United States Government Accountability Office GAO
March 2005 Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S DRINKING WATER Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels GAO-05-344 a March 2005 Highlights
Highlights of GAO-05-344, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives Accountability Integrity Reliability DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S DRINKING WATER Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels
What GAO Found
WASA and other government agencies have improved their coordination, but significant challenges remain. According to EPA officials, WASA has thus far met the terms of a June 2004 consent order by enhancing its coordination with EPA and the D.C. Department of Health. For example, WASA developed a plan to improve its public education efforts and collaborated with the department to set priorities for replacing lead service lines. EPA expects the August 2004 addition of a corrosion inhibitor to eventually reduce lead in drinking water, though it may take more than one year for full improvements to be observed. Tap water test results reported in January 2005 show that D.C. drinking water still exceeds the standard for lead. WASA is identifying those customers most at risk from exposure to lead in drinking water and reducing their exposure. WASA is focusing on lead service lines as the primary source of lead in drinking water. It is updating its inventory of lead service lines, accelerating its rate of service line replacement, and providing priority replacement for customers most vulnerable to lead's health effects. However, questions remain about the success of the replacement program because, by law, WASA can only pay to replace the portion of the service line that it owns. Homeowners may pay to replace their portion of the service line, but few homeowners chose to do so in 2003 and 2004. Other water systems use innovative methods to educate their customers and to judge the effectiveness of their efforts. These practices include using a variety of media to inform the public, forming partnerships with government and nonprofit agencies, and targeting and adapting information to the audiences most susceptible to lead exposure through drinking water. Many of these practices go well beyond the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule. In this connection, water industry representatives and others noted several shortcomings with the rule's public education provisions, including confusing language and the lack of a requirement to notify homeowners of the specific lead levels in their drinking water. Additionally, EPA has not evaluated water systems' public education efforts on lead in drinking water since the rule was established more than a decade ago. Much is known about the health effects of lead exposure, particularly its impact on brain development and functioning in young children. However, limited studies have been conducted on the health effects of exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water. EPA plans to prepare a health advisory document to help utilities explain the risks of lead exposure to the public, and a paper summarizing lead research conducted since the Lead and Copper Rule was published in 1991. However, the timetable for these projects is not clear, and it is also not clear how this work will fit into a broader research agenda, or if this effort needs to involve other key organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why GAO Did This Study
Media reports on elevated lead in the District of Columbia's drinking water raised concern about how local and federal agencies are carrying out their responsibilities. The Lead and Copper Rule requires water systems to protect drinking water from lead. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct treats and sells water to the District Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which delivers it to District residents. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region III Office oversees these agencies. GAO examined (1) what agencies implementing the rule in the District are doing to improve their coordination and reduce lead levels, (2) the extent to which WASA and other agencies are identifying populations at greatest risk of exposure to lead in drinking water and reducing their exposure, (3) how other drinking water systems that exceed EPA's action level for lead conduct public education, and (4) the state of research on lead exposure and how it applies to drinking water. What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA (1) identify and publish best practices that water systems use to educate their customers about lead in drinking water and (2) develop a strategy for closing information gaps in the health effects of lead in drinking water. EPA generally agreed with the report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-344. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter
Results in Brief Background Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Challenges Remain in Reducing Lead Levels WASA and Other Agencies Are Taking Steps to Identify At-Risk Populations and Reduce Their Lead Exposure Experiences of Other Water Systems Highlight Ways to Better Educate the Public Although Lead Exposure Causes Serious Health Effects, Research on Low-Level Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water Is Limited Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 1 3 6 9 12 17 22 27 28 28 Appendixes
Appendix I: Appendix II: Scope and Methodology Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency Table 1: Summary of Selected June 2004 Consent Order Requirements and Compliance Activities Table 2: WASA's Priority Lead Service Line Replacement Program Table 3: Portland's Targeted Lead Education Program Figure 1: Inventory of WASA Service Lines Figure 2: Lead Service Line Configuration 31 33 Tables 10 14 20 13 15 Figures Page i GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Contents Abbreviations CDC EPA IEUBK MCL MCLG MOU MWRA ppb WASA WIC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead maximum contaminant level maximum contaminant level goal memorandum of understanding Massachusetts Water Resources Authority parts per billion District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Women, Infants, and Children This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water A United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548 March 31, 2005 The Honorable Paul Gillmor Chairman Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: In January 2004, local media reported that the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) had found elevated lead levels in the drinking water of more than 4,000 homes in the city--the results of tests conducted during the summer of 2003. The lack of timely disclosure of this problem and the subsequent confused effort by government agencies to inform the public on steps to protect itself resulted in numerous congressional hearings and ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to review the adequacy of federal regulations on lead in drinking water. In July 2004 testimony before your subcommittee,1 we made preliminary observations on issues surrounding the elevated levels of lead found in Washington, D.C.'s drinking water and highlighted areas for further examination. This letter discusses our findings and recommendations from that further review. Although rarely the sole cause of lead poisoning, lead in drinking water can significantly increase a person's total lead exposure. EPA estimates that drinking water is the source of up to 20 percent of Americans' lead exposure, and recent research suggests that drinking water may provide as much as 60 percent of total lead exposure for infants who drink baby formula and concentrated juices that are mixed with water. Adults exposed to high levels of lead could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure. Developing fetuses, infants, and young children are more vulnerable to lead from all sources, including drinking water. Their exposure to lead may harm their physical or mental development. Lead is unusual among drinking water contaminants because it generally does not come from source water supplies like rivers and lakes. Rather, lead enters drinking water primarily from the corrosion of materials Le er t 1 GAO, Drinking Water: Safeguarding the District of Columbia's Supplies and Applying Lessons Learned to Other Systems, GAO-04-974T (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2004). Page 1 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water containing lead in the water distribution system and in household plumbing. These materials include lead service lines that connect a house to the water main, lead-based solder used in a house to join copper pipe, and brass plumbing fixtures such as faucets. The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act limited the amount of lead used in solder, faucets, pipes, and other plumbing components. However, older leaded components are still present in many homes, and many new components still contain some lead. The Safe Drinking Water Act is the key federal law protecting public water supplies from harmful contaminants.2 Its 1991 Lead and Copper Rule requires water systems to protect consumers against exposure to elevated levels of lead in drinking water by chemically treating water to reduce its corrosiveness and by collecting water samples from consumer taps and testing them for evidence of lead corrosion.3 Because lead contamination generally occurs after water leaves the treatment plant, the Lead and Copper Rule requires testing for lead at consumer taps. Large water systems, like WASA's, generally must take 100 samples in a 6-month period. EPA considers lead to be over the "action level" when lead levels are higher than 15 parts per billion in over 10 percent of tap water samples taken. If a water system exceeds the action level, it must notify and educate the public about ways to reduce exposure. If lead levels exceed the action level after treatment to minimize water's corrosiveness, the water system must annually replace 7 percent of the lead service lines that it owns. Implementation and enforcement of the Lead and Copper Rule in the District of Columbia is complicated because of the number and nature of the entities involved. The Washington Aqueduct, owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, treats the water (including controlling for corrosion). WASA purchases water from the Washington Aqueduct and delivers it to District residents, and is responsible for monitoring tap water samples for lead. EPA Region III in Philadelphia has oversight and enforcement authority for the District's public water systems. You asked us to determine (1) what the key government entities that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations for lead in the District of Columbia are doing to increase their level of coordination and reduce 2 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j. 40 C.F.R. pt. 141, subpart I. 3 Page 2 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water lead levels, (2) to what extent WASA and other agencies are determining which adult and child populations in the District of Columbia are at greatest risk of exposure to elevated lead levels in drinking water and how the agencies are reducing the public's lead exposure, (3) how other drinking water systems that exceeded EPA's action level for lead conducted public notification and education, and (4) the state of research on lead exposure and how this information could help inform other drinking water utilities of potential problems in their systems. To answer the first two questions, we interviewed officials responsible for the delivery and regulation of drinking water in the District of Columbia, including WASA, EPA, the Washington Aqueduct, and officials from community advocacy groups. We also reviewed key documents, such as the consent orders between WASA and EPA and testimony by the involved entities. Additionally, we spoke to officials with the D.C. Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and reviewed a March 2004 CDC study on lead exposure from drinking water in the District of Columbia. To answer the third question, we interviewed officials responsible for the delivery and regulation of drinking water in several cities around the country, reviewed documents these officials produced, and observed aspects of their public education programs. We also spoke with EPA, water industry groups, and public advocacy groups and reviewed reports these entities produced. Finally, to answer the fourth question, we interviewed experts on the health effects of lead exposure, including officials at EPA and CDC, and reviewed public health studies and medical literature describing the health effects of lead exposure. We also interviewed EPA officials and reviewed program documentation to understand EPA's involvement in lead research. We conducted our review from April 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology, see appendix I. Results in Brief WASA and other government agencies implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations for lead have taken steps to improve their coordination, but challenges remain to reduce lead levels. According to EPA officials, WASA appears to be on track to meet the terms of a June 17, 2004, consent order the two agencies signed. The consent order required WASA to take a number of corrective actions that, by necessity, enhanced its coordination with EPA and the D.C. Department of Health. Among these actions were developing a plan to identify additional lead service lines, Page 3 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water improving the selection of sampling locations and reporting of water testing results to EPA, developing a strategy to improve WASA's public education efforts, and collaborating with the D.C. Department of Health to set priorities for replacing lead service lines. WASA has also agreed to implement several recommendations the D.C. Inspector General made in a January 2005 report to improve coordination between EPA, WASA and the D.C. Department of Health. However, improved coordination has not, and may not, resolve all problems. EPA and WASA officials remain concerned about lead levels in drinking water. Tap water test results that WASA submitted in January 2005 indicate the drinking water WASA provided still exceeds the action level for lead of 15 parts per billion. According to EPA, experts have said that it can take 6 months or more to begin seeing a drop in lead levels and a year or more for the orthophosphate treatment to reduce lead levels below the EPA action level. WASA is taking steps to identify those customers most at risk from exposure to lead in drinking water and to reduce their exposure. WASA and EPA are focusing on lead service lines as the primary source of lead in drinking water in the District of Columbia. Under the consent order, WASA is identifying those most at risk by updating its inventory of lead service lines, primarily by determining the composition of service lines made of unknown materials. In addition, to reduce the exposure of District residents to lead in drinking water, WASA is accelerating its rate of lead service line replacement and, consistent with the consent order, providing priority replacement for populations particularly vulnerable to the health effects of lead. Locations eligible for priority replacement of lead service lines include day care centers and homes housing children up to 6 years old with elevated blood lead levels. However, questions remain about the success of this replacement program because WASA often replaces only part of the lead service line. Generally, ownership of service lines is shared--WASA owns the portion from the water main to the property line, and homeowners own the portion from the property line to the home. Homeowners may pay to replace their portion of the lead service line at the same time as WASA replaces its portion, but are not required to do so. Only 2 percent of homeowners replaced their portion of the service line in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. WASA officials attribute low homeowner participation to cost concerns, but believe its incentive program--which includes lowinterest loans, grants, and a fixed-fee structure--is increasing the number of full pipe replacements. Available data from fiscal year 2005 show that 14 percent of customers have replaced the private portion of their home's lead service line. Page 4 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Other water systems use innovative methods to educate their customers about lead in drinking water and to judge the effectiveness of their efforts. These practices include using a variety of media to inform the public, forming partnerships with government and community groups, and targeting and adapting information to audiences most susceptible to lead exposure through drinking water. Many of these practices go well beyond the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule. Representatives from the water industry and community groups as well as other experts have found several shortcomings with the Lead and Copper Rule's public education requirements. They noted, for example, that the rule's required notification language is confusing and that a water system has up to 60 days to notify its customers if the system exceeds the action level for lead. EPA is both examining water systems' compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule's public education requirements and considering changing the rule or its accompanying guidance documents and training. While we support this effort, the clear deficiencies of the rule's public education requirements call for more immediate action to assist water systems in their efforts to educate the public. Therefore, we recommend that EPA identify and publish best practices that water systems are using to educate the public about lead in