Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis (continued)
Residents across the country need to know how to make informed decisions about such things as testing (which is practically useless), lead service line replacement (i.e., full is better than partial), filtering options and how to interpret the CCR (e.g., the 90th percentile value says little about lead levels at people's individual taps).
Public versus private LSLs
In PA the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945 posed significant challenges to water systems seeking to conduct full lead service line replacements. The law, at the time, stated that municipalities could only utilize these funds to remediate public lines. To amend this, several water systems petitioned the state legislature and the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to allow systems to use funds for private line replacement. In March 2017, the PA PUC and York Water Company set a precedent by permitting the use of these funds for private lines. Will this state action be required all across the country? Will other state legislatures be willing to take this action to ensure clarity of ability to conduct a full lead service line replacement? And today, we have one smaller water authority that did partial lead service line replacements in the 1970s, and now know more and want to do better, and can’t access the funds to replace the private side that was left intact.
Education is critical and it has to be understandable and consistent. In our Something’s in the Water report published in 2021, we surveyed the 36 water systems across Allegheny County. Of those that responded, 41% indicated their system does not provide notice to consumers if partial lead line replacements are about to occur. Most water systems do not offer lead testing, and of those that do, only three systems confirmed they can do it free of charge. This, again, points to an issue of capacity and resources within each water system.
CCR
We have many instances where a smaller water authority purchases its water from a larger system and, as such, does not conduct or oversee the water treatment process. Therefore, the corrosion control evaluation component for systems in exceedance, as mandated by the LCR, does not apply to them and they have little control.
In addition, our analysis looked at water system violations. And from 2016 to March 2020, there were five instances where the water authority failed to submit its Consumer Confidence Report, as well as failures to issue public notice. In fact, one water system failed to submit for at least three years in a row and then two violations were issued in 2022 due to failure to submit a timely CCR after all that time. And 6% of the water systems don’t have the CCR posted on their website and perhaps never will due to staff capacity issues.
Schools, Testing and Remediation
Communication and direction for schools and childcare centers is lacking in the revision. And as a result there is inconsistency in states passing legislation that does not protect public health such as was done in PA. Our organization manages a program that provides funding to test and remediate for lead in all sources in schools and early learning centers. We have tested over 200 learning environments. Schools still believe that they should only be concerned if they exceed the 15 ppb, the reference level for water systems. What we have found is that when you test for lead in drinking water, you find lead in drinking water. And this is not just the result of lead service lines entering the buildings. So we know lead is present, we test for it, and then there is no remediation plan to address it. We are failing our school children who drink that water over 180 days a year. Our State of Environmental Health in PA Schools examines environmental factors such as lead in drinking water in schools. Reviewing 2019 data, we noted that of the 99 school districts in southwestern PA:
Only 66.7% of the districts who tested performed these tests in all their school buildings
Of the school districts with lead levels exceeding 15 ppb, 43.8% sent remediation records (there were no records present for the remaining districts)
Lead testing in one district revealed concentrations on “1st draw” samples reached alarming levels of 1,920 ppb
In our statewide sample of the 164 districts sampled:
Only 82% of school districts reported testing for lead in drinking water, despite the statewide requirement which notably had a large loophole to not test by providing public notice. And of those that reported an exceedance of 15 ppb which is atrocious, one-third did not indicate that they had taken any corrective action.
We can look at water fountain and tell you if it has lead components. The kettles in school cafeterias that boil water for meal preparation consistently come back with lead present. And we know with the variability of testing that one day you could take a sample from a sink in a classroom and it could provide one reading and you can go back the following day and get a completely different reading. And there is a disconnect between EPAs 3T for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water guidance and these revisions.
This is all to say that the lead and copper rule revisions missed the boat regarding regulations for schools and childcare centers. I’ve shared exampled of why regulations must be put in place to guide schools and childcare centers or this critical issues falls to the wayside. There must be an effective communication strategy to educate school personnel and parents.
Clearly this is a needed space to focus time, attention and resources. If you go to the EPA’s general fact sheet on the proposed revisions, there is no mention of schools and childcare centers because it wasn’t addressed in these revisions. Again a misstep so that means it goes back to the previous administration’s lead and copper rule revisions.
Both Michigan and Washington, D.C., now have “filter first” policies that require schools and daycare centers to install filters at every tap that’s used for drinking or cooking. This approach would require all childcare centers and schools to install filtered drinking water devices, develop a “drinking water management plan”, test the filtered water regularly, and to communicate with families about the improved water quality.
We need to protect children’s health in all spaces, especially where they spend their days in the learning environment.
In closing, this is an opportunity to correct the outdated EPA narrative… to provide consistent, accurate education and messaging regarding lead in drinking water. Right now, NGOs and other community members are doing this, using best available science, to better inform residents and it appears contradictory. That confusion is unfair to the general public. This is an opportunity to right the ship. Investment in improved public education would result in greater public health protection.