The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally broke their silence on the Flint tragedy two weeks ago, when it quietly released a memo answering the simple question: “Was MDEQ wrong, when it tried to leave Flint’s children completely unprotected from lead in water hazards for close to two years?”

As demonstrated by e-mails from a FLINTWATERSTUDY.org Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, MDEQ did not want to be bothered with installing corrosion control in Flint before the new Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline came online in 2016. Even after MDEQ realized Flint children were being lead poisoned from the tap water in early 2015 and were told by EPA their plans were illegal, they worked doggedly to do nothing at all. A month ago MDEQ admitted it had made mistakes.

But the EPA Office of Water memo now bails out MDEQ on their actions in Flint. According to EPA, MDEQ cannot really be blamed because “….there are differing possible interpretations of the LCR…which may have led to some uncertainty..” in what the law requires. This logically builds on EPA’s earlier assertions that sorting out accountability for Flint’s lead poisoned children is a “relatively complex” problem. That’s right. Figuring out who is responsible for the health and economic devastation resulting from the lack of corrosion control in Flint is complicated. And even if normal people cannot see it that way, EPA will be working overtime to make it complicated.

The EPA Office of Water memo also fulfilled the prophecy made by MDEQ’s Brad Wurfel to National Public Radio on Sep 29, who said that EPA’s final word on the corrosion control issue “not yet released — would tell a much different story” than did the 2015 report by Del Toral who directly cited the federal statute MDEQ was violating.

Not surprisingly, MDEQ continued the inter-agency lovefest, by issuing a statement lauding the EPA’s leadership role on the Flint saga.

“We’ve appreciated the federal government’s support on the situation in Flint – including its announcement last week that the Lead and Copper rule speaks ambiguously on the corrosion control issue. Nobody wants to see a situation like Flint, and we look forward in working with our federal partners going forward because we share the goal of making sure the Flint situation is not repeated – in Michigan, or anywhere else.”

It pains us immensely to say this but: With environmental policemen like MDEQ and EPA looking out for our children, who needs environmental criminals?

Primary Author: Dr. Marc Edwards

The US EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water released a memo (see below) on November 3 to address specific concerns regarding optimal corrosion control treatment implementations by large water utilities brought to light as a consequence of the Flint Water Crisis.

The memo states that a situation like Flint “rarely arises and the language of the LCR does not specifically discuss those circumstances.” Moreover, “it appears that there are differing possible interpretations of the LCR with respect to how the rule’s optimal corrosion control treatment procedures apply to this situation, which may have led to some uncertainty with respect to the Flint water system.”

The MDEQ released a statement stating:

Wurfel said in an email to The Flint Journal-MLive that the DEQ “welcomes this announcement from EPA, and we’ve already signaled to them that they can count on our full cooperation and transparency.”

“We’ve appreciated the federal government’s support on the situation in Flint –including its announcement last week that the Lead and Copper rule speaks ambiguously on the corrosion control issue,” Wurfel’s statement says.

Source: The Flint Journal

Lead and Copper Rule Requirements for Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment for Large Drinking Water Systems

Download (PDF, 760KB)

On November 13, the following class action lawsuit was filed by four Flint families on behalf of Flint citizens (“class”) in Eastern District of Michigan:

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF MONEY DAMAGES AND JURY DEMAND

Download (PDF, 325KB)

—

On November 16, The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also released their “intent to sue” statement towards the City of Flint, MI Governor Rick Snyder, MDEQ Director Dan Wyant,  several Flint Receivership Transition Advisory Board members, and Flint City Administrator Natasha Henderson on behalf of the Concerned Pastors for Social Action, Melissa Mays, ACLU of Michigan, NRDC itself, and all individuals/nonprofit organizations working towards securing safe water in Flint for violations under the Safe Drinking Water Act:

Notice of Intent to Sue Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(b)(1)(a), for Failure to Control Lead in Drinking Water in Flint, Michigan, and Failure to Assist Michigan Schools with Lead Testing and Remediation

Download (PDF, 318KB)

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is in the midst of revising the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The intent of the 25-year-old regulation – detecting “worst case” levels of lead in water in U.S. homes and mitigating effectively extensive contamination – has never been realized.

First and foremost, this is because sampling of water sitting in lead pipes was never required. If such sampling were required, it is estimated that water utilities in 70% of U.S cities with lead service lines would exceed the LCR lead standard, and residents in those cities would be urged to take urgent precautions to protect themselves and their families from exposure to lead in their drinking water. In other words, millions of consumers who are currently being told that their water is safe, are drinking and cooking with water that routinely dispenses high concentrations of lead.

Over the years, entities like the MDEQ have also added “extra” steps to the LCR sampling protocol that effectively “miss” high lead-in-water problems when they are present. In Flint, these steps still include:

• Use of bottles with tiny openings, so that consumers cannot sample at normal flow rates, which is necessary for detecting lead particles from lead pipes
• Use of a 5 minute “pre-flush” or “pre-cleaning” of pipes the night before sampling, which temporarily “cleans out” a home’s plumbing system from lead and results in lead-in-water measurements that underestimate actual problems.

Incredibly, despite the fact that Flint’s lead-in-water monitoring scheme: a) failed to target “worst case” levels of lead in water and sampled many homes without any lead plumbing, and b) involved a sampling protocol known to underestimate lead release, the 71 samples that the City of Flint submitted to MDEQ still failed to meet the LCR. The reason Flint’s water was declared in compliance with federal standards was because MDEQ took extra steps in violation of the LCR. Namely, it threw out two of the high lead-in-water values, and another valid lead sample from the home of Lee-Anne Walters was also not counted. What this means is that if MDEQ and the City of Flint were to implement the LCR as it was intended, the results of the sampling would be staggering.

I have worked with Dr. Lambrinidou, founder of Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives and affiliate member of the Science and Technology Studies program at Virginia Tech, on lead-in-water problems in many cities. What we have witnessed with grave concern is that even when States and utilities are caught red-handed – cheating on consumer tap sampling or falsifying reports of results – the U.S. EPA looks the other way or even helps the agencies to harm large population. The links below provide news reports on one illustrative example from the City of New Orleans:

Dr. Lambrinidou served on the U.S. EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) LCR work group, which was convened in 2014 to issue recommendations to U.S. EPA for how the LCR should be revised to better protect the public’s health. Her dissenting opinion explains the serious problems the work group’s final report and recommendations. The EPA workgroup’s 15 active members included 5 water utility employees representing larger water industry lobbying groups and associations (i.e., American Water Works Association, National Association of Water Companies, National Rural Water Association, and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies), and Dr. Lambrinidou was invited to the work group only after she and her colleague Paul Schwartz with the Water Alliance protested the work group’s industry-heavy composition. Had this not happened, the workgroup would not have included even one single member of the public with significant first-hand experience with a) the LCR, b) its (mis-)implementation by water utilities across the country, and c) its real-world impact on U.S. consumers.

FLINTWATERSTUDY believes that anyone who wants to make sure that another Flint does not happen, should carefully consider Dr. Lambrinidou’s dissenting opinion, which attempts to make sure that the original intent of the LCR is finally realized. In just about one week, the U.S. EPA NDWAC will meet in Washington, DC to review and make final decisions about the NDWAC LCR work group’s recommendations. Here’s the announcement in the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-11-02/pdf/2015-27883.pdf

Consider participating!

Dr. Lambrinidou’s Dissenting Opinion on the upcoming LCR long-term revisions:

Download (PDF, 483KB)

Primary Author: Dr. Marc Edwards

Acknowledgements: Dr. Yanna Lambrinidou