4 ms·

EPA rule limiting certain 'forever chemicals' in drinking water is challenged

47 points by Jimmc414 2y ago

mensetmanusman 2y ago
I wonder if this has to do with limits being set below the detection limit of existing technology.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Why do you think they would set limits below the LOD for existing techniques? I assume the EPA of all organizations understands current chemical analysis technology
- amarant 2y ago
  More likely it's companies selling drinking water who don't want to spend money on quality..
- hanniabu 2y ago
  Even if that was the case, that would just mean anything detectable is over the limit. Pretty simple.
  - emestifs 2y ago
    3.6 ppb, not great not terrible[1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YDV6vC2qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YDV6vC2qo
- hwillis 2y ago
  Wrong. The EPA limit is 4 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/drinking-water-utilities-and-professionals-technical-overview-of-pfas-npdwr.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/drinking-... An off the shelf Agilent spectrometer with EPA approved methods can detect PFOA at .28 ng/L and PFOS at .78 ng/L: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/application-analysis-legacy-and-emerging-pfas-water-1290infinity-6495btriplequad-5994-0919en-agilent.pdf https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/application-... This limit is not even the lowest EPA limit in drinking water. Radium is limited to ~5 picograms per liter, 1000x lower that the PFOA/PFOS limit. Dioxin is 0.03 ng/L. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national...
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    I see, their prior recommendation in 2022 was 0.004 ppt or ng/L, so they backed away from being an order of magnitude below the detection limit. Thanks for the update!
    - hwillis 2y ago
      It was a health advisory in 2022, and it was revised from .004 ppt (note that you are off by an order of magnitude) to zero. Per the EPA: > Drinking water health advisories (HAs) provide information on contaminants that can cause human health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. *EPA's HAs are non-enforceable and nonregulatory* and provide technical information to drinking water system operators The update was because of additional evidence of cancers. The EPA always acknowledged that .004 ppt is not reasonably detectable, but the point of an advisory is to note the level that is evidenced to be dangerous. Its a goal, and the new goal is "as good as possible". It should be obvious why the EPA should set requirements to reduce toxins while also noting what is a safe level. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical-factsheet-four-PFAS.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical...
hanniabu 2y ago
Surprise surprise, polluters want to continue to pollute
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  I don't get the endgame here. If you need to drink water to survive, why would you oppose this?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Your drinking water is not their drinking water. Profits over humans, it is as simple as that. In the case of water utilities, it is a burden they do not want to meet, because work is hard.
    - dubcanada 2y ago
      This is just completely untrue, your drinking water is their drinking water. And the sooner everyone understands this the faster we can get to actually managing our extremely crucial drinking water supplies.
      - thatguy0900 2y ago
        Millionaires will never have to worry about if they will have enough clean water to drink, and can get whatever filter works the best. How many of them starved to death during the great depression?
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        > This is just completely untrue, your drinking water is their drinking water. In the same way that Zuckerburg and other wealthy folks building compounds and large estates in Hawaii, New Zealand, and other enclaves share the same world we do: technically accurate, but realistically it is worlds apart. Business is like water, it will flow through the path of least resistance to achieve profits, with the costs and harm socialized amongst us at scale. If you are of means, your water is safe, you can afford to make it so (whether that be water filtration, trucked in water, or simply moving elsewhere). If you are not, you are cattle to be squeezed with little regard for water quality and safety, because those who profit will be long gone when the bill comes due (see: 3M [1], Dupont & Chemours [2], etc [3]). 46 million Americans don't have access to safe drinking water today [4], without compounding the problem with pollutants from for profit actors. "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." -- Charlie Munger [1] https://apnews.com/article/pfas-drinking-water-settlement-3m-fa41cadfe0d65b9723377a681df43af1 https://apnews.com/article/pfas-drinking-water-settlement-3m... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/1-18-billion-deal-reached-over-drinking-water-contamination-by-forever-chemicals https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/1-18-billion-deal-reache... [3] https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live#map https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-y... [4] https://www.fastcompany.com/90858376/were-going-backwards-in-water-access-how-46-million-americans-still-dont-have-safe-drinking-water https://www.fastcompany.com/90858376/were-going-backwards-in... ("More than 46 million people in the U.S. live with water insecurity—either no running water or water that may be unsafe to drink. Experts say at least $18.4 billion is needed over the next 10 years to bring water security to more people, although the Environmental Protection Agency and American Water Works Association estimates it would cost close to fully $1 trillion to replace and repair the U.S.’ aging infrastructure.") (TLDR Gotta lean hard into these regulations to protect humans at scale, the barbarians are always going to stretch for yield at cost of the human; you must make the consequences so punitive even the most dark triad and/or low empathy human will shy away from an action with high risk of harm incurred)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hwillis 2y ago
2 of the 3 lawsuits were filed jointly by two large water utility trade associations, and the lawsuit (which is a petition for review) is here along with their statement: https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/PFAS https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/PFAS The argument appears to be basically just this: > According to a report commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and prepared by Black & Veatch, drinking water utilities will need to invest more than $50 billion to install and operate treatment technology over the next 20 years in order to comply with new PFAS standards. Which is ~65% more than the money the EPA has already allocated. That seems... very silly. The increase would be passed to consumers at about $5 per consumer annually. A study they commissioned themselves can only find a pretty modest difference. Hopefully this is shot down relatively quickly for being baseless, but who knows.

47 points by Jimmc414 2y ago

mensetmanusman 2y ago

I wonder if this has to do with limits being set below the detection limit of existing technology.

alan-hn 2y ago
Why do you think they would set limits below the LOD for existing techniques? I assume the EPA of all organizations understands current chemical analysis technology
amarant 2y ago
More likely it's companies selling drinking water who don't want to spend money on quality..
hanniabu 2y ago
Even if that was the case, that would just mean anything detectable is over the limit. Pretty simple.
- emestifs 2y ago
  3.6 ppb, not great not terrible[1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YDV6vC2qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YDV6vC2qo
hwillis 2y ago
Wrong. The EPA limit is 4 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/drinking-water-utilities-and-professionals-technical-overview-of-pfas-npdwr.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/drinking-... An off the shelf Agilent spectrometer with EPA approved methods can detect PFOA at .28 ng/L and PFOS at .78 ng/L: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/application-analysis-legacy-and-emerging-pfas-water-1290infinity-6495btriplequad-5994-0919en-agilent.pdf https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/application-... This limit is not even the lowest EPA limit in drinking water. Radium is limited to ~5 picograms per liter, 1000x lower that the PFOA/PFOS limit. Dioxin is 0.03 ng/L. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national...
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  I see, their prior recommendation in 2022 was 0.004 ppt or ng/L, so they backed away from being an order of magnitude below the detection limit. Thanks for the update!
  - hwillis 2y ago
    It was a health advisory in 2022, and it was revised from .004 ppt (note that you are off by an order of magnitude) to zero. Per the EPA: > Drinking water health advisories (HAs) provide information on contaminants that can cause human health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. *EPA's HAs are non-enforceable and nonregulatory* and provide technical information to drinking water system operators The update was because of additional evidence of cancers. The EPA always acknowledged that .004 ppt is not reasonably detectable, but the point of an advisory is to note the level that is evidenced to be dangerous. Its a goal, and the new goal is "as good as possible". It should be obvious why the EPA should set requirements to reduce toxins while also noting what is a safe level. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical-factsheet-four-PFAS.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical...

hanniabu 2y ago

Surprise surprise, polluters want to continue to pollute

candiddevmike 2y ago
I don't get the endgame here. If you need to drink water to survive, why would you oppose this?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Your drinking water is not their drinking water. Profits over humans, it is as simple as that. In the case of water utilities, it is a burden they do not want to meet, because work is hard.
  - dubcanada 2y ago
    This is just completely untrue, your drinking water is their drinking water. And the sooner everyone understands this the faster we can get to actually managing our extremely crucial drinking water supplies.
    - thatguy0900 2y ago
      Millionaires will never have to worry about if they will have enough clean water to drink, and can get whatever filter works the best. How many of them starved to death during the great depression?
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      > This is just completely untrue, your drinking water is their drinking water. In the same way that Zuckerburg and other wealthy folks building compounds and large estates in Hawaii, New Zealand, and other enclaves share the same world we do: technically accurate, but realistically it is worlds apart. Business is like water, it will flow through the path of least resistance to achieve profits, with the costs and harm socialized amongst us at scale. If you are of means, your water is safe, you can afford to make it so (whether that be water filtration, trucked in water, or simply moving elsewhere). If you are not, you are cattle to be squeezed with little regard for water quality and safety, because those who profit will be long gone when the bill comes due (see: 3M [1], Dupont & Chemours [2], etc [3]). 46 million Americans don't have access to safe drinking water today [4], without compounding the problem with pollutants from for profit actors. "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." -- Charlie Munger [1] https://apnews.com/article/pfas-drinking-water-settlement-3m-fa41cadfe0d65b9723377a681df43af1 https://apnews.com/article/pfas-drinking-water-settlement-3m... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/1-18-billion-deal-reached-over-drinking-water-contamination-by-forever-chemicals https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/1-18-billion-deal-reache... [3] https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live#map https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-y... [4] https://www.fastcompany.com/90858376/were-going-backwards-in-water-access-how-46-million-americans-still-dont-have-safe-drinking-water https://www.fastcompany.com/90858376/were-going-backwards-in... ("More than 46 million people in the U.S. live with water insecurity—either no running water or water that may be unsafe to drink. Experts say at least $18.4 billion is needed over the next 10 years to bring water security to more people, although the Environmental Protection Agency and American Water Works Association estimates it would cost close to fully $1 trillion to replace and repair the U.S.’ aging infrastructure.") (TLDR Gotta lean hard into these regulations to protect humans at scale, the barbarians are always going to stretch for yield at cost of the human; you must make the consequences so punitive even the most dark triad and/or low empathy human will shy away from an action with high risk of harm incurred)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hwillis 2y ago

2 of the 3 lawsuits were filed jointly by two large water utility trade associations, and the lawsuit (which is a petition for review) is here along with their statement: https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/PFAS https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/PFAS The argument appears to be basically just this: > According to a report commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and prepared by Black & Veatch, drinking water utilities will need to invest more than $50 billion to install and operate treatment technology over the next 20 years in order to comply with new PFAS standards. Which is ~65% more than the money the EPA has already allocated. That seems... very silly. The increase would be passed to consumers at about $5 per consumer annually. A study they commissioned themselves can only find a pretty modest difference. Hopefully this is shot down relatively quickly for being baseless, but who knows.