UPDATE ON LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
November 10, 2004
In light of the recent
release of lead test results from 20 more schools, I wanted to update everyone
on progress on the lead in drinking water issue.
I have now attended the last two meetings of the technical advisory group
(comprising officials from MCPS, MoCo Dept of Environmental Protection, the
MoCo Dept of Public Health, the MoCo Dept of Public Works, and WSSC). This
group works in close consultation with EPA. They are modeling their
testing procedures, and remediation recommendations on protocols developed
during a similar situation with the Philadelphia Public School system over the
past couple of years. They are expecting to finish up the first round of
analysis and publish the results before the end of the year, with the caveat
that things could always intervene to get in the way. In the meantime,
they are "releasing" schools from the flushing protocol when they
determine that the schools have fewer than 5 fixtures about the 20 parts per
billion action level...with directions to close off the non-compliant fixtures
pending further remediation.
I have the impression that they are leaning heavily toward deciding that the
source of the lead is individual fixtures, not the plumbing in the schools. But
they are examining the patterns of lead contamination on a school by school
basis to be sure - e.g., if there is a concentration of noncompliant fixtures
are along the same hall, they are more likely to suspect plumbing. And
they won't finalize that conclusion until they have done a second round of
testing that they believe will provide additional evidence on this issue.
All of this could take the final recommendation phase well into Spring.
To the extent that they determine the source of the lead is the fixtures, it
appears that their recommendation to MCPS will be to either permanently cap
(disable) the out-of-compliance fixtures, or replace them. They are
leaving the decision as to which course to follow to MCPS. This brings me
to CIP testimony (sorry I'm late on this). It would be good if
clusters/schools that are concerned about this issue, and have an opportunity
to adjust their CIP testimony at this late date could mention in their
testimony that they hope to see adequate funds allocated to the capital budget
to replace, rather than cap, out-of-compliance fixtures.
Regarding the recently posted results: you may be noticing that readings tend
to be drifting upwards with each additional set of schools. I believe
this is because one of the main reasons for delayed release of results has been
that officials are re-testing when they get very high readings. Their
theory is that really high readings must be coming from fixtures that are never
used, and that therefore have concentrations of lead that are not indicative of
their true readings under more "normal" circumstance. Their
procedure in these cases is to have the suspect fixtures flushed for a longer
time period, and then repeat the standard testing procedure. In the case
of a reading like the incredible 25,000+ ppb at WJHS (noted in an earlier
posting), their suspicion is still that such a re-test hasn't been done.
Given how careful they have been about re-testing before releasing
results, I'm not sure we can rely on that assumption.
A couple additional issues that we need to follow:
1. The apparent standard that EPA is following with respect to enforcing the
1996 law requiring low lead content in fixtures appears to be that this only
applies to fixtures meant to supply drinking water. Hence, there is no
apparent thought that out of compliance hose bibs or fixtures in janitors'
closets would be capped or replaced. They are recommending that use of
these types of fixtures be denied to students by setting them such that a
wrench would be required to operate them.
2. There is a "gray area" with respect to this definition of
"drinking water fixture." There is a professional plumbing
standard that sets guidelines on producing and testing fixtures for compliance
with the 1996. Act - NSF Standard 61. This standard has not yet been
incorporated in EPA regs, although EPA recommends following it. This
standard includes bathroom water faucets in its list of "drinking water
sources." However, the way it's been interpreted by our model - the
Philadelphia school system in cooperation with EPA, bathroom water faucets are
not held to the same standard as drinking fountains, provided there is clear
signage instructing people not to drink from the. I have discussed this
issue at length with the group. They are comfortable with following the
protocol developed in Philadelphia, which says bathroom water faucets don't
have to be capped or replaced unless lead levels exceed 100 ppb (limit on
drinking fountains is 20 ppb), provided there are signs prohibiting faucet use
for drinking. They are aware that signs may be of dubious value in ES
bathrooms in particular, and are working on developing signs involving symbols
(like those circles with lines through them). They also intend to have MCPS
contact a public education campaign to discourage taking drinking water from
bathroom water faucets, not just because of lead, but also because they're
sources of possible bacterial contamination.
The public health officers
assure us that surface contact with lead (such as would occur during hand
washing) has never been found to be a source of lead contamination.
Without formal exposure studies to determine what portion, if any, of
students' or teachers' daily liquid intake would come from school bathroom
water faucets, we don't know for sure whether the 100 ppb cut-off is
reasonable. As I understand it, the way the 20 ppb level is set is
effectively assuming most of one's liquid intake must be below that. So
if less than 1/5 is from a 100 ppb outlet, and the rest is from compliant
outlets, then a person's intake wouldn't exceed the recommended level. My
personal judgment on this is that 100 ppb is probably reasonable, and in any
event, given that EPA has blessed it, we probably can't change that decision.
3. Another big source of concern, as indicated in the bold section above,
is whether MCPS just caps fixtures, or replaces them. Given the
importance of adequate access to drinking water and hand washing, I would
recommend that we work diligently to encourage MCPS to replace, rather than cap
non-compliant fixtures.
Pam Moomau
MCCPTA safety committee chair.