Why Are We Still Waiting On National PFAS Standards?
New EPA Numbers Show 70 Million Americans Drink Water From Systems With Toxic PFAS Chemicals.
The EPA is expected to finalize a closely watched rule sometime this year on national limits for PFAS in drinking water. But I can’t help but ask, why are we still waiting?
Last year, the agency proposed restrictions on six of the chemicals. PS: More than 12,000 different PFASs are known to exist.
But low and behold, lobby groups pushed back, complaining that the proposed limits would be prohibitively expensive. (Cry me a river 😢).
On March 20, a Senate committee heard testimony about PFAS as hazardous substances.
“We need strategic national policies and investments to help us do several things: first, determine the spread of PFAS contamination; second, identify the health threats that these chemicals can pose; third, explore the best methods to rid our water and lands of them and lastly, collectively find a path forward to making the actual polluters pay while protecting innocent parties.”
~Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) at a committee hearing about designating PFAS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law. The EPA has proposed that two such chemicals—PFOA and PFOS to receive that designation, a move that could result in responsible parties being forced to pay for cleanup.
Watch the full meeting here (starts around the 17:00 mark).
This hearing came on the heels of new data released by the U.S. EPA in its ongoing 5-year review of water systems across the nation.
At least 70 million Americans get their water from a system where toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were found at levels that require reporting to the EPA. The number is sure to go up as new reports get released every three months.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, are known as “forever chemicals” and have been used across industries for decades. Found in drinking water, food, firefighting foam, and nonstick and water-repellent items, PFAS resist breaking down and instead build up with time in both the environment and our bodies.
Some of the major cities reporting PFAS contamination in this most recent release include Salt Lake City, Utah; Sacramento, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Louisville, Kentucky.
These toxic chemicals have turned up in water systems large and small, from those serving a few thousand customers to more than half a million.
Of about 3,800 water systems included so far, 1,245 measured at least one PFAS compound above the EPA’s reporting levels, according to analysis from USA TODAY.
Even small amounts of exposure to PFAS can be harmful to human health.
The EPA plans to continue data collection from thousands more systems through 2026, which will include some of the country’s largest systems, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.
The problem, of course, is that not all water utilities are equipped to install advanced and costly treatment systems to reduce PFAS from treated water. Systems vary, each have their own water sources and technical challenges that can make treatment less feasible.
The EPA needs to go after polluters (aka PFAS manufacturers) to help foot the bill.
Current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS (according to the EPA) may lead to:
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes.
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response.
Interference with the body’s natural hormones.
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.
Meanwhile, a new study published last week was the first-of-its-kind to shows that 68 PFAS have been measure in what is known as “food contact materials.”
The study measured PFAS in paper, plastics, and coated metal packaging. The authors say PFAS can migrate from food contact materials into foodstuffs, and thus are ingested by humans.
Some key findings from the research include:
The presence of 61 (or 90 percent) of the PFAS was unexpected as they are not included in any regulatory or industry inventories of chemicals used in the manufacture of food contact materials.
Only 39 (or 57 percent) of the PFAS have hazard data in the sources examined, and these data are often incomplete, underscoring the lack of understanding.
Long-chain PFAS continue to be found in food contact materials despite global efforts to limit their use due to strong evidence of their severe environmental and health impacts.
The diversity of PFAS in food contact materials and the pertinent knowledge gaps reveal how difficult it is to assess and manage the risks of individual PFAS. In combination with the hazard properties of PFAS, these findings underscore the urgency of adopting a group restriction approach to PFAS, implying that all PFAS are banned from use in food contact materials.
Check out the full study here.
In Other News
On Water Security…
The White House sent a letter to state governors, asking for their help in protecting water and wastewater systems from cyberattacks.
The EPA retracted a plan last October to mandate cybersecurity assessments for water systems, after three states sued to overturn the decision. Water industry groups also opposed the plan, claiming a different approach should be used.
So the government pivoted, offering instead a plea.
“We need your support to ensure that all water systems in your state comprehensively assess their current cybersecurity practices to identify any significant vulnerabilities, deploy practices and controls to reduce cybersecurity risks where needed, and exercise plans to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a cyber incident,” wrote Michael Regan, head of the EPA, and Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser.
Source: Circle of Blue
Speaking of Borders
Canada and the United States have agreed to review a long standing cross-border dispute that involves pollution from coal mines in the Canadian province of British Columbia flowing into U.S. waters.
United States and Canada announced joint action, in partnership with Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples, to reduce and mitigate the impacts of transboundary water pollution in the Elk-Kootenai watershed and protect the people and species that depend on this vital river system.
The deal was announced in a joint statement by U.S. ambassador to Canada David Cohen and his Canadian counterpart Kirsten Hillman. It includes the American and Canadian governments working with British Columbia, the U.S. states of Idaho and Montana, and six indigenous communities on both sides.
Canada and the U.S. asked the International Joint Commission to establish a formal governance body by June 30 to develop options for the future, according to the joint statement. The IJC is a treaty-based group mediating water disputes.
The two countries said they have asked IJC to establish “a two-year Study Board to convene experts and knowledge holders to conduct transparent and coordinated transboundary data and knowledge sharing.”
The research panel is tasked with finding ways to decrease contamination from coal mines in British Columbia's Elk Valley, flowing into Lake Koocanusa, a reservoir in British Columbia and Montana, and into American rivers.
Canada and the U.S. asked the International Joint Commission to establish a formal governance body by June 30 to develop options for the future, according to the joint statement. The IJC is a treaty-based group mediating water disputes.
The two countries said they have asked IJC to establish “a two-year Study Board to convene experts and knowledge holders to conduct transparent and coordinated transboundary data and knowledge sharing.”
The research panel is tasked with finding ways to decrease contamination from coal mines in British Columbia's Elk Valley, flowing into Lake Koocanusa, a reservoir in British Columbia and Montana, and into American rivers.
A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey and cited by CBC News said contamination came from mines in British Columbia and that efforts by Canadian miner Teck Resources (TECKb.TO) to slow those releases were not making much difference to the amount flowing south.
Sources: Reuters, White House
Thanks for reading today! Do you like us sharing other water new snippets? Let us know in the comments below and feel free to add other links of water and environmental news.
I found we have PFAS in our drinking water. Thought I was good not living near Pratt Whitney anymore. Nope! It's everywhere