Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure
That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination (04-JAN-06,
GAO-06-148).
Elevated lead levels in the District of Columbia's tap water in
2003 prompted questions about how well consumers are protected
nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states,
and local water systems share responsibility for providing safe
drinking water. Lead typically enters tap water as a result of
the corrosion of lead in the water lines or household plumbing.
EPA's lead rule establishes testing and treatment requirements.
This report discusses (1) EPA's data on the rule's
implementation; (2) what implementation of the rule suggests
about the need for changes to the regulatory framework; and (3)
the extent to which drinking water at schools and child care
facilities is tested for lead.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-148
ACCNO: A44138
TITLE: Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to
Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination
DATE: 01/04/2006
SUBJECT: Contamination
Data integrity
Environmental monitoring
Federal regulations
Health hazards
Intergovernmental relations
Potable water
Reporting requirements
Standards evaluation
Testing
Water pollution control
Water quality
Standards (water quality)
District of Columbia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-148
* Report to Congressional Requesters
* January 2006
* DRINKING WATER
* EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers
Are Protected from Lead Contamination
* Contents
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Inadequate Data Impair EPA's Ability to Oversee Implementation of
the Lead Rule
* Although EPA's Data Suggest a Decline in Lead Levels,
States' Reporting on the Results of Lead Testing Has Not
Been Timely or Complete
* EPA Does Not Have Complete Information on the Status of
Water Systems' Efforts to Implement Lead Rule
* Data on Lead Rule Violations Are Questionable Because of
Potential Underreporting by the States
* Lack of Data Affects EPA's Ability to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Lead Rule Implementation and Enforcement
* Weaknesses in the Regulatory Framework for the Lead Rule May
Undermine Public Health Protection
* Sampling Sites May No Longer Reflect Areas of Highest Risk
* Reduced Monitoring May Not Be Appropriate in Some Instances
* Homeowners Who Participate in Periodic Tap Sampling May Not
Be Notified of the Test Results
* Controls over When and How Treatment Changes Are Implemented
May Not Be Adequate
* Data on the Effectiveness of Lead Service Line Replacement
Programs Are Limited
* States Vary in How They Apply the Lead Rule When Water
Systems Sell Drinking Water to Other Systems
* Outdated Plumbing Standards Hinder Efforts to Reduce
Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water
* EPA Is Considering Modifications to the Lead Rule to Address
Some Problem Areas
* Limited Data Indicate Few Schools and Child Care Facilities Test
or Take Other Measures to Control Lead in Their Water Supplies
* Little Information Exists on the Results of the Recall of
Lead-Lined Water Coolers and Other Activities Prompted by
the LCCA
* Current Efforts to Detect and Remediate Lead in Drinking
Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities Also Appear
Limited
* The Extent to Which Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care
Facilities Is Contaminated by Lead Is Uncertain, in Part,
Because No Clear Focal Point Exists to Collect Available
Data
* State and Local Officials Say Addressing Other Environmental
Hazards Takes Priority over Testing for Lead in Drinking
Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
* Conclusions
* Recommendations for Executive Action
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* Scope and Methodology
* Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported to EPA,
by State, through June 2005
* Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to EPA Between 1995 and June
2005 (by State)
* Information on Selected EPA and State Enforcement Actions, by Type,
from 1995 to June 2005a
* Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
* GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Requesters
January 2006
DRINKING WATER
EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are
Protected from Lead Contamination
Contents
Tables
Figures
January 4, 2006Letter
The Honorable James M. Jeffords Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Environment and Public Works United States Senate
The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member Committee on Energy
and Commerce House of Representatives
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials Committee on Energy and Commerce House
of Representatives
When testing in the District of Columbia during 2003 revealed that over
4,000 households had elevated levels of lead in their drinking water, the
ensuing publicity prompted questions about how well local drinking water
systems are protecting consumers from lead contamination nationwide. The
adverse health effects associated with exposure to lead can be severe,
including delays in normal physical and mental development in infants and
young children, and damage to kidneys and reproductive systems for the
population at large. Although rarely the sole cause of lead poisoning,
lead in drinking water can be a significant contributor to a person's
total exposure-and can account for as much as 60 percent of the exposure
for infants who drink baby formula or concentrated juices mixed with
water. Because children are most vulnerable to adverse health effects from
lead exposure, the adequacy of controls over lead in water supplies
serving schools and child care facilities is particularly important.1 In
response to the discovery of lead contamination in the District of
Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a broad
examination of the implementation of drinking water regulations it issued
in 1991-known as the Lead and Copper Rule-to determine whether elevated
lead levels
are a national problem.2 EPA issued the rule as part of its efforts in
implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, and established testing and
treatment requirements to control lead and copper in public water
supplies.3
Responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is shared by EPA, the
states, and, most importantly, local water systems. In general, EPA sets
standards to protect drinking water quality and to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of public water systems. EPA also oversees state
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and applicable regulations
where states have assumed primary responsibility for enforcement. The
states ensure that local water systems meet EPA and state requirements,
provide technical assistance, and take enforcement action, as necessary.
In addition, the states collect information on the results of drinking
water monitoring, among other things, and report the information to EPA.
At the local level, public water systems operate and maintain their
facilities in accordance with federal and state requirements, periodically
test the drinking water to ensure that it meets quality standards, install
needed treatments, and report required information to the states.
In contrast to most drinking water contaminants, lead is rarely found in
the source water used for public water supplies. Instead, lead enters tap
water as a result of the corrosion that takes place over time when
materials containing lead in the water distribution system or household
plumbing come into contact with water. For example, lead can leach out of
service lines, pipes, brass and bronze fixtures, solders, or other
materials, and contaminate drinking water. To address this problem, EPA
established requirements for corrosion control treatment, source water
treatment, lead service line replacement, and public education. The lead
rule requires water systems to test the tap water at a specified number of
locations that are at high risk of lead contamination.4 In general, if
lead concentrations exceed 15 parts per billion in more than 10 percent of
the samples, a water system has exceeded the action level and must (1)
provide public education materials to its customers and (2) conduct
additional testing to determine if treating lead contamination from the
water's source may be necessary. Water systems that exceed the action
level may also be required to install corrosion control treatment to
reduce the water's corrosiveness. When treatment is not effective in
controlling lead levels, a water system must annually replace at least 7
percent of any lead service lines it owns. To further address the problem
of lead in household plumbing, the Congress amended the Safe Drinking
Water Act in 1986 and 1996 to, among other things, ban the use of lead
solder and plumbing materials that are not "lead-free."
In addition, under the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988, the
Congress required the recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined
tanks, banned the manufacture and sale of water coolers that were not
lead-free, and required states to establish programs to assist local
agencies in testing and correcting for lead in water supplies in schools
and child care facilities.5 While the Consumer Product Safety Commission
was responsible for managing the recall, EPA was responsible for
distributing a list of banned coolers and publishing and distributing
guidance on detecting and remediating lead contamination in school
drinking water supplies.
In March 2005, we issued a report that focused on the lead contamination
problem in the District of Columbia's drinking water supplies.6 For a
national perspective on controlling lead in drinking water, you asked us
to determine (1) the extent to which EPA has sufficient data to oversee
implementation of the lead rule, (2) what implementation of the rule to
date suggests about the need for changes to the regulatory framework, and
(3) the extent to which drinking water supplies at schools and child care
facilities are tested for lead and their users protected from elevated
lead levels. For information on the data EPA uses for oversight of lead
rule implementation, we analyzed EPA data on the results and frequency of
lead testing, the status of corrective actions, and violations. We
determined that the data on results and frequency of testing were
sufficiently reliable to show compliance trends. However, we found that
other data on corrective actions and violations were not sufficiently
reliable to assess the status of efforts to implement and enforce the lead
rule. For information on experiences in implementing the lead rule and the
need for changes to the regulatory framework, we analyzed the responses to
a 2004 EPA information request on states' implementation policies and
practices, the results of EPA-sponsored expert workshops, and relevant
documents. We also obtained test results from NSF International on lead
content and lead leaching of plumbing fittings and fixtures. To assess
data reliability, we obtained information on NSF International's
procedures for data quality control and determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for illustrative purposes. For information on
efforts to control lead in drinking water at schools and child care
facilities, we analyzed the results of a 2004 50-state information request
by EPA, an EPA workshop that focused specifically on schools and child
care facilities, and relevant documents.
We supplemented the information collected under each objective by
contacting state and local drinking water officials in 10 states. We
selected eight of the states-California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington-because they either had a
relatively high number of water systems with test results that exceeded or
fell just below the lead action level, or they added to the geographical
diversity of our selections. We also obtained information from Connecticut
and Florida, two states that EPA identified as particularly active in
addressing potential lead contamination in water supplies serving child
care facilities. In all 10 states, we obtained information from state
drinking water program managers, state public health or education
officials, and local school districts that have efforts under way to test
for and remediate lead contamination. (App. I contains a detailed
description of our scope and methodology.) We performed our work between
June 2004 and November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
While EPA's data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with
elevated lead levels has declined significantly since the early 1990s, the
agency does not have a complete picture of how states and water systems
are implementing the lead rule because data on key aspects of water
systems' compliance with regulatory requirements are incomplete or
questionable. According to EPA's data, the number of systems exceeding the
lead action level dropped by nearly 75 percent from the initial monitoring
conducted during 1992 to 1994-shortly after the lead rule took effect-and
the period from 2002 to June 2005. However, our analysis disclosed that
EPA's database does not contain recent test results on over 30 percent of
the community water systems, apparently because states have not met
reporting requirements. EPA's data on the status of water systems' efforts
to implement the lead rule are similarly incomplete. The agency requires
the states to report certain "milestones" to indicate whether a water
system's lead levels are acceptable or whether the system is implementing
required corrective actions, such as installing corrosion control
treatment and replacing lead service lines. Through June 2005, however,
EPA's database did not contain any milestone information on more than 70
percent of the nation's community water systems. Finally, because some
states reported few or no violations of lead rule testing and treatment
requirements over multiple years, the completeness of these data is
questionable. EPA has been slow to take action on these data problems and,
as a result, lacks the information it needs to evaluate how effectively
the lead rule is being implemented and enforced nationwide.
The experiences of EPA, states, and water systems in implementing the lead
rule have revealed weaknesses in the regulatory framework, including both
oversight and the regulations themselves, which may be undermining the
intended level of public health protection. Consequently, some changes to
the regulatory framework are necessary. First, the sites used for lead
testing may no longer represent the sites with the highest risk of
contamination. For example, when the sampling locations approved initially
are no longer available or appropriate, water systems identify new sites
and states may not be tracking the changes to ensure that new sites meet
high risk criteria. Another concern is that most states do not require
their water systems to notify the homeowners who volunteer for periodic
lead monitoring of the test results and do not know the extent to which
such notifications are actually occurring. In addition, the effectiveness
of corrosion control can be impaired by changes to other treatment
processes and, in some states, testing and other controls that would help
avoid such impacts may not be adequate. Finally, existing standards for
plumbing fixtures and devices may not be protective enough, according to
some experts, because testing has determined that some of the products
defined as "lead-free" under the Safe Drinking Water Act can still
contribute high levels of lead to drinking water. To improve
implementation of the lead rule, EPA is considering a number of changes to
its regulations, such as requiring advance notice of treatment
modifications that could affect corrosion control. EPA is also considering
changes to its guidance to improve and clarify specific aspects of the
lead rule.
Although data are limited, it appears that few schools and child care
facilities have tested their water supplies for lead-or adopted other
measures to protect users from lead contamination-either in response to
the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their current
operating practices. Little data are available to assess (1) the scope and
effectiveness of the effort to recall water coolers or (2) the extent and
results of any testing. In addition, although the act required states to
establish programs to assist local agencies in addressing potential lead
contamination at schools and child care facilities, this provision was
declared unconstitutional in 1996 and state efforts were generally
limited. Current efforts to detect and remediate lead in drinking water at
schools and child care facilities appear limited, based on the results of
EPA's 50-state information request and our discussions with 10 states. In
recent years, some of these facilities have tested voluntarily, and school
districts in some cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, and Seattle, have
detected elevated lead levels at some drinking water outlets. However,
little information exists on the pervasiveness of the problem nationwide
because no focal point exists at the national or state level to collect
and analyze the test results or share information on effective remediation
strategies. State and local officials say that dealing with other
environmental problems in their facilities-including lead paint, asbestos,
and mold-is a higher priority because more information is available on the
nature and extent of these hazards.
