[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THIRSTY FOR RESULTS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S
LEAD CONTAMINATION EXPERIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-204
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-089 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 21, 2004..................................... 1
Statement of:
Grumbles, Benjamin, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. EPA; Donald Welsh, Administrator, Region III, U.S.
EPA; Thomas P. Jacobus, general manager, Washington
Aqueduct, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
and Jerry N. Johnson, general manager, District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority.................................. 9
Neukrug, Howard, director, office of watersheds, Philadelphia
Water Department, the American Water Works Association;
Angela Logomasini, director, risk and environmental policy,
Competitive Enterprise Institute; Scott Rubin, consultant
and public utilities expert; Paul Schwartz, national policy
coordinator, Clean Water Action; and Katherine Funk,
Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives.......................... 73
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
Funk, Katherine, Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, prepared
statement of............................................... 142
Grumbles, Benjamin, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. EPA, prepared statement of............................ 12
Jacobus, Thomas P., general manager, Washington Aqueduct,
Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prepared
statement of............................................... 40
Johnson, Jerry N., general manager, District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, prepared statement of........... 47
Logomasini, Angela, director, risk and environmental policy,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, prepared statement of.... 103
Neukrug, Howard, director, office of watersheds, Philadelphia
Water Department, the American Water Works Association,
prepared statement of...................................... 76
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representative in Congress
from the District of Columbia, prepared statement of....... 7
Rubin, Scott, consultant and public utilities expert,
prepared statement of...................................... 111
Schwartz, Paul, national policy coordinator, Clean Water
Action, prepared statement of.............................. 117
Waxman, Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, prepared statement of........ 155
Welsh, Donald, Administrator, Region III, U.S. EPA, prepared
statement of............................................... 27
THIRSTY FOR RESULTS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S
LEAD CONTAMINATION EXPERIENCE
----------
FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of
Virginia (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Cummings,
Van Hollen, and Norton.
Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and
director of communications; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; John
Hunter, counsel; Robert Borden, counsel and parliamentarian;
Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Teresa
Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk; Robert White,
press secretary; Phil Barnett, minority staff director; Krista
Boyd, Althea Gregory, and Rosalind Parker, minority counsels;
Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk; and Chris Hicks, counsel from Ms. Norton's
staff.
Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning.
The Committee on Government Reform will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``Thirsty for Results:
Lessons Learned from the District of Columbia's Lead
Contamination Experience.''
On March 5, 2004, the committee held a hearing to review
the condition of lead contamination in the District of
Columbia's water supply and examine Federal and local agencies'
responsibilities for drinking water safety in D.C. and the
surrounding jurisdictions. After the hearing, the committee
requested additional information from the Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
Aqueduct and the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
regarding specific actions taken by each agency to combat the
elevated lead levels in the District's water system. These
agencies have taken a number of steps to address this
situation, including supplying water filters to affected
District residents, additional testing of residences, schools
and libraries, blood screening for affected children under 6
and pregnant and nursing women, and also expanded public
outreach.
While each agency is taking additional steps to fix the
problem, the committee will continue to consider how elevated
lead levels in the District's drinking water could have been
prevented and whether the current response adequately protects
public health. There are still some unanswered questions. What
caused the spike in lead levels in the D.C. area? Did the
responsible agencies adequately consider research on the use of
chloramines before introducing them into the water system? Is
the lead testing protocol adequate? Is the current public
information campaign effective? Has WASA complied with the
EPA's request? Are those requests appropriate? Last, is there
cause for more widespread concern in jurisdictions around the
Nation?
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton recently introduced
H.R. 4268, the Lead Free Drinking Water Act of 2004, which
would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act intended to ensure that
the District of Columbia and States provide a safe and lead-
free supply of drinking water. The legislation attempts to
address the concerns raised by the lead crisis in the Nation's
Capital. This legislation would impose new responsibilities on
the EPA and water utilities nationwide.
The purpose of today's hearing is two-fold. First, we
intend to address the current status of the lead problem in the
District, its causes and the governmental response, including
reformulation of water, lead service line replacements and
communications with the public. Second, we want to focus on
whether the current Safe Drinking Water Program is adequate to
assure safe drinking water for the consuming public, both in
the District of Columbia and across the Nation, or whether
additional measures, either legislative or regulatory, are
necessary to accomplish these objectives.
I expect to explore whether the situation in the District
of Columbia is indicative of water systems throughout the
country or whether it is unique. That assessment will assist in
determining whether the experience in the District justifies
changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Part of this process
necessarily includes an examination of the scope of the problem
as suggested by the District's experience, the costs and
benefits that additional requirements would impose on water
systems across the country, and the possible tradeoffs between
expenditures for lead-free drinking water and other programs to
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us. We
have gathered major players and advocates who are well versed
on the lead issue. I look forward to hearing their testimony
and how we can move forward and assure that all residents in
the capital region and across the country have safe drinking
water. Our witnesses will discuss Federal regulations
concerning the monitoring of lead levels and drinking water,
the status of the District's drinking water lead levels and
remediation effects, and their assessments of the need for
changes in the current Federal regulations of lead in the
Nation's drinking water supply.
I would now recognize Ms. Norton for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.002
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I very much appreciate the attention Chairman Davis has
given to the lead contamination water crisis in the District
and region, unhesitatingly agreeing to our first hearing in
March as well as to this hearing following the introduction of
a bill I have co-sponsored with Senator Jim Jeffords to address
the issues.
The city's residents, Mr. Chairman, I can convey to you
have been particularly grateful for your oversight because two
of the three agencies involved with our water are Federal
agencies. It has brought some comfort to our residents to know
that Congress, through your leadership, felt the city's water
crisis and the health of its residents warranted congressional
involvement.
I have only brief remarks this morning because we have
heard from some of these witnesses before and the EPA, WASA and
the Washington Aqueduct have begun to take some of the
necessary actions which might have forestalled a crisis had
these measures been standard operating procedures. This
morning's report of the effect of chlorine in significantly
reducing lead in our drinking water is a case in point. As our
last hearing made clear, the Aqueduct switched from chlorine to
chloramines, apparently elevating lead contamination without
conducting a corrosion control study. Astonishingly, the EPA
regulations still do not require such a study.
The bill Senator Jeffords and I introduced last month
requires a corrosion control study within a year of any change
in the chemicals used to treat drinking water. Nevertheless, I
believe nothing is to be gained by rehashing the extensive
evidence of this and similar deficiencies in the EPA
regulations and WASA and Aqueduct practices. Our time is best
served by trying to find a path toward remedy and correction
today. Particularly now that the bill has been introduced, I am
interested in learning from today's witnesses what actions
Congress should take first to begin to be responsive to what
all agree the District's experienced signals is the need for
some changes.
Our bill is drawing directly from the serious lead
contamination crisis still underway in the District. By now,
there is little question that similar problems exist in
similarly situated water systems operating under the same
regulations and enforcement methods used in the District.
Because the D.C. crisis was both deep and wide and exposed so
many problems, our bill follows suit.
Senator Jeffords and I live in the real world of the Senate
and the House and have no illusions about what may be possible.
My goal now is to work with the EPA, WASA, the Aqueduct and
this committee to make a good faith start on restoring
confidence in the ability of the Federal Government and WASA to
provide safe drinking water to the people of the United States
and the District of Columbia. This hearing should be useful in
deciding how to proceed. Our bill is geared far more toward
rulemaking than prescription. It is the EPA that issued the
current regulations in 1991 and it is the EPA that would engage
in similar rulemaking under our bill. After nearly 15 years
under the current rules and the problems that have been
uncovered, it is time to review what we have learned from the
D.C. crisis and from new developments in the basic science and
to seek agreement on priorities for change.
Again, I very much appreciate this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
and I express my appreciation as well to all of today's
witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, may I also ask that the statement of Mr.
Waxman, the ranking member of this committee, be entered into
the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, the statement will
be in the record and the Members can have 5 legislative days to
submit opening statements for the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.004
Chairman Tom Davis. We also have written statements from
D.C. Councilman Harold Brazil and Mike Keegan from the National
Rural Water Association to be entered into the record.
I want to recognize our first panel. We have the Honorable
Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. EPA; Mr. Donald Welsh, Administrator, Region III, U.S.
EPA; Mr. Thomas P. Jacobus, general manager, Washington
Aqueduct, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
Jerry N. Johnson, general manager, District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority.
As I think you all know, it is the policy of the committee
that all witnesses be sworn before testifying.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
We would like to keep your opening statements to 5 minutes.
Your entire statements are in the record without objection. The
questions will be based on the entire statement, but you are
given 5 minutes to kind of put it together and sum up. Your
light in front of you will be green when you start, it will be
orange after 4 minutes and turn red at the end of 5 minutes.
We appreciate all of you being with us and look forward to
your testimony and being able to ask questions.
Mr. Grumbles, we will start with you and move down the
line. You have been here before. Thanks for coming back.
STATEMENTS OF BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR WATER, U.S. EPA; DONALD WELSH, ADMINISTRATOR, REGION III,
U.S. EPA; THOMAS P. JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON
AQUEDUCT, BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND
JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER
AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Congresswoman Norton for putting together what looks to be a
very balanced and important hearing.
I am appearing with Don Welsh, Regional Administrator for
Region III. What I would like to do is touch briefly upon the
lessons learned and also I would say you have billed the
hearing as lessons learned and I would say it should also be
lessons learning. Clearly all of us are still learning as
aggressively as we can trying to get to the bottom of the
situation here in the District and importantly, reach
conclusions about national implications and steps forward.
The first thing I would like to say is that the EPA
continues to place a very high priority and take extremely
seriously lead in drinking water. This is an important threat
and one that we believe merits the highest degree of attention.
I also want to emphasize that I am not here to define the
status quo or even to defend the rule that is 13 years old. I
am here to tell you that we are looking at the situation with
an open mind and look forward to working with you closely in
giving a hard, honest look at the existing guidance as well as
the regulations and make sure that lessons are learned not just
at the Federal level but at all levels involved in protecting
the Nation's drinking water.
One of the important first steps that we took after the
discovery of the incident in the District of Columbia was the
formation of the Technical Expert Working Group and also to
establish an independent peer review of that group recognizing
how important it is and how critical the science, the
chemistry, the corrosion and all the roles they play in this
situation. We are currently working along those lines with the
Technical Expert Working Group and the independent peer review
panel.
I would also like to briefly describe three of the things
we are doing at the national level. The first is that we are
aggressively pursuing a national review of compliance and
enforcement of the 1991 lead and copper rule. I have written to
all of the regions to work with the States to get as much data
as we possibly can about the state of compliance with the lead
and copper rule. The data we have indicates that the lead in
drinking water is not a national problem, it is not a systemic,
pervasive problem. It is a serious problem, a manageable
problem in some areas of the country.
The data we have gathered also indicates that since 2000,
there are 22 systems serving populations greater than 50,000
that have exceeded the action level. The most recent data of
2003 indicates that eight of those systems have exceeded the
action level. We should never diminish the importance of any
one exceedence but it is also important to indicate that the
data we have from the States is that this is not a pervasive
national problem. This is a national opportunity to look very
seriously at our existing guidance and regulations and learn
lessons from the experience in the District of Columbia.
One of the other things we are doing in addition to the
national compliance review is to aggressively review existing
guidance that the EPA has and the regulation and to gather
lists of ideas to possibly revise or improve upon existing
guidance and the regulation. We have held several expert
workshops. We just recently held two in St. Louis earlier in
the month and the first was on the simultaneous compliance
which is a critically important issue. It is not easy to be a
utility manager and continue to provide safe drinking water to
the public. There are lots of balances, lots of important
decisions to be made and simultaneous compliance. The expert
workshop we had, we think is a very important step forward.
The other one we held was on sampling and monitoring
protocols, another important aspect of the whole experience in
the District of Columbia, making sure we have accurate, timely
and uniform protocols for monitoring to check the quality of
the drinking water.
Mr. Chairman, we plan to hold more workshops. We think now
is the best time to have a vigorous and robust debate with the
scientific community and the public and public water suppliers
on ways to improve upon the existing guidance or possibly the
regulation. We think these workshops are key in that. One of
the workshops will involve lead in schools.
That is the last point I want to make. We all recognize the
importance of protecting school children and kids at day care
facilities and that is why we are systematically reviewing the
policies and programs of the States throughout the country to
ensure that action levels are not exceeded in schools.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, I recognize my
time has expired, but I may just make a point about the
proposed legislation that Delegate Norton and Senator Jeffords
have introduced. I recognize that a lot of thought has been put
into this legislation. It is a very good road map for all of us
to discuss, to review the various range of policy issues. I
personally continue to believe that comprehensive national
legislation at this point is premature but I would commend the
drafters of the legislation for raising these many different
issues and aspects. I think it is worthy of debate and
discussion within the context of our existing guidance and our
rulemaking. We look forward to that.
The last point is in terms of lessons learned, I think the
key lesson we are learning is the critical importance of
communication on drinking water quality and lead in drinking
water, accurate, timely, relevant and useful information is
critically important and I think all of this discussion is
going to help the country as a whole in being better prepared
with potential lead and drinking water issues throughout the
country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.016
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Welsh.
Mr. Welsh. Good morning. I am Don Welsh, Regional
Administrator for Region III of the U.S. EPA. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to comment on H.R. 4268,
the Lead Free Drinking Water Act and to provide a full update
on the important issue of lead in tap water of the D.C.
residents and the steps the EPA and other agencies are taking
to resolve the problem.
Let me begin by updating the committee on the latest
developments in the District of Columbia. There is no higher
priority for my office than to continue to work with the city
and other partners to protect those who live and work in the
District and to identify and correct the cause of elevated lead
in the water. Since I last appeared before this committee,
significant progress has been made in both areas.
