Lead in Chicago: Pipes or Paint? Margaret parker

As images of discolored water from Flint Michigan have emerged in the media over the past months, cities around the United States, including Chicago, have been re-prioritizing lead as an issue of concern. Residents of Chicago are suddenly starting to worry significantly about their water quality, due to the fact that 80% of residents in Chicago receive their water through a lead pipe system (Hawthrone 2016 a). In many ways, the issue of lead contamination from water in Chicago is worth investigating; however, quantifiably, the issue of lead paint is a much more significant, and historic problem for the city (Garber 2016). The fear, that seems to already be actualized, is that discussion of lead pipes will further hinder the discussion of lead based paint. This occurred in 2007 when lead levels were discovered in toys, causing a complete shift in how the public prioritized lead treatment. Chicago has a huge lead based paint epidemic; however, as an issue, it has remained off the public radar, likely due to preconceived notions that, if anywhere, lead based paint is "expected" in the South Side of Chicago. As will be discussed later, these expectations are reinforced through federal law, making it systemically impossible to address lead based paint to the degree it requires. Concerns of lead leaching from pipes should be addressed in Chicago and around the country; however, it should be done carefully and in conjunction with the abatement of lead based paint. This article will explain what harms exist in regard to lead pipes and paint in Chicago, in conjunction to the legislative differences that perpetuate the systemic disparities between pipes and paint. In addition, the lead pipe crisis will be compared to the lead toy crisis of 2007.

Toy Crisis of 2007

Health inspectors examine lead-tainted Mattel toys before destroying them at a toxic waste facility (Story & Barboza 2007).

The crisis of lead pipes is similar in many ways to the lead crisis that occurred surrounding lead toys in 2007. In the summer of 2007 recalls and generalized warnings about preschool toys were appearing in national news, causing panic largely among middle and upper class Americans. The warnings came out of direct testing of the toys, not from any evidence of child harm as a result of playing with the toys. Discussion of “brain damage” “lowered IQs,” and “developmental delay” flooded the American public, and a population of people who had previously been exempt from the lead epidemic was now worrying about the health of their own, white, upper and middle class children (Chen 2012, 162).

As a result of this crisis, toys “quickly became the primary source of threat, displacing this previous concern” of lead based paint. (Chen 2012, 166). In many ways, this was a problem of cultural expectations; black children were expected to be living in neighborhoods with potential lead contamination, while white children were privileged to upper class living standards that should not include lead in them. These two problems are similar in that a crisis is able to change the primary audience of who is viewed as a “victim” of lead. This victimization does not always reflect who is the most vulnerable, and has the potential to silence the greatest sufferers, as occurred in 2007 during the toy crisis, and as seems to be occurring now with the pipe crisis in Chicago. These two events are different however, because the lead pipe crisis in Flint impacted low income, black Americans and is now being applied towards more high-income neighborhoods in cities like Chicago, thus distracting from the more common problem of lead paint in low-income areas of Chicago. The crisis of lead pipes was in many ways, particular to the low-income community in Flint; however, it is being treated with the same degree of concern in cities with less potential hazards and higher income. Low-income, black communities in the South Side of Chicago are still seriously impacted by lead based paint, and are the most deserving of any form of political action towards lead abatement in Chicago.

“According to the Illinois Department of Public Health... more than 10 percent of young children tested in the city had troublesome lead levels that year — about four times the national average (Tribune spending millions less). “

Lead is problematic for a variety of reasons; however, most significant, is likely its connection to lower IQ levels. Chicago is known to be one of the cities with the worst public school system in the country, and recent studies by Anne Evens, a top lead research scholar, connect the issue of lead exposure to low performance in school. This raises attention to the fact that the issue of poor performance could be systemic to the environments people are living in, as well as other systemic factors affecting low-income and minority public school students. Lead is one of many problems that could be contributing to poor performance within Chicago Public Schools. Anne Evens examined and searched for associations between 58,650 Chicago born and educated children’s Chicago Blood Lead Registry information and 3rd grade ISAT scores for reading and math. Her study detected that "13% of reading failure and 14.8% of math failure can be attributed to exposure to blood lead concentrations of 5 to 9 vs. 0 to 4 μg/dL in Chicago school children” (Evens 2015).

For researchers like Anne Evens, the lead issue has not gone away. Scientists like her continue to feel the need to demonstrate to the general public the connection between lead and school performance, despite that this fact was established in the 70's, if not earlier (Needleman, 1979). Perhaps this is because more immediate action on lead abatement is still greatly needed. When analyzing the connection between lead levels and school performance it is important to understand that lead is not causing the problem in schools; however, it is definitely not helping the already under served school system. Placing significant blame on lead for poor school performance has the potential to wrongly assume fault in the individuals attending the school, rather than placing blame on the systemic factors that result in unsafe living conditions and poor school quality.

(Chicago Blood Lead Mapping Survey)

The lead issue nationwide has improved dramatically since 1978 when lead based paints were officially banned in the United States; however, as the United States’, and Chicago’s overall rate of lead poisoning has steadily decreased, the disparities between rich and poor have become more apparent. In Lincoln Park, a generally wealthy north side neighborhood of Chicago, 80% of kids in 1995 had elevated lead levels, this level was about the same in Austin, one of Chicago’s most impoverished neighborhoods, on the South Side. By 2013 the number of kids in Lincoln Park with elevated blood levels had fallen to practically zero, while in Austin, nearly 24% of kids tested have been found to have dangerous lead levels (Moser 2015).

Those still dealing with the lead based paint epidemic are also disproportionately African American. In Chicago African American children ages 5 and younger are harmed at rates up to six times the city average (Hawthorne 2015 b). This exposure results almost entirely from paint.

Graphs highlighting the disproportionate lead exposure among African Americans nationwide (Shumaker 2016).

Perhaps the biggest surge to occur in Chicago-based-news regarding lead is a fear that Chicago has failed to warn residents of potential lead risks in tap water as a result of construction occurring on pipe infrastructure. The construction projects residents are now increasingly concerned about are, ironically, part of Rahm’s Building a New Chicago Program, created in 2012, to repair 900 miles of century-old water pipe (Mayor's Press Office 2012).

Supposedly, customers are not properly warned or notified of the potential risks associated with pipe maintenance, and are simply told to flush the pipes for several minutes after the work is complete, a process EPA scientists have declared as inadequate (Geib & Hawthorne 2016). Currently, Chicago adds a corrosion-fighting chemical to the water supply that forms a protective coating inside of pipes, to prevent the leaching of lead into the water supply. According to research by the EPA, anti-corrosion treatment can be thwarted when plumbing work is done, disrupting the coating inside the pipes, leading to the leaching of lead into the drinking water supply (Geib & Hawthorne, 2016). With all this being said, very little data has been released indicating problems of lead within the water supply in Chicago, indicating that, as of now, it is more a hypothetical problem than a current issue. Even though serious lead discoveries haven't been made in the water supply, the issue of how testing is being conducted is still very problematic.

"Our sampling protocol is not really capturing the high lead that's there," he says. "Everywhere, not just in Chicago. It's a national issue."-EPA's Miguel Del Toral

The city complies with the Lead and Copper Rule, a federal regulation, made in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which limits the amount of lead and copper allowed in public drinking water. The water testing requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule are poor and in need of stricter revision. The federal rule requires only 50 homes be tested every three years in Chicago, with no requirements for which neighborhoods are selected for testing. The tribune investigation declared that the city has a pattern of focusing its lead testing in northwestern and southwestern portions of the city, areas where lead levels are generally low. In addition, according to a Tribune investigation of property tax, deed, and employment records, “more than half of the 103 properties tested since 2003 are owned by department employees or retirees" (Hawthorne 2016 a). Testing for lead in water should be improved; however, even so, the scale of the problem is much smaller than the issue of lead based paint in Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune’s key lead reporter, Michael Hawthorne, was interviewed by WBEZ and stated that, “when homes of children with elevated lead levels are inspected, about 20 percent don’t have lead-based paint (which is still the biggest source of lead exposure.) Water could be the source in those cases, but the city hasn’t actively tried to determine that until now” (Garber 2016). The 20% is important; however, as acknowledged by Hawthorne, is a minor problem in comparison to lead paint that contributes to 80% of lead contamination in children in Chicago.

Legislative influence on Lead in Paint

A closer examination of federal and local Chicago legislation on lead paint helps clarify why the problem of lead in Chicago homes persists. The federal legislation governing lead paint and lead in water gives a telling image of what is prioritized, and which Chicago residents are left vulnerable.

The Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) Rule, officially effective as of April 22, 2010, requires workers to be certified and trained in the use of lead-safe work practices, and requires renovation, repair, and painting firms to be EPA-certified (Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules). In 2011, the City of Chicago passed an ordinance requiring RRP certification for the following construction projects: window replacement, work that disturbs 6 square feet or more of interior paint and work that disturbs 20 square feet or more of exterior paint (Lead Poisoning Prevention). This policy only benefits those that have engaged in construction projects since 2010, which would likely be upper and middle class individuals who have the financial means to engage in home renovations.

