EPA noted that lead in drinking water occurs primarily as a  byproduct of the corrosion of materials in the water distribution system or  household plumbing, some of which is outside the control of the water  systems. EPA’s activities included  a series of expert workshops on key aspects of the rule (monitoring  protocols, simultaneous compliance, lead service line replacement,  public education, and lead in plumbing fittings and fixtures),  a review of state policies and practices for implementing the lead rule,  data verification audits that covered the collection and reporting of  compliance data for the lead rule in 10 states, and   an expert workshop and a review of state efforts to monitor for lead in  drinking water at schools and child care facilities. EPA’s most recent data indicate that the  number of water systems that exceed the lead action level has declined by  nearly 75 percent since the early 1990s. According to EPA’s data, nearly  90 percent of all water systems have qualified for reduced monitoring. However, we also analyzed data on the  results of lead testing and found that EPA’s database does not contain  current information for a much larger percentage of large and medium  water systems. EPA Does Not Have Complete Information on the Status of Water Systems’ Efforts to Implement Lead Rule

As part of EPA’s efforts to improve its indicators of lead rule  implementation, the agency restructured its reporting requirements and  reduced the number of “milestones” that states are required to report from  11 to 3. Specifically, their experiences indicate that (1) the  sampling sites used for lead testing may no longer reflect areas of highest  risk, (2) reduced monitoring may not be appropriate in some instances, (3)  the homeowners who participate in tap monitoring may not be informed of  the test results, (4) controls over when and how treatment changes are  implemented may not be adequate, (5) data on the effectiveness of lead  service line replacement programs are limited, and (6) states vary in how  they apply the lead rule when water systems sell drinking water to other  systems. Given the circumstances  in which lead contamination became a problem in the District of Columbia,  when a change in the system’s disinfection treatment impaired the  effectiveness of corrosion control, such decisions can be critical. Treatment requirements. In addition, no clear focal point  exists at the federal or state level to collect and analyze the results of  testing and remediation efforts. The Extent to Which Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities Is Contaminated by Lead Is Uncertain, in Part, Because No Clear Focal Point Exists to Collect Available Data

While a number of cities have detected elevated lead levels in school  drinking water, and a few states are beginning to collect information on the  status of local testing efforts, little information exists on the extent to  which drinking water at schools and child care facilities nationwide may  contain unacceptable levels of lead. For information on experiences in implementing the lead rule and the need  for changes to the regulatory framework, we interviewed EPA, state, and  local officials; analyzed states’ responses to an EPA information request  regarding their policies and practices in implementing the rule; and  reviewed other relevant studies and documents.
Why GAO Did This Study

Elevated lead levels in the District of Columbia's tap water in 2003 prompted questions about how well consumers are protected nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and local water systems share responsibility for providing safe drinking water. Lead typically enters tap water as a result of the corrosion of lead in the water lines or household plumbing. EPA's lead rule establishes testing and treatment requirements. This report discusses (1) EPA's data on the rule's implementation; (2) what implementation of the rule suggests about the need for changes to the regulatory framework; and (3) the extent to which drinking water at schools and child care facilities is tested for lead.

What GAO Found

EPA's data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with elevated lead levels has dropped significantly since testing began in the early 1990s. However, EPA's database does not contain recent test results for over 30 percent of large and medium-sized community water systems and lacks data on the status of water systems' efforts to implement the lead rule for over 70 percent of all community systems, apparently because states have not met reporting requirements. In addition, EPA's data on water systems' violations of testing and treatment requirements are questionable because some states have reported few or no violations. As a result, EPA does not have sufficient data to gauge the rule's effectiveness. Implementation experiences to date have revealed weaknesses in the regulatory framework for the lead rule. For example, most states do not require their water systems to notify homeowners that volunteer for periodic lead monitoring of the test results. In addition, corrosion control can be impaired by changes to other treatment processes, and controls that would help avoid such impacts may not be adequate. Finally, because testing indicates that some "lead-free" products leach high levels of lead into drinking water, existing standards for plumbing materials may not be sufficiently protective. According to EPA officials, the agency is considering some changes to the lead rule. On the basis of the limited data available, it appears that few schools and child care facilities have tested their water for lead, either in response to the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their current operating practices. In addition, no focal point exists at either the national or state level to collect and analyze test results. Thus, the pervasiveness of lead contamination in the drinking water at schools and child care facilities--and the need for more concerted action--is unclear.