[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADDRESSING THE LEAD CRISIS
THROUGH INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 15, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-936PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking Member
DON BEYER, Virginia ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
C O N T E N T S
October 15, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Donald M. Payne, Jr., U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Panel I:
The Honorable Joe DiVincenzo, Jr. County Executive, Essex County,
New Jersey
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
The Honorable Joseph Scarpelli, Mayor of Nutley, New Jersey
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
The Honorable Michael Venezia, Mayor of Bloomfield, New Jersey
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 32
Discussion, Panel I.............................................. 37
Panel II:
Dr. Diane Calello, Executive Medical Director, New Jersey Poison
Information and Education System and Associate Professor of
Emergency Medicine, Rutgers University
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 46
Dr. Marc Edwards, University Distinguished Professor, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 54
Mr. Michael Ramos, Chief Engineer, Chicago Public Schools and
Inventor, the Noah Auto Flushing Device
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Dr. Eric Roy, Founder, Hydroviv
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 66
Discussion, Panel II............................................. 68
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Marc Edwards, University Distinguished Professor, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute.......................................... 76
Mr. Michael Ramos, Chief Engineer, Chicago Public Schools and
Inventor, the Noah Auto Flushing Device........................ 82
Dr. Eric Roy, Founder, Hydroviv.................................. 83
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statements submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 90
Supporting documents submitted by Mr. Michael Ramos, Chief
Engineer, Chicago Public Schools and Inventor, the Noah Auto
Flushing Device................................................ 104
ADDRESSING THE LEAD CRISIS
THROUGH INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., at
the Early Childhood Center at Forest Glen, 280 Davey Street,
Bloomfield, New Jersey, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recess at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to a hearing of the
Investigations and Oversight Committee of Science, Space, and
Technology. We have quite a few people here from throughout the
community, and I'd like to recognize County Executive Joe
DiVincenzo--thank you for coming--his Chief of Staff, Phil
Alagia; from Senator Booker's staff, Zach McCue; from Senator
Menendez's staff, Casim Gomez; from Representative Gottheimer's
staff, Cheryl Cruz. We also have Frijoler Carlos Caveras,
Councilman Nick Joanow, Councilwoman Jenny Mundell, Fire Chief
Lou Venezia, Police Director Sam DeMaio, and from our Board of
Ed. Mr. Tom Heaney. And then I would also like to give a
special welcome to our A.P. students from Bloomfield High
School. Thank you for coming.
Well, it's a pleasure to do this field hearing right here
in Bloomfield. I wish we could do every hearing here in the
district, not sure our Virginian panel members would appreciate
that, but I would love it.
We're here to talk about an environmental issue that
threatens millions of Americans and is hitting our State hard
in 2019. A new analysis by New Jersey Future found that over 5
million New Jerseyans may be exposed to lead contamination from
water. The Pequannock Water System, which serves half a million
people across Bloomfield, Belleville, and Pequannock Townships
and part of Nutley, as well as the western part of Newark, has
seen escalating lead levels as far back as 2017.
The U.N. General Assembly and the Human Rights Council
recognized access to safe drinking water as a basic human
right. We know in Flint, Michigan, fair enough, 6 to 12,000
children were impacted by unsafe drinking water. When we see
contamination that threatens human health, especially the
health of our children, we need to deploy all available
resources to address it.
But in April, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJ DEP) reported that it could cost up to $2.3
billion dollars to replace all of the lead services lines in
New Jersey. So to put that in context, the entire budget of the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 2018 was
$214 million. So it's agonizing for everyone when we see a
desperate need for improvement in a public good, but that need
comes with a high price tag and a slow timeline.
Addressing lead is a diffuse problem where the exposure
comes from millions of little pieces of hardware under our
yards, in our basements, and up to our taps. So, first, let me
say how fantastic it is that countless New Jersey State and
local officials, the water utilities, and the Department of
Health and Environmental Protection have locked arms to
confront this issue in recent months.
Under Mr. DiVincenzo's leadership, Essex County has
extended an incredible $120 million dollars in bond authority
to support lead service line replacement in the greater Newark
region. Thank you. And just last week, Governor Murphy rolled
out a comprehensive Lead Action Plan that will beef up lead
testing, public disclosures, and public funding for lead
removal efforts.
But lead exposure in New Jersey is a kitchen-sink problem,
and we need to throw everything we have at it. We have two
powerful tools in our toolkit: Innovation to find solutions
that are faster, cheaper, and safer; and public education so
that families and businesses can better protect themselves. And
in times like these, America's small businesses and university
researchers can really shine.
In preparing for this hearing, we have run across dozens of
brilliant new ideas for tackling lead in drinking water, from
new methods for locating lead service lines where they exist,
to strategies for getting lead service lines out of the ground
at a lower cost and with less disruption. I want to make sure
that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to get
these smart ideas out of the lab and into the community and
educating as many people in our community as possible and best
practices and available services.
So I'm delighted to welcome two panels of distinguished
witnesses today to guide our discussion. And here in New
Jersey's 11th District, we've been celebrating the
contributions of our Italian-American community, and I am proud
that we see that on full display here today in panel one. So in
panel one--I was told as an Irish American that I'm outnumbered
today.
So in panel one I would like to welcome Mayor Venezia,
Mayor Scarpelli, and County Executive DiVincenzo. They are on
the front lines of the response to New Jersey's lead crisis,
and I'm so glad we will have this opportunity to hear what
they're hearing so we in Washington can be as responsive as
possible.
I'm also thrilled to have Congressman Beyer and
Congresswoman Wexton here today. I was just informed--something
I didn't know--Congresswoman Wexton's maiden name is Tosini, so
she's here celebrating as well the contributions of Italian
Americans and carrying that banner.
Congressman Beyer has been a stalwart champion on clean
water throughout his tenure in Congress. Congresswoman Wexton
was a tireless environmental advocate when she served in the
Virginia State Senate, and she is keeping up the good fight as
a Member of Congress.
And now we just have Congressman Payne here, and
Congressman Payne has been laser-focused on solutions to
address lead exposures his constituents are facing in Newark.
We're proud to have him join us today. So with some of the most
capable Members of Congress on today's panel, we are off to a
good start.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good morning and welcome a hearing of the Investigations &
Oversight Subcommittee. It's a pleasure to be able to have this
meeting right here in Bloomfield. I wish we could do every
hearing in the district! We're here to talk about an
environmental issue that threatens millions of Americans, but
sadly is hitting our state hard in 2019. A new analysis by New
Jersey Future found that over five million New Jerseyans may be
exposed to lead contamination from water. The Pequannock Water
System- which serves half a million people across Bloomfield,
Belleville and Pequannock Township and part of Nutley as well
as the western part of Newark - has seen escalating lead levels
as far back as 2017.
The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council
recognized access to safe drinking water as a basic human
right. When we see contamination that threatens human health,
especially the health of our children, we need to deploy all
available resources to address it.
But in April, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection reported that it could cost up to $2.3 billion
dollars to replace all of the lead services lines in New
Jersey. To put that in context, the entire budget for the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 2018 was $214
million.
Its agonizing for everyone when we see a desperate need for
improvement in a public good, but that need comes with an high
price tag and a slow timeline. Addressing lead is a diffuse
problem, where the exposure comes from millions of little
pieces of hardware under our yards, in our basements and up to
our taps.
First let me say that it is fantastic how countless state
and local officials, the water utilities, and the Departments
of Health and Environmental Protection have locked arms to
confront this issue in recent months. County Executive
DiVincenzo and Essex County have extended an incredible $120
million dollars in bond authority to support lead service line
replacement in the greater Newark region. And just last week
Governor Murphy rolled out a comprehensive Lead Action Plan
that will beef up lead testing, public disclosures, and public
funding for lead removal efforts.
But lead exposure in New Jersey is a kitchen sink problem.
We need to throw everything we have at it.
We have two powerful tools in our toolkit: innovation, to
find solutions that are faster, cheaper, and safer; and public
education, so that families and businesses can better protect
themselves. And in times like these, America's small businesses
and university researchers can really shine. In preparing for
this hearing, we have run across dozens of brilliant new ideas
for tackling lead in drinking water, from new methods for
locating lead service lines where they exist, to strategies for
getting lead service lines out of the ground at a lower cost
and with less disruption. I want to make sure that the federal
government is doing everything it can to get these smart ideas
out of the lab and into the community.
I know that not every new invention will be available to
help New Jersey with the crisis we're facing today. But if our
discussion today helps protect even one township from lead
exposure, we can be proud of that effort.
I'm delighted to welcome two panels of distinguished
witnesses today to guide our discussion. It looks like the
Italian roots of so many New Jerseyans will be particularly
well-represented on Panel I! Mayor Venezia, Mayor Scarpelli and
County Executive DiVincenzo are on the front lines of the
response to New Jersey's lead crisis.
I'm so glad we will have this opportunity to hear what
they're hearing so we in Washington can be as responsive as
possible.
