A critical opportunity: Detecting and Reducing Lead in Drinking Water at child care facilities.

There is no safe level of lead exposure. As exposure from point sources like lead paint have decreased, non-point sources such as drinking water have become a greater proportional source of total lead exposure. Even at low levels, lead exposure is shown to harm children, contributing to impaired development as well as learning and behavioral issues. This paper summarizes the key results of an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) pilot study conducted at 11 child care facilities in 4 US states to evaluate approaches to testing and remediating lead in water at child care facilities. Over 75% of first draw samples contained lead levels under the 1 µg/L level recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). However, 10 of 11 child care facilities produced at least one sample above 1 µg/L. Fixture flushing, aerator cleaning, and fixture replacement were evaluated as remediation strategies. Fixture replacement was effective when initial lead was above 5 µg/L. Aerator cleaning did not have a measurable effect on lead levels for most fixtures but unexpectedly significantly increased lead levels in approximately 30% of fixtures. The 2021 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) revision was applied to study data to determine whether updates would flag cases of low-level lead in child care settings and was found insufficient to prompt mitigation unless high lead was present at most taps.

Research to Move Toward Evidence-Based Recommendations for Lead Service Line Disclosure Policies in Home Buying and Home Renting Scenarios.

Lead service lines (LSLs)-lead pipes connecting the water main under the street to a building's plumbing-contribute an estimated 50% to 75% of lead in tap water when they are present. Although Congress banned lead in plumbing materials in 1986, over 6 million LSLs remain in homes across the United States today. This paper summarizes three different home buying or renting scenario-based experimental studies used to evaluate disclosure styles, to assess if these influenced respondents' perceived risk of the LSL in a home, and their willingness to act. In renting scenarios, having landlords disclose the presence of an LSL, but also provide water test results showing lead levels below the EPA's lead action level resulted in lower levels of perceived risk, and of willingness to act. In seller-disclosure home buying scenarios, levels of perceived risk and willingness to act were consistently high, and three different disclosure styles did not differentially influence those outcomes. In home inspector-disclosure home buying scenarios, levels of perceived risk and willingness to act were high, but having explicit recommendations to replace LSLs and/or information about risk did not further influence those outcomes. In some cases, including the specific recommendations backfired. Implications for policy and regulation are discussed.