a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2006 DRINKING WATER

EPA Should 

Strengthen Ongoing 

Efforts to Ensure That 

Consumers Are 

Protected from Lead 

Contamination

GAO-06-148
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2006

DRINKING WATER

EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts 

to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected 

from Lead Contamination 

Highlights of GAO-06-148, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Elevated lead levels in the District

of Columbia’s tap water in 2003 

prompted questions about how 

well consumers are protected 

nationwide. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), states, 

and local water systems share

responsibility for providing safe 

drinking water. Lead typically 

enters tap water as a result of the 

corrosion of lead in the water lines 

or household plumbing. EPA’s lead 

rule establishes testing and 

treatment requirements. This 

report discusses (1) EPA’s data on

the rule’s implementation; (2) what 

implementation of the rule suggests 

about the need for changes to the 

regulatory framework; and (3) the 

extent to which drinking water at 

schools and child care facilities is 

tested for lead. 

EPA’s data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with elevated 

lead levels has dropped significantly since testing began in the early 1990s. 

However, EPA’s database does not contain recent test results for over 30

percent of large and medium-sized community water systems and lacks data

on the status of water systems’ efforts to implement the lead rule for over 70

percent of all community systems, apparently because states have not met 

reporting requirements. In addition, EPA’s data on water systems’ violations 

of testing and treatment requirements are questionable because some states

have reported few or no violations. As a result, EPA does not have sufficient 

data to gauge the rule’s effectiveness. 

Implementation experiences to date have revealed weaknesses in the 

regulatory framework for the lead rule. For example, most states do not 

require their water systems to notify homeowners that volunteer for periodic 

lead monitoring of the test results. In addition, corrosion control can be 

impaired by changes to other treatment processes, and controls that would 

help avoid such impacts may not be adequate. Finally, because testing 

indicates that some “lead-free” products leach high levels of lead into 

drinking water, existing standards for plumbing materials may not be 

sufficiently protective. According to EPA officials, the agency is considering 

some changes to the lead rule. 

On the basis of the limited data available, it appears that few schools and 

child care facilities have tested their water for lead, either in response to the 

Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their current operating 

practices. In addition, no focal point exists at either the national or state 

level to collect and analyze test results. Thus, the pervasiveness of lead 

contamination in the drinking water at schools and child care facilities—and 

the need for more concerted action—is unclear. 

Water Distribution System from the Treatment Plant to Household Plumbing 

Service 

line*

Drinking water 

treatment plant

Water service 

main*

Water 

meter*

Home 

property

Street

Household 

plumbing*

Source: EPA.

Property of 

water system, 

city, or home

Property of water 

system

* Possible sources of lead:

- pipe or service line

- solder or brass fittings

- water meter

- service main (rarely)

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO 

recommends that EPA improve its

data on key aspects of lead rule 

implementation, strengthen certain 

regulatory requirements and 

oversight, and assess the problem

of lead in drinking water at schools 

and child care facilities. In 

commenting on a draft of this

report, EPA generally agreed with 

our findings and recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-148.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Inadequate Data Impair EPA’s Ability to Oversee Implementation of 

the Lead Rule 13

Weaknesses in the Regulatory Framework for the Lead Rule May 

Undermine Public Health Protection 24

Limited Data Indicate Few Schools and Child Care Facilities Test or 

Take Other Measures to Control Lead in Their Water Supplies 45

Conclusions 57

Recommendations for Executive Action 58

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 61

Appendix II: Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action Milestone Data 

Reported to EPA, by State, through June 2005 64

Appendix III: Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to EPA Between 

1995 and June 2005 (by State) 70

Appendix IV: Information on Selected EPA and State Enforcement 

Actions, by Type, from 1995 to June 2005 72

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 73

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 76

Tables Table 1: Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported by the States 

through June 2005, by System Size and Type of 

Milestone 17

Table 2: Differences in Reported Information on Lead Service Line 

Replacement, as of June 2004 18

Table 3: Percentage of Systems with Violations from 1995 to June 

2005 21

Table 4: State Activities to Ensure that Water Systems Are Taking 

Lead Samples at Appropriate Sites 25

Table 5: State Role in Selecting Sites for Reduced Monitoring 26

Table 6: States That Require More Frequent Monitoring to Evaluate 

the Effects of Treatment Changes 29

Table 7: State Views on Extent to Which Water Systems Are 

Notifying Homeowners of the Results of Lead Testing 30
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Table 8: Examples of Different Reporting Practices for Lead 

Testing in Combined Water Distribution Systems as of June 

2005 36

Table 9: Applicability of Standards for Lead-Free Plumbing 

Products 38

Table 10: Summary of NSF Test Results Regarding Lead Content of 

Plumbing Products Voluntarily Submitted to NSF for 

Certification 40

Table 11: Information on Recent Efforts to Test for and Remediate 

Lead in Drinking Water in Five School Districts 52

Figures Figure 1: Water Distribution System from the Treatment Plant to 

Household Plumbing 8

Figure 2: Process Drinking Water Systems Follow to Comply with 

EPA’s Lead Rule 10

Figure 3: Number of Community Water Systems That Exceeded the 

Lead Action Level During the Initial Monitoring Period 

(1992-1994) and Their Most Recently Completed 

Monitoring (2002-June 2005), by System Size 14

Figure 4: Summary of State Efforts to Address Lead in Drinking 

Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities 49

Abbreviations

ANSI American National Standards Institute

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

LCCA Lead Contamination Control Act

NSF NSF International

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

January 4, 2006 Letr

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

When testing in the District of Columbia during 2003 revealed that over 

4,000 households had elevated levels of lead in their drinking water, the 

ensuing publicity prompted questions about how well local drinking water 

systems are protecting consumers from lead contamination nationwide. 

The adverse health effects associated with exposure to lead can be severe, 

including delays in normal physical and mental development in infants and 

young children, and damage to kidneys and reproductive systems for the 

population at large. Although rarely the sole cause of lead poisoning, lead 

in drinking water can be a significant contributor to a person’s total 

exposure—and can account for as much as 60 percent of the exposure for 

infants who drink baby formula or concentrated juices mixed with water. 

Because children are most vulnerable to adverse health effects from lead 

exposure, the adequacy of controls over lead in water supplies serving 

schools and child care facilities is particularly important.1

 In response to 

the discovery of lead contamination in the District of Columbia, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a broad examination of 

the implementation of drinking water regulations it issued in 1991—known 

as the Lead and Copper Rule—to determine whether elevated lead levels 

1

For purposes of this report, we are referring to day care centers, nursery schools or preschools, and school-based after school programs as child care facilities.
Page 2 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

are a national problem.2 EPA issued the rule as part of its efforts in 

implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, and established testing and 

treatment requirements to control lead and copper in public water 

supplies.3

Responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is shared by EPA, the states, 

and, most importantly, local water systems. In general, EPA sets standards 

to protect drinking water quality and to ensure the proper operation and 

maintenance of public water systems. EPA also oversees state 

implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and applicable regulations 

where states have assumed primary responsibility for enforcement. The 

states ensure that local water systems meet EPA and state requirements, 

provide technical assistance, and take enforcement action, as necessary. In 

addition, the states collect information on the results of drinking water 

monitoring, among other things, and report the information to EPA. At the 

local level, public water systems operate and maintain their facilities in 

accordance with federal and state requirements, periodically test the 

drinking water to ensure that it meets quality standards, install needed 

treatments, and report required information to the states.

In contrast to most drinking water contaminants, lead is rarely found in the 

source water used for public water supplies. Instead, lead enters tap water 

as a result of the corrosion that takes place over time when materials 

containing lead in the water distribution system or household plumbing 

come into contact with water. For example, lead can leach out of service 

lines, pipes, brass and bronze fixtures, solders, or other materials, and 

contaminate drinking water. To address this problem, EPA established 

requirements for corrosion control treatment, source water treatment, lead 

service line replacement, and public education. The lead rule requires 

water systems to test the tap water at a specified number of locations that 

are at high risk of lead contamination.4

 In general, if lead concentrations 

exceed 15 parts per billion in more than 10 percent of the samples, a water 

system has exceeded the action level and must (1) provide public 

education materials to its customers and (2) conduct additional testing to 

2

Because this report examines only those requirements and activities applicable to lead, we 

will henceforth refer to this rule as the “lead rule.” See 40 C.F.R. § 141.80 et. seq.

3

42 U.S.C. § 300f et. seq.

4

Under the lead rule, high risk sites include single-family homes that contain copper pipes 

with lead solder installed after 1982 or lead pipes—or that are served by lead service lines.
Page 3 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

determine if treating lead contamination from the water’s source may be 

necessary. Water systems that exceed the action level may also be required 

to install corrosion control treatment to reduce the water’s corrosiveness. 

When treatment is not effective in controlling lead levels, a water system 

must annually replace at least 7 percent of any lead service lines it owns. To 

further address the problem of lead in household plumbing, the Congress 

amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 and 1996 to, among other 

things, ban the use of lead solder and plumbing materials that are not “leadfree.” 

In addition, under the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988, the 

Congress required the recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined 

tanks, banned the manufacture and sale of water coolers that were not 

lead-free, and required states to establish programs to assist local agencies 

in testing and correcting for lead in water supplies in schools and child care 

facilities.5

 While the Consumer Product Safety Commission was 

responsible for managing the recall, EPA was responsible for distributing a 

list of banned coolers and publishing and distributing guidance on 

detecting and remediating lead contamination in school drinking water 

supplies. 

In March 2005, we issued a report that focused on the lead contamination 

problem in the District of Columbia’s drinking water supplies.6

 For a 

national perspective on controlling lead in drinking water, you asked us to 

determine (1) the extent to which EPA has sufficient data to oversee 

implementation of the lead rule, (2) what implementation of the rule to 

date suggests about the need for changes to the regulatory framework, and 

(3) the extent to which drinking water supplies at schools and child care 

facilities are tested for lead and their users protected from elevated lead 

levels. For information on the data EPA uses for oversight of lead rule 

implementation, we analyzed EPA data on the results and frequency of lead 

testing, the status of corrective actions, and violations. We determined that 

the data on results and frequency of testing were sufficiently reliable to 

show compliance trends. However, we found that other data on corrective 

5

Generally, schools and child care facilities that operate their own water systems are 

required to test their drinking water under EPA’s lead rule. EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 10,000 such systems in the United States.

6

GAO, District of Columbia’s Drinking Water: Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but 

Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels, GAO-05-344

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
Page 4 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

actions and violations were not sufficiently reliable to assess the status of 

efforts to implement and enforce the lead rule. For information on 

experiences in implementing the lead rule and the need for changes to the 

regulatory framework, we analyzed the responses to a 2004 EPA 

information request on states’ implementation policies and practices, the 

results of EPA-sponsored expert workshops, and relevant documents. We 

also obtained test results from NSF International on lead content and lead 

leaching of plumbing fittings and fixtures. To assess data reliability, we 

obtained information on NSF International’s procedures for data quality 

control and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

illustrative purposes. For information on efforts to control lead in drinking 

water at schools and child care facilities, we analyzed the results of a 2004 

50-state information request by EPA, an EPA workshop that focused 

specifically on schools and child care facilities, and relevant documents. 

We supplemented the information collected under each objective by 

contacting state and local drinking water officials in 10 states. We selected 

eight of the states—California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington—because they either had a 

relatively high number of water systems with test results that exceeded or 

fell just below the lead action level, or they added to the geographical 

diversity of our selections. We also obtained information from Connecticut 

and Florida, two states that EPA identified as particularly active in 

addressing potential lead contamination in water supplies serving child 

care facilities. In all 10 states, we obtained information from state drinking 

water program managers, state public health or education officials, and 

local school districts that have efforts under way to test for and remediate 

lead contamination. (App. I contains a detailed description of our scope 

and methodology.) We performed our work between June 2004 and 

November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

Results in Brief While EPA’s data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with 

elevated lead levels has declined significantly since the early 1990s, the 

agency does not have a complete picture of how states and water systems 

are implementing the lead rule because data on key aspects of water 

systems’ compliance with regulatory requirements are incomplete or 

questionable. According to EPA’s data, the number of systems exceeding 

the lead action level dropped by nearly 75 percent from the initial 

monitoring conducted during 1992 to 1994—shortly after the lead rule took 

effect—and the period from 2002 to June 2005. However, our analysis 
Page 5 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

disclosed that EPA’s database does not contain recent test results on over 

30 percent of the community water systems, apparently because states 

have not met reporting requirements. EPA’s data on the status of water 

systems’ efforts to implement the lead rule are similarly incomplete. The 

agency requires the states to report certain “milestones” to indicate 

whether a water system’s lead levels are acceptable or whether the system 

is implementing required corrective actions, such as installing corrosion 

control treatment and replacing lead service lines. Through June 2005, 

however, EPA’s database did not contain any milestone information on 

more than 70 percent of the nation’s community water systems. Finally, 

because some states reported few or no violations of lead rule testing and 

treatment requirements over multiple years, the completeness of these data 

is questionable. EPA has been slow to take action on these data problems 

and, as a result, lacks the information it needs to evaluate how effectively 

the lead rule is being implemented and enforced nationwide. 

The experiences of EPA, states, and water systems in implementing the 

lead rule have revealed weaknesses in the regulatory framework, including 

both oversight and the regulations themselves, which may be undermining 

the intended level of public health protection. Consequently, some changes 

to the regulatory framework are necessary. First, the sites used for lead 

testing may no longer represent the sites with the highest risk of 

contamination. For example, when the sampling locations approved 

initially are no longer available or appropriate, water systems identify new 

sites and states may not be tracking the changes to ensure that new sites 

meet high risk criteria. Another concern is that most states do not require 

their water systems to notify the homeowners who volunteer for periodic 

lead monitoring of the test results and do not know the extent to which 

such notifications are actually occurring. In addition, the effectiveness of 

corrosion control can be impaired by changes to other treatment processes 

and, in some states, testing and other controls that would help avoid such 

impacts may not be adequate. Finally, existing standards for plumbing 

fixtures and devices may not be protective enough, according to some 

experts, because testing has determined that some of the products defined 

as “lead-free” under the Safe Drinking Water Act can still contribute high 

levels of lead to drinking water. To improve implementation of the lead 

rule, EPA is considering a number of changes to its regulations, such as 

requiring advance notice of treatment modifications that could affect 

corrosion control. EPA is also considering changes to its guidance to 

improve and clarify specific aspects of the lead rule. 
Page 6 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Although data are limited, it appears that few schools and child care 

facilities have tested their water supplies for lead—or adopted other 

measures to protect users from lead contamination—either in response to 

the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their current 

operating practices. Little data are available to assess (1) the scope and 

effectiveness of the effort to recall water coolers or (2) the extent and 

results of any testing. In addition, although the act required states to 

establish programs to assist local agencies in addressing potential lead 

contamination at schools and child care facilities, this provision was 

declared unconstitutional in 1996 and state efforts were generally limited. 

Current efforts to detect and remediate lead in drinking water at schools 

and child care facilities appear limited, based on the results of EPA’s 50-

state information request and our discussions with 10 states. In recent 

years, some of these facilities have tested voluntarily, and school districts 

in some cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, and Seattle, have detected 

elevated lead levels at some drinking water outlets. However, little 

information exists on the pervasiveness of the problem nationwide because 

no focal point exists at the national or state level to collect and analyze the 

test results or share information on effective remediation strategies. State 

and local officials say that dealing with other environmental problems in 

their facilities—including lead paint, asbestos, and mold—is a higher 

priority because more information is available on the nature and extent of 

these hazards. 

We are making a series of recommendations to improve oversight and 

implementation of the lead rule. Among other things, we are 

recommending that EPA take steps to ensure that data on key aspects of 

lead rule implementation are timely and complete so that the agency is 

better able to assess the effectiveness of the rule and state oversight and 

enforcement efforts. Other recommendations focus on strengthening 

aspects of the regulatory framework, such as lead monitoring 

requirements, review of treatment changes that could affect corrosion 

control, and standards for plumbing fittings and fixtures. Finally, we are 

recommending that EPA collect and analyze existing data to assess the 

extent of lead contamination in drinking water at schools and child care 

facilities and appropriate remedial actions. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, EPA generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. In 

particular, EPA acknowledged that it needs better data to assess the 

effectiveness of lead rule implementation and enforcement. In addition, 

EPA agreed that the aspects of the regulation that we identified as needing 

improvement warrant additional attention and noted its plans to address 

most of these areas by modifying the rule or collecting additional 
Page 7 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

information. EPA did not address our recommendations regarding lead 

contamination and remedial actions at schools and child care facilities.

Background Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is responsible for regulating 

contaminants that may pose a public health risk and that are likely to be 

present in public water supplies. EPA may establish an enforceable 

standard—called a maximum contaminant level—that limits the amount of 

a contaminant that may be present in drinking water. However, if it is not 

economically or technically feasible to ascertain the level of a contaminant, 

EPA may instead establish a treatment technique to prevent known or 

anticipated health effects. In the case of lead, EPA established a treatment 

technique—including corrosion control treatment—because the agency 

believed that the variability of lead levels measured at the tap, even after 

treatment, makes it technologically infeasible to establish an enforceable 

standard. EPA noted that lead in drinking water occurs primarily as a 

byproduct of the corrosion of materials in the water distribution system or 

household plumbing, some of which is outside the control of the water 

systems. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution system for drinking water and 

potential sources of lead contamination.
Page 8 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Figure 1: Water Distribution System from the Treatment Plant to Household Plumbing

EPA’s lead rule also established a 15-parts-per-billion lead action level, 

which is based on the 90th percentile level of water samples taken at the 

tap. Water systems must sample tap water at locations that are at high risk 

of lead contamination, generally because they are served by lead service 

lines or are likely to contain lead solder in the household plumbing. The 

number of samples that must be collected varies depending on the size of 

Source: EPA.

Property of 

water system, 

city, or home

Household 

plumbing

Soldered 

joints*

Bathroom 

faucet*

Kitchen 

faucet*

* Possible sources of lead:

- pipe or service line

- solder or brass fittings

- water meter

- service main (rarely)

Service 

line*

Drinking water 

treatment plant

Water service 

main*

Water 

meter*

Home 

property

Street

Property of 

water system
Page 9 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

the water system and the results of earlier testing. Small or medium-sized 

systems whose test results are consistently below the action level may be 

allowed to reduce the frequency of monitoring and the number of samples 

collected.7

To determine their test results at the 90th percentile level, water systems 

must multiply the number of samples taken during a monitoring period by 

0.9 and identify the result at that level, after ranking the results of the 

individual samples they collected in ascending order. For example, a water 

system required to take 50 samples would rank the results from 1 (for the 

lowest result) to 50 (for the highest result); the 90th percentile level is the 

45th result, 5 below the highest test result for that monitoring period. When 

the 90th percentile results for a water system are above 15 parts per billion, 

the system has exceeded the lead action level and must meet requirements 

for public education and source water treatment. Under the public 

education requirements, water systems must inform the public about the 

health effects and sources of lead contamination, along with ways to 

reduce exposure. Source water responsibilities include, at a minimum, 

water monitoring to determine if the lead contamination is from the water 

source rather than—or in addition to—service lines or plumbing fixtures.8

Water systems that exceed the action level may also be required to install 

corrosion control treatment, except for large systems that may qualify as 

having optimized corrosion control based on other criteria.9

 When either 

corrosion control or source water treatment are not effective in controlling 

lead levels, the lead rule calls for water systems with lead service lines to 

begin replacing them at a rate of 7 percent annually (unless the state 

requires a higher rate). 

7

In addition, all systems that have installed corrosion control treatment and consistently 

meet water quality control parameters specified by the state may also qualify for reduced 

monitoring.

8

If testing indicates that the source water is contributing to elevated lead levels, then water 

systems may be required to install additional treatment.

9

Large water systems exceeding the action level must install corrosion control treatment 

unless (1) they already had such treatment in place prior to the effective date of the lead rule 

and have conducted related activities equivalent to those specified in the lead rule or (2) 

they can demonstrate that their source water is minimally corrosive, thereby reducing the 

likelihood that lead will be introduced into the drinking water from corrosion of leadbearing plumbing materials. 
Page 10 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Figure 2: Process Drinking Water Systems Follow to Comply with EPA’s Lead Rule

The states play an important role in ensuring that the lead rule is 

implemented and enforced at the local level. Among other things, they are 

responsible for (1) ensuring that water systems conduct required 

monitoring and (2) reporting the results to EPA. If the systems must take 

Source: GAO.

Conduct tap 

monitoring at 

high risk sites

Continue periodic 

monitoring

Do test 

results

exceed action 

level?

Provide public education Test source water Install corrosion control: applies to 

all medium and small systems, 

and large systems that do not 

meet other criteria

Meet treatment 

technique 

requirements

Is source 

water affecting 

lead levels?

Do test results

still exceed 

action level?

No action

No action

Install 

treatment

Replace lead service lines

(if system has such lines)

No

Yes

No Yes

No

Yes Do test results

still exceed 

action level?

No action

Replace lead service lines

(if system has such lines)

No

Yes
Page 11 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

corrective action to address elevated lead levels, the states are responsible 

for approving or determining the nature of the treatment or other activities 

that will be required, ensuring that they are implemented, and periodically 

reporting relevant information to EPA. The Safe Drinking Water Act 

authorizes the states to assume primary responsibility for enforcing the 

drinking water program—including the lead rule—if they meet certain 

requirements, such as adopting drinking water regulations at least as 

stringent as EPA’s and having adequate procedures to carry out and enforce 

the program’s requirements. All states except Wyoming have assumed 

primacy for managing their drinking water programs. 

In addition to requiring the regulation of lead in public water supplies, the 

Safe Drinking Water Act also contains provisions to limit the extent to 

which materials in the water distribution system and household plumbing 

contribute to lead levels at the tap. Specifically, the act banned the use of 

solder and other materials in the installation or repair of public water 

systems or plumbing that are not lead-free. In this regard, the act 

established a material standard by defining “lead-free” to mean solders and 

flux containing no more than 0.2 percent lead, and pipes and pipe fittings 

containing no more than 8.0 percent lead.10 In addition, the act called for 

development of voluntary performance standards and testing protocols for 

the leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures by a qualified 

third party certifier or, if necessary, promulgated by EPA. A third party 

certifier set such a standard in 1997, limiting the amount of lead that the 

fittings and fixtures may contribute to water to 11 parts per billion.

To address the potential risks of lead contamination in water supplies 

serving schools and child care facilities, Congress passed the Lead 

Contamination Control Act of 1988.11 Among other things, the act banned 

the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers containing lead-lined 

tanks and other water coolers that are not lead-free and required (1) EPA to 

publish a list of such coolers and distribute it to the states, (2) the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue an order requiring 

manufacturers and importers to repair or replace lead-lined coolers or 

recall and provide a refund for them, and (3) the states to establish 

programs to assist local agencies in addressing potential lead 

1042 U.S.C. § 300g-6(d).

1142 U.S.C. § 300j-21 et seq.
Page 12 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

contamination.12 In 1990, EPA identified six models of water coolers from 

one manufacturer that contained lead-lined tanks, but the agency was 

unable to obtain information on the number of units produced. Regarding 

water coolers that were not lead-free, EPA identified three manufacturers 

that produced coolers containing lead solder that could contaminate 

drinking water. The manufacturers reported producing at least 1 million of 

the coolers.

Following the discovery of elevated lead levels in the District of Columbia’s 

drinking water, EPA undertook a year-long evaluation to gain insight into 

how states and local communities are implementing the lead rule and to 

determine whether the problems identified in the District of Columbia are 

occurring elsewhere. EPA’s activities included

• a series of expert workshops on key aspects of the rule (monitoring 

protocols, simultaneous compliance, lead service line replacement, 

public education, and lead in plumbing fittings and fixtures),

• a review of state policies and practices for implementing the lead rule,

• data verification audits that covered the collection and reporting of 

compliance data for the lead rule in 10 states, and 

• an expert workshop and a review of state efforts to monitor for lead in 

drinking water at schools and child care facilities.

Participants in EPA’s expert workshops included representatives of federal 

and state regulatory agencies, drinking water systems, researchers, public 

interest groups, and others. 

12Coolers are considered “lead-free” if any parts or components that may come in contact 

with drinking water have no more than 8 percent lead or include solder, flux, or interior 

surfaces with no more than 0.2 percent lead. 42 U.S.C. § 300j-21(2).
Page 13 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Inadequate Data Impair 

EPA’s Ability to 

Oversee 

Implementation of the 

Lead Rule

Although EPA’s data on the results of testing indicate that the lead rule has 

largely been successful in reducing lead levels, the reporting of these data 

has not been timely or complete. In addition, key data on the status of 

water systems’ efforts to implement the lead rule, including required 

corrective actions, are incomplete. EPA’s data on lead rule violations are 

also questionable because of potential underreporting by the states. The 

lack of data on key elements of lead rule implementation makes it difficult 

for EPA and others to gauge the effectiveness of efforts to meet and 

enforce the rule’s requirements.

Although EPA’s Data 

Suggest a Decline in Lead 

Levels, States’ Reporting on 

the Results of Lead Testing 

Has Not Been Timely or 

Complete

When the lead rule was first implemented, initial monitoring disclosed that 

several thousand water systems had elevated lead levels—that is, more 

than 10 percent of the samples taken at these systems exceeded the 15-

parts-per-billion action level. EPA’s most recent data indicate that the 

number of water systems that exceed the lead action level has declined by 

nearly 75 percent since the early 1990s. The systems that currently have a 

problem with elevated lead levels represent about 2 percent of all water 

systems and serve approximately 4.6 million people. Figure 3 shows the 

results (by system size) of the initial lead monitoring, conducted from 1992 

to 1994, and more recent testing from 2002 through the quarter ending in 

June 2005.13

13EPA provided us with a data run as of August 9, 2005. According to EPA, these data 

represent, for the most part, compliance information reported through June 30, 2005; 

however, states may have made a limited number of additions or corrections to the data 

through the run date.
Page 14 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Figure 3: Number of Community Water Systems That Exceeded the Lead Action 

Level During the Initial Monitoring Period (1992-1994) and Their Most Recently 

Completed Monitoring (2002-June 2005), by System Size

Notes: (1) Figure 3 includes data on active community water systems in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. The size categories for the water systems are based on population served, with large 

systems serving populations of greater than 50,000, medium systems from 3,301 to 50,000, and small 

systems less than or equal to 3,300. 

(2) Data for initial monitoring under the lead rule cover the period from 1992 to 1994 because the 

testing was phased in by system size. Large water systems began monitoring in January 1992, 

medium systems in July 1992, and small systems in July 1993.

(3) Many water systems have obtained approval to reduce the frequency with which they are required 

to monitor for lead from every 6 months to once a year or once every 3 years. Thus, to capture the 

most recent round of testing for all water systems, we included data from 2002 through June 2005, the 

most recent data available at the time of our analysis. A few small systems have received approval to 

reduce their monitoring to once every 9 years and may not be included in these statistics.

(4) Some water systems may have tested their lead levels multiple times during the periods covered in 

this analysis; however, we included only the results of the initial monitoring and the most recent test 

result for each system.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Large Medium Small

Number of systems

Source: EPA.

Systems exceeding action level

164

14

961

127

2,575

783

1992-1994

2002-2005

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000
Page 15 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

(5) We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of examining trends in lead 

action levels.

EPA, state, and water industry officials generally see the decline in the 

number of systems with elevated lead levels as evidence that the lead rule 

has been effective and point to corrosion control treatment as the primary 

reason. Another indicator of success is the number of water systems 

approved for reduced monitoring. Under the lead rule, water systems can 

obtain state approval to reduce both the frequency of monitoring and the 

number of samples included in the testing when test results show lead 

levels consistently below the action level. According to EPA’s data, nearly 

90 percent of all water systems have qualified for reduced monitoring. 

After several years of experience with the lead rule, in January 2000, EPA 

made significant changes to the information states were required to report 

for inclusion in the agency’s database. Among other things, EPA added a 

requirement for states to report, for large and medium-sized systems, all 

90th percentile test results, not just the results for systems that exceed the 

action level. EPA said that it planned to use these test results to show how 

levels of lead at the tap have changed over time for large and medium 

systems and, by extrapolation, for small systems. 

Although the new reporting requirements took effect in January 2002, EPA’s 

database contained 90th percentile test results for only 23 percent of the 

large and medium systems by January 2004.14 EPA officials explained that 

states were still having difficulty updating their information systems to 

accommodate the new reporting requirements and, for EPA, obtaining the 

data was not a priority at that time. Following the detection of elevated 

lead levels in the District of Columbia, however, EPA made a concerted 

effort to obtain more complete information from the states, and, as of June 

2004, EPA reported that it had data for nearly 89 percent of the large and 

medium systems (based on an analysis of test results submitted from 

January 2000 through May 2004). However, we also analyzed data on the 

results of lead testing and found that EPA’s database does not contain 

current information for a much larger percentage of large and medium 

water systems. Specifically, we found that for the period from January 2002 

14EPA issued minor revisions to the lead rule, including changes to the reporting 

requirements, in January 2000. While the revisions generally took effect as of April 2000, one 

exception was the reporting requirements. Although states were encouraged to begin 

meeting the new requirements sooner, they did not officially take effect until January 2002. 

See 65 Fed. Reg. 1991 (Jan. 12, 2000).
Page 16 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

through June 2005, EPA’s database lacks any test results for nearly 31 

percent of the large and medium water systems.15 We could not determine 

whether the data are missing because states have not reported the results 

or because testing has not occurred. When asked whether states have been 

updating test results in a timely manner since 2004, an official representing 

EPA said that the timeliness of recent test data is unknown; the agency has 

not been tracking whether states are adequately maintaining data on the 

results of lead testing.

Regarding the information required for small water systems—which is 

limited to test results exceeding the action level—officials from both the 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance indicated that some data are probably missing 

but could not provide specific estimates. An official from the Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water commented that EPA’s database likely 

includes most of the required small system data because action level 

exceedances trigger follow-up activities and states are more likely to pay 

attention to those cases.

EPA Does Not Have 

Complete Information on 

the Status of Water Systems’ 

Efforts to Implement Lead 

Rule

As part of EPA’s efforts to improve its indicators of lead rule 

implementation, the agency restructured its reporting requirements and 

reduced the number of “milestones” that states are required to report from 

11 to 3. EPA established three corrective action milestones, including (1) a 

DEEM milestone, meaning that the system is deemed to have optimized 

corrosion control; (2) an LSLR milestone, meaning that the system is 

required to begin replacing its lead service lines; and (3) a DONE milestone, 

meaning that the system has completed all applicable requirements for 

corrosion control, source water treatment, and lead service line 

replacement.16

15Our analysis included active community water systems. Of the water systems lacking data, 

157 are large and 2,457 are medium-sized systems.

16For the purposes of this report, we are using the term “corrective action milestones” 

although, in some instances, water systems can be reported as meeting a milestone without 

taking or completing a corrective action. For example, water systems do not necessarily 

have to install treatment to be deemed to have optimized corrosion control. They may be 

eligible for a DEEM designation because their lead levels are consistently low or they can 

demonstrate that they have minimally corrosive water.
Page 17 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

EPA officials told us that the vast majority of water systems should have at 

least one milestone in the database. They indicated that in most instances, 

systems should have a DEEM designation because they have installed 

corrosion control or qualify for meeting the milestone otherwise. However, 

we found that, overall, EPA has information on corrective action 

milestones for only 28 percent of the community water systems 

nationwide—and lacks any milestone data on the remaining 72 percent. 

Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis.

Table 1: Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported by the States through June 2005, by System Size and Type of Milestonea

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

This table reflects the milestone data that states reported for active community water systems.

b

In the case of the DEEM milestone, states are required to report the basis for their determinations that 

systems have optimized corrosion control and EPA established three reason codes for that purpose. 

We found that EPA’s database contained the required reason codes for 100 percent of the 13,578

systems with a DEEM milestone. 

c

Because individual water systems may have multiple milestones in EPA’s database, this column 

represents the number of unique systems with one or more milestones to avoid “double counting.”

The extent to which milestone data were reported to EPA varied from state 

to state. We found that 22 states had not reported milestones for any of 

their water systems and another 8 states had reported data on about 10 

percent of their systems. (See app. II for a state-by-state breakdown of 

reported milestone data.) 

EPA officials believe that most water systems have actually taken the steps 

necessary to meet the criteria for the DEEM milestone, at a minimum, and 

attribute the lack of milestone data to non-reporting by the states rather 

than noncompliance by the water systems. They also suggested that some 

of the 22 states we identified as having reported no milestone data, based 

on our analysis of EPA’s current data, may have reported corrective actions 

Systems with milestones

Systems without any 

milestone data

Total systems with 

one or more 

milestonesc

System 

size

Number of 

water systems Number Percent DEEMb LSLR DONE Number Percent

Large 841 600 71.3 202 7 206 241 28.7

Medium 7,620 5,335 70.0 2,122 15 1,850 2,285 30.0

Small 42,991 31,195 72.6 11,254 21 8,838 11,796 27.4

Total 51,452 37,130 72.2 13,578 43 10,894 14,322 27.8
Page 18 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

prior to 2000, when EPA modified the number and type of milestones. 

However, we reviewed archived data in EPA’s database and found that 8 of 

the 22 states had also not reported any milestones prior to 2000, and 

another 11 states had reported data on no more than 10 percent of their 

systems. Overall, the 50 states had reported milestone data for only 5.7 

percent of their community water systems prior to 2000.

Moreover, some information in EPA’s database is inconsistent with other 

reported data. Specifically, we found differences between the information 

on lead service line replacement in EPA’s database—systems having an 

LSLR milestone—and the information states reported in the agency’s 50-

state review of lead rule implementation policies and practices. As table 2 

shows, seven states reported requiring lead service line replacement in 

response to EPA’s June 2004 query but did not have any LSLR milestones in 

EPA’s database in the same time frame. 

Table 2: Differences in Reported Information on Lead Service Line Replacement, as 

of June 2004

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

In response to EPA’s information request, 11 states reported that some water systems were 

voluntarily replacing lead service lines—or, in two instances, the “goosenecks” connecting the water 

main to a service line. The 11 states included one state (Michigan) that also reported requiring one or 

more systems to replace lead service lines.

States reporting required lead service 

line replacement activity in EPA’s June 

2004 information requesta

States reporting LSLR milestone in 

EPA’s database as of June 2004b

Arizona

Connecticut

Illinois Illinois

Iowa

Massachusetts Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota Minnesota

Montana Montana

New York

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

Utah

Wisconsin

Virginia

12 states 6 states
Page 19 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

b

The District of Columbia was also identified in EPA’s database with an LSLR milestone.

In addition, after following up with state officials, we found that EPA’s 

database did not contain accurate data on the number of water systems 

required to replace lead service lines because the states were not providing 

timely updates or correcting erroneous information. 

Data on Lead Rule 

Violations Are Questionable 

Because of Potential 

Underreporting by the 

States

Periodic audits by EPA—and our own analyses—raise questions about the 

completeness of EPA’s data on lead rule violations. To assess the reliability 

of its drinking water data, EPA regularly conducts data verification audits 

that evaluate state compliance decisions and the adequacy of states’ 

reporting to the national database. In addition, EPA prepares a national 

summary evaluation of the reliability of drinking water data every 3 years. 

While past data verification audits have not assessed compliance decisions 

under the lead rule, to the extent that states’ reporting practices are 

relatively consistent across regulations, the audits may shed some light on 

the types of problems likely to be found in the reporting of lead rule data. 

According to the most recent national summary of data reliability,17 which 

covered audits conducted from 1999 to 2001, the estimated error rate for 

health-based violations—involving maximum contaminant level or 

treatment technique requirements—was 35 percent, down from 60 percent 

in the prior national report, which covered audits conducted from 1996 to 

1998. For monitoring and reporting violations, the estimated error rate was 

77 percent, down from 91 percent in the prior report. The March 2004 

report said that most violation errors resulted from incorrect compliance 

determinations by the states, meaning that the state should have cited a 

violation but did not. Other problems included “data flow” errors (when the 

state correctly identified a violation but did not report it to EPA) and errors 

in EPA’s database (such as violations that were incorrectly reported or not 

removed when rescinded). 

Another analysis from EPA’s March 2004 report did include the lead rule 

and the results also raise questions about the completeness of EPA’s data 

on lead rule violations. The report states that by means of a tool that tracks 

the number of violations reported in each state over a period of several 

17EPA, Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003), EPA 816-R-03-

021 (Washington, D.C., March 2004). The report’s estimates of data quality have an 80 

percent confidence level and a 7.5 percent margin of error.
Page 20 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

years, EPA determined that 14 states had not reported any treatment 

technique violations under the lead rule during a 6-year period from 1997 to 

2002.18 The report noted that this potential non-reporting should be 

evaluated further and recommended that EPA and the states conduct 

annual evaluations of all instances of potential non-reporting. EPA’s Office 

of Ground Water and Drinking Water asked the regional offices to follow up 

with the states regarding the potential underreporting, as recommended in 

the March 2004 report on data reliability. For the most part, however, the 

regions’ responses did not address the lack of treatment technique 

violations under the lead rule in the applicable states; two of the regional 

offices did not provide written responses. Officials from EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance were not aware of the violations 

analysis. The officials told us that because of limited resources, they focus 

their efforts on helping to ensure that states address the worst compliance 

problems—water systems identified as significant noncompliers as a result 

of the frequency or severity of their violations. 

A lack of violations—or a relatively low number of water systems with 

violations—does not necessarily mean that states are not meeting reporting 

requirements, or that their compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts 

are inadequate. However, analyzing the violations data and following up on 

the results could provide some useful insights into the reasons for 

differences among the states; it could also help identify problem areas and 

best practices. We updated EPA’s analysis of violations and, as table 3 

shows, the percentage of water systems that have had one or more 

violations over the past 10 years varies from state to state, particularly in 

the case of monitoring violations.

18EPA includes several types of violations in its treatment technique category, including 

failure to install optimal corrosion control treatment, failure to meet water quality control 

parameters, failure to replace lead service lines, and failure to meet public education 

requirements, among other things.
Page 21 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Table 3: Percentage of Systems with Violations from 1995 to June 2005a

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

We used 1995 as the starting point for our analysis because all water systems should have completed 

their initial monitoring by the end of 1994. 

b

Some water systems in EPA’s database have multiple violations. To avoid double counting, we 

identified the percent of unique systems with one or more violations.

Appendix III contains a state-by-state analysis of lead rule violations 

reported from 1995 to June 2005.

More recently, EPA conducted data verification audits during the fall of 

2004, which focused exclusively on states’ compliance determinations 

under the lead rule in five states and included the lead rule as part of the 

audit in another five states. However, the results are not yet available. EPA 

officials have been analyzing the data and obtaining comments on the 

preliminary findings from the states; they expect to issue a final report by 

the end of calendar year 2005.

Lack of Data Affects EPA’s 

Ability to Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of Lead Rule 

Implementation and 

Enforcement

In changing its reporting requirements in January 2000, EPA recognized 

that it needed better indicators of the lead rule’s implementation. 

Regarding the 90th percentile results of lead monitoring, EPA noted that in 

terms of routine reporting, these data are the only measure it has for 

showing the lead rule’s effectiveness and said that, without such data, the 

agency would have no way to measure progress.19 Similarly, EPA 

Monitoring violations Treatment technique violations

Percent of systems 

with violationsb Number of states

Percent of systems 

with violationsb Number of states

0 1 0 11

> 0 to 5 10 > 0 to 1 16

> 5 to 10 6 > 1 to 5 14

> 10 to 20 11 > 5 to 10 6

> 20 to 30 9 > 10 3

> 30 to 40 7

> 40 6

Total 50 Total 50

1965 Fed. Reg. 1991 (Jan. 12, 2000).
Page 22 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

maintained that having information on water systems’ corrective action 

milestones, along with quarterly violation and follow-up information, 

would provide data on the status of lead rule implementation and allow the 

targeting of compliance and enforcement activities.20 Given the reduced 

number of milestones, EPA indicated that it would be critical for states to 

report the information completely and in a timely manner, and that the 

agency would be following up with the states to ensure that such reporting 

was occurring. 

Despite the importance of the 90th percentile results and corrective action 

milestones to evaluating the lead rule’s implementation, our analyses 

confirmed or identified significant and longstanding gaps in the amount of 

information available. Although EPA attempted to ensure that it had 

complete data on the results of lead testing, following the publicity 

surrounding the incidence of lead contamination in the District of 

Columbia, the problems with incomplete test result data have continued 

and the agency has not followed up on the missing milestone data. EPA has 

also been slow to take action on the potential underreporting of violations. 

As noted earlier, following its March 2004 report on data reliability, EPA did 

not determine the reasons for the lack of violations reported by some 

states. EPA’s previous summary evaluation, which was issued in October 

2000, identified similar indications of underreporting and called for 

targeted attention to the applicable states and regions to address the issues 

and develop action plans.21

EPA needs complete, accurate, and timely data to monitor water systems’ 

progress in implementing the lead rule, identify potential problem areas 

and best practices, and take appropriate action. In particular, not having 

complete or reliable data on corrective action milestones or violations 

makes it difficult to assess the adequacy of EPA and state enforcement 

efforts. However, officials from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance told us that the amount of enforcement resources 

devoted to the drinking water program—including enforcement of the lead 

rule—has declined in recent years. They also told us that while they hold 

monthly meetings with their counterparts in EPA’s regional offices and 

2063 Fed. Reg. 20043 (Apr. 22, 1998).

21EPA, Data Reliability Analysis of the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information 

System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED), EPA 816-R-00-020 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2000). 

EPA found that from 1993 to 1998, 1 state had not reported any lead monitoring violations 

and 21 states had not reported any treatment technique violations related to the lead rule.
Page 23 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

state officials to discuss the more significant violators, the officials have 

not systematically evaluated state enforcement efforts with regard to the 

lead rule. See appendix IV for information on EPA and state enforcement 

actions, by type, from 1995 to June 2005.

EPA and state officials attribute the problems with lead rule data to the 

complicated nature of the rule, the incompatibility of EPA and state 

information management systems, and resource constraints. For example, 

EPA officials noted that it is difficult to ensure that the database contains 

complete information—and includes data on every system that is required 

to test for lead in a particular period—because the frequency of required 

testing can vary depending on whether a system has qualified for reduced 

monitoring (and maintains that status in future periods). The same 

circumstances also make it difficult to develop trend data. EPA and state 

officials indicated that the January 2000 minor revisions to the lead rule, 

which made significant changes in states’ reporting requirements, 

exacerbated existing problems with the transfer of accurate and timely 

data from the states to EPA. For that and other reasons, modifying the 

states’ data systems to incorporate the new reporting milestones has been 

delayed. In addition to problems with the structure of the information 

systems—and technical problems in actually transferring data from the 

states to EPA—EPA and state officials acknowledge that reporting water 

systems’ milestone data has been a low priority. The officials explained that 

since January 2004, states have been focusing their limited resources on 

reporting the 90th percentile test results for large and medium water 

systems.

EPA and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators have been 

working on a Safe Drinking Water Information System modernization effort 

that should address at least some of current data problems, according to 

EPA officials. Among other things, the modernization will make it easier to 

transfer data between states and EPA so EPA’s data will be more timely. To 

improve the accuracy of the data, EPA’s system will have a component 

designed to validate state data before it is entered into the federal database. 

As of October 2005, EPA had completed the transition to its modernized 

system for the entry of new data. 
Page 24 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Weaknesses in the 

Regulatory Framework 

for the Lead Rule May 

Undermine Public 

Health Protection

Based on their experiences in implementing the lead rule, EPA, state, and 

water system officials have identified six aspects of the rule for which 

oversight could be improved or the requirements modified to increase 

public health protection. Specifically, their experiences indicate that (1) the 

sampling sites used for lead testing may no longer reflect areas of highest 

risk, (2) reduced monitoring may not be appropriate in some instances, (3) 

the homeowners who participate in tap monitoring may not be informed of 

the test results, (4) controls over when and how treatment changes are 

implemented may not be adequate, (5) data on the effectiveness of lead 

service line replacement programs are limited, and (6) states vary in how 

they apply the lead rule when water systems sell drinking water to other 

systems. In addition, some of the officials responsible for implementing the 

lead rule and other drinking water experts believe that existing standards 

for plumbing fixtures may be outdated. EPA is considering modifications to 

the lead rule that will address some of the problems we identified.

Sampling Sites May No 

Longer Reflect Areas of 

Highest Risk

Under the lead rule, water systems must select sampling sites that are 

considered to be at high risk for contamination. The rule defines Tier 1 sites 

as single-family structures served by lead service lines, and/or containing 

lead pipes (or copper pipes with lead solder installed after 1982).22

According to participants in EPA’s workshop on monitoring protocols and 

state officials we interviewed, one problem is that EPA has never updated 

its site selection criteria and at least one of the criteria is outdated. 

Specifically, enough time has elapsed so that lead solder in plumbing 

installed from 1983 to 1986 is no longer “fresh” (lead solder was banned in 

1986). Experts believe that, by now, solder from that period has been 

coated by a naturally occurring film that prevents lead leaching. Moving the 

sampling sites to other Tier 1 locations—for example, homes served by 

lead service lines—could be problematic. In the preamble to the lead rule, 

issued in 1991, EPA cited a survey by the American Water Works 

Association which estimated that only about 20 percent of the nation’s 

community water systems have lead service lines. Moreover, although the 

lead rule required water systems to do a “materials evaluation” to identify 

an adequate pool of high risk sampling sites, according to EPA the 

22If a water system does not have a sufficient number of Tier 1 sites in its sampling pool, the 

system may use Tier 2 sites, which are buildings (including multi-family residences) that 

meet the Tier 1 criteria. If necessary, the system may obtain samples from Tier 3 sites, which 

are single-family structures that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983.
Page 25 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

evaluation did not assess pipe materials system-wide, and many systems do 

not have a complete inventory of their service lines. 

A related problem is that sampling locations have likely changed over time 

as sites are no longer available or appropriate, and states may not have 

procedures in place to ensure that these locations continue to represent the 

highest risk sites.23 In this regard, EPA requested information from the 

states on how they “ensure that site locations were correctly followed 

during system sampling rounds.” As table 4 shows, a significant number of 

states may not be tracking changes in water systems’ sampling locations.

Table 4: State Activities to Ensure that Water Systems Are Taking Lead Samples at 

Appropriate Sites

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s information request on state implementation policies and practices.

a

For example, some states reported comparing the actual sampling locations with the sampling plans, 

some said that they advise their systems to continue sampling at the locations used during the initial 

sampling rounds, and others reported “reviewing” each round of sampling but did not mention 

comparing the sites to the sampling plans.

b

Two of these states (California and Vermont) reported that they lacked the resources to ensure that 

their water systems are taking samples at the correct locations.

Another uncertainty is whether systems that are on reduced monitoring—

and have been allowed to reduce the number of samples they collect—are 

taking samples from locations that represent the highest risk sites based on 

23For example, homeowners may drop out of the sampling program, homes may be torn 

down or become vacant, or homeowners may install water softeners or other treatment 

devices that reduce lead levels.

Activity Number of states

State uses tracking mechanisms such as special forms 

or unique codes to control sampling sites 14

State reported a less rigorous or less defined means of 

oversighta 11

State requires notification when systems change 

sampling locations but does not otherwise track sampling 5

State does not review or track samplingb 8

State did not answer question or provided information 

that was nonresponsive 12
Page 26 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

previous testing.24 According to the lead rule, these water systems must 

take their samples from sites included in the pool of high risk sampling 

sites identified initially. Although the systems have some indication of 

which sites within the pool have historically tested at higher or lower lead 

levels, the rule is silent on how sites within the pool are to be selected for 

reduced monitoring, except that they must be “representative” of the sites 

required for standard monitoring. In addition, the rule provides that states 

may specify the sampling locations. EPA requested information from the 

states on what role they play in selecting the sites used for reduced 

monitoring. We analyzed the states’ responses and found that, in most 

instances, the states’ role is limited; table 5 summarizes the results of our 

analysis.

Table 5: State Role in Selecting Sites for Reduced Monitoring

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s information request on state implementation policies and practices.

a

Among other things, some states require systems to select every other sampling site after ranking the 

sites by result from prior testing or alternate sites in each round of sampling.

b

For example, many of these states instruct their water systems to focus on Tier 1 sites first (if their 

sampling pool also contains Tier 2 or Tier 3 sites) or say that the sites must be representative of those 

in the pool or of the distribution system.

24Under the lead rule, systems that qualify for reducing the frequency of monitoring because 

of consistently good test results may also reduce the number of samples they test (and 

accordingly, the number of locations from which they collect samples). Except for the 

smallest systems, which serve populations of 100 or fewer (and are only required to take 5 

samples), water systems can cut the number of samples they collect by half. This means, for 

example, that the largest systems, serving populations of over 100,000, can reduce the 

number of sampling locations from 100 to 50.

Activity Number of states

State requires that highest risk sites, based 

on previous test results, are selected 3

State policy ensures that some of the 

highest risk sites, based on previous test 

results, are selecteda 9

State provides general guidance and may 

review the water systems’ selectionsb 19

State plays no role in selecting sites for 

reduced monitoring 12

State did not answer question or provided 

information that was nonresponsive 7

Total 50
Page 27 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Reduced Monitoring May 

Not Be Appropriate in Some 

Instances

According to EPA’s lead rule, small and medium-sized water systems whose 

test results are consistently at or below the action level may reduce the 

frequency of monitoring from once every 6 months to annually and, if 

acceptable results continue, to once every 3 years.25 In addition, systems of 

any size that operate within water quality control parameters reflecting 

optimal corrosion control treatment, as specified by the state, may reduce 

the frequency of monitoring under the same schedule.26 The rule also lays 

out conditions under which water systems must return to standard 

monitoring—for example, small and medium-sized systems that have 

exceeded the action level. In addition, states have the flexibility to require 

systems to resume standard monitoring if the state deems it to be

appropriate.27 We analyzed EPA’s compliance data and found some 

instances that raise questions about the states’ decisions to allow reduced 

monitoring. Specifically, we found that 49 large and medium water systems 

were exceeding the 15-parts-per-billion action level and appeared to be on 

reduced monitoring schedules.28 In addition, our analysis indicates that 104 

large and medium systems with lead levels of 13-15 parts per billion also 

appear to be on reduced monitoring schedules. Although this is allowable 

under EPA’s regulations, according to some state officials, systems with 

lead levels just below the action level should be subject to closer scrutiny 

and, thus, may not be good candidates for reduced monitoring.

To determine how states exercised their discretion with regard to 

monitoring frequency, we reviewed their responses to EPA’s information 

25Specifically, if the test results are at or below the action level in two consecutive 6-month 

monitoring periods, the systems may reduce the frequency of monitoring to once a year. 

Further, systems that test below the action level in three consecutive annual monitoring 

periods may be allowed to conduct testing only once every 3 years. Small systems may be 

eligible to reduce their monitoring frequency to once every 9 years if (1) they can 

demonstrate that their distribution system, service lines, and drinking water supply 

plumbing (including the plumbing conveying drinking water within all residences and other 

buildings connected to the system) is lead-free and (2) all applicable test results do not 

exceed 5 parts per billion at the 90th percentile. 

26When systems install corrosion control treatment, states must evaluate tap and water 

quality parameter samples to determine whether the system has properly installed and 

operated the treatment. 

27When systems submit new monitoring or treatment data, or when other relevant data 

become available, states are required to review and, where appropriate, revise their 

determinations.

28In analyzing these data, we compared the most recent test results reported during the 2002 

to June 2005 time frame and data on water systems’ current monitoring frequency.
Page 28 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

request, which asked the states to describe how they determine if reduced 

monitoring is appropriate. According to their responses, the states by and 

large adhere to the requirements of the lead rule and allow reduced 

monitoring whenever a water system’s test results are at or below the 

action level in consecutive monitoring periods.29 Specifically, 40 states 

reported that they follow the federal regulation, 6 states indicated that they 

may be using some additional criteria for their reduced monitoring 

determinations,30 and 4 states did not answer or provided information that 

was nonresponsive. EPA did not ask for the states’ views on whether 

reduced monitoring is appropriate when a water system’s test results are at 

or just below the action level or on circumstances in which states might 

determine that previously approved reduced monitoring is no longer 

appropriate—and the states did not volunteer such information. None of 

the states reported using other criteria, such as test results that are at or 

just below the action level, to delay or rescind approval for reduced 

monitoring. 

A key issue is whether water systems should be required to resume 

standard monitoring following a major treatment change so that the 

potential effects of the change can be evaluated. Given the circumstances 

in which lead contamination became a problem in the District of Columbia, 

when a change in the system’s disinfection treatment impaired the 

effectiveness of corrosion control, such decisions can be critical. In its 

information request on state implementation policies and practices, EPA 

asked the states whether they had ever required a system to conduct more 

frequent monitoring to evaluate the potential effects of a treatment change. 

It would have been useful to know more about the states’ policies and 

practices in this regard, including how often the states required additional 

monitoring and the criteria they used in making such determinations. 

29Although the lead rule states that test results must “meet” the action level (i.e., be at or 

below the action level) for a water system to be eligible for reduced monitoring, 10 states 

reported that reduced monitoring is allowed only when the test results are “below” the 

action level. We did not follow up with these states to determine whether they actually differ 

from the federal rule or their response was in error. 

30In some of these instances, the states’ responses implied—but did not specify—additional 

criteria. Otherwise, two states (Louisiana and South Dakota) reported that water systems 

would be approved for triennial monitoring if their 90th percentile test results were less than 

half of the action level. Michigan limits reductions in the number of sampling locations in 

the case of “combined distribution systems,” in which systems that purchase water are 

interconnected with a water wholesaler.
Page 29 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

However, EPA’s question was limited in scope and, as table 6 shows, the 

states often did not elaborate. 

Table 6: States That Require More Frequent Monitoring to Evaluate the Effects of 

Treatment Changes

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s information request on state implementation policies and practices.

a

For example, two states indicated that requiring more frequent monitoring was relatively common, 

while others reported that it was required in certain instances or occasionally. Examples of criteria for 

more frequent monitoring include (1) test results following a treatment change that are close to the 

lead action level and (2) installing treatment that is designed or expected to change water quality.

b

Responses from these states referred to state regulations or policy (e.g., “this is embedded in the 

approval process”) but did not directly answer the question of whether the state had ever required a 

system to conduct more frequent monitoring. In several instances, it seems likely that water systems 

have been required to monitor following a treatment change. 

c

Several states indicated that additional monitoring was recommended or encouraged following a 

treatment change but not required.

d

Two states did not answer the question and the responses from the other two states only addressed 

monitoring requirements following changes to corrosion control treatment.

In our discussions with 10 states, we found a variety of policies and 

practices regarding reduced monitoring. For example, officials from 

California and New York told us that they do not approve reduced 

monitoring—or are reluctant to do so—when water systems’ test results 

are close to the lead action level. On the other hand, Connecticut and 

Massachusetts officials indicated that they have systems that are on 

reduced monitoring despite test results close to the action level. Several 

State policy Number of states

States answered yes without elaborating on 

the frequency of—or criteria for—such 

decisions 11

States answered yes and included some 

indication of how often they required 

additional monitoring (7 states) or the 

criteria used for these decisions (5 states)a 12

State answer was ambiguous; it is unclear 

whether state has ever required more 

frequent monitoring after a treatment 

changeb 7

States answered no, generally without 

elaborationc 16

States did not answer question or provided 

information that was nonresponsived 4

Total 50
Page 30 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

other states indicated that, in the case of large water systems, approval for 

reduced monitoring is linked to whether the systems are meeting their 

water quality parameters—not the results of lead monitoring. On the issue 

of monitoring following a major treatment change, some participants at 

EPA’s monitoring workshop stated that standard compliance monitoring 

does not adequately evaluate the impact of treatment changes and that 

monitoring immediately after major changes should be required. Several of 

the states we contacted also favor increased monitoring under these 

circumstances; Florida and New York, for example, require systems to 

return to semi-annual monitoring following a treatment change. 

Pennsylvania officials agree that the state and water system should revisit 

the treatment approach when monitoring results indicate that a treatment 

change is affecting water chemistry. However, the officials acknowledged 

that they may not find out about the impact of treatment changes in a 

timely manner when water systems are on a triennial monitoring schedule.

Homeowners Who 

Participate in Periodic Tap 

Sampling May Not Be 

Notified of the Test Results

According to EPA’s information request on state implementation policies 

and practices, only two states require their water systems to notify 

homeowners of the results of lead testing—Texas (only when results 

exceed the action level) and Wisconsin. At least 17 other states indicated 

that notification may be occurring voluntarily to varying degrees. Table 7 

summarizes the results of our analysis. 

Table 7: State Views on Extent to Which Water Systems Are Notifying Homeowners 

of the Results of Lead Testing

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s information request on state implementation policies and practices.

Extent of notification Number of states

All systems notify homeowners 1

Some systems notify homeownersa 15

Test results are provided only on request 2

State is not aware of any systems that notify 

homeowners 6

State does not know what systems are 

doingb 18

State apparently misinterpreted EPA’s 

questionc 8

Total 50
Page 31 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

a

The states’ answers varied considerably. For example, some states indicated that their larger water 

systems are providing results to homeowners and some indicated that homeowners got the results 

only if they exceeded the action level.

b

In a few instances, the states indicated that they recommended that their water systems provide 

homeowners with test results. For example, Hawaii recommends notifying the homeowner if test 

results exceed 100 parts per billion, both to alert the homeowner and to verify that the sampling 

protocol was followed correctly. However, the states in this category did not have information on 

whether homeowners were actually getting test results.

c

EPA asked if water systems provide homeowners with the lead sampling results derived from “any 

volunteer sampling program.” Based on their answers, it appears that these states may have believed 

that EPA was asking about any testing above and beyond the regular sampling program involving 

residential tap samples. For example, several states said that they were not aware of any systems 

performing volunteer sampling programs and others indicated that their systems will conduct lead 

testing for homeowners on request.

Controls over When and 

How Treatment Changes 

Are Implemented May Not 

Be Adequate 

In some instances, changes to other treatment processes can make 

corrosion control less effective. According to EPA, state, and industry 

officials, one of the biggest challenges in implementing the lead rule is 

achieving “simultaneous compliance” with other rules, including, in 

particular, rules related to total coliform bacteria, surface water treatment, 

and disinfection by-products. Changing the type of disinfectant a system 

uses to control bacteria, for example, can impair the effectiveness of a 

system’s corrosion control treatment to prevent lead contamination. 

Among other things, states assuming primary enforcement responsibility 

must have a process for ensuring that the design and construction of new 

or substantially modified water system facilities will be capable of meeting 

drinking water regulations, including the lead rule.31 In addition, in its 

minor revisions to the lead rule, EPA added a requirement that certain 

water systems must notify the state no later than 60 days after making a 

change in water treatment.32 However, the responses to EPA’s information 

request raise questions about the nature and extent of states’ reviews of 

treatment changes. On the one hand, 31 states indicated that they had some 

type of proactive process to review or evaluate treatment changes, before 

or after the treatment was installed, including 15 states that reported 

requiring some or all of the affected water systems to provide information 

on the potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control.33 On the 

3140 C.F.R. § 142.10(b)(5). 

3240 C.F.R. § 141.90(a)(3).

33Information provided by the remaining 19 states was unclear, generally because their 

responses were limited or based on a literal interpretation of EPA’s question (e.g., states 

responded “in writing,” when asked how systems notified the state about treatment 

changes).
Page 32 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

other hand, it appears that in at least 15 states, the plan review process may 

be limited, or the states may not be receiving notifications from all their 

water systems. For example, some states indicated that their review 

process only covers changes to a system’s physical infrastructure—or 

specifically excludes changes in the chemicals used in a process. Other 

states reported that they are not learning of some treatment changes until 

they conduct comprehensive inspections of the water systems, or that 

small systems in particular are not notifying the state when they change 

their treatment processes.

Some of the participants in EPA’s May 2004 workshop on simultaneous 

compliance cited a need for additional regulations or guidance to help 

ensure that the effectiveness of corrosion control is maintained when 

water systems make changes to other treatment processes. For example, 

some participants suggested that the lead rule should better define or even 

specify the types of treatment changes that (1) should be reported to the 

state and (2) trigger additional monitoring or analysis. Along those lines, 

Washington state officials told us that certain changes, such as switching 

the disinfectant from chlorine to chloramines or making adjustments that 

affect the water’s pH or alkalinity, may warrant closer review because of 

the potential impact on corrosion control. The officials also noted that 

additional guidance from EPA on these matters would be helpful. Others 

believe that small water systems, in particular, need more guidance on the 

potential effects of various treatment changes, and that operator 

certification and training programs should be updated to address these 

topics. 

Data on the Effectiveness of 

Lead Service Line 

Replacement Programs Are 

Limited

Under the lead rule, drinking water systems may be required to replace 

lead service lines if test results exceed the action level after installing 

corrosion control and/or source water treatment. Some of the participants 

in an EPA workshop on lead service line replacement and state officials we 

contacted raised questions about the effectiveness of replacement 

programs, in part because such programs often result in partial 

replacement only. Water systems are responsible for replacing only the 

portion of the service lines they own. While residential customers may, at 

their option, pay the cost of replacing the rest of the service line—typically, 

the portion running from the curb stop or property line to the household 

plumbing system—some evidence suggests that customer participation in 

such programs is generally low. 
Page 33 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

According to workshop participants, little conclusive information is 

available on the extent to which removing lead service lines lowers lead 

levels at the tap. In a survey of water systems conducted for the American 

Water Works Association, 18 of 27 respondents indicated that lead service 

lines were not responsible for the highest levels of lead in drinking water, 

and 20 of 29 respondents reported no observed linkage between lead 

service lines and lead levels in drinking water.34 However, the survey did 

not include information on test results before and after replacement of lead 

service lines. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation 

is sponsoring a study of the relative contributions of service lines and 

plumbing fixtures to lead levels at the tap; the projected completion is fall 

2008.

The limited data on the extent and results of lead service line replacement 

programs make it difficult to draw conclusions about the programs’ 

effectiveness or the need for additional regulations or guidance. As noted 

earlier, EPA’s data on corrective action milestones—including the LSLR 

milestone—are incomplete. Moreover, few states reported requiring 

systems to replace lead service lines in response to EPA’s information 

request on state implementation policies and practices. Specifically, when 

asked if they have any systems that have been required to do lead service 

line replacement, five states answered “yes” without elaborating and seven 

states reported a total of 27 water systems that are (or were) replacing lead 

lines.35 In addition, although the lead rule requires testing following partial 

service line replacement, it appears that neither the states nor EPA are 

collecting and analyzing these test results. EPA asked states to describe the 

process they use to ensure that water systems are following the 

requirements for lead service line replacement. Among other things, the 

lead rule requires systems to collect samples within 72 hours following 

partial replacement and to notify homeowners and occupants of the 

results. States may waive the requirement that these test results also be 

provided to the states. Of the 12 states that reported requiring one or more 

water systems to replace lead service lines, only one indicated that its 

34Overall, 65 water systems with lead service lines were included in the survey. Although a 

total of 41 systems responded to the survey, the number of responses to individual questions 

varied. 

35In addition, nine states reported that one or more of their water systems were replacing 

lead service lines voluntarily (including one state that also reported requiring systems to 

replace lead lines). Two more states reported that systems with lead goosenecks, which 

connect water mains to the service lines, have either replaced the goosenecks or are doing 

so as they are discovered.
Page 34 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

water systems might be required to report the results of service line testing 

to the state.36

Some of the officials we contacted raised concerns about whether the 

benefits of replacement are enough to justify what can be a significant 

investment. For example, Iowa drinking water officials commented that 

partial replacement is not a good use of resources because it disturbs the 

line, releasing lead particulate matter into the water, and still leaves half the 

lead line in place. In addition, officials from the Syracuse Water 

Department told us that they are planning to replace lead service lines at a 

cost of $5.3 million, although they are skeptical that the effort will 

significantly reduce lead levels, citing the age of the housing stock and lead 

contributions from internal residential plumbing. The officials attribute the 

city’s problem with elevated lead levels to a simultaneous compliance 

issue. Specifically, adding a phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor to further 

reduce the corrosiveness of the drinking water solves one problem but 

creates another: excessive phosphates in the system’s discharges to a local 

lake. 

Participants at EPA’s workshop on lead service line replacement and some 

of the state and water industry officials we contacted suggested measures 

to help ensure that water systems maximize the potential benefits of 

replacement efforts. For example, some workshop participants called for 

EPA guidance on strategies to encourage full service line replacement and 

motivate customers to have their portion of the line removed. Such 

strategies might include subsidizing a portion of the replacement cost, 

offering low interest loans or property tax relief, requiring disclosure of 

lead service lines in property sales, or providing more information on the 

health effects of exposure to lead in drinking water. Others suggested that 

prioritizing the replacement of lead service lines would help ensure that 

replacement activities focus on the populations most at risk from exposure 

to elevated lead levels. Some utilities are already prioritizing service line 

replacement using criteria such as locations with vulnerable populations, 

including schools and child care facilities, locations where test results have 

exceeded the action level, and lines serving 20 or more people in an 8-hour 

day.

36Another two states said that they issued regulations or provided guidance instructing 

systems to comply with the testing requirements; three states indicated that they review a 

system’s replacement program during periodic inspections; and six states did not provide 

any information regarding their oversight of lead service line testing.
Page 35 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

States Vary in How They 

Apply the Lead Rule When 

Water Systems Sell Drinking 

Water to Other Systems 

We found some differences among the states in how interconnected water 

systems—generally comprising a system that sells drinking water along 

with one or more systems that buy the water—are required to monitor for 

lead and report the results. According to EPA’s proposed definitions, these 

interconnected water systems are known as “combined water distribution 

systems.”37 The variations in state implementation practices create 

differences in the level of public information and, potentially, public health 

protection. Combined distribution systems account for a large and growing 

share of the nation’s community water systems so differences in how they 

implement the lead rule could have broad implications for public health 

protection. Overall, EPA estimates that there are currently about 2,800 

combined distribution systems that encompass about 13,900 individual 

systems, likely accounting for a significant share of all community water 

systems.38 Under EPA regulations that establish general requirements for 

drinking water monitoring, states may modify the monitoring requirements 

imposed on combined distribution systems—typically by reducing the 

number of samples required within the combined system—“to the extent 

that the interconnection of the systems justifies treating them as a single 

system for monitoring purposes.”39 However, in the case of the lead rule, 

EPA strongly discouraged such modifications, commenting that they would 

not be appropriate because the primary source of elevated lead levels at the 

tap is materials within the distribution system. 

At least four of the states we contacted—Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, 

and Washington—approved modified sampling arrangements at combined 

distribution systems. For example, the Massachusetts Water Resources 

37Under EPA’s proposed definitions, a “water wholesaler” is a water system that sells or 

otherwise delivers treated water to another system on a regular basis (at least 60 days per 

year); a “consecutive system” is a system that buys or otherwise receives some or all of its 

treated water from another water system at least 60 days per year. EPA defines the totality 

of the distribution systems of all interconnected wholesale and consecutive systems as a 

combined distribution system.

38We were unable to confirm the actual number of community water systems in EPA’s 

estimate. According to EPA, they are in the process of developing better data on the number 

and type of water systems involved in combined distribution systems. 

3940 C.F.R. § 141.29. EPA must concur with modified monitoring arrangements.
Page 36 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Authority, which supplies all of the drinking water for 30 communities,40

currently takes lead samples at 440 locations under its modified sampling 

arrangement—significantly fewer than the 1,720 samples that would be 

required if each of the consecutive systems tested for lead individually. On 

the other hand, if the combined distribution system represented a single 

water system, only 100 samples would be required. 

EPA does not have comprehensive information on the extent to which 

states are approving modified sampling arrangements at combined 

distribution systems—or the reporting practices used by such systems. As 

table 8 shows, we found differences in how combined distribution systems 

calculated and reported their 90th percentile test results. 

Table 8: Examples of Different Reporting Practices for Lead Testing in Combined Water Distribution Systems as of June 2005

Source: GAO analysis of data from EPA and the wholesaler water systems.

40According to a Massachusetts Water Resources Authority official, the 30 communities 

receive corrosion control from the Authority and are part of the modified sampling 

arrangement approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The 

Authority also provides more limited services to 17 other systems, including water that is 

mixed with local supplies in some cases and emergency water supplies in other cases. Each 

of these other systems has its own lead rule compliance program.

Water wholesaler

Number of consecutive 

systems fully supplied by 

the wholesalera

How the systems are listed in 

EPA’s database 

How the 90th percentile lead 

levels are calculated and 

reported in EPA’s database 

Detroit, MI 72 Wholesaler and each 

consecutive system are listed 

separately

Separate lead level calculations 

for the wholesaler and each 

consecutive system

Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority (MA)

30 One listing for the combined 

distribution system (including the 

wholesaler and the consecutive 

systems)

One overall result, reported for 

the combined distribution system 

Philadelphia, PA 3 Wholesaler and each 

consecutive system are listed 

separately

Separate lead level calculations 

for the wholesaler and each 

consecutive system

Portland, OR 15 Wholesaler and each 

consecutive system are listed 

separately

One overall result; same 90th

percentile reported for wholesaler 

and each consecutive system 

Seattle, WA 19 One listing for the combined 

distribution system (including the 

wholesaler and the consecutive 

systems)

One overall result, reported for 

the combined distribution system 
Page 37 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

a

The water wholesalers may also partially supply other systems or provide emergency supplies, and 

may sell water to certain non-transient, noncommunity water systems—systems that serve at least 25 

people for more than 6 months in a year—and generally are subject to the same requirements as 

community water systems.

Not only do the reporting practices approved by the states affect the 

amount of information available to the public—they can also have 

implications for the corrective actions that are taken to reduce lead levels. 

For example, reporting one overall result for lead testing can be misleading 

if the 90th percentile levels at individual consecutive systems would have 

exceeded the action level. In the case of the Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority, although EPA’s database contains the overall result 

for the combined system, authority officials calculated the 90th percentile 

results for each of the consecutive systems and determined that lead 

concentrations at some of them exceeded the action level.41 State officials 

in Massachusetts told us that until recently, none of the consecutive 

systems whose individual test results exceeded the action level were 

required to meet public notification or public education requirements or to 

replace lead service lines—as long as the result for the combined system 

met the action level. Although EPA regional officials concurred with such 

arrangements when they were first established, EPA is now considering 

how to ensure that the lead rule requirements will be applied to each 

community within a combined distribution system. Based on discussions 

with EPA regional officials, Massachusetts has already changed its policy 

and will be revisiting agreements with combined distribution systems.

Outdated Plumbing 

Standards Hinder Efforts to 

Reduce Exposure to Lead in 

Drinking Water

The standards applicable to plumbing products are important to utility 

managers who are responsible for ensuring the quality of water at the tap 

but have little control over household plumbing. However, existing 

standards may not be protective enough, according to some experts, 

because testing has determined that some of the products defined as “leadfree” under the Safe Drinking Water Act can still contribute high levels of 

lead to drinking water. For example, although the act prohibits the use of 

solder or other plumbing materials in the installation or repair of any public 

water system if it is not lead-free, lead-free is defined to include materials 

that contain small amounts of lead. That is, solders and flux may contain up 

to 0.2 percent lead, pipes and pipe fittings may contain up to 8 percent lead. 

41In this case, the individual communities did notify their customers of the 90th percentile 

results for the applicable consecutive system. However, EPA’s database does not contain 

this information so it is not readily available to the public at large.
Page 38 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

In addition, plumbing fittings and fixtures may leach lead up to 11 parts per 

billion into drinking water and still be deemed lead-free, according to 

voluntary standards established by an independent organization and 

accepted by EPA.42

NSF International (NSF)—a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization 

involved in standards development and product certification—established

the standard in 1997.

43 NSF used a voluntary consensus process that 

included representatives from regulatory agencies, industry, water 

suppliers, consultants, and other users of the products governed by the 

standard. 

One problem with the current regulatory framework is that certain devices 

used in or near residential plumbing systems are not covered by all 

standards for lead-free plumbing. Table 9 shows how the standards 

governing lead content and lead leaching apply to specific categories of 

products.

Table 9: Applicability of Standards for Lead-Free Plumbing Products

Source: EPA and NSF International.

a

NSF defines endpoint devices as mechanical plumbing devices, components, and materials that are 

typically installed with the last liter of the distribution system and are intended by the manufacturer to 

dispense water for human consumption.

b

NSF defines in-line devices as devices installed on a service line of building distribution system 

downstream of the water main and before endpoint devices. They include devices in a building used to 

measure or control the flow of water in treatment, transmission, or distribution systems and are in 

contact with drinking water.

4242 U.S.C. § 300g-6(a),(d),(e).

43See NSF, ANSI/NSF Standard 61: Drinking Water System Components – Health Effects

(Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1997). NSF focuses on food, water, indoor air, and the environment. NSF 

is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to provide third-party 

certification to NSF Standard 61.

Type of plumbing product

8% limit on lead 

content

11 ppb limit on lead 

leaching

Endpoint devices, such as kitchen and 

lavatory faucets, water dispensers, drinking 

fountains, and residential refrigerator ice 

makersa X X

In-line devices, such as meters and valvesb X
Page 39 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Some of the products that are not covered by the voluntary leaching 

standard have been found to contribute high levels of lead to drinking 

water during testing. For example, tests conducted by NSF indicate that 

certain meters and valves may contribute high levels of lead to drinking 

water. At our request, NSF compiled test results for a nonprobability 

sample of water meters and valves that had been submitted for evaluation. 

While all of the products in the sample were well below the 8 percent limit 

on lead content, the test results showed that the amount of lead leached 

from the selected water meters ranged from 0.4 parts per billion up to 39 

parts per billion and, in the case of valves, ranged from a low of 4.1 parts 

per billion to as much as 530 parts per billion. An NSF official commented 

that although these products are representative of what is submitted to 

NSF for testing, they are probably not representative of what is available in 

the marketplace because some manufacturers have two product lines—a 

low-lead line for buyers who specify products that meet NSF Standard 61 

and a higher-leaded line for other buyers. 

Another issue is that NSF’s testing protocol for lead leaching may not 

accurately reflect actual conditions and may need to be modified. One 

recent study identified several aspects of NSF’s testing protocol that should 

be reevaluated, including, for example, the chemistry of the water in which 

tests are conducted. After demonstrating that potentially unsafe devices 

could pass NSF’s test, the study concluded that the protocol “lacks the 

rigor necessary to prevent installation of devices that pose an obvious 

public health hazard.”44 NSF officials told us that they are aware of the 

concerns and have already made some clarifications and changes to the 

protocol. NSF has also established a task force, the Drinking Water 

Additives Joint Committee, which will be reviewing the protectiveness of 

NSF Standard 61 and related testing. 

Representatives of NSF, water utilities, and researchers also took issue 

with the standard for lead content, noting that it has not been updated to 

reflect current manufacturing capabilities and practices. According to the 

American Water Works Association, manufacturing technology in the 

plumbing industry has improved since the lead-free definition was 

established nearly 20 years ago, and today’s plumbing products contain less 

lead as a result. Data on the lead content of plumbing products voluntarily 

submitted to NSF for evaluation, shown in table 10, suggest that 

44Dudi, A., Schock, M., Murray, N., and Edwards, M., Lead Leaching from Inline Brass 

Devices: A Critical Evaluation of the Existing Standard, Journal AWWA (August 2005).
Page 40 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

manufacturers can produce products with lead levels well below the 8 

percent standard.

Table 10: Summary of NSF Test Results Regarding Lead Content of Plumbing Products Voluntarily Submitted to NSF for 

Certification

Source: NSF. 

Note: This table contains cumulative data on the number and percent lead content of faucets, meters, 

and valves voluntarily submitted to NSF for certification. The data should not be generalized beyond 

this group. 

According to NSF, the extent to which lead leaches from products 

containing lead is not directly proportional to the level of lead used in any 

one alloy contained in the product.45 NSF identified several factors that 

contribute to the level of leaching, including the corrosiveness of the water, 

lead content, the extent of the leaded surface area, and the process used to 

manufacture the product. However, the state regulators, water industry 

representatives, and other experts we interviewed generally agreed that 

lowering the existing standard for lead content is feasible and would 

provide an extra margin of safety. Both the Copper Development 

Association and the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute acknowledged that 

most plumbing products are below the 8 percent limit on lead content but 

prefer that plumbing standards focus on performance—the leaching of 

lead—rather than content. 

We did not attempt to determine the extent to which the standards for leadfree plumbing products are enforced. According to NSF, the use of 

plumbing products within a building is generally regulated at the state, 

county, and city levels through plumbing codes. NSF representatives also 

said that all model plumbing codes reference NSF Standard 61 for pipes, 

Results of testing on faucets Results of testing on meters and valves

Lead content Cumulative number Cumulative percent Cumulative number Cumulative percent

1.0% or less 2,069 37.3 930 75.1

3.7% or less 5,495 99.0 1,104 89.1

8.0% or less 5,551 100.0 1,236 99.8

Total products tested 5,551 100.0 1,239 100.0

45McLellan, C., Purkiss, D., and Greiner, P., Interim Report on Extraction Results on Leaded 

Products Submitted for Evaluation Under NSF/ANSI 61, NSF International (Ann Arbor, 

Mich.: June 2005).
Page 41 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

fittings, and faucets.46 NSF reports that most faucets sold at the retail and 

wholesale level are certified to meet Standard 61, but fewer valves and 

other in-line devices are certified to the standard because it is not required 

in model plumbing codes.

State efforts to implement more stringent standards for plumbing products 

appear limited, based on our discussions with federal and state regulators 

and representatives of the water industry and plumbing manufacturers. We 

identified two states in which such activities have occurred: 

• In California, the Attorney General sued 16 manufacturers and 

distributors of kitchen and bathroom faucets in the early 1990s, alleging 

that lead leaching from brass components of their faucets violated 

California law.47 The suit resulted in settlement agreements with the 

companies and a related court decision in which they agreed to reduce 

leaching levels. According to an official with the California Attorney 

General’s Office, the limit on lead leaching is 5 parts per billion for 

residential kitchen faucets and 11 parts per billion for all other faucets. 

• According to officials with the Massachusetts Board of State Examiners 

of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, in 1995 the board established a 3 percent 

limit on the lead content of endpoint and in-line devices installed inside 

the home. Board officials acknowledge that enforcement of the standard 

is difficult because products containing more than 3 percent lead may 

be sold in Massachusetts stores as long as the products are not installed 

in Massachusetts homes. Moreover, the packaging does not indicate 

lead content or certification to the state standard.

At the local level, some water systems are installing no-lead meters—which 

contain less than 0.25 percent lead—because of concerns about the 

potential impact of leaded brass meters on lead levels at the tap. In some 

instances, the water systems are targeting their meter replacement to 

buildings housing schools and child care facilities.

46Model plumbing codes include the International Plumbing Code and the United Plumbing 

Code.

47See Cal. Safety & Health Code § 25249.5 (part of the initiative known as Proposition 65 

adopted by popular vote in 1986).
Page 42 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

EPA Is Considering 

Modifications to the Lead 

Rule to Address Some 

Problem Areas

Based on its year-long evaluation of the lead rule and how it is being 

implemented, EPA concluded that the conditions that led to elevated lead 

levels in the District of Columbia were not indicative of the conditions 

nationwide. However, in November 2004, while its evaluation was still 

ongoing, EPA issued a guidance memorandum to reiterate and clarify 

specific regulatory requirements after the agency’s review of state 

programs and some press reports identified inconsistencies in how 

drinking water systems and the states were carrying out the regulation. The 

memorandum focused on requirements related to collecting samples and 

calculating compliance. In addition, in March 2005, EPA announced a 

Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan to improve and clarify specific areas 

of the rule and the agency’s guidance materials. The plan identifies nine 

targeted revisions of the regulations and updates to two guidance 

documents.

Specifically, EPA’s lead reduction plan calls for regulatory revisions to the 

following:

• Monitoring requirements. These revisions would (1) clarify the 

number of samples required, (2) clarify the number of locations from 

which samples should be collected, (3) modify definitions of 

“monitoring period” and “compliance period,” (4) clarify the 

requirement to take all samples within the same calendar year, and (5) 

reconsider allowing large water systems that exceed the lead action 

level to qualify for reduced monitoring as long as their test results for 

water quality parameters are within acceptable limits.

• Treatment requirements. These revisions would require water 

systems to notify the state of treatment changes 60 days prior to the 

change rather than within 60 days following the change.

• Customer awareness requirements. These revisions would (1) 

require water systems to disclose test results to homeowners and 

occupants who participate in tap monitoring programs and (2) permit 

states to allow water systems to modify flushing instructions—the 

amount of time that homeowners are advised to run water before using 

it—to address local circumstances.

• Lead service line replacement requirements. These revisions would 

require water systems to reevaluate lead service lines that previously 

“tested out” of the replacement program as a result of low lead levels if a 
Page 43 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

subsequent treatment change causes the systems to exceed the action 

level.48

In addition, EPA is considering updating its 1994 guidance on lead in 

drinking water in schools and non-residential buildings, along with its 1999 

guidance on simultaneous compliance.

So far, EPA has not released additional details on the nature of the changes 

being considered in some areas (e.g., number of samples and sampling 

locations) or what prompted its determination that revisions to the lead 

rule and related guidance might be warranted. An EPA workgroup, which 

was established when the lead reduction plan was issued, is developing the 

proposed rule for the regulatory changes, with a goal of releasing a 

proposal in late 2005 or early 2006. Revisions to the guidance documents 

are scheduled to be completed about the same time. 

While the exact nature of some changes has yet to be defined, we asked the 

10 states we contacted for their views on whether the proposed revisions 

would improve implementation of the lead rule. For the most part, state 

officials were in favor of the proposed changes involving the monitoring 

protocols. Although they wanted more details on how the requirements 

would be revised, they believed the changes to be relatively minor. In 

particular, most state officials agreed that large water systems that exceed 

the action level should not be allowed to reduce the frequency of lead 

monitoring based solely on their ability to meet water quality parameters. 

Regarding earlier notification of treatment changes, officials from all 10 

states we contacted supported such a revision, particularly for major 

treatment changes. The officials indicated that the notification requirement 

would not have a significant impact on their own practices because each of 

the states already had some type of process in place to permit or review 

treatment changes. Five of the states questioned whether 60 days advance 

notice would be sufficient to allow an adequate review. Several states 

suggested that EPA should require expedited monitoring of lead levels 

following major treatment changes—or issue guidance on when it would be 

appropriate for states to require such monitoring—and that EPA should 

issue guidance on what constitutes a major treatment change. In addition, 

48Under the lead rule, water systems are not required to replace an individual lead service 

line if the lead concentration in all service line samples from that line is less than or equal to 

15 parts per billion. This is sometimes referred to as the “test-out” provision.
Page 44 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

officials from two states commented that EPA should require state 

approval of the treatment changes in addition to advance notification. 

On the proposed revisions involving customer awareness, all 10 states 

agreed that homeowners that participate in the tap sampling program 

should be informed of the test results—particularly if the results for 

individual homeowners exceed the lead action level—whether or not the 

90th percentile result for the entire system exceeds the action level. One 

state was concerned about the additional resources that would be required 

to track the water systems’ actions. Nearly all of the states also endorsed 

the proposal to give states and water systems more flexibility in 

determining what flushing instructions are appropriate in particular 

situations. Some states suggested that EPA guidance on making such 

determinations would be useful.

Regarding the proposed reevaluation of lead service lines that tested out of 

a replacement program, the states’ views were mixed. Although five states 

generally endorsed the idea, the other five states raised several concerns, 

including the potential cost to local drinking water systems, the 

administrative burden that such a requirement would impose on states, and 

the need for more specific information on the types of treatment changes 

that would trigger a reevaluation of lead service lines.

Over the long term, EPA plans to examine other issues related to lead rule 

implementation that may need to be addressed through regulation or 

guidance. EPA officials have indicated that, in some instances, they need 

more information to determine whether changes are warranted, and they 

are in the process of collecting and analyzing data, or have relevant 

research projects underway. According to EPA officials, some of the issues 

they plan to review include the sampling protocol, monitoring and 

reporting requirements for consecutive systems, the impact of disinfection 

treatment on corrosion control, and the requirements for lead service line 

replacement.
Page 45 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Limited Data Indicate 

Few Schools and Child 

Care Facilities Test or 

Take Other Measures 

to Control Lead in 

Their Water Supplies

Little information exists on the results of activities initiated after 

enactment of the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of 1988, 

including the recall of lead-lined water coolers from schools and child care 

facilities. More recent efforts to detect and remediate lead in the drinking 

water at such facilities also appear limited. As a result, the extent to which 

drinking water may contain unacceptable levels of lead at schools and child 

care facilities nationwide is uncertain. In addition, no clear focal point 

exists at the federal or state level to collect and analyze the results of 

testing and remediation efforts. Moreover, state and local officials say that 

addressing other environmental hazards at schools and child care facilities 

takes priority over testing for lead in drinking water.

Little Information Exists on 

the Results of the Recall of 

Lead-Lined Water Coolers 

and Other Activities 

Prompted by the LCCA

The LCCA, enacted in 1988, laid out a number of requirements for EPA, the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the states to address the 

potential risks of lead contamination in water supplies serving schools and 

child care facilities. Among other things, the act 

• banned the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers containing 

lead-lined tanks and other water coolers that are not lead-free, 

• required EPA to publish a list of such coolers and distribute it to the 

states along with guidance on testing for and remedying lead 

contamination in drinking water, and 

• required the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue an order 

requiring manufacturers and importers to (1) repair or replace the 

coolers or (2) recall and provide a refund for them because coolers 

containing lead-lined tanks were deemed to be imminently hazardous 

consumer products. 

In addition, the LCCA required states to establish programs to assist local 

agencies in addressing potential lead contamination. While the nature and 

extent of state activities varied widely, the program was never funded, 

according to EPA officials. In 1996, the requirement was determined to be 

unconstitutional.49

49See ACORN v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Air. 1996).
Page 46 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

To support the required recall, EPA identified six models of water coolers 

containing lead-lined tanks, all produced by one company and 

manufactured prior to April 1979. EPA could not obtain information on the 

number of units produced. The Consumer Product Safety Commission 

broadened the recall order to include all tank-type models of drinking 

water coolers manufactured by the company, whether or not the models 

were included on EPA’s list.50 Under the terms of the order, the 

manufacturer established a process under which qualified owners of the 

affected coolers could request a refund or replacement. The manufacturer 

was also required to notify appropriate officials and organizations, 

including state and school officials and day care centers, about the recall 

and the availability of refunds and replacements.

Little information is available to determine the effectiveness of the recall 

effort in removing lead-lined water coolers from service.51 Not only is the 

number of coolers affected by the recall unknown, but the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission did not have summary data on the results of 

the recall. An agency official confirmed information in a 1991 Natural 

Resources Defense Council report that, as of 1990, the Commission had 

received approximately 1,200 inquiries about the recall, 1,373 coolers had 

been determined to be eligible for replacement, 514 had been replaced, and 

105 refunds had been mailed to customers.52 However, the official also said 

that many more coolers were replaced after that date and that by 1993, the 

manufacturer had received approximately 11,000 inquiries about the recall. 

The official believed that the actual number of replacements was 

potentially 10 times greater than those reported in 1991 and the refunds 

four to five times greater. In addition, the recall order did not specify an end 

date for filing a refund or replacement request so an unknown number of 

coolers could have been taken out of service without the knowledge of the 

manufacturer or the Commission subsequent to 1993. 

5055 Fed. Reg. 22387 (June 1, 1990).

51Under the terms of the recall order, the manufacturer was required to (1) provide periodic 

reports to the Commission for 3 years, including information on the number of 

replacements shipped and refunds mailed, and (2) maintain records related to the recall for 

5 years.

52Natural Resources Defense Council, The Lead Contamination Control Act: A Study in 

Non-Compliance (June 1991). Because this study is used for context purposes, we did not 

assess its reliability.
Page 47 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

According to several state and school officials we interviewed, virtually all 

of the water coolers affected by the recall have been replaced or removed, 

either as a result of the publicity surrounding the recall or because they had 

already been taken out of service. Some of the six models covered by the 

recall were manufactured in the 1950s and 1960s and are likely to have 

been retired because of their age or maintenance problems. 

Beyond the recall effort, little or no data are available to assess the 

effectiveness of other actions taken in response to the LCCA. For example, 

little information is available on the extent to which schools and child care 

facilities were inspected to check potential lead contamination from water 

coolers that were not lead-free. While the act did not require EPA or the 

states to track or report on the results of testing, EPA was responsible for 

publishing guidance and a testing protocol to assist schools in determining 

the source and degree of lead contamination in school drinking water 

supplies and remedying such contamination. EPA published guidance for 

both schools and child care facilities in 1989 and 1994, respectively.53

We found no information indicating how pervasive lead-contaminated 

drinking water in such facilities nationwide or within particular states 

might be, but several studies conducted in the early 1990s contained some 

limited information on testing efforts:

• In 1993, we reported on the results of a survey of 57 school districts in 

10 states.54 We found that 47 districts were able to provide data on the 

results of testing, which showed that about 15 percent of the 2,272 

schools tested had drinking water containing levels of lead considered 

unacceptable by EPA. We also contacted child care licensing agencies in 

16 states to obtain information on their activities for addressing lead 

hazards and found that none of the agencies routinely inspected child 

care facilities for such hazards.

53EPA published the first guidance document in 1989. See EPA Office of Water, Lead in 

School's Drinking Water, EPA 570-9-89-001 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1989). EPA updated the 

guidance in 1994. See EPA Office of Water, Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and NonResidential Buildings, EPA 812-8-94-002 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1994). Also in 1994, EPA 

published a separate guidance document to address child care facilities. See EPA Office of 

Water, Sampling for Lead in Drinking Water in Nursery Schools and Day Care Facilities, 

EPA 812-B-94-003 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1994). 

54GAO, Toxic Substances: The Extent of Lead Hazards in Child Care Facilities and 

Schools Is Unknown, GAO/RCED-93-197 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 1993).
Page 48 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

• A 1990 report by EPA’s Inspector General found that, of the 13 school 

districts surveyed, 10 conducted some testing for lead in drinking water 

and 8 detected contamination, with some results exceeding acceptable 

levels by a wide margin.55

• According to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s 1991 study,56 47 

states reported some testing of school drinking water supplies, 

including 16 states that tested in “a few” to 25 percent of their schools, 

27 states that tested from 25 percent to 82 percent of the schools, and 4 

states that tested 95 percent or more of their schools. The study also 

found that 17 states reported testing at child care facilities. 

In addition to these earlier studies, in 2004 EPA asked the states to provide 

information on current state and local efforts to monitor and protect 

children from lead exposure in drinking water at schools and child care 

facilities.57 As part of that effort, seven states also reported on the results of 

local testing following passage of the LCCA, stating that elevated lead 

levels were found in at least some of the locations tested.58 However, the 

states differed significantly in the extent of their testing and how they 

summarized the results. In five of the states, the results generally ranged 

from about 1 percent to 27 percent of samples, facilities, or districts with 

lead levels considered unacceptable by EPA—but the other two states 

finding elevated lead levels used a different assessment measure.

55EPA Office of the Inspector General, Report of Audit on the Lead in Drinking Water 

Program, Report No. E1HWF9-03-0316-0100508 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1990).

56The Lead Contamination Control Act: A Study in Non-Compliance, pp. 6-7.

57EPA, Controlling Lead in Drinking Water for Schools and Day Care Facilities: A 

Summary of State Programs, EPA-810-R-04-001 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004). 

58Although not reported in response to EPA’s information request, Washington state also 

conducted a survey of school testing shortly after the LCCA was enacted and found that 25 

percent of 121 schools that conducted testing detected unacceptable levels of lead in one or 

more drinking water outlets.
Page 49 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Current Efforts to Detect 

and Remediate Lead in 

Drinking Water at Schools 

and Child Care Facilities 

Also Appear Limited

The extent of current testing and remediation activities for lead in school 

and child care facility drinking water appears limited. The LCCA does not 

require states to track or report such activities and, based on the 

information that EPA collected from the states in 2004 and our own 

contacts in 10 states, few states have comprehensive programs to detect 

and remediate lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities. 

Figure 4 shows the nature and extent of these activities; about half the 

states reported no current efforts.

Figure 4: Summary of State Efforts to Address Lead in Drinking Water at Schools 

and Child Care Facilities

Notes: (1) All states but Colorado responded to EPA’s information request; about half the states 

submitted multiple responses, generally because responsibility for addressing lead issues at schools 

and child care facilities is shared by both health and environmental agencies.

(2) The figure summarizes the most frequently reported activities by the states. While nearly half the 

states reported no activities, others reported activities in more than one of the categories we used. In 

addition to the activities summarized in figure 4, 26 states reported having lead poisoning prevention 

programs that include testing blood lead levels of children and investigating the source of any problems 

identified. We did not include these programs in our summary because the investigations usually focus 

0

5

10

15

20

25

 No

efforts

Provided

guidance,

technical

assistance,

and outreach

to local

agencies

Surveyed

local

testing

efforts

Conducted

targeted

or one-time

testing

Required

general

testing

Number of states

Source: EPA and selected states.

Types of efforts
Page 50 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

initially on a child’s home environment and the presence of lead paint. However, they could ultimately 

involve testing the drinking water at schools or child care facilities.

(3) Some states reported testing for lead at schools or child care facilities that have their own water 

systems. We did not include this activity in figure 4 because such testing is required under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act.

Of the five states that reported having testing requirements, four—

Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vermont—require child 

care facilities to test their drinking water for lead contamination when 

obtaining or renewing their licenses.59 In the fifth state (Massachusetts), 

the testing requirement focuses on schools. Water systems must include 

two schools among their sampling sites in each round of lead testing, 

although the school data are not included in the 90th percentile calculation 

to determine whether lead levels exceed the action level. Massachusetts 

officials told us that, although the testing requirement has been in place 

since 1992, it has not received much attention until recently. The officials 

acknowledged that most water systems repeatedly used the same schools 

as sampling sites for the sake of convenience and said that the state has 

never summarized the results of the school testing. Given the renewed 

concerns about lead contamination following the detection of lead in the 

District of Columbia’s drinking water, Massachusetts now requires water 

systems to rotate testing among schools and child care facilities and plans 

to issue a summary report at the end of 2005. 

In addition to these requirements, Florida’s Department of Environmental 

Protection reported to EPA that it had established a voluntary program. 

Specifically, the state designated child care facilities as Tier 1, high risk 

sites and gave water systems the option of using the facilities as lead 

sampling sites and including them in the calculation of the 90th percentile 

lead level. (According to a Florida official, to be included as a sampling site, 

the child care facility must meet other Tier 1 criteria, such as being served 

by a lead service line.) However, when we followed up with state officials, 

they said that they had no way of tracking the extent to which water 

systems were actually including child care facilities as sampling sites. 

The scope of the targeted testing reported by 12 states varied widely, from 

a single school district in Pennsylvania to over 1,300 homes and child care 

facilities in Indiana. Several states indicated that they were focusing on 

potential high risk locations. EPA regional offices helped to initiate some 

limited testing in a few states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, New 

59In New Hampshire, the testing requirement applies only to facilities that care for 24 or 

fewer children and have their own independent water supply.
Page 51 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

York, and Pennsylvania; the testing generally focused on a few of the states’ 

largest school districts. The state-sponsored surveys to determine the 

status of testing by local agencies also varied, with some covering all 

schools within the state and others focusing on a smaller subset of schools. 

In Washington, the state recently set aside $750,000, including $400,000 

from its drinking water state revolving fund, to partially reimburse school 

districts for the cost of monitoring for lead in elementary schools’ drinking 

water.

EPA officials attributed the relatively low level of state activity in recent 

years to the aftereffects of a 1996 lawsuit brought by the Association of 

Community Organizations for Reform Now against the state of Louisiana 

for not doing enough to implement the LCCA. The case resulted in a federal 

circuit court decision declaring that part of the LCCA was unconstitutional. 

Specifically, the court ruled that the federal government did not have the 

authority to require states to establish a remedial action program as 

outlined in the LCCA.60 While Louisiana reported to EPA that the case “had 

the unintended effect of ending the lead program in schools for the state of 

Louisiana,” none of the 10 states we contacted cited the ruling as a factor in 

limiting their efforts. 

To obtain more information about testing and remedial actions in 

individual cities, we contacted five school districts—Boston, Detroit, 

Philadelphia, Seattle, and Syracuse. Table 11 shows the extent and results 

of testing within each district, and provides information on the various 

approaches school administrators have used to address the lead 

contamination. 

60See ACORN v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996).
Page 52 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Table 11: Information on Recent Efforts to Test for and Remediate Lead in Drinking Water in Five School Districts

School district Scope and results of testing Type and cost of remedial actions

Boston, Mass. 

Public Schoolsa

Scope: Testing focused on kitchen facilities 

used to prepare food and was conducted 

between 2003 and 2004 at the district’s 

central kitchen facility and 38 schools with 

on-site kitchen facilities.

Results: Lead levels in water from 17 kitchen 

facilities, including the central kitchen, 

exceeded 20 ppb.

Actions: Manual flushing for at least 1 

minute each day in all kitchens and an 

automatic flushing program at the central 

kitchen and 22 school buildings with kitchen 

facilities.

Cost: Not available.

Detroit, Mich.

Public Schools

Scope: The district tested 21 water fountains 

and other outlets in one middle school as of 

November 2002. (Testing was also 

conducted at one other middle school, but 

the number of outlets included was not 

available.)

Results: Lead levels in water from 16 

drinking water outlets in one middle school 

exceeded 15 ppb.

Actions: For the short term, shutting off 

outlets with elevated lead levels, doing 

manual flushing, and providing bottled 

water. For the long term, installing a water 

treatment system, replacing lead piping and 

fixtures, and re-routing a service line serving 

the school.

Cost: An estimated $9,000 for bottled water 

and $5,865 for the water treatment system, 

plus $800 in annual maintenance costs.

Philadelphia, Pa.

School Districtb

Scope: As a result of consent orders in 1999 

and 2000, the school district was required to 

test all drinking water outlets at 299 schools 

and other buildings, or about 30,000 outlets 

in total.c

Results: As of March 2004, the district had 

detected lead levels over 20 ppb in 

approximately 4,600, or roughly 15 percent, 

of the outlets tested.

Actions: For the short term, shutting off 

outlets with elevated lead levels and 

providing bottled water. For the long term, 

replacing or removing fixtures.

Cost: An estimated $6 million through 

February 2005.

Seattle, Wash.

Public Schoolsb

Scope: In 2004, the district tested all interior 

drinking water outlets considered suitable 

for use, about 2,400 outlets in total.

Results: Lead levels at 600 of the outlets, or 

25 percent, exceeded 20 ppb.

Actions: For the short term, shutting off 

outlets with elevated lead levels and 

providing bottled water. For the long term, 

fixing or replacing fixtures, installing filters, 

and replacing piping for any outlet where 

lead levels exceeded 10 ppb.

Cost: An estimated $15 million upon 

completion in 2007.
Page 53 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Source: EPA and school districts.

a

Boston officials told us that they focused on kitchen facilities in their most recent testing because the 

district had already installed bottled water at many drinking water outlets after earlier testing had 

disclosed elevated lead levels. 

b

Both Philadelphia and Seattle had also conducted some testing prior to the more recent efforts 

summarized in this table. 

c

A 2003 modification to the earlier consent orders removed the requirement to test bathroom faucets.

The cities we contacted differed in the testing protocols they used to test 

for lead in school drinking water.61 While three of the cities (Boston, 

Philadelphia, and Syracuse) followed EPA’s guidance, using a 250 milliliter 

sample and a limit of 20 parts per billion for triggering follow-up action, 

Seattle took a more conservative approach. Using the same sample volume, 

the school board established 10 parts per billion as its standard for followup action. Detroit, on the other hand, used the same protocol that is 

required for public water systems—a 1 liter sample and 15 parts per billion 

as the limit.

Some of the remediation measures adopted by the cities we contacted were 

effective, including installing in-line filters, replacing pipes, and removing 

fixtures at outlets with test results indicating high lead levels. Other 

measures required more attention and others inadvertently created new 

issues for officials to deal with. For example, a Seattle school official noted 

Syracuse, N.Y.

City School District

Scope: The district tested specific interior 

drinking water outlets in 50 schools and 

other buildings, beginning in August 2003.

Results: 23 of the facilities had at least one 

drinking water outlet with lead levels over 20 

ppb.

Actions: For the short term, shutting off 

outlets with elevated lead levels. For the 

long term, installing in-line carbon filters at 

each outlet with elevated lead levels. (Other 

measures such as pipe replacement and 

removal of fixtures are still under 

discussion.)

Cost: An estimated $100,000 through March 

2005.

(Continued From Previous Page)

School district Scope and results of testing Type and cost of remedial actions

61In EPA’s guidance for schools and child care facilities, the agency recommends using a 

sample volume of 250 milliliters and establishes lead concentrations greater than 20 parts 

per billion as the trigger for follow-up action. In contrast, the testing protocol for public 

water supplies requires a sample volume of 1 liter and follow-up action if lead levels at the 

90th percentile exceed 15 parts per billion. According to EPA, the testing protocol for water 

systems is designed to assess lead levels for the system as a whole, using a representative 

number of households; if applicable, the testing also serves as a means of determining the 

effectiveness of corrosion control treatment. The protocol for schools and child care 

facilities is slightly more stringent than that used in water systems, and is designed to 

determine lead levels at specific outlets.
Page 54 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

that the district decided against instituting a flushing program in its schools 

because it was too difficult to ensure that staff in individual schools would 

follow through with the flushing every day. In Boston, a school official told 

us that using bottled water posed a problem because staff had to make sure 

that replacement bottles were always available and because it created 

other issues with pests, vandalism, and spillage. 

The Extent to Which 

Drinking Water at Schools 

and Child Care Facilities Is 

Contaminated by Lead Is 

Uncertain, in Part, Because 

No Clear Focal Point Exists 

to Collect Available Data

While a number of cities have detected elevated lead levels in school 

drinking water, and a few states are beginning to collect information on the 

status of local testing efforts, little information exists on the extent to 

which drinking water at schools and child care facilities nationwide may 

contain unacceptable levels of lead. No focal point exists at the federal or 

state level to collect and analyze test results or information on costeffective remediation strategies. As a result, it is difficult to get a sense of 

the pervasiveness of lead contamination in the drinking water at schools 

and child care facilities, and to know whether a more concerted effort to 

address the issue—such as mandatory testing—is warranted. In addition, 

remediation measures such as providing bottled water, regularly flushing 

water lines, installing filters, and replacing fixtures and internal piping vary 

widely in cost and complexity, among other factors. State and local officials 

have expressed concern about not having sufficient information on the 

measures, their pros and cons, and circumstances in which particular 

measures might be more appropriate than others. 

At the federal level, EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water sets 

drinking water standards and other requirements for public drinking water 

systems, but generally does not have any direct oversight responsibility for 

the quality of drinking water in schools or child care facilities.62 The U.S. 

Department of Education (Education) is responsible for, among other 

things, providing guidance and financial assistance to state and local 

education agencies for elementary and secondary schools. Education’s 

Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools recently signed a memorandum of 

understanding with EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

and various water industry associations with the goal of reducing children’s 

62Some schools and child care facilities have their own water sources and are subject to Safe 

Drinking Water Act requirements, such as the lead rule. Such systems are defined as nontransient, noncommunity water systems, which serve at least 25 people for more than 6 

months in a year. According to EPA estimates, about 10,000 schools and child care facilities 

are regulated as non-transient, noncommunity systems but, according to one official, these 

data are incomplete.
Page 55 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

exposure to lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities.63

However, according to an Education official, the department does not have 

legal authority to compel schools to test for lead in the drinking water. 

Officials in Washington state saw a need for closer coordination between 

EPA and Education. The officials believe that local education officials are 

more likely to respond to guidance on lead and other environmental health 

issues if Education were to be involved in developing it. 

At the state level, responsibility for the environmental health of schools 

and child care facilities is usually fragmented among multiple agencies. 

According to EPA, in most states, the same agency that administers the 

drinking water program—generally the state’s department of 

environmental protection or department of health—is also responsible for 

implementing the LCCA. However, we also learned from EPA that the state 

agencies responsible for administering education programs and licensing 

child care facilities are usually the ones with the regulatory or oversight 

authority over environmental conditions in schools and child care facilities. 

(As noted earlier, some states also have lead poisoning prevention 

programs to monitor blood lead levels in children and investigate the 

source of lead exposure when the levels are elevated.) According to some 

of the states we contacted, the level of coordination among state agencies 

needs to be improved and the lack of a centralized authority at the state 

level has complicated efforts to plan and implement a testing program for 

lead in water in some school districts. For example, in Pennsylvania, state 

drinking water officials said that several other agencies, including the 

Departments of Health, Education, and Public Welfare, have a role in 

overseeing schools and child care facilities—but it was unclear which 

agency would be best suited to manage a testing program if one were to be 

required. In contrast, Connecticut officials said that having both the 

drinking water program and the child care licensing program housed within 

the same department has been an advantage because it is easier for the 

programs to share information and coordinate their activities. 

We also contacted several school and child care associations to find out if 

they were involved in or aware of efforts to promote testing for lead in 

drinking water, collect and analyze the results of testing, or set standards 

for the environmental health of the facilities. According to a representative 

63Specifically, the parties agreed to encourage schools and child care facilities to test 

drinking water for lead, disseminate the results to the public, and take appropriate actions 

to correct problems.
Page 56 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

of the National Child Care Association, until recently the association had 

not been aware of any issues regarding lead in drinking water at child care 

facilities or involved in any effort to promote testing.64 The representative 

commented that one challenge to distributing information on lead in 

drinking water to child care facilities is the fragmented nature of the child 

care industry. While the National Head Start Association has been involved 

with lead poisoning prevention in general, the organization has not done 

anything specifically related to lead in drinking water.65 The Healthy 

Schools Network, Inc. promotes the development of state and national 

policies, regulations, and funding for environmentally safe and healthy 

schools. Although the network has published some fact sheets that address 

the potential health risks from lead exposure, lead in drinking water has 

not been a priority compared with other environmental issues. While none 

of these organizations were parties to EPA’s recent memorandum of 

understanding, they have been actively engaged in assisting EPA as the 

agency revises its guidance for schools and child care facilities, according 

to EPA officials. 

State and Local Officials Say 

Addressing Other 

Environmental Hazards 

Takes Priority over Testing 

for Lead in Drinking Water 

at Schools and Child Care 

Facilities 

According to state and local officials, children may be exposed to a variety 

of environmental hazards at schools and child care facilities, including 

asbestos, lead in paint or dust, mold, and other substances that affect 

indoor air quality. The officials told us that dealing with such problems 

often takes priority over checking for lead in drinking water because, in the 

case of the other problems, more information is available on the nature and 

extent of the potential health risks involved. For example, many of the 

officials we interviewed said that the most significant source of lead 

exposure—and thus, their primary concern—was lead in paint. Officials 

from two states also mentioned that lead in jewelry, toys, or pottery is a 

more significant source of exposure than lead in drinking water. 

Washington state officials told us that child care facilities also have many 

competing priorities and cited food handling as one of their major 

concerns.

64The National Child Care Association is active in 26 states and represents about 8,000 

private, licensed child care facilities that are based outside the home. The association does 

not represent the family home care industry, which consists of an estimated 3,000 

individually-owned family homes that offer child care services.

65The National Head Start Association represents more than 1 million children, 200,000 staff, 

including teachers and family service workers, and 2,700 Head Start programs in the U.S.
Page 57 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

At the local level, officials talked about dealing with multiple health and 

safety issues and the difficulty of prioritizing limited resources. For 

example, in Detroit, one official told us that dealing with asbestos takes 

priority over all other environmental concerns, including lead in drinking 

water. Another Detroit official commented that indoor air quality is another 

priority because “issues related to breathing are very important to 

educators.” In Philadelphia, a school official noted that a major source of 

lead in the school district is dust, a problem that requires continuing 

attention from the maintenance staff, which must set aside time to scrub 

the areas where dust collects. A Seattle official also mentioned the 

difficulty posed by competing needs for limited funds. He indicated that the 

competition is not only among environmental issues, such as mold and 

asbestos, but, on a broader level, between maintenance and basic 

classroom expenditures.

Without additional resources—or more compelling evidence that lead in 

drinking water should be a higher priority—state and local officials, as well 

as representatives of industry groups, were reluctant to support calls for 

mandatory testing for lead in drinking water in schools and child care 

facilities. Many of the officials we interviewed said that more research is 

needed on several aspects of the lead issue. In addition to wanting more 

information on the extent to which lead contamination in schools and child 

care facilities is a problem, some officials also wanted more information on 

the circumstances in which particular remediation approaches are most 

effective. Other officials believe that more research is needed on the 

relationship between children’s exposure to lead in drinking water and 

their blood lead levels. 

Conclusions Ensuring that the lead rule adequately protects public health and is fully 

implemented and enforced should be a high priority for EPA and the states 

because the potential consequences of lead exposure, particularly for 

infants and young children, can be significant. However, EPA’s hands are 

tied unless states report complete, accurate, and timely data on the results 

of required monitoring, the status of corrective actions, and the extent of 

violations. Without such information, EPA cannot provide effective 

oversight or target limited resources where they are most needed. 

Similarly, inconsistencies among the states’ policies and practices for 

implementing the lead rule may lead to uneven levels of public health 

protection for consumers and thus need to be examined and corrected, as 

appropriate.
Page 58 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Given the potential health effects associated with lead contamination, it is 

important to minimize any unnecessary exposure as a result of leaded 

materials in the water distribution system or household plumbing. 

Reevaluating existing standards for the devices used in or near residential 

plumbing systems would also enhance the effectiveness of the treatment 

provided by local water systems. In the case of schools and child care 

facilities, both the vulnerability of the population served by such facilities 

and the competition for limited resources make it essential to have better 

information on the nature and extent of lead-contaminated drinking 

water—and its significance relative to other environmental hazards.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, take a number of steps to 

further protect the American public from elevated lead levels in drinking 

water. Specifically, to improve EPA’s ability to oversee implementation of 

the lead rule and assess compliance and enforcement activities, EPA 

should

• ensure that data on water systems’ test results, corrective action 

milestones, and violations are current, accurate, and complete and

• analyze data on corrective actions and violations to assess the adequacy 

of EPA and state enforcement efforts. 

To expand ongoing efforts to improve implementation and oversight of the 

lead rule, EPA should reassess existing regulations and guidance to ensure 

the following: 

• the sites water systems use for tap monitoring reflect areas of highest 

risk for lead corrosion;

• the circumstances in which states approve water systems for reduced 

monitoring are appropriate and that systems resume standard 

monitoring following a major treatment change;

• homeowners who participate in tap monitoring are informed of the test 

results; and 

• states review and approve major treatment changes, as defined by EPA, 

to assess their impact on corrosion control before the changes are 

implemented. 
Page 59 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

In addition, EPA should: 

• collect and analyze data on the impact of lead service line replacement 

on lead levels and conduct other research, as appropriate, to assess the 

effectiveness of lead line replacement programs and whether additional 

regulations or guidance are warranted;

• collect information on (1) the nature and extent of modified sampling 

arrangements within combined distribution systems and (2) differences 

in the reporting practices and corrective actions authorized by the 

states, using this information to reassess applicable regulations and 

guidance; and 

• evaluate existing standards for in-line and endpoint plumbing devices 

used in or near residential plumbing systems to determine if the 

standards are sufficiently protective to minimize potential lead 

contamination.

In order to update its guidance and testing protocols, EPA should collect 

and analyze the results of any testing that has been done to determine 

whether more needs to be done to protect users from elevated lead levels 

in drinking water at schools and child care facilities. In addition, to assist 

local agencies in making the most efficient use of their resources, EPA 

should assess the pros and cons of various remediation activities and make 

the information publicly available. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to EPA and the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission for review and comment. EPA generally agreed with our 

findings and recommendations. Regarding the completeness of information 

that EPA has to evaluate implementation of the lead rule, the agency said 

that it will work with the states to ensure that relevant information is 

incorporated into the national database and will use the information, in 

part, to assess the adequacy of enforcement efforts. In addition, EPA 

agreed that aspects of the regulation need improvement. EPA said that it 

will address some of these areas as part of its package of revisions to the 

lead rule that it plans to propose early in 2006, including homeowner 

notification of test results and criteria for reduced monitoring. EPA also 

said that it needs additional information before it can address other areas, 

such as lead service line replacement and plumbing standards, that may 

warrant regulatory changes. EPA did not comment on our recommendation 

to reevaluate existing regulations and guidance to ensure that tap 
Page 60 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

monitoring sites reflect areas of highest risk for lead corrosion. Finally, 

EPA did not address our recommendations regarding lead contamination 

and remedial actions at schools and child care facilities. We believe that, 

given the particular vulnerability of children to the effects of lead, it is 

important for EPA to take full advantage of the results of any tests that 

have been done, as well as to identify those remedial activities that have 

proven to be most effective. EPA’s comments appear in appendix V. The 

Consumer Product Safety Commission generally agreed with our findings 

as they pertain to the Commission.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional 

committees; the Administrator, EPA; the Chairman, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission; and the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI.

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 61 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

For information on how the lead rule is being implemented, we obtained 

information from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, eight EPA regional offices, and 10 states. We 

selected eight of the states—California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington—because they either 

had a relatively high number of water systems with test results that 

exceeded or fell just below the lead action level, or they added to the 

geographical diversity of our selections. We also included Connecticut and 

Florida in our review because they were identified by EPA as particularly 

active in addressing potential lead contamination in water supplies serving 

child care facilities. At the local level, we obtained information from eight 

water systems: the Chicago Water Department in Illinois, the Boston Water 

and Sewer Commission and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in 

Massachusetts, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in Michigan, 

the Syracuse Water Department in New York, the Portland Bureau of Water 

Works in Oregon, the Philadelphia Water Department in Pennsylvania, and 

Seattle Public Utilities in Washington. Our criteria for selecting these 

systems included test results showing elevated lead levels, lead service line 

replacement activity, and/or the use of modified sampling arrangements for 

consecutive systems. We reviewed the Safe Drinking Water Act, the lead 

rule, EPA’s minor revisions to the lead rule, other pertinent regulations, and 

applicable guidance to states and water systems.

To gain a national perspective on the data EPA uses for oversight of lead 

rule implementation, including the results of required testing, the status of 

corrective actions, and the extent of violations, we analyzed data from 

EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System through June 2005 for active 

community water systems. We assessed the reliability of the data by (1) 

performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing 

existing information about the data and the system that produced them, (3) 

interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data, and (4) 

reviewing EPA’s own data verification audits and summaries of data 

reliability. We determined that the data on results and frequency of lead 

testing were sufficiently reliable to show compliance trends. However, we 

found that other data on corrective actions and violations were not 

sufficiently reliable to assess the status of efforts to implement and enforce 

the lead rule. 

For information on experiences in implementing the lead rule and the need 

for changes to the regulatory framework, we interviewed EPA, state, and 

local officials; analyzed states’ responses to an EPA information request 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 62 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

regarding their policies and practices in implementing the rule; and 

reviewed other relevant studies and documents. We reviewed the results of 

EPA’s expert workshops on monitoring protocols, simultaneous 

compliance, lead service line replacement, and public education, and 

obtained information from several researchers and other drinking water 

experts. Among other things, we identified potential gaps in the regulatory 

framework, including oversight, regulations, and guidance, and obtained 

views on the modifications to the lead rule now being considered by EPA. 

To learn about the development and effectiveness of existing plumbing 

standards, we obtained and analyzed information from NSF International 

(NSF), the Copper Development Association, the Plumbing Manufacturers 

Institute, and relevant articles and studies. To assess the reliability of NSF’s 

data on lead content and lead leaching of plumbing fittings and fixtures, we 

talked with foundation officials about data quality control procedures. We 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for illustrative purposes. 

For information on safeguards against lead-contaminated drinking water at 

schools and child care facilities, we interviewed officials from the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA’s Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water, the National Head Start Association, the National Child 

Care Association, and the Healthy Schools Network. We also obtained 

information from drinking water program offices and public health or 

education departments in the 10 states we contacted for the first objective 

as well as school districts in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Seattle, 

and Syracuse. We reviewed the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of 

1988 and obtained information on the recall of lead-lined water coolers. For 

information on other actions taken in response to the LCCA, we 

interviewed EPA, state, and local officials; reviewed relevant studies; and 

analyzed information collected by EPA. We used the same information 

sources to determine (1) the extent of current testing and remediation 

activities for lead in school and child care facility drinking water, (2) the 

extent to which various entities have responsibility for overseeing or 

collecting data on such activities, and (3) the relative priorities among 

environmental hazards common to schools and child care facilities. We 

also analyzed states’ responses to an EPA information request on state and 

local efforts to monitor and protect children from lead exposure and 

attended an EPA-sponsored expert workshop on lead in drinking water at 

schools and child care facilities. For more detailed information on 

experiences at the local level, we collected information from five school 

districts on the extent of testing for lead in school drinking water, the 

results, and the approaches used to address contamination. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 63 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

We performed our work between June 2004 and November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 64 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005 ApendxiI

Large

Number of systems Population of large systems

 State

Total number 

of systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total population 

served

Population in 

systems without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones

AK 1 0 100.0 135,000 135,000 100.0

AL 11 0 100.0 1,881,984 1,881,984 100.0

AR 8 8 0.0 781,325 0 0.0

AZ 13 0 100.0 3,417,902 3,417,902 100.0

CA 160 0 100.0 25,224,420 25,224,420 100.0

CO 16 0 100.0 2,941,619 2,941,619 100.0

CT 9 9 0.0 1,586,458 0 0.0

DC 1 1 0.0 595,000 0 0.0

DE 3 0 100.0 445,504 445,504 100.0

FL 76 3 96.1 12,098,524 11,805,584 97.6

GA 23 18 21.7 4,544,090 507,529 11.2

HI 4 0 100.0 875,238 875,238 100.0

IA 8 1 87.5 793,026 584,383 73.7

ID 4 1 75.0 353,151 300,800 85.2

IL 30 28 6.7 5,367,282 123,603 2.3

IN 14 14 0.0 2,106,043 0 0.0

KS 6 2 66.7 1,172,516 981,341 83.7

KY 8 0 100.0 1,705,135 1,705,135 100.0

LA 15 0 100.0 2,315,098 2,315,098 100.0

MA 29 14 51.7 4,992,887 3,629,018 72.7

MD 9 7 22.2 4,005,168 106,000 2.6

ME 1 0 100.0 113,560 113,560 100.0

MI 31 28 9.7 3,647,640 318,288 8.7

MN 14 8 42.9 1,610,382 370,533 23.0

MO 11 4 63.6 2,586,464 2,347,737 90.8

MS 2 0 100.0 288,257 288,257 100.0

MT 3 0 100.0 208,335 208,335 100.0

NC 24 0 100.0 3,255,476 3,255,476 100.0

ND 2 2 0.0 146,131 0 0.0

NE 2 0 100.0 709,420 709,420 100.0

NH 2 0 100.0 213,000 213,000 100.0
Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005

Page 65 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

NJ 21 0 100.0 4,205,795 4,205,795 100.0

NM 4 0 100.0 660,026 660,026 100.0

NV 5 0 100.0 1,876,500 1,876,500 100.0

NY 32 0 100.0 13,079,586 13,079,586 100.0

OH 27 0 100.0 5,720,471 5,720,471 100.0

OK 9 7 22.2 1,538,179 679,000 44.1

OR 11 8 27.3 1,424,645 278,000 19.5

PA 31 31 0.0 5,823,088 0 0.0

RI 4 4 0.0 528,853 0 0.0

SC 12 12 0.0 1,549,312 0 0.0

SD 2 2 0.0 185,983 0 0.0

TN 15 0 100.0 2,221,020 2,221,020 100.0

TX 56 5 91.1 12,580,122 12,268,259 97.5

UT 10 0 100.0 1,197,900 1,197,900 100.0

VA 22 22 0.0 3,979,119 0 0.0

VT 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

WA 23 0 100.0 2,697,616 2,697,616 100.0

WI 13 0 100.0 1,666,474 1,666,474 100.0

WV 2 2 0.0 246,203 0 0.0

WY 2 0 100.0 110,108 110,108 100.0

Total/AVG 841 241 71.3 151,407,035 111,465,519 73.6

(Continued From Previous Page)

Large

Number of systems Population of large systems

 State

Total number 

of systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total population 

served

Population in 

systems without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones
Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005

Page 66 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Medium

Number of systems Population of medium systems

 State

Total number of 

systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total population 

served

Population in 

systems without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones

AK 23 0 100.0 200,798 200,798 100.0

AL 266 0 100.0 2,944,220 2,944,220 100.0

AR 139 133 4.3 1,190,159 31,091 2.6

AZ 105 0 100.0 1,227,834 1,227,834 100.0

CA 478 0 100.0 7,476,807 7,476,807 100.0

CO 131 0 100.0 1,726,744 1,726,744 100.0

CT 48 48 0.0 926,493 0 0.0

DC 1 0 100.0 11,000 11,000 100.0

DE 24 0 100.0 298,763 298,763 100.0

FL 310 2 99.4 4,684,659 4,655,307 99.4

GA 184 94 48.9 2,254,876 1,068,475 47.4

HI 33 0 100.0 378,964 378,964 100.0

IA 116 12 89.7 1,173,595 1,099,226 93.7

ID 41 3 92.7 401,222 355,215 88.5

IL 396 378 4.5 5,176,451 192,293 3.7

IN 188 187 0.5 2,025,670 3,661 0.2

KS 81 75 7.4 836,216 24,796 3.0

KY 231 0 100.0 2,657,189 2,657,189 100.0

LA 203 0 100.0 1,827,405 1,827,405 100.0

MA 217 81 62.7 3,788,166 2,339,423 61.8

MD 53 1 98.1 623,854 620,429 99.5

ME 32 0 100.0 339,255 339,255 100.0

MI 249 204 18.1 3,078,142 477,742 15.5

MN 140 44 68.6 1,821,460 1,359,303 74.6

MO 173 166 4.0 1,596,299 39,249 2.5

MS 189 0 100.0 1,758,806 1,758,806 100.0

MT 28 0 100.0 258,541 258,541 100.0

NC 226 0 100.0 2,496,100 2,496,100 100.0

ND 19 19 0.0 229,025 0 0.0

NE 38 0 100.0 403,073 403,073 100.0

NH 34 0 100.0 404,279 404,279 100.0
Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005

Page 67 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

NJ 207 0 100.0 3,419,920 3,419,920 100.0

NM 55 0 100.0 701,119 701,119 100.0

NV 28 0 100.0 229,455 229,455 100.0

NY 294 0 100.0 3,698,727 3,698,727 100.0

OH 280 0 100.0 3,593,577 3,593,577 100.0

OK 122 105 13.9 1,225,346 130,815 10.7

OR 94 28 70.2 1,222,949 862,909 70.6

PA 292 281 3.8 3,685,523 139,384 3.8

RI 22 18 18.2 420,039 43,700 10.4

SC 141 141 0.0 1,666,077 0 0.0

SD 30 30 0.0 258,637 0 0.0

TN 236 0 100.0 2,745,416 2,745,416 100.0

TX 750 46 93.9 7,370,002 6,950,037 94.3

UT 85 0 100.0 1,088,639 1,088,639 100.0

VA 126 104 17.5 1,783,530 346,752 19.4

VT 30 8 73.3 266,690 151,730 56.9

WA 170 0 100.0 2,217,060 2,217,060 100.0

WI 160 0 100.0 1,696,466 1,696,466 100.0

WV 80 77 3.8 756,976 28,025 3.7

WY 22 0 100.0 225,116 225,116 100.0

Total/AVG 7,620 2,285 70.0 92,487,329 64,944,835 70.2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Medium

Number of systems Population of medium systems

 State

Total number of 

systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total population 

served

Population in 

systems without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones
Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005

Page 68 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Small

Number of systems Population of small systems

 State 

Total number 

of systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total 

population 

served

Population in 

systems 

without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones

AK 412 0 100.0 128,713 128,713 100.0

AL 342 0 100.0 437,400 437,400 100.0

AR 582 548 5.8 569,267 23,567 4.1

AZ 675 0 100.0 334,986 334,986 100.0

CA 2,488 0 100.0 995,796 995,796 100.0

CO 684 0 100.0 378,345 378,345 100.0

CT 529 443 16.3 160,534 16,676 10.4

DC 1 0 100.0 0 0 N/A

DE 202 0 100.0 92,110 92,110 100.0

FL 1,503 9 99.4 799,213 793,025 99.2

GA 1,484 660 55.5 601,723 324,449 53.9

HI 78 0 100.0 72,007 72,007 100.0

IA 1,019 64 93.7 614,789 562,918 91.6

ID 707 81 88.5 211,117 182,893 86.6

IL 1,367 1,216 11.0 1,071,477 92,176 8.6

IN 638 628 1.6 503,685 4,818 1.0

KS 824 649 21.2 560,103 115,971 20.7

KY 179 0 100.0 259,090 259,090 100.0

LA 893 0 100.0 743,960 743,960 100.0

MA 278 83 70.1 161,166 110,437 68.5

MD 440 271 38.4 217,804 87,464 40.2

ME 366 0 100.0 165,359 165,359 100.0

MI 1,158 971 16.1 716,406 173,559 24.2

MN 811 143 82.4 531,720 395,653 74.4

MO 1,281 1,168 8.8 739,179 38,519 5.2

MS 980 1 99.9 1,032,244 1,031,729 100.0

MT 647 2 99.7 206,237 203,914 98.9

NC 1,924 0 100.0 726,326 726,326 100.0

ND 299 284 5.0 177,573 8,747 4.9

NE 566 0 100.0 304,924 304,924 100.0

NH 662 0 100.0 200,898 200,898 100.0
Appendix II

Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action 

Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, 

through June 2005

Page 69 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

NJ 381 0 100.0 257,045 257,045 100.0

NM 586 0 100.0 251,374 251,374 100.0

NV 220 0 100.0 106,349 106,349 100.0

NY 2,492 1 100.0 1,131,590 1,131,240 100.0

OH 1,014 0 100.0 739,441 739,441 100.0

OK 1,004 378 62.4 679,858 332,062 48.8

OR 769 108 86.0 324,386 251,660 77.6

PA 1,813 1,670 7.9 960,679 50,135 5.2

RI 57 40 29.8 26,914 10,630 39.5

SC 506 483 4.5 270,387 8,152 3.0

SD 435 382 12.2 216,413 12,348 5.7

TN 430 0 100.0 417,026 417,026 100.0

TX 3,683 165 95.5 2,724,725 2,554,606 93.8

UT 356 0 100.0 208,654 208,654 100.0

VA 1,117 874 21.8 482,223 95,023 19.7

VT 405 42 89.6 172,502 138,701 80.4

WA 2,084 0 100.0 693,052 693,052 100.0

WI 913 0 100.0 517,366 517,366 100.0

WV 455 432 5.1 413,870 10,363 2.5

WY 252 0 100.0 103,403 103,403 100.0

Total/AVG 42,991 11,796 72.6 24,411,408 16,895,059 69.2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Small

Number of systems Population of small systems

 State 

Total number 

of systems

Number of 

systems with 

milestones

Percent of 

systems without 

milestones

Total 

population 

served

Population in 

systems 

without 

milestones

Percent of 

population in 

systems without 

milestones
Page 70 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix III

Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to 

EPA Between 1995 and June 2005 (by State) ApendxiI

Number of violations Number of systems with violations

State

Number of 

systems TT MR Total TT

Percent of total 

systems with 

TT violations MR

Percent of 

total systems 

with MR 

violations Total

Percent of total 

systems with 

violations

AK 436 4 586 590 3 0.7 252 57.8 254 58.3

AL 619 0 91 91 0 0.0 65 10.5 65 10.5

AR 729 28 38 66 23 3.2 32 4.4 50 6.9

AZ 793 0 1,100 1,100 0 0.0 419 52.8 419 52.8

CA 3,126 0 144 144 0 0.0 136 4.4 136 4.4

CO 831 28 262 290 10 1.2 195 23.5 201 24.2

CT 586 29 232 261 25 4.3 168 28.7 176 30.0

DE 229 0 3 3 0 0.0 3 1.3 3 1.3

FL 1,889 10 74 84 10 0.5 68 3.6 76 4.0

GA 1,691 8 1,927 1,935 8 0.5 1,015 60.0 1,016 60.1

HI 115 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

IA 1,143 1 100 101 1 0.1 85 7.4 86 7.5

ID 752 9 866 875 9 1.2 269 35.8 274 36.4

IL 1,793 292 670 962 170 9.5 330 18.4 423 23.6

IN 840 90 279 369 54 6.4 127 15.1 138 16.4

KS 911 62 105 167 44 4.8 83 9.1 119 13.1

KY 418 0 200 200 0 0.0 147 35.2 147 35.2

LA 1,111 0 132 132 0 0.0 132 11.9 132 11.9

MA 524 81 219 300 60 11.5 137 26.1 189 36.1

MD 502 69 231 300 40 8.0 156 31.1 165 32.9

ME 399 63 188 251 44 11.0 88 22.1 107 26.8

MI 1,438 9 116 125 8 0.6 101 7.0 107 7.4

MN 965 3 104 107 3 0.3 76 7.9 77 8.0

MO 1,465 2 420 422 2 0.1 330 22.5 332 22.7

MS 1,171 0 35 35 0 0.0 32 2.7 32 2.7

MT 678 8 590 598 8 1.2 225 33.2 228 33.6

NC 2,174 233 411 644 143 6.6 269 12.4 356 16.4

ND 320 7 36 43 6 1.9 16 5.0 20 6.3

NE 606 59 4 63 58 9.6 4 0.7 62 10.2

NH 698 18 107 125 14 2.0 91 13.0 100 14.3

NJ 609 3 108 111 3 0.5 79 13.0 81 13.3

NM 645 0 54 54 0 0.0 49 7.6 49 7.6
Appendix III

Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to 

EPA Between 1995 and June 2005 (by State)

Page 71 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Legend: TT = treatment technique violations, including failure to install optimal corrosion control 

treatment, failure to meet water quality control parameters, failure to replace lead service lines, and 

failure to meet public education requirements, among other things.

MR = monitoring and reporting violations, including the failure to conduct required testing and failure to 

report the results.

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Note: The total number of systems with violations, and the numbers of systems with TT and MR 

violations do not add to the total numbers of violations because in some cases, systems have more 

than one type of violation.

NV 253 1 113 114 1 0.4 84 33.2 84 33.2

NY 2,818 62 451 513 52 1.8 327 11.6 362 12.8

OH 1,321 38 767 805 35 2.6 421 31.9 436 33.0

OK 1,135 2 311 313 1 0.1 120 10.6 120 10.6

OR 874 138 94 232 94 10.8 65 7.4 127 14.5

PA 2,136 75 800 875 72 3.4 528 24.7 572 26.8

RI 8314 5 1 1.2 4 4.8 4 4.8

SC 659 92 365 457 60 9.1 218 33.1 238 36.1

SD 467 4 431 435 4 0.9 211 45.2 213 45.6

TN 681 0 36 36 0 0.0 19 2.8 19 2.8

TX 4,489 46 54 100 29 0.6 54 1.2 81 1.8

UT 451 0 315 315 0 0.0 186 41.2 186 41.2

VA 1,265 52 253 305 47 3.7 185 14.6 221 17.5

VT 435 8 135 143 7 1.6 108 24.8 114 26.2

WA 2,277 4 1,548 1,552 4 0.2 1,272 55.9 1,276 56.0

WI 1,086 10 210 220 8 0.7 129 11.9 134 12.3

WV 537 3 335 338 3 0.6 153 28.5 154 28.7

WY 276 1 98 99 1 0.4 80 29.0 80 29.0

Total 51,449 1,653 15,752 17,405 1,165 2.3 9,343 18.2 10,041 19.5

(Continued From Previous Page)

Number of violations Number of systems with violations

State

Number of 

systems TT MR Total TT

Percent of total 

systems with 

TT violations MR

Percent of 

total systems 

with MR 

violations Total

Percent of total 

systems with 

violations
Page 72 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix IV

Information on Selected EPA and State 

Enforcement Actions, by Type, from 1995 to 

June 2005a ApendxiIV

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Notes:

a

We included the most commonly used enforcement actions in this table and excluded miscellaneous 

actions and activities unrelated to enforcement or the lead rule.

b

EPA files a “complaint for penalty” when the terms of an administrative order are violated.

Years

Type of Action 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Totals

Public notification requested

State 1,359 1,070 1,190 1,223 1,097 791 988 934 1,136 940 1,174 11,902

Federal 277 28 15 5 6 8 39 11 3 356

Formal notice of violation

State 969 700 526 452 499 602 606 581 649 549 647 6,780

Federal 614 273 83 177 73 39 91 4 8 22 6 1,390

Bilateral compliance agreement

State 52 119 79 87 60 40 69 91 99 89 24 837

Federal 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9

Administrative orders

State (without penalties) 107 93 89 114 83 45 89 68 71 78 21 837

State (with penalties) 84 67 42 319 97 52 52 56 49 57 5 880

Federal (proposed) 561 153 4 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 272

Federal (final) 145 146 197 64 29 13 9 10 24 17 5 659

Administrative penalties assessed

State 11 28 19 21 26 10 41 31 33 30 3 253

Complaint for penalty issuedb

Federal 9 0 10 10 8 303 00 0 43

Civil cases referred

State (to attorney general) 10 15 21 13 10 3 3 1 9 9 3 97

Federal (to Department of 

Justice) 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 59

Criminal cases filed

State 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page 73 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix V

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 74 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water
Appendix V

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 75 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water
Page 76 GAO-06-148 Lead in Drinking Water

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact John B. Stephenson (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Ellen Crocker, Nancy Crothers, 

Sandra Edwards, Maureen Driscoll, Benjamin Howe, Julian Klazkin, Jean 

McSween, Chris Murray, and George Quinn, Jr. made key contributions to 

this report.

(360478)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER