Drinking water is provided to District of Columbia residents under a unique  organizational structure:  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct draws water  from the Potomac River that it filters and chemically treats to meet EPA  specifications. Because WASA and property owners  in the District share ownership of the water service lines, the rule required  WASA to replace the portion of the lines that it owns, and to offer to  replace the portion of the lines controlled by the homeowners at the  homeowners’ expense. Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Challenges Remain in Reducing Lead Levels

WASA and other government agencies implementing the act’s regulations  for lead have taken steps to improve their coordination. The order required WASA to improve its selection of sampling locations  and reporting of water testing results to EPA, create a strategy to improve  its public education efforts, physically replace an additional 1,615 lead  service lines by the end of fiscal year 2006, develop a plan and a schedule to  identify additional lead service lines, and, in collaboration with the D.C.  Department of Health, develop a plan to set priorities for replacing lead  service lines. Inspector General’s January 2005 report. WASA and Other Agencies Are Taking Steps to Identify At- Risk Populations and Reduce Their Lead Exposure

WASA is identifying those most at risk for exposure to lead in drinking  water by updating its inventory of lead service lines. WASA Is Updating Its Lead Service Line Inventory

WASA and EPA officials are focusing on lead service lines as the primary  source of lead in drinking water in the District of Columbia. However, to reduce exposure to lead in  drinking water for those residents most vulnerable to lead’s health effects,  WASA agreed, as part of the consent order, to develop in consultation with  the D.C. Department of Health a system for setting priorities for lead  service line replacement and to replace 1,000 lead service lines by the end  of fiscal year 2006 on a priority basis. Experiences of Other Water Systems Highlight Ways to Better Educate the Public

Other water systems use innovative methods to educate their customers  about lead in drinking water. These practices include using a variety of  media to inform the public, forming partnerships with government  agencies and community groups, and targeting educational materials to the  audience most susceptible to lead exposure through drinking water. These  practices tend to go well beyond the provisions of the Lead and Copper  Rule, which require public notification language that is difficult to  understand and do not require utilities to notify individual homeowners of  the lead concentrations in their homes’ drinking water. EPA has not evaluated the effectiveness of the public education  requirements of the rule since it was implemented in 1991. Although Lead Exposure Causes Serious Health Effects, Research on Low-Level Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water Is Limited

Much is known about the health effects of lead exposure, particularly lead’s  impact on brain development and functioning in young children. However,  according to experts we interviewed, limited studies have been conducted  on the heath effects of exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water. This  study was designed to determine the extent to which lead in drinking water  was contributing to blood lead levels of District residents. Since that time, local agencies and EPA have improved  their coordination. However, the timetable for completing these projects  is not clear, and it is also not clear how this work will fit into a broader  research agenda or if this agenda will involve other key organizations such  as CDC. Recommendations for Executive Action

To provide timely information to communities on how to improve  communication of lead health risks, we recommend, as part of its  comprehensive re-examination of the Lead and Copper Rule’s public  education requirements, that the Administrator of EPA direct the Office of  Water to identify and publish best practices that water systems are using to  educate the public about lead in drinking water. To determine how other drinking water systems that have exceeded the  action level for lead conducted public education and outreach, we met with  parties knowledgeable about the Lead and Copper Rule, including EPA  headquarters and regional staff and relevant industry groups, in part to find  water systems with particularly innovative and effective public education  and outreach programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

Media reports on elevated lead in the District of Columbia's drinking water raised concern about how local and federal agencies are carrying out their responsibilities. The Lead and Copper Rule requires water systems to protect drinking water from lead. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct treats and sells water to the District Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which delivers it to District residents. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region III Office oversees these agencies. GAO examined (1) what agencies implementing the rule in the District are doing to improve their coordination and reduce lead levels, (2) the extent to which WASA and other agencies are identifying populations at greatest risk of exposure to lead in drinking water and reducing their exposure, (3) how other drinking water systems that exceed EPA's action level for lead conduct public education, and (4) the state of research on lead exposure and how it applies to drinking water.

What GAO Found

WASA and other government agencies have improved their coordination, but significant challenges remain. According to EPA officials, WASA has thus far met the terms of a June 2004 consent order by enhancing its coordination with EPA and the D.C. Department of Health. For example, WASA developed a plan to improve its public education efforts and collaborated with the department to set priorities for replacing lead service lines. EPA expects the August 2004 addition of a corrosion inhibitor to eventually reduce lead in drinking water, though it may take more than one year for full improvements to be observed. Tap water test results reported in January 2005 show that D.C. drinking water still exceeds the standard for lead. WASA is identifying those customers most at risk from exposure to lead in drinking water and reducing their exposure. WASA is focusing on lead service lines as the primary source of lead in drinking water. It is updating its inventory of lead service lines, accelerating its rate of service line replacement, and providing priority replacement for customers most vulnerable to lead's health effects. However, questions remain about the success of the replacement program because, by law, WASA can only pay to replace the portion of the service line that it owns. Homeowners may pay to replace their portion of the service line, but few homeowners chose to do so in 2003 and 2004. Other water systems use innovative methods to educate their customers and to judge the effectiveness of their efforts. These practices include using a variety of media to inform the public, forming partnerships with government and nonprofit agencies, and targeting and adapting information to the audiences most susceptible to lead exposure through drinking water. Many of these practices go well beyond the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule. In this connection, water industry representatives and others noted several shortcomings with the rule's public education provisions, including confusing language and the lack of a requirement to notify homeowners of the specific lead levels in their drinking water. Additionally, EPA has not evaluated water systems' public education efforts on lead in drinking water since the rule was established more than a decade ago. Much is known about the health effects of lead exposure, particularly its impact on brain development and functioning in young children. However, limited studies have been conducted on the health effects of exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water. EPA plans to prepare a health advisory document to help utilities explain the risks of lead exposure to the public, and a paper summarizing lead research conducted since the Lead and Copper Rule was published in 1991. However, the timetable for these projects is not clear, and it is also not clear how this work will fit into a broader research agenda, or if this effort needs to involve other key organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.