F Flint Water Crisis Public Archive

Nora Macaluso

Staff Correspondant at Bloomberg BNA / Other

15

Emails

Oct 2015–Dec 2015

Archive range

15 emails found.

RE: looking for comment on flint

See all emails with these participants
Hello Nora, Happy to help. Do you have the actual letter? Here's a link to it: 16761032015. pdf Here is our statement, which you can attribute to me: The letter from the Office of the Auditor General includes some criticisms, but also reflects that state officials were following accepted protocols, or in one case, an interpretation of the corrosion control program that the EPA later clarified. But we need to do better in ensuring Flint residents have safe water and tracking children affected by elevated lead levels. We continue to work with the bipartisan task force that is reviewing all the actions at the state, local and federal level and is expected to offer recommendations in a month or so. Gov. Snyder is committed to working with Flint Mayor Weaver and officials on these issues. Nora, for your background, here is a summary of answers from the Office of the Auditor General in response to questions mostly posed by Sen. Jim Ananich’s office (the auditor added a few questions in the 11-page report). The questions were posed as the OAG conducts an audit of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance’s handling of the Flint water crisis. Conclusions: While the Flint City Council voted in March 2013 to move to the KWA pipeline, it didn’t designate the Flint River as an interim water source. But the Department of Environmental Quality had approved the river as a backup source for emergency purposes in 2006. The treated water met safety standards in quarterly tests by the Flint Water Treatment Plant, but Flint had never tested its effect on the distribution system. nan email review of key DEQ managers to determine if there was an effort to conceal information, only one email exchange raised red flags. The Environmental Protection Agency had asked DEQ in February 2015 if Flint had a corrosion control program; the DEQ responded the city had an optimized program in place. In April the EPA asked again, and the DEQ said that the Flint Water Treatment Plant was not doing corrosion control. DEQ later explained that the first answer was referring to its Lead and Copper Rule program, in which it monitors a new water source (in this case, the Flint river) for lead/copper for two consecutive six-month periods to determine if corrosion treatment is necessary. The report says there’s no reason to believe that DEQ willfully misrepresented information xxxEND_PAGE:executiveofficeemails20_b0444_1612_1615_1 =] to the EPA. It also concludes that Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance employees appeared to have notified management properly about the unfolding Flint water situation. DEQ did not consult with the EPA on how best to apply the Lead and Copper Rule monitoring practices after the switch to Flint water, but from past experience, DEQ believed it was doing so correctly by doing two rounds of six-month monitoring on the new water source before determining optimal corrosion control. The EPA disagreed with DEQ’s interpretation of the LCR, but later stated that the LCR was open to interpretation. It then clarified the rule: Corrosion controls already in place when Flint was on Detroit water should have been maintained after the switch. DEQ should have notified the Flint WTP to start corrosion controls once the first round of six-month sampling results arrived in late March 2015 and showed the water exceeded acceptable lead levels. DEQ doesn’t operate the Flint WTP so it doesn’t have any accountability measures to ensure the WTP is collecting water samples from tier 1 homes, i.e., residences with lead service lines, soldering or plumbing. Instead, DEQ relies on Flint’s certification of sample sites. The auditor suggests DEQ should consider an independent verification of the sampling pool or of Flint’s certifications. In November 2015, Flint said it had no way to ensure the sites were all tier 1. Water samples came from 175 randomly distributed testing bottles. DEQ has asked Flint to verify its prior samples by this Wednesday (12/30). There’s been controversy that DEQ dropped two sampling sites with high lead levels from its second six-month review. The auditor determined it was appropriate for DEQ to do so because those sites did not meet federal criteria. It was also appropriate for DEQ to require flushing taps the night before sampling to ensure faucets didn’t contain overly stagnant water. Charts show that most water samples were taken in the sixth month of the six-month testing period. The auditor said it’s difficult to determine if the lateness of the sampling affects the accuracy.

RE: flint water

See all emails with these participants
Hi there Nora — Not Responsive On Flint water, we haven't been served yet oo can’t cormmmant or specifi is, What would say is that we’re focused on moving forward and ensuring public haalth and clean, safe drinking water. The governor has outlined a detailed multiple stern action plan for both immediate, mid and long term. He has alsa appoint: ask force doing a very important job of rewiewing al past actions, They are a bipartisan group of people af the highest integrity, exrerts in their fields anc widely respected who are going to do a very thorough, objective review. Good anc all set? just let us kricww ff anything more needed at all. Thanks and best, SW

quick question on flint lead

See all emails with these participants
Importance: High Sorry for the lateness of this question, but i just came up: Dan Wyant says staff followed protocal for testing of a srnailer city. Does that explain why the state tests dicin’t find a lead problern at first? And if the tests had been done for a city of Filnt’s size, ft would have been flagged sooner? This isn’t clear from the staternent or from ary of those emails. Thanks .. Nora Macaluse Bloomberg BMA xxxEND_PAGE:deq14_b0760_2574_2574_1

FW: Request for Disclosure of Official Files (FOIA 6526-15)

See all emails with these participants
Nore, thanks for dropping a line. Here’s the full set of ernails, per your request. Also, here’s what DEQ Director Dan Wyant had to say yesterday in a separate interview. “What has become clear in recent weeks is that staff believed they were handling the situation in accordance with the proper protocol for a water provider using a new source, but the federal Lead and Copper rule has a particular provision for communities over 50,000 people; that the system operator must continue treating with full corrosion control even as they test the water. What the staff did would have been the proper protocol for a community under 50,000 people. None of the DEQ staff in this division had ever worked on a water source switch for a community over 50,000 people — it’s uncommon for our big communities to switch sources. It's increasingly clear there was confusion here, but it also is increasingly clear that DEQ staff believed they were using the proper federal protocol and they were not. The Governor will soon announce an independent, third party, after-action review to detail what happened and why, and offer steps to make sure Michigan’s drinking water program is on a better course in the future. There is substantial controversy over the lead and copper rule — the EPA has been working for years on ways to update and strengthen it, and Michigan will be an active part of that conversation going forward. The situation in Flint is a snapshot of an issue affecting cities around the state and the nation. More than a dozen states reportedly use the sampling protocol Michigan uses — that’s not a defense of the protocol, but rather an indication that even experts on the issue disagree about the most effective testing methods. What everyone can agree on is that lead is a serious issue. And | think everyone can agree that when the state came to recognize that there could be a health threat in the city, we took appropriate action. We are now engaged in an unprecedented effort to protect kids and families in Flint, develop more knowledge about what has happened and how people were affected, and take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again — in Michigan, or anywhere else. All who brought this issue forward deserve credit for bringing it to us. Our actions reflected inexperience, and our public response to criticism was the wrong tone early in this conversation. But the best we can do with the situation going forward is represented in our present course — the Governor's plan represents all the suggestions outlined in the draft EPA memo, the Virginia Tech report, and the guidance we've gotten from EPA. We will learn from this. We will make necessary changes to see to it that our program becomes a national leader in protection.” Brad Wurfel xxxEND_PAGE:deq15_b269_1094_1095_1 Communications Director Michigan Department of Environmental Quality xxxEND_PAGE:deq15_b269_1094_1095_2

flint

See all emails with these participants
Following up on these e-mails you’ve released, arid Dan Wyant’s comments re review. Can you provide these? And carirm that they were first compiled due to a FOIA request? Also, what's next on the investigation front? is that something the governor's office is putting together? Thanks ... Nore Macalusea Bloomberg BNA xxxEND_PAGE:deq14_b0751_2560_2560_1

RE: News Release: Flint Water Crisis Action, Probe Urged

See all emails with these participants
Nora — Would say that we bulleve protecting public hmalth is caramount anc safe, clean, accessible drinking water is essantial. The Governor and Adrninistration, through both DEQ and the M1 Eungt of Health & Hurnan Services, have outlined a collaborative, cornprehensive action plan to helm ensure just that as well as public confidence, ard that we're all working together across local, state art fecteral levels to bring all resources and ideas to bear. Thanks and best, SW