Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

***Updated 5/30/2018 to include video

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

Scott Pruitt has finally decided to address a class of contaminants that Hydroviv has been tracking for years. The 2018 PFAS National Leadership Summit and Engagement began yesterday, May 22nd, at EPA headquarters here in Washington, D.C. The goal of the summit is to bring together states, tribes, and territories who have been adversely affected by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), a class of dangerous emerging contaminants. If you live in Wilmington, North Carolina or near Maplewood, Minnesota, you are probably very familiar with PFAS contamination. This class of chemicals was historically used in food packaging, Teflon, Scotchgard, fire fighting foam, and has now invaded many drinking water sources in the United States.

EPA PFAS Summit Recap

Pruitt sounded hopeful in his opening remarks on Tuesday. He stated that PFAS contamination is a “national priority” and that EPA is “developing groundwater cleanup recommendations.” He also announced that EPA is working to create a 4-step action plan. A major component of this plan is to set Maximum Contaminant Levels (or MCLs) that municipalities would be required to meet. MCLs are enforceable limits that are set as close to a “no risk” level as possible. Many states such as New Jersey, voiced their concerns on the lengthy time scale that it typically takes EPA to set drinking water standards. States have jurisdiction to create their own more stringent drinking water standards, but again, this is a lengthy and expensive process.

How Will PFAS Be Regulated? 

The Safe Drinking Water Act only regulates public drinking water systems that supply at least 25 people at 15 service connections. Private well users will not be regulated by the proposed PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels. It’s also important to mention that through the Safe Drinking Water Act, municipalities bare the burden of meeting these drinking water quality standards. Because PFAS contaminants are so complex, complete removal at the municipal level is impossible without spending a small fortune for advanced technology that may not even be effective. A representative from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), agreed that the toxicological profiles for various types of PFAS would be released as soon as possible. The same representative also stated that the minimal risk level for PFAS should be dropped to 12 parts-per-trillion instead of the current EPA health advisory level of 70 parts-per-trillion. Some scientists believe that even this threshold is still too high. The health director of the Natural Resources Defense Council recommends that PFAS standards should be set in the 4-10 parts- per-trillion range. These conflicting opinions demonstrate just how ambiguous water quality standards are in this country.

History of Drinking Water Regulations

Although one might be quick to point fingers at the current administration, Scott Pruitt isn’t completely to blame for weak water quality standards. In fact, none of the recent EPA administrators have seriously taken on water quality regulations. After the major environmental policy reform in the early 1970’s, there hasn’t been a real push to amend important statutes that protect waters of the US. Certain drinking water standards that were set in the 1970’s are still acting as the federal floor today. Drinking water regulations have been in a state of limbo ever since the 1996 Amendments of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These amendments, developed under the Clinton Administration, addressed important gaps in the original 1974 statute. Unfortunately, since the 1996 amendments, entirely new classes of harmful contaminants have become prominent in our nations’ waters. Emergent chemicals such as PFAS weren’t mentioned in the 1996 amendments because regulators were unaware of just how dangerous they would become to human health. Again, we cannot completely blame this current administration. The scientific community has known about PFAS-like compounds for decades and still minimal action has been taken to mitigate exposure.

Future PFAS Standards & Regulations

As a result of this summit, PFAS will most likely not become a federally regulated contaminant. As we’ve stated before, the regulatory process for drinking water standards can take decades. The United States has a long way to go to improve the process of creating and setting federal drinking water standards. Making data available and learning more about these sophisticated emerging contaminants are important steps in mitigating exposure.

The good news is that our filters have been laboratory approved to remove PFAS! If you have any questions regarding PFAS or Hydroviv filters, send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com or use the chat function on our website. 

 

Other articles we think you might enjoy:
Minnesota PFAS Contaminatation
What you need to know about Perfluroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
GenX Contamination in Drinking Water

Why Optimization Matters

Have you every traveled to a different city and noticed that the water tastes different? That’s because the water chemistry is different, and more importantly, the problems present in the water are different too.

Around the country, millions of U.S. households have contaminants in their water that exceed public health goals, but the individual contaminates vary significantly state by state and even zip code by zip code. The issues in your water can be impacted by a variety of factors including the age of your home and city’s infrastructure, the natural geology of the region, and your home’s proximity to industrial sites, farms and military bases. Cities with older infrastructure like Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and Jackson, Mississippi, for example, face issues with lead contamination, while new developments in the American Southwest may be lead-free, but record unsafe concentrations of arsenic.

To address the unique issues in your water, our Water Nerds analyze water quality reports from local, county, state, federal and academic sources, and then build a customized filter designed to match and screen out the specific contaminates and bad-tasting chemicals coming out of your tap. The result is a hyper-targeted and long-lasting filter designed to keep your water safe and tasting great.

Here are a few examples of how water differs around the country:

• Lead: Lead contaminates tap water differently than most pollutants, because lead comes from the plumbing, not the water supply. Many neighborhoods in older cities have lead-containing service pipes that connect water mains to residential plumbing. Homes with pipes installed before 1986 often also have lead-containing solder. Lead can enter the water supply when municipal corrosion controls fail (what happened in Flint, Michigan) or when water sits stagnant in pipes for long periods of time. Lead contamination is a problem in all major U.S. cities, but there have been significant issues reported recently in Newark, Pittsburgh, Nashville and New York City. Many common pitcher filters do not remove lead.Learn more>
• Arsenic: Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic heavy metal that leaches into groundwater from surrounding rocks. Areas of the country where arsenic levels are high include Maine, Texas and much of the Southwest. Most common pitchers and fridge filters do not remove arsenic. Learn more>
• Chromium-6: Chromium-6, the cancer-causing chemical at the center of the Erin Brockovich story, is still used in a number of industrial processes including steel production, leather tanning, and textile manufacturing. It can enter local rivers and groundwater through waste, and despite notable media attention is still not well regulated. Homes located near current or former industrial facilities are most at risk. Learn more>

Chlorine vs. Chloramine:

Most municipalities around the country use chorine to disinfect their local water supply, but some, including our hometown of Washington, D.C., use chloramine. While both are safe at the levels used, neither taste very good. Most common filters are designed to remove only chlorine, but Hydroviv’s system is tailored to match whichever is used in your hometown, giving you the best-tasting results. Learn more>


Learn more about our and get the best solution for your water.

Emma Schultz, M.S.

Many schools across the country have recently made the news for lead contamination in water, often at dangerously high levels. Since the Flint, Michigan water crisis brought lead contamination and lead poisoning into the spotlight in 2015, there has been a push to increase water testing in schools, for good reason. It’s unlikely that these high test results are new; it is much more likely that this has been an ongoing undetected problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 90,000 public schools (as well as half a million child care facilities) are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act due to utilizing a municipal water utility. While these statistics are dated (2002), they are still referenced by EPA. Since the utility is the responsible party for testing water, the school itself is not required to test, unless there are more stringent local laws or they voluntarily choose to do so. Most do not, or if they do, their results may not be reflective of normal lead levels. Water frequently stagnates in school pipes, due to nights, weekends, and summers where water usage is drastically diminished. That stagnation leads to leaching of lead, and therefore lead accumulation, when there are lead pipes or lead-containing valves and fittings. Many public schools across the country have an aging infrastructure, and with age comes the increased likelihood of lead-containing plumbing.

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead in drinking water. No level of lead is safe, especially when it comes to children, who are most sensitive to lead poisoning. The EPA limit of 15 parts per billion, set in 1991, is much higher than EPA and CDC have admitted is safe (they agree, there is no safe level of lead). In addition, 10% of samples are legally allowed to exceed the 15 ppb threshold without resulting in any utility violations. In contrast, The American Academy of Pediatrics proposes that lead in school drinking water should not exceed 1 ppb.

Lead Contamination In Montgomery County, Maryland Schools

Maryland’s governor, Larry Hogan, signed legislation in May 2017 mandating occasional testing of drinking water faucets in the state’s public and private schools. Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) began testing their 205 schools in February 2018, with an anticipated finish date of June 30th. Of their 205 facilities, drinking water test reports have been released so far for 21 schools.

While the nationwide Action Level for lead in municipal drinking water, as established by EPA, is 15 parts per billion, the Action Level for faucets in Maryland’s schools is set at 20 ppb. This is an amount agreed to by EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment, and it is also the amount recommended under EPA’s voluntary guidance for schools utilizing their own water supply per the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule.

Of the 21 MCPS schools with released results, 12 have test results with lead levels higher than 20 ppb. Some of these violations come from faucets that students do not normally interact with, though several may be used during food preparation. Test results, broken down by school, are as follows:

School	Individual Tap Results
Gaithersburg Elementary	2 classroom fountains tested above 20 ppb, at 83.6 and a staggering 253 ppb. Many fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied from 1-13.9 ppb.
New Hampshire Estates Elementary	1 classroom fountain tested above 20 ppb, at 42.5 ppb. Many of the taps tested at <1 ppb, with some faucets and fountains varying from 1-11 ppb.
Pine Crest Elementary	2 taps tested above 20 ppb: one classroom fountain at 28.4 ppb, and an office faucet at 31.9 ppb. Many fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results ranged from 1-12.8 ppb.
Rock View Elementary	1 classroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 40.6 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with no other taps testing above 4.2 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with one anomaly.
Rolling Terrace Elementary	2 taps tested above 20 ppb: one classroom faucet at 21.6 ppb, and a classroom fountain at 21.9 ppb. Many of the fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied, with two faucets testing above 10 ppb, at 10.8 and 11.6 ppb.
Strathmore Elementary	2 faucets tested above 20 ppb: one classroom faucet at 30.3 ppb, and a kitchen faucet at 51.8 ppb. While a few classrooms tested at <1 ppb, most did not, with other results as high as 18.4, 10, and 16 ppb.
Summit Hill Elementary	2 classroom faucets tested above 20 ppb, at 32.4 and 21.5 ppb. Some of the taps tested at <1 ppb, with other results varying from 1-16.1 ppb. Classroom 5 had a faucet test at 16.1 ppb and a fountain test at 15.3 ppb.
Viers Mill Elementary	1 classroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 59.9 ppb. Many of the fountains and faucets tested at <1 ppb. Other results varied from 1-10.2 ppb.
Eastern Middle	4 faucets tested above 20 ppb, at 56.6, 24.2, 64.9, and 34.9 ppb. Some taps tested at <1 ppb, with others ranging from 1-17.7 ppb.
Parkland Middle	1 kitchen faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 33.9 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with no other taps testing above 6 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with one anomaly.
Sligo Middle	2 faucets tested above 20 ppb, a break room faucet at 50.6 ppb, and a kitchen faucet at 29 ppb. Some taps tested at <1 ppb, and no other taps tested above 5 ppb. This school overall tested at very low lead levels, with two anomalies.
Northwood High	1 workroom faucet tested above 20 ppb, at 128 ppb. The majority of taps tested at <1 ppb, with others ranging from 1-14.7 ppb.

While the remaining schools tested thus far are considered “safe” from high lead levels according to protocol, 19 of the 21 schools had test results above 10 ppb. For example, a water fountain in the Kindergarten area of Rosemont Elementary tested at 10.9 ppb, and a fountain in the music area of Washington Grove Elementary tested at 19.8 ppb.

Laytonsville Elementary, constructed in 1951 (and renovated in 1989, prior to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule) had the following test results, which are perhaps most concerning of the schools technically considered to be “safe.” Several classroom faucets were found to have 15.7, 17.7, and 19.6 ppb of lead, while there were water fountains that tested at 13.9, 12.3, and 11.1 ppb. The average amount of lead across all Laytonsville Elementary faucets was over 5 ppb, while the average across all water fountains was 4.27 ppb. This suggests that the drinking water at Laytonsville Elementary may be more harmful to children than several of the schools that have made the news following the release of these test results. Also harmful to these children and their parents are news sources who have reported misleadingly on the story that “nine schools’ water tests did not show any elevated level of lead [including] Laytonsville E.S.” Once again, that there is no safe level of lead in drinking water, especially for children.

More test results should be released from MCPS soon.

Other Articles We Think You'll Enjoy

Why are so many schools testing positive for lead?
How does lead enter tap water?

*Updated March 12, 2021

How Are Chloramine and Chlorine Different?

We answer this question in much more detail in a different post, but here's the skinny on chlorine in drinking water: Like a growing number of US cities, Washington, DC uses chloramine as the primary disinfectant for a couple of reasons:

1. It persists longer in the distribution system, so it does a better job killing bacteria in areas of the water distribution system that are near the end of the pipes, or don't have as high of flow as other areas.
2. It doesn't form disinfection by products in the presence of organic matter.
3. Chloramine-treated water doesn't have as strong of a taste as chlorine-treated water

While these are all great reasons to use chloramine, most cities that use chloramine undergo a more aggressive disinfection cycle for a few weeks each year (aka Spring Cleaning).

What Are The Impacts of Switching to Chlorine?

During this time, some people find that the water tastes and smells tastes bad, and the bathroom smells a bit like a swimming pool's locker room after showering. If you want to fix this problem... you have a couple of options that don't involve bottled water (horrible for the environment).

1. Filter your water 
2. If you let chlorinated tap water sit in a pitcher overnight, a good amount of the chlorine taste will go away.

When Will Washington, DC's Water Switch Back Over to Chloramine?

May 17, 2021 is the day that DC Water plans to switch back over to chloramine. Until then... non-Hydroviv users will just have to hold their noses!

Other Great Articles We Think You'll Love

Michelle Scire  |  Scientific Contributor

What Is 1,2,3 Trichloropropane And Where Does It Come From?

1,2,3 Trichloropropane (TCP) is a synthetic chemical that is commonly used as an industrial solvent, cleaning and degreasing agent, and paint and varnish remover.  In California’s Central Valley, widespread TCP contamination was caused by a now-banned fumigant DBCP, which was used to kill nematodes (small worms that live in the soil). When applied to the soil, TCP leaches from the deeper soil to groundwater. When DBCP was banned in 1977 by the EPA, it was commonly used on over 40 crops in California. Unfortunately, TCP is persistent in the environment, and as of November 2017, 395 of the 5863 wells used by public water supplies had levels of TCP that exceeded the California regulatory limit. When looking at a map of contaminated wells (above), you will see a strip right up the center of California from south of Bakersfield to Sacramento with some prominent outliers in Los Angeles, San Diego, Salinas, San Jose, San Francisco, and Chico counties. 

Why Do We Care About TCP?

TCP is some nasty stuff. In the short-term, high levels of inhalation exposure to TCP can cause irritation of eyes, respiratory tract and skin, and has the ability to depress the central nervous system. Moreover, studies in rodents have confirmed it may affect memory, focus and muscle coordination. Long term exposure studies have found exposure in rodents can lead to liver and kidney damage as well as reduced body weight and tumor growth. To get an idea of how toxic TCP is, the 5 part per trillion MCL (legal limit) is equivalent to a single drop of water being diluted into about 5.5 olympic sized swimming pools!.

Timeline of Public Knowledge Related To TCP Toxicity

Year	Action
1930’s	Age of chemical agriculture and the beginning of Expts. With DBCP as a fumigant.
1974	Dow memo refering to select DBCP components as, “garbage.”
1977	Ban of DBCP which contains 1,2,3 TCP except Hawaii.
1992	1,2,3-TCP was added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, pursuant to California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
1995	International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) tested TCP for carcinogenicity by oral administration in one experiment in mice and in one experiment in rats. It produced tumours of the oral mucosa and of the uterus in female mice and increased the incidences of tumours of the forestomach, liver and Harderian gland in mice of each sex. ln rats, increased incidences of tumours were observed in the preputial gland, kidney and pancreas of males, in the clitoral gland and mammary gland of females and in the oral cavity and for stomach of both males and females.
1995	Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established or are proposed at the state level in Hawaii, California, and New Jersey (ATSDR 1995).
1999	California State Water Resources Control Board established a 0.005-micrograms per liter (μg/L) drinking water notification level for 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). This value is based on cancer risks derived from laboratory animals studies (US EPA , 1997).
2001	California State Water Resources Control Board began monitoring TCP vie the UCMR analytical method but no regulations of corrective actions put in place
2004	California State Water Resources Control Board requested a public health goal (PHG) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). A PHG is not a enforceable parameter for TCP but merely a goal.
2007	OEHHA released a draft PHG (0.0007 µg/L) and technical support document
2009	OEHHA established a 0.0007-ug/L PHG for TCP.
2009	EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) lists chronic oral reference dose (RfD) of 4 x 10-3 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) and a chronic inhalation reference concentration (RfC) of 3 x 10-4 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) (EPA IRIS 2009). The cancer risk assessment for TCP is based on an oral slope factor of 30 mg/kg/day (EPA IRIS 2009).
2013	No federal Maximum Contaminant level (MCL) set for TCP in drinking water.
2017	State Water Resources Control Board voted to approve a standard for the chemical in drinking water. They set the limit at 5 parts per trillion, a level supported by clean water and pesticide reform advocates. The state will now start water systems to test all of their wells every month starting in January 2018.

Data from: HERE

What Took Regulation Of TCP So Long?

While it’d be great if regulatory bodies were able to act quickly, the reality is that regulations take time, often decades to execute. In the case of TCP specifically, Cindy Forbes, the deputy director for Californiawater board’s drinking water program, insists that TCP regulation was a “top priority,” but explained that they had limited resources preventing them from reaching“the finish line.” In California, the process to establish a maximum contaminant level (ie regulatory limit) includes: conducting their own peer-reviewed research, evaluating cost of detection and cleanup, as well as allowing public comment (which undoubtedly includes comments from companies responsible for contamination). Forbes claims, “It’s my priority, it’s the board’s priority,” but one has to wonder what the word priority means when there is scientific research going back 25 years explicitly showing the repercussions of this contaminant. There is only one carcinogen with a lower state public health goal for drinking water, and that is dioxin.

What Can Be Done To Treat Water That Has Been Contaminated With TCP?

Large Scale TCP Remediation Techniques

Because of the contamination primarily leaching into the ground water in California's Central Valley, ground water remediation methods have been established. TCP can be removed with traditional methods such as, “pump and treat granular activated carbon filters (GAC), in-situ oxidation, permeable reactive barriers (zero-valent zinc), dechlorination by hydrogen-releasing compounds, and emerging biodegradation techniques.” A new method was developed recently using, “in-line, pressurized advanced oxidation process (HiPOx) that has the ability to remove TCP from groundwater to below 0.005 μg/L.” The treatment techniquewill depend on the level of contamination in groundwater or soil being treated. While these methods are indeed effective, they are expensive and require long planning/execution periods.

Small Scale (Residential) TCP Removal of TCP

If your home’s water is contaminated with TCP, and large-scale treatment isn’t happening in an acceptable time frame, some residential water filters do remove TCP. Our advice is to find a water filter that is advertised to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ask the manufacturer for a data sheet that shows effective removal of TCP specifically. 

If you have any more questions about 1,2,3 Trichloropropane contamination, we encourage you to reach out to our “Help No Matter What” technical support through live chat or email (hello@hydroviv.com). Our Water Nerds are happy to answer any questions you may have!

Other Articles We Think You'll Enjoy

What Should I Know About Removing VOCs From My Water?
Why Are Toxic Chemicals In Drinking Water?
What Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Are Commonly Found In Drinking Water?