Introduction

On March 3, 2014—over 10 years after the historic exposé of Washington, DC’s unprecedented 2.5-year lead-in-water contamination cover-up and about two months before the start of the Flint, Michigan water crisis—Miguel A. Del Toral, former EPA Region 5 regulations manager for the drinking water program, sent a letter to the leading trade and lobby group in the US, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), explaining why he had decided to cancel his membership. Del Toral wrote that, in light of the association’s unexplainable positions on lead in drinking water, he could no longer support AWWA “in good conscience as a scientist and public servant.”

It is difficult for anyone to understand the persistence of lead in US drinking water without first understanding the water utility industry’s a) obstructive role in relation to this matter, and b) heavy influence over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).

Del Toral’s letter is below. Here are some highlights:

• AWWA sued EPA for mandating in the 1991 LCR “full” replacement of lead service lines—this means replacement of the portions of a line in both public and private space

  In 1993, AWWA sued EPA for a) including a presumption in the 1991 LCR that water utilities “control” the entire length of a lead service line, and b) mandating, as part of the LCR’s lead service line replacement requirement, the replacement of the portion of a lead service line that a water utility “controlled” — in other words, mandating “full” lead service line replacement. Such replacement is significantly more public health protective than “partial” lead service line replacement, which involves the replacement of only the portion of a line in public space and can actually increase lead-in-water levels at the tap.

• AWWA resisted revisions to the grossly deficient EPA LCR

  In 2008, seven years after the start of the historic 2001-2004 Washington, DC lead-in-water crisis—which was the worst documented lead-in-water crisis in modern US history and which exposed serious deficiencies in EPA’s LCR—AWWA took active steps to resist regulatory improvements that would enable the LCR to better protect public health.

• AWWA advocated for a water sampling protocol known to miss worst-case lead-in-water levels

  In 2008, AWWA argued for EPA’s permission to flush targeted taps the night before sampling for regulatory compliance purposes. This practice is called “pre-flushing” and is known to a) artificially reduce lead-in-water contamination for a short period of time, and b) generate lead-in-water readings that miss worst-case concentrations flowing routinely out of people’s taps. Del Toral wrote, “Basing [corrosion control] treatment on pre-flushed sample results […] can result in inadequate corrosion control, and consequently, increased public health risk.”

• AWWA did not support mandatory labeling of “lead-free” plumbing components, but did support the ongoing use of lead-bearing brass water meters

  In its advocacy around the 2011 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA)—which revised EPA’s definition of “lead-free” by lowering the maximum lead content of plumbing components (e.g., pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures)—AWWA did not support mandatory labeling of new plumbing materials that complied with RLDWA requirements. Lack of mandatory labeling would deprive people of the ability to distinguish between ‘higher lead content’ (pre-2011) and ‘lower lead content’ (post-2011) plumbing components. AWWA also supported the ongoing use of lead-bearing brass water meters, which, Del Toral wrote, was going to be “detrimental to public health.”

apm reportS’ 2020 investigation

Six years after Del Toral’s letter, APM Reports captured continued obstruction by the water utility industry in an investigative piece titled, “Buried Lead: How the EPA has left Americans exposed to lead in drinking water.” In this piece, Lauren Rosenthal and Bill Craft report two noteworthy dynamics: first, a striking divergence of opinion between EPA scientists and the water utility industry concerning best ways to control lead in the nation’s drinking water; and second, a tendency on the part of EPA’s Office of Water to dismiss its own experts and align its policy-making with the water utility industry’s preferred approach. Rosenthal and Craft write about how the water utility industry:

• Pushed for the preservation of deficient lead-in-water testing methods. Excerpt:

The Environmental Protection Agency — charged with ensuring the nation has clean air and water — has allowed utilities to use a testing method that doesn't detect the highest concentrations of lead from these water pipes, a deficiency the agency has long known about. [continued]

• Fought against mandatory replacement of lead service lines. Excerpt:

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the EPA was exploring ways to control lead, the agency found reason to believe the cost of replacing pipes was justified. ‘It's the same thing as with abating lead paint,’ said Ronnie Levin, a retired EPA scientist who worked on lead issues at the time. ‘You have significant one-time costs and an infinite number of years of benefits.’ [continued]

• Supported a lead-in-water standard it deemed achievable, despite the fact that it was not public health protective. Excerpt:

The EPA arrived at the 15 parts per billion limit because it was the lead level the agency deemed achievable for most utilities, said Jeff Cohen, who helped design the system for the EPA more than three decades ago.

In other words, human health wasn't the top priority.

• Dominated the negotiations of a multi-stakeholder workgroup, which was convened by EPA to develop recommendations for revisions to the 1991 LCR. The workgroup’s recommendations flew in the face of the recommendations generated by EPA’s internal experts and were designed to further weaken an already weak LCR. Excerpt:

In late 2012, the EPA appointed Peter Grevatt, an agency veteran, to lead the drinking water section of the Office of Water. Toward the end of his first year on the job, at a public meeting in December 2013, Grevatt said the EPA needed to hear from more "diverse" voices and interests about the Lead and Copper Rule. [continued]

the 2014 del toral letter