EPA rule limiting certain 'forever chemicals' in drinking water is challenged
npr.org
npr.org
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.
In the case of water utilities, it is a burden they do not want to meet, because work is hard.
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...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/1-18-billion-deal-reache...
[3] https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-y...
[4] 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)
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-...
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...
> 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...