This article is amazing. Officials knew for months that there was lead in the water? I can't imagine this level of incompetence...someone must have known that this would come back to bite them. Wow. Here's the important section:
Jonathan Clement, an EPA consultant, concluded in 1997 that there were only "two viable treatment strategies" for the Washington Aqueduct to mitigate lead contamination, according to his report. Both were aimed at reducing the corrosive power of the water, which could leach lead from pipes.
The first choice was to dramatically increase the water's pH level, a measure of acidity, to about 9.0. The second was to maintain the pH in the range of 7.4 to 7.8 and begin using a chemical additive called orthophosphate.
Thomas P. Jacobus, the manager of the Washington Aqueduct, said he objected to both options. He said adding phosphates would cost the aqueduct and WASA more money when the water and sewage were treated. He also argued that the higher levels of pH would leave calcium deposits on machinery and create a maintenance problem.
In July 2000, George Rizzo, the EPA Region III official in charge of the District's drinking water, verbally approved the aqueduct's position. The Corps of Engineers could keep the pH in the lower range of 7.4 to 7.8 but without adding the orthophosphate. Rizzo confirmed his earlier approval in a letter dated May 2002 and sent to Jacobus.
That last paragraph is priceless: when presented with two different options, the EPA official in charge decided the best course of action was to do neither. Clearly this guy was one of those people always looking for option "E", "none of the above" on his standardized tests.
As for me, I say bring on the acidic water. Maybe it'll burn through some of the idiotic brains around here.
Comments
you must login to post comments; use the form on the left-hand side to do so