Agencies Brushed Off Lead Warnings

Jon M. Capacasa, the EPA's director of water protection in the regional office, and Michael Schock, the agency's leading expert on corrosion control, both stressed last week that there are tradeoffs with every chemical. Without more conclusive research, they said, none is considered a magic solution.

Changing Chemistry

Controlling bacteria in the water supply, as the mid-1990s revealed, is a delicate science. It is also a regulated one. In November 2000, the Corps switched from using chlorine in its disinfection process at the aqueduct and instead introduced chloramines, a combination of chlorine and ammonia. Use of chlorine was no longer feasible because it produced high levels of cancer-causing byproducts.

But in making the switch, the Corps ignored the EPA's written guidelines warning that a significant change in disinfection treatment could increase lead corrosion. The EPA recommended that utilities carefully monitor the possible effects of chloramines.

The American Water Works Association Research Foundation, the scientific division of the trade group, noted in a survey in 1999 that high doses of chloramines appeared to increase corrosion. But the Corps did not conduct studies on corrosion because no one raised it as an issue, said Jacobus, the general manager of the treatment plants.

Rogers, the regional water manager at the EPA's regional office, said other utilities were not experiencing any problems in switching to chloramines, among them a utility in California that served as a model for Washington. Federal rules gave the EPA's regional office the authority to require testing the impact of chloramines on corrosion, but Rogers said that did not appear warranted.

"At the time, there was no information to suggest chloramines could cause a problem with corrosion," he said. "Of course, now we see we need to look at all possibilities of impact on corrosion."

Jacobus said he agreed that the switch to chloramines may have helped trigger the current lead contamination but added that there is no conclusive proof.

"Through the whole process, none of our staff or EPA or our consultants said we need to study the effect of chloramines," he said.

Calls for a Switch

Tests by WASA revealed high levels of lead in the summer of 2001 and continued to flag a problem through the summer of 2002. The utility's water quality manager, Seema Bhat, urged a change to a less corrosive water treatment plan.

Bhat, who has received whistleblower status and is also suing WASA, said in an interview that Marcotte told her in September 2002 that he did not want to use phosphates because of the higher costs associated with treating sewage.

According to internal e-mails provided by Bhat, she tried to persuade Marcotte and other WASA officials by arranging a seminar with a phosphate company in October 2002. Bhat said neither Marcotte nor other top WASA officials attended the seminar.

Marcotte said he recalls telling Bhat that a switch to phosphates "wasn't a decision to be made lightly." He and Rogers, the EPA's regional water manager, said more study was needed before launching a change in water treatment.