In March of 2006, a child living in the Penrith townhomes area of Durham, NC was poisoned by lead later found to be in the drinking water in her home. On December 22, 2006 the Raleigh News & Observer published the results of an investigation in which the city of Durham admitted that it had withheld samples of drinking water from state regulators and failed to notify Durham residents of the possibility that their drinking water could be dangerously toxic.

Lead is especially toxic to young children, the elderly, and anyone with a weakened or otherwise compromised immune system. Exposure can lead to memory loss, forgetfulness, and learning disabilities. Ingesting even a small amount can lead to brain damage and developmental disorders in the fetuses of pregnant women and children under six years of age.

Prior to 1986, lead was used in the solder that joined water pipes. North Carolina instituted a ban on lead in solder in 1985, and most pipes were encapsulated with a protective film to seal off the lead solder from drinking water.

A process Durham County uses to disinfect its drinking water that combines chlorine with ammonia has come under fire from some North Carolina toxicology experts. The process, known as chloramination, may corrode the protective film and allow lead to leak into drinking water.

Homes built before the 1985 ban are at the highest risk for lead contamination. There are an estimated 65,000 houses and apartments in Durham that were built in or before 1985 that could potentially be at risk.

After testing at the child’s home, the Durham County Health Department said in May it had found lead present in the tap water at 837 parts per billion (ppb), nearly 56 times the federal safe limit of 15 ppb. Subsequent test results announced June 9 on samples of water taken from homes within a half-mile radius of the child’s neighborhood revealed unsafe levels of lead in 11 additional homes.

Durham announced planned testing of water in 127 randomly selected homes. In October, the city submitted test results to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health, claiming the city had met the federal standard of 15 ppb for lead in drinking water. However, Durham neglected to disclose at least 20 test results from seven homes.

According to the provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, water providers the size of Durham must test a minimum of 50 homes per year. As long as no more than 10 percent of the samples contain lead above the federal limit, the city will be in compliance with the Act. The provider may test more than the minimum. However, once a home is included in the city’s sampling pool, the city must attempt to sample it every time.

In 2004, Durham submitted test results from 95 homes, four of which tested over the federal limit of 15 ppb. An additional 16 homes were listed as sites that could not be tested because the residents could not be contacted or refused to provide samples. This year the city reported collecting only 69 samples, with another four over the federal limit, keeping Durham within compliance. However, the number of untested homes rose to 44.

The Raleigh News & Observer investigation contacted two Durham homeowners on the city’s untested list. Mr. Donald Morgan, whose home was built in 1985, was listed by the city as having refused to provide a water sample. Mr. Morgan denied the city’s claim.

“We turned in our sample, and then they called us back and said there was a problem with it and that the lab needed another sample,” Morgan told the paper. “We gave it to them, and then we never heard back.”

The paper hired a private, state-certified lab to test the Morgan’s tap water and found lead at 28 ppb, almost twice the federal limit.

Durham recently acknowledged it had tested Morgan’s water three times. One sample showed lead at more than five times the federal limit and another showed more than 10 times the limit, but the last sample tested within the limits. Morgan was not notified of any of the results until December, after a local newspaper contacted the city about the missing samples.

Knowingly violating the Safe Drinking Water Act is a felony punishable by fines and prison time. Durham’s director of water management, Terry Rolan, also the president of a lobbying group for water systems, said “Nobody in our department would knowingly do that.”

The law also requires Durham inform state regulators of any residential result over the lead limit, and inform homeowners of the potential danger. Terry Pierce, director of the state Division of Environmental Health, said on December 20 that Durham will probably be cited for its failure to warn residents of the potential dangers from their drinking water. North Carolina state regulatory reporting violations do not carry a penalty, but more serious civil violations will be considered after the Division performs a review of newly submitted results by the city.

“They have an obligation to know what the rules are,” Pierce said.

Source: Michael Biesecker, “Durham withheld bad lead-test results,” Raleigh News & Observer, December 22, 2006.