ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Consumer Safety

New rule for lead in drinking water may reduce US public health protection

Updated regulation would improve public notification but slow replacement of lead pipes

by Janet Pelley, special to C&EN
October 16, 2019 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 97, ISSUE 41

 

09741-polcon1-water.jpg
Credit: Shutterstock

On Oct. 10, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the first major revision to its 1991 rule controlling lead and copper in drinking water. If the rule is finalized, citizens will receive speedier alerts of lead problems, but replacement of lead service lines will slow. The rule doesn’t address funding gaps that prevent full protection of public health.

Lead is linked to lowered intelligence in children, and the EPA considers it unsafe at any level. It enters tap water when corrosive water dissolves the metal from lead pipes. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, roughly 5.5 million Americans tap into water systems that exceed 15 µg/L, the level at which systems must take corrective action. Canada has set an action level of 5 µg/L, a target eyed by the European Union.

The new US rule doesn’t strengthen the lead action level but does introduce a lower trigger level of 10 μg/L that requires additional monitoring if tap water exceeds this concentration. The rule also mandates that water providers notify citizens 24 h after receiving test results showing that water exceeds the 15 µg/L action level, versus 30 days under the old rule.

Many experts have called for mandatory removal of all lead pipes—even when lead is below 15 µg/L. Instead, the new rule weakens replacement guidelines. Whereas the old rule directed water utilities to annually replace 7% of lead pipes in systems that exceed the action level, now just 3% of lead pipes must be replaced annually, delaying lead pipe elimination. “The way the rule is written, most water utilities will never be required to remove all their lead service lines,” says Elin Betanzo, founder of consulting firm Safe Water Engineering.

State programs that implement the rules are already underfunded and unable to provide comprehensive oversight for existing rules, Betanzo says. The increased complexity of the new rule adds to this burden. “This means that the proposed requirements will likely not have adequate implementation and oversight, resulting in an increase in spending but a decrease in public health protection,” she says.

The EPA is accepting comments on the proposed rule revision before finalizing it.

Advertisement
X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Melissa (October 25, 2019 2:27 PM)
This is a difficult situation for utilities and municipalities. On the one hand, most will agree that these regulations need to be more stringent and force a faster pipe replacement time. Yet, on the other hand, the cost would be outrageous and bankrupt many of these water providers. There is simply no easy answer unless large amounts of federal funding come and subsidize these pipe replacement programs. So, that leaves the end-user and especially children close to, or immediately at risk as you point out. I don't think enough attention is being given to stopgap measures such as home water filters. Even just basic pitcher filters like a zerowater or brita would help. I bought a berkey this past summer when I found out my water was over EPA safe levels, and folks should be protecting themselves in the same manner. Yes, it's an added cost for the consumer, but it's worth the protection. Or how about a tax rebate program that subsidizes a home water filter program in a violating municipality with a cap on amount? This problem isn't going away for decades at this rate, so why not handle it properly and protect our children!!

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment