Sludge Watch ==> Lead in the tap water - Washington Whistleblower Reinstated

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Chloramination of drinking water has been favoured over simple chlorination 
in some muncipal drinking water systems.  However, the use of chloramination 
(chlorine plus ammonia) can help scour lead and copper from the pipes in the 
water pipes.

Increased levels of lead in the drinking water can be a problem...especially 
for children.  The increased lead will also end up...where everything ends 
up...in the sludge.


Here is a story about the reinstatement of a water worker from Washington 
DC.   She was fired after she alerted the EPA to the high levels of lead in 
Washington DC drinking water after a switch to chloramination.   There are 
other informational background pieces under that story.

You might want to check for lead contamination of drinking water in your 
town.
.....................................................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202940.html

Manage Your NewslettersWASA Whistle-Blower Wins Vindication, Reinstatement

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page B02

A water quality manager fired by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority in 2003 
was ordered reinstated and awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars 
yesterday by a judge who said she was improperly terminated after warning 
federal authorities about excessive lead in the District's tap water.

Seema S. Bhat, who had worked for WASA for four years, had "become an 
unwelcome whistle-blower" after informing the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency that lead in the city's drinking water had risen above federal 
limits, according to a 186-page ruling by Stuart A. Levin, an administrative 
law judge for the U.S. Department of Labor.


Former WASA employee Seema S. Bhat, right, testified last year with her 
attorney. She has been unemployed since her firing. (By Geraald Martineau -- 
The Washington Post)


"By reaching out to EPA, she forced the lead issue to the forefront of her 
supervisor's agenda, and shortly thereafter, he recommended that she be 
fired," Levin wrote of Bhat.

Under the terms of Levin's ruling, WASA must pay Bhat $50,000 in 
compensatory damages and $10,000 in exemplary damages, as well as the back 
pay based on her salary of just over $73,000 a year, benefits, interest and 
attorneys fees and court costs.

The costs for WASA could total more than $500,000, said Bhat's attorney, 
Bryan J. Schwartz of the D.C. firm Passman & Kaplan.

"This is a great victory for Ms. Bhat, but also for the people of D.C.," 
Schwartz said. "It shows that [WASA] will have its feet held to the fire if 
it fails to provide service in a safe manner and violates the law set forth 
for people's protection."

Bhat, 59, who lives in Columbia, has been unemployed since her firing, 
Schwartz said. Although Bhat has sought work, she has had trouble because 
she was terminated and because she works in a specialized field, Schwartz 
added.

WASA Board Chairman Glenn S. Gerstell and a spokesman for General Manager 
Jerry N. Johnson declined to comment, saying they had not seen the ruling.

Although WASA was aware of the lead problem as early as 2002, the 
contamination, which affected thousands of homes, was not made public until 
a Washington Post story disclosed the results of the agency's tests in 
January 2004.

In the face of public concerns, WASA distributed free water filters and 
agreed to replace more than 20,000 lead service pipes by 2010. In June 2004, 
the EPA ruled that the agency had violated the federal Safe Drinking Water 
Act.

The Washington Aqueduct added chemicals to the water supply in an effort to 
stop lead from leaching from service pipes. Lead levels fell below the 
federal action limit this spring. But WASA has yet to emerge from stricter 
federal oversight and has continued to urge consumers to take precautions 
such as using filters.

Bhat was the water quality manager responsible for the lead testing program 
when the excessive lead was discovered in small-scale testing in 2001 and 
2002. After being fired by WASA in March 2003, Bhat challenged the agency 
under federal laws to protect whistle-blowers. She said she had been 
dismissed because she had reported the lead results directly to the EPA. A 
federal investigator ordered her reinstated in a ruling on the case in 
summer 2003.

But WASA did not reinstate her and instead appealed the case immediately. 
Before Levin, WASA officials portrayed Bhat as an abrasive, renegade 
employee whose failure to follow a chain of command resulted in the agency 
getting a delayed start in attacking the lead contamination problem.

Levin found that while Bhat made mistakes, WASA did discriminate against 
her.

"Simply put," Levin said in the ruling, "WASA failed to demonstrate that 
Bhat would have been fired in the absence of her protected activities. The 
record shows, to the contrary, that she was terminated not because she 
incurred the displeasure of her supervisor over the abrasive tone she 
exhibited toward him and others . . . she was fired because she engaged in 
activities protected by the" Safe Drinking Water Act.

Asked whether Bhat would return to work at WASA, Schwartz noted that the two 
men who recommended her termination -- her supervisor, Kofi Boateng, and his 
boss, Michael A. Marcotte, who was the deputy general manager -- have since 
left the agency.

In a statement released by Schwartz, Bhat said: "I have mixed feelings about 
returning, but I loved my job. That is what they objected to, the fact that 
I really cared."

..................................................

http://www.waterandhealth.org/newsletter/new/summer_2004/reducing_lead.html

Reducing Lead Levels in Washington, D.C. Drinking Water
A Progress Update

Water Supply in the Nation's Capital: A Triumvirate of Bureaucracy

To supply drinking water to the Washington, D.C. region, the Army Corps of 
Engineers manages the treatment of Potomac River water at the Washington 
Aqueduct treatment plant. Treated water is then distributed to residents by 
the Washington, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA). The EPA Region III 
office, located in Philadelphia, regulates the process. Both WASA and the 
EPA were widely criticized for not notifying the public of the lead problem 
earlier and for taking contradictory and confusing actions once it was made 
public. Jerry Johnson, general manager of WASA has said that although his 
organization's relationship with the Corps of Engineers has worked well, it 
may be time to revisit the relationship.i

In February 2004, residents of the Washington, D.C. area learned that high 
levels of lead were detected in portions of their drinking water supply. Tap 
water flowing into thousands of homes in the nation's capital was found to 
contain lead in excess of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
"action level" of 15 parts per billion (ppb). Water entering 157 homes had 
lead levels higher than 300 ppb. Two readings (24,000 and 48,000 ppb) were 
so elevated that water quality experts suggested residents might be able to 
taste the lead in their water. Public and government outrage over the threat 
of unhealthful drinking water prompted a congressional investigation, 
ultimately leading to a re-examination of federal water testing and public 
notification procedures.

Since this potentially serious public health situation came to light in 
early 2004, steps have been taken at the local and federal levels to 
understand, cope with, and resolve the problem of lead in the drinking water 
in the Washington, D.C. area. Water experts speculate that Washington, D.C. 
probably is not unique in its lead woes, and that other localities will 
benefit from its difficult experience.

A Test of EPA's Lead and Copper Rule

In 1991, EPA issued a Lead-Copper Rule (LCR), designed to reduce the 
presence of those two metals in drinking water. According to the rule, if 
more than 10 percent of taps sampled exceeds the action levels for one of 
the metals, steps must be taken to reduce those levels and the public must 
be informed. High lead levels, traced to lead pipes, had been found in 
Washington, D.C. water as early as the late 1980s, before the rule appeared. 
At that time the problem was resolved by adjusting the pH of the water with 
lime, preventing lead leaching of pipes. But lead returned in late 2002. In 
response, the Washington, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) began 
replacing lead service lines in 2002 at the rate of seven percent per year, 
as dictated by the LCR. Informing the public adequately, however, was a 
different matter. Although WASA mailed brochures to affected homes in 
October 2003 (with a notice about high lead levels in small print on page 
three, a city official later complained), the public at large was not 
notified until media reports caused an outcry around March 2004. Later in 
the spring, during a federal investigation, WASA and EPA officials both 
acknowledged that they could have done a better job of communicating with 
the public.

A Case of Warring EPA Rules?

In attempting to determine the cause of the most recent episode of elevated 
lead levels, several water corrosion experts point to a change in water 
treatment by the Washington Aqueduct. To comply with a 1998 EPA Disinfection 
By-Products Rule (DBR), in November, 2000, the Aqueduct began adding ammonia 
to chlorine to form chloramines. Chloramines are disinfectants that may be 
used-instead of chlorine alone-to reduce levels of chlorinated disinfection 
byproducts in drinking water. Chlorinated disinfection byproducts are 
chemical compounds of potential public health concern resulting from the 
combination of chlorine and natural organic compounds found in raw water, 
especially surface water. According to the EPA, the change reduced levels of 
chlorinated disinfection by-products by 47 percent (from 75 ppb to 40 ppb), 
on average. But, chemical changes do not occur "in a vacuum." Corrosion 
scientists postulate that chloramines increased the corrosivity of the 
Washington, D.C. area drinking water, resulting in lead being leached from 
pipes and into the water supply.

In an attempt to reduce the risk to residents of chlorinated disinfection 
by-products, did WASA unwittingly increase the risk to residents of lead? A 
recent article in Scientific American.com reports that corrosion scientists 
warned about potential conflicts between these two rules, to no avail. One 
of a group of scientists, who wish to remain anonymous, is quoted as saying, 
"We were concerned that drastic changes in water treatment could disturb 
scales and mobilize metals."ii

According to EPA chemist Michael Schock, chlorination makes water highly 
oxidizing, causing lead to settle out on the inside walls of pipes as lead 
oxide scale (PbO2). Chloramination, on the other hand, reduces the oxidizing 
potential of water, dissolving lead oxide scale, and releasing lead into 
water. Marc Edwards, a Professor of Engineering at Virginia Tech and former 
EPA consultant, warned the Agency and the water industry that changes in 
treatment were likely to cause trouble for home plumbing systems. His 
research shows that chloramines may mobilize lead from brass water fixtures. 
He also studied galvanic corrosion which occurs when brass and copper are in 
contact. In the presence of chloramines, lead leaching from brass in contact 
with copper proceeds between 4 and 100 times faster than normal. Lending 
support to this chemical argument, routine pipe flushing, performed in April 
in which chlorine was substituted for chloramines, resulted in lead level 
declines in 25-30 percent of homes serviced by lead service pipes. While it 
is possible that chloramines are corrosive, it is also possible that 
chlorine simply prevents corrosion.

Many water systems deal with corrosivity by adding the chemical 
orthophosphate, a corrosion inhibitor, to drinking water. Over time, 
orthophosphate forms a protective coating of minerals over lead pipe 
interiors, preventing lead leaching. WASA began adding orthophosphate to a 
small section of the city in June and has plans to expand this treatment 
during the summer.

It Comes Down to Lead Pipes

Although there is no definite agreement on the underlying chemical mechanism 
for lead entering area water, there is no doubt that the source of lead is 
23,000 lead water service pipes under the streets. Water service pipes 
connect individual buildings and residences to the larger pipelines known as 
water mains. In total there are approximately 130,000 water service pipes 
under Washington, D.C. Most are made of copper and cast iron. Lead pipes are 
vestiges of older cities with aging infrastructure. In addition to lead 
pipes, the metal also may be leached from lead solder and brass fixtures. 
Exposure to lead is associated with neurological health effects. The most 
vulnerable groups are children under the age of five and pregnant women and 
nursing mothers.

Federal Steps

The House Committee on Government Reform convened an oversight hearing on 
March 5 to address the lead problem. The hearing resulted in a letter from 
three members of the committee to the EPA commending and endorsing the 
Agency's plan to examine whether the LCR is adequate to protect public 
health, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has begun a national 
compliance review of the LCR. Benjamin Grumbles, acting assistant EPA 
administrator for water has called on the states to provide information on 
lead levels in various water systems. In early May he reported that as of 
then, lead did not appear to be a national problem. Legislation to reduce 
lead-contaminated drinking water and to better notify the public of high 
lead levels was introduced in the form of identical bills to the House and 
Senate on May 4.

Going for the Big Fix: Getting the Pipes Out to Get the Lead Out "This is 
very much the right thing to do. These pipes have been in the ground over 
100 years, and over the years, we've replaced some in fits and stops but 
never fully addressed it."iii
--Glenn S. Gerstell, WASA Board Chairman


On July 1, WASA's board of directors approved an ambitious, accelerated $350 
million plan to replace all lead service pipes across the city by 2010. The 
plan was approved despite the prospect of neighborhood disruptions and a 
probable increase in water rates. Some city leaders, including Mayor Anthony 
A. Williams, had been in favor of the utility foregoing a complete lead pipe 
replacement program until results of orthophosphate treatment could be 
evaluated. But, instead, the city has gone for "the big fix," opting to 
remove the source of the problem rather than chemically "tweak the system." 
And WASA has coordinated with a bank to offer low-interest loans to 
residents who elect to replace the private portion of their service lines. 
In the coming years, the Washington, D.C. example will be watched closely, 
especially by other aging cities as they decide how to deal with their own 
potential water quality problems.

iBNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report, May 24, 2004
ii Renner, R. (June 21, 2004). Leading to Lead. Scientific American.com. 
[On-Line].
Available: http://www.sciam.com.
iiiThe Washington Post, July 2, 2004





.............................................

http://www.epa.gov/dclead/chlorine.htm

Changes in Lead Levels during Annual Switch to Free Chlorine


WASA did some lead sampling during the annual switch to free chlorine in 
April.
How did this affect the lead levels in tap water?

As part of its efforts to better understand the occurrence of high lead 
levels in many D.C. homes, the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has 
been conducting lead profile monitoring in homes to evaluate differences 
between lead levels in homes served by lead and non-lead service lines, the 
effects of lead service line replacement, and techniques for cutting lead 
service lines.

The annual changeover of secondary disinfection chemicals from chloramine to 
free chlorine occurred during the period from April 2 to May 7, 2004. This 
presented an excellent opportunity to assess any differences in lead 
corrosion rates during chlorine and chloramine treatment on a more detailed 
basis.

Details of testing
Seven household locations served by full or partial lead service lines were 
used by WASA to conduct detailed profiles of lead levels and other metals 
over the course of time. Roughly 20-30 one-liter samples were taken at each 
location before and during free chlorine addition to determine metal 
concentrations in different sections of a home's plumbing after a period of 
stagnation. The lead data discussed here are a subset of a larger amount of 
information collected by WASA for home plumbing/service line/water main 
profiling purposes.

Preliminary results
The preliminary data show a substantial difference in lead levels from 
before and during free chlorine application in homes served by lead service 
lines. Data from two sampling sites illustrate this difference: during the 
free chlorine treatment period, lead levels were up to 10-fold lower than 
chloramine treatment periods at the same households. During chlorination, 
the lead levels were generally below the action level of 15 ppb in water 
that sat in lead service lines. Other samples identified by WASA to have 
been taken during the period of free chlorine feed confirm this finding: 
lead levels in tap samples taken in April (free chlorine addition) were 
generally lower than those from March (chloramine addition), though not to 
the same extent as in the profiled locations.

What does the data mean?
While one could conclude that chloramines are the cause of the elevated lead 
levels in DC, experts thus far suspect that free chlorine actually served as 
a form of corrosion control treatment. The hypothesis is that it is not 
chloramine addition per se, but instead the absence of the free chlorine 
that is contributing to lead leaching. Elemental chlorine combines to form 
an oxide with lead to create a protective layer inside distribution system 
pipes/plumbing, slowing the rate of lead corrosion. The use of free chlorine 
may have slowed a process already underway.

How will this data affect treatment decisions?
Firm conclusions should not be drawn from this limited data set. This data 
provides significant new information to the various agencies working to 
resolve this matter. The study data are being provided to the Technical 
Expert Working Group and their conclusions, requested by June 30, 2004, will 
be reviewed by the Independent Peer Review Panel.

If the switch to chloramines appears to be the cause of elevated lead 
levels, why wasn't the Aqueduct required to go back to free chlorine 
immediately?

Why the Aqueduct switched to chloramines
In November 2000, the Washington Aqueduct changed their treatment process 
from the use of free chlorine to reduce the levels of disinfection 
by-products (DBPs) and the public health risks associated with them. The 
change resulted in an estimated 47% reduction in levels of DBPs, on average. 
In January 2002, a running annual average maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 
80 parts per billion (ppb) was set to help prevent risks of possible 
cancer-causing agents and suspected risks of miscarriage at acute levels.

Why switching back to free chlorine isn't the answer
Simply going back to chlorine may trade one public health problem for 
another: though lower lead levels may result, reverting to chlorine may 
result in higher cancer risks for the entire service area of the Washington 
Aqueduct. EPA is concerned about potential effects related to miscarriage 
and birth defects, as some studies have suggested a weak link between 
elevated levels of trihalomethanes (THMs) and reproductive and developmental 
effects.

As we enter the warmest months of the year which typically create the 
highest levels of disinfection by-product formation, it is prudent to avoid 
a quick decision to turn off chloramine treatment in favor of free chlorine 
at this stage.

What about zinc orthophosphate?
The proposed treatment using zinc orthophosphate will continue as planned. 
Further analysis of the new data may provide suggestions on adjusting that 
treatment. We know from other systems' experiences that zinc orthophosphate 
can be effective in controlling corrosion while chloramination is retained 
as the disinfectant. The desire is that lead levels will eventually be 
reduced and District of Columbia and Northern Virginia residents will not be 
exposed to higher cancer risks and other potential effects.

Continuing to protect public health
Effective public education programs should be instrumental in protecting the 
target population from lead exposure through the flushing guidance and the 
distribution of water filters. Other options will be evaluated by EPA and 
partner agencies to determine if changes in treatment are feasible without 
unacceptable risks from lead levels, disinfection by-products, or other 
regulated parameters. WASA will offer to resample any residence or location 
tested during the free chlorine period to ensure that the most accurate 
picture of lead levels is provided during chloramine treatment. WASA is also 
conducting additional assessments to study this phenomenon in detail.