Regarding actions to reduce the elevated lead levels, the
EPA has authorized interim water treatment changes recommended
by a Technical Expert Working Group. The partial system
application of zinc orthophosphate, a corrosion inhibitor, will
begin on or around June 1 in an area of northwest Washington.
The anticipated timetable for full introduction of the proposed
remedy has been accelerated to mid-July depending on the
results of the more limited application.
The working group's efforts are being reviewed at key
points by an independent peer panel which includes four
corrosion control experts from around the country. The EPA will
continue to work with its partners to ensure that the public is
well informed of the treatment changes and the temporary
effects on water quality that may occur. Customers will be
reminded that reduction in lead levels will not likely occur
for at least 6 months after the treatment changes begin.
Customers need to follow the flushing guidance and utilize
water filters where supplied to ensure particularly that
children under 6 years of age, pregnant women and nursing
mothers are protected from elevated lead levels.
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and the
city government continue to move ahead on a series of actions
directed by the EPA to address the immediate public health
threat posed by lead in drinking water. We stand ready to use
our enforcement authorities if necessary to compel further
action and to ensure consumers are protected and properly
informed.
To date, WASA has delivered over 29,000 certified water
filters and consumer instructions to occupants in homes with
lead service lines as well as others. Water filters continue to
be sent out automatically along with a referral to the
Department of Health when tap water test results indicate
elevated lead levels. Additional tap water sampling in
buildings not served by lead service lines is continuing. A
representative sampling of buildings citywide was required by
the EPA to include schools, day care centers, businesses and
other facilities. An additional round of sampling for 130 DC
public schools was completed using an EPA-approved protocol.
This sampling round involves close to 2,000 samples in areas of
the schools where the vulnerable population of children under
six and pregnant could be drinking. The city took immediate
action to remove from service any water outlet testing higher
than the school's action level of 20 ppb. WASA has committed to
an accelerated schedule for physically replacing lead service
lines in the District. The construction method for service line
replacement has been modified to ensure that they do not pose
an undue risk to health in the days or weeks following the
replacement while ensuring compliance with the lead and copper
regulations. WASA is expediting notification to customers of
the results of water sampling at their residences committing to
providing results in 30 days or less.
The EPA is completing a detailed compliance audit of WASA's
lead service line program, public education and compliance
sampling actions. Based on preliminary results of our initial
compliance audit, the EPA asserted instances in which
requirements may not have been met. As part of the enforcement
process, the EPA required WASA to provide information to the
EPA responding to those findings. Nearly 6,000 pages of
documents and voluminous electronic files are under review by
the EPA as part of our compliance audit. Once we have completed
our review, we will make a final determination as to whether
violations have occurred and we will take appropriate action
authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In a separate initiative, an internal EPA team completed
its review of WASA's prior education and outreach efforts. The
report identified a number of steps WASA can take to achieve
more effective public education and outreach regarding lead and
drinking water. In addition to following mandatory requirements
and making use of extensive EPA guidance, the report recommends
that WASA use consultants to assist in assessing the audience
to be reached, securing feedback on its efforts and in making
recommendations for design and content of materials as well as
delivery methods.
Major issues identified by the reviewers were the lack of a
sense of urgency in outreach efforts, failure to adequately
convey information to the intended audience, insufficient
opportunity for involvement by the public in the development of
a communication strategy and lack of tracking measures to
determine the success of outreach activities. The
recommendations were designed as key input to WASA's continuing
efforts to plan and carry out enhancements to drinking water
education efforts both for regulatory compliance and also
beyond compliance efforts.
The report also includes recommendations for the EPA Region
III to improve our oversight of WASA's public education
program. We have revised our standard operating procedures in
part to assure that shortcomings in public outreach and
identification are identified earlier and corrected and that
proper expertise in risk communication is utilized in the
process.
Other changes in procedure will ensure that no fewer than
four EPA Drinking Water staff members, two of them managers,
see each compliance report filed by WASA and the Washington
Aqueduct. In addition to our collaborative efforts with the
city, the EPA has taken a number of actions to provide
information to residents and others on the issue of lead in the
District's drinking water. These actions include a new program,
Lead Safe D.C., to bring lead education information, home
visits and blood level testing to District neighborhoods.
Regular updates of our Web site, telephone hotline information,
dispatch of community outreach specialists to the District,
radio outreach in English and in Spanish, participation in 10
public meetings and regular contact with the Coalition of
Environmental and Consumer Groups.
On the issue of primacy for drinking water responsibility
and enforcement in the District of Columbia, the intent of the
Safe Drinking Water Act is for the States, and the District is
included within that definition, to have jurisdiction over the
program. If the District seeks such status, we would entertain
an application and work with the District to consider the
issues involved.
Working closely with the District of Columbia, our public
service partners and concerned citizens, we will continue to
aggressively act to protect residents and resolve the lead
problem. We are taking action to hasten the day when the
citizens of the District of Columbia can once again be
confident in the safety of their drinking water. Thank you for
the opportunity to present this information and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Welsh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.028
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Jacobus.
Mr. Jacobus. Good morning, Chairman Davis and members of
the committee.
I am Tom Jacobus, general manager, Washington Aqueduct. We
appreciate the opportunity to return and update the committee
on the actions we have taken to reduce the elevated
concentrations of lead in the drinking water found in some
homes in the District of Columbia.
Since February 2, 2004, our highest priority has been to
reevaluate the corrosion control treatment in use and to
develop a treatment modification to make the water less
corrosive. We are presently installing equipment that will be
used to modify the corrosion control treatment. As Mr. Welsh
just said, a partial system application is scheduled to begin
on June 1 in a small portion of the District of Columbia's
service area. Later this summer, we will begin a full system
application that will include the remainder of the District of
Columbia and the Arlington County and the city of Falls Church
distribution systems in Virginia.
We are approaching it in two steps to be able to carefully
control and evaluate the initial application to ensure that the
program dose of the inhibitor we are going to use, the zinc
orthophosphate, does not generate any unexpected secondary
effects. One known possible effect of the application of the
corrosion inhibitor may be the localized release of rust from
iron pipes. This would result in discolored water delivered to
the customer on a temporary basis but it would be short term
and could be managed by flushing.
When arriving at this treatment change, we have had access
to the Nation's very best scientific and technical talent in
this field. We appreciate the resources the Environmental
Protection Agency has expended to assist not only us but also
to look at the larger aspects of this issue. While the level of
activity certain has been higher than normal, we have operated
within the current program established by Congress in the Safe
Drinking Water Act and implemented by the Environmental
Protection Agency. I believe the program has worked well and
that each of us has had the opportunity to collaborate
effectively on both the nature of the problem and its solution
while maintaining our independent responsibilities.
The current regulations and relationships have served us
well in addressing corrective actions to modify our optimal
corrosion control treatment. I believe the current business
arrangement whereby Washington Aqueduct is the wholesale
provider to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority,
Arlington County and the city of Falls Church is sound. We work
effectively with Region 3 of the Environmental Protection
Agency as the primary agency responsible for drinking water and
we have effective contact with agencies within the District of
Columbia Government, including the District's Department of
Health.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobus follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.032
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I am Jerry Johnson, general manager of the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. I am pleased to represent
the Authority before the committee this morning.
As you know, the District of Columbia and the Water and
Sewer Authority have been the focus of great attention in the
past few weeks. We appreciate this new opportunity to appear
before the committee to discuss these issues and explain what
has been happening and to talk about what we have learned in
response to your questions.
The Authority continues to work with the EPA on our
obligations under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the lead and
copper rule including the recent submission of an updated
action plan. The Authority is continuing a water sampling and
testing program and we are distributing filters to targeted
residents and we continue to support the District of Columbia's
Health Department, and we have contacted each one of the
households by mail that is believed to have a lead service line
or does not have a record of service pipe type material. Each
household has been strongly encouraged to participate in the
leading sampling program.
We delivered water filter and replacement cartridges to
every resident identified as having lead service lines and out
of an abundance of caution, any household that participates in
the testing program regardless of pipe material type is
receiving a filter and replacement cartridges if they test over
15 ppb.
WASA is moving forward with its lead line replacement
program and has already replaced about 800 service lines in
public space this year. We will physically replace over 1,800
lead service pipes in public space and the board of directors
for the Authority is proposing to totally eliminate lead
service lines in public space by 2010. WASA has engaged a team
of experts from George Washington University School of Public
Health, including individuals with expertise in communication,
epidemiology and pediatric health. The Lead Service Hotline has
responded to 54,331 customer calls and 6,538 e-mails since
February 4 and processed 23,200 test kits in response to these
calls.
With respect to properties that are larger than single
family households, which is a question that was raised, WASA's
best information is that these large properties are served by
pipes that exceed 2 inches in diameter and usually are not made
of lead. However, we have proposed and the EPA has approved a
test plan to test these assumptions. Technical experts in the
working group have come upon the use of zinc orthophosphate as
mentioned by two previous speakers, and I will not go into that
discussion. We have also reviewed some of the national
standards with the Environmental Protection Agency's
regulations. One of the most important contributions I think
the Authority can make in this discussion is to emphasize the
enormous value in collecting and sharing accurate information,
ensuring that the public has confidence in the water supply is
of paramount concern, and we share the concern and are
committed to that goal. The importance of informed judgment and
considered action by public water systems and our regulators
and the public health authorities is at the heart of building
confidence and we cannot overemphasize that.
As of Friday, May 7, the Health Department performed 5,291
blood level screenings, blood lead tests, including 1,924 from
the target population. Of those, 37 children under 6 had
elevated blood levels and 13 lived in homes with lead service
lines, 24 did not. All children of nursing mothers with
elevated blood levels lived in an environment where other
significant sources of lead were present such as lead dust or
lead paint. In fact, environmental assessments of those homes
has shown lead dust in soil levels above the EPA and HUD
guidelines.
With respect to the specific experience as a distributor of
drinking water, we continue to learn and we put those learning
experiences to use every day for our customers. We have
undertaken two series of water samples in public schools and
each of those has shown low to undetectable levels in the
systems and we compared favorably to the surrounding
jurisdictions. As recently as yesterday, a preliminary analysis
of WASA's customer water samples drawn between April 2-8 appear
to indicate that chloramine as a disinfectant used in drinking
water to guard against bacteria, viruses and other diseases
causing agents may have changed the water composition causing
increased levels in lead and drinking water received by some
District residents.
We detected the surprising change during the 6-week period
in the spring of the year when the Washington Aqueduct switched
from chloramines to free chlorine as a primary disinfectant of
the routine annual treatment program. This possibility is the
subject of much speculation and the idea that things like
drought conditions could be contributing factors at one point
but with the world of data we have collected, we may have
identified the primary factor responsible for causing elevated
lead levels in homes of persons who have lead service pipes. It
is early yet, but our analysis of this data indicates that the
change in chloramines in disinfectant in the water supply may
have caused the water to become more corrosive.
We have shared this data with the Washington Aqueduct, the
EPA and our partners in Virginia who are also Washington
Aqueduct customers and strongly urge expedited review of this
data to see what it means for the water distribution system.
With this learning curve in mind, Mr. Chairman, we strongly
encourage interested Members of Congress and the EPA to
evaluate the lead and copper rule, with a careful eye toward
the intent and a clear vision toward improving the Nation's
public water system. H.R. 4268 provides one opportunity to help
focus on such discussion and involve a broad range of
stakeholders.
With respect to our relationship with the Washington
Aqueduct, it has proven a very strong partnership in the effort
to ensure residents have access to clean, safe drinking water.
It is a relationship that has proven satisfactory to WASA's
customers. It has, however, sometimes proven awkward with
respect to the relationship with the Environmental Protection
Agency and other Federal agencies. Your office, Congresswoman
Norton, has interacted with both OMB and us to help address
some of the issues with requirements related to financing. The
question of operational responsibility and ownership was
explored just a few years ago and perhaps the time has arrived
for us to take a second look at that particular issue. There is
something to be said for a single entity controlling both
production and distribution in this environment especially
since customers and many others hold WASA, the distributor,
accountable for all aspects of the provision of clean drinking
water.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, your invitation to testify asked
who should be responsible for the District's drinking water,
enforcing compliance and Federal standards? The Safe Drinking
Water Act contemplates government closest to the operators of
public water systems is best equipped to monitor and enforce
the provisions of the law. We share that view and I believe the
issue of primacy should certainly be explored more fully.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.042
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all very much.
I read in the Post this morning, page B5, an article by
DeVira Cohen, about the lead in D.C. water, after a chlorine
flush. When did WASA flush?
Mr. Johnson. The flushing took place in early April through
May 8th.
Chairman Davis. When did you have these results?
Mr. Johnson. We received the results earlier this week, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee heard about it early this
morning when we picked up the paper.
Mr. Johnson. I apologize. We were trying to get press
releases and information out to everyone. We just completed
compilation of that data on yesterday morning prior to holding
the press conference and briefing. More complete data and all
the raw information is contained in the attachments to the
testimony for today.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask you this. Do you think the
city's elevated lead levels resulted from a structural problem
with the testing, reporting and communications regime or do you
think it was simply poor implementation of the existing Safe
Drinking Water regulations?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, sir. Would you mind?
Chairman Tom Davis. What do you think the elevated levels
resulted from? Is this a structural problem in the system? Was
it the fact that we were using the wrong chemicals? In
retrospect, could you try to tell me what you think the problem
was?
Mr. Johnson. I would preface my comments, Mr. Chairman, by
saying that I am going to be somewhat speculative. We have this
information we recently received from the testing that was done
during the period there was pre-chlorine added to the system.
We found in the first 3 weeks that we had lower levels, the
lead levels had actually plummeted in some cases. We went back
and looked at the final 3 weeks when we are assured that the
system had total chlorine and we flushed out all the
chloramines and the numbers had gone down even further. We
think that data certainly deserves further evaluation and a
closer look at the experts before drawing any final
conclusions, but it would certainly point in the direction of
the chlorine having a positive effect on the leaching of lead
in the service lines which would then suggest perhaps the use
of chloramines would have had some impact on the leaching of
lead and the elevated blood levels.
