May 2016, Vol. 71 No. 5
Editor's Log
Lead Pipe Spurs Panic Mode
by Robert Carpenter, Editor-in-Chief
Flint, MI, Newark, NJ, Goodsprings, NV, Greentown, IN, Jackson, MS – the current public knee-jerk reaction to possible lead poisoning from corroded lead pipe has spread faster than a zombie plague across the country. But like all types of public hysteria stirred up by today’s overstimulation from uneducated media sources, there’s much more to the story than simply that we’re all being poisoned by corroded lead pipe. The problem is much more complex than ripping out the old lead pipe and putting in new pipe.
As always, the skittish public needs clarity. Yes, sadly there remains a lot of lead pipe still in use around the country. Yes, in some instances there may be an immediate public health danger. However, all real and perceived lead contamination does not necessarily come from pipe. Further, even if your water supply comes from lead pipe, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are being contaminated.
Veteran water contractors are smiling an “I told you so” at what the public is just now coming to realize – that there is still a tremendous amount of lead pipe in use around the country. But without a funded lead pipe replacement program in place as a priority, there was nothing those contractors could do about the situation. Water utilities, without the motivation and finances, did not take action. There has been very little leadership on the issue from state or national agencies.
Of course, with modern social and digital media outlets, publicity has roared to life. Water utilities are now busy dodging bullets of outrage from their constituents when it is discovered that there are still active lead pipes in a community water system.
But do lead pipes present a clear and present danger? The actionable level defined by the EPA is 15 parts per billion. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all possible lead sources from potable water – zero parts per billion. The reality is that the old lead pipes in Flint were coated with decades of deposits of various minerals and materials. When Flint switched water sources – twice – it effectively flushed the system, cleaning the pipes and releasing corroded material from pipe sidewalls and uncovering lead. Until the pipe was disturbed, the lead leaching was nominal. While that’s nowhere near acceptable in the long-term, it was this disturbing of the pipe that caused the deadly health issues in the short term.
I don’t mean to imply that we ignore the potential lead pipe time bomb. But common sense dictates you don’t kick a sleeping, ferocious dog unless you’ve got the dog catcher with you. The industry has to follow prudent replacement practices. If it is determined that lead pipe is in existence within a system, then a carefully engineered solution should be developed and implemented by a contractor familiar with replacement of lead pipe.
Replacing the lead pipe still in use across the U.S. presents a solvable logistical problem. The perhaps insurmountable obstacle is identifying and accessing the billions of dollars in funding necessary to execute this massive undertaking. The good news is that Congress is trying to react quickly and positively to the issue. Recently, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced an agreement with Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., that would provide two streams of funding, which would have been impossible to foresee at the start of the year. The plan would provide $100 million for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) accessible by any state with a drinking water emergency; and provide $70 million in funding to back secured loans made under the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA). That sum would support secured loans of up to $4.2 billion. But the House and Senate appropriations committees would have to make funding available. That is not a certainty, and the timeline is vague at best.
When funds are available to launch an aggressive lead pipe removal and replacement campaign, the scope of such a quest is hard to define as well. Older city records tend to be anything but accurate or complete. In the 1990s, I was in a Nameless City covering a major telecom project through a historic district. The contractor was primarily using directional drilling to install conduit. They took all the prudent precautions to make sure they avoided other pipes. But it didn’t take long before they did hit an unidentified lead water pipe – still active – that city records showed was abandoned years earlier. The “abandoned” pipe was also supposed to be located a block away. City workers hastily traced the lead pipe and rerouted water services, but one couldn’t help but wonder just how much lead pipe might actually still be in use.
Old, decaying lead pipe can present serious health concerns and should be replaced. The public motivation is now present. The real question is will our national, state and local governments have the wherewithal to craft – and fund – comprehensive replacement plans.
Comments