drinking water. Much is known about the health effects of lead exposure, particularly lead's impact on brain development and functioning in young children. However, according to experts we interviewed, limited studies have been conducted on the heath effects of exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water, and these studies are now nearly 20 years old. Acknowledging the need for improved and up-to-date information, officials in EPA's Office of Water and its Office of Research and Development indicate that they are beginning to address certain information gaps about the health risks of lead in drinking water. For example, the Office of Water is planning to prepare a health advisory document for lead to help utilities and state and local officials explain the risks of lead exposure to the public. Additionally, the Office of Water is planning to develop a paper summarizing the results of research conducted on lead exposure since the Lead and Copper Rule was published in 1991. However, the timetable for completing these projects is not clear, and it is also not clear how this work will fit into a broader agency research agenda or if this research needs to involve other key organizations, such as CDC. To address this issue, we recommend that EPA develop a strategy for closing information gaps in the health effects of lead in drinking water that includes timelines, funding requirements, and any needed coordination with CDC and other research organizations. Page 5 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Background The Safe Drinking Water Act established a federal-state arrangement in which states may be delegated primary implementation and enforcement authority ("primacy") for the drinking water program. Except for Wyoming and the District of Columbia, all states and territories have received primacy. For contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and that the EPA Administrator determines may have an adverse impact on health, the act requires EPA to set a nonenforceable maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects occur and that allows an adequate margin of safety. Once the MCLG is established, EPA may set an enforceable standard for water as it leaves the treatment plant, the maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL generally must be set as close to the MCLG as is feasible using the best technology or other means available, taking costs into consideration. Alternatively, EPA can establish a treatment technique, which requires a treatment procedure or level of technological performance to reduce the level of the contaminant. The fact that lead contamination occurs after water leaves the treatment facility has complicated efforts to regulate lead in the same way as most other drinking water contaminants. In 1975, EPA established an interim MCL for lead of 50 parts per billion (ppb), but did not require sampling of tap water to show compliance with the standard. Rather, the standard had to be met at the water system before the water was distributed. The 1986 amendments to the act directed EPA to issue a new lead regulation, and in 1991, EPA adopted the Lead and Copper Rule. Instead of an MCL, the rule established an "action level" of 15 ppb for lead in drinking water. To reduce the amount of lead entering the water as it flows through distribution lines and home plumbing to customers' taps, the rule required that water systems, if needed, treat the water to limit its corrosiveness. Under the rule, the action level is exceeded if lead levels are higher than 15 ppb in over 10 percent of tap water samples.4 Large systems, including WASA's, generally must take at least 100 tap water samples in a 6month monitoring period, though reduced monitoring schedules are also allowed for some systems. If a water system exceeds the action level, it has 60 days to deliver a public education program that meets EPA 4 For each monitoring period, a system must report the 90th percentile lead level of homes monitored. For example, if a system monitors 100 homes, it sorts its results from the lowest to the highest concentrations and reports the concentration it observed in the 90th sample. Page 6 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water requirements, including a notice in customers' water bills; delivery of public service announcements to television and radio stations; and the distribution of information to locations likely to serve populations vulnerable to lead exposure, including hospitals, clinics, and local welfare agencies.5 In addition, if lead levels exceed the action level after treatment to minimize water's corrosiveness, the water system must annually replace 7 percent of the lead service lines under its ownership and offer to replace the private portion of the lead service line (at the owner's expense) until the tap water 90th percentile lead levels drop below the action level for two consecutive six month monitoring periods. Drinking water is provided to District of Columbia residents under a unique organizational structure: � The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct draws water from the Potomac River that it filters and chemically treats to meet EPA specifications. The aqueduct produces drinking water and sells it to utilities that serve approximately 1 million people living or working in or visiting the District of Columbia; Arlington County, Virginia; and Falls Church, Virginia. Managed by the Corps of Engineers' Baltimore District, the aqueduct is a federally owned and operated public water supply agency that produces an average of 180 million gallons of water per day at two treatment plants located in the District. � The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority buys its drinking water from the Washington Aqueduct and distributes it through 1,300 miles of water mains to customers in the District and several federal facilities in Virginia. From its inception in 1938 until 1996, WASA's predecessor, the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Utility Administration, was a part of the District's government. In 1996, WASA was established by the District of Columbia as a semiautonomous regional entity. � EPA's Region III Office in Philadelphia has primary oversight and enforcement responsibility for public water systems in the District of Columbia. According to EPA, the regional office's oversight and enforcement responsibilities include providing technical assistance to the water suppliers on how to comply with federal regulations; ensuring 5 The water system must also offer to sample the tap water of any customer who requests it, though the system is not required to pay for sample collection or analysis. Page 7 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water the suppliers report monitoring results to EPA by the required deadlines; taking enforcement actions if violations occur; and using those enforcement actions to return the system to compliance in a timely fashion. � The District's Department of Health, while having no formal role under the act, has as its mission identifying health risks and educating the public on those risks. In August 2002, WASA officially reported to EPA that drinking water in the District of Columbia exceeded the action level for lead. This report triggered the Lead and Copper Rule's requirement to deliver a public education program within 60 days and to replace lead service lines at a minimum rate of 7 percent per year.6 Because WASA and property owners in the District share ownership of the water service lines, the rule required WASA to replace the portion of the lines that it owns, and to offer to replace the portion of the lines controlled by the homeowners at the homeowners' expense. Under the Lead and Copper Rule, water systems get credit for lead service line replacement either by actually replacing lines or by finding homes with lead service lines that test under the 15 ppb action level. For fiscal year 2003, WASA decided to physically replace and test lead service lines concurrently. WASA reported that it tested 4,613 homes with lead service lines in fiscal year 2003, and found 1,241 homes at or below the 15 ppb action level but another 3,372 homes with water exceeding the action level.7 Local media made these results public in January 2004. EPA began a special audit of WASA's compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule in February 2004. This audit resulted in a consent order that EPA and WASA signed on June 17, 2004. Congress held a number of hearings in 2004 to investigate drinking water problems in the District. 6 Under the rule, a water system can stop replacing lead service lines if lead concentrations are below the action level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. On January 14, 2005, EPA Region III issued a supplemental consent order stating that WASA used an improper methodology to collect many of these samples. The order requires WASA to physically replace by the end of fiscal year 2007 any lines that were deemed "replaced" because they showed a lead level below 15 ppb in these improper tests. 7 Page 8 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Challenges Remain in Reducing Lead Levels WASA and other government agencies implementing the act's regulations for lead have taken steps to improve their coordination. According to EPA officials, WASA has thus far met the terms of the order the two agencies signed that required WASA to take a number of corrective actions. WASA has also agreed to implement most recommendations that the D.C. Inspector General made in a January 2005 report to develop internal policies and procedures at WASA that would improve the coordination between EPA, WASA, and the D.C. Department of Health. Improved coordination, however, has not resolved all problems, and EPA and WASA officials remain concerned that drinking water WASA provides still exceeds the action level for lead of 15 parts per billion. WASA Has Improved Coordination with Other Agencies Under the June 2004 Consent Order, WASA agreed to take several actions to improve its compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule and, in so doing, enhanced its coordination with EPA and the D.C. Department of Health. The order required WASA to improve its selection of sampling locations and reporting of water testing results to EPA, create a strategy to improve its public education efforts, physically replace an additional 1,615 lead service lines by the end of fiscal year 2006, develop a plan and a schedule to identify additional lead service lines, and, in collaboration with the D.C. Department of Health, develop a plan to set priorities for replacing lead service lines. According to staff in EPA's Region III, WASA appears to be on track to meet the terms of the order. Table 1 identifies some principal requirements of the order and notes the status of WASA's compliance as of January 18, 2005. Page 9 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Table 1: Summary of Selected June 2004 Consent Order Requirements and Compliance Activities Required WASA action Submit tap water sampling plan Develop a new public education plan Develop a plan to update inventory of lead service lines With D.C. Department of Health approval, develop plan for prioritizing replacement of lead service lines Develop plan to encourage homeowners to consent to full replacement of lead service lines Develop plan for enhanced database management and reporting
Source: EPA. Submitted to EPA June 25, 2004 July 19, 2004 August 2, 2004 August 2, 2004 August 2, 2004 August 16, 2004 EPA action Provided comments to plan on July 14, 2004; no approval required under order Provided comments to plan on August 2, 2004; no approval required under order Approved September 29, 2004 Approved September 29, 2004 Approved August 10, 2004 Provided comments to plan on September 3, 2004; no approval required under order WASA also agreed to implement 11 of the 12 recommendations contained in the D.C. Inspector General's January 2005 report.8 The D.C. Inspector General found that WASA had not developed or maintained internal policies or procedures for implementing requirements set forth in the Lead and Copper Rule, including those for selecting and reporting lead water sample test results. However, the D.C. Inspector General concluded that WASA's current initiatives on lead concentrations in the District's tap water were noteworthy; he also made 12 recommendations to improve WASA's annual monitoring, lead service line replacement, and communication. WASA agreed to all of the Inspector General's recommendations except one to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the D.C. Department of Health that defines both agencies' roles and responsibilities, the expert advice each agency can provide in the areas of water quality management, and the frequency and manner of transmission of information between the agencies. WASA did not agree that an MOU was necessary to ensure effective cooperation, and noted that its relationship with the D.C. Department of Health has vastly improved and reflects a more creative and flexible partnership and that the range of substantive issues around which WASA and the D.C. Department of Health must communicate is wide, diverse, and complex. While we agree that WASA's relationship with the D.C. Department of Health has improved, we nonetheless agree with the 8 District of Columbia, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of Elevated Levels of Lead in the District's Drinking Water, OIG No. 04-2-17LA (Jan. 5, 2005). Page 10 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Inspector General's view that an MOU would serve to define the two agencies' roles and responsibilities and help improve their coordination and partnership. Lead Levels Remain Above the Action Level Despite improved coordination, the central problem remains: lead in D.C. drinking water is still over the EPA action level. In February 2004, EPA formed a Technical Expert Working Group made up of representatives from WASA; EPA; CDC; the Washington Aqueduct; Arlington and Falls Church, Virginia; the D.C. Department of Health; and industry consultants. Industry experts traced the likely cause for the increased lead levels to November 2000. At that time, the Washington Aqueduct changed its secondary disinfectant treatment from free chlorine to chloramines to comply with a new EPA regulation that placed strict limits on disinfection by-products. This change in water treatment may have had the unintended consequence of making the corrosion control treatment that was in place no longer adequately protective.9 Therefore, lead levels increased in water exposed to lead-containing plumbing and fixtures. The group recommended the introduction of orthophosphate to the drinking water supply because it concluded that this chemical would form a protective coating inside lead service lines and fixtures to prevent lead from leaching into drinking water. In order to assess the effect of orthophosphate on the water distribution system, in May 2004, EPA approved the Washington Aqueduct's request to apply the corrosion inhibitor to a portion of the District of Columbia drinking water distribution system, and the corrosion inhibitor was introduced June 2004. This portion is called the 4th High Pressure Zone, and it is hydraulically isolated from the remainder of the system. In early August 2004, based on the results of the partial system test, EPA approved the Washington Aqueduct's request for broader use of the corrosion inhibitor, and on August 23, 2004, the inhibitor was introduced systemwide. On January 10, 2005, WASA submitted to EPA its latest tap water sampling results, covering tap water samples taken from July through December 2004. These results showed that the 90th percentile sample reached 59 ppb, still substantially over the 15 ppb action level for lead. However, EPA and WASA officials report that some reductions of lead
9 EPA officials believe that the removal of free chlorine, rather than the addition of chloramines, resulted in the increase in corrosion. Page 11 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water levels occurred in the latter half of the monitoring period. WASA data show that 42 samples taken during July through September 2004 had a 90th percentile reading of 82 ppb, while 88 samples taken during October through December 2004 had a 90th percentile reading of 31 ppb. According to EPA, experts have said that it can take 6 months or more to begin seeing a drop in lead levels and a year or more for the orthophosphate treatment to reduce lead levels below the EPA action level. WASA and Other Agencies Are Taking Steps to Identify AtRisk Populations and Reduce Their Lead Exposure WASA is identifying those most at risk for exposure to lead in drinking water by updating its inventory of lead service lines. To reduce the exposure of District residents to lead in drinking water, WASA is accelerating its rate of lead service line replacement and providing priority replacement of lead service lines for populations particularly vulnerable to the health effects of lead. However, questions remain about the success of the lead service line replacement program, because WASA is replacing only part of the lead service line unless customers pay to have their portion replaced. WASA Is Updating Its Lead Service Line Inventory WASA and EPA officials are focusing on lead service lines as the primary source of lead in drinking water in the District of Columbia. Locating these lines allows WASA to identify the people most likely to be exposed. The June 2004 consent order that WASA signed with EPA Region III requires WASA to update its baseline inventory of lead service lines each year.10 WASA must use this baseline inventory to calculate the 7 percent of lines it replaces each year. In September 2004, WASA revised its baseline inventory to 23,637 lead service lines and reported this number to EPA. However, at that time WASA did not know the composition of 31,380 service lines. The order requires WASA to provide a strategy and timetable for identifying the composition of these unknown lines. During fiscal year 2005, WASA plans to determine the composition of 1,200 unknown lines by digging up or testing a segment of each line. Figure 1 shows the inventory of WASA's service lines as of October 1, 2004. 10 WASA's baseline inventory is the number of lead service lines present on June 30, 2001. This baseline number changes over time as WASA identifies the composition of additional lines. Page 12 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Figure 1: Inventory of WASA Service Lines 2%
Lead lines replaced (2,229) 16% Lead service lines remaining (21,408) 58% 24% Unknown material (31,380) Nonlead service lines (76,915)
Source: WASA. To speed the process of identifying the composition of unknown lines, WASA is attempting to develop a methodology to identify the composition without physically digging up the line. WASA plans to statistically analyze line composition data from test pits dug in 2003 through 2005 along with known quantities about each excavated line: the date of service line construction, water test result for lead, and size of service line. WASA hopes that these known quantities can be used to determine the unknown line composition. WASA plans to complete this analysis by August 1, 2005. WASA Is Accelerating Lead Service Line Replacement and Targeting At-Risk Populations To reduce residents' exposure to lead in drinking water, WASA is accelerating its schedule for replacing lead service lines. WASA's Board of Directors decided to replace all lead service lines in public space in the District of Columbia by 2010. The total cost of this program is estimated at $300 million. In fiscal years 2002 through 2004, WASA replaced 2,229 lead service lines in public space, about 9 percent of the total known lead service line inventory. In its lead service line replacement program, WASA replaces the majority of lines on a block-by-block basis. However, to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water for those residents most vulnerable to lead's health effects, Page 13 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water WASA agreed, as part of the consent order, to develop in consultation with the D.C. Department of Health a system for setting priorities for lead service line replacement and to replace 1,000 lead service lines by the end of fiscal year 2006 on a priority basis. For fiscal year 2005, WASA's first priority for replacement is homes with children younger than 6 who have elevated blood lead levels;11 its second priority is day-care centers; and its third priority is homes that are occupied by children younger than 6, or pregnant or nursing mothers. WASA identified members of this third group by sending a letter to all customers in its database who have a lead service line or a service line of unknown composition. Customers could return the letter to identify themselves as members of these at risk groups, as appropriate, and WASA sorted customer responses to remove those who did not meet the criteria for priority replacement. WASA worked with the D.C. Department of Health to establish criteria for priority replacement, and EPA has approved the program. Table 2 shows the number of priority replacements WASA completed in fiscal year 2004 and plans to complete in fiscal year 2005. Table 2: WASA's Priority Lead Service Line Replacement Program Number of lead service lines replaced Children under 6 with elevated blood lead 135 289
Source: WASA. Year Fiscal 2004 (completed) Fiscal 2005 (estimated) Day-care centers 46 119 Children under 6, or pregnant or nursing women 137 592a Total priority replacements 318 1,000b Notes: WASA priorities for replacement in 2004 were different from the 2005 priorities. WASA's first priority in 2004 was day-care centers, followed by children with elevated blood lead and high-risk residents (children under 6, or pregnant or nursing women).
a WASA is forwarding 2,097 notices to customers who identified themselves as members of this group, and customers must provide verification. Additionally, not all of these homes will actually have a lead service line, when tested. b The June 2004 consent order requires WASA to replace 1,000 service lines on a priority basis by the end of fiscal year 2006. WASA officials plan to meet this deadline by the end of fiscal year 2005. 11 Elevated blood lead in children younger than 6 is defined as 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater, according to CDC guidelines. Page 14 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water Questions Remain about the Success of the Lead Service Line Replacement Program WASA is replacing lead service lines in public space--from the water main to the homeowners' property line. In the District of Columbia, homeowners own the portion of the service line that runs from the property line to the home. Homeowners may replace this portion of the line if they choose, but this replacement is not required.12 WASA can replace the private portion of a lead service line when it replaces its portion of the line. Figure 2 shows the configuration of a service line from the water main to a customer's home. Figure 2: Lead Service Line Configuration Property line Water main
