Getting “forever chemicals” out of drinking water is expensive

Can water utilities meet the EPA's new standard for PFAS?


See full article...

 

[Drvelocity]

80% of all PFAS coming from sources other than water.. oof. Here I was thinking I had everything covered with my RO drinking water system.

Humans truly are a plague upon the Earth. No more or less evil than insect plagues, but a plague nonetheless.

 

[WakiaPopuli]

Well.. What's really the cost of the water utilities not being able to meet the standards?

How can we help to make sure they have adequate funding?

 

[ranthog]

I know that for my local water system, shutting down the wells with traces of PFAS was the only way they could reasonably reduce PFAS levels. Drilling new wells hoping to find water that hasn't been contaminated is likely the cheapest way to deal with it.

However, there are going to be areas where something like that really isn't a good option.

Edit: Not sure why the down votes. It was literally cheaper to shut down the contaminated wells and abandon them than it is to remove PFAS from the water. Just because one part of a water system has detectable PFAS contamination doesn't mean other parts of the system will. Or that all parts of the system have similar levels of contamination problems.

I intend to highlight just how nasty of a problem this is, as wells and pumping stations are not cheap.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.


Same as it ever was!- David Byrne

 

[ranthog]

Well.. What's really the cost of the water utilities not being able to meet the standards?

How can we help to make sure they have adequate funding?

Make sure everyone is paying their fair share. The people accumulating all the wealth and benefits economically today should have to pay for this. Their wealth was built on this pollution.

 

[dwrd]

You just know this is going to get cited as an example of "gubbermint overreach" the next time the fascists try to neuter the EPA (again).

 

[arsisloam]

The toxicity of PFAS chemicals is debated the same way tobacco toxicity used to be debated. We just really like using them.

 

[ranthog]

You just know this is going to get cited as an example of "gubbermint overreach" the next time the fascists try to neuter the EPA (again).

They'd be just as happy to make up something that did not at all exist. You have fascists today talking about how doctors are doing gender affirming surgeries on kindergarteners. So there are zero ways the EPA could ever avoid doing something that would get cited.

 

[SolarMane]

You just know this is going to get cited as an example of "gubbermint overreach" the next time the fascists try to neuter the EPA (again).

Just tell them PFAS in the water turns the frogs gay...

 

[Jeff S]

GAUD is now gearing up to spend $3 to 5 million on PFAS removal technology, according to Tarbuck, much of which will be passed on to its customers in the form of higher water bills.

Umm, have state AGs sued AGC, Arkema, Chemours (aka DuPont), Daikin, 3M, Solvay, Dongyue, Archroma, Merck, Bayer, BASF and Honeywell to help pay for those costs?

Those are a listing I found of the largest producers of PFAS. Let them pay. Let the government claw back profits from shareholders for offsetting the costs of cleanup.

 

[Snark218]

But the EPA estimates that Americans get 80 percent of their PFAS intake from sources other than drinking water, and according to Cousins, dietary contributions likely account for most human exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required the phase out of some PFAS in food packaging. But "food is contaminated via bioaccumulation in agricultural and marine food chains," Cousins said. "We cannot clean up our food in the same way that we can add a treatment process to our drinking water."

On the surface, it would seem that regulating drinking water to the highly cautious, conservative standard is the juice that's not worth the squeeze here, but as Cousins says here, it's basically impossible to regulate away bioaccumulation in food chains. That said, EPA's lifetime exposure limit is lower than the science really supports; whether that's a good thing or not I dunno, and it's probably subjective.

The fact that American blood serum PFAS levels have dropped by 70-85% is really heartening, though. Maybe it makes the most sense to heavily regulate the sources of environmental contamination that get taken up by livestock and fish?

 

[Snark218]

The toxicity of PFAS chemicals is debated the same way tobacco toxicity used to be debated. We just really like using them.

I would tend to disagree on that, actually. After they started doing studies on smoking, the link to cancer was immediately obvious and beyond reasonable doubt. PFAS is not anywhere close to as strong of a link and the relationship is a lot more complicated and multivariate, and differs for gross exposure vs. trace concentrations in the environment:

Much of that evidence comes from studies of people who were highly exposed under occupational settings, or who lived near sites where the chemicals were routinely discharged into the environment.

But evidence linking the effects to trace PFAS levels is "less convincing," said Alan Boobis, emeritus professor of toxicology at Imperial College London.

If you disagree, please cite a source showing differently. also, lol boobis

 

[johnwolf234]

On the surface, it would seem that regulating drinking water to the highly cautious, conservative standard is the juice that's not worth the squeeze here, but as Cousins says here, it's basically impossible to regulate away bioaccumulation in food chains. That said, EPA's lifetime exposure limit is lower than the science really supports; whether that's a good thing or not I dunno, and it's probably subjective.

The fact that American blood serum PFAS levels have dropped by 70-85% is really heartening, though. Maybe it makes the most sense to heavily regulate the sources of environmental contamination that get taken up by livestock and fish?

I mean, aiming for a level well below 'we have scientific evidence this is harmful' is usually a good idea for most things.

Not always possible, sure, but I can't see any particular reason someone would want to eat more microplastics and PFAS.

 

[Veritas super omens]

The toxicity of PFAS chemicals is debated the same way tobacco toxicity used to be debated. We just really like using them.

Kehoe Paradigm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe

 

[Snark218]

What do you know. Reads like a list of things society benefited at large from. You all wanted progress? Well here's progress.

Produce, meat, fish, soil, and dust are only contaminated because PFAS compounds were released to the environment; those don't inherently contain PFAS. Cosmetics and fast food wrappers don't need PFAS compounds at all to be functional. Likewise, PFAS-free DWR and stain resistant finishes are everywhere now, so we didn't need them for that purpose either.

Nonstick pans are only debatably "progress." What's left?

 

[Photon_plumber]

Just tell them PFAS in the water turns the frogs gay...

And trailer park dwellers.

 

[Snark218]

I mean, aiming for a level well below 'we have scientific evidence this is harmful' is usually a good idea for most things.

Not always possible, sure, but I can't see any particular reason someone would want to eat more microplastics and PFAS.

I tend to agree, but as the headline notes, meeting that standard is expensive. I don't mean to imply or suggest it's not worth it, as I truly haven't made my mind up about that, but whether the juice is worth the squeeze is a question that's inevitably going to come up.

 

[ManuOtaku]

It seems forever is expensive, regardless of topic.
As for the topic at hand, thanks for the article, and hoping for solutions to reach those affected.

 

[leonwid]

You just know this is going to get cited as an example of "gubbermint overreach" the next time the fascists try to neuter the EPA (again).

While I don’t think it is overreach I do question whether it’s the best for the customers to spend a lot of their money on this one norm. Often very stringent norms mean very expensive equipment, and less stringent norms could free up some ‘bill space’ to tighten other norms with more impact.
I don‘t see each norm in isolation, as each one has a cost that adds up. I’m not sure the EPA considers that balance though (Or whether they should).

 

[DrewW]

CNN said:

Overall, billionaires have seen their wealth grow by $3.3 trillion, or 34%, since 2020

It seems like we could use a centibillionaire wealth tax to painlessly raise enough revenue to improve everyone's water.

 

[jock2nerd]

Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.


Same as it ever was!- David Byrne

In the USA, water utilities are almost entirely run by local governments, typically at the County level, except for larg-ish cities and for some multi-jurisdiction water boards.

 

[ranthog]

Produce, meat, fish, soil, and dust are only contaminated because PFAS compounds were released to the environment; those don't inherently contain PFAS. Cosmetics and fast food wrappers don't need PFAS compounds at all to be functional. Likewise, PFAS-free DWR and stain resistant finishes are everywhere now, so we didn't need them for that purpose either.

Nonstick pans are only debatably "progress." What's left?

If we had to give up nonstick pans to avoid PFAS pollution, I don't think that should be a reasonable thing to back off for our health. It is sadly one that will have a learning curve for people, though. (As the life span for non-stick cookware is 3 to 5 years, the economic costs would not be great.)

We really need better regulations that are proactive for chemicals instead of reactive.

 

[Jeff S]

In the USA, water utilities are almost entirely run by local governments, typically at the County level, except for larg-ish cities and for some multi-jurisdiction water boards.

I don't think the post you were referring to was talking about water utilities being private.

I interpreted to be pointing out that the chemical companies that made billions of dollars in profits off PFAS have privatized the profits, while the costs will now be paid by all the rest of us paying higher water bills to our public utilities because now they need extra capital and operational costs to remove pfas - so the costs are socialized while the profits were privatized.

 

[ranthog]

While I don’t think it is overreach I do question whether it’s the best for the customers to spend a lot of their money on this one norm. Often very stringent norms mean very expensive equipment, and less stringent norms could free up some ‘bill space’ to tighten other norms with more impact.
I don‘t see each norm in isolation, as each one has a cost that adds up. I’m not sure the EPA considers that balance though (Or whether they should).

I'd note that the government has already done this with the other major systemic risk to our water systems: lead pipes. This problem already has its own special funding and requirements for water systems to eliminate the rest of the lead pipes from their water systems.

Right now, I'm not sure if there is a graver risk other than the impact of climate change to fund.

 

[Jeff S]

If we had to give up nonstick pans to avoid PFAS pollution, I don't think that should be a reasonable thing to back off for our health. It is sadly one that will have a learning curve for people, though. (As the life span for non-stick cookware is 3 to 5 years, the economic costs would not be great.)

We really need better regulations that are proactive for chemicals instead of reactive.

A couple things - cast iron cookware is the original 'non-stick pans' - they are heavier and require more work to keep them well seasoned, but they can last just short of forever. Lots of people are still using great-grandma's cast iron cookware from the 1800's.

As for the uses of PFAS - one thing I've heard is that it's used in firefighting foams and fire retardant coatings, and I wonder if that use case can be replaced by something else? It's also used for waterproofing a lot of outdoor gear (coats, gloves, boots, etc - one well known name brand for a pfas treatment is Gortex).

 

[DovePig]

Drinking water is only one among many different pathways by which people can be exposed to PFAS. The chemicals are also in agricultural produce, fish, meat, outdoor soil, household dust, nonstick cookware, cosmetics, fast-food wrappers, stain- and water-resistant fabrics, and other products. Just how much these sources each contribute to PFAS exposure is a subject of ongoing research. But the EPA estimates that Americans get 80 percent of their PFAS intake from sources other than drinking water, and according to Cousins, dietary contributions likely account for most human exposure.

Maybe the better way would be to just regulate all PFCs out completely, except for cases where nothing else works (i.e. some medical and chemical tubing)?

Since the PFC horse has already bolted, been struck down by a car, euthanised and melted down for glue at the glue factory...

Environmental research shows PFC levels even in fucking pristine places like Tibet and Antarctica (!) already exceeding current drinking water standards. The PFCs from landfills and just chemical factories are washed down rivers, into the sea, dispersed into the atmospheric moisture circulation through wave action from sea spray and end up all over the globe.

And while targeting drinking water quality is commendable, the only thing that would work at all in addressing the problem is phasing out PFCs globally, completely. We did that with Freon...

 

[Snark218]

If we had to give up nonstick pans to avoid PFAS pollution, I don't think that should be a reasonable thing to back off for our health. It is sadly one that will have a learning curve for people, though. (As the life span for non-stick cookware is 3 to 5 years, the economic costs would not be great.)

We really need better regulations that are proactive for chemicals instead of reactive.

I concur.

 

[DovePig]

If we had to give up nonstick pans to avoid PFAS pollution, I don't think that should be a reasonable thing to back off for our health. It is sadly one that will have a learning curve for people, though. (As the life span for non-stick cookware is 3 to 5 years, the economic costs would not be great.)

We really need better regulations that are proactive for chemicals instead of reactive.

One note – there are plenty other non‑stick coatings for cooking pans that don't use much – or any – PFCs at all. So that's not even a concern, we could get rid of Teflon pans quite easily without giving up on non‑stick pans.

 

[ranthog]

A couple things - cast iron cookware is the original 'non-stick pans' - they are heavier and require more work to keep them well seasoned, but they can last just short of forever. Lots of people are still using great-grandma's cast iron cookware from the 1800's.

As for the uses of PFAS - one thing I've heard is that it's used in firefighting foams and fire retardant coatings, and I wonder if that use case can be replaced by something else? It's also used for waterproofing a lot of outdoor gear (coats, gloves, boots, etc - one well known name brand for a pfas treatment is Gortex).

Yes, but cast iron or carbon steel are not what you would call non-stick today. That is usually reserved to Teflon. There is a small learning curve to these older style pans. Although, they don't quite need the babying that some people online would lead you to believe.

I am not familiar with what replaces those PFAS filled products.

 

[DaveJ85]

This is a really good article on the PFAS issue and the requirements for establishing exposure limits for [potential] carcinogens. It does, however, miss part of the problem and associated costs. Having pulled the PFASs out of the water with activated charcoal or some kind of resin, what do you do with that? Bury it probably and hope that you don't get leakage. There are experimental systems for chemically or physically destroying these extremely stable molecules, but to my knowledge they are not currently available for practical applications. There is an analogy to the radioactive waste disposal problem.

 

[r0twhylr]

If we had to give up nonstick pans to avoid PFAS pollution, I don't think that should be a reasonable thing to back off for our health. It is sadly one that will have a learning curve for people, though. (As the life span for non-stick cookware is 3 to 5 years, the economic costs would not be great.)

We really need better regulations that are proactive for chemicals instead of reactive.

There are ceramic non stick pans made without PFAS that are readily available and fairly inexpensive.

 

[ranthog]

One note – there are plenty other non‑stick coatings for cooking pans that don't use much – or any – PFCs at all. So that's not even a concern, we could get rid of Teflon pans quite easily without giving up on non‑stick pans.

At this point, I think it is reasonable to assume these other options are toxic until proven otherwise. Certainly going to do that for my health.

Under the current regulatory climate, I think going back to the older style stuff makes far more sense whenever possible until we find out exactly what is and is not safe.

 

[ranthog]

There are ceramic non stick pans made without PFAS that are readily available and fairly inexpensive.

Do you know what are in those modern non-stick ceramic coatings? Those ceramic coatings break down and eventually start coming off into your food.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Produce, meat, fish, soil, and dust are only contaminated because PFAS compounds were released to the environment; those don't inherently contain PFAS. Cosmetics and fast food wrappers don't need PFAS compounds at all to be functional. Likewise, PFAS-free DWR and stain resistant finishes are everywhere now, so we didn't need them for that purpose either.

Nonstick pans are only debatably "progress." What's left?

Gore-Tex?

 

[Snark218]

Yes, but cast iron or carbon steel are not what you would call non-stick today. That is usually reserved to Teflon. There is a small learning curve to these older style pans. Although, they don't quite need the babying that some people online would lead you to believe.

I am not familiar with what replaces those PFAS filled products.

I dunno, I keep a ceramic nonstick pan around for eggs, but that's about it. Carbon steel, enameled iron, or stainless covers me for everything else - and having just gotten introduced to multi-ply cladded stainless with the gift of a Made In skillet for Christmas, oh my god is good stainless incredible. Kicks the shit out of cast iron skillets, and the only reason I'll keep carbon steel around is live-fire cooking.

 

[Snark218]

Gore-Tex?

Yeah, there's that, and as a climber and outdoorsman I appreciate it very much. And while there's PFAS-free Gore-Tex now, since 2022, it still contains forever chemicals.

I honestly don't know whether Gore-Tex and similar films leach while in use, or if it's a source of contamination only when landfilled and broken down.

 

[r0twhylr]

Do you know what are in those modern non-stick ceramic coatings? Those ceramic coatings break down and eventually start coming off into your food.

I believe they are generally made with silicon dioxide and other similar metal oxides. SiO2 is pretty safe.

 

[ranthog]

I believe they are generally made with silicon dioxide and other similar metal oxides. SiO2 is pretty safe.

I'd still much rather have a full run down of what they're putting in there and evidence that the stuff is actually safe, rather than a "trust me" on the part of the manufacturer. After all, they said that about Teflon as well.