Chairman Tom Davis. WASA took a number of steps to address
the lead levels in the District's water supply, many the result
of being ordered to do so by the EPA. Some of them go beyond
the specific requirements of the EPA Safe Drinking Water
Program, as I understand it. Do you think all these steps are
necessary to reduce the level of lead in the water supply and
to better inform the public?
Mr. Johnson. Here again, I guess I would preface my
comments by saying I believe many of the efforts that were
undertaken were more collaborative than directive efforts in
working with the Environmental Protection Agency to accomplish
these and I don't quarrel with any of the activities we have
undertaken to date. Some were taken out of an abundance of
caution, others because of specifically addressing very
targeted issues.
Chairman Tom Davis. How effective do you think the lead
service line replacement program is going to be in reducing
lead in the system?
Mr. Johnson. I continue to have questions with regard to
the effectiveness of replacing lead service lines if we are
only doing the replacement in public space. The rule as it is
currently structured requires that once we have done that, we
have met the requirements of the EPA standard. If we are still
leaving a portion of lead service lines for the customer to
have to contend with, then we still have a potential problem.
If we optimize the treatment process, if we have coated those
pipes appropriately and there is no longer lead leaching,
perhaps we will have a timing factor before something like this
happens again. As you know, this is not the first time the
District of Columbia has experienced this problem and we
obviously have to monitor it very closely to ensure that it
does not happen again, but the potential is there as long as
there is a portion of lead service lines serving any customer's
home.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Welsh and Mr. Jacobus, let me focus
on the testing protocols for just a moment and clarify whether
the lead problem could have been identified in the summer of
2001. According to testimony by Seima Bott, the WASA water
quality manager who was responsible for preparing lead test
sample reports for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001,
she had five samples that exceed a lead action level for that
period that she did not submit to the EPA for the purpose of
regulatory compliance. She testified those were backup samples
in case she didn't have 50 samples for regulatory compliance
purposes. If these five had been reported in addition to the
four reported for that period, the District report would have
exceeded the lead action level for the 90th percentile in the
summer of 2001 instead of a year later when lead levels might
have increased significantly.
While the EPA has responded to a question from the
committee that it has no record of the invalidation of any
samples for that period, my question for the EPA and WASA is
whether the decision not to use these samples is consistent
with testing and reporting protocol?
Mr. Welsh. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
EPA should receive any of the data that is developed, any of
the samples should be reported to the EPA. As mentioned, we
discussed this before. We reviewed our records to see if there
was any indication the procedure in the lead and copper rule
for invalidation of samples had been used and it had not been.
So it is my understanding that any data that is collected does
need to be reported to the EPA.
Chairman Tom Davis. And you don't know why those particular
samples weren't put in the selection process?
Mr. Welsh. That is correct. We were concerned about that
issue and have been investigating that, including a request for
information and an information request letter to WASA and the
6,000 pages of documents and some of the electronic files I
mentioned earlier, some of that was in reference to that
particular question and we are continuing to investigate that
to see exactly what went on there.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask WASA, what do you know about
that?
Mr. Johnson. I only know what was in Ms. Bott's testimony
with respect to that. It was not an issue that rose to a
management level in the organization to be addressed. We had
understood from discussions with Ms. Bott that there had been
consultation with the EPA. Whether it was formal or not, I am
not sure but she indicates that there had been consultation
with the EPA through that process.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Grumbles, in the next panel, we
have testimony by a witness that the current Federal regulation
of lead in water supplies is actuality is a one-size fits all
approach. It is disproportionately costly for smaller water
systems. Do you think that is accurate?
Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, I think the current rule when
it was written very much intended to try to reflect that not
all systems are of the same size, they have different
affordability factors and different local conditions, so I
would say that with any Safe Drinking Water Act regulation,
there is the potential for some smaller rural areas to have
difficulties meeting the requirements, the lead and copper rule
does attempt to take into account special considerations and
that it has the flexibility to do that.
Chairman Tom Davis. You are defending the current reg. You
think it gives enough flexibility?
Mr. Grumbles. On the subject of small versus large, I think
that is an area that people have brought to my attention that
there needs to be greater flexibility. I would say there are
other aspects of the rule that people want to have a different
approach, different layers of sophistication and stratification
that we are pleased to look at.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you think the EPA should be more
actively involved in individual water systems' decisions
regarding chloracivity control? Do you have any thought on
that?
Mr. Grumbles. We have a role to play. There are two roles
we play. One is to try to help advance the national research
front on corrosivity. I think we recognize the experience we
are having in the District, we need to be at the cutting edge
in research into how to control and maximize corrosivity
control and to improve upon it.
In terms of the decisions on a system by system basis and
the way the regs currently work is that it is the primacy
agency that is more involved than the EPA.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you think the EPA ought to be in
that decision matrix when local decisions are made on that?
Mr. Grumbles. I would say in some degree, yes. I think it
is important, our overall role in ensuring compliance under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, but I am a little hesitant because I
think one of the reasons the Safe Drinking Water Act has been
successful over the years and that the lead and copper rule has
been successful since 1991 is that it recognizes that the
States, primarily the ones involved in carrying out and
implementing the regs and working with the utilities.
Chairman Tom Davis. Has the EPA found that other
jurisdictions with elevated lead levels failed to communicate
effectively like WASA? Is this a common problem or is this the
worse you have seen?
Mr. Grumbles. From what we know, I would not say it is a
common problem but it is extremely important to ensure that
communities are as proactive and aggressive and robust as
possible and continue to provide communities with some
guidelines to really reach out and have the most targeted and
proactive communications possible to comply with the lead and
drinking water rules. I think that is one of the key lessons to
be learned or if there is a silver lining here, it is if other
communities are not proactive, we can find ourselves in
situations where the public doesn't learn as soon as they
should. I don't have any indication it is a problem, the
failure to adequately communicate in other cities.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask another question on the
question of cost and benefits of lead line replacement
programs. I guess I can ask you generally what you think about
that. It is my understanding the city of Cincinnati replaced
all of its lead service lines at enormous cost and it didn't
significantly reduce the levels of lead in the water. Do you
know anything about that or if anyone else knows about that, we
would be happy to hear your comments.
Mr. Grumbles. I am not personally familiar with Cincinnati,
I know there are some communities, I understand Madison, WI is
going forward with the lead service line full replacement
approach. It will be interesting to see what the results are.
Chairman Tom Davis. It is expensive?
Mr. Grumbles. It is expensive.
Chairman Tom Davis. I think, Mr. Johnson, you alluded to
that a little bit, didn't you?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Tom Davis. Because you are not getting all the
lines, but just the public lines?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Tom Davis. You think a lot of the problem is in
the private lines?
Mr. Johnson. I think if it is a problem with the lead
service line, it is the entire lead service line and replacing
a piece of it doesn't fix the problem.
Mr. Grumbles. I would say that the way the current rule is
structured, the full lead service line replacement is viewed as
the last resort after you go through the other procedures. One
of the key lessons we are learning here in the District is the
critical importance of the chemistry involved in the water and
trying to figure out what is causing the corrosion. I think
everyone agrees that if money weren't the issue or time weren't
an issue, you would want to eventually remove lead service
lines. The way the current rule is structured and I think the
cities across the country have been implementing it is as you
go through the maximizing of corrosion control, you monitor for
the action levels and if you are in the 90th percentile
exceedence, then you are required to engage in that process. It
is a very costly proposition but there are communities doing
it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask this. Is anybody prepared to
say the switch to a different disinfectant in 2002 was the
major cause for the spikes? That is what the Post headline
implies today. I am not saying it is the only cause.
Mr. Johnson. I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that today with
the information we have that we can definitively say that. That
is why having recently obtained this information that certainly
points in that direction, we would urge an expeditious and
immediate review by the expert panel of the EPA and others to
make that final determination so that we have some future
direction and know where we are going with respect to that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Does everyone agree with that?
Mr. Jacobus. I would say, sir, this information is very
useful to helping us understand. It may be that the chloramine
is not the corrosive agent. It may be that the chlorine, the
free chlorine acts as an inhibitor. We weren't looking for the
chlorine to act as an inhibitor because we were using pH
control. The reason we switched from chlorine to chloramine was
for this concept of simultaneous compliance. So if it weren't
for the generation of disinfectant byproducts which are also
regulated by the EPA and have a health connection, we would
switch to free chlorine today to get the immediate apparent
inhibitor effects of the chlorine but because we are trying to
do two things at once, we don't think that is prudent. What we
do know is that since we have not been adding the follow-on
chemical, the corrosion inhibitor, that is designed to be an
inhibitor, zinc orthophosphate or some kind of phosphate, when
we do add the orthophosphate we expect that it will act as an
inhibitor and protect the pipes from the water containing the
chloramines. Our challenge now is to do it in a way that is as
quick as possible with the results that the lowest
concentrations of lead and at the same time keep the
disinfection byproducts low.
We accept the data from WASA, we were part of this working
group and we want to use it in an intelligent and responsible
and very quick way. The EPA is working with us specifically
Region III, and we hope to use it and be able to report to the
public with the application of the orthophosphate and what we
have learned from the chlorine good results soon.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is important to understand two points about the backdrop
of this hearing and this entire crisis. I want to thank the EPA
for the oversight you are now giving to WASA. It does appear to
follow the kind of regimen one might expect. The backdrop of
this crisis is that the EPA was the State agency as well as the
EPA for the District of Columbia. Therefore, it is very hard
for the committee to look at the EPA kind of after the fact
since as the State and Federal agency it is quite astonishing
that WASA got as far as it did.
That is one backdrop that we are looking at, an EPA
assigned by the Congress of the United States to play a role
that it does not play anywhere else except in the State of
Wyoming. That has made the District of Columbia and the
residents very uneasy that it wasn't at the ``State level,''
wasn't ``by the EPA as the Federal regulator.'' The other
backdrop to keep in mind is cost. We are quite aware that every
single issue here is played against a backdrop of potentially
enormous costs. As the Congresswoman for the District of
Columbia, I know that most of those costs will be borne by
ratepayers. WASA went for 10 years with no increases to
ratepayers. That was before Mr. Johnson got there and before
the agency was revitalized but anybody who thinks that was a
favor to the District of Columbia residents I think doesn't
understand that people are willing to pay for a service if the
service comes at reasonable rates.
I appreciate, Mr. Grumbles, that you understand that our
bill, I think you called it a kind of road map, was addressed
to the overall issue. I indicated in my opening remarks that we
did not anticipate that the Congress would do a major overhaul
of the Clean Water Act this session. We know that cost is
always a factor and that any ultimate rule or any ultimate
legislation has to live in the real world of cost as well as
benefit.
I do want to say, and Mr. Chairman, I want to ask for your
help here because Mr. Johnson raised a very important issue
that goes to cost, a cost that the Federal Government
inadvertently puts on the ratepayers. When WASA and Mr. Johnson
go to do capital improvements because the agency involved is
the Aqueduct and it is a Federal entity and because of the
Federal rules involving how the Federal Government must pay
itself for capital improvements, Mr. Johnson has to put all the
money up front and can't use a letter of credit to do capital
improvements the way any other jurisdiction in the United
States always does it. It obviously cost the ratepayers more
because he has to gather his money and take it and give it. Mr.
Chairman, one of the reasons I am going to ask for your help is
simply to get this exception that allows WASA to use a letter
of intent, correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. A letter of intent. He has the money, he has to
show he has the money but he wouldn't have to put up the money,
stop earning interest on the money and he could do as they do
in Maryland, Virginia and everywhere else, if we were exempt
from this Federal rule which is being used for essentially a
local water delivery system.
I think if the chairman and I could work perhaps with the
appropriators and get the right language in the appropriations
bill, I think Mr. Frelinghuysen would be quite willing.
Chairman Tom Davis. But I would really like to see WASA let
us know about some of these things that are going on instead of
having to read them in the paper when you get test results and
we have a hearing the next day, it would create I think a
better sense of working together on this issue. Do you
understand what I am saying?
Mr. Johnson. I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. It helps me to think we are in this
thing together as opposed to everybody running out and doing
their own thing. I am frankly a little disappointed when we
could have had that data a day before and prepared it into the
hearing record and been more fully prepared for it.
Mr. Johnson. I certainly understand your concern, Mr.
Chairman, and certainly we will be mindful of that in the
future. As we were compiling data yesterday morning and trying
to think of all the things we had to do to get that processed
and get it out to ensure that we were doing a better job of
communicating with our customers, we did have that as an
oversight and for that, I apologize.
Ms. Norton. Senator Jeffords and I wrote a bill only after
Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman and I on March 17, 2004
sent a letter to the EPA asking that the EPA look at what
appeared to be serious flaws in the current rules. We asked
that you reopen the lead and copper rule. You have to
understand that backdrop at well. Nobody has reopened the lead
and copper rule and that is part of the backdrop of our own
bill.
I would like to ask a preliminary question. When the
decision was made to switch from chlorine to chloramines, who
made that decision, who was at the table, who made the decision
to switch, who was involved, who participated in that decision?
Mr. Jacobus. We are always looking at regulations that are
going to be effective a date certain in the future. We knew the
disinfection byproduct rule was going to change and we knew if
we continued to operate free chlorine as a disinfectant, we
would be in violation of the disinfection byproduct rule. The
rule eventually became effective in 2001 and we began the
planning the process and went through a typical evaluation
using consultants and industry practices.
Ms. Norton. Did you consult at all with WASA or the EPA?
