Lead levels at the tap and consumer exposure from legacy and recent

Jul 20, 2018 - Profile, regulatory, and investigative sampling were completed in six utilities to study the impact of partial and full lead service li...
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Subscriber access provided by University of Sussex Library

Ecotoxicology and Human Environmental Health

Lead levels at the tap and consumer exposure from legacy and recent lead service line replacements in 6 utilities Elise Deshommes, Benjamin Trueman, Ian Douglas, Daniel Huggins, Laurent Laroche, Jeff Swertfeger, Abby Spielmacher, Graham A. Gagnon, and Michèle Prévost Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02388 • Publication Date (Web): 20 Jul 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 24, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 33

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Lead levels at the tap and consumer exposure

2

from legacy and recent lead service line

3

replacements in 6 utilities

4

Elise Deshommes*, a, Benjamin Truemanb, Ian Douglasc, Dan Hugginsd, Laurent

5

Larochee, Jeff Swertfegerf, Abby Spielmacherg, Graham A. Gagnonb and Michèle

6

Prévosta

7 8

*

9

4711 (2236), fax number: (+1) 514-340-5918

Corresponding Author, e-mail: [email protected], phone number: (+1) 514-340-

10

a

11

Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1J4, Canada

12

b

13

Scotia, B3H4R2, Canada

14

c

15

d

16

e

17

f

18

g

19

Canada

Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal,

Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova

City of Ottawa, Drinking Water Services, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1, Canada City of London, Water Operations, London, Ontario, N6A 4L9, Canada

City of Montreal, Technical Expertise Division, Montreal, Quebec, H8N 2K2, Canada

Greater Cincinnati Water Works, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45232, USA City of Guelph, Water Services, Environmental Services Guelph, Ontario, N1E 6P7

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 2 of 33

20

KEYWORDS: lead service line replacement, flushing, profile sampling, corrosion

21

control, exposure

22

TOC/GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

23 24

ABSTRACT

25

Profile, regulatory, and investigative sampling were completed in six utilities to study the

26

impact of partial and full lead service line replacements (LSLRs) on water lead levels

27

(WLLs) and consumer’s exposure. As compared to households with no replacement, lead

28

release after partial LSLR (PLSLR) was generally greater in the short-term (3-50 days),

29

comparable or lower in the medium (2 years). This was

30

mainly explained by insufficient time elapsed to stabilize scales after disturbances to the

31

service line. One utility showed sustained lead release over 18 months after PLSLR.

32

Moreover, the reduction in WLLs was small when analyzing results for the same

33

households. As a comparison, full LSLR decreased WLLs drastically and immediately.

34

The occurrence of low (0-5 µg/L) to high (≥50 µg/L) WLLs in the profiles varied between

35

households and reflected the variability of exposure amongst households in the same

36

system. Using this probability of occurrence, the distribution of WLLs of exposure was

37

estimated for households with or without a PLSLR, and used to model young children

38

blood lead levels (BLLs) for both groups of households. The range of modeled BLLs 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 33

Environmental Science & Technology

39

decreased slightly for households with PLSLR, but still overlapped the range estimated

40

for households with no replacement. This analysis suggests that, in a system, PLSLRs do

41

not reduce young children blood lead levels except in a fraction of households.

42

INTRODUCTION

43

Lead service lines (LSLs) contribute to increased water lead levels (WLLs) and

44

ultimately to increased blood lead levels (BLLs) of young children1-3. While corrosion

45

control is applied in the United States and in Ontario (Canada) for systems exceeding the

46

Action Levels of 15 µg/L and 10 µg/L respectively4,5, the lead crises in Flint, MI, and

47

Washington, DC, are stark reminders that the legacy of LSLs combined with human error

48

represents a serious risk for lead exposure through water1,2. Corrosion control may also

49

be insufficient to achieve the recently proposed Canadian health-based value of 5 µg/L6.

50

LSL replacements (LSLRs) are frequent in distribution systems upgrading their water

51

mains, they are also conducted proactively. Considering the legal constraints related to

52

dual ownership, and the lack of funding, utilities are however usually unable to complete

53

full LSLRs (FLSLRs)7. Partial LSLRs (PLSLRs) can increase WLLs due to the

54

disturbances caused to the LSL scales during replacement work. Moreover, galvanic

55

corrosion deposits have been observed at the copper-lead junction of field-collected

56

LSLs, and related to increased WLLs over the long-term in pilot studies7-12. Full-scale

57

monitoring in Halifax and Montreal measured acute particulate lead release immediately

58

after PLSLR; however, after two years the WLLs were generally lower than before

59

replacement13,14. Nonetheless, 61% of the samples exceeded 10 µg/L short- and long-

60

term (>2 years) after PLSLR in Montreal, while about 25% of the samples collected six

61

months post-PLSLR were >15 µg/L in Halifax13. In these studies, the post-LSLR flushing

3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 4 of 33

62

procedure, the type of LSLR, and the water main material and corrosion state were

63

evidenced as key parameters driving lead release following LSLR13-16.

64

Regulated lead sampling includes the collection of the first draw after overnight

65

stagnation without any pre-flush in the US (Lead and Copper Rule or LCR)4; two liters

66

after 30 minutes of stagnation preceded by a pre-flush in Ontario (regulation 170/03)5;

67

one liter after 5 minutes of flushing in Quebec17; and a random daytime sample in

68

Europe18. The US and European protocols aim to evaluate system-wide corrosion control

69

efficiency, although the latter can estimate consumer exposure at the system level. The

70

Ontario protocol is a compromise because it includes a pre-flush that limits the

71

probability of capturing water originating from the LSL and particulate lead. Its shorter

72

stagnation time is however more typical of water use intervals in households18. Finally,

73

the Quebec protocol aims to identify worst-case households >10 µg/L after flushing, but

74

also underestimates the consumer’s exposure18,19. Profile (sequential) sampling consists

75

of collecting consecutive samples (typically four or more samples) at the tap after

76

stagnation. The volume collected covers the piping volume from the tap to the main19,20.

77

Profile sampling has been used to detect lead sources in the piping, to quantify WLL

78

variability, to measure corrosion control efficiency, and to evaluate galvanic corrosion in

79

PLSLRs13,19-21. Although informative, profile sampling is not realistically applicable at

80

large scale. Nonetheless, WLLs measured from profile sampling have been successfully

81

linked to those measured after flushing, indicating that a few profiles may be sufficient to

82

evaluate consumers’ potential risk of exposure in a full-scale system14,19.

83

The main objective of this study was to investigate and document the impacts of PLSLR

84

and FLSLR over short- and long-term for many water qualities, using full-scale results

4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 5 of 33

Environmental Science & Technology

85

from profile and regulatory sampling. Based on the probability of occurrence of WLLs in

86

the profiles, plausible exposure scenarios are drawn to better understand the impact of

87

LSLR on exposure assessment.

88

MATERIAL AND METHODS

89

Utilities and monitoring design. Sampling for WLLs was completed at the kitchen tap

90

of 3460 households before and/or after LSLR in five Canadian utilities (three provinces)

91

and one US utility. Among these utilities, utilities A, B, and F are regulated using a 90th

92

percentile action level of 10 µg/L after flushing and 30 minutes of stagnation (1st and 2nd

93

liter); utilities C and E are regulated using a maximum acceptable concentration of 10

94

µg/L after 5 minutes of flushing; utility D is regulated using a 90th percentile action level

95

of 15 µg/L and a 1st draw sample collected after at least 6 hours of stagnation. Moreover,

96

as the impact of PLSLR has been extensively studied for utilities C and E13,14,19, it will

97

not be detailed in this paper. Corrosion control consisted in pH adjustment for utilities A

98

and D and resulted in WLLs below the action level; the other utilities did not have

99

corrosion control or not an optimized one as WLLs exceeded the local regulation. Table 1

100

presents the main water quality parameters for the utilities studied and their monitoring

101

design.

102

The configurations of the households monitored included full LSLs (100% Pb), PLSLRs

103

and FLSLRs (100% Cu). The effect of LSLR was evaluated over time after recent

104

PLSLRs and FLSLRs. Moreover, old PLSLRs present in the distribution system were

105

sampled. For purposes of this study, old PLSLRs are defined as legacy PLSLRs of

106

greater than two years, while recent PLSLRs are PLSLRs of less than two years (0-50

107

days in utility A, 3 days to 6 months in utility E, 0-1 year in utility D; 3 days to 2 years in

5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 6 of 33

108

other utilities; Table 1). Households monitored were all single-family homes except for a

109

subsample of nineteen multi-unit homes. Finally, PLSLRs consisted of a copper pipe on

110

the public side of the service line and a lead pipe on the private side, except a fraction of

111

old PLSLRs in utilities C and F (lead on the public side, copper on the private side).

112

Profile sampling was accomplished in five of the six utilities, and consisted in the

113

collection of four to sixteen consecutive liters following a stagnation of either 30 minutes

114

(30MS) or greater than 6 hours (6HS). Other protocols included the collection of a

115

sample after 5 minutes of flushing (5MF, 5 utilities); a first-draw after 6HS according to

116

the LCR (utility D), and two consecutive liters after 30MS according to Ontario 170/03

117

regulation (utility F). Finally, samples were collected after 3 or 10 minutes of flushing

118

(3MF, 10MF) in utility D following LSLR, while samples were collected in utility A by

119

opening and closing the tap at maximum flow rate according to the particulate

120

stimulation sampling (PSS) detailed in Deshommes et al.22. Samples were analyzed for

121

total lead in water with ICP/MS by licensed laboratories (3450 households) according to

122

the USEPA 200.8 method and Standard Method 3125 B. Finally, a subset of samples was

123

analyzed with ASV analyzer23 in utility C (40 households). Collection periods were

124

equally distributed to cover cold and warm seasons except for a subset of 30MS profiles

125

collected in utility C (summer only), and for 6HS profiles collected in utility E

126

(monitoring in summer for 100% Pb households, monitoring over time after LSLR from

127

summer to winter).

128 129

6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 33

130

Environmental Science & Technology

Table 1. Summary of the utilities and monitoring design. Utility and water quality parameters

A (pH 9.2; Alk. 33 mg/L as CaCO3, CSMR 0.2) B (pH 8.1; Alk. 90 mg/L as CaCO3, CSMR 0.44) C (pH 8.0; Alk. 95 mg/L as CaCO3, CSMR 1.1) D (pH 8.8; Alk. 74 mg/L as CaCO3, CSMR 0.45)

Number of households (number of samples in italics) Recent * PLSLR

Old * PLSLR

n=207 (n=1034) n=111 (n=111) n=11 (n=1195) n=1245 (n=1245) n=17 (n=170)

n=15 ǂ (n=160) n=15 (n=64) n=1 ǂ (n=63)

n=187 (n=935) n=81 (n=81) n=3 (n=405) n=506 (n=506) n=20 (n=211)

n=5 (n=132)

n=13 ǂ (n=417)

100% Pb

n=12 (n=303) n=16 (n=50)

Seasons

Sampling protocol

Summer and winter Summer and winter

5MF (1L), 30MS profile (4L)

*

Full LSLR -

PSS (1 or 2L)

-

All seasons

5MF (1L), 30MS profile (8L)

-

All seasons

5MF (1L)

n=3 (n=19)

Summer

5MF (1L), 30MS profile † (≥8L)

n=7 (n=331)

n=3 ǂ (n=113)

All seasons

5MF (2L), 6HS profile ** (≥6L)

-

-

-

All seasons

Profile after 6HS (4-10L)

n=11 ǂ (n=245)

-

n=5 ǂ (n=183)

All seasons

1 draw 6HS, ǂǂ 3MF&10MF (0.75L)

-

st

E (pH 7.3; Alk. 20 mg/L as n=45 n=74 Summer to 5MF (1L), 6HS profile n=57 ǂ ǂ †† CaCO3; CSMR 1.1; 0.5 (n=225) (n=755) (n=975) Winter (4L) mg/L as OPO4) F st nd n=108 n=99 n=185 n=439 5MF (0.125L), 1 and 2 (pH 7.9; Alk. 277 mg/L All seasons L after 30MS (n=245) (n=288) (n=276) (n=1096) as CaCO3, CSMR 1.1) Notes: 5MF—5 minutes of flushing; 30MS—30 minutes of stagnation; 6HS—at least 6 hours of stagnation; PSS— Particulate Stimulation Sampling22; *PLSLR stands for partial LSLR; Recent PLSLR defined as