The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in March that it will begin regulating six Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals.” Forever chemicals are found in millions of Americans’ drinking water and are typically under-tested and unregulated. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, or NPDWR, aims to prevent PFAS-attributed illnesses. The public has an opportunity to comment on the regulation until May 30, 2023.

What is NPDWR?

The NPDWR is a set of legally enforceable standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These regulations seek to protect public health by setting maximum levels for contaminants in drinking water. Specifically, the NPDWR covers over 90 different contaminants, including:

• Microorganisms
• Disinfectants
• Disinfection byproducts
• Inorganic chemicals
• Organic chemicals
• Radionuclides

The regulations set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and treatment techniques for each regulated contaminant. MCLs are the highest permissible levels of a contaminant in drinking water. Treatment techniques are required to remove contaminants that cannot practically be measured at the MCL.

Generally, the NPDWRs apply to all public water systems in the United States. Public water systems must test and monitor drinking water regularly to ensure that it meets the NPDWR standards. Public water systems can be subject to fines and penalties if they violate the NPDWRs. In addition, the EPA also provides technical assistance and guidance to public water systems to help them meet the regulations.

For example, the NPDWRs regulate one of the most well-known contaminants: lead. Lead is a toxic metal that can cause serious health problems, especially in children. Consequently, the EPA established the Lead and Copper Rule under the NPDWRs to reduce the amount of lead and copper in drinking water. Specifically, the rule requires public water systems to monitor and test the water for lead and copper levels, and to take action if the levels exceed the MCLs.

Generally, the EPA reviews and updates the NPDWR periodically to ensure that they continue to protect public health. For example, in 2020, the EPA issued a final rule to strengthen the existing arsenic drinking water standard. Specifically, the agency reduced the MCL from 10 parts per billion (ppb) to 5 ppb. This change is expected to provide additional protection for millions of Americans who rely on public water systems for their drinking water.

Significance of NPDWRs

The NPDWRs have played a critical role in protecting public health since their establishment in 1974. Before the NPDWRs were put in place, waterborne diseases like cholera, typhoid fever, and dysentery were common in the United States. The regulations have helped to significantly reduce the incidence of waterborne diseases by ensuring that drinking water is free from harmful contaminants.

In addition to the NPDWRs, the EPA also established the Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (SDWRs). The SDWRs are non-enforceable guidelines that provide recommendations for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, odor, and color. Although the SDWRs are not legally enforceable, they serve as a useful resource for public water systems to provide water that is pleasant to drink.

One of the significant benefits of the NPDWRs is that they provide a uniform standard for drinking water across the United States. This means that regardless of where you live, the drinking water you consume is subject to the same standards for contaminants. The regulations help to ensure that everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water, regardless of their location.

Despite the benefits of the NPDWRs, there are still some challenges to ensuring that drinking water is safe. The aging infrastructure of many public water systems presents one of the biggest challenges. Many of these systems were built decades ago. Now, the systems need repair or replacement. Otherwise, aging infrastructure can lead to leaks, breaks, and contamination of drinking water. In fact, the EPA estimates that it will cost over $470 billion to repair and replace aging infrastructure in public water systems across the United States.

Recent Developments

The emergence of new contaminants that were not previously regulated by the NPDWRs has challenged the EPA. One example is PFAS, which are used in a wide range of products, including firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and food packaging. PFAS can persist in the environment for years and have been linked to a range of health problems. The EPA’s recent decision to regulate six PFAS is a significant development in ensuring that public drinking water is safe for consumption. We encourage you to participate in this policy development.

at Save the Water | April 14, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that millions of citizens in the U.S. are currently at risk from lead poisoning. The findings revealed that more than 9 million lead service linesare still used to deliver water to families around the country. As a result, this has prompted the agency to propose the first national drinking water standard for “forever chemicals,” which are considered to have dangerous effects on health.

These findings are based on the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Researchers conducting this survey are concerned with the number of lead service lines. The 2021 survey examined over 3,600 public water systems across the nation. Based on the findings, the EPA announced that it believes there are around 9.2 million lead service lines in the country.

What Does the EPA Intend to Do?

New rules set by the agency intend to set drinking water standards for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals stay in the environment and the human body for long periods of time.They are known to have harmful effects.

Although there are thousands of PFAS chemicals, the new rules will now mandate that water systems monitor for the presence of six specific chemicals, notify the public about the PFAS levels, and then work towards reduction if the chemicals exceed the limit set forth. 

“I am thrilled to announce that EPA is taking yet another bold step to protect public health,” said US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan. “Folks, this is a tremendous step forward in the right direction. We anticipate that when fully implemented, this rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS related illnesses.”  

How Does Lead Affect Health?

Lead poisoning is a serious public health threat that needs to be monitored and mitigated. Exposure to lead could come from ingesting or inhaling lead-contaminated water, soil, paint chips, or dust particles. Additionally,  lead exposure can also come from ingesting food that contains lead from soil or water. Some of the harmful health effects that lead poisoning can lead to are:

• Damage to the nervous system, mostly affecting the sense organs and other nerves controlling the body
• Hearing and vision impairment
• Fetal growth restriction, even at low exposure levels
• Reproductive problems 
• Hypertension 

The EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water as zero. This is because there is no safe amount of lead. The toxic metal is harmful to our health even at extremely low levels, as it’s persistent and can accumulate over time.

Young children, infants, and fetuses are the most vulnerable group. The dangerous physical and behavioral health effects occur at a lower threshold of lead exposure when compared to adults. Children in low-income communities and communities of color also bear more burdens and face more risk than others. This is due to years of housing discrimination that forced communities of color into poverty and housing in substandard buildings. 

What Is Being Done to Eliminate Lead Poisoning?

The EPA’s survey found that the U.S. needs to spend $625 billion on drinking water infrastructure in the next two decades. Most of the money is to be used to upgrade ancient water pipes, many of which are too old and broken. In some cases, those water pipes are even made of lead. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $6 billion to upgrade water infrastructure in the country. The goal is to upgrade the aging infrastructure and replace all the water pipes made out of lead. With sufficient funding, the EPA hopes that one day, lead poisoning from drinking water could become a thing of the past.

By Samhar Almomani, Publishing Associate Researcher & Writer at Save the Water | September 15, 2022

In late August, Missippi’s Governor declared a water emergency for the residents of Jackson, Mississippi. Pumps at the main water treatment facility failed, leaving more than 150,000 residents without a reliable water source. To many onlookers, what the residents of Mississippi are going through echoes a similar crisis that afflicted Flint, Michigan in 2016. 

These crises remind us need to invest in modern, safe water infrastructure.

Dangers of Underfunded Water Infrastructure

Many dangers result from underfunded water infrastructure:

• Increased breakage that results in cutting off water supply
• Lead and copper leaching from corrosion that makes water dangerous
• More water boiling notices due to contaminants 
• Increased leaks leading to high financial costs

The City of Jackson in Mississippi suffers from many of these problems. Recent torrential rains compounded years of water infrastructure neglect. Now, thousands of residents have little to no access to clean water. The main water treatment facility failed and directly caused this situation. In 2020, the treatment facility failed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection.

The EPA had said that the water in the treatment facility could become toxic by being the host to harmful bacteria and parasites “based on observations of the water’s turbidity, or cloudiness, as well as ‘disinfection treatment concerns, and/or the condition of the distribution system.”

The Health Effects of Contaminated Water

Water contamination can cause disease in millions of people that rely on that water supply. Ideally, water would be supplied from local water sources, such as rivers and streams. 

However, that is not always the case.  Years of underfunding and neglecting water infrastructure exposes people to toxic water every day. Specifically, water treatment facilities that are supposed to clean out the water are not maintained properly, leading to a toxic water supply being sent to homes, schools, and hospitals. Usually, people from a disadvantaged background bear the worst effects.

People from disadvantaged backgrounds also are located in places that are often in low-lying flood zones, near industrial facilities, and other areas considered prone to natural disasters. Living in these areas makes a person especially vulnerable to dangerous effects to health. Namely, failing infrastructure after natural disasters will lead to hazardous substances in the water facilities.

What Can You Do to Fix Underfunded Water Infrastructure?

EPA recommends two ways to tackle  underfunded, aging water infrastructure. The first one involves a wastewater treatment clearinghouse, which is a platform that allows the sharing of the latest and most cost-effective solutions relating to water treatment. Notably, the clearinghouse will include information for both centralized and decentralized treatment systems.

The other EPA recommendation involves an Alternative Technologies and Assessment chart. This chart includes resources that point to the best, newest, and most innovative technologies relating to water infrastructure. 

You can educate yourself about these solutions by clicking the links above. By educating yourself about the ways you can help, you can become an avid activist for safe, drinkable water. This could be done through a number of ways, such as attending council meetings or voicing your concerns.

By bringing attention to the dire issue of underfunded, old water infrastructure and looking into ways you can help, you can start helpful changes in both your community and the world.

News of water contamination in New York, West Virginia, and Michigan have received a significant amount of national attention this year; however, these are not the only places in the country suffering from dangerous levels of pollution. The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water Authority, along with the residents in Decatur, Alabama, have had enough and joined the fight in pursuing legal action against manufacturing companies for the high levels of toxicity they have been experiencing in their water supply.

The EPA has recognized water contamination issues in Alabama on more than one occasion, and statistics from a 2014 report from the Environment America Research and Policy indicate that Alabama has ranked fourth in the country for states with the highest toxic discharges. Furthermore, manufacturing mills all over the state released 12.3 million pounds of pollutants into the water in 2012 alone.3 Alabama also ranked second in the nation for the release of cancer-causing chemicals, with 119,116 pounds pouring into its rivers and streams.3

For decades, the company 3M had been unknowingly discharging large amounts of perfluorocarboxylic acid precursors (PFOA), a chemical that is commonly used to make non-stick surfaces, into Tennessee River. Even though 3M phased out the PFOA beginning in 2002, the chemical stays in the water supply, and many residents believe that the chemicals are still leaking into the Tennessee River.2 The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water Authority filed a lawsuit against 3M, claiming that the company released chemicals that were not effectively handled by a wastewater treatment process.5 A non-profit called Tennessee Riverkeeper has also filed a notice to sue 3M and other Alabama-based companies over PFOA and PFOS contamination of the river, stating that runoff from landfills is contaminating the river and groundwater.5

When consumed over long periods of time, PFOA becomes a major health concern. The compound does not break down naturally and can build up in people and animals.6 While some studies have shown that PFOA is present in the majority of people’s blood, new evidence suggests that even small amounts can be associated with several health problems, especially in pregnant women and infants.6 According to EPA data, 13 water systems nationwide showed levels of PFOA higher than the new threshold, and 46 showed increasing levels of PFOS.6

In May, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a lifetime drinking water Health Advisory (HA) for PFOA of 0.07 micrograms per liter (µg/L).6 The study is based on a developmental toxicity study in mice, which found that PFOA had effects on liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, immune effects, and different kinds of cancer (liver, testicular, and pancreatic).1

Unfortunately, these new health advisories are not mandatory regulations and are only meant as guidelines for drinking water systems.5 However, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) stated that they would be working with the Alabama Department of Public Health to help bring their drinking water up to par with the new guidelines.5 While there need to be more studies about the effects of PFOA and PFOS on the environment and human condition, it is important that we take the proper actions to create enforceable standards for drinking water involving this compound.

References

1. American Cancer Society. 2016. “Teflon and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).”
   http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid–pfoa
2. G. Douban. April 26, 2016. “The battle over industrial water pollution in Alabama.” Marketplace. http://www.marketplace.org/2016/04/21/world/alabama
3. Montgomery Advertiser. July 14, 2014. “Pollution plagues our water.”
   http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/07/14/pollution-plagues-water/12645659/
4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2016. “Perfluorooctane
   Sulfonate (PFOS) and related chemical products.” http://bit.ly/2sVonGB
5. D. Pillion. May 21, 2016. “8 Alabama drinking water systems have chemicals linked to cancer
   above safe levels, EPA says.” Alabama Media Group. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/05/epa_8_alabama_drinking_water_s.html
6. United States EPA. May 2016. “Drinking water health advisory for perfluorooctanoic acid
   (PFOA)”. http://bit.ly/2uGeyJJ

, Staff Writer for Save The Water | April 18, 2016

A number of harmful chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis is nothing short of overwhelming. How can we expect to avoid them all? The sad truth is that we can’t. But, we can take real action towards minimizing our  exposure to harmful chemicals. The first step is to build awareness around what is really in the cleaners that we rely upon to keep our homes clean and our families healthy.

More importantly, we need to understand how the products that we use every day affect the environment and our vital water supply. Our daily actions often have more implications than we think. We may be contaminating our water and land without even knowing it. Even worse, we may be completely aware that we are doing it, but just don’t know of better alternatives. Fear not – there are plenty of things that we can do to keep our water and our houses clean.

>Problem

According to the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA), “the average American uses about 25 gallons of products containing hazardous chemicals per year in their home” (Leap 2016). While we think that we may be protecting our families and ourselves from harmful germs, we may in reality just be passing that harm to the environment. This results in a long-lasting effect that is being carried forward by each individual, and may cause more harm than we can realistically fix.This calls for a massive wave of change, rooted in the understanding that our environment is what sustains us, and harming it is essentially harming ourselves and our future descendants.

Using harmful household cleaners doesn’t just harm our health; it makes its way into our water supply and leaches into our land, where our food comes from. Think about it – after you clean your countertop with an all-purpose spray cleaner, where does the paper towel go? Into the trash. As we follow its journey to the massive landfill on the outskirts of our cities, it’s clear that the sheer amount of household cleaner residue present in the trash of our communities could pose a real threat to our environment. Similarly, when we pour toilet bowl cleaner straight into our toilets, this action provides direct access to whatever harmful chemicals to our water supply. Not only are we exposing our sensitive bodily organs and systems to these chemicals, we are contaminating  the water that is eventually used in for laundry, cleaning, showers, and even our drinking.

Solution

Many of the companies that manufacture household cleaners have adopted an upgraded safety label to assure their customers of the integrity of the ingredients in their products. According to the EPA, “more than 2,000 products currently qualify to carry the Safer Choice label” (EPA 2016). Because meeting the standard and displaying the label are both voluntary, it is clear that the companies that adhere to these more stringent standards are industry leaders in sustainability and environmental safety. This serves as a helpful and important message to consumers who wish to adopt safer household cleaner products into their home. In turn, these products are safer for our environments in addition to our families, making them a better choice overall.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has also taken steps to research and build awareness of the effects of ingredients in antibacterial hand soaps. Interestingly, the FDA maintains that “there currently is no evidence that over-the-counter (OTC) antibacterial soap products are any more effective at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water” (FDA 2013). By continuing the campaign to engage in effective research for the benefit of consumer knowledge, the FDA is ensuring that consumers are aware of both the benefits and the risks that they expose themselves to through the use of common household cleaning products. It also goes to show that we may be harming our environment with no additional benefit to ourselves!

Action

Most of the actions we can take to make our households cleaner in a safer way are not that difficult. All it takes is a little bit of awareness about the products we put into our hands, onto our countertops, and down the drain. By making that extra effort to read the product label, or spending an extra dollar on the green brand, we can make a world of difference. Living a healthy lifestyle takes commitment and, yes, a bit of money. That’s the society we live in, after all. Healthy and clean doesn’t come cheap, but it does save our planet significantly when you consider the effects on the environment.

We would all do well to take a brief inventory of our cleaning supplies as they relate to our personal health and to the health of the environment and our water supply. Giam Inc (2016)  lists points to consider when switching from a common household cleaners . Many of the products listed in the article could, in fact, pose great harm to our respiratory and nervous systems, among others. Scary stuff, right? Imagine what it does to another system almost as sensitive as our own bodies: the environment.

Another action step you can take is to create your own household cleaning products. This could be a fun hobby for you and your kids or roommates to do together, and you’ll feel much better about using these items in your living space. If you’re feeling creative, you could even give these homemade products away as gifts to your friends and family! They will appreciate the generosity, and you’ll be spreading awareness about the potential dangers of many store-bought household cleaning brands.

As we navigate this new “green” age, the burden falls on us to decide which route we’ll take. One thing we should all commit to is to at least be aware. With awareness, we understand the full implications of the actions we take every day. Sure, ignorance is bliss. But wouldn’t you rather know how big your carbon footprint really is, and take real steps towards minimizing your  exposure to harmful chemicals?

References

1. “8 Household Cleaning Agents to Avoid.” Gaiam Life. Gaiam, Inc. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.

“FDA Taking Closer Look at ‘Antibacterial’ Soap.” 16 Dec. 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.

• Leap, Amy. “Make Your Own to Eliminate Hazardous Chemicals.” Ask The Expert. Pocono Record, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
• “Learn About the Safer Choice Label.” Consumer Updates. Environmental Protection Agency, 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.

In California’s San Joaquin Valley, “roughly 250 miles long and encompassing major cities, up to one in 10 public water systems have raw drinking water with uranium levels that exceed federal and state safety standards, the U.S. Geological Survey has found. More broadly, nearly 2 million people in California’s Central Valley and in the U.S. Midwest live within a half-mile of groundwater containing uranium over the safety standards, University of Nebraska researchers said in a study published in September. Uranium, the stuff of nuclear fuel for power plants and atom bombs, increasingly is showing in drinking water systems in major farming regions of the U.S. West — a naturally occurring but unexpected byproduct of irrigation, of drought, and of the overpumping of natural underground water reserves”

Aside from the fact that this increased Uranium concentration in the water supply is in itself cause for concern, the majority of residents of this particular valley cannot read English. Unaware of a clear danger, residents may continue to drink the supply. The responsibility of communicating this threat to the majority falls upon those few members of the community who can read English and it’s very possible some details may be lost in translation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rule on Radionuclides in Drinking Water prescribes a maximum contaminant level for naturally occurring uranium of 30 micrograms per litre. The EPA determines a safe level of 20 micrograms per litre assuming that an adult with a body mass of 70 kilograms drinks 2 litres of water per day and that 80% of exposure to uranium is from water.

Uranium is found in groundwater associated with granitic rocks and other mineral deposits. “Geologists and water experts are still piecing together the ways levels of uranium exceeding federal and state health standards are seeping into more public water systems and household wells in major farm areas”. Scientists familiar with the situation believe it is due to the increase in farming in the state. As snow melts from the nearby Rockies into groundwater at lower elevations, the collected water naturally has high levels of uranium due to chemical leaching from the granitic rocks. This groundwater “allows year-round farming, and the irrigated plants naturally create a weak acid that is leeching more and more uranium from sediment”.

Due to the rising frequency of uranium water contaminations in the Central California area, some public schools have taken a proactive approach and “installed uranium removal facilities in recent years”. However, these systems range “from $65,000 for the smallest system to the millions of dollars” for larger systems. The schools unable to afford such expensive removal facilities “opt to buy bottled water in place of drinking fountains, which are off limits because of uranium and other contaminants”. These schools must either set aside school funds to purchase large amounts of bottled water or apply for state grants to acquire the necessary funds for trucking in drinking water.

Scientists state that this process has taken decades to reach this point and will take at least a decade to eradicate the uranium contamination if officials begin addressing the issue head on. However, most local and state officials are mainly paying attention to the multi-year drought that has occurred all over the state of California, affecting agriculture, drinking water availability, and daily life. Because of this, little resources and attention are being given to the crisis in the San Joaquin Valley, leaving residents there to either purchase bottled water or continue to risk their health by drinking and using uranium contaminated water.

References

Fawell, John, and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen. “Contaminants in Drinking Water.” British Medical Bulletin 68.1 (2003): 199-208. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Knickmeyer, Ellen, and Scott Smith. “Fear at the Tap: Uranium Contaminates Water in the West.” The Big Story. Associated Press, 8 Dec. 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Kinze, Michael. Dose Limits and Maximum Concentration Limits (MCL’s) for Radionuclides – Implication on Remediation of Uranium Mining and Milling Facilities in Saxony, Germany. Berlin: Springer, 2002. Print.

Introduction

There’s a certain stigma around the designation of a Superfund to a contaminated site.6 Imagine driving through your hometown past your neighborhood factory, only to find it has been permanently closed down and swarming with federal researchers donning hazmat suits. The town speculates out of sheer anxiety and desperation, and now nobody thinks the water running down from the tap is safe anymore. In reality, the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company contamination site was deemed significant enough to warrant a federal cleanup program that shoots the site to the top of the priority list.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Superfund law grants it the authority to clean up significantly-contaminated sites with the ultimate goal of reverting them to productive and safe use.3 Critics state that the designation negatively impacts property values in the surrounding areas, as developers and potential residents steer clear of a so-called “toxic” area. Can you blame them?

The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC) is now contending with this possibility, and it’s putting up quite a fight. CFAC’s corporate secretary Cheryl Driscoll stated that a Superfund designation does not always result in an expedient cleanup, and “prevent[s] others from seeking to redevelop the site and thus potentially limit[s] economic growth”. 6 But after the Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant (also referred to as Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Plant) closed its doors in the spring of 2015, the EPA proposed its addition to the National Priorities List. If granted, the plant would be eligible for further study and cleanup under the federal Superfund program.

The plant, located near Columbia Falls, Montana, covers almost 1,000 acres north of the Flathead River region. The Flathead River is home to the bull trout and west slope cutthroat trout, both of which were federally designated as a threatened and/or sensitive species.2

The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Plant operated for almost six decades from 1955 to 2009. The production process of aluminum involves refining bauxite, an aluminum ore, into aluminum oxide. The aluminum oxide goes through a smelting process, which results in a final aluminum metal product that is then available for use in transportation, packaging, and construction. A known byproduct of the aluminum smelting process is spent pot liner material, federally classified as hazardous waste. The material is known to contain hazardous compounds, including cyanide, that may leach into groundwater and surrounding areas.4

Problem

The aluminum smelting process is ideally well-controlled and contained, given the hazardous waste it produces during the production process and the dangers that this may pose to the surrounding environment and its inhabitants. The trouble started when the EPA’s initial site evaluation indicated various levels of contamination, including the presence of cyanide, fluoride, and other various metals in the plant’s surrounding groundwater and surface water.4

Not only does this pose a significant threat to the quality of water in the contaminated area, but further implications exist when one considers the possibility of leaching into the Flathead River. One obvious issue is that the river houses two threatened species of trout. We have an environmental and moral obligation to protect species from threats of endangerment and extinction, and this extends to the certification of water quality in which these species reside. Additionally, the human species may also endure unnecessary and unintended danger during the consumption of other fish that may live in the Flathead River. Food production is a global activity with far-reaching effects, and a threat in any stoppage of the food chain is significant.  

Solution

The EPA and the CFAC have reached an agreement to address the site contamination.4 The agreement is “backed by a $4 million irrevocable letter of credit put up by the [CFAC],” with planning to commence immediately.5 The agreement mandates that the current owner of the plant, CFAC, conducts a thorough investigation of soils, river sediments, groundwater, and surface water in order to determine the “nature and extent of contamination”.2 The agreement further stipulates that CFAC is responsible for reimbursing the EPA for any future costs associated with overseeing the investigation project.

EPA Project Manager Mike Cirian noted that the entire project spans approximately four years; the remedial investigation and feasibility study of the contaminated site serve to determine a plan for actual cleanup, “which falls under a judicial consent decree”.5

Action

In times of crisis, action must be swift, sensible, and focused. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Plant closed its doors for good early last year. Due to the environmental and social implications of water contamination found at the site of the plant, it was determined eligible for long-term remediation under the federal Superfund program. However, Cirian stated that a decision on whether or not the plant will be granted formal designation of a Superfund is not expected until late 2016.1

The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Plant site contamination emphasizes the importance and relevance of water quality and environmental responsibility that we encounter every day. Not only do we have a societal obligation to research, control, and eliminate any hazardous waste from the contaminated site, but we have a corporate responsibility to conduct business in such a way that environmental hazards are given as much consideration as effects to a company’s bottom line. Only when we consider our environment as important as our balance sheet will we truly foster a safe and healthy society.

References

1. Associated Press. “EPA delays Superfund decision on Columbia Falls aluminum plant.” Billings Gazette. 27 Jan. 2016
2. Devlin, Vince. “Glencore reaches agreement with EPA for Columbia Falls cleanup” Missoulian. 1 Dec. 2015.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Proposes Columbia Falls Aluminum Plant Site for Superfund Designation (Montana). Newsroom. Environmental Protection Agency, 24 Mar. 2015
4. Environmental Protection Agency. Final agreement to study contamination at Columbia Falls aluminum plant site (Flathead County, Mont.). Newsroom. Environmental Protection Agency, 30 Nov. 2015.
5. Peterson, Chris. “EPA, CFAC reach deal on investigation study.” Hungry Horse News. 30 Nov. 2015
6. Scott, Tristan. “Superfund: Success Story or Stigma?” Flathead Beacon. 31 Mar. 2015. Retrieved from http://flatheadbeacon.com/2015/03/31/superfund-success-story-or-stigma/

On August 5, 2015, 3 million tons of toxic sludge leaked into the Animas River in Colorado, giving its waters a bright yellow hue. According to most news sources, the leak was caused by a team of workers employed by the Environmental Protection Agency.1 The Gold King Mine has been leaking fluids into its surrounding area since its shuttering in 1923. This has resulted in the formation of dozens of toxic wells in its immediate vicinity. In order to contain this environmental disaster, work crews from the EPA have been attempting to “slurp out the worst pools of sludge and dispose of them properly.”2

But while they were working near Silverton, some of their heavy equipment “disturbed an earthen wall that secured the liquid, releasing an up to 80-mile ribbon of pollution downstream.”2 The contaminated water contains high levels of heavy metals, “including lead and arsenic.”1 A few days later, water tests after the spill indicated that levels of arsenic and lead were respectively at “300 and 3,500 times the normal levels.”2

EPA Promises to Do Better, But Farmers and City Near Gold King Mine Suffer

Since then, the EPA has owned up to causing the incident. Also, EPA has promised prompt rectification measures and the establishment of new oversights to better prevent a similar spill.2 That aside, the incident compromised the livelihood of many farmers situated along the Animas River and its tributaries. The incident also affected the city of Durango was also affected. That city draws a significant amount of its water supply from the Animas River. And much of its tourist trade depends on “water-based recreation.”3

Fortunately, no one died because of this spill. So far, current reports indicate that park agents and biologists working for La Plata County have found no significant amounts of dead fish or animals in or beside the polluted water bodies. This means that the polluted water poses little danger to fish or other wildlife.4 But the long term consequences of this incident remain to be seen.

Arsenic Spilled into the Animas River

Despite the well known, adverse health effects of exposure to heavy metal contaminants, worldwide people continue using heavy metals today. For example, one major pollutant is arsenic. Arsenic spilled into the Animas River. A metalloid, arsenic occurs naturally in rock, soil, water, and air. Its inorganic form is present in groundwater used for drinking in several countries all over the world. Meanwhile, its organic compound is primarily found in fish.5 It can also come into contact with humans through pesticides, wood preservatives, and contaminated food and water. Moreover, contaminated “soils such as mine-tailings… [are another] potential source of arsenic exposure.”5

Similarly, inorganic arsenic is also extremely toxic. “[I]ntake of large quantities leads to gastrointestinal symptoms, severe disturbances of the cardiovascular and central nervous systems, and eventually death. In survivors, bone marrow depression, haemolysis, hepatomegaly, melanosis, polyneuropathy and encephalotopathy may be observed.”5 Individuals exposed to arsenic through drinking water face “excess risk of mortality from lung, bladder, and kidney cancer.”5

Mines Leak Lead, Which Could Hurt Children in Particular

The other major pollutant, lead, is another common metal used frequently in many modern day products. Most notably, burning petrol produces in lead emissions. Similarly, working in mines, smelters, or battery plants may expose individuals to lead. All of these places give off high levels of lead emissions that suffuse their surrounding area. This causes airborne lead to “be deposited on soil and water, thus reaching humans via the food chain.”5 Acute lead poisoning causes headaches, irritability, abdominal pain, and various nervous system-related symptoms. In particular, lead poisoning more drastically harms children. In addition to other symptoms, children may suffer from behavioral disturbances as well as learning and concentration difficulties. Long-term exposure to lead can result in permanently diminished mental faculties in adults and stunted growth in children.5

Mines Must Manage Their Waste Water – Passive and Active Treatment

Since exposure to heavy metal contaminants can result in such harms to human health, mines must scrupulously manage their waste water. Most mining operations recognize this and develop “water management plans to minimize the potential for water contamination… and to prevent the release of polluted water into the environment.”6 Some mines use water control techniques, such as diverting surface and drainage water from the mine site, recycling water used for processing ore, using evaporation ponds for contaminated water, and installing liners and covers on waste rock and ore piles to prevent them from coming into contact with groundwater.6

Whereas other mines take their measures one step further by treating the contaminated water produced by their operations with technologies that can be categorized as either active or passive. In active water treatment, acidic mine waters are treated with alkaline compounds such lime, limestone, or caustic soda. The elevation of the pH levels causes dissolved metals to precipitate and to sink to the bottom of the sedimentation ponds that hold this water. Subsequently, people can remove these sediments. Other technologies such as ion exchangers, membrane filters, and reverse osmosis might also be used to achieve a similar effect.6

In contrast, passive water treatment relies on “natural physical, chemical, and biological processes that remove water… [contaminants] without additional physical or chemical inputs… [Some] of these processes include bacteria-controlled metal precipitation, contaminate uptake by plants, and filtration through soil and sediments.”6 Thus, these mines rely on constructed wetlands in which natural mechanisms filter and purify contaminated water. After that, the water can rejoin other water bodies. But passive water treatment requires constant, challenging water monitoring. As a result, it can be ineffective when dealing with highly acidic water.

Gold King Mine, Trying Everything But the Balance Did Not Work

Around Gold King Mine, the work crews were trying to control the contaminated water with a variety of the aforementioned methods. Mainly, they used evaporation ponds and combined active and passive water treatment processes in a bid to induce metal precipitation. Despite their efforts, a sudden accident and error in judgment on their part caused massive quantities of lead and arsenic to flow into the Animas River.

Although the effects of the spill have so far been relatively minor, no one knows the long-term consequences yet. Mining is an essential aspect of the global economy. As a consequence, calls to curtail or reduce mining operations are unreasonable and unproductive. Nonetheless, mines could definitely benefit from improved sustainable water management technologies directed at the prevention of any contamination issues. Save the WaterTM is a non-profit organization focused on the development of water science. Any contributions you can make to our research and development endeavors will help us to prevent an incident like the Animas River spill from ever occurring again.

References

1. Kaylee Heck. August 10, 2015. “Three Million Gallons of Contaminated Water Turns River Orange in Colorado.” ABC News. http://abcn.ws/1gsZJSo
2. Tony Dokoupil. August 10, 2015. “EPA owns up to toxic sludge leak tainting Colorado river.” MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/epa-owns-toxic-sludge-leak-tainting-colorado-river
3. Erinn Morgan. August 10, 2015. “Durango copes with ‘orange nastiness’ of toxic sludge river pollution.” http://bit.ly/2GuubtL
4. Alex Johnson. August 11, 2015. “Colorado River Spill: Early Tests Show Little Threat to Fish, Wildlife.” NBC News. http://nbcnews.to/1gweP9P
5. Lars Järup. December 1, 2003. “Hazards of heavy metal contamination.” British Medical Bulletin. http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/1/167.long
6. Miningfacts.org. “How is water managed and treated in mining?” http://www.miningfacts.org/Environment/How-is-water-managed-and-treated-in-mining/

When the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) passed in 1976, hopes for safer use of chemicals from manufacturers were set into motion. However, an outdated law combined with already instilled weaknesses has left the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unable to fully evaluate health risks or test potentially harmful chemicals.(3) An estimated 80,000 chemicals are available for commercial use in the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only been able to restrict the use of less than 10.(2) It is clear that potentially harmful substances are able to slip through the broken legislation. However, passing a new law that can please everyone will not be an easy task. A mix of issues from all parties involved creates a severe challenge in reforming the TSCA.

A plethora of bipartisan legislation has been presented to congress. One of the more notable is the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.” This legislation would require the EPA to review and approve about 1,000 new chemicals that come on the market each year and prevent industry from hiding information on chemicals to the public. (6)  The bill currently has the support of congressmen from both parties, representing 25 states. (6) However, the recent bills presented from congressmen such as Tom Udall, David Vitter, John Shimkus, Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey do not come without criticisms. (5) Time seems to be the common theme crippling the effectiveness of the presented legislation.  The lengthy process of testing chemicals obstructs the adoption of new innovative products and a lack of clarity prevents the EPA from taking action on chemicals. (1) While there is a mutual acknowledgement by the government, the EPA and the industry to reform the TSCA, the current legislation and the uncertainty about the safety of products creates legal issues for manufacturers, a public health concern for customers and makes it difficult to evaluate alternatives. The fact that the new legislation must solve public health concerns caused by toxic substances as well as make a profit for the industry ensures a difficult process for all sides.

As for the potentially harmful substances seeping through the cracks of the TSCA, those are often referred to as Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC). CECs consist of new or old substances introduced to the environment that have the potential to cause harm to ecosystems as well as human health. (4) Some of these substances include pharmaceuticals, personal care items, pesticides and plastics.  More recent advances in research and technology will allow Save The Water to fill the hole left by the EPA. By performing evaluations of CECs, a greater amount of knowledge on potentially harmful chemicals will be made available to the public. Save The Water’s research and educational material in return will put pressure on manufacturers to produce products free of chemicals that are dangerous to human health.

Since CECs are found in many products used in our daily routine there is a continuous release of chemicals into the environment that can accumulate over time (4). The difficulty of identifying what substances are harmful and what substances are not is one of the same problems disrupting the reformation of the TSCA. A comprehensive understanding of the source of emerging contaminants is necessary in evaluating the extent of harm these substances are causing. Due to the extensive amount of sources that exist and the continuous release of chemicals into the environment, determining a strategy of reduction and regulation will prove to be a challenge. Continued, expedited research done by Save The Water will provide early warnings of potential threats and a better understanding of harmful exposure.

Sources:

1. Brodwin, David. 6 April 2015. “Let the EPA Be a Real Referee.” U.S News and World Report. https://sensiblesafeguards.org/let-the-epa-be-a-real-referee/

2. Kollipara, Puneet. 20 June 2015. “Reform of Toxic Law is Contentious.” Science Magazine.https://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?qurl=http://www.sciencemag.org%2fcontent%2f347%2f6229%2f1403.2.full.pdf?sid=24d99ec0-21d8-48ab-95c3-796b785a8d45

3. Natural Resources Defense Council. 2015. “Take Out Toxic.” http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp
4. Raghav, M; Eden, S; Mitchell, K; Witte, B.” The Arroyo 2013.” Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona. https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/Arroyo2013LR_0.pdf

5. Szal, Andy. 16 April 2015. “EPA Official Takes Issue With Chemical Reform.” Manufacturing.net. Bill.”http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/04/epa-official-takes-issue-with-chemical-reform-bill

6. Tom Udall, Senator for New Mexico. April 2015. “Chemical Safety.” Senate.gov .https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/issues/chemical-safety

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 9 March 2015. “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act.” https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act