Johnson, I want to make sure I understood your comment at the end of the previous question from the

Chairman. This is, in your view, primarily a single family home

problem, not a multiple unit problem?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, Senator.

Senator CLINTON. One thing I think might be worth considering

on the part of the DC Government, since there is some confusion

about the number of service lines that are of unknown composition

and I think the historical record problem is such that we may

never get to the bottom of that, it might be worth considering some

action that would provide filters for families in these categories of
134

uncertainty or even go to the extent of permitting a family to purchase this filter and attach the receipt to their property tax return

and deduct it from their costs. I think something needs to be done

to take action more quickly and to restore confidence.

The confusion that now exists over how many lead service lines

there are and how many unknown composition lines there are and

whether people are going to get tested and after they get tested,

how soon they can get a filter, there might be a way to short circuit

that and go ahead and absorb the cost now. We can argue later

about whether the EPA and the Federal Government should help

to reimburse since we have primary responsibility, but at least

move to get as many filters installed as quickly as possible.

I live in the District, my house was built in 1950, so I am right

on the cusp and I have had an ongoing dispute about whether we

do or do not have lead service lines but we have discovered that

we have lead lines in the house. So even if I have an unknown

composition line coming from the street, once it gets into the house,

I have lead lines. So I think there are perhaps several ways you

could short circuit this and also restore some confidence and provide some reassurance.

Finally, with respect to the overall review that I understand the

EPA may be engaged in, Mr. Grumbles and Mr. Welsh, I would appreciate your looking at the level of testing that is required. In

New York City it falls into a system serving more than 100,000

households and we have 8 million people living in New York City.

In order to meet that standard, we test 100 households and that

is sufficient but, there are more than 100 neighborhoods. Some are

single family neighborhoods, some are duplex neighborhoods, some

are apartment neighborhoods, some are public housing neighborhoods. We have as many different kinds of housing as you can find

anywhere in the country.

As you are going through this review, I want you to look at the

level of testing that is adequate for large systems, particularly a

system as large as New York and in light of the problem we have

had in DC, you think the regulations which allow systems to test

every 3 years for lead are adequately protective. We only test 100

sites every 3 years. Given what we are finding out, given the fact

we are changing the makeup of the chemicals put into the water,

we need to be checking on this more frequently. I appreciate Mr.

Jacobus’ comment that we need to make it more transparent so

that people know what is going on so we can immediately bring

people together to respond.

This is a matter of such great concern to all of us, the quality

of our drinking water, I share Senator Jeffords’ concern about bottled water. Based on my review of the FDA, there is not very much

testing and not very much regulation. A lot of people are spending

literally hundreds of dollars a year to buy bottled water which may

or may not be better or safer than what comes out of their tap.

We need to find out. People need information to make their own

judgments. We need some kind of transparency that provides us information so that a concerned mother, a concerned pregnant

woman, a concerned anybody can go somewhere, a website, a hotline and find out what he or she needs to find out.
135

Finally, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I can’t stay for the next

panel buy I want to thank Gloria Borland and Jody Lanard and Dr.

Best. I read their testimony. I highly recommend that WASA and

everyone else read Dr. Lanard’s testimony about risk communication. In fact, I think everybody in any position of public responsibility should read his testimony. It provides a very useful guideline

about how to deal with crisis situation, some of which is

counterintuitive. The immediate response is, we don’t want to

panic people, we want to give people reassurance. I ran into this

with the World Trade Center. We got into a big problem because

EPA and the White House didn’t want to tell people that we had

more particulates and problems in the air around Ground Zero

than they wanted us to know, so we didn’t have the urgency that

would have convinced a lot of the workers and volunteers at

Ground Zero to wear that protective equipment.

I think given the high level of risk that we live with in the world

today, risk communication is central and it is counterintuitive because I think the natural human feeling when you are in a position

of responsibility and you take it seriously is I don’t want people to

panic. Given the world today, it may be better to err on the side

of more rather than less information. We have a lot of very mature,

very active people who then can draw their own judgments.

One of the things I face all the time at Ground Zero now is construction workers, firefighters and others who say if they had told

me, I would have left the mask on. Well, they were kind of told it

was dangerous, they could smell it was dangerous but the EPA was

saying it was OK. This is the conflict and I appreciate the conflict,

but I think we need to get to a point where we level with people,

we provide information transparently and I think we have to look

at the laws and regulations because if we can’t provide safe drinking water in our Nation’s capital, that is a terrible indictment of

all of us, particularly given the fact that the Federal Government

oversees DC for better or worse, it is our responsibility.

Thank you so much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator.

I would like to ask a couple more questions. Mr. Welsh, the first

is for you. My question is, based on the work of the Technical Expert Working Group, how would you describe the status of the options we have for long term solutions at this point?

Mr. WELSH. The Technical Working Group is working hard to

identify what actually caused the change in corrosion and to run

through what the possible fixes are to that. In fact, we recently received an update of the Technical Working Group. They did a desktop analysis and got a contractor’s report back just last week with

a recommended treatment option. The full Technical Expert Working Group is going to be considering that report and by April 15,

they will be recommending a treatment option to EPA.

When we receive that recommendation, we would like to take the

opportunity to talk to the public and review that information with

the public and get their input but we are trying to move as quickly

as we can. It is in everyone’s interest to bring about a solution as

quickly as possible. So we are encouraged by the work the Technical Group has been able to do. They have forwarded this report
136

with a recommended treatment option and we hope by May 1, we

will be able to approve the selected treatment option.

The schedule we are on would call for that treatment option,

once it is identified, to be tested in a limited part of the system beginning June 1. Our schedule was for full system implementation

if all of the studies that are ongoing at the same time that we do

that confirm that it is going to be effective and the correct solution,

to go systemwide with that by September 1.

In addition to the Technical Expert Working Group, we have also

had an independent peer review group of experts look at the same

work and based on some of their comments, we are hopeful we may

be able to accelerate the date for that full system implementation.

So we are encouraged that we are moving toward the correct answer, but no final determination has been made yet as to what the

correct treatment option will be, but we are getting close to that

day.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you and we will look with great interest

on that report as well to see what direction we should take.

I have two more quick questions. One, Dr. Lucey, is for you. I

am looking at the summarized points you gave. In your summaries

in the first couple of points, it indicates to me that a number of

children in homes with identified elevated lead levels in their

water were tested but a very low percentage of them, according to

these tests, had elevated blood lead levels. Is that correct?

Dr. LUCEY. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Senator CRAPO. Then my question is I think the obvious one.

Why? Wouldn’t we have expected higher blood lead levels in these

children?

Dr. LUCEY. Because of the lead in the water?

Senator CRAPO. Because of the lead in the water?

Dr. LUCEY. I think that is the essential question from a public

health point of view. That is really why the Department of Health

sent the letter on February 26 to the 23,000 homes that I signed

with an abundance of caution that we should offer blood level testing because this has never been done before in the United States,

it is widespread blood testing to assess the health impact of lead

in the water, increased amounts of lead in the water. It is not in

the textbooks. There is no clear correlation between a concentration

of lead in the water and the concentration of lead in the blood.

Senator CRAPO. Is that because of a question of whether it is, I

have heard the word bioavailable in the body when it is consumed

by water?

Dr. LUCEY. That is part of it. It also depends on the age as Senator Clinton mentioned in terms of a child absorbing and retaining

more lead than an adult. That is why children are most at risk,

particularly young children with developing nervous systems where

lead act to the nervous system like calcium and that is bad for the

nervous system of the child.

Senator CRAPO. So we don’t actually have the data foundation or

whatever to make scientific conclusions at this point?

Dr. LUCEY. Scientific answers through a series of test

hypotheses, get results and those studies have to be confirmed or

refuted. So that is what I think we are contributing here in the

District both for the District and for the country if other cities find
137

elevated lead concentrations in the water. That is why I think it

is very good the EPA is involved with the national perspective and

also the Centers for Disease Control as I mentioned has been very

involved with us onsite here today and multiple other times. The

lead expert, Dr. Mary Jean Brown, has been up to visit with us.

Dr. Gerberding, the Director of the CDC, has been very supportive.

I should say though that as I have tried to emphasize in the multiple press conferences we have had and multiple community meetings that Mr. Johnson mentioned, the way I look at this is in terms

of the scientific data, these are pieces in the puzzle. One piece of

the puzzle is the homes that have the highest levels of lead, more

than 300 ppb. We went to those homes because we were afraid

folks in those homes weren’t coming to us to get their blood tested,

so we didn’t have the results. We found that none of 201 people

had elevated blood levels.

The other very high risk group is the young kids, young children

who live in day care facilities, who have lead service pipes. So we

went to those facilities, provided the filter, the consent form for the

parents to sign. If they signed it, we came back within a few days

or a week to draw blood. Two of the children out of 280, less than

1 percent, have had elevated blood lead levels. These are two parts

of the picture.

Another part of the picture is the approximately 4,500 people

who have come to see us but there is another important part of the

puzzle. In addition to the study that was published in the Centers

for Disease Control Morbidity/Mortality Report on March 30, and

that is Children’s National Medical Center here in the District

measures blood lead levels. They are currently in the process of

doing a comparison looking at blood lead levels over the last 10

years. It is independent of the Department of Health but they have

invited us to participate in the planning and we did on March 17.

That is another part of the analysis that I think Dr. Best will refer

to. The results aren’t back yet.

I am trying to emphasize it is important to put together all the

parts of the puzzle to make sure they are all consistent.

Senator CRAPO. You are working to expand the parts of the puzzle that we have to look at?

Dr. LUCEY. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAPO. The last question I have is for you, Mr. Jacobus,

and that is, in addition to the changes in procedure that you described, I am aware that residents are now receiving notice of a

flushing program that involves changes at the aqueduct. Could you

explain how that all fits into this issue?

Mr. JACOBUS. Yes, sir. To some extent, it does not fit at all but

in another way it does. Let me be specific.

The distribution system is made up of pipes of all different sizes,

there are cast iron pipes, there are steel pipes, there are concrete

pipes. The pipes are not sterile, there can be sediment in them

from lime that settles out, the pipes can have rust on the inside

of them, oxidation from that, so it is good management practice

every spring to open fire hydrants in the distribution system and

push water through the lines and essentially clean and blow out

the lines. That removes the debris and sort of cleans up the inside

of the pipe.
138

If you were to go inside a pipe and run your hand along it, you

might feel what we would call biofilm. That could be a harboring

location for bacterial growth in the pipe. The disinfectant in the

pipe in the water, the chlorine-based disinfectant that is put into

the distribution system to protect the water all the way to the tap,

and the water can stay in the distribution system 3 or 4 days before it is consumed, so it is important to have that disinfectant residual there, the bacteria that might be out there, and we are

measuring for those all the time, but the bacteria we might find

out there if you are using a chloramine-based disinfectant as your

secondary disinfectant, it is standard and common industry practice in the springtime after the roads would not freeze, to switch

the disinfectant for a few weeks back to free corine rather than the

corine ammonia complex. That kind of confuses the bacteria,

shocks the system and that in conjunction with the flushing process cleans the system and gives good distribution system maintenance for the rest of the year, especially for the summer months

when bacterial growth could be prompted by the temperature. That

would be a normal practice.

Since we changed to chloramine, we have been doing that. We

did that in 2002 and 2003, are doing it again in 2004. I say we,

I mean we in conjunction with all of our wholesale customer partners.

When we go to a phosphate-based inhibitor as an additional

chemical to go after the lead leaching problems in the lead service

pipes, we know from other cities’ experience that when you change

the chemistry on the distribution system, you might get some reaction inside the pipes. With the pipes being as clean and as blown

out if you will as possible, that will help make the corrosion inhibitor not have any secondary effects like creating red water which

would be rusty effects.

So it is the chloramine disinfectant change and back and forth

and the flushing as a standard practice but it blends very nicely

into what we are about to do in June and then the full system in

September.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Lucey, using 10 mpd as a standard, your

testimony provides several data points indicating relatively small

numbers of children had what you define as ‘‘elevated’’ blood lead

levels. How do you define ‘‘elevated’’ and how did you select that

number?

Dr. LUCEY. As you noted, the Centers for Disease Control has

used that number of 10 mpd for children under the age of 6 but

also children from the ages of 6 to 15 and also for women who are

pregnant and nursing because the primary concern is with the unborn baby or the newborn baby. The CDC refers to that level as

a level of concern or the definition of an elevated blood level. For

an adult, it is a higher value, 25 mpd. So it is really a national

guideline.

Senator JEFFORDS. I have already mentioned the April 17, 2003

study which shows harmful effect from blood levels well below 10.

Based on that information, do you feel it is appropriate to ignore
139

children and families with blood level test results above zero but

below 10?

Dr. LUCEY. I am aware of that paper. Dr. Lamphere is in Cincinnati and was the senior author. He is a well-respected person

in the research community with regard to lead. I think that was

a very important paper last April in the New England Journal of

Medicine. I think it needs to be corroborated like anything in medicine. Its findings need to be duplicated to show they are reproducible but I know that is a very important finding.

At this time, I have been in contact regularly with the Centers

for Disease Control with regard to whether that level is going to

be changed—the 10 mpd—or not anytime soon. To the best of my

knowledge it is not at this time. I think, as in most things in medicine, there is a state of knowledge today and then there is what

the state of knowledge or the standard practice might be in the future. Sometimes it is clear which way things are going and sometimes it is not so clear.

If I could mention briefly, perhaps to illustrate even better your

point, I mentioned in point No. 5 that in the United States 1976–

1980, in Attachment 5, 88.2 percent, 9 out of 10 children in the

United States who were then 1–5 years of age, now 24–28 years

of age, had blood lead levels of 10 mpd or higher. How could that

be acceptable? At that time the level of concern was much higher,

40 mpd. I think that provides some historical context. I am not saying what happened then was good or not compared to now but it

is some historical context.

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Johnson, I have a couple questions for

you.

In placing lead service lines in WASA and moving the location

of the meter, and if so, how is it affecting the link to the service

line that you are replacing and the associated costs?

Mr. JOHNSON. If I understand your question, you are asking if

we are removing the service line—what is the differential in the

cost of moving the service line for the meter versus another location?

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Currently the cost or the EPA requirement has us

to remove the service line that we have control or responsibility for.

The District of Columbia law defines that as being that portion of

the service line in public space. Frequently the terminus of where

public space might exist where the meter is may be a very different

point. So the Health Department expressed some concern about

cutting the line at that point and then adding the copper line to

it and suggested that we go directly to the first joint which would

be the meter. We agreed and think that is a much better practice

because you don’t get particulate lead in that system.

The cost of doing a service line in public space, we have esti- mated at an average of about somewhere between $10,000–$14,000

per service line. That is because we have to do substantial rebuilding of the street and the roadway system when we do the excavation to meet the District’s standards. The total cost we have estimated for doing all the service lines is about $350 million in public

space and we believe and estimate for the cost of going on the other

side of that meter and getting the portion that is in the private
140

space which would normally be the responsibility of the homeowner

to average about $2,000–$3,000. Because we think the preference

again is to go to that threaded joint which would frequently be inside the foundation wall or in the building itself, we think that cost

is probably going to average around $3,500.

Senator JEFFORDS. Recently WASA undertook a program to replace aging water meters. Can you describe the program for me?

Indicate if you installed lead-free water meters and indicate if

WASA uses lead-free parts when replacing parts through its system.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is somewhat of a technical question, Senator

but I will attempt to answer it on the basis of what I understand

the case to be.

The water meters we installed are considered by EPA and are

characterized as lead-free meters. As I understand it, most metal

components of things in this universe have some small portion of

lead in them. You will find some of your metal faucets and brass

parts and the like will have some metal in them but this classification of lead-free takes it down to a level where if water is moving

through it, typically it does not leach and doesn’t create a problem.

So we replaced all the meters in the system.

Meters have not changed a great deal over time, so the technology is basically the same. We added a piece of technology to it

so that we could read the meters remotely using a cell phone technology so we can read the meters without having someone to physically go on the street every day.

The question has been raised in removing those meters and

changing them, why didn’t you look down in the hole and see

whether you had a lead service line. The answer to that is the meters are mounted on something called a riser. That is a device that

comes from the service line, coming from the main as well as the

line coming from the house and literally is a riser the meter is

mounted in, so you don’t really have a chance to expose the full

line.

In response to one of your earlier questions, we are doing a series

of dig ups in cases where we have undetermined service lines and

trying to explore those and see what is actually there when we

don’t have good information.

Senator JEFFORDS. I would join the Chairman’s request that you

grant us the privilege of having you sitting here while we have the

next panel.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will certainly do that, sir.

Senator CRAPO. With that, we would like to excuse this panel.

We want to thank you all for your attendance today and for your

attention to this issue. There very well may be questions from Senators who were not able to get here or further questions from those

of us who were here. We would ask you to be very responsive to

us if we forward those questions to you in writing.

Thank you very much. This panel is excused and we will call our

second panel.

Our second panel consists of Gloria Borland, who is a member

of the Dupont Circle Parents; Jody Lanard who is a Risk Communication consultant; and Dana Best, director, Smoke Free Homes

Project, medical director, Healthy Generations Program, and assist-
141

ant professor, George Washington University School of Medicine

and Health Sciences with the Children’s National Medical Center.

Senator JEFFORDS. If I can take a moment to give Dr. Dana Best

from the Children’s National Medical Center a special welcome.

During my time as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and

Pensions Committee, Dr. Best worked for me as a Fellow. It is nice

to see you here again. She did her residency there and is from my

home State. I am so pleased to have you here now.

Dr. BEST. Thank you very much. I am thrilled to be here. To bad

it is about such a nasty topic.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Ladies, we appreciate your coming

and participating with us in our second panel. Were all of you here

when I gave my strong lecture about paying attention to the clock.

We do appreciate your doing that because it does give us the opportunity with the limited time we have to engage in some dialog.

Again, I encourage you to try to pay attention to that clock and

stick to the 5 minutes to summarize your written testimony. Your

written testimony is a part of the full record. We have already read

it and I believe every Senator will read it before the week is out.

Ms. Borland, are you ready to start?

STATEMENT OF GLORIA BORLAND, DUPONT CIRCLE PARENTS

Ms. BORLAND. I want to thank all the Senators on the committee

and also all the parents that are here today. I am here representing Dupont Circle Parents. I am a mom to a 22 month-old

girl who has lead in her blood at twice the national average.

We parents are angry and full of anxiety because we don’t know

what the long term implications of lead poisoning in our water will

have on our children, brain damage, lower IQ, behavioral problems,

and I will defer to the experts who will be speaking next on that

topic.

There are three points I want to make but in the interest of time,

I would like to start with the third point first. The problems with

our water here in DC are so huge, the cost to solve the problem

is very expensive, the organization managing it right now is so dysfunctional that the only answer is to put WASA under Federal

leadership in our opinion. Only under Federal Government control

will you be able to restore the trust we parents need in our water

system.

Drastic action? Yes, but look at the victims. Look at all the young

children here in the audience and out in the hallway. See our babies, see their faces and that is why we are asking for Federal receivership to make sure they are safe.

I want to give you a couple of examples of communication. First

of all, communication and trust must go hand in hand. I am sure

if the Washington Post’s David Nakamura had not exposed this

scandal, our young children today on April 7 would still be drinking leaded water and WASA would still be hiding this crisis from

us.

Communicating is not rocket science. It is the easiest and simplest thing to do when there is leadership and an organization willing to do it. The problem is not in the process of communication,

the problem lies in deception. They deceived us. They tried to hide

extraordinarily high levels of lead poison in our water supply thus
142

putting our young children at risk. The EPA and the Army Corps

of Engineers went along with this deception in violation of their

Federal oversight responsibilities.

How was this crisis communicated to us? For most DC parents

of young children, our day of infamy was Saturday, January 31,

2004 when we read the headline of the Washington Post that morning and we were hit with the shocking bomb that our infants, toddlers and young children had been secretly poisoned by the lead in

the drinking water in our homes.

Lead in young children lowers their IQs and the experts can go

into all that. I was pregnant in 2001 and 2002 when the high lead

levels first became noticed by WASA. The right and legal thing for

WASA to do was to issue an emergency warning to the public and

to obstetricians and pediatricians to warn their patients not to

drink tap water. It does not matter that WASA hadn’t identified

the source of the problem; that kind of research could take months,

even years. In the interest of public safety, you issue the warning

to the public to take the precaution first and take the time and the

money and the resources to figure out the cause.

It is just like when a fireman sees a house burning, their first

priority is to save lives. Put the fire out, then they figure out what

caused the blaze. WASA got it backward. Because they got it backward, they wanted to figure out the cause of the lead crisis first

and that was putting our babies’ lives at risk. All WASA had to do

was warn me and other mothers, don’t drink your water without

a filter or buy bottled water. All they had to do was warn me.

When I learned about the lead in the water, I wanted to cry. I had

been so careful. I even gave up coffee, for God’s sake and I hear

about lead in our water.

My daughter attends a very good pre-school day care center in

Dupont Circle. There are 77 students and the building was built

in 1989 so it is a modern building. For their national accreditation,

there was no problem when the water was tested. Lat year, WASA

dug up the streets and it caused $2,000 worth of damage in the

center but more importantly, when this crisis broke, the executive

director tested the water and in the building some of the fountains

had 3,100 ppb and 5,900 ppb.

When I saw the letter she sent to the parents, I thought it was

a typo, thousands not like 15 ppb which is the threshold but thousands, almost 6,000 ppb in the drinking fountain and 77 students

at one of the best day care centers in the city? As of today, no one

from WASA has contacted the director of our day care center. She

has not received a phone call or letter. All this talk about reaching

out to day care centers is baloney. The day care center at their own

expense immediately went to bottle water and you can see.

Most parents have been perplexed as to why an entity entrusted

with public safety would lie and then cover up their lies. What is

their motive? When I spoke over the weekend to my very wise

friend, Joe Louis Ruffin III, father of a 3-year-old boy living in

Chevy Chase, I asked, how could this happen. Joe said, ‘‘WASA

wanted to protect their bond ratings. Communicating the truth

would have brought their assets down’’.
143

So this is like Enron. Enron was only about money, this is about

money, bond ratings, but the consequences here, the innocent victims are the lives of our next generation.

I want you, Senators, to see the victims—our young children.

When bond ratings get in the way of public safety, look into the

faces of our babies, see the photos on display, look around the

room. When bond ratings get more important than our babies’

brain development, their nervous system and IQ, we have a serious

problems.

Here are some stories from parents all over the city. This is Paul

McKay, co-founder of www.purewaterdc.com and his son. He is the

one that launched the website.

This is Theresa Brown who lives in LeDroit Park. This is her

daughter, London, who is 1 years old. Theresa told me on Friday,

I feel completely and utterly betrayed. They have a responsibility

to the citizens of the city, especially to those young babies and children who are completely defenseless. You cannot put a price on

brain damage. How about if we deliberately caused brain impairment to their kids or grandkids and see how they liked it.

This is from Denise Senecal, a Dupont Circle mom. Can anyone

at WASA assure me that my son will not suffer harmful effects

from this exposure of lead?

This is from Desa Sealy Ruffin, wife of Joe who I mentioned earlier. Desa told me on Friday, I can only say I think the District,

WASA and EPA have all broken a real fundamental covenant with

the citizens in the District of Columbia and I no longer trust them

to do anything. I think the three agencies conspired to keep us in

the dark. They should be facing criminal charges.

This is from Valerie Jablow, a mother on Capitol Hill. She says

her son likes to go to the libraries, the public pool, stores, restaurants in our neighborhood and she is not sure how the water

will be when she goes out with her child in the neighborhood.

This is Parker. Parker is 16 months old. His father, Terrance

sent me this on Sunday. He said, his son, Parker, was adopted and

thus was bottle fed water and formula as a toddler. Early this year

they learned that his first lead screening resulted in very high elevated levels of lead in his blood.

This is Ronnette Bristol who lives in northeast DC in an apartment building. She has four kids and says, ‘‘We are buying lots of

bottled water until someone can come out and test our apartment

building.’’

This is Lyubov Gurjeva originally from Russia. She told me, I

never believed DC water was safe to drink. This is from someone

from Russia.

This is Xin Chen and they were notified by WASA that they had

lead service lines. She has an infant, a newborn, and a 3-year old.

She says, ‘‘I don’t trust them, I don’t trust their test results. No

trust at all with every parent I spoke to.’’

Same thing with Maria DePaul and her husband, Ethan, who

live on the Hill, the same thing. Her husband said, ‘‘WASA will

find legal loopholes so they do not have to help you out’’.

Many parents complained about the cost of buying expensive filters and bottled water. People don’t mind buying bottled water in

an emergency for a couple of days or couple of weeks, but when a
144

couple of weeks turns into a couple of months with still no end in

sight, people are beginning to feel the financial burden of buying

bottled water for every day use.

You talk about how to restore trust. My feeling and that of other

parents is that day of infamy is outrage. We expected our elected

leaders in the District to quickly step in, fire the managers at

WASA and respond with swift action to fix our water crisis. Instead, they didn’t. I hope the EPA and Army Corps leaders remember the faces of our young babies when they carry out their daily

oversight duties from now on.

The seat of the problem here is management culture instilled by

Jerry Johnson, Mike Marcotte and board chairman, Glenn Gersten.

To restore trust, do what is done in the private sector, remove

managers for extremely poor judgment and failed performance and

put in new management. These are the necessary first steps toward restoring trust with the parents here in the District of Columbia. New managers are now in place like Enron, Adelphia and

Worldcom and Gersten is a Wall Street attorney so he understands

why you need to clean house in order to restore public confidence

in an institution.

We know our Mayor is asking the Federal Government for more

money to solve this problem. I don’t think it makes sense to put

good money in the hands of bad managers. The problems and dysfunction at WASA are so huge, they require Federal intervention.

We parents encourage the U.S. Senate to institute its powers to

begin the process of putting WASA under Federal control, Federal

receivership. A new management team and new board of directors

needs to be put in place to work on solving this lead crisis. We need

to make sure the Army Corps and the EPA are listening to our demands for better communication, a two-way dialog with the public

they are entrusted to serve.

Yes, we need Federal help and Federal dollars to solve this crisis,

but that goes hand in hand with new management and Federal

control of the system until our water is deemed drinkable again.

Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Ms. Borland.

Before we go to Dr. Lanard, I want to correct an oversight of

mine. Earlier I should have noted that we have with us Mr. Paul

Strauss, who is the U.S. Shadow Senator for the District of Columbia who has also submitted testimony and was also with us yesterday as we met with local residents. Mr. Strauss, I apologize for my

oversight at the beginning in acknowledging your presence here.

Dr. Lanard.

STATEMENT OF JODY LANARD, M.D., RISK COMMUNICATION

CONSULTANT

Dr. LANARD. I will use part of my 5 minutes to make one comment about Ms. Borland’s magnificent statement on behalf of the

stakeholders. The desire to fire everybody and start anew is very

understandable but I have seen in my work with other officials who

have really screwed up communication that sometimes the reformed sinner who has learned the hard way becomes one of the

best managers and officials I have ever seen. Their attention is focused on the issue they have screwed up more than anybody who
145

is going to come in and start anew. So I hope maybe you will cut

them a little slack and notice if they ever start to learn to do it

the way you hope they will. I don’t know whether they will or not

but I am hopeful they could learn.

I am Jody Lanard, a risk communication specialist from Princeton, NJ. Thank you, Senator Crapo, for inviting me here today.

My written testimony includes a list of 25 communication strategies that underlie my critique of WASA’s handling of this issue. If

I run out of time, I invite you to ask me during the question period

to give you some examples of really wonderful risk communication

practices from other officials and other issues.

Some of the communication strategies that WASA should pay attention to are, and these are very counter intuitive, as Senator

Clinton said, ‘‘Don’t over reassure people’’, err on the alarming side

(which in this case would have meant informing early, not waiting

for a red flag but hoisting the yellow flag, giving people a heads

up even before you know what is going on), acknowledging uncertainty. The general public, and even I when I am outside my own

field, think other people know much more in their field than they

actually do. The public thinks doctors know much more than they

do. We all think officials know much more than they do, and officials collude with this by being so paternal sometimes and by overreassuring us,

Go out of your way to acknowledge uncertainty and break the

cycle of being so over reassuring and then having us be shocked

when you tell us later, ‘‘We are learning new and interesting things

every day.’’

I am going to cut to the chase and tell you the whole list of 25

is in my written testimony. The two other most important things

are: No. 1, not to aim for zero fear. The public is much more resilient than you think. I am working on this with several different

groups and trying to persuade them that panic is very rare. Anxiety happens, even a little bit of hysteria happens, but we are very

resilient. Look at how the people in Washington reacted after the

Pentagon was attacked. People were not panicking, people were

bearing it. They felt panicky but they were not actually panicking.

And, No. 2, in this case, most of all, if any of these officials want

to be rehabilitated in the eyes of their citizens, they have to acknowledge all the errors, deficiencies, mistakes and misjudgments

they made and they have to apologize for them a hundred times

more than they think they need to. It is not for them to say when

it is time to put this behind us. So they should wallow in their

apologies until people get sick of hearing them. First they have to

understand more about what they need to apologize for.

I am as upset as everybody else about WASA not notifying people

early when those first 53 houses were found to have high lead levels, surprising high lead levels. Fifty percent of those houses had

high lead levels, but in the brochure where WASA tried to tell everybody about this, or they think they tried to tell everybody about

this, they say, ‘‘Some houses had high lead levels.’’ They didn’t say,

‘‘Fifty percent of the sample that year had high lead levels.’’ So it

came across as minimizing.

I am going to give you an analysis of this brochure for as long

as I can get it in to explain how they worked really hard not to
146

scare people, but unfortunately they were allying with peoples’ apathy instead of trying to find a way to get their attention.

The brochure WASA put out in October 2002, which they cite to

say they were not trying to hide the lead problem from the public,

was entitled, ‘‘The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority

and the District of Columbia Department of Health Acknowledge

Lead Awareness Week and Its Impacts on Your Health.’’ The purpose of the brochure is to acknowledge Lead Awareness Week.

There is this awareness week, that awareness week, every week

there is some awareness week. This did not look like a warning,

even a very subtle warning.

The brochure has absolutely excellent educational content but it

only weakly signals to the public that there are new reasons to

take this issue seriously. The title makes it sound like the PR Department decided to use National Lead Awareness Week as a news

peg for sending out good information about what to do about lead.

It has a pretty picture of water on the cover, it has a smiling pregnant woman on the second page and it is not until you get to the

third page that they say really low down, some homes in the community have lead levels above the EPA action levels. By the time

a reader gets to that sentence, the context of the brochure suggests

that ‘‘some homes’’ are very few and ‘‘above the EPA action level’’

is only a little above. The cheerful informative tone of the preceding pages in the context of the celebratory title of the brochure

does not signal ‘‘Do something, this is a surprising change in our

findings. Take this seriously.’’ It is as if Paul Revere, and I will tell

you this in risk communication terms, announced in celebration of

National Freedom Awareness Week. ‘‘There is no need to panic, but

some British are coming: Hey, meet me at the old North Bridge.’’

I hope that is not too irreverent for a committee hearing.

Senator CRAPO. I think we can handle it.

Dr. LANARD. Good. You are resilient, I know that.

The two main things that WASA did wrong, one before the story

broke, the other after the story broke. Before the story broke, other

than not announcing the story themselves and helping the public

get ready for this problem, they tried to use facts to attack apathy.

Using facts alone is not a good way to attack apathy. I think I will

go on to the next point because I think I have made it there.

I want to give you an example of what WASA could have said

instead of this. I would like someone at WASA to say,

‘‘I am so sorry to tell you that we are finding a lot of unexpected high lead

levels in water coming out of the taps in our 53 sample homes this year, 26

out of 53 is half. We don’t know yet why this is happening; we don’t know yet

whether any people, especially children have increased blood levels because of

this; we don’t even know all the recommendations we want to make to you but

because we feel you deserve to get this information quickly, we will give you

some preliminary, precautionary recommendations. We will be learning things

over the next weeks that we will wish we had known months ago. We may

make mistakes or retract things we have already said.’’

This is called anticipatory guidance, warning people about what

might happen.

‘‘We may make mistakes. New information is going to come in but we are

committed to sharing this with you early. We know you will be worried. We

share that worry and we will bear this together and get through it.’’
147

This would have expressed confidence in the public and that is

a compliment the public might well have returned along with its

appropriate anger at WASA and its anxiety. Telling the public you

don’t think they can handle bad news is insulting, it is patronizing

and it generates mistrust. Now, I hope in the questions you will

ask me for some really good examples.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Dr. Lanard.

Dr. Best.

STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., DIRECTOR, SMOKE FREE

HOMES PROJECT; MEDICAL DIRECTOR, HEALTHY GENERATIONS PROGRAM; ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

SCIENCES; AND CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Dr. BEST. Thank you for providing this opportunity to discuss the

harms of lead poisoning in children.

I am a pediatrician and preventive medicine physician with expertise in pediatric environmental health from Children’s Hospital.

The Children’s system provides primary care for thousands of DC

children, particularly those of low socioeconomic status.

The history of lead provides some interesting background for today’s hearing. Lead’s utility has been recognized for thousands of

years. The dangers of exposure to lead have been recognized almost

as long. Unfortunately, the two primary sources of lead in our environment, leaded gas and lead in paint, were not banned until decades after reports of harm from their use. While the impact of leaded gas has declined significantly since its banning, lead paint continues to be the primary source of lead poisoning today.

Because of the number of homes that still contain lead paint, discriminating between lead poisoning from lead paint and from lead

contaminated water is difficult, particularly since many of the

homes with lead pipes also have lead paint.

The focus on children and lead poisoning is because children are

more likely to ingest lead than adults and because they are undergoing critical periods of development at the same time they are ingesting lead. Toddlers put everything in their mouths, including

lead laden soil and paint chips. They live closer to the floor where

the lead dust settles. They breathe faster, eat and drink more per

body weight and absorb lead more efficiently than adults. Their

rapid growth means their bones absorb calcium at a higher rate

than adults and since lead is similar enough to calcium it can be

stored in bone resulting in lifelong stores of lead in some cases.

These stores can contribute to the lead poisoning of the next generation when pregnant and breast feeding women release lead into

their blood stream during their pregnancy or the nursing period.

Lead crosses the placenta and is readily incorporated into breast

milk.

There are many effects of lead poisoning from death to subtle but

significant changes in cognition and behavior. No study has determined a lead level below which an effect is not seen. Even at levels

under 10 mcg/dl, the current action level in children, IQ scores

have been shown to decline four to five points. That loss of four to

five points can mean the difference between normal and subnormal
148

intelligence and the ability to function independently. Other studies have demonstrated similar effects, some even under 5 mcg/dl.

The behavior changes associated with lead exposure include increased distractibility, decreased reaction time, poor organizational

skills, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and poor classroom

performance. Unfortunately no treatment has been shown to reverse the lifelong effects of lead poisoning and the primary treatment for severe lead poisoning has been implicated in decreasing

IQ itself. Many studies have shown persistent cognitive and behavioral effects long after lead levels have dropped to those considered

low. Prevention, not treatment, is the only solution to lead poisoning.

In the District, lead poisoning is part of the larger picture of children’s health risks. Many of the lead poisoned children are the

same children living in poverty, exposed to tobacco smoke and

without health insurance, all conditions which can add to the impact of lead poisoning. The recent CDC report of lead levels in DC

residents indicated that the long term decline in children’s lead levels halted in the year 2000 when chloramines were added to the

water. This disturbing indication needs to be confirmed. At Children’s we have begun an analysis of the last 10 years of lead tests

performed in our laboratory. We will look at the average lead level,

noting any changes, and look for associations between lead levels

and household water supply, lead paint in the home, insurance status and other potential influences. This study is an extremely high

priority and we will inform Congress and the District of Columbia

of our results as soon as they are available.

There is no safe level of lead. Prevention is the only solution.

There is no way to place a dollar value on the harm from lead poisoning of DC children, no matter the source, water, paint or otherwise. The harms of lead poisoning have been known for thousands

of years, with many missed opportunities to remove lead from the

environment in a timely fashion. We should not add the District of

Columbia to this history.

All potential lead sources should be eliminated including reduction of lead concentrations in drinking water to below the EPA action level. This is the law. The children of the District of Columbia

deserve this and nothing less.

Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

Ms. Borland, I would like to start with you. I was very interested

in the example you gave of the day care center which if I understand you correctly, it was constructed in 1989 and in the initial

tests of the water, there was no problem.

Ms. BORLAND. Right.

Senator CRAPO. And then there was some kind of construction in

the streets?

Ms. BORLAND. Last year is what the director said. My daughter

just started in June, so I don’t know all the history but it was last

year.

Senator CRAPO. There was some kind of construction. Presumably it had to do with the water delivery system and then very

high levels of lead were found in the water. You may not know the

answer to this but I was curious about that because of the earlier
149

testimony, that we tend to think that the earlier dates when we

stopped using lead pipes were safe for buildings. Do you know

whether that level of high lead in the water has maintained and

whether they have continued testing and it stayed high or did it

spike?

Ms. BORLAND. They had a private firm test it about 2 or 3 days

after the story broke. I don’t know if they have tested it since but

they immediately went to bottled water.

Senator CRAPO. I am sure we can have our authorities check that

facility because obviously if that kind of dynamic can happen at a

facility constructed in 1989, that indicates there may be a potential

risk issue there that we are not paying attention to which gets

back to some of the questions I was asking earlier to the first panel

about whether anybody can ask for a test to be made and if that

shows a high lead level in the water regardless whether the home

fits into a category that would be considered at risk, then they can

get the necessary response to address the issue.

You also indicate in your testimony that you feel the Federal regulations seem to be in place for communicating with the public but

the regulations were simply not followed and the protections in

place were ignored by WASA, correct?

Ms. BORLAND. I am not an expert on legislation and you can

probably put in new legislation that you have to have a public

press release immediately but if the managers don’t want to follow

that, it is the leadership integrity, if it is not there, it is not going

to happen, the final loophole. It is our opinion that it is a management structure problem, not the process but a management problem of the people involved and lack of integrity.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Dr. Lanard, you asked me to ask you for some examples. Do you

want to give us a few?

Dr. LANARD. These are examples I love. I much prefer to teach

by good examples than by bad examples. These are some imitatable

examples from real live experts. Jerry Johnson and Glen Gerstell

had been quoted as saying they believe in using facts to overcome

fears to educate the public. I hope some of these examples will convince them to use even the scary facts and to go beyond the facts

to help people bear their fears, because that is part of the job as

Rudy Giuliani showed on September 11.

The first two examples are from State epidemiologist Jeff Engel

in North Carolina. In June 2003, North Carolina had its only confirmed SARS patient, one of only eight confirmed SARS patient in

the United States. Dr. Engel responded with a series of news conferences. At one, a reporter asked if all the news coverage had the

potential to cause more hysteria and fear. The reporter asked this

kind of hopefully; reporters like hysteria.

Dr. Engel replied,

‘‘We need to involve our community in all aspects of public health. Certainly

a disease like SARS, so new, so frightening, should instill fear. Fear is an appropriate response, for me as a public health physician, for everyone in the community. We need to transfer that fear into positive energy and keep the facts

in front of the hysteria. SARS is a new disease, it spreads person to person, it

can kill. That is newsworthy.’’
150

I am trying to prove that is not an accidental kind of statement.

That is a decision he made to make that kind of statement.

Two months later, he made essentially the same kind of statement about Eastern Equine Encephalitis of which there had been

less than one case a year in North Carolina. He said,

‘‘The State has only documented 12 or 13 infections since 1964, the most in

one year was 3 in 1989. Nevertheless, fear is appropriate. My God, here you

have a mosquito that can kill. What we are trying to do through you guys, the

media, is to use that fear in a positive way.’’

Dr. Engel told me 2 days later that the local Wal-Mart sold out

of insect repellant right after that news conference. So he generated preparedness, not panic.

My final two stories are from Julie Gerberding, the master of the

universe at risk communication. She did not start out as the master of the universe during anthrax. In fact, I am not sure she was

allowed to say very much during anthrax. She learned risk communication by the time SARS came along. This is also to prove it is

learnable. She was asked early on whether SARS could be bioterrorism. She answered, ‘‘while we have lots of reasons to think the

SARS outbreaks are not due to terrorism, we are keeping an open

mind and being vigilant.’’ Many other officials were asked the exact

same question and answered, ‘‘There is no evidence of a terrorist

attack.’’ They didn’t say the other half. So Dr. Gerberding’s version

is paradoxically more reassuring. We know she is actually paying

attention to the possibility of terrorism. Later in the SARS outbreak, she reassured us and cautioned us at the same time. ‘‘Although we haven’t seen community transmission of SARS, we are

not out of the woods yet.’’ So she reassured them in the first half

and cautioned them in the second half.

When people hear these kinds of examples, these real life ones

or the ones I make up when I am trying to tell officials how they

should have said it, they say to me, ‘‘aren’t some people naturally

inclined to do good crisis communication or is this something you

can really learn?’’ I usually answer by telling them this final story.

One day during SARS, there was a really weird newspaper article quoting an astrobiologist from Wales that SARS and other viruses might come from outer space on meteor dust. It had to be a

very quiet day on the SARS front when the newspapers had space

for this. At a CDC telebriefing, CNN’s reporter Miriam Falco, a

very professional reporter, said, ‘‘Dr. Gerberding, I just have to ask

you about this outer space thing. I am embarrassed but what do

you think?’’ Dr. Gerberding answered with a wicked twinkle in her

eye but an absolutely straight face, ‘‘Although we have no evidence

that SARS is from outer space, we are keeping an open mind.’’

[Laughter.]

Dr. LANARD. So crisis communication is learnable. That is one of

my main messages to you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Doctor. My time is up so

I will turn to Senator Jeffords for his questions.

Senator JEFFORDS. I don’t mean to start with you right away.

Dr. LANARD. I gave away all my good examples.

Senator CRAPO. And they were good.

Senator JEFFORDS. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking

water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were
151

quoted as saying ‘‘The runaround has been unbelievable. No one in

the bureaucracy has even begun to take this seriously.’’ The Director of Water for the city stated, ‘‘Premature to contact residents

throughout the city before the city developed a plan to handle and

finance free testing.’’

I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper articles on

this topic into the record.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection.

[The referenced document follows:]
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

Senator JEFFORDS. Given this repetitive failure, what recommendations do you have for how to improve the situation?

Dr. LANARD. I have one very concrete recommendation I am very

pleased to pass on to you. After the CDC had its communication

problems during anthrax, that focused their minds and they developed an extremely intense risk communication training program

which they have now packaged into a CD-ROM and a series of

roaming 3-, 4-, and 5-day trainings. People can use this training

program, local agencies can use it. It is called ‘‘Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication.’’ I helped my husband, Peter Sandman,

work on it for 18 months. They also hired some of the other top

risk communication people in the world. They paid us good money,

it is all there now and belongs to the people of the United States.

We don’t get any more money if people use it. We just get the satisfaction of seeing people learn it. ‘‘Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication, CD Cynergy’’ is available from the CDC. They will also

come and give seminars at agencies. The actual CD-ROM costs like

nothing and the seminars are very cheap. They are run by extremely experienced, unfortunately experienced because of hard

lessons, CDC personnel.

One of my main lessons is to take a little training. It is the

cheapest training you can get because it has already been paid for.

Senator JEFFORDS. Ms. Borland, I want to thank you again for

testifying before the committee. I want to thank Senator Crapo for

agreeing to allow a DC resident to speak today.

Gloria, if there were three or four actions you could have the government agencies immediately take that were represented here

today, what would they be?

Ms. BORLAND. Again, because the problem is so huge, people still

don’t know where the lead pipes are. It is a huge problem. The

costs are going to be enormous, the receivership. You need to really

clean house and start over. It really needs to have that outside

management come in, outside people and just that drastic action.

That will instill the trust that is needed here in the District of Columbia from parents.

Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Best, Dr. Lucey implies in his testimony

that there is not a problem with the elevated blood levels citywide

based on the voluntary testing program that has been conducted.

Can you give me your evaluation of the adequacy of the set of selfselected samples to determine the extent of citywide problems?

Dr. BEST. I want to first emphasize that Children’s is working

closely with the Department of Health and would like to continue

to do so.

From statistical soundness, however, a self-selected sample is not

representative of any population, including the sample that Children’s has which goes back for 10 years. That is not a representative sample. The only way to do a representative sample is to pick

out a grid and use your random number generator to pull out an

appropriate number of houses and find an appropriate number of

children.

On the other hand that is very expensive and these are data we

have here in our pockets so to speak, which we can produce quickly. To generate the data that would be truly representative we

would need several years and probably $1 million.
162

Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Best, what other factors, environmental

or social for example, might compound the negative health effects

of lead exposure in children?

Dr. BEST. If you are trying to overcome a small drop in IQ, outside of preventing the drop, the best thing you can do is provide

the most enriching environment you can possibly provide. Unfortunately this is where one of those socioeconomic strata define themselves. Those of us who are educated and are more affluent can

provide those environments without having to completely demolish

our lives.

Many of our children in DC, however, do not have those advantages. Sixty percent of children in DC live in poverty or some huge

number. Those children do not have the opportunity to go to the

best day care center in the city. They often have to attend poorly

maintained, poorly funded schools. Their parents may need to work

two or three jobs if they are lucky to have two parents at home.

Those parents are not reading to them every day, those are the advantages that we as more affluent people have over the other families. You can’t buy that.

Senator JEFFORDS. Is there an acceptable level for lead concentrations?

Dr. BEST. No.

Senator JEFFORDS. Is there a safe level?

Dr. BEST. No.

Senator JEFFORDS. CDC notes on their website that there is no

level at which adverse effects are not expected and that aiming for

lower standards would be arbitrary and provide uncertain benefits.

Can you comment on that assessment?

Dr. BEST. Since the first article that noted a loss of IQ in children subjected to levels lower than 10 which was the first really

strong article in 2000, there has been a big discussion about whether or not the CDC should lower their level of 10. Even the CDC

doesn’t call that level a threshold level. It is a level above which

you need to take some action to educate the family, to make sure

they understand the harms and the need for action, good risk communication.

CDC’s point is that when they wrote that, testing is not accurate

below 10 mcg/dl. I suggest strongly now that is no longer true. We

have instruments at Children’s Hospital that can measure with a

great deal of specificity levels below 5 and in fact, we would consider a level of 1 or higher to be an accurate level.

However, that still doesn’t excuse this misleading indicator.

When I tell parents your child has a lead level of 3 and they say,

‘‘Oh, is that OK?’’ I have to say we are not going to take any action

because there is nothing we can do. We don’t have a treatment for

low lead levels. we don’t have a treatment until your lead level gets

up to 45 mcg/dl. Then that treatment, as I stated in my testimony,

can actually reduce your IQ as well.

The only thing we can do is prevent and the CDC argued in that

article that they are advocating prevention. I am not sure that is

the right approach. I think we should lower the level at which we

start doing this increased education. I think that should be zero.

Senator JEFFORDS. I guess I don’t quite understand why?
163

Dr. BEST. Because if your child has a measurable lead level, you

should be doing what you can to reduce exposure to that child.

Senator JEFFORDS. I think that is what ought to happen.

Dr. BEST. You should be figuring out whether you have lead

paint in your house, doing the appropriate abatement procedures

for lead paint which is not necessarily removing the paint. It is covering up paint that is chipping, wiping down surfaces so your toddler doesn’t go eating all the dust in the house, checking the water

supply so you can make sure that is not contributing to the source

and checking the dirt around your house where children play.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you all. I am sure the Chairman

agrees with me we have had wonderful testimony and very helpful

to us.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.

I have one more question and Dr. Best, it is for you as well and

kind of follows the same line that Senator Jeffords has been pursuing just now. That is, I understand the point about self-selected

testing and so forth. However, I am still perplexed a little as I look

at the numbers that were reported here by Dr. Lucey—that of the

201 persons who were measured, who lived in homes with the highest levels of lead in the drinking water, which was 300 ppb or

more, none had elevated blood levels and the same kind of things

came through in a number of other different ways of singling out

even though they were self-selected, singling out those who had

been drinking water.

Dr. BEST. That 300 sample would not be self-selected because

they looked at the water first and then went back and looked.

Senator CRAPO. That is the point I was getting at. When you

analyze it that way, they wouldn’t really be self-selected, would

they?

Dr. BEST. Not that sample but it is still not representative of the

DC population as a whole.

Senator CRAPO. I understand that.

Dr. BEST. It is only representative of the houses tested.

Senator CRAPO. Clearly if you are trying to get a sample of the

DC population as a whole, but if you are trying to look at the question of what is the impact on the blood level of drinking water that

has lead in it, wouldn’t those numbers tell us something?

Dr. BEST. What they tell us is that in a sample of 300 cases

where children—how old were the children?

Senator CRAPO. It doesn’t say in this report here.

Dr. BEST. They were under six I think.

Dr. LUCEY. Can I comment?

Senator CRAPO. Certainly.

Dr. LUCEY. This is everyone. We went out to their homes.

Senator CRAPO. This is not just children?

Dr. BEST. Is this adults as well?

Dr. LUCEY. Yes.

Dr. BEST. That is even a more important point because children

absorb lead more efficiently than adults, so if you have a sample

with any adults in it, then you skew it to the lower end of the lead

levels because they are not as efficient.
164

Senator CRAPO. When we talk about issues like paint or fuel or

dust or water, have there been sufficient studies in the country to

rank those risks?

Dr. BEST. No. That is only because we haven’t had a history like

we have in DC. One of the good outcomes of this I hope is a better

understanding of lead and water and how it is ingested and absorbed by children. Hopefully we will find that it does not make a

large contribution to lead poisoning of children. It is still not safe.