Source: WASA. Service line Water meter Water shutoff valve Experts disagree about the effectiveness of removing only part of a lead service line. Studies that EPA cited in the Lead and Copper Rule suggest that long-term exposure to lead from drinking water decreases when a service line is partially replaced. However, after partial replacement of a lead service line, exposure to lead in drinking water is likely to increase in 12 A District of Columbia law prohibits WASA from providing repairs or maintenance on private property without charge to the owners. However, according to an EPA official, WASA may use EPA funding to replace the privately owned portion of a lead service line. D.C. Code Ann. section 8-205(b). Page 15 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water the short term because cutting or moving the pipe can dislodge lead particles and disturb any protective coating on the inside of the pipe. Some experts believe that lead exposure can increase after partial service line replacement because of galvanic corrosion where the dissimilar metals of the old and new pipes meet. A study at WASA showed that partial lead service line replacement significantly reduced average lead levels, but that flushing was necessary to remove lead immediately after replacement. At an EPA conference on lead service line replacement in October 2004, water industry officials and others stressed the importance of encouraging or mandating full replacement of lead service lines. As the consent order required, WASA has established a program to encourage homeowners to replace their portion of lead service lines. This program includes � a low-interest loan program for low-income residents, offered through a local bank; � grants of up to $5,000 for low-income residents, offered by the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development; and � a fixed-fee structure for line replacement of $100 per linear foot plus $500 to connect through the wall of the home, to make pricing easier for homeowners to understand. WASA implemented this program in July 2004, and EPA approved the program on August 10, 2004. Information about these programs is included in the notice that homeowners receive at least 45 days before their lead service line is scheduled to be replaced. Thus far, few homeowners in the District of Columbia have replaced their portion of lead service lines. In fiscal years 2003 through 2004, only 2 percent of homeowners (48 of 2,217) replaced the private portion of their lead service line. WASA officials attribute the low rate of full line replacement to customers' cost concerns. An EPA Region III official told us it is too early to determine if the District of Columbia's program is increasing the number of customers who replace their portion of the service line, since the program went into place approximately 2 months before the end of fiscal year 2004. However, WASA officials told us that the number of full replacements is increasing since the program was implemented--14 percent of customers (119 of 841) replaced the private portion of their lead service line between October 1, 2004, and January 28, Page 16 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water 2005. EPA has asked WASA to report on the number of customers taking advantage of the various incentive programs in the 2005 annual lead service line replacement report. Madison, Wisconsin, provides an alternative example for maximizing full lead service line replacement. A 1997 study showed that these lines were the source of elevated lead levels in water, and that fully replacing them could reduce lead levels to well below the action level. Madison cannot use orthophosphate corrosion control treatment because this treatment would degrade surface water quality in local lakes. In lieu of corrosion control treatment, the water utility is replacing all lead service lines in the city over 10 years, a total of approximately 6,000 service lines. To ensure that lines are completely replaced, Madison passed an ordinance in 2000 requiring homeowners to replace their portion of the lead service line when the utility replaces its portion. The city reimburses homeowners for half of the cost they incur in replacing their portion of the line, up to a maximum of $1,000. Assistance is available for customers who cannot afford the replacement. A Madison Water Utility official told us that before the ordinance was passed, less than 1 percent of customers paid to have their portion of the lead service line replaced. Experiences of Other Water Systems Highlight Ways to Better Educate the Public Other water systems use innovative methods to educate their customers about lead in drinking water. These practices include using a variety of media to inform the public, forming partnerships with government agencies and community groups, and targeting educational materials to the audience most susceptible to lead exposure through drinking water. These practices tend to go well beyond the provisions of the Lead and Copper Rule, which require public notification language that is difficult to understand and do not require utilities to notify individual homeowners of the lead concentrations in their homes' drinking water. Other Water Systems Used Innovative Methods to Educate the Public about Lead in Drinking Water WASA's experience highlights the importance of conducting an effective public education program. In its June 2004 consent order, EPA found that WASA had committed only a few violations of the public education Page 17 GAO-05-344 Lead in D.C. Drinking Water requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule.13 However, community groups and others have criticized WASA for failing to adequately convey information to its customers about lead in drinking water and for failing to communicate a sense of urgency in the materials provided. As we testified in July 2004, EPA acknowledges that it should have provided better oversight of WASA's public education program. Other water systems we contacted have used innovative approaches to educate the public about lead in drinking water. For example, some systems used a variety of media to inform the public. Officials from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) appear for interviews on local radio and television talk shows to spread information about lead in drinking water. The Portland (Oregon) Water Bureau provides funding for many lead education initiatives, including materials presented to new parents in hospitals; billboard, movie, and bus advertisements targeted to neighborhoods with older housing; and education materials produced by the Community Alliance of Tenants to educate renters on potential lead hazards. Each of these materials directs people to call a telephone hotline to get informatio