Blog: Get the Lead Out … It’s 2022 Already

• The City of Quinte West/ Trenton: Trenton was reporting high lead exceedances. In 2019-2020, Trenton reported 16.2% of samples above the 10 ug/L standard, which would have been 27.9% of samples above a 5 ug/L standard. All of the exceedances in 2019-2020 were in schools. In 2020-2021, Trenton reported a failure rate of 17.9% for water samples tested against the 10 ug/L standard, which would have been a failure rate of 34.3% at a more protective 5 ug/L standard. In 2020-2021, the reported exceedances were still all in schools.
• The Town of Smith Falls: In the 2019-2020 dataset, 15.4% of samples were above the 10 ug/L standard, and 26.2% would have been above a 5 ug/L standard. All of the exceedances were from the municipal drinking water system. In 2020-2021, the level of exceedances remained high, with 13% of samples over the 10 ug/L standard, which would have been 27.8% above a 5 ug/L standard. All but one of the exceedances in this data set where in the municipal drinking water system.
• The City of Thunder Bay: CELA’s lead campaign hosted a webinar in August 2021 which include a case study of Thunder Bay area’s drinking water system. There are an estimated 6,300 public lead service lines and 8,500 private lead services lines in the area. Thunder Bay also introduced a corrosion control program to lower lead levels, but it was phased out in 2020. In the 2019-2020 data set, Thunder Bay reported 2.7% of lead results exceeded the a 5 ug/L standard, and 9.5% of samples would have exceeded a 10 ug/L standard. In the 2020-2021 data set, 13.4% exceeded the 5 ug/L standard, which would have been a 31.7% fail rate at a 10 ug/L standard.
• Lucan Biddulph: The township of Lucan Biddulph’s drinking water system had concerning results. In 2019-2020, it reported no exceedances at the 10 µg/L, but 20.7% of its samples were above 5 µg/L. The results were worse in 2020-2021. 11.4% of its examples were above the 10 µg/L standard and a shocking 42.9% of its results were above a 5 µg/L standard.

There are limitations in the data that need to be kept in mind. The data may underestimate the levels of lead in drinking water in a community for a few reasons. We are aware of concerns that there is not enough guidance about where the samples are taken within a drinking water system such that there is not a focused effort to take samples in areas with known lead service lines, for instance.

Sometimes the number of samples being taken is so low that a change in percentage only reflects 1 or 2 more exceedances from year to year. CELA’s recommendations on improving the legislation and regulations governing lead in drinking water highlight other concerns about sampling methods and reporting lead exceedances. But a review of the data does clearly demonstrate an ongoing lead in drinking water problem, especially if the problem is measured against a more stringent, more appropriate standard of 5 µg/L.

Conclusions

CELA is calling on the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to lower the lead in drinking water standard to the safer, federally recommended level of 5 µg/L.

When Health Canada lowered the lead in drinking water guideline to a maximum acceptable concentration (“MAC”) of 5 µg/L in 2019, it recognized that the new guideline would be safer for children. Health Canada found that the change from 10 µg/L to 5 µg/L would have a significant impact on the blood lead levels of children. A corresponding change to the Ontario standard is long overdue. A more stringent Ontario standard will more accurately reflect the harm being caused by lead in drinking water across the province.

In 2021, the MECP committed to review and updates its lead in drinking water policies. We strongly support that commitment. It’s time for the MECP to follow through on its commitment to update its lead in drinking water. Strengthening the lead in drinking water standard to 5 μg/L is one important step to better protect children and other vulnerable people from the effects of lead.