-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
»A0 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
£9 fsBO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit Report Number E1HWF9-03-0316-0100508
Report of Audit on the Lead In
Drinking Water Program
FROM: Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General for7 Audit
TO: LaJuana S. Wilcher
Assistant Administrator For Water
OBJECTIVES. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We performed an audit of the Lead in Drinking Water Program
administered by the Office of Drinking Water in EPA Headquarters
and Region III. During our review of the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986, we noted that several
regulations governing lead would go into effect between June 1986
and November 1988. Additionally, Congress enacted the Lead
Contamination Control Act (LCCA) in November 1988 which further
amended the SDWA. Our audit .work focused on three major
initiatives EPA and the States were using, in accordance with both
the SDWA and LCCA, to reduce health hazards associated with lead
levels in drinking water. These initiatives included:
1) implementation and enforcement of the lead ban and public
notification requirements of the SDWA, 2) assistance provided to
schools in accordance with the Lead Contamination Control Act
(LCCA) and 3) lowering the acceptable limit of lead found in
drinking water supplies.
Specifically, the objectives of the audit were to evaluate EPA
and the States' roles in performing:
o The requirements of the LCCA, which include:
1) whether States in Region III have implemented an
adequate program by August 1989, to assist schools and
day care facilities in testing for and remedying lead
contamination in their drinking water; and
-------
2) whether EPA has provided, by February 1989, a timely,
current, and accurate list of lead-contaminated water
coolers.
o The requirements of the SDWA Amendments of 1986, which
include:
1) whether States in Region III have adopted the lead ban
and public notification requirements and if these
requirements are being enforced at the State and local
level;
2) whether EPA is adequately monitoring the States'
compliance with the lead ban and public notification
requirements; and
3) the effect of EPA's delay in issuing a revised lead
MCL, required as of June 1988.
The audit fieldwork began on August 22, 1989, and was
completed on April 1, 1990. We performed our review at EPA
Headquarters, Region III, and all States in Region III
(Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia and
Washington D.C.). Our review of the State LCCA and Lead Ban
Programs included visits with State officials from both
Environmental and Educational agencies. We also visited plumbing
inspectors in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia as well as
school district officials in Washington D.C., Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our review also included a
visit to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) which was
required by the LCCA to issue an order to manufacturers that have
been identified by EPA as producing lead-lined coolers. The order
would require manufacturers of such coolers to repair, replace, or
recall the coolers and provide a refund. In addition, we conducted
telephone interviews with the following: school district officials,
plumbing inspectors, State personnel, staff from EPA's laboratory
in Cincinnati and EPA Headquarters personnel.
To evaluate whether the States were adequately fulfilling
their responsibilities under the LCCA, we contacted (either in
person or by telephone) 13 ischool districts throughout Region III.
Initially, we sampled seven of the largest school districts in the
Region. We found three of the seven did not test their water. To
adequately examine testing procedures, we had to augment our
original sample to include schools that tested. Accordingly, we
added three of the largest remaining school districts which did
test their drinking water. The remainder of our sample included
three smaller school districts that tested their drinking water.
Also, we reviewed data at EPA Headquarters from 42 school districts
throughout the country. The data consisted of test results, and in
some instances, cooler inventories.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4
ACTION REQUIRED 8
BACKGROUND 8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE STATES WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURING THAT SCHOOL
WATER SOURCES WERE TESTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM
LEAD CONTAMINATION 12
2. EPA SHOULD IMPROVE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATER
COOLERS THAT ARE NOT LEAD FREE 23
3. EPA AND THE STATES HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURED THAT THE
PUBLIC HAS BEEN INFORMED ABOUT LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
AND THE LEAD BAN 32
4. EPA NEEDS TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION OVER LEAD MCL 40
APPENDIX A - AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 43
APPENDIX B - REPORT DISTRIBUTION 59
-------
Our review at the school districts included examining; test
results, number of outlets, type of outlets, type and model number
of coolers, testing procedures, corrective actions and
notifications of the availability of test results to parents,
teachers and employee organizations.
To examine the States' program for implementing and enforcing
the lead ban, we visited county plumbing inspectors in Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia. During our visits, We reviewed
information such as: number of inspectors, number of inspections,
procedures for detecting lead solder, pipe and flux, as well as
violations and enforcement actions.
We performed the audit in accordance with the Government
Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States as they apply to economy and efficiency and program results
audits. This review included tests of the records and other
auditing procedures we considered necessary at EPA Headquarters,
Region III, the State designees for the Lead Ban and LCCA Programs,
and selected local designees for the Lead Ban Program and school
districts for the LCCA Program.
Our review evaluated the economy, efficiency and program
results expected only in relation to the procedures used by the
States in complying with the SDWA (regarding the Lead Ban) and LCCA
requirements for the Lead in Drinking Water Program. We also
evaluated EPA's compliance and oversight of both the SDWA and the
LCCA requirements. This review disclosed several areas needing
improvement which are discussed in this report. Because of the
limited scope of our audit, we did not perform a study and
evaluation of internal controls and accordingly did not include a
report on them. During this review we used information maintained
by EPA on its computer. We did not review the general and
application controls of the data processing system because the main
purpose of our review was to evaluate the overall management of the
Lead in Drinking Water Program, and not to express an opinion on
the accuracy of the data processing system. No other issues came
to our attention which we believed were significant enough to
warrant expanding the scope of this audit.
We reviewed the Office of Water's as well as Region Ill's
compliance with the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA). We found no mention of any LCCA requirements in our FMFIA
review; however, Region III did mention in their internal control
documentation that the lead ban/public notification requirements
would be examined during the mid year reviews. None of the other
weaknesses cited in this report were disclosed in their
vulnerability assessment or any internal control reviews.
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The detailed findings, along with related recommendations for
corrective action, are provided in the "Findings and
Recommendations" section of this report. During our review we
found that:
o Many schools testing for lead discovered dangerous levels
of lead in their drinking water. Many schools did not test
their water, and if they did test, they did not always test
adequately.
o Some school administrators did not take appropriate
corrective action because of confusing Federal
requirements.
o EPA did not publish the list of imminently hazardous water
coolers timely, did not aggressively locate and identify
additional coolers to place on the list, and did not fully
utilize data gathered on the test results of coolers.
EPA estimates that every year over 250,000 children are
exposed to lead in drinking water at levels high enough to impair
their intellectual and physical development. Our findings confirm
that harmful amounts of lead exist in the drinking water provided
by schools. We believe that both EPA and the States must be more
aggressive in eliminating the health hazards imposed by lead in
drinking water. The findings included in this report are
summarized below.
1. THE STATES WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURING THAT SCHOOL WATER
SOURCES WERE TESTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM LEAD
CONTAMINATION
States have not developed adequate programs to assist schools
and day care centers in dealing with lead contamination in their
drinking water. The LCCA requires States to develop programs to
assist schools and day care centers in testing for, and remedying,
lead contamination in drinking water. The State programs were
required to ensure all water coolers were tested, and if found
hazardous, were remedied by February 1, 1990. We found that States
were not complying with these requirements. We also found that
some schools testing for lead discovered dangerous levels of lead
in their drinking water. Schools have identified this lead
contamination to such sources as coolers, fountains and plumbing.
The contamination may be even worse than reported, because some of
the schools did limited or improper testing. More importantly, our
review disclosed that some schools were not testing and
consequently are unaware of imminent health hazards potentially
present in their schools.
-------
EPA stated that the law provides no effective authority to the
Agency for requiring States to comply with LCCA requirements. The
LCCA authorized Federal funding, but it has never been
appropriated, and States cite this lack of resources as a cause for
inefficient and inadequate State programs. While these may be true
statements, EPA should, as the Agency responsible for ensuring the
safety of the nation's drinking water, make sure that this
important health issue gets the attention it deserves. EPA should
do all that it can to encourage and assist States in complying with
the law. EPA should perform additional outreach to the States and
prepare model plans to assist States in formulating their LCCA
programs.
2. EPA SHOULD IMPROVE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING
WATER COOLERS THAT ARE NOT LEAD FREE
EPA was approximately one year late in providing a current and
accurate list of imminently hazardous water coolers to States as
required by the LCCA. We found that EPA did not: (1) publish the
list within the time frames required by the LCCA; (2) locate and
identify additional coolers to place on the list; and (3) fully
utilize data gathered on the test results of coolers. Our review
of lead testing in the schools revealed that some schools with
limited resources were only testing water coolers on EPA's list of
hazardous coolers. By limiting their testing, these schools may
not have tested all dangerous coolers, exposing their students to
unnecessary health risks. EPA's delay in publishing the list of
dangerous coolers may have also delayed the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) in issuing an order to the manufacturers of these
coolers. The order, according to the LCCA, would have required
manufacturers to repair, replace, or recall and provide a refund
for such coolers by November 1, 1989. Consequently, many school
districts with hazardous coolers were awaiting action by both CPSC
and the manufacturers. EPA officials attribute deficiencies in
publishing the list to: insufficient resources; enormous number
and type of water coolers; and the inability to obtain water
coolers for testing. We also believe uncertainties in the division
of responsibilities between EPA and CPSC may have resulted in
inefficient and ineffective procedures for identifying water
coolers to be tested.
We recommend that the data gathered on test results of coolers
be used to prioritize the remaining workload of water cooler
testing and to determine if water cooler manufacturers are not
obeying the lead ban. We also recommend that EPA execute an
interagency agreement (IA) with CPSC delineating each Agency's
responsibility in testing water coolers.
-------
3. EPA AND THE STATES HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURED THAT
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN INFORMED ABOUT LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
AND THE LEAD BAN
EPA did not aggressively pursue the States' lack of
enforcement concerning public notification and lead ban
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). States did not
ensure public water systems notified their customers of the dangers
of lead in their drinking water. Also, States did not adequately
enforce the prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder and flux in
plumbing providing water for human consumption. States were
required to enforce both of the above requirements by June 19,
1988. We found that less than 50 percent of the public water
systems in Region III complied with the public notification
requirements and the States are uncertain if contractors are still
using illegal lead pipe, solder and flux. As a result, the public
was not adequately informed of the dangers and potential presence
of lead in their water and may still be having lead plumbing
supplies installed in their homes. States cite a lack of resources
as well as a lack of direct authority to enforce the lead ban
requirement. The ban of lead pipes and solder is generally
included in the State building codes and accordingly is enforced by
the local building inspectors, not environmental agencies. We
recommend that EPA take stronger measures to encourage States to
comply with the lead requirements of the SDWA.
4. EPA NEEDS TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION OVER LEAD MCL
The Agency has not complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requirement for revising the maximum contaminant level (MCL)
for lead in drinking water. The SDWA required EPA to revise the
existing MCL for lead by June 1988. More than two years elapsed
since this deadline, and the Agency still has not revised the MCL
for lead in drinking water. Furthermore, we found that confusion
exists among schools and laboratories over EPA's acceptable limits
of lead in drinking water from school coolers and fountains. The
current maximum contaminant level for lead is 50 parts per billion
(ppb). When Public Water Systems providing drinking water to the
public exceed this limit, they are in violation of the SDWA. EPA,
in its guidance document for lead in schools, recommends that any
water source for human consumption exceeding 20 ppb be taken out of
service immediately. Laboratories regularly testing water for
public water systems also may perform testing for school districts.
Some of these laboratories have been notifying all schools with
test results of less than 50 ppb that they are within the limits
established by the SDWA. These labs did this without making
reference to EPA's 20 ppb guidance for schools. Accordingly, we
found school districts leaving in service water coolers and
fountains having test results between 20 ppb and 50 ppb. We
believe EPA needs to clarify any confusion which may exist between
guidance for the schools and regulations used by the various
laboratories.
-------
Prior to issuing the draft report, we provided copies of the
preliminary findings to officials of the Office of Drinking Water
(ODW) and Region III. These officials responded with written
comments to the findings, however, our evaluation of their comments
did not cause us to significantly alter the content of the
findings. We subsequently issued a draft report to the Assistant
Administrator for Water on July 12, 1990. We received a response
to the draft report on August 16, 1990, which was essentially the
same as the response to the preliminary findings that we previously
received. In the Findings and Recommendations section of this
report, we have paraphrased the Assistant Administrator's response
and provided additional comments of our own. The response
contained several attachments, which were too voluminous to include
in the report. Accordingly, only the narrative portion of the
response is attached in Appendix A of this report. The attachments
are on file in our office for review.
On August 27, 1990 and September 12, 1990, we held exit
conferences with Region III and Office of Drinking Water officials,
respectively. Based on these discussions and written comments
submitted by the Agency, EPA informed us that they have begun to
take the following corrective actions:
1) developing improved guidance and model programs for States
on implementing the LCCA and lead ban; and
2) disseminating a nationwide alert to laboratory directors
and schools to avoid confusion over the amount of lead in
drinking water for which EPA recommends remediation.
