Policies to Prevent Lead Exposure in the US
Lead is a heavy metal found naturally in the Earth’s crust, but it also occurs as a byproduct of various human activities. Because of its natural abundance and many applications, it has been used throughout recorded history for several functions, including tools, decorations, weaponry, paints, and even medical applications. In Ancient Rome, the principal use of lead was for plumbing and pipes, which is where it gets its name on the periodic table of elements – Pb, or plumbum in Latin. It is nearly impossible to avoid complete exposure to this metal that has been so common in our everyday lives for millennia.
According to the World Health Organization, there is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects. The dangers of lead exposure have been recorded throughout ancient history, yet it was not until 1979 that doctors first recognized that no level of exposure was safe whatsoever.
Lead in the Water
With the powers given to it by the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency implemented the Lead and Copper Rule of 1991 (LCR). However, this only required corrective action if detected lead concentrations exceeded 15 parts per billion, or if more than 10% of consumer taps sampled above 1.3 parts per billion. Ideally, lead in service lines should be zero, but the agency sets these thresholds to act as a maximum acceptable risk to individuals, and to prioritize where to take action. Further amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act brought “lead-free” into the conversation, which required further regulation to ensure that lead-laden fixtures like fittings and solder be further reduced in existing and future systems.
In 2020, the EPA proposed measures to strengthen the LCR to further protect against exposure. The most notable changes were the intention to replace lead service lines, implementation of lead testing in schools, and improving identification and detection methods. As part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed in 2021, $15 billion over five years will be allocated to lead pipe replacement nationally. Using broad estimates, full lead service line replacement alone could cost between $28 and $47 billion, making this amount insufficient to foot the bill for total replacement.
To highlight the importance of investing in lead mitigation efforts, an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund estimates that every $100 invested in lead service line replacement will yield a return of over $310 in benefits related to economic and individual health improvements.
Lead In the Atmosphere and Soil
The EPA also has policies outlining its requirements to ensure safe ambient air quality when it comes to lead. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for lead, as well as other air pollutants. Lead used to be an additive in gasoline that prevented certain performance issues in cars. A major byproduct of this additive, however, was high lead contents in the air and in soil from particles that fall to the ground. In 1973, a gradual phasedown of lead in gasoline began, ending in 1996 with an outright ban on the sale of leaded gasoline. Lead levels in human blood saw a drop correlated with the phasedown saw a correlated drop in tandem with the phasedown of lead in gasoline starting in 1976, indicating that this policy had major implications for lead exposure in people.
Are these Policies Effective?
Unfortunately, cost is often a major roadblock for environmental policies. With the cost of full service line replacement approaching $50 billion, an allotment of less than a third of that amount will be insufficient to improve the lead exposure levels of all US residents.
Important questions are raised about these lead policies that can be difficult to answer. For example, the EPA estimates that more than 23 million households use private wells as their water source. Do the water policies cover these households? Will those private owners be responsible for the costly replacement if they are required to do so? At which part of the service line does the EPA’s responsibility begin and end? Also, when it comes to public water supplies, how do we prioritize which sources to replace first, with already limited resources? These limitations will inherently force us to choose some communities over others, potentially causing widespread environmental justice issues.
Finally, enforcement of policies has always been a challenge faced by the EPA. The agency does not have an enforcement arm besides fines and legal action, both of which are easily circumvented by rich or powerful interests. The EPA has also been criticized for lack of oversight in major crises like the Flint Water Crisis, indicating a potential lack of agency efficacy.
Still, there is hope. Sources of lead exposure continue to be identified and mitigated, which will lead to better overall health outcomes. This isn’t limited to just the United States, and indeed must be a global effort. The last country to sell leaded gasoline, Algeria, finally banned the additive from fuel in 2021, marking a hopeful end to this source of lead in the atmosphere. Sound policy, when actionable and enforceable, will be necessary to continue safeguarding individual and public health from the dangers of lead exposure.