We are making a series of recommendations to improve oversight and
implementation of the lead rule. Among other things, we are recommending
that EPA take steps to ensure that data on key aspects of lead rule
implementation are timely and complete so that the agency is better able
to assess the effectiveness of the rule and state oversight and
enforcement efforts. Other recommendations focus on strengthening aspects
of the regulatory framework, such as lead monitoring requirements, review
of treatment changes that could affect corrosion control, and standards
for plumbing fittings and fixtures. Finally, we are recommending that EPA
collect and analyze existing data to assess the extent of lead
contamination in drinking water at schools and child care facilities and
appropriate remedial actions. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. In particular, EPA
acknowledged that it needs better data to assess the effectiveness of lead
rule implementation and enforcement. In addition, EPA agreed that the
aspects of the regulation that we identified as needing improvement
warrant additional attention and noted its plans to address most of these
areas by modifying the rule or collecting additional information. EPA did
not address our recommendations regarding lead contamination and remedial
actions at schools and child care facilities.
Background
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is responsible for regulating
contaminants that may pose a public health risk and that are likely to be
present in public water supplies. EPA may establish an enforceable
standard-called a maximum contaminant level-that limits the amount of a
contaminant that may be present in drinking water. However, if it is not
economically or technically feasible to ascertain the level of a
contaminant, EPA may instead establish a treatment technique to prevent
known or anticipated health effects. In the case of lead, EPA established
a treatment technique-including corrosion control treatment-because the
agency believed that the variability of lead levels measured at the tap,
even after treatment, makes it technologically infeasible to establish an
enforceable standard. EPA noted that lead in drinking water occurs
primarily as a byproduct of the corrosion of materials in the water
distribution system or household plumbing, some of which is outside the
control of the water systems. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution system
for drinking water and potential sources of lead contamination.
Figure 1: Water Distribution System from the Treatment Plant to Household
Plumbing
EPA's lead rule also established a 15-parts-per-billion lead action level,
which is based on the 90th percentile level of water samples taken at the
tap. Water systems must sample tap water at locations that are at high
risk of lead contamination, generally because they are served by lead
service lines or are likely to contain lead solder in the household
plumbing. The number of samples that must be collected varies depending on
the size of the water system and the results of earlier testing. Small or
medium-sized systems whose test results are consistently below the action
level may be allowed to reduce the frequency of monitoring and the number
of samples collected.7
To determine their test results at the 90th percentile level, water
systems must multiply the number of samples taken during a monitoring
period by 0.9 and identify the result at that level, after ranking the
results of the individual samples they collected in ascending order. For
example, a water system required to take 50 samples would rank the results
from 1 (for the lowest result) to 50 (for the highest result); the 90th
percentile level is the 45th result, 5 below the highest test result for
that monitoring period. When the 90th percentile results for a water
system are above 15 parts per billion, the system has exceeded the lead
action level and must meet requirements for public education and source
water treatment. Under the public education requirements, water systems
must inform the public about the health effects and sources of lead
contamination, along with ways to reduce exposure. Source water
responsibilities include, at a minimum, water monitoring to determine if
the lead contamination is from the water source rather than-or in addition
to-service lines or plumbing fixtures.8
Water systems that exceed the action level may also be required to install
corrosion control treatment, except for large systems that may qualify as
having optimized corrosion control based on other criteria.9 When either
corrosion control or source water treatment are not effective in
controlling lead levels, the lead rule calls for water systems with lead
service lines to begin replacing them at a rate of 7 percent annually
(unless the state requires a higher rate).
Figure 2: Process Drinking Water Systems Follow to Comply with EPA's Lead
Rule
The states play an important role in ensuring that the lead rule is
implemented and enforced at the local level. Among other things, they are
responsible for (1) ensuring that water systems conduct required
monitoring and (2) reporting the results to EPA. If the systems must take
corrective action to address elevated lead levels, the states are
responsible for approving or determining the nature of the treatment or
other activities that will be required, ensuring that they are
implemented, and periodically reporting relevant information to EPA. The
Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the states to assume primary
responsibility for enforcing the drinking water program-including the lead
rule-if they meet certain requirements, such as adopting drinking water
regulations at least as stringent as EPA's and having adequate procedures
to carry out and enforce the program's requirements. All states except
Wyoming have assumed primacy for managing their drinking water programs.
In addition to requiring the regulation of lead in public water supplies,
the Safe Drinking Water Act also contains provisions to limit the extent
to which materials in the water distribution system and household plumbing
contribute to lead levels at the tap. Specifically, the act banned the use
of solder and other materials in the installation or repair of public
water systems or plumbing that are not lead-free. In this regard, the act
established a material standard by defining "lead-free" to mean solders
and flux containing no more than 0.2 percent lead, and pipes and pipe
fittings containing no more than 8.0 percent lead.10 In addition, the act
called for development of voluntary performance standards and testing
protocols for the leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures
by a qualified third party certifier or, if necessary, promulgated by EPA.
A third party certifier set such a standard in 1997, limiting the amount
of lead that the fittings and fixtures may contribute to water to 11 parts
per billion.
To address the potential risks of lead contamination in water supplies
serving schools and child care facilities, Congress passed the Lead
Contamination Control Act of 1988.11 Among other things, the act banned
the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers containing lead-lined
tanks and other water coolers that are not lead-free and required (1) EPA
to publish a list of such coolers and distribute it to the states, (2) the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue an order requiring
manufacturers and importers to repair or replace lead-lined coolers or
recall and provide a refund for them, and (3) the states to establish
programs to assist local agencies in addressing potential lead
contamination.12 In 1990, EPA identified six models of water coolers from
one manufacturer that contained lead-lined tanks, but the agency was
unable to obtain information on the number of units produced. Regarding
water coolers that were not lead-free, EPA identified three manufacturers
that produced coolers containing lead solder that could contaminate
drinking water. The manufacturers reported producing at least 1 million of
the coolers.
Following the discovery of elevated lead levels in the District of
Columbia's drinking water, EPA undertook a year-long evaluation to gain
insight into how states and local communities are implementing the lead
rule and to determine whether the problems identified in the District of
Columbia are occurring elsewhere. EPA's activities included
o a series of expert workshops on key aspects of the rule (monitoring
protocols, simultaneous compliance, lead service line replacement, public
education, and lead in plumbing fittings and fixtures),
o a review of state policies and practices for implementing the lead rule,
o data verification audits that covered the collection and reporting of
compliance data for the lead rule in 10 states, and
o an expert workshop and a review of state efforts to monitor for lead in
drinking water at schools and child care facilities.
Participants in EPA's expert workshops included representatives of federal
and state regulatory agencies, drinking water systems, researchers, public
interest groups, and others.
Inadequate Data Impair EPA's Ability to Oversee Implementation of the Lead
Rule
Although EPA's data on the results of testing indicate that the lead rule
has largely been successful in reducing lead levels, the reporting of
these data has not been timely or complete. In addition, key data on the
status of water systems' efforts to implement the lead rule, including
required corrective actions, are incomplete. EPA's data on lead rule
violations are also questionable because of potential underreporting by
the states. The lack of data on key elements of lead rule implementation
makes it difficult for EPA and others to gauge the effectiveness of
efforts to meet and enforce the rule's requirements.
Although EPA's Data Suggest a Decline in Lead Levels, States' Reporting on
the Results of Lead Testing Has Not Been Timely or Complete
When the lead rule was first implemented, initial monitoring disclosed
that several thousand water systems had elevated lead levels-that is, more
than 10 percent of the samples taken at these systems exceeded the
15-parts-per-billion action level. EPA's most recent data indicate that
the number of water systems that exceed the lead action level has declined
by nearly 75 percent since the early 1990s. The systems that currently
have a problem with elevated lead levels represent about 2 percent of all
water systems and serve approximately 4.6 million people. Figure 3 shows
the results (by system size) of the initial lead monitoring, conducted
from 1992 to 1994, and more recent testing from 2002 through the quarter
ending in June 2005.13
Figure 3: Number of Community Water Systems That Exceeded the Lead Action
Level During the Initial Monitoring Period (1992-1994) and Their Most
Recently Completed Monitoring (2002-June 2005), by System Size
Notes: (1) Figure 3 includes data on active community water systems in the
50 states and the District of Columbia. The size categories for the water
systems are based on population served, with large systems serving
populations of greater than 50,000, medium systems from 3,301 to 50,000,
and small systems less than or equal to 3,300.
(2) Data for initial monitoring under the lead rule cover the period from
1992 to 1994 because the testing was phased in by system size. Large water
systems began monitoring in January 1992, medium systems in July 1992, and
small systems in July 1993.
(3) Many water systems have obtained approval to reduce the frequency with
which they are required to monitor for lead from every 6 months to once a
year or once every 3 years. Thus, to capture the most recent round of
testing for all water systems, we included data from 2002 through June
2005, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. A few
small systems have received approval to reduce their monitoring to once
every 9 years and may not be included in these statistics.
(4) Some water systems may have tested their lead levels multiple times
during the periods covered in this analysis; however, we included only the
results of the initial monitoring and the most recent test result for each
system.
(5) We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of examining trends in lead action levels.
EPA, state, and water industry officials generally see the decline in the
number of systems with elevated lead levels as evidence that the lead rule
has been effective and point to corrosion control treatment as the primary
reason. Another indicator of success is the number of water systems
approved for reduced monitoring. Under the lead rule, water systems can
obtain state approval to reduce both the frequency of monitoring and the
number of samples included in the testing when test results show lead
levels consistently below the action level. According to EPA's data,
nearly 90 percent of all water systems have qualified for reduced
monitoring.
After several years of experience with the lead rule, in January 2000, EPA
made significant changes to the information states were required to report
for inclusion in the agency's database. Among other things, EPA added a
requirement for states to report, for large and medium-sized systems, all
90th percentile test results, not just the results for systems that exceed
the action level. EPA said that it planned to use these test results to
show how levels of lead at the tap have changed over time for large and
medium systems and, by extrapolation, for small systems.
Although the new reporting requirements took effect in January 2002, EPA's
database contained 90th percentile test results for only 23 percent of the
large and medium systems by January 2004.14 EPA officials explained that
states were still having difficulty updating their information systems to
accommodate the new reporting requirements and, for EPA, obtaining the
data was not a priority at that time. Following the detection of elevated
lead levels in the District of Columbia, however, EPA made a concerted
effort to obtain more complete information from the states, and, as of
June 2004, EPA reported that it had data for nearly 89 percent of the
large and medium systems (based on an analysis of test results submitted
from January 2000 through May 2004). However, we also analyzed data on the
results of lead testing and found that EPA's database does not contain
current information for a much larger percentage of large and medium water
systems. Specifically, we found that for the period from January 2002
through June 2005, EPA's database lacks any test results for nearly 31
percent of the large and medium water systems.15 We could not determine
whether the data are missing because states have not reported the results
or because testing has not occurred. When asked whether states have been
updating test results in a timely manner since 2004, an official
representing EPA said that the timeliness of recent test data is unknown;
the agency has not been tracking whether states are adequately maintaining
data on the results of lead testing.
Regarding the information required for small water systems-which is
limited to test results exceeding the action level-officials from both the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance indicated that some data are probably missing but
could not provide specific estimates. An official from the Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water commented that EPA's database likely
includes most of the required small system data because action level
exceedances trigger follow-up activities and states are more likely to pay
attention to those cases.
EPA Does Not Have Complete Information on the Status of Water Systems'
Efforts to Implement Lead Rule
As part of EPA's efforts to improve its indicators of lead rule
implementation, the agency restructured its reporting requirements and
reduced the number of "milestones" that states are required to report from
11 to 3. EPA established three corrective action milestones, including (1)
a DEEM milestone, meaning that the system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control; (2) an LSLR milestone, meaning that the system is
required to begin replacing its lead service lines; and (3) a DONE
milestone, meaning that the system has completed all applicable
requirements for corrosion control, source water treatment, and lead
service line replacement.16
EPA officials told us that the vast majority of water systems should have
at least one milestone in the database. They indicated that in most
instances, systems should have a DEEM designation because they have
installed corrosion control or qualify for meeting the milestone
otherwise. However, we found that, overall, EPA has information on
corrective action milestones for only 28 percent of the community water
systems nationwide-and lacks any milestone data on the remaining 72
percent. Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis.
Table 1: Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported by the States through
June 2005, by System Size and Type of Milestonea
Systems
with
milestones
Systems Total
without systems
any with one or
milestone more
data milestonesc
System Number Number Percent DEEMb LSLR DONE Number Percent
size of
water
systems
Large 841 600 71.3 202 7 206 241 28.7
Medium 7,620 5,335 70.0 2,122 15 1,850 2,285 30.0
Small 42,991 31,195 72.6 11,254 21 8,838 11,796 27.4
Total 51,452 37,130 72.2 13,578 43 10,894 14,322 27.8
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
aThis table reflects the milestone data that states reported for active
community water systems.
bIn the case of the DEEM milestone, states are required to report the
basis for their determinations that systems have optimized corrosion
control and EPA established three reason codes for that purpose. We found
that EPA's database contained the required reason codes for 100 percent of
the 13,578 systems with a DEEM milestone.
cBecause individual water systems may have multiple milestones in EPA's
database, this column represents the number of unique systems with one or
more milestones to avoid "double counting."