I'm also thrilled to have Congressman Payne, Congressman
Beyer and Congresswoman Wexton here today. Congressman Beyer
has been a stalwart champion on clean water protections
throughout his tenure in Congress. Congresswoman Wexton was a
tireless environmental advocate when she served in the Virginia
State Senate, and she is keeping up the good fight as a
freshman Member. And Congressman Payne has been laser-focused
on solutions to address lead exposures his constituents are
facing in Newark. We're proud to have him join us. With three
of the most capable Members of Congress on today's panel, we're
off to a good start.
Thank you all for being here and I look forward to our
discussion.
Chairwoman Sherrill. So I'd like to first ask unanimous
consent that Congressman Payne be permitted to join the panel.
Without objection.
So thank you all for being here today, and I'm looking
forward to a good discussion.
I now recognize Congressman Payne of Newark for an opening
statement.
Mr. Payne. Good morning. For those who don't know me, I am
Congressman Payne--Donald Payne--I'm Congressman Donald Payne,
Jr., Representative from the 10th congressional District, State
of New Jersey, which also represents part of Bloomfield.
I want to thank Representative Sherrill for conducting this
timely hearing. She's the Chair of the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight for the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, and I want to thank her for allowing me
to participate in today's hearing.
Now, I've been working diligently on this crisis since it
began and looking to provide Federal resources--financial and
educational--to help for the issue in Newark that we have seen
that has become a crisis. Residents need to know what is being
done to improve Newark's water as quickly and effectively as
possible. So once again, I thank her for conducting this
hearing, and I'm proud to be here today.
When I first learned that there were unsafe levels of lead
in Newark's drinking water, I was shocked. This is the same
water my family and I drink and use to clean our food. It is
something I never thought could happen here. For decades,
Newark was known for having some of the cleanest, purest water
in the country, and it still is, but aging pipes and inadequate
filters have taught us that clean water is something we cannot
take for granted. That is why I am doing everything I can to
help my constituents during this crisis.
In 2016, I introduced the Test for Lead Act into Congress.
This bill would establish stronger tests for lead in schools
across the country. I've signed onto a letter to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make sure that we have
enough bottled water to supply residents until their drinking
water is safe. I have signed onto another letter through the
Department of Health and Human Services to make sure none of
the tainted water ends up being used for mixed formula for
infants. In addition, I've handed out bottled water to
constituents at two different distribution centers to get an
idea of what my constituents are going through on a day-to-day
basis. It gave me a chance to meet people affected by the
crisis to discuss their fears about the drinking water and
learn what other solutions might be available to help them get
through it.
No issue is more important than clean drinking water right
now, and I know that today's hearing will help clarify the
actions taken to clean that water and protect the health of our
residents.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]
Good Morning.
I am Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr., representative for
New Jersey's 10th District. I want to thank Representative
Mikie Sherrill for conducting this hearing.
She is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight for the House Science, Space and Technology
Committee.
We have been working diligently since this crisis began to
provide federal resources, financial and educational, to help
Newark in this time of crisis.
Residents need to know what is being done to improve
Newark's water as quickly and effectively as possible.
So again, I thank her for conducting this hearing and I am
proud to be here today.
When I first learned that there were unsafe levels of lead
in Newark's drinking water, I was shocked. This is the same
water my family and I drink and use to clean our food.
It is something I never thought could happen here.
For decades, Newark was known for having some of the
cleanest, purest water in the country.
But aging pipes and inadequate filters have taught us that
clean water is something we cannot take for granted.
That is why I am doing everything I can to help my
constituents during this crisis.
I introduced the Test for Lead Act into Congress. This bill
would establish stronger tests for lead in schools across the
country.
I have signed onto a letter to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to make sure we have enough bottled water to
supply residents until their drinking water is clean.
I have signed onto another letter to the Department of
Health and Human Services to make sure none of the tainted
water ends up being mixed with formula that is fed to infants.
In addition, I handed out bottled water to constituents at
two distribution centers in Newark- the Bo Porter Sports
Complex and the Boylan Street Recreation Center.
It gave me a chance to meet with people affected by this
crisis to discuss their fears about the drinking water and
learn what other solutions might be available to help them get
through it.
No issue is more important than clean drinking water.
And I know that today's hearing will help clarify the
actions being taken to clean that water and protect the health
of our residents.
Thank you!
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much, Congressman Payne,
and thank you for being here today.
I also just want to recognize Senator Ruiz. Thank you so
much for coming. And then all the way from Morris County we
have Mayor Grayzel. Thank you for coming.
At this time I'd like to introduce the witnesses for our
first panel. First, we have the County Executive of Essex
County, New Jersey, Mr. Joseph DiVincenzo.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH N. DIVINCENZO, JR.,
COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Mr. DiVincenzo. Essex County is very, very fortunate to
have two great Congresspeople that represent Essex County,
Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill and Congressman Donald Payne.
Congresswoman Sherrill, I just want to thank you for hosting
this meeting here in Essex County. We surely appreciate it. I
don't remember any Committee hearing here. Maybe Congressman
Payne could correct me. Did you ever have one of your Committee
meetings here?
Mr. Payne. I've had three since I've been in Congress, yes,
thank you.
Mr. DiVincenzo. Yes? In Essex County?
Mr. Payne. In Essex County, yes.
Mr. DiVincenzo. OK. I'm sorry. Phil gave me wrong
information, Phil Alagia.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Members of Congress are often
underappreciated here in New Jersey.
Mr. DiVincenzo. Congresswoman Wexton and Congressman Beyer,
I want to thank you also for being here in Essex County. We
have a slogan: Putting Essex County First, so welcome to Essex
County. Don't take it the wrong way that you see three Italians
to the right-hand side here.
Essex County has 22 towns. We have over 800,000 people, and
our strength in this county is our diversity. It just so
happens there would be three Italians up here, me, Venezia, and
Scarpelli, great elected officials.
Congresswoman Sherrill, thank you for holding this
Subcommittee meeting in Bloomfield, Essex County.
The presence of lead in our drinking water cause us all
great concern and creates a public health emergency. The public
was first alerted to high levels of lead in the drinking water
in Newark in 2017. Since then, the city has been chemically
treating the water to help re-coat services lines, passed out
bottled water, and distribute filters. All of these initiatives
address the immediate issue of providing clean drinking water
to our residents.
However, in the many discussions in which I have
participated, the only permanent solution is to replace lead
service lines with copper pipes. Although Essex County does not
maintain a municipal water system, I recognized that this is a
public health concern and drastic measures needed to be taken.
Newark has started a program to replace the 18,000 service
lines, but it would have taken Newark at least a decade to
complete the task, given the fiscal restraints of the city.
This includes digging up the old lines and replacing the lead
piping with copper piping.
In order to speed up the process, I realized that Newark
needed a quick infusion of cash, which would allow the city to
hire more contractors and get the work done more quickly,
reducing the amount of time to 24 to 30 months. Because of our
AAA bond rating we received in 2017, Essex County and our
Improvement Authority were in a good position to help. With the
AAA rating, the highest rating available which indicates
financial strength, we were able to bond $120 million and loan
that to Newark at a low interest rate. Newark is then repaying
the bond over a 30-year period and is not charging the property
owners to have the pipe replacement done.
We have extended the same program to Bloomfield, Nutley,
and Belleville, which purchase water from the city of Newark.
As of today, we know our municipal partners in those three
communities are still doing their due diligence to determine if
this program is feasible for them.
But let's be honest. Replacing lead service lines can be
and probably will affect all of our communities throughout our
county, State, and country--sooner or later. Homes built before
1950 probably were constructed with lead service lines. How
long will the chemical treatment be effective in coating the
interior service lines so the lead doesn't leach into the
supply? Again, the only real solution is to replace lead
service lines, which can be expensive for any property owner.
Are there more modern, advanced alternatives that may be
more affordable and less disruptive? Currently, property owners
are inconvenienced when the roads in front of their property
and front yard are dug up. No matter how the pipes are
replaced, cost will always be the biggest concern. In Essex
County, we stepped up to the plate and backed the investment
with a $120 million loan. Senator Cory Booker sponsored
legislation that makes $100 million available to Newark and
other municipalities to replace lead service lines.
So while this Committee investigates ways to streamline the
lead service lines replacement, we also ask that you consider
how much it will cost our municipalities and property owners.
Thank you, Congresswoman Sherrill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DiVincenzo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, County Executive
DiVincenzo.
Next, I'd like to recognize Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of
Nutley, New Jersey, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH P. SCARPELLI,
MAYOR OF NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Scarpelli. Good morning. Chairwoman Sherrill and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about lead in drinking water. I hope I can
enlighten you on some of the issues our small town of Nutley,
New Jersey and the surrounding municipalities have been
experiencing.
Although the issue of lead in drinking water received its
most recent publicity in Newark, lead pipes exist throughout
the country and will continue to plague us until all those
lines are replaced. As a Mayor of a small town, and as a result
of this recent issue, my knowledge about lead pipes, water
treatment, and water testing has grown to a level I did not
expect.
Despite the known dangers of lead pipes, they continued to
be installed for years as it was less expensive, more durable
than other options, and could be easily bent, allowing pipes to
be shaped to conform to the contours of existing buildings or
other structures. Lead enters drinking water when plumbing
materials that contain lead corrode. The most common sources of
lead in drinking water are from lead pipes, faucets, and
fixtures.
It's important to understand the way the water enters the
home. The water is collected in reservoirs, travels through
transmission lines to the various utilities. Through an
interconnection, the water enters a municipality's water mains.
Attached to the water mains are service lines, which deliver
the water to each property. The service line has two sections,
one from the main and one to the curb shut-off and another from
the shut-off to the house. And then the water passes into the
internal plumbing of the home.
Homes with lead service lines are the most significant
source of lead in the water. If lead concentrations exceed 15
parts per billion in more than 10 percent of water sampled, the
local water system must undertake actions to control corrosion.
Corrosion is a dissolving or erosion of metal caused by a
chemical reaction between the water and the plumbing.
Many factors affect the amount of lead that's entering the
water, including the pH of the water, the water temperature,
the age of the pipes, how long the water sits in the pipes, and
the presence of protective coatings inside the plumbing
material.
The Newark crisis came to light in 2017 when the city
reported elevated lead levels. Newark Water had been using
sodium silicate for corrosion control. How sodium silicate
works is really unknown, but it definitely raises the pH,
making the water less corrosive. Somewhere along the way the pH
of water coming out of the Newark Water System became neutral
to acidic, which allowed the lead to leach into the water. In
May 2019, Newark Water switched to zinc orthophosphate for
corrosion control. Orthophosphate is the more effective
corrosion control additive but takes months to be completely
effective.
The Township of Nutley has two water suppliers. There are
436 homes that are supplied by Newark Water, accounting for
less than 5 percent of our total homes and businesses. The rest
of our township receives water through another supplier. When
the media and newspaper accounts reported that the water
filters distributed to Newark residents had failed, there was a
public outcry, and EPA and NJ DEP took action.
We in Nutley have participated in many meetings and calls
with the NJ DEP, the Governor's office, County Executive
DiVincenzo, Mayor Venezia, and other elected officials for
updates on Newark Water and the effect on our community. After
consultation with our professionals, Nutley has taken proactive
measures to address the situation. We encourage all residents
to run their water for 1 to 2 minutes each morning. We have
begun replacing all known lead service lines. Unfortunately,
recordkeeping over the years has been inconsistent. Therefore,
we must undertake the labor-intensive work of investigating
what type of service lines exist beneath the ground. This
process involves hand digging to see if lead exists on either
side of the curb shutoff. If lead lines are found, they must be
removed or abandoned and replaced with new copper line. The
cost of this process across our entire town will be exorbitant.
We have also initiated a study to determine the steps
needed to switch to a different water supplier, providing free
testing of tap water and free lead testing of children.
Thankfully, all our testing has been negative.
Although lead has been our primary concern, our township is
also dealing with elevated levels of haloacetic acid from the
same Newark water source. Haloacetic acids are formed when
disinfectants such as chlorine react with organic and inorganic
matter in our source water. In July 2019, Newark changed their
disinfection process. Hopefully, these changes decrease the
disinfection byproducts. In the meantime, we had to notify our
residents that drinking the water over many years may increase
the risk of cancer.
In conclusion, let me offer some ideas that this Committee
can look into: technology that offers the ability to detect
water lines underground without having to excavate; the
development of new anticorrosive water treatments and
technologies that offer superior protection from not only lead
but also prevent copper from leaching into our water supply;
innovative, cost-effective physical, chemical, or biological
water treatments that eliminate bacteria, control disinfection
byproducts, and eliminate any unpleasant color, odor, and
taste. Our collective goal is to continue to offer all our
residents clean, safe drinking water. Thank you for your time
and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scarpelli follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Mayor Scarpelli.
And our final witness for the panel is Mayor Michael
Venezia of Bloomfield, New Jersey. And, Mayor, thank you so
much for hosting us here in Bloomfield today as well.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL J. VENEZIA,
MAYOR OF BLOOMFIELD, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Venezia. Good morning, Chairwoman. I would like to
welcome you and your colleagues from the House of
Representatives to Bloomfield, my colleague from Nutley, and
our County Executive and other distinguished guests here this
morning. I would like to also thank the witnesses and look
forward to hearing your testimonies.
My name is Michael Venezia. I am the Mayor of Bloomfield.
As everyone in this room knows, over the past couple of years,
the city of Newark, Townships of Bloomfield, Belleville, and
Nutley have experienced high concentrations of lead in the
water to varying degrees. Moreover, this issue is not limited
to this part of New Jersey but in fact a growing problem
throughout the State and in the United States.
Chairwoman Sherrill has given me the opportunity to address
what the Township of Bloomfield has done to remediate this
critical issue. We appreciate this opportunity.
To begin, my town gets its water from a shared system with
the city of Newark. We are termed the Consecutive Water System.
We purchase all our water from the Newark Water System. We do
not have facilities to treat or manage the quality of water we
receive from Newark's system. However, since 2017, we have been
testing the quality of water as it comes into the township.
In the fall of 2017, the township learned it had a lead
exceedance beyond which was acceptable under Federal EPA
regulations. While the exceedance level was barely over the
Federal limit, it still existed and prompted the township to
take action to resolve the matter as best as possible.
In November 2017, we held a public hearing to inform our
residents of the issue and how to protect themselves from the
potential of lead contamination. At that time, we embarked on a
program to discover those locations in town where lead existed
in the pipes. What was clear at that time and remains to this
day is we did not find lead exceedance levels in the township's
water mains. We learned that the nature of the water we receive
from the city of Newark had components that produced a
corrosive reaction in lead water lines.
Bloomfield Water Department distributed educational
material on lead to each one of our water customers. The notice
also described the potential serious health effects associated
with lead, as well as sources of lead in drinking water.
Bloomfield took steps that each resident can take to reduce
their exposure to lead in drinking water. Bloomfield informed
their customers via education materials that homes with known
lead service lines should use extra precaution when flushing
their water lines. We instructed these customers with known
lead lines or high lead test results to flush their water for
up to 5 minutes by running cold water from the tap if water had
gone unused for more than 6 hours. Users without known lead
lines were advised to flush their systems for 60 seconds before
use. Their homes could still contain internal pipes or fixtures
with lead-containing materials.
Further, we started working with the city of Newark to
address the issues of water quality. In August 2018, our second
round of testing indicated we still had homes in the township
whose water exceeded acceptable lead levels. We again held a
public hearing to advise our residents, along with sending the
mandatory written notification to every household and business
within the township.
Additionally, we started providing free PUR water filters
in an effort to assist our residents who believed that lead was
in their water. Thus far, Bloomfield has distributed nearly
3,000 PUR filters to residents, and we continue to this day.
We also started an in-house township program of replacing
lead service lines that we discovered in areas where formal
testing showed lead exceedance of over 15 parts per billion. At
the same time, we applied for a low-interest loan from the New
Jersey Infrastructure Bank in the amount of $1.1 million to
fund more repairs where we found lead service lines. To date, I
am happy to report that we have repaired over 60 lead service
lines using mostly township staff. We have also retained a
contractor to replace an additional 60 lines over the next 2
months.
Since November 2017, we have provided self-testing kits to
any resident who wanted their water tested. Since that time, we
have submitted over 600 tests, most of them coming back with no
indication of lead. Any test that comes back in exceedance of
15 parts per billion for lead, we have or will investigate and
schedule a replacement of the discovered lead lines. It is
important to note that the only way to be sure there are lead
lines is to dig the service connection to the property and
physically examine the line itself. Clearly, this cannot be
done easily or quickly, plus, it requires staff or contractors
to perform.
In August while Bloomfield was making these repairs and
providing information to our residents, there was a test of PUR
water filters used by Newark residents that indicated the
filters were not working. Frankly, this created a panic.
On August 19, 2019, we held our third public hearing on
this matter. In the previous two public hearings, although
advertised the same way, we had no more than 20 people attend
those hearings. This hearing had over 150 people in attendance,
all very upset and concerned about their water quality.
Clearly, the panic generated by the EPA's demand to distribute
bottled water in Newark brought greater attention and a lot of
confusion to Bloomfield residents.
Bloomfield has taken many steps to improve our water
quality. Over the past 4 years, we have invested over $10
million in improvements to our system. We have eliminated dead-
end lines, started a systematic water flushing and valve
exercising program. We are in the second phase of our major
water relining program, an investment of over $1 million.
Furthermore, we are in the final design phase of two major
improvements to our system: First, we are investing nearly $2.5
million to change water our supply from Newark's water
treatment plant at the Pequannock Reservoir to North Jersey
Water District's system at the Wanaque Reservoir. We believe
this will help our water quality and provide a redundancy of
supply.
Second, we have started a $6 million water meter
replacement program. The timing of this is significant. During
installation of the meters, the contractor will inspect the
exposed water lines for any lead, including lead solder. As
mentioned before, locating lead in homes is very difficult, and
many residents do not know if they have lead lines. This will
help us and our residents know if that type of piping is
present.
For Bloomfield, and I imagine all municipalities who are
facing this problem, the need for assistance is extensive. To
be sure, financial assistance is a critical matter. We have
spent over $500,000 in the last 2 years on additional testing
fees, line replacement, distribution of filters, and every form
of public information possible--none of which was planned or
anticipated. When I think of the money that our residents will
have to pay, let alone the anxiety of not knowing, I believe
there needs to be some form of assistance from our Federal
Government. We will literally spend millions in Bloomfield
alone. We need help. Further, the time that it takes to make
these repairs or even investigate lines is too long. We need
both the Federal and State governments to assist us with the
procurement of additional help from qualified contractors.
As I mentioned before, we have secured $1.1 million to
replace our lead lines, but that process took months to secure
the funding. Our people want repairs now, not to be told that
they have to wait 8 to 12 months. We need help.
As I said before, Bloomfield is a consecutive water system.
We purchase all of our water fully treated from Newark. While
we continue to work with our neighbors to resolve this matter,
we hope that the Federal and State governments will continue to
aggressively assist the city of Newark in fully complying with
EPA Clean Water regulations.
We need your assistance now. We are talking about
millions--actually I would estimate billions--of dollars in
order to protect our residents. In the meantime, Bloomfield
has, and will continue to do, everything we can, within our
water limits as a consecutive system customer to protect and
advise our customers.
Chairman Sherrill, I want to just thank you for your time
and opportunity to be here this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Venezia follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much to our first panel.
We'll now start--I'm going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questions for the panel, and we'll start with Mr. DiVincenzo.
So Essex County is supporting the Newark region with
bonding authority so that property owners won't be charged for
pipe replacement, which is a critical component to managing
this problem. I want to clarify. So, County Executive
DiVincenzo, this will enable homeowners to have both the public
and private side of their lead pipes replaced at no cost to
them. Is that correct?
Mr. DiVincenzo. It's only going on in Newark now. It's not
happening in Bloomfield, Belleville, and Nutley because they're
still doing their due diligence there to decide what they're--
it's not working? Now you can hear. This right now is just for
Newark only because they're the only ones who agreed to take on
the $120 million loan as far as borrowing it. It does not
affect Belleville, Nutley, or Bloomfield. And Newark is--all
the work that's being done is at no cost to the property
owners.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Who will be responsible for doing the
replacements, the water utilities?
Mr. DiVincenzo. Newark will be responsible for doing that,
and then they have contractors who they have hired to do that
work.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Oh, great. And then, how can
homeowners who wish to take advantage of this opportunity get
the ball rolling?
Mr. DiVincenzo. You know, what they have to do is just
contact the city of Newark and Newark Water Sewage Commission,
and contact them and let them know that they're interested.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And I just want to get--this is just
for the record so we can get this on the record, but we've
heard testimony from Mayor Venezia about how expensive the cost
of lead remediation is. And I assume Essex County has competing
needs for the bond authority that you've extended. Is that
correct?
Mr. DiVincenzo. Yes, we do, but to us this was a priority.
It's a public health issue, so I decided to--you know, there's
no way I could make our residents wait for a whole decade for
this to be completed, so I wanted to shore up the timetable. So
I met with Mayor Ras Baraka and his team, we met with the Port
Authority from our team, and we came together and we came up
with a solution how we can get this thing done within 24 to 30
months.
And I can tell you right now it's going very well. The
replacement, I think they got approximately about 1,400 done,
maybe more at this particular time. I've seen it in process.
It's going well. It's going well.
Chairwoman Sherrill. But if we could find a less-expensive
way, less-expensive technology to mitigate lead issues, would
that be helpful?
Mr. DiVincenzo. Absolutely, anything that's going to save
money and get it done quicker, we're all for it.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Certainly. Thank you very much. And,
Mayor Scarpelli, as part of your duties, you oversee the Nutley
Water Department. Can you talk to the Committee and walk
through the process and what it's like for homeowners when they
get a lead service line replacement?
Mr. Scarpelli. Sure. Well, one, you have to--like I
explained before, there's two sections of the service line, one
from the main to the shut off, which is--normally, that's--the
city owns or the utility owns, and then one from the shut off
to the home, which, under normal circumstances, would be the
homeowner's responsibility. So you either have to dig up that
lead line on both sides of the shut off and replace it with
copper or you leave it abandoned, and then it has to be hooked
up by a plumber into the water meter on the inside of the home.
Policy decisions going forward by all the municipalities
would be what do we do on that private side? What do we do on
the homeowner's side? Newark has taken the initiative to--
they're going to replace that at the cost on the utility. As we
evaluate what it's going to cost, we'll make that decision
later on.
Mr. DiVincenzo. Congresswoman, Newark has decided to go
from the main all the way to the private, to the water meter
itself.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Great. And then, Mayor Venezia, in
your testimony you described the episode in August where tests
showed that the PUR water filters distributed to residents of
Bloomfield, Belleville, and Newark were not working. So I
understand why this led to a sense of panic. Can you explain
what the conclusion eventually was about those filters, and can
we tell the people today that you can usually trust filters
that are certified to remove lead?
Mr. Venezia. So when we got the news, it was three filters
from the city of Newark that still had high exceedances lead
from the EPA, so in Bloomfield we decided to test five
homeowners that we knew had lead lines of high exceedance that
also had PUR filters. And all five of those came back below the
15 parts per billion that the EPA recommends. And in the city
of Newark they went--they did extensive testing. I believe
there was over 300 PUR filters, and I think the number was 98
percent came back that were under 15 parts per billion.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Great. Well, thank you so much to our
first panel. Before we proceed, I'd like to bring the
Committee's attention to two statements. The first is from NACE
International, a professional organization that equips
communities with tools to address the adverse effects of
corrosion. The second is from BlueConduit, a water
infrastructure company that uses data analytics and machine
learning to predict which homes have lead service lines. These
documents highlight just two of the innovative groups my staff
and I spoke to in preparation for this important field hearing,
so thank you for your hard work in addressing an issue that is
impacting communities across our country.
Without objection, I'll enter these documents into the
record.
At this point, we will begin our first round of questions,
and the Chair recognizes--oh, I already did my questions, and
so, next, I would like to recognize Congressman Beyer for 5
minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And then thank
you for the invitation to come to New Jersey. It's a pleasure
to be here and actually be not just on the turnpike but
actually in the communities. And thank you very much to our
panel of witnesses. I thought that local elected politics was
the most difficult forum because you're so close to the people
and you know exactly what's going on.
Mayor Scarpelli, in your testimony you talked about the
technology that offers the ability to detect lead water lines
underground without having to excavate and hundreds of millions
of dollars in savings. I just wanted to follow up on comments
that Chairwoman Sherrill just made about machine learning
statistical models like BlueConduit and 120WaterAudit,
precisional hydro vacuuming, and remote sensing techniques and
recommend all of them to you and to your associates as the ways
that technology is moving forward to avoid having to dig up to
find out where the lead line is or not. On one of the
testimonies we read today was that something like two-thirds of
the ones you're digging up aren't lead, but you don't know that
until you've actually dug it up.
County Executive DiVincenzo, you wrote that the only
permanent solution is to replace lead service lines with copper
lines. I know you have a huge county, first-or second-largest
in New Jersey--at filters, epoxy lining, threading, the slip
lining, some of the other methods of doing it?
Mr. DiVincenzo. Yes. Congressman, you know, we're open to
anything. I have not heard of that right now. The only thing I
got for my people is replacing the lead line that would be the
most effective at this time, but I'm willing to learn. I know
my people are willing to learn to see if it could be done. If
it could be done quicker and save money, we're all for it.
Mr. Beyer. The only reason I know to ask you this question
is the excellent research that Mikie Sherrill's staff has
already done on this, so we will pass that research onto you--
--
Mr. DiVincenzo. OK.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Because it sounds like there are at
least alternatives evolving for this.
And then finally for Mayor Venezia, one of the startling
things was that in a lead testing earlier this year in Newark's
water supply from January 1st to June 30th, they found that the
level got to 52 parts per billion, which is 3.5 times higher
than what the EPA says is healthy. So you've had all these
self-testing kits, but then there was also a note that EPA
discovered--let me see if I can find the note--that a June 20,
2019, EPA study, just 4 months ago, said that the current lead
and copper rule sometimes missed peak lead concentrations so
that the question again back to Mikie Sherrill's wonderful
research is, do you have access yet to the many different ideas
that are coming forward on how you test for lead, everything
from platinum electrode sensors to carbon nanotube testing?
This is with a fear that those self-testing kits are not
going to prove to be fairly accurate.
Mr. Venezia. Well, so right now what we're doing--so we
don't have an accurate count of lead service lines in
Bloomfield right now. There were some fixed in the 1970s and
1980s, and, as you know in government, records aren't exactly
always kept the best. It's actually fortunate timing for us
because we are going around and fixing each house's water meter
reader. And as the contractor that's doing that is going to
look for us to see if there's a lead service line, and then
we'll go out and fix it for the homeowner. So we don't have an
accurate count--so I know like some towns are using every house
built before 1950 where that's kind of not an accurate count
because you don't know if the homeowner did something on their
own.
But yes, I saw Congresswoman Sherrill's new document and
the new way of testing, and that's something we could look into
in the future.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Great, great. I don't want to suck up to the
Chairwoman of our Committee, but I want to say it's wonderful
that she's gathered all this data to use in New Jersey and
throughout the country, and, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. That's kind, but I have to give most
of that credit to my staff for doing that, but thank you very
much.
Next, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Wexton, the
former Tosini, Ms. Tosini, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
Early Childhood Center at Forest Glen for hosting us. I know
that we can be kind of disruptive when we come to town, so I
very much appreciate your allowing us to use this fine venue.
And thank you to the panelists for coming.
It is quite alarming to hear what the residents of Essex
County have been faced with, and we know that, as time goes by,
it's not a matter of if, it's when other municipalities are
going to be going through the same thing. This has become a
part of the public awareness after what happened in Flint and
what's happened here, but even in our own home State of
Virginia, we have many, many places that have elevated levels
of lead that are going to need to be dealt with.
And experts tell us that as long as lead service lines
remain in the ground and more proactive measures aren't taken
to reduce risk, one American city after another is likely to go
through what you guys have been through.
I know that there are measures that can be taken with
chemical additives to change the acidity or alkalinity of the
waters, and there are innovative measures with epoxy coatings
for these pipes as well. But those seem like second-best
measures, and we don't know what the collateral impacts of
those can be. So it seems that removing the pipes is really the
best and only way to make sure that the risk is averted.
And my question for all of you because you have had to deal
with this and be on the frontlines and kind of the tip of the
spear for the rest of us in the country is if you had one piece
of advice for executives or for leaders in other towns and
counties where this will become an issue, what would that piece
of advice be?
Mr. DiVincenzo. First of all, Congresswoman, I want to
clarify because Congresswoman Wexton--we don't--the county
doesn't control the--we don't have a water system that we
actually control. That's all done by the municipalities and
stuff, the 22 municipalities. But the thing--what I would say
is, you know, we have been very fortunate here is, you know,
we're one county, 22 towns, and we're able to be able to
communicate on a daily basis and what's going on. And when
there is an emergency in any situation, no matter what town is
there, we all get together make sure we do the right thing
here.
And I have to tell you the leaders of these particular
towns, you could hear from Nutley or from Bloomfield and also
from Newark that they've been doing the right thing.
Mr. Scarpelli. I think the first piece of advice would be
because of both Newark and in Flint it was the water chemistry
that got changed that caused the problem. So the first thing
would be to make sure that you don't change that chemistry, you
don't mess with it. If it's working, keep it the way it is.
The second piece of advice is to be proactive. When you
have your water departments going out making repairs and they
encounter lead lines, replace them then. That is something
we've been doing for the last 5 to 10 years in Nutley, and
we'll continue to do that. We're just going to have to move up
the process now because of the crisis. But be proactive, change
those lines out as you come across them.
Mr. Venezia. Yes, just, you know, following up what Mayor
Scarpelli said, you know, being proactive communication-wise
and just getting as much information out there about the lead
service lines, the lead in your water, and being there for the
public obviously, you know, like one of our community meetings
we had over 150 people there, and I literally sat there for 3
hours just taking every question possible. But it worked. You
know, the more information you get out there to the people, the
more they'll understand and see that you have a plan and what's
going on.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. I have no further questions at this
time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Congresswoman Wexton.
Next, I'd like to recognize Congressman Payne for 5
minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me just first say that when this initially was found in
a school in Newark, I had just come back from Flint, Michigan,
observing the issue around water there. And I was in the
company of several Mayors from the 10th District, and I
expressed to them my concern of what I saw in Flint, that they
needed to start really paying attention and checking their
water systems. And, lo and behold, that Tuesday it was found in
a school, Louise A. Spencer, in Newark. And it had been an
issue that had been going on for quite some time. And what they
were doing at the Newark school system was flushing the lines
in the morning, but I think over a period of time, you know,
staff changes, people get a little more complacent, and then,
lo and behold, the issue was brought to the attention of the
residents of Newark.
And so the other thing that, you know, I just want to make
clear is when we talk about the source of the water, Newark's
source, the reservoir is fine. It is when it comes down through
the system and hits the lead service lines is where the issue
becomes. In Flint, the water source was changed and was an
impure source of water, so from the source Flint had issues.
Our issue starts at the service lines going into the homes.
I'd just like to once again commend our local elected
officials for their proactiveness in supporting their towns on
this issue and also to the County Executive for looking and
seeing an issue and stepping in and helping find a solution.
It's not the first time that he's done that for the city of
Newark. In another administration, he was able to support that
community. But it just goes to show when people ask, you know,
what county government does, these are two really good examples
of what county government can do in helping support the
communities in which they find themselves.
So I just want to commend the County Executive once again
for stepping up and stepping in and filling a void where the
residents and the administration in Newark weren't sure how
long this was going to take.
My one question would be to the Mayors. So in light of
this, you are looking at other sources of water as opposed to
the Newark system?
Mr. Venezia. So we are in the process of switching. So far,
60 percent of our residents in probably about 18 months to 2
years will be switched over to North Jersey District water
supply, which gets their water from the Wanaque Reservoir.
We're coming up with a 5- to 10-year plan to be 100 percent to
the Wanaque Reservoir for the North District water supply. We
were able to connect at one point in the township. That was an
abandoned gas station that the township now owns, and we will
be putting a water pumping station at that location.
Mr. Scarpelli. Congressman, yes, so we have the 436 homes
in Nutley receive Newark water. The rest of the homes receive
Passaic Valley water. The issue with those homes that are
receiving Newark is a pressure issue. There's not enough
pressure for the Passaic Valley water to get up to those homes.
They're on higher elevations. Newark has a little increase in
pressure, so it's been, you know, 100 years that Newark water
has supplied those homes. We're in the process to see what we
have to do to switch everyone over to Passaic Valley water.
That's what we're doing.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you so much to our
witnesses for your testimony today. I know that many of us here
on this panel and in Congress have spoken to Representative
Kildee, who serves Flint, Michigan, and I think the lack of
attention to the problem there by public officials was
incredibly disheartening. So to see the attention that this is
getting here in New Jersey is impressive, and I sincerely
appreciate it. Thank you very much to everyone who was here
today.
So we're now going to have a short break while we seat our
next panel of witnesses. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Welcome back. At this time I would
like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. First, we have
Dr. Diane Calello. Dr. Calello is the Executive Medical
Director at the New Jersey Poison Information and Education
System.
If you could please take your conversations into the
hallway as we begin our next session. Thank you.
She is also an Associate Professor of Energy Medicine at
Rutgers University.
Dr. Marc Edwards is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Mr. Michael Ramos is a Chief Engineer at Chicago Public
Schools. He is also the inventor of the Noah Auto Flushing
Device for Lead Mitigation.
And last, we have Dr. Eric Roy, the founder of Hydroviv, a
home water filtration company based in Washington, D.C.
So we will start with Dr. Calello.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DIANE CALELLO,
EXECUTIVE AND MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
NEW JERSEY POISON INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
EMERGENCY MEDICINE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Calello. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you to
Chairwoman Sherrill and Congressman Beyer, Congresswoman
Wexton, Congressman Payne, and everyone convened here, for
inviting me to speak on the health effects of lead exposure.
So, as a medical toxicologist, I have seen firsthand many
patients with the health effects of lead exposure. And, as a
pediatrician, I've witnessed the unique effects of lead on the
young child. As Director of the State's only Poison Control
Center, we have advised and assisted in several drinking water
lead contamination incidents, most recently in our own city of
Newark. I'm very glad to be here today to find the way forward
for this critically important issue in public health.
Lead is ubiquitous in our environment. It is even found in
the Earth's crust. It's been with us since the beginning of
recorded time. It is thought to have poisoned Roman aristocrats
and metalworkers in colonial America, and many sources in our
environment have been removed, for example, leaded automotive
gas and leaded food cans with leaded solder. So advances have
been made, but hazards remain. And this includes, first and
foremost, deteriorating residential lead paint in older homes
but also cultural sources, occupational hazards, and of course
drinking water.
At the New Jersey Poison Center, most cases with lead
poisoning we manage are in children exposed to that residential
paint who suffer adverse developmental consequences. Although
paint for interior residential surfaces was banned in 1976,
lead paint remains in older homes. And when it peels or falls
into disrepair, it fills the child's home with a fine
particulate dust that gets first onto their hands and then into
their mouth. You know, this is a 2- or 3-year-old child.
Children in these situations have very elevated lead levels
and demonstrate developmental delay, attention deficit,
behavioral and cognitive challenges, conduct disorder, and loss
of intellect. They may need hospitalization and even chelation
therapy, which removes lead from the bone but does very little
to reverse the effects on the brain.
Children like these have very elevated lead levels in the
blood, far above the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) threshold of 5 micrograms per deciliter. However,
it has become increasingly clear that even very small
elevations in blood lead are harmful to the developing brain.
This was demonstrated in the work of Canfield in the New
England Journal of Medicine in 2003, who showed that in a
population, the higher the blood lead levels in that population
of children, the lower the IQ. And the IQ loss per point of
blood lead level was actually steepest at the lowest range. So
a child with a blood lead level of 30, which is very elevated,
is worse off than a child with a lead level of 10, but a lot
more damage is done in that first 10 points than in the
subsequent 20. And this has been demonstrated by multiple
studies and can be seen in figure 1 of my written testimony.
For this reason, the CDC lowered the threshold from 10 to 5 in
2012, and further lowering is anticipated. These small blood
lead level elevations are precisely what has been reported with
lead contaminated municipal drinking water.
So both in Washington, D.C., and Flint, Michigan, the
cities experienced a rise in the number of children with
elevated lead at the time of water contamination. Both Dr.
Edwards to my right and Dr. Hanna-Attisha demonstrated that the
prevalence of children with elevated levels doubled or even
tripled after their water lead level rose. Of note, no child
had severely elevated levels as a result of drinking water
alone, and no child required hospitalization. But lead-
contaminated drinking water can feasibly be expected to cause
more children to have higher lead levels and subsequent loss of
IQ.
A common misconception is that lead in drinking water is an
immediately life-threatening exposure, and that is not the
case. And that's an important message to communities who have
fear about whether they are acutely poisoned or at acute threat
at this moment to their life.
So risk communication is challenging in these situations
and requires very careful messaging. People in cities with
drinking water lead acquire attentive guidance about preventing
further exposure from all sources, including flushing drinking
water--many of the strategies we have talked about already
today--logistics of obtaining bottled water, but also
minimizing paint dust and other sources of lead in the
environment. But these communities also require attentive and
cautious reassurance and recognition of any developmental
effects as they arise. Knowledge is power, and if a child has a
delay, catching it early and intervening can make a tremendous
difference.
Here in New Jersey we have higher lead levels than the
national average, and the city of Newark has the greatest
number of children with high lead levels than the other cities.
Now, some of that is because many more children in Newark get
tested, but we know that the problem is certainly in the city
of Newark. Sources vary, but this is mostly attributable to
lead paint. The contribution of drinking water has not yet been
determined, and more recent statistics are not yet available.
Families can receive services through the city, as well as our
Poison Control Center, regarding how to mitigate exposure to
lead in the environment.
Newark also has important resources like funded relocation
housing and a partnership for lead-safe children. But as lead
levels continue to be elevated, environmental hazards continue
to persist, and the threshold continues to appropriately be
lowered. Resources Statewide and nationally risk depletion.
Municipal water crises are complicated and require a great
many decisions, often in the context of fear, outrage, and
distrust. How do we fix the water? How do we contact citizens--
by phone, by door to door? What do we tell them? Should we use
filters? What kind? Where can people go for information? Should
we offer universal testing? Who is most at risk? So many
questions.
I urge the Subcommittee to consider one advance in this
area. Aside from all the important advances we're talking about
to remove lead from water is to craft a municipal playbook for
cities in the future who face water crises, deploying the right
expertise at the right time can make a tremendous difference.
And Flint was not the first city to face this issue, and Newark
will certainly not be the last. And formal guidance for cities
I think would be tremendously useful.
So, in conclusion, while drinking water is only one source
of lead exposure, removing this hazard is imperative, so, too,
is addressing other sources. And the prioritization of lead
hazard reduction is complex, but we must envision a future in
which our water and our homes are leadfree. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Calello follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And before we move
to our next witness, I simply want to recognize Assemblyman
Caputo. Thank you so much for coming today, sir. Thank you.
And next, we're going to hear from Dr. Marc Edwards, who is
the distinguished professor from VPI.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARC EDWARDS,
UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Edwards. Thank you. I'll start by noting that this is
the fifth time I've testified to Congress on this issue in
relation to lead and drinking water crises. The first two were
in relation to Washington, D.C., in 2004, 2010, and then twice
again in 2016 in Flint, Michigan, and I'm really optimistic
that today's hearing related to this water lead problem in New
Jersey is going to help bring an end to our ongoing national
nightmare.
So I want to start by noting that approaches to dealing
with the lead in water problem around the world vary. For
instance, in Australia they tell consumers frankly that they're
on their own and that they don't consider lead in water to be a
significant public health threat. And other countries take some
responsibility for protecting consumers from lead.
But our approach in the United States has been the worst of
all worlds. Essentially, too frequently, people are being told
that they're being protected from lead in water when that's not
the case. And when you couple that with our public health
warnings that there's no safe level of lead exposure with
warnings of brain damage and other horrific health
consequences, you have a basis for undermining trust and panic
in water crises, and that's what happened over and over again.
And, unfortunately, we have severely damaged the public
trust and public confidence in water supplies in the United
States as a result of this problem. Too many of our poorest and
most vulnerable citizens are spending too much of their
precious financial resources worried about lead in water,
testing for lead in water, protecting themselves, purchasing
filters. And our Nation's failure to upgrade this antiquated
infrastructure and to uphold Federal law has really effectively
ended trust in potable water in this country as we once knew
it.
And the following steps could really help go a long way
toward restoring justifiable trust in U.S. public water
supplies and prevent future water crises. So, first and
foremost, the culture associated with implementation and
enforcement of this law in the United States has really been
just a national scandal. Whatever the provisions of the new
lead and copper rule are, it must be enforced, and it must be
taken seriously. And, as an aside, I was very pleased to see
that the U.S. EPA was not as complicit in the problems that
occurred in Newark as they have been in water problems that
occurred in the recent past.
The second issue is that the current official language that
there is no safe level of lead exposure should be reconsidered.
We routinely identify consensus standards of human exposure for
other contaminants, below which health risks are considered
relatively low, and we should do the same for lead. The no-
safe-level-of-lead-exposure language is actually proving to be
an impediment to fixing the problem at its core, which is
replacing lead in our plumbing, and is increasing dependency on
bottled water and filters.
We also must eventually identify where these millions of
lead service line pipes are and where they are not, and this is
a major, major challenge. Consumers have to be made fully aware
when they have to live with this hazard, and they should be
given some relative peace of mind if they do not have a lead
pipe in front of their house. And ultimately, these lead pipes
do have to be replaced.
But until that day comes--and I'm resigned to the fact that
it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime or my
children's lifetime at our current rates of pipe replacement--
we do have to do a better job of protecting consumers with
filters, with bottled water, with corrosion control, and
flushing strategies. And the U.S. EPA and HUD (Department of
Housing and Urban Development) have been investing in research
in these areas that can help us improve our response.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Edwards follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And again, I would
just like to recognize our School Superintendent Sal Goncalves.
Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you.
And next, we have Mr. Michael Ramos, who is the Chief
Engineer at the Chicago Public Schools.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL RAMOS,
CHIEF ENGINEER, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
AND INVENTOR OF THE NOAH AUTO FLUSHING DEVICE
FOR LEAD MITIGATION
Mr. Ramos. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for holding
this hearing today and inviting me here to testify. My name is
Michael Ramos, the inventor of Noah, the Auto Flusher. I have
over 30 years' experience in building automation, electrical
engineering, direct digital control, and HVAC. I'm an Engineer
for Chicago Public Schools and Chief Engineer of Von Steuben
High School.
I'm going to talk to you today about the Noah device. Noah
was originally designed to be attached to the lead service line
in my home to automatically flush for 3 minutes every 3 hours.
In 2016, I began following the Flint water crisis and quickly
discovered water standing inside pipes for long periods of time
can generate high lead and copper levels. I also discovered
water treatment plants across the country use orthophosphates
to coat the pipes' interior as a measure of corrosion control.
In order for the orthophosphate to be effective, it has to be
routinely applied by running water through the pipes.
I used this information to create an auto flusher that I
attached to the main lead service line of my home. I believe
this would be an effective way to prevent stagnation and
effectively apply and maintain a protective barrier of
orthophosphates for my family.
Later that year, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) began testing
all schools in the district. Initial test results showed that
37 percent of the schools had at least one fixture test above
the 15-part-per-billion action level. As an engineer in the
school system, it is my responsibility to provide a safe
environment for all who attend Von Steuben. I took it upon
myself to modify my residential design into a retrofit device
that can be installed in drinking fountains. Installing
directly into a fountain utilizing its existing plumbing meant
that I could supply fresh, clean, lead-free water to my
students at all times. For the last 3 years, students at Von
Steuben have been using the fountains to refill their bottles
and not relying on single-use bottled water.
I'm going to quickly go over the before and after results
of two pilot programs that I participated in with CPS. I
donated and installed the devices in these schools myself. Orr
High School, before Noah, its average reading was 45.65 parts
per billion, and its highest reading was 530 parts per billion.
After installing Noah, today, the average reading is 0.840,
less than 1.
Onahan Elementary School, before Noah, its highest reading
was 520 parts per billion; after Noah, 0.528, less than 1 part
per billion.
Katie Brandt this was a residential install. In her home
she had readings ranging between 4.9 and 17 parts per billion.
After Noah was installed, 0.001, no detection.
We can test these locations today, tomorrow, next month,
next year. The results will always be the same, less than 1.
In closing, Noah's an effective, practical solution in both
residential and public buildings everywhere. It works by doing
two things: It doesn't allow water to stagnate in the pipe; and
two, it applies and maintains the orthophosphate corrosion
control. It is also 100 percent maintenance-free, requires no
filters, strainers, batteries, or clocks to program.
In closing, I would like to ask for the funding for a
controlled residential in-school pilot program in Newark, New
Jersey, and Flint. The funding values will be determined by
controlled program needs. Thank you, and I look forward to
answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramos follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. Next, we are going
to hear from Dr. Eric Roy, the founder of Hydroviv.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ERIC ROY,
FOUNDER, HYDROVIV
Dr. Roy. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Members of the
Subcommittee, for your invitation to testify on how the Federal
Government can better support scientists, entrepreneurs who
develop technologies that detect, predict, and fix water
quality issues like the one currently underway in Newark.
While today's testimony is informed by my experience
working at companies that were either funded by or sold
technology to EPA and Department of Defense, I'm not speaking
on behalf of any of these employers or organizations.
Hydroviv is a water filter company that I started in
response to the Flint lead crisis. At the time, I was leading
product development for a company that develops technology used
by first responders and military personnel to detect chemical
warfare agents and other harmful chemicals. I was able to use
my experience as a chemist in connections and manufacturing to
develop custom water filters that were specifically designed to
handle the high lead levels in Flint, and I donated these
filters to families and child-centric organizations. This
wasn't really intended to be more than a charitable effort run
from my apartment, but as public awareness of water quality has
grown, Hydroviv's scope expanded, and the company was able to
air on Shark Tank this past year.
From the experience gained throughout my career, I've seen
how companies working on water quality face barriers in
commercializing their technology that are not encountered by
those that develop solutions for other national interests like
defense and homeland security. In this testimony, I will focus
on two specific areas where I believe the Federal Government
can help reduce these barriers.
First, the first barrier I want to talk about today is a
lack of access to the problem. For these high-priority
interests, it would be beneficial for Federal agencies to take
an active role in aligning academic, government, and private-
sector personnel in the same way that they do for defense and
homeland security priorities. This deliberate alignment is
different than what I've encountered with Federal agencies that
work on water.
An example relevant to this hearing has to do with the
water filters that the city of Newark distributed to families
with high levels of lead in their water. Despite these filters
being rated to remove lead, at first they were found to be
surprisingly ineffective, and scientists from various
government and academic institutions are actively conducting
research on why this was the case. However, according to the
scientists that I've spoken to, there's no component of their
work that focuses on developing more effective filtration
technologies, which is the actual problem that we need to
solve.
The results of these studies won't necessarily be published
fully for months or even years, which means that scientists and
engineers who innovate on filtration technology have to wait
before they can try and recreate the problem and attempt to
find a solution to it. This is a missed opportunity.
The second thing I want to discuss today is a cost barrier
faced by companies that transition technology from the
laboratory to the community where economies of scale can fully
be realized. Cost-effective third-party validation is a major
barrier to entry for water-centric technologies, especially
products that are aimed at the consumer. Without cost-effective
validation, technology developers struggle to establish their
products as credible and distance themselves from the snake oil
products that pollute this market.
The organizations that government bodies point to for
product validation are often cost-prohibitive for small
companies and therefore act as a barrier to market entry. For
security interests, the Federal Government reduces these
barriers by establishing cost-effective programs and proving
grounds that allow technology companies to validate their
products under laboratory and real-world conditions.
If this type of thing existed for companies working on
water quality, a successful trial would establish trust and
credibility between that company and the other stakeholders,
and it would also open up outside investment. In turn, there
would be an established path for credible diagnostic,
predictive, and treatment technologies to go to market, and
these innovation areas would become more attractive to outside
investors. The problem would be solved.
I've seen how the Federal Government can support companies
that develop technology for national priorities, and I believe
that there's a real opportunity to do this for water quality.
I want to finalize by thanking everyone for their time, and
I'd be happy to answer any questions and/or work with Members
of the Subcommittee on solutions to barriers that I raised
today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you very much. I'll now
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Dr. Edwards, I want to talk about what has happened in New
Jersey. Some people have lived in their homes here and their
neighborhoods for a generation, and they didn't change anything
at their property but suddenly one day they're learning the
water is unsafe to drink. So can you tell me for the record
what changed that led to these higher levels of lead exposure?
Dr. Edwards. Yes. As was the case in Washington, D.C.,
changes were made to the water supply to try to comply with
other U.S. EPA regulations. And those changes, which reduced
the risk from disinfection byproducts and bacteria, also
increased the risk from lead. And in particular what the
utility did was to try to lower the pH, make it more acid in
order to reduce the danger from the bacteria and the
disinfection byproducts. And, as expected, that reducing the pH
or increasing the acidity made more lead to go into the water.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And, Dr. Calello, a
pediatrician in Flint played a big part in exposing the Flint
water crisis, but she said she ran into roadblocks when she
sought blood lead data from local officials. So how can we make
sure that you get all the data you need to serve children's
health?
Dr. Calello. Thank you for that question. I think it's
important that lead levels drawn on children in general and
even just the whole population be contained in a central data
repository. So currently what we have in New Jersey is a pretty
robust system that tracks lead levels in children but primarily
abnormal lead levels. And so I think when we want to assess
risk, it's important not only to know what child had a lead
level of 6 or 12 or 40 but also how many in that area had
undetectable lead levels or, you know, even just small
elevations.
And I think every State does this a bit differently, but
requiring that the collection of lead levels be a reportable
and clinical entity that is contained in a central--ideally, a
national data repository would help a lot.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And how often should at-
risk families get tested?
Dr. Calello. I think as soon as an exposure is identified,
that testing should happen right away. And although we have
centered primarily on testing children and pregnant women,
because those are certainly the populations most at risk, I
think it helps for people to know, if they're very concerned
about their lead exposure to get a level tested.
So Dr. Edwards made an important point about there being no
safe level of lead exposure, and that's not really true. I
mean, our bodies handle a little bit of lead in our
environmental the time, but if lead accumulates in the body and
shows up in the blood, that's where we say it's really not safe
to have it there, at least that's when I say there's no safe
level. That's what I'm referring to.
So a test should happen right away, I think when the
exposure is discovered. And then, you know, we often test
children every 9 to 12 months in early childhood. If the
exposure is ongoing, that testing should be more like every 3
to 6 months, and it's kind of I think just determined how much
lead is in the environment that we have to monitor, so it's
case-by-case.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I yield back, and now I'd
like to recognize Congressman Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank you all
very much. This has been very educational this morning.
Dr. Calello, first of all, thank you for helping us
understand the impact of lead in the blood and its impact on
IQ. It was very interesting. And I just want to point out that
a difference of 7 IQ points is a lot. It doesn't sound like a
lot, but that's the difference between whether you go to
college or not, what kind of college you go to, just
significantly moves where you are in the overall population.
But in talking with some of the people who have visited
here today--talked about in the city of Newark, not in Nutley
or Bloomfield--but that they have had independent testing as
high as 400 parts per billion of lead. Is there anything from a
poison control perspective that you can offer to make sure that
people feel that the respective governments are testing
appropriately?
Dr. Calello. The role of the Poison Control Center is to,
you know, operate a 24/7 hotline to people with questions. And
whether it's in the State of New Jersey, we actually did
partner with the Department of Health to make sure that any
information they wanted disseminated through the city was
available at the Poison Control Center, so if any citizens
wanted to know is my address affected, how can I get testing,
where can I pick up bottled water, where can I get my child
tested. So here in New Jersey I think the State Poison Control
Center really played an important information disseminating
role. That sometimes has been the case elsewhere and not
always. Does that answer the question?
Mr. Beyer. Is there a connection between the lead poisoning
and Legionnaires' disease?
Dr. Calello. No. You know, both can be a waterborne
illness, but lead and Legionnaires' disease are not connected--
--
Mr. Beyer. OK.
Dr. Calello [continuing]. You know, in the body.
Mr. Beyer. And someone just pointed out that many of the
deaths in Flint were due to Legionnaires' disease.
Dr. Calello. Right.
Mr. Beyer. But these are co-determined. It's not causal I
guess?
Dr. Calello. Correct. You know, water can be contaminated
with a lot of different things, and I think there was some co-
contamination. But Dr. Edwards could probably speak to that a
little more.
Mr. Beyer. And do we need to worry about copper? If we've
solved the lead problem as you imagine, is copper leaching an
issue for all of us and our kids?
Dr. Calello. Copper does not have the developmental effects
at very low levels as far as we know scientifically. Copper in
very high levels can cause health problems as well, organ
damage and what have you, but it's not been observed clinically
in drinking water contamination to cause illness.
Mr. Beyer. OK. All right. Thank you. Mr. Ramos, thanks for
telling us all about the Noah device. Is the orthophosphate
linings required ahead of time for Noah to be effective?
Mr. Ramos. As long as the districts are applying
orthophosphate at the treatment plant, Noah could deliver that
orthophosphate to the residents and the schools.
Mr. Beyer. So those have to go together essentially?
Mr. Ramos. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. And you said that in an attempt to hold costs
down you weren't running Noah on weekends, but you also said
earlier that if the water sits for more than 6 hours, it starts
to eat away at the orthophosphate. Why wouldn't you----
Mr. Ramos. That's correct.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Run it 24 hours, 7 days a week?
Mr. Ramos. For residential, I would recommend that we do 7
days a week, 24 hours, but in a school, what I did at Von
Steuben is I hooked all the devices up to the hallway lighting
circuit, so it turns on only when the building is occupied. But
given enough time having the system running, there will be
enough coating of orthophosphate that it can survive over the
weekend. Monday morning, we turn the lights on, the system
activates and starts replenishing it with fresh water and the
orthophosphate.
Mr. Beyer. And you did mention cost. What would it cost a
home to have a Noah device?
Mr. Ramos. I'm ranging around $250.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Great. Great, thank you.
Mr. Ramos. And they last for years. Tomorrow's the 3-year
anniversary of the very first one installed at Von Steuben High
School, and it's still running today 3 years later.
Mr. Beyer. OK, great. Thank you. And one last question. Dr.
Roy, you talked about how Federal agencies, Federal Government
needs to do this alignment of the scientists and bureaucrats,
civil servants to make this happen faster. Can you tell the
four of us who go back to legislate what that legislation would
look like?
Dr. Roy. Of course. I think there's really two ways that
this could happen. I think for long-term priorities there
should be programs set up that are kind of longitudinally based
that, you know, around infrastructure-type stuff so you can
have program managers that, you know, actively work to put
those people in a room and develop long-term solutions.
For short-term priorities what I would recommend is some
sort of--you know, the funding instrument is--are like prizes,
and that allows technology developers to come in and pitch
their prize, and they're able to kind of matriculate through.
And the winners--it's not about the money; it's about the
access to the problem and an opportunity to solve it. And I've
seen this work multiple times for security and drug
interdiction-based national priorities.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. I'd now like to recognize
Congresswoman Wexton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
panelists for coming today and sharing with us your knowledge
about this issue. And I would really be remiss if I did not use
this opportunity to talk a little bit about the EPA's proposed
changes to the lead and copper rule.
Dr. Calello, in 2012 the CDC reduced the threshold level of
blood lead level that was of concern for it to be elevated from
10 micrograms per deciliter to 5, is that correct?
Dr. Calello. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. And, you know, so that was in 2012. At that
time the EPA's lead parts per billion was 15. And when the EPA
announced that they were going to revisit that rule, a lot of
us hoped that, given the changes that the CDC had had, that the
EPA would also reduce that threshold. And they declined to do
that. The trigger level in their proposed rule is still 15
parts per billion.
Not only that, they would allow more time for water
sanitation authorities to replace lead pipes even when that
trigger level is reached. They are taking away the 7 percent
requirement of replacement per year and replacing it with a 3
percent requirement. So instead of taking 13 years to replace
all of the lead pipes in a sanitation authority area, it would
take 33 years. That is a couple generations of young people who
could be living with elevated levels of lead in their blood and
have the collateral consequences of that.
Dr. Calello, could you speak a little bit--I know that you
can't draw a straight line from 15 parts per billion to 5
micrograms per deciliter or anything like that, but could you
speak a little bit to the long-term consequences in terms of
brain development and development overall IQ points and
everything that happens with these elevated levels of lead in
children's systems?
Dr. Calello. Just to repeat the question, it's two comments
on the long-term intellectual effects of low lead levels in the
blood?
Ms. Wexton. That's correct.
Dr. Calello. OK. Thank you. You know, the data behind
looking at is a child with a lead level of even 4 or 3 below
the threshold going to potentially have a developmental
consequence comes from large populations, so it's impossible
scientifically to demonstrate in a given child that they were
normal before they had exposure, and they had an--you know, a
developmental event as a direct result of lead exposure. It's
just very difficult to do in particular because most children
when they have discovered elevated blood levels are in the
first 2 years of their life.
So what we rely on are large, reproducible population
studies that demonstrate, again, in children with elevated--
populations where children have elevated lead levels, and some
of them are just in that very low range, those children in that
same group also have lower IQ. And that is controlled for
things that also affect intellectual testing like parental
education and parental IQ and socioeconomic status. And so it
is a pretty good indicator at least on a large population-based
level of IQ deficits at low levels--I mean, at small
elevations.
But when I see a child with an elevated lead level, whether
it's 5 or 10 or 40 or 60, I tell their parents that there is no
way to predict exactly what's going to happen. Our first job is
to get the lead exposure out of their environment so the level
does not continue to climb. And then our next job is to watch
the child closely, and if anything developmentally happens,
then we can respond.
The deficits are not likely fixed and a foregone
conclusion. It's important to not assume that children who are
exposed to lead are, you know, damaged, you know,
automatically. So it's a little bit of a complicated risk
assessment, but in individual children I just try to provide
guidance and hope and attention to where the sources are.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Mr. Ramos, I was very interested to
hear about what you have done in the Chicago Public Schools.
And I am reminded of when I was growing up my dad would
always--I have a very distinct memory of him standing at the
kitchen sink running the faucet, running the tap for several
minutes before he would fill the coffee pot in the morning. And
I, being the budding environmentalist in, you know, first grade
or whatever would say, ``Dad, why are you wasting the water
like that?'' And he said, no, I needed to do that to get the
clean--you know, to get the--to flush the water make sure that
there's no bad stuff there. And it turns out it sounds like he
was right. And I really appreciate what you have done for the
Chicago Public Schools and beyond and your technology.
Now, you spoke about a pilot program that the schools did
to test out your technology, the Noah process. Is that
something that Chicago Public Schools picked up the tab
entirely for that, or was there any Federal or State support
available for that?
Mr. Ramos. For all the pilot programs in Chicago Public
Schools I donated all the devices, so CPS only had to pay the
plumbers and electricians to actually do the infrastructure
work.
Ms. Wexton. OK.
Mr. Ramos. But the devices themselves were free to CPS and
the schools.
Ms. Wexton. So this sounds like a pretty good, reliable,
low-cost way to mitigate the damage when lead is already
present in the system, is that correct?
Mr. Ramos. Absolutely. I believe that it is.
Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you very much----
Mr. Ramos. Thank you.
Ms. Wexton [continuing]. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you very much. I now recognize
Congressman Payne for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ramos, my question was going to be the cost of the
system, and in your remarks you mentioned that--well,
Congressman Beyer's question, the replacement of the unit, what
do you feel its life expectancy will be, and how many times
will you have to replace it during a lifetime?
Mr. Ramos. Well, since it's the first of its kind, I can
just give the testimony on the success that we're seeing in
Chicago. We've had devices running for 3 years without having
to replace any of the components or the device itself. So I can
say at least 3 years.
Mr. Payne. So it's still an ongoing test on the life
expectancy----
Mr. Ramos. Yes.
Mr. Payne [continuing]. Yes, the unit. So you really don't
know yet basically?
Mr. Ramos. I really don't know yet, but I could say at
least 3 years.
Mr. Payne. OK. And so--and the cost of the unit is--would
be--you're looking at a residential around $250?
Mr. Ramos. That's correct.
Mr. Payne. OK.
Mr. Ramos. And we're here to work with the willing. Anyone
or any district, we're willing to work with budget constraints
because it is a very, very, very important topic, and anything
we could do to help, I think we all need to chip in together
and just get it done.
Mr. Payne. OK. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you very much. And thank you to
all our panel members. It's been a great hearing today and
wonderful to hear from you.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]The Honorable Joe DiVincenzo, Jr.The Honorable
Joseph ScarpelliThe Honorable Michael VeneziaDr. Diane Calello
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]