Yanna Lambrinidou (continued)
We are here today as a coalition of affected community groups as well as clean water and environmental health and justice organizations.
We’d like to start by recognizing the important improvements to the LCRR (2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions) that you have proposed. The lower lead action level, more robust regulatory sampling, and the lead service line replacement mandate are a few of many important revisions that promise to get us closer to preventing health harm from lead in water.
But we also appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention a matter of great concern to us – that is public education, primarily under the LCR (1991 Lead and Copper Rule) but also beyond. We see public education as arguably the most important of the LCR’s four treatment techniques, for two reasons:
First, because public education has the capacity to plug the gaps in corrosion control treatment and lead service line replacement – two interventions that are incredibly important, but cannot eliminate lead in water for good; and
Second, because public education has the capacity to instill in consumers appreciation for the benefits of precautionary measures that can dramatically reduce – if not prevent – exposures.
Our comments today come from our extensive first-hand experience with lead in water and the LCR as well as our desire to see the LCRI (Lead and Copper Rule Improvements) succeed. They also reflect our conviction that proper public education is vital for:
Maximizing the LCRI’s health-risk-reduction capacity,
Meeting the SDWA’s (Safe Drinking Water Act) public right-to-know provision, and
Complying with the statutory standard for a treatment technique rule.
And yet, as we outline in our November 20 letter to Assistant Administrator Fox, we see serious deficiencies in the very recommendations that EPA, water utilities, and others offer to the public for self-protection. We are afraid that these recommendations, which – we now know – are at the foundation of the LCRI:
will continue to perpetuate false assurances of safety, and
will continue to prolong – if not exacerbate – consumer exposures.
We are convinced that public education will need to be fixed so that it achieves what every treatment technique must achieve – the prevention of “known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible” (proposed LCRI, p84901) with the use of the best available technology.
Science has shown us that all lead-bearing plumbing poses a health risk. So, we urge EPA to center the LCRI’s public education requirement on two crucial changes:
Prohibiting the claim – and even the suggestion – that a system’s water is “safe” because it meets regulatory requirements, and
Mandating the delivery of biannual public notification to all consumers that:
First, discloses the ubiquity of lead-bearing plumbing and the risk of contamination, even when the lead action level is met, lead service lines are absent, and standard testing detects no lead; and
Second, recommends the use of lead-certified point-of-use filters to reduce exposures right away, while offering resources and training on how to find these filters and how to install, maintain, and replace them.
This public notification must be separate from annual CCRs (Consumer Confidence Reports) and must involve different channels of communication that are known to reach consumers. Its messaging, however, must be included in all public education and notification materials, including the CCR.
We recognize EPA’s concern that a universal filter-first recommendation “would lead to inconsistencies, confusion, and possibly a reduction in confidence in tap water” (proposed LCRI, p84952) but, honestly, we find this concern difficult to understand. It seems to us that such a recommendation is going to achieve greater health-risk-reduction than a smorgasbord of (seven) recommendations of unequal value that leave consumers on their own to decide if they should take any precautions and which ones. Additionally, according to a recent study by George Washington University, filters and filter training actually increased public trust in – and use of – tap water.
The technology to bring lead-in-water levels down to the LCR’s MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) of zero exists. What we are missing is truthful public messaging.
EPA has a historic opportunity to get this right.
We hope that the LCRI will open a new chapter for us all, wherein groups like ours are able to amplify EPA’s and water systems’ messaging, not contradict it. Telling our communities that the official communications about lead in water are false or misleading creates anger and confusion and, ultimately, further undermines trust in EPA, water systems, and the water. This is not what we want.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts and to receiving a written response to our letter.
Thank you.