Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination
Published: 2006-01-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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  are a national problem. 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.
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. 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  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 “lead- free.”
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. 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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
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.
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. 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).
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  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. 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. 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  contamination. 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.
section_title: Inadequate Data Impair EPA’s Ability to Oversee Implementation of the Lead Rule
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Although EPA’s Data Suggest a Decline in Lead Levels, States’ Reporting on the Results of Lead Testing Has Not Been Timely or Complete
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  through June 2005, EPA’s database lacks any test results for nearly 31  percent of the large and medium water systems. 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.
section_title: EPA Does Not Have Complete Information on the Status of Water Systems’ Efforts to Implement Lead Rule
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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  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.
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.
section_title: Data on Lead Rule Violations Are Questionable Because of Potential Underreporting by the States
paragraphs: 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, 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  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. 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.
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.
section_title: Lack of Data Affects EPA’s Ability to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Lead Rule Implementation and Enforcement
paragraphs: 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. Similarly, EPA  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. 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.
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  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.
section_title: Weaknesses in the Regulatory Framework for the Lead Rule May Undermine Public Health Protection
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Sampling Sites May No Longer Reflect Areas of Highest Risk
paragraphs: 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).  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  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. 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.
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  previous testing. 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.
section_title: Reduced Monitoring May Not Be Appropriate in Some Instances
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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  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. 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, 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.
However, EPA’s question was limited in scope and, as table 6 shows, the  states often did not elaborate.
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  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.
section_title: Homeowners Who Participate in Periodic Tap Sampling May Not Be Notified of the Test Results
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Controls over When and How Treatment Changes Are Implemented May Not Be Adequate
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. On the  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.
section_title: Data on the Effectiveness of Lead Service Line Replacement Programs Are Limited
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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. 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  water systems might be required to report the results of service line testing  to the state.
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.
section_title: States Vary in How They Apply the Lead Rule When Water Systems Sell Drinking Water to Other Systems
paragraphs: 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.” 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. 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.” 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  Authority, which supplies all of the drinking water for 30 communities,  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.
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. 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.
section_title: Outdated Plumbing Standards Hinder Efforts to Reduce Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water
paragraphs: 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 “lead- free” 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.
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.
NSF International (NSF)—a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization  involved in standards development and product certification—established  the standard in 1997. 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.
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.” 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  manufacturers can produce products with lead levels well below the 8  percent standard.
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. 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 lead- free 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,  fittings, and faucets. 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. 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.
section_title: EPA Is Considering Modifications to the Lead Rule to Address Some Problem Areas
paragraphs: 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  subsequent treatment change causes the systems to exceed the action  level.
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,  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.
section_title: Limited Data Indicate Few Schools and Child Care Facilities Test or Take Other Measures to Control Lead in Their Water Supplies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Little Information Exists on the Results of the Recall of Lead-Lined Water Coolers and Other Activities Prompted by the LCCA
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s 1991 study, 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Current Efforts to Detect and Remediate Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities Also Appear Limited
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  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. 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.
1 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996).
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.
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.
Results: Lead levels in water from 17 kitchen  facilities, including the central kitchen,  exceeded 20 ppb.
Cost: Not available.
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.)
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.
Results: Lead levels in water from 16  drinking water outlets in one middle school  exceeded 15 ppb.
Cost: An estimated $9,000 for bottled water  and $5,865 for the water treatment system,  plus $800 in annual maintenance costs.
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.
Actions: For the short term, shutting off  outlets with elevated lead levels and  providing bottled water. For the long term,  replacing or removing fixtures.
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.
Cost: An estimated $6 million through  February 2005.
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.
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.
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.
Both Philadelphia and Seattle had also conducted some testing prior to the more recent efforts  summarized in this table.  uirement to test bathroom faucets.
The cities we contacted differed in the testing protocols they used to test  for lead in school drinking water. 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 follow- up 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  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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 cost- effective 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. 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  exposure to lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities.  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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: State and Local Officials Say Addressing Other Environmental Hazards Takes Priority over Testing for Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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   states review and approve major treatment changes, as defined by EPA,  to assess their impact on corrosion control before the changes are  implemented.
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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
We performed our work between June 2004 and November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by State, through June 2005
section_title: Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to EPA Between 1995 and June 2005 (by State)
paragraphs: Percent of total  systems with  Legend: TT = treatment techniue violations, including failure to install optimal corrosion control  treatment, failure to meet water uality control parameters, failure to replace lead service lines, and  failure to meet public education reuirements, among other things.
MR = monitoring and reporting violations, including the failure to conduct reuired testing and failure to  report the results.
section_title: Information on Selected EPA and State Enforcement Actions, by Type, from 1995 to June 2005a
paragraphs: We included the most commonly used enforcement actions in this table and excluded miscellaneous  actions and activities unrelated to enforcement or the lead rule.
EPA files a “complaint for penalty” when the terms of an administrative order are violated.
section_title: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.