The extent to which milestone data were reported to EPA varied from state
to state. We found that 22 states had not reported milestones for any of
their water systems and another 8 states had reported data on about 10
percent of their systems. (See app. II for a state-by-state breakdown of
reported milestone data.)
EPA officials believe that most water systems have actually taken the
steps necessary to meet the criteria for the DEEM milestone, at a minimum,
and attribute the lack of milestone data to non-reporting by the states
rather than noncompliance by the water systems. They also suggested that
some of the 22 states we identified as having reported no milestone data,
based on our analysis of EPA's current data, may have reported corrective
actions prior to 2000, when EPA modified the number and type of
milestones. However, we reviewed archived data in EPA's database and found
that 8 of the 22 states had also not reported any milestones prior to
2000, and another 11 states had reported data on no more than 10 percent
of their systems. Overall, the 50 states had reported milestone data for
only 5.7 percent of their community water systems prior to 2000.
Moreover, some information in EPA's database is inconsistent with other
reported data. Specifically, we found differences between the information
on lead service line replacement in EPA's database-systems having an LSLR
milestone-and the information states reported in the agency's 50-state
review of lead rule implementation policies and practices. As table 2
shows, seven states reported requiring lead service line replacement in
response to EPA's June 2004 query but did not have any LSLR milestones in
EPA's database in the same time frame.
Table 2: Differences in Reported Information on Lead Service Line
Replacement, as of June 2004
States reporting required lead service States reporting LSLR milestone
line replacement activity in EPA's June in EPA's database as of June
2004 information requesta 2004b
Arizona
Connecticut
Illinois Illinois
Iowa
Massachusetts Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota Minnesota
Montana Montana
New York
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
Utah
Wisconsin
Virginia
12 states 6 states
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
aIn response to EPA's information request, 11 states reported that some
water systems were voluntarily replacing lead service lines-or, in two
instances, the "goosenecks" connecting the water main to a service line.
The 11 states included one state (Michigan) that also reported requiring
one or more systems to replace lead service lines.
bThe District of Columbia was also identified in EPA's database with an
LSLR milestone.
In addition, after following up with state officials, we found that EPA's
database did not contain accurate data on the number of water systems
required to replace lead service lines because the states were not
providing timely updates or correcting erroneous information.
Data on Lead Rule Violations Are Questionable Because of Potential
Underreporting by the States
Periodic audits by EPA-and our own analyses-raise questions about the
completeness of EPA's data on lead rule violations. To assess the
reliability of its drinking water data, EPA regularly conducts data
verification audits that evaluate state compliance decisions and the
adequacy of states' reporting to the national database. In addition, EPA
prepares a national summary evaluation of the reliability of drinking
water data every 3 years. While past data verification audits have not
assessed compliance decisions under the lead rule, to the extent that
states' reporting practices are relatively consistent across regulations,
the audits may shed some light on the types of problems likely to be found
in the reporting of lead rule data. According to the most recent national
summary of data reliability,17 which covered audits conducted from 1999 to
2001, the estimated error rate for health-based violations-involving
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirements-was 35
percent, down from 60 percent in the prior national report, which covered
audits conducted from 1996 to 1998. For monitoring and reporting
violations, the estimated error rate was 77 percent, down from 91 percent
in the prior report. The March 2004 report said that most violation errors
resulted from incorrect compliance determinations by the states, meaning
that the state should have cited a violation but did not. Other problems
included "data flow" errors (when the state correctly identified a
violation but did not report it to EPA) and errors in EPA's database (such
as violations that were incorrectly reported or not removed when
rescinded).
Another analysis from EPA's March 2004 report did include the lead rule
and the results also raise questions about the completeness of EPA's data
on lead rule violations. The report states that by means of a tool that
tracks the number of violations reported in each state over a period of
several years, EPA determined that 14 states had not reported any
treatment technique violations under the lead rule during a 6-year period
from 1997 to
2002.18 The report noted that this potential non-reporting should be
evaluated further and recommended that EPA and the states conduct annual
evaluations of all instances of potential non-reporting. EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water asked the regional offices to follow up
with the states regarding the potential underreporting, as recommended in
the March 2004 report on data reliability. For the most part, however, the
regions' responses did not address the lack of treatment technique
violations under the lead rule in the applicable states; two of the
regional offices did not provide written responses. Officials from EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance were not aware of the
violations analysis. The officials told us that because of limited
resources, they focus their efforts on helping to ensure that states
address the worst compliance problems-water systems identified as
significant noncompliers as a result of the frequency or severity of their
violations.
A lack of violations-or a relatively low number of water systems with
violations-does not necessarily mean that states are not meeting reporting
requirements, or that their compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts
are inadequate. However, analyzing the violations data and following up on
the results could provide some useful insights into the reasons for
differences among the states; it could also help identify problem areas
and best practices. We updated EPA's analysis of violations and, as table
3 shows, the percentage of water systems that have had one or more
violations over the past 10 years varies from state to state, particularly
in the case of monitoring violations.
Table 3: Percentage of Systems with Violations from 1995 to June 2005a
Monitoring violations Treatment
technique
violations
Percent of systems with Number of Percent of Number of
violationsb states systems with states
violationsb
0 1 0 11
> 0 to 5 10 > 0 to 1 16
> 5 to 10 6 > 1 to 5 14
> 10 to 20 11 > 5 to 10 6
> 20 to 30 9 > 10 3
> 30 to 40 7
> 40 6
Total 50 Total 50
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
aWe used 1995 as the starting point for our analysis because all water
systems should have completed their initial monitoring by the end of 1994.
bSome water systems in EPA's database have multiple violations. To avoid
double counting, we identified the percent of unique systems with one or
more violations.
Appendix III contains a state-by-state analysis of lead rule violations
reported from 1995 to June 2005.
More recently, EPA conducted data verification audits during the fall of
2004, which focused exclusively on states' compliance determinations under
the lead rule in five states and included the lead rule as part of the
audit in another five states. However, the results are not yet available.
EPA officials have been analyzing the data and obtaining comments on the
preliminary findings from the states; they expect to issue a final report
by the end of calendar year 2005.
Lack of Data Affects EPA's Ability to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Lead
Rule Implementation and Enforcement
In changing its reporting requirements in January 2000, EPA recognized
that it needed better indicators of the lead rule's implementation.
Regarding the 90th percentile results of lead monitoring, EPA noted that
in terms of routine reporting, these data are the only measure it has for
showing the lead rule's effectiveness and said that, without such data,
the agency would have no way to measure progress.19 Similarly, EPA
maintained that having information on water systems' corrective action
milestones, along with quarterly violation and follow-up information,
would provide data on the status of lead rule implementation and allow the
targeting of compliance and enforcement activities.20 Given the reduced
number of milestones, EPA indicated that it would be critical for states
to report the information completely and in a timely manner, and that the
agency would be following up with the states to ensure that such reporting
was occurring.
Despite the importance of the 90th percentile results and corrective
action milestones to evaluating the lead rule's implementation, our
analyses confirmed or identified significant and longstanding gaps in the
amount of information available. Although EPA attempted to ensure that it
had complete data on the results of lead testing, following the publicity
surrounding the incidence of lead contamination in the District of
Columbia, the problems with incomplete test result data have continued and
the agency has not followed up on the missing milestone data. EPA has also
been slow to take action on the potential underreporting of violations. As
noted earlier, following its March 2004 report on data reliability, EPA
did not determine the reasons for the lack of violations reported by some
states. EPA's previous summary evaluation, which was issued in October
2000, identified similar indications of underreporting and called for
targeted attention to the applicable states and regions to address the
issues and develop action plans.21
EPA needs complete, accurate, and timely data to monitor water systems'
progress in implementing the lead rule, identify potential problem areas
and best practices, and take appropriate action. In particular, not having
complete or reliable data on corrective action milestones or violations
makes it difficult to assess the adequacy of EPA and state enforcement
efforts. However, officials from EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance told us that the amount of enforcement resources
devoted to the drinking water program-including enforcement of the lead
rule-has declined in recent years. They also told us that while they hold
monthly meetings with their counterparts in EPA's regional offices and
state officials to discuss the more significant violators, the officials
have not systematically evaluated state enforcement efforts with regard to
the lead rule. See appendix IV for information on EPA and state
enforcement actions, by type, from 1995 to June 2005.
EPA and state officials attribute the problems with lead rule data to the
complicated nature of the rule, the incompatibility of EPA and state
information management systems, and resource constraints. For example, EPA
officials noted that it is difficult to ensure that the database contains
complete information-and includes data on every system that is required to
test for lead in a particular period-because the frequency of required
testing can vary depending on whether a system has qualified for reduced
monitoring (and maintains that status in future periods). The same
circumstances also make it difficult to develop trend data. EPA and state
officials indicated that the January 2000 minor revisions to the lead
rule, which made significant changes in states' reporting requirements,
exacerbated existing problems with the transfer of accurate and timely
data from the states to EPA. For that and other reasons, modifying the
states' data systems to incorporate the new reporting milestones has been
delayed. In addition to problems with the structure of the information
systems-and technical problems in actually transferring data from the
states to EPA-EPA and state officials acknowledge that reporting water
systems' milestone data has been a low priority. The officials explained
that since January 2004, states have been focusing their limited resources
on reporting the 90th percentile test results for large and medium water
systems.
EPA and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators have been
working on a Safe Drinking Water Information System modernization effort
that should address at least some of current data problems, according to
EPA officials. Among other things, the modernization will make it easier
to transfer data between states and EPA so EPA's data will be more timely.
To improve the accuracy of the data, EPA's system will have a component
designed to validate state data before it is entered into the federal
database. As of October 2005, EPA had completed the transition to its
modernized system for the entry of new data.
Weaknesses in the Regulatory Framework for the Lead Rule May Undermine
Public Health Protection
Based on their experiences in implementing the lead rule, EPA, state, and
water system officials have identified six aspects of the rule for which
oversight could be improved or the requirements modified to increase
public health protection. Specifically, their experiences indicate that
(1) the sampling sites used for lead testing may no longer reflect areas
of highest risk, (2) reduced monitoring may not be appropriate in some
instances, (3) the homeowners who participate in tap monitoring may not be
informed of the test results, (4) controls over when and how treatment
changes are implemented may not be adequate, (5) data on the effectiveness
of lead service line replacement programs are limited, and (6) states vary
in how they apply the lead rule when water systems sell drinking water to
other systems. In addition, some of the officials responsible for
implementing the lead rule and other drinking water experts believe that
existing standards for plumbing fixtures may be outdated. EPA is
considering modifications to the lead rule that will address some of the
problems we identified.
Sampling Sites May No Longer Reflect Areas of Highest Risk
Under the lead rule, water systems must select sampling sites that are
considered to be at high risk for contamination. The rule defines Tier 1
sites as single-family structures served by lead service lines, and/or
containing lead pipes (or copper pipes with lead solder installed after
1982).22 According to participants in EPA's workshop on monitoring
protocols and state officials we interviewed, one problem is that EPA has
never updated its site selection criteria and at least one of the criteria
is outdated. Specifically, enough time has elapsed so that lead solder in
plumbing installed from 1983 to 1986 is no longer "fresh" (lead solder was
banned in 1986). Experts believe that, by now, solder from that period has
been coated by a naturally occurring film that prevents lead leaching.
Moving the sampling sites to other Tier 1 locations-for example, homes
served by lead service lines-could be problematic. In the preamble to the
lead rule, issued in 1991, EPA cited a survey by the American Water Works
Association which estimated that only about 20 percent of the nation's
community water systems have lead service lines. Moreover, although the
lead rule required water systems to do a "materials evaluation" to
identify an adequate pool of high risk sampling sites, according to EPA
the evaluation did not assess pipe materials system-wide, and many systems
do not have a complete inventory of their service lines.
A related problem is that sampling locations have likely changed over time
as sites are no longer available or appropriate, and states may not have
procedures in place to ensure that these locations continue to represent
the highest risk sites.23 In this regard, EPA requested information from
the states on how they "ensure that site locations were correctly followed
during system sampling rounds." As table 4 shows, a significant number of
states may not be tracking changes in water systems' sampling locations.
Table 4: State Activities to Ensure that Water Systems Are Taking Lead
Samples at Appropriate Sites
Activity Number of states
State uses tracking mechanisms such as special forms or 14
unique codes to control sampling sites
State reported a less rigorous or less defined means of 11
oversighta
State requires notification when systems change sampling 5
locations but does not otherwise track sampling
State does not review or track samplingb 8
State did not answer question or provided information 12
that was nonresponsive
Source: GAO analysis of EPA's information request on state implementation
policies and practices.
aFor example, some states reported comparing the actual sampling locations
with the sampling plans, some said that they advise their systems to
continue sampling at the locations used during the initial sampling
rounds, and others reported "reviewing" each round of sampling but did not
mention comparing the sites to the sampling plans.
bTwo of these states (California and Vermont) reported that they lacked
the resources to ensure that their water systems are taking samples at the
correct locations.
Another uncertainty is whether systems that are on reduced monitoring-and
have been allowed to reduce the number of samples they collect-are taking
samples from locations that represent the highest risk sites based on
previous testing.24 According to the lead rule, these water systems must
take their samples from sites included in the pool of high risk sampling
sites identified initially. Although the systems have some indication of
which sites within the pool have historically tested at higher or lower
lead levels, the rule is silent on how sites within the pool are to be
selected for reduced monitoring, except that they must be "representative"
of the sites required for standard monitoring. In addition, the rule
provides that states may specify the sampling locations. EPA requested
information from the states on what role they play in selecting the sites
used for reduced monitoring. We analyzed the states' responses and found
that, in most instances, the states' role is limited; table 5 summarizes
the results of our analysis.
Table 5: State Role in Selecting Sites for Reduced Monitoring
Activity Number of states
State requires that highest risk sites, based on previous 3
test results, are selected
State policy ensures that some of the highest risk sites, 9
based on previous test results, are selecteda
State provides general guidance and may review the water 19
systems' selectionsb
State plays no role in selecting sites for reduced 12
monitoring
State did not answer question or provided information 7
that was nonresponsive
Total 50
Source: GAO analysis of EPA's information request on state implementation
policies and practices.
aAmong other things, some states require systems to select every other
sampling site after ranking the sites by result from prior testing or
alternate sites in each round of sampling.
bFor example, many of these states instruct their water systems to focus
on Tier 1 sites first (if their sampling pool also contains Tier 2 or Tier
3 sites) or say that the sites must be representative of those in the pool
or of the distribution system.
Reduced Monitoring May Not Be Appropriate in Some Instances
According to EPA's lead rule, small and medium-sized water systems whose
test results are consistently at or below the action level may reduce the
frequency of monitoring from once every 6 months to annually and, if
acceptable results continue, to once every 3 years.25 In addition, systems
of any size that operate within water quality control parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment, as specified by the state,
may reduce the frequency of monitoring under the same schedule.26 The rule
also lays out conditions under which water systems must return to standard
monitoring-for example, small and medium-sized systems that have exceeded
the action level. In addition, states have the flexibility to require
systems to resume standard monitoring if the state deems it to be
appropriate.27 We analyzed EPA's compliance data and found some instances
that raise questions about the states' decisions to allow reduced
monitoring. Specifically, we found that 49 large and medium water systems
were exceeding the 15-parts-per-billion action level and appeared to be on
reduced monitoring schedules.28 In addition, our analysis indicates that
104 large and medium systems with lead levels of 13-15 parts per billion
also appear to be on reduced monitoring schedules. Although this is
allowable under EPA's regulations, according to some state officials,
systems with lead levels just below the action level should be subject to
closer scrutiny and, thus, may not be good candidates for reduced
monitoring.
To determine how states exercised their discretion with regard to
monitoring frequency, we reviewed their responses to EPA's information
request, which asked the states to describe how they determine if reduced
monitoring is appropriate. According to their responses, the states by and
large adhere to the requirements of the lead rule and allow reduced
monitoring whenever a water system's test results are at or below the
action level in consecutive monitoring periods.29 Specifically, 40 states
reported that they follow the federal regulation, 6 states indicated that
they may be using some additional criteria for their reduced monitoring
determinations,30 and 4 states did not answer or provided information that
was nonresponsive. EPA did not ask for the states' views on whether
reduced monitoring is appropriate when a water system's test results are
at or just below the action level or on circumstances in which states
might determine that previously approved reduced monitoring is no longer
appropriate-and the states did not volunteer such information. None of the
states reported using other criteria, such as test results that are at or
just below the action level, to delay or rescind approval for reduced
monitoring.
A key issue is whether water systems should be required to resume standard
monitoring following a major treatment change so that the potential
effects of the change can be evaluated. Given the circumstances in which
lead contamination became a problem in the District of Columbia, when a
change in the system's disinfection treatment impaired the effectiveness
of corrosion control, such decisions can be critical. In its information
request on state implementation policies and practices, EPA asked the
states whether they had ever required a system to conduct more frequent
monitoring to evaluate the potential effects of a treatment change. It
would have been useful to know more about the states' policies and
practices in this regard, including how often the states required
additional monitoring and the criteria they used in making such
determinations. However, EPA's question was limited in scope and, as table
6 shows, the states often did not elaborate.
Table 6: States That Require More Frequent Monitoring to Evaluate the
Effects of Treatment Changes
State policy Number of states
States answered yes without elaborating on the frequency 11
of-or criteria for-such decisions
States answered yes and included some indication of how 12
often they required additional monitoring (7 states) or
the criteria used for these decisions (5 states)a
State answer was ambiguous; it is unclear whether state 7
has ever required more frequent monitoring after a
treatment changeb
States answered no, generally without elaborationc 16
States did not answer question or provided information 4
that was nonresponsived
Total 50
Source: GAO analysis of EPA's information request on state implementation
policies and practices.
aFor example, two states indicated that requiring more frequent monitoring
was relatively common, while others reported that it was required in
certain instances or occasionally. Examples of criteria for more frequent
monitoring include (1) test results following a treatment change that are
close to the lead action level and (2) installing treatment that is
designed or expected to change water quality.
bResponses from these states referred to state regulations or policy
(e.g., "this is embedded in the approval process") but did not directly
answer the question of whether the state had ever required a system to
conduct more frequent monitoring. In several instances, it seems likely
that water systems have been required to monitor following a treatment
change.
cSeveral states indicated that additional monitoring was recommended or
encouraged following a treatment change but not required.
dTwo states did not answer the question and the responses from the other
two states only addressed monitoring requirements following changes to
corrosion control treatment.
In our discussions with 10 states, we found a variety of policies and
practices regarding reduced monitoring. For example, officials from
California and New York told us that they do not approve reduced
monitoring-or are reluctant to do so-when water systems' test results are
close to the lead action level. On the other hand, Connecticut and
Massachusetts officials indicated that they have systems that are on
reduced monitoring despite test results close to the action level. Several
other states indicated that, in the case of large water systems, approval
for reduced monitoring is linked to whether the systems are meeting their
water quality parameters-not the results of lead monitoring. On the issue
of monitoring following a major treatment change, some participants at
EPA's monitoring workshop stated that standard compliance monitoring does
not adequately evaluate the impact of treatment changes and that
monitoring immediately after major changes should be required. Several of
the states we contacted also favor increased monitoring under these
circumstances; Florida and New York, for example, require systems to
return to semi-annual monitoring following a treatment change.
Pennsylvania officials agree that the state and water system should
revisit the treatment approach when monitoring results indicate that a
treatment change is affecting water chemistry. However, the officials
acknowledged that they may not find out about the impact of treatment
changes in a timely manner when water systems are on a triennial
monitoring schedule.
Homeowners Who Participate in Periodic Tap Sampling May Not Be Notified of
the Test Results
According to EPA's information request on state implementation policies
and practices, only two states require their water systems to notify
homeowners of the results of lead testing-Texas (only when results exceed
the action level) and Wisconsin. At least 17 other states indicated that
notification may be occurring voluntarily to varying degrees. Table 7
summarizes the results of our analysis.
Table 7: State Views on Extent to Which Water Systems Are Notifying
Homeowners of the Results of Lead Testing
Extent of notification Number of states
All systems notify homeowners 1
Some systems notify homeownersa 15
Test results are provided only on request 2
State is not aware of any systems that notify homeowners 6
State does not know what systems are doingb 18
State apparently misinterpreted EPA's questionc 8
Total 50
Source: GAO analysis of EPA's information request on state implementation
policies and practices.
aThe states' answers varied considerably. For example, some states
indicated that their larger water systems are providing results to
homeowners and some indicated that homeowners got the results only if they
exceeded the action level.
bIn a few instances, the states indicated that they recommended that their
water systems provide homeowners with test results. For example, Hawaii
recommends notifying the homeowner if test results exceed 100 parts per
billion, both to alert the homeowner and to verify that the sampling
protocol was followed correctly. However, the states in this category did
not have information on whether homeowners were actually getting test
results.
cEPA asked if water systems provide homeowners with the lead sampling
results derived from "any volunteer sampling program." Based on their
answers, it appears that these states may have believed that EPA was
asking about any testing above and beyond the regular sampling program
involving residential tap samples. For example, several states said that
they were not aware of any systems performing volunteer sampling programs
and others indicated that their systems will conduct lead testing for
homeowners on request.
Controls over When and How Treatment Changes Are Implemented May Not Be
Adequate
In some instances, changes to other treatment processes can make corrosion
control less effective. According to EPA, state, and industry officials,
one of the biggest challenges in implementing the lead rule is achieving
"simultaneous compliance" with other rules, including, in particular,
rules related to total coliform bacteria, surface water treatment, and
disinfection by-products. Changing the type of disinfectant a system uses
to control bacteria, for example, can impair the effectiveness of a
system's corrosion control treatment to prevent lead contamination. Among
other things, states assuming primary enforcement responsibility must have
a process for ensuring that the design and construction of new or
substantially modified water system facilities will be capable of meeting
drinking water regulations, including the lead rule.31 In addition, in its
minor revisions to the lead rule, EPA added a requirement that certain
water systems must notify the state no later than 60 days after making a
change in water treatment.32 However, the responses to EPA's information
request raise questions about the nature and extent of states' reviews of
treatment changes. On the one hand, 31 states indicated that they had some
type of proactive process to review or evaluate treatment changes, before
or after the treatment was installed, including 15 states that reported
requiring some or all of the affected water systems to provide information
on the potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control.33 On
the other hand, it appears that in at least 15 states, the plan review
process may be limited, or the states may not be receiving notifications
from all their water systems. For example, some states indicated that
their review process only covers changes to a system's physical
infrastructure-or specifically excludes changes in the chemicals used in a
process. Other states reported that they are not learning of some
treatment changes until they conduct comprehensive inspections of the
water systems, or that small systems in particular are not notifying the
state when they change their treatment processes.
Some of the participants in EPA's May 2004 workshop on simultaneous
compliance cited a need for additional regulations or guidance to help
ensure that the effectiveness of corrosion control is maintained when
water systems make changes to other treatment processes. For example, some
participants suggested that the lead rule should better define or even
specify the types of treatment changes that (1) should be reported to the
state and (2) trigger additional monitoring or analysis. Along those
lines, Washington state officials told us that certain changes, such as
switching the disinfectant from chlorine to chloramines or making
adjustments that affect the water's pH or alkalinity, may warrant closer
review because of the potential impact on corrosion control. The officials
also noted that additional guidance from EPA on these matters would be
helpful. Others believe that small water systems, in particular, need more
guidance on the potential effects of various treatment changes, and that
operator certification and training programs should be updated to address
these topics.
Data on the Effectiveness of Lead Service Line Replacement Programs Are
Limited
Under the lead rule, drinking water systems may be required to replace
lead service lines if test results exceed the action level after
installing corrosion control and/or source water treatment. Some of the
participants in an EPA workshop on lead service line replacement and state
officials we contacted raised questions about the effectiveness of
replacement programs, in part because such programs often result in
partial replacement only. Water systems are responsible for replacing only
the portion of the service lines they own. While residential customers
may, at their option, pay the cost of replacing the rest of the service
line-typically, the portion running from the curb stop or property line to
the household plumbing system-some evidence suggests that customer
participation in such programs is generally low.
According to workshop participants, little conclusive information is
available on the extent to which removing lead service lines lowers lead
levels at the tap. In a survey of water systems conducted for the American
Water Works Association, 18 of 27 respondents indicated that lead service
lines were not responsible for the highest levels of lead in drinking
water, and 20 of 29 respondents reported no observed linkage between lead
service lines and lead levels in drinking water.34 However, the survey did
not include information on test results before and after replacement of
lead service lines. The American Water Works Association Research
Foundation is sponsoring a study of the relative contributions of service
lines and plumbing fixtures to lead levels at the tap; the projected
completion is fall 2008.
The limited data on the extent and results of lead service line
replacement programs make it difficult to draw conclusions about the
programs' effectiveness or the need for additional regulations or
guidance. As noted earlier, EPA's data on corrective action
milestones-including the LSLR milestone-are incomplete. Moreover, few
states reported requiring systems to replace lead service lines in
response to EPA's information request on state implementation policies and
practices. Specifically, when asked if they have any systems that have
been required to do lead service line replacement, five states answered
"yes" without elaborating and seven states reported a total of 27 water
systems that are (or were) replacing lead lines.35 In addition, although
the lead rule requires testing following partial service line replacement,
it appears that neither the states nor EPA are collecting and analyzing
these test results. EPA asked states to describe the process they use to
ensure that water systems are following the requirements for lead service
line replacement. Among other things, the lead rule requires systems to
collect samples within 72 hours following partial replacement and to
notify homeowners and occupants of the results. States may waive the
requirement that these test results also be provided to the states. Of the
12 states that reported requiring one or more water systems to replace
lead service lines, only one indicated that its water systems might be
required to report the results of service line testing to the state.36
Some of the officials we contacted raised concerns about whether the
benefits of replacement are enough to justify what can be a significant
investment. For example, Iowa drinking water officials commented that
partial replacement is not a good use of resources because it disturbs the
line, releasing lead particulate matter into the water, and still leaves
half the lead line in place. In addition, officials from the Syracuse
Water Department told us that they are planning to replace lead service
lines at a cost of $5.3 million, although they are skeptical that the
effort will significantly reduce lead levels, citing the age of the
housing stock and lead contributions from internal residential plumbing.
The officials attribute the city's problem with elevated lead levels to a
simultaneous compliance issue. Specifically, adding a phosphate-based
corrosion inhibitor to further reduce the corrosiveness of the drinking
water solves one problem but creates another: excessive phosphates in the
system's discharges to a local lake.
Participants at EPA's workshop on lead service line replacement and some
of the state and water industry officials we contacted suggested measures
to help ensure that water systems maximize the potential benefits of
replacement efforts. For example, some workshop participants called for
EPA guidance on strategies to encourage full service line replacement and
motivate customers to have their portion of the line removed. Such
strategies might include subsidizing a portion of the replacement cost,
offering low interest loans or property tax relief, requiring disclosure
of lead service lines in property sales, or providing more information on
the health effects of exposure to lead in drinking water. Others suggested
that prioritizing the replacement of lead service lines would help ensure
that replacement activities focus on the populations most at risk from
exposure to elevated lead levels. Some utilities are already prioritizing
service line replacement using criteria such as locations with vulnerable
populations, including schools and child care facilities, locations where
test results have exceeded the action level, and lines serving 20 or more
people in an 8-hour day.
States Vary in How They Apply the Lead Rule When Water Systems Sell
Drinking Water to Other Systems
We found some differences among the states in how interconnected water
systems-generally comprising a system that sells drinking water along with
one or more systems that buy the water-are required to monitor for lead
and report the results. According to EPA's proposed definitions, these
interconnected water systems are known as "combined water distribution
systems."37 The variations in state implementation practices create
differences in the level of public information and, potentially, public
health protection. Combined distribution systems account for a large and
growing share of the nation's community water systems so differences in
how they implement the lead rule could have broad implications for public
health protection. Overall, EPA estimates that there are currently about
2,800 combined distribution systems that encompass about 13,900 individual
systems, likely accounting for a significant share of all community water
systems.38 Under EPA regulations that establish general requirements for
drinking water monitoring, states may modify the monitoring requirements
imposed on combined distribution systems-typically by reducing the number
of samples required within the combined system-"to the extent that the
interconnection of the systems justifies treating them as a single system
for monitoring purposes."39 However, in the case of the lead rule, EPA
strongly discouraged such modifications, commenting that they would not be
appropriate because the primary source of elevated lead levels at the tap
is materials within the distribution system.
At least four of the states we contacted-Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon,
and Washington-approved modified sampling arrangements at combined
distribution systems. For example, the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, which supplies all of the drinking water for 30 communities,40
currently takes lead samples at 440 locations under its modified sampling
arrangement-significantly fewer than the 1,720 samples that would be
required if each of the consecutive systems tested for lead individually.
On the other hand, if the combined distribution system represented a
single water system, only 100 samples would be required.
EPA does not have comprehensive information on the extent to which states
are approving modified sampling arrangements at combined distribution
systems-or the reporting practices used by such systems. As table 8 shows,
we found differences in how combined distribution systems calculated and
reported their 90th percentile test results.
Table 8: Examples of Different Reporting Practices for Lead Testing in
Combined Water Distribution Systems as of June 2005
Water wholesaler Number of How the systems are How the 90th
consecutive listed in EPA's percentile lead
systems fully database levels are
supplied by the calculated and
wholesalera reported in EPA's
database
Detroit, MI 72 Wholesaler and each Separate lead
consecutive system are level
listed separately calculations for
the wholesaler
and each
consecutive
system
Massachusetts 30 One listing for the One overall
Water Resources combined distribution result, reported
Authority (MA) system (including the for the combined
wholesaler and the distribution
consecutive systems) system
Philadelphia, PA 3 Wholesaler and each Separate lead
consecutive system are level
listed separately calculations for
the wholesaler
and each
consecutive
system
Portland, OR 15 Wholesaler and each One overall
consecutive system are result; same 90th
listed separately percentile
reported for
wholesaler and
each consecutive
system
Seattle, WA 19 One listing for the One overall
combined distribution result, reported
system (including the for the combined
wholesaler and the distribution
consecutive systems) system
Source: GAO analysis of data from EPA and the wholesaler water systems.
aThe water wholesalers may also partially supply other systems or provide
emergency supplies, and may sell water to certain non-transient,
noncommunity water systems-systems that serve at least 25 people for more
than 6 months in a year-and generally are subject to the same requirements
as community water systems.
Not only do the reporting practices approved by the states affect the
amount of information available to the public-they can also have
implications for the corrective actions that are taken to reduce lead
levels. For example, reporting one overall result for lead testing can be
misleading if the 90th percentile levels at individual consecutive systems
would have exceeded the action level. In the case of the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, although EPA's database contains the overall
result for the combined system, authority officials calculated the 90th
percentile results for each of the consecutive systems and determined that
lead concentrations at some of them exceeded the action level.41 State
officials in Massachusetts told us that until recently, none of the
consecutive systems whose individual test results exceeded the action
level were required to meet public notification or public education
requirements or to replace lead service lines-as long as the result for
the combined system met the action level. Although EPA regional officials
concurred with such arrangements when they were first established, EPA is
now considering how to ensure that the lead rule requirements will be
applied to each community within a combined distribution system. Based on
discussions with EPA regional officials, Massachusetts has already changed
its policy and will be revisiting agreements with combined distribution
systems.
Outdated Plumbing Standards Hinder Efforts to Reduce Exposure to Lead in
Drinking Water
The standards applicable to plumbing products are important to utility
managers who are responsible for ensuring the quality of water at the tap
but have little control over household plumbing. However, existing
standards may not be protective enough, according to some experts, because
testing has determined that some of the products defined as "lead-free"
under the Safe Drinking Water Act can still contribute high levels of lead
to drinking water. For example, although the act prohibits the use of
solder or other plumbing materials in the installation or repair of any
public water system if it is not lead-free, lead-free is defined to
include materials that contain small amounts of lead. That is, solders and
flux may contain up to 0.2 percent lead, pipes and pipe fittings may
contain up to 8 percent lead. In addition, plumbing fittings and fixtures
may leach lead up to 11 parts per billion into drinking water and still be
deemed lead-free, according to voluntary standards established by an
independent organization and accepted by EPA.42
NSF International (NSF)-a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization
involved in standards development and product certification-established
the standard in 1997.43 NSF used a voluntary consensus process that
included representatives from regulatory agencies, industry, water
suppliers, consultants, and other users of the products governed by the
standard.
One problem with the current regulatory framework is that certain devices
used in or near residential plumbing systems are not covered by all
standards for lead-free plumbing. Table 9 shows how the standards
governing lead content and lead leaching apply to specific categories of
products.
Table 9: Applicability of Standards for Lead-Free Plumbing Products
Type of plumbing product 8% limit on lead 11 ppb limit on
content lead leaching
Endpoint devices, such as kitchen and X X
lavatory faucets, water dispensers,
drinking fountains, and residential
refrigerator ice makersa
In-line devices, such as meters and X
valvesb
Source: EPA and NSF International.
aNSF defines endpoint devices as mechanical plumbing devices, components,
and materials that are typically installed with the last liter of the
distribution system and are intended by the manufacturer to dispense water
for human consumption.
bNSF defines in-line devices as devices installed on a service line of
building distribution system downstream of the water main and before
endpoint devices. They include devices in a building used to measure or
control the flow of water in treatment, transmission, or distribution
systems and are in contact with drinking water.
Some of the products that are not covered by the voluntary leaching
standard have been found to contribute high levels of lead to drinking
water during testing. For example, tests conducted by NSF indicate that
certain meters and valves may contribute high levels of lead to drinking
water. At our request, NSF compiled test results for a nonprobability
sample of water meters and valves that had been submitted for evaluation.
While all of the products in the sample were well below the 8 percent
limit on lead content, the test results showed that the amount of lead
leached from the selected water meters ranged from 0.4 parts per billion
up to 39 parts per billion and, in the case of valves, ranged from a low
of 4.1 parts per billion to as much as 530 parts per billion. An NSF
official commented that although these products are representative of what
is submitted to NSF for testing, they are probably not representative of
what is available in the marketplace because some manufacturers have two
product lines-a low-lead line for buyers who specify products that meet
NSF Standard 61 and a higher-leaded line for other buyers.
Another issue is that NSF's testing protocol for lead leaching may not
accurately reflect actual conditions and may need to be modified. One
recent study identified several aspects of NSF's testing protocol that
should be reevaluated, including, for example, the chemistry of the water
in which tests are conducted. After demonstrating that potentially unsafe
devices could pass NSF's test, the study concluded that the protocol
"lacks the rigor necessary to prevent installation of devices that pose an
obvious public health hazard."44 NSF officials told us that they are aware
of the concerns and have already made some clarifications and changes to
the protocol. NSF has also established a task force, the Drinking Water
Additives Joint Committee, which will be reviewing the protectiveness of
NSF Standard 61 and related testing.
Representatives of NSF, water utilities, and researchers also took issue
with the standard for lead content, noting that it has not been updated to
reflect current manufacturing capabilities and practices. According to the
American Water Works Association, manufacturing technology in the plumbing
industry has improved since the lead-free definition was established
nearly 20 years ago, and today's plumbing products contain less lead as a
result. Data on the lead content of plumbing products voluntarily
submitted to NSF for evaluation, shown in table 10, suggest that
manufacturers can produce products with lead levels well below the 8
percent standard.
Table 10: Summary of NSF Test Results Regarding Lead Content of Plumbing
Products Voluntarily Submitted to NSF for Certification
Results of Results of testing
testing on on meters and valves
faucets
Lead Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
content number percent number percent
1.0% or 2,069 37.3 930 75.1
less
3.7% or 5,495 99.0 1,104 89.1
less
8.0% or 5,551 100.0 1,236 99.8
less
Total 5,551 100.0 1,239 100.0
products
tested
Source: NSF.
Note: This table contains cumulative data on the number and percent lead
content of faucets, meters, and valves voluntarily submitted to NSF for
certification. The data should not be generalized beyond this group.
According to NSF, the extent to which lead leaches from products
containing lead is not directly proportional to the level of lead used in
any one alloy contained in the product.45 NSF identified several factors
that contribute to the level of leaching, including the corrosiveness of
the water, lead content, the extent of the leaded surface area, and the
process used to manufacture the product. However, the state regulators,
water industry representatives, and other experts we interviewed generally
agreed that lowering the existing standard for lead content is feasible
and would provide an extra margin of safety. Both the Copper Development
Association and the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute acknowledged that
most plumbing products are below the 8 percent limit on lead content but
prefer that plumbing standards focus on performance-the leaching of
lead-rather than content.
We did not attempt to determine the extent to which the standards for
lead-free plumbing products are enforced. According to NSF, the use of
plumbing products within a building is generally regulated at the state,
county, and city levels through plumbing codes. NSF representatives also
said that all model plumbing codes reference NSF Standard 61 for pipes,
fittings, and faucets.46 NSF reports that most faucets sold at the retail
and wholesale level are certified to meet Standard 61, but fewer valves
and other in-line devices are certified to the standard because it is not
required in model plumbing codes.
State efforts to implement more stringent standards for plumbing products
appear limited, based on our discussions with federal and state regulators
and representatives of the water industry and plumbing manufacturers. We
identified two states in which such activities have occurred:
o In California, the Attorney General sued 16 manufacturers and
distributors of kitchen and bathroom faucets in the early 1990s, alleging
that lead leaching from brass components of their faucets violated
California law.47 The suit resulted in settlement agreements with the
companies and a related court decision in which they agreed to reduce
leaching levels. According to an official with the California Attorney
General's Office, the limit on lead leaching is 5 parts per billion for
residential kitchen faucets and 11 parts per billion for all other
faucets.
o According to officials with the Massachusetts Board of State Examiners
of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, in 1995 the board established a 3 percent
limit on the lead content of endpoint and in-line devices installed inside
the home. Board officials acknowledge that enforcement of the standard is
difficult because products containing more than 3 percent lead may be sold
in Massachusetts stores as long as the products are not installed in
Massachusetts homes. Moreover, the packaging does not indicate lead
content or certification to the state standard.
At the local level, some water systems are installing no-lead meters-which
contain less than 0.25 percent lead-because of concerns about the
potential impact of leaded brass meters on lead levels at the tap. In some
instances, the water systems are targeting their meter replacement to
buildings housing schools and child care facilities.
EPA Is Considering Modifications to the Lead Rule to Address Some Problem
Areas
Based on its year-long evaluation of the lead rule and how it is being
implemented, EPA concluded that the conditions that led to elevated lead
levels in the District of Columbia were not indicative of the conditions
nationwide. However, in November 2004, while its evaluation was still
ongoing, EPA issued a guidance memorandum to reiterate and clarify
specific regulatory requirements after the agency's review of state
programs and some press reports identified inconsistencies in how drinking
water systems and the states were carrying out the regulation. The
memorandum focused on requirements related to collecting samples and
calculating compliance. In addition, in March 2005, EPA announced a
Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan to improve and clarify specific areas
of the rule and the agency's guidance materials. The plan identifies nine
targeted revisions of the regulations and updates to two guidance
documents.
Specifically, EPA's lead reduction plan calls for regulatory revisions to
the following:
o Monitoring requirements. These revisions would (1) clarify the number of
samples required, (2) clarify the number of locations from which samples
should be collected, (3) modify definitions of "monitoring period" and
"compliance period," (4) clarify the requirement to take all samples
within the same calendar year, and (5) reconsider allowing large water
systems that exceed the lead action level to qualify for reduced
monitoring as long as their test results for water quality parameters are
within acceptable limits.
o Treatment requirements. These revisions would require water systems to
notify the state of treatment changes 60 days prior to the change rather
than within 60 days following the change.
o Customer awareness requirements. These revisions would (1) require water
systems to disclose test results to homeowners and occupants who
participate in tap monitoring programs and (2) permit states to allow
water systems to modify flushing instructions-the amount of time that
homeowners are advised to run water before using it-to address local
circumstances.
o Lead service line replacement requirements. These revisions would
require water systems to reevaluate lead service lines that previously
"tested out" of the replacement program as a result of low lead levels if
a subsequent treatment change causes the systems to exceed the action
level.48
In addition, EPA is considering updating its 1994 guidance on lead in
drinking water in schools and non-residential buildings, along with its
1999 guidance on simultaneous compliance.
So far, EPA has not released additional details on the nature of the
changes being considered in some areas (e.g., number of samples and
sampling locations) or what prompted its determination that revisions to
the lead rule and related guidance might be warranted. An EPA workgroup,
which was established when the lead reduction plan was issued, is
developing the proposed rule for the regulatory changes, with a goal of
releasing a proposal in late 2005 or early 2006. Revisions to the guidance
documents are scheduled to be completed about the same time.
While the exact nature of some changes has yet to be defined, we asked the
10 states we contacted for their views on whether the proposed revisions
would improve implementation of the lead rule. For the most part, state
officials were in favor of the proposed changes involving the monitoring
protocols. Although they wanted more details on how the requirements would
be revised, they believed the changes to be relatively minor. In
particular, most state officials agreed that large water systems that
exceed the action level should not be allowed to reduce the frequency of
lead monitoring based solely on their ability to meet water quality
parameters.
Regarding earlier notification of treatment changes, officials from all 10
states we contacted supported such a revision, particularly for major
treatment changes. The officials indicated that the notification
requirement would not have a significant impact on their own practices
because each of the states already had some type of process in place to
permit or review treatment changes. Five of the states questioned whether
60 days advance notice would be sufficient to allow an adequate review.
Several states suggested that EPA should require expedited monitoring of
lead levels following major treatment changes-or issue guidance on when it
would be appropriate for states to require such monitoring-and that EPA
should issue guidance on what constitutes a major treatment change. In
addition, officials from two states commented that EPA should require
state approval of the treatment changes in addition to advance
notification.
On the proposed revisions involving customer awareness, all 10 states
agreed that homeowners that participate in the tap sampling program should
be informed of the test results-particularly if the results for individual
homeowners exceed the lead action level-whether or not the 90th percentile
result for the entire system exceeds the action level. One state was
concerned about the additional resources that would be required to track
the water systems' actions. Nearly all of the states also endorsed the
proposal to give states and water systems more flexibility in determining
what flushing instructions are appropriate in particular situations. Some
states suggested that EPA guidance on making such determinations would be
useful.
Regarding the proposed reevaluation of lead service lines that tested out
of a replacement program, the states' views were mixed. Although five
states generally endorsed the idea, the other five states raised several
concerns, including the potential cost to local drinking water systems,
the administrative burden that such a requirement would impose on states,
and the need for more specific information on the types of treatment
changes that would trigger a reevaluation of lead service lines.
Over the long term, EPA plans to examine other issues related to lead rule
implementation that may need to be addressed through regulation or
guidance. EPA officials have indicated that, in some instances, they need
more information to determine whether changes are warranted, and they are
in the process of collecting and analyzing data, or have relevant research
projects underway. According to EPA officials, some of the issues they
plan to review include the sampling protocol, monitoring and reporting
requirements for consecutive systems, the impact of disinfection treatment
on corrosion control, and the requirements for lead service line
replacement.
Limited Data Indicate Few Schools and Child Care Facilities Test or Take
Other Measures to Control Lead in Their Water Supplies
Little information exists on the results of activities initiated after
enactment of the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of 1988, including
the recall of lead-lined water coolers from schools and child care
facilities. More recent efforts to detect and remediate lead in the
drinking water at such facilities also appear limited. As a result, the
extent to which drinking water may contain unacceptable levels of lead at
schools and child care facilities nationwide is uncertain. In addition, no
clear focal point exists at the federal or state level to collect and
analyze the results of testing and remediation efforts. Moreover, state
and local officials say that addressing other environmental hazards at
schools and child care facilities takes priority over testing for lead in
drinking water.
Little Information Exists on the Results of the Recall of Lead-Lined Water
Coolers and Other Activities Prompted by the LCCA
The LCCA, enacted in 1988, laid out a number of requirements for EPA, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the states to address the
potential risks of lead contamination in water supplies serving schools
and child care facilities. Among other things, the act
o banned the manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers containing
lead-lined tanks and other water coolers that are not lead-free,
o required EPA to publish a list of such coolers and distribute it to the
states along with guidance on testing for and remedying lead contamination
in drinking water, and
o required the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue an order
requiring manufacturers and importers to (1) repair or replace the coolers
or (2) recall and provide a refund for them because coolers containing
lead-lined tanks were deemed to be imminently hazardous consumer products.
In addition, the LCCA required states to establish programs to assist
local agencies in addressing potential lead contamination. While the
nature and extent of state activities varied widely, the program was never
funded, according to EPA officials. In 1996, the requirement was
determined to be unconstitutional.49
To support the required recall, EPA identified six models of water coolers
containing lead-lined tanks, all produced by one company and manufactured
prior to April 1979. EPA could not obtain information on the number of
units produced. The Consumer Product Safety Commission broadened the
recall order to include all tank-type models of drinking water coolers
manufactured by the company, whether or not the models were included on
EPA's list.50 Under the terms of the order, the manufacturer established a
process under which qualified owners of the affected coolers could request
a refund or replacement. The manufacturer was also required to notify
appropriate officials and organizations, including state and school
officials and day care centers, about the recall and the availability of
refunds and replacements.
Little information is available to determine the effectiveness of the
recall effort in removing lead-lined water coolers from service.51 Not
only is the number of coolers affected by the recall unknown, but the
Consumer Product Safety Commission did not have summary data on the
results of the recall. An agency official confirmed information in a 1991
Natural Resources Defense Council report that, as of 1990, the Commission
had received approximately 1,200 inquiries about the recall, 1,373 coolers
had been determined to be eligible for replacement, 514 had been replaced,
and 105 refunds had been mailed to customers.52 However, the official also
said that many more coolers were replaced after that date and that by
1993, the manufacturer had received approximately 11,000 inquiries about
the recall. The official believed that the actual number of replacements
was potentially 10 times greater than those reported in 1991 and the
refunds four to five times greater. In addition, the recall order did not
specify an end date for filing a refund or replacement request so an
unknown number of coolers could have been taken out of service without the
knowledge of the manufacturer or the Commission subsequent to 1993.
According to several state and school officials we interviewed, virtually
all of the water coolers affected by the recall have been replaced or
removed, either as a result of the publicity surrounding the recall or
because they had already been taken out of service. Some of the six models
covered by the recall were manufactured in the 1950s and 1960s and are
likely to have been retired because of their age or maintenance problems.
Beyond the recall effort, little or no data are available to assess the
effectiveness of other actions taken in response to the LCCA. For example,
little information is available on the extent to which schools and child
care facilities were inspected to check potential lead contamination from
water coolers that were not lead-free. While the act did not require EPA
or the states to track or report on the results of testing, EPA was
responsible for publishing guidance and a testing protocol to assist
schools in determining the source and degree of lead contamination in
school drinking water supplies and remedying such contamination. EPA
published guidance for both schools and child care facilities in 1989 and
1994, respectively.53
We found no information indicating how pervasive lead-contaminated
drinking water in such facilities nationwide or within particular states
might be, but several studies conducted in the early 1990s contained some
limited information on testing efforts:
o In 1993, we reported on the results of a survey of 57 school districts
in 10 states.54 We found that 47 districts were able to provide data on
the results of testing, which showed that about 15 percent of the 2,272
schools tested had drinking water containing levels of lead considered
unacceptable by EPA. We also contacted child care licensing agencies in 16
states to obtain information on their activities for addressing lead
hazards and found that none of the agencies routinely inspected child care
facilities for such hazards.
o A 1990 report by EPA's Inspector General found that, of the 13 school
districts surveyed, 10 conducted some testing for lead in drinking water
and 8 detected contamination, with some results exceeding acceptable
levels by a wide margin.55
o According to the Natural Resources Defense Council's 1991 study,56 47
states reported some testing of school drinking water supplies, including
16 states that tested in "a few" to 25 percent of their schools, 27 states
that tested from 25 percent to 82 percent of the schools, and 4 states
that tested 95 percent or more of their schools. The study also found that
17 states reported testing at child care facilities.
In addition to these earlier studies, in 2004 EPA asked the states to
provide information on current state and local efforts to monitor and
protect children from lead exposure in drinking water at schools and child
care facilities.57 As part of that effort, seven states also reported on
the results of local testing following passage of the LCCA, stating that
elevated lead levels were found in at least some of the locations
tested.58 However, the states differed significantly in the extent of
their testing and how they summarized the results. In five of the states,
the results generally ranged from about 1 percent to 27 percent of
samples, facilities, or districts with lead levels considered unacceptable
by EPA-but the other two states finding elevated lead levels used a
different assessment measure.
Current Efforts to Detect and Remediate Lead in Drinking Water at Schools
and Child Care Facilities Also Appear Limited
The extent of current testing and remediation activities for lead in
school and child care facility drinking water appears limited. The LCCA
does not require states to track or report such activities and, based on
the information that EPA collected from the states in 2004 and our own
contacts in 10 states, few states have comprehensive programs to detect
and remediate lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities.
Figure 4 shows the nature and extent of these activities; about half the
states reported no current efforts.
Figure 4: Summary of State Efforts to Address Lead in Drinking Water at
Schools and Child Care Facilities
Notes: (1) All states but Colorado responded to EPA's information request;
about half the states submitted multiple responses, generally because
responsibility for addressing lead issues at schools and child care
facilities is shared by both health and environmental agencies.
(2) The figure summarizes the most frequently reported activities by the
states. While nearly half the states reported no activities, others
reported activities in more than one of the categories we used. In
addition to the activities summarized in figure 4, 26 states reported
having lead poisoning prevention programs that include testing blood lead
levels of children and investigating the source of any problems
identified. We did not include these programs in our summary because the
investigations usually focus initially on a child's home environment and
the presence of lead paint. However, they could ultimately involve testing
the drinking water at schools or child care facilities.
(3) Some states reported testing for lead at schools or child care
facilities that have their own water systems. We did not include this
activity in figure 4 because such testing is required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Of the five states that reported having testing requirements,
four-Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vermont-require child
care facilities to test their drinking water for lead contamination when
obtaining or renewing their licenses.59
59In New Hampshire, the testing requirement applies only to facilities
that care for 24 or fewer children and have their own independent water
supply.
In the fifth state (Massachusetts), the testing requirement focuses on
schools. Water systems must include two schools among their sampling sites
in each round of lead testing, although the school data are not included
in the 90th percentile calculation to determine whether lead levels exceed
the action level. Massachusetts officials told us that, although the
testing requirement has been in place since 1992, it has not received much
attention until recently. The officials acknowledged that most water
systems repeatedly used the same schools as sampling sites for the sake of
convenience and said that the state has never summarized the results of
the school testing. Given the renewed concerns about lead contamination
following the detection of lead in the District of Columbia's drinking
water, Massachusetts now requires water systems to rotate testing among
schools and child care facilities and plans to issue a summary report at
the end of 2005.
In addition to these requirements, Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection reported to EPA that it had established a voluntary program.
Specifically, the state designated child care facilities as Tier 1, high
risk sites and gave water systems the option of using the facilities as
lead sampling sites and including them in the calculation of the 90th
percentile lead level. (According to a Florida official, to be included as
a sampling site, the child care facility must meet other Tier 1 criteria,
such as being served by a lead service line.) However, when we followed up
with state officials, they said that they had no way of tracking the
extent to which water systems were actually including child care
facilities as sampling sites.
The scope of the targeted testing reported by 12 states varied widely,
from a single school district in Pennsylvania to over 1,300 homes and
child care facilities in Indiana. Several states indicated that they were
focusing on potential high risk locations. EPA regional offices helped to
initiate some limited testing in a few states, including Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; the testing generally focused on a
few of the states' largest school districts. The state-sponsored surveys
to determine the status of testing by local agencies also varied, with
some covering all schools within the state and others focusing on a
smaller subset of schools. In Washington, the state recently set aside
$750,000, including $400,000 from its drinking water state revolving fund,
to partially reimburse school districts for the cost of monitoring for
lead in elementary schools' drinking water.
EPA officials attributed the relatively low level of state activity in
recent years to the aftereffects of a 1996 lawsuit brought by the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now against the state of
Louisiana for not doing enough to implement the LCCA. The case resulted in
a federal circuit court decision declaring that part of the LCCA was
unconstitutional. Specifically, the court ruled that the federal
government did not have the authority to require states to establish a
remedial action program as outlined in the LCCA.60 While Louisiana
reported to EPA that the case "had the unintended effect of ending the
lead program in schools for the state of Louisiana," none of the 10 states
we contacted cited the ruling as a factor in limiting their efforts.
To obtain more information about testing and remedial actions in
individual cities, we contacted five school districts-Boston, Detroit,
Philadelphia, Seattle, and Syracuse. Table 11 shows the extent and results
of testing within each district, and provides information on the various
approaches school administrators have used to address the lead
contamination.
Table 11: Information on Recent Efforts to Test for and Remediate Lead in
Drinking Water in Five School Districts
School district Scope and results of Type and cost of remedial
testing actions
Boston, Mass. Scope: Testing focused on Actions: Manual flushing for
kitchen facilities used to at least 1 minute each day in
Public Schoolsa prepare food and was all kitchens and an automatic
conducted between 2003 and flushing program at the
2004 at the district's central kitchen and 22 school
central kitchen facility buildings with kitchen
and 38 schools with facilities.
on-site kitchen
facilities. Cost: Not available.
Results: Lead levels in
water from 17 kitchen
facilities, including the
central kitchen, exceeded
20 ppb.
Detroit, Mich. Scope: The district tested Actions: For the short term,
21 water fountains and shutting off outlets with
Public Schools other outlets in one elevated lead levels, doing
middle school as of manual flushing, and
November 2002. (Testing providing bottled water. For
was also conducted at one the long term, installing a
other middle school, but water treatment system,
the number of outlets replacing lead piping and
included was not fixtures, and re-routing a
available.) service line serving the
school.
Results: Lead levels in
water from 16 drinking Cost: An estimated $9,000 for
water outlets in one bottled water and $5,865 for
middle school exceeded 15 the water treatment system,
ppb. plus $800 in annual
maintenance costs.
Philadelphia, Pa. Scope: As a result of Actions: For the short term,
consent orders in 1999 and shutting off outlets with
School Districtb 2000, the school district elevated lead levels and
was required to test all providing bottled water. For
drinking water outlets at the long term, replacing or
299 schools and other removing fixtures.
buildings, or about 30,000
outlets in total.c Cost: An estimated $6 million
through February 2005.
Results: As of March 2004,
the district had detected
lead levels over 20 ppb in
approximately 4,600, or
roughly 15 percent, of the
outlets tested.
Seattle, Wash. Scope: In 2004, the Actions: For the short term,
district tested all shutting off outlets with
Public Schoolsb interior drinking water elevated lead levels and
outlets considered providing bottled water. For
suitable for use, about the long term, fixing or
2,400 outlets in total. replacing fixtures,
installing filters, and
Results: Lead levels at replacing piping for any
600 of the outlets, or 25 outlet where lead levels
percent, exceeded 20 ppb. exceeded 10 ppb.
Cost: An estimated $15
million upon completion in
2007.
Syracuse, N.Y. Scope: The district tested Actions: For the short term,
specific interior drinking shutting off outlets with
City School water outlets in 50 elevated lead levels. For the
District schools and other long term, installing in-line
buildings, beginning in carbon filters at each outlet
August 2003. with elevated lead levels.
(Other measures such as pipe
Results: 23 of the replacement and removal of
facilities had at least fixtures are still under
one drinking water outlet discussion.)
with lead levels over 20
ppb. Cost: An estimated $100,000
through March 2005.
Source: EPA and school districts.
aBoston officials told us that they focused on kitchen facilities in their
most recent testing because the district had already installed bottled
water at many drinking water outlets after earlier testing had disclosed
elevated lead levels.
bBoth Philadelphia and Seattle had also conducted some testing prior to
the more recent efforts summarized in this table.
cA 2003 modification to the earlier consent orders removed the requirement
to test bathroom faucets.
The cities we contacted differed in the testing protocols they used to
test for lead in school drinking water.61 While three of the cities
(Boston, Philadelphia, and Syracuse) followed EPA's guidance, using a 250
milliliter sample and a limit of 20 parts per billion for triggering
follow-up action, Seattle took a more conservative approach. Using the
same sample volume, the school board established 10 parts per billion as
its standard for follow-up action. Detroit, on the other hand, used the
same protocol that is required for public water systems-a 1 liter sample
and 15 parts per billion as the limit.
Some of the remediation measures adopted by the cities we contacted were
effective, including installing in-line filters, replacing pipes, and
removing fixtures at outlets with test results indicating high lead
levels. Other measures required more attention and others inadvertently
created new issues for officials to deal with. For example, a Seattle
school official noted that the district decided against instituting a
flushing program in its schools because it was too difficult to ensure
that staff in individual schools would follow through with the flushing
every day. In Boston, a school official told us that using bottled water
posed a problem because staff had to make sure that replacement bottles
were always available and because it created other issues with pests,
vandalism, and spillage.
The Extent to Which Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities Is
Contaminated by Lead Is Uncertain, in Part, Because No Clear Focal Point
Exists to Collect Available Data
While a number of cities have detected elevated lead levels in school
drinking water, and a few states are beginning to collect information on
the status of local testing efforts, little information exists on the
extent to which drinking water at schools and child care facilities
nationwide may contain unacceptable levels of lead. No focal point exists
at the federal or state level to collect and analyze test results or
information on cost-effective remediation strategies. As a result, it is
difficult to get a sense of the pervasiveness of lead contamination in the
drinking water at schools and child care facilities, and to know whether a
more concerted effort to address the issue-such as mandatory testing-is
warranted. In addition, remediation measures such as providing bottled
water, regularly flushing water lines, installing filters, and replacing
fixtures and internal piping vary widely in cost and complexity, among
other factors. State and local officials have expressed concern about not
having sufficient information on the measures, their pros and cons, and
circumstances in which particular measures might be more appropriate than
others.
At the federal level, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water sets
drinking water standards and other requirements for public drinking water
systems, but generally does not have any direct oversight responsibility
for the quality of drinking water in schools or child care facilities.62
The U.S. Department of Education (Education) is responsible for, among
other things, providing guidance and financial assistance to state and
local education agencies for elementary and secondary schools. Education's
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools recently signed a memorandum of
understanding with EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and various water industry associations with the goal of reducing
children's exposure to lead in drinking water at schools and child care
facilities.63 However, according to an Education official, the department
does not have legal authority to compel schools to test for lead in the
drinking water. Officials in Washington state saw a need for closer
coordination between EPA and Education. The officials believe that local
education officials are more likely to respond to guidance on lead and
other environmental health issues if Education were to be involved in
developing it.
At the state level, responsibility for the environmental health of schools
and child care facilities is usually fragmented among multiple agencies.
According to EPA, in most states, the same agency that administers the
drinking water program-generally the state's department of environmental
protection or department of health-is also responsible for implementing
the LCCA. However, we also learned from EPA that the state agencies
responsible for administering education programs and licensing child care
facilities are usually the ones with the regulatory or oversight authority
over environmental conditions in schools and child care facilities. (As
noted earlier, some states also have lead poisoning prevention programs to
monitor blood lead levels in children and investigate the source of lead
exposure when the levels are elevated.) According to some of the states we
contacted, the level of coordination among state agencies needs to be
improved and the lack of a centralized authority at the state level has
complicated efforts to plan and implement a testing program for lead in
water in some school districts. For example, in Pennsylvania, state
drinking water officials said that several other agencies, including the
Departments of Health, Education, and Public Welfare, have a role in
overseeing schools and child care facilities-but it was unclear which
agency would be best suited to manage a testing program if one were to be
required. In contrast, Connecticut officials said that having both the
drinking water program and the child care licensing program housed within
the same department has been an advantage because it is easier for the
programs to share information and coordinate their activities.
We also contacted several school and child care associations to find out
if they were involved in or aware of efforts to promote testing for lead
in drinking water, collect and analyze the results of testing, or set
standards for the environmental health of the facilities. According to a
representative of the National Child Care Association, until recently the
association had not been aware of any issues regarding lead in drinking
water at child care facilities or involved in any effort to promote
testing.64 The representative commented that one challenge to distributing
information on lead in drinking water to child care facilities is the
fragmented nature of the child care industry. While the National Head
Start Association has been involved with lead poisoning prevention in
general, the organization has not done anything specifically related to
lead in drinking water.65 The Healthy Schools Network, Inc. promotes the
development of state and national policies, regulations, and funding for
environmentally safe and healthy schools. Although the network has
published some fact sheets that address the potential health risks from
lead exposure, lead in drinking water has not been a priority compared
with other environmental issues. While none of these organizations were
parties to EPA's recent memorandum of understanding, they have been
actively engaged in assisting EPA as the agency revises its guidance for
schools and child care facilities, according to EPA officials.
State and Local Officials Say Addressing Other Environmental Hazards Takes
Priority over Testing for Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care
Facilities
According to state and local officials, children may be exposed to a
variety of environmental hazards at schools and child care facilities,
including asbestos, lead in paint or dust, mold, and other substances that
affect indoor air quality. The officials told us that dealing with such
problems often takes priority over checking for lead in drinking water
because, in the case of the other problems, more information is available
on the nature and extent of the potential health risks involved. For
example, many of the officials we interviewed said that the most
significant source of lead exposure-and thus, their primary concern-was
lead in paint. Officials from two states also mentioned that lead in
jewelry, toys, or pottery is a more significant source of exposure than
lead in drinking water. Washington state officials told us that child care
facilities also have many competing priorities and cited food handling as
one of their major concerns.
At the local level, officials talked about dealing with multiple health
and safety issues and the difficulty of prioritizing limited resources.