Mr. Jacobus. Yes. We initially looked at alternatives that
would meet these requirements and then we brought our customers
who were the complete funding operation so they are part of our
technical, advisory and wholesale customer board, brought them
into the decisionmaking process. The EPA was involved through
Region III, knowing that we were about to make a technical
change. We had to demonstrate a disinfection profiling
requirement to make sure this process change would in fact meet
the new disinfection requirements to provide that safety. What
was not specifically coordinated between the EPA and Washington
Aqueduct was a direct consultation over the concept of
simultaneous compliance between the lead and cooper rule and
the disinfection byproduct rule.
Using the guidance in the simultaneous compliance manual,
we did look at the possible corrosive effects via pH change due
to a bacterial nitrification situation, a chemistry change in
the water, but we did not look at a direct corrosive effect. As
is well known now, we did not conduct pipe loop studies or do
any specific experimentation on the effects of chloramines on
lead. Certainly in retrospect, that would have been a good
idea.
Ms. Norton. But of course you weren't required to do that?
Let me fully understand how the process worked. Mr. Johnson,
were you in on this process at all?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. You were consulted about the change from
chlorine to chloramines?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, we were very engaged as was the District
of Columbia Health Department as we looked at the change but it
was intended to address one specific concern having to do with
the byproducts rule, the triolamethanes and I think where we
may have had a shortcoming here was just the lack of any body
of research. If we are going to start to talk about where we
are going in the future, research into those issues of taking
one action not address one particular problem and not having a
very clear understanding of what effect that action may have on
something else is something that certainly needs to be looked
at.
Ms. Norton. You were not in the position to do that
research. Mr. Jacobus was not required to do that research. Mr.
Grumbles? Perhaps Mr. Welsh.
In retrospect, would it not have been wiser to have a
corrosion control study done in advance of the change from
chlorine to chloramines?
Mr. Welsh. My understanding of the situation is that the
EPA Region III did consult with the Washington Aqueduct at the
time the change was made for compliance with the disinfection
byproduct rule. The EPA doesn't require that they use
chloramines. It requires the jurisdiction to meet the
disinfection byproduct rule.
Ms. Norton. The operative words are corrosion control
study. I realize there was consultation and I appreciate there
was consultation and nobody acted without talking to one
another, but the question here is before a water system
undertakes to change the chemicals used in the water, given the
different kinds of lines that send water to peoples' homes,
shouldn't there be a corrosion control study done in light of
the experience we have had in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Welsh. I think corrosion control studies and analysis
when a treatment change is being made is critically important.
Your legislation, I believe, requires a report on the corrosion
control within a year after a treatment change is made.
Ms. Norton. You notice I let you use it in my bill for a
year, test it and only then rather than say don't do it to
begin with. Do you think that is a preferable approach to a
study ahead of time?
Mr. Welsh. Again, an important factor here is the existing
rule. The existing rule does require that when there is a
treatment change made that the analysis on corrosion control be
done within 60 days after the treatment change is made. That is
in the current rule.
Ms. Norton. Did you do that?
Mr. Welsh. In the District, I am not sure what the facts
were.
Ms. Norton. I am sure because you are just finding out. If
you did something approaching a corrosion control study within
60 days and Mr. Davis just read in the paper this morning that
lead leaches into water because of the switch to chloramines, I
am sure what was done after 60 days was not a corrosion control
study. That is what I asked, about a corrosion control study. I
don't care if it is a year as the legislation says or if you do
in advance or in 60 days.
Mr. Welsh. I think the sooner the better. One of the
reasons the 60 day figure jumps out to me is it gives you
information, gives the primacy agency information.
Ms. Norton. Did you have that information, Mr. Grumbles,
did you get any information within 60 days?
Mr. Grumbles. It is my understanding that what we looked
at, in anticipating that a change in treatment might have
affected the corrosion, the chemistry we expected to see was an
increase in nitrification, so nitrification monitoring was
required, a look at the nitrification to see whether there was
a change in nitrification. That was done and it didn't pick up
a change that would have indicated a problem with corrosivity.
That is one of the open questions here as we look at all the
data to see why did the water become more corrosive even though
the way we anticipated it might become corrosive was not caught
by the followup work that was done. So the nitrification study
was there to identify whether that had caused a corrosion
problem and that didn't indicate the problem.
Ms. Norton. This is what gives me pause. I asked a very
specific question. I know what happened in the District of
Columbia. I am trying to find out whether or not if the very
action that is taken now had been taken before, whether we
could have avoided the problem. I keep hearing nitrification
studies, I keep hearing we did something in 60 days that I
still don't see the relevance of. It seems to me one way to
allay our problem, particularly the problem you have with the
fact that my bill is ``pre-mature'' is to say no and we are
going to change it, in the lead and copper rule. I can't get a
straight answer. Therefore, I don't have the confidence, at
least with respect to this question which goes directly to what
you have just found is the problem, namely the failure to do
some kind of study. I don't have the confidence that you would
do that or will do that absent a mandate to do that.
I have other questions but I will go forward.
Chairman Tom Davis. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van
Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
Sometimes a severe problem in one jurisdiction raises questions
and red flags about problems that may be far more extensive.
That, I believe, has been the case with respect to the terrible
situation with D.C., the lead in the water in the District of
Columbia. It has raised awareness around the country and as a
result, others have also begun testing their water. In
Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, school systems began
testing their water and in fact, found elevated lead levels in
the schools. I was at my son's elementary school the other day
and when you went to the faucet, there is a big sign up there
saying ``Do not drink this water. It has not been flushed for
long enough.'' There are signs throughout that school and other
schools. So it seems to me that we do need to get to the bottom
of this on a national level. I want to thank Ms. Norton for her
leadership on this and for introducing the legislation.
I guess most of my questions will be to you, Mr. Grumbles,
since they relate to the legislation itself. I assume that
since your conclusion at least for now is that it is premature
to go forward with this legislation, that is based on the fact
you have reviewed and read the legislation, is that right?
Mr. Grumbles. I have read through it, yes, sir.
Mr. Van Hollen. There has been a lot of talk about the
replacement of service lines and I think it is true, whatever
we agree to, if there is some consensus, that will be a longer
term solution and it takes time to actually do those
replacements. I think we could all agree that three things are
critical. One, that you have ongoing active monitoring; second,
that you have appropriate action levels; and third, that if you
find something that is inconsistent with the standards, that
you have a system to quickly alert the public so individuals
can take action immediately. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me ask you about the notice
requirements because my understanding is that the EPA has
concluded, maybe I am wrong, that D.C. did not comply fully
with the notice requirements, is that right?
Mr. Welsh. We have not finalized a review of that but we
did identify areas where we believe that D.C. didn't fully
comply with the rule and sent that in a letter to them, got
additional information and we are continuing that review. We
haven't made the final determination but we did indicate areas
already where we believe the rule wasn't fully complied with.
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me ask you this. You have identified
some areas but what if the District of Columbia had minimally
complied in those areas where you found problems, they
minimally complied, would that, in your view, have been
adequate notice to the residents of the District of Columbia?
Mr. Welsh. It is difficult to judge. I think we want to do
a better job of review in the region and assessing whether, in
fact, the information they put together is one, fully
consistent with the rules but did it get the impact through to
the consumers so they understood the message?
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me take the second part because the
conclusion is clear to most people that D.C. residents were not
adequately informed. This broke in the newspapers and I don't
think people were adequately informed. I think whether or not
D.C. may have technically been in violation of some of the
rules overlooks the larger question which is I think the
current regulations with respect to notice are inadequate. I
guess my question to you, Mr. Grumbles, is having reviewed the
legislation, which provisions in the notice section do you find
objectionable or premature? Maybe you don't. You said the
overall bill was premature. Maybe you believe that part was not
premature. I am trying to get at what we can agree on and what
we don't.
Mr. Grumbles. Honestly, when you get into the specifics, I
am not able to go into any detail. I think the spirit of the
bill on notice is admirable. I think one of the things the
agency wants to work with you on, whether through guidance or
looking at whether or not to modify the rule, is the point in
the legislation that better notice is required.
Personally, one of the things I have not finished doing is
going through some of the specific aspects. I know that what we
have to do responsibly is to weigh what is the balance between
the notification requirements, what is the right degree to get
out the word so that people know this. We don't want to have
something become so routine that the consumers are inundated on
a regular basis so that they mix the big picture. I think the
spirit of the bill is good on increased notification and
monitoring.
Can I just say, I misspoke a few minutes ago when Delegate
Norton and I were talking about the corrosivity study and I
mentioned the 60 days. What I was referring to incorrectly was
the existing rule, a 60-day notification requirement. It is not
a study, it is a notification requirement, if that helps to
clarify. The public notification, I think my point when I said
the legislation provides a helpful road map, it is precisely in
areas like that where it is a good road map for discussion in
our expert national working groups that we are having on
various ways to look at the existing guidance and the rule, and
the spirit of the legislation in that respect is good but I
have to defer on the specifics and whether or not some might be
more than necessary or not as effective as existing guidance or
existing rules.
Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up and I
have more questions but let me say, there are some things that
will take time and where there may not be consensus. It seems
to me we should identify those areas and identify areas where
there is consensus because when it comes to adequacy of public
notice and monitoring, things like that where we can
immediately take action, it seems to me we should move forward
quickly in those areas if there is a problem. It would be very
helpful, at least to me, if we could identify those parts of
this legislation Ms. Norton has introduced where there is
consensus and we can move forward immediately and then isolate
the areas of the legislation that are maybe more controversial
or where we don't have consensus.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate Mr. Grumbles, your response on the
corrosion control study because my staff brought up the wording
for me and you preempted them and I appreciate that.
Would you want a situation to arise in adjoining counties
here or in other States where the water system proceeded
without a corrosion control study given what happened in the
District of Columbia? You acted after the fact to do a
corrosion control study. I am just trying to see whether
anybody is into preventing this problem elsewhere. You are
doing it now. Is it your testimony that you will do it if you
find a situation like what you found in the District of
Columbia after you found it or do you think it is better to do
it in advance? Can I get a straight answer on that one?
Mr. Jacobus. I will try this. I believe a corrosion control
study might include a pipe loop study and if we look back on
the situation in D.C., it is possible, we can't be certain, but
a pipe loop study was not done at the time of the change from
chlorine to chloramines. Since we don't understand exactly the
chemistry of what has caused this problem, it is possible that
a pipe loop study may have identified that problem in advance.
We can't be certain but it is possible that could have helped
in this situation. I am not in a position to judge whether in
every type of treatment change that an authority might have to
make, whether that requires a full pipe loop study to determine
whether there have been changes to the corrosivity, but that
may have helped in the case of D.C.
Ms. Norton. One would think then that the EPA rules would
outline the various ways the locality can proceed but Mr.
Jacobus and Mr. Johnson had to figure it out for themselves. If
you have an expert environmental agency, it seems to me whether
it is pipe loop study or full corrosion control study, it is
something that there ought to be some guidance on which brings
us back to the rules which give no guidance whatsoever on that
as Mr. Grumbles indicated there is a notice requirement. This
is an example of why there is legislation.
Mr. Grumbles. I know you have limited time but I wanted to
say as we are carrying out work groups and work shops looking
at areas of guidance, I think we are learning painfully in this
instance the importance of understanding the changes and the
unintended consequences when you have a change in treatment and
how that relates to corrosivity. That is something we will
certainly commit to work on more at a national level as well as
to make sure when treatment changes are being made, as much as
possible, we can understand or the primacy agency in those
other 48 areas of the country understand exactly the effect.
Ms. Norton. It seems to me even given the fact that the
information is still rolling it, it has rolled in rather
strongly. Your own experts, by the way, after the fact, Dr.
Thompson indicated he thought this was very, very likely to be
the result of corrosivity. At the very least, the EPA you would
think, would be sending out messages, phone home before you
change chemicals in your water. The notion that we can't get
that kind of response is very troubling because it means
everybody is still on his own and I appreciate how you have
been willing to go.
Let me go to notification. That is an easy one. That is one
I think everyone agrees we might be able to deal with. Of
course there have been no changes and you have gotten to WASA
and indicated they should have done more. Let me tell you the
notification problem that really bothers me.
The notification problem that bothers me is that I am
pregnant. I hope not. [Laughter.]
I am drinking the water but I am in 1 of the 10 percent of
homes that have very high lead levels because you have a 90
percent rule. Not only don't I know it while I am drinking
water during my pregnancy but I will never know it. So then I
am going to use the water to make the baby's formula and I am
going to continue to use the water while the child is in the
formative years of brain development between ages 1 and 5 and
nobody ever told me about lead in the water because of the 90
percent rule and I think you only have 50 samples even in a
huge city like this and I was unlucky enough to be in the 10
percent and I never knew it. I am asking you what we should do
about these lost residents, these people who never knew? Is
there an obligation to at least give them some notice? Should
everybody have notice rather than only some of those who may
have lead? Should everybody have notice that there is lead or
may be lead in the water?
Mr. Welsh. I would agree and I acknowledge the tone of the
question that I think one of the priority areas for the agency
to review the existing rule and our guidance associated with it
is the amount of notice that is currently required adequate, is
it robust enough to get out the word?
Ms. Norton. What is your timeframe on that, Mr. Grumbles?
Mr. Grumbles. We are going full throttle on the review of
the existing rule.
Ms. Norton. The people I am talking about are drinking the
water, so I want to know when everybody who may be drinking
water is going to know they may be drinking water so they can
switch real quick? That is why I am asking for the timeframe on
that one. That is the most serious one.
Mr. Grumbles. The timeframe for the immediate notification.
Ms. Norton. Even the 10 percent of the homes in a
particular jurisdiction which may be above the action level
would at least know it. This is notification only.
Mr. Welsh. One thing I can add is separate to the lead and
copper rule, the consumer confidence rule requires the
authority to put out a report on the quality of the water. In
the annual consumer confidence report, the minimum and the
maximum and the 90th percentile level has to be reported, so
there is a mechanism that is designed to let the public know
what the 90th percentile level is. That speaks partially to the
concern you are talking about. I know there are issues about
whether that will be read all the way through and that message
will get through if it is just in the consumer confidence
report but that existing requirement gets to some of the issues
you are discussing.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would look closely at that. I really
do think when we are talking about pregnant and lactating women
and children under 6, maybe at that point alone, there should
be no margin of error. I think the science on that has long
been in, so I am asking for that as a first priority.
Chairman Tom Davis. To go along with that, I think it is
really important to worry about the entire water system. What
does WASA do for those homes where the lead levels exceed the
action level when the overall system doesn't? Does the EPA
require action with respect to those?
Mr. Welsh. In the case where there is not an exceedence,
but there are individual samples over the limit? No, there is
not a requirement in the lead and copper rule that a specific
action take place.
Ms. Norton. You see the point the chairman is bringing out?
Mr. Welsh. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. That really does clarify the point
even better. Do you think, Mr. Grumbles, Mr. Welsh, that water
fountains in school ought to be tested on a frequent basis?
Mr. Grumbles. I think they should be tested on a frequent
basis. I say that and I have to acknowledge that I send out
letters to every State in the country asking them whether they
had a program for lead in drinking water at schools and day
care facilities, we got back a mixed bag in terms of the number
of programs specifically that States have related to lead in
drinking water at schools and day care facilities.
Ms. Norton. You got back what? I am asking should they be
tested and you said what happened?
Mr. Grumbles. I said it was a mixed bag and I meant that
some of the States have programs and others do not.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask my colleague, was your son's school
in Montgomery County? That is a public school in Montgomery
County where they now have these signs. You think this thing is
localized in the District of Columbia. Montgomery County
doesn't get water from D.C. They all come under your
jurisdiction and this is why I am probing this question. Should
water fountains in the United States be subject to the mixed
bag you described or should water fountains be tested on a
frequent, not even saying what frequency should be. We think
once a year is par for the course but should they be tested on
a frequent basis?
Mr. Grumbles. I think they should. The point I wanted to
make and it is an important one based on the way the current
law is implemented and with the court cases involving the roles
of various governments. The States primarily carry out these
programs for the Safe Drinking Water Act as it relates to
schools and also schools and day care facilities if they are
public water systems, then there is an action level for the
lead and copper rule.
Ms. Norton. Should there be a national requirement because
you have varying responses from jurisdictions? Is the issue of
lead in the drinking water of children serious enough for there
to be a national requirement that water fountains in schools be
tested on a frequent basis?
Mr. Grumbles. I know there is a national requirement based
on the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988.
Ms. Norton. After the child already has lead in his system,
please take back lead. Every answer I get is after we see the
problem, we are going to do a corrosion control study, we are
going to get to the water fountain have children have drunk the
water. I am asking should the water fountains in schools, this
is about the third time I have asked this question without
getting an answer, should the water fountains in schools be
tested on a frequent basis?
Mr. Grumbles. I think they should and I respect the
question and I agree that is the case. What I wanted to
communicate is that there needs to be a discussion about the
appropriate roles for not only the EPA but the States.
Ms. Norton. I agree, only calling for a national standard
so that kids in Montgomery County wouldn't find they are not
tested except every 5 years but D.C. tests every year because
we have had a crisis. That is all I am asking.
Mr. Grumbles. One of our priorities Congresswoman is to
survey the country and see what States are doing with respect
to testing.
Ms. Norton. In other words, knowing full well that we don't
have uniformity in anything in this country, you want to do a
survey before you decide whether or not there should be annual
testing of the water fountains in schools.
Mr. Grumbles. We want to make sure whatever is done is done
in a way that is sustainable and really works. It just needs
collaborating with our partners. That is it.
Ms. Norton. We would like to have a timeframe on that one
too.
Chairman Tom Davis. We have another panel waiting and a
limited period of time.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Norton covered
some of the areas I wanted to cover but I do want to delve into
the issue of the standard and the action level a little bit
more because as I understand right now you do a test which is
already a sample of the universe out there and if 10 percent
are non-compliant, or under 10 percent, then you still pass the
test. In other words, the system gets an OK. Is that right?
Mr. Grumbles. Right.
Mr. Van Hollen. To make sure I understand, of the 10
percent of homes that were found to be non-compliant, there is
currently no notice requirement that goes directly to those
homes?
Mr. Grumbles. Right.
Mr. Van Hollen. This raises a larger issue because it is
not just the 10 percent of homes that were tested, it also
means in that larger universe you would extrapolate, they are
10 percent of the homes in the entire area, that are non-
compliant. That is why this legislation requires we take
another look at this action standard and it proposes two
alternatives. One is to have a minimum national standard at the
tap and the alternative is that the EPA determines that not
practicable, that they have to develop an actionable level that
gives protection somehow to everybody because it is not the 10
percent of the people in the test not getting informed, it is
also 10 percent of the population that may well have
significant lead problems in their water who don't know it and
are not informed and no change is being made in the system. Why
shouldn't we revisit that whole issue and isn't it necessary to
revisit that issue?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I am fully supportive of
revisiting aspects of the rule including the 90th percentile
and the action level. I am not in a position to commit to a
rulemaking. I am in a position to commit to doing what we want
to do and that is to continue to work with congressional, State
and local partners and the public on saying does this rule,
which is about 13 years old, continue to make sense? There has
been success. We have seen reductions in lead in drinking water
throughout the country, so we shouldn't make light of that or
neglect to see that.
When you get into the fine specifics, the percentile
approach, the monitoring, the notification as you point out,
the further things that can be done if not at a national level
at a State and local level with respect to schools, we are
welcoming that dialog and we appreciate that. We will work with
you and your colleagues.
Mr. Van Hollen. And I appreciate that. You mentioned the
rule was 13 years old and I would just point out that Mr.
Waxman is not here but when this issue was raised 13 years ago,
I have the document from that time, he specifically addressed
this question about this rule would result in not protecting
potentially 10 percent of the people. He said it protects only
90 percent of the households, what about the other 10 percent?
So while it is 13 years old, I think it is time to go back and
relook at the warning Mr. Waxman raised 13 years ago on this
very important question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. We will let you have the last question,
Ms. Norton, but we have to move to the next panel.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate your generosity.
Mr. Johnson, I did want to ask you a question. You raised a
very important issue that I think the committee has to take
seriously and I hope WASA will. It came forth in testimony that
partial replacement would not do the job and Mr. Johnson has
testified rather definitively to that. Indeed, we had testimony
that partial replacement may make it worse because the two
different metals could interact and one become a battery for
lead.
I am not going to ask a question since the chairman wants
to move on, but at the very least the kinds of mainstream
science you are working on may well be out of date if in fact
partial replacement doesn't do the job and public utilities are
spending millions of dollars or more to do that and worse, the
science says partial replacement may make it worse. Your rule
allows partial replacement so it seems to me you are at ground
zero when it comes to looking again at that rule.
Mr. Johnson, I appreciate what WASA has done. It has said
to homeowners, while we are doing the work, we will replace the
private section as well but we have had people call our offices
to say they get a single dollar amount rather than a per square
foot or linear foot amount. So it doesn't enable them to shop
around, it is expensive. I want to ask if you have found a way
since it really does make sense for WASA to do the whole thing
while you are going into the ground, to help homeowners in fact
take advantage of your service if it is the cheapest way to do
it or do it some other way. Have you found a way to deal with
this complaint we have had phoned in to my office?
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, I am not familiar with the manner
in which the estimates are given, whether it is on a linear
foot basis or not, but typically we found that our contractor
because of the number of lines they are doing, the sheer
volume, are able to do it much less expensively than a private
plumber.
Ms. Norton. But you give them only 30 days I think to make
the decision.
Mr. Johnson. It is 45 days that we require under the EPA
rules to give them to make that decision and then they can come
forward. We have also explored with a local bank and are
attempting to establish a consortium of banks an opportunity to
provide loans to homeowners who would be eligible in a low
income category to replace those pipes in the private portion
of their property. We also have looked at changing WASA
regulations so that we would establish a per linear foot cost
for providing the service from the public space into the
homeowner's property. That is a rule currently in the D.C.
register for public review and would establish a fixed price
and we would work that on an average basis and work it into the
system on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. We will pass along that information.
Mr. Welsh. May I add very quickly that while we agree that
full lead service line replacement is the most protective, the
partial replacements are not without value. Reducing some of
the lead reduces some of the risk. So after a proper period of
flushing, the samples do show that the partial line replacement
has some benefit in reducing the lead that comes out the tap.
Ms. Norton. This is very controversial, Mr. Welsh, because
if that were the case, then one could say at least it helps. It
was troubling to hear from experts at our last hearing that
partial replacement may make it worse because of the
interaction of the two metals and lead acting as a battery, so
I am going to ask that you look closely at that before
concluding what your rules already say, do partial replacement.
That has been called into serious scientific question.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
I want to thank this panel for being with us and for
answering questions. We will dismiss you at this time.
We will take a 2-minute recess as we bring our next panel
together.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We now have time to recognize our
second panel. We have Mr. Howard Neukrug, director, Office of
Watersheds, Philadelphia Water Department, from the American
Water Works Association; Ms. Angela Logomasini, director, Risk
and Environmental Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Mr.
Scott Rubin, esq., consultant and public utilities expert; Mr.
Paul Schwartz, national policy coordinator, Clean Water Action;
and Ms. Katherine Funk, esq., Parents for Nontoxic
Alternatives. I appreciate you all being here.
As you know, it is the policy of the committee that we
swear you in first.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Try to keep it to 5 minutes. Your
entire statement is in the record, so questions will be based
on the entire statements. We have the light in front of you.
There is a button there that opens your mic when you start.
Mr. Neukrug, we will start with you and move straight on
down the line. Again, thank you for your patience. We
appreciate all of you being here. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF HOWARD NEUKRUG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WATERSHEDS,
PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS
ASSOCIATION; ANGELA LOGOMASINI, DIRECTOR, RISK AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; SCOTT
RUBIN, CONSULTANT AND PUBLIC UTILITIES EXPERT; PAUL SCHWARTZ,
NATIONAL POLICY COORDINATOR, CLEAN WATER ACTION; AND KATHERINE
FUNK, PARENTS FOR NONTOXIC ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Neukrug. Thank you very much and good morning.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the
American Water Works Association on lead contamination in
drinking water.
AWWA is the largest and oldest drinking water, scientific
and technical association in the world. This morning we had
57,000 members but I think after hearing Ms. Norton's remarks,
I think we are going to offer her an honorary membership to the
American Water Works Association and make that 57,001 members
representing all areas of the drinking water profession; 4,800
utilities and 80 percent of the Nation's drinking water supply
are members of the American Water Works Association. We have an
extremely long history with the lead and copper rule.
I would like to offer for the record an AWWA Research
Foundation report showing $3.4 million of research that has
been conducted on the issue of lead and copper and $2.5 million
of new research that is about to begin in the area of corrosion
control.
Personally, I am from the Philadelphia Water Department and
I ran pilot studies for lead and copper about 10 years ago; 15
years ago I was involved with development of the original lead
and copper rule, so I have quite a history with this rule.
Nationally, I believe that the lead and copper rule has
been extremely successful and the EPA's oversight of that rule
has been tough and consistent. This is despite or because of
possibly the highly complicated nature of this rule when in its
sampling process, in its ownership of service lines issues,
optimization and the education of the public about the issues,
all are extremely complicated issues.
I would like to remind everyone that lead exposure is a
national issue and comes from many different sources including
lead paint, leaded gasoline and lead solder and all of those
have resulted in the work that is happening at the EPA and in
Congress and across the Nation which has really reduced
children's blood lead levels over the years. We are on a very
big mission now to eliminate these lead levels completely but
there is a lot of good work that has already been done.
I respectfully suggest that the CDC or some organization
like that take a new look at understanding all the remaining
exposure pathways to lead in drinking water and from other
sources and from that develop a comprehensive national,
educational and action plan for dealing with the issue of lead,
particularly in children.
With respect to drinking water and the route of exposure,
AWWA has consistently advocated a three-pronged approach. One
is public education. Two is optimization of corrosion control
and three is the reduction of lead materials in distribution
systems. With respect to public education and outreach,
extensive programs already exist nationwide. I think a key
lesson I am certainly hearing this morning and is clear from
the recent past is that a review is appropriate at this point
of the education and outreach programs that exist for drinking
water and lead issues and to look at the consistency of these
programs.
In terms of optimization of corrosion control, all systems
should be optimizing for corrosion control. Drinking water is
the universal solvent and every water is different, not just
for lead but there are other issues for corrosion control
including copper, including cast iron pipes and other issues of
infrastructure which all require a well managed utility to
optimize for corrosion control.
Chemistry, as we heard this morning, varies widely by
location, by type of water, it can vary daily, it can vary
seasonally and studies are needed to understand from both the
literature point of view, lab and pilot point of views, and
what corrosion control optimization works best and to slowly
implement full scale implementation of this. Every utility
should be reviewing corrosion control practices both over time
and with changes in treatment.
Replacement of leaded materials where needed, there has
been a tremendous success already with the lead free solder. We
are not even lking about the solder issue at this point and it
just shows the success that Congress and Safe Drinking Water
have had in dealing with that issue.
Caution over removing of lead service lines, nationally we
are talking about $10 billion. This goes on top of a $500
billion gap that the EPA has already recognized for drinking
water and waste water utilities and infrastructure spending. I
testified a few weeks ago on the issue of infrastructure and I
talked about a crisis in priorities. We have limited funding
and where to spend that and the question I think this panel is
looking toward is where does lead fit into the priorities of
the infrastructure issues in the industry.
Finally, the issues in D.C. remind us all of the importance
of understanding the cross links of all drinking water
regulations. This is highly recognized in most of the
regulations coming out particularly recently from the EPA but
everything needs to be based upon good science and deliberately
looked at over time. We need to do active monitoring,
continuous verification of the effectiveness of corrosion
control, disinfection byproducts and other issues.
