EDF Health

Rhode Island expects LSL replacements to be ‘simultaneous and complete’ when funded by SRF

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative
and
Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities

What Happened: The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) published notices on January 18 and January 30 indicating that Providence Water would need to stop partial replacement of lead service lines (LSLs) when the work is funded by the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program.

RIDOH specified that “only [LSL] replacement that results in simultaneous and complete replacement of both the public (water main to curb stop) and private (curb stop to water meter inside buildings) portions of the lead service lines will occur.”

Why It Matters: EPA made it clear in its FAQs that federal SRF funds should not be used to support harmful partial LSL replacements, which increases the risk of lead exposure in drinking water.[1] To our knowledge, Rhode Island is the first state that has applied its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-like environmental review process to protect residents from partial LSL replacements by requiring the simultaneous and complete replacement of an LSL. All states have a similar review process pursuant to EPA requirements and should be taking similar action.

Our Take: RIDOH’s determination is an important application of the state’s environmental review requirements for its SRF program. We strongly supported RIDOH’s action in comments. We also asked that it be applied to six other SRF-funded projects that are likely to disturb LSLs, like water main replacement and asked for a public hearing if RIDOH allows partials for those other projects.

The Backstory: EDF objected to RIDOH’s March 2022 proposal to grant Providence Water a categorical exclusion that would have allowed partial LSL replacements. We reasoned that the practice would “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.” Accordingly, the utility was not eligible for a categorical exclusion and must either stop partial LSL replacements or conduct a full environmental review. This review would likely demonstrate the project was not eligible for funding.

Later, RIDOH withdrew the proposal based on follow-up discussions with EDF and separate discussions with Childhood Lead Action Project.

Go Deeper: Read RIDOH’s April 2022 and January 2023 public notices, a related civil rights administrative complaint filed with EPA, and EDF’s objections to RIDOH’s April 2022 proposal.

 

[1] EPA Frequent Questions about Bipartisan Infrastructure Law State Revolving Funds and LSLR:

Question 4. If some customers (e.g., homeowners) refuse to allow the water utility access to replace the privately-owned portion of the lead service line, does this affect the project’s DWSRF funding?

State DWSRF programs may still fund the overall project but are strongly encouraged to use technical assistance and other outreach methods to achieve the fullest possible participation. If the customer continues to refuse access, then the water system should leave the publicly-owned portion of the lead service line in place (so as to not create a partial replacement) and document this action. To be clear, partial service line replacements are not eligible for DWSRF funding (from any DWSRF funding source).”

Posted in Civil rights / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Broken GRAS: FDA’s half-step to limit bias and conflicts of interest in GRAS determinations may backfire

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, consultant

What Happened? FDA finalized a long awaited guidance for industry in December to help reduce conflicts of interest and bias when a chemical manufacturer chooses to convene an expert panel to assess whether a new chemical additive is generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Why It Matters: As written, FDA’s Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel guidance is excellent. If food companies convene GRAS panels consistent with the guidance, the panels’ evaluations will be more credible because they should have less of the pervasive bias and conflicts of interest that plague the current system and all too often result in unsafe chemicals being added to food. But that’s a big if.

Our Take: Unfortunately, we think the guidance is likely to backfire because of the limited scope — FDA explicitly makes GRAS panels optional – a choice the agency made when it finalized the GRAS rule in 2016. Chemical manufacturers will simply avoid convening GRAS panels, relying solely on their employees or a consulting firm they hire to conduct these safety evaluations. These employees and consultants typically have significant bias and conflicts of interest because positive opinions help their employer or client. We raised this issue in comments to FDA, calling for the best practices to apply to everyone involved in the safety evaluation process. FDA did not address our comments in their recommended best practices in the revised final guidance.

While making GRAS panels optional is a serious problem, a more fundamental concern is that FDA may not have an opportunity to review the GRAS safety evaluations made by employees or hire consultants because the company chooses not to notify the agency. FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety fails to consider just how often companies choose not to tell the agency that a new chemical is being added to food. In our Broken GRAS series, we provided six examples of the serious risk posed by the GRAS system, the most public being hundreds of people sickened due to consumption of tara flour, an ingredient in a Daily Harvest frozen meal. Last November, using marketing materials we showed FDA that the number of new chemicals bypassing its review likely outnumber those voluntarily submitted to the agency.

We see no evidence that the agency systematically investigates or even audits the GRAS determinations that bypass their review despite promises made by the agency over the years and a scathing 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office calling for action.

Next Steps: In his effort to reform FDA’s dysfunctional food safety program, FDA Commissioner Califf told a reporter that “I want to throw in chemical safety as another really, really important area for the future – for humankind, really – and where science is evolving rapidly.”[1] If he follows through, fixing GRAS is an important step to rebuild consumer confidence and reduce the ongoing risk to public health. If he fails, the agency will continue to be hamstrung in preventing health risks posed by chemicals of unknown safety.

Go deeper: Broken GRAS series, Neltner et al (2013) Conflicts of Interest in Approvals of Additives to Food Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe: Out of Balance; Toxic Free Act; Food Chemical Reassessment Act.

[1] FoodFix, January 31, 2023 edition.

Updated April 9, 2023 to add link for Broken GRAS series.

Posted in Broken GRAS, Conflict of interest, FDA, GRAS / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

Unleading Baby Food: FDA’s proposed limits are a positive step, but…

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

What Happened: FDA recently released draft action levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young toddlers.1 Action levels represent the point above which FDA is likely to regard food as adulterated – essentially unsafe – and seek a recall. This is a key step in implementing FDA’s Closer to Zero Action Plan.

  • Lead limits would be 10 parts per billion (ppb) for most foods.
  • Limits would be 20 ppb for dry infant cereals and single-ingredient root vegetable products, because these products may have greater lead contamination levels. (Root vegetables are primarily carrots and sweet potatoes.)

The new action levels do not apply to juices; FDA proposed limits on those in April 2022.

Why It Matters: There is no safe level of lead in the diet.

For young children living in homes without lead pipes or lead paint, diet is the primary source of their lead exposure. FDA makes clear in the proposal that:

“Even low lead exposure can harm children’s health and development, specifically the brain and nervous system. Neurological effects of lead exposure during early childhood include learning disabilities, behavior difficulties, and lowered IQ. Lead exposures also may be associated with immunological, cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive and/or developmental effects. Because lead can accumulate in the body, even low-level chronic exposure can be hazardous over time.”

Lead can enter the food chain through multiple sources, including crops grown in contaminated soil and/or irrigated with contaminated water, atmospheric deposition from industrial activities, and old food-processing equipment that contains lead. The objective is to get exposure closer to zero.

Our Take: We applaud FDA’s proposed limits, which are more protective than the European Union’s 2021 standards. BUT…on the flip side:

  • FDA failed to set action levels for popular grain-based snacks, like teething biscuits and snack puffs. The agency needs to rectify this failure with all deliberate speed.
  • More protective action levels are achievable, especially for non-rice cereals and for foods that don’t contain rice or root vegetables.
  • Proposed action levels do not apply to multiple categories of foods, including:
  • FDA’s justification for the draft action levels lacks transparency—undermining both credibility of the levels and the likelihood industry will comply with them.

In addition, USDA and industry need to expand their support for research on the methods for growing, harvesting, and processing root vegetables, rice, and quinoa to further reduce lead contamination in these important foods. Research should include both store-bought and homemade baby foods.

Go Deeper: Visit our new Deep Dives blog to see our 3-part series, which provides a more detailed analysis of FDA’s proposal—including our recommendations for setting more protective limits and improving the transparency and credibility of the agency’s process of setting action levels.

NOTES
1 FDA’s guidance refers to babies and young children. Younger than two is a very narrow definition of young children, especially since children up to age six are particularly vulnerable to the harm that lead causes to their brains. Other federal agencies set standards for this broader age range. Toddlers are generally considered to be between 1 and 3 years of age. Therefore, we use the term “young toddlers” to avoid confusion.

Revised on March 21 to correct quote.

Posted in Deep Dives, FDA, Health policy, Health science, Public health, Unleaded Juice / Read 1 Response

Denver Water proves its Lead Reduction Program is a national model

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals and Lindsay McCormick, Senior Manager, Safer Chemicals

What’s New: After an extensive review process, EPA approved Denver Water’s request to extend the variance to allow the utility to administer their Lead Reduction Program for the full 15-year term. EPA touts Denver Water’s Lead Reduction Program as an “innovative and aggressive approach” to lead service line replacement (LSL) in a letter approving the variance.

Denver Water will continue to:

  • replace all lead service lines at no cost to homeowners,
  • provide residents with filters to help reduce their exposure in the short-term, and
  • use an alternative approach to water treatment that still ensures effective corrosion control.

We applaud their emphasis on environmental justice and commitment to ensure that the program continues to prioritize disproportionately impacted neighborhoods – and EPA’s new requirement to track this progress.

This fall, we visited Denver Water’s field operations to see for ourselves how it is successfully replacing more than 4,500 lines per year. We were impressed by what we saw, and sent a letter to EPA’s Regional Administrator expressing our full support for Denver Water’s March 2022 request to continue their program. Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Mapping Lead: Powerful tool helps communities find underground hazards

Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative

We have all come to expect access to information at our fingertips. To meet this demand, water utilities are increasingly posting interactive maps online to help residents identify whether their homes are connected to lead service lines (LSLs).[1] These are the pipes that deliver water from the main under the street to homes and buildings. In homes built before 1986, this pipe could be made of lead.

With this information, people can:

  • Better assess their risk of lead exposure from drinking water and take steps to reduce possible exposure (e.g., water filters);
  • Make decisions when renting or purchasing a new home, and/or;
  • Demand that their water utility and community invest in effective LSL replacement programs to reduce harmful exposure to lead, particularly for children who are most vulnerable.

Given the importance and growing popularity of LSL maps, we are launching a new blog series, Mapping Lead, that will explore how utilities are approaching maps, evaluate which map features are most and least effective, and share best practices to help guide future efforts.

EPA recognized the value of interactive maps in its August 2022 guidance on developing service line inventories. The agency recommended utilities of all sizes consider making information available through interactive maps using commonly available tools, like GIS software. The guidance references EDF’s 2019 study for evidence of the power of these interactive maps and spotlights LSL replacement programs in Cincinnati and Denver as examples of best practices.[2]

We wholeheartedly agree with EPA’s recommendations. As a result of the agency’s guidance, we anticipate that the number of online maps is likely to grow dramatically as utilities meet an October 2024 deadline to make their inventory of service line materials publicly accessible to comply with EPA’s revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).

Top 100 Cities: Who Has Maps – And Who Doesn’t

We identified over 50 interactive LSL maps that utilities have made publicly available to residents across the United States. Looking at the utilities that serve the 100 largest cities in the country, we found that 15 have LSL maps—a positive step that leverages existing asset-management tools such as GIS, while increasing public transparency. Together, these 15 utilities provide drinking water to more than 16 million people.

Throughout this blog series we’ll take a closer look at maps; in some cases, we’ll be critical of those that don’t meet the criteria for an effective map. Nonetheless, we recognize these utilities have taken a step in the right direction and should be applauded for their efforts.

We discovered that 12 large utilities were notably absent from the list of those with online maps. Given their size and location, these utilities presumably have LSLs in their distribution areas and the in-house resources to develop effective maps. We hope that by shining a light on the cities that are leading the way and addressing the contrast with those cities without maps, we can help spur action so residents of large cities served by these utilities will have access to this crucial information. For a list of the 12 utilities without maps and 15 with maps, see the tables below. We’ll continue to revise these lists as more large cities publish interactive maps online.

By the Numbers

It’s important to understand the broader landscape as we track cities that are choosing interactive maps as a key tool for communicating about LSLs to the public. Using estimates from EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the revised LCR, the figure below shows the number of community water systems that fall under the purview of the LCR and subsequent requirements based on presence of LSLs and population served.

By October 2024, more than 50,000 utilities[3] will either submit an initial service line inventory or demonstrate the absence of LSLs in their distribution area.[4] EPA estimates that more than 12,000 utilities will find LSLs and thus will be required to make their inventory publicly accessible; those that serve over 50,000 people will also be required to post the inventory online.

More to Come

Follow along as we explore interactive maps and the role they play in LSL replacement.

Utilities Serving Top 100 Largest Cities With Online Interactive Maps

UtilityPopulation Served†Estimated # of LSLs‡
New York City, New York (Map)8.3 million360,000
Boston, Massachusetts (Map)2.6 million3,900**
Denver, Colorado (Map)1.4 million64,000**
Columbus, Ohio (Map)1.3 million28,000*
Seattle, Washington (Map)956,0002,000*
San Francisco, California (Map)884,0001,600*
Cincinnati, Ohio (Map)750,00040,000
Memphis, Tennessee (Map)700,00014,000*
Tucson, Arizona (Map)675,000600
Washington, D.C. (Map)632,00042,000**
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Map)520,00016,000**
Toledo, Ohio (Map)480,00030,000**
St. Paul, Minnesota (Map)400,00027,000
Newark, New Jersey (Map)295,00024,000**
Jersey City, New Jersey (Map)262,00016,000
*Map and/or estimated number of LSLs reflects public side only.
**Active or completed LSL replacement program. The number listed reflects the estimated number of LSLs prior to the start of the program.
†Source is SDWIS, 2022.
‡Source available upon request.

 

Select Utilities Serving Top 100 Largest Cities That Lacked Online Interactive Maps

UtilityPopulation Served†Estimated # of LSLs‡
Chicago, Illinois2.7 million380,000
Baltimore, Maryland1.6 millionNot reported
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania1.6 million20,000
Cleveland, Ohio1.3 million200,000
Charlotte, North Carolina1.1 millionNot reported
Indianapolis, Indiana (Citizens Energy – Water)837,00055,000-75,000
Nashville, Tennessee722,000Unknown
Detroit, Michigan714,00080,000
Milwaukee, Wisconsin590,00066,000
Omaha, Nebraska554,00016,000-17,000
Minneapolis, Minnesota424,00049,000
New Orleans, Louisiana291,000Unknown
†Source is SDWIS, 2022.
‡Source available upon request.

 

[1] For this blog series, LSLs includes service lines that are “galvanized requiring replacement” per 40 CFR § 141.2.

[2] See Section 7.2 of EPA’s service line inventory guidance.

[3] For purposes of this blog series, community water suppliers as defined by EPA are referred to as utilities.

[4] Per 40 CFR 141.84(4), CWSs must categorize each service line, or portion of the service line where ownership is split, as lead, galvanized requiring replacement, non-lead, or lead status unknown. In order to declare that the system only contains non-lead service lines, this must be “determined through an evidence-based record, method, or technique.”

 

Revised May 2, 2023 to update blog series title and link.

Posted in Drinking water, Lead, Mapping Lead / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

EPA greenlights 21 states’ SRF plans to fund LSL replacement projects

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

What’s New: EPA announced it has awarded $1.16 billion to the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in 21 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories to support lead service line (LSL) replacement projects. In order to secure funding, these states developed and submitted Intended Use Plans (IUPs), which included LSL replacement projects that met EPA’s requirements.

Why It Matters: These 25 programs can now begin distributing their share of the first of five years of funding from the $15 billion Congress included in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) specifically for full LSL replacement projects. The remaining states are working to get their IUPs submitted to EPA.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed