EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Disclosure

New study: Homebuyers and renters take action when told they may have a lead service line

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 18, 2019

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director, and Lindsay McCormick, Project Manager

[pullquote]

The Cornell/EDF study confirmed that potential buyers or renters report being much more willing to take action to replace LSLs when told they have one regardless of disclosure style. However, water testing information that shows levels below EPA’s lead action level may underestimate risk and undermine action on LSLs.

[/pullquote]

Today, EDF and collaborators at Cornell published a new study that provides insight into how disclosure policies can impact potential home-buyer and renter behavior. This effort builds on a report EDF published in 2017 grading state housing disclosure policies according to their ability to help homebuyers make informed decisions about lead service lines (LSLs) before they sign a sales contract. LSLs are pipes that connect homes to the water mains under the street and are a major source of lead in drinking water. Four states — Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania — and Washington, DC scored an A-. Twenty-one states scored a D or F. The remaining 25 states scored a B or C.

Our analysis was based on a presumption that if potential homeowners are told that a home has an LSL, many would negotiate with the property owner for its removal, whether by having the seller replace it or building the cost into the mortgage to fund the buyer’s replacement. This was a reasonable presumption that underlies why sellers are required to disclose property defects and environmental hazards in many states.

However, we were interested in testing that presumption and exploring how potential homebuyers and renters might respond differently based on how the information is disclosed by a property owner or home inspector. Our objective was to evaluate disclosure styles to assess if the different styles influenced respondents’ perceived risk of the LSL in a home and willingness to act. To conduct the survey, we partnered with Jeff Niederdeppe and Hang Lu of Cornell University’s Department of Communications who recruited 2,205 participants online and gave them one of three scenarios to consider and advised them it would cost $1,000-5,000 to replace the LSL. See Figure 1 below.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Health policy, Lead / Also tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

City of Washington, DC requires lead pipe disclosure and tackles past partial LSL replacements

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 28, 2019

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director

Update: In October 2019, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser appropriated $1.8 million in her Fiscal Year 2020 budget to fund the Lead Pipe Replacement Assistance Program, which is designed to replace legacy partial LSLs remaining on private property. 

Washington, DC estimates there are 48,000 lead service lines (LSLs) on private property, 46 percent of the total number of service lines identified by the District. While the District has not yet set a goal of eliminating LSLs, it has taken positive steps to assist residents in replacing LSLs. It has prioritized avoiding partial LSL replacements, which are likely to increase residents’ exposure to lead, especially in the months following the disturbance.

On January 16, 2019, the District passed a new law that takes additional positive steps. First, it requires property owners to disclose the presence of an LSL to potential homebuyers and renters. The city joins Cincinnati, OH and Philadelphia, PA in requiring disclosure to renters and New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania in requiring disclosure to homebuyers.

Second, it redresses past partial LSL replacements by providing financial support to homeowners who did not replace the portion on private property when they were expected to shoulder the entire burden. This is the first city we have seen take this approach. The fiscal impact statement for the law also provides insight into the cost of LSL replacement; the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), the city’s utility, estimates the average cost to replace the portion on private property is $2,000 per line. The total cost of the law over four years if fully funded is $21 million.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Health policy, Lead, Public health / Also tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Federal government updates real estate disclosure booklet to address lead in drinking water

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: December 6, 2017

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

In June 2017, the federal government updated the “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet to expand the information provided on lead in drinking water from a few lines to a full page. Since 1996, when someone rents or buys a home built before 1978, the property owner or landlord is required to provide them with a copy of this booklet. The last update to the booklet was made in 2012.

What is removed?

  • Statement that paint, dust and soil are the most common sources of lead. The new version does not make the comparison. See our September 2017 blog for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest estimates on sources of lead exposure.
  • Running water for 15 to 30 seconds before drinking. The new version is silent on length of time to flush water and instead highlights taking a shower, doing laundry, or doing a load of dishes as options to flush the line at the tap. The change was necessary because homes with lead service lines, the lead pipe that connects the main under the street to the home, often experience higher levels of lead after 30 seconds of flushing.

What background is added?

  • Lead pipes, faucets and fixtures are the most common sources of lead in drinking water.
  • Reminder that older homes with private wells can have lead plumbing materials too.
  • Some states or utilities offer programs that pay for water testing for residents.

What are the new recommendations?

  • Regularly clean your faucet screen (also known as an aerator).
  • If using a filter to remove lead, follow directions to learn when to change the cartridge.
  • Use only cold water to make baby formula.
  • Contact your water company to determine if your home has a lead service line and to learn about lead levels in the system’s drinking water and water testing for residents.
  • Call EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 for information about lead in drinking water and 1-800 424-LEAD for other questions about lead poisoning prevention.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Health policy, Lead, Public health, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Cincinnati and Ohio show leadership in identifying and disclosing lead service lines

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 9, 2017

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

Transparency is an essential aspect of any successful program to reduce lead in drinking water. Knowing if you have a lead service line (LSL)—the pipe that connects the main under the street to the building—can help you decide whether to use a filter or replace the line. If you are looking for a home to rent or buy, the presence of a LSL can be a factor in your choice. Transparency can also help reassure consumers that their utility is aware of the problem and committed to protecting their health. The challenge for many water suppliers is that they often don’t have perfect information about the presence of LSLs. But incomplete information is not a reason for failing to disclose what is known, what is uncertain, and what is unknown.

In a February 29, 2016 letter to the states, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) asked states to increase transparency by posting on either the state’s website or have it posted on local utilities’ websites:

“the materials inventory that systems were required to complete under the [Lead and Copper Rule] including the locations of lead service lines [LSLs], together with any more updated inventory or map of lead service lines and lead plumbing in the system.”

In response to this letter and systemic issues brought to light about lead in drinking water in the village of Sebring, Ohio and Flint, Michigan, the State of Ohio enacted pragmatic legislation crafted by Governor John Kasich’s administration and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). Among its supporters was the Ohio Environmental Council. One provision in the law requires community water systems to

“identify and map areas of their system that are known or are likely to contain lead service lines and identify characteristics of buildings served by the system that may contain lead piping, solder, or fixtures . . .”

Utilities must submit the information to Ohio EPA as well as the departments of Health and of Job and Family Services by March 9, 2017 and update this information every five years.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , | Authors: / Read 2 Responses

People deserve to know if lead pipes and paint are present where they live and work

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: August 20, 2016

Tom Neltner, J.D., is the Chemicals Policy Director

We live in an increasingly transparent world. When it comes to the real estate market, companies are mining local government databases to let us know the size of a home, how much it’s worth, and even when the roof was last replaced.

Yet, you can’t find out if the house you might buy could poison your children with toxic lead. Federal law only requires that the seller or landlord reveal the presence of lead paint when you sign a contract to buy or rent a home.

We think that has to change.

People should be able to readily know if lead is present in the paint and water pipes where they live and work when they begin making important decisions, not when they are finalizing the deal. When shopping for a place to live, the best time to learn if there is lead at a property is when it is listed for sale or rent. Some opponents claim that revealing this information invades the resident’s privacy, but the presence of lead is not about anyone’s behavior. Rather, it’s a fact about the house, a legacy of the construction of the building. It is no different from the type of furnace or number of bedrooms.

There are signs of progress. In Washington, DC, the water utility has launched an online map that reveals information that can help improve transparency on lead pipes. Anyone can check online and see what’s known (and not known) about the presence of lead service lines that connect the drinking water main under the street to their home or business.

It’s a model other communities should follow. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made this type of transparency a priority for states and utilities. And the private sector needs to play a role, too — real estate innovators like Zillow and Redfin, who have transformed how we find homes, should include this information in their online listings.

It’s time that people begin to know the possible health impacts of their housing options when evaluating homes to buy or rent.

Posted in Drinking water, General interest, Lead, Markets and Retail, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Lead hazard disclosure: Time to better inform home buyers and renters

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: April 14, 2016

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.

[pullquote]

Imagine what would happen if firms like Zillow and Redfin that have transformed the real estate marketplace also helped consumers make informed decisions about health hazards in the home.

[/pullquote]

In the past 20 years, if you’ve bought or rented a home built before 1978, you’ve seen it–130 words in a dense paragraph titled “Lead Warning Statement.” Below it, the landlord or seller most likely checked the box saying he or she “has no knowledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing” and “has no reports or records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing.”

By the time you read that dense paragraph, you’d have already chosen your new home, so you likely signed the forms and put the “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet in your to-do pile; a pile that all-t0o-easily gets lost in the chaos of a big move.

Congress created this lead hazard disclosure requirement in 1992 as part of a comprehensive law designed to protect children from lead in paint. The objective was to transform the marketplace by having buyers and renters demand homes that were either free of lead paint or, at least, lead hazards.

It has not worked out that way. The marketplace for lead-free or lead-safe homes never materialized, and sellers and landlords have little to no incentive to look for problems that might complicate the transaction.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Health policy, Lead, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed