New Water PFA Regulations Worry Warwick Officials
As the Environmental Protection Agency reduces the amount of allowable PFAs in drinking water, technical challenges lurk.
Municipal governments may soon be scrambling for funds and methods to monitor and filter six PFAs in drinking water. On March 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced proposal of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, also known as GenX Chemicals), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
The allowable level of these PFAs was small before, 70 parts per trillion, and the new regulation would reduce it further, to 0.004 parts per trillion of perfluorooctanoic acid and 0.02 parts per trillion of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. The EPA found the chemicals to be health threats even at low levels, conducive to kidney, liver and other organ damage, cancer and fetal problems.
The proposed PFAS NPDWR does not require any actions until finalized. The comment period concludes at the end of May, and the EPA anticipates finalizing the regulation by the end of 2023. The EPA predicts that the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses from PFAs. Often called “forever” chemicals because they don’t break down, they are found in waterproof clothes, carpets, makeup, food packaging and fire fighting foam, among other manufactured products. They circulate in the air, and humidifiers using PFA contaminated water can increase PFAs in the air, but they are most health threatening in water and food, according to ConsumerLab.com.
Municipal Challenges
Village of Warwick officials have been making plans for the new regulations.
“We’re looking at the impact on the Village. Will the government help municipalities pay?” asked Barry Cheney, Village trustee. “The state paid for a treatment system in Newburgh. They put in a carbon filter,” after firefighting foam contaminated Newburgh water. “Carbon filters bind PFOAs and PFOs, but what can we do with the carbon filter? It can leach from the landfill. We’ll have to test and see what we need.”
Carbon filters are eight to twelve feet tall and six to eight feet in diameter, he said.
“We talked to Senator Skoufis. He’s behind it,” said Mayor Michael Newhard, referring to seeking government funding.
He noted the $12 million wastewater treatment system project that has been a priority for the Village. Water purifying technology could add another $12 million or more to village costs, Newhard said.
In Pennsylvania, Milford Water Authority already has marching orders from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection to begin testing for PFAs at the end of the year and to retest quarterly, said Nick May, Milford Water Authority superintendent. Tests in two areas of Pike County, in Pennsylvania, found no PFAs, according to Diana Oviedo-Vargas, Assistant Research Scientist at
Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, PA. Port Jervis has already been testing drinking water for PFAs, and a recent test, forwarded by Mayor Kelly Decker, indicated that none were detected .
Meanwhile, bottled water is not a reliable substitute. Consumer reports found that 43 out of 47 brands of bottled water they tested contain PFAS, with some brands, including Polar, containing more than 1 ppt. Carbonated bottled water was more likely to contain PFAS than non-carbonated water, while PFAs were absent from distilled water, as distillation leaves PFAs behind.
ConsumerLab.com found reverse osmosis water filters installed under sinks to be effective but expensive, while other filters were more variable in effectiveness. Carbon filters are effective for removing long chain PFAs, PFOA and PFOs, but not short chain ones, according to the EPA.
However, whatever way PFAs are removed, disposing of them is a problem, said Oviedo-Vargas.
“Research is looking at ways to destroy the compounds,” she said. “The new ways to destroy them are expensive, like thermal and electrochemical destruction. If improperly done, it leaves toxic remnants.”
Community focused news can only succeed with community support. Please consider the various subscription levels.