The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority sent us the following statement in reaction to this post we ran earlier this week, about how their practice of partial lead pipe replacement appears to have caused very large spikes in the tap water lead levels of hundreds of District homes.
To refresh your memory, the Washington Post reported last weekend on a set of test results from 2006 that show major lead level spikes in the tap water of hundreds of homes just after lead pipes near them were replaced. The test results were obtained through a freedom of information act request by Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards, and were not made public by WASA before then.

Drinking water distributed in the District of Columbia meets all federal EPA regulations and standards for public health safety.

Except, of course, for the tap water from 658 homes tested in 2006, within a week after the agency partially replaced their lead service lines. Edwards’ analysis showed those homes had lead levels 17 times the amount the federal government considers unsafe in drinking water.

The implication that WASA has been withholding information about “dangerously high” lead levels is unfair and unfounded for several reasons – (1) temporary spikes in lead levels are not a system-wide problem in District drinking water; (2) the potential for a spike affects only about two percent (2%) of customers who are having a partial lead service line replacement (replacing the lead pipe on the public side of the property line with copper pipe), (3) this temporary (short-term) elevation in lead levels can occur in some cases when lead shavings come loose in the pipes after construction, and (4) the lead spike is short-term and can be reduced by flushing the lines, which customers are instructed on before and after partial lead service line replacement.

The statement also detailed other instructions and advisements that are sent to property owners who are slated for partial lead pipe replacement, which do indicate that affected homeowners are given adequate information on the issue.

So what do you think of WASA’s response?