There is no way I can say that it is safe and I am sure there is

no one else who will admit they think it is safe.

Senator CRAPO. Certainly.

First of all, we have gone over some so both Senator Jeffords and

myself are late to other important responsibilities, so we are going

to have to wrap up now. Unfortunately I don’t know if you will be

able to stick around afterwards, Senator Jeffords. I am going to

have to rush to get to another responsibility.

I did want to thank all of you for coming. Ms. Borland, I met

with some of the residents whose pictures you have shown there

today and listened to their stories in person. You raise very, very

important points and actually put a very human face on this issue.

I think that is very helpful.

Dr. Best, your scientific knowledge and Dr. Lanard, your scientific knowledge and your suggestions are both very helpful to us

as well as the information we received from the other panelists. I

did note, Dr. Lanard, when somebody says to me, ‘‘I have no evidence of such and such’’, I am left wondering whether they have

studied it or whether they are going to. If somebody says, ‘‘we have

no evidence but it is a concern and we will be looking at it’’, I can

see how that leaves you with a much more comforting feeling.

Those very simple and sometimes counter intuitive points are very

helpful for us in communication. We appreciate that.

At this point, I am going to conclude the hearing. Again, I want

to thank all our witnesses today. I want to thank all the people of

the community here in Washington, DC and others involved who

have brought this to our attention and who are continuing to work

with us. This panel will continue its oversight responsibilities and

will continue to work with all the appropriate authorities to make

sure we identify the problem, get immediate solutions put into

place for those at risk and then move forward to deal with the

question of what caused it, how can we solve that and resolve the

issue so we can safely drink our water here in Washington, DC.

Both Senator Jeffords and I have noted to each other as we have

talked, we both live here in Washington, DC.

Senator JEFFORDS. I got my home in 1970. It was constructed in

like 1812.

Senator CRAPO. My home was constructed in 1890. So we are

way on the other side of that scale.

We really do appreciate your attention and concern today, all of

you.

This hearing will be adjourned but our focus on this issue is certainly not ended.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 5:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the chair.]
165

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. I share the concerns of

the families here today, as well as everyone who lives in DC, about the condition

of the water supply in our Nation’s capital and throughout the United States. We

have all observed the recent finger pointing of the relevant agencies, but today is

about sorting through the rhetoric, getting some answers, and finding some real solutions for DC residents. The dangerous effects of lead are well documented. Major

government agencies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that lead in drinking water can

cause a variety of adverse health effects, particularly dangerous for children under

6.

Despite this risk, the responsible agencies failed to inform the public about the

lead problem in a timely or appropriate manner. The District of Columbia’s Water

and Sewer Authority (WASA) and the EPA first became aware of the lead problem

in 2002. WASA, however, failed to notify homeowners of the problem until more

than a year later, at a public meeting in November 2003. Even when announcing

the meeting, WASA officials neglected to tell citizens the gathering would be discussing the lead issue. This long-delayed public education program has essentially

failed failed to provide district residents with timely or thorough information.

Another issue is the role of the EPA in this situation. EPA has a primary oversight role over WASA and is responsible for the lead testing programs. We must

ask, is there a problem with the testing standards issued by EPA that delayed this

result? Additionally, are the current EPA water composition standards safe for the

varying water infrastructure of this Nation? Is it possible that these standards need

revisiting?

The first panel of this hearing, comprised of EPA and WASA officials, will have

an opportunity to address these issues. I look forward to hearing their suggestions

for next steps for information gathering, providing that information to the public,

and most importantly, a strategy to solve the lead problem.

Today, we will also hear from witnesses who live in the district. I am interested

to get their perspectives on how the exchange of information can be improved. What

were the mistakes and how are they going to be fixed?

It seems incredible during this day and age, with all the technologies available,

that we are having problems communicating. WASA must improve its public communication program. How should this be done? What role will the EPA and the Department of Health play in this process? We need to know what the new strategy

will be.

The health and safety of the community is second only to its faith in those in

power to provide them with useful and updated information. I want to make sure

that we learn from these mistakes and not repeat them during the next phases of

fixing the problem.

Thank you again for conducting this hearing. I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses.

STATEMENT OF PAUL STRAUSS, U.S. SENATOR (SHADOW), DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Subcommittee Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Jeffords, and others on this

subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of Columbia,

and the father of two little girls, I would like to express my deepest concern about

the safety of our region’s drinking water. Because of the potential health problems

for local residents, it is imperative that this issue is promptly addressed.

I particularly want to thank you Chairman Crapo, and Senator Jeffords for taking

the time yesterday, to join me and my Mayor at a very moving meeting with local

residents right here in the community. It was extraordinary that some of the most

influential members of the U.S. Senate sat down in a living room with ordinary residents of the District of Columbia to hear their concerns. This gesture has set a productive tone for these hearings, and demonstrated a level of personal concern on

your part, which makes me hopeful that meaningful solutions are truly on the way.

District of Columbia’s problems have had an anti-home rule sentiment. They tend

to have a limited focus that examines only the failures of our local officials. This

is not what this situation calls for. It is instead time for full cooperation and support

to appropriately address this emerging problem. I want to emphasize that there is

a need for real solutions, not finger pointing.

When it is appropriate to do so, DC residents are more than capable of criticizing

the response of their own government. We do not need the assistance of Congress

when it comes to complaining, we need your help to solve this problem. Gratuitous
166

District bashing will not help, and neither will new restrictions on our local autonomy.

The DC Water and Sewer Authority has estimated that 23,000 homes have lead

lines and more than 5,000 homes have water with lead levels exceeding the Federal

limit. As it is well known, lead disrupts production of hemoglobin, which leads to

anemia, can cause cognitive problems, affects kidneys, which can lead to hypertension and even renal failure. Lead is considered to be one of the top environmental health dangers for children 6 and under due to the future health risks that

can arise from its exposure. In pregnant women, lead crosses into the placenta and

is absorbed by the fetus.

While the District’s response to this problem has been far from perfect, the Mayor

is quickly moving in a new direction. It is important to remember that the majority

of these service lines were installed not by our elected home-rule government, but

placed at a time when it was Congress itself that had actual control over the District of Columbia. A more significant reality is that DC is not unique when it comes

to this problem. This is a national problem, a problem that we have to find real solutions for. The unfortunate truth is that the municipal drinking water in DC is

probably not appreciably worse than the water in many other areas of the United

States. It has been estimated that the costs for the needed improvements on a national level could exceed one trillion dollars. None of our States and localities can

afford this kind of effort without Federal financial assistance. I urge the members

of this committee to work with your colleagues on the Appropriation’s committees

to see that the resources needed will be made available.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding this important

hearing. I particularly would like to thank Senator Crapo for his commitment to

leave this hearing record open so that DC residents, despite their lack of equal representation in the U.S. Senate, can at least place written statements in the record.

This will at a minimum permit their concerns to be documented and hopefully addressed. If you have not already done so, I would like to include with this statement

a petition signed by over 600 of my constituents who are urging actions on this

issue. My office intends to followup with those other constituents of mine who wanted to attend today’s hearing, but are not able to. Finally, I would like to thank Regina Szymanska and Paola Nava, of my staff for their assistance in preparing this

statement. I look forward to further hearings on this topic, and I’m happy to respond to any requests for additional information that you or any member of this

subcommittee may have.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,

OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Benjamin

Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issue of

lead in drinking water, the specific situation related to elevated lead levels in the

District of Columbia’s (DC’s) drinking water, and actions that EPA is taking at the

national level to address the matter.

LEAD AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN

EPA places a high priority on reducing exposure to lead. This contaminant has

been found to have serious health effects, particularly for children. Health effects

may include delays in normal physical and mental development in infants and

young children; slight deficits in the attention span hearing, and learning abilities

of children; and, high blood pressure in some adults (which may lead to kidney disease and increased chance of stroke). But pregnant women and children are our primary concern. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified

a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter as the level of concern for lead in

children.

Lead exposure in young children has been dramatically reduced over the last two

decades. According to a 2003 CDC report [Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children—United States, 1997–2001. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. Surveillance Summaries, September 12, 2003. MMWR 2003:52 (No. SS–

10)], 88 percent of children between the ages of 1 to 5 were estimated to have blood

lead levels that exceeded 10 μg/dl for the period between 1976–1980. By 1999–2000,

this estimate had decreased to approximately 2 percent. This decrease is largely due

to the 1973 EPA regulation to phaseout lead in gasoline between 1973 and 1995,

and to the reduction in the number of homes with lead-based paint from 64 million

in 1990 to 38 million in 2000. Some decline was also a result of EPA regulations
167

reducing lead levels in drinking water and banning lead from paint. Other reasons

include bans on lead in food and beverage containers and reductions in lead in industrial emissions, consumer goods, hazardous waste, and other sources. There are

several EPA programs that continue to be successful in reducing the public’s exposure to lead in the environment.

The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead in paint in

older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it generates. [see Risk Analysis

to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil (EPA 747–R–97–006, June

1998] This is primarily from housing built in the 1950s and homes with pre-1978

paint. Several Federal programs and surveillance and prevention programs at the

State and local level continue to work toward reducing exposure to lead. In addition,

EPA works with Federal agencies—mainly the Departments of Housing and Urban

Development, Health and Human Services, and Justice through the President’s

Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children—on implementing a Federal strategy to virtually eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

Although the greatest risks are related to paint, lead in drinking water can also

pose a risk to human health. As indicated in EPA’s public education language for

the Lead and Copper Rule, approximately 20 percent of a person’s exposure to lead

can come from drinking water. The level of exposure can be greater for children and

infants, particularly when tap water is used to mix juices and formula. EPA has

set a maximum contaminant level goal of zero for lead in drinking water and has

taken several actions over the last 20 years to reduce lead in drinking water. The

1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) effectively banned the

new use of lead solder and leaded pipes from public water supply systems and

plumbing, and limited faucets and other brass plumbing components to no more

than 8 percent lead. To address lead in schools, the Lead Contamination Control

Act (LCCA) of 1988 recalled drinking water coolers with lead-lined water reservoir

tanks, and banned new drinking water coolers with lead parts. The 1986 SDWA

Amendments also directed EPA to revise its regulations for lead and copper in

drinking water.

An interim standard for lead in drinking water of 50 micrograms per liter, or

parts per billion (ppb), had been established in 1975. Sampling of customer taps was

not required to demonstrate compliance with this standard. In 1988, the Agency

proposed revisions to the standard and issued a final standard in 1991. The revised

standard significantly changed the regulatory framework. Unlike most contaminants, lead is not generally introduced to drinking water supplies from the source

water. The primary sources of lead in drinking water are from lead pipe, lead-based

solder used to connect pipe in plumbing systems, and brass plumbing fixtures that

contain lead. Setting a standard for water leaving the treatment plant fails to capture the extent of lead leaching in the distribution system and household plumbing.

EPA requires public water suppliers to meet the regulations governing treated

water quality distributed via the public water system. The regulations do not require homeowners to replace their plumbing systems if they contain lead. To reduce

consumers’ lead exposure from tap water, EPA used its available authorities to require public water suppliers to treat their water to make it as non-corrosive as possible to metals in their customers’ plumbing systems. These treatment requirements

were issued in EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) on June 7, 1991.

The rule requires systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent lead and copper

from leaching into drinking water. Large systems serving more than 50,000 people

were required to conduct studies of corrosion control and to install the State-approved optimal corrosion control treatment by January 1, 1997. Small and medium

sized systems are required to optimize corrosion control when monitoring at the consumer taps shows action is necessary.

To assure corrosion control treatment technique requirements are effective in protecting public health, the rule also established an Action Level (AL) of 15 ppb for

lead in drinking water. Systems are required to monitor a specific number of customer taps, according to the size of the system. If lead concentrations exceed 15 ppb

in more than 10 percent of the taps sampled, the system must undertake a number

of additional actions to control corrosion and to inform the public about steps they

should take to protect their health. The rule was subsequently revised in 2000 to

modify monitoring, reporting and public education requirements, but the basic

framework, including the action level, was not changed.

The LCR has four main functions: (1) require water suppliers to optimize their

treatment system to control corrosion in customers’ plumbing; (2) determine tap

water levels of lead and copper for customers who have lead service lines or lead-
168

based solder in their plumbing system; (3) rule out the source water as a source of

significant lead levels; and, (4) if action levels are exceeded, require the suppliers

to educate their customers about lead and suggest actions they can take to reduce

their exposure to lead through public notices and public education programs. If a

water system, after installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment, continues

to fail to meet the lead action level, it must begin replacing the lead service lines

under its ownership.

Although we are currently seeing problems in the District, the LCR has proven

to be successful in reducing levels of lead in drinking water. Following issuance of

the rule in 1991, EPA required medium and large systems to conduct initial rounds

of monitoring by December 1992. The results from the first round of sampling for

large systems (serving more than 50,000) conducted in 1991 showed that 130 of 660

exceeded the action level of 15 ppb. We recently reviewed Consumer Confidence Reports for 109 of the systems that were on the list and found that only 9 were above

the action level within the last few years (one of which was DC). Thus it would appear that the actions taken by systems to reduce corrosion through appropriate

treatment have significantly reduced the public’s exposure to lead in drinking water.

However, even though we have had success in reducing exposure, we must remain

vigilant to ensure that treatment continues to control corrosion and that information

on potential risks is communicated to the public.

THE CURRENT SITUATION IN DC

In the District of Columbia, WASA failed to achieve the intended objectives of the

the regulatory framework that EPA established. Within the last few years lead concentrations have increased significantly. Public education efforts were not effective

in reaching the people who needed to know about the problem or in conveying the

risks posed to some customers by elevated levels of lead in the water.

The provision of safe drinking water is not an easy task. Treatment processes

must be balanced to address multiple risks. EPA has developed guidance to assist

systems in achieving simultaneous compliance with different standards to, for example, balance treatment processes between the need to control corrosion within a system and also avoid harmful byproducts that can result from disinfection processes.

As Regional Administrator Welsh will describe, EPA is working with WASA and the

Washington Aqueduct, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which supplies water to WASA, to determine if changes in treatment processes to reduce disinfection byproducts resulted in elevated lead levels. The situation in DC appears

to be unique. In surveying States and regions, we have not identified a systemic

problem of increasing lead concentrations in tap monitoring conducted by public

water systems. However, we will continue to investigate this matter in the weeks

ahead.

ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY EPA HEADQUARTERS

This event is a reminder of what we take for granted—that we can turn on our

faucets, whenever we want, to draw a glass of clean, safe water. I also see it as indicative of the challenges in managing the Nation’s water infrastructure. We face

the possibility of interruptions in service quality and public health protection as a

result of deterioration of aging infrastructure or outdated components, such as the

lead service lines serving older homes in the District. This will require significant

levels of coordination on the part of local, State and Federal Governments, and an

understanding of the true investment needs on the part of customers.

With respect to the situation here in DC, I fully understand the concerns that congressional Members and committees and city leaders have regarding timely and effective public notification. EPA is reviewing the actions taken by all parties to ensure that we use the lessons learned to prevent such an event from taking place

in the future—here in DC and in other communities across the Nation.

Staff from my program and EPA’s Office of Research and Development are currently working closely with the Region to provide technical assistance and are participating on the Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG) evaluating potential

technical solutions to elevated lead levels. I directed staff to convene a peer review

panel that is conducting an independent review of the TEWG’s Action Plan released

on March 10 and which will also review subsequent reports. Staff are also participating in a review of WASA’s public education material and are working with the

Region on communication issues in the District.

As the head of the national water program, I have undertaken a number of actions to address the specific issue of lead in drinking water from a national perspective.
169

All of us want to ensure that the Nation’s school children are not exposed to elevated lead levels in their drinking water. While States and schools may have acted

immediately to remove harmful lead lined coolers in accordance with the 1988 Lead

Contamination Control Act, lead solder and plumbing fixtures can still contain low

levels of lead. States and schools should continue to monitor their water outlets to

ensure that children are protected using EPA’s recommended protocol for testing

water in schools for lead. On March 18 I sent letters to every State’s Director of

Health and Environmental Agencies seeking their help in understanding and facilitating State and local efforts to monitor for lead in school drinking water. We want

to know if additional guidance might help States and local governments conduct

more comprehensive monitoring in schools and day care facilities.

I am also working with our enforcement and regional drinking water program

managers to embark on a thorough review of compliance with and implementation

of the Lead and Copper Rule. Our initial focus is to ensure that EPA has complete

and accurate information on the Lead and Copper Rule in its Safe Drinking Water

Information System. States were required to report specific results of monitoring

(i.e., 90th percentile lead levels) to EPA for systems serving populations greater

than 3,300 people beginning in 2002. On March 25, I sent a memorandum to Regional Administrators asking them to work with the States to ensure that all available information is loaded into the data system by the end of June.

With more complete information, we will be able to work in consultation with enforcement and regional staff to assess national compliance and implementation. Our

review will attempt to answer three questions: (1) Is this a national problem? Does

a large percent of the population receive water that exceeds the lead action level?

Do a large number of systems fail to meet the lead action level? (2) How well has

the rule worked to reduce lead levels in systems over the past 12 years, particularly

in systems that had demonstrated high lead levels in the initial rounds of sampling?

(3) Is the rule being effectively implemented today, particularly with respect to monitoring and public education requirements?

We expect this analysis to continue throughout the year and will release interim

reports as results become available. Part of the analysis will include a review of the

existing requirements of the rule and associated guidance. To help the Agency obtain additional information from experts, we have scheduled workshops in May to

discuss sampling protocols for the rule and utility experiences in managing simultaneous compliance with multiple drinking water rules. Workshops on additional subjects may be scheduled later in the year.

The compliance review, expert workshops and other efforts underway will help us

to determine whether it is appropriate to develop additional training or guidance

or make changes as part of our review of existing regulations. Our immediate goal

is to ensure that systems and States have the information they need today to fully

and effectively implement the rule and minimize risks to public health.

Mr. Chairman, this reminds us all of the importance of communication—especially

with the public. To maintain public health and confidence, information communicated to the public must not only be accurate, but timely, relevant and understandable. While I believe that communication efforts on the part of the Region, the

District’s Department of Health and WASA have improved, there is still much to

be done to ensure that the city’s residents are aware of the steps they can take to

protect their health. As you will hear from Mr. Welsh, the Region is completing a

thorough review of WASA’s and the Aqueduct’s activities to determine if any violations of environmental law have occurred. EPA will take the appropriate steps to

protect public health, both by enforcing existing regulations and by using its additional authorities to address imminent and substantial threats to public health, as

appropriate.

We will work closely with the Region, our public service partners and concerned

citizens to investigate the situation in DC and to review implementation of the rule

nationwide. EPA wants to ensure that citizens across the country are confident in

the safety of their drinking water.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I am pleased to answer

any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF DONALD WELSH, DIRECTOR, REGION III, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Donald

Welsh, Regional Administrator for Region III of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today

to discuss the important issue of lead in the tap water of District of Columbia resi-
170

dents, and the steps EPA and other agencies are taking to resolve the problem on

a short-and long-term basis.

Elevated levels of lead in the environment, whether in drinking water or lead

paint, can pose significant risks to health—particularly to pregnant women and

young children. Reducing exposure to all sources of lead is vital to protecting the

health of our citizens.

It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District continue to live with

fear and uncertainty over the quality of the water they drink. At EPA, we will not

be satisfied until all aspects of this problem are resolved. There is no higher priority

for my office than to work with the city to protect residents.

To that end, EPA and the District of Columbia have directed—and are closely

monitoring—a series of interim measures to ensure that residents have safe drinking water and proper precautionary guidance. At the same time, a multi-agency

Technical Expert Working Group is acting as quickly as possible to identify and correct the cause of the elevated lead levels.

The city and EPA have had regular meetings and conversations to monitor

progress and to ensure necessary actions are being taken. While we are satisfied

at this point that the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) is

taking the required steps to deal with the immediate threat to public health, EPA

reserves the right to use enforcement authorities to compel action if necessary.

Among a host of immediate steps being taken to safeguard public health, WASA

is delivering certified water filters to occupants in the estimated 23,000 homes and

businesses with lead service lines, and conducting additional tap water sampling to

fully identify the extent of the problem in the District. There also are expanded outreach efforts underway to ensure residents have essential information to protect

themselves and their families. Details of these and other actions will be provided

later in this testimony.

HISTORY AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IN DC

In the District of Columbia, the regulatory framework established in EPA’s 1991

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) did not achieve key aspects of its intended objectives.

The LCR requires systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent lead and copper

from leaching into drinking water. To assure corrosion control is effective, the rule

establishes an action level of 15 parts per billion for lead in drinking water. If lead

concentrations exceed the action level in more than 10 percent of the taps sampled,

the system must intensify tap water sampling and undertake a number of additional actions to control corrosion and to educate the public about steps they should

take to protect their health. If the problem is not abated, the system must also

begin a lead service line replacement program.

Within the last couple of years in the District of Columbia, lead concentrations

in tap water in many homes increased well above the 15 parts per billion action

level. In addition, public education efforts were ineffective and, we believe, not fully

compliant in all instances with EPA rules.

By way of background, two public water systems are responsible for complying

with provisions of the LCR in the District. The Washington Aqueduct owns and operates two water treatment plants which provide finished drinking water to WASA,

as well as to Arlington County and the city of Falls Church in Virginia. The Aqueduct is responsible for all corrosion control treatment for its three customer systems.

WASA, which distributes water from the Aqueduct to customers in the District, is

responsible for monitoring lead and copper at its retail customers’ taps. EPA’s Region III office in Philadelphia has primary oversight and enforcement responsibility

for public water systems in the District.

The results of DC’s required tap monitoring exceeded the 15 ppb action level for

10 percent of taps monitored during six of 15 reporting periods since January

1992—three times prior to 1994 and three times since 2002.

During the 1990s, several studies were conducted by WASA, the Aqueduct, and

EPA to support identification of an optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) for

the drinking water supplied by the Aqueduct. EPA gave the Aqueduct conditional

OCCT approval in 1997 and, after reviewing results from several required reports,

provided final approval in 2000. Later that year, the Aqueduct replaced its secondary disinfection treatment by converting from free chlorine to chloramines, primarily to ensure compliance with EPA’s more stringent requirements to combat serious health consequences related to disinfection byproducts.

The OCCT implemented by the Aqueduct appeared to be effective in minimizing

lead levels until the sampling period between July 2001 and June 30, 2002. EPA

received a final report from WASA on August 27, 2002 indicating that the 90th percentile value had increased to 75 ppb during that period. The high level required
171

that WASA conduct more frequent monitoring and carry out public education. The

lead action level was also exceeded for subsequent monitoring periods in 2003, with

90th percentile values at 40 ppb (January 1 to June 30, 2003) and 63 ppb (July 1

to December 31, 2003).

In 2003, EPA Region III worked through an EPA Headquarters’ contractor to hire

Professor Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech to help analyze the situation and make

recommendations to assist the region in working with WASA. Professor Edwards’

draft report delivered in October 2003 provided key input to the evaluation of the

problem during the fall of 2003 and continues to aid the expert technical team convened by EPA to identify the underlying causes for elevated lead levels.

In addition to the stepped up monitoring, when WASA exceeded the action level,

the authority was required to undertake a lead service line replacement program.

The LCR requires that a system replace at least 7 percent of the lead service lines

the system owns annually until all of the lines have been replaced, or until tap

water monitoring indicates that its 90th percentile lead level is equal to or less than

15 ppb. If the sample for a service line shows a concentration below the action level,

the line serving that house is considered to be replaced.

Starting in March 2003, WASA began an expanded lead service line sampling program to determine the concentrations of lead contributed by individual lines. Region

III received sampling results from this program on October 27, 2003. The information was reviewed by our technical staff with an eye toward determining how to address the underlying cause of the corrosion problem. The results indicated that 385

lead service lines had been physically replaced and that an additional 1,241 lines

were considered replaced because they had monitoring results below the 15 ppb action level. The report also indicated that 3,372 of 4,613 lead service lines tested

through September 30, 2003 had lead levels that exceeded the lead action level. In

many cases, lead levels from customer taps were very high, with levels above 300

ppb in nearly 3 percent of lines and above 100 ppb in 18.5 percent of lines. Frequently, several months passed between when a sample was collected and information was provided to homeowners who participated in the expanded sampling program. In addition, the notifications were not effective in relaying to the customers

the significance of the problem.

INTERIM STEPS BEING TAKEN TO PROTECT RESIDENTS

As indicated earlier, WASA and the District of Columbia government are undertaking a series of actions outlined by EPA to address the immediate public health

threat posed by lead in drinking water. The actions include:

• WASA will ensure delivery by April 10 of the NSF International-certified water

filters and consumer instructions to occupants in homes and buildings with lead

service lines. Periodic replacement of the filters also will be ensured.

• Additional tap water sampling has begun in schools as part of a program to test

a representative group of homes and other buildings that are not served by lead

service lines to help determine the full scope of the problem. The city began the

school testing program on March 27 based upon EPA’s approval of the sampling protocol, and as of last Friday (April 2) WASA had anticipated the completion of sampling at approximately 150 schools. WASA has agreed by today (April 7) to address

EPA questions on the sampling plan for other facilities in the city so that we can

authorize WASA to move forward on that initiative.

• WASA has committed to an accelerated schedule for physically replacing lead

service lines in the District. WASA has agreed to complete 1,615 actual service line

replacements during the compliance period that ends September 30—a far greater

pace than was met during the prior compliance period. As part of EPA’s annual

grants to the District, the agency is providing a total of $11.3 million to WASA for

lead line replacement this year.

• WASA is expediting notification to customers of the results of water sampling

at their residences, committing to providing results in 30 days or less. WASA has

stated that residents now receive a letter that provides more detail about their sampling results, and those with high lead levels are referred to the DC Department

of Health.

• As EPA, the District and WASA continue to expand outreach efforts to provide

important information to consumers, WASA will provide to EPA for our review no

later than today (April 7) an enhanced public education plan to satisfy a directive

that communications on the lead issue convey the proper sense of urgency and concern for public health. The goal is to reach all sectors of the population in an effective way. WASA already has committed to a series of activities, including placing

advertisements in ethnic and foreign language newspapers, developing and distributing public service announcements to radio stations, and taping a program this
172

week on the District’s cable channel that will be shown in a variety of venues.

WASA also will continue to meet with various community groups and organizations.

EPA is undertaking a compliance audit of WASA’s lead service line and public

education actions. In letters to WASA last week, EPA identifies instances in which

requirements were apparently not met and, as part of the enforcement process, requires WASA to provide information and documentation to EPA responding to those

findings. Once EPA receives the requested information, we will officially determine

whether there have been violations and take the appropriate action.

In a separate initiative, an internal EPA team is evaluating WASA’s prior outreach efforts—a process to be completed by month’s end that involves a review of

materials, interviews with residents and public officials, and a survey of best practices from public water systems around the country.

It is clear that WASA was ineffective in informing the public of the magnitude

of the problem of lead in drinking water and in conveying the steps families and

individuals should take to protect themselves. The spirit of the LCR encourages robust communication focused on the public’s right to know. Mass media tools, including direct contact with media representatives, as is recommended in EPA guidance,

were not used effectively.

The Region is taking a critical look back at how it could have done a better job

in its oversight of WASA. There will continue to be lessons learned that will benefit

the agency in the future. We have revised our oversight procedures to assure that

shortcomings in public outreach are identified earlier and corrected. We are more

closely monitoring WASA’s activities to ensure that system-wide notices effectively

inform customers about the lead risk and we will ensure that information provided

in WASA’s next Consumer Confidence Report to customers is clear with respect to

information about lead levels in drinking water.

In addition to our collaborative efforts with the city, EPA has taken a number of

actions to provide information to residents and others on the issue of lead in the

District’s drinking water.

The Region has created a new program with the National Nursing Centers Consortium, called Lead Safe DC, at an initial cost of $100,000, to bring lead education

information, home visits and blood level testing to District neighborhoods. The consortium is the Nation’s only network of nurse-managed community healthcare centers, and has enjoyed great success with a similar lead information program with

EPA in the city of Philadelphia.

The Region has created a comprehensive Web site that includes advice for consumers, frequently asked questions, health effects information, and links to informational hotlines, WASA and the DC government. It can be accessed at www.epa.gov/

/dclead.

EPA has dispatched community outreach specialists to provide information and

get input on the lead issue from community groups and individual residents in the

District. EPA has a National Safe Drinking Water Hotline, and the region is

proactively providing consumer information to radio stations for use in the District.

Nearly a dozen regional employees have volunteered to assist with translation to

Spanish of written and broadcast materials.

ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND CORRECT SOURCE OF HIGH LEAD LEVELS

The Technical Expert Working Group from the public and private sectors is in the

midst of its investigation to identify the cause of the elevated lead levels and

present a solution as quickly as possible. The team already has met early milestones

in the process. EPA is scheduled to receive a proposal by April 15 from the technical

team for a water chemistry change to reduce corrosion while maintaining the optimum protection against other harmful contaminants that can be found in drinking

water. The preliminary recommendation is to conduct a partial system test using

orthophosphates at WASA’s Fort Reno pumping station and thereafter, a full system

test by feeding orthophosphates at the Dalecarlia and McMillan water treatment

plants. Under the proposed timetable, the partial system test is currently planned

for June 1, followed by full system implementation on or about September 1. To review the team’s findings, EPA has formed an independent peer review group made

up of experts who are not involved in the planning.

Until the revised treatment process is in place and lead levels in tap water are

reduced, all consumers are advised to follow appropriate tap flushing recommendations and to heed the District Department of Health’s advisory that pregnant or

nursing women and children under 6 years of age who live in homes that have a

lead service line should not drink unfiltered tap water.
173

CONCLUSION

In closing, working closely with the District of Columbia, our public service partners and concerned citizens, we will continue to aggressively act to protect residents

and resolve the lead problem. We are taking action to hasten the day when the citizens of the District of Columbia can once again be confident in the safety of their

drinking water.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information this afternoon. I am

pleased to answer any questions you may have.

RESPONSES BY DONALD WELSH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. When did EPA first know of elevated lead levels in DC tap water?

Response. DC exceeded the 15 ppb action level during three reporting periods between 1992 and 1994 before it installed corrosion control treatment (CCT). The CCT

implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Aqueduct (Aqueduct), and given interim approval by EPA Region III in 1997 and final approval in

2000, appeared to be effective in minimizing lead levels until the reporting period

between July l, 2001 and June 30, 2002. EPA received a final report from the DC

Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) on August 27, 2002 indicating that the 90th

percentile value had increased to 75 ppb during that period. The high level required

that WASA conduct more frequent monitoring every 6 months. The lead action level

was also exceeded for subsequent monitoring periods in 2003, with 90th percentile

values of 40 ppb (January 1 to June 30, 2003) and 63 ppb (July 1 to December 31,

2003).

Question 2. Has EPA identified any specific events or system changes that would

have caused these high lead levels?

Response. EPA is reviewing past reports and performance data related to how the

water was treated and how water chemistry changed in the Aqueduct wholesale customer’s distribution systems. The review will investigate several factors which could

have affected pH within the distribution system or otherwise affected chemistry in

such a manner so as to increase corrosion. The areas that will be reviewed include,

but are not limited to: • the process change from chlorine to chloramine disinfection in November 2000

and potential impact of nitrification, • the potential impact of drought during the period 2001–2002 on pH, comparing

to changes observed in chemistry during the drought of 1998–99, • the effects of water distribution system maintenance and operation practices,

and• the effects of corrosion control treatment management practices.

The Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG), which includes contractors for

EPA, WASA and the Aqueduct and staff from WASA, the Aqueduct and EPA’s Region III Headquarters and Cincinnati offices is assessing the possibility that some

or all of the above factors contributed to the failure of the approved optimal corrosion control treatment to keep lead concentrations below acceptable levels.

Question 3. What actions did EPA initiate to determine the proximate cause of

the higher lead levels?

Response. Following notification of WASA’s exceedance of the lead action level in

August 2002, EPA met with WASA staff in September 2002 to discuss activities that

WASA needed to undertake to comply with the LCR. The main requirements were

implementation of public education and lead service line replacement programs.

WASA also agreed to resume full lead and copper tap sampling. EPA, WASA, and

the Washington Aqueduct also discussed potential causes of the lead level changes

and the need for a review of the corrosion control treatment process to determine

what could have caused the lead action level exceedance and what could be done

to correct it.

In January 2003, EPA Region III began the process of conducting the review on

the behalf of WASA and the Aqueduct. WASA later decided to engage its own contractor to conduct a similar review. EPA developed a work assignment to conduct

the corrosion control review under the scope of an existing contract and circulated

it to WASA, the Aqueduct, Arlington County and the city of Falls Church to ensure

that the concerns of all parties involved would be addressed. Work began in May

2003. WASA’s contractor began working at about the same time. The Aqueduct assisted in this process by providing data and technical information required by the

reviewers. In the fall of 2003, the contractors recommended that additional studies

be conducted to better identify the cause of the lead action level exceedance so that

the proper corrosion control treatment could be applied. WASA began implementing
174

these studies in December 2003. Analyses of WASA’s lead service line testing results in December 2003 found high lead levels which appear to be caused by the

lead service lines.

EPA and WASA continue to use their contractors to implement the planned studies, review the results, and recommend new corrosion control treatment. A Technical

Expert Working Group (TEWG), which includes contractors for EPA, WASA and the

Aqueduct and staff from WASA, the Aqueduct, EPA’s Region III, Headquarters and

Cincinnati offices, the District of Columbia Department of Health, and the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention has also been formed to more fully investigate

the matter.

Questions 4 and 5. What recommendations did Region 3 make to WASA or the

Corps in terms of changes to the operations of the water system to mitigate for high

lead levels?

Did EPA recommend adding zinc orthophosphate, or another phosphate additive

to the water?

Response. In June 1994, the Aqueduct submitted a corrosion control treatment

(CCT) study to EPA, in compliance with the requirements of the LCR for all large

public water systems (serving more than 50,000 people) which recommended that

pH adjustment be used to control corrosion. In 1995, EPA engaged a contractor to

conduct a sanitary survey of the District’s drinking water storage and distribution

system. EPA included a task to evaluate the CCT recommendation in the Aqueduct’s corrosion treatment study. The sanitary survey recommended that additional

consideration be given to the use of a phosphate corrosion inhibitor.

In 1996, EPA engaged a contractor to review: (1) the Aqueduct’s CCT study and

recommendation, (2) observations and recommendations of the sanitary survey, and

(3) additional data about the District’s distribution system water quality, particularly with respect to the coliform bacteria problem the District had experienced over

the previous few years. Because the contractor had concerns that a phosphate corrosion inhibitor might have adverse effects on water quality in an older water system

such the District’s, he recommended against use of a phosphate corrosion inhibitor.

The contractor believed that it would be more appropriate for the Aqueduct to refine

its pH adjustment so that it could maintain pH at a higher level.

In 1997, EPA conditionally designated pH adjustment as the optimal corrosion

control treatment (OCCT) for the Aqueduct. WASA conducted tap sampling during

1997 to 2001 and sample results did not exceed the lead action level. In 2000, EPA

designated pH adjustment as the OCCT for the Aqueduct.

With respect to the current elevated levels, EPA has been working with the Technical Expert Working Group to determine what changes should be made to the operation of the water system to reduce lead levels. Based on the recommendations of

that group, Region III has approved an interim modification of the approved OCCT

for the Aqueduct and WASA to allow for an initial application of a phosphate-based

corrosion inhibitor. The April 30, 2004 approval letter from the Region to WASA and

the Aqueduct, which outlines the process is available on the EPA web site at http:/

/www.epa:gov/dclead/corrosionletter4-30.pdf. If the trial application is successful and does not cause any other unanticipated treatment concerns, full system application could begin as early as mid-July.

RESPONSES BY DONALD WELSH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. What explanation are you giving to parents whose children were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking water and what steps are you

taking to regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?

Response. As Regional Administrator Welsh noted in testimony before the subcommittee, it is unacceptable to EPA that many families in the District are living

with fear and uncertainty over the quality of the water they drink. The goals of the

Federal requirements for the lead and copper rule are to ensure that the public is

informed about potential risks and the steps they can take to minimize exposure.

In its outreach efforts, WASA did not fulfill its responsibility to effectively inform

all affected parties about a problem with their water. Notifications to individual

residents were often not timely and did not achieve the goal of getting information

to those who needed to know. Mass media tools were not used as effectively as they

could have been. There should have been more widespread and urgent communication of the problem District-wide.

In hindsight, EPA could have more quickly assessed the timeliness, effectiveness

and impact of WASA’s public notification program and more promptly directed

WASA to correct its deficiencies. We have revised our oversight procedures to assure

that any shortcomings in public outreach are identified early and corrected. We are
175

also investigating potential violations of the regulatory requirements relating to

public education.

An EPA team has completed a report that reviewed the effectiveness of WASA’s

public education efforts. The report contains recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and delivery of public education under the lead and copper rule. It was

transmitted to WASA on May 16, 2004. This report also included recommendations

for EPA Region III to improve its oversight of WASA’s public education program.

We are more closely monitoring WASA’s activities’ to ensure that system-wide notices effectively inform customers about the lead risk and we will ensure that information provided in WASA’s next Consumer Confidence Report to customers is clear

with respect to information about lead levels in drinking water. WASA has been directed to submit an Enhanced Public Education Plan by May 21, 2004.

We are also taking our own actions to provide information to the public. EPA Region III dispatched community outreach specialists to provide information and get

input on the lead issue from community groups and individual residents in the District. We continue to provide information on our Regional and National web sites

and the National Safe Drinking Water Hotline. We have provided public service announcements, in English and Spanish, to media outlets in the Washington, DC area

and have held or participated in 10 public meetings since early February. We have

also been meeting with a coalition of environmental and consumer groups—the Lead

Emergency Action for the District (LEAD) coalition, to both hear their concerns and

to identify how to better communicate with the general public.

Question 2a. How was it that the EPA was able to identify these incidents of noncompliance [with respect to public education] 2 years after the fact but failed to

identify them at the time they mattered most—when the public needed to have accurate information about the potential risks associated with lead contaminated

drinking water?

Response. The technical staff in EPA Region III were focused on solving the problem of elevated lead levels. Staff noted that, public education activities were undertaken by WASA, but did not conduct a detailed review of the public service announcement. After the lead problem was observed to be more widespread, additional

staff were assigned to perform an audit of all of WASA’s public education materials

and actions. This group conducted an onsite file review of WASA’s records in March,

2004. The review team identified several potential violations which were outlined

in a March 31, 2004 ‘‘show cause’’ letter from the Region to WASA and an information request letter to determine if there are any additional violations. The audit is

ongoing.

As Regional Administrator Welsh mentioned in his testimony, standard procedures for handling and reviewing WASA’s, as well as the Washington Aqueduct’s

compliance documentation have been revised. This was done to ensure that more

detailed reviews of relevant materials are conducted by staff from the program office

as well as the enforcement office. Public education materials will also be reviewed

by those with experience in public outreach, writing and education to help ensure

that WASA’s outreach and education materials’ are sufficient to gain the attention

of customers so that they may take appropriate actions to reduce their exposure

risks to lead or other contaminants.

Question 2b. How can you provide this Committee and the American people with

any true assurances that our environmental laws are being enforced given the Agency’s record on enforcement of environmental laws under this Administration, and

the Agency’s performance on this DC lead issue?

Response. EPA continues to work with our State partners to take appropriate

steps to ensure that public health is protected. With respect to the provision of safe

drinking water, this is accomplished by enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act and

its implementing regulations; including the use of EPA’s authority under the Act to

address situations that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to

public health. In fiscal year 2003 alone, EPA took 419 formal enforcement actions

to address noncompliance by public water systems. Over the past 6 years, EPA has

taken more than 4,000 formal enforcement actions under the Safe Drinking Water

Act (to address public water systems and underground injection control). EPA also

uses compliance assistance where appropriate as a tool to address drinking water

noncompliance. EPA remains committed to ensuring that clean safe drinking water

is available to every person, every day, no matter where they are in the Nation.

Regarding lead issues in particular, EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance

program, in Headquarters and in the Regions, is actively participating in ongoing

review of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. EPA Region III is working

closely with the District of Columbia government to ensure that the Water and

Sewer Authority takes appropriate actions to protect public health immediately and
176

to ensure that their future actions are effective and meet both the intent and the

letter of the regulations. If, at any time, EPA feels that the current intervention efforts are not working, Region III will issue an administrative action or take other

appropriate action to enforce public health protections provided by our laws and regulations.

Question 3. Can you describe how the WASA action plan was developed and is

that a public document? What actions will EPA take if WASA diverts from the contents of the plan and what oversight is the Agency conducting to ensure that the

plan is executed?

Response. On March 4, 2004, EPA Region III issued a letter to the District of Columbia government listing ten actions that the Region believed were necessary to

(1) reduce the public’s risk of lead exposure, (2) improve the knowledge base on lead

levels in tap water by conducting widespread testing and (3) improve the effectiveness of public education. The District’s City Administrator’s office transmitted a letter to WASA ordering that these ten actions be met and requiring that WASA submit plans to address each of the ten areas. Action plans were required to be submitted at different times depending on the action item to be addressed. WASA has

developed and submitted each of the required plans. The Region and the District

of Columbia have requested further clarification or more details on some of these

plans. The letters and the plans are considered public documents and are available

from EPA Region III’s DC lead in drinking water website located at www.epa.gov/

delead.

Question 4. [Re: inaccurate testing instructions from WASA]. Can you comment

on your assessment of the importance of providing residents with accurate testing

instructions and a description of how you have corrected this problem?

Response. EPA believes that it is critical that WASA provide accurate sampling

instructions to residents. The data generated by this sampling is used to prioritize

lead service line replacements, identify the people in the ‘‘unknown service line’’ category who should receive water filters and help inform residents about potential exposure. The data obtained from monitoring conducted using faulty sampling instructions distributed by WASA in early March 2004 is nearly useless for the purposes

outlined above.

Upon being alerted to errors in the testing instructions, EPA Region III staff sent

e-mail messages on March 11, 2004 to the Deputy General Manager and to the

water quality manager of WASA describing our concerns. These e-mail messages requested that WASA immediately correct the instructions, identify who received the

incorrect instructions with their sampling kit and describe a plan to correct the

problem. EPA Region III staff held a conference call with WASA’s water quality

manager the following day to discuss the instruction sheet and data generated with

its use. Although the water quality manager was not involved in this effort, which

was managed by a WASA contractor, he confirmed to EPA Region III staff that

WASA would not use these data for any compliance purposes and that he would

work with others within WASA to identify which residents received sampling kits

with the faulty instructions and send out new kits. The water quality manager sent,

via e-mail, the corrected version of the instruction sheet to review by the end of the

day on March 12, 2004.

On March 16, the Regional Administrator sent a letter documenting the previous

correspondence between his staff and WASA and required that WASA report back

to him on the number of people who had received sampling kits with faulty instructions. He also requested that WASA send out new kits to all persons so identified.

WASA, in a March 24th letter to the Region, responded that more than 2,000 residents had received the faulty instructions and that new sampling kits with the corrected instructions would be shipped to all of them via UPS by March 27th, with

delivery to be completed by the end of the following week. WASA has since confirmed to the Region that this schedule was met.

Question 5. [Re: Lead service line replacement only required for public portion].

I am interested in your views on whether public water systems or private homeowners should bear the responsibility for lead service line replacement?

Response. Where corrosion control is effective, removal of a lead service line may

be unnecessary. However, when removal of the line does become necessary, EPA believes that removing the entire service line is the most prudent approach to assure

public health protection. However, current legal authorities are limited to requiring

water utilities that enter into the lead service line replacement phase of the Lead

and Copper Rule to replace only the portion of the line that is under their control.

The rule does not, however, preclude a utility from replacing the private portion at

no expense to the homeowners if they determine it is appropriate. Our regulations
177

require a utility to notify property owners at least 45 days prior to partial line replacement and to offer to the homeowner the opportunity to replace the private portion of the line at the same time.

The decision on who should pay for the private portion of the line replacement

is a local, legal and policy decision. The Region knows of one instance where residents were required to replace their privately owned portion of the lead service line;

at property owners’ own expense. Because its source water chemistry poses challenges in implementing corrosion control treatment, Madison, Wisconsin began a

program to replace all of the lead service lines in the city. The local government

passed an ordinance that requires the property owner to replace their privatelyowned portion of the service line, at the property owner’s expense, when the water

utility replaces the publically owned portion to ensure that all of the lead service

lines are replaced on an accelerated schedule.

Question 6. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Did anyone here refer to previous instances of lead contamination in the District when formulating a response plan? If so, please describe

how you used this information, and if not, why not?

Response. None of the staff working on this issue in EPA Region III were in the

drinking water program in 1986. Our records for that time period have been

archived or destroyed according to EPA records management protocols. As a result,

current staff had no knowledge of the 1986 incidents related to lead in the tap water

within the Palisades area of the District. The Regional Administrator has asked his

staff to research this incident to determine if there are any lessons to be learned

from it.

RESPONSES BY DONALD WELSH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question 1. In testimony, you suggested that EPA would like to judge more accurately whether public messages are received about the risks of lead contamination

in drinking water. You alluded to professional marketing practices for measuring

the effectiveness of commercials and other advertisements. What measures such as

this have you identified?

Response. At the request of the Regional Administrator, EPA staff conducted a

review of the education and outreach activities which occurred in response to elevated levels of lead in the District’s drinking water during 2002 and 2003. The report is entitled ‘‘Recommendations for Improving the Washington DC Water and

Sewer Authority Lead in Drinking Water Public Education Program.’’ It was transmitted to WASA on May 6, 2004 and made available to the public through our

Internet site.

The review was undertaken to advise the Regional Administrator of potential

areas for improvement by both WASA and EPA so that our agencies may implement

the most effective outreach and education programs on the important issue of safe

drinking water. The report was prepared by a team from various offices of EPA with

expertise in drinking water on technical and regulatory issues, as well as outreach,

education and risk communication. The report identified several steps that WASA

can take to move toward more effective public education and outreach on the subject

of lead in drinking water. In carrying out research for this report, we gathered input

through interviews conducted with District of Columbia residents on their impressions of WASA’s public education efforts and how best to reach them through a revamped education program.

A major recommendation in this report was that, in addition to following mandatory requirements and making use of EPA guidance, WASA should hire internal or

consultant expertise in the areas of marketing research and risk communications.

This expertise is needed to help the utility in assessing the audience to be reached,

making recommendations for design and content of materials to be used, as well as

delivery methods. The authors also suggested that these consultants assist with conducting a communications audit, developing a strategic communications plan and

creating a tracking/measurement tool to assess the effectiveness of education efforts.

Additionally, use of an outside consultant may help at least partially address the

trust factor mentioned by some of those interviewed.

These recommendations should be viewed as a key input to WASA’s continuing

efforts to plan and carry out enhancements to drinking water education efforts both

for regulatory compliance and ‘‘beyond compliance’’ efforts.

In order to have a clear path for the future, we requested that WASA prepare

an Enhanced Public Education Plan in one central document to be submitted to

EPA by May 21, 2004. We suggested that the Enhanced Plan incorporate the input
178

of the report, as well as other recommendations that have been made as an outcome

of other reviews and internal WASA reviews.

Question 2. What is the status of the Lead Safety DC program, which you mentioned in testimony? You described the program as an outgrowth of a pilot project

in Philadelphia called Lead Safe Babies.

Response. The Region has created a new program with the National Nursing Cen- ters Consortium, called Lead Safe D.C., at an initial cost of $100,000, to bring lead

education information, home visits and blood level testing to District neighborhoods.

The consortium is the Nation’s only network of nurse-managed community

healthcare centers, and has enjoyed great success with a similar lead information

program with EPA in the city of Philadelphia.

The Lead Safe Babies (LSB) pilot served approximately 100 new/pregnant mothers in North Philadelphia on the issues of lead poisoning prevention. The program

consisted of an initial home visit where the care taker is given a pre-test knowledge

questionnaire, and clarification and/or additional education is provided regarding

lead poisoning prevention. The visit includes detailed education about preventing

lead poisoning; including but not limited to, the importance of hand washing, washing toys, house cleaning for lead dust, avoiding peeling paint, and good nutrition.

When the child is approximately 8 months old, a second home visit is conducted

where a post-test knowledge questionnaire is given to determine the knowledge retained by the care taker and to encourage initial blood lead testing for the child and

each year subsequently until their sixth birthday. Due to the success of the pilot,

another grant was awarded that expanded LSB to all of Philadelphia with an emphasis on high risk zip codes.

In 2002, the LSB program was expanded to five additional counties in Pennsylvania and the NNCC conducted an analysis of the effectiveness of the LSB program

so that the program could be improved and easily adopted by community organizations. The analysis of the program showed that the average blood lead levels of children in the LSB program were much lower than compared to the average blood lead

level of children in the same census tracts. An analysis of the LSB Program shows

that in the four participating health care centers, the average LSB blood lead level

ranged from 3.7 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) to 9.5 ug/dL on the first test (at

approximately 8 months of age) as compared to neighborhood averages (neighborhood where the centers are located) of 16.56 ug/dL to 24.10 ug/dL. The second test

is conducted at 2 years of age when children are more mobile and are at increased

risk for exposure to lead. There were only two centers that had enough data from

the second tests to show results which indicated that there was an average of 10

ug/dL to 10.75 ug/dL for LSB program children versus 14.72 ug/dL to 15.42 ug/dl

for the neighborhood.

