DDOE: Water Quality Task Force - Minutes for Sept. 24, 2008

Participants: Jeff Kempic (US EPA), George Hawkins (DDOE, Chair) , Jill Wohrle (DDOE), Jen Peyser (facilitator, Resolve), Anne Spiesmann (Washington Aqueduct), Thomas Jacobus (Washington Aqueduct), Maureen Schmelling (DC WASA), Ralph Scott (Alliance for Healthy Homes), Andy Fellows (Clean Water Action), Pierre Erville (DDOE), Jennie Saxe (US EPA), Rich Giani (DC WASA), Ted Tulle (DDOE), Brendan Shane (DDOE), John DeTaeye (Office of Councilmember Jim Graham), Joe Cotruvo (DC WASA Board), David Bardin (DC WASA Board), Maureen McGowan (Office of the City Administrator), James Jones (DC Appleseed), Dr. Marc Edwards (Virginia Tech, by phone), Chris Weiss (Friends of the Earth), Charles Kiely (DC WASA), Yanna Lambrinidou (Parents for Non-Toxic Alternatives), Paul Schwartz (Clean Water Action), Wayne Turner (DC Appleseed), Lloyd Stowe (Washington Aqueduct), 2 DC Appleseed interns

Director Hawkins opened the meeting by welcoming the participants and thanking them for volunteering their time. Each participant introduced themselves.

Director Hawkins offered an outline of the agenda and the central questions to be addressed by an independent review of the District’s drinking water—is it safe? how do we know? how should we find out? While the initial focus of this analysis would be lead in water, he indicated that a successful Task Force (TF) working model may then be applied to other drinking water quality issues..

Director Hawkins then explained that this TF is a slight departure from the typical government agency decision-making process. Traditionally, DDOE would solicit input, make a decision, open that decision to comments and then make a final decision. In this case, DDOE hopes for a more interactive forum. The ultimate deliverable for the TF is a Scope of Work (SOW) for an independent water quality study that the TF will then be able to evaluate. The TF will set the parameters for this study. Director Hawkins expressed optimism about the process, but emphasized that if for some reason, the TF isn’t accomplishing its goals, DDOE will revert to the traditional model instead.

In addition, Director Hawkins clarified that DDOE will make all final decisions and the TF is an advisory board. The agency plans to give every opportunity to TF members to offer their comments. In the event of a vote, a majority vote will not necessarily carry the day—DDOE will be responsible and accountable for any final decisions..

Additional participants are welcome to attend the meetings. The membership structure is in place to manage the process more effectively and so DDOE can make sure the formal members have an opportunity to participate.

Participants were given a two-page document that laid out most of Director Hawkins’ introductory points (NOTE: Document available on the website). Regarding interactions with the press, Director Hawkins recommended that TF members not characterize the views of the entire group or other members. If there are press inquiries, members should feel free to direct them to Alan Heymann, Public Information Officer for DDOE (alan.heymann@dc.gov). TF members are free to talk to the press, although in order to maintain focus, DDOE would prefer that there be a consistent story about what’s going on.

Director Hawkins also offered his general outlook on how the TF will proceed. First, he emphasized the need to keep conversations helpful rather than negative, despite strong feelings in the room around these issues. He also described that the TF should generally be forward-looking, rather than focusing on past issues and disagreements. In addition, his personal view is that if multiple, reasonable options are presented, the TF should look to pursue the more inclusive answer (taking into consideration any potential cost limitations). In addition, the TF is not a regulatory effort. While the TF is interested in whether regulations are satisfied, that’s not necessarily the start or end point. This effort isn’t to determine whether an enterprise is complying with laws or not—it is to address the more general question of consumer confidence and the safety of drinking water. Finally, the Director expressed his hope that the end-product is peer-reviewed, so that it has influence in the broader field and has scientific standing.

John DeTaeye welcomed the group on behalf of Councilmember Graham, who looks forward to a positive outcome. Maureen welcomed the TF on behalf on the City Administrator and thanked them for participating.

