EDF Health

Successful Denver Water Lead Reduction Program seeks 12-Year extension

Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities and Lindsay McCormick, Senior Manager, Safer Chemicals

Denver Water has one of the most successful lead service line (LSL) replacement programs in the country. Since it began the program in 2020, the utility has replaced nearly 14,000 LSLs—prioritizing lines to buildings serving vulnerable populations, such as child-care facilities. Denver Water has also distributed over 102,000 filters to local residents. EPA should continue to support their innovative approach.

Watch this video to learn more about Denver Water’s Lead Reduction Program.

In 2019, we blogged about a novel program that Denver Water designed to address the estimated 64,000 to 84,000 LSLs in its system. These lead pipes connect buildings to water mains under the street.  At the time, the water utility proposed to fully replace all LSLs in their entirety within 15 years under its Lead Reduction Program.

The utility decided to fund the work through water rates and bonds, hydropower production, and other sources. In addition, they proposed to provide filters to residents until six months after replacement of the LSL.

Critically, the program includes a comprehensive effort to engage local partners to reach all members of the community. For example, Denver Water partnered with CREA Results, a local community-based organization that is helping to engage and educate Spanish-speaking and immigrant communities on the risks of lead in drinking water and to ensure that residents understand the steps involved with LSL replacement in their neighborhoods. Denver Water’s program has emerged as a national model and its success is recognized by the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative and EPA (including its recent service line inventory guidance).

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, Public Health / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Over 7 million children exceed FDA’s new daily maximum intake level of lead

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

This is the fourth in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and the implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.

In June, after issuing its proposed action levels for lead in juice, FDA tightened its Interim Reference Levels (IRLs) for lead to 2.2 µg/day for children and 8.8 µg/day for females of childbearing age—a drop of 27% from the original IRLs it established in 2018. We estimate this change increased the number of children over the IRL for lead from 2.2 million to more than 7 million.

The agency describes IRLs as daily maximum intake levels for lead in food and beverages. FDA scientists said the change was made to match the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) October 2021 revised blood lead reference value.  This value is commonly known as the elevated blood lead level (EBLL).[1] FDA uses the “interim” label in recognition that there is no known safe level of exposure to lead and the neurotoxic harm it can cause. FDA anticipates matching the IRLs to future reductions in CDC’s reference value as the U.S. makes progress in reducing children’s exposure to lead.

We applaud FDA’s decision to tighten the IRLs. It is a good example of the type of continuous improvement to which FDA committed in its Closer to Zero Action Plan, which aims to lower levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, and inorganic arsenic in food that babies and young children eat and drink.

The challenge now is to translate the tighter daily maximum intake level into action levels for specific foods. Next steps for FDA should include:

  • Further tightening its recently proposed action level for lead in juice.
  • Using the revised lead IRLs as:
    • The basis for its proposal for foods commonly consumed by babies and young children – currently stuck in the review process at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    • A model for FDA’s anticipated IRLs for inorganic arsenic and cadmium under its Closer to Zero program.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, Unleaded Juice / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Unleaded Juice: Getting Credible Lab Results is Essential

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

This is the third in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and the implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.

FDA’s move to establish action levels on lead in juice – and eventually other foods that young children eat or drink – is an important step forward. While we believe that the action levels need to be tougher, any action level has a limited value if labs that analyze samples for contamination provide results that buyers, regulators, or consumers cannot trust.

We recommend that labs meet four criteria to provide credible results:

  • Be accredited under international standards for testing and calibration of labs (ISO/IEC 17025);
  • Use the analytical method based on FDA’s Method 4.7 [PDF, 1.16MB];
  • Demonstrate proficiency in a third-party, blinded test to quantify lead, arsenic, and cadmium to around 6 parts per billion (ppb); and
  • Provide a written report of results at that level.

Here is the list of labs that met these criteria as of August 2021. See below for our in-depth analysis.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Unleaded Juice / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Unleaded Juice: Tougher limits on lead in juice would bring more than a billion dollars in socioeconomic benefits

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

This is the second in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and its implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program.

When developing its draft action levels for lead in juice, FDA started with the current 50 parts per billion limit and considered progressively tighter levels, settling on 10 ppb for apple juice and 20 ppb for other juices. FDA did not consider more protective limits despite acknowledging that there is no known safe level of children’s exposure to lead – which can harm a child’s developing brain – and that many in the food industry already meet the lower draft levels.

FDA also failed to quantify the socioeconomic benefits of its action. While this task is difficult in many settings, it is entirely reasonable for lead because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a quantitative model when considering rules to protect children from exposure to lead.[1] Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, Unleaded Juice / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

FDA takes action to limit lead in juice, proposes significant – but insufficient – limits

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safery Chemicals

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released draft action levels for lead in juice, proposing to reduce lead limits from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb for apple juice and 20 ppb for all other juices. However, the draft limits don’t go far enough to protect children. They also risk undermining the agency’s broader Closer to Zero effort to drive down children’s exposure to lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food. 

If finalized, these levels would be the most stringent in the world, including current European standards[1] and anticipated international standards.[2] For that FDA deserves credit. Public comments to FDA are due June 28. 

This blog is the first in our Unleaded Juice blog series where we explore these issues. Heavy metals like lead are potent neurotoxicants that can impair children’s brain development. Lead can also result in lower IQs in children.  Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, Unleaded Juice / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

NEPA requires water utilities to evaluate potential discriminatory effects before starting work that disturbs lead pipes

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative; and Jennifer Ortega, Research Analyst

Providence Water, Rhode Island’s largest water utility, has applied for state funds to rehabilitate drinking water mains in its service area. Lead service lines (LSLs) are often attached to the mains and carry drinking water to customer’s homes. The utility has requested a “categorical exclusion” from the basic environmental assessment requirement for projects seeking money from the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). We believe the exclusion is not appropriate and have sent a letter to the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) asking it to deny Providence Water’s request.

As part of its work, Providence Water apparently plans to replace LSLs on public property and give customers the option to accept a 10-year interest free loan to replace the LSLs that run under their private property. However, this practice forces customers to choose between paying for a full LSL replacement or risking greater lead exposure from the disturbance caused by a partial LSL replacement. It is also the basis of a civil rights complaint that Childhood Lead Action Project (CLAP), South Providence Neighborhood Association, Direct Action for Rights and Equality, National Center for Healthy Housing, and EDF filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in January.

EPA, which allocates grants to SRF programs has begun to investigate the civil rights issues raised by the complaint, which demonstrated that Providence Water’s practices disproportionately and adversely affect the health of low-income, Black, Latinx, and Native American residents by increasing their risk of exposure to lead in drinking water.

Under federal and state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, SRF projects are not eligible for a categorical exclusion where an “extraordinary circumstance” is present. The discriminatory effects of Providence Water’s LSL replacement practices represent such a circumstance, and the utility should not be eligible for a categorical exclusion unless it changes its LSL replacement practices. Read More »

Also posted in Civil rights, Drinking Water / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed