Analies Dyjak | Policy Nerd

October 4, 2018- Elon Musk and The Musk Foundation confirmed a donation of $480,350 to Flint, Michigan Community Schools in hopes of addressing lead contamination in drinking water. Flint is one of many school districts across the country that has been working hard to generate long-term solutions for lead contamination in drinking water. This article examines whether the proposed filtration technology will effectively remove lead from drinking water. 

How Will The Funding Be Used?

Musk initially announced the filters would comply with FDA’s 5 parts per billion standard (which is actually the standard for lead in bottled water), instead of EPA’s 15 part per billion Action Level. While definitely lower than EPA's threshold, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Center for Disease Control have both acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children. The Musk Foundation has not released the exact type of water filters Flint, Michigan Community Schools plans to use. Press releases have indicated some type of ultraviolet filtration system. 

What Is UV Water Filtration?

Ultraviolet filtration eliminates biological contamination from drinking water. This includes bacteria, viruses, and harmful microorganisms like E.coli. The idea behind UV filtration is it prevents microorganisms from reproducing, by striking each individual cell. It’s comparable to and often more effective than using chlorine to kill bacterial contamination.

Does UV Filtration Filter Lead?

No. While UV filters are great at removing biological contamination from drinking water, they have several limitations. UV filters by themselves are not able to remove chemical contaminants including Volatile Organic Compounds, chlorine, lead, mercury and other heavy metals. To remove chemical contaminants (including lead), a UV-based system would need to be paired with lead removal media or reverse osmosis.

Our Take

Contrary to a lot of media reports, UV filters do not remove lead from water, so we're hoping that the UV is paired with a system that removes lead. We also hope that the filters are installed at the point of use, because water treated by a point of entry filter can accumulate lead in any pipe "downstream" of the filtration unit. 

Analies Dyjak, M.A. | Head of Policy and Perspectives

**Updated 9/21/2021 to include recent studies

What Is 1,4-Dioxane?

1,4-dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical, typically used as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents. It was historically used in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which was phased out in 1985 after scientists determined it to be an ozone-depleting substance. Today, 1,4-dioxane is not typically added directly to consumer products but can be an unintentional byproduct in certain plastics. It’s introduced as a trace contaminant in certain ingredients, most commonly detergents, foaming agents, emulsifiers and solvents, including Polyethylene Glycol or PEG.  

Is 1,4-Dioxane Regulated?

1,4-dioxane in drinking water is not federally regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, even though EPA has classified it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by all exposure routes.” There are health advisories in place but a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) does not exist. This means that unless a state has its own enforceable standard, utility providers are not required to remove it from drinking water. 1,4-dioxane is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for indoor workplace air quality. 1,4-dioxane is on the fourth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List and is also part of the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. In 2019, New York State became the first state to regulate 1,4-Dioxane by establishing Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCL) of 10 ppb in cosmetics, and 2 ppb in personal care and household cleaning products by 12/31/2022, which will be further reduced to 1 ppb by 12/31/2023.  

How Does 1,4-Dioxane Enter Drinking Water?

1,4-dioxane has contaminated drinking water through both groundwater and surface water. Many instances of groundwater contamination are a result of 1,4-dioxane being used in various manufacturing processes. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1,4-dioxane can easily travel into groundwater because it is extremely soluble in water and does not stick to soil particles. 

1,4-dioxane contamination on Long Island, New York was a result of routine spills or direct disposal of solvents to the ground from manufacturing operations between the 1950s to the 1990s. 

1,4-dioxane was used in the manufacture of medical filters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The methods of waste disposal used between 1966 to 1986 resulted in 1,4-dioxane being released into the environment, causing widespread groundwater contamination. 1,4-dioxane in drinking water continues to be a concern for local residents, even decades after the pollution was first discovered and remediation was to have been taking place. 

1,4-Dioxane has also been released into surface water, both into rivers or public sewage systems. Sources of contamination include effluent from industrial facilities as well as wastewater treatment plants.   

1,4-Dioxane Health Effects In Drinking Water

1,4-dioxane can harm the eyes, skin, lungs, liver, and kidneys. As previously stated, 1,4-Dioxane is classified by the US EPA as a likely human carcinogen. Like other contaminants, the dose and duration of exposure affect the likelihood and severity of adverse 1,4-dioxane health effects.

Why is 1,4-Dioxane So Hard To Remove From Drinking Water?

1,4-Dioxane is completely soluble in water. It dissolves completely, even at high concentrations. It also does not readily evaporate. Traditional treatment methods are ineffective at removing 1,4-Dioxane from drinking water, so a few larger municipalities have begun to incorporate specialized methods for 1,4-Dioxane removal in their processes. These can be prohibitively expensive for smaller municipal water suppliers, so there is not likely to be a widespread solution for 1,4-Dioxane removal implemented any time soon.  

What Can I Do if I Have 1,4-Dioxane in My Water?

There are no federal testing standards for 1,4-Dioxane, so we are unable to provide removal data. Hydroviv’s filters have however been tested and certified by NSF to remove VOC’s with similar chemical properties to 1,4-Dioxane. Most submicron pore size carbon block filters are able to address 1,4-dioxane, with the exception of granular activated carbon. A slower flow rate will also assist the carbon block filter by ensuring enough contact time with the 1,4-Dioxane and the filtration media. For example, Hydroviv drinking water filters incorporate carbon into our submicron block and at our 1 gallon/minute flow rate.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

Spring and summer are typically the seasons when algal blooms are most prevalent. When water temperatures rise and are accompanied by increased sunlight, it allows for higher rates of photosynthesis. This increased aquatic plant life can often lead to impairments in your drinking water. Here’s everything you need to know about algal blooms, cyanotoxins, and how to ensure your water is safe to drink.

What are Cyanotoxins?

Cyanobacteria naturally occurs in surface water. After an influx of nutrients or a sudden increase in water temperature, cyanobacteria can create Harmful Algal Blooms or HABs. HABs can then produce cyanotoxins, which are harmful to humans and the environment. Microcystins are the most widespread cyanotoxin in the United States, the most toxic being Microcystin-LR. Cyanotoxins are not currently federally regulated but the World Health Organization has provided an advisory level of 1 part per million for Microcystin-LR. Algal blooms and cyanotoxin production are extremely susceptible to changes in the surrounding environment. Toxicity levels can change within a matter of hours, making detection very difficult.

What are the Health Effects of Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water?

Acute exposure to cyanotoxins in drinking water can result in fevers, headaches, joint pain, stomach cramps and mouth ulcers and in severe cases, seizures, liver failure, and respiratory arrest. Studies have also found that long term exposure of low levels to microcystins can promote tumor growth, especially in the liver.

What Increases Levels of Cyanobacteria?

Anthropogenic factors are the predominant reason for an increased frequency and magnitude of cyanotoxin events. Nutrient loading from agricultural practices can cause algal blooms in both fresh and marine water, which also deoxygenates water systems.

How Do Harmful Algal Blooms Affect Water Treatment Facilities?

Municipal water treatment facilities generally do a good job of filtering out algae and cyanobacteria. They face problems when a large influx of algae clogs the filtration media. This can be costly to mitigate and challenging for municipalities if they lack proper equipment. Because cyanotoxins are not regulated, there’s a bit of a grey area as to whether municipalities are obligated to be looking for these contaminants. 

As always, we encourage you to take advantage of Hydroviv's "Help No Matter What" technical support policy, where we answer questions related to cyanotoxins, drinking water and water filtration. Drop us a line at hello@hydroviv.com.

Analies Dyjak | Policy Analyst

In last weeks blog post, we discussed what a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit should look like. This article discusses the major problems with the 2015 Chemours-Fayetteville NPDES permit issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

History Of PFAS Discharge By Dupont/Chemours

In 2015, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality issued a renewal NPDES permit to the Chemours Dupont manufacturing plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Prior to the media spotlight of GenX in the Cape Fear River in the summer of 2017, Chemours (and Dupont) had been receiving permit renewals since the plant was built in the 1970’s. This particular Chemours plant had been illegally discharging PFAS compounds for years. Similar compounds were not listed or identified in the NPDES permit, which immediately raised a red flag. Our team has taken the time to analyze each section of this 2015 NPDES permit renewal.

Problems With The 2015 Chemours Renewal Permit

Units:

First off, there are no units next to the values in the table. The 2015 NPDES permit almost completely lacked uniformity among units. The reader needs to clearly identify if allowable discharge is in mg/kg/day (parts per million), ug/kg/day (parts per billion), and so on. However, Chemours Dupont used “pounds per day” which isn’t constant with the EPA's normal standards of mg/kg/day or ppm. As we discussed in the overview of NPDES permit article, when a permitting agency fails to include units/dosage, they are allowing chemical discharge at any concentration, so long as the total mass does not exceed the stated value. In doing so, they opened up the door for the permit holder to coordinate discharge schedules with their sampling. More on this below.

Sampling:

The second issue is sampling. Chemours mainly used a grab sampling technique to test the surrounding Cape Fear water quality. Grab sampling is a daily one-time collection of water at any given location. This means that Chemours was able to determine the location and time for collecting a sample. As you can probably infer, this would allow Chemours to collect their daily grab sample as far away from the point of discharge as possible. Additionally, this sampling method allows Chemours to collect samples at a time when operation was halted or during a low-discharge period. Either of these sampling tricks could skew concentration levels and water quality being sent to the EPA.

No Plan To Reduce Discharge:

Finally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System was created to help reduce pollution in US waterways. Permitting agencies should include a plan on how they’re working to reduce chemical discharge in their NPDES permit.

Summary

The Chemours NPDES permit is one of many inadequate documents distributed by state governments. Although it’s easy to blame the permitting agency, it’s really the fault of the federal government for not supplying an improved uniform template. Federal and state governments should demand more stringent practices from polluters in terms of allowable limits, uniformity in terms of units, and consistent, thorough, sampling techniques.

Although this particular permit seems is inadequate, there are hundreds of active permits in the US that are much worse. In future articles, we'll be shining some light onto these permits as well.

Other Articles We Think You'll Enjoy