Jen Peyser introduced herself and gave some background on Resolve—her company has experience in environmental health questions, including lead in drinking water, and served as facilitator for the discussion. Ms. Peyser reviewed the TF objectives and operating procedures, highlighting the following:

At this point, Ms. Peyser opened the floor to questions about the TF’s procedural structure. Mr. Cotruvo commented that it may not be productive to get the press involved and urged discretion. Mr. Scott asked about TF activities being forward-looking—his concern was that unless the group knows what has happened in the past, it won’t know what it has to do differently. Director Hawkins clarified that the TF is not looking to do a deep review of what has happened in the past. Instead, the TF will use past information to the extent that it is necessary to inform future actions and decisions.

Initial Scoping Session

The second half of the meeting was devoted to a general discussion designed to lay out an initial scope for the TF. Participants were asked to send in any thoughts that were not expressed at the meeting to Jill Wohrle —a chart will be developed and distributed showing the general thoughts on scope in order to flesh out areas of agreement and disagreement. Individual responses to the first discussion question appear below (please note that these responses reflect the views of each individual participant, and are not intended to represent consensus by the TF as a whole.)

Discussion question #1: What are the key attributes of a study on lead?
Charles Kiely: Two central questions for this study are defining the population of the study and deciding where testing should be done.
Andy Fellows: The study should be as comprehensive as possible, covering all users of water. In addition, it should be designed to have a health protective outcome as opposed to a compliance focused outcome.
Lloyd Stowe: Posed the question of whether the purpose of the study is to collect new data or to evaluate data that has already been collected.
Paul Schwartz: The study should look for, per the intent of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), the worst-case scenario and test accordingly.
James Jones: Agrees with the need to test with the worst case scenario in mind. In addition, he sees the reason for the study as having something the public can embrace as “ok, now we know,” which may inform the question of how broad the scope is—the current public perception is that existing testing regime is fairly narrow.
David Bardin: The TF should ask what populations are potentially vulnerable. This answer may affect how to plan the study and thus should be clarified early on. Historically, there has been a focus on the LCR, but for this study, the TF should perhaps focus more broadly. Also, in terms of original work, there’s an opportunity do something for its own purposes and to measure levels without worrying about EPA protocols. Statistically, how many locations would have to cooperate in order to do a truly new kind of measuring?
Jennie Saxe: If the District is taking the time to do the study, it should include more than lead (disinfection by-products, bacterial contaminants, emerging contaminants). Comprehensiveness is critical. The study should also maximize efficiencies wherever possible (for example, if you are already collecting a sample at one property, what other information can be gleaned from that sample or visit?). This study could help to answer the public’s questions, which aren’t always answered by the data gathered for regulatory purposes. The findings shouldn’t be compared to regulations if it’s not applicable.
Pierre Erville: This study has the potential to be nationally significant (other cities have similar concerns). There are three distinct segments to examine—the study should distinguish between water quality immediately after treatment, what happens as a result of pipes, and what happens at the spigot level.
Yanna Lambrinidou: Wants to reinforce the suggestion that the study should focus on worst-case scenarios. The public wants to know if there is a problem at all and, if there is, what the worst possibility is. Also, thus far, the discussion has focused on homes with lead-bearing components—should schools be included in the scope? Finally, the study should duplicate the sampling for LCR-compliance within at-risk homes, so as to assess safety as intended by the LCR.
Joe Cotruvo: The study should characterize the circumstances that will lead to contributions of lead—partial replacements, existing lines, conditions of plumbing, etc. Also, the purpose is to determine if the water is safe and at some point the TF has to decide what that means. The group may not be in a position to determine that definitively, but it’s important to understand that issue in advance.
Brendan Shane: The public is already aware that many studies have been done, so the TF should instead focus on working towards solutions that public can understand.
Ralph Scott: In response to Mr. Stowe’s question, Mr. Scott thinks that we should measure and collect new data. The new data should address the goal of sampling worst-case scenarios. In addition, there are questions of which buildings and houses should be included in the sample. The study should also produce an equivalent of LCR testing, to compare results with prior tests. Higher-risk home results shouldn’t be diluted by lower-risk home results.
Thomas Jacobus: This study is an opportunity to inform those who receive water service. The Aqueduct wants to mutually assure people that the water is safe. There is a need to convince each other that individual efforts can lead to safe water, even if it involves individual remedies to deal with questions not addressed at the treatment level.
Rich Giani: Supports looking at other parameters/factors. Mr. Giani warned against unintended consequences—treating lead at the expense of other regulatory requirements. With a public health focus, the TF should look also at the limitations of the data. An outreach program at the conclusion of the study would be helpful.
Jeff Kempic: Define what the goal of the study and monitoring is—for example, testing under the LCR is to assess corrosion control instead of exposure. The purpose of the monitoring will determine how the study is set up.
Maureen Schmelling: Another aspect of this question is accurately determining exposure—what are people’s habits? How much water are they consuming? Outreach efforts could contribute to those findings.
Chris Weiss: Supports having a study with a public health protective outcome in order to restore public confidence.
John DeTaeye: Suggests expanding the sample population focus beyond women/children/fetuses in order to restore confidence to other populations.
Marc Edwards: Core of the study should be an independent sampling that meets requirements of the LCR, using a sampling protocol that satisfies LCR, while also capturing the worst-case scenario sampling sites. A secondary goal would be to look at specific property subsets: homes built after the lead solder ban, homes with partial pipe replacements, and those with galvanized iron. Tertiary concern is to sample for everything else—while these issues will never be resolved solely at a local level, our data at a later phase of the study may be able to contribute to the national debate regarding other water quality questions.