For example, in Detroit, one official told us that dealing with asbestos
takes priority over all other environmental concerns, including lead in
drinking water. Another Detroit official commented that indoor air quality
is another priority because "issues related to breathing are very
important to educators." In Philadelphia, a school official noted that a
major source of lead in the school district is dust, a problem that
requires continuing attention from the maintenance staff, which must set
aside time to scrub the areas where dust collects. A Seattle official also
mentioned the difficulty posed by competing needs for limited funds. He
indicated that the competition is not only among environmental issues,
such as mold and asbestos, but, on a broader level, between maintenance
and basic classroom expenditures.
Without additional resources-or more compelling evidence that lead in
drinking water should be a higher priority-state and local officials, as
well as representatives of industry groups, were reluctant to support
calls for mandatory testing for lead in drinking water in schools and
child care facilities. Many of the officials we interviewed said that more
research is needed on several aspects of the lead issue. In addition to
wanting more information on the extent to which lead contamination in
schools and child care facilities is a problem, some officials also wanted
more information on the circumstances in which particular remediation
approaches are most effective. Other officials believe that more research
is needed on the relationship between children's exposure to lead in
drinking water and their blood lead levels.
Conclusions
Ensuring that the lead rule adequately protects public health and is fully
implemented and enforced should be a high priority for EPA and the states
because the potential consequences of lead exposure, particularly for
infants and young children, can be significant. However, EPA's hands are
tied unless states report complete, accurate, and timely data on the
results of required monitoring, the status of corrective actions, and the
extent of violations. Without such information, EPA cannot provide
effective oversight or target limited resources where they are most
needed. Similarly, inconsistencies among the states' policies and
practices for implementing the lead rule may lead to uneven levels of
public health protection for consumers and thus need to be examined and
corrected, as appropriate.
Given the potential health effects associated with lead contamination, it
is important to minimize any unnecessary exposure as a result of leaded
materials in the water distribution system or household plumbing.
Reevaluating existing standards for the devices used in or near
residential plumbing systems would also enhance the effectiveness of the
treatment provided by local water systems. In the case of schools and
child care facilities, both the vulnerability of the population served by
such facilities and the competition for limited resources make it
essential to have better information on the nature and extent of
lead-contaminated drinking water-and its significance relative to other
environmental hazards.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, take a number of steps to
further protect the American public from elevated lead levels in drinking
water. Specifically, to improve EPA's ability to oversee implementation of
the lead rule and assess compliance and enforcement activities, EPA should
o ensure that data on water systems' test results, corrective action
milestones, and violations are current, accurate, and complete and
o analyze data on corrective actions and violations to assess the adequacy
of EPA and state enforcement efforts.
To expand ongoing efforts to improve implementation and oversight of the
lead rule, EPA should reassess existing regulations and guidance to ensure
the following:
o the sites water systems use for tap monitoring reflect areas of highest
risk for lead corrosion;
o the circumstances in which states approve water systems for reduced
monitoring are appropriate and that systems resume standard monitoring
following a major treatment change;
o homeowners who participate in tap monitoring are informed of the test
results; and
o states review and approve major treatment changes, as defined by EPA, to
assess their impact on corrosion control before the changes are
implemented.
In addition, EPA should:
o collect and analyze data on the impact of lead service line replacement
on lead levels and conduct other research, as appropriate, to assess the
effectiveness of lead line replacement programs and whether additional
regulations or guidance are warranted;
o collect information on (1) the nature and extent of modified sampling
arrangements within combined distribution systems and (2) differences in
the reporting practices and corrective actions authorized by the states,
using this information to reassess applicable regulations and guidance;
and
o evaluate existing standards for in-line and endpoint plumbing devices
used in or near residential plumbing systems to determine if the standards
are sufficiently protective to minimize potential lead contamination.
In order to update its guidance and testing protocols, EPA should collect
and analyze the results of any testing that has been done to determine
whether more needs to be done to protect users from elevated lead levels
in drinking water at schools and child care facilities. In addition, to
assist local agencies in making the most efficient use of their resources,
EPA should assess the pros and cons of various remediation activities and
make the information publicly available.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to EPA and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission for review and comment. EPA generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations. Regarding the completeness of information that EPA
has to evaluate implementation of the lead rule, the agency said that it
will work with the states to ensure that relevant information is
incorporated into the national database and will use the information, in
part, to assess the adequacy of enforcement efforts. In addition, EPA
agreed that aspects of the regulation need improvement. EPA said that it
will address some of these areas as part of its package of revisions to
the lead rule that it plans to propose early in 2006, including homeowner
notification of test results and criteria for reduced monitoring. EPA also
said that it needs additional information before it can address other
areas, such as lead service line replacement and plumbing standards, that
may warrant regulatory changes. EPA did not comment on our recommendation
to reevaluate existing regulations and guidance to ensure that tap
monitoring sites reflect areas of highest risk for lead corrosion.
Finally, EPA did not address our recommendations regarding lead
contamination and remedial actions at schools and child care facilities.
We believe that, given the particular vulnerability of children to the
effects of lead, it is important for EPA to take full advantage of the
results of any tests that have been done, as well as to identify those
remedial activities that have proven to be most effective. EPA's comments
appear in appendix V. The Consumer Product Safety Commission generally
agreed with our findings as they pertain to the Commission.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; the Chairman, Consumer
Product Safety Commission; and the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VI.
John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Scope and Methodology Appendix I
For information on how the lead rule is being implemented, we obtained
information from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, eight EPA regional offices, and 10 states. We selected eight of
the states-California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Washington-because they either had a relatively high
number of water systems with test results that exceeded or fell just below
the lead action level, or they added to the geographical diversity of our
selections. We also included Connecticut and Florida in our review because
they were identified by EPA as particularly active in addressing potential
lead contamination in water supplies serving child care facilities. At the
local level, we obtained information from eight water systems: the Chicago
Water Department in Illinois, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission and
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in Massachusetts, the Detroit
Water and Sewerage Department in Michigan, the Syracuse Water Department
in New York, the Portland Bureau of Water Works in Oregon, the
Philadelphia Water Department in Pennsylvania, and Seattle Public
Utilities in Washington. Our criteria for selecting these systems included
test results showing elevated lead levels, lead service line replacement
activity, and/or the use of modified sampling arrangements for consecutive
systems. We reviewed the Safe Drinking Water Act, the lead rule, EPA's
minor revisions to the lead rule, other pertinent regulations, and
applicable guidance to states and water systems.
To gain a national perspective on the data EPA uses for oversight of lead
rule implementation, including the results of required testing, the status
of corrective actions, and the extent of violations, we analyzed data from
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System through June 2005 for active
community water systems. We assessed the reliability of the data by (1)
performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced them, (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data, and (4)
reviewing EPA's own data verification audits and summaries of data
reliability. We determined that the data on results and frequency of lead
testing were sufficiently reliable to show compliance trends. However, we
found that other data on corrective actions and violations were not
sufficiently reliable to assess the status of efforts to implement and
enforce the lead rule.
For information on experiences in implementing the lead rule and the need
for changes to the regulatory framework, we interviewed EPA, state, and
local officials; analyzed states' responses to an EPA information request
regarding their policies and practices in implementing the rule; and
reviewed other relevant studies and documents. We reviewed the results of
EPA's expert workshops on monitoring protocols, simultaneous compliance,
lead service line replacement, and public education, and obtained
information from several researchers and other drinking water experts.
Among other things, we identified potential gaps in the regulatory
framework, including oversight, regulations, and guidance, and obtained
views on the modifications to the lead rule now being considered by EPA.
To learn about the development and effectiveness of existing plumbing
standards, we obtained and analyzed information from NSF International
(NSF), the Copper Development Association, the Plumbing Manufacturers
Institute, and relevant articles and studies. To assess the reliability of
NSF's data on lead content and lead leaching of plumbing fittings and
fixtures, we talked with foundation officials about data quality control
procedures. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for
illustrative purposes.
For information on safeguards against lead-contaminated drinking water at
schools and child care facilities, we interviewed officials from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, the National Head Start Association, the National Child
Care Association, and the Healthy Schools Network. We also obtained
information from drinking water program offices and public health or
education departments in the 10 states we contacted for the first
objective as well as school districts in Boston, Chicago, Detroit,
Philadelphia, Seattle, and Syracuse. We reviewed the Lead Contamination
Control Act (LCCA) of 1988 and obtained information on the recall of
lead-lined water coolers. For information on other actions taken in
response to the LCCA, we interviewed EPA, state, and local officials;
reviewed relevant studies; and analyzed information collected by EPA. We
used the same information sources to determine (1) the extent of current
testing and remediation activities for lead in school and child care
facility drinking water, (2) the extent to which various entities have
responsibility for overseeing or collecting data on such activities, and
(3) the relative priorities among environmental hazards common to schools
and child care facilities. We also analyzed states' responses to an EPA
information request on state and local efforts to monitor and protect
children from lead exposure and attended an EPA-sponsored expert workshop
on lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities. For more
detailed information on experiences at the local level, we collected
information from five school districts on the extent of testing for lead
in school drinking water, the results, and the approaches used to address
contamination.
We performed our work between June 2004 and November 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Detailed Analysis of Corrective Action Milestone Data Reported to EPA, by
State, through June 2005 Appendix II
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Number of Lead Rule Violations Reported to EPA Between 1995 and June 2005
(by State) Appendix III
Legend: TT = treatment technique violations, including failure to install
optimal corrosion control treatment, failure to meet water quality control
parameters, failure to replace lead service lines, and failure to meet
public education requirements, among other things.
MR = monitoring and reporting violations, including the failure to conduct
required testing and failure to report the results.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: The total number of systems with violations, and the numbers of
systems with TT and MR violations do not add to the total numbers of
violations because in some cases, systems have more than one type of
violation.
Information on Selected EPA and State Enforcement Actions, by Type, from
1995 to June 2005aAppendix IV
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Notes:
aWe included the most commonly used enforcement actions in this table and
excluded miscellaneous actions and activities unrelated to enforcement or
the lead rule.
bEPA files a "complaint for penalty" when the terms of an administrative
order are violated.
Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency Appendix V
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Appendix VI
John B. Stephenson (202) 512-3841
In addition to the individual named above, Ellen Crocker, Nancy Crothers,
Sandra Edwards, Maureen Driscoll, Benjamin Howe, Julian Klazkin, Jean
McSween, Chris Murray, and George Quinn, Jr. made key contributions to
this report.
(360478)
transparent illustrator graphic
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-148 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-148 , a report to congressional requesters
January 2006
DRINKING WATER
EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are
Protected from Lead Contamination
Elevated lead levels in the District of Columbia's tap water in 2003
prompted questions about how well consumers are protected nationwide. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and local water systems
share responsibility for providing safe drinking water. Lead typically
enters tap water as a result of the corrosion of lead in the water lines
or household plumbing. EPA's lead rule establishes testing and treatment
requirements. This report discusses (1) EPA's data on the rule's
implementation; (2) what implementation of the rule suggests about the
need for changes to the regulatory framework; and (3) the extent to which
drinking water at schools and child care facilities is tested for lead.
What GAO Recommends
Among other things, GAO recommends that EPA improve its data on key
aspects of lead rule implementation, strengthen certain regulatory
requirements and oversight, and assess the problem of lead in drinking
water at schools and child care facilities. In commenting on a draft of
this report, EPA generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
EPA's data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with elevated
lead levels has dropped significantly since testing began in the early
1990s. However, EPA's database does not contain recent test results for
over 30 percent of large and medium-sized community water systems and
lacks data on the status of water systems' efforts to implement the lead
rule for over 70 percent of all community systems, apparently because
states have not met reporting requirements. In addition, EPA's data on
water systems' violations of testing and treatment requirements are
questionable because some states have reported few or no violations. As a
result, EPA does not have sufficient data to gauge the rule's
effectiveness.
Implementation experiences to date have revealed weaknesses in the
regulatory framework for the lead rule. For example, most states do not
require their water systems to notify homeowners that volunteer for
periodic lead monitoring of the test results. In addition, corrosion
control can be impaired by changes to other treatment processes, and
controls that would help avoid such impacts may not be adequate. Finally,
because testing indicates that some "lead-free" products leach high levels
of lead into drinking water, existing standards for plumbing materials may
not be sufficiently protective. According to EPA officials, the agency is
considering some changes to the lead rule.
On the basis of the limited data available, it appears that few schools
and child care facilities have tested their water for lead, either in
response to the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their
current operating practices. In addition, no focal point exists at either
the national or state level to collect and analyze test results. Thus, the
pervasiveness of lead contamination in the drinking water at schools and
child care facilities-and the need for more concerted action-is unclear.
Water Distribution System from the Treatment Plant to Household Plumbing
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***