To date the LSB program has served over 1,100 at-risk infants. Last year, the

Centers for Disease Control awarded the city of Philadelphia along with NNCC and

its member nurse-managed facilities funding to continue in home visits to approximately 1250 mothers in the Philadelphia area. The LSB materials have also been

translated into Spanish. We look forward to bringing the program to the District

and hope to achieve similar levels of success.

Question 3. You testified to the need for better teamwork if the Lead and Copper

Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your agency and the other authorized agencies are working very closely in what has become a closely-scrutinized effort, what improvements in teamwork have you leanred? Also, how will you change

routine procedures for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system returns below the action levels?

Response. We learned that, internally, EPA can improve our oversight of the District’s water supplies by better utilization of our resources and by involving expertise from elsewhere within the Agency. This expertise should be tapped even when

monitored parameters are within acceptable ranges. As mentioned in previous testimony, internal procedures in EPA Region III have been changed so that data and

compliance reports are reviewed and tracked by several technical staff rather than

one program manager. Education and outreach materials are being reviewed by

communications and public relations staff members.

WASA has agreed to share their materials in draft form so that EPA can review

outreach documents and offer suggestions not only on compliance with the regulations, but on clear, concise messages related to obtaining the public’s attention. My

staff have already begun the process of gathering input from State agency staff who

deal with many public water supplies and have decades of experience in monitoring

normal water supply operation parameters. We have improved our coordination and

communication on drinking water issues with the District Department of Health,

WASA, and the Aqueduct, and have committed to maintain this closer relationship.
179

We have also learned how important it is to get local community groups involved

early in any issue affecting the general public, whether it is EPA or WASA garnering their involvement.

STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Good afternoon, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Graham and other members

of the Committee. Good afternoon, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Graham and

other members of the Committee.

Thank you for your invitation to the Authority to provide information to the Subcommittee on the exceedance in the District of Columbia of the action level under

the Lead and Copper Rule.

I am Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager of the District of Columbia Water and

Sewer Authority, and I am accompanied by the Authority Chief Engineer and Deputy General Manager, Michael Marcotte.

I know that you have many questions, so I will be very brief. Providing high quality services under the Safe Drinking Water Act for people who live in, work in and

visit this city, has been, and continues to be our top priority.

WASA’S MISSION

The Board of Directors only recently updated WASA’s Strategic Plan for 2003

through 2005.

WASA’s vision of its future is to be the industry leader and environmental steward in providing excellent water service and wastewater collection and treatment

services for all customers.

The mission of WASA is to serve all it regional customers with superior service

by operating reliable and cost effective water and wastewater services in accordance

with best practices.

Among our values are to be respectful and sensitive to the needs of our customers,

ethical in professional and personal conduct, and committed to equity, trust and integrity in all that we do.

In facing the current challenge, we pledge every effort to: (1) understand the phenomenon of increased levels of lead concentration in certain households; (2) allocate

the necessary resources and work with the District government and our partner

agencies to address the problem; (3) be candid with the public and with you about

the information we have and about our plans.

WASA’S HISTORY, GOVERNANCE, AND OPERATIONS

The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, or ‘‘WASA’’, was created as

an independent agency of the District of Columbia in 1996 following an extended

period of disinvestments in the critical infrastructure serving the District and the

diversion of over $80 million in water and sewer ratepayer enterprise funds for unrelated expenditures.

WASA is an independent, quasi-governmental regional entity that is governed by

an eleven-member board of directors that is appointed by the Mayor of Washington,

DC and confirmed by the District of Columbia Council. Six of the Board members,

including its chairman, are District residents chosen by the Mayor. Five members,

though named by the Mayor, are selected by the county executives from surrounding

jurisdictions.

WASA’s Board has fiduciary responsibility for the Authority, which has independent bond authority and a ‘‘double A’’ bond rating. In fiscal year 2003, operating

revenues totaled approximately $255 million. Capital expenditures reached approximately $200 million for the year, and are part of a $1.8 billion 10-year capital reinvestment infrastructure program.

WASA provides wastewater treatment services for the District of Columbia, and

Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, as well as portions of

Loudon and Fairfax Counties in Virginia at Blue Plains, the largest advanced

wastewater treatment plant in the world. WASA also operates the District of Columbia’s 1800-mile storm water and wastewater collection systems.

As you know, WASA purchases treated drinking water from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers Washington Aqueduct for delivery through the District’s 1300 mile distribution system to retail customers in the District of Columbia.
180

DISTRICT HISTORY IN EXCEEDING THE LEAD & COPPER RULE

Since 1991 when EPA promulgated the current Lead and Copper Rule, the District of Columbia, like other municipalities, routinely tested water for lead concentrations in a small number of homes.

The District of Columbia exceeded the action level in the period 1993–1994, and

WASA’s predecessor agency began taking steps to address the chemical makeup of

the drinking water.

The Washington Aqueduct implemented a corrosion control regime that alleviated

the problem of lead leaching in 1994, and lead levels remained below the action

level for several years. The EPA conditionally approved the corrosion control approach in 1997.

When WASA began its operations in 1997, annual compliance testing from 1996

through 2001 indicated that DC did not exceed the action level. In fact, in 1999,

the EPA offered, and WASA accepted, a reduced regular sampling program. As a

consequence, the number of samples required for compliance monitoring was reduced to 50 households sampled annually.

THE RECENT EXCEEDANCE

In May 2002, EPA approved the revised optimum corrosion control program.

In August 2002, WASA provided the official notice to the EPA that for the first

time since WASA was created, but the second time since 1993–1994, water in the

District exceeded what is now well known, but still sometimes misunderstood, the

‘‘action level’’.

The action level is a regulatory trigger of 15 ppb that no more than 10 percent

of the samples can exceed. The 50 samples taken in the District for that compliance

period included 23 samples over 15 ppb.

EPA then requires that a utility take three basic steps until there is a reduction

in the number of samples that test above 15 ppb to fewer than 10 percent of the

total: (1) begin a public education campaign to inform the public about lead as an

environmental contaminant; (2) begin a program to replace or test 7 percent of the

public section of the known inventory of lead service line pipes that take water from

the public water mains to the individual properties; and (3) undertake immediate

steps to achieve optimum corrosion control of the treated water.

STEPS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE (2002–2003)

WASA is a regulated utility, and it is accountable not only to the customers and

broader public that we serve, but to the Board of Directors, and the Environmental

Protection Agency. The District of Columbia Council also maintains legislative oversight over WASA.

I believe the culture of this organization is one that is consistent with the mission

statement I shared with you earlier. Clearly, there are also a number of entities to

which we are accountable and which share this common interest.

In this regulated environment, as in all others, every locality is in some respects

unique. We’ve worked hard to make sure our regulators understand the specific

operational challenges we confront. We share information, we ask questions, we

seek guidance and instruction, and then we take what we understand to be appropriate action with the full knowledge of the regulator. Again, regulatory compliance

is of paramount concern. We undertook a serious effort to ensure compliance under

the Lead and Copper Rule in 2002. As a consequence, in:

• August 2002—WASA determined/reports to EPA that action level was exceeded;

• October 2002—DCWASA/DCDOH jointly release ‘‘Living Lead Free in DC;’’ Brochure is delivered to customers and editorial departments of Washington Post and

Washington Times, as required (at this time, WASA was not issuing monthly bills);

• October 2002—WASA releases Public Service Announcement raising awareness

and encouraging testing;

• June 2003—EPA approves first year of replacement program, but changes compliance date from 12/31/03 to 9/30/03;

• June 2003—WASA’s 2002 Drinking Water Quality Report includes information

on lead monitoring and exceedance (language approved by EPA);

• July–October 2003—WASA begins intensive sampling program to accompany

the first 400 physical replacements undertaken within timeframe that was shortened by EPA;

• August 2003—‘‘What’s on Tap’’ Customer Newsletter contains focus on lead;

• September 2003—Initial program year completed with 1615 services replaced or

cleared by sampling;
181

• September 2003—‘‘An Information Guide on Lead in Drinking Water’’ developed

by WASA and EPA and distributed by WASA in two languages (schools, clinics, libraries, ANC Chairs, DCDOH);

• September 2003—WASA again releases public service announcement encouraging testing;

• October 2003—Washington Post advertisement: ‘‘WASA and EPA recommend

that you have your water tested for lead’’; and

• December 2003—Meeting held by WASA to discuss projects funded by Safe

Drinking Water Act, including lead replacement program.

OPTIMAL CORROSION CONTROL

Apart from the gradual replacement program, and the public education program,

reducing the corrosivity of treated water is a principal objective of a water utility

once the action level has been exceeded. WASA, in conjunction with the Washington

Aqueduct and the EPA has pursued this goal.

Optimizing corrosion control in the treatment process has, and continues to be the

critical next step in addressing this issue.

I am very pleased to report that there has been measurable progress on that

front. There is now a draft plan that is being circulated for a 15-day comment period. Consensus on this draft plan will lead to concrete steps that can be taken in

the treatment process within the next few months and into the fall.

STEPS TAKEN BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE

The Water and Sewer Authority, however, went beyond the requirements of the

regulation, principally by working directly with customers. This effort resulted in

our responding openly to many individual inquiries, but also to our responding to

media inquiries, requests for participation in community meetings and to participation in some of the active community listserves. Specifically, in:

• October 2002—Responded to media inquiries on the exceedance (Washington

City Paper, article, ‘‘The District Line—Plumbing the Depths’’);

• October 2002—WASA notifies DCDOH that action level was exceeded;

• January 2003—Lead Services Hotline begins—providing specific information to

customers;

• February 2003—Written communication to Mayor and all DC Council members

advising of likelihood of constituent calls that result from lead replacements;

• March 2003—WASA sends letter of notice of replacement program and an invitation to meet and discus with WASA (transportation provided) to Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner chairs and civic association leaders;

• May 2003—WASA holds two community meetings on lead replacement program;

• November/December 2003—Three neighborhood meetings held by DCWASA to

discuss replacement program;

• December 2003—Meeting held by WASA to discuss projects funded by Safe

Drinking Water Act, including lead replacement program;

• December 2003—Full summary of 2003 test results compiled by DCWASA; and

• December 2003—WASA requests that DCDOH provide additional assistance.

Starting in April 2003, between 14,000 and 15,000 WASA customers were contacted and solicited to participate in the sampling program to test the concentration

of lead in the water at the tap. Sampling was undertaken by volunteers (residents),

and no customers were forced to participate in the program.

Initially the customers were contacted by mail. After an initial low response, customers were offered a $25 incentive to participate. From April 2003 through September 30, 2003, about 3200 customers were contacted by telephone. Approximately

11,000 sampling kits were sent to customers by Federal Express through September

2003.
182

Lead Services Sampling Program 2003—Direct WASA Customer Contacts

[Direct WASA Customer Contacts]

Sample Letters/No Incentive ............................................................................................................... 8,000

Sample Letter/Incentive ($25–$50) .................................................................................................... 6,000

Phone Solicitation ............................................................................................................................... 3,200*

Sample Kits Shipped by Fed Ex ......................................................................................................... 11,000

Approx. Total Contacted ..................................................................................................................... 14,800

Total Samples ............................................................................................................................ 6,131

* Partial overlap w/letters.

By the end of 2003, WASA had also created a customer e-mail account,

wqp2003@dcwasa.com, for customers to make inquiries and express concerns.

WASA also implemented extended call center hours in September 2003 to include

Saturdays.

MULTIPLE LEAD SERVICES REPLACEMENT PROGRAM INQUIRIES

On March 4, 2004, the DCWASA Board of Directors announced that it has retained a law firm to investigate WASA’s management of elevated lead level sampling and notification. The investigation will be conducted by Covington & Burling,

an internationally recognized law firm headquartered in Washington, DC. Heading

the investigation is Covington partner Eric H. Holder, Jr., the former U. S. Attorney

for the District of Columbia and former Deputy Attorney General of the United

States. The investigation is expected to be completed and results published in the

first weeks of May.

The other inquiries of which we are aware, include the:

• U.S. General Accounting Office;

• District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General;

• District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and the Environment;

• House Committee on Government Reform; and

• House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous

Materials.

The Authority continues to believe that it took appropriate steps to comply with

the Lead and Copper Rule. Our efforts took place as we continued our efforts to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency and the District of Columbia Department of Health.

We have, none-the-less, been severely criticized by some public official and citizens. We acknowledge this criticism, and it is our obligation to listen and to understand.

We await the outcome of each of these inquiries, and we are prepared, speaking

on behalf of the management and the Board of Directors in this instance, take whatever actions are appropriate.

CONTINUING COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman and every other member of this committee that

with this, as on any other challenge this relatively young agency has been confronted with, we seek to learn from the past and continually improve our services.

Building and maintaining public confidence in this vital service with which we

have been entrusted on a continual basis must be an integral part of what we do.

In the past 10 weeks:

WASA has shipped filters to every residence that is believed based on our records

to have a lead service line pipe. This latest step was undertaken in conjunction with

the Environmental Protection Agency and Mayor Anthony Williams.

WASA will also supply replacement cartridges.

On Saturday, February 14th, working closely with the District of Columbia public

schools we tested all of the District’s public schools—an extra precaution even

though we believe the pipes leading into the schools are lead free. WASA has

trained DC Public School staff to conduct another round of public school tests which

is underway.

I recommended and the Board of Directors supported a decision to increase the

number of lead service pipes in public space that we replace this year by more than

500. These physical replacements will be at properties with the highest concentrations and where a pregnant woman or where a child under the age of six lives.

The Board approved a resolution and is distributing for public comment new steps

it may take to address this issue in the long term. Two examples include the ques-
183

tion of replacing lead service lines in public space with a timetable that goes beyond

the requirements of the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule, and the difficult challenge

of financing the replacement of service lines in private space.

The Lead Services Hotline, a program that EPA did not require, was initiated in

January 2003 to facilitate direct communications with our customers. Since February 5, we expanded with more personnel allowing us to staff the operation for 12

hours Monday through Friday and for 9 hours on weekends. Since February 4, 2004

the Hotline received 45,746 calls, and 6,233 e-mail messages. We have shipped over

19,000 test kits.

A summary of the 2004 Sampling Program results is attached, for your information. We have now conducted a total of over 11,000 tests of water provided by our

customers, and we are processing several thousand more results in a much-improved process that minimizes customer inconvenience.

As you may know, Mayor Williams established and co-chairs with the DC Council

Committee on Public Works and the Environment Chairman, Carol Schwartz, an

Interagency Task Force. This body has been enormously helpful in coordinating the

efforts of District agencies in response to this challenge.

We have worked closely with the District of Columbia Emergency Management

Agency and Department of Health. WASA is, for example, providing DC DOH with

$1.5 million in expenses for the DOH blood lead-level testing program and associated activities to improve their data processing systems. WASA has budgeted $1.7

million for WASA, DOH and other joint outreach/communications initiatives, excluding $1.5 million for expanded Lead Services Hotline command center operations.

WASA is continuing our efforts to communicate effectively with our customers and

the general public. We continue to update our web site, www.dcwasa.com, which is

averaging over 1,700 visits daily. Our April customer newsletter, What’s On Tap,

includes information on lead, our flushing advice, as well as the annual distribution

system citywide flushing program. This newsletter is distributed to between 125,00

and 130,000 customers, and the March and April editions both focus on the lead

issue.

Since February, we sponsored about ten joint meetings with the Department of

Health and the Washington Aqueduct all across the city. These meetings have been

advertised and nearly 1,000 residents have attended these WASA sponsored events.

WASA has also participated in many civic group meetings to discuss the lead issue.

In early February, WASA sent over 300,000 letters in English and Spanish with

information to every address in the District of Columbia. This letter included a DOH

Fact Sheet, again in Spanish and English, general information on the subject of lead

in water, as well as precautions for potentially affected properties. This letter was

mailed in a specially printed envelope with a large letter message printed on the

front (‘‘Please Read: Important Lead Information’’).

RECENT OUTREACH EFFORTS

Our work continues as we speak, Mr. Chairman. The last two editions of the

WASA customer newsletter, ‘‘What’s On Tap’’ (March and April), have also been devoted to this issue.

WASA is currently contacting by mail the residents that reside in homes that are

believed served by a lead service line pipe. We are providing up to date information

on service line pipe flushing. The letter also urges those that have not yet had their

tap water tested to use our testing process at no cost to the individual customer.

Similarly, we are contacting the residents who live in properties for which the

WASA customer information system has no record for service line pipe material. As

you may know, the only way to determine the service line pipe material with certainty at this time is to dig it up.

Finally, WASA has also reached a preliminary agreement with the George Washington University School of Public Health Department of Environmental and Occupational Health to provide the Authority with assistance and advice on lead in

drinking water issues.

ADDRESSES WITH NO RECORD OF SERVICE LINE PIPE MATERIAL

The Authority has been working to more carefully define and fine-tune our initial

inventory of properties that rely upon a lead service line pipe. You may know of the

Weston Study, undertaken in 1990 by the District, and which was used by WASA

and EPA to establish the initial inventory of addresses with likely lead service line

pipes. WASA has accelerated efforts to gather all the information available to us on

addresses that may be served by a lead pipe, but the Weston Study provides the

only estimate of the overall number of lead service lines in the District.
184

It is our continuing challenge to refine our information and the specific addresses

that are most likely among those with lead services.

There have been media reports that there are as many as 40,000 to 50,000 addresses with no record of a pipe material. Those numbers are greatly exaggerated.

WASA is now contacting by mail the approximately 21,000 customers at addresses

for which we have no record of a pipe material. We are urging them to use our testing program to sample their tap water, recognizing that a number have already

been sent test kits. We are also urging those residents to take the same precautions

as residents with known lead service line pipes—following the flushing recommendations.

WASA is also undertaking some test ‘‘dig-ups’’ where test results suggest the presence of a lead service line, and we are now developing an appropriate plan to provide filters to additional properties that are likely relying upon lead services, and

we will work with these customers and the Task Force in the coming weeks on any

related issues.

On Friday, April 2, 2004, the Board of Directors approved a resolution that addresses future WASA policy with respect to the replacement of lead service lines,

separate and apart from the EPA requirements. The Board has planned three community meetings in the next few weeks in order to obtain community comment on

this topic.

Earlier I mentioned the number of public meetings we have participated in and

hosted. Since February, the Board has also conducted four media briefings. We appeared at the House Government Reform Committee hearing, four DC Council hearings, twice weekly Mayoral Press Briefings and three congressional staff briefings.

As I hope you can see, the Water and Sewer Authority is actively engaged, we are

continuing to learn, we are sharing information, and working hard to openly communicate in an environment that has been especially challenging.

Each one of these appearances is another opportunity to share facts and improve

public understanding of a fairly complex set of health, regulatory, engineering,

chemistry and policy issues.

On behalf of the Authority and its Board of Directors, I wish to express our appreciation for this Committee’s interest and contribution to this effort.

We will be happy to respond to any questions.

RESPONSES BY JERRY N. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents—If I had only known, I could

have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the witnesses at the table to tell me

how you are responding to this question—what explanation are you giving to parents whose children who were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking

water and what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?

Response. The Water and Sewer Authority’s highest priority has been and continues to be to ensure that it delivers safe and high quality drinking water to residents and visitors to the District of Columbia. The Lead and Copper Rule of the

Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth, in detail, the type and form of information that

the EPA deemed appropriate to disseminate to the public. WASA followed the guidelines of the public education program set forth in the Lead and Copper Rule. In February of 2004 it became clear that the proscribed public education program did not

reach all residents.

Following is a summary of the type of information we continue to share with the

public, particularly populations believed to be most susceptible to harmful lead exposure.

In 2002, the results of EPA required annual compliance sample testing, indicated

that the ‘‘action level’’—a regulatory trigger that informs water authorities that optimum corrosion control is not being achieved—had been exceeded. The data was provided in a timely manner to the Environmental Protection Agency as required under

the Lead and Copper Rule. In fact, the information was provided informally 3

months prior to the end of the compliance reporting period. The DC Department of

Health was also notified. The exceedance of the action level indicated that the

Water and Sewer Authority should begin:

• working with the EPA and the Washington Aqueduct to achieve optimum corrosion control (WASA is a customer of the Aqueduct—buying water for retail distribution to consumers in the District of Columbia);

• a program of public education about the hazards of environmental lead exposure from water and other sources;
185

• a program to replace (or test to clear) 7 percent of the lead service line pipes

in public space yearly until the action level was no longer exceeded, and;

• implement an expanded compliance monitoring program.

WASA worked with the District of Columbia Department of Health to develop and

widely distribute a brochure that provided information to residents about the risks

associated with environmental lead exposure, including lead concentrations in

water. WASA also distributed public service announcements and prepared pamphlets in English and Spanish providing information to populations at greatest risk,

including information on flushing, tap water testing, and other information; all in

accordance with the proscribed EPA public education program. WASA conducted

several informational meetings throughout 2003 designed to increase WASA’s outreach.

In 2004, WASA significantly expanded its outreach program. High-level managers

have attended countless public meetings, answering questions and disseminating information. WASA has been working with the media (including seeking many corrections) in an attempt to make sure correct and helpful information is published.

WASA has written and submitted for publication articles and letters to the editor.

WASA has continued its free testing program—any single-family residence in the

District may have its water tested for lead concentrations. WASA has sent letters

to all addresses believed to have a lead service line, encouraging participation in the

sample testing program, and alerting them to the flushing procedures. Property

owners for which we have no information on service line pipe material have also

been contacted and provided the same information.

WASA has distributed water filters to residences that we believe are likely to

have a lead service line pipe. Any residence that participates in the sample test program with a test result that exceeds 15 ppb will be sent a filter. WASA intends to

continue its filter program until at least next spring.

WASA has retained and is working with a national expert on corrosion control.

WASA has participated in the Aqueduct’s planning for a treatment approach to reduce the corrosivity of the water.

Also in 2004, out of an abundance of caution, and before the blood level testing

had yielded significant data, the Department of Health advised pregnant or nursing

women and children under six with a lead service line to avoid drinking unfiltered

water. The District of Columbia Department of Health has conducted over 5000

blood level tests, including over 1,500 tests of the targeted population. Thus far, the

test results indicate that there has been no general increase in elevated blood levels

in the population. Also, for those households that have undergone environmental assessments where a very limited number of individuals have been found to have registered elevated blood lead levels, other significant environmental exposures (paint

and dust) exist.

Consistent with Department of Health findings and conclusions announced to

date, Dr. Tee Guidotti, Professor and Chair of the Department of Environmental

and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, and Director, Division of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology School of Medicine and

Health Sciences, The George Washington University Medical Center, has advised

the Water and Sewer Authority that children who already have a body burden of,

BPb >10 μg/dL are most susceptible to harm from heightened levels of lead. Dr.

Guidotti has also indicated that:

• Drinking water is at most a minor source of lead for children (seven percent

of total exposure for toddlers, children aged 2 years);

• Concentration in water does not translate directly in BPb;

• EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake and BioKinetic Model predicted that BPb in

infants exceeded 10 μg/dL only when 100 percent of water consumed contained 100

ppb on a sustained basis; and

• A discernable effect on BPb of children requires at least sustained levels of 300

ppb.

WASA is moving forward with its lead line replacement program. By September

30, 2004, WASA will have physically replaced over 1,600 lead service line pipes in

public space in the District. WASA’s Board of Directors is considering a plan to increase the pace of the service line replacement—more than doubling the amount

that will be replaced yearly.

Question 2. I am pleased that WASA has hired a George Washington University

toxicology team to advise the agency. Does this team contain anyone with pediatric

experience on this team or anyone with risk communication experience and if not,

why not? Will this group be a permanent part of WASA and what role with this

group play in your day-to-day operations?
186

Response. Dr. Tee Guidotti is the Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment, a pediatric environmental health specialty unit.

The team of professionals working with WASA from the George Washington University team also includes individuals with experience in risk communication. Members

of the team participate in weekly meetings with WASA executive management.

They also participate in select community and interagency meetings involving the

local and Federal Government officials. The partnership with the University is on

a contractual basis, and the Board of Director’s has not yet determined that a permanent engagement is required.

Question 3. WASA recently undertook a program to replace aging water meters.

Can you describe this program for me, indicate if you installed lead-free water meters, and indicate if WASA uses lead-free parts when replacing parts throughout its

system? In addition, have you cross-referenced your data for those homes with high

lead levels and those that have received a new meter, and if so, what are your conclusions?

Response. The meter replacement program installations total 110,047 of 124,298

meters through March 2004. The meters are certified lead free by the manufacturer,

consistent with EPA requirements. Any contact with the service line during the installation would be unusual. The installation of the meters does not require direct

contact with the service line pipe because the old meters are removed from and the

new meters are placed on a parabola-shaped meter ‘‘setter’’ that ties into either end

of the service line pipe. Also, the fact that ten of the 25 compliance samples taken

in the first half of the compliance year 2001–2002 exceeded 15 ppb clearly indicates

that the meter replacement program is not related to the exceedance because this

sampling was completed about 6 months before the meter replacement program

began.

Question 4. I know people who have homes with elevated lead levels, but not

above 15 parts per billion. I know people who have homes with elevated lead levels

well above 15 parts per billion who are not on your inventory of ‘‘known lead service

lines.’’ Given what we know about the harmful effects of lead, what is WASA and

the DC Department of Health doing to help those residents take appropriate health

precautions?

Response. The EPA has indicated that 15 ppb is not a maximum contaminant

level (MCL) indicating the highest level of an contaminant that is allowed in drinking water, nor is it a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), the level of a contaminant in water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. Rather, it is a an ‘‘action level’’. An action level is a concentration of a contaminant that,

if exceeded, triggers actions a water system must undertake.

Sample test results that exceed 15 ppb do not indicate that a service line pipe

is necessarily made of lead, just as a test result that is below 15 ppb does not necessarily mean that a service line pipe is made of a non-lead material. WASA continues to work to provide accurate information, address public concern and to correct misinformation. For example:

• Any resident who is concerned about lead water concentrations is encouraged

to use a flushing protocol, and this information has been repeated on a monthly

basis in the customer newsletters, frequent media briefings, and dozens of community meetings, hearings, and community newspaper ads.

• Pregnant and nursing women and children under six have been advised to

avoid drinking unfiltered water if they have reason to believe that they may have

a lead service line.

• WASA has directly and strongly encouraged households with a lead service line

to participate in the sampling program.

• Residences for which we have no record of a pipe material have been contacted

directly, and encouraged to participate in the sampling program.

• Despite the fact that 15 ppb is not a health standard, WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to any residence that participates in the sampling

program and tests above 15 ppb.

• WASA has participated in over 24 community meetings.

• WASA continues to share information with the public by seeking major electronic media interviews.

Question 5. Under current regulations, public water systems are only responsible

for replacing the portion of lead service lines in public ownership. In replacing lead

service lines, is WASA moving the location of the meter, and if so, how is this affecting the length of the service line that you are replacing and the associated costs?

Response. WASA is responsible for the maintenance, and replacement as necessary, of a service line pipe in public space. WASA is not routinely moving water
187

meters as a part of the physical replacement of lead service line pipes, and the position of a meter does not affect our responsibility for maintaining the service line

pipe that rests in public space.

Occasionally, while undertaking other work, WASA determines that a meter is located in private space and some distance away from the property line. WASA repositions such meters from a private yard to an area closer to the property line (usually

the sidewalk or ‘‘tree box’’) because it is a sound business practice and a matter of

efficiency. This action helps avoid any potential conflict with a homeowner with respect to determining responsibility for any water usage (leaks) that occur on private

property, regardless of the location of the meter. Repositioning the meter, when necessary, also allows WASA to conduct routine maintenance without entering private

property.

Through 2003, WASA’s physical replacement program resulted in the removal of

a lead service line pipe in public space, specifically from the water main in the

street to the property line as is consistent with Federal and local requirements.

However, recently WASA has replaced approximately 400 service lines from the

water main up to the next threaded joint. This practice was adopted in conjunction

with the Department of Health and the EPA, based on the known likelihood of a

temporary spike in lead concentrations in tap water following the cutting and reattachment of an existing lead pipe at the property line and its reattachment to a

copper pipe in public space. In order to avoid creating this temporary spike, WASA,

pending a new finding by the Department of Health, will replace a service line from

the water main to the next threaded joint, regardless of the placement of the meter.

Question 6. In your cooperation with the other municipalities you serve or during

the Washington Aqueduct Wholesale Customer Board Meetings, did you ever discuss with or notify those communities of the results of your lead testing?

Response. The Water and Sewer Authority is the retail distributor of water to

residents of the District of Columbia. WASA does not provide retail water services

to suburban jurisdictions. The suburban jurisdictions, like WASA, are direct wholesale customers of the Washington Aqueduct. In the fall of 2002, following the trigger

of the action level, there were discussions with EPA and the Aqueduct regarding

a study of the optimal corrosion control methodology and why it was no longer being

achieved.

Question 7. Several weeks ago, I notified the EPA that several residents of the

District had received inaccurate testing instructions from WASA. It seems to me

that incorrect testing instructions could invalidate the entire sampling plan that

WASA had in place before the lead was identified and the entire sampling plan that

is ongoing to further evaluate the severity of the lead crisis in DC. Can each of you

comment on your assessment of the importance of providing residents with accurate

testing instructions and a description of how you have corrected this problem?

Response. Clearly, it is important to provide clear instructions to ensure adherence to any testing protocol. The Lead and Copper Rule does not, and prior to your

inquiry EPA did not provide specific direction with respect to the protocol or the instructions for the non-compliance sampling program. Because this is an important

issue, WASA has modified these instructions in response to questions or concerns,

including concerns expressed by non-compliance sampling program participants, in

order to make them clearer and more understandable.

Specifically, we have modified in conjunction with the EPA the instruction that

you believe may have caused confusion has been modified. Participants who received

that instruction sheet have been asked to submit new samples.

With respect to the validity of the compliance sample tests, the instruction item

about which your office inquired is relevant only to the second draw sample that

is part of the free sampling program offered to District residents. It was not pertinent to the Lead and Copper Rule compliance sampling program in effect prior to

or following the District’s exceedance of the action level.

In the current compliance year, the test results have been used to help determine

the potential need to take steps to limit potential exposure. For example, any residence with a test result that exceeds the regulatory action level of 15 ppb receives

a water filter and replacement cartridges.

Question 8. Can you describe exactly why you believe that lead contamination in

drinking water in apartment buildings is not a problem and what evidence you have

to support that claim?

Response. WASA’s policy is to replace service lines for multi-family units that are

known to be lead as a high priority. However, WASA’s best information is that larger multi-family properties are served by service line pipes that exceed 2 inches in

diameter. Lead pipes are very malleable but have very thick-walled cylinders with
188

small diameter interiors, and are therefore, a poor choice for uses that require the

deliver of large amounts of water to a large multi-family dwelling or commercial

property.

The principal concern for larger properties (those bigger than a single-family sized

dwelling) are the internal plumbing components (lead solder in the plumbing or

brass fixtures). WASA proposed a test plan to EPA that will test these assumptions.

EPA approved the plan and WASA has begun implementation of the test plan.

WASA discourages individual tenants from seeking to participate in the sampling

program, but encourages owners or managers of multi-family units to have their

water tested. When an investigation (CIS, Lead Information System, as-built plans

or direct observation) indicates that the line is likely lead or was unknown, additional steps are taken. EPA protocols for water sample testing in such facilities are

not the same as those for water utilities under the Lead and Copper Rule. However,

WASA will provide a limited number of sample test kits in coordination with a

building owner or property manager.

Question 9. How is the Action Plan being made available to the public?

Response. WASA has held 12 community meetings since February, and participated in as many civic, ANC and other community group meetings. The District of

Columbia Department of Health and the Washington Aqueduct are usually also represented. WASA also attends Mayor Anthony Williams’ press briefings that have

routinely occurred twice weekly. The steps WASA is taking on the lead services program have also been noted in the General Manager’s Monthly Report to the Board

of Directors and Water and Sewer Authority press notices. Information is routinely

updated on the Authority web site www.dcwasa.com. The lead services program is

routinely on the agendas of the monthly meetings of the Board of Directors and the

Board committee meetings, including operations, finance and budget and customer.

These meetings are open to the public (calendars and agendas are published).

WASA has issued public service announcements, and is preparing ads for publication in local community newspapers.

Question 10. I know people who live on Capitol Hill in houses with elevated lead

level, but not above 15 parts-per-billion. The 15 parts per billion is not a healthbased standard. Are you providing filters to those homes with lead service lines with

test results below 15, but above zero, and if not, why not?

Response. WASA is not providing filters to residences with sample test results

that do exceed 15 ppb. As you may know, lead concentrations below 2 ppb are not

easily measured (non-detectable), and as you state, 15 ppb is a regulatory trigger,

not a health standard. Fifteen (15) ppb is, therefore, not directly tied to a specific

measure of exposure that is linked directly to health risk. Also, the second draw

service line concentrations suggested in sample test results may not easily extrapolate into sustained rates of exposure noted by some public health experts when discussing risks of environmental lead exposure.

WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to sample program participants whose tap water sample tests exceed 15 ppb out of an abundance of caution

and an effort to address public concerns.

Question 11. I understand that you are also not providing filters to those residents

whose homes have tested high for lead that are not in your data base of homes with

a confirmed lead service line. Are you providing filters to those homes that are outside of this data base but have tested high for lead?

Response. WASA is providing water filters and replacement cartridges to residences that participate in the sampling program whose test results exceed 15 ppb,

regardless of the service line pipe material composition.

Question 12. I understand that there is a lack of certainty about whether or not

about 37,000 service lines are lead or not. What are you doing to eliminate this uncertainty and what are you doing to ensure that those residents take appropriate

health precautions?

Response. The 37,000 estimate reported in the media is inaccurate. WASA has no

information on service line pipe material for approximately 21,000 addresses. Based

on experience gained from test pits and physical public space replacements that allowed actual physical observation of service line pipes in 2003, the initial inventory,

based principally on the Weston Report, of likely lead service lines is accurate approximately 80 percent of the time (generally, of 100 service lines identified as lead,

80 of the service lines are actually made of lead.) WASA does have other sources

of information that provide some data on pipe material. The WASA customer information system includes a record of pipe material on most but not all of the customer

accounts. This information, again based upon actual physical observation following

an excavation, is accurate about 60 percent of the time.
189

At this time, the only means of identifying service line pipe material with certainty remains direct observation. A WASA consultant is currently working to develop a technology that will permit WASA to more accurately identify/confirm service line pipe material without an excavation. This technology is being field tested

over the next 6–12 months. WASA is also investigating other approaches to help

identify service line pipe material more efficiently.

WASA has mailed letters to each of the properties for which we have no information on service line pipe material. Eve though we expect that a very small proportion of these addresses actually have lead service line pipes, we have provided to

them the same precautionary information provided to residences with a lead service

line. The letters invited these residences to participate in the water lead sampling

program (post card requesting UPS delivery of the test kit). These residences will

be sent a filter and replacement cartridges if test results exceed 15 ppb.

Question 13. Can you describe the progress WASA has made sending out water

filters to lead-affected homes? How effective does WASA judge these filters to actually be in controlling lead exposure for its customers?

Response. WASA completed the major program to distribute filters to all households believed to have a lead service line on April 6, 2004. About 300 of the filters

could not be delivered despite a requirement that UPS attempt three deliveries at

each address and obtain a signature receipt. Filter and replacement cartridge distribution continue consistent with a distribution plan already discussed.

WASA provides filters that are certified by the National Sanitation Foundation

to adequately address lead water concentrations of 150 ppb, as noted in the manufacturers’ information accompanying the filters. WASA has provided additional instructions with the filters that reiterate the flushing instructions to which the Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have agreed. The filters together with the proscribed flushing instructions that WASA includes in the

packaging with the filters substantially reduce lead level concentrations.

Question 14. One of the issues here is who bears the responsibility to replace lead

service lines. Under current regulations, the homeowner bears the responsibility for

the lead service lines between the meter and the house. This troubles me because

it does not seem appropriate for the ability to pay for this pipe replacement to be

the determining factor in who gets lead-free water. In addition, I know that the city

bore some responsibility in knowingly selecting leaded pipes—I would like to submit

Washington Post stories from 1893 and 1895 discussing the concerns over lead pipes

and their impact on public health. It appears that over 100 years ago this city knew

of the danger and continued to use lead pipes. I am interested in your views on

whether public water systems or private homeowners should bear the responsibility

for lead service line replacement?

Response. WASA did not exist before 1996, and although its immediate predecessor, WASUA, was responsible for water distribution for many years, the division

of responsibility between Federal and local authorities for this function has evolved

over time.

Today, WASA is responsible for maintaining the portion of a service line pipe that

rests in public space. The Lead and Copper Rule requires that WASA replace only

the portion of the service line pipe that rests in public space (specifically addressed

in relatively recent local law). It is important to remember, however, that it is a

property owner that constructs the water service line pipe that must pass through

public space in order to tie a private residence to a public water main. There are

local jurisdictions in the United States that do not require that the local public

water utility exercise responsibility for this privately constructed and financed component of the infrastructure that serves only an individual property.

WASA is an independent agency of the District of Columbia. The Mayor and

Council of the District of Columbia exercise legislative oversight of the District of

Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, and have established a very clear policy in

this matter. Legislation recently introduced by District Council member Harold

Brazil, would if approved, provide governmental assistance (general fund) to some

homeowners in replacing lead service line pipes that rest on private property. The

legislation includes income eligibility criteria that suggest that questions of equity

in the allocation of public resources may be relevant to the discussion.

With respect to the Lead and Copper Rule, careful and complete implementation

of its provisions, regardless of whether the action level has been exceeded, will not

guarantee lead free tap water. Full compliance with the provisions of the rule, regardless of whether the action level has been exceeded, should prompt a water system to seek and maintain optimum corrosion control treatment, or ‘‘OCCT.’’ OCCT

is intended to minimize corrosion, and subsequent leaching into tap water from any

pipe material.
190

Question 15. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were quoted as saying, ‘‘The runaround has been

unbelievable. . . . No one in the bureaucracy has even begun to take this seriously.’’

The Director of water for the city stated that it was, ‘‘. . . premature to contact residents throughout the city’’ before the city developed a plan to handle and finance

increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper articles on

this topic into the record. I find it unbelievable that no one at this witness table

learned anything from this previous experience. Did anyone here refer to previous

instances of lead contamination in the District when formulating a response plan?

If so, please describe how you used this information, and if not, why not?

Response. After the fact, WASA management was aware of the issues that arose

in 1986 (WASA did not exist until 1996.)

In 2002, the Water and Sewer Authority and the EPA determined that for the

compliance period that ended in 2002, the data from the compliance samples indicated that the ‘‘action level’’—a regulatory trigger that optimum corrosion control is

not being achieved—had been exceeded. The data was provided in a timely manner

to the Environmental Protection Agency as required under the Lead and Copper

Rule. The DC Department of Health was also notified. The material provisions of

the regulation, and the response by the EPA and local public health authorities did

not indicate that the steps WASA had taken in implementing a lead services program under the Lead and Copper Rule were inappropriate. Specifically, the exceedance of the action level indicated that the Water and Sewer Authority should begin:

• working with the EPA and the Washington Aqueduct to achieve optimum corrosion control;

• a program of public education about the hazards of environmental lead exposure from water and other sources;

• a program to replace (or test to clear) 7 percent of the lead service line pipes

in public space yearly until the action level was no longer exceeded.

Since January 2004, WASA’s public education efforts have vastly expanded, but

the newspaper articles to which you refer suggest that WASA’s response to the exceedance in 2003 was very aggressive relative to those efforts undertaken in 1986.

WASA’s response was also undertaken in a different environment (OCCT plan approved by EPA in 2002). The public education materials were shared with regulators in advance of publication, and in one instance, Living Lead Free In DC, was

prepared in collaboration with the District Department of Health. WASA also, for

example, responded to media inquiries (Washington City Paper, 10/18–24/2004),

published a newspaper ad, participated in community meetings, and contacted several thousand residents by mail to solicit their participation in an expanded sampling program.

Question 16. During the hearing, you mentioned that residents who receive filters

would be provided with a 6-month supply. How many replacement filters does that

include and what is the average cost of a 6-month supply?

Response. Two filter cartridges provide a 6-month supply (in excess of 80 gallons).

The cost for two filter cartridges, including shipping, is approximately $22.

Question 17. What priority system is WASA using to determine which homes will

have lead service lines replaced first, and does that give consideration to the presence or absence of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, infants, and

children?

Response. The physical replacement schedule of addresses in 2004 was established in calendar 2003, and was based upon the initial inventory of lead service

line pipes submitted to EPA. The sample data collected in 2003 had not been analyzed when the schedule for replacements in 2004 was developed. Among the important factors the Authority considered included the number of services per block in

order to maximize the number of replacements that could be undertaken while causing as little disruption of residential traffic and parking patterns as possible.

WASA has made provision for 500 ‘‘priority’’ physical replacements in 2004. These

priority replacements of lead service line pipes in public space will target day care

centers, residences with people having elevated blood lead levels, and also be based

on the presence in a household of a member of the at risk populations (children

under the age of six and women who are pregnant or nursing). This schedule of replacements will be selected in coordination with the Department of Health.

Question 18. What priority system is WASA using to determine which homes will

receive filters, and does that give consideration to the presence of absence of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, infants, and children?

Response. WASA is providing a filter and replacement cartridges to sample program participants whose tap water sample tests exceed 15 ppb out of an abundance
191

of caution and an effort to address public concerns. Recall that the action level of

15 ppb is not directly tied to a specific measure of exposure that is linked directly

to health risk. Also, the second draw service line concentrations suggested in sample

test results may not easily extrapolate into sustained rates of exposure noted by

some public health experts when discussing risks of environmental lead exposure.

Question 19. What is the status of your water filter distribution? Have all 23,000

homes believed to have lead service lines received them? If not, when will all 23,000

homes receive them?

Response. WASA completed distribution of filters to residences identified as likely

having a lead service line pipe, and will provide replacement cartridges through

next spring. WASA is also providing water filters and replacement cartridges to

residences that participate in the sampling program whose test results exceed 15

ppb, regardless of the service line pipe material composition or the presence of a

member of the target population.

Question 20. How many of the homes tested that are not part of the 23,000 homes

with known lead service lines have tested above 15 parts per billion for lead?

Response. For calendar 2004 through April 24, 10,526 property owners participated in the sample program. Of these, 7,266 of the addresses were identified as

having a material other than lead. As you may know, the second draw sample is

intended to capture the sample from water that has rested in the service line pipe

for over 6 hours. Of these non-lead second draw samples: • 6,238 tested 0–15 ppb; • 642 samples tested >15–50 ppb; • 264 samples tested >50–100 ppb; • 85 samples tested >100–150 ppb; • 37 samples tested over 150 ppb.

Question 21. During lead service line replacement, I understand that WASA is offering to also replace the homeowner’s section of the lead service line at the homeowner’s cost. One of the major benefits of this approach is that the entire lead service line is replaced AT THE SAME TIME. If a homeowner chooses to pay to have

their portion of the lead service line replaced by WASA during replacement of the

rest of the lead service line, are both portions replaced simultaneously? If not, why

not, and how long are homeowners being asked to wait? Have you evaluated any

health effects of not replacing them simultaneously given that it is commonly believed that replacing portions of lead service lines can actually increase lead levels

for at least a short period of time?

Response. If a homeowner chooses to pay for replacing the private side replacement (inclusive of responding to WASA’s initial inquiry, acceptance of a contractor’s

estimate, entering into a contract within necessary timeframes) both portions are

replaced simultaneously.

The practice of cutting a lead service line in order to reattach it to copper pipe

during the replacement of a lead service line pipe in public space is understood to

result in temporarily elevated lead concentrations in tap water. Those elevated concentrations are understood to fall very dramatically following high water usage in

the context of a proscribed program of customer flushing that follows the physical

replacement. WASA relies upon the guidance of the EPA and the District of Columbia Department of Health with respect to the determination of any health effects,

and we have suspended the practice of cutting lead pipes pending a determination

from DOH.

RESPONSE BY JERRY JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question. What training in risk communication have you implemented, and does

it include the CD-based program available from the Centers for Disease Control

called, CDCynergy: Emergency Risk Communication?

You testified to the need for better teamwork if the Lead and Copper Rule is to

be implemented effectively. Now that your agency and the other authorized agencies

are working very closely in what has become a closely scrutinized effort, what improvements in teamwork have you learned? Also, how will you change routine procedures for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system returns below the Action Level?

Response. WASA has not used the CD-based program, CDCynergy: Emergency

Risk Communication.

WASA has employed for a number of years Beverly Silverberg Communications,

Inc. which has provided advice and training in crisis communications. WASA has

also obtained the services of a team headed by Dr. Tee Guidotti, Professor and
192

Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, and Director, Division of Occupational Medicine and

Toxicology School of Medicine and Health Sciences, the George Washington University Medical Center. Dr. Guidotti is also the Co-Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center

for Children’s Health and the Environment, a pediatric environmental health specialty unit. The team of professionals working with WASA from the George Washington University also includes individuals with experience in risk communication.

The audit being undertaken by EPA and other inquiries that are currently underway will provide important information with respect to improving communication

and coordination among relevant agencies. One conclusion that we believe we share

with EPA even at this relatively early stage is that both the relatively routine communications on this issue that have been relatively frequent but informal are made

more structured and formal.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. LUCEY, INTERIM CHIEF MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Good afternoon. My name is Daniel R. Lucey, MD, and I am the Interim Chief

Medical Officer for the DC Department of Health. In the next 5 minutes, prior to

responding to your questions, I would like to summarize my background and list

several key points about the lead issues in Washington, DC.

I am a physician trained in adult medicine and infectious diseases with a Masters

degree in Public Health. After serving in the military as a physician I joined the

U.S. Public Health Service while working at the National Institutes of Health and

the Food and Drug Administration. During 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks

I was the Chairman of the Infectious Disease Service at the Washington Hospital

Center in DC. In 2002 I was involved with the smallpox vaccination program, in

2003 with SARS (traveling to Hong Kong and mainland China, and working in a

hospital in Toronto), and in 2004 with avian influenza.

On February 10, 2004 I began work at the DC Department of Health (DOH) with

a focus on biodefense. On February 13th I attended a Lead Task Force meeting.

Every day since then I have worked on lead issues. Although not a lead expert, I

have approached learning about the lead issues through an intensive process, much

like learning about other previously unfamiliar diseases such as anthrax, SARS, and

avian influenza.

On February 16th, I contacted the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), Dr. Julie Gerberding, to request advice from lead experts at the

CDC. Her response was immediate and outstanding. CDC assistance has been ongoing since that time.

On February 26th, the City Administrator, Mr. Robert Bobb, instructed me to direct the Department of Health response to lead issues. Later that day I completed

and signed a Health Advisory letter from the Department of Health to the approximately 23,000 residences in DC with lead service lines. (Attachment 1) The advisory

contained recommendations about drinking water and measuring blood lead levels

in persons most at risk for lead poisoning in order to assess the health impact of

increased lead in the water. To our knowledge, no such widespread health advisory

on lead in drinking water has ever been issued in the United States. Our findings

may be useful to other cities that find increased lead concentrations in their drinking water.

In order to provide blood lead level testing by the Department of Health, starting

on February 28th at DC General Hospital, we mobilized many persons in the Department of Health. In addition, on March 1st, I contacted the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Carmona, to request personnel assistance. He responded immediately, and

via Admiral Babb and the Commissioned Corps Readiness Force (CCRF), provided

a team of Public Health Service officers over the next 4 weeks who worked long

hours with us in clinics across DC. They also went to several hundred homes of persons at high risk of lead poisoning. On March 30th the DC DOH, CCRF and CDC

published our preliminary results on blood lead levels in the CDC’s Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

To summarize key points:

1. None of the 201 persons we tested who live in homes with the highest measured levels of lead in the drinking water (i.e. > 300 parts per billion (ppb)) had elevated blood lead levels. (Attachment 2 MMWR March 30, 2004).

2. From 2000–2003 the percentage of children less than 6 years of age with elevated blood lead levels (≥ 10 mcg/dl) continued to decline in DC both in homes with

and without lead service lines. The percent of children with blood lead levels ≥ 5
193

mcg/dl did not decline in homes with lead service lines, although this percent did

decline in homes without lead service lines. (Attachment 2 MMWR March 30, 2004).

3. Only 2 of the initial 280 children in home childcare facilities with lead service

lines had elevated blood lead levels (Attachment 3).

4. Of the initial 4,106 persons who came to our clinics across DC for free blood

lead level testing in our laboratory, 1,277 were young children < 6 years old, of

whom 16 had elevated blood levels. The initial 14 children have been found to live

in homes with dust and/or soil lead levels exceeding EPA/HUD guidelines. The

homes of the other 2 children are currently being evaluated. (Attachment 4).

5. According to the CDC, from 1976–1980, nearly 9 of 10 (88.2 percent) children

1–5 years old (adults now 24–28 years old) in the USA had blood lead levels that

today are considered elevated, namely at least 10 micrograms/ deciliter (‘‘≥ 10 μg/

dl’’). (Attachment 5).

6. The EPA ‘‘action level’’ for lead in drinking water of 15 parts per billion (or

0.015 mg/Liter) is not a health-based recommendation. According to the EPA:

‘‘This action level was not designed to measure health risks from water represented by individual samples. Rather, it is a statistical trigger that, if exceeded, requires more treatment, public education and possibly lead service line replacement’’

(Attachment 6).

Thank you for your time and I will be pleased to respond to your questions.
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241

RESPONSES BY DANIEL R. LUCEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents—If I had only known, I could

have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the witnesses at the table to tell me

how you are responding to this questions—what explanation are you giving to parents whose children were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking

water and what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?

Response. Yes, I have been asked the same questions at many of the DC-wide

community meetings in which the Department of Health has participated. Since I

only started working at the DC Department of Health on February 10, 2004, I cannot explain much of what happened in the Department of Health before that time,

and I do not try to do so. Once I was designated on February 26th by the DC City

Administrator, Deputy Mayor Robert Robb, to be the primary person at the DC Department of Health responsible for the lead-in-the-water issues then I emphasized

what actions we are taking now, why we are taking these actions, and what the

results are as we go forward together. I wrote and signed the February 26th letter

to the approvimately 23,000 persons with lead-service lines and therein made specific Public Health recommendations that to my knowledge had never been made

before on this scale. I spoke with both the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and with the U.S. Surgeon General to request the respective

expertise that their organizations were willing to provide immediately to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Efforts to regain trust included participating and answering questions in many

community discussion groups across the city (please see attachment #8 in my April

7th testimony), speaking at many press conferences along with the Director of the

DC Emergency Management Agency, DC Council members, the City Administrator,

and with the Mayor. In addition we made multiple other educational efforts including the use of written pamphlets in multiple languages and significantly expanding

lead-related information on our website. We worked with DC pediatric lead experts

including those at Children’s National Medical Center, Howard University Medical

Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, and Georgetown University Medical

Center. I also consulted with Obstetricians at Washington Hospital Center and with

the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) about lead issues.

Question 2. I know people who have homes with elevated lead levels, but not

above 15 parts per billion. I know people who have homes with elevated lead levels

well above 15 parts per billion who are not on your inventory of ‘‘known lead service

lines.’’ Given what we know about the harmful effects of lead, what is WASA and

the DC Department of Health doing to help those residents take appropriate health

precautions?

Response. I am not sure I understand the first part of the question because 15

parts per billion (ppb) is the definition of a home with a lead level above the EPA

action limit. Should I understand this first part of your question to refer to the issue

I have sometimes been asked at DC community meetings about homes with lead

service lines, but measurements of lead in their drinking water that are not above

15 ppb? If so, then I emphasize that the original letter I wrote and signed on February 26, 2004 was sent to all approximately 23,000 District residents who had lead

service lines regardless of whether their water lead concentrations were measured

above or below 15 parts per billion. Free water filters to remove lead in the drinking

water were given to everyone with a lead service line by WASA and free blood lead

levels were offered by the DC Department of Health as specified in the February

26 letter. On the other hand, if you meant there are people ‘‘with elevated lead levels’’ in homes with water lead concentrations ‘‘not above 15 parts per billion’’ then

I would reply that we provide the identical offer to everyone with an elevated blood

lead level, namely a home environmental assessment to look for other sources of

lead such as lead paint, or lead ceramics, or lead-containing stained glass, or certain

medications, cosmetics, candies or other potential sources of lead exposure. The DC

Department of Health made that commitment to look for other sources of lead, including lead paint, on page two of our February 26, 2004 letter.

Regarding homes with elevated lead concentrations over 15 ppb, even if they are

not listed by WASA as having a lead service line, then WASA provides them with

a water filter to remove the lead. The DC Department of Health continues to offer

free blood lead level testing at five (5) standing clinics in DC, including one at the

Department of Health on 51 N Street, NE. Another one of these five clinics is at

the former DC General Hospital outpatient urgent-care clinic that is open 7 days

a week, including evenings. A calendar for the month of May listing the locations
242

and times of operation for these five clinics is attached as a document titled: District

of Columbia Department of Health—Lead Blood Screening Schedule—May 2004.

Question 3. Your testimony provides several data points indicating that relatively

small numbers of children had what you define as ‘‘elevated’’ blood lead levels. How

do you define ‘‘elevated’’ and how did you select that number?

Response. The DC Department of Health uses the same definition of an elevated

blood lead level, or level of concern, as that provided by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC), namely 10 micrograms/deciliter (μg/dl) or higher.

Question 4. Based on the information in the April 17, 2003 New England Journal

of Medicine study regarding blood lead levels in children, do you feel it is appropriate to ignore children and families with blood lead level test results above 0 but

below 10?

Response. As a physician and Department of Health official who has worked and

published for years in both laboratory and clinical research, I appreciate the value

of studies such as the one cited. In particular, when medical papers have passed

the peer-review process that is required for publication in one of the very best medical journals in the world, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, they warrant our attention. All scientific studies, however, require independent confirmation

studies. The CDC is certainly aware of the paper you have cited. We have consulted

regularly with lead experts at the CDC on this specific issue. We recognize that historically the value defining an elevated blood lead level has been set much higher

by the CDC, such as between 1976–1980 when the CDC reported that 9 of 10 children (88.2 percent) between the ages of 1–5 years had blood lead levels of

10 μg/dl or higher.

Question 5. Can you describe in detail the testing program that the DC Department of Health has in place, any new testing programs that the Department has

completed or has underway as a result of the lead in drinking water issue, and what

your findings are?

Response. During the time I worked as the interim Chief Medical Officer at the

DC Department of Health, from February 10–April 30 of this year, over 90 percent

of my time was devoted to the lead-in-the-water issues, including development of the

blood testing program. I am glad to summarize those testing programs. We established an Incident Command Structure for all lead-in-the-water issues (see attachment #14 in my April 7th testimony for the specific command structure details). In

addition please find attached a table titled ‘‘Blood Lead Level Screening Results’’

with total results for 5,293 persons who have been tested at the DC Department

of Health laboratory through our screening program as of May 6, 2004. The results

include the fact that 37 children, two nursing mothers, and zero pregnant women

have had an elevated blood lead levels. Of the 37 children, 13 live in homes with

lead service lines and 24 do not. With one exception still under investigation, all

homes of children and nursing mothers with elevated blood have shown lead dust

and/or soil levels that exceed EPA and HUD guidelines. This environmental work

on lead has been supervised by Lynette Stokes, Ph.D. at the DC Department of

Health.

Also, please find attached a color graph that plots blood lead levels for 1,924 persons who are less than the age of 6, or women who are pregnant or nursing. The

lowest measurable value in our laboratory assay is 1 μg/dl. The number of people

at each value of blood lead level decreases at each blood lead level from 1 μg/dl to

9 μg/dl, with the mean (average) value being 3.0 μg/dl.

Since May 1st, Thomas Calhoun, M.D., is the physician responsible for lead-inthe-water issues at the DC Department of Health. I have consulted with him about

the new testing programs since May 1st. There are now five (5) DC clinics where

free blood lead level testing is provided. In addition, Dr. Calhoun has worked with

a 6th site, at Children’s National Medical Center, to offer free blood lead level testing to young persons at DC schools where elevated water lead concentrations were

found. Dr. Calhoun is coordinating a program whereby the DC Department of

Health will go visit these DC schools and offer free blood lead level testing to children under 6 years of age starting the week of May 17th. The April 29th letter that

I wrote regarding water lead levels in DC schools, as well as the letter of February

26th, is posted with other lead-related information on our web site at

www.dchealth.dc.gov.

Question 6. Your testimony implies that there is not a problem with elevated

blood lead levels in children due to drinking water exposure. I believe you are basing that conclusion on the results of the voluntary testing program conducted in the

city. I have read critiques indicating that it is impossible to judge the presence of
243

a city-wide trend depending only on self-selected samples. Dr. Best also raised concerns with this approach during our discussions on the second panel.

During that panel, Senator Crapo and I both asked questions about your test results and the apparent conclusion that the people you have tested that were exposed

to high lead levels do not show, in an overwhelming proportion, high blood lead levels. In our discussions with Dr. Best on this topic, you indicated that the majority

of the people you tested were adults. Children, of course, are at the greatest risk

of lead poisoning due to the higher rate at which they retain lead in their bloodstream when compared to adults.

Please explain how the Department of Health can draw conclusions about the severity of the issue at hand when they appear to be based only on self-selected, voluntary blood tests, or an evaluation of a primarily adult population which we know

has a lower retention rate for lead in the body? Do you have any plans to conduct

more widespread testing?

Response. In addition to the many clinics we set up all across the District for voluntary blood lead level testing since February 28th, we also went directly to the

homes of two populations of people we considered potentially at high risk for lead

toxicity. These two groups are persons living in homes with the highest levels of

lead in their drinking water (> 300 parts per billion) and very young children in

childcare facilities with lead-service lines. My April 7th testimony (attachment #2)

provided data showing that none of 201 persons tested in homes with > 300 ppb

of lead in their water had elevated blood lead levels as we published with the CDC

in their March 30th Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Dispatch. In

addition, in the same April 7th testimony (attachment #3) I included data showing

that only 2 of 280 of the young children in these DC childcare facilities had elevated

blood lead levels. These two specific outreach efforts are combined with the open

blood lead testing program where adults are tested as well as children, an effort

that now includes 1,752 children less than 6 years of age. Finally, we do plan to

test more children under the age of 6 years, starting May 17–21, in DC schools

where elevated levels of lead were reported on April 29th.

Question 7. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were quoted as saying, ‘‘The runaround has been

unbelievable . . . No one in the bureaucracy has even begun to take this seriously.’’

The Director of water for the city stated that it was, ‘‘. . . premature to contact residents throughout the city’’ before the city developed a plan to handle and finance

increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper articles on

this topic into the record. I find it unbelievable that no one at this witness table

learned anything from this previous experience. Did anyone here refer to previous

instances of lead contamination in the District when formulating a response plan?

If so, please describe how you used this information, and if not, why not?

Response. When I started working this February 10th at the DC Department of

Health I was not aware of the 1986 events at the Palisades. My immediate impression at the time was that as the Incident Commander for the Department of Health,

to response to the crisis I needed to learn as much as possible about lead issues

and take rapid action by offering free blood lead level testing. The then Director of

the Department of Health, and his highest Deputy, were replaced by March 26th,

2004.

RESPONSES BY DANIEL LUCEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question 1. You testified to the need for better teamwork if the Lead and Copper

Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your agency and the other authorized agencies are working very closely in what has become a closely scrutinized effort, what improvements in teamwork have you learned? Also, how will you change

routine procedures for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system returns below the Action Level?

Response. The exchange of information, and the critique of that information, has

significantly improved both within the Department of Health and between other involved organizations as of February 2004. Medical aspects of the Department of

Health have been better coordinated with the engineering aspects of the lead-in-thewater issues. Moreover, direct interaction between the DC Department of Health

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has increased substantially, including on the Public Health and medical issues. This is an important change that needs

to continue as part of routine procedures going forward.
244
245
246
247

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Good Morning, Chairman Crapo and Members of the Committee. I am Tom Jacobus, the general manager of Washington Aqueduct. Thank you for the opportunity

to be here today.

Washington Aqueduct, which is a part of the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, is a public water utility. We are regulated by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 3 in Philadelphia.

Washington Aqueduct provides potable water not just to the District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority, but also to Arlington County, Virginia and the city of

Falls Church in Virginia as well. All funds for the operations and capital improvements at Washington Aqueduct come from its customers.

The provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its associated regulations are

the basis for all operations concerning the production, storage, and transmission of

the drinking water produced and sold by Washington Aqueduct to its wholesale customers.

The Potomac River is the source of all water treated by Washington Aqueduct at

its Dalecarlia and McMillan treatment plants. The treatment consists of chemically

induced sedimentation using aluminum sulfate as the coagulant; filtration in dual

media sand and anthracite coal filters; and disinfection using chlorine as the primary disinfectant and chloramines as a secondary disinfectant.

The primary objective of the treatment process is to produce and deliver water

to the tap that is free of contaminants and pleasant to drink.

Three processes are simultaneously occurring to achieve that objective. First, organic and inorganic contaminants are removed during treatment. Then the water

is disinfected so microorganisms that may have been in the raw water are killed.

A disinfectant is carried along in the water (chloramine in this case) so that if the

water encounters any bacteria in the distribution system or the building plumbing,

the bacteria will be killed. Finally, the drinking water chemistry is adjusted as it

leaves the treatment plants to make it less corrosive to the metals it will encounter

in the distribution system and building plumbing.

The Washington Aqueduct’s corrosion control has been accomplished by the use

of lime to adjust the pH of the water. Tests done in conjunction with the promulgation of the Lead and Copper Rule and reported to EPA in 1994 demonstrated that

pH control would be sufficient to achieve Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment for

Washington Aqueduct’s customers. In the years since it was first proposed, there

has been a continuing involvement with EPA to refine the Washington Aqueduct’s

Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment and report on our ability to meet the pH targets.

However, the District of Columbia Water And Sewer Authority’s sampling in accordance with the Lead and Copper Rule in the District of Columbia in 2001 and

2002 and the most recent intensive sampling in 2003 of water that has resided in

lead service lines indicate that Washington Aqueduct must take immediate steps to

adjust its optimal corrosion control treatment so that different results are achieved

in the District of Columbia water distribution system.

To address this issue EPA Region 3, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer

Authority and Washington Aqueduct’s other wholesale customers in Virginia, the

District of Columbia Department of Health, and Washington Aqueduct have formed

a Technical Expert Working Group and developed an action plan to address the lead

issue. I have attached a copy of the action plan dated March 10, 2004, as an enclosure to this testimony. A peer review panel appointed by U.S. EPA is reviewing this

plan and their recommendations will be incorporated in a subsequent update.

In addition, teams have been formed to address production operations, distribution system operations, and risk communication to the public. Representatives of

different agencies lead each of these teams. EPA leads the risk communications

team; the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority leads the distribution

system operations team; and Washington Aqueduct leads the production operations

team. Representatives of all of the agencies participate on all of the teams. These

teams will make a recommendation to be adopted by the technical expert working

group that will result in a treatment change. While the exact type and dosage will

be determined in the next couple of weeks as a result of the ongoing scientific analysis, it appears that the use of a phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor will be adopted.

Current plans are to begin a partial system application of a revised optimal corrosion control treatment this June followed by a full system application by September.

There is optimism that this change will be effective in reducing the lead leaching,

but it will take several months to measure the effects. Laboratory studies will be
248

ongoing for many months in parallel with the revised treatment that may be used

to further refine the change in treatment.

I would like to address the role of the Washington Aqueduct Wholesale Customer

Board as it pertains to water treatment decisions. The Wholesale Customer Board

governs the Washington Aqueduct’s financial and strategic planning. The Board is

comprised of the general manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, the Arlington County manager and Falls Church city manager. As part of

the Board’s oversight, there are technical committees that meet to evaluate engineering and financial operations throughout the year.

The board and the committees have worked very effectively to address difficult

issues such as a new solids management strategy to meet a new discharge permit

and to develop a disinfectant strategy to meet changes to the Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Based on what we have learned in the last 8 weeks, we will add corrosion

control management as a permanent agenda item, just like we do now with filtered

water turbidity, Total Coliform Rule compliance and Disinfection Byproduct Rule

compliance. By doing this we will have a procedure in place for the Washington Aqueduct customers to share lead and copper data.

As the general manager of Washington Aqueduct, I intend to take two other actions. First I will make an adjustment to the structure of the Washington Aqueduct

organization to integrate an existing water quality office and the capability of our

plant operations branch, including our water quality laboratory. Second, I will ask

our customers to participate in more frequent and more structured meetings that

will improve an ongoing information loop involving them and our water quality office.

In the other two important treatment areas I mentioned earlier (i.e., disinfection

and contaminant removal) we have worked very effectively with our customers to

know at all times what the conditions are at the treatment plants and in their distribution systems and to implement systems responses on their behalf. The experience of the last several weeks concerning the application of the lead and copper rule

indicates we need to give the third element (i.e., corrosion control) the same visibility.

I am confident Washington Aqueduct working with its customers and EPA can accomplish that.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I will be happy answer your

questions.
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267

RESPONSES BY THOMAS P. JACOBUS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. How much would it cost to add zinc orthophosphate to the water produced at the Washington Aqueduct on a per household basis?

Response. Since our testimony on April 7, we have continued to develop the design and refine our cost estimates. We now expect that the engineering and construction costs to implement the addition of zinc orthophosphate and to conduct

studies involving pipe loops made from lead service lines taken from the District of

Columbia distribution system will be approximately $3,000,000. Since this corrosion

inhibitor is a new chemical not previously used, its cost will have to be added to

our chemical supply budget. We expect to pay in the range of an additional

$1,100,000 per year to add zinc orthophosphate to the treatment process. Washington Aqueduct is a wholesaler that serves approximately 1,000,000 people in our

service area of the District of Columbia, Arlington County and Falls Church. We do

not bill on a household basis and are unable to provide costs on that basis.

Question 2. With respect to the addition of other forms of phosphate, does zinc

add a secondary anti-corrosive or protective property that would be beneficial for a

system such as Washington’s?

Response. Initially the Technical Expert Working Group made up of representatives of the District of Colombia Water and Sewer Authority, Washington Aqueduct,

Virginia customers of Washington Aqueduct, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the District of Columbia Department of Health recommended

phosphoric acid as the corrosion inhibitor. EPA organized an Independent Peer Review panel consisting of nationally renowned experts on corrosion control who had

direct experience with similar situations. Members of the peer review panel suggested that the zinc orthophosphate might work more quickly to passivate the lead

service lines and solder joints and brass and bronze fixtures. Both phosphoric acid

(commonly known as orthophosphate) and zinc orthophosphate operate similarly

and we would expect both to work. Since, however, the reduction of lead concentration in tap water is of utmost concern, we chose to take the advice of this panel

and selected the zinc orthophosphate as the corrosion inhibitor to be used.

Question 3. How quickly could the Corps implement the addition of zincorthophosphate?

Response. We plan to do a partial system application in a small portion of the

District of Columbia distribution system starting June 1, 2004 followed by a full system application on or about July 15, 2004.

Question 4. Do you know of any water systems that have had a problem with elevated lead levels after they began adding zinc orthophosphate?

Response. Because the chemistry of the water inside the pipes of the distribution

system is complex and it is influenced by the nature of the source water, it is not

possible to make a firm prediction of how soon the passivation will occur and lead

levels will decrease. Consultants working with Washington Aqueduct have reported

that in some cases there might be a slight increase in lead levels before the eventual

decrease begins. In most cases, after 6 to 18 months, utilities saw a decrease in lead

concentrations after the addition of zinc orthophosphate. This reduction was eventually sufficient for those systems to be in compliance with the Lead and Copper

Rule’s action level at the 90th percentile.

RESPONSES BY THOMAS P. JACOBUS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. I have been frequently told by parents—If I had only known, I could

have taken precautions. I want to ask each of the witnesses at the table to tell me

how you are responding to this question—what explanation are you giving to parents whose children who were totally unnecessarily exposed to lead in their drinking

water and what steps are you taking to regain the trust of the citizens of Washington, DC?

Response. Washington Aqueduct is a wholesaler of water and does not deal directly with the citizens in its service areas in the District of Columbia or Virginia

unless it does so in conjunction with the appropriate water utility officials. Certainly

in this current situation that has been widely reported and discussed since February, Washington Aqueduct has accompanied the District of Columbia Water and

Sewer Authority along with the District’s Department of Health to many public

meetings to explain exactly the nature of the problem and the interim and longerterm actions being taken to protect public health. We believe that the public’s trust
268

will be gained on an individual-by-individual basis once they understand what

caused the elevated levels to occur and the steps we are taking to change the water

chemistry and the time that we expect to take. Through a variety of means (e.g.,

pubic meetings, City Council hearings, information sent directly to households as

well as doing the science and engineering to make the chemistry changes at the

treatment plants) we are fully involved and committed to rebuilding that trust.

Question 2. In 1986, lead was discovered in drinking water in the Palisades section of Washington, DC. Residents were quoted as saying, ‘‘The runaround has been

unbelievable. . . . No one in the bureaucracy has even begun to take this seriously.’’

The Director of water for the city stated it was, ‘‘. . . premature to contact residents

throughout the city’’ before the city developed a plan to handle and finance increased testing. I ask unanimous consent to insert several newspaper articles on

this topic into the record. I find it unbelievable that no one at this witness table

learned anything from that previous experience. Did anyone here refer to previous

instances of lead contamination in the District when formulating a response plan?

If so, please describe how you used this information, and if not, why not?

Response. The Lead and Copper Rule, which went into effect in 1991, was designed to overcome the situation you described in the Palisades in 1986. In meeting

the requirement of that rule, Washington Aqueduct includes corrosion control treatment as an integral part of its overall treatment process. That treatment, referred

to as Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT) was approved by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, with the expectation, based on

scientific analysis conducted by Washington Aqueduct and reported to EPA, that

lead concentrations in tap water would be below the action level in accordance with

the rule. In the current situation with elevated levels beyond the permissible action

level the Washington Aqueduct’s response plan on the treatment side has been to

reevaluate OCCT. In so doing Washington Aqueduct is working with EPA and its

wholesale customers and consultants. The response has been rapid and targeted on

the problem at hand. We expect that the partial system application of revised chemistry will begin in a portion of the District of Columbia’s distribution system on

June 1, 2004 with the full system application to begin on or about July 15, 2004.

RESPONSES BY THOMAS P. JACOBUS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question 1. You testified to the need for better teamwork if the Lead and Copper

Rule is to be implemented effectively. Now that your agency and the other authorized agencies are working very closely on what has become a closely scrutinized effort, what improvements in teamwork have you learned? Also, how will you change

routine procedures for working together to implement the Rule after the DC drinking water system returns below the Action Level?

Response. We have had a very strong working relationship internal to the Washington Aqueduct organization as well as with technical and management officials

representing our Wholesale Customers. It is designed to quickly react to situations

in the treatment process or within the distribution system that could cause a violation of a regulatory threshold. But compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule is

not measured by a single event or exceedance as are other rules promulgated under

the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore we now realize that we need to schedule

regular periodic meetings to evaluate specifically the effectiveness of our corrosion

control treatment and ask the customers to share their distribution sampling data

with us at the same time they send it to their regulatory agencies. This will allow

all four entities, Washington Aqueduct, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer

Authority, Arlington County and Falls Church, to understand trends in each other’s

jurisdictions. Since there is no chemical difference in the water produced by Washington Aqueduct as it goes to all customers, we need to be prepared to make adjustments that are appropriate and effective in each of the systems.

STATEMENT OF GLORIA BORLAND, DUPONT CIRCLE PARENTS

I am here because I am the Mother of a 22 month-old girl, who has lead in her

blood at twice the national average. I have been a DC resident for 22 years and a

homeowner in Dupont Circle for 15 years. Most of the people you see here in the

audience today are DC parents worried about lead from the water harming their

young children.

Your letter asked me to tell you what we parents believe ‘‘would be the most effective way for government to communicate and respond to the sort of information that
269

is now slowly coming to light.’’ Also, what do we parents ‘‘suggest the DC government must do to reinstate the trust of the citizens in their water supply?’’

First of all, communication and trust—those two must go hand in hand.

I’m sure if the Washington Post’s David Nakamura had not exposed this scandal,

our young children today on April 7 would still be drinking leaded water. And

WASA would still be hiding this crisis from us.

Communicating is not rocket science, it is the easiest and simplest thing to do

when there is leadership in an organization willing to do it. The problem is not in

‘‘the process’’ of communication, the problem lies in deception. WASA leaders wanted to operate under the radar screen.

WASA has a public relations department right below the chain of command of

their General Manager. WASA managers, lawyers, and board of directors made the

decision to not communicate truthfully, to cover up and manipulate for years. They

deceived us. They tried to hide extraordinarily high levels of lead poison in our

water supply, thus putting our young children at risk. The EPA and the Army

Corps of Engineers went along with this deception, in violation of their Federal

oversight responsibilities.

How was this crisis communicated?

For most DC parents of young children, our day of infamy was Saturday, January

31, 2004, when we read the headline of the Washington Post that morning and were

hit with the shocking bomb that our infants, toddlers and young children have been

secretly poisoned by lead in the drinking water in our homes.

We discovered that lead in the water can stunt fetus’ and young children’s growth

and mental development, and cause learning disabilities. Formula-fed infants my

get as much as 40 to 60 percent of their lead exposure from water. Lead in young

children lowers their IQ. Lead has a negative effect on children’s ability to learn—

lowers average IQ 5–15 percent depending on severity and length of exposure. When

lead enters the brain of a child, it causes long-term learning and behavioral problems. Once the baby’s brain has been damaged by lead, it is irreversible. Lead can

remain in the child’s body for decades.

I was pregnant in 2001 and 2002 when high lead levels first became noticed by

WASA. The right and legal thing for WASA to do was to issue an emergency warning to the public, and to obstetricians and pediatricians to warn their patients not

to drink tap water. It does not matter if WASA hadn’t identified the source; that

kind of research could take months, even years. In the interest of public safety, you

issue the warning to the public to take the precaution, and then you take the time

and spend the resources to figure out the cause. When firemen see a house burning,

their first priority is to save peoples lives, put the fire out, then they begin their

investigation into the cause of the blaze. WASA got it backward. They wanted to

figure out the cause of the lead crisis first, before trying to save our babies’ lives.

All WASA had to do was warn me and other mothers, don’t drink your water

without a filter or buy bottled water. I had a PUR water filter back when I was

pregnant. But I wasn’t diligent about changing the cartridge all the time. Like most

Moms, we drank plenty of water, we were so very careful about everything. I nursed

my baby, but I also gave her formula with tap water. When I learned about lead

in the water, I wanted to cry. I had been so careful, I even gave up coffee for Gods

sake, and now I hear about the lead!
270

My daughter attends a very good pre-school and day care center in Dupont Circle.

The Early Childhood Development Center has an enrollment of 65 students from infants to 4 year-olds and is run by the First Baptist Church at 16th and O Streets

N.W. When the building was built in 1989, as part of receiving its national accredi-
271

tation, they had an outside firm test the water. There was no harmful levels of lead

in their water and the center passed with flying colors.

Last year, WASA tore up the street next to the center and changed or repaired

some pipes. WASA did their construction work without warning and without cooperation with the center. The staff came to work the next day and found the gymnasium floors had been flooded; the mats had to be replaced costing the day care

center $2,000. WASA’s work caused a classroom toilet to back up feces, and that

room had to be steam cleaned at the center’s own expense.
272
273

When this current lead crisis in the water broke, the center’s executive director

Helen Henderson did the responsible thing and called back the same private firm

to re-test the water in the day care center. Some of the sinks and water fountains

had high levels of lead at 3,100 parts per billion and 5,900 parts per billion. When

I saw the letter Mrs. Henderson sent to all the parents with the water test results,

I thought there must have been a typo. This was not 15 parts per billion, the legal

threshold for high lead levels, but in the thousands!!! I couldn’t believe the lead in

their water almost reached 6,000 ppb!

The center immediately went to bottled water. Brita water filters remove lead up

to 150 ppb—filters don’t work when lead is in the thousands.

As of Monday April 5, no one from WASA has contacted Mrs. Henderson, nor has

anyone from the District government sent her a letter or even made a phone call.

Since this crisis broke, no one from WASA or the District has offered to help her.

All this talk of the city reaching out to day care centers is baloney.

I know there is some controversy on what are safe numbers: 15 ppb, is it too low,

is it too high? I saw the Fox News Channel story last week that the push by environmentalists to crack down on chlorine caused DC lead problems. While scientists

can still debate what are proper lead levels in water, there can be no doubt that

5,900 ppb is an emergency! Especially at a Day Care center with 65 young children.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED TO OUR YOUNG CHILDREN?

Most parents have been perplexed as to why an entity entrusted with public safety would lie, and then cover up their lies; what is their motive? When I spoke over

the weekend to my very wise friend Joe Louis Ruffm, III father of a 3-year-old boy,

living in Chevy Chase, DC. Joe said WASA wanted to protect their bond rating.

Communicating the truth would have brought their assets down.

So this is like Enron! Enron was only about money. This is about money, bond

ratings. But the consequences here, the innocent victims are the lives of our next

generation.

I want you Senators to see the victims—our young children, when bond ratings

get in the way of public safety. Look into the faces of our babies (see the photos

on display): they paid the price for managers who decided bond ratings were more

important than our babies brain development, their nervous system and their IQ.
274

STORIES FROM PARENTS

Here are some stores from parents all over the city. This lead water crisis has

a dramatic impact on every parent of young children. To prove that this is wide

spread, there is a petition with over 1,000 signatures from DC parents being presented to the Senate today.

When the lead crisis erupted, parents quickly responded by signing a petition on

www.purewaterdc.com, that demanded the city take immediate action to restore

safety in our water system. The petition also called for the firing of WASA managers

and the reinstatement of the whistle-blower, Seema Bhat. The petition was a way

for parents to fight back and to let our officials know we were outraged. Over 1,000

signatures were added in just 2 weeks.
275

Theresa Brown lives in LeDroit Park, right near Howard University. She says,

‘‘I am the mom of London, she just turned one last week. I am outraged, and

would like to know if any of the WASA officials had wives, daughters, daughters-in-law, sisters who were pregnant or had young children during this heinous cover-up and how they feel about allowing their families to be exposed.

And if they don’t have relatives or loved ones at risk, then perhaps that explains their ineptitude.

I feel completely and utterly betrayed. They have a responsibility to the citizens of this city, especially to those young babies and children who are completely defenseless. You cannot put a price on brain damage . . . how about if

we deliberately caused brain impairment to their kids or grandkids and see how

they like it?’’
276

I am writing to express my anger that my family, particularly my two children

aged 7 and 3, has been drinking and cooking using contaminated water for an unknown length of time, and that WASA officials knew of this problem but did not

inform us. It is unconscionable that these officials allowed families to expose their

babies and young children to lead. Over the past 4 years, my son has been exposed

to lead contamination in utero, through breastfeeding, through his formula, and now

through even the drinking fountains at his daycare. Can anyone at WASA assure

me that my son will not suffer harmful effects from this exposure?
277

Desa Sealy Ruffin (wife of Joe, who is mentioned earlier) lives in Chevy Chase,

DC. She says,

‘‘I have been so mad that I haven’t really been able to speak all that much.

I can only say that I think the District, WASA and EPA have all broken a really

fundamental covenant with the citizens in the District of Columbia and I now

no longer trust them to do anything. I think they are evil or as a Jamaican

friend put it so aptly, wicked. I know a friend was horrified because she was

pregnant during this whole thing. The fact that the head of WASA didn’t want

to spend the money to replace the lead service lines burns me up beyond belief.

I think that the 3 agencies conspired to keep us in the dark. They should be

facing criminal charges.’’
278

Valerie Jablow, mother of Charlie Horn, lives on Capitol Hill and she says,

‘‘I live in a city that is full of taps dispensing water with high lead levels.

My son drinks water from his daycare every day of the week, and they don’t

know what the lead levels there are. Similarly, we like to go to the libraries,

the public pool, stores, and restaurants in our neighborhood all the time—and

who knows if the water they dispense is full of lead and thus unsafe to drink?

In a few years my son will go to the public school a few blocks from our house—

in addition to wondering about the quality of his education, I now will have to

worry about the quality of the water he drinks while there.’’
279

Terrance Heath is father to 16-month old Parker, living in Logan Circle. Terrance

says,

‘‘I am writing to express my outrage at the discovery that my family, and particularly our 16 month old son, have been drinking and cooking with water potentially contaminated with lead: I am dismayed because after 10 years as a

DC resident it never occurred to me that my family actually lives in a city

where we cannot or should not drink the water; I am outraged because I found

out about this potential contamination not from WASA, but from the Washington Post. Our son is adopted, and thus was bottle fed (water mixed with formula) as an infant, and as a toddler. Early this year we learned that his first

lead screening result indicated elevated lead level.

As a DC resident and parent, I have no faith in WASA officials to make decisions for the benefit of my family’s health. I believe that oversight is clearly

needed, since WASA officials cannot be trusted to do their jobs. Beyond that,

I believe that those responsible at WASA should be held accountable for the

harm that has resulted or may result from their decisions. There can be no excusing the decision to put our children at risk.’’
280

Ronnette Bristol, lives in Northeast DC in an apartment building. She has 4 children ranging in age from 3 to 9, and just found out that her building has not been

tested for lead. She says, ‘‘we are buying lots of bottled water, until we can get

someone to come out and test our apartment building.’’

Ronnette is very worried about the quality of water in her apartment and she

wants her children to have the cleanest and safest water possible.
281

Lyubov Gurjeva is originally from Russia. She says,

‘‘I never believed DC water was safe to drink. When I arrived in DC 2 years

ago friends told me that there had been numerous problems earlier. But the fact

that the situation has been bad for a long time does not make it more acceptable. I am glad this matter has attracted so much public attention this time.

We need safer water for DC.’’

Dupont resident Xin Chen and her husband Brett Sylvester were informed by

WASA last August that they had a lead service line and told to test their water.

They submitted two sets of water samples for testing on August 15, 2003. They

never received their test results. When,

‘‘the lead story broke out, every time we talked to them on their hotline, we

got different answers. Sometimes they told us they lost our samples. Sometimes

they said our results were OK but they couldn’t give them to us on the phone,

sometimes they simply said we should re-test. We’ve just had the most unpleasant experience with WASA. I don’t trust them and I don’t trust their test results’’

(No picture provided)

Maria DePaul and her husband Ethan Premysler live on Capitol Hill. They have

a 3-year-old son and they are expecting the birth of their second child any day now.

Their son has elevated lead levels in his blood. They have an exposed basement and

they clearly see a lead water main. Maria and Ethan examined their pipes and believe it is an old lead line. When they called WASA, they were told their house was

classified with a copper line and not a lead line. Maria and Ethan called numerous

times to argue that they did indeed have a lead line and that WASA’s records were

wrong. WASA would not budge. Maria and Ethan requested that WASA send someone over to take a look, and see that they indeed had lead pipes, but WASA refused.

Ethan says he is completely frustrated, ‘‘you are completely on your own, we called

so many times, so many times, so many times. WASA will find legal loop holes so

they do not have to help you out.’’

Many parents complained about the cost of buying expensive filters and bottled

water. People don’t mind buying bottled water in an emergency for a couple days

or a couple weeks. But when a couple weeks turns into a couple months, with still

no end in sight, people are beginning to feel the financial burden of buying bottled
282

drinking water for every day use. When parents heard that WASA managers now

want to raise rates 5 percent, they were aghast at the absurdity of the request. This

move clearly shows WASA managers still don’t get it.

HOW TO RESTORE TRUST

My feeling and that of other parents since that day of infamy is outrage! We expected our elected leaders in the District to quickly step in, fire the managers at

WASA and respond with swift action to fix our water crisis. That. would have been

a rightful first step on the long journey of restoring trust with the citizenry. Instead

our District government leaders made the political decision to protect WASA managers, and engage in a finger-pointing game directed at everyone else. EPA and

Army Corps of Engineers were supposed to be looking out for our interest by being

the watch dog over WASA. Instead it appears they looked the other way and our

children today have to suffer the consequences. I hope EPA and Army Corps leaders

remember the faces of our babies when they carry out their daily oversight duties.

Senators, the Federal regulations you already have in place for communicating to

the public, I think are fine. The problem here was not a failure of process, but a

problem of cover up, fire anyone on staff who become a whistle-blower, perhaps to

protect their bond ratings.

When I hear Jerry Johnson say ‘‘In hindsight, maybe we should’ve done more to

inform people,’’ my blood boils. The pat answer prepared by lawyers and PR people

are not going; to fool the thousand families who signed that petition. We are not

stupid. We know your bond ratings were more important to you than having our

babies get lead in their nervous system.

Senators, we are not soccer Moms, or NASCAR Dads, we are a new demographic.

We are urban by choice. We’re smart, we’re parents with young children and because of our children we are involved in our neighborhood communities. We understand the need for companies to make a profit. Many of us own stocks and bonds

for our children’s 529 college plans. But when you endanger the lives of our babies,

we are going to fight back with incredible force.

WASA, Don’t think by hiring an outside health consultant, we will go away satisfied. We know a PR stunt when we see one. This just reinforces the premise that

current managers don’t possess the mandatory basic knowledge of ‘‘what is safe

water to drink,’’ and thus they have no business working in the water industry.

The seed of the problem here is a management culture instilled by Jerry Johnson,

Mike Marcotte and board chairman Glenn Gersten. To restore trust, do what is done

in the private sector, remove managers for extremely poor judgment, failed performance, and put in new management. These are the necessary first step toward restoring trust. New managers are now in place at Enron, Adelphia and Worldcom.

Gersten is a Wall Street attorney, so he understands why old board members at the

NYSE had to be replaced in order to restore public confidence in the institution.

Martha Stewart maybe going to jail for covering up her lie. This management cover

up has caused more damage to the public than Martha: they put the lives of our

young babies at terrible risk.

We know our mayor is asking the Federal Government for more money to solve

this problem. I don’t think it makes sense to put good money in the hands of bad

managers.

Drastic action needs to take place to restore safety in our water supply. I am an

entrepreneur and believe in the free enterprise system. So I don’t say this lightly.

Most of the parents that signed the petition presented to you today also believe in

the private markets. We don’t normally seek government help for every little problem. But the problems and dysfunction at WASA are so huge, they require Federal

intervention.

We parents encourage the U.S. Senate to institute its powers to begin the process

of putting WASA under Federal control, Federal receivership. A new management

team and new board of directors needs to be put in place to work on solving this

lead crisis. And we need to make sure the Army Corps and EPA are listening to

our demands for better communication, a two-way dialog with the public they are

entrusted to serve.

Yes, we need Federal help and Federal dollars to solve this crisis, but that goes

hand-in-hand with new management and Federal control of the system, until our

water is deemed drinkable again.

Thank you.

(In addition to raising her daughter, Gloria Borland is also a media entrepreneur.

She is currently developing a new national television series profiling women entrepreneurs called ‘‘She’s the CEO’’ www.sheceo.com. Gloria was born in Kodiak, Alaska, raised in Honolulu, Hawaii and chooses to live in the Nation’s Capitol.)
283

RESPONSE BY GLORIA BORLAND TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at the hearing), what would

they be?

Response. (1) Immediately fire the top leadership of WASA; (2) Publicly develop

a lead removal process that’s transparent; and (3) Have DC water certified by an

independent authority every year—very important.

RESPONSE BY CHRISTOPHER MCKEON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at the hearing), what would

they be?

Response. No one at WASA has been reprimanded, fined, demoted, or fired because of what happened with DC’s water. Ditto for EPA. Ditto for Army Corps. They

all had something to do directly with the lead crisis. But that level of

unaccountability is unacceptable: what if this hadn’t been lead but something more

immediately harmful? So here is what needs to happen, in the order it needs to happen in:

(1) The EPA, working with the DC Department of Health, needs to put new people in charge at WASA. Now.

(2) Army Corps of Engineers needs to get folks from the community—not just

elected officials, or WASA people, but regular folks—involved with their decision

making in regard to the District’s water. More specifically, citizens of DC need to

be in on *every* decision that Army Corps makes in regard to our water, and they

need to have a voice there equal to that of WASA and the army corps itself.

(3) The EPA Region 3 office is too far away to deal effectively with DC’s water.

EPA should form a new office here in the District to have oversight over District

water. Given our role not only as the Nation’s Capital but also as a major tourist

destination for people from all over the world, Washington, DC deserves to have real

oversight over its water, not a half-hearted rubber stamping of every WASA decision, as shown in the lead crisis.

Ok, that’s my two cents’ worth—thanks Gloria. Let me know what transpires.

RESPONSE BY VALERIE JABLOW TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. If there were three or four actions you could have the government agencies immediately take that were present here today (at the hearing), what would

they be?

Response. (1) EPA: More stringent notification requirements for water contamination, i.e., a one-page letter listing the actual contamination level; and the changes

in the so-called acceptable contamination levels to better protect women and children. Public notification would be triggered at these lower levels; Changes in the

testing guidelines which allowed WASA to replace higher lead water samples with

lower lead samples. (2) DC Department of Health: better monitoring and enforcement of environmental hazards related to children and daycares. For example, we

are required to provide lead testing data on our children’s health forms but this

data is not being analyzed or tracked to understand potential problems.

The DC Department of Health should be responsible for informing parents and

offering testing services on a much wider basis than was actually done.

There should also be significant monitoring of (and penalties for non-compliance)

public utilities providing services to daycare centers and schools—i.e. no mobile lead

testing unit was sent to FBC, no one seems concerned about putting FBC on a priority list, and WASA should have tested (and be planning to replace) the piping and

water systems at daycare centers and schools first.

Lastly, I just want to reiterate the issue that parents now have a lack of confidence in WASA and their management, and would like to see another agency or

entity monitoring this situation to ensure that decisions and improvements are

made moving forward.
284

STATEMENT OF JODY LANARD, M.D., RISK COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT, PRINCETON, NJ

Senator Crapo and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you so much for asking me to testify about needed improvements in public

communications regarding the detection of lead in Washington DC water.

I am Jody Lanard, a psychiatrist from Princeton, New Jersey, specializing for almost 20 years in the rapidly evolving field of risk communication. My own contributions are mostly in the crisis communication branch of the field. I work independently, with my husband Peter Sandman, a former academic who is one of the early

founders of risk communication. My biography and c.v. follow the testimony.

Here is a list of the crisis communication strategies which underlie my critique

of WASA’s communications with the public. Expanded descriptions of these strategies, references to articles from which they were derived, and references to case

studies using (or failing to use) these strategies are appended at the end of this

statement.

1. Don’t over-reassure.

2. Put reassuring information in subordinate clauses.

3. Err on the alarming side.

4. Acknowledge uncertainty.

5. Share dilemmas.

6. Acknowledge opinion diversity.

7. Be willing to speculate.

8. Don’t overdiagnose or overplan for panic.

9. Don’t aim for zero fear.

10. Don’t forget emotions other than fear.

11. Don’t ridicule the public’s emotions.

12. Legitimize people’s fears.

13. Tolerate early over-reactions.

14. Establish your own humanity.

15. Tell people what to expect.

16. Offer people things to do.

17. Let people choose their own actions.

18. Ask more of people.

19. Acknowledge errors, deficiencies, and misbehaviors.

20. Apologize often for errors, deficiencies, and misbehaviors.

21. Be explicit about ‘‘anchoring frames.’’

22. Be explicit about changes in official opinion, prediction, or policy.

23. Don’t lie, and don’t tell half-truths.

24. Aim for total candor and transparency.

25. Be careful with risk comparisons.

(Adapted from Sandman and Lanard’s crisis communication articles)

I’m going to tell you about some good and bad risk communication practices, and

give you my critique of the DC Water and Sewage Authority’s public communications. But first, here’s my bottom line: for the most part, WASA did fairly typical,

rather ordinary, well-intentioned public relations-oriented communication—as most

agencies are inclined to do, despite the fact that it regularly backfires. My colleague

Peter Sandman and I like to call this, only half-joking, a ‘‘knee-jerk under-reaction,’’

as a way of turning the tables on officials who often feel the public responds to scary

new situations with ‘‘knee-jerk over-reactions.’’ Sometimes investigation reveals a

genuine intentional cover-up, but much more often, the communication strategy is

based on false beliefs:

• about how the public learns new information,

• about responsible early speculation,

• about how much anxiety the public can bear,

• about how reassuring to be in the face of uncertainty.

For instance, WASA’s outrage-inducing delay in informing the public was rationalized by WASA officials in at least two conventional ways: the desire to have ‘‘complete’’ information before releasing it, and the desire to prevent public panic.

WASA’s communication practices are misguided approaches when used in uncertain,

potentially scary situations. It is painful to watch agencies walk over the public relations cliff in a crisis communication situation, especially given what other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control, have worked so hard to learn and to

distill into easily accessible nearly free training programs.

The U.S. EPA was one of the first agencies to take the new field of risk communication seriously, publishing articles about it when it barely had a name, starting

in the mid 1980s. And the American Waterworks Association put out a risk communication training video in 1992, entitled ‘‘Public Involvement: a Better Response to
285

People’s Concerns About Water Quality,’’ subtitled: ‘‘an interview with Peter Sandman on how water providers can translate risk communication concepts into mechanisms to build effective relationships with the public.’’ So risk communication is not

a new concept in environmental and water management. But each new generation

of managers discovers it anew—often as a result of botching a crisis.

What WASA did was, unfortunately, common every-day bad risk communication.

I have had no access to internal agency documents or communications, so if there

was deliberate self-serving intent to hide important information from the public, I

do not know it. But officials’ public comments so far suggest only that WASA was

unskilled in the difficult, counter-intuitive strategies of crisis communication—and

despite the ramping up of crisis communication planning and training since September 11, this is extremely common.

RISK COMMUNICATION

My analysis of WASA’s communication rests partly on Sandman’s re-definition of

risk, drawing on the risk perception work of Slovic, Fischoff, and others, that states:

Risk = Hazard + Outrage. This notion was first published in the EPA Journal in

1987. The rest of my analysis is informed by the crisis communication work I and

others have done since September 11, 2001.

Health and safety workers usually define risk as ‘‘probability times magnitude’’—

How bad is the worst case? How likely is it to happen? The public—including the

experts when they are at home—mostly see ‘‘risk’’ in terms of what Sandman calls

‘‘outrage factors,’’ and others more recently call ‘‘fear’’ or ‘‘dread’’ factors: Is this hazard being imposed on me voluntarily? Do I have control over it? Is it industrial, or

is it natural? Can I trust the people who are managing the hazard? Have they been

open and honest with me? Do they show concern for my worries? Does the hazard

effect particularly vulnerable populations, like children? Does it disproportionately

fall on oppressed and powerless groups? Is it particularly dreaded, like cancer or

AIDS?

On most risks, most of the time, people are apathetic or in denial. That was the

starting position of most of the Washington DC population about lead, in October

2002 when WASA first widely released information about elevated lead levels in

some homes’ water. Normally, you can’t easily scare people about such hazards as

obesity, high blood pressure, not wearing seatbelts, not wearing condoms—or lead

poisoning. So when people suddenly get upset about a risk they have long been ignoring, there are usually new ‘‘outrage factors’’ (or ‘‘fear factors’’) driving the reaction.

The main problems with WASA’s communication about lead in the water were:

initially, trying to attack apathy with information alone, and without scaring anyone; and later, neglecting public outrage—especially its outrage at them, the official

sponsor of the outrage.

1. Trying to attack apathy with information alone

Trying to attack apathy—let me define this as a profound lack of outrage—with

information alone—especially information that doesn’t signal a change in a familiar

situation—is a big reason for communication failure when people are not upset

about a potentially serious risk. This is what WASA failed to factor in, in its October 2002 Lead Awareness Week brochure. WASA cites this brochure to demonstrate

that it did not try to hide the lead problem from the public—and technically they

didn’t hide it. And they did send notices to the actual homes which tested high for

lead in the water. But they did not signal that it was a potential problem for the

public at large.

WASA’s brochure was entitled, ‘‘The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and the District of Columbia Department of Health Acknowledge National

Lead Awareness Week and Its Impacts on Your Health. Living Lead-Free in DC.’’

The explicit purpose of the brochure, based on its title, was to acknowledge National

Lead Awareness Week.

This brochure has excellent educational content. But it only weakly signals to the

public that there are new reasons to take this information seriously. The title makes

it sound like the PR department decided to use ‘‘National Lead Awareness Week’’

as a news peg for sending out information about what to do about lead—major lead

sources like paint and dust; less significant sources like lead in the water. Pretty

picture of water on the cover. A smiling pregnant woman holding a glass of water

on page 2. Low down on page 3 comes this sentence:

‘‘However, in the annual monitoring period ending June 30, 2002, the lead results indicate that although most homes have very low levels of lead in their
286

drinking water, some homes in the community have lead levels above the EPA

action level of 15 parts per billion.’’

By the time a reader gets to this sentence, the context of the brochure suggests

that ‘‘some homes’’ are very few, and ‘‘above the EPA action level’’ is only a little

above. The cheerful, informative tone of the preceding pages, in context with the

celebratory title of the brochure, does not signal, ‘‘DO something! This is a surprising change in our findings! Take this seriously!’’

The next mention of the actual water problem is at the bottom of page 7: ‘‘Despite

our best efforts mentioned earlier to control water corrosivity and remove lead from

the water supply, lead levels in some homes or buildings can be high.’’ CAN be

high? Didn’t they know? How many homes or buildings so far? HOW high? You cannot tell from the brochure. But on January 31, the Washington Post reported that

‘‘some homes’’ meant 4,075 homes, and ‘‘how high?’’—2,287 homes were above 50

parts per billion, way over the EPA action level. A much scarier way for the public

to find this out. Yes, public anxiety would have increased at any point that they

heard about this, and public anger too; but WASA lost the opportunity to help the

public cope with its anxiety, and WASA generated much more anger, by letting the

story break unexpectedly. Feeling blindsided gets translated into a belief that the

hazard is much more serious: this is a very robust finding in risk communication

research.

I can understand WASA’s reluctance to lay out this information explicitly early

on. On March 2, The Washington Times wrote that WASA General Manager Jerry

Johnson ‘‘wanted more comprehensive analysis of the test data before unnecessarily

alarming the public.’’ Well, they still don’t know the full extent of the problem. They

still do not know if many people, especially, children, have been affected. They

wouldn’t even get much of a hint until March 30, when the CDC published a small

amount of mostly reassuring data. It’s hard to tell people bad news, and then add,

‘‘Not only that, but we don’t know how bad, and we don’t know what it means, or

what to do!’’

But an official at WASA trained in crisis communication could have shared the

anguish of this uncertainty with the public:

‘‘I’m so sorry to tell you that we’re finding a lot of unexpected high lead levels

in water coming out of the taps in lots of homes. We don’t know yet why this

is happening. We don’t know yet whether any people, especially children, have

increased blood lead levels because of this. We don’t even know all the recommendations we want to make to you, because we feel you deserve to know

this information quickly, so we’ll just give you some preliminary precautionary

recommendations. We’ll be learning things over the next weeks that we’ll wish

we had known months ago. We may make mistakes, or retract things we’ve already said, or change our minds as new information and guidance come in. But

we’re committed to sharing this with you early. We know you’ll be worried; we

share that worry; and we will bear this together and get through it.’’

This would have expressed confidence in the public—a compliment the public

might well have returned, along with its appropriate anger at you, and its anxiety.

You can’t skip the part where they are angry at you, you can only manage it better.

But telling the public you don’t think they can handle bad news—‘‘we didn’t want

to panic people’’—is insulting, patronizing, and it generates mistrust.

The third mention of an actual problem is on page 10.

‘‘WASA’s recent Lead and Copper Program hosted 53 volunteers who have

single-family residences that are served by either lead services, internal lead

plumbing or copper pipes with lead solder installed after 1982. During WASA’s

last sampling program in the summer of 2001 and June 2002, some of these

homes tested above 15 ppb. In the District of Columbia, there are approximately

130,000 water service lines and 20,000 of these are lead services.’’

As an imaginary recipient of this brochure, I react to this thinking:

‘‘Well, if they knew this in the summer of 2001 and in June of 2002, and they

are only telling me now in the context of acknowledging National Lead Awareness Issue, and they are not mentioning how elevated the levels were, this must

be not be very important new information.’’

You cannot tell if officials are even a little worried about a developing situation.

I’d love to know data about how many people responded to this brochure by testing

their water, or testing their houses for lead, or screening their children. It was a

very good brochure in terms of what to do if you are worried about lead, which

many people should be. It just didn’t give readers a new reason to do it, if they were

not worried about lead to start with.
287

In my Mandarin Chinese classes at Princeton University, we learned a little word

that you put at the end of a sentence to signal, ‘‘New situation! Not business as

usual!’’ The word is ‘‘le.’’ There is no ‘‘le’’ in the brochure. Terrific information. Lots

of action people can and should take. But no alarm bells, just business as usual.

2. Neglecting public outrage—especially outrage at ‘‘you’’, the official sponsor of the

outrage

Neglecting or disparaging the public’s outrage is one of the main problems in poor

risk communication when people are already angry or upset.

By February 5, WASA and other officials were sounding defensive—the beginning

of their own knee-jerk reaction to the public’s outcry over the story. Spokesman

Johnnie Hemphill insisted,

‘‘We certainly didn’t do anything to hide this information. . . . we have done

everything we were supposed to, from beginning to end . . . It’s clearly a challenge for WASA and homeowners, but it isn’t a crisis.’’

Not recognizing and acknowledging that this was indeed a crisis—a crisis of public confidence and fear—was insulting to the public. Not as bad as ‘‘There’s no need

to panic,’’ but still disrespectful. Hemphill was leaning on the technical side of hazard versus outrage—the actual effort to assess and mitigate the lead hazard. If the

October brochure suggested that WASA did not know how to send a signal to apathetic people that a new problem had arisen, WASA statements after January 31

revealed that they didn’t know how to listen or talk to angry people either.

Since I have watched many good officials do this wrong and then learn, I am probably more sympathetic to how hard it is, how counter-intuitive it is, to engage in

compassionate, responsive, human crisis communication when people are attacking

you! You feel like a good person, engaged in thankless tasks with inadequate resources; you feel like you’ve been trying to get people to take lead seriously forever

and suddenly they are accusing you of not taking it seriously! And you get defensive.

(I just illustrated a risk communication strategy called ‘‘telling people stories about

themselves,’’ very useful when trying to get through to angry worried people.)

Hemphill’s reactions are as natural as the public’s reactions. I hope I can help some

of the people who are angry at WASA to understand this, just as I hope I can help

WASA see that they genuinely did a lot of communication things wrong, and made

public outrage and fear much worse than it could have been, and that there are

learnable strategies for doing it better.

On February 13, in a letter to its customers, WASA General Manager Jerry Johnson sounded like he was minimizing the extent of the potential problem:

‘‘There are about 130,000 water service pipes in the District. . . . The vast

majority of those are not lead service pipes. Our initial efforts are concentrating

on the relatively small percentage of our customers served by lead service lines.

. . . 23,000 homes . . .’’ That’s about 18 percent of the homes. I’m sure that

doesn’t sound relatively small to WASA when they try to figure out a budget

for mitigating all those lead service lines, and it doesn’t sound relatively small

to the public when they live in a neighborhood served by lots of these lines. So

Johnson sounds defensive, like he’s minimizing the problem. In a world where

we don’t want a single child to be damaged by lead, it sounds callous and

uncaring to refer to 23,000 homes as ‘‘a relatively small percentage.’’ I will bet

that Jerry Johnson is not actually callous and uncaring, but in his defensive

posture, he sounded that way.

In the same letter, Jerry Johnson says that the houses served by lead service

lines ‘‘may have increased levels of lead in their tap water.’’ He certainly must mean

that all of those houses are at risk—which is the right message. But he still isn’t

saying how many houses he already knows have elevated lead in the water. And

in the next paragraph he discusses how in spring and summer of 2002, ‘‘samples

indicated that some households experienced increased lead levels above the [EPA]

‘action level’ ’’. The indefinite words—‘‘may have,’’ ‘‘some households,’’ ‘‘increased

lead levels’’—all sound evasive, and are likely to evoke both alarm about the extent

of the exposure, and anger about an attempt to minimize it. Can you imagine the

U.S. Postal Service saying, ‘‘Out of the billions and billions of letters mailed every

day, we have found ‘some letters’ which contain anthrax spores’’ ? Or the U.S. CDC

saying, ‘‘We have found ‘some patients’ with SARS’’ ? The crisis—not the hazard crisis, but the outrage crisis, the crisis in confidence—was in full swing by February

13, and WASA was still doing mostly public relations, trying to reassure.

We have come up with a concept called the Risk Communication Seesaw. If you—

the official—sit on the over-reassuring, minimizing side of the seesaw, I—the public

or your critics—will heavily sit on the alarming side. If you sit more toward the fulcrum, and share some of my fears, and validate my anger, and openly acknowledge
288

the worrisome news while also giving me information that is hopeful or reassuring,

I will put it in perspective better, I will feel less patronized, I will bear my worries

better, and paradoxically I will blame you less—after I get through telling you how

angry I am! You can’t skip that step with the public.

Now I heard that WASA held a lot of public hearings where they let people yell

at them. This is excellent crisis management. But most of the quotes I’ve read of

officials responding at those meetings sound defensive, bureaucratic, and technocratic. The public gave you outrage and you gave them back hazard. I’m not saying

to respond only to the outrage—you have to address the hazard, but you are in no

danger of forgetting to do that. But bend over backward to acknowledge and validate people’s feelings, show some of your own anguish, express your wishes that you

had responded differently, express your regrets, express your hopes about managing

the problem, ask people even more for their ideas and for their help, tell them stories about what other members of the public have told you (and I do not mean complimentary stories)—these are all ways officials can let the public feel they have

been heard and even understood. Learn how to apologize—

‘‘I’m so sorry we didn’t break this story months ago, so people would have

been spared months of drinking so much leaded water. I’m so sorry we tried

to deal with this ourselves instead of involving the public early, so people could

take their own precautions sooner.’’

Using good risk communication, Johnson could have written to his customers:

‘‘I have been appalled for months that about 4,000 houses—out of about 6,000

tested—had elevated lead in their water. That’s about 66 percent! We can only

guess that about the same percentage of the rest of the houses served by lead

service lines may have elevated levels too. Even though most of districts homes

are not served by lead lines, there are 23,000 homes I am worried about until

we find out if they have elevated lead too. I wish I could tell you not to worry

while I work on this problem. But it’s your drinking water, and of course you

have a right to be worried.’’

Two other examples of neglecting outrage:

On February 19, WASA posted an alert on its website entitled, ‘‘Lead Service Line

Flushing Clarification,’’ outlining a change in previous guidelines for how long to let

taps run before drinking the water. The recommendation increased in an alarming

direction—from ‘‘one or 2 minutes’’ to ‘‘10 minutes to protect against high levels of

lead in drinking water.’’ Why the first recommendation was now seen to be inadequate is not clear; issues on this recommendation between WASA and EPA are not

clear; but they are not my focus when reading this ‘‘clarification.’’

The word ‘‘clarification’’ is odd: the previous recommendation was clear, and the

new recommendation is equally clear. The new recommendation isn’t a clarification,

it is a change. A revision. The old recommendation may or may not have been an

error. The new recommendation may be based on evolving knowledge, or a re-thinking of old knowledge. But a clarification it isn’t. Tell us what it is!

This alert notice let people know that the precautions they thought were adequate

for quite a while had not been adequate, and therefore they had been exposing

themselves to more hazard than they thought. This is upsetting! WASA’s alert,

while clearly for the purpose of telling people the new recommendation, could have

added a couple lines of regret that the new recommendation hadn’t been made sooner, and an acknowledgment that it is frustrating and upsetting for people to find

that their precautions had been inadequate.

Dr. Vicki Freimuth, who was director of communications for the CDC during the

anthrax attacks and the SARS outbreak, describes how during anthrax, evolving

knowledge was perceived as mistakes—and that this was largely because of failure

to acknowledge uncertainty all along. Several important risk communication strategies to reduce public alarm in response to changing information are:

• use anticipatory guidance: warn people that information and recommendations

are likely to change as we learn more, or have more time to analyze what we already know, or consult with more experts; warn people (regretfully!) that some of

what we know will turn out wrong.

• acknowledge uncertainty all along.

• show your own humanity: express the wish that you knew more, and that you

didn’t have to put the public through anxiety-provoking changes.

While some of these techniques can raise anxiety at first, they also let you share

the public’s worry, and help them bear it, rather than trying to squelch the public’s

worries and leaving them alone with their fears.

My last example of WASA ignoring public outrage and fear comes from a statement by Glenn S. Gerstell, Board Chairman of WASA, on about February 27. In this

statement, Gerstell says he is ‘‘pleased’’ that nearly 99 percent of school water sam-
289

ples are below the EPA action level, and he is ‘‘pleased’’ that WASA has caught up

with its backlog of voicemails. ‘‘Pleased’’ is a PR kind of word. I’d vote for ‘‘relieved.’’

This is a minor quibble, but I use it to illustrate that PR and crisis communication

are different. Gerstell also wrote that he and other top officials ‘‘have conducted numerous media interviews to communicate facts and findings as we get them.’’ Separate from my comment that the ‘‘facts’’ very often did not include numbers of houses

affected, or degree of lead elevation, I want to point out that this view of communication—communicating facts to the public—is probably less than half of good crisis communication. Listening to the public, acknowledging human feelings—your

own and the public’s—is a very large part of what makes crisis communication work

when people are angry and afraid.

3. Some examples of spectacular risk communication from other crises

WASA General Manager Jerry Johnson has been quoted as saying he believes in

using ‘‘facts to overcome fears’’ to educate the public. I hope I can convince him to

use even the scary-sounding facts, and to go beyond the facts and help people bear

their fears. It is part of the job, as Mayor Guiliani demonstrated so magnificently

on September 11, and as superb risk communicators in public health do.

Here are some examples of very good risk communication, which illustrate validating public emotion, acknowledging uncertainty, using anticipatory guidance,

showing your own humanity, and not prematurely over-reassuring people.

In June 2003, North Carolina had its only confirmed SARS patient. State Epidemiologist Jeff Engel responded with a series of news conferences. At one of them,

a reporter asked if all the news coverage had the potential to cause more hysteria

and fear. Dr. Engel replied:

‘‘We need to involve our community in all aspects of public health. Certainly

a disease like SARS, so new, so frightening, should instill fear. Fear is an appropriate response for me as a public health physician, for everyone in the community. We need to transfer that fear into positive energy, and keep the facts

out in front of hysteria. . . . I think [the media’s] response is appropriate. This

is a new disease, it spreads person to person, it can kill, it has a high casefatality rate. That is newsworthy!’’

Two months later, Dr. Engel made essentially the same empathic statement about

Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE). Here he is in the August 24, 2003 Fayetteville

Observer:

Dr. Jeff Engel, a State epidemiologist with Health and Human Services, said the

State has documented ‘‘only 12 or 13 human infections since 1964.’’ The most in one

year was three in 1989. . . .

Though human infections are rare, Engel emphasized precautions.

‘‘Fear is appropriate. I mean, my God, here you have a mosquito that can kill,’’

Engel said. ‘‘What we are trying to do through you guys, the media, is use that fear

in a positive way. We are trying to get information out there.’’

The local Wal-Mart sold out of insect repellant after the EEE news conference.

Dr. Engel generated preparedness, not panic.

On March 14, 2003, 2 days after the World Health Organisation issued a rare

global alert, WHO spokesman Dick Thompson said:

‘‘With relatively few SARS deaths, one might think we are overreacting but

when you don’t know the cause, when it strikes hospital staff, and moves at jet

speed . . . until we can get a grip on it, I don’t see how it will slow down . . .

It’s highly contagious. It’s bad.’’

And one of the best risk communicators I know, CDC Director Dr. Julie

Gerberding, often acknowledges uncertainty, and balances reassuring information

with caution, by putting the reassurance in a subordinate clause. This shows what

we mean by balancing on the fulcrum of the risk communication seesaw.

Early in the SARS outbreaks Dr. Gerberding was asked if SARS could be bioterrorism. She answered, ‘‘While we have lots of reasons to think that the SARS outbreaks are not due to terrorism, we’re keeping an open mind and being vigilant.’’

Other officials said only the first half: ‘‘There is no evidence of a terrorist attack.’’

Dr. Gerberding’s version is paradoxically more reassuring; we know she is still looking, just in case.

Later in the SARS outbreak, Dr. Gerberding reassured us and cautioned us at the

same time, saying, ‘‘Although we haven’t seen community transmission of SARS,

we’re not out of the woods yet.’’

Sometimes, when people hear my examples, or my re-writes of what I think officials should have said, they ask me, ‘‘Well, aren’t some people just naturally inclined

to do crisis communication well? Is it really something you can learn and practice?’’

I usually answer by telling them my favorite Julie Gerberding story:
290

One day during SARS, there had been a really weird newspaper article quoting

an astrobiologist from Wales that SARS and other viruses might come from outer

space, on meteor dust. (It had to be a very quiet day on the SARS front when newspapers had space for this strange notion.) At a CDC telebriefing, CNN’s Miriam

Falco said, ‘‘Dr. G., I just have to ask you about this outer space thing. What do

you think?’’ Dr. G. answered, with a wicked twinkle in her eyes, ‘‘Although we have

no evidence that SARS is from outer space, we’re keeping an open mind.’’ The reporters in the room roared with laughter—in recognition of her signature way of acknowledging uncertainty and not over-reassuring.

Crisis communication is hard, but learn-able. As a field, it is a moving target; we

are learning and trying out new strategies all the time, and seeing what works—

and what doesn’t work. I’m not sure if WASA officials can learn it, but I am hopeful

they can. Some of what I recommend may backfire on you too—and I will feel terrible when that happens. Some of it may turn out wrong. I wish I knew everything

there was to know about crisis communication, and I wish it was easier to learn.

So even though WASA officials think they are doing good communication, I hope

they will be keeping an open mind as they consider other ways. And even though

many in the public think that WASA did egregious communication (the closest I

come to agreeing with that is the delay in informing the general public), I think

WASA mostly did ordinary conventional ‘‘bad’’ risk communication. And this applies

to me too: Even though I think WASA’s communication mistakes are pretty run-ofthe-mill, I will be keeping an open mind as I learn more about how they actually

managed the lead crisis.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DANA BEST, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR, SMOKE FREE HOMES PROJECT, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, HEALTHY GENERATIONS PROGRAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES, CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

LEAD’S EFFECTS ON CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND NURSING MOTHERS

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to you today regarding the

effects of lead on children, pregnant women and nursing mothers. I am a board-certified pediatrician and preventive medicine physician, with expertise in pediatric environmental health. I hope that I can provide the committee with some useful and

important information about lead, lead poisoning, and current research on the topic.

Children’s Hospital is a 279-bed pediatric inpatient facility located in the District

of Columbia. For more than 130 years, Children’s has served as the only provider

dedicated exclusively to the care of infants, children, and adolescents in this region.

It is our mission to be preeminent in providing health care services that enhance

the well-being of children regionally, nationally, and internationally. The Children’s

system includes a network of nine primary care health centers located throughout

the city, and a number of pediatric practices throughout the region, providing stable

medical homes for thousands of children. We operate numerous regional outpatient

specialty centers in Maryland and Virginia, providing access to high quality specialty care in the communities we serve. We are proud to be the region’s only Level

I pediatric trauma center. Children’s Hospital serves as the Department of Pediatrics for George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and

runs a highly respected pediatric residency program, providing education and experience to the next generation of pediatricians, pediatric subspecialists, and pediatric

researchers. We conduct significant research within the Children’s Research Institute, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Health Resources

Services Administration, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and many other public and private funders.

INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF HISTORY

Lead is a bluish-white metal of atomic number 82. Its isotopes are the end products of each of the three series of naturally occurring radioactive elements. It is soft,

malleable, and resistant to corrosion, which makes it ideal for use in plumbing, pottery, tools, etc. Alloys of lead include pewter and lead solder.1

Use in ancient Rome. Lead pipes used as drains from the Roman baths and bearing the insignia of Roman emperors, are still in service.1 Debate over the contribution of lead poisoning to the fall of the Roman Empire persists, but it is generally

accepted that lead was widely used in plumbing, pottery, and cooking vessels. One

potential source of lead poisoning in Roman times was the practice of boiling

unfermented grape juice in lead pots. The resulting sugar and lead-laden syrup was
291

added to wine to improve taste. The Romans recognized that lead was harmful, and

identified the dangers of breathing fumes from lead furnaces and drinking water

from the areas of lead mines; the connection of lead cooking vessels to lead poisoning is less well-described.2

Use in gasoline. Tetraethyl lead, the ‘‘antiknock’’ compound in leaded gasoline,

was first described in 1854. In 1921, the emerging auto industry found it to be an

effective, inexpensive gasoline additive that reduced engine ‘‘knock’’, a pernicious

problem. Even in 1921 the poisonous effects of lead ingestion had been described

and many public health authorities warned against this use of tetraethyl lead, particularly since other effective anti-knock gasoline additives were available. Nevertheless, due to cost reasons, tetraethyl lead was used. In 1922 the U.S. Public

Health Service warned of the dangers of leaded fuel, and the scientific community

added further concerns. In 1923, Thomas Midgley, the primary proponent of leaded

fuel, suffered from acute lead poisoning and several workers at plants that made

tetraethyl lead died.

In 1926, a committee appointed by the U.S. Surgeon General to review the harms

of tetraethyl lead called for regulation of the product and for further studies funded

by Congress. Those studies were never funded and never performed. Further evidence of the harms of lead continued to be published, but leaded gasoline was not

phased out until 1986, and lead-containing motor fuel additives were not banned

until 1996.3 This belated public health success resulted in a significant drop in the

blood lead levels of U.S. children: in 1976, when the standards were implemented,

the average blood lead level in children was 15 mcg/dl; in 1991, those levels had

dropped to 3.6 mcg/dl.1

Use in paint.4 Lead has been used for centuries to make paint whiter, last longer,

and cover better. The harm from lead in paint to children was first noted in the

English literature in 1887.5 In 1904, child lead poisoning was linked to lead-based

paints,6 and as a result, many countries began banning lead-based interior paints.

Lead continued to be used in paints in the U.S., however, including paint used on

cribs. In 1914 the death of a Baltimore boy due to lead poisoning from chewing on

his crib railing was described, and other cases continued to be reported.7, 8 In 1992

the League of Nations banned lead-containing interior paint but the United States

did not adopt the ban. In 1943 it was reported that eating lead-containing paint

chips causes physical, neurological, behavior, learning and intelligence problems in

children. Finally, in 1971, the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act was

passed and finally implemented in 1977. As a result of these delays in banning leaded paint, many U.S. homes still contain lead paint. With the banning of leaded fuel,

lead paint is now the primary source of childhood lead poisoning in the U.S.

Lead in water. Federal regulation of drinking water quality began in 1914, when

standards for bacteriological levels were set; lead as a water contaminant was not

regulated until much later, in 1962.9 Most of the lead in water comes from industrial releases, urban runoff, and atmospheric deposits. While these sources of environmental lead are small, in comparison to other sources such as leaded gasoline,

they can be significant, depending on water conditions. pH, grounding of household

electrical systems to plumbing, and water additives can increase the leaching of lead

from pipes and increase the solubility of the leached lead.3 In most cities in the

U.S., lead in tap water is due to the corrosion of lead-containing materials, such as

lead pipes, in water distribution systems and household plumbing.10 In terms of

lead in water as a source of childhood lead poisoning, discussions of oral lead ingestion do not separate dust sources or paint chips from lead in the water supply, making it extremely difficult to discriminate between lead poisoning from household

paint and lead poisoning from lead-contaminated water supplies. It is highly likely

that lead-contaminated water can contribute to lead poisoning of children. However,

no studies of lead in water as the sole source of environmental lead were found.

Lead in other sources. Other sources of lead include cosmetics (such as kohl), folk

remedies, pottery, cans with lead-soldered seams, contaminated vitamins, and herbal remedies. In communities in which lead smelters or other industrial applications

of lead exist, special attention should be paid to contaminated air, water, and workers’ clothing. Anyone who works with lead should change clothing and shoes and

shower before leaving work. Lead soldiers, hand-made munitions, and other hobbies

can be a source of lead. Vinyl mini blinds were identified as a source of lead and

removed from the market in 1996. (See Appendix 1)

LEAD POISONING, OR, ‘‘THERE ARE NO SAFE LEVELS OF LEAD’’

Critical periods in human development.11 The developing embryo, fetus, and child

are growing and changing rapidly. If, during this rapid period of change, the fetus

or child is exposed to a poison of some kind, development can be deranged. These
292

‘‘critical windows of exposure’’ are specific periods of development during which the

embryo or fetus is undergoing some process, such as the development of arms and

legs between days 22–36 of pregnancy, when thalidomide damages their development.12, 13 There are many other examples of this effect, including tobacco smoke

and behavioral effects, and alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome. The critical period

associated with harm from lead poisoning is brain and nervous system development,

which begins in early pregnancy and continues until at least age 3 years. Since different parts of the nervous system are responsible for different functions, and since

these different nervous system parts develop at different times, the timing of lead

exposure can lead to different effects.14

Differences between children and adults. Children’s behaviors expose them to more

lead dust through hand-to-mouth exploration, greater exposure to potentially leadladen soil, and closer contact with lead dust and paint chips on the floor. Children

also absorb lead more efficiently than adults through their digestive systems: children absorb 40–50 percent of ingested lead while adults only absorb 10–15 percent.15 In addition to greater absorption of lead from the digestive tract, the bones

of infants and children are absorbing calcium at a high rate as they grow. Lead is

chemically similar enough to calcium that it can be stored in bone, to be released

gradually into the blood stream, providing an ‘‘internal source’’ of lead poisoning.16

There is similar evidence that lead and iron can occupy the same molecular sites,

contributing to anemia and providing another ‘‘internal source’’ of lead. Another significant difference between children and adults is in the rate of their metabolisms.

Children have significantly faster metabolisms, which means that they breathe faster and ingest proportionately more food and water.16 This difference means that in

similar environments, children are exposed to a greater extent to contaminants. For

example, the average infant drinks 5 oz of breast milk or formula per kilogram of

body weight, an amount approximately equivalent to 20 liters of fluid for an adult.

If formula is reconstituted using lead-contaminated tap water, that infant will receive a significant dose of lead. Similarly, breast milk can be contaminated with

lead if the mother’s primary source of water is lead-contaminated.

The disease of lead poisoning is also different in children than in adults. (See Figure 1.) In adults, many of the effects are reversible, such as peripheral neuropathies

(a loss of sensation or increased sensitivity in the arms or legs); in children, effects

persist throughout their life, even after chelation (the drug treatment for severe lead

poisoning). Because of these differences, our understanding of lead poisoning in

adults cannot be extrapolated to children.
293

* A dendrite is a part of a nerve cell that conducts nerve impulses sent by adjacent nerve cells

towards the body of the recipient nerve. During early brain development, many more connections between nerves develop than exist in adult brains. Many of theses connections disappear

as the child grows. Many experts believe that this ‘‘surplus’’ of nerve connections makes it possible for the brains of children to develop functions as they are needed, and also lead to the

improved recovery of children, compared to adults, from any brain damage that occurs.

Lead’s effects on children. The effects of lead poisoning differ depending on many

factors: dose, acuity or chronicity of poisoning, gender, age, nutritional status, the

presence or absence of an enriching environment, developmental assets and supports, other toxicants in the body, and genetics. Lead levels typically peak around

age 2 years, when normally developing children undergo a major change in

dendrite* connections. This time-related association between peak lead levels and

major brain development leads to the theory that lead interferes with this critical

process.

When studied in the laboratory, lead has been shown to alter basic nervous system functions, such as calcium modulated signaling, even at very low concentrations. Other effects of lead include interference with the synthesis of heme molecules

(the oxygen-carrying molecules in red blood cells), leading to anemia, which has also

been shown to affect intelligence. One study of lead levels in African American and

Mexican American girls suggests that environmental exposure to very small

amounts of lead (3 mcg/dl) can delay growth and puberty.17 This study contributes
294

†Port Pirie, Australia, is the home of a lead smelter. A group of children born and raised in

Port Pirie were studied from birth through age 11–13 years for the effects of lead poisoning.

to the growing literature on environmental toxins and effects on human endocrine

(hormonal) systems. Lead has also been shown to damage kidneys.18

The effects of lead poisoning on neurocognitive skills have been identified since

at least 1966. Canfield19 showed that at even very low blood lead levels, children’s

IQ scores were negatively affected. This study also showed that the effects on IQ

were proportionately greater at lower levels than at higher levels. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. IQ as a Function of Lifetime Average Blood Lead Concentration.19

A 4–5 point decrease in IQ can mean the difference between normal and sub-normal intelligence and the ability to function independently; over the long term, it can

mean a significant decline in the average intelligence of the affected population.

Many other studies have demonstrated similar effects of blood lead levels under 10

mcg/dl; some have shown effects under 5 mcg/dl.20

Behavior and psychosocial effects. In addition to effects on IQ, distractibility, decreased reaction time,21 poor organizational skills, hyperactivity (including ADHD,

or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), and poor classroom performance22, 23

have been linked to lead poisoning. These effects have been recognized since at least

1976.24 The Port Pirie† Cohort Study, a prospective study of the association of lifetime lead levels and emotional, behavioral, and cognitive effects, repeatedly showed

significant, permanent, declines in cognition, behavior problems, and emotional

problems that persisted throughout childhood to at least age 11–13 years.25

Long-term effects. Chronic exposure to lead has been linked to cerebrovascular and

kidney disease, more often seen in adults. Lead has been linked to cancers in persons with lifetime lead exposures above 15 ppb in water.10

At higher levels.11 Fortunately, clinical lead toxicity, meaning patients that

present with symptoms of lead poisoning such as headaches, abdominal pain, loss

of appetite, constipation, clumsiness, agitation, decreased activity, or somnolence is

increasingly rare. These symptoms indicate central nervous system involvement

that can rapidly proceed to vomiting, stupor, convulsions, encephalopathy, and

death. These symptoms typically present in children with blood lead levels higher

than 60 mcg/dl. Anyone with these symptoms should be treated for a life-threatening emergency.
295

‡Succimer, or dimercaptosuccinic acid, is an oral treatment for chelation of lead in children.

It tastes and smells like rotten eggs, making the treatment difficult to administer for children

and caregivers alike.

LEAD IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND NURSING MOTHERS

Because lead is chemically similar to calcium, it is incorporated into bone, which

can result in a significant accumulation of lead in bones. If, during pregnancy and

breastfeeding, maternal intake of calcium is not sufficient, these stores of lead and

calcium are mobilized to supply calcium to the growing fetus and produce human

milk.26, 27 Lead in maternal blood easily crosses the placenta,28 resulting in lead exposure of the fetus, and is readily incorporated into breast milk, leading to lead-contaminated breast milk.29, 30 The long-term effects of these exposures are difficult to

quantitate in an environment in which many other sources of lead exist. However,

one study of breastfed infants linked maternal lead stores to decreased weight gain

in the first month of life,30 and a second concluded that the primary source of lead

in infants under age 6 months is dietary, including breast milk and formula.31

These studies are particularly relevant to the situation in the District of Columbia.

At very high levels of maternal lead, pregnancy loss has been reported.12

TREATMENT OF LEAD POISONING

The treatment of lead poisoning in children has been described in the CDC’s document ‘‘Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children.’’32 Unfortunately, no treatment for lead poisoning in children has been shown to reverse the

long-term neurocognitive and behavioral effects,33 and the primary treatment for

significant lead poisoning, chelation with succimer,‡ has been implicated as causing

a small decrease in IQ.34 Many studies have shown persistent cognitive and behavioral effects long after blood lead levels have dropped to levels considered

‘‘low.’’25, 35, 36 Prevention of lead poisoning is the only solution to this disease.

COMPARING THE RISK OF LEAD POISONING TO OTHER CHILD HEALTH RISKS

The CDC estimated that in 2000, there were 454,000 children in the U.S. with

blood lead concentrations higher than 10 mcg/dl. Depending on the quality of these

children’s environments, we can estimate that each of these children lost at least

4–5 IQ points, and a significant proportion suffer from hyperactivity, behavioral and

learning difficulties, and other long-term effects of lead poisoning. Comparing these

losses to other child health risks is difficult, for there is no way to measure or place

a value on how a person’s life would be if they had not been exposed. In terms of

the overall health of children in the District of Columbia, the following comparisons

can be made:

Preventable Condition Year of

Estimate

Percent of DC Children

Affected

Blood lead level greater than or equal to 10 mcg/dl 2002 3.8 percent of children tested

at Children’s hospital; average level 3 mcg/dl37

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ................ 2002 46 percent38 (compared to 38

percent nationwide)39

Children living in poverty ........................................... 2003 29 percent (compared to 17

percent nationwide)40

Children without health insurance ............................ 2003 12 percent (compared to 12

percent nationwide)40

Children living in the Spring Valley/ American University area whose hair had higher levels of arsenic than the general population.

2002 zero41

While these figures seem reassuring at first look, with ‘‘only’’ 3.8 percent of District children having a lead level 10 mcg/dl or higher, the reader should remember

that even at values of 5 mcg/dl or lower neurocognitive and behavioral effects have

been documented. Many of the children whose lead levels are 10 mcg/dl or higher

are the same children living in poverty, exposed to environmental tobacco smoke,

and/or without health insurance. These conditions add to the effects of lead poisoning; for poverty reduces educational opportunities, environmental tobacco smoke

exposure has adverse effects on health, intelligence, and behavior, and lack of health
296

insurance reduces access to the health care that might assist families in reducing

lead poisoning and other harmful environmental exposures.

COMPARATIVE RISK BY SOURCE OF LEAD

Since the banning of leaded fuel, lead paint has become the primary source of lead

poisoning in the United States. While lead in water has been described, the proportion of lead ingested via water versus lead dust and other sources from lead paint

has not been determined. Unfortunately, lead pipes are found in the same older

homes in which lead paint is found, making it extremely difficult to separate the

contribution of each source. Since there is no level of lead considered to be without

negative effect, and since the population most at risk from lead poisoning is the

same population that suffers from poor nutrition, inadequate schools, lack of developmental enrichment, and other consequences of poverty, our responsibility is to remove any and all sources of lead poisoning from these children’s environments. The

harms of lead have been known for thousands of years; with many missed opportunities to remove lead from the environment due to cost concerns. There is no way

to place a dollar value on the harm from lead poisoning to children in this city, as

well as to children throughout the U.S. and the world, no matter what source, water

or paint.

TESTING FOR LEAD

The standard procedure in most laboratories for testing lead in body fluids is the

electrothermal atomization atomic absorption spectrophotometry assay. This method

replaces less sensitive methods such as the free erythrocyte protoporphyrin, erythrocyte porphyrin, or zinc protoporphyrin tests.32 There are newer products on the

market for testing lead levels in body fluids at this time; the sensitivity, specificity,

and validity of these methods have not yet been completely determined, particularly

at low levels of lead. Testing of hair, fingernails, and teeth should not be done because they are subject of external contamination, making test results

uninterpretable.32 On occasion, an abdominal radiograph (‘‘X-ray’’) is useful for determining if a child has a significant amount of chipped paint in his or her digestive

tract. If present, the paint chips can be removed. Radiographs of bones looking for

‘‘lead lines’’ are not useful.32 A new technique, K X-ray fluorescence, is entering the

field of lead research. This instrument measures long-term lead deposits as densities in bone, similar to measurements of bone density for the diagnosis of

osteoporosis.42 There are consumer test kits for lead in paint,43 and many professional lead testing services exist. Reliability of test results varies considerably, so

consumers should follow guidelines such as those from the Consumer Product Safety

Commission in testing for lead, selection of a method of abatement if lead paint exists, and careful abatement procedures. See Appendix B.

RESEARCH AND LEAD IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER

On March 30, 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a

report on blood lead levels in residents of homes with elevated lead in tap water

in the District of Columbia. This study indicated that a long-term decline in the

blood lead levels of children living in homes with lead service lines had halted in

2000, the year chloramines were added to water in the District of Columbia. While

there are several limitations to this study, primarily due to the speed with which

it was performed, the results are disturbing. The CDC recommends that public

health interventions focus on eliminating lead exposures in children, and that lead

concentrations in drinking water be below the EPA action level of 15 ppb.44

Children’s has begun an analysis of the last 10 years of lead test results performed in our laboratory. We will look at the average lead level during the 10-year

period, noting any changes in the average. We will also look for associations between lead levels in the children tested and lead levels in household water supply,

the presence of lead paint in the home, insurance status, and other potential influences. This study is an extremely high priority; we will inform Congress and the

District of Columbia of our results as soon as they are available.

SUMMARY

The children of the District of Columbia deserve a safe environment in which to

grow and develop into adults contributing to DC’s future. The effect of lead poisoning, even at levels not yet considered to be ‘‘poisonous,’’ is to reduce the potential

of yet another generation of children. There is no way to place a value on this loss

of potential; however, we do know that the loss of IQ points and changes in behavior

are measurable and significant. We also know that the resources available to many
297

of the District’s children are fragmented, in some instances non-existent, and rarely

adequate to the challenges presented by poverty, race and ethnicity, and violence

found in this city. This combination sentences the District’s children to yet another

generation of poverty and poor health. The law says lead levels higher than 15 ppb

need to be abated. The children deserve this.

Thank you for this opportunity to inform you about lead and children, pregnant

women and breastfeeding women. I am available for questions today or in the future.

APPENDIX A.—NEWS FROM U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION OFFICE

OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC 20207, JUNE 25, 1996,

RELEASE 96–150

CPSC FINDS LEAD POISONING HAZARD FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN

IMPORTED VINYL MINIBLINDS

WASHINGTON, DC.—After testing and analyzing imported vinyl miniblinds, the

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has determined that some of

these blinds can present a lead poisoning hazard for young children. Twenty-five

million non-glossy, vinyl miniblinds that have lead added to stabilize the plastic in

the blinds are imported each year from China, Taiwan, Mexico, and Indonesia.

CPSC found that over time the plastic deteriorates from exposure to sunlight and

heat to form lead dust on the surface of the blind. The amount of lead dust that

formed from the deterioration varied from blind to blind.

In homes where children ages 6 and younger may be present, CPSC recommends

that consumers remove these vinyl miniblinds. Young children can ingest lead by

wiping their hands on the blinds and then putting their hands in their mouths.

Adults and families with older children generally are not at risk because they are

not likely to ingest lead dust from the blinds. Lead poisoning in children is associated with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, hearing problems, and growth

retardation. CPSC found that in some blinds, the levels of lead in the dust was so

high that a child ingesting dust from less than one square inch of blind a day for

about 15 to 30 days could result in blood levels at or above the 10 microgram per

deciliter amount CPSC considers dangerous for young children.

‘‘Some of the vinyl blinds had a level of lead in the dust that would not be considered a health hazard, while others had very high levels,’’ said CPSC Chairman Ann

Brown. ‘‘Since consumers cannot determine the amount of lead in the dust on their

blinds, parents with young children should remove these vinyl miniblinds from their

homes.’’

CPSC asked the Window Covering Safety Council, which represents the industry,

to immediately change the way it produces vinyl miniblinds by removing the lead

added to stabilize the plastic in these blinds. Manufacturers have made the change

and new miniblinds without added lead should appear on store shelves beginning

around July 1 and should be widely available over the next 90 days.

Stores will sell the new vinyl blinds packaged in cartons indicating that the blinds

are made without added lead. The cartons may have labeling such as ‘‘new formulation,’’ ‘‘nonleaded formula,’’ ‘‘no lead added,’’ or ‘‘new! non-leaded vinyl formulation.’’

New blinds without lead should sell in the same price range as the old blinds at

about $5 to $10 each. CPSC recommends that consumers with young children remove old vinyl miniblinds from their homes and replace them with new miniblinds

made without added lead or with alternative window coverings. Washing the blinds

does not prevent the vinyl blinds from deteriorating, which produces lead dust on

the surface.

The Arizona and North Carolina Departments of Health first alerted CPSC to the

problem of lead in vinyl miniblinds. CPSC tested the imported vinyl miniblinds for

lead at its laboratory. The laboratories of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and

the Army’s Aberdeen Test Center used electron microscope technology to confirm

that as the plastic in the blinds deteriorated, dust formed on the surface of the blind

slats. This testing also established that the dust came from the blinds and not from

another source. CPSC laboratory tests confirmed that this dust contained lead.

‘‘This lead poisoning is mainly a hazard for children ages 6 and younger,’’ said

Chairman Brown. ‘‘Adults and older children generally are not at risk because they

are not likely to ingest lead dust from the blinds.’’
298

APPENDIX B.—CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION—WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

ABOUT LEAD BASED PAINT IN YOUR HOME: SAFETY ALERT CPSC DOCUMENT 5054

Lead-based paint is hazardous to your health. Lead-based paint is a major source

of lead poisoning for children and can also affect adults. In children, lead poisoning

can cause irreversible brain damage and can impair mental functioning. It can retard mental and physical development and reduce attention span. It can also retard

fetal development even at extremely low levels of lead. In adults, it can cause irritability, poor muscle coordination, and nerve damage to the sense organs and nerves

controlling the body. Lead poisoning may also cause problems with reproduction

(such as a decreased sperm count). It may also increase blood pressure. Thus, young

children, fetuses, infants, and adults with high blood pressure are the most vulnerable to the effects of lead.

Children should be screened for lead poisoning. In communities where the houses

are old and deteriorating, take advantage of available screening programs offered

by local health departments and have children checked regularly to see if they are

suffering from lead poisoning. Because the early symptoms of lead poisoning are

easy to confuse with other illnesses, it is difficult to diagnose lead poisoning without

medical testing. Early symptoms may include persistent tiredness, irritability, loss

of appetite, stomach discomfort, reduced attention span, insomnia, and constipation.

Failure to treat children in the early stages can cause long-term or permanent

health damage.

The current blood lead level which defines lead poisoning is 10 micrograms of lead

per deciliter of blood. However, since poisoning may occur at lower levels than previously thought, various Federal agencies are considering whether this level should

be lowered further so that lead poisoning prevention programs will have the latest

information on testing children for lead poisoning.

Consumers can be exposed to lead from paint. Eating paint chips is one way young

children are exposed to lead. It is not the most common way that consumers, in general, are exposed to lead. Ingesting and inhaling lead dust that is created as leadbased paint ‘‘chalks,’’ chips, or peels from deteriorated surfaces can expose consumers to lead. Walking on small paint chips found on the floor, or opening and

closing a painted frame window, can also create lead dust. Other sources of lead include deposits that may be present in homes after years of use of leaded gasoline

and from industrial sources like smelting. Consumers can also generate lead dust

by sanding lead-based paint or by scraping or heating lead-based paint.

Lead dust can settle on floors, walls, and furniture. Under these conditions, children can ingest lead dust from hand-to-mouth contact or in food. Settled lead dust

can re-enter the air through cleaning, such as sweeping or vacuuming, or by movement of people throughout the house.

Older homes may contain lead based paint. Lead was used as a pigment and drying agent in ‘‘alkyd’’ oil based paint. ‘‘Latex’’ water based paints generally have not

contained lead. About two-thirds of the homes built before 1940 and one-half of the

homes built from 1940 to 1960 contain heavily-leaded paint. Some homes built after

1960 also contain heavily-leaded paint. It may be on any interior or exterior surface,

particularly on woodwork, doors, and windows. In 1978, the U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Commission lowered the legal maximum lead content in most kinds of paint

to 0.06 percent (a trace amount). Consider having the paint in homes constructed

before the 1980s tested for lead before renovating or if the paint or underlying surface is deteriorating. This is particularly important if infants, children, or pregnant

women are present.

Consumers can have paint tested for lead. There are do-it-yourself kits available.

However, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has not evaluated any of

these kits. One home test kit uses sodium sulfide solution. This procedure requires

you to place a drop of sodium sulfide solution on a paint chip. The paint chip slowly

turns darker if lead is present. There are problems with this test, however. Other

metals may cause false positive results, and resins in the paint may prevent the

sulfide from causing the paint chip to change color. Thus, the presence of lead may

not be correctly indicated. In addition the darkening may be detected only on very

light-colored paint.

Another in-home test requires a trained professional who can operate the equipment safely. This test uses X-ray fluorescence to determine if the paint contains

lead. Although the test can be done in your home, it should be done only by professionals trained by the equipment manufacturer or who have passed a State or local

government training course, since the equipment contains radioactive materials. In

addition, in some tests, the method has not been reliable.
299

Consumers may choose to have a testing laboratory test a paint sample for lead.

Lab testing is considered more reliable than other methods. Lab tests may cost from

$20 to $50 per sample. To have the lab test for lead paint, consumers may:

• Get sample containers from the lab or use re-sealable plastic bags. Label the

containers or bags with the consumer’s name and the location in the house from

which each paint sample was taken. Several samples should be taken from each affected room (see HUD Guidelines discussed below).

• Use a sharp knife to cut through the edges of the sample paint. The lab should

tell you the size of the sample needed. It will probably be about 2 inches by 2

inches.

• Lift off the paint with a clean putty knife and put it into the container. Be sure

to take a sample of all layers of paint, since only the lower layers may contain lead.

Do not include any of the underlying wood, plaster, metal, and brick.

• Wipe the surface and any paint dust with a wet cloth or paper towel and discard the cloth or towel.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommends that

action to reduce exposure should be taken when the lead in paint is greater than 0.5

percent by lab testing or greater than 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter by X-ray

fluorescence. Action is especially important when paint is deteriorating or when infants, children, or pregnant women are present. Consumers can reduce exposure to

lead-based paint.

If you have lead-based paint, you should take steps to reduce your exposure to lead.

You can:

• Have the painted item replaced. You can replace a door or other easily removed

item if you can do it without creating lead dust. Items that are difficult to remove

should be replaced by professionals who will control and contain lead dust.

• Cover the lead-based paint. You can spray the surface with a sealant or cover

it with gypsum wallboard. However, painting over lead-based paint with non-lead

paint is not a long-term solution. Even though the lead-based paint may be covered

by non-lead paint, the lead-based paint may continue to loosen from the surface

below and create lead dust. The new paint may also partially mix with the leadbased paint, and lead dust will be released when the new paint begins to deteriorate.

• Have the lead-based paint removed. Have professionals trained in removing

lead-based paint do this work. Each of the paint-removal methods (sandpaper,

scrapers, chemicals, sandblasters, and torches or heat guns) can produce lead fumes

or dust. Fumes or dust can become airborne and be inhaled or ingested. Wet methods help reduce the amount of lead dust. Removing moldings, trim, window sills,

and other painted surfaces for professional paint stripping outside the home may

also create dust. Be sure the professionals contain the lead dust. Wet-wipe all surfaces to remove any dust or paint chips. Wet-clean the area before re-entry.

• You can remove a small amount of lead-based paint if you can avoid creating

any dust. Make sure the surface is less than about one square foot (such as a window sill). Any job larger than about one square foot should be done by professionals.

Make sure you can use a wet method (such as a liquid paint stripper).

• 4. Reduce lead dust exposure. You can periodically wet mop and wipe surfaces

and floors with a high phosphorous (at least 5 percent) cleaning solution. Wear waterproof gloves to prevent skin irritation. Avoid activities that will disturb or damage lead based paint and create dust. This is a preventive measure and is not an

alternative to replacement or removal.

• Professionals are available to remove, replace, or cover lead-based paint.

• Contact your State and local health departments lead poisoning prevention programs and housing authorities for information about testing labs and contractors

who can safely remove lead-based paint.

• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prepared

guidelines for removing lead-based paint which were published in the Federal Register, April 18, 1990, page 1455614614. Ask contractors about their qualifications,

experience removing lead-based paint, and plans to follow these guidelines.

• Consumers should keep children and other occupants (especially infants, pregnant women, and adults with high blood pressure) out of the work area until the

job is completed.

• Consumers should remove all food and eating utensils from the work area.

• Contractors should remove all furniture, carpets, and drapes and seal the work

area from the rest of the house. The contractor also should cover and seal the floor

unless lead paint is to be removed from the floor.

• Contractors should assure that workers wear respirators designed to avoid inhaling lead.
300

• Contractors should not allow eating or drinking in the work area. Contractors

should cover and seal all cabinets and food contact surfaces.

• Contractors should dispose of clothing worn in the room after working. Workers

should not wear work clothing in other areas of the house. The contractor should

launder work clothes separately.

• Contractors should cleanup debris using special vacuum cleaners with HEPA

(high efficiency particulate air) filters and should use a wet mop after vacuuming.

• Contractors should dispose of lead-based paint waste and contaminated materials in accordance with State and local regulations.

Government officials and health professionals continue to develop advice about removing lead-based paint. Watch for future publications by government agencies,

health departments, and other groups concerned with lead-paint removal and prevention of lead poisoning.

REFERENCES

1. http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pb/key.html.

Accessed March 31, 2004.

2. http://itsa.ucsf.edu/ ̃ snlrc/encyclopaediaromana/wine/leadpoisoning.html.

Accessed March 31, 2004.

3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry PHS, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta, GA: Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 1999.

4. Markowitz G, Rosner D. ‘‘Cater to the children‘‘: the role of the lead industry

in a public health tragedy, 1900–1955. Am J Public Health. Jan 2000;90(1):36–46.

5. Stewart MD. Notes on some obscure cases of poisoning by lead chromate manifested chiefly by encephalopathy. Medical News. 1887;1:676–681.

6. Gibson JL. A plea for painted railings and painted walls of rooms as the source

of lead poisoning amongst Queensland children. Australian Med Gaz. 1904:149–153.

7. Thomas HM, Blackfan KD. Recurrent meningitis, due to lead in a child of 5

years. Am J Dis Child. 1914;8:377–380.

8. Kitman JL. Timeline: 8,500 Years of Lead—79 Years of Leaded Gasoline. The

Nation; 2000.

9. United State Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of the Safe Drinking

Water Act: History and Trends: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1999.

10. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html. Accessed April 2, 2004.

11. Etzel RA, Balk SJ, eds. Pediatric Environmental Health. 2d ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003.

12. Brent R. Environmental causes of human congenital malformations: the pediatrician’s role in dealing with these complex clinical problems caused by a multiplicity of environmental and genetic factors. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):957–968.

13. Sadler TW. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 6th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams

& Wilkins; 1990.

14. Mendola P, Selevan SG, Gutter S, Rice D. Environmental factors associated

with a spectrum of neurodevelopmental deficits. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev.

2002;8(3):188–197.

15. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation.

Washington, DC: Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.; 1989.

16. Plunkett LM TD, Rodricks JV,. Differences between adults and children affecting exposure assessment. In: Guzelian PS HC, Olin SS, ed. Similarities and Differences Between Children and Adults: Implications for Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: ILSI Press; 1992:79–94.

17. Selevan SG, Rice DC, Hogan KA, Euling SY, Pfahles-Hutchens A, Bethel J.

Blood lead concentration and delayed puberty in girls. N Engl J Med. Apr 17

2003;348(16):1527–1536.

18. Solhaug M, Bolger P, Jose P. The developing kidney and environmental toxins.

Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):1084–1091.

19. Canfield RL, Henderson CR, Jr., Cory-Slechta DA, Cox C, Jusko TA, Lanphear

BP. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead concentrations below 10

microg per deciliter. N Engl J Med. Apr 17 2003;348(16):1517–1526.

20. Bellinger D. Lead. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 (Supplement)):1016–1022.

21. Hunter J, Urbanowicz MA, Yule W, Lansdown R. Automated testing of reaction time and its association with lead in children. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.

1985;57(1):27–34.
301

22. Thomson GO, Raab GM, Hepburn WS, Hunter R, Fulton M, Laxen DP. Bloodlead levels and children’s behaviour—results from the Edinburgh Lead Study. J

Child Psychol Psychiatry. Jul 1989;30(4):515–528.

23. Fulton M, Raab G, Thomson G, Laxen D, Hunter R, Hepburn W. Influence

of blood lead on the ability and attainment of children in Edinburgh. Lancet. May

30 1987;1(8544):1221–1226.

24. Needleman HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A, et al. Deficits in psychologic and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine lead levels. N Engl J Med. Mar

29 1979;300(13):689–695.

25. Burns JM, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, McMichael AJ, Tong SL. Lifetime lowlevel exposure to environmental lead and children’s emotional and behavioral development at ages 11–13 years. The Port Pirie Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. Apr 15

1999;149(8):740–749.

26. Gulson BL, Jameson CW, Mahaffey KR, Mizon KJ, Korsch MJ, Vimpani G.

Pregnancy increases mobilization of lead from maternal skeleton. J Lab Clin Med.

Jul 1997;130(1):51–62.

27. Gulson BL, Mahaffey KR, Jameson CW, et al. Mobilization of lead from the

skeleton during the postnatal period is larger than during pregnancy. J Lab Clin

Med. Apr 1998;131(4):324–329.

28. Goyer RA. Transplacental transport of lead. Environ Health Perspect. Nov

1990;89:101–105.

29. Gulson BL, Jameson CW, Mahaffey KR, et al. Relationships of lead in breast

milk to lead in blood, urine, and diet of the infant and mother. Environ Health

Perspect. Oct 1998;106(10):667–674.

30. Sanin LH, Gonzalez-Cossio T, Romieu I, et al. Effect of Maternal Lead Burden

on Infant Weight and Weight Gain at One Month of Age Among Breastfed Infants.

Pediatrics. May 1, 2001 2001;107(5):1016–1023.

31. Gulson BL, Mizon KJ, Palmer JM, et al. Longitudinal study of daily intake

and excretion of lead in newly born infants. Environ Res. Mar 2001;85(3):232–245.

32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing Elevated Blood Lead

Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.; 2002.

33. Liu X, Dietrich KN, Radcliffe J, Ragan NB, Rhoads GG, Rogan WJ. Do children with falling blood lead levels have improved cognition? Pediatrics. Oct

2002;110(4):787–791.

34. Rogan WJ, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, et al. The effect of chelation therapy with

succimer on neuropsychological development in children exposed to lead. N Engl J

Med. May 10 2001;344(19):1421–1426.

35. Tong S, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, Burns J, McMichael AJ. Declining blood

lead levels and changes in cognitive function during childhood: the Port Pirie Cohort

Study. Jama. Dec 9 1998;280(22):1915–1919.

36. Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C. Cognitive deficits associated with

blood lead concentrations <10 microg/dL in U.S. children and adolescents. Public

Health Rep. Nov–Dec 2000;115(6):521–529.

37. Soldin O, Pezzullo J, Hanak B, Miller M, Soldin S. Changing trends in the

epidemiology of pediatric lead exposure: interrelationship of blood lead and ZPP concentrations and a comparison to the U.S. population. Ther. Drug Monitor.

2003;25:415–420.

38. Moon RY. Personal communication. May 18, 2002.

39. Gergen P, Fowler J, Maurer K, Davis W, Overpeck M. The burden of environmental tobacco smoke exposure on the respiratory health of children 2

months through 5 years of age in the United States: Third National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Pediatrics. 1998;101(2):http://

www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/102/e108.

40. http:/ /aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action = profile&area = District + of + Columbia.

Accessed April 4, 2004.

41. http://www.atsdr.cdc.goc/statefactsheets/sfs-dc.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2004.

42. Todd AC, McNeill FE, Fowler BA. In vivo X-ray fluorescence of lead in bone.

Environ Res. Dec 1992;59(2):326–335.

43. Meyers P. Cranky Consumer: Scouring the Home for Lead Paint. The Wall

Street Journal. Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2004:D2.

44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blood lead levels in residents of

homes with elevated lead in tap water—District of Columbia, 2004. MMWR. March

30, 2004 2004;53:1–3.
302

RESPONSE BY DANA BEST TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. Do you believe that lead poisoning in children can be completely eliminated in this country without addressing lead in drinking water?

Response. No. However, lead in drinking water is not the primary source of lead—

lead paint is. Abatement of lead paint in homes and other settings in which children

spend time should be our first priority. Abatement of lead in drinking water should

be pursued simultaneously because of the potential scope of impact on entire populations. Information on lead abatement in homes can be found at:

• The Office of Lead Hazard Control of the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) publishes Lead Paint Safety—A Field Guide for Painting, Home Maintenance and Renovation Work. This booklet can be ordered by calling 1-800-424-5323 or by downloading from www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html. HUD

also offers a one-hour, web-based training course on visual inspection of paint at

www.hud.gov/lea/lbptraining.html.

• The Center for National Lead-Safe Housing provides information about safe

home repair at www.leadsafehousing.org/html/techassistance.htm.

• The Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning provides information about safe

home repair at www.aeclp.org/painting/index.html.

RESPONSES BY DANA BEST TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question 1. When a patient at Children’s Hospital is found to have lead in his

or her bloodstream, what typically happens to address this problem? Do organizations or agencies other than the Hospital become involved?

Response. All lead levels are reported to the DC Department of Health by Children’s laboratory staff. The DC Department of Health typically makes a home visit

when a blood lead level is 15 mcg/dl or higher, to suggest abatement, determine the

source of the exposure, etc. For further details about these visits, please contact the

DC Department of Health.

If a child has a lead level higher than 10 mcg/dl, the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention are usually followed.

These recommendations can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/

CaseManagement/caseManagemain.htm.

The following table is from page 41 of that document:

Blood Lead Level (BLL) (mcg/dL)

10–14 15–19 20–44 45–69 >70

Lead education ...........

Dietary ........................

Environmental .............

Lead education ..........

Dietary ........................

Environmental ............

Lead education ..........

Dietary ........................

Environmental ............

Lead education ..........

Dietary ........................

Environmental ............

Hospitalize and commence chelation

therapy.

Follow-up blood lead

monitoring.

Follow-up blood lead

monitoring.

Proceed according to

actions for 20–44

mcg/dl if:.

A follow-up Bll is in

this range at least

3 months after initial venous test.

..............................

or

BLLs increase .............

Follow-up blood lead

monitoring.

Complete history and

physical exam.

Lab work; ...................

Hemoglobin or hematocrit.

Iron status .................

..............................

Environmental investigation.

Lead hazard reduction

Neurodevelopmental

monitoring.

Abdominal X-ray (if

particulate lead ingestion is suspected) with bowel

decontamination if

indicated.

Follow-up blood lead

monitoring.

Complete history and

physical exam.

Lab work: ...................

Hemaoglobin or hematocrit.

Iron status .................

FEP or ZPP .................

Environmental investigation.

Lead hazard reduction

Neurodevelopmental

monitoring.

Abdominal X-ray with

bowel decontamination if indicated

Chelation therapy .......

Proceed according to

actions for 20-44

mcg/dL.

The following actions are NOT recommended at any blood lead level:

• Searching for gingival lead lines
303

• Testing of neurophysiologic function • Evaluation of renal function (except during chelation with EDTA) • Testing of hair, teeth, or fingernails for lead • Radiographic imaging of long bones • X-ray fluorescence of long bones

Question 2. Recognizing that cases vary in their particulars, what important examples can you provide of atypical treatment situations?

Response. There are bizarre cases in which the recommendations do not apply.

For instance, there was a patient here at Children’s who had been shot by a ‘‘stray’’

bullet at age 3. Since the bullet lodged near the child’s spinal column, it could not

be removed. At age 10 the child was still undergoing regular chelation due to chronically elevated lead levels. (This case illustrates two of our city’s major problems.)

STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I am Erik D. Olson, a

Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national

non-profit public interest organization dedicated to protecting public health and the

environment, with over 500,000 members. I am Chair of the Campaign for Safe and

Affordable Drinking Water, an alliance of over 300 medical, public health, nursing,

consumer, environmental, and other groups working to improve drinking water protection. I also serve on the steering committee of a new organization called Lead

Emergency Action for the District (LEAD), a coalition of local and national civic

groups, environmental, consumer, medical, and other organizations and citizens urging a stronger public response to the DC lead crisis. I testify today only on behalf

of NRDC.

The drinking water lead crisis in Washington DC poses serious public health risks

to thousands of residents of the national capital area, and casts a dark shadow of

doubt over the ability, resources, or will of Federal and local officials to fulfill their

duty to protect our health. Preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention recently found that there are reasons to be concerned about

lead in DC tap water. While severe acute lead poisoning due to drinking water was

not found, blood lead levels in DC children who drink water in homes served with

lead lines did not decrease, whereas they did decrease in children served by nonlead lines. This suggested to health experts that lead in tap water is likely contributing to higher blood lead levels in some children in the District. Because of deficiencies in the DC blood lead monitoring program design, and because blood lead

levels begin to drop fairly shortly after exposure is stopped (with time much of the

lead deposits in bone and tissues), it is quite possible that more serious problems

were not detected. Mary Jean Brown, the lead poison prevention chief at the CDC

and a co-author of the report said in releasing the report that,

‘‘there is no safe level of lead . . . Even a small contribution, especially in

small children, is not something that we want to happen. . . . We don’t want

to increase the blood lead levels of those individuals by even 1 microgram if it

can be prevented.’’

See Avram Goldstein, ‘‘Blood Lead Levels Affected by Disinfectant,’’ Washington

Post, March 31, 2004, available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/

articles/A37404–2004Mar30.html and CDC study at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/

preview/mmwrhtml/mm53d330al.htm.

It is important to note that new data published in major medical journals the past

few years show that even at levels below 10 μg/dl in blood, lead has been linked

to reduced cognitive function in children, and surprisingly, the most significant effects are seen at levels below 10 μg/dl. See CDC Advisory Committee on Childhood

Lead Poisoning Prevention, Evidence of Health Effects of Blood Lead Level <10 μg/

dl, available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/meetingMinutes/

lessThan 10MtgMAR04.pdf.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility

for protecting drinking water only in Washington DC, Wyoming, and a few U.S. territories. EPA has failed to fulfill its obligation to aggressively oversee the safety of

DC’s water supply, to ensure that the public is fully apprised of the health threats

posed by our drinking water, and to enforce the law.

This raises important questions about the adequacy of EPA’s drinking water program not only for the Nation’s Capital, but also for the whole Nation. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct Division (the Corps) has failed to

treat the water it delivers to DC and neighboring Northern Virginia communities
304

1 EPA Inspector General, ‘‘EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Quality Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings,’’ Report 2004–P–0008, available online at www.epa.gov/reports/2004/20040305–2004-P–0008.pdf.

sufficiently to assure that the water is not corrosive, in order to reduce lead contamination. The DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has failed to act promptly

or adequately on the lead contamination crisis, and has repeatedly confused and

mislead the public about the lead problem. To date, the local and Federal response

has been far too slow and manifestly inadequate. The Nation’s capital’s water supply should be the best in the world, an international model. Instead, it is among

the worst big city supplies in the Nation.

It should not be assumed that Washington is the only city in the U.S. affected

by lead or other important tap water problems. We are now learning of lead problems in Northern Virginia, and there are several other cities have struggled with

lead contamination in recent years, including: • Seattle, Washington (19 ppb 90th percentile lead according to Annual Consumer

Confidence Report (CCR) issued in 2003, citing 1997 data). • Portland, Oregon (17 ppb 90th percentile according to CCR issued in 2003) • St. Paul, Minnesota (45 ppb 90th percentile in 1996, reportedly brought down

through treatment to 25 ppb in 1999, 20 ppb in 2000, and I 1 ppb in 2003). • Bangor, Maine (6–8 ppb 90th percentile from 1993–1999, increased to ‘‘15 ppb’’

in 2001 after switch to chloramines and subsequent nitrification problem; reportedly

reduced since then after additional treatment-compliance issue boiled down to 1 ppb

in one home out of 38 tested). • Madison, Wisconsin (22.2 ppb 90th percentile lead level, city is now doing lead

service line replacement, according to February 2004 report available online at

http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/water/Report%20PhaseII%2OS.pdf). • Greater Boston, Massachusetts communities (most recent Mass. Water Resource

Authority’s 2003 CCR reports system-wide (consolidated) 90’’’ percentile lead level

has dropped from 65 ppb in 1992 to 11 ppb in 2002, but MWRA’s 2001 CCR reported, on a community-by-community basis, that 13 Boston area communities substantially exceeded the 90th percentile level. It is unclear why MWRA stopped reporting these community-by community data in its annual CCRs thereafter.) • Newark, New Jersey (2001 90th percentile in Wanaque system was 24 ppb and

13 ppb in Pequannock system; 2002 level reportedly changed to 12 and 14, respectively, with new corrosion treatment). • New York City (2002 and 2001 90th percentile levels reported in CCR at 15 ppb,

with levels up to 3,555 ppb in 2001; compliance issue boils down to 1 ppb in one

home out of 107 tested in all of NYC). • Oneida, New York (2002 CCR reported 19 ppb 90th percentile level, reportedly

doing lead service line replacement).

As several of these examples highlight, there are opportunities to ‘‘game’’ the system by slightly altering the monitoring program. Though there is evidence that this

may have happened in Washington DC, we are not aware of any evidence of this

elsewhere, though the temptation could be large, and the lack of serious EPA oversight makes detection of such problems unlikely. If the compliance of a system serving millions of people boils down to less than 1 ppb measured at one or a few homes

out of about 100 tested, this raises significant issues.

Many other cities have had similar lead problems to those noted above. However,

incredibly EPA maintains no accurate up-to-date national information on this issue.

Some of these cities will assert that they are now in compliance with EPA’s lead

action level despite recent documented problems, but EPA has done little to aggressively ensure that this is correct.

School systems in many cities across the country including in Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Montgomery County, Maryland, and many others have found

serious lead contamination problems, but often have been slow to inform parents

and resolve the problem. Many other States and school systems have entirely failed

to comply with the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988s’ mandate to test school

water for lead and replace coolers that serve lead-contaminated water. EPA and

many States have done a poor job of assuring that the EPA lead rule, and the school

testing and cooler programs are fully implemented.

The EPA Inspector General has recently issued a stinging report finding that

EPA’s national drinking water data base mandated by Congress and EPA rules is

woefully incomplete and out of date, and that EPA has repeatedly mislead the public about drinking water quality and compliance because violations are seriously

underreported.1 EPA has acknowledged that there are major problems with State

reporting of all violations and specific lead levels to EPA—indeed, NRDC has

learned that fully 20 States have not been reporting any required information on
305

lead rule compliance, contrary to EPA rules. Yet EPA has has failed to crack down

on States that are not complying with Federal reporting rules, making effective Federal tracking, oversight, and enforcement impossible. Moreover, the Washington crisis and experience in other cities highlight that the EPA lead rule and public education requirements are manifestly inadequate and almost designed to be difficult

to enforce.

Below, we summarize some key problems with the response to the lead crisis, and

the actions that need to be taken to resolve the problem locally and to avoid possible

repetition of the problem nationally:

EPA. The EPA bears a special responsibility for addressing the DC water crisis,

since EPA has primary responsibility for drinking water protection only in Washington, DC and Wyoming. EPA must take emergency enforcement action against

WASA and the Corps. EPA’s recent notice of violation issued to WASA was extremely long in coming. EPA’s deals with WASA and the Corps lack the clarity, detail, and enforceability that are needed to assure this problem is promptly resolved.

Only years after the alleged violations, of which EPA was well aware, and only after

a barrage of 2 months of adverse publicity, did EPA take this feeble action of issuing

an NOV. An emergency enforcement order should be issued that would not only

mandate immediate actions to deal in the short-term with the lead crisis, but should

also require a comprehensive top-to-bottom third party review of both WASA and

Corps operations.

EPA has failed to ensure prompt and accurate public education and reporting on

lead problems, and there are substantial questions about whether EPA adequately

oversaw WASA’s lead monitoring and sample invalidations. EPA failed to promptly

and adequately review, or to insist upon the updating the Corps’ corrosion control

program. It is unclear whether EPA insisted upon an adequate and accurate materials survey, and EPA reportedly allowed WASA to avoid lead service line replacement by taking advantage of a regulatory loophole.

EPA has been slow to force WASA to redo its manifestly invalid and misleading

school testing, or to mandate testing of day care centers or private schools. The EPA

lead rule itself, which is drafted in a way that makes it extremely difficult to enforce, needs to be substantially strengthened. In addition, as noted above, EPA’s

data reporting systems are woefully inadequate, to the point that EPA management

cannot accurately and timely answer simple questions such as ‘‘which public water

systems are above the lead action level and which are replacing lead service lines?’’

EPA also has done little to ensure that school testing for lead has been carried out

nationally, perhaps in part due to a court ruling casting doubt on the program

(Acorn v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5h Cir. 1996)). EPA’s inspection and enforcement

program for drinking water has always been weak, but has gotten demonstrably

worse during the Bush Administration, as is shown in graphs a the end of this testimony.

Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has failed to ensure that its water is adequately treated to reduce its corrosivity and to thereby reduce lead levels in Washington and the Northern Virginia suburbs that it serves. The Corps has repeatedly

responded to water quality problems by adopting the cheapest and often least effective band-aid solutions. Instead of using orthophosphate or other sophisticated corrosion inhibiters as recommended as best by its consultants, the Corps chose to simply adjust water pH with lime, a cheaper and apparently less effective alternative.

Instead of moving toward advanced treatment such as granular activated carbon

filters and UV light or ozone disinfection, or membranes to reduce cancer-causing

(and possibly miscarriage and birth defect-inducing) disinfection byproducts, and to

more effectively remove the dangerous parasite Cryptosporidium and other contaminants, the Corps opted for the cheapest and least effective choice. It simply added

ammonia to its chlorine to make chloramines. The switch to chloramines did slightly

reduce chlorination byproduct levels, but also appears to have increased corrosivity

of the water and therefore increased lead problems. It should be noted that contrary

to the inaccurate assertions of some critics, the EPA rules setting new limits on disinfection byproducts were not the result of wild environmental extremists, but were

negotiated by a diverse regulatory negotiating committee over a several-year period.

The committee included major water utility trade associations, chlorine manufacturers, health departments, public health.experts, States, local officials, and environmentalists (see 1998 agreement in principle at http://www.ena.gov/safewater/

mdbp/mdbpagre.html).

WASA. WASA’s response to the lead crisis has been slow, plagued by misleading

statements to the public and even to senior DC officials, and often characterized by

missteps and at best grudging compliance with EPA rules. Whether it is the alleged

firing of a WASA employee for reporting lead problems to EPA, or the failure to notify customers with high lead levels for many months after samples were taken, or
306

the failure to effectively notify the Mayor, City Council, and all city residents of the

extensive and serious lead problem until the Washington Post broke the story,

WASA has a lot to answer for. EPA has recently listed six alleged violations of Federal regulations that may have contributed to the lack of public knowledge. See EPA

Non Compliance Letter to WASA, dated March 31, 2004, available online at http:/

/www.epa.gov/dclead/johnson-letter2.htm. WASA’s conflicting advice to customers (such as a February 9 letter to all customers telling them to flush their water for 15–30 seconds, followed by a public announcement a few days later to flush lead lines for 10 minutes, followed a few days

later by a recommendation that pregnant women and children under six served by

lead service lines should use a filter) has confused and justifiably outraged citizens.

WASA’s invalid and misleading testing of city schools, in which virtually all samples

were taken after water was flushed for 10 minutes (with the likely effect of reducing

or eliminating lead levels), necessitates a re-conducting of a valid school and day

care testing program. At the mayor’s and EPA’s insistence, WASA has now said it

will do additional school testing.

In addition, it appears that WASA’s partial lead service line replacement program

may be making matters worse, increasing lead levels in some homes’ water. Since

local and Federal authorities have approved and encouraged the use of lead service

lines in DC for over 100 years, we believe that WASA should fully remove all of

the lead service lines at its expense (with Federal assistance, see ‘‘Congress’’ below),

instead of stopping at the property line. A comprehensive third-party public review

of WASA’s lead program and all water quality operations also is desperately needed.

Congress. We urge Congress to help DC and EPA to fund the response to the lead

crisis, including lead service line replacement and upgrades to the DC and Corps

water infrastructure. Congress also should respond to the national water infrastructure problem through national legislation and increased appropriations. In addition,

Congress should vigorously oversee EPA’s drinking water program, including its national implementation of the lead rule and its enforcement and data collection programs. Members of this Committee should urge their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for EPA drinking water programs, and particularly for drinking water enforcement. We also urge Congress to insist that EPA take

emergency enforcement action against WASA and the Corps, as discussed below.

Specifically, among the actions that we believe Congress should take to address

problems raised by the lead crisis are: • Water Infrastructure or Grants/Trust Fund Legislation

• Congress should substantially increase the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund authorization and appropriations (now funded at $850M; authorization of $1B expired in 2003). • Congress should adopt broad water infrastructure bill and/or water infrastructure trust fund legislation.

• Congress should adopt targeted legislation for lead rule compliance/lead service line replacement and filters for DC residents at least, since the Federal

Government approved and oversaw the installation of the lead lines.

• The Corps of Engineers should pay for DC lead service line replacement since

Corps built the system, and operates the treatment plant that is providing

corrosive water. Also, Federal agents (federally appointed Commissioners and

engineers) approved and sometimes required lead service lines in DC.

• Congress should adopt new legislation that provides grants to needy water

systems, like Reid-Ensign bill (S. 503, 107th Congress).

• Fix Lead Pipe and Fixtures provision in the SDWA

• Congress should redefine ‘‘Lead Free’’ in SDWA § 1417(d) to mean really lead

free (i.e. no lead added, and no more that 0.1 or 0.25 percent incidental lead—

as required by L.A., Bangor, Maine, etc.).

• Congress should fix the public notice provisions in SDWA § 1417(a)(2), which

clearly have been inadequate (as shown by the DC experience).

• Fix the SDWA lead in schools and day care provisions (SDWA §§ 1461–1463)

• Congress should redefine lead free in the Lead Contamination Control Act

(LCCA), which added SDWA § 1461, to mean really lead free (0.1 percent or

0.25 percent, see above).

• Congress should order an EPA review of § 1462 implementation and effectiveness of lead fountain recall provision in all States.

• Congress should clarify §§ 1461–63 to eliminate any constitutionality doubts

raised by Acorn v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996).

• Congress should require ongoing retesting of all schools and day care centers

in light of Acorn and widespread non-compliance, and new info on lead leaching.

• Fix the EPA Lead Rule & Associated Regulations
307

• Adopt a 10 or 15 ppb MCL at the tap. There was an MCL (50 ppb) until 1991.

• As a clearly second-best alternative, the rule needs serious overhaul:

• Require immediate review of corrosion control programs for systems that

make treatment changes, and also require review periodically;

• Change monitoring requirements so systems cannot go for years without

testing, and to clarify and strengthen test methods, site selection, and

number of tests (50 or 100 per city are not enough);

• Strengthen/overhaul public education and public notice requirements in

40 CFR 141.85 which are obviously inadequate;

• Require full lead service line replacement, or at a minimum require that

water systems that approved, authorized, or required use of lead service

lines to replace those lines if they are contributing to lead over action

level;

• Require in-home certified filters to be provided to high-risk people who

have high lead levels, with water system-supplied maintenance in accordance with 40 CFR 141.100;

• Eliminate the loophole that allows systems to count homes tested at

below 15 ppb as is their lead service lines were replaced in implementing

the 7 percent/year lead service line replacement provision;

• Require an overhaul/upgrade of EPA’s compliance & data tracking.

• Fix the Consumer Confidence Report & Right to Know Requirements

• WASA’s report said on the cover ‘‘Your Drinking Water is Safe’’ and buried

the facts. No one knew of the problem. Similar problems have been

ocumented for water systems across the country. EPA’s right to know and

consumer confidence report rules need to be overhauled & strengthened.

• Fix SDWA Standards Provisions

• Congress should require that standards to protect pregnant women, children,

vulnerable people.

• Congress should overhaul the new contaminant selection & 6 year standard

review provisions. These provisions have been complete failures since 1996.

EPA’S RESPONSIBILITIES

EPA has known, at least since the mid-1990s, that lead contamination of tap

water is a significant issue in Washington, and that the public was ill-informed

about the problem. In 1995–1996, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, NRDC learned that many homes across the city had lead levels well in excess

of the EPA Action Level, and that those homeowners had not been informed of the

contamination. The Washington Post ran a story about the issue in April 1996.

Meanwhile, the Corps’ filed its corrosion control plan with EPA, and EPA substantially delayed in its approval, well beyond the legal deadline. Finally, EPA apparently simply accepted the Corps’ plan to use only pH adjustment, rather than requiring the Corps to further study-or use orthophosphate or other more sophisticated corrosion inhibiters recommended by some consultants. When the Corps later

switched to chloramines as a disinfectant, EPA made the serious mistake of not insisting upon a full review of the corrosion control plan in light of the apparently

more corrosive disinfectant.

Even when the lead Action Level was exceeded in Washington in 2001, EPA required no changes in corrosion control, went along with WASA’s plan to replace only

a small number of lead service lines, and did not insist that WASA conduct an effective public education program. There also are substantial unresolved questions

about whether EPA allowed WASA to ‘‘invalidate’’ lead samples and avoid an

exceedence of the Action Level, as alleged by a former WASA employee who was

reportedly fired for informing EPA of the lead problem. Additionally, while EPA has

issued a notice of violation recently to WASA for failing to comply with public notification and public education rules, EPA has never challenged the adequacy of

WASA’s water quality reports sent to all consumers in June 2003 boldly proclaiming

that ‘‘YOUR DRINKING WATER IS SAFE,’’ despite the exceedence of the lead Action Level.

Moreover, while EPA enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has

never been strong, this testimony documents that nationally, it has substantially

dropped off since President Bush took office (see Figures at the end of this testimony). EPA’s drinking water inspections, administrative penalty orders, administrative penalties, and other measures of enforcement activity generally have taken a

substantial downturn in the past 3 years. We understand there is only one EPA

staffer in EPA’s Washington enforcement office dedicated to drinking water enforcement (though there are pieces of a few others who spend small amounts of time on

drinking water enforcement), and that the dedicated drinking water enforcement
308

staffing in the EPA’s regions is small and dwindling. This enforcement downturn

may have contributed to the lack of action in this case, compared to a far more vigorous EPA enforcement response to previous DC water crises in 1993–1994 and

1995–1996. There is a serious need for a major infusion of resources and a will to

enforce in EPA’s drinking water and enforcement programs.

The only solution to the DC water crisis is for EPA to initiate a full civil and

criminal investigation, and to immediately issue emergency administrative orders to

WASA and the Corps. The orders should mandate that they address the multitude

of problems with their response to the lead crisis and other water quality problems,

including enforceable deadlines for:

(1) expedited, valid testing of all schools and day care centers;

(2) expanded testing of multiple family and single family homes and apartments

beyond those with lead service lines;

(3) reissued accurate, understandable notices to consumers of lead levels, health

risks, and options to avoid lead;

(4) professional installation and maintenance of certified filters for homes with

lead service lines or high lead levels in their water, and that have young children,

pregnant women, women who expect they may become pregnant, and other high

risk individuals;

(5) an aggressive, honest, ongoing public education campaign developed with public input;

(6) a comprehensive third-party review of all available records and archives to determine whether the DC materials survey correctly identifies all locations where

lead components were used;

(7) an expedited third-party review of the Corps’ corrosion control and disinfection

byproduct control strategy, with mandatory implementation of solutions by specified

dates certain; and

(8) a top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA and the Corps’ water quality, source water, and overall performance, including a detailed review of their implementation of past consultant recommendations, Comprehensive Performance

Evaluations, and sanitary surveys, and recommendations for long-term compliance

with current and upcoming rules and water quality objectives. The review should

seek public input and should be published.

(See LEAD coalition recommendations below for a more detailed discussion of the

terms of possible orders). Finally, EPA must overhaul its lead rule, and its overall

and substantially better fund its drinking water and enforcement program’s oversight, sampling, data collection, and legal enforcement to ensure that this or other

similar problems are not repeated in other cities around the country.

THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

The Corps has repeatedly opted for the cheapest, easiest way out of water quality

problems, even if the ‘‘solution’’ is manifestly inadequate. Thus, instead of following

consultants’ advice to consider aggressive and sophisticated corrosion inhibiters such

as orthophosphates to reduce lead problems, the Corps chose merely to adjust pH.

Instead of addressing the underlying problem creating the high chlorination byproduct contamination of city water by installing advanced treatment such as activated

carbon and ozone or UV disinfection, or membranes, the Corps opted for a cheap

‘‘band-aid’’ solution of using chloramines alone, apparently exacerbating the corrosion problem with our water. As noted above, EPA should immediately issue an

emergency order to the Corps requiring: (1) a comprehensive and public third party

expert review of the Corps’ corrosion control and water treatment problems; (2) enforceable deadlines for completion of the review and implementation of recommend

solutions; and (3) a longer-term top-to-bottom third party review, with public input,

of the Corps’ water quality and treatment.

DC WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY’S (WASA) RESPONSIBILITIES

WASA has bungled its response to the DC lead problem. In addition to violating

EPA rules, WASA’s public education and public notice efforts have been conflicting,

confusing, misleading, and manifestly woefully inadequate. The direct notices provided to customers whose water was tested and confirmed to be highly contaminated

was misleading and failed to provide any sense of health risk or urgency. The

WASA water quality reports issued to the public proclaiming that ‘‘YOUR DRINKING WATER IS SAFE,’’ despite evidence to the contrary, was highly misleading, as

were a variety of other WASA public communications. WASA’s changing advice on

how long and whether to flush tap water, and whether filters are necessary, has

confused the public.
309

WASA’s program testing about 750 samples from over 150 city schools’ fountains

and faucets was fundamentally flawed and either completely inept or intentionally

misleading. WASA admits that contrary to standard EPA regulatory protocol and

standard scientific practice, they ran the water for 10 minutes before taking school

samples, thereby likely substantially reducing lead levels in the samples. No child

runs water for 10 minutes before drinking it. WASA’s press conference portraying

the results as demonstrating that there is no lead problem in DC schools was highly

misleading and likely false. The Mayor and EPA have now told WASA to redo this

testing. It should be done for all school and day care center faucets and fountains

used by children for consumption.

In addition, there are serious unanswered questions about when WASA first

learned of the lead problem, whether WASA ‘‘invalidated’’ lead samples to avoid exceeding the Action Level, and whether WASA fired an employee allegedly for notifying EPA of water quality problems (as has been found by a U.S. Department of

Labor whistleblower review). It is also unclear whether the city’s materials survey

(intended to identify lead components in the system) adequately documents where

lead service lines and high risk homes are located. The WASA lead sampling plan

and monitoring program clearly are inadequate, since to date they have not sought

to document the extent of the lead problem in homes not served by lead service

lines.

WASA’s lead service line replacement program is insufficiently aggressive and will

not promptly resolve the city’s lead problems. In addition to the slow pace of replacement (at WASA’s current rate, it will take about 15 years to complete), it also

is becoming apparent that partial lead service line replacement (leaving the lead

line on the homeowner’s property in place) may actually make lead problems worse.

Partial service line replacement can exacerbate lead problems by shaking loose lead

particles during and after the replacement process, and by creating galvanic corrosion (similar to a battery) caused when two pipes made of different metal are connected. We believe that WASA should pay for—with Federal assistance—full lead

service line replacements.

A long history of problems with the operation and maintenance of the DC water

distribution system, including past city-wide boil water alerts during the microbial

crises in 1993–1994 and 1995–1996, and WASA’s inability or unwillingness to candidly inform customers and apparently even senior city officials about water quality

problems makes clear the need for EPA to issue an emergency order mandating a

comprehensive top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA’s water quality and

operations, with public input and public release of the fmdings, and a schedule for

implementation of the recommendations.

HISTORY OF RECENT LEAD CRISIS IN DC

On Saturday January 31, 2004, residents of the Nation’s Capitol picked up their

morning papers and were stunned to learn that thousands of homes’ drinking water

in the District was seriously contaminated with lead. Officials at the DC Water and

Sewer Authority (WASA) and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

had known about the lead problem for over a year, and probably longer, but had

failed to effectively notify the public about the problem. The Mayor, City Council,

Members of Congress, and the general public were caught by surprise that over

4,000 of 6,000 homes whose water WASA tested was contaminated with lead at levels above EPA’s action level-the safety level at which Federal rules require prompt

action to reduce lead levels. There has been over a month of front-page stories, saturation TV and radio coverage, hostile City Council hearings, public outrage, and repeated (albeit often conflicting) WASA public statements that there was no serious

health threat. Finally, WASA recommended on February 25 that pregnant women

and children under age six whose homes were served by lead service lines should

not drink city water, fueling further public concern, confusion, and outrage that

WASA and EPA had known about the health threat for so long and never previously

told pregnant women and parents of young children not to drink the water.

WASA also held a press conference in late February to announce that school

drinking water was safe, based upon testing of over 750 fountains and faucets in

DC schools. It then came out that the results were seriously misleading because in

almost all cases, WASA flushed the water lines for 10 minutes, likely removing most

lead from the water, contrary to EPA rules and all scientific protocols for lead testing. No child stands at a fountain flushing water for 10 minutes before taking a

drink. WASA refused to retest DC school drinking water, or to comprehensively test

day care centers, posing a serious health risk to DC school and preschool children,

until ordered to do so by the Mayor and EPA.
310

Now we are learning that it appears that similar problems may be plaguing

Northern Virginia communities that also receive their water from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct Division (the Corps). The Corps changed

its disinfection practice to use chloramines in 2000, a switch many experts believe

may account for increased corrosivity of the water and therefore more lead leaching

into tap water. Chloramines are a ‘‘band-aid’’ that modestly reduce cancer-causing

chlorination byproducts, but only a switch to modern water treatment technologies

such as granular activated carbon plus UV light or ozone disinfection will actually

solve both the chlorination byproduct problem.

The February 25 ‘‘don’t drink the water’’ advice, though necessary, is woefully inadequate. Citizens are infuriated that they have been mislead and given conflicting

advice. District leaders announced, as this scandal erupted in early February, that

they would name an ‘‘independent’’ blue ribbon panel to investigate. However, this

was followed days later by an announcement of a panel consisting entirely of WASA

and other District government officials, with no independent experts and no citizens,

environmentalists, or consumer representatives. The District government’s retreat

from its promise that there would be an independent review showed a lack of commitment to swiftly resolve this serious health problem or to get to the bottom of why

WASA continues to fail in its duty to protect the public.

The decisions to approve the use of lead service lines were made with the explicit

approval and oversight of Federal officials, who were overseeing the construction of

the city’s water lines and supply. There had been a vigorous public debate about

the safety of lead service lines stretching back to the 1890s, yet Federal officials who

ran the city supply decided to use lead lines. Thus, the Federal Government bears

some culpability for the problem.

CONCLUSION

We urge members of this Committee to consider the legislative and oversight recommendations noted above. Without changes in applicable statutory provisions, and

aggressive Congressional oversight, it is likely that problems like those in Washington, DC could happen in many cities and towns across the country. Public health

protection requires increased vigilance by EPA, Congress, health authorities, and

water utility professionals, and increased public awareness.

APPENDIX A

LEAD COALITION’S RECOMMENDATIONS

Lead Emergency Action for the District (LEAD), a coalition of local and national

health, environmental, and other citizen organizations of which NRDC is a member,

recommended the following actions in February; only part of a few of these recommendations have been carried out:

1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility to immediately take enforcement action against WASA to ensure our health is protected,

and should initiate a full criminal and civil enforcement investigation.

The EPA has primary responsibility for overseeing the safety of the District’s

drinking water supply. Unlike its vigorous actions to resolve microbiological threats

a decade ago, the agency has shirked its responsibility in response to the recent lead

problem. The EPA should immediately initiate an enforcement action under its

emergency order authority (which allows the EPA to enforce when there is an imminent health threat, requiring no finding of a violation of law), and should initiate

a parallel criminal and civil enforcement investigation. The EPA order should mandate several specific actions, including enforceable deadlines for:

(1) Expedited, valid testing of all schools and day care centers, both first draw and

flush samples.

(2) Expanded testing of homes beyond those with lead service lines. WASA should

arrange free water lead tests for all DC residents. (This is what the New York City

Department of Environmental Protection has been doing for more than 10 years.)

Notice of these free lead tests should be drafted in consultation with EPA and the

public, and should note the health implications of elevated lead levels in water and

the threat from lead paint in DC

(3) Reissued accurate, understandable notices to consumers of lead levels, health

risks, and options to avoid lead, by mail and through broadcast media. WASA

should be required to immediately notify all DC households whether they are believed to have lead service lines or not, what the risks are, and should arrange for

free lead testing of any tap water on request. Notices similar to those recently sent

to lead service line customers should be sent to customers who are not believed to
311

have lead service lines noting that there still may be a risk of lead contamination,

and offering to arrange for free lead testing.

(4) Professional installation and maintenance of certified filters for homes with

lead service lines or high lead levels in their water, and that have young children,

pregnant women, women who expect they may become pregnant, and other high

risk individuals.

(5) An aggressive, honest, ongoing public education campaign developed with public input. This should include several specific requirements, such as:

a. WASA should send all DC residents a detailed city-wide map of all areas with

known or suspected lead service lines with accompanying health and other explanations.

b. WASA must acknowledge the public’s right to know and issue a city-wide map

of lead levels detected on a detailed map, and should provide real time monitoring

results for lead and all contaminants found in its water.

c. WASA must notify any home with a lead service line that has been found to

have excessive lead in an appropriate water test that it is eligible for free lead service line replacement, and the schedule for replacement. The notice should also note

whether WASA is responsible for only part of the service line replacement or full

service line replacement under DC law.

d. EPA and WASA must issue notices that publicly recommend that those pregnant women, or parents of young children, with lead service lines or whose water

lead levels are in excess of EPA’s Action Level (or some other reasonable safety

level), should obtain blood screening for lead for their children. This is not an emergency that would require going to the emergency room, but it is a matter of importance, and blood tests for lead levels should be provided by the DC Department of

Health.

(6) A comprehensive third-party review of all available records and archives to determine whether the DC materials survey correctly identifies all locations where lead

components were used;

(7) An expedited third-party review of the Corps’ corrosion control and disinfection

byproduct control strategy, with mandatory implementation of solutions by specified

dates certain; and

(8) A top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA and the Corps’ water quality, source water, and overall performance, including a detailed review of their implementation of past consultant recommendations, Comprehensive Performance

Evaluations, and sanitary surveys, and recommendations for long-term compliance

with current and upcoming rules and water quality objectives. The review should

seek public input and should be published.

2. EPA should immediately take enforcement action against the Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct and order it to aggressively treat the water to reduce

lead leaching.

The EPA’s 1991 lead and copper regulations require the Washington Aqueduct to

treat our water in order to reduce its corrosivity; less corrosive water should mean

less lead leaching from pipes. While the Corps and WASA do have a corrosion control program (albeit one that reportedly was reviewed by the EPA far later than envisioned by the 1991 rules), it is obvious that it must be critically examined and

improved. Recent changes in water treatment at the Washington Aqueduct (apparently made after the corrosion control plan went into effect), aimed at reducing disinfection byproducts, may have altered the chemistry of the city’s water. An urgent

independent review of the corrosion control plan is warranted, with EPA-ordered

steps to implement recommended actions. Deadlines should be established for completion of the review and implementation of its recommendations, and the results

should be made public as soon as they are completed. When WASA was constituted,

it entered into a governance agreement with the city of Falls Church and Arlington

County over Washington Aqueduct, with oversight over expenses and actions.

WASA and other customers should long ago have insisted upon improvements in the

Washington Aqueduct’s corrosion control program.

3. WASA must re-conduct its testing of District school water to be sure that all

drinking water fountains and all faucets used for consumption in District schools

and day care centers are tested—both first draw and flushed samples—within 2

weeks.

WASA’s recent water test results were highly misleading because more than 97

percent of the samples taken were from faucets and fountains flushed for 10 minutes. Since no student flushes a fountain for 10 minutes before taking a drink,

flushing water for a test sample would create misleading samples and test results.

(Flushing often will reduce or eliminate lead levels in large buildings.) Since infants

and young children are most vulnerable to lead poisoning, schools and day care centers should be top priorities for testing.
312

4. EPA and Congress should help WASA and the DC government fund home treatment units or bottled water for pregnant women and infants under age 6 in households that have lead service lines or lead in the drinking water at levels above the

EPA action level.

There are likely thousands of pregnant women and young children under the age

of 6 who are drinking tap water that contains lead at levels higher than 15 parts

per billion, EPA’s action level. These people need a safe alternative water supply

until the problem has been resolved. The DC government, EPA and Congress should

fund alternative water supplies for high-risk water drinkers. Bottled water is not

necessarily any safer than tap water unless it is independently tested and confirmed

to be pure, and many filters are not independently certified to remove the levels of

lead found in many DC homes’ water. Therefore, EPA should assist residents by assuring that any alternative water supply (such as bottled water) is indeed free of

lead and other harmful contaminants, or that a filter is independently certified (see

www.nsf.org) to take care of lead. It should be noted that NSF certifies only that

lead levels up to 150 ppb will be reduced to below 10 ppb; there is no guarantee

for reducing levels above 150 ppb. Finally, it is critical that WASA and other officials involved ensure that there is a followup program for maintenance of filters,

since poorly maintained filters can fail to remove lead or even make contamination

worse. 5. WASA should expedite replacement of lead service lines, and the City Council

should review policies on replacement of the homeowner’s portion of the line.

Under EPA’s lead and copper rule, WASA reportedly has begun to implement its

obligation to replace 7 percent of the District’s lead service lines (or to test and clear

homes served by lead service lines as containing less than 15 ppb lead in their

water) each year. At this pace it will take nearly 15 years—until about 2018—for

WASA to replace all the city’s lead service lines. In the meantime, thousands of

pregnant women, infants and children could be consuming water with excessive lead

levels. We strongly urge that the lead service line replacement program be aggressively expedited. A schedule should be published, with objective criteria for which

lines will be replaced first (presumably based primarily upon replacement of those

lines posing the greatest public health risk first). Federal and city general funds

should be set aside for this program to augment promised rate increases on our

water bills. WASA customers should not foot the entire bill, since the decisions to

approve the use of lead service lines were made with the explicit approval and oversight of Federal officials who were overseeing the construction of the city’s water

lines and supply. There was a vigorous public debate about the safety of lead service

lines stretching back to the 1890s, yet Federal officials who ran the city supply decided to use lead lines. District officials also should consider using the city’s multimillion dollar rainy-day fund to help pay for service line replacements.

In addition, the City Council should review WASA’s and the city’s policy about

lead service line replacement for the portions of the line that are supposedly owned

by homeowners. Evidence is mounting that partial lead service line replacement

often will not solve the problem, and actually can make lead levels worse by shaking

loose lead in the pipes and causing galvanic corrosion that may exacerbate lead

problems.

Under recent EPA rule changes, it is apparently up to the City Council to determine how much of the service line should be replaced by WASA. In 1991, EPA originally required full lead service line replacement unless the water utility could prove

that it did not control part of the line, in which case it was to replace only that

portion that the utility controlled. After being sued successfully by a water industry

group, the EPA changed the rules to provide that it is largely a question of local

law what portion of the lead service line is the responsibility of the water utility.

We believe that it is only fair that since many of the lead service lines were installed from the 1890s through the 1940s under the direction, approval and control

of the District and Federal officials, those authorities should be responsible for replacing them, not homeowners. The cost to homeowners of their portion of lead service line replacement could be thousands of dollars, but it is far more efficient and

cost-effective to replace the entire service line at once, rather than digging up yards

twice. This is a question that deserves a full public airing by the City Council.

6. The City Council should create a permanent citizen water board for water to

oversee WASA and the Washington Aqueduct, to address longstanding problems with

DC’s water supply.

In 1996, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Water Action

(CWA), and the DC Area Water Consumers Organized for Protection (DC Water

COPs) issued a report, based in large part on city and Federal records obtained

under the Freedom of Information Act. That report found serious ongoing problems

with the District’s water, and identified likely problems that could occur in the fu-
313

ture. Among the current and future problems noted were lead contamination, bacteria and parasites, cloudiness (turbidity) in the water—which may indicate poor filtration and can interfere with disinfection—and disinfection byproducts that cause

cancer and may cause birth defects and miscarriages. The report also noted that the

Washington Aqueduct’s water treatment plants need a major infusion of funds to

modernize and upgrade treatment, and that the District has ancient and deteriorating water pipes leading to water main breaks, regrowth of bacteria, and lead

problems. Those pipes must be replaced. In addition, the WASA-operated sewage

collection and treatment systems have serious inadequacies, including major problems whenever stormwater runoff overloads the treatment plant’s capacity, causing

raw sewage to flow into the Anacostia and Potomac rivers.

In the wake of the DC citywide boil-water alerts in 1993 and 1996 due to turbidity

and bacteria problems, and EPA’s enforcement orders issued thereafter, comprehensive sanitary surveys and engineering reviews by outside contractors found a series

of serious problems with our water treatment and distribution system. These reviews recommended hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements in the city’s

water supply system.

While the city has addressed some of the most pressing problems, it has not made

many of the important investments needed to repair local water infrastructure. We

strongly recommend that the City Council establish a citizen water board to oversee

the city’s water supply and sewer system. The board should oversee not only steps

to improve our drinking water system, but also WASA’s storm water and sewer obligations, because of the overall competition for water infrastructure dollars and need

to focus on whole watershed and ‘‘sewer shed’’ solutions. This board—like those created by some States to oversee electric and other utilities—should be funded with

a small surcharge on water and sewer bills, and should be wholly independent of

WASA and the Washington Aqueduct. It should include independent engineering

and public health experts and citizen activists interested in drinking water, and

should issue an annual progress report on WASA’s and the Washington Aqueduct’s

performance, progress and problems.

7. The City Council must improve its oversight of WASA.

The District’s City Council is responsible for overseeing WASA’s day-to-day activities, and has failed to do its job over recent years to make sure that WASA is carrying out its responsibilities to deliver safe drinking water and to safely collect and

fully treat city sewage. More aggressive City Council oversight is needed to avoid

continued problems with WASA.

8. The mayor should make tap water and all environmental protection a high priority.

The mayor should make drinking water safety, sewage collection and treatment

and environmental protection a high priority. The mayor bears some responsibility

for ensuring that WASA is doing its job. He has many ways to influence WASA’s

board and daily operations, and should insist on regular briefings and updates on

how the city is fulfilling its obligations to provide these most basic city services.

9. Consumers, health, and citizens groups should be on the blue ribbon commission, and should recommend people to serve on the panel.

The announced ‘‘independent’’ panel to review WASA’s embarrassing performance

in addressing the lead problem has instead morphed into an internal review panel

of city officials, including two of the WASA officials who so obviously have failed to

do their jobs. In order to avoid a panel that merely papers over the problems and

whitewashes the lead crisis, LEAD is calling upon city officials to name independent

experts, consumers, citizen groups and environmentalists to the panel.

10. The EPA, CDC, the DC Dept of Health and the City Council should establish

a joint task force with citizen participation, to evaluate the extent of lead poisoning

from all sources in the District, and its environmental justice implications, particularly for low-income AfricanAmerican and Latino households.

According to expert estimates, the District has widespread lead poisoning, affecting perhaps tens of thousands of District children. Because of the city’s demographic

and economic realities, most of these children are African American and Latino. The

District and Federal officials should establish a joint task force, with citizens and

medical experts, to evaluate the extent of the problem and its environmental justice

implications, and to recommend actions to remedy it.
314
315
316
317
318

STATEMENT OF MURIEL WOLF, M.D., CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER,

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony to you today regarding

the effect of elevated lead levels and lead poisoning. My name is Dr. Muriel Wolf.

I am an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at George Washington University Medical

School, and Attending in Pediatrics and Cardiology and Senior Pediatrician at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC. I have taken care of children

with elevated lead levels and lead poisoning for over 30 years.

Fortunately, the health care landscape has changed significantly since the 1970s

when we admitted over 100 children per year with elevated lead levels of over 60

mcg/dl. Now, we admit fewer than 5 children per year with elevated lead levels at

this number.

The problem of lead in the water in the District of Columbia has alerted all of

us about the possibility of elevated blood lead levels. But as of this writing, there

is no strong evidence that the lead in the water has caused any serious elevation

of blood lead levels.

While the issue of lead in the District water supply is an important one, let it

not be lost that most elevated lead levels in children are due to lead paint in old

houses. Children exposed to an environment where there is peeling or flaking lead

paint are at risk for elevated blood lead levels. Small amounts of lead paint chips

or dust can cause blood lead levels to become elevated. Because of the presence of

lead paint in old houses, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended

in cities where more than 20 percent of the houses were built before 1970, children

should be tested for elevated blood lead at age one, and then again at 2 years of

age. In DC, over 50 percent of the housing was built before 1970. Accordingly, all

District children should have blood lead tests at 1 and 2.

Lead can cause significant health problems. Currently the acceptable blood lead

level according to CDC guidelines is 9mcg/dl or less. Very high blood lead levels

(over 50 to 60 mcg/dl) may cause serious health problems such as marked learning

disability and mental retardation. Even higher blood lead levels can be associated

with brain swelling and seizures. Elevated blood lead levels may cause significant

anemia and kidney damage.

Children with blood lead levels above 20 mcg/dl may have learning disabilities

and attention deficit disorder problems, and hearing and growth may even be affected. More recent studies have shown that even mild elevations of blood lead levels between 10 and 20 mcg/dl may minimally lower the IQ by 1 to 3 points.

The goal is to prevent elevated blood lead level, and currently those elevated levels almost always come from exposure to lead paint and dust. Homes with lead

paint should be screened for lead hazards where there is peeling and flaking paint.

Windows and doors should be wiped with high phosphate soap. Floors should be.

wet-mopped rather than vacuumed so that the lead in the dust is not spread

throughout the room. Children and adults should frequently wash their hands to

prevent environmental exposure to lead dust. Finally, the paint causing the problem

should be sealed or removed.

Lead paint remains the most serious source of lead problems at this time. But

lead in the water is a significant issue as well—especially if the CDC decides to

lower the acceptable level of lead for children. Lead in the water may contribute to

elevated lead levels, but nobody knows for sure. It has not been shown so far in

DC to be the cause of elevated lead levels beyond the 10 mcg/dl level. Of the 14

patients identified in the District with elevated lead levels above 10 mcg/dl, all lived

in environments where there was lead paint and tested positive on dust wipes.

Current research reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2003

suggested that lead levels of 5–9 mcg/dl can indeed lower IQ by 5–7 points. If this

research can be corroborated by other studies, then we should be significantly concerned that lead in the water in the District of Columbia may be contributing to

elevated lead levels.

It is appropriate to study the issue of lead in the water in the District of Columbia, but the lead found in housing is the major problem at the current time.

STATEMENT OF ANDY BRESSLER, RESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Committee, I want

to thank you for holding this important hearing.

I would like to tell you about my family. My name is Andy Bressler. My wife

Shellie and I have lived on Capitol Hill for the past 7 years. Some of you may recognize our sons Adam and Casey. Back in February, our family was profiled in the
319

1The article referred to may be found in Committee files.

Washington Post. I ask that the article1 be included in the record. You may have

also seen them in the halls of these buildings when they come to visit and to have

lunch with their Mommy who works in the Hart Building.

Three years ago, we had the great fortune of adding twin boys to our household.

Despite some of the obstacles urban living entails, we have enjoyed living in the city

and have looked forward to being able to enjoy everything that city life offers. Little

did we know that we were exposing our children to potential health hazards

through lead-poisoned drinking water.

Imagine our shock a little over a year ago to hear from our pediatrician that our

healthy, thriving recently turned 2 year olds had tested over the CDC recommended

level for lead. We immediately contacted the DC Department of Health’s Office of

Lead and requested an inspection of our home. A test was conducted on our 125

year old house it was determined there was no lead paint exposure on the interior,

but, there was a limited area of lead paint on an exterior door. We then proceeded

to have that door replaced. When we inquired about the possibility of lead in our

water, the inspector reassured us that that DC water was fine and safe to drink,

and that could not be the source of the lead problem.

Months later, my wife and I took the boys in for their 3-year checkup. The next

afternoon, my wife received a call from the doctor’s office to say that once again the

boys lead levels had not declined, and in fact had risen. Casey tested at 14; Adam

tested at 12 (both at levels above the 10 mg threshold). In knowing we had done

work to remediate the problem months early, the doctor asked if the boys drink

water. When we replied that we use it to water down their juice and to cook with,

he advised us to stay away from unfiltered tap water and to solely use bottled water

for their cups and in preparing their meals.

The next day, we contacted the DC Lead Hotline at WASA to request a water test

for our home—this was in mid-January 2004. Through the Moms on the Hill group,

we had learned that there had been some concern about lead in DC water, and that

there had been some testing going back 6 months or more. A few days later, the

Washington Post broke the story about the extreme lead levels found in DC water.

We waited over 2 weeks for someone from WASA to return our multiple phone messages. We finally had our water tested by WASA, and it does show significant elevated lead levels (24 ppb).

Between our own research and speaking with experts, we have learned that that

there is no cure or antidote for our sons’ exposure level. By eliminating the exposure, it would eventually leave their bodies. But, we understand that it will likely

take years before the lead is out of their system. We have taken all possible steps

to rid our house of the lead, and little did we know that every time we gave our

children something to drink, we were exposing them once again to the lead.

Another uncertainty is the long-term effects these levels of exposure will have on

our children. Experts have testified that at their level of exposure, minimally they

will lose precious IQ points. Other problems could include learning difficulties, attention disorders, and/or general behavior problems. These symptoms would not

present themselves until years later once they are in elementary and middle school.

As parents of twins, we have been cautioned not to compare developmental milestones with other children their age. We were told that our children would reach

these steps at their own pace. As a part of human nature, it is very difficult not

to compare and wonder. At this time, our greatest concern that each time one of

them has difficulty in grasping a subject matter in school or an unexplained emotional outburst, we will question if it is long-term effect of being exposed to leaden

water up until their third birthday.

Some of the issues that we would like to see addressed by Congress, EPA, WASA,

and the City:

• Let’s move quickly to a solution—if it means replacing the lead pipes, then let’s

get on with it!

• We need much better oversight from both Congress and the EPA—It is obvious

that there have been failures over the last several years, as both the EPA, WASA,

and the WASA board have failed the public by not coming forward sooner, and moving toward a solution sooner.

• We are also disappointed that the ‘‘Task force’’ working on this issue is not open

to the public, nor does it have representation from citizens affected by this severe

problem.

• There needs to be real accountability for the lack of leadership and management oversight at WASA, EPA, and especially the Board of WASA, who were appointed to represent the public.
320

• From what we understand, this is not a new issue, as DC’s water had a lead

problem back in the late 1980s, and early 1990s. At that time, WASA undertook

steps and developed a plan to fix the lead pipe problem. However, it appears that

since that time WASA and its Board abandoned those efforts, and we would very

much like to understand why they did not follow through on those plans. • We also are concerned about the continually changing advice that we have received from WASA regarding how to reduce the lead levels in our water (such as

how long to run the water—1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes??). In addition,

WASA’s hotline has given us conflicting information regarding whether the service

line leading to our house is lead or not (it appears as though it is).

• Scientists have stated incidences leaching are higher in warmer weather. Now

that summer is approaching, what can be done in the immediate future to help alleviate the high lead exposure levels in the water.

• Finally, we understand there is a plan to begin replacing lead service lines, and

we would like to have a better understanding and guidance as to how WASA is

prioritizing these replacements.

Thank you for holding this hearing, and we would be pleased to speak with you

or your staff regarding any of these issues, or our experiences with the DC government and WASA.

Thank you.

TIMELINE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2000 TO 2004

Nov. 1, 2000: The Aqueduct replaced its secondary disinfection treatment by converting from free chlorine to chloramines.

2001–2002: DCWASA initiates massive water meter replacement program; some

18,000 water meters were replaced with new, remote read capability units.

July 30, 2002: EPA first receives preliminary information that DCWASA exceeded

the lead action level; final report submitted August 27, 2002. EPA advises DCWASA

that it has to return to regular sampling frequency and sample site numbers (100

samples every 6 months), beginning with next compliance period (January 1, 2003),

conduct lead public education program and initiate lead service line replacement

program.

October 2002: DCWASA conducts lead in drinking water public education program within required timeframe. On October 30 and 31, 2002, DCWASA sent:

• lead brochure mailed to every residence via Washington Post circulation department;

• brochure and public service announcement delivered to Washington Post’s and

Washington Times’ editorial boards;

• brochure and PSA sent to 8 television stations; 18 local radio stations and the

AP;

• brochure to city libraries, DC public schools and Board of Education, DC Department of Health, and to 12 hospitals and clinics;

• DC Council members Patterson and Cropp; and

• brochures to all lead sampling volunteer homeowners (hand delivered).

From November 4–December 14, 2002 brochures were delivered to remaining

hospitals, libraries and schools.

Jan. 1, 2003: DCWASA begins routine tap sampling program with increased monitoring frequency and increased sample site numbers.

Jan. 24, 2003: EPA receives first report on DCWASA’s public education program:

due November 10, 2002; report received January 24, 2003).

May 5, 2003: EPA obtains the services of corrosion expert, Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech, through a HQ level of effort contractor to assist EPA Region III in analyzing data and to make recommendations to EPA and to DCWASA for potential

treatment options—assistance to WASA that is above and beyond EPA’s responsibilities.

May 21, 2003: Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) program plan submitted

showing DCWASA’s intended implementation of the LSLR program. Due September

30, 2003; Received May 21, 2003 (four months early).

June 27, 2003: EPA Region III approved DC WASA’s LSL Replacement program

plan on June 27, 2003.

July 30, 2003: Lead and copper tap monitoring shows action levels exceeded for

monitoring period January–June 2003. EPA advises DCWASA that Lead service

line replacement and public education program must continue.

Sept 2003: The public education program was conducted by DCWASA (program

report was due October 10, 2003; report received October 14, 2003).
321

• brochure insert in water bills sent to all billing units in August 2003 bills, with

highlighted message on bill face.

• pamphlet and brochure mailed Sept 30, 2003 to Mayors’ office of Latino Affairs,

Dept. of Health, all ANC Chairpersons, DC Public schools, libraries, hospitals

and clinics.

• Newspaper ad placed in Washington Post Sept 30, 2003.

• PSA’s faxed to TV and radio stations Sept 30, 2003.

Oct. 2003: The public education program was conducted by DCWASA (program report was due November 10, 2003; report received early on October 14, 2003).

Sept. 30, 2003: EPA receives LSLR preliminary report; official report received October 27, 2003. (program report was due September 30, 2003).

Oct. 17, 2003: Region III’s contractor, Marc Edwards, submits his draft report on

his research which recommends that DCWASA conduct specific research in several

areas.

Nov. 19, 2003: EPA Region III completed the initial review of DC WASA’s LSLR

report.

Jan 26, 2003: DC WASA conducted full lead and copper tap monitoring during

July–December 2003 compliance period. EPA instructs DCWASA to continue LSL

replacement and public education programs.

Nov 11, 2003: Marc Edwards presents findings and recommendations to

DCWASA, Washington Aqueduct, and EPA Region III.

January 21, 2004: DCWASA presents to Washington Aqueduct and Virginia

wholesale customers preliminary research plan containing actions recommended by

Marc Edwards and study results to date.

Feb. 5, 2004: Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG) formed on conference call.

Feb. 9, 2004: First face to face meeting of the TEWG conducted at the Washington

Aqueduct offices, outline of the research action plan developed.

Feb. 11, 2004: EPA ORD in Cincinnati begins analyzing lead service line pipe

scale with X-ray defraction techniques to begin preliminary analysis of pipe conditions.

Feb 16, 2004: DCWASA staff and their contractors meeting with Steve Reiber at

University of Washington in Seattle, who now is EPA’s external corrosion expert

through contract. Purpose of meeting is to learn set up for electro-chemical testing

of pipe loops. Equipment to be shipped back to District of Columbia to run tests on

pipe specimens with actual District tap water.

Feb 25, 2004: First draft action plan due to be ready for briefing to DC City Council.

March 10, 2004: Final Research Action Plan due (30 days past initial meeting).

STATEMENT OF ROBERT VINSON BRANNUM, PARENT

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman

let me introduce myself to you and other members of the Subcommittee. My name

is Robert Vinson Brannum. I am a parent of an eleven-year old son and a proud

native Washingtonian. I am also a resident of Ward 5 and the historic Bloomingdale

community along the North Capitol Corridor. I have served three terms as president

of the Bloomingdale Civic Association. As a member of this African American and

greater Washington community, I believe in the spirit of volunteerism and community service. I am happy to have been invited by the Subcommittee to submit this

statement for its official record and review.

In the aftermath of recent disclosures regarding high levels of lead discovered in

the DC water system, this afternoon the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and

Water will hold an oversight hearing on the detection of lead in DC drinking water,

focusing on needed improvements in public communications and the status of shortand long-term solutions.

It is disturbing in the year 2004 to have questions raised about the quality of the

drinking water in my home city—the Nation’s Capitol. I would rather have a conversation about full voting rights rather than talking about how long to let my faucet run each morning when I rise and each evening when I return from work. Good

and safe drinking water not only sounds good, but also it serves as an indicator of

a healthy society.

On 22 March 2004, I submitted water samples for testing. I have not received the

results. There are many District of Columbia residents who wonder what happened,

how did it happened and why it took so long for the information to become public?

What did our Federal and local officials know about the lead levels, when did they

know it, and what did they do when they learned about it?
322

Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington

Aqueduct, the DC Water And Sewer Authority (WASA), and the DC Department of

Health must answer these questions and many more. However, in the search for answers I do hope we do lose focus on the critical issue of solving the problem while

directing our sights to responsibility and accountability. As a parent and a teacher,

I am naturally concerned about the impact of high lead levels on the physical and

cognitive development of our children, particularly African American children. As a

community activist, I am concerned about the increased cost of maintaining safe

water for daily consumption by those who are on low and fixed incomes.

There are many who do not trust WASA to perform ongoing tests. Like so many

other concerned parents, I am not a scientist or a chemist. Yet, from all I have read

it appears the issue is not the actual tests conducted, but rather the apparent delay

in the notification of the public by WASA and EPA. From what I have been able

to read and have been told, lead is not being exposed to the water at the Aqueduct

and distributed by WASA. By most accounts, the water becomes exposed to lead via

the lead service lines or lead soldered joints.

Other residents of this community have expressed to me their concerns about the

water. Several residents have paid to have the lead pipes from the service line to

their homes and they are still not comfortable about the safety of the water. Some

residents feel WASA has the records to determine where all the lead service lines

are and should pay for the replacement. Still others believe there should be a moratorium on water bill payments until the problem is resolved. There was almost a

unanimous view the Army Corps of Engineers should review the current chemical

make-up of the water to make certain that change was not the principal cause of

the lead.

If it becomes necessary to repair or replace all the lead service lines, I do not feel

the costs should be borne by the residents of the District of Columbia or the Government of the District. Historically, Presidential appointed commissioners governed

the District of Columbia and the U.S. Congress directed all municipal functions of

the District. Even to this day, the District of Columbia does not have complete control of its own municipal operations let alone its own water system. It is my expectation the Federal Government would bear the complete cost of the service line replacement. I do hope the subcommittee will support an appropriation to cover the

Federal Government’s responsibility in this crisis.

Many who have voiced questions about the lead have expressed concerns because

of its negative affect on children, particularly African American children. If the

statement of the DC Department of Health are correct, none of the children tested

and found to have high led levels were exposed to lead from water. All of children

were exposed to lead because of lead paint and lead dust in the home.

To this day no one is able to state with presumptive certainty how the lead got

into the water. However, this fact has not diminished the critics of the District of

Columbia government. In addition, I, personally find it incredulous for EPA to assert the lead notification problem has been the sole responsibility of WASA and EPA

bears no accountability.

The water distribution in the District of Columbia is the responsibility of WASA.

There are some, as an expression of their disappointment in the conduct of WASA

during this lead crisis who feel the governance of WASA has to be restructured to

exclude any local District government involvement. As a resident of the District, I

cannot support the idea of a Federal takeover of WASA to the agency that may have

contributed to the current crisis and may be seeking to recreate history to absolve

itself of any responsibility or accountability.

In a discussion with students, their questions regarding the lead issue are simple.

How did the lead get into the water? Why did it take so long to the people? Can

there be a double filtration system of the water? Is this just a ploy for the water

companies (commercial) to get more money? How can you ever know if the water

is safe?

Mr. Chairman, this committee, along with WASA, EPA, and the DC Department

of Health has a duty to assure the public and our young people the water is safe

to drink. This can only happen when all entities stop finger-pointing to one another

and worked closely to solve the lead in the water problem. I do not shrink to no

one on the urgency to solve this matter. However, I am troubled by the rush to judgment and the push for the concept of a ‘‘Federal takeover’’ of WASA. I feel District

officials; particularly Deputy Mayor and City Administrator Robert Bobb should be

given the opportunity to respond and to determine the best course of city action.

Deputy Mayor Bobb has assembled District agency directors and he has taken a

‘‘clear hands’’ on approach to lead the District government response. The District

Government is engaged at the highest levels.
323

Lead service lines are not unique to the District of Columbia. It is my understanding major cities such as New York City, Chicago, and Richmond have lead

service lines in their city systems. Just as in the District of Columbia, high lead

levels have been found in the water of suburban jurisdictions and schools in Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, everyone wants to have safe drinkable water for all who live, work

and visit the Nation’s Capitol. Unfortunately, no one is able to identify the source

of the lead. All our immediate efforts should be to find the cause and solve the problem before casting blame.
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. BELLINGER, PH.D., M.SC., FROM THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

BOSTON, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

LEAD (SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLE)

ABSTRACT

Children differ from adults in the relative importance of lead sources and pathways, lead metabolism, and the toxicities expressed. The central nervous system effects of lead on children seem not to be reversible. Periods of enhanced vulnerability

within childhood have not consistently been identified. The period of greatest vulnerability might be endpoint specific, perhaps accounting for the failure to identify

a coherent ‘‘behavioral signature’’ for lead toxicity. The bases for the substantial individual variability in vulnerability to lead are uncertain, although they might include genetic polymorphisms and contextual factors. The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guideline of 10 μg/dL is a risk management

tool and should not be interpreted as a threshold for toxicity. No threshold has been

identified, and some data are consistent with effects well below 10. Historically,

most studies have concentrated on neurocognitive effects of lead, but higher exposures have recently been associated with morbidities such as antisocial behavior and

delinquency. Studies of lead toxicity in experimental animal models are critical to

the interpretation of nonexperimental human studies, particularly in addressing the

likelihood that associations observed in the latter studies can be attributed to residual confounding. Animal models are also helpful in investigating the behavioral and

neurobiological mechanisms of the functional deficits observed in lead-exposed humans. Studies of adults who have been exposed to lead are of limited use in understanding childhood lead toxicity because developmental and acquired lead exposure

differ in terms of the maturity of the organs affected, the presumed mechanisms of

toxicity, and the forms in which toxicities are expressed.

Key Words: lead toxicity • children • toxicology • epidemiology

Abbreviations: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Although children are viewed as the most vulnerable segment of the population

with regard to lead poisoning, recognition of lead as an adult toxicant preceded by

thousands of years the first description of childhood lead poisoning.1 For millennia,

exposure to lead was primarily via occupation, but the introduction of leaded paint

for residential use in the 19th century brought large amounts of this metal within

easy reach of children.2 The later use of lead as a gasoline additive, begun in the

1920s and lasting into the 1990s in the United States,3 contributed further to the

contamination of environmental media with which children have intimate daily commerce, including air, dusts, and soils.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHILDREN AND ADULTS IN LEAD SOURCES, METABOLISM,

AND TOXICITIES

Children and adults differ somewhat in the relative importance of different lead

exposure sources and pathways, in aspects of lead metabolism, and in the specific

ways in which toxicities are expressed. To a greater extent than adults, young children normally explore their environment via hand-to-mouth activity, behaviors that

are likely to increase the lead intake of a child who lives in an environment with

hazards such as leaded paint in poor repair or elevated levels of lead in house dust

or yard soils.4, 5 The average fractional gastrointestinal absorption of lead is much

greater in infants and young children than in adults,6 and absorption is increased

in the presence of nutritional deficiencies that are more common in children than

in adults (eg, iron, calcium).7, 8

In both children and adults, lead toxicity can be expressed as derangements of

function in many or an systems. Although lead causes central nervous system abnormalities in adults,9, 10, 11 peripheral neuropathies tend to be more prominent. In

the developing nervous system, in contrast, central effects are more prominent than

peripheral effects.12 Moreover, peripheral nervous system effects in adults tend to

reverse after cessation of exposure,13, 14 whereas the central effects in children seem

not to do so,15, 16, 17, 18 perhaps because lead perturbs the complex processes by which

synaptic connections are selected and modified.19 Even pharmacotherapy, at least

succimer administered to young children who present with blood lead levels of 20

to 44 μg/dL, does not seem to reduce or reverse cognitive injury.20 An important exception to these generalizations is that neurobehavioral deficits associated with
345

modest elevations of prenatal lead levels, if ever present, seem largely to attenuate

by the time children reach school age.21

CRITICAL WINDOWS OF VULNERABILITY AND INTERINDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN

SUSCEPTIBILITY

It is difficult to identify discrete windows of enhanced developmental vulnerability

to lead exposure. The intraindividual stability of blood lead level over time is substantial, particularly in lead-rich environments such as the inner city or areas

around lead smelters, where many of the major epidemiologic studies have been conducted.22, 23 In addition, under many exposure scenarios, the half-life of lead in blood

is greater in children than in adults.5, 24 When blood lead levels do vary over time,

age at exposure and magnitude of exposure are often highly confounded, with blood

lead level peaking in the age range of 1 to 3 years.25 This is probably because this

period encompasses both the onset of independent ambulation and the time when

a child’s oral exploration of the environment is greatest. As a result, if a study were

to find that blood lead level measured at age 2 is most predictive of some critical

neurocognitive outcome at school age, then it would be difficult to ascertain whether

this reflects a special vulnerability of the central nervous system at age 2 or that

blood lead levels tend to be highest during this period. Some studies support the

former hypothesis,26 whereas others have found that school-age neurocognitive outcomes are most strongly related to recent or concurrent blood lead levels.22, 27 The

findings of yet other studies fail to provide evidence for the existence of any critical

periods of vulnerability.28

Another reason that it is difficult to identify a single critical period of heightened

vulnerability to lead toxicity is that there might be many such periods, depending

on the particular endpoint of interest. Using primate models, Rice 29, 30 demonstrated that the timing of developmental lead exposure affected the nature and

the severity of deficit on a variety of tasks (spatial discrimination reversal, nonspatial discrimination reversal, and a fixed-interval response operant task). In contrast,

performance on a spatial delayed alternation task was not affected by age at exposure.31 Morgan et al32 observed different expressions of attentional dysfunction in

rats depending on the timing of lead exposure. It seems eminently plausible that

this fundamental principle of toxicology applies to children as well, although the evidence is meager. This is likely to be attributable, in no small measure, to the absence in most human epidemiologic studies of sufficiently detailed exposure data

that capture, at least, features such as timing, duration, and dose. If the specific

effects of lead do differ according to exposure scenario, then this lacunae in exposure

data would account, at least in part, for the general lack of success in discerning

a coherent ‘‘behavioral signature’’ of lead exposure in children.33 This suggests, however, that we should not necessarily expect strict consistency across studies in the

patterns of neurocognitive impairment associated with lead.33, 34

An individual’s vulnerability to neurodevelopmental injury is also likely to vary

according to host characteristics that are, at present, largely unknown. Individuals

differ widely in the blood lead level at which signs of clinical intoxication appear,

with some individuals seeming well at a blood lead level that in others results in

encephalopathy or even death. Plots of ‘‘subclinical’’ blood lead level and endpoints

such as covariateadjusted IQ reveal tremendous scatter of observations around the

regression lines (eg,35), with low R2 values associated with the regressions, suggesting that children are variable in their responses to lower levels of exposure, as

well. An important implication is that children with the same blood lead level

should not be considered to be at equivalent developmental risk.

The potential sources of individual variability in lead-associated neurodevelopmental risk are legion, although none has been confirmed with even a modest degree of certainty. One type of explanation focuses on toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic

factors. It is assumed that blood lead level, the biomarker of internal dose that is

most often used, is a valid index of the biologically effective dose at the brain, the

critical target organ for neurotoxicity. The many intervening steps that link the internal dose and the response in the brain, however, provide many opportunities for

interindividual differences in sensitivity to arise.36 Certain genetic polymorphisms

involved in lead metabolism are thought to affect individual vulnerability, including

those for the vitamin D receptors11 and for lead-binding red blood cell proteins such

as amino levulinic acid dehydratase.37, 38 Supportive evidence is sparse, however.39

Gender differences have been reported in the immunotoxicity of gestational lead exposure in rats.40 In humans, gender differences in neurotoxicity have been reported,41, 42, 43, 44, 45 although in some studies, it is male individuals who seem to be

more vulnerable, whereas in others it is female individuals. Co-exposure to other

toxicants is another candidate explanation for individual differences in suscepti-
346

bility, although greater attention has been paid to the potential of co-exposures to

be confounders than to be effect modifiers. In a rodent model, the effect of lead on

mortality, spatial learning, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors differed depending on whether pups were exposed to lead alone or in combination with magnesium

and zinc.46 Finally, characteristics of a child’s rearing environment might influence

the toxicity of a given lead dose.47 Lead seems to be similar to other biological risks,

such as low birth weight, in that children from environments that offer fewer developmental resources and supports express deficits at a lower blood lead level than

do children from more optimal environments45, 48 and show less recovery after expo- sure.43

FUNCTIONAL FORM OF THE DOSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP: A THRESHOLD?

A threshold value below which lead has no apparent adverse developmental effect

has not been identified. The 1991 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

statement on childhood lead poisoning49 set 10 μg/dL as the screening action guideline. Although this blood lead level was intended to serve as a risk guidance and

management tool at the community level, it has been widely—and incorrectly—imbued with biological significance for the individual child. Indeed, it often seems to

be interpreted as a threshold, such that a level <10 μg/dL is viewed as ‘‘safe’’ and

a higher level as ‘‘toxic.’’ The truth is unlikely to be so simple, however. No single

number can be cited as a threshold, divorced from a context that specifies factors

such as the endpoint of interest, the age at exposure and at assessment, the duration of blood lead elevation, and characteristics of the child’s rearing environment.

Although few data were available at the time on putative effects below 10 μg/dL,

the 1991 CDC statement stated that adverse effects are likely to occur in this range

(p. 9). This should not be surprising given that even after 2 decades of steady decline in population blood lead levels,50 the mean still lies between 151 and 252 orders

of magnitude greater than estimates of natural background levels in humans. It

strains credulity to conclude that the threshold for neurotoxicity lies within the narrow and, in an evolutionary sense, still quite elevated range of present-day blood

lead levels. Data reported since the 1991 CDC statement support this position.

Among children in the Boston prospective study, for whom the mean blood lead level

at age 2 years was 7 μg/dL (90th percentile, 13 μg/dL), a significant inverse association was found between blood lead level and both IQ and academic achievement at

10 years of age.26 No point of inflection in this relationship was identified when nonparametric regression models were fitted, and the data were most consistent with

a linear (ie, nonthreshold) model extending to the lowest blood lead levels represented in the cohort (<1 μg/dL).53 In the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey sample, among 4,853 6- to 16-year-old children, current blood lead

was inversely associated with 4 measures of cognitive function, even when the sample was restricted to children with blood lead levels <5 μg/dL.54 Blood lead histories

of the children were not available, however, so it is possible that their levels had

been much higher at younger ages and that it was those levels that were responsible for the later performance deficits of the children with higher concurrent blood

lead levels. Moreover, measures of key potential confounders such as parent IQ and

home environment were not available, although strong confounding by these factors

within such a narrow range of blood lead levels is unlikely. These limitations were

addressed in the study of Canfield et al.55 In the subgroup of 101 children whose

blood lead levels were <10 μg/dL at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of age, significant covariate-adjusted associations were observed between blood lead level and

IQ at ages 3 and 5. Chiodo et al56 also reported significant inverse associations between neuropsychological function and blood lead levels <10 μg/dL. In the Canfield

et al55 study, moreover, the slope of the association was greater in the subgroup of

children whose peak blood lead was <10 μg/dL than it was in the complete study

sample that included children whose teak blood lead levels exceeded 10 μg/dL. Reanalyses of the Boston prospective study57 suggested the same pattern. Collectively,

these new studies provide compelling evidence that 10 μg/dL should not be viewed

as a threshold. The precise shape of the dose-effect relationship in the lower portion

of the exposure range remains uncertain, however. Although the data are consistent

with the slope being steeper below 10 μg/dL than above 10 μg/dL, a convincing

mechanism has not been proposed.

NONCOGNITIVE EFFECTS OF LEAD: BROADENING OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS BEYOND IQ

The neurocognitive effects of pediatric lead toxicity have garnered the greatest attention from both researchers and regulators, perhaps for reasons of ease of measurement by the former and ease of interpretation by the latter. Indeed, enough studies provide data on endpoints such as IQ to make meta-analyses feasible,21, 58, 59, 60
347

with all such efforts reaching similar conclusions, viz, that an IQ decline of 1 to 5

points is associated with a 10-μg/dL increase in blood lead (eg, from 10 to 20 μg/

dL). Many studies have identified distractibility, poor organizational skills, and hyperactivity as possible reasons for the reduced global cognitive function of more

highly exposed children.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

Recently, the range of outcomes examined in relation to childhood lead exposure

has been expanded, building on older reports of serious behavioral pathologies in

case series of children with subencephalopathic lead poisoning. In 1 of these early

reports, Byers and Lord67 noted that poor school progress among children who were

previously treated for lead poisoning was attributable not only to their cognitive

deficits but also to their aggression and explosive tempers. Within the past decade,

several studies have suggested that even ‘‘subclinical’’ lead exposure is a risk factor

for antisocial, delinquent behaviors. For example, a history of childhood lead poisoning was the strongest predictor of adult criminality among male individuals in

the Philadelphia subsample of the Collaborative Perinatal Project.68 Needleman et

a169 found that male adolescents with increased bone lead levels self-reported more

delinquent acts and were rated by both their parents and teachers as having scores

that exceeded clinical cutoffs on the Attention, Aggression, and Delinquent Behavior

scales of the Child Behavior Checklist. Furthermore, between ages 7 and 12, the behaviors of boys with higher bone lead levels deteriorated more than did the behaviors of boys with lower bone lead levels. Among adolescents in the Cincinnati Lead

Study, the frequencies of self-reported delinquent and antisocial behaviors were significantly associated with both prenatal and early postnatal blood lead levels.70 In

a case-control study, adjudicated delinquents had significantly higher bone lead levels than did community control youths and were 4 times more likely to have a bone

lead level at the 80th percentile of the distribution (approximately the detection

limit).71 Finally, in a set of historical analyses, Nevin72 reported striking, provocative concordances between temporal trends in the amount of lead used commercially

and in violent crime and unwed pregnancies. Although such ecologic analyses provide a weak basis for causal inference, they do suggest hypotheses that should be

evaluated in settings in which information is available on exposure, outcome, and

potential confounders at the individual rather than the community level. Much work

remains to be done to clarify the potential contributions of lead, as well as other

environmental pollutants, to child psychiatric morbidity.73, 74

UTILITY OF ANIMAL STUDIES

Because studies of children’s environmental lead exposure must necessarily be observational rather than experimental (apart from randomized clinical trials comparing alternative treatment modalities), much of the controversy surrounding their

interpretation has focused on the possibility that residual confounding, rather than

lead toxicity itself, explains the associations between higher body burdens and reduced function. Such discussions are difficult to conclude to everyone’s satisfaction

because there is no logical conclusion to the line of argument that posits a succession of unmeasured factors that might be responsible for creating such spurious associations. Moreover, errors in model specification can result in bias toward the null

hypothesis in the estimate of lead’s neurotoxicity, if statistical adjustments are

made for factors that are in the causal pathway between lead and poor outcome.

For this reason, animal behavioral models of lead toxicity, in which the possibility

of confounding (in either direction) is reduced by random assignment to exposure

groups and by active control of relevant (known) genetic and environmental factors,

are crucial elements of the total data base to which regulators can and should appeal in setting exposure standards. The inference that low-level lead exposure

causes human behavioral morbidity becomes more plausible when behavioral

changes are also observed after lead is administered to animals under experimental

conditions. Indeed, the striking similarities between the general pattern of behavioral abnormalities in lead-exposed animals and in ‘‘free range’’ lead-exposed children provides support, albeit indirect, for the inference that the relationships observed in humans are causal.33, 75

The converse is true, as well, in that sometimes the results of animal studies suggest that an association observed in humans might not reflect a causal influence.

For instance, analyses of the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey data set suggested that very modest elevations in current blood lead level,

well within the range of community exposures, were associated with increased hearing threshold in children.76, 77 Although some studies of animal models provide limited evidence of a modest effect at high blood lead levels,78 the results of a recent

study in 31 rhesus monkeys with blood lead levels of 35 to 40 μg/dL for the first

2 postnatal years cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion that low-level lead ex-
348

posure causes hearing deficits in children. In this study, no lead-associated effects

were detected on any level of auditory processing using tympanometry (middle ear

function), otoacoustic emissions (cochlear function), or auditory brainstem-evoked

potentials (auditory nerve, brainstem pathways).79 This might explain why recent

studies of 2 cohorts of Ecuadorian children with substantially elevated blood lead

levels (means of 40 and 52 μg/dL) failed to find a significant association between

blood lead level and hearing threshold.80, 81

One reason that animal models of lead toxicity are so useful in understanding

childhood lead toxicity is the deep level of analysis that they allow in the effort to

identify the behavioral mechanism(s) of functional deficit. The assessments included

in most human epidemiologic studies tend to be global or apical tests of cognition

and achievement rather than experimental, laboratory tests. One reason for this is

that exposure-associated decrements on such tests are more highly valued by risk

analysts and regulators as bases for exposure standards. Although poor performance

on global tests is often strongly predictive of adaptive difficulties in school or the

workplace,82 the mere fact of poor performance provides relatively little insight into

the reasons for it, i.e., about the underlying ‘‘behavioral lesion.’’ For example, in

many studies, higher lead levels are associated with reduced scores on a designcopying task. A child might perform poorly on such a task for many reasons, however, including poor visual-perceptual skills, poor fine motor control, metacognitive

or organizational deficits, poor impulse control, anxiety, or a depressed mood. In a

diagnostic clinical evaluation, the relative merits of these various hypotheses can be

explored using a test battery tailored to the child’s presentation and modified on the

basis of the tester’s observations as the evaluation proceeds. In a field epidemiologic

study, an investigator might have 1-time access to a child for perhaps 3 hours, needing to administer a fixed battery to all children to ensure comparability of the data

and the circumstances of its collection. Under such constraints, dissection of a behavioral deficit by means of a detailed process analysis is not feasible, and an exposure-associated decrement in performance on apical tests tends to be ‘‘explained,’’

inappropriately, in terms of a deficit in a complex construct such as ‘‘attention’’ or

‘‘memory.’’ Limited efforts to deconstruct such global constructs have been conducted

in lead-exposed children. Application of an assessment battery based on a neuropsychological model of attention83 revealed that elevated dentine lead levels were

associated with deficits in 2 of the 4 elements of attention in this model: the ability

to select a focus and carry out operations on it, and the ability to shift focus in a

flexible and adaptive manner.39 The continuous accessibility of experimental animals makes them an ideal resource for explicating the bases for the global deficits

observed in human subjects. They are literally a captive audience from whom cooperation and consent for repeated testing is not required and who do not need to

miss work or school to participate. Fine-grained process analyses of the behaviors

of lead-exposed primates, for instance, are consistent across, laboratories and with

the limited human data available,39 in identifying several specific aspects of the

global construct ‘‘attention’’ that are sensitive to lead: a tendency to be distracted

by irrelevant stimuli, to respond in a perseverative manner, an inability to inhibit

inappropriate responses, difficulty changing response strategies when reinforcement

contingencies shift, and difficulty abstracting general rules (i.e., ‘‘learning how to

learn’’).33 No substantial obstacles stand in the way of efforts to administer to children batteries that would allow similarly fine-grained dissection of behavior, and investigators are currently working toward this goal.84, 85

Animal models are also better suited than human studies to the task of testing

limits to evaluate the effects of lead on the ability to weather ‘‘periods of behavioral

transition,’’ 86 as well as to identify factors that exacerbate or reduce lead toxicity

(ie, effect modification). In the laboratory, one can ‘‘program’’ life histories to explore

the impact of different factors on the severity and nature of lead-associated deficits

and to see whether the point at which and the way in which an animal’s behavior

breaks down over time or under stress are affected by previous lead exposure. Animal models can also be helpful in probing the nature and bases of individual differences in sensitivity to lead toxicity.29

Animal models are of relatively little help, however, in evaluating lead’s effects

on the ability to manipulate symbolic or abstract systems, such as reading or mathematics, that have no compelling nonhuman analogues. In addition, studies of lead’s

effects on behavioral systems that tend to be species specific (eg, communication, affect, reproduction, social behaviors) are less relevant to understanding childhood

lead toxicity than are nonhuman models of systems with strong cross-species parallels in the morphology of behavior, such as problem solving and learning.87
349

UTILITY OF ADULT STUDIES

Studies conducted on adults are likely to be of limited relevance in understanding

lead toxicity in children, particularly with regard to nervous system effects. This

organ continues to undergo substantial changes well into the second decade of postnatal life, involving the establishment of hemispheric dominance, the completion of

myelination (particularly in the frontal lobes), synaptic pruning, and synaptic reorganization. As a result, the impact of an acquired brain lesion in an adult can differ

dramatically from the impact of a similar lesion incurred during development.88

Even in the absence of an insult, the brain-behavior relationships underlying complex cognitive processes can differ substantially between adults and children. For

example, lesions that spare language in proficient speakers can impair language acquisition, suggesting that the neural substrate for language processing is not as

highly localized in children as in adults.89 A functional magnetic resonance imaging

study of performance on a verbal fluency task identified the expected regions of activation in both children and adults (left inferior frontal cortex, left middle frontal

gyrus) but more widespread cortical activation among children than in adults, particularly in the right hemisphere (right inferior frontal gyrus).90 This seems not to

be attributable simply to age-related differences in competence but to age-related

differences in functional neuroanatomy. In another functional magnetic resonance

imaging study, comparing visual lexical processing in adults and 7- to 10-year-olds,

different patterns of activation were found in children and adults, even when the

2 age groups were matched in terms of accuracy on the task.91 This suggests that,

to some extent, the specific regions of the brain enlisted to solve a particular problem change with age. Thus, it seems that the adult and the developing child differ

in so many critical respects that few lessons about pediatric lead neurotoxicity can

be gleaned from studying adult lead neurotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

Conceptually, excessive lead exposure in children poses a relatively simple problem. We know where the most important hazards are in the environments of young

children, the major pathways of exposure, the range of effects (to a level of detail

far greater than for any other environmental pollutant), and at least the general

features of the dose-effect relationships for the most intensively studied endpoints.

Studies continue to describe apparent effects that were previously unknown, as well

as show that known effects can be detected at lower and lower levels of exposure.

Fortunately, even as these advances in knowledge were being achieved, children’s

exposures to lead were in dramatic decline, with the mean blood lead level now

barely >2 μg/dL.92 Although much is known about the effects of lead on brain chemistry and physiology, we nevertheless lack a unifying model of the mechanisms of

lead neurotoxicity. It is not obvious, however, that additional evidence on the health

effects of lead or the mechanisms of its protean toxicities is needed to motivate public health interventions to reduce children’s lead exposure. In terms of housing and

community interventions, apart from the obvious immediate and long-term benefits

of complete residential lead abatement, if conducted properly, as a way to reduce

childhood exposures, we know relatively little about other environmental, nutritional, or social interventions that are effective (including cost-effective). Given the

apparent absence of commitment at a societal level to eradicate this entirely preventable childhood disease even in the face of economic analysis that demonstrates

it to be cost-effective,93 it seems that the answer to the question posed 10 years ago,

‘‘Lead toxicity in the 21st century: will we still be treating it?’’ 94 is, sadly, ‘‘Yes.’’

FOOTNOTES

Received for publication Oct. 7, 2003; accepted Oct. 20, 2003.

Reprint requests to (D.C.B.) Children’s Hospital, Farley Basement Box 127, 300

Longwood Ave, Boston MA 02115. E-mail: david.bellinger@childrens.harvard.edu.

REFERENCES

1. Gibson JL, Love W, Hardine D, Bancroft P, Turner AJ. Note on lead poisoning

as observed among children in Brisbane. In: Huxtable LR, ed. Transactions of the

Third Intercolonial Medical Congress of Australasia. Sydney, Australia: Charles Potter; 1982:76–83.

2. Markowitz G, Rosner D. ‘‘Cater to the children’’: The role of the lead industry

in a public health tragedy, 1900–1955. Am J Public Health. 2000; 90:36–46 [Abstract/Free Full Text].
350

3. Rosner D, Markowitz G. A ‘‘gift of God’’? The public health controversy over

leaded gasoline during the 1920s. Am J Public Health. 1985; 75:344–352

[ISI][Medline].

4. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ, James RC, Roberts SM. Soil ingestion: a concern for

acute toxicity in children. Environ Health Perspect. 1997; 105:1354–1358

[ISI][Medline].

5. Manton WI, Angle CR, Stanek KL, Reese YR, Kuehnemann TJ. Acquisition and

retention of lead by young children. Environ Res. 2000; 82:60–80 [ISI][Medline].

6. Ziegler EE, Edwards BB, Jensen RL, Mahaffey KR, Fomon SJ. Absorption and

retention of lead by infants. Pediatr Res. 1978; 12:29–34 [ISI][Medline].

7. Wright RO, Shannon MW, Wright RJ, Hu H. Association between iron deficiency and low-level lead poisoning in an urban primary care clinic. Am J Public

Health. 1999; 89:1049–1053 [Abstract].

8. Bradman A, Eskenazi B, Sutton P, Athanasoulis M, Goldman LR. Iron deficiency associated with higher blood lead in children living in contaminated environments. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109:1079–1084 [ISI][Medline].

9. Stollery BT. Reaction time changes in workers exposed to lead. Neurotoxicol

Teratol. 1996; 18:477–483 [ISI][Medline].

10. Muldoon SB, Cauley JA, Kuller LH, et al. Effects of blood lead levels on cognitive function of older women. Neuroepidemiology. 1996; 15:62–72 [ISI][Medline].

11. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Bolla KI, et al. Past adult lead exposure is associated with longitudinal decline in cognitive function. Neurology. 2000; 55:1144–1150

[Abstract/Free Full Text].

12. National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in Infants, Children,

and Other Sensitive Populations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1993.

13. Baker EL, White RF, Pothier LJ, et al. Occupational lead neurotoxicity: improvement in behavioral effects after reduction of exposure. Br J Ind Med. 1985;

42:507–516 [ISI][Medline].

14. Yokoyama K, Araki S, Aono H. Reversibility of psychological performance in

subclinical lead absorption. Neurotoxicology. 1988; 9:405–410 [ISI][Medline].

15. Needleman HL, Schell A, Bellinger D, Leviton A, Allred E. The long-term effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood: an 11-year follow-up report. N

Engl J Med. 1990; 322:83–88 [Abstract].

16. White RF, Diamond R, Proctor S, Morey C, Hu H. Residual cognitive deficits

50 years after lead poisoning during childhood. Br J Ind Med. 1993; 50:613–622

[ISI][Medline].

17. Tong S, Baghurst PA, Sawyer MG, Bums J, McMichael AJ. Declining blood

lead levels and changes in cognitive functioning during childhood: the Port Pirie Cohort Study. JAMA. 1998; 280:1915–1919 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

18. Stokes L, Letz R, Gerr F, et al. Neurotoxicity in young adults 20 years after

childhood exposure to lead: The Bunker Hill experience. Occup Environ Med. 1998;

55:507–516 [Abstract].

19. Johnston MV, Goldstein GW. Selective vulnerability of the developing brain

to lead. Curr Opin Neurol. 1998; 11:689–693 [ISI][Medline].

20. Rogan WJ, Dietrich KN, Ware JH, et al. The effect of chelation therapy with

succimer on neuropsychological development in children exposed to lead. N Engl J

Med. 2001; 344:1421–1426 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

21. Pocock S, Smith M, Baghurst PA. Environmental lead and children’s intelligence: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. BMJ. 1994; 309:1189–

1197 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

22. Dietrich KN, Berger O, Succop P. Lead exposure and the motor developmental

status of urban 6-year-old children in the Cincinnati Prospective Study. Pediatrics.

1993; 91:301–307 [Abstract].

23. McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA, Robertson EF, Vimpani GV, Wigg NR. The Port

Pirie cohort study: blood lead concentrations in early childhood. Med J Aust. 1985;

143:499–503 [ISI][Medline].

24. Succop PA, O’Flaherty EJ, Bomschein RL, et al. A kinetic model for estimating changes in the concentration of lead in the blood of young children. In:

Lindberg SE, Hutchinson TC, eds. International Conference on Heavy Metals in the

Environment. Vol 2. Edinburgh: CEP Consultants, Ltd; 1987:289–291.

25. Brody DJ, Pirkle JL, Kramer RA, et al. Blood lead levels in the U.S. population. Phase 1 of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES III, 1988 to 1991). JAMA. 1994; 272:277–283 [Abstract].

26. Bellinger DC, Stiles KM, Needleman HL. Low-level lead exposure, intelligence

and academic achievement: a long-term follow-up study. Pediatrics. 1992; 90:855–

861 [Abstract].
351

27. Tong S, Baghurst P, McMichael A, Sawyer M, Mudge J. Lifetime exposure to

environmental lead and children’s intelligence at 11–13 years: the Port Pirie cohort

study. BMJ. 1996; 312:1569–1575 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

28. Wasserman GA, Liu X, Popovac D, et al. The Yugoslavia Prospective Lead

Study: contributions of prenatal and postnatal lead exposure to early intelligence.

Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000; 22:811–818 [ISI][Medline].

29. Rice DC. Lead-induced behavioral impairment on a spatial discrimination reversal task in monkeys exposed during different periods of development. Toxicol

Appl Phannacol. 1990; 106:327–333 [ISI][Medline].

30. Rice D. Lead exposure during different developmental periods produces different effects on FI performance in monkeys tested as juveniles and adults.

Neurotoxicology. 1992; 13:757–770 [ISI][Medline].

31. Rice DC, Gilbert SG. Sensitive periods for lead-induced behavioral impairment

(nonspatial discrimination reversal) in monkeys. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1990;

102:101–109 [ISI][Medline].

32. Morgan RE, Garavan H, Smith EG, Driscoll LL, Levitsky DA, Strupp BJ.

Early lead exposure produces lasting changes in sustained attention, response initiation, and reactivity to errors. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2001; 23:519–531 [ISI][Medline].

33. Bellinger D. Interpreting the literature on lead and child development: the neglected role of the ‘‘experimental system.’’ Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995; 17:201–212

[ISI][Medline].

34. Rice D. Behavioral effects of lead: commonalities between experimental and

epidemiologic data. Environ Health Perspect. 1996; 104(suppl 2):337–351 [Medline].

35. Wasserman GA, Liu X, Lolacono NJ, et al. Lead exposure and intelligence in

7-year-old children: the Yugoslavia Prospective Study. Environ Health Perspect.

1997; 105:956–962 [ISI][Medline].

36. Links JM, Schwartz BS, Simon D, Bandeen-Roche K, Stewart WF. Characterization of toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics with linear systems theory: application

to lead-associated cognitive decline. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109:361–368

[ISI][Medline].

37. Smith C, Wang X, Hu H, Kelsey K. A polymorphism in the deltaaminolevulinic acid dehydratase gene may modify the pharmacokinetics and toxicity

of lead. Environ Health Perspect. 1995; 103:248–253 [ISI][Medline].

38. Schwartz BS, Lee BK, Lee GS, et al. Associations of blood lead,

dimercaptosuccinic acid-chelatable lead, and tibia lead with polymorphisms in the

vitamin D receptor and delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase gene. Environ Health

Perspect. 2000; 108:949–954.

39. Bellinger D, Hu H, Titlebaum L, Needleman HL. Attentional correlates of

dentin and bone lead levels in adolescents. Arch Environ Health. 1994; 49:98–105

[ISI][Medline].

40. Bunn TL, Parsons PJ, Kao E, Dietert RR. Exposure to lead during critical

windows of embryonic development: differential immunotoxic outcome based on

stage of exposure and gender. Toxicol Sci. 2001; 64:57–66 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

41. Dietrich KN, Krafft KM, Bornschein RL, et al. Low-level fetal lead exposure

effect on neurobehavioral development in early infancy. Pediatrics. 1987; 80:721–730

[Abstract].

42. Pocock S, Ashby D, Smith MA. Lead exposure and children’s intellectual performance. Int J Epidemiol. 1987; 16:57–76 [Abstract].

43. Bellinger D, Leviton A, Sloman J. Antecedents and correlates of improved cognitive performance in children exposed in utero to low levels of lead. Environ Health

Perspect. 1990; 89:5–11 [ISI][Medline].

44. McMichael AJ, Baghurst P, Vimpani G, Robertson E, Wiig N, Tong S-L.

Sociodemographic factors modifying the effect of environmental lead on neuropsychological development in early childhood. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1992; 14:321–

327 [ISI][Medline].

45. Tong S, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA. Interactions between environmental lead

exposure and sociodemographic factors on cognitive development. Arch Environ

Health. 2000; 55:330–335 [ISI][Medline].

46. Newman HM, Yang RSH, Magnusson KR. Effects of developmental exposure

to lead, magnesium and zinc mixtures on spatial learning and expression of NMDA

receptor subunit mRNA in Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol Lett. 2002; 126:107–119

[ISI][Medline].

47. Bellinger D. Effect modification in epidemiological studies of low-level

neurotoxicant exposures and adverse health outcomes. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000;

22:133–140 [ISI][Medline].

48. Bellinger DC, Leviton A, Waternaux C, Needleman HL, Rabinowitz M. Lowlevel lead exposure, social class, and infant development. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1988;

10:497–503 [ISI][Medline].
352

49. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. Atlanta, GA: U.S. CDC; 1991.

50. Pirkle JL, Brody DJ, Gunter EW, et al. The decline in blood lead levels in

the United States. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES). JAMA. 1994; 272:284–291 [Abstract].

51. Mushak P. New directions in the toxicokinetics of human lead exposure.

Neurotoxicology. 1993; 14:29–42.

52. Flegal AR, Smith DR. Lead levels in preindustrial humans. N Engl J Med.

1992; 326:1293–1294 [ISI][Medline].

53. Schwartz J. Low-level lead exposure and children’s IQ: a meta-analysis and

search for a threshold. Environ Res. 1994; 65:42–55 [ISI][Medline].