Following a round of initial impressions, the group generally discussed the points that had been raised. Mr. Schwartz agreed with Mr. DeTaeye on expanding the concept of vulnerable populations. Mr. Bardin elaborated on Dr. Edwards’ goal—the ideal sampling system is not what’s typical under the LCR (since homeowners aren’t really trained to perform sampling). Rather, an ideal system is a troop of trained volunteers that you could trust to perform tests exactly according to the established protocols. He posed the question of whether it is legitimate to get a group of people who will take samples in their own homes according to the required criteria and frequency—so they are both the resident and the sampler, if it could be done at a sufficient scope to be effective. Mr. Cotruvo pointed out that if there isn’t confidence in the sampling process, the study will be worthless, so there should be a carefully controlled methodology. Mr. Kiely added that the quality assurance/quality control process will be critical, because there can’t be many errors in sample collection AND data interpretation. Communication and public outreach is key (not just to possibly affected populations), especially in terms of getting information in plain-English out to the general public. Mr. Kiely added that the LCR is heavily regulated in terms of the language used, whereas a new message offers the opportunity to be clear and broad. Mr. Fellows suggested that the study also survey best practices of other cities—what did they do in terms of education to get the lead out? Ms. Lambrinidou believes that the key issue is to understand the reliability of the protocol and of how samples are drawn, etc. Another consideration is that there will be realistic limitations on funding and thus, what levels of testing can be done. She concluded that the public would be satisfied with information that was gotten from LCR testing, if testing is done in a way that can be trusted.

Next Steps
Director Hawkins reminded participants to email Jill Wohrle with their thoughts on the following three categories: characteristics of the study (who, what, when, where, how), meaning of this monitoring (how is it evaluated and what does it mean for public health), and how to develop a solutions-oriented approach.

The next meeting will take place in four to six weeks, after the election. Mr. Fellows raised the point that in devising a meeting schedule, the TF should consider when the next sampling window will occur. What needs to be done before then and how should that inform the meeting schedule?

In a round of final questions, Mr. Schwartz pointed out that lead from the tap is only one of multiple sources and that lead levels in water at the tap don’t occur in a vacuum. Understanding the relationship between the tap and other parts of the water system is a connection that the TF shouldn’t miss. Mr. Bardin requested updates on the lead legislation from CM Graham and the Office of the City Administrator. Mr. Scott asked what funding had been secured for this process thus far. Director Hawkins informed the TF that a grant of $20,000 was available to help draft the SOW. However, funding sources for the larger study still need to be identified. Finally, Mr. Cotruvo advised that if peer-review is going to be part of the process, it should be considered early on so that the necessary participants can be secured.