This section below is a summary of SGWASA PFAS Tests in 2019 and 2022
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has measured blood PFAS in the U.S. population since 1999-2000. NHANES is a program of studies designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to evaluate the health and nutrition of adults and children in the United States. NHANES data are publicly released in 2-year cycles. See details here on that background.
See this link for recent action by the federal Environmental Protection Agency on PFAS.
2019 SGWASA PFAS Testing Results
The NC Assembly provided funding for a group of UNC Scientists, The NC PFAS Testing Network , to study PFAS in a large sample of NC water and sewer companies. In June of 2019 they tested SGWASA water and those results can be seen here. The detailed report of this testing can be seen here, Page 20.
In this study, the PFAS Testing Network tested 376 water companies for total PFAS and individual different chemicals in the PFAS group. SGWASA came out 32 highest amounts of PFAS chemicals out of the 376 North Carolina water companies. That means it was in the top 9% of the companies with the highest PFAS amounts in this large state study.
2022 PFAS test results
In March of this year, two events occurred of importance to the quality of your SGWASA drinking water.
One was the EPA has decided to set the goal of having zero PFAS amounts in your water. These are the dangerous “forever chemicals” that cause health problems. The other event was the NC State Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, finally gave out recent tests results for our SGWASA water which were done last September, October and November (2022). We requested the results last December but they held up sending me those results for some apparent political reason.
The DEQ results for SGWASA two main PFAS chemicals, PFOA AND PFOS, chemicals tested by DEQ are attached in this table.
The levels of both chemicals are both way above the EPA levels for the “zero” long term goal and for the “general” near zero levels which are currently in place. The "near zero levels" are .004 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and .02 ppt for PFOS. Now EPA will set both PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt enforceable maximum contaminant level because that is a very low level but one that is certain to be true. Instruments can be sure to be accurate at these levels. Measuring down at these low levels requires this kind of thinking to be sure the measurement is "real." Note that all of the recent SGWASA tests are above all of these figures.
The EPA has set a standard called MCLG, maximum contaminant level goal. This is not enforceable but is a goal. This is set at zero for PFOA and PFOS. They have this MCLG because the EPA and the scientific community believes there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF PFAS!
PFOA stands for perfluorooctanoic acid and PFOS stands for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. Four other chemicals will have suggested levels for regulation. See details on that thinking here.
Here is a good link for a quick “picture” and summary of all the above statements.
Here is where to see the results for 50 water systems sampled by DEQ because their levels were high as shown by 2019 studies. That is where we obtained the data for the table above.
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF THIS PFAS DATA of Last year:
U
PFOS: SGWASA in the upper 6% of HIGH Parts Per Trillion values with 3 other water companies out of the 50 involved.
SGWASA: high of six test = 27.9 ppt
Two other water/sewer companies equal or above 27.9 ppt
Fayetteville with a high of 35.4 ppt
Greensboro with a high of 41 ppt
.
PFOA: SGWASA in the upper 12% if PPT values with 6 other water companies out of the 50 involved.
SGWASA: high of six tests = 10.7 ppt
Five other water/sewer companies equal or above 10.7:
Asheboro, with a high of 12.1 ppt
Village of Bald Head Island with a high of 23.1 