[ad_1]
Millions of Americans rely on drinking water systems that recently exceeded new standards for toxic “permanent chemicals” announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
USA TODAY found 608 systems across the country that have been measuring PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at or above newly established limits since last year. Together, they serve approximately 35 million people.
An additional 13 million people drink water from hundreds of other systems that have recently been detected with levels of chemicals that require reporting to the EPA, according to a USA TODAY analysis. is not enough.
These results represent a one-time sample, and EPA will not require changes to water systems unless annual averages exceed the new limits.
This chemical is nearly indestructible and has been widely used for decades in food packaging, firefighting foam, and other non-stick and water-repellent items. PFAS can eventually accumulate in the environment and in humans, increasing the risk of cancer and other serious health problems.
Last year, the EPA began requiring thousands of water systems to be tested for more than 20 types of PFAS, in the most extensive effort yet to track the prevalence of PFAS across the United States.
But systems in more than 200 large cities are still not included in the EPA’s dataset, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia, according to a USA TODAY analysis. The number of Americans affected is sure to increase as the EPA releases updated data every quarter.
The EPA estimates the new restrictions could affect up to 100 million people.
Map: Where water systems have reported PFAS levels above new EPA limits
This map shows water systems that have tested at or above new PFAS limits since last year. It is based on boundaries developed by SimpleLab, a water testing company. Click on a system to see which pollutants exceeded the limits and by how much the most concentrated pollutants exceeded their levels. If you can’t see the map, click here.
Of the places where data is available, large cities exceed PFAS limits at a higher rate than smaller places, according to a USA TODAY analysis. About one-third of water systems serving more than 100,000 people exceed the new standards. On the smallest systems, it’s 10 times less.
Again, these results represent a single point in time, and in some cases may include only one result from multiple tests that exceeded the new limit. For example, in Louisville, Kentucky, six samples reported last year once measured PFOA at nearly twice the standard, according to EPA data.
“The rule is an annual moving average, and one sample does not determine public health. This is an indicator,” said Kelly Dearing Smith, vice president of communications and marketing for the Louisville Water Company. Ta.
He noted that Louisville’s moving average PFOA level is 1.9 parts per trillion, below the new limit of 4.
It’s the long-term trends that are important, said David Trueba, a chemist and president of Revive Environmental, which has patented a new technology to destroy PFAS.
“If you go to the doctor and are told you have high blood pressure, that’s okay. Is it because you got tested once? Or is it just a monthly average of many data points?” Turba said. “If[PFAS]are consistent, pervasive and concentrated beyond a certain level, that’s what makes a difference.”
Hundreds of systems in EPA data show the same water collection locations exceeded the new limits on multiple test dates last year. For example, the Suffolk County Water District on Long Island, New York, reported that one sample tested nearly twice the limit for the chemical PFOS in March 2023. Results for the same well increased to more than four times the limit in November. Agency officials did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Across the country, a water utility in Fresno, California detected PFOS in one well at more than 7 times the standard limit in March 2023, and again at 3.5 times the standard in September of last year. A total of 11 wells in Fresno reported multiple readings above the new standards last year.
Chad Colby, water system supervisor for the Fresno Department of Public Works, declined to comment.
Other water systems told USA TODAY they suspect recent sample results were false positives. That can happen, Turba said. He estimates that the error rate could be as low as one in every five tests he tests. But he said the new PFAS standards require cities to plan ahead.
“Excuses (for poor testing) no longer hold up at the highest pollutant loads,” Trueba said, adding that the city takes multiple samples in case something goes wrong with the first test. He pointed out that this is a best practice. He said, “Instead of drawing one bottle, you should draw three bottles.”
“I can’t tell you how to get out of compliance,” he added.
How much does it cost to meet the PFAS rule?
Although there are thousands of permanent chemicals, the EPA currently has standards for six of the most common and most studied chemicals. The EPA estimates that nearly 7,000 water systems may eventually have to take steps to remove these PFAS from their water.
It’s not cheap to do so.
Installing new equipment to meet the new standards could cost $3 million in a mid-sized city, Trueba estimates.
The EPA monitors the water in 66,000 public drinking water systems in the United States for PFAS, notifies customers of the results, and takes 15 days a year to find new water sources or install equipment to treat the water. It is estimated to cost $1 billion.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill includes $9 billion to help communities suffering from pollution from PFAS and other “emerging contaminants.” The law also includes $12 billion for general drinking water, but Trueba said that amount of investment won’t solve the PFAS problem in all communities.
“There’s zero funding for the ongoing operating and maintenance costs that come with keeping this going,” Trueba said, noting that some cities will have to raise rates for customers to cover that.
But if the cap had been set at the level the EPA suggested a year ago, even more utilities would likely have had to raise rates. According to Shalene Thomas, a PFAS industry expert and emerging contaminants program manager at the nonprofit research organization Battelle, three of the most difficult-to-remove PFAS chemicals have a 10 trillion per cent increase in the number of chemicals that are more difficult to remove than originally proposed. A limit of 10 has been set.
“If these numbers are higher, the total number of utilities affected should decrease,” Thomas said. “For water utilities, it will be a bit of a relief to have a double-digit cap.”
How long will it take before the EPA can issue fines for PFAS?
While PFAS limits are now official, the EPA plans to phase them in over the next few years to ease the burden on cities, many of which have limited budgets and staffing. .
“We’re not going to be able to address this overnight,” said Rory Jones, director of the Tampa, Florida, Water District, which has measured PFOS and PFOA above new limits multiple times in the last year.
In 2020, the utility began piloting a water treatment technology called suspended ion exchange, the first project of its kind in the United States.
Jones said the pilot program has shown promising results, but scaling up to a full-scale system will take time and money.
“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Jones said of the effort.
Timing-wise, water systems must complete initial monitoring for PFAS within the next three years. Thereafter, from 2027 to 2029, the system will continue to monitor the level at least once a year and notify customers of any findings and violations. EPA said if the levels continue to violate the new limits, it should begin considering solutions.
The restrictions could go into effect five years from now, but the potential penalties for violating them are “uncharted territory,” Trueba said.
“You’ve seen in the past, in places like Flint and Michigan, where lead violations resulted in multi-million dollar settlements with the EPA, right?” Truba said. “I don’t think you’ll be fined five years plus one day.”
Austin Fast is a data reporter and Cecilia Garzella is a data fellow on the USA TODAY investigative team. Contact Austin (afast@usatoday.com or @a_fast at X) and Cecilia (cgarzella@gannett.com or @ceciliagarzella at X).
[ad_2]
Source link