In summary, I would like to commend Delegate Norton for the
spirit of the legislation of H.R. 4268. I will not call it
premature but I will say I hope that the EPA, the drinking
water industry and other parties have the opportunity to
discuss and implement something through the regulatory process
prior to legislative action on those issues.
Mr. Chairman, I would request that this report from the
American Water Works Research Foundation be entered into the
record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, it will be entered
into the record.
Mr. Neukrug. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neukrug follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.060
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Logomasini.
Ms. Logomasini. Good morning. Thank you for having me to
testify today.
I am Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. We are a public policy group focusing on free market
and local solutions to a variety of public problems.
I am going to start with somewhat of a different angle on
this. I think everyone has been focusing on whether the
regulations were sufficient, whether we need more regulations.
I would argue that more regulations are not going to be the
solution. Certainly Delegate Norton has wonderful intentions
and I think probably nobody in the Congress cares more about
people in D.C. than she does, but I am not sure this is the
right approach.
Looking at the issue in a larger perspective, with drinking
water regulations the problem is they are not flexible enough.
Drinking regulations affect different communities in different
ways and this issue goes beyond the boundaries of D.C. and may
end up having impacts that have serious consequences for people
in communities around the Nation. Part of the problem is some
communities that are smaller are going to be paying very high
costs than they do today and make high tradeoffs for the
regulations they have to meet. CBO did a study a few years back
about this and sometimes there is actually a net loss to public
health. As Delegate Norton noted, there are a lot of other
issues that need to be addressed by the government and costs
can be transferred from one area to another. For individuals,
extremely high rates may mean difficulty paying insurance and
things of that nature.
There may be a couple reasons why D.C. didn't send out the
notification quickly, maybe there are reasons why people aren't
testing as frequently as we would like. I think the law,
because it has such inflexible, rigid regulations, may scare
communities into trying to avoid having to trigger those
regulations and having to avoid making sacrifices from other
programs to pay for them. In this case, lead in drinking water
poses some risk but lead in paint poses a bigger risk. Maybe
resources in communities ought to be dedicated toward bigger
risks, even beyond the lead issue. Maybe communities want to be
spending their money on taking care of getting that emergency
supply equipment but if they are triggering these regulations,
they can't. Maybe they could find a better way to address the
lead issue. Maybe use of filters in the homes is the answer but
the regulations are going to trigger line replacements and they
are not even sure the line replacements are going to work. So
there are a lot of complicated factors. I think the law is
contributing to that. Certainly the media coverage is something
we all can't control, but it is sounding off an alarm too that
may be more severe than warranted.
I think the D.C. government, although I am sure they are
not perfect and make mistakes, didn't want to set off an alarm
because they knew the cost to the city could be dramatic and
they knew that there might be more affordable ways and also
didn't want to scare people needlessly. There may be reasons
for that. You have to think about this in terms of other
sacrifices. Price Waterhouse did a study a few years ago
basically surveying communities and showing that communities
were making big sacrifices to meet a whole host of Federal
mandates. Families too make these sacrifices.
It was asked earlier if the EPA considers affordability and
the tradeoffs of this one size fits all policy and it is
supposed to but the way the law works what they consider
affordable or feasible is silly for some communities. For
instance, affordability to a household is determined as 2.5
percent of the median income. That is $1,000 and that is for 1
year of drinking water regulation. So if you have 80 some
regulations and the EPA can have a regulation that goes up to
$1,000 a year for a family, you can see that is not workable.
Feasibility standards, whether a regulation is economically
feasible, is determined based on the size, based on what is
feasible for the bigger systems but there are a lot of small
systems that need some flexibility and there are provisions in
the law that are supposed to allow for flexibility but they are
rarely employed. What we need now more than ever is some
flexibility for communities to deal with problems rather than
more government regulations with more unintended consequences,
for instance, the change in disinfection was an unintended
consequence, not anticipated, probably not easily anticipated,
so what we should be looking for is finding ways to assist
rather than trying to find ways to regulate in the future where
we have limited information.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Logomasini follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.073
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rubin, thanks for being with us.
Mr. Rubin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I will mention
that I am appearing today at my own expense and not on behalf
of any client and I am doing that to ask you to focus on the
larger problem of setting priorities for public health
protection, particularly for the millions of low income
households in this country. Then I will discuss how H.R. 4268
fits into this picture.
Initially, I would emphasize that nothing in my testimony
should be used to decrease our commitment to controlling the
exposure of infants and children to lead. I am concerned
however, about the allocation of our limited resources for
public health protection particularly for low income families.
The health of low income families may be jeopardized by various
environmental problems including lead exposure but their health
is even more severely impacted by their lack of money to pay
for essential services. One out of every five households in
this country has an annual income less than $20,000. Most
households with incomes below this level face serious
challenges in attempting to meet their families' basic needs.
Many low income families are faced with having to make serious
tradeoffs that directly affect their family's health.
For example, the Census Bureau estimates that 10 million
households are not able to pay their energy bill each month, 7
million aren't able to see a dentist when they need to, 6
million can't see a doctor, 5 million go hungry at some point
during the year, 4 million have their telephone service
disconnected, 2 million have their gas or electric service
disconnected and nearly 2 million families have to leave small
children alone because they can't afford child care. The plight
of low income families raises important questions about our
national drinking water policies, including how much more
should you ask these families to pay for drinking water. Will
an incremental improvement in the safety of their water provide
benefits at least equal to the cost and will the tradeoffs the
family must make result in improved or worsened public health
overall?
Because there are so many low income families who will be
affected by an increase in water costs, we need to be sure that
the costs of paying for new drinking water requirements would
at least equal the benefits from that measure. If they don't,
then we run the risk of harming the health of low income
households because many of them will have to cut back on some
other necessity in order to pay the higher water bills.
With this understanding, I have a few concerns about H.R.
4268. First, the bill mandates a course of action without first
determining its costs and benefits. The bill would require
water utilities that experience an elevated lead reading to
replace all lead containing service lines in their system. I
don't know the total cost of such an effort. I would estimate
it would cost at least $1,000 per line and probably several
times that amount in many instances. I don't know how many
utilities would be subject to the requirement or how many
service lines would need to be replaced. Very importantly, we
also don't know the public health benefit that will be derived
from this effort. Will the benefits from reduced lead exposure
more than offset the reduced access to food, heat, medical care
and child care that we can expect low income households to
experience?
Second, I am concerned about the relationship between some
of the requirements in the bill and the funding provision.
While the legislation requires a 10-year line replacement
program, it authorizes funding for only 5 years. Moreover, the
bill's mandate exists without regard to the actual availability
of funding. Even if the utility does not receive a grant, the
utility would still have the obligation to replace service
lines.
Thus, while the prospect of $1 billion in Federal funding
is certainly a positive aspect of the legislation, I don't know
if this amount is sufficient to meet the mandates set out in
the bill and because of that, we can't assess the impact of the
legislation on the water bills paid by low income families. If
we don't know that, we can't determine the ultimate public
health consequences of the requirement.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we
should do nothing about the lead problem either here in the
District or elsewhere. I have been arguing for more than a
decade that we need to provide much better and more
understandable notice to the public. I think the legislation
takes an important step in that regard, but we also need to
make sure we are spending our money wisely. We need to make
sure we are using our resources to enhance the overall level of
public health protection, particularly to low income families.
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require
the EPA to balance the cost and benefits of any proposed
regulations. I continue to support that as being a reasonable
approach to ensuring that we spend our dollars wisely. If we
properly consider both the benefits and consequences of
investments in our drinking water utilities, I am hopeful that
we can improve the quality of life for 20 million low income
households in this country.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I look
forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rubin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.077
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schwartz, good to have you with us. Thanks for being
here.
Mr. Schwartz. Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
giving Clean Water Action a chance to testify on this important
issue here in the District of Columbia and nationally. Clean
Water Action is an advocacy organization in some 25 States and
here in the District with over 700,000 members. We seek to take
lessons we have learned at the local level trying to fix
problems and inject them into the policy debate at the State
and Federal levels.
We wholeheartedly support H.R. 4268, the Lead Free Drinking
Water Act of 2004. The legislative approach used in this bill
builds on lessons learned and that we are still learning in the
District over the past 4\1/2\ months and upon concerns with
shortcomings of the lead copper rule since its inception as
Congressman Van Hollen noted in 1991.
H.R. 4268 is a cost effective, pro-active, strengthening
that gives the EPA regulatory flexibility while giving the lead
and copper rule more teeth. A recent EPA survey of available
State information shows that 22 community water suppliers,
including DCWASA, serving over 5 million people have exceeded
the action levels for lead at least one time since 2000. There
is no data for 15 percent of the systems serving populations
above 50,000.
The situation in D.C. surfaces a number of problems with
the lead and copper rule some of which have been touched on
earlier today, its enforcement and its implementation. In my
remaining 3 minutes, I hope to illustrate some problems and
show how this needed bill provides tools to correct the
problem.
We are happy with the fact that the Washington Aqueduct
Division and DCWASA and others are now moving more aggressively
forward on a number of fronts but they are operating in an
inefficient and haphazard crisis mode which could have been
avoided if the EPA had been more aggressive and proactive in
its oversight and enforcement role. The lead and copper rule is
not a self implementing rule and without enforcement, it
provides the public little protection.
In D.C. and in some other cities, elevated lead levels in
drinking water were soft pedaled in the right to know reports
or consumer confidence reports and other mandatory notes.
Parents and even city officials didn't learn about the problem
until well after the fact. The bill fixes this problem by
requiring more effective notification and public education and
mandatory swift notification to people whose water is tested.
The bill also requires that the effectiveness of the notices
must be evaluated.
In D.C. and many other cities, the water systems were
allowed by the EPA's rules to reduce the number of homes they
tested for lead and the frequency of testing. D.C. and Boston
also apparently invalidated or tried to invalidate samples to
avoid exceeding the action levels for lead. These problems
contributed to the delay in detecting the lead problem and
allowed unnecessary exposure of many kids and pregnant moms.
The bill fixes that by ordering more aggressive statistically
valid and frequent monitoring.
In D.C., changes in treatment apparently triggered more
corrosion as we heard this morning and resulting in lead level
increases but no changes in corrosion control. The bill
requires a detailed review of corrosion control when other
treatment changes are made. In D.C. and other cities, the water
system partially replaced the lead service lines in homes with
elevated lead levels in water but studies as we have heard have
now shown that for a period of time after the lead service
lines were replaced, lead levels actually increased and then
eventually come down. If replacement of the lead service line
is indicated, then only full lead service line replacement as
called for in the bill brings the level of lead down to a
minimum.
There are many other problems which I don't have the time
to get into that are addressed by this bill but I do want to
take my remaining minute to address the issue of funding
because I think that is an important issue. Nationally, as we
have heard from Howard, the EPA estimates there exists a half
trillion water and wastewater infrastructure gaps over the next
20 years. Our old drinking water treatment systems such as the
Washington Aqueduct need to be updated. Duquesne distribution
systems, whose pipes are reaching the end of their useful life
spans, need to be repaired and replaced.
If we are going to have simultaneous compliance, we need to
look at not doing the cheapest thing but doing the right thing
that gets us simultaneous multiple benefits, so we need to
look, for instance, within the Army Corps of Engineers and
around the country at the Washington Aqueduct and around the
country at using modern filtration and treatment alternatives,
granular activated carbon, ultraviolet and other technologies
that frankly are not in widespread usage in this country but
are throughout Europe, Japan and most of the rest of the
developing world. That is why we are supporting the creation of
the Clean Water Trust Fund, full funding of the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund accounts, a water help
program which we would invite AWWA and Scott and other people
to join us in supporting a program from the Federal Government
to low income consumers and why we are excited about the $1
billion in funding which certainly doesn't cover the whole gap
but is a start in acknowledging the Federal role and
responsibility in dealing with some of the lead problems here
in the District and around the country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.099
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Funk, thanks for being with us.
Ms. Funk. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Katherine Funk and I am an
antitrust attorney here in Washington for a large national law
firm but today I sit here in two other roles, first, as a
homeowner in the District of Columbia and most importantly, as
the mother of a 5-month-old daughter who is with me here today
but is apparently out to lunch.
Thank you, Chairman Davis, for holding this hearing. I
would also like to thank Delegate Norton for her leadership on
this public health crisis.
Today, I would like to discuss real life situations that I
and other D.C. homeowners and parents have faced and to urge
support for and passage of the Lead Free Drinking Water Act of
2004 which would help prevent the recurrence of these problems
in D.C., often referred to as the Nation's laboratory, and in
other cities with aging water infrastructures. Further, this is
not a partisan issue. As Senator Crapo of Idaho, a Republican,
told me in my living room last month at a public gathering on
this issue, in his opinion, safe, clean drinking water is the
No. 1 environmental problem facing the United States.
Thousands of homes in D.C. have tested for lead levels in
drinking water far above the EPA action level of 15 ppb. Our
home, just a few blocks from here on Capital Hill, is one of
them. In February, WASA tested our lead levels at 29 ppb on the
first draw and 100 ppb on the second draw. Many of our
neighbors have tested higher. The problem is twofold. First,
that in 2004 this problem even exists in this Nation's Capital
and second, in the maddeningly unresponsive response to the
problem by WASA, the EPA, the Corps of Engineers and the D.C.
government have basically given the D.C. residents the stiff
arm. Most unfortunately, current law and regulations let them
do it. I will give you a few examples and point out how this
legislation would help.