We believe these actions will help strengthen the Lead in Drinking
Water Program, however; additional actions are still warranted.
-------
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, the action official is
required to provide this office with a written response to the
audit report within 90 days of the report date. Since this report
deals primarily with Headquarters' management of the Lead in
Drinking Water program, the Assistant Administrator for Water was
designated the primary action official. As such, she should take
the lead in coordinating both Headquarter's and Region Ill's
response to the audit report.
BACKGROUND
Medical research shows lead to be a toxic metal which can be
harmful to human health even at low exposure levels. Too much lead
in the human body can cause serious damage to the brain, kidneys,
nervous system, and red blood cells. The groups that have the
greatest risk, even with short-term exposure, are young children
and pregnant women. Lead poisoning among young children and
related risk groups remains a major public health issue in the
United States, even though it has long been recognized as a fully
preventable disease. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its
1987 statement on the topic, defined lead exposure and toxicity as
one of the major health hazards—and in all likelihood the top
environmental hazard—confronting young children in America.
Children are particularly sensitive to lead contamination.
Their bodies are developing and, as a result, they absorb and
retain more lead than adults. A dose of lead that would have
little effect on an adult can have a big effect on a child. Even
at very low levels of lead exposure, children can experience
reduced I.Q. levels, impaired learning and language skills, loss of
hearing, impaired formation and function of blood cells, and
reduced attention spans and poor classroom performance. At higher
levels, lead can damage their brains and central and peripheral
nervous systems, interfering with both learning and physical
growth. Many children with lead poisoning have no symptoms; others
have only non-specific symptoms such as headache, stomach-ache, or
irritability. At its worst, lead poisoning can result in stupor,
coma, kidney damage, or severe brain damage.
Women are also at risk. In women, lead can cause fertility
problems and miscarriages. In pregnant women, lead can cause
impaired development of the fetus, premature births, and reduced
birth weights. Men are at risk of increased blood pressure from
exposure to lead.
Lead is present in many places—in old paint, air, food, dust,
dirt, and drinking water. Harmful levels of lead can enter the
body from any of these sources. Exposure from lead in old paint,
dust and soil is widespread and abatement of such sources is costly
8
-------
and difficult. Other sources such as lead in gasoline, food and
drinking water can be more easily controlled. A large effort is
already underway to reduce the amount of lead exposure from such
controllable sources.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set drinking water
standards to protect the public health. Major amendments to this
law, passed in 1986, banned the use of lead materials in new
plumbing and in plumbing repairs, and required water suppliers to
notify the public about lead in drinking water. The Amendments
require the use of lead free pipe, solder and flux in the
installation or repair of any plumbing providing water for human
consumption. Solder and flux are considered "lead free" when they
contain not more than 0.2 percent lead. (In the past, solder
normally contained about 50 percent lead). Pipes and fittings are
considered "lead free" when they contain not more than 8.0 percent
lead. The Amendments also established special public notification
requirements pertaining to lead. In general, each public water
system must identify and provide notice to persons that may be
affected by lead contamination of their drinking water.
According to the law, notice shall provide a clear and readily
understandable explanation of:
1) the potential sources of lead in the drinking water;
2) potential adverse health effects (EPA mandatory
health effects language must be used verbatim);
3) reasonably available methods of mitigating known or
potential lead content in drinking water;
4) any steps the system is taking to mitigate lead content in
drinking water; and
5) the necessity for seeking alternative water supplies,
if any.
The SDWA Lead Ban and Public Notification requirements were to
have been enforced in all States effective June 19, 1988. States
were to enforce the requirements through State or local plumbing
codes, or such other means of enforcement the State determined to
be appropriate. EPA Regional Offices have responsibility for
ensuring States comply with the Lead Ban/Public Notification
requirements. If the Region determines that a State is not
enforcing the above requirements, the Region may withhold up to
five percent of Federal funds available to that State for Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS) grants.
On November 1, 1988, a major new Amendment to the SDWA, known
as the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) was enacted. This
legislation provided for programs to help reduce exposure to lead-
contaminated drinking water, especially for children. Its major
provisions included: mandate for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) to order the repair, replacement, or recall and
9
-------
refund of drinking water coolers that EPA has identified as
containing lead-lined water tanks; a ban on the manufacture or sale
in interstate commerce of drinking water coolers that are not lead
free; Federal and State programs to help schools evaluate and
respond to lead contamination in drinking water, including State
and Federal technical and financial assistance; and (if
appropriations are available) the expansion of lead screening
programs for children to be administered by the Centers for Disease
Control.
The LCCA also provided that EPA, after notice and opportunity
for public comment, publish a list of drinking water coolers, by
brand and model, which are not lead free. The list must separately
identify each brand and model of drinking water cooler which has a
lead-lined water tank. In carrying out this provision, EPA is to
use the best information available to the Agency. EPA is to revise
and republish this list from time to time, as may be appropriate,
as new information or analysis becomes available regarding lead
contamination in drinking water coolers.
All drinking water coolers identified by EPA on the list as
having a lead-lined tank shall be considered to be "imminently
hazardous consumer products." The CPSC, after notice and
opportunity for comment, including a public hearing, is required to
issue an order requiring the manufacturers and importers of such
coolers to repair, replace, or recall and provide a refund for such
coolers within one year after the enactment of the LCCA.
The LCCA also placed several requirements on the States. By
August 1, 1989, each State was required to establish a program to
assist local educational agencies (LEAs) in testing for and
remedying lead contamination in drinking water. This program
should have included measures for the reduction or elimination of
lead contamination from those water coolers which are not lead free
and are located in schools. Such measures should have been
adequate to ensure that by February 1, 1990, all such water coolers
were repaired, replaced, permanently removed, or rendered
inoperable unless the cooler was tested and found (within the
limits of testing accuracy) not to contribute lead to drinking
water.
The LCCA authorized Federal assistance for State programs to
assist LEAs in testing for, and remedying, lead contamination in
drinking water. Approximately $30 million a year was authorized
for fiscal years 1989, 1990 and 1991. In addition to providing
assistance to the States, such funds, according to the LCCA, may be
used by States to reimburse LEAs for expenses of testing and
remedial action. Additionally, the Public Health Service Act was
amended by the LCCA to authorize Federal assistance for community
programs designed to: screen infants and children for elevated
blood levels; assure referral of treatment for infants and children
with such blood levels; and provide education about childhood lead
10
-------
poisoning. Approximately $20 million, $22 million and $24 million
was authorized respectively for fiscal years 1989, 1990 and 1991.
However, as of April 1, 1990 no funds had been appropriated for any
of these three years.
The Office of Drinking Water in EPA Headquarters has retained
responsibility for Agency activities concerning the LCCA. Unlike
the delegation of Lead Ban and Public Notification requirements to
Regional Offices, the Headquarters Office of Drinking Water has not
relinquished LCCA responsibilities. Issuance of EPA protocol
documents, training programs, and testing of water coolers have
been conducted by Headquarters personnel.
11
-------
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE STATES WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURING THAT SCHOOL WATER
SOURCES WERE TESTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM LEAD
CONTAMINATION
States have not developed adequate programs to assist schools
and day care centers in dealing with lead contamination in their
drinking water. The LCCA requires States to develop programs to
assist schools and day care centers in testing for, and remedying,
lead contamination in drinking water. The State programs were
required to ensure all water coolers were tested, and if found
hazardous, were remedied by February 1, 1990. We found that States
were not complying with these requirements. We also found that
some schools testing for lead discovered dangerous levels of lead
in their drinking water. Schools have identified this lead
contamination to such sources as coolers, fountains and plumbing.
The contamination may be even worse than reported, because some of
the schools did limited or improper testing. More importantly, our
review disclosed that some schools were not testing and
consequently are unaware of imminent health hazards potentially
present in their schools.
EPA stated that the law provides no effective authority to the
Agency for requiring States to comply with LCCA requirements. The
LCCA authorized Federal funding, but it has never been
appropriated, and States cite this lack of resources as a cause for
inefficient and inadequate State programs. While these may be true
statements, we believe that EPA should, as the Agency responsible
for ensuring the safety of the nation's drinking water, make sure
that this important health issue gets the attention it deserves.
EPA should do all that it can to encourage and assist States in
complying with the law. EPA should perform additional outreach to
the States and prepare model plans to assist States in formulating
their LCCA programs.
In accordance with the LCCA, States shall disseminate the EPA
guidance document and testing protocol to local educational
agencies (LEAs), private non-profit elementary or secondary schools
and to day care centers. Further, by September 1989, States were
required to establish a program to assist LEAs in testing for, and
remedying, lead contamination in drinking water sources. Such
program should include measures for the reduction or elimination of
lead contamination from those water coolers which are not lead free
and which are located in schools. Such measures shall be adequate
to ensure that by February 1, 1990, water coolers in schools are
repaired, replaced, permanently removed or rendered inoperable
unless the cooler is tested and found not to contribute lead to
drinking water. Despite not requiring the schools to test for
lead in their drinking water, the LCCA provides that if a school
district or day care center does test, they must notify the
12
-------
parents, teachers and employee organizations of the availability of
such testing results.
EPA's responsibilities under the LCCA include publishing both
a guidance document to test for lead and a list of non-lead free
water coolers to assist in prioritizing sampling locations. In
January 1989, EPA published a guidance document that contains
sampling procedures to determine the location and source of lead in
the drinking water. In this document, EPA recommends that sample
sites be prioritized on the basis of likelihood of contamination.
Sample sites which are most likely to have lead contamination
include water coolers identified by EPA as having lead-lined
storage tanks or lead parts. On April 10, 1989, EPA published a
proposed list of water coolers having lead-lined storage tanks or
other parts containing lead.
The LCCA, unlike other programs authorized under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, does not require EPA to ensure States fulfill
their LCCA responsibilities. Accordingly, EPA has not enforced
States' implementation of the law. Furthermore, the LCCA
authorized $30 million a year in fiscal years 1989, 1990 and 1991
for States to assist their schools and day care centers in testing
for, and remedying lead contamination. However, these funds have
never been made available to the States. The lack of authority
combined with the lack of Federal funds has limited EPA's ability
in aggressively pursuing compliance with the law.
Despite not having authority to enforce LCCA provisions, EPA
has devoted considerable effort to providing assistance to States,
schools and local educational agencies to implement the LCCA.
During the summer of 1989, EPA conducted a series of "train the
trainer" seminars in five EPA regions and in Washington D.C. The
purpose of these seminars was to instruct key officials on
providing training on the local level to test for and remedy lead
contamination in school drinking water. Also, during the latter
part of 1989, EPA, with eleven national educational organizations,
sponsored six seminars to alert the education community and parents
about lead in drinking water. Further, EPA is developing a
training video on testing for lead in school drinking water, a
guidance document for day care centers, nursery schools and non-
residential, non-school buildings, and a "Hazards in Schools"
booklet.
Our review revealed that none of the States in Region III had
complied with all of their requirements under the LCCA. We found
that Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and the District
of Columbia distributed the EPA guidance document or made it
available to the schools and day care centers. The only State not
fulfilling this requirement was Pennsylvania. Personnel from the
Department of Environmental Resources in Pennsylvania claim they
are waiting for additional resources from the State to hold
training sessions prior to the release of the EPA guidance.
13
-------
Although the majority of the States mailed the guidance document,
none of the States had developed adequate programs to assist their
LEAs in testing for, and remedying lead contamination in their
drinking water. Specifically, the State programs did not ensure
that all water coolers were tested for lead. Additionally, the
State programs did not ensure that all coolers found to contribute
lead to drinking water were either repaired, replaced, permanently
removed or rendered inoperable by February 1, 1990, as required by
the LCCA.
Most States have limited resources to test water coolers.
Accordingly, the only way the States could ensure that coolers were
tested was to require schools and day care centers to test their
own coolers. Our review of a nationwide summary prepared by EPA
personnel revealed that only Minnesota and the Virgin Islands
required LEAs and day care centers to test their drinking water.
Other States and territories only recommended that the schools test
their water in accordance with EPA protocol. Since the LCCA and
most States have not required that drinking water be tested for
lead contamination, many schools and day care centers have not
performed testing.
Our review of States in Region III revealed that none of the
States had adequate records to make sure that hazardous coolers
were remedied by the February 1, 1990 deadline. The chart below
indicates the responses to a questionnaire distributed by the
region to its States in October 1989. The Region asked the States
in this questionnaire to estimate the number of schools and day
care centers testing for lead in their drinking water. The results
are listed below:
Day Care
States Schools Centers
Delaware unknown unknown
Virginia unknown unknown
West Virginia 100* 20*
Maryland 1,000 - 2,000** unknown
Pennsylvania unknown unknown
* This represents 8% of the total schools and 11% of the total
day care centers statewide.
** This represents between 50% and 90% of the total schools
statewide.
As shown above, the States were not aware of how many schools
and day care centers tested their water. Consequently, the States
were not prepared to comply with the February 1, 1990, deadline for
ensuring the correction of lead contamination in the coolers.
14
-------
State Agencies appear frustrated with EPA over the lack of
Federal funding and the lack of EPA's expectations concerning the
States' implementation of the LCCA. In response to a questionnaire
on the LCCA by EPA, one State official stated the following:
"Quite frankly, I'm disappointed at EPA's inconsistency and
lack of leadership or direction with regard to this Act. On
June 15, 1989, I received from EPA a letter which states 'EPA
has no official expectations of States in implementing the
LCCA.' If the Agency has 'no expectations' then what is the
purpose of the questionnaire? ... Why must the State be
placed in a position of defending our lack of attention to a
non-funded Federal program with no official expectations?"
The above statement illustrates the State's frustration with
the law. Accordingly, we believe that EPA needs to provide more
assistance to the States regarding compliance with the law. EPA
should prepare model plans to assist States in formulating their
LCCA programs. Also, EPA should perform additional outreach to the
States, assisting them in formulating and managing their LCCA
programs.
During our review, we contacted 13 school districts, including
ten of the largest school districts in Region III. Of the 13, ten
tested their drinking water, while three did not perform any
testing. Eight of the ten school districts that tested their water
found lead contamination in their drinking water. The sources of
the contamination were identified as the coolers, fountains and
plumbing. Furthermore, the extent of the contamination may be
understated because all ten school districts performing lead
testing, including the two finding no lead, did not follow EPA's
testing methods or did a limited amount of testing. When schools
discovered dangerous levels of lead in their water, they generally
disconnected the source of the contaminated drinking water.
However, not all school districts notified parents, teachers and
employee organizations of the availability of such testing results,
as required by the LCCA.
The amount of testing used by the 13 schools in our sample
varied. Two school districts tested only water coolers identified
by EPA as having lead-lined storage tanks or other parts containing
lead. Two school districts tested all water coolers, while six
school districts tested outlets including coolers, fountains and
faucets. The remaining three school districts did not test their
drinking water.
The results of our review are summarized under the following
headings: "Schools Finding Lead In Their Drinking Water" and
"Schools Not Testing For Lead Or Testing Improperly."
15
-------
Schools Finding Lead in Their Drinking Water
Our review of eight of the ten school districts discovering
lead contamination revealed the following:
o Coolers identified by EPA as imminently hazardous or
containing lead parts were present in seven of ten schools
and were found to contain dangerous levels of lead
contamination.
o In four of ten school districts, coolers not previously
identified by EPA on its list of hazardous coolers were
contaminating the drinking water.
o In addition to coolers, six of ten school districts have
discovered lead contamination from fountains and plumbing.
Five of the ten school districts had results indicating lead
levels in excess of 100 ppb. EPA recommends that any drinking
water fountain or tap with lead levels over 20 ppb be taken out of
service immediately. The schools generally complied by
disconnecting the source of the contamination. However, not all
the schools notified parents, teachers and employee organizations
of the availability of such testing results as required by the law.
Of the ten school districts which tested their water, only
seven identified their coolers by manufacturer and model number.
All seven of these school districts found in their schools coolers
that were lead-lined or had lead components. One school district
in Pennsylvania had a total of 1,195 water coolers and found that
65 of these coolers were included on EPA's list as "lead-lined."
The school district tested the 65 coolers and found that 47 of the
coolers had test results in excess of 20 parts per billion (the
lead level for which EPA recommends taking the cooler out of
service immediately). These test results ranged from 20 to 182
parts per billion (ppb). At one school, 15 coolers were tested and
all 15 exceeded 20 ppb. After learning of this problem, School
officials informed us that all problem coolers have been
disconnected.
We also inquired whether the school district notified parents,
teachers and employee organizations of the availability of the test
results. School personnel informed us that all the appropriate
parties had not been notified of the availability of the test
results. The School Board was still deciding on how to handle this
situation, six months after the test results. We believe that the
State needs to follow up with the above school district to protect
the health of the students.
Not only are lead-lined water coolers present in the schools,
but also four schools found lead contamination from additional
water coolers not on EPA's list of hazardous coolers. For example,
16
-------
one school district in Maryland tested all 1,113 of their coolers,
and found that 358 of the coolers (32%) had test results of 20 ppb
or higher. Approximately 256 of the 358 problem water coolers
(72%) were not previously identified by EPA as having lead-lined
storage tanks or other parts containing lead. The 256 coolers
represented 54 different model numbers. Additionally, 76 of the
256 coolers had lead levels of 100 ppb or higher. School officials
stated that all 358 coolers were disconnected immediately.
In addition to discovering lead contamination from their
coolers, six of ten school districts found contamination from
fountains and plumbing. A school district in Pennsylvania tested
190 of an approximate 500 outlets in accordance with the protocol.
The 190 outlets included 117 water coolers and 73 bubblers
(fountains with no refrigeration units). This represented all of
the school district's coolers and a sample of bubblers. Fifty, or
26 percent of the 190 outlets exceeded EPA's recommended level of
20 ppb and further, nine outlets (five bubblers and four coolers)
had lead concentrations of over 100 ppb. Contrary to the
expectations of the school official, only 19 of the 50 contaminated
outlets were water coolers, the remaining 31 were bubblers. School
officials stated that signs were posted on all 50 problem outlets
and additional testing was being performed to determine the cause
for the elevated lead levels. In the interim, the school officials
have provided bottled water as a temporary replacement. They
further anticipate that all 50 outlets will be permanently
disconnected and expect to replace some of the outlets with new
coolers.
Schools Not Testing Or Testing Improperly
Of the 13 school districts we reviewed, some schools did not
test, while others tested inadequately. Our review revealed the
following:
o Three school districts did no testing.
o Nine school districts did limited testing; seven of which
found high lead levels.
o Three school districts did not test in accordance with EPA
protocol.
As mentioned earlier, schools were discovering lead
contamination in their drinking water and children were being
exposed to unnecessary health risks. Consequently, it is important
for schools and day care centers to test for lead in drinking
water. Furthermore, EPA recommends that testing be performed in
accordance with EPA protocol so that all lead contamination is
discovered. Additional testing is warranted when lead
contamination is found, as suggested in the EPA protocol.
17
-------
We found three major school districts, each in a different
State in Region III, that were not testing their drinking water at
all. All three cited the lack of outside funding combined with
limited resources of their own as the cause for not testing.
However, discussions with school officials from these three
districts indicated that no type of comprehensive testing program
was planned for the near future. In addition, one school official
claimed that they do not plan to do any testing until either EPA
makes it a requirement or EPA provides funding for the program.
Our review revealed that seven school districts did limited
testing despite finding lead contamination. Two school districts
only tested water coolers identified by EPA as having lead-lined
storage tanks or lead parts. EPA's Proposed Listing dated
April 10, 1989, states in part that given the limited information
available to EPA on lead-containing drinking water coolers, owners
are urged not to rely exclusively upon the EPA lists. EPA
recommends that the drinking water from individual coolers (as well
as other outlets) be tested to determine if lead is present in a
particular cooler and, if so, at what level. If lead is found to
be present, additional analysis should be performed to determine
whether the source of lead is from the water cooler, the plumbing
or both.
As discussed earlier, one school district in Pennsylvania only
tested 65 of 1,195 or 5 percent of their water coolers. These were
the water coolers that EPA listed as "lead-lined" in their proposed
regulation dated April 10, 1989. School officials found that 47 of
the 65 coolers had test results exceeding EPA acceptable limits (20
ppb). Our other finding entitled "EPA SHOULD IMPROVE PROCEDURES
FOR IDENTIFYING WATER COOLERS THAT ARE NOT LEAD FREE" shows that
there are numerous models unidentified by EPA with potential lead
problems. For this reason, the school district should test all
their water coolers.
Additionally, the school district in testing the "lead-lined"
coolers took two samples: first draw; and after flushing for five
minutes. Our review revealed that in 32 of 65 coolers the second
test exceeded 20 ppb. When the results are high after flushing,
the source of lead contamination may be coming from the plumbing.
Consequently, other outlets in the schools may also have high
readings as a result of contamination from the plumbing. To
adequately ensure the safety of the students, the school needs to
test all their outlets.
Another area of concern is where schools have tested, but have
not followed the EPA protocol for sampling. Of the 13 school
districts we contacted during the audit, we found that three school
districts were not following an important part of EPA's protocol,
requiring a first draw sample. "First draw" sample means
collecting a sample before the school opens and before any water is
used. Ideally, the water should sit in the pipes unused for at
18
-------
least eight hours but not more than 18 hours before the sample is
taken. This sample is necessary to help determine the source of
the contamination. If the sample has been taken after the fountain
has been used, the lead may have already been flushed out.
Therefore, the test results may indicate that there was no lead
contamination when there actually was lead present. Also, if the
source of the contamination is the plumbing, then replacing the
cooler would not remedy the problem. Without taking a first draw
sample, the test results are not a valid indication of the level of
lead in the drinking water from the cooler, or the source of any
lead contamination that is found.
A school district in Maryland, assisted by the City Health
Department, tested all water coolers in the school district. Not
all test results were available at the time of our review. We
examined available test results and noted that only 19 of 38 tests
specified the time of the sample. Our review revealed that the 19
tests were performed from 8:30 am to 11:00 am. Consequently, it
appears that the coolers may have already been used, and the sample
did not represent a first draw. Since the tests may not have been
performed properly, we believe the school district and Health
Department have not adequately protected the health of the
students. Furthermore, we found no evidence that school officials
notified parents, teachers and employee organizations of the
availability of test results.
CONCLUSION
Our review showed that many schools were either not testing
their water or, if they were testing, may have been testing
improperly. Schools testing in accordance with EPA protocol have
found significant levels of lead in their drinking water, some of
the results far in excess of EPA standards. Further, not all
schools have notified parents, teachers and employee organizations
of the availability of test results as required by the law- The
health effects associated with lead digested into the body are not
always immediately evident. Recent studies have shown that the
consumption of small amounts of lead can have detrimental health
effects. We believe that States should fulfill their
responsibilities under the LCCA. States should ensure that schools
test their water and correct any lead problems.
We agree that EPA's ability to ensure States comply with the
LCCA is hampered by the lack of enforcement authority granted the
Agency in the law. We also agree that the Agency will have a
difficult time coercing States to comply with the law, especially
considering that the Federal funds to assist the States have not
been appropriated. However, a fundamental element of EPA's
drinking water program is to ensure that water delivered to the
public is safe for consumption. As the Agency responsible for safe
drinking water, EPA should use its' leadership position on drinking
19
-------
water to encourage and assist States in complying with the LCCA.
To help achieve this goal, EPA should provide model plans of an
adequate LCCA program to the States. The Agency should also
perform additional outreach to the States to assist them in
complying with their LCCA plans.
Agency Response and Actions Taken
Of the 13 school districts evaluated involving thousands of
individual schools, 10 of the 13 districts had performed testing.
This is a very high rate of initial compliance for a program with
absolutely no funding support from EPA.
The conclusion implies that EPA has taken a passive role in
ensuring State implementation of the LCCA. EPA has performed an
extensive outreach program by conducting training and seminars,
developing and distributing guidance and booklets over and above
those required by the law, and by providing extensive technical
assistance to States, schools, and local education institutions.
These activities are continuing. We have, in fact, initiated
and continue to follow through on the two recommendations in this
section (prepare model plans to assist States in formulating their
LCCA programs, and perform outreach to the States on LCCA
programs). In addition, we have initiated investigation for
possible enforcement action of a manufacturer of water cooler
valves that were improperly soldered with lead. The LCCA is only
part of our overall program to provide drinking water free of
adverse health risks. Unfortunately, there are not enough
resources at either the Federal or State level to do any element
completely.
In order to assess LCCA activities, EPA has conducted a survey
of lead in drinking water programs in nine States. The results of
this survey indicate that fewer than half of the school districts
had tested their buildings for lead in drinking water at the time
of the survey. However, approximately two-thirds that had not yet
tested reported that they were planning to do so within the next 12
months. The report concludes that the level of State effort is the
key factor affecting the ways in which school districts respond to
their LCCA programs. The survey found that school districts are
more responsive if they are in States that have disseminated the
EPA manual, participated in EPA training seminars, and actively
assisted schools compared with States that have not put forth the
same efforts.
20
-------
Auditor's coiBn|ents
We believe that a significant number of schools were not testing
their water. We recognize that 10 out of 13 school districts
performed testing; however, as explained on page two of the report
the schools included in our sample were selected because they did
test their water. This was necessary to adeguately review their
testing procedures. The basis for our statement came from the
chart on page 14 which shows only 8 percent of the total schools in
West Virginia tested their water while as little as 50 percent may
have tested their water in Maryland. Our belief that a significant
number of schools have performed no testing is validated by the
recent EPA survey reference in the ODW response to this report.
This survey estimated that fewer than half of the school districts
tested their water.
We recognize that EPA has provided training, guidance and
technical assistance to the States. However, despite EPA
assistance, States still have not fulfilled their responsibilities
in accordance with the LCCA. Accordingly, EPA should do all that
it can to encourage the States to provide additional assistance to
the LEAs and day care centers. As mentioned in your response, an
EPA survey revealed that school districts are more responsive to
lead problems in the States providing more assistance.
We realize that the LCCA is only part of EPA's overall program
to provide drinking water free of adverse health risks. However,
lead in drinking water imposes a serious health hazard for the
schools, and this hazard needs to be adeguately addressed.
21
-------
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
1) make sure that the Office of Drinking Water continues in
its efforts to prepare Model Plans assisting States in
formulating their LCCA programs; and
2) perform additional outreach to the States, assisting them
in complying with their LCCA programs.
22
-------
2. EPA SHOULD IMPROVE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING
WATER COOLERS THAT ARE NOT LEAD FREE
EPA was approximately one year late in providing a current and
accurate list of imminently hazardous water coolers to States as
required by the LCCA. We found that EPA did not: publish the list
within the time frames required by the LCCA; locate and identify
additional coolers to place on the list; and fully utilize data
gathered on the test results of coolers. Our review of lead
testing in the schools showed that some schools with limited
resources were only testing water coolers on EPA's list of
hazardous coolers. By limiting their testing, these schools may
not have tested all dangerous coolers, exposing their students to
unnecessary health risks. EPA's delay in publishing the list of
dangerous coolers may have also delayed the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) in issuing an order to the manufacturers of these
coolers. The order, according to the LCCA, would have required
manufacturers to repair, replace, or recall and provide a refund
for such coolers by November 1, 1989. Consequently, many school
districts with hazardous coolers were awaiting action by both CPSC
and the manufacturers. EPA officials attribute deficiencies in
publishing the list to: insufficient resources; enormous number
and type of water coolers; and the inability to obtain water
coolers for testing. We also believe uncertainties in the division
of responsibilities between EPA and CPSC may have resulted in
inefficient and ineffective procedures for identifying water
coolers to be tested.
We recommend that the data gathered on test results of coolers
be used to prioritize the remaining workload of water cooler
testing and to determine if water cooler manufacturers are not
obeying the lead ban. We also recommend that EPA execute an
interagency agreement (IA) with CPSC delineating each Agency's
responsibility in testing water coolers.
The LCCA provides that EPA should identify each brand and
model of drinking water cooler which is not lead free, including
each brand and model of drinking water cooler which has a lead-
lined tank. After notice and opportunity for public comment, EPA
will publish a list of drinking water coolers, by brand and model,
which are not lead free. To accomplish this task, EPA will use the
best information available to the Agency. The Agency shall publish
the list by February 8, 1989. EPA should continue to gather
information regarding lead in drinking water coolers and shall
revise and republish the list from time to time, as may be
appropriate, as new information or analysis becomes available
regarding lead contamination in drinking water coolers. The LCCA
further provides that all drinking water coolers identified by EPA
on the list as having a lead-lined tank shall be considered to be
"imminently hazardous consumer products." The CPSC, after notice
and opportunity for comment, including a public hearing, is
23
-------
required to issue an order requiring the manufacturers and
importers of such coolers to repair, replace, or recall and provide
a refund for such coolers by November 1, 1989.
EPA Did Not Publish the List of Hazardous Coolers Within the Time
Frames Required by the LCCA
EPA was approximately one year late in publishing the final
list of coolers even though most of the information used by EPA was
readily available prior to enactment of the LCCA. Likewise, it
took EPA five months after the enactment of the LCCA to publish the
proposed list. EPA also allowed an additional five months for
comments to the proposed list. The delay by EPA may have precluded
CPSC from issuing an order requiring manufacturers to remedy the
hazard which may include refunds to the schools. Additionally,
this delay may have contributed to the lack of lead testing by the
schools as well as the lack of involvement on the part of State
agencies. We found that EPA did not issue the final list until
January 18, 1990, almost one year after the February 8, 1989,
deadline required in the LCCA. Various parties (EPA, CPSC, State
agencies, and schools) have been mandated responsibilities under
the LCCA. In order to ensure all the above parties comply with
their responsibilities, EPA has to set an example by timely
compliance with the LCCA.
According to the LCCA, EPA has to publish a list of water
coolers which are not lead free. The term "lead free" means that
each part or component of the cooler coming in contact with
drinking water contains no more than eight percent lead. Further,
any solder, flux or storage tank interior surface in contact with
drinking water must be less than 0.2 percent lead. The list of
lead free coolers must also separately identify each brand and
model of drinking water cooler which has a lead-lined water tank.
To adequately identify a water cooler with a lead-lined tank the
cooler must be disassembled and the tank tested.
The proposed list was published on April 10, 1989, and had 108
model numbers classified as not lead free. EPA's basis for
identifying the 108 non-lead free model numbers was information
submitted by the manufacturers. Three manufacturers, in response
to a Congressional survey in December 1987, indicated that lead had
been used in at least some models of their drinking water coolers.
This information provided by the manufacturers was made available
to EPA by February 1988, eight months prior to the enactment of the
LCCA. Consequently, EPA did not have to wait for additional
information on the non-lead free models. The proposed list also
had six model numbers listed as lead-lined. As a result of
testing, EPA determined as early as August 1988, that four of the
six models were lead-lined. Thus, EPA did not have to wait five
months to publish the proposed list of lead-lined coolers.
24
-------
After issuing the proposed list on April 10, 1989, EPA
originally allowed 45 days, until May 25, 1989, for any written
comments. Our review of these comments revealed that EPA extended
the comment period until November 1989. Some of these comments
were not even on the proposed list, but instead represented
additional information on other water coolers. EPA personnel
informed us that since this was "best available" information, and
according to the Law, they had to also consider this information in
publishing the final list. As a result, the final list was not
issued until January 18, 1990, and included the model numbers on
the proposed list, and also proposed four additional models as
lead-lined.
EPA's delay in issuing the list of hazardous coolers may have
affected the compliance of LCCA requirements by other parties such
as CPSC and State agencies. CPSC in a letter dated July 24, 1989,
informed the Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Energy and
Commerce that the Commission's ability to meet the statutory
deadline under the LCCA was tied directly to the EPA's publication
of the final list of coolers with lead-lined tanks. The letter
further provided that the Commission would be unable to make the
deadline for several reasons, one of which was that EPA still did
not publish the final list. In addition to CPSC, the delay in
publishing the list also affected the States. According to the
LCCA, State agencies were required by February 1, 1990, to ensure
corrective action was taken on any water cooler found to contribute
lead to drinking water. Since EPA's final list was not published
until January 18, 1990, the States were only allowed 13 days to
ensure corrective action was taken on the coolers described in the
list.
We believe that EPA should have acted sooner in publishing
both the proposed and final listings of water coolers so that the
information could have been disseminated to the waiting school
districts in a timely manner. EPA should not have delayed the
final listing to include additional proposed models. It would have
been more beneficial to issue two lists: a Final list for models
previously proposed; and a Proposed list for any new models.
Additionally, EPA needs to develop procedures for republishing and
revising future listings of hazardous coolers. Time frames need to
be established and complied with in issuing both proposed and final
listings of non-lead free water coolers. State and school
officials during the course of our review repeatedly reminded us
that EPA had been delinquent in publishing the list. It is
important for EPA to expeditiously comply with the LCCA because the
Agency should set an example for all other parties (CPSC, States,
schools) required to comply with the LCCA.
25
-------
EPA Did Not Aggressively Attempt To Locate and Identify Additional
Water Coolers To Place On the List
EPA has made limited attempts to locate and identify
potentially hazardous water coolers. It is estimated that there
may be as many as 600 different model numbers. As of August 1989,
EPA had tested 33 water coolers, representing only 18 different
model numbers. However, 21 of these 33 coolers representing 12
different model numbers were tested prior to enactment of the law
(November 1, 1988). From September 1988 to June 1989, only three
additional coolers were tested, two of which were the same model
number. In the following three months (July to September 1989)
another nine coolers were tested, representing only four additional
models. To test only 12 water coolers over a 12 month period
(September 1988 to September 1989) appears inadequate considering
the vast number of different coolers. Additionally, some
manufacturers contend that different materials may be used in the
same model number. Therefore, EPA could potentially be responsible
for testing thousands of coolers.
We found that some schools with limited resources restricted
their testing to only EPA identified lead-lined tanks. These
schools may not have been identifying all their hazardous coolers,
thus exposing their students to unnecessary health risks. If
schools with limited resources can at best only test coolers on
EPA's list, it is important for EPA to include as many imminently
hazardous coolers on the list as possible.
EPA attributed the lack of testing to inadequate resources for
obtaining, transporting and testing the water coolers. Also, EPA
personnel have stated that schools are reluctant to donate coolers
to EPA because it may impact any possible corrective action offered
by the manufacturers. Furthermore, we found that EPA was allowing
their laboratory to assist CPSC in testing more coolers of models
already identified by EPA as lead-lined.
In both fiscal years 1989 and 1990, EPA received no money in
its budget for testing water coolers. Before testing a water
cooler, EPA has to locate, obtain and transport the cooler to its
laboratory in Cincinnati. Additionally, some schools requested
refunds before they allow EPA to remove the coolers. This happened
because testing of the coolers requires cutting open the tank which
renders the cooler inoperable. So far the coolers tested have been
donated by such parties as the U.S. Navy, Portland School District,
Colby College and the Minnesota Health Department. EPA has used
funds targeted for other activities to secure these coolers.
However, EPA personnel explained that these funds are very limited.
The lack of identifying additional problem coolers is also
caused by EPA assisting CPSC. In correspondence to EPA, CPSC
stated that they will need more assistance from EPA if they are to
accomplish their responsibilities and issue an order to the
26
-------
manufacturers. Specifically, CPSC informed EPA that the water
coolers identified by EPA as having lead-lined tanks may not be
lead-lined throughout the entire model number. Consequently, CPSC
will have to test more than one cooler of each model number before
issuing an order to the manufacturer. CPSC is uncertain of the
amount of testing needed to issue the LCCA order as well as the
availability of resources necessary to accomplish the testing.
Accordingly, EPA assisted CPSC by using their laboratory to test
water coolers already identified as lead-lined by EPA.
By using EPA's limited testing resources to assist CPSC in
testing models already identified as lead-lined, the Agency was not
in a position to test and add new coolers to the list. According
to the LCCA, EPA has to identify non-lead free coolers. It is
CPSC's responsibility once the cooler has been identified by EPA as
lead-lined to issue an order to the manufacturer for corrective
action. We believe it is more important for EPA to identify
additional lead-lined and lead component coolers before beginning
to retest coolers already determined to be imminently hazardous
(lead-lined). It is important for EPA to ensure the list contains
as many non-lead free coolers as possible because schools are
relying on EPA to identify coolers requiring testing.
Additionally, EPA should establish an interagency agreement (IA)
with CPSC delineating each of the Agencies' responsibilities under
the LCCA. The IA should include procedures for gathering and using
test information from the schools, as well as specify the degree of
testing by both Agencies.
EPA Has No Procedures To Ensure Obtaining Best Available
Information
Our review showed that the Headquarters Office of Drinking
Water had not taken an active enough role in obtaining the
information necessary to publish a list of hazardous water coolers.
EPA had no formal procedures for gathering and utilizing test
information from the schools, which could help determine which
coolers had harmful amounts of lead. Schools that tested their
drinking water discovered lead contamination in water coolers not
previously identified on EPA's list. EPA may not be notified of
these results. Consequently, EPA may not be cognizant of the
additional tainted coolers, thus not ensuring the accuracy and
timeliness of the list. The Agency needs to work with the States
and school districts to ensure timely submittal of all test results
to EPA indicating potentially hazardous water coolers.
In July 1989, CPSC started gathering test data from school
districts regarding drinking water coolers. As of December 1989,
CPSC estimated that it had forwarded information from approximately
300 school districts to EPA. This information included types of
water coolers and results and protocol of water testing.
27
-------
We reviewed test results submitted by 42 of the 300 school
systems. Our review disclosed that schools found approximately 357
lead contaminated water coolers from seven different manufacturers
not included on EPA's listing of non-lead free coolers. Some of
the test results were available as far back as April 1988, almost
17 months before EPA received them from CPSC. One of the school
systems we contacted had tested every water cooler in their
district. Of the 1,113 coolers tested, 358 had results of 20 ppb
or higher. Approximately 256 of the 358 problem Water coolers were
not previously identified by EPA as having lead-lined storage tanks
or other parts containing lead. If EPA had data collection
procedures in place, the Agency could have received and evaluated
some of this information as early as November 1988. This may have
allowed EPA to publish a more current and accurate list of problem
coolers.
Even though the LCCA requires EPA to use the best information
available in formulating their list of hazardous coolers, EPA
personnel have informed us that test results are not conclusive
evidence that the tank is lead-lined. However, EPA personnel do
agree that test results are a good indicator of a water cooler with
a potential lead problem. Furthermore, the timely retrieval of
testing results from the schools is necessary for EPA to prioritize
their limited laboratory resources. Given the large number of
brand and model numbers of water coolers, and EPA's limited
funding, it is impossible for EPA to test every cooler.
Consequently, EPA should use this information from the schools to
pinpoint the most suspicious coolers with potential lead
contamination. This information is a vital source for determining
the frequency for which drinking water from particular brands and
models has been tested and found to contain excessive lead. Once
identified, efforts should be made to obtain these coolers and have
them sent to EPA's laboratory for testing.
CONCLUSION
EPA has not developed procedures that enabled it to provide a
current and accurate list of hazardous water coolers. EPA took too
long to publish the first proposed and final listings of hazardous
water coolers. There was no need to delay the proposed listing
because the information on the hazardous coolers was already
available to EPA prior to the enactment of the LCCA. EPA also
allowed the comment period on the proposed listing to extend five
months beyond the date in the proposed regulations. This further
delayed issuing the final listing, and may have delayed CPSC from
initiating an order to the manufacturers for corrective action.
In addition to not publishing the list on time, EPA only
tested 33 water coolers of an estimated 600 different model
numbers. Accordingly, there is potentially over 500 models that
could need testing. We believe it is more important to identify
28
-------
additional hazardous coolers before assisting CPSC in reconfirming
the coolers already identified as hazardous, given EPA's limited
laboratory resources. Further, EPA did not have adequate
procedures to timely obtain data from schools performing testing.
EPA's inability to obtain and evaluate test results from schools in
a timely manner has decreased their ability to identify additional
hazardous water coolers.
Agency Response and Actions Taken
It is true that EPA did not publish the proposed and final
list of coolers in the Federal Register within the statutory
deadlines. To preclude delays to State implementation of the LCCA
programs, we distributed the proposed list to States in January
1989, in advance of the statutory deadline for publishing a
proposed list. We recommended that States provide this list to
schools. Most States, as your audit found in Region III, worked
from this list to begin the tremendous effort of testing water
coolers throughout the country.
Verifying the presence of lead lining in a water cooler tank,
as required by the LCCA, involves the procurement and disassembly
of the cooler and cutting open the tank. Sampling and
quantitatively testing the tank's interior surface is a complex,
time-consuming and costly procedure. Additional time was required
to develop a standardized testing protocol to assure the
reliability of these and future test results. Given the limited
resources available to conduct these activities, publication of the
final notice occurred as quickly as possible. We plan to
periodically update the list whenever we get significant additional
information.
The report concludes that "EPA's inability to obtain and
evaluate test results from schools in a timely manner has decreased
their ability to identify additional hazardous water coolers." We
disagree. The testing protocol for schools is designed to
determine whether the amount of lead at the tap exceeds EPA's
recommended action level of 20 parts per billion (ppb), not to
determine whether the cooler is lead free. For the purpose of
defining coolers as not lead free under the LCCA's provisions, the
data are of limited value to EPA without extensive quality
assurance procedures and follow-up testing on cooler tanks or other
parts. We believe the resources needed to collect and analyze
these data can be better utilized in other critical program areas.
The report cites EPA's failure to publish the final list as
one of the reasons for CPSC's delay in ordering manufacturer recall
of coolers. Delay in publishing the list was not a controlling
factor. Because it was not possible to determine whether all water
coolers in the specific model series had lead-lined tanks, CPSC
needed additional information to develop the legal case necessary
29
-------
to order a recall. CPSC, in fact, began work with the
manufacturers long before issuance of the final list — it was not
a significant factor in delay of an order.
The report criticizes EPA for expending scarce resources by
providing testing assistance to CPSC and recommends a formal
interagency agreement defining each Agency's responsibilities. We
believe we already have an appropriate and effective working
relationship with CPSC. As a result of our assistance to CPSC, the
Commission negotiated a consent order agreement (CO A) with the
manufacturer for the replacement or refund for lead lined water
coolers. This COA was published in the Federal Register on
June 1, 1990.
Auditor's
We recognize that verifying the presence of lead in a water
cooler is a resource- intensive test. Accordingly, this constraint
makes it important for EPA to develop adequate procedures for
issuing timely revisions to the lists. Procedures should ensure
that resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.
We believe that adequate procedures should include analyses of
the testing data accumulated by the schools. This data provides a
good source for identifying potentially hazardous water coolers.
We realize that just because the water coming from the cooler has
high levels of lead does not necessarily mean that the cooler
contains lead components. However, several schools reporting
excessive amounts of lead from a particular manufacturer and model
number may be the best indication EPA could have in identifying
problem water coolers. EPA laboratory personnel in Cincinnati
informed us that test results from the schools would be useful in
prioritizing which coolers need to be analyzed for lead.
Consequently, EPA should accumulate and analyze data from the
schools to ensure that potentially hazardous coolers are targeted
for testing.
We disagree that EPA's failure to publish the list timely was
not a factor in CPSC's delay in ordering manufacturer recall of
coolers. According to the LCCA, Section 1463, the CPSC could not
issue an order until the manufacturers mentioned on the list had an
opportunity to comment. The purpose of the proposed list was to
allow the manufacturer to offer comments. By not publishing the
proposed list until April 1989 (five months after enactment of the
LCCA) and by extending the comment period an additional five
months, EPA delayed CPSC from issuing the order. CPSC, according
to the law, could not act until the comments were received from the
manufacturers .
30
-------
Finally, we believe that EPA and CPSC need to formalize each
Agency's responsibilities under the LCCA in an interagency
agreement. In September 1989, CPSC started forwarding cooler
information (inventory data, test results) collected by CPSC since
July 1989 from schools to EPA. No formal procedures exist for the
timely exchange of this information between the two Agencies.
Since the LCCA requires EPA to use the best information available
to it, the Agency needs to formalize procedures for obtaining this
information from CPSC. Additionally, the interagency agreement
should specify each Agency's responsibility concerning testing of
the coolers. EPA should devote its stated limited resources to
identifying additional hazardous coolers before assisting CPSC in
reconfirming the coolers already identified as hazardous. This is
necessary because schools with limited funding are only testing
coolers on EPA's list, and therefore may be exposing their students
to tainted water from untested coolers.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
1) Establish procedures and definite timeframes for the
issuance of revisions to the EPA list of Drinking Water
Coolers That Are Not Lead Free.
2) Develop and execute an interagency agreement (IA) with CPSC
defining each Agency's responsibilities under the LCCA. The
IA should specify which Agency has responsibility for any
follow-up testing on models already identified by EPA as
hazardous. Also, the IA should establish procedures for
exchanging water cooler information requested by CPSC from
the schools.
3) Develop procedures to ensure that data gathered on test
results of coolers is used to prioritize the remaining
workload of untested water coolers, and is also used to
determine when water cooler manufacturers are disobeying
the lead ban.
31
-------
3. EPA AND THE STATES HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURED THAT
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN INFORMED ABOUT LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
AND THE LEAD BAN
EPA did not aggressively pursue the States' lack of
enforcement concerning public notification and lead ban
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). States did not
ensure public water systems notified their customers of the dangers
of lead in their drinking water. Also, States did not adequately
enforce the prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder and flux in
plumbing providing water for human consumption. States were
required to enforce both of the above requirements by June 19,
1988. We found that less than 50 percent of the public water
systems in Region III complied with the public notification
requirements and the States are uncertain if contractors are still
using illegal lead pipe, solder and flux. As a result, the public
was not adequately informed of the dangers and potential presence
of lead in their water and may still be having lead plumbing
supplies installed in their homes. States cite a lack of resources
as well as a lack of direct authority to enforce the lead ban
requirement. The ban of lead pipes and solder is generally
included in the State building codes and accordingly is enforced by
the local building inspectors, not environmental agencies. We
recommend that EPA take stronger measures to encourage States to
comply with the lead requirements of the SDWA.
In accordance with section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, as amended June 19, 1986, each public water system shall
identify and provide notice to persons that may be affected by lead
contamination of their drinking water where such contamination
results from either or both of the following:
1) the lead content in the construction materials of the
public water distribution system.
2) Corrosivity of the water supply sufficient to cause
leaching of lead.
The contents of the notice shall provide a clear and readily
understandable explanation of:
1) the potential sources of lead in the drinking water;
2) potential adverse effects;
3) reasonable available methods of mitigating known or
potential lead content in drinking water; and
4) the necessity for seeking alternative water supplies, if
any.
32
-------
Additionally, any pipe, solder, or flux which is used after
the enactment of the SDWA Amendments of 1986, in the installation
or repair of:
1) any public water system; or,
2) any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility
providing water for human consumption which is connected
to a public water system shall be lead free (within the
meaning defined in the SDWA).
The above requirements should have been enforced by States as
of June 19, 1988. If EPA determines that a State is not enforcing
the above requirements, the Agency may withhold up to five percent
of Federal funds available to that State for Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) grants. Discussed below is the status of EPA's
and the States' role in enforcing both these requirements. The
discussion is presented in two sections: 1) lead public
notification; and 2) lead ban (on pipe, solder, and flux).
Public Notification of the Hazards of Lead In Drinking Water
State officials have not adequately enforced the requirement
that public water systems (PWSs) notify their customers of the
dangers of lead in their drinking water. Furthermore, EPA
Region III officials have not taken adequate measures to ensure
States perform adequate enforcement of the lead ban. As of
December 3, 1989, EPA estimated that 43,966 of 62,223 or 71 percent
of the public water systems nationwide notified their customers;
while in Region III, only 2,894 of 5,948 or 49 percent of the PWSs
complied with the notification requirement. The chart below
indicates the record of compliance by the States in Region III.
STATE
Delaware
D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
TOTAL
TOTAL NUMBER
OF PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS
348
2
565
2,463
1,774
796
ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF PWS
ISSUING NOTICE
133
2
312
605
1,330
512
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
As shown above, only 48.7 percent of the PWSs complied with public
notification requirements as of December 1989, approximately 18
months later than the due date of June 19, 1988. EPA Region III in
their response to the draft report indicated that the 49 percent of
the PWSs in compliance serve 88% of the population. The 51 percent
of the PWSs not complying with the notification represent smaller
33
-------
systems serving less people generally in rural areas. We believe
Region III officials need to take more aggressive action with the
State agencies so that PWSs in rural areas comply with the law.
Congress has made clear the purpose of the special public
notification requirement for lead. As stated in the Safe Drinking
Water Act, notice is to be given to persons who "may be affected by
lead contamination of their drinking water." Notification is
required unless the system can prove that there is no lead-
containing material in the water system, including the residential
and nonresidential portions. The law requires that this notice be
given even if there is no violation of the Drinking Water Standard
for Lead. The regulations give systems several options for making
this notice: mail, hand delivery, newspapers and posting. Systems
can use additional means of notice (electronic media, for example)
at their discretion or at the discretion of their State regulatory
agency. The States have to ensure that PWSs comply with
congressional intent and adequately inform their customers of the
dangers of lead contamination in their drinking water.
Lead Ban
Similar to the Public Notification Requirement, States in
Region III were not adequately ensuring the enforcement of the lead
ban. We visited four States in Region III (Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia) and discovered that the States were
uncertain as to the degree of enforcement of the lead ban. States
informed us that the lead ban should be incorporated in State and
local plumbing codes and thus is enforced by county plumbing
inspectors. We found that States were unaware of the level of
effort of the plumbing inspectors in enforcing the lead ban.
Additionally., States were not being informed of any violations, or
if adequate corrective action is taken when violations occur. We
attribute the lack of oversight by the States in part to EPA's
inability to define effective implementation of the lead ban by the
States. We recommend that EPA develop an adequate enforcement
strategy so that States can properly implement their lead ban
responsibilities.
In order for a State to receive its full Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) grant in FY 88, EPA only required the State to
submit a certification regarding lead. This State certification
had to describe: its lead ban and whether it covered the entire
State; and the procedures the State used or was using to implement
the lead public notification requirements. The Regions were to
review this certification and other available information against
the requirements of the SDWA to determine whether to approve the
certification. The certification had to be submitted to EPA by
March 31, 1989. All States in Region III submitted certifications
except Pennsylvania. As a result, Region III, in accordance with
Section 1417 paragraph c of the SDWA, penalized Pennsylvania by
withholding five percent or $61,330 of their FY 89 State program
34
-------
grant for supervision of public water systems. Additionally,
Pennsylvania's implementation of the lead ban is not expected to be
in effect until FY 1991 and EPA plans to withhold five percent or
$76,480 of their FY 90 State program grant.
In FY 1990, EPA planned to require the States to demonstrate
effective implementation of the lead ban. Regions were to require
States to provide information which demonstrates that the lead ban
regulations are being uniformly and effectively enforced throughout
the State and that violations are being acted upon. The
information should include a summary of State lead ban program
compliance and enforcement activities, including a description of
the mechanisms used to enforce the lead ban and the level of
enforcement activity. This type of information was not available
to ensure effective enforcement at the time of our review.
We believe that EPA has been too lenient with the States. The
SDWA specifically states that enforcement of the lead ban should
begin on June 19, 1988. To allow the States until FY 1990 before
demonstrating adequate enforcement is inappropriate. The Agency
should have required the States to demonstrate enforcement in
FY 1989.
The four States we visited in Region III have laws which
already ban or will ban the use of lead pipes, solder or flux in
excess of legal limits. Generally, plumbing supply stores no
longer carry lead solder or flux. However, these items can still
be readily purchased at household supply stores. The task of
ensuring these lead products are no longer used in household
construction comes under the building inspector, more specifically,
the plumbing inspector.
We contacted plumbing inspectors in ten counties located in
Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Discussions with a State
official in West Virginia revealed that their State has no
statewide building codes and that probably only major cities would
be conducting building inspections. We contacted five counties and
one city in West Virginia to determine their enforcement of the
lead ban. We found that three counties don't even have plumbing
inspectors. While the other two counties and one city had
inspectors, we were told that they only check for lead solder in
the plumber's tool box. Generally, no visual inspection of
soldered joints is included as part of their inspection. There
have been no violations found in these five counties and one city.
However, with this limited amount of enforcement it is possible
that lead solder may still be used yet would go undetected.
We also interviewed inspectors in two counties in both
Maryland and Virginia who stated that they routinely look for lead
soldering. However, most of them did not use the lead testing kit
in the field. Instead, they claim that they visually check the
joints and also inspect the plumber's tool box. Should the
35
-------
inspector identify solder that appears to contain lead, the
inspector typically brings a sample back to the office where the
chief plumbing inspector will use the test kit to test the solder
for lead content. In addition, one county in Maryland takes
samples of solder, without notice, from different plumbers
(approximately six samples per month) and tests the solder with the
kit. Thus far, they have found one violation. Inspectors we
interviewed stated that there are usually four separate inspections
of new construction with many things to look for during each
inspection. Looking for lead solder is not a high priority during
these inspections. Additionally, inspection forms used by
inspectors as a type of checklist generally do not contain a line
item for inspecting solder. Thus, we believe it is uncertain
whether every inspection includes an adequate assurance that only
lead free solder is being used.
As mentioned earlier, we visited two counties in both Maryland
and Virginia. Listed below is a chart describing each county's
activities regarding the enforcement of the lead ban.
STATE
Virginia
Maryland
COUNTY
VISITED
A
B
A
B
NUMBER OF
INSPECTORS
4
6
4
6
NUMBER OF
INSPECTIONS
PER MONTH
1000 - 1100
1800 - 2300
1200 - 1400
1500 - 2000
TYPE OF
SOLDER
INSPECTION
Visual
Visual
Visual
Visual
NUMBER OF
SOLDER
VIOLATIONS
0
7*
1
0
* The seven violations included six plumbers and one homeowner.
As shown in the chart above, our review discovered minimal
violations despite the large number of inspections. In the case of
violations, county officials stated that all plumbing work was
removed and new plumbing was installed using lead free solder. The
reported violations were generally small contractors outside the
county. However, we did note that the shortage of inspectors in
many counties combined with the large workload of inspections cast
some doubt on the their ability to adequately detect the use of
lead solder.
We also found that plumbing inspectors were uncertain how to
enforce the lead ban. The SDWA requires that all pipes and pipe
fittings contain not more than 8.0 percent lead. According to the
inspectors we interviewed, lead pipe is easily identified through
the dark grayish color and soft, pliable material. However, it is
not easy to determine the lead content in copper pipes because
these pipes are composed of copper alloys containing various
amounts of lead. The American Society of Testing Materials
publication (ASTM Volume 02.01) lists the percentages of metals
contained in various types of copper alloys such as brass and
36
-------
bronze. The publication reveals that there are types of copper
alloys with as much as 24 percent lead. It is possible that some
copper pipe and fittings used for potable water could contain these
alloys. We obtained this information from a county plumbing
inspector in the State of Maryland who expressed concern over how
to enforce the 8.0 percent lead requirement for pipe. The chief
plumbing inspector stated that he is unaware of a method for
enforcing this requirement when inspections are conducted. We
believe that EPA should issue guidance to the States on how to
enforce the requirement that not more than 8.0 percent lead is used
in any pipes or pipe fittings.
Agency Response and Actions Taken
We share your concern that States have not aggressively
implemented the lead ban. In October 1988, and again in August
1989, we issued guidance indicating factors Regions should take
into consideration when deciding whether to withhold five percent
of State grant funds for States not fulfilling their lead
notification and lead ban requirements. We believe that this
guidance contains the essential elements of an effective,
enforceable lead ban. Several Regions have aggressively
implemented this guidance in FY 1990 and performed detailed reviews
of State lead ban programs as part of their annual review of State
programs.
Region III was the only Region in FY 1990 to withhold five
percent from a State for not implementing the lead ban. The Region
took charge of the PA situation by issuing over 2,500 letter
notices to public water systems to advise them of the Lead Public
Notification requirement after the State refused to issue the
notices due to lack of resources and a mandate in their
legislation. This is an aggressive measure to protect public
health.
It should be noted that one State in Region III issued written
administrative orders to 122 public water systems that had failed
to issue Lead Public Notification. The State was able to ascertain
these systems' compliance through final follow-up telephone calls.
The report is misleading factually because it does not include
the percentage of the population in Region III that were issued
notices about lead. Lead exposure from multiple sources is a
problem especially acute in urban areas. Our experience is that
the larger supplies, which tend to be in more urban areas, did
comply with the public notification requirements. We believe
approximately 88 percent of the population in Region III received
appropriate notification, and that we have done a better job of
protecting public health than the 25-49 percent as the report would
indicate.
37
-------
The report recommends that EPA consider requiring proper
labelling of products complying or not complying with lead free
standards in the SDWA. EPA has no authority to impose or enforce
such a requirement.
The recommendation that Region III take more aggressive action
to enforce the lead ban through the States needs further
clarification to make it useful. The statute does not provide EPA
with any direct enforcement tools other than withholding "up to 5
percent of the Federal funds to a state" in the PWSS grant. Region
III has done this in Pennsylvania for FYs 1989 and 1990, but it
does little to protect health of citizens in a direct way.
Region III has recently completed a review of each of its
States1 lead ban activities. Although the Region does not plan to
withhold FY 1990 grant funds from any State other than PA, it is
considering the use of specific grant conditions for one or two
other States for FY 1991.
In order to improve compliance with the lead ban, we are
engaged in a number of new initiatives including: 1) an
information program targeted towards the manufacturers,
distributors, wholesalers and retailers of solders, fittings and
plumbing fixtures; 2) development of a model program that may be
used by the States to enforce the lead ban; 3) development and
delivery of training seminars to remedy program weaknesses to
enforce the lead ban and to assess the alternatives to faucets and
fixtures containing lead; and 4) to develop additional educational
materials dealing with lead in drinking water.
Auditor's
We contend that EPA needs to more aggressively enforce the
public notification and lead ban requirements of the SDWA. To
allow over two years (June 19, 1988 to August 31, 1990) before the
states have to demonstrate effective enforcement of the lead ban
does not represent adequate oversight by EPA for ensuring State
compliance. Our review showed that States in Region III have
exerted marginal effort in determining that the lead ban
requirements had been effectively implemented. We recognize that
EPA Region III did withhold 5 percent of the Public Water System
Supervision Grant Funds from Pennsylvania. This, however,
represented an extreme example, whereby the State passed
legislation which will not implement the lead ban until FY 1991.
Since the SDWA required an effective implementation date of
June 19, 1988, EPA had no alternative but to withhold the funds.
The response notes that the report may be misleading because
the public water systems (50%) that did not notify their customers
in Region III generally represented smaller systems serving less
people. The response also states that these smaller systems are
38
-------
usually in rural areas which have less lead exposure from multiple
sources. We still believe that 50 percent of the public water
systems is significant even if they only serve 12 percent of the
State's population.
We agree that EPA has no authority to require proper labeling
of products complying or not complying with lead free standards in
the SDWA. However, EPA should request the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) to investigate the possibility of requiring a
Federal warning on pipes, solder and flux not complying with lead
free standards.
Finally, we agree that your initiatives for improving
compliance with the lead ban should improve the overall
effectiveness of the program. The information program for
manufacturers and distributors, the development of model programs
for States, as well as the training seminars and distribution of
educational materials, should assist the States in fulfilling their
lead ban requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water
develop an enforcement strategy to assist States in effectively
implementing the lead ban. The strategy should also assist State
officials and plumbing inspectors in adequately determining the
acceptability of various types of pipe, solder and flux. Also, the
Agency should provide guidance to the Regions requesting States to
periodically report lead ban enforcement actions to Regional
Offices. Consideration should also be given to requesting CPSC to
ensure proper labeling of products not complying with lead free
standards specified in the SDWA.
39
-------
4. EPA NEEDS TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION OVER LEAD MCL
The Agency has not complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requirement for revising the maximum contaminant level (MCL)
for lead in drinking water. The SDWA required EPA to revise the
existing MCL for lead by June 1988. More than two years elapsed
since this deadline, and the Agency still has not revised the MCL
for lead in drinking water. Furthermore, we found that confusion
exists among schools and laboratories over EPA's acceptable limits
of lead in drinking water from school coolers and fountains. The
current maximum contaminant level for lead is 50 parts per billion
(ppb). When Public Water Systems providing drinking water to the
public exceed this limit, they are in violation of the SDWA. EPA,
in its guidance document for lead in schools, recommends that any
water source for human consumption exceeding 20 ppb be taken out of
service immediately. Laboratories regularly testing water for
public water systems also may perform testing for school districts.
Some of these laboratories have been notifying all schools with
test results of less than 50 ppb that they are within the limits
established by the SDWA. These labs did this without making
reference to EPA's 20 ppb guidance for schools. Accordingly, we
found school districts leaving in service water coolers and
fountains having test results between 20 ppb and 50 ppb. We
believe EPA needs to clarify any confusion which may exist between
guidance for the schools and regulations used by various
laboratories.
The current MCL for lead is 50 ppb. Water suppliers,
operators of 60,000 public water systems, must ensure water
delivered to their customers remains below this amount (50 ppb),
otherwise they will be in violation of the SDWA. EPA promulgated
this MCL as an interim drinking water regulation in 1975. In
November 1985, EPA proposed a recommended MCL for lead of 20 ppb.
This regulation was never finalized. On August 18, 1988, EPA
proposed a goal for lead of zero ppb, which leads to even more
confusion. This regulation is expected to be finalized by EPA in
December 1990. In January 1989 EPA issued a guidance document for
assisting schools and day care centers in testing for lead. This
document recommends that outlets exceeding 20 ppb be taken out of
service immediately.
Our review of testing data revealed that laboratories are
providing conflicting information to schools concerning allowable
limits of lead in the water. We found that seven laboratories
located in Maryland and Virginia were informing schools that test
results less than 50 ppb were within EPA limitations. This
contradicts the EPA guidance document for assisting schools in
testing lead in drinking water, which recommends that any outlet
exceeding 20 ppb be taken out of service immediately. We noted one
laboratory's cover letter attached to the test results provided
that drinking water may contain up to 50 ppb and still be
considered safe for human consumption. Further, two of the six
40
-------
test results attached to this letter exceeded 20 ppb but were less
than 50 ppb. Additionally, we found other tests from the seven
laboratories which were greater than 20 ppb but less than 50 ppb.
Accordingly, confusion exists on the part of school officials as to
what is the acceptable amount of lead in drinking water.
Discussions with one school official revealed that testing was
performed on approximately 420 outlets from July through September
1989. The school official discovered that 118 or 28 percent of the
420 outlets had test results exceeding 20 ppb. Seventy-six of
those outlets had test results between 20 ppb and 50 ppb. However,
an official from this school district stated in January 1990 that
only those outlets exceeding 50 ppb were taken out of service.
Therefore, the 76 outlets were still in operation and were
contributing hazardous levels of lead to the school children
consuming the water. This same official claimed that EPA's current
maximum contaminant level for lead is 50 ppb and that the 20 ppb is
only recommended and not required. Consequently, no action was
taken unless the test results exceeded 50 ppb.
We recognize the arduous task imposed on EPA of developing an
acceptable limit of lead in the drinking water. However, until
this limit is derived, we believe EPA needs to eliminate any
confusion which exists over what is the acceptable amount of lead
in the drinking water.
Agency Response and Actions Taken
We agree that there is confusion over what is an acceptable
amount of lead in drinking water. In order to avoid this
confusion, we developed an Alert for Laboratory Directors. This
Alert was distributed to the States via the EPA Regions. EPA
requested that the States forward a copy of this Alert to each
certified laboratory. The Alert requests Laboratory Directors1
assistance in notifying school administrators and clients that EPA
recommends they take remedial action whenever lead levels exceed 20
ppb at one of their drinking water outlets.
We expect this Alert to not only reduce confusion caused by
differences between the current MCL and the recommended level for
remedial action on individual water outlets, but also result in
additional schools testing. Within a month of the Alert's
distribution, we have received dozens of calls from laboratories
nationwide requesting information they can provide to schools in
encouraging testing for lead.
We believe the swift action taken by EPA will provide
beneficial results to the overall Program.
41
-------
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water ensure
laboratories certified to test for lead are aware of and accurately
inform their customers of EPA's recommended revised limit of
20 ppb. We suggest that you send letters to the States explaining
the difference between the current MCL of 50 ppb and your
recommended action for samples from individual outlets exceeding 20
ppb. The letter should request States to similarly inform their
certified laboratories to advise their clients of EPA's revision.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 1 5 1990
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report on Lead in Drinking Water Program
Audit Number E1HWF9-03-0316 /
FROM: t LaJuana S. Wilcher &fa/fffl*y6»JzZ>
A/I Assistant Administrator (WH-556)
TO: ' Kenneth A. Kontz
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (A-107)
Thank you for your memorandum of July 12, 1990, providing
draft findings developed during your audit of the Lead in
Drinking Water Program. We appreciate the opportunity to review
this report and to provide our comments at this phase of your
audit. We find that your conclusions and recommendations in this
report are similar to those contained in the March 23, 1990,
preliminary draft findings your office provided to us for review
and comments. Therefore, our comments to that report, contained
in a memorandum dated April 13, 1990, from Michael B. Cook,
Director, Office of Drinking Water, to Ronald Gondolfo,
Divisional Inspector General, remain valid and appropriate.
Where relevant, we have supplenented our earlier response with
more recent information and recent activities we have initiated.
The Office of Water (OW) is committed to implementing the
lead ban and the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA).
Attachment 1 contains a summary of EPA and State activities to
implement these programs. I would like to highlight sore of the
accocplishments.
EPA informed all Governors of the lead ban and lead public
notification requirements of Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) during the suriner of 1986. We have issued
guidance to the Regions (see Attachment 2) on implementing these
requirements. In addition, EPA has published regulations and a
handbook for public notification, and coordinated lead ban
implementation with other Federal agencies.
43
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of
- 2 -
Since the LCCA became law, we have been actively
icplementing its provisions. In February 1989, we distributed
to States guidance and a testing protocol for schools. These
were developed to assist schools test for and remedy lead
contamination in drinking water. We also established a
laboratory protocol to determine the lead content in the interior
lining of water cooler tanks. The testing protocol has been used
in thousands of school districts throughout the country as well
as by operators of non-school buildings.
On April 10, 1989, we published the proposed list of water
coolers that, based on the available information, could be
identified as not lead-free as defined by the LCCA. As noted in
your draft report, this proposed list served to initiate testing
of water coolers in schools and helped set priorities for
testing. Testing of additional water coolers after publication
of the proposed list provided necessary information for the
Consumer Product Safety Comnission (CPSC) in their efforts to
obtain corrective action from manufacturers of coolers that are
not lead-free. On January 18, 1990, we finalized the original
proposed list and published a new list of coolers that, based on
the available information, should be classified as not lead-free
under the LCCA.
In addition to meeting the statutory requirements, EPA has
been expending considerable efforts to provide assistance to
States, schools, and local education agencies to implement the
LCCA.
In 1989, we conducted a series of "train the trainer"
seminars around the country to instruct key officials on
providing training on the local level to test for and remedy lead
contamination in school drinking water. As a result of these
seminars, 33 States have provided training to their school
officials. EPA is developing a training video on testing for
lead in school drinking water, a guidance document for day cares
and nursery schools and for non-residential, non-school
buildings, and a "Hazards in Schools" booklet. Finally, our
Drinking Hater Hotline provides assistance to hundreds of callers
each month (including schools, non-building operators, water
utilities, laboratory personnel, States, other Federal agencies,
local governments, journalists, and concerned citizens) who have
questions on the LCCA, the lead ban, and other lead issues.
These activities have been accomplished, and are continuing
to occur, without additional Federal funding for either EPA or
the States. Generally, implementation of the LCCA and the lead
44
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 3 of 16
- 3 -
ban has occurred at the expense of other critical activities,
such as publishing a revised standard for lead. Since our review
of your preliminary draft report, we have taken, or assisted in,
the following actions that respond to your preliminary findings:
1) provision of technical support to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission in their recall agreement on all pre-1979 Halsey
Taylor water coolers with lead levels above 20 ppb; 2)
investigation for possible enforcement action of a manufacturer
of water cooler valves that were improperly soldered with lead;
3) initiating development of improved guidance and model programs
for States on implementing the LCCA and lead ban; 4) nationwide
dissemination of an alert to laboratory directors and schools on
EPA's recommended remediation level of 20 ppb for individual
water outlets. Further, we continue work under our own
initiatives to improve compliance and enforcement vith the LCCA
and lead ban.
1. EPA AND THE STATES ARE NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM
LEAD CONTAMINATION
Page 4 of the report — "EPA did not ensure that States
complied with their Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA)
requirements."
The LCCA provides EPA no effective authority to enforce
its requirements. The law depends heavily on State
implementation but assumes additional Federal resources. The
LCCA requires States to establish programs to assist schools, but
does not specifically mandate that they have enforcement
authority against schools that fail to comply voluntarily. To
the best of our ability given the constraints of enforcement
authority and funding, EPA is aggressively pursuing compliance
with the law.
EPA has been expending considerable efforts to provide
assistance to States, schools, and local education agencies to
implement the LCCA.
During the sumcer of 1989, EPA conducted a series of
"train the trainer" seminars in five EPA Regions and in
Washington, D.C. The purpose of these seminars was to instruct
key officials on providing training on the local level to test
for and remedy lead contamination in school drinking water. As a
result of these seminars, 33 States have provided training to
their schools officials. This past fall, EPA, with eleven
national educational organizations, sponsored six seminars to
45
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 4 of
- 4 -
alert the education community and parents about lead in drinking
water, as well as asbestos and radon. In addition, EPA is
developing a training video on testing for lead in school
drinking water, a guidance document for day care centers and
nursery schools and for non-residential, non-school buildings,
and a "Hazards in Schools" booklet.
These activities have been accomplished, and are
continuing to occur, without additional Federal funding for
either EPA or the States. Generally, implementation of the LCCA
and the lead ban has occurred at the expense of other critical
activities, such as publishing a revised standard for lead.
In your report, you recommended that EPA modify State
grants for Public Water System Supervision programs (PWSS) to
include compliance with LCCA requirements as a condition to
receiving the grant. Section 1443 of the SDWA does not authorize
EPA to withhold PWSS grants from States that do not comply with
the requirements of the LCCA, since the LCCA is not a public
water system supervision program.
Page 12 of the draft report indicated that none of the
States in Region III had complied with all their requirements
under the LCCA. In addition, you noted that Pennsylvania has not
even distributed or Bade available the EPA sampling protocol to
schools and day care centers.
Page 14 of the draft report indicated that "State Agencies
appear frustrated with EPA over the lack of Federal funding and
the lack of EPA's expectations concerning the States'
implementation of the LCCA." A State official's response to a
LCCA questionnaire was used to document the apparent lack of
concern on the part of EPA.
We would like to clarify the context in which this
official's response was made. The State official referred to a
June 15, 1989, letter from EPA which stated that the Agency had
no "official" expectations of the States in implementing the
LCCA. The letter was actually a summary of a meeting between
Region III and its States at which numerous issues, in addition
to LCCA implementation, were discussed. At this meeting the
Region was asked about any grant conditions that might be placed
on States to implement the LCCA. The Region responded that there
were no plans to place any official or formal conditions in the
grants, but that States should do the best they could with their
limited resources to implement the LCCA. The bullet item in the
meeting notes was intended to remind the States that attended the
46
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 5 of 16
- 5 -
meeting of this discussion and should not have been cited out of
context as Regional policy.
Page 2 of the report - "PA is the only State not fulfilling
the requirement to notify schools and day care centers."
We share your concerns about State implementation of
the LCCA and the lead ban. However, we believe that your draft
report contains some inaccuracies and misunderstandings. I am
addressing these in the following specific comments on the major
audit conclusions. These comments include concerns raised by Jon
Capacasa, Chief of the Drinking Water/Ground Water Protection
Branch in Region III.
Pennsylvania issued a mass notice, providing sampling
protocol and guidance, to schools during May 1990, and will be
issuing a similar mass notice to day care centers shortly. Many
of the schools were, and are, nonetheless aware of the LCCA
program and sampling guidance by virtue of national and Regional
mobilization efforts with schools, administrations, the general
lead outreach program undertaken by the Drinking Water Program,
and other day-to-day outreach efforts of the State program. PA
has assigned an LCCA contact person who people can call for
guidance information to get started on the sampling program. As
noted in the report, many large PA school districts have, in
fact, started with the program and had copies of the available
guidance.
Although PA was late with their Bass notification
program, this was not as a result of a management deficiency, but
done for the comnendable purpose of initiating a budget
initiative to conduct a first-rate educational program. It is
much better to send out guidance which is then followed with in-
depth training to ensure the responsible organizations understand
the technical requirements and have an opportunity to get it
right the first time. This approach is supported by your
findings that schools that had the protocol in hand did not
always conform to the testing procedures despite its critical
importance to accurate lead results.
PA secured approval of a $40,000 budget item for FY
1990 to conduct approximately 80 training sessions for school
administrators and maintenance people around the State during
July and August of 1990. A mass mailing to about 2,500 school
districts, counter-signed by the Education and Welfare
Departments of the State, was sent out during May 1990. This
mass mailing provided the LCCA guidance and advised schools of
47
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 6 of
- 6 -
the training sessions. A similar mass mailing to about 2,500 day
care centers will begin shortly, with this approach, PA will not
just be dropping off literature but assisting schools to comply
with LCCA. In this case, being late will result in a much
improved, higher quality program because of the budget support.
Page 15 of the report - "Not only are the lead-lined water
coolers present in the schools, but also four schools found lead
contamination in additional water coolers not on EPA's list of
hazardous coolers."
A water cooler which is lead-free under the law can
contain sufficient amount of lead in brass parts to result in
high lead levels. That is one of the reasons EPA recommends that
all drinking water outlets be tested, not just those water
coolers which EPA has identified as lead-lined or containing lead
parts.
Page 18 - Conclusion and Recommendation
The conclusion that "For the most part, schools were
either not testing their water or, if they were testing, they may
have been testing improperly" does not follow entirely from the
narrative of the report. Of the 13 school districts evaluated
involving thousands of individual schools, 10 of the 13 districts
had performed testing. This is a very high rate of initial
compliance for a program with absolutely no funding support froit
EPA. To say that "for the most part" schools didn't test is not
supported by these data.
The conclusion implies that EPA has taken a passive
role in ensuring State implementation of the LCCA. EPA has
performed an extensive outreach program by conducting training
and seminars, developing and distributing guidance and booklets
over and above those required by the law, and by providing
extensive technical assistance to States, schools, and local
education institutions.
These activities are continuing. We have, in fact,
initiated and continue to follow through on the first two
recommendations in this section (prepare model plans to assist
States in formulating their LCCA programs, and perform outreach
to the States on LCCA programs). In addition, we have initiated
investigation for possible enforcement action of a manufacturer
of water cooler valves that were improperly soldered with lead.
We do not believe the third recommendation (consider withholding
48
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 7 of 16
- 7 -
grants from States not complying with the LCCA) is in the best
interests of the program. The LCCA is only part of our overall
program to provide drinking water free of adverse health risks.
Unfortunately, there are not enough resources at either the
Federal or State level to do any element completely. Reducing
program resources jeopardizes all cf these, including LCCA
activities.
In order to assess LCCA activities, EPA has conducted a
survey of lead in drinking water programs in 9 States. The
results of this survey indicate that fewer than half of the
school districts had tested their buildings for lead in drinking
water at the time of the survey. However, approximately two-
thirds that had not yet tested reported that they were planning
to do so within the next 12 months. The report concludes that
the level of State effort is the key factor affecting the ways in
which school districts respond to their LCCA programs. The
survey found that school districts are more responsive if they
are in States that have disseminated the EPA manual, participated
in EPA training seminars, and actively assisted schools compared
with States that have not put forth the same efforts.
2. EPA MUST IMPROVE PROCEDURES PQR IDENTIFYING WATER COOLERS THAT
ARE NOT LEAD-FREE
Page 5 of the report - "EPA was approximately one year late
in providing a current and accurate list of imminently hazardous
water coolers to States as required by the LCCA."
It is true that EPA did not publish the proposed and
final list of coolers in the Federal Register within the
statutory deadlines. To preclude delays to State implementation
of the LCCA programs, we distributed the proposed list to States
in January 1989, in advance of the statutory deadline for
publishing a proposed list. We recommended that States provide
this list to schools. Most States, as your audit found in Region
III, worked from this list to begin the tremendous effort of
testing water coolers throughout the country.
Verifying the presence of lead lining in a water cooler
tank, as required by the LCCA, involves the procurement and
disassembly of the cooler and cutting open the tank. Sampling
and quantitatively testing the tank's interior surface is a
complex, time-consuming and costly procedure. Additional time
was required to develop a standardized testing protocol to assure
the reliability of these and future test results. Given the
limited resources available to conduct these activities,
49
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 8 of ]|
- 8 -
publication of the final notice occurred as quickly as possible.
We plan to periodically update the list whenever we get
significant additional information.
The report concludes that "EPA's inability to obtain
and evaluate test results from schools in a timely manner has
decreased their ability to identify additional hazardous vater
coolers." We disagree. The testing protocol for schools is
designed to determine whether the amount of lead at the tap
exceeds EPA's recommended action level of 20 parts per billion
(ppb), not to determine whether the cooler is lead free. For the
purpose of defining coolers as not lead-free under the LCCA's
provisions, the data are of liirited value to EPA without
extensive quality assurance procedures and follow-up testing on
cooler tanks or other parts. Ke believe the resources needed to
collect and analyze these data can be better utilized in other
critical program areas.
The report cites EPA's failure to publish the final
list as one of the reasons for CPSC's delay in ordering
manufacturer recall of coolers. Delay in publishing the list was
not a controlling factor. Because it was not possible tc
determine whether all water coolers in the specific model series
had lead-lined tanks, CPSC needed additional information to
develop the legal case necessary to order a recall. CPSC, in
fact, began work with the manufacturers long before issuance of
the final list — it was not a significant factor in delay of an
order.
The report criticizes EPA for expending scarce
resources by providing testing assistance to CPSC and recommends
a formal Interagency Agreement defining each Agency's
responsibilities. We believe ve already have an appropriate and
effective working relationship with CPSC. As a result of our
assistance to CPSC, the Commission negotiated a consent crder
agreement (COA) with the manufacturer for the replacement or
refund for lead lined water coolers. This COA was published in
the Federal Register on June 1, 1990.
3. EPA AMP gTATBfl HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURED THAT THE PUBLIC HAS
BEEM PROTECTED FROM LEAD
We share your concern that States have not aggressively
implemented the lead ban. In October 1988, and again in August
1989, we issued guidance indicating factors Regions should take
into consideration when deciding whether to withhold five percent
of State grant funds for States not fulfilling their lead
50
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 9 of 16
» 9 _
notification and lead ban requirements. We believe that this
guidance contains the essential elements of an effective,
enforceable lead ban. Several Regions have aggressively
implemented this guidance in FY 1990 and performed detailed
reviews of State lead ban programs as part of their annual review
of State programs.
Region III was the only Region in FY 1990 to withhold
five percent from a State for not implementing the lead ban. The
Region took charge of the PA situation by issuing over 2,500
letter notices to CWSs and NTWSs to advise them of the Lead
Public Notification requirement after the State refused to issue
the notices due to lack of resources and a mandate in their
legislation. This is an aggressive measure to protect public
health.
It should be noted that one State in Region III issued
written administrative orders to 122 public water systems that
had failed to issue Lead Public Notification. The State was able
to ascertain these systems' compliance through final follow-up
telephone calls.
The report is misleading factually because it does not
include the percentage of the population in Region III that were
issued notices about lead. Lead exposure from multiple sources
is a problem especially acute in urban areas. Our experience is
that the larger supplies, which tend to be in more urban areas,
did comply with the public notification requirements. We believe
approximately 88% of the population in Region III received
appropriate notification, and that we have done a better job of
protecting public health than the 25-49% as the report would
indicate.
The report recomaends that EPA consider requiring
proper labelling of products complying or not complying with lead
free standards in the SDWA. EPA has no authority tc impose or
enforce such a requirement.
The recommendation that Region III take mere aggressive
action to enforce the lead ban through the States needs further
clarification to make it useful. The statute does not provide
EPA with any direct enforcement tools other than withholding "up
to 5% of the Federal funds to a state" in the PWSS grant. Region
III has done this in Pennsylvania for FY '89 and '90, but it does
little to protect health of citizens in a direct way. I have
already addressed why we think this may be counter productive.
51
-------
APPENDIX
Page 10
A
- 10 -
Region III has recently completed a review of each of
its States* lead ban activities. Although the Region does not
plan to withhold FY '90 grant funds from any State other than PA,
it is considering the use of specific grant conditions for one or
two other States for FY '91.
In order to itprove compliance with the lead ban, we
are engaged in a number of new initiatives including: 1) an
information program targeted towards the manufacturers,
distributors, wholesalers and retailers of solders, fittings and
plumbing fixtures; 2) development of a model program that may be
used by the States to enforce the lead ban; 3) development and
delivery of training seninars to remedy program weaknesses to
enforce the lead ban and to assess the alternatives to faucets
and fixtures containing lead; and 4) to develop additional
educational materials dealing with lead in drinking water.
4. EPA NEEDS TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION OVER LEAD MCLC
We agree that there is confusion over vfaat is an
acceptable amount of lead in drinking water. In order to avoid
this confusion, we developed an Alert for Laboratory Directors
(Attachment 3). This Alert was distributed to the States via the
EPA Regions. EPA requested that the States forward a copy of
this Alert to each certified laboratory. The Alert requests
Laboratory Directors1 assistance in notifying school
administrators and clients that EPA recommends they take remedial
action whenever lead levels exceed 20 ppb at one of their
drinking water outlets.
We expect this Alert to not only reduce confusion
caused by differences between the current MCL and the recommended
level for remedial action on individual water outlets, but also
result in additional schools testing, within a nonth of the
Alert's distribution/ we have received dozens of calls from
laboratories nationwide requesting information they can provide
to schools in encouraging testing for lead.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 11 of 16
- 11 -
Eliminating exposure to lead in drinking water is one of
ODW's highest priorities. We welcome constructive
recommendations to help us and the States improve the
effectiveness of our lead in drinking water programs. These
recommendations should be tailored to recognizfe that we and the
States are short of the resources necessary to implement all
aspects of the drinking water program. If we can provide you
additional assistance, please contact Jeff Cohen at FTS 382-5456
or Judy Lebowich at FTS 382-7595.
Attachments (3)
53
-------
APPENDIX A1
Page 12 of Be
I
ATTACHMENT 1
Implementation of Lead Contamination Control Act
(As of July 31, 1990)
LCCA RIQUIREMENTS
ACTION
EPA
Publish and distribute
list of water coolers to
States by February 1989.
Distributed proposed list
to States January 1989.
Published proposed list on
April 10, 1989.
Revise and republish list
as appropriate.
Published final list and
proposed additional water
coolers on January 18, 1990.
Publish and distribute
guidance document and
testing protocol to
States by February 1989,
• Published and distributed
"Lead in School Drinking
WAter" to States on January
1989.
• Notified 40,000 school
districts that booklets are
available from Government
Printing Office.
Make grants to States.
• Nc grants were made because
no funds were provided to EPA.
EPA 'STATES
Publish and make
available to the public
list of certified
laboratories.
• List completed and
published by Association of
State Drinking Water
Administrators. EPA
distributed list to States.
March 1989.
54
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 13 of 16
STATES
Provide for the
dissemination of guidance
document and testing
protocol and list of
water coolers to schools.
Document distributed to
schools in 37 States.
Establish programs by
July 1989 to assist
schools to test for and
remedy lead contamination
in drinking water.
• 33 States sponsored
seminars and training.
• 2 States established legal
requirements for schools.
States programs include
measures to reduce or
eliminate lead
contamination from non-
lead free water coolers
in schools.
• All of the States report
that schools are testing for
azd remedying lead
contamination in drinking
water. Exact number of
schools is not known.
SCHOOLS
Make test results
available to public.
Notify public about
availability.
• Exact number is not known.
CPSC
Order manufacturers to
repair, replace or recall
and provide refund for
lead lined water coolers.
Consent agreement for
recall of Halsey Taylor
coolers on April 19, 1990.
55
-------
APPENDIX AI
Page 14 oflif
EPA ACTIVITIES NOT REQUIRED BY THE LCCA
ACTION
RESULT
Requested Governors of
States to appoint
designee to implement
LCCA State programs.
• All States, except Listrict
of Columbia appointed
designees.
Developed and delivered 6
"train-the-trainer"
seminars. April-June
1989.
Delivered 5 Hazard in
School Seminars co-
sponsored by 11
educational associations.
• 33 States sponsored
seminars and training.
• Awareness of State and
school officials on hazards of
lead in drinking water,
asbestos, radon and indoor
air.
Assisted CPSC to test
vater coolers with lead
lined tanks.
• Strengthen legal case for
CPSC to initiate recall
action.
Tested 61 water coolers.
• Identified 9 models of lead
lined water coolers. (€ in
final list, 3 proposed.;
Provided technical
assistance to schools,
State and local
governments.
Training video, guidance
document for day cares
and nursery schools, and
•Hazards in Schools"
booklet will be completed
in 1990.
Issued Alert to labs on
lead test results.
56
Testing and remedial action
by schools and States.
• Materials will provide
assistance to test for and
remedy lead contamination in
school drinking water.
• Clarified distincticr.
between the MCL and EPA s
current guidance.
-------
APPENDIX A
Page 15 of 16
OTHER EPA ACTIVITIES ON LEAD IN DRINKINGWATEF.
LEAD BAN
O EPA notified Governors about the lead ban and requested that
they certify that States established procedures to enforce
the lead ban and public notification requirements.
O Published regulations for special public notification.
October 1987.
O Published handbook for public notification. March 1988.
O EPA Region VIII sponsored seminar on lead ban.
O ODW contacted other Federal Agencies to coordinate
implementation of the lead ban (HUD, VA, FmHA, and CPSC) .
O Analysis to evaluate possible control of lead content of
plumbing fittings/fixtures under TSCA.
O Developing model prograns for State implementation
enforcement of ban.
O Education materials developed for plumbing industry
including manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers,
retailers, and consumers.
REGULATIONS
O Proposed revised regulations for lead and copper. August
1988.
O Developing final regulations by late 1990.
OUTREACH
O Lead and Your Drinking Water booklet
• Distributed >1.5 million booklets to the public.
Supermarket Campaign: 385,000 booklets distributed
during a period of three months in 3,653 supermarkets in 85
cities.
O Public Service Announcements
• Television stations aired segments on lead in drinking
water in ten major cities.
57
-------
APPENDIX Al
Page 16 of |6
Lead in Drinking Water Public Education Project
Pilot study tc develop and implement a community based
education prograir. Raleigh, North Carolina. 1988.
National Geographic
ODW scientists provided assistance to Kids Network
project for students to explore lead in drirking water in
their school and community.
University Learning Centers
• To train operators of small water supplies how to
implement corrosion control techniques to reduce
contaminants including lead in drinking water.
58
-------
APPENDIX B
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management (PM-208)
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement (LE-133)
Director, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Office of the Comptroller (PM-225)
Agency Follow-up Official (PM-225)
Attention: Director, Resource Management Division
Agency Follow-up Official (PM-208)
Agency Follow-up Coordinator (PM-208)
Attention: Program Operations Support Staff
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (A-101)
Office of Congressional Liaison (A-103)
Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
Inspector General (A-109)
Region III
Regional Administrator (3RAOO)
Assistant Regional Administrator, for Policy and Management (3PMOO)
Regional Audit Follow-up Coordinator (3PM72)
59
------- |