Lead drinking-water pipes must be replaced nationwide, EPA says

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/climate/biden-epa-lead-pipes.html

by JumpCrisscross • 2 years ago

176 185 2 years ago

nytimes.com

more_corn• 2 years ago

Wait, we still use lead pipes for drinking water?

quickthrowman• 2 years ago

Many places have 100+ year old lead service lines.

lesuorac• 2 years ago

Wait till you learn that hot water sometimes has leaded pipes while the cold will be non-lead.

cyberax• 2 years ago

That's not a huge problem, though, unless you drink the hot tap water.

haswell4• 2 years ago

Just one example, but in the city of Chicago, over 400K homes still get their tap water through leaded lines. The city will get an exemption to the 10 year replacement requirement due to the sheer number of pipes that need replacing meaning another 40-50 years of lead pipes based on replacing 10K/year [0].

It's pretty crazy.

- [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/01/1241470...

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

Sure, but isn't this the same place that mandated lead pipes for most of its existence?

Cthulhu_• 2 years ago

Yup, some infrastructure is ancient. From memory, correct me if I'm wrong, it was relatively safe in e.g. Flint because an inner lining of limescale had formed, but they changed something in the water causing that lining to deteriorate.

But redoing infrastructure is a huge and expensive undertaking, also given that 100+ years ago they weren't as diligent in mapping out things underground and they put sewage, electricity and internet in the same ground since then.

IIRC an in-between solution is lining the pipes with an inner plastic one (they have Ways), but that may not be possible everywhere and reduces the flow capacity.

Anyway there's 2.2 million miles of water piping in the US apparently, that'll take a while.

rurp• 2 years ago

also given that 100+ years ago they weren't as diligent in mapping out things underground and they put sewage, electricity and internet in the same ground since then.

I have some experience with the local utility companies in my city and it's shocking how often they don't know where their own lines are, even ones that are only a decade or two old. I can only imagine how lacking the knowledge is from 100+ year old infrastructure.

ericd• 2 years ago

My understanding is that in a lot of places, the water has essentially coated the pipes with minerals, so the water doesn’t actually touch the lead, and it ends up not being as large a problem as you’d think. I think the problems arise when municipal water changes something that lets the water dissolve away those minerals (make it acidic, for example) and start interacting directly with the lead.

petee• 2 years ago

This is the case in my area; our service is almost 100 years old. You just need to run the water for minute if you haven't used it recently, since the leech is very slow.

Another issue besides tearing up the whole front yard (our line is 8' deep) is it would likely destroy the ancient ceramic sewer line. An upgrade can get expensive quick

buildsjets• 2 years ago

There are an unknown number of hollowed out tree logs still in service and being used to transport drinking water.

https://www.kake.com/news/wichita-used-to-use-trees-as-water...

jcgrillo• 2 years ago

Every once in a while they dig one up by accident in Boston. Many ~ancient cities don't even know where all the pipes are, or how they're connected. It'll be a colossal project.

jvdvegt• 2 years ago

Unavailable in EU, so here we go; https://archive.is/9I14n

mandevil• 2 years ago

Our (1) infrastructure is ancient. PG&E started the Camp Fire wildfire in 2018 when a electrical transmission line built in 1921 failed (only lasted 97 years). That killed 85 people.

1: America for sure, I would suspect other countries might not be as bad, as they would have generally electrified more recently- just not that many electrical transmission lines in Romania in 1921- and are more likely to have had to rebuild after wartime.

Lammy• 2 years ago

Because I was curious: the deadliest wildfire in California's history killed 0.00021% of the state's 2018 population.

sdellis• 2 years ago

You'd be surprised. Many places, including my neighborhood in New Jersey, don't have any access to drinking water at all. We are cooking with and drinking bottled water for the foreseeable future.

Rebelgecko2• 2 years ago

Most GA planes still use leaded gas!

cjs_ac• 2 years ago

https://archive.ph/geqRg

laluser9• 2 years ago

I recently did a full replacement of my lead-soldered water pipes in my 1970s home in Seattle. Despite how much people rave about how great the drinking water is in Seattle, many homes have older piping systems, which will test positive for lead in the drinking water. It was a very expensive and time-consuming project, but I am glad I did it. Unfortunately, many will not even know they are being exposed due to the clean water reports from the city.

Mistletoe• 2 years ago

Wouldn’t it have been easier to just install an RO filtration system on your drinking water source at the sink? Then you get the benefits of RO drinking water and the cost is minuscule. You don’t drink from the toilets and showers and all that.

bobmcnamara2• 2 years ago

Only about a 20dB improvement for something that has a zero safe exposure level.

iluvcommunism• 2 years ago

I support RO water filters. But consider not cooking with that water either. I’d just bite the bullet and eliminate the lead.

laluser9• 2 years ago

I have a young toddler so would have needed multiple filters throughout the house. They tend to like to drink from the bath and my anxiety can’t handle that.

maples37• 2 years ago

What did you end up replacing it with?

I've done no research, but I wonder what the risk tradeoff is between a tiny amount of lead in contact with my drinking water (assuming copper pipes joined together with lead-based solder, not lead-free solder) versus the new plastic pipes that are becoming standard. I'm sure PEX is designed so that it doesn't leach plastic nastiness into the water, but I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that after a few decades it starts breaking down anyway and suddenly we have a whole new toxin in our drinking water and we need to replace half of the pipes in America again.

TSiege• 2 years ago

I would assume they do leach microplastics and nanoplastics and require third party proof that they do not. From what I can find on the internet plastics leach micro/nanoplastics period. https://safepipingmatters.org/plastic-pipes-microplastics-im...

rectang3• 2 years ago

Before then, those of us with homes that aren't 100% rodent-proof forever have to factor in just how much mice and rats luuuuuv chewing on PEX hot water pipes. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/rodents-chew-pex-pipe/

PEX is easy to work with and cheap up front. The cost and risk are shifted onto the future owners.

1970-01-015• 2 years ago

You're going to find 'health problems' with every pipe material. Even stainless steel will contain trace amounts of lead or another toxic metal.

camgunz2• 2 years ago

Yeah I'm too lazy to look up a source now, but I did look it up and both types of PEX will leech microplastics into your water.

It sounds like a big facepalm, and it kind of is, but it's not a crazy idea to filter your water at the taps: you probably only have 2-6 of them anyway. I'm a fan of the whole-home water filter, but yeah then you've gotta be confident about your pipes.

tibbon• 2 years ago

Copper pipes + lead free (silver) solder is also an option.

laluser9• 2 years ago

Replaced it with higher-end pex. Yes, there is a trade-off there, but to me the effects of lead over long periods of time are very scary. I also have a filter for our actual drinking water that is able to filter some micro plastics as well.

Kirby646• 2 years ago

The dose makes the poison here.

How much lead is permissible before it’s bad? The answer is, very very very little.

In comparison, you get copper contamination from copper pipes (especially if the water is too acidic), however the body handles a little copper just fine. It doesn’t build up in the body unlike lead.

Then you’re left with plastics: PEX or PVC. As of yet, there’s some potential concerns with microplastics in general… but that is from all the tiny plastic particles found everywhere, not solid pieces of pipe. And there hasn’t really be any evidence that it causes any specific known issue. If it was some giant problem (like lead in drinking water!) then the magnitude of effect would be much more obvious.

thecompilr• 2 years ago

PEX isn’t new, it has been in use for at least 50 years by now

r00fus2• 2 years ago

The gold standard is copper + lead-free solder for incoming pipes, and PEX for sewer/outgoing.

I wouldn't use PEX for fresh water pipes.

EasyMark2• 2 years ago

I know there are at least two types of PEX, if you do replace pipes make sure you use the highest quality stuff you can get because PEX isn’t just PEX

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

are you not allowed to simply abandon the old pipes in place? Do you have to actually replace them?

jakogut• 2 years ago

The issue is not removing old pipes, but even getting access to install new pipes. This typically means opening up walls and floors, and patching the resulting holes after it's done.

laluser9• 2 years ago

Yes, a lot of the old pipes were left in place. That seems to be fairly common as they are difficult to remove given they are made of copper

davis• 2 years ago

What type of pipes did you have? How did you know they had lead issues?

laluser9• 2 years ago

I tested the water at a local company. Did multiple water tests. First pull in the morning, another one after flushing for a few minutes and then in multiple areas. Home inspector let us know we may have lead in the joints for the pipes which turns out to be a significant amount.

Izikiel43• 2 years ago

Do you know if in Seattle newer houses are lead free?

laluser9• 2 years ago

As far as I know newer homes are using pex these days. I lived in a newer townhome prior to this house and that was pex too. There’s a place in Fremont that does water testing.

yieldcrv2• 2 years ago

The entire understanding of good or bad water is based on anecdotes, conjecture and taste. Which tells you nothing. Then some savant talks praises about the water source and municipal treatment process.

When really the last mile is the most variable aspect. All of it needs to be clean the whole way.

The way people talk about local water is absurd.

laluser9• 2 years ago

Seattle does a good job of publishing stats about their water and it is tested at multiple different locations. However, as you allude to, you should test your individual water as well.

asow922• 2 years ago

My mom works for our local municipal government administering a HUD lead abatement grant. The state of lead contamination in many older homes in low income areas is just awful.

geepytee3• 2 years ago

Is there any cheap way to test the quality of my water? I did some Googling around, looks like there are services that will do this for a fee but didn't look particularly affordable.

tstrimple• 2 years ago

If you want specific numbers, you'll need to get a lab involved which will be more expensive. But to just detect the presence of contaminants, a cheap tester like available at hardware stores should work.

An example: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Safe-Home-Do-it-Yourself-Lead-in...

mystified50162• 2 years ago

Looks like there's some fairly cheap "diy water test kit" on Amazon.

I'd expect them to work reasonably well, at least for lead. The chemistry is pretty simple. Whether they can detect low concentrations is another matter. You could boil a pot of water until most of it is gone and test that. You'll have a much higher concentration of any contaminants.

ars3• 2 years ago

Are you on municipal water? If you are call the water company, they will often test it for free. They are required by law to test a certain number of houses each year - yours can be one of them.

If you are on well water, call your county department of health, there might be a fee, but it should be lower than a private lab.

asow922• 2 years ago

Regardless of your water source and/or lead contamination level, it's advisable to install a reverse osmosis filtration system. They're relatively affordable and will remove most contaminants. As a bonus reverse osmosis will produce clean tasting water rivaling that of bottled water, but you might want to consider supplementing minerals in your diet to compensate for anything lost in filtration.

BenFranklin1002• 2 years ago

I’d really love if it someone crunched the numbers and estimated how much NIMBYism contributes to lead poisoning by not allowing older homes to be replaced with newer, modern homes.

ProfessorLayton• 2 years ago

A lot of NIMBYism is less about preventing old homes from being replaced, and more about setting limits that prevent density such as low height limits, high setbacks, and high parking requirements. This results in a lot of projects not penciling out financially, and less housing gets build as a result.

BenFranklin1002• 2 years ago

Yes, when older homes get replaced by newer, high-density housing, the lead pipes go bye-bye. That was the entire point. NIMBYs are often fine replacing existing homes with newer homes of the exact same size.

1970-01-015• 2 years ago

If we can rip and replace all lead pipes in just 10 years, we could also bury all nearby high voltage electric cables. But we won't.

Groxx• 2 years ago

Replacing lead pipes is a no-brainer (net-positive brainer really) that has essentially nothing but hugely positive results.

Burying electrical cables isn't anywhere near as clear-cut of a benefit, AFAIK. Better in some ways, worse in others, ~always more expensive.

sidewndr464• 2 years ago

Most electrical cables are AC. Burying them just leads to higher losses.

nerdponx• 2 years ago

Are we sure that microplastics from the new pipes aren't just as bad? Can you make your water reasonably microplastic-safe by running it for 2 minutes in the morning?

favorited• 2 years ago

There are a few California towns that would have benefitted from buried power transmission lines in recent years.

MiguelX4132• 2 years ago

Why would we want to bury high voltage electric cables?

fwip• 2 years ago

Power on telephone poles have a couple problems, mainly involving trees/cars/miscreants breaking them and causing power outages (and sometimes fires). Some people also feel they're unsightly.

However, underground cables can be also be broken (e.g: by water leaks or backhoes), and in these cases, it can be more expensive and time-consuming to find and fix the break. I believe initial installation is also more costly.

1970-01-015• 2 years ago

They're much safer, have much less maintenance, and higher lifetime 'uptimes'.

Rebelgecko2• 2 years ago

Reduced fire risk is the main reason. The $ value of damage after a big fire often isn't THAT much smaller than the cost of undergrounding cables in that area. There's also some fringe benefits for aesthetics, electrocution risk, and maintenance costs (underground maintenance is more expensive but less common)

r00fus2• 2 years ago

Prevent fires - and overhead power lines are ugly AF. You don't notice it until you go to a place where they don't have them and wonder why the scenery looks so nice.

snakeyjake• 2 years ago

There are hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines, and millions of miles of distribution lines in parts of the US where every single house is on a well.

Because water delivery is centralized and power distribution is not, the size of the power grid is approximately 3x that of water infrastructure.

And the percentage of lead pipes makes up a small part of the whole (9.2 million lead lines out of 100 million total, from the EPA report) while the percentage of above ground power lines makes up a very large part of the whole. Replacing those 9.2 million line segments is estimated (heh) to cost $30 billion.

At $1 million per mile, needing to replace 82% of the distribution system and 99.5% of the transmission system would cost:

$1 million x (5.5 million * .82) + $1 million x (500,000 * .995) = $5 trillion dollars.

$5 trillion is $5,000 billion.

$5,000 billion > $30 billion.

By a lot.

Above ground percentages: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7250

Line type mileage: https://ifp.org/how-to-save-americas-transmission-system/

I don't know how much it costs to bury power lines but this article says it costs $1 million per mile for water pipes so I figured that would be a good starting point: https://www.americaninfrastructuremag.com/flowing-forward-ad...

gigatexal• 2 years ago

can we also wire fiber to every home and apartment in the country and screw all these ISP monopolies?

shadowgovt• 2 years ago

Probably lower priority with radio getting ever better.

RajT88• 2 years ago

Whoever figures out broadband over utility lines is going to clean up.

dopylitty• 2 years ago

[flagged]

diogocp• 2 years ago

Judges wouldn't try to determine whether "ingesting lead is bad for you".

They would determine whether the EPA is acting within the powers granted to it by Congress, which is what only judges are qualified to do.

overlordalex• 2 years ago

Yes and no. If congress has granted the EPA authority to regulate water to ensure it's not bad for you, then someone needs to determine what "bad for you" means.

Previously, under Chevron, the courts would defer to the EPA as the experts to make that determination (with the understanding that congress could always pass more specific legislation if they felt the EPA was overstepping its granted authority)

What the Supreme Court has said is deferring to the agency is going too far, and that if congress wants specific things regulated then it needs to be specific in it's legislation. Prima facie that makes sense, except for two major problems: congress is not productive enough in passing legislation, and congress are not the experts

This means that when questions like this arise, it comes to the courts to be the ones who end up interpreting the statutes and making the determination on what "bad for you" means.

joe_the_user• 2 years ago

Not anymore.

Or rather, judges have been given the power to make technical interpretations of law rather than just looking at the broad meaning of a law and leaving the technical interpretation to the agency.

See the overturning of the Chevron decision.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

HideousKojima2• 2 years ago

That's a weird way to say "Only judges are allowed to determine if an agency is acting within its congressionally (democratically) established authority or if it's autocratically making sweeping regulatory changes beyond their democratically granted authority."

PhasmaFelis2• 2 years ago

The price of freedom is ~~eternal vigilance~~ childhood brain damage.

rpnx5• 2 years ago

It is a typical example of "I'm right so I should be allowed to bypass the democratic process and do whatever I want" thinking. It's quite dangerous.

light_hue_12• 2 years ago

That's a weird way to say you have no idea what Chevron was about and what judges do.

Judges always determined if an agency was acting within its statute.

The question that Chevron settled, was what if the statute was too ambiguous? Congress used to update laws regularly, but those times are over. It can't legislate effectively anymore. A lot of our laws are ancient and they're designed for a bygone era that often predates even the computer, never mind the internet, modern medicine, etc.

Chevron said, judges don't get to make decisions in those cases. Because those would be arbitrary decisions. It's better to have third party experts make those decisions until Congress can catch up. And if Congress has a problem it can overrule them as it always could. Agencies set up processes to make the review open, to gather data and evidence, comments for the public, etc.

Now we have the worst of all worlds. Appointed partisan judges, with no oversight, no accountability, get to make monumental arbitrary decisions about how minutia of our lives work, based on absolutely nothing, with no review, no criteria and no relevant expertise at all. All while essentially having no code of ethics and being subject to lobbying.

DHPersonal• 2 years ago

I was wondering about this myself. The Loper Bright case (removing the Chevron deference) makes me wonder if the EPA can do much of anything to enforce this. I'm not that smart about laws and definitely not a lawyer, so I have no idea what I'm even questioning, really.

coretx• 2 years ago

This makes me think of the Roman Empire.

John23832• 2 years ago

Good luck in NYC lol.

If you could even attempt it, it would take 100 years.

hanniabu• 2 years ago

Now can we stop using PVC for supply lines?

anyfoo4• 2 years ago

That’s one of the more bizarre things in the US to me. Lead pipes have been outlawed in Bavaria in the 1800s. It’s not something anyone ever thinks about, so imagine my surprise when I moved to a major US city and was told that I should test my water.

rs999gti• 2 years ago

Lead pipes have been outlawed in Bavaria in the 1800s

Lead may not be used in EU pipes, but the fittings and solder still contain lead.

https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-....

anyfoo4• 2 years ago

This article rather seems to prove what I said?

“The authors of the study stated that it could be assumed that other municipalities in Germany – with the exception of Frankfurt am Main and the southern German states – might also be confronted with increased levels of lead in drinking water.”

It’s not surprising to me that the former GDR states that the article mentions as hotspots in the following paragraph are in a different position, they have to catch up in a lot of areas.

(And that’s not going into what’s considered “exceeded” levels in the EU.)

grecy• 2 years ago

Infrastructure in much of the US is extremely old and crumbling, often barely holding on. In the name of profit many important upgrades and replacements are simply not done until things fail - like 46,154 bridges that are in use today that are structurally deficient. [1]

[1] https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges-infras...

windowsrookie2• 2 years ago

I stayed in Budapest Hungary last year and a bunch of the buildings had warnings they were testing the water for lead contamination. So this is apparently an issue in Europe as well.

anyfoo4• 2 years ago

I tried several times to find an appropriate answer to your comment, but it's hard. If you do not realize that "Europe" is made up of many vastly different countries, and that Bavaria is not a part of Hungary, then I just don't know what to say.

calibas• 2 years ago

When I was a child I was taught that ingesting lead caused insanity and brain damage. I was taught that the use of lead pipes was one of the main factors that caused the Roman Empire to fall. It was implied that modern man was smarter than that now and we stopped using lead in pipes.

As an adult, I learned that lead was still used in water pipes. Even the more recent "lead-free" pipes can still have a little bit of lead in them ("no more than 0.25% lead in the wetted surfaces").

1970-01-015• 2 years ago

It was implied that modern man was smarter than that now and we stopped using lead in pipes.

We learned so much from the Romans, and then burned leaded gasoline anyway!

dmonitor• 2 years ago

Lead causing the downfall of two major empires in history would be very funny

spwa4• 2 years ago

The Roman Empire used lead to make wine sweeter, more colorful, better preserved and easier to drink. Apparently dissolving lead in wine enables humans to drink more of it and get drunker than would normally be possible.

Incidentally they did the same to grape syrup.

EasyMark2• 2 years ago

Lead isn’t one of the things that sunk the Roman Empire, that is just a pop-history theory that stuck over the years for some reason. I’m sure lead did brain damage in Roman times, but that’s not why the empire died

p3rls2• 2 years ago

The first aqueduct went up in Rome around 300 BC. That is half-century before the Punic war... No, not that one with Hannibal... The one before that.

That's a longgg fall.

azinman22• 2 years ago

But what will it be replaced with? HDPE? If it’s plastic based, it seems that instead of lead we’ll get microplastics and other plasticizers. Neither are good. At least with lead is that if the pH is correctly maintained than I believe the risk is actually negligible. There isn’t anything you can do for plastic to prevent its leaching and degradation.

xboxnolifes• 2 years ago

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

exmadscientist• 2 years ago

If it’s plastic based, it seems that instead of lead we’ll get microplastics and other plasticizers.

There are many different types of plastics, and many (most?) do not use plasticizers. You are in negligible danger of exposure to them from polyethylene (HDPE/LDPE/XLPE). The main source of plasticizer exposure is flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (also rigid PVC isn't nearly so bad); you might also be thinking of polycarbonate, for which the monomers themselves are intrinsically rather nasty, or for polyurethane, which has similar issues but not quite so bad.

Microplastics are a problem everywhere.

But, seriously, if you're going to criticize things, and there are a few valid criticisms of plastic piping... please learn about what you're criticizing so you can make the correct criticisms and not just make unuseful knee-jerk statements.

azinman22• 2 years ago

Is there any plastic that is just carbon chains? My understanding is all plastics contain additives. This [1] is just one study of many that show HDPE (and other plastics) leaching phthalates. Please don’t come at me or anyone with the ad hominem attacks. This is something I have looked in to in the past, and is of great concern of mine.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5848201/

dyauspitr• 2 years ago

We know for sure that lead causes retarded mental growth in kids, especially if they are under 6. The issue of microplastics is less studied and given a choice between the two I would go with plastic.

itronitron• 2 years ago

There is no minimum safe level for lead.

testfoobar• 2 years ago

Every incoming kindergartner, middle school student and high school student should be required to submit a blood lead level test to their school for data collection. This can be easily administered as part of their yearly checkup.

That data can then be used for tracking, remediation and support.

It would also reveal how much differential education outcomes are correlated to lead levels.

throwway1203852• 2 years ago

If you've had a baby in recent years, you'd know that pediatricians in the US often already do test for lead levels.

esaym• 2 years ago

Everyone here whining about lead pipes while drinking their $10 Starbucks latte from a brass boiler. lol

gameman144• 2 years ago

Isn't brass only a risk if it's heated enough to release fumes, whereas lead dust at room temperature is toxic?

maartn2• 2 years ago

This is serious, right? There really still are lead drinking water pipes used in the US?

bbatha• 2 years ago

Its not a free for all, but there are some legacy pipes with lead in them. The EPA currently limits the amount of lead measured in drinking water lines. This is where the root of the problem happened in Flint. They had lead pipes that had calcified and were not delivering contaminated water. They changed water sources which changed the chemistry of the water causing the lead to corrode into the water.

haswell4• 2 years ago

There are a lot of legacy lead pipes. 400K homes in Chicago alone supplied by ~50K lead supply lines estimated to require 40-50 years to replace.

simmonmt• 2 years ago

Yes. They were installed many decades ago and haven't been replaced because a) it would be extremely expensive to do so and b) there are additives which AIUI prevent or at least significantly reduce leaching.

I'd be shocked if the EPA's cost estimates turns out to even be within an order of magnitude off the actual cost. Maybe they're just measuring the cost to utilities for the parts not on private property.

fy202• 2 years ago

there are additives which AIUI prevent or at least significantly reduce leaching

Hard water (high in calcium and magnesium) can form a scale on the inside of copper pipes. In a way this acts as a protective layer, as the water doesn't actually come into contact with the copper.

maartn2• 2 years ago

Get ready for lower crime rates! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesi...

yieldcrv2• 2 years ago

scientists have concluded that no safe threshold for lead exposure exists

Lead should be a Schedule I substance controlled by the DEA?

throwway1203852• 2 years ago

We should do asbestos and paint next.

t0bia_s• 2 years ago

Most of lead pipes are nowadays covered with water stone inside, so amount of leaking lead should be much lower then years ago.

Replacing with new plastic pipes rise concerns about mictoplastics in water.

beej71• 2 years ago

Whenever I hear something like this, I wonder if the Chevron ruling allows the EPA to do things like this...?

Lead drinking-water pipes must be replaced nationwide, EPA says

Related Stories