WASA, the EPA and D.C. health officials knew for at least 2
years that water samples throughout the city were showing
wildly elevated levels of lead, yet despite some test results
showing levels in the hundreds and even thousands of ppb, the
people at WASA, the EPA and the D.C. government did not inform
the people in the homes that tested high, let alone the general
public. Why? As it turns out, the current law and regulations
do not require that such results be shared unless 10 percent of
the test results are elevated. Why does this matter? When I was
pregnant last year, I drank glass after glass after glass of
D.C. water daily for 9 months just as my doctor ordered. Every
evening, I took my prenatal vitamin with a glass of D.C. tap
water. Who would have thought that these acts which should have
been good for my child could instead have been endangering her
development? If WASA had only announced that its testing showed
elevated blood levels and that certain persons, pregnant and
nursing women and small children should take precautions, I
would have been able to make an informed decision about my
health and that of my daughter. This legislation requires
notification to persons in all homes that test above the EPA
action level, a relatively cost free solution.
WASA's lack of knowledge of its own inventory which hinders
its ability to solve its problems and its unwillingness to fill
in its information gaps is the second issue. As I mentioned,
our water has elevated lead levels, yet WASA does not know and
has taken no steps to determine whether our water level service
line is lead. According to published reports, tens of thousands
of other homes in D.C. are in the same position. Why is this
information important? Because as an unknown, WASA has not
offered to us any other remedial efforts, including filters,
despite the fact that we had elevated lead levels and an infant
in the home and I am nursing. Even in today's Washington Post
story, WASA officials only mention those homes with lead
service lines, completely ignoring us unknowns. This
legislation requires local water agencies to maintain up to
date information about their service line inventory. Again, a
relatively low cost solution.
Third, when water samples return test results putting WASA
over the threshold for replacing service lines, WASA began
nullifying results. Incredibly the EPA, which has the role of
oversight, allowed them to do this. Let us call it what it is
and I am not being hysterical. It is a cover up and it puts
thousands of D.C. children and pregnant women at risk.
Additionally, the entire testing protocol is inadequate. The
number of samples required is not consistent with accepted
scientific protocols. This legislation eliminates the existing
loopholes that allow systems to avoid replacing lead service
lines by conducting water tests and it mandates sampling at a
sufficient level to obtain an accurate measure of the
situation.
Today's story in the Post makes it seem that this is a
problem merely of water chemistry. However, the story presents
a stark choice, on the one hand, too much lead, on the other
hand, chlorine, a known carcinogenic. The real problem is the
presence of lead in the service lines and in home plumbing
which leads me to my final two points, the misinformation and
outright lies promulgated by WASA, the D.C. government,
including bizarrely its Department of Health.
Since the day the toxicity of the D.C. drinking water
became public notice, WASA and D.C. government officials have
sought to minimize the problem. In public forums, WASA
officials describe the EPA action level as a level at which
water is safe. Further, filters have not been delivered,
contrary to what Mr. Welsh testified today.
With regard to the pilot program for replacing some lead
service lines in the city, WASA has misled residents as to how,
when, what and the cost to the consumer of the replacement. Now
WASA won't take telephone calls from residents seeking
clarification or more information. This legislation establishes
baselines for public education about the risk posed by lead
contamination. Further, it sets out a protocol for lead line
replacement, clearly marking each participant's role and their
responsibilities.
Finally, the problem is not entirely with the water
agencies because lead free doesn't really mean lead free. When
defending their actions, WASA officials blamed excess levels on
home plumbing fixtures. WASA may actually have a point.
Currently the Safe Drinking Water Act defines lead free as 8
percent lead. This legislation would define lead free as 0.2
percent and going forward, it would be unlawful to install
plumbing fixtures and components with lead levels higher than
that in any residence. Again, it is a relatively costly
solution. I remind them that the goal of U.S. public health
agencies since at least the 1980's has been zero exposure to
lead and I ask them, why not take action to address the source
of the problem?
Some might think this is a D.C. problem and one that does
not affect their constituents and their families. I ask them,
has your local water agency tested your water lately? Has the
EPA let them nullify results? How old is your city's
infrastructure? What are your water service lines made of? In
the interest of all of our children, shouldn't we know the
answers to these questions?
Some say the answers cost too much and are too burdensome
on water agencies, but as I have demonstrated here, it really
isn't that expensive. When experts do cost benefit analyses,
they certainly don't include their children on the cost side of
the equation. Further, D.C. consumers, rich and poor, are
spending lots of money on bottled water, filters and pitchers
and more importantly, I ask them, what monetary value do they
place on the mental development of a fetus and a growing child?
What is the long term cost of children with learning
disabilities and young adults with schizophrenia?
I urge you to pass this legislation so that 1 day in your
district, you don't have to face the mother of a child who is
developmentally delayed because of lead exposure and have to
say to her, I am sorry, I could have fixed the problem when I
had a chance but I thought it cost too much.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Funk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.102
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank all of you very much.
We don't have closure on this with the panel. We have some
different opinions but I want to just explore a few. Ms. Funk,
let me start with you. Do you know what your water bill is at
this point?
Ms. Funk. Interesting that you would ask because we just
received our water bill 2 days ago and it is about $25 a month.
Chairman Tom Davis. I know out in my district, I go in to
buy a case of water and water is almost as expensive as
gasoline and people pay for this stuff and yet if you had a
good water system, I guess the ultimate question is how much
more are you willing to pay to get water out of the tap and
have to go and pay more for gasoline when you buy it at the
store? That is kind of an inquiry but the answer is I think
people are buying water that is bottled not just for
convenience but because they think it is in some way safe. If
they could pay more at the tap and get that clean water, would
they save a lot of money?
Ms. Funk. For example, a case of water at the local grocery
store costs $7. You figure you buy two or three cases a month,
that is another $21. In addition, there is the cost of the
Brita filters that we use in the pitcher in our refrigerator so
that we can use clean water to cook with. Further, we have a
water filter on our kitchen tap that costs $35 and each
replacement cartridge I think is another $15.
Chairman Tom Davis. Just for the record, the water that you
are drinking there, we bought that water but the ice, I think,
is regular ice.
Mr. Schwartz, did you want to say anything on that?
Mr. Schwartz. I just wanted to say that many low income
D.C. residents are currently spending lots of money on bottled
water and many residents continue to do things like boil their
water with the notion that is what it takes to make their water
safe.
Chairman Tom Davis. That doesn't do anything for lead, does
it?
Mr. Schwartz. It makes the lead problem worse. I think what
we are facing is maybe a little bit of an untenable position.
It is not that cost doesn't matter, cost does matter and there
are certainly not unlimited funds. The question is a question
of priorities. I think we heard that from other panelists.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask this. I guess this is a
fundamental question. The tape within a residence and the line
leading from the main line to the residence, whose line is
that, who should be responsible because, if that is lead, is
that the city's problem or is that the individual's problem? I
guess I would ask all of you how you view that because if you
change all the public lines but the lines leading up to the
house are still bad, you still have a problem. Who wants to
start?
Ms. Funk. Currently, Mr. Chairman, the EPA regulations
require the water utilities to be placed at the lead service
line on public property. On Capital Hill, most public property
starts at the edge of a homeowner's house which leaves the
homeowner with several inches of lead line to replace. As
Delegate Norton pointed out, the connection of a non-lead
service line to a lead service line actually might exacerbate
the problem because of some scientific reaction that I probably
learned about in high school but couldn't tell you about now.
Chairman Tom Davis. We are lawyers, not scientists.
Ms. Funk. So whose responsibility is it? I would say it is
the water authority's responsibility. If there is a problem
with your phone line, the phone company can come in and fix the
phone line. So if there is a problem with your water line, why
doesn't the water company fix it?
Chairman Tom Davis. If it is on your property, they will
charge you.
Ms. Funk. Charging is one thing. I am not suggesting that
you shouldn't bear the cost.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz. One thing I would refer to is the 1993 and
1996 Washington Post articles that indicate a bit of a
disagreement between the Federal managers of Washington, D.C.
and the residents over the installation of the lead service
lines here in D.C. originally. Those lines were in large part
installed over the objections of the population who were living
here at the time. We think there is a special Federal
responsibility in D.C. because of that decision to mitigate the
financial cost to the population here.
In addition to that, to get more to the point of your
question nationally, I think it is worse than doing nothing to
only do partial service line replacement. We really need to, as
the bill says, do full service line replacement and we need to
figure out the right funding mechanisms. I am not sure what all
those are but they include for those who are unable to pay and
for those systems that have stress, some support nationally so
that we meet public health needs. That is what this law is
about, meeting public health goals. We need to meet those
goals.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask the other panelists what you
think in terms of the private plumbing. What should be the
States' burden in that vis-a-vis the homeowners. Ms. Funk said
we could facilitate it, at least, make it available to come in
and maybe do the bills. Mr. Schwartz takes a larger view,
particularly for D.C. given the history of this that it is a
State responsibility, State meaning government. What are your
thoughts on that? I would ask each of you.
Mr. Rubin. Legally, I think the utilities' property and
responsibility ends at the end of the public right of way. In
the District there might not be that much land between the end
of the public right of way and the home. When you get into
other communities, you might be talking several hundred feet
and it is a large part of the expense and certainly a very high
percentage of the service line is owned by the customer and not
by the utility.
Part of that problem which makes it even worse is the whole
landlord/tenant problem. If the landlord is paying the water
bill and owns the service line and is responsible for the
service line but isn't the one who is drinking the water or
going out and buying bottled water or filters to replace it, is
the landlord really going to incur that expense, especially if
there is rent control or some other way he can't pass that cost
along to the tenant.
Chairman Tom Davis. Not if he can help it, right?
Mr. Schwartz. Yes. I think that is going to be a very
difficult problem. So there is the legal side of it which says
once the public right of way ends, it is the customer's
property and the customer's responsibility, but the policy
implications of that I think, especially with landlord/tenant
issues, are very difficult.
Chairman Tom Davis. We face that with a lot of different
utilities but, in point of fact, in this case, if you don't do
the last 20 feet, 100 feet or 200 feet, you really don't solve
the problem.
Mr. Schwartz. That is true.
Chairman Tom Davis. Whatever the expenditure is on
everything else.
Mr. Schwartz. Yes, we are facing the same kind of problem
in the nature gas industry where they are finding certain types
of old pipes that were installed that are prone to leaks and
ultimately explosions but the gas utility only controls a small
portion of that line and gas utilities around the country are
fighting with the same problem, can they require homeowners to
replace the line?
Chairman Tom Davis. I guess one difference here is WASA is
a governmental organization and gas lines are private. There is
a different privity. Ms. Logomasini, do you have any thoughts
on that?
Ms. Logomasini. Yes. I think this highlights the point I
have been making all along, that it is a question of who is
responsible. It is not clear that this can be solved in
Washington. Every community may have a different answer.
Because utilities are responsible for water as it comes out of
the tap, even though they don't own all the lines, they are in
a difficult situation and it may be that in each locality, the
decisions are going to be different, it is going to be
negotiated and some may cover part of the costs and in some
cases, if costs are passed on to homeowners, maybe homeowners
should be given opportunities to find other solutions because
this isn't a few inches of line, this could be a dramatic
disruption in their lives, there could be problems at the tap
as well. So maybe what they need to be able to do is make
priority judgments as to whether or not filters would be more
efficient or whatnot, but it is not going to be an easy answer
from Washington. There has to be some flexibility.
Chairman Tom Davis. It would be a huge unfunded mandate for
Congress to say this to water authorities across the country. I
think Mr. Schwartz's comment is that in D.C., particularly
going back to the 1890's when a lot of this stuff was
installed, there really was a dispute over who was going to
take it, is that fair to say? Not to bind you but I think you
said, whatever you feel about nationally mandating this, the
District has a peculiar situation that may indeed set it apart
however you agree with the other part?
Mr. Schwartz. I think the bill addresses a suite of
solutions to deal with lead problems and lead service line
replacement is one of the lead elimination solutions in the
bill and the bill seeks to remove the cause of the problem. The
bill is not proscriptive and it is looking at giving the EPA
lots of flexibility in coming to terms with this problem. I
think the important thing is to recognize that the communities
that are on a short watch list on lead because they have been
at, near or one point per billion under the action level like
New York City or Newark, NJ, or Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority where Boston is, problems in St. Paul, Bangor,
Madison, these are very similar to Washington, D.C. in terms of
the configuration of the communities.
I think we also have to look at the organic reality of
where the lead service line problem is and we need to find out
more about that and we need to find out more about that in the
District as well. I don't think we even have an accurate
picture here yet. So, yes, there is a particular situation for
the District, I agree with that, but I also think there is a
national point to be taken here.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Neukrug.
Mr. Neukrug. Thank you.
There are so many different issues here and so many
different ways to answer this question. There are issues of
ownership and who owns what, responsibility beyond ownership,
location, where are these lead service lines, and finally, does
it solve the problem? When you replace a lead service line,
does that now mean the citizens are going to start drinking the
water and not boil the water, not use the filters, or are those
cost issues still going to persist? I am not really sure if
that solves the problem.
One other point is that we have been very successful in
removing the introduction of new leaded materials into society,
whether it be lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead solder, lead
pipe or fixtures. Removing any of those from our environment
has proven to be very difficult and it is interesting that this
discussion and a lot of the discussion in D.C. lately revolves
around the lead pipe versus issues of lead solder, issues of
the fixtures, issues of the paint and all these things need to
be considered together.
Chairman Tom Davis. We addressed the solder issue in the
last hearing giving the chemicals that are coming in and out
and the effects, but I understand.
Let me ask one other question to anybody who may know
anything about this, I asked the EPA about the situation in the
city of Cincinnati where it replaced all of its lead service
lines at enormous cost but, from what I have read, it didn't
significantly reduce the levels of lead in the water. Does
anybody know anything about this? Tell us about the wholesale
replacement or maybe they didn't do the last 20 feet. Obviously
it is a whole host of issues that could cause levels to spike
and rise and fall. Does anyone know anything about Cincinnati?
Mr. Neukrug. We will be glad to find out.
Chairman Tom Davis. We would be happy if you have those
resources. Thank you for being here and I am going to recognize
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank all of today's witnesses. It is
important to hear from all of those concerns and trying to
figure out how to proceed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record the
testimony of a resident of the District of Columbia who like
Ms. Funk, was kind enough to invite public officials to his
home, to take that kind of initiative in order to be heard and
to tell us what he thought should be done, Robert Vinson
Brannum, he is here today. I ask that it be submitted for the
record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, so ordered. It will
be made a part of the record.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We were just discussing the complicated issue of who pays
for replacement. Not withstanding my bill, I want to understand
that to be a central question. As indicated in my opening
remarks, we tried to write a bill based on what needs to be
done when you get down to brass tacks, then you do what you can
do. By the way, Ms. Logomasini, there is something that could
be done in Washington and something that I am pleased this
Congress has continued to do. I don't know if it fits here but
one thing we could do is provide a tax credit to homeowners who
indeed proceeded on lead line replacement.
I would like to know if we might reach in this set of
witnesses, all of whom have given valuable testimony in good
faith albeit from perhaps different perspectives but all I
think have agreed that lead in the water is not what anybody
here thinks needs to happen in this country and may have to
decide how much you can afford. Ms. Logomasini talked about
tradeoffs. Life is about tradeoffs, so you teach a child from
the child is the time of Ms. Funk's baby about tradeoffs. There
is no question about that. But life is also about priorities.
One way to decide the issue of priorities of tradeoffs is to
decide what is really important to you.
I would like to look at where all the witnesses stand on a
set of very narrowly focused questions, recognizing that we
would have vast array of answers on various aspects, for
example, of our bill or of any regulatory approach. As to
mothers, the one thing I think there is agreement about is if
you live to get as old as I am, you ought to take your lead to
the grave with you and don't worry about it. The public health
folks still say zero but you don't see me clamoring. We have
Ms. Funk here and you have heard directly from someone who has
gone through the D.C. experience. Could we agree that at the
very least there ought to be a clear warning to every person in
a given jurisdiction who may be affected following testing on
the assumption that at least some of those residents will be
people like Ms. Funk who are pregnant, who are nursing and/or
who have small children on the question alone of notice I am
asking. I am not even getting to the question of what you ought
to do for Ms. Funk or people like her. On the question of
letting people like Ms. Funk or any other resident who may in
fact be affected, regardless of what normal realities force us
to do with respect to remediation, can we agree that everybody
who may be affected with lead in the water should have notice
on the assumption that they are more like Ms. Funk out there?
Can we get agreement on the panel on that baseline?
Chairman Tom Davis. Let us go down the line.
Mr. Neukrug. I agree with you, Ms. Norton, and I think the
only thing I disagree on is that you seem to limit it to a
certain geographic area and I think it is a worldwide,
nationwide issue, exposure, prenatal care, exposure to lead in
drinking water.
Ms. Norton. I am talking about following testing. Let me be
clear. You testified about an education campaign. I am talking
about following testing, I am talking about the 10 percent
rule, I am talking about when you have to remediate and when
not and action levels. I am putting all that aside for the
moment.
Mr. Neukrug. I would agree with you there.
Chairman Tom Davis. If you find bad results.
Mr. Neukrug. If you find bad results, you report it.
Ms. Logomasini. There is notice required now and I think
the question is how quickly.
Ms. Norton. There is not notice required of everybody who
is affected and that is why I asked this question.
Ms. Logomasini. If there is a public health issue that is
imminent and a serious threat, absolutely people should know
but I think there needs to be some flexibility in communities
to make judgment calls as to when there is a serious health
threat and when there is something that is not as serious and
doesn't require immediate action. Sometimes there is time
necessary to collect information to make sure that you are
providing the right information. I think there is a lot built
into the system that encourages people to sound alarms and then
we get overreactions and people get scared and maybe the
response is not appropriate. I also think the way the law is
working now, and this is a conclusion I have been coming to
listening earlier today, that maybe we are not getting the
proper notice because communities are afraid of the
repercussions on the regulatory front. They don't have
flexibility in how they are going to handle it, so maybe they
are going to try to not do it as quickly. So we do have a flaw
there. People need to get good information and they need to get
it in a timely fashion.
In a private system, you would have competing companies and
that would provide some regulation in the private fashion. We
don't have that here. We have a political system and we have a
lot of bad incentives.
Ms. Norton. We have a lot of competition for people.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Logomasini, can you give a yes or
no to this?
Ms. Logomasini. I think it should be determined more
locally. I don't think you need to pass a Federal law to do
that.
Chairman Tom Davis. How about conceptually? Conceptually
would you agree it ought to be done?
Mr. Rubin. The simple answer is yes, absolutely and the key
is notice that is effective and understandable which usually is
not the case now.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, it gets buried.
Mr. Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz. My answer is yes and I would just note that
if WASA hadn't been trying to gain the actual replacement of
lead service lines and so did a bigger sample, we never would
have found out the true extent of the problem. When you look at
cities like Boston who only have a 25 household sample per
year, it raises the question whether we really know what is
going on out there. I think we really have to take a hard look
at the information the agency has. I don't think the rule is
providing the right context to even get to the point of public
notification because I don't think we know what is going on,
positive or negative.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Funk, you have already spoken to
this, but in answer?
Ms. Funk. I would say of course and as to whether or not
notification that the lead in your water might be too high,
might cause panic, I find that an outrageous, pedantic
statement. Parents every day are called on to make health
decisions on the part of their children. This Congress passes
laws about parental notification. I think parents are equipped
to make an informed decision when it comes to their child's
health.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I really do think in good faith all of us
really do believe that and I understand the question the notice
may trigger cost, notice may trigger, but I want to separate
the question of notice because that is low cost. I want to
concede Ms. Logomasini's point that once you get to what to do,
there may well be different strokes for different folks. That
is why I confine myself to the notion of those 10 percent, none
of whom may know which doesn't seem to me to be very American
way to approach things. Most people, whether free market people
or whatever, want everybody to know so they can then decide
what to do. I think that is the whole notion, frankly, of the
market system.
Let me ask you another question designed to get agreement,
if I can get it. Since the population that appears to be at
risk, perhaps not but appears to be at risk, is the youngest
population, children now go to be educated beginning at 3 years
old because they go to day care centers and to elementary
schools and the rest, do you think it makes sense to say to
every community you have to decide how to do this but every
water supply, normally a water fountain of some kind used by
children should be tested once a year? I say once a year, I
pulled that out of the hat. I don't know if the scientifically
appropriate way would be less or more, I am simply saying you
can count, when I put this child in school, they are going to
look on a frequent and regular basis to see whether there is
lead in the water? Could I go down the line on that one,
please?
Chairman Tom Davis. Can I dovetail on that? Let me ask
this. There is obviously a cost-benefit to doing that kind of
thing with school water fountains. Do you really get any bang
for the buck by factoring any consumption from school water
fountains?
Mr. Neukrug. I think it is important to understand that. I
think there are other ways of doing it than once a year. I
think the original Safe Drinking Water Act addressed it by the
type of water fountain, whether that had lead parts exposed in
it. I think in general, yes, you should have a very good idea
for every water fountain, particularly in a school, whether or
not there is lead.
Just one quick anecdote is that my son is at Philadelphia
public school and he doesn't have water. That is the solution.
Chairman Tom Davis. It is a solution sometimes.
Mr. Neukrug. The priority is no lead in the water but the
priority is other things, books and other things, rather than
providing water.
Ms. Norton. What does he do if he gets thirsty in the
middle of the day? I understand that solution.
Mr. Neukrug. Bottled water.
Ms. Norton. So your child has to bring it to school?
Mr. Neukrug. Yes.
Ms. Norton. He's in a public school?
Mr. Neukrug. Yes, and just for the record, since I was
sworn in, he is now in a private school in fourth grade, but
yes, in kindergarten to third grade, he brought in water every
day.
Ms. Logomasini. I am not sure in every case that would make
sense. Again, the cost benefit angle is important here. If the
school doesn't have lead lines and low risk, they have to be
able to decide, the community needs to decide do we want to
spend our money here, do we want to spend it somewhere else.
There may be an asthma problem in that school and they may need
to test for that. It may be a more imminent threat.
Ms. Norton. So we said if it had lead lines you should?
Ms. Logomasini. I am not sure. Again, they may decide to go
with a filtration system instead.
Ms. Norton. I have asked a very particular question. I work
in the Congress where Tom Davis and I have to get agreement if
we want to get a bill or if I want to get a bill, you are not
going to change my question now. I am saying because I accept
your amendment, if in fact your school because it is very
expensive to change lead service lines and there may not be a
problem because there may be no corrosion, I am asking whether
or not the once a year testing of the fountains in those
schools where the fountains are attached to lead service lines
would be an appropriate thing to do?
Ms. Logomasini. I am saying that I don't think the Federal
Government should make that determination. I am saying that
needs to be a school by school, community by community
decision. They need to look at all of their concerns.
Chairman Tom Davis. Fine. Thank you.
Mr. Rubin.
Mr. Rubin. Simple answer, yes. I don't know if 1 year is
right, probably focused on elementary schools and day care
centers but sure, we ought to know what is going on.
Mr. Schwartz. I think we need to have a serious review with
detailed auditing by the EPA of the implementation of the Lead
Contamination Control Act to see if the provisions there have
been fully implemented and if we have had real reductions in
lead that is available in schools and if reductions have been
made and to what extent. That will help us figure out the
answer about what the nature and extent of the problem is.
I want to amend one other thing. I think it is important to
know that kids are certainly at risk, pregnant mothers and
nursing mothers but there are several other vulnerable
populations who are really at risk for lead exposure including
frail elderly and other people with weakened immune systems. I
just don't want to minimize that lead can be a problem for
people at all stages of their lives.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Funk.
Ms. Funk. I would suggest if a school or day care center
could show they don't have a lead service line and then their
plumbing fixtures have lead in them, then perhaps instead of
testing every year, they could be absolved from testing unless
there was some sort of community issue that had been raised.
If, however, a day care center or school can't show that it
doesn't have a lead service line or that all of its plumbing
fixtures do not contain lead, then I would suggest those
centers and schools be tested regularly.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. We have enough problems, Ms. Funk will attest,
trying to encourage parents to trust our public schools not to
add lead service lines to the mix.
The chairman certainly doesn't want to miss the Tyson's
Corner Lion's Club engagement he has now, so I have asked him
for one question only and he has been extremely generous. The
last thing I am going to do is try to take advantage of it
because I have only one more questions for all of you.
I am concerned with nullifying results. I would like to
talk to you afterwards about the whole notion of nullifying
results. We are trying to restore confidence in our water
supply, we are trying to get people to move to the District of
Columbia. When they hear you can nullify the results and say
can I just change this, that is a concern of mine.
Partial replacement, the way in which the EPA operates has
been called in serious question. A small number of samples, 50
samples, for a 600,000 person jurisdiction, all of which leads
me to ask the EPA, WASA and everyone, just kind of begin again.
Why not and just look at it again through rulemaking because
whatever you do is going to be what it is after you receive
comment.
I do want to ask one more question again. I am a consensus
person particularly when it comes to legislation. This has
nothing to do with the public expense, this has to do with how
our market system operates. You can sell pipe to WASA and to
homeowners that says lead free and it can contain as much as 8
percent lead. Should lead free in fact at least be close to
lead free before it is sold to public works in Philadelphia and
Fairfax, D.C. and to homeowners across the country? Final
question, down the line.
Mr. Neukrug. Theoretically, I absolutely agree. I don't
really know how far down you can get to lead free and still
have a good plumbing product.
Ms. Norton. I should say as practicable. I am not even
assuming zero.
Mr. Neukrug. Absolutely.
Ms. Logomasini. Maybe this is a fraud or legal issue for
the Federal Trade Commission. Maybe they need to have a
different term because it does sound misleading when you say
lead free.
Mr. Rubin. I don't know. I think the real problem is with
plumbing fixtures more than with pipe and I don't know what you
need in order to make plumbing fixtures the way people want to
buy them.
Ms. Norton. Perhaps you want to buy something that has 8
percent. Perhaps it is cheaper. I don't know. I am only going
to the question like my first question, if you are looking
after the D.C. water crisis for equipment that has no lead in
it, should lead free mean as much as 8 percent lead?
Mr. Rubin. Congresswoman, one concern I have is we don't
know what impact if any that would have on public health.
Ms. Norton. We don't but we know this much. I think I am
buying a lead free product and that is my only question.
Mr. Rubin. And I am saying I don't know the answer to that.
If the scientific studies say if you have less than some
threshold level of lead, effectively it is lead free because
the lead is never going to come out of there and if you want us
to reduce it from 8 percent to 0.2 percent, that is going to
triple the cost, then we have to be concerned about that. I
don't know.
Ms. Norton. My understanding is that no scientific study
would say that lead free means as much as 8 percent. I would
agree with you. If in fact, there is a study that says lead
free can mean as much as 8 percent, I absolutely agree with
you, then to use that would be scientifically valid.
Mr. Schwartz. Your question is right on. California and
many water systems now require nearly zero lead and I think we
ought to take a look at their experience which was prompted by
Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Act that
passed in California many years ago. We would think this is
probably one issue that most witnesses could agree on. We have
experience. We should take a look at the experience that has
been operating out there. If it works for 10 percent of the
population in California, it might work out here.
Ms. Funk. The FTC has something called truth in labeling
and I think this squarely falls under it. If it says lead free,
then it should be as close as lead free as you can get; 8
percent is not lead free, so 8 percent shouldn't say lead free,
8 percent should say 8 percent lead.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. I appreciate this panel for a very
lively discussion on this. We appreciate it. We will leave the
record open for 10 days if anyone has any additional thoughts
you would like to incorporate, Members' statements and the
like.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Note.--Additional information is on file with the
committee.]
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6089.107