54. Lanphear BP, Dietrich K, Auinger P, Cox C. Cognitive deficits associated with

blood lead concentrations <10 μg/dL in U.S. children and adolescents. Public Health

Rep. 2000; 115:521–529 [ISI][Medline].

55. Canfield RC, Henderson CR, Cory-Slechta DA, Cox C, Jusko TA, Lanphear

BP. Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead concentrations below 10 μg

per deciliter. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:1517–1526 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

56. Chiodo LM., Jacobson SW, Jacobson JL. Neurodevelopmental effects of postnatal lead exposure at very low levels. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2004, in press.

57. Bellinger DC, Needleman HL. Intellectual impairment and blood lead levels.

N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:500 [Free Full Text].

58. Needleman HL, Gatsonis C. Low-level lead exposure and the IQ of children.

JAMA. 1990; 263:673–678 [Abstract].

59. Schwartz J. Beyond LOEL’s, p values, and vote counting: methods for looking

at the shapes and strengths of associations. Neurotoxicology. 1993; 14:237–246

[ISI][Medline].

60. World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Criteria 165. Inorganic Lead. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Health Organization; 1995.

61. Needleman HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A, et al. Deficits in psychologic and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine lead levels. N Engl J Med.

1979; 300:689–695 [Abstract].

62. Yule W, Urbanowicz M-A, Lansdown R, Millar I. Teachers’ ratings of children’s behaviour in relation to blood lead levels. Br J Dev Psychol. 1984; 2:295–305

[ISI].

63. Thomson GO, Raab GM, Hepburn WS, Hunter R, Fulton M, Laxen DP.

Bloodlead levels and children’s behaviour—results from the Edinburgh lead study.

J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1989; 30:515–528 [ISI][Medline].

64. Bellinger D, Leviton A, Allred E, Rabinowitz M. Pre- and postnatal lead exposure and behavior problems in school-aged children. Environ Res. 1994; 66:12–30

[ISI][Medline].

65. Wasserman G, Staghezza-Jaramillo B, Shrout P, Popovac D, Graziano J. The

effect of lead exposure on behavior problems in preschool children. Am J Public

Health. 1998; 88:481–486 [Abstract].

66. Burns J, Baghurst P, Sawyer M, McMichael A, Tong S. Lifetime low-level exposure to environmental lead and children’s emotional and behavioral development

at ages 11–13 years: the Port Pirie Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 149:740–

749 [Abstract].

67. Byers RK, Lord EE. Late effects of lead poisoning on mental development. Am

J Dis Child. 1943; 66:471–494.

68. Denno DW. Biology and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press;

1990.

69. Needleman HL, Riess JA, Tobin MJ, Biesecker GE, Greenhouse JB. Bone lead

levels and delinquent behavior. JAMA. 1996; 275:363–369 [Abstract].

70. Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Succop PA, Berger OG, Bornschein RL. Early exposure

to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2001; 23:511–518

[ISI][Medline].

71. Needleman HL, McFarland C, Ness RB, Fineberg SE, Tobin MJ. Bone lead

levels in adjudicated delinquents: a case-control study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002;

24:711–717 [ISI][Medline].

72. Nevin R. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime,

and unwed pregnancy. Environ Res. 2000; 83:1–22 [ISI][Medline].

73. Rice DC. Parallels between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and behavioral deficits produced by neurotoxic exposure in monkeys. Environ Health Perspect.

2000; 108(suppl 3):405–408 [Medline].

74. Bellinger DC. Future directions for neurobehavioral studies of environmental

neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicology. 2001; 22:645–656 [FISI][Medline].
353

75. Davis JM, Otto DA, Weil DE, Grant LD. The comparative developmental

neurotoxicity of lead in humans and animals. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1990; 12:215–229

[ISI][Medline].

76. Schwartz J, Otto D. Blood lead, hearing thresholds, and neurobehavioral development in children and youth. Arch Environ Health. 1987; 42:153–160

[ISI][Medline].

77. Schwartz J, Otto D. Lead and minor hearing impairment. Arch Environ

Health. 1991; 46:300–305 [ISI][Medline].

78. Rice DC. Effects of lifetime lead exposure in monkeys on detection of pure

tones. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997; 36:112–118 [ISI][Medline].

79. Lasky RE, Luck ML, Torre P, Laughlin N. The effects of early lead exposure

on auditory function in rhesus monkeys. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2001; 23:639–649

[ISI][Medline].

80. Counter AS, Vahter M, Laurell G, Buchanan LH, Ortega F, Skerfving S. High

lead exposure and auditory sensory-neural function in Andean children. Environ

Health Perspect. 1997; 105:522–526 [ISI][Medline].

81. Buchanan LH, Counter AS, Ortega F, Laurell G. Distortion product oto-acoustic emissions in Andean children and adults with chronic lead intoxication. Acta

Otolaryngol. 1999; 119:652–658 [ISI][Medline].

82. Neisser U, Boodoo H, Bouchard TJ, et al. Intelligence: knowns and unknowns.

Am Psychol. 1995; 51:77–101 [ISI].

83. Mirsky A, Anthony B, Duncan C, Ahearn M, Kellam S. Analysis of the elements of attention: a neuropsychological approach. Neuropsychol Rev. 1990; 2:109–

145.

84. Paule MG, Chelonis JJ, Buffalo EA, Blake DJ, Casey PH. Operant test battery

performance in children: correlation with IQ. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1999; 21:223–230

[ISI][Medline].

85. Chelonis JJ, Daniels-Shaw JL, Blake DJ, Paule MG. Developmental aspects

of delayed matching-to-sample task performance in children. Neurotoxicol Teratol.

2000; 22:683–694 [ISI][Medline].

86. Cory-Slechta DA. Exposure duration modifies the effects of low level lead on

fixed-interval performance. Neurotoxicology. 1990; 11:427–442 [ISI][Medline].

87. Paule MG, Adams J. Interspecies comparison of the evaluation of cognitive developmental effects of neurotoxicants in primates. In: Chang LW, ed. Principles of

Neurotoxicology. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1994:713–731.

88. Bellinger DC. Perspectives on incorporating human neurobehavioral endpoints

in risk assessments. Risk Anal. 2002; 22:487–498 [ISI][Medline].

89. Stiles J. Neural plasticity and cognitive development. Dev Neuropsychol. 2000;

18:237–272 [ISI][Medline].

90. Gaillard WD, Hertz-Pannier L, Mott SH, Barnett AS, LeBihan D, Theodore

WH. Functional anatomy of cognitive development. fMRI of verbal fluency in children and adults. Neurology. 2000; 54:180–185 [Abstract/Free Full Text].

91. Schlagger BL, Brown TT, Lugar HM, Visscher KM, Miezin FM, Petersen SE.

Functional neuroanatomical differences between adults and school-age children in

the processing of simple words. Science. 2002; 296:1476–1479 [Abstract/Free Full

Text].

92. Stephenson J. CDC report on environmental toxins: some progress, some concerns. JAMA. 2003; 289:1230–1233 [Free Full Text].

93. Grosse SD, Matte TD, Schwartz J, Jackson RJ. Economic gains resulting from

the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the United States. Environ Health

Perspect. 2002; 110:563–569 [ISI][Medline].

94. Needleman HL, Jackson RJ. Lead toxicity in the 21st century: will we still

be treating it? Pediatrics. 1992; 89:678–680 [ISI][Medline].

STATEMENT OF MIKE KEEGAN, POLICY ANALYST, NATIONAL RURAL

WATER ASSOCIATION

THE SOLUTION TO LEAD IN THE WATER IS MORE LOCAL CONTROL

Mr. Chairman, if you relied on the newspapers, television accounts, or commentary from the national environmental groups to understand the situation with

lead in the District’s drinking water supply, you would only be hearing one perspective. From these sources, you have heard that the only way to solve the lead problem is by removing local authority and transferring it to the Federal Government.

This is one solution, however, it is not the only policy that Congress should consider—and by no means, does it have any greater rate of success in solving local

problems.
354

The lead crisis now shrouding the District is a product of a 30-year effort to build

a dysfunctional Federal environmental system whose key principal is the antithesis

of Home Rule; to take authority away from the local citizens and transfer it to Federal bureaucracies and the interest groups who control them.

The National Rural Water Association has over 23,000 small and rural community members who supply drinking water or wastewater to their communities. These

communities are governed by locally-elected officials; they don’t make profits and

their families drink the water they supply. Therefore, unlike commercial enterprise,

there is no incentive nor any reason to supply anything but the safest water possible. The Safe Drinking Water Act, in many instances, directs EPA to override the

desired local health policy of these communities—and forces them to pay for EPA’s

decision. They all have to comply with the EPA Lead and Copper Rule just like the

District of Columbia (DC) and the Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). We urge you

to not let this incident be the predicate for removing more of our local authority to

determine local policies to the Federal level.

WHY THE CURRENT LAW IS UNWORKABLE

The country’s water protection program (Safe Drinking Water Act) relies on a uniform regulatory compliance program—at the expense of the judgment of locally

elected officials—that is too complex and arbitrary to handle local individual problems. This program was guaranteed to fail because (1) it can’t possibly manage future local crises that were not dreamed of when it was designed and published in

the Federal Register, and (2) it doesn’t consider the unintended consequences of its

mandates—it operates in a vacuum of reality, and (3) it can’t balance competing

local priorities. These three flaws appear to have contributed to the current situation in the District. Now when there is a crisis that needs civic leadership—no one

is responsible; and the Federal Register isn’t talking.

WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE DISTRICT?

Local judgment was overridden by the Federal regulatory system, which was too

arbitrary and inflexible to deal with the situation.

One theory, is the EPA Rule to reduce byproducts from disinfection steered the

WASA to a new disinfection regiment that caused a change in the water chemistry

that resulted in corrosion and increased lead concentrations. The relationship between the correlation rules is not adequately considered when applied in the real

world because EPA, in a vacuum, implements them. Additionally, the law prohibits

the District from balancing the competing objectives of the two rules.

Another theory, a mechanical action disrupted homeowners’ plumbing enough to

cause a temporary spike in lead samples. If this were the case, the regulations contain a solution (and public notification protocol) based on the long-term problem including corrosion control and replacing some lead service lines which would not fit

if this theory were correct.

The Act and the regulations don’t fit in the either case. If the cause is something

else, why are we mandating particular solutions for problems we don’t understand?

These necessary balancing judgments are beyond the capability of static regulations and beyond the abilities of regulators charged only with the enforcement of

the specific regulations. Regulators can only regulate the letter of the law, they can’t

think beyond compliance—which is critical in determining public health policy. It

is essential to realize that meeting regulations is not synonymous with public health

protection. In the District example, it is likely that WASA and EPA would have

looked at the situation differently. EPA was forced to focus on enforcement, regardless of unintended consequences. On the other hand, if WASA retained authority,

it would have had the discretion to be more concerned with the overall public health

implications and the ability to be more cautious in changing water treatment regimes. It is only elected policy makers with the authority to look at public policy

in a holistic manner that can balance public health risks.

Once the lead levels started to increase, WASA and EPA probably knew that the

higher lead levels were not as alarming as the environmental community and media

would claim because of the conservative nature of the standards, and that this may

be a temporary problem which the Federal public notification requirements would

not convey. In all of WASA’s actions, it appears that after months off the situation,

which EPA was aware of reportedly, WASA only violated the public notification elements of the regulations, not any water quality criteria. Just how sacrosanct is the

exact application of Federal regulations?
355

1 In the past, the City of Columbus made certain changes to the method it uses to treat drinking water. Inadvertently, the treatment change caused an increase in the level of lead in the

drinking water. . . . Through this Agreement, the U.S. EPA would suspend the lead service

lines sampling and replacement provisions for up to three years beginning if and when the City

exceeds the lead limit . . .’’ Federal Register: July 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 145) [Page

46166–46167]. 2 In a March report, EPA did not find that arsenic concentrations above their standard necessarily present an ‘‘unreasonable risk to health.’’ [USEPA, Exemptions & the Arsenic Rule,

March 2002, p. 11, #7]. Instead of identifying the levels of arsenic that are ‘‘protective of the

public’’ [42USC300g–1(b)(15)(B)l or don’t present ‘‘an unreasonable risk to health’’ [42USC300g–

5(a)(3)] as named in the Safe Drinking Water Act and that the Agency was requested to name

by several Congressmen, EPA creatively chose to identify what these levels are not. ‘‘EPA is

. . . determining what does not pose an unreasonable risk to health with respect to arsenic,

rather than address the much more complex issue of what does constitute an unreasonable risk

to health.’’ [USEPA, Exemptions & the Arsenic Rule, March 2002, p. 11, #7]. 3 Blood Lead Levels in Residents of Homes with Elevated Lead in Tap Water—DC, 2004,

March 30, 2004 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).

• EPA allowed Columbus, Ohio out of some of the compliance details of the lead

rule that was not provided to WASA. EPA’s ruling in Columbus1 shows that they

think some higher lead levels in water are not a health risk. They allowed Columbus a safe harbor if they had higher levels. Why was Columbus (allowed this special

exemption) and not DC? And more importantly, how much higher than the Federal

standards can you go before there is a health risk? This common sense question is

one that EPA can’t answer.2

• Considering the extreme valves in DC’s water that exceeded EPA’s action level

by a factor of over 20, numerous homes tested over the lead action level, all the

media uproar over this issue, and the alarm it has fomented in the public, would

you ever think the CDC would have said the following just last week: ‘‘. . . although

lead in tap water contributed to a small increase in BLLs in DC, no children were

identified with BLLs >10 μg/dL, even in homes with the highest water lead levels.’’ 3

Does this finding by CDC seem consistent with the level of alarm being portrayed

to the public?

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION (VIOLATIONS VS. PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS)

The public notification process is another area in the Safe Drinking Water Act

that is flawed. Since the relationship between ‘‘violation’’ and public health risk

must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory public notice requirements

for all violations can be used to mislead the public. Some violations are worse than

others and it is the health impact and degree of malice that needs to be conveyed

to the public more than the simple fact that there was a violation. The current Federal standard for lead in drinking water is 15 parts per billion (ppb) [based on a

percentage of homes tested]. Does that mean that 14.5 ppb is safe and 15.5 ppb is

comparably unsafe? It certainly does not. However, this is how the issue is presented to the public. The news reports of the situation commonly report that water

with lead levels above 15 ppb is ‘‘contaminated’’ and, inferentially, anything below

as not contaminated. Safe, clean, polluted, and contaminated are all characterizations and can be misleading and inflammatory. There is no bright line of concentrations in the parts per billion when lead levels become safe or unsafe. The actual

health effects are uncertain and are dependent on the amount of water consumed,

age of the person, amount of time exposed and other variables. This is why more

public information is better—not just the alarming news. In this instance, the public

should have known all along the levels of lead in every test and the balancing that

was going on in the water chemistry. This constant public discussion and disclosure

would lessen the ability of the media or interest groups to create an appearance of

a cover up when there was none.

The public needs to understand that removing all lead from the water supply is

technologically impossible and not necessary to protect the public. So the civic policy

has dealt with how much lead we can live with and what is the most economical

way to get it to acceptable levels. This can be different for separate communities,

with unique circumstances, economies, natural environments, demographics, extraordinary local considerations, etc. For example, a community with lead at 16 ppb

in their water and numerous public housing units with lead paint should not be

forced into the same compliance measures as community with 300 ppb of lead in

the water and no houses with lead paint.

THE SOLUTION CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER

Ask yourself who cares more about the health of the children in the District (and

is more responsive to those families), the local mayors or an EPA regional employee
356

in Philadelphia? If the mayors, or the regional governments of WASA, had the authority over managing the health policy underlying the water supply—we would

likely not be in the situation we are in now because they are elected for the exact

reason of managing issues that have many variables and impacts. Mayors can manage the balancing of local priorities in a way that regulatory enforcers cannot. Now

you are being asked to give more authority to EPA at the expense of the local mayors.

Congress or EPA can expand the regulatory program and require more Federal

uniform mandates on locals in response to the District experience. This has been

the history of national drinking water legislation. However, this will not solve the

problem of drinking water protection because the Federal Government cannot possibly design a program that foresees the infinite challenges that local communities

face in providing safe water. The problem with the Safe Drinking Water Act is that

improving drinking water in small communities is more of a RESOURCE problem

than a REGULATORY problem.

The best way to avoid threats is to have the most educated and responsible local

officials overseeing the water supply. We urge you to consider this alternative perspective of local governments and their citizens. The key to finding the best public

health policy to tackle the lead issue is for it to be derived and supported by the

people that benefit from a safe drinking water and have to pay for the service. If

the locals don’t like the results, they can elect a new government.

THE ROLE OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN LOCAL ISSUES

Why do the environmental groups support a Federal control program? The answer

is because they can control it better. Most of their polices would not be accepted

at the local level (by the people) if there was an open public health debate. Therefore, the groups have made an expertise at getting national legislation enacted that

they can exploit through lawsuits as well as intimidating bureaucrats into publishing over-zealous regulations.

Many interest groups petition this committee to authorize more and more, everstringent Federal unfunded mandates on small communities with the intention of

improving public health on the community’s behalf. Unfortunately, this does not

work and things are not that simple. The key to long-term improvement is local support, local education and available resources. We continually ask for the list of the

communities that need to improve their drinking water and are not willing to take

the steps to do it. Such a list does not exist. We encourage organizations that advocate increasing unfunded mandates on communities to take their case directly to the

local community. If they can get the community’s support, then we would back any

new standard or policy. The problem has been that communities do not support

most of these policies at the local level because they waste limited resources on nonpriority projects.

A CURRENT EXAMPLE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE SDWA

It appears that the Stage I rule was the rule that caused WASA to change their

treatment to chloramines and resulted in the increase in lead concentrations in the

drinking water. The National Rural Water Association is urging EPA to rethink finalizing the Stage 2 Disinfection and Disinfection By-Products (Stage 2) and Long

Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (LT2) Proposed Rules in light of the

recent chloramines study released by the EPA Office of Research and Development.

The study concluded that alternatives to drinking water chlorination, such as

chloramines, may produce ‘‘increased concentrations’’ of some byproducts.

We are concerned that this rule may result in unintended consequences including

exposure to the public of ‘‘certain dihalogenated disinfection by-products and iodotrihalomethanes.’’

We are particularly concerned by the report’s following finding:

‘‘Important observations included finding the highest levels of iodotrihalomethanes (THMs) at a plant that used chloramination without prechlorination . . . Another important observation involved finding the highest

concentration of dichloroacetaldehyde at a plant that used chloramine and

ozone disinfection. Therefore, although the use of alternative disinfectants minimized the formation of the four regulated THMs, certain dihalogenated DBPs

and iodo-THMs were formed at significantly higher levels than in waters treated with chlorine. Thus, the formation and control of the four regulated THMs

is not necessarily an indicator of the formation and control of other halogenated

DBPs, and the use of alternative disinfectants does not necessarily control the

formation of all halogenated DBPs, and can even result in increased concentra-
357

tions of some. Moreover, many of these halogenated DBPs—including certain

dihalogenated and brominated species—were not studied in the ICR. ’’

The proposed rules will likely require a significant number of water supplies to

switch from their current disinfection process to chloramines which, according to the

EPA’s recent findings, may have unknown public health risks and may be more

harmful than chlorine.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. MAAS AND STEVE C. PATCH, UNC, ASHEVILLE

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INSTITUTE

UPDATE ON RESEARCH REGULATIONS AND PROPOSITION 65 LITIGATIONS RELATED TO

LEAD DISCHARGE FROM BRASS WATER SERVICE PARTS AND METERS

HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO LOW LEVEL LEAD EXPOSURE: A CONTINUING

ENLIGHTENMENT

• Between 1987 and 1991, Needleman, McMichael and others first discovered

that infants and young children even with very low blood lead levels (BLLs) exhibited IQ deficits.

• Infants born with BLLs below 3 μg/dL scored higher on cognitive development

Index tests at age 2 than infants born with BLLs of 6–7 μg/dL or 10–12 μg/dL.

• Nine-year-olds with moderately elevated BLLs (10 μg/dL) were found to have

higher drop-out rates, behavior problems and criminal behavior at age 19 than 9-

years olds with BLLs below 5 μg/dL.

• Numerous recent studies have found that low level lead exposure not only

causes IQ reductions but also causes increases in learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder and aggressive behavior.

• Most recently Dr. Bruce Lamphear in a major study (2001) found IQ and learning (esp. reading) deficits in children (ages 6–16) with BLLs as low as 2.5 μg/dL.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) has reviewed and validated this study.

• The USEPA upon review of these studies has officially adopted the position that

there is no threshold dose below which lead does not cause neurologic damage in

infants and young children. Thus, the EPA has set a Maximum Contaminant Level

Goal (MCLG) for lead in drinking water of zero.

THE VERY LATEST NEWS ON LEAD POISONING (APRIL 17, 2003: NEW ENGLAND

JOURNAL OF MEDICINE)

Researchers from Cornell University, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and University of Rochester (funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences NIEHS) were ‘‘surprised’’ to find that the IQ scores of children who had

BLLs of 10 μg/dL were about 7 points lower than children with BLLs of 1 μg/dL.
358

Most previous studies focused on children with BLLs of 10–30 μg/dL and extrapolated back to lower levels.

It now appears that most of the neurological damage is caused by the first 10 μg/

dL.

One in ten North American children (ages 1–5) have BLLs above 5 μg/dL
359

• For modeling the effects of low level lead exposure in infants and young children, the EPA has calculated a BLL increase of 0.16 μg/dL for each μg/day of lead

ingested.

• Various studies have found IQ deficits of 2–6 points for each 10 μg/dL increase

in BLLs (mean approx. 6 4 pts). Therefore, a young child drinking 2 liters/day of

water with just 10 μg/L of lead (20 μg/day) would experience a BLL increase of approximately 3.2 μg/dL (1.3 IQ point deficit) even if they had no other sources of lead

exposure.

• The USEPA estimates that 14–20 percent of total U.S. childhood lead exposure

is from drinking water, although nearly all lead exposure could easily come from

tapwater in any particular residence.
360

CHRONOLOGY OF REDUCTION OF LEAD IN DRINKING WATER: CALIFORNIA

HAS BEEN THE LLEADER

• 1988: Federal Lead Ban. Elimination of leaded-solder in new buildings (most

buildings will continue to have leaded solder for decades to come).

• 1994: Use of leaded brass in submersible well pumps banned nationally by the

USEPA.

• June 1998: Kitchen and lavatory faucets. CA Prop 65 settlement agreement requires that residential faucet fixtures meet a very low lead discharge std. (Achievable only with no lead or very low lead alloys) Adopted nationally by most faucet

companies.

• March 2000: CA Prop 65 settlement agreement to eliminate the use of leadedbrass alloys in residential water meters. Specifies Federalloy or Sebiloy (aka

EnViroBrass) alloys. (Now available from Schlumberger and others.)

• 2001–present: Ca Prop 65 litigation to require no-lead or very low lead alloys

in residential gate valves, ball valves, backflow preventers, and pressure reducing

valves. Reportedly close to final settlement.
361

• 2002: Virtually all leaded brass plumbing components have now been banned

from use in residential and most other building plumbing systems at least in California. Only leaded-brass water service parts such as curb valves, meter stops, tail

pieces, elbows and main (corporation) stops have not been addressed.

• October 10, 2002: A 60-day CA Prop 65 notice was filed with the appropriate

CA Public Enforcement Agencies against Mueller, A.Y. McDonald, Ford Meter Box,

and James Jones for illegally manufacturing and selling leaded-brass water service

components in the State of California.

• January 3, 2003: This lawsuit was expanded to include all distributors of leaded-brass water service parts in California.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INSTITUTE LABORATORY STUDY OF LEAD DISCHARGE FROM

WATER SERVICE PARTS (LEADED-BRASS VS. NO-LEAD BRASS)

METHODS

• Mueller, James Jones, A.Y. McDonald, Ford, Cambridge Brass purchased in CA.

• Parts included different types of curb stops, elbows, main stops and compression

Ts.

• Extraction water made to simulate average CA public water in terms of lead

corrosivity (pH = 8.04, hardness: 100 mg/L, Alk: 82 mg/L, CI residual: 1.0 mg/L.)

• Experiments run for 19 days with samples taken after 16-hour overnight dwell.

• Days 17, 18, 19: shorter dwell time samples of 10 min, 30 min, and 2 hours.
362

RESULTS

Lead is initially leached quickly from the parts and the rate slows down over

time.

• 16-hr dwell = 100 percent
363

• 2-hr dwell = 58 percent

• 30 min dwell = 31 percent

• 10 min dwell = 19 percent.
364

Table 5.—Comparison of Lead Discharge (g/L) From ‘‘No-Lead’’ Parts Versus Similar Leaded

Brass Parts

No-Lead Comparable Leaded Brass ID #s

‘Q’ Stat

for Nonlead Part

Mean ‘Q’

Stat for

Leaded

Brass

Parts

Factor

Dif. in

Lead Discharge

CB1 ............................................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45 ................................ 0.91 20.7 22.8

CB2 ............................................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45 ................................ 0.60 20.7 34.5

CB3 ............................................................... 18, 24, 28, 38 ............................................. 0.53 8.81 16.6

CB4 ............................................................... 13, 23, 33, 42, 44, 45 ................................ 0.78 20.7 26.5

CB5 ............................................................... 17, 22, 40, 43 ............................................. 2.81 17.8 6.35

CB7 ............................................................... 15, 20, 26, 30 ............................................. 1.79 5.90 3.30

CB8 ............................................................... 14, 19, 25, 29 ............................................. 2.64 16.5 6.25

CB9 ............................................................... 31, 35, 36, 39 ............................................. 1.64 47.8 29.1

CB10 ............................................................. 34, 44, 45, 47 ............................................. 1.31 32.9 25.1

CB12 ............................................................. 16, 21, 27, 32 ............................................. 5.48 56.70 10.3

Mean .................................................... 18.0

APPROXIMATE CALCULATIONS OF LEAD EXPOSURE FROM WATER SERVICE PARTS

Assumptions:

• 30 water uses/day (1 overnight 4 2-h, 15 30-min, 10 10-min).

• 2 L/day as 8 250 ml ingestions.

• 4.5 liters storage in plumbing system (80 ft of 1⁄2′′ interior plus 20 ft of 3⁄4′′ service line.

• system contains a main stop, elbow, straight coupling, curb stop, also tail pieces

and water meter).
365

RESULTS

Total Pb discharge (Day 19)

• No lead: No water meter and tail pieces = 28 μg.

• No lead: With lead-free water meter and tailpieces = 50 μg.

• Leaded: No water meter and tail pieces = 205 μg.

• Leaded: With water meter and tail pieces = 332 μg.

Table 7.—Calculated Daily Lead Ingestion for Various Brass Water Service Parts

Lab ID # of Part

Calculated

Daily Lead Ingestion

Lab ID # of Part

Calculated

Daily Lead Ingestion

Lab ID # of Part

Calculated

Daily Lead Ingestion

Lab ID # of Part

Calculated

Daily Lead Ingestion

CB1 .............. 0.12 ............ CB13 ........... 1.19 ............ CB25 ........... 1.11 ............ CB37 ........... 17.21

CB2 .............. 0.10 ............ CB14 ........... 2.30 ............ CB26 ........... 0.32 ............ CB38 ........... 1.82

CB3 .............. 0.08 ............ CB15 ........... 1.13 ............ CB27 ........... 2.16 ............ CB39 ........... 8.10

CB4 .............. 0.12 ............ CB16 ........... 0.95 ............ CB28 ........... 1.54 ............ CB40 ........... 2.18

CB5 .............. 0.24 ............ CB17 ........... 1.49 ............ CB29 ........... 1.02 ............ CB41 ........... 13.96

CB6 .............. 0.26 ............ CB18 ........... 1.43 ............ CB30 ........... 0.16 ............ CB42 ........... 1.43

CB7 .............. 0.08 ............ CB19 ........... 1.79 ............ CB31 ........... 2.48 ............ CB43 ........... 2.23

CB8 .............. 0.21 ............ CB20 ........... 1.19 ............ CB32 ........... 1.92 ............ CB44 ........... 4.63

CB9 .............. 0.20 ............ CB21 ........... 1.82 ............ CB33 ........... 0.92 ............ CB45 ........... 1.47

CB10 ............ 0.11 ............ CB22 ........... 2.15 ............ CB34 ........... 2.18 ............ CB46 ........... 13.18

CB11 ............ 0.40 ............ CB23 ........... 0.95 ............ CB35 ........... 2.38 ............ CB47 ........... 1.58

CB12 ............ 0.10 ............ CB24 ........... 0.82 ............ CB36 ........... 1.82 ............

Table 8.—Total Calculated Daily Pb Exposures, Childhood Blood Lead Level Increases,

and IQ Deficits

Water Delivery System Type

Total Daily Lead

Ingestion

BLL μg/dl IQ Deficit

Mean 90th% Mean 90th% Mean 90th%

No lead ................................................................................................... 1.15 1.86 0.18 0.30 0.12 0.21

Conventional leaded brass ..................................................................... 5.20 9.50 0.83 1.52 0.58 1.07
366

Table 8.—Total Calculated Daily Pb Exposures, Childhood Blood Lead Level Increases,

and IQ Deficits—Continued

Water Delivery System Type

Total Daily Lead

Ingestion

BLL μg/dl IQ Deficit

Mean 90th% Mean 90th% Mean 90th%

Conventional leaded-brass in most corrosive 20% of CA system

(approx. pop. = 5 million) ................................................................. 12.5 22.8 2.00 3.65 1.40 2.56

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We are now aware that even very low lead exposures cause neurologic damage,

especially in infants and young children, resulting in IQ reductions, attention deficit

disorders, aggressive behavior and reading disabilities.

Leaded-brass water service parts represent a small to moderate additional source

of lead exposure to infants and young children. Leading to early measurable BLL

increases and IQ deficits of about 0.33 to 1.5 points, along with other lead-related

neurological problems.

Some infants and young children, due to unfortunate water consumption habits,

will receive lead exposure from drinking water much higher than those estimated

from this study.

While the increase in childhood lead exposure from leaded-brass water service

parts is usually relatively small, this is a needless extra exposure with the effects

additive to other lead exposures.

We have nearly eliminated lead from our drinking water systems, and soon it will

be illegal to manufacture and sell leaded-brass water system parts of any type in

California.

The city of Los Angeles and many other towns nationwide are already purchasing

only no-lead water service components.

WHAT IS THE EXTRA COST OF SWITCHING TO NO-LEAD WATER SERVICE PARTS?

Example: City with Service Area Population of 50,000 people—20,000 residential services.

Approximate Cost of Conventional Leaded and No-Lead Brass Service

Leaded

(USD)

No-Lead

(USD)

1. Corporation Stop ..................................................................................................................................... $ 29.50 $ 36.88

2. Curb Stop ................................................................................................................................................ 40.50 50.63

3. Tail Pieces (2) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.00 15.00

4. Water Meter Casing ................................................................................................................................ 20.00 25.00

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ $102.00 $ 127.50

Price Differential = $25.50 / service.

• Assume City adds new services at 1 percent per year and replaces 1 percent

of existing services due to breakage, distribution line upgrades, etc.

• 20,000 services × 2 percent × $25.50 = $10,200/yr.

• Spread over the 20,000 residential services, this will add 51 cents per year to

each family’s water bill, or about 4.3 cents per month.

BUT MY WATER SERVICE PARTS ARE COMPLIANT WITH NSF–61 SECTION 8!

• NSF–61 Section 8 protocol and standards were developed primarily by the

plumbing industry to ensure that most 5 percent and 7 percent brass parts would

pass.

• NSF–61 Section 8 is not a health-based standard. It allows a 100mL volume

brass part to discharge up to 450 μg/L of lead and still receive verification!

• Children will still receive very substantial doses of lead in drinking water in

a home with NSF–61 Section 8 compliant service parts.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS

1. Given our recent knowledge about health effects of lead, and considering that

leaded-brass water service parts installed today will be in service discharging lead
367

for the next 20–40 years, is it not time for public water suppliers to ‘‘do the right

thing’’ by voluntarily and proactively eliminating this last source of lead to our customers?

2. When the next wave of media publicity about the irreversible health effects of

low level lead exposure comes to public attention, do we want to have to explain

to our customers why we were still installing leaded-brass parts in 2003 when leadfree parts were readily available?

3. Class Action Suits and Personal Injury Suits have gotten completely out of control in the U.S. (78 percent of our Congress are lawyers!). If public water suppliers

are shown to have been still installing leaded-brass parts even after all the parts

in residences were converted to no-lead brass, how vulnerable could we be to these

types of legal actions?

Public Water Suppliers have led the way in reducing lead in drinking water. Let’s

finish the job!
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385

[From the Washington Post (1877–1954), Sept. 15, 1895]

POTOMAC WATER AND LEAD PIPE

SOURCE OF DANGER WHERE SUCH A PIPE HAS BEEN USED A LONG TIME

A. W. Dow, inspector of asphalt and cements, yesterday made his report to the

Engineer Commissioner. In it he says considerable change has been made in the

past year in asphalt pavement by the addition of a fine sand to a sand similar to

that formerly used. Under the present circumstances this is the best that can be

done. The only fine sand now available is that dredged off the foot of Seventeenth

street.

The inspector deals also with the public wells analyzed. There were found to be

96 good ones, 41 suspicious, and 57 condemned.

The most interesting part, of the report deals with the investigation of the action

of Potomac water on lead pipe, to determine if enough lead is dissolved by the water

to be injurious to public health. In order to have all conditions corresponding as

near as possible with those of actual service, the inspector had one new 40-foot lead

service pipe in Anacostia and 50 feet of new lead pipe attached to the high service

main at the U street pumphouse. From the investigation the inspector concludes

that the only great source of danger is where the coating becomes detached by a

rapid flow of water after the pipe had remained unused for some time. He will continue the investigation.

[From the Washington Post (1877–1954), June 9, 1893]

LEAD PIPES UNSATISFACTORY

LOOKING FOR A GOOD SANITARY PIPE FOR SUPPLYING WATER

Capt. Powell, the Engineer Commissioner, has determined that a substitute must

be found for lead pipes which, according to the present plumbing regulations, must

be used in providing a water service for residences. The general fear that such pipes

might cause lead poisoning under certain conditions makes their general adoption

in the District a menace to the health of the people.

It has been shown that the chemical character of Potomac water causes such

pipes to become coated on the inside with an insulation of carbonate of lime, soda,

and clay, held in solution in the water. This coating, it has been argued, is a sure

protection from danger of lead poisoning, but the engineer department has decided

that it is too ??? safeguard. It is probable that the city’s supply of water will be

filtered at some future day, as sand filtration of drinking water has been adopted

in many large cities abroad and is rapidly becoming popular.

Just what effect the filtered water may have on the coating of lead pipes has not

been determined. The fact that iron pipes become thickly rusted on the inside,

which causes a material loss of water pressure, makes their use unsatisfactory. Yesterday, Capt. Derby, in charge of the division of water and sewers, examined the

first substitute for lead pipe that has been presented since the investigation began.

It was what is known as the improved BoWar-Barff process, being a steel pipe coated inside and out with black oxide of iron. Capt. Derby reported it as ‘‘worth experimenting with,’’ and tests of the pipe will be commenced at once. Several other styles

of pipe are to be examined.

[From the Washington Post, March 28, 2004]

DISTRICT RESIDENTS APPLAUD PLANNED INQUIRY BY SENATE

(By David Nakamura, Staff Writer)

A U.S. Senate subcommittee has scheduled an oversight hearing for April 7 to investigate the Federal role in the lead contamination of the District’s drinking water,

residents were told at a special meeting on the contamination yesterday. The Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Michael D. Crapo (RIdaho), will hear from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps

of Engineers and the DC Water and Sewer Authority, a staff member confirmed

later. The Senate’s involvement comes after the House Government Reform Committee held a hearing March 5, at which members blasted the two Federal agencies

and WASA for failing to provide a safe water supply and to inform the public of

the health risks. So far, tests have shown that at least 5,000 DC homes have water
386

with lead levels that exceed the Federal limit. The problem is caused by lead leaching off pipes and plumbing fixtures.

At the meeting of environmentalists and residents yesterday at Van Ness Elementary School in Southeast Washington, some parents cheered the news of the Senate’s action. Government leaders ‘‘are not moving fast enough,’’ said Liz Pelcyger,

who lives on Capitol Hill and has year-old twins. Valerie Jablow, a Capitol Hill resident who has a 2-year-old son, said that she had met with staff members of Sen.

James Jeffords (I-Vt.), the Ranking Minority Member on the committee. ‘‘They

urged us to be present at the hearing,’’ Jablow told about 40 residents at the meeting yesterday. ‘‘They need to hear from ordinary citizens on this issue.’’ Members

of the coalition that organized yesterday’s meeting said they want to force District

and Federal leaders to include residents in decision-making as they deal with the

lead contamination problems. Damu Smith, executive director of the National Black

Environmental Justice Network, part of the coalition, told the audience that it is

unfair that DC leaders had assembled an interagency lead task force that includes

no ordinary citizens. ‘‘We need to drive this process,’’ Smith said. ‘‘This is not an

issue the politicians or agency should be leading. They are responsible for the crisis

in the first place. We’ll meet with them and work with them.’’ The only District

leader at the meeting was DC Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), whose staff

handed out free water test kits.

Graham criticized his colleague, DC Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At

Large), who co-chairs the task force with Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), for not

including residents and for holding meetings behind closed doors. Schwartz has argued that the task force can move faster to combat the lead problems if members

are not distracted by reporters or residents. Last week, Schwartz allowed Smith and

other environmentalists to meet with the task force for an hour. Not everyone was

critical of the way city leaders are handling the crisis. Robert Brannum, who lives

in the Bloomingdale neighborhood, cautioned residents to ‘‘be careful before we cast

the blame. We can talk about getting the lead out of the water, or we can cast blame

and be political.’’ But most other residents voiced less patience. Michael Smith, a

firefighter from Northeast, said, ‘‘I do not have any confidence in WASA’s ability to

manage this.’’ Ethel Meachum of Southwest said she was outraged that the agency,

which first knew of lead problems during the 2001–2002 testing period, had ‘‘waited

3 years to tell me about this.’’ Another woman complained that she has ‘‘gone all

over the world and the first thing people tell me is, ‘Be careful of the water.’ Now

I find that in DC the water is just as bad.’’

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Philadelphia, PA.

Jerry N. Johnson,

General Manager,

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority,

5000 Overlook Ave., SW,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. JOHNSON: As you may be aware, over the past several weeks, the

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III (‘‘EPA’’) has been conducting an audit of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority’s

(‘‘DCWASA’’) compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule, specifically focusing on 40

C.F.R. Sections 141.84, 141.85 and 141.90. That compliance audit remains ongoing,

and EPA is continuing to evaluate additional information as it becomes available.

Based on the information reviewed to date, EPA believes that DCWASA failed to

comply with the provisions listed below. As EPA’s continues to review DCWASA’s

compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA may identify other areas of noncompliance.

1. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the lead service line

replacement sampling requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 141.84(d)(1), by failing to conduct

follow-up sampling within 72 hours after the completion of the partial replacement

of a lead service line during the compliance period ending September 30, 2003.

2. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the Public Education

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 141.85(b) by failing to use the required language for

public service announcements submitted to television and radio stations for broadcasting during the 6-month compliance periods ending October 2002, April 2003,

and October 2003.

3. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to comply with the Public Education

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 141.85(c)(2)(i) by failing to use the required language

in notices inserted in each customer’s water utility bill during August 2003.
387

4. On information and belief, DCWASA failed to conduct public service announcements every 6 months as required of 40 C.F.R. § 141.85(c)(3) during the compliance

period beginning April 2003.

5. On information and belief, Respondent failed to submit tap water monitoring

for lead and copper within the first 10 days following the end of the monitoring period ending June 30, 2002, as required of 40 C.F.R. § 141.90(a).

6. On information and belief, Respondent failed to comply with the Public Education reporting requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 141.90(f) by failing to send written documentation to EPA within 10 days after the end of each period in which the system

is required to perform public education during the compliance period ending October

31, 2002.

If DCWASA believes it has not violated the provisions set forth above, or if

DCWASA has any information relevant to its compliance with the provisions set

forth above that it believes EPA should consider, please provide any relevant information to EPA within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter. If this information has been provided in your response to the Information Request dated March

31, 2004, please note which response provides documentation of compliance. The information should be sent to: Karen D. Johnson (3WP32), Chief, Safe Drinking Water

Act Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.

We appreciate your cooperation, and the cooperation of your staff, in connection

with EPA’s compliance audit. Please be aware that neither this letter nor EPA’s decision to conduct a compliance audit limits EPA’s ability to take an enforcement action against any person, including, but not limited to DCWASA. If you have any

questions, please contact Karen Johnson at (215) 814–5445. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

JON M. CAPACASA, Director,

Water Protection Division.

INFORMATION REQUEST

This information is requested pursuant to Section 1445(a) of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-4(a). The Instructions and Definitions for responding to

this Information Request are as follows:

A. INSTRUCTIONS & DEFINITIONS

1. A separate narrative response must be made for each question set forth below,

and for each subpart of each question.

2. Precede each answer with the corresponding number of the question and subpart to which it responds.

3. Provide all documents in your possession which relate to the responses given.

With respect to each document, identify the date, author, addressee, current location, and custodian and identify the question or subpart to which it relates.

4. Provide documents in both hard copy and electronic form, where available. The

term ‘‘document’’ refers to ‘‘writings,’’ ‘‘recordings’’ and ‘‘photographs’’ as those terms

are defined in Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Documents should be

produced as they are kept in the usual course of business.

5. If any question cannot be answered in full, answer to the extent possible along

with an explanation of why the question cannot be answered in full. If your responses are qualified in any manner, please explain.

6. If information or documents not known or not available to you as of the date

of submission of your response to this request should later become known or available to you, you must supplement your response to EPA. Moreover, should you find

at any time after the submission of your response that any portion of the submitted

information is false or misrepresents the truth, you must notify EPA of this fact as

soon as possible and provide a corrected response.

7. The term ‘‘you’’ or ‘‘your’’ refers to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer

Authority (‘‘DCWASA’’).

8. The term ‘‘LCR’’ refers to EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule, 40 C.F.R. Sections

141.80–.90.

9. The term ‘‘lead service line’’ means ‘‘a service line made of lead which connects

the water main to the building inlet and any lead pigtail, gooseneck or other fitting

which is connected to such lead line.’’ See 40 C.F.R. § 141.2.

10. To the extent you provide information in electronic format, contact Karen D.

Johnson at (215) 814–5445 prior to providing the information in order to verify compatibility with EPA’s equipment.
388

11. The following certification must accompany each submission pursuant to this

request and must be signed by a management representative of DCWASA authorized to respond on behalf of DCWASA:

‘‘I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this submission

is true, accurate, and complete. As to the identified portion(s) of this submission

for which I cannot personally verify its truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the person(s) who, acting

under my direct instructions, made the verification, that this information is

true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for

submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment.’’

12. All information shall be submitted within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of

this Request for Information to: Karen D. Johnson (MC 3WP32), Chief, Safe Drinking Water Act Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.

B. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

DCWASA is hereby required, pursuant to Section 1445(a) of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-4(a), to submit the following information pursuant to the

Instructions set forth above:

1. With regard to the person providing answers to these questions, State your

name, business address, business telephone number and position with DCWASA.

2. With regard to any person who participated in or contributed to DCWASA’s response to this Request for Information, provide that person’s name, business address, business telephone number, and position with DCWASA, including whether

the person is an employee or a contractor.

3. (a) Provide all results from lead sampling or monitoring performed on drinking

water supplied by DCWASA in the District of Columbia since January 1, 1994. This

request includes all results in the possession or control of DCWASA or its agents

or representatives (including contractors) regardless of whether the sampling and/

or analysis was performed by DCWASA, a representative or agent of DCWASA (including a contractor), a homeowner or building owner, a representative of the Washington Aqueduct, a representative of any other Federal or District of Columbia agency, or by any other person. This request seeks all results from lead sampling or

monitoring in the possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or representatives

(including contractors) regardless of whether the sample was taken from a building

served by a known or suspected lead service line or not. This request seeks all results from lead sampling or monitoring in the possession or control of DCWASA or

its agents or representatives (including contractors) regardless of whether the samples were required by EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule (‘‘LCR’’), 40 C.F.R. § 141.80, et

seq., or whether the samples were used to calculate the 90th percentile pursuant

to the LCR. This request seeks all results from lead sampling or monitoring in the

possession or control of DCWASA or its agents or representatives (including contractors) regardless of whether or not those samples were invalidated.

(b) To the extent any samples taken to determine the concentration of lead in

drinking water provided by DCWASA were invalidated, DCWASA shall identify the

invalidated samples, the lead concentration of each sample, and provide an explanation as to why the samples were invalidated. Such explanation shall include the

procedures followed for such invalidation, including but not limited to identifying

who in DCWASA made the decsion to invalidate the sample, and who if anyone at

EPA approved the invalidation. Provide copies of all approvals by EPA for any lead

sample invalidation.

4. Identify all lead service lines within DCWASA’s service area that were physically replaced from 1996 to the present for any reason, including lead service lines

physically replaced in connection with normal maintenance and/or other road work.

(a) Provide all work orders, daily construction reports, or any other documents reflecting physical replacement of lead service lines from 1996 to the present.

(b) With respect to all lead service lines physically replaced from 1996 to the

present, state what portions of the lead service lines were physically replaced and

what portions were not physically replaced (for example, those portions downstream

of the property line). When the lead service line was replaced only up to the property line, identify what, if any, portion was replaced by the homeowner and/or building owner.

(c) Provide the location of each lead service line that has been replaced. Identify

all lead samples taken following full or partial replacement of lead service lines

from 1996 to the present, including but not limited to those taken to comply with

the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 141.84(d)(1).
389

(d) With respect to each lead service line that has been replaced from 1996 to the

present, State the reason the line was replaced (i.e., exceedance of EPA action level

for lead of 0.015 mg/L, routine maintenance, etc.)

5. Provide the locations by address of all known or suspected lead service lines.

This may be provided in electronic or written format.

6. (a) Provide the location of all lead service lines that have been tested for lead

since 2000. This may be provided in electronic or written format.

(b) Identify each lead service line that has tested below the EPA action level for

lead of 0.015 mg/L and been counted by DCWASA toward fulfilling the requirements

of 40 C.F.R. § 141.84. This may be provided in electronic or written format.

(c) Provide the location of all lead service lines that have exceeded the EPA action

level for lead of 0.015 mg/L. This may be provided in electronic or written format.

7. Identify the type and composition of any pipe, collar or shut off valve used for

service line replacement since January 1, 1994.

8. Provide copies of all instructions provided by you to residents from December

1999 to the present for the purpose of obtaining samples for compliance with the

lead action level under the LCR, sampling in connection with DCWASA’s lead service line replacement program, sampling after physical replacement of a lead service

line, or any other purpose related to sampling for lead in drinking water. Provide

all versions of these instructions. To the extent the instructions changed over time,

provide all versions and identify the timeframes in which each version of the instructions was used.

9. Provide all lead service line replacement sampling results from 2000 to the

present, including the date the lead service line was replaced, when the sample was

taken, when the sampling results were received from the laboratory, and the date

the results were sent to the homeowner and/or residents served by the lead service

line. Provide representative samples of all notification provided from 2000 to the

present to homeowners and/or residents served by a service line that exceeded 0.015

mg/L of lead. Provide the addresses that received the notice and the dates of such

notices.

10. Provide representative samples of all transmittals of lead sampling results to

residents sent by you since December 1999, including the cover letter(s) and any attachment(s). To the extent different versions of the cover letter were used to transmit lead sampling results to different populations (i.e., residences sampled for compliance with the LCR, lead service line sampling, post-replacement sampling, or any

other purpose), provide samples of each version. To the extent the wording of the

transmittals changed over time, provide all versions and identify the timeframe(s)

in which each version was used. State whether sample results were transmitted to

all residences that were sampled or only to a subset (such as residences that tested

over the LCR action level).

11. (a) Provide copies of all documents (including bill inserts) produced or distributed by you since December 2000 in any language for the purpose of educating the

public about lead in drinking water.

(b) Produce all information regarding lead in drinking water used as a reference

by persons answering telephone help lines for DCWASA in any language other than

English since December 2000.

12. Provide copies of all newspaper advertisements you have purchased since December 2000 for the purpose of educating the public about lead in drinking water.

Identify the newspaper(s) in which each advertisement was published and the

date(s) of publication.

13. (a) Provide copies of all transmittal documents, letters or other documents

since December 2001 that accompanied any document or public service announcement regarding lead in drinking water distributed by DCWASA to television stations, radio stations, newspapers, the Department of Health of the District of Columbia, libraries, hospitals, clinics, City Council or any other person or agency pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 141.85(c).

(b) Provide copies of all public service announcements regarding the lead content

of drinking water distributed by DCWASA since December 2001 to television stations, radio stations, newspapers, the Department of Health of the District of Columbia, libraries, hospitals, clinics, City Council or any other person or agency pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 141.85(c).

(c) Identify the date each public service announcement was distributed and provide any document demonstrating the date each public service announcement was

distributed.

14. Provide copies of all policies and/or procedures that DCWASA has for lead

testing, lead service line replacement and public notification/education regarding the

presence of lead in drinking water.
390

15. Provide copies of all preliminary, draft and final reports for all tap water monitoring for lead and copper submitted by DCWASA to EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R.

§ 141.90(a) since December 2001.

16. Provide copies of all written documentation submitted by DCWASA to EPA

pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 141.90(f) since December 2001.

Æ