Another piece of federal legislation governing lead is the lead Training and Certification Program for Lead-based Paint Activities (Toxic Substances Control Act sections 402/404). This requires that those engaged in lead abatement, risk assessments and inspections in homes or child-occupied facilities (such as day care centers and kindergartens) built prior to 1978 be certified and trained in practices to ensure accuracy and safety (Lead Abatement Program). Once again, this only provides protection to those that are financially privileged enough and incentivized to engage in lead removal or inspection.

Another federal program that, unlike the previous two, is directed towards homeowners or renters ranging from low-income to high-income is the Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program (Section 1018 of Title X). This requires that potential buyers and renters of housing built prior to 1978 receive information from landlords or sellers about lead-based paint hazards in their lease or contract. A lead hazard information pamphlet must also be given to the new buyers or renters. In addition, sellers must give buyers time to conduct a lead inspection if they so desire (Lead Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program). This is important and relates for a general transparency between buyers and sellers in transactions that could result in lead contamination; however, all it means is that a future homeowner is “warned,” likely with information they can already assume as a result of the quality of housing being purchased or rented. Homes with lead based-paint in them are typically more affordable, and as a result low-income individuals are systemically forced into them. The formalized warning about lead exposures is unlikely to be a large factor in whether or not a low-income person purchases or rents a home.

The last major piece of federal legislation governing lead in paint is the Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil (TSCA Section 403). Under these standards, lead is considered a hazard when equal to or exceeding 40 micro-grams of lead in dust per square foot on floors, 250 micro-grams of lead in dust per square foot on interior window sills, and 400 parts per million (ppm) of lead in bare soil in children's play areas or 1200 ppm average for bare soil in the rest of the yard. In addition, paint in deteriorating condition, on a friction or impact surface, or on certain chew-able surfaces is also defined as a hazard. This piece of legislation serves as an official quota for what is considered healthy and livable, versus what is considered a serious toxic hazard. Property owners are required to notify occupants if they are aware of lead, whether or not it is identified as a hazard. However, this regulation does not require any specific action be taken if a lead hazard is identified (Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil). These quotas are not significant because even if a home is known to have lead above these levels, any form of action is the responsibility of the homeowner to take care of. The government is not actively trying to reduce or prevent children’s exposure to lead. The problem of lead in paint is entirely individualized. Homeowners are expected to conduct their own in-home lead testing, and take their children to the pediatrician to test for lead, without any assistance from the government.

Chicago has a lead paint removal financial program available for people to apply to; however, an eighteen-page application is needed and you are not guaranteed funding. Also you must live in a single-family household or an apartment building in order to qualify (Lead Abatement Financial Assistance). Through the requirements for the funding it is clear that Chicago is attempting to target low-income individuals; however, it places limitations for those who qualify as low income but do not fit in those two categories.

Another important obstacle regarding lead in Chicago is the dramatic cuts in funding for lead related projects that have been seen over the past decade. Chicago’s staff of 11 lead inspectors and three nurses is about a quarter of the size it was during the early 2000s, largely because of a dramatic decline in federal and state funding. These cuts are drastic; last year the city set aside $4 million for anti-lead programs, a 50% decrease in the funding that was available as recently as 2010. To put this amount into perspective, the city now spends less on anti-lead programs than it does on software licensing ($6.5 million) and expense accounts for alderman ($4.8 million) (Hawthorne 2015 b). The extreme budget cuts from the federal government indicate that the issue is no longer being prioritized as highly in recent years.

Comparing lead paint legislation to lead's regulation in water highlights the disproportionate prioritization it receives in comparison to in-home lead levels. The Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in 1974, required the EPA to determine the level of contaminants in drinking water at which health impacts will not occur. These non-enforceable health goals, based solely on possible health risks are called maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs). For lead, the maximum contaminant level goal is zero because scientific studies have proven that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. For most contaminants, the EPA sets an enforceable regulation called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), a regulated threshold amount which tries to be as close to the MCLG as possible. Lead is not one of these contaminants however. This is because lead contamination of drinking water often results from corrosion of the plumbing materials belonging to water system customers. Instead, the EPA established a treatment technique, an enforceable procedure, which water systems must follow to ensure appropriate control of a contaminant. This technique is enforced under the Lead and Copper Rule. In addition to requiring control of possible corrosiveness of the water, the regulation also requires the systems to collect tap water samples from sites served by that system that are more likely to have plumbing materials containing lead. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the lead action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb), then water systems are required to take action in various ways. For example:

  • Take further steps to optimize their corrosion control treatment (for water systems serving 50,000 people that have not fully optimized their corrosion control) .
  • Educate the public about lead in drinking water and actions consumers can take to reduce their exposure to lead.
  • Replacing the portions of lead service lines (lines that connect distribution mains to customers) under the water system’s control (Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water).

For the most part with water, there is a specific amount, 15 ppb, that lead levels in water cannot pass, and if they do, federal law requires action by the water industry. Lead based paint in Chicago, and around the country, is an individualized problem, whereas, lead in water is mostly a governmental and industrial problem. What I mean by this is that it is up to individual homeowners to do lead testing and renovations in their homes to prevent lead based paint exposure, whereas, in theory it is up to the government and the water company to ensure that lead is not in the water supply. Obviously this did not occur in Flint, however, in general it seems as though lead based paint is a more challenging obstacle to overcome in Chicago, due to systemic disincentives of lead based paint removal from the government.

"In the City of Chicago, the primary source of lead poisoning is really most often related to lead-based paint, not the water," said City of Chicago Health Commissioner Dr. Julie Morita.

If the Chicago government took issue with this fact, more resources would be directed towards low-income, minority communities in the South and West sides. The lack of significant enough action from government indicates a cultural assumption that certain people, white, middle and upper class Chicago residents, are more entitled to lead free environments, than colored, systemically underprivileged residents.

Citations

  • "Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water." EPA. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water#regs.
  • Chen, Mel Y. Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012.
  • "Chicago Blood Lead Mapping Study." The Great Lakes Center for Children's Environmental Health. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/childrenshealth/childlead.htm.
  • Evens, Anne. "The Impact of Low-level Lead Toxicity on School Performance among Children in the Chicago Public Schools: A Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study." Environmental Health. April 2015. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889033.
  • Garber, Marc. "What's Prompting Chicago To Test Water For Lead?" WBEZ. April 5, 2016. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/whats-prompting-chicago-to-test-water-for-lead/5be98ac1-f08d-4ac7-b6b2-339d410707c4.
  • Geib, Phil, and Michael Hawthorne. "How to Protect Yourself from Lead Exposure in Drinking Water." Chicago Tribune. February 5, 2016. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-0207-lead-water-sidebar-graphic-htmlstory.html.
  • Hawthorne, Michael (a). "City Fails to Warn Chicagoans about Lead Risks in Tap Water." Chicagotribune.com. February 8, 2016. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-lead-water-risk-met-20160207-story.html.
  • Hawthorne, Michael (b). "Lead Paint Poisons Poor Chicago Kids as City Spends Millions Less on Cleanup." Chicagotribune.com. May 1, 2015. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-lead-poisoning-chicago-met-20150501-story.html.
  • "Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil (TSCA Section 403)." EPA. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/lead/hazard-standards-lead-paint-dust-and-soil-tsca-section-403.
  • "Lead Abatement Financial Assistance." City of Chicago. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdph/provdrs/environmental_health/svcs/apply_for_lead_abatementfinancialassistance.html.
  • "Lead Abatement Program." EPA. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-abatement-program-training-and-certification-program-lead-based-paint-activities-tsca.
  • "Lead Poisoning Prevention." City of Chicago. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdph/supp_info/food_environ/childhood_lead_poisoningpreventionandhealthyhomesprogram.html
  • "Lead Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program." EPA. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-residential-lead-based-paint-disclosure-program-section-1018-title-x.
  • "Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules." EPA. Accessed June 04, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-renovation-repair-and-painting-program-rules#rrp.
  • Needleman, Herbert L., Charles Gunnoe, Alan Leviton, Robert Reed, Henry Peresie, Cornelius Maher, and Peter Barrett. "Deficits in Psychologic and Classroom Performance of Children with Elevated Dentine Lead Levels." New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med 300, no. 13 (1979): 689-95. doi:10.1056/nejm197903293001301.
  • Mayor's Press Office. "Mayor Emanuel Announces $7 Billion Building a New Chicago Program." City of Chicago. March 29, 2012. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/march_2012/mayor_emanuel_announces7billionbuildinganewchicagoprogram.html.
  • Schumaker, Erin. "Lead Poisoning Is Still A Public Health Crisis For African-Americans." The Huffington Post. January 22, 2016. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/black-children-at-risk-for-lead-poisoning-_n_7672920.html.
  • Story, Louise, and David Barboza. "The Recalls’ Aftershocks." The New York Times. 2007. Accessed June 04, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22lead.html.

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.