Silence, flawed test data hide lead contamination

Water systems muddy their results by testing homes least likely to have lead

In March 2004, county health workers in Greenville detected lead in a baby boy's blood. By late summer, the local water utility spotted elevated levels of the toxic metal in some homes in the city.

For a year, even after a water utility test detected lead at the child's home, no one connected Conner Jackson's blood test with high levels of lead in the water.

Two state agencies also had the information about Conner's blood test and the lead-tainted water but didn't tell each other. Such communication failure is just one problem that has increased the risk of lead poisoning from public water systems in North Carolina.

Some water systems, including Raleigh's, don't test the homes most likely to have lead, a violation of federal rules. Some systems drop houses that test positive for lead from future tests, another violation that increases the system's chance of passing.

State regulators say they didn't know about those problems because they lack resources to police the utilities.

When confronted with the gaps, William G. Ross Jr., state secretary of environment and natural resources, said that North Carolina must step up oversight of how water utilities track lead in drinking water.

"We need to do a better job," Ross said. "We need to be sampling and checking."

Lead is poison to infants and children younger than 6. Even in small amounts, it can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Recent studies have found that any level of lead in a young child's blood is unsafe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Children are most likely to ingest lead from chips of lead-contaminated paint, now banned in this country, or from products tainted by lead. But children and adults, who are vulnerable to prolonged exposure, can ingest traces of the metal in water, too. That's why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires public water systems to test for lead at least every three years.

Still, as families and officials in Greenville learned, lead trouble can sneak up on a community.

No communication

A standard blood screen in March 2004 detected lead in the blood of Laura Jackson's 1-year-old son.

After a second test confirmed the problem, county health investigators inspected Jackson's townhouse that summer but found no lead in the paint, on blinds or in toys, the usual suspects. A pewter hairbrush was identified as a possible source, said Dr. John Morrow, the Pitt County health director.

Because water tests hadn't turned up high lead levels in Greenville in the past, no one tested the water, Morrow said. But that summer and fall, tests required by the EPA revealed that lead levels were unexpectedly spiking in some Greenville households.

A switch to sanitizing chemicals called chloramines appeared to be the troublemaker. It probably made Greenville's water more corrosive, causing lead to leach from aged plumbing parts.

In November 2004, Greenville Utilities mailed notices to 27,000 customers warning that lead levels in the city exceeded EPA standards. It alerted doctors' offices and county health officials. The utility offered free lead tests for all customers who asked for them.

Jackson's household was tested in December. Lead levels there were three times higher than the EPA finds acceptable. The utility mailed the results to Jackson's address.

No policy existed to share data on specific people and addresses, so county health officials did not learn of Jackson's test for months. Since then, Greenville officials have started sharing such information.