Conference 7.286::digital

    Our facilities manager here in Westford recently had our water tested
    after some complaints about taste.  The taste problem was due to
    the town flushing the mains and has since disappeared.  It turns
    out that the Westford water tested out on a par with Belmont Springs.

        Digital *does* monitor water quality in most facilities.  Ask
        your facilities manager.
        
        Here in MKO, the water fountains are automatically run for a
        certain time each day to flush out the pipes. 
        
        Tom

  This subject was covered in notes 489 and 538. However, the article in Dis-
cover seems to imply that the lead is being leached out of the water fountain
itself, and this is the first I have heard of this. If your plant manager says
'we are already testing the water for lead', it may not be enough; he may not
know about this specific hazard. 
  I don't know if there is a hazard here at LMO2, but all soda here is made on
the spot with tap water, so if you don't trust the water, getting a soda might
not be the solution. It's a no-win situation; if soda is dispensed in cans,
people tend to accumulate them in their offices to get the deposit back, and
that can cause a sanitation problem.

    RE: Facilities manager
    
      Anyone know who the facilities manager is for the Mill?  I'd 
    certainly like to raise this issue with them.
    
    RE: Source of lead
    
      The "Discover" article said that the water fountains solder and
    other structural materials leach lead into the tubing and water
    tanks.  The EPA claimed to have one water cooler which had a lead
    lined water tank!  
    
      Any further references within DEC appreciated.  Thank you.
    
    Greg
    

        Since this is an engineering company (said with tongue firmly
        planted in cheek), you can find the facilities manager's phone
        number in your DEC telephone directory in the classified section
        under "Plant Engineering".  For the Mill/St. Bridget's, start
        with DTN 223-2308.
        
        Tom

    The lead comes from the solder that is used to put the water pipes
    together.  The longer the water is sitting still the more change
    it has of building up lead.  This depends on the pH of the water.
    The solution (at home) is to let the water run until the water in
    the house pipes is evacuated.  Water mains in the street do not
    usually use lead.  That's difficult to do in any building
    the size of DEC's.

    RE: .5
        I was looking for a specific name as opposed to the general
    Mill Plant Eng. problem reporting line at 223-2308.  I received
    that specific name via other sources and have been asked not to
    make any information public at this time.  This subject is appar-
    ently sensitive at present.  
    
    Greg 
    

I sent a copy of this base note to our facility manager in Stow. 
He provided a swift reply indicating that the Stow water is tested
monthly.  He admits that the aesthetic qualities are less than
desirable due to iron and manganese, but he stresses that these two
elements ARE NOT a health risk, and that Stow is looking into ways
to improve the taste of its water.

In general, I felt good about what he had to say.  I feel as if that's
*one* less health hazard to worry about in today's world of "addictive"
and harmful drugs, chemicals, etc.!!!  :-}

.4>    tanks.  The EPA claimed to have one water cooler which had a lead
.4>    lined water tank!  

    
    Hmmmmm...a lead lined water tank...I would think that any company
    putting out a product like that would be in business about ten
    milliseconds...thought the last guys to do something like that had
    their empire fall.I'd believe it if I saw it.

    RE: .9
         I too am skeptical of the alleged EPA claim.  However, there
    are numerous reports that lead-soldered pipes can cause lead con-
    taminated water, especially if the water is acidic.  Drinking
    fountains are  another source of lead-solder joints and have
    storage tanks which hold water for significant periods of time.
    It certainly seems to me that it would be prudent for Digital to
    test the mechanical water fountains and determine if the lead 
    levels are above recommended maximums.
    
    Greg
    

  When you consider that there are still plenty of places around 
  that deliver water via lead water pipes (between the main and the 
  meter), I don't doubt for a minute that there could be a water 
  cooler in existence with a lead-lined tank.  I hope it's a very 
  old water cooler, though.

  Perhaps legalizing beer in the DEC facilities in America 
  wouldn't be such a bad idea? :-)

                                   Atlant

    re: .11
    
    Legitimizing beer in American facilities...don't hang waiting...I'll
    bet it was tough enough to get it ok'ed for European sites...

    re .12: No it wasn't tough - I don't think it's even ever been
    'legitimized' - it's just always been there (at least here in Munich).
    
    And we don't have the problem with lead either - besides, most people
    would buy a bottle of *real* mineral water from the same vending
    machine that sells beer in preference to tap water.
    

.11>  When you consider that there are still plenty of places around 
.11>  that deliver water via lead water pipes (between the main and the 
 
    
 Shades of the Roman Empire!  Do you know what lead pipes did to those
 Romans? All you have to do is look at their statues to see.I mean,all
    those huge naughty parts,(to quote the Church Lady)...who needs
    that?   

    Re: [.14]:  There have been many grand-scale explanations for the
    fall of the Roman Empire, including economic exhaustion, poor
    irrigation practice, the rise of Christianity, and so forth.  One
    small-scale theory is that lead poisoning did the Romans in.
    As the Romans were completely unaware of the toxic effects of lead,
    they had no reason not to use this plentiful, easily worked, rustproof
    metal.
    
    Not only did the Romans use lead pipes in their aqueducts; they
    used lead cups and plates, and both men and women used lead-based
    makeup to powder their faces lily-white.  This all was concentrated
    in the upper classes.  Add the incest and you can see how they'd
    go mad.
    
    Nor were the Romans the last to suffer, according to a 1985 episode of
    "Nova."  A British Arctic expedition in the 1800's perished in the
    frozen North.  Years later, rescuers traced their path and discovered
    that the men, searching for a northern passage across Canada, had lost
    their ships to the ice.  Despite the fact that whaling expeditions
    called at a reasonably nearby harbor, the survivors chose to *walk
    south* to civilization.  Moreover, they filled their lifeboats with
    useless artifacts--silverware, chairs, plates--and **dragged** the
    lifeboats with them.  The last two men died five miles from an outpost.
    The searchers were mystified that the doomed explorers would exhaust
    their energy trying to save the dishes instead of themselves.
    
    Modern forensic specialists exhumed the bodies of a few of the men and
    discovered that their bones were laced with lead.  Looking over the
    campsites, they found that the tin cans storing their provisions were
    soldered with lead.  Over the two years that the food sat in the cans,
    the lead leached in.  The London provisioner had never outfitted an
    expedition before, and didn't know about the danger.
    
    Now we know about the toxicity of lead, and we're more careful.
    I read in the Boston _Globe_ recently that the levels of lead in
    the atmosphere (which are due almost entirely to the use of leaded
    gasoline) have been reduced by about 99 percent.  The levels of
    lead in our drinking water are not to be compared to the levels
    I've alluded to.  But we can be more careful still.

>    I read in the Boston _Globe_ recently that the levels of lead in
>    the atmosphere (which are due almost entirely to the use of leaded
>    gasoline) have been reduced by about 99 percent.  The levels of
>    lead in our drinking water are not to be compared to the levels
>    I've alluded to.  But we can be more careful still.
>

Were these results really measured ?  Over what period of time ?
How did they do their measurements ?

I suspect that these might be extapolated numbers based on unrealistic
assumptions like "five years after cars are required to use only
unleaded, there won't be any leaded gas users left on the road".
Another possibility is to do the measuring under conditions that will
give uncharacteristic results.

In view of the Reagan EPA's sneaky backtracking in raising acceptable toxin
limits (and in some cases, simply looking the other way),
I find a 99% reduction in lead levels to be suspiciously optimistic.

Also, before you get too comfortable with the safety of your drinking
water, check to make sure that the testing is being done at an end
use site (i.e. as the water comes out of the tap).

A number of municipalities have good control over the water quality
at the treatment plant, but neglect to remind consumers about
lead piping located in the distribution network or in individual homes.  If
the lead is introduced after the municipal testing, the town won't know about
it.

    Re: [.16]:  My, you are suspicious!
    
    The article was about a year ago, I think, so naturally I can't cite
    it.  But I recall that the figure was indeed taken from direct
    measurements of lead in the atmosphere, averaged over a number of sites
    in the US and over the oceans, over a five-year period.  (For what it's
    worth, I now recall the amount of lead currently being released into
    the atmosphere in the US as being in the order of 5,000 tons.) 
    
    I gave no indication of how the figure was reached.  Why do you
    question the methodology?  Just because you don't believe the number?
    While the EPA under the Reagan Administration may have relaxed the
    requirements for fleet milage, I don't know of any hesitation in the
    move toward unleaded gasoline.  Lead does not naturally remain in the
    atmosphere; it goes over like a--well, you know.  It is there almost
    entirely as the result of man's activities, mainly the combustion of
    leaded gasoline.  Given that there aren't many old-style engines left
    out on the roads, I find the figure I gave entirely plausible. 

>< Note 538.17 by DELNI::JONG "Steve Jong/NaC Publications" >
>                     -< 99% Reduction Sounds Right to Me >-
>
>    Re: [.16]:  My, you are suspicious!

No offense intended; I just found improvements that rapid very difficult to
believe.  If one guesstimates that the levels of lead in the atmosphere
(as a first order approximation) are going to be roughly proportional
to the number of leaded-burning vehicles still on the road, then this
would imply a reduction by a factor of 100 in the numbers of such vehicles
over that five year period.  I don't believe that the phaseout has been
that rapid or is that complete.

Add to this is the fact that leaded gasoline is likely not the only source of
air-borne lead emissions.  Unless those other sources were also scaled down by
a factor of 100, then one would need an even larger reduction factor in
automotive emissions to account for the quoted numbers.

It may be true; it just defies my 'engineering intuition'.

If the numbers are true, I would be led to wonder where the rest of the
lead is.  Is something causing an increase in the deposition rate of lead
from air to ground ?  Acid rain maybe ?  And if so, is the cleaner air good
news (because I'm breathing cleaner air) or bad news (because I'm drinking
dirtier water sooner than I would have) ?
 
>.
>.
>.

>    
>    I gave no indication of how the figure was reached.  Why do you
>    question the methodology?  Just because you don't believe the number?

I always question methodology when it yields results that I think are
counter-inutitive.  I'm also a bit suspicious of any scientific result that
comes out of a government agency.  I don't believe that these agencies
are above being pressured into biasing the methodology or misrepresenting
results to achieve a desired political effect.  The Reagan folks have a very
poor record in the environmental area.  Why suddenly such good results ?

>    While the EPA under the Reagan Administration may have relaxed the
>    requirements for fleet milage, I don't know of any hesitation in the
>    move toward unleaded gasoline.  Lead does not naturally remain in the
>    atmosphere; it goes over like a--well, you know.  It is there almost
>    entirely as the result of man's activities, mainly the combustion of
>    leaded gasoline.  Given that there aren't many old-style engines left
>    out on the roads, I find the figure I gave entirely plausible. 

I'd like to see a plot of leaded gasoline consumption against time
overlaid on the time plot of the atmospheric lead measurements to get
a better feel for whether the numbers are reasonable.

        Re: .18
        
> If one guesstimates that the levels of lead in the atmosphere
> (as a first order approximation) are going to be roughly proportional
> to the number of leaded-burning vehicles still on the road, then this
> would imply a reduction by a factor of 100 in the numbers of such vehicles
> over that five year period.  I don't believe that the phaseout has been
> that rapid or is that complete.
        
        The 99% figure was definitely incomplete as it did not specify a
        period of time, but there are factors other than the number of
        leaded-burning vehicles on the road.  One factor I can think of
        off-hand is the amount of lead in leaded gasoline---I believe
        that the maximum allowed amount has been reduced (at one point
        there was a planned reduction of 90%, I don't know if that
        happened).
        
        					B.J. 

   Leaded gasoline effectively no longer exists.  Currently, the maximum
    lead content allowed in "leaded" gasoline is 0.1 grams per gallon.
    
    This amount of lead is insufficient to provide exhaust valve
    lubrication on older engines without hardened valve seats.  This
    impacts engines manufactured before about 1973-1975, older outboard
    motors for boats.  This can be a serious problem for older cars,
    as the engine can be ruined after as little as 5,000-10,000 miles
    of operation on unleaded gasoline.
    
    As a result, you can find "lead substitutes" in automotive stores
    (these lead substitutes contain no lead).
    
    In addition, lead emissions from manufacturing have been curtailed,
    and lead emission from other sources is under pressure -- for example,
    the Boston controversy over sand-blasting leaded paint off of a
    local bridge.
    
    If lead is quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, it is entirely
    possible for the lead content to have been reduced by 99%.
    
    (More data would be desirable, however  . . . I don't automatically
    trust government studies either.  This one does seem possible, though.)

    Re: [.18]:  I too would be interested in a plot of leaded-gasoline
    consumption versus lead in the atmosphere.  That would clinch it.

	I also do not find the reduction too startling.  It is much easier 
to clean up the air than it is to clean up water and other parts of the 
environment.  As a result, the published result is almost as much a 
condemnation of Ragan's environmental policy as it is a positive result.  He 
is doing the easy showy things and not tackling the tough problems.

	It should be noted that both grades of aviation gasoline commonly
	sold in the US, 80 and 100LL (the LL for "low lead" despite the fact
	that it contains more lead than 80) contain lead. However, it should
	also be noted that the amount of automotive fuel that is lost through 
	evaporation in a year is greater than the amount of aviation gasoline
	produced in a year.

					Tom_K

>.
>.
>        leaded-burning vehicles on the road.  One factor I can think of
>        off-hand is the amount of lead in leaded gasoline---I believe
>        that the maximum allowed amount has been reduced (at one point
>        there was a planned reduction of 90%, I don't know if that
		     ^
         Aha ! Given this additional info, I find the results quite believable.
         Objections withdrawn.

>        happened).

>        
>        					B.J. 

      I attended a meeting in MRO-1 yesterday and was told the drinking
    water supplied by the building plumbing contained lead in excess
    of proposed federal standards.  Bottled water coolers were located
    prominently throughout the building.  The source of lead contamina-
    tion was not identified by the person telling me about the water.
    This discussion now seems quite appropriate to this NOTES conference.
    
      Dilution is one solution to pollution.
    
    Greg Opp   Maynard, Mass.
    

    And by dilution, do you mean "let the water run"?

    RE: .26
      Letting the water run if the capacity of your pipes is relatively
    small is a dilution method.  Reducing the lead content of water
    seems like a good long term goal, especially for elementary schools.
    I expect that this will be done through decreased lead content 
    rather than increased water flow.  For buildings the size of MRO-1,
    the best interim solution is probably already in place, i.e., 
    bottled water.  An alternative long term solution may be available
    if the source of the lead pollution can be determined and either
    a dilution or reduction method applied.  I hope this helps explain
    the catchy phrase.  
    
    Greg
    
     

The problem with water in New England is that it is soft water.  If you
had really hard water like over here in England you would have no lead
leaching problems.

Parts of Scotland have soft water.  In some places there they artificially
make it hard so it won't dissolve lead piping.

jb

  By the way, I read a news story recently which stated that the 
  EPA (I think?) had obtained ten samples of relatively recent 
  Halsey-Taylor water coolrs where the tanks were, indeed, lead-
  solder lined.  As I recall, these water coolers were built 
  in the early '70s.  (Yes, the *19*70's! :-( )

                                   Atlant