Lead-Free Delaware commends the State of Delaware for allocating ~$1.5 million to address the issue of lead in the drinking water of public schools and contracting with Batta Environmental Services to conduct the sampling.
Because only a limited amount of information has been made available that also seems to overlap several water testing initiatives, we are left with questions about what has actually been planned to utilize these funds, how this new initiative is separate from the EPA WIIN Grant water testing, and the future testing of childcare facilities. The following recommendations should start immediately.
Trustworthiness: We are concerned that the same individuals who mismanaged the EPA-funded WIIN grant by not keeping track of whether samples were first-draw versus flush samples and didn't identify which sinks were being sampled in rooms with more than one sink, are now being given expanded funding. These same individuals misrepresented the EPA-funded public school water sampling project earlier this fall, including repeated denials of the importance of communication of the results and the 3Ts program requirements, are now assuming leadership roles in this project as well. Those who failed the public in the misuse of the $209 WIIN Grant are given responsibility now for ~$1.5 million in state funds without any federal oversight or other accountability structure.
This track record of deception and poor project management gives us pause and reason for concern. Oversight mechanisms that we describe below should also be accompanied by the replacement of all individuals in any leadership position on this project who were responsible for the denials, misrepresentations, and red-herrings, as well as the “missteps” described in the November 14, 2022 letter to families by Secretaries Holodick and Magarik. These same "missteps" are now referred to as "mistakes".
Restoring the public trust in government on the past mismanagement of the water sampling program means that the leadership and spokespersons must be trustworthy.
Oversight: Project should be accountable to a public oversight committee that includes representatives from school districts, parent and teacher advocacy organizations, school nurses, school-based health centers, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders. Review by the oversight committee should be frequent and rigorous, and should ensure that all aspects of the project are conducted properly and on time. As a public body, all records and meetings would be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
DHSS’s Role: Please clarify the role of DHSS. Because they are not named in this contract, we are concerned that there is no one associated with the project with any health credentials who can interpret the results. If there is a role for DHSS, please provide a copy of the MOU and any other agreements between state agencies.
Action Level: There is no safe level of lead in drinking water, and an action level, the threshold at which action is taken to address lead at problem taps, of 7.5 allows for dangerous levels of exposure at areas used for consumption.
The action level should be lowered from 7.5 ppb to 1 ppb to align with the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Environmental Health:
“State and local governments should take steps to ensure that water fountains in schools do not exceed water lead concentrations of 1 ppb.” Pediatrics July 2016; 138 (1): e20161493. 10.1542/peds.2016-1493
Program Launch Timeline: The press release (December 13, 2022) states that “Resampling and retesting will start next week and will take about three months to complete.” We are concerned about the timing of the launch and suggest that sampling should not occur when the school buildings are closed for the winter holidays. Doing so could duplicate the same questionable results of samples taken when buildings were closed for Covid.
Source of Funding: While we are encouraged that funding is available on such a short timeframe for water testing, we are curious where this funding originated. Along with numerous other stakeholders, we have been requesting funds at budget hearings and through other appeals for lead poisoning prevention for more than 5 years, and have been either ignored or told repeatedly that no funds are available. Does this represent a renewed commitment to lead poisoning prevention Governor Carney? Please make the source of funding transparent.
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP): When requested via FOIA, the QAPP submitted on December 8, 2022 to EPA was provided for this project. We are confused as to why accountability measures for the EPA are being recycled for a project within which EPA has no fiduciary responsibility.
Analytical Methods: The analytical methods described in the EPA QAPP (December 8, 2022) describe that “the laboratory must be capable of reporting lead to a reporting limit of less than or equal to 2 ppb” (p. 21). This is wholly inadequate, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that drinking water fountains not exceed 1 ppb. The DHSS laboratory has a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of .5 ppb, and any contracted laboratory should have a sensitivity at or below that provided by the DHSS laboratory. Laboratory analysis of samples must be capable of reporting lead to minimum detection limit of less than or equal to .5 ppb.
Clarify the role of the EPA: DHSS and DOE should make clear that this new sampling project is different from the prior sampling, and that now there are 2 projects: one state funded project that is proposed to begin sampling in the 3rd week of December and one funded by the EPA WIIN grant. Messaging should not be misconstrued to imply that there is a role for EPA in oversight of state-funded projects.
Communications Plan: In the development of a Communications Plan, the 3Ts require the development of a communications team, a contacts list, utilization of various forms of communication that are described, and timing of communication. This information is to-date missing.
Lack of communication and denials about communication requirements have been a systemic problem throughout the course of the existing water sampling initiative, and vagueness now about communication in the new testing is concerning.
The communications plan should be specific and should include the following:
Each project should provide information in several languages, and we recommend English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese and Haitian Creole.
We recommend a 1-page handout explaining critical information about the project, including the funding source, who is in charge and retains oversight (state or EPA) of the project. We recommend a single, easy to access website where people can get necessary information including contact information for the project manager. This information should be distributed to all parents, teachers, and school staff members in each school.
All results, documents, and educational materials should be posted online in a centralized location and the link should be widely publicized via handouts for school families, school board meetings, parent teacher groups, and advocacy groups. Currently, there are two different websites on the school drinking water testing issue https://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dph/hsp/dwsampling.html and https://publichealthalerts.delaware.gov/safe-school-drinking-water/. This is confusing and should be consolidated.
Social media and direct outreach methods should also be utilized to convey necessary time sensitive results and information about this program and also about how families can get more information about lead poisoning prevention, blood lead screening/testing, and programs and services that are available to those with elevated blood lead levels.
Color Coding of Sample Results: The use of red, yellow, and green to color code results at the levels currently utilized by DOE and DHSS provide a false sense of safety in locations with dangerous levels of lead in the water. Green should not be used as a color for any samples in exceedance of 1 ppb. If the analytical methods used are unable to detect lead in water below 2 ppb, green should not be used.
Units of Measurement: Every effort should be taken to present results and their interpretation in a clear, concise, and simple manner. In the past, DHSS/DOE have used two different units of measurement to describe results, ppb and mg/L. No one should have to utilize conversion factors to understand if their drinking water is safe. We ask that future reporting of results use a consistent unit of measurement, and that ppb be selected for simplicity.
As these issues are addressed, we ask DOE to host a virtual public forum in the evening in the coming weeks to describe this new initiative and to answer questions from the public.
We will continue to work with our coalition partners to review information as it becomes available.
