Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

This week, Hydroviv is highlighting the six new National Priorities List (NPL) sites under the EPA Superfund program. Superfund sites are home to high levels of hazardous soil and groundwater contamination from years of improper disposal techniques. If you’d like to learn more about the ins and outs of Superfund, check out our recap HERE. The first Superfund site that we’ll be discussing is located in Hockessin, Delaware.

Hockessin, Delaware is home to one of the six newly designated Superfund NPL sites. EPA detected high levels of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) on site, which is a known carcinogen. In a 2012 carcinogenicity assessment, EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion for drinking water. Long term exposure of PCE can cause adverse effects to the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. The Artesian Water Authority services 184,000 people in Hockessin, and government officials are predicting that 10,500 of these individuals may be affected by the contamination. Local officials claim that the tap water is “safe” to drink, but households that are not serviced through the Artesian Water Authority and those ingesting groundwater should be cautious. Currently, EPA is claiming that the source of contamination is unknown. PCE is an effluent typically associated with dry cleaning, textile operations and metal degreasing.

If you live near a Superfund site and are concerned about your water, drop us an email at hello@hydroviv.com or visit hydroviv.com and use our live chat feature. Hydroviv is staffed with scientists and policy experts that can help you make sense of your water and find an effective filter, even if it isn’t one we sell. Be sure to follow along this week as we discuss all of the newly designated Superfund sites!

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Policy Nerd

Updated November 19, 2020

EPA added 6 sites to the National Priorities List under the Superfund program during the spring of 2019. Cyanide, Lead, Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), vinyl chloride, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are just some of the toxic chemicals found at the newly designated sites. Our team is working around the clock to analyze each situation and put together articles and videos explaining how each site can impact your drinking water. Make sure to follow along and subscribe to our Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube as we discuss where each site is located and the contaminants that are present.

What is a Superfund Site?

In 1980, the Carter administration decided to address years of environmental degradation by creating the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. Superfund establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, holds responsible parties liable for releases of hazardous waste, and establishes a fund to pay for remediation when a responsible party cannot be identified. Superfund is not necessarily a “cradle to grave” statute. It was established to clean up years of hazardous waste before disposal practices were being regulated, which is why many responsible parties cannot be identified.

Why Is Superfund Important?

Hazardous waste and designated Superfund sites almost always end up affecting drinking water sources. Over periods of time, toxic sludge and vapor plumes at these abandoned hazardous waste sites seep into groundwater. The concern to humans is that the same contaminated groundwater is commonly used as a drinking source for a community. In fact, all 6 of the recently designated Superfund sites involve some sort of groundwater contamination. Many of the toxic chemicals found at Superfund sites are either known carcinogens or extremely toxic.

Federal Superfund Site Delegation Process

Prior to EPA’s delegation of a Superfund site, research, community involvement, and site inspections at the state and federal level must be conducted. This process can take years which is why it’s important to stay current with public notices within your community. Once the site meets certain standards, it’s added to the National Priorities List and officially becomes a designated Superfund site. CERCLA has the jurisdiction to delegate two types of response actions; short term removals and long term remedial response actions. For the purpose of this article, we will only be referring to long term remedial response actions. Long term actions permanently reduce the danger associated with releases of hazardous substances. These actions are dubbed serious, but not immediately life threatening. Short term and long term actions are both registered on EPA’s National Priorities List. This list is significant because it’s EPA’s way of addressing that there’s a serious problem that requires some sort of federal involvement. Superfund cleanup efforts are reviewed once every 5 years to see if remedial goals have been met. A site is removed from the National Priorities List once all response and remediation action has occurred. Typically, total remediation of a federal Superfund site can take decades because of the scope of groundwater and soil contamination.

Sources of Contaminants

As previously stated, the EPA detected several hazardous chemicals at each of the federal Superfund sites. The most common being Tetrachloroethene (PCE), which is commonly used by dry cleaning facilities. EPA also detected Trichloroethylene (TCE) which is an industrial solvent, typically used as a metal degreaser as well as a refrigerant in older refrigerators. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) which were historically used in electrical manufacturing. Cyanide, lead, chromium 6, and mercury, were among some of the other toxic contaminants that EPA detected.

Make sure to follow along this week to learn more about each of the Superfund sites. We’ll be walking through each site, the contaminants that were detected and their toxicity. As always, we encourage you to take advantage of Hydroviv's "Help No Matter What" technical support policy, where we answer questions related to drinking water and water filtration, even if you have no desire to purchase our products. Drop us a line at hello@hydroviv.com

*Map courtesy of the Natural Resources Defense Council*

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

Our inbox has been inundated with questions regarding the NRDC drinking water report that CNN retreated yesterday. We wanted to add some context and remind readers that these developments are not new. The scope of the drinking water problem in this country is much broader than the 90 federally regulated contaminants highlighted in the report. 

With myriad water quality crises popping up all over the country this past year, the topic of drinking water quality has once again commanded national media attention. CNN recently published an article underlining a 2017 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Major Takeaways from the CNN Water Report:

1. It’s not easy to violate a drinking water standard. In fact, drinking water regulations are set so high in the United States that it’s surprisingly difficult for a municipality to surpass a federal threshold. The consensus in the scientific and toxicological community is that federal standards should be reduced across the board.

2. Why is the conversation being limited to regulated contaminants? For a bit of perspective, EPA regulates 90 drinking water contaminants that municipalities must comply with. These regulated contaminants include lead, arsenic, disinfection byproducts, and others. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of potentially dangerous unregulated contaminants. Despite this growing problem, the CNN report focused entirely on the 90 federally regulated contaminants, which doesn't even scratch the surface of America's drinking water crisis. 

3. The article is vague about what constitutes a "violation." Municipalities can receive a violation from the state, or primacy agency for different reasons. Municipalities can be in violation if they are "out of compliance" or "in exceedance" of a drinking water standard. However, municipalities that fail to report data or test for a contaminant may also receive a violation. There's very little enforcement or repercussions imposed on municipalities that have violations, and often community members are left in the dark. 

How Can We Determine The Actual Scope of Drinking Water Contamination In The United States?

Figuring out the scope of this problem is extremely difficult, due to the slow-moving regulatory process and missing data. EPA estimates it would cost $743 billion to mitigate only the regulated contaminants in the U.S., meaning it would do nothing to address unregulated contaminants like Chromium 6, PFAS, and 1,4-Dioxane. Communities like Madison, Wisconsin could theoretically receive a gold star when looking at their compliance for regulated contaminants. Madison has low levels or lead, disinfection byproducts, and arsenic - all well within EPA standards. People are often surprised to find out that Madison has screamingly high levels of Chromium 6, which is also known as the "Erin Brockovich" chemical (the movie came out almost 20 years ago, and the contaminant is still unregulated). According to the most recent report, the average concentration of Chromium 6 in Madison is 1400 parts per trillion. This is 70 times higher than the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk. 

America’s drinking water is more widespread than you think, and the scope of the problem goes well beyond the 90 contaminants addressed in the article. We must look beyond annual Consumer Confidence Reports to unveil the truth about our drinking water contamination.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd 

Our blog has been following PFAS contaminants such as the GenX chemical for months now, often reporting on new developments before mainstream news.
Today marks an important milestone: EPA has released a draft toxicity profile for GenX. This long-awaited toxicity report contains critical information for many states who have been seeking answers on this harmful contaminant.

EPA’s Draft Toxicity Assessments for GenX and PFBS:

EPA determined a candidate Chronic Reference Dose of 0.00008 mg/kg-day. A reference dose is the daily oral intake not anticipated to cause negative health effects over a lifetime. A reference dose is not a carcinogenic risk factor, however, EPA states that the toxicity data for GenX are “suggestive of cancer.” According to the draft report, oral exposure in animals had negative health effects on the kidney, blood, immune system, developing fetus, and liver. The draft toxicity report also provided information on PFBS, which is a replacement chemical for PFOS. The candidate Chronic Reference Dose for PFBS is 0.01 mg/kg-day, and there was insufficient data to determine its carcinogenic potential.

What Is GenX?

GenX is part of a category of contaminants called PFAS, or per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The GenX chemical linked to cancer has gained national attention since being discovered in the Cape Fear River in June of 2017.
PFAS have historically been used in consumer products like Scotchgard, Gore-Tex, Teflon, and even the inside of popcorn bags. PFAS are also used in firefighting foam, which is the major source of its pollution in waterways across the country.

Background:

The Chemours plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina produces refrigerants, ion exchange membranes, and other fluoroproducts. They have been discharging liquid effluent into the Cape Fear River for years, which has contaminated drinking water for the entire area. GenX is the replacement chemical for PFOA. After PFOA was discovered to be toxic, manufacturers addressed the issue by making an equally-as toxic replacement. Manufacturers of PFAS have been doing this for years, which is why there are so many different variations present in the environment.

Is GenX Federally Regulated By EPA?

No. This means that municipalities are not required to test for PFBS or GenX in water. Additionally, this draft toxicity level is not a lifetime health advisory level, which states would be more inclined to follow.

When Will A Drinking Water Standard Be Determined?

Don’t hold your breath on anytime soon! The regulatory process can take decades, especially for such a persistent contaminant in the environment. This is more than enough time for adverse health effects to set in, and we recommend consumers do everything they can to learn about their water and protect themselves, rather than wait for the government to step in.

What Does This Mean For Me?

EPA is in the very early stages of determining a regulation or even health advisory for GenX. This draft toxicity level needs to go through public comment so that states, tribes, and municipalities can offer input and recommendations. If you want to see third-party data on filters that remove GenX in water and other PFAS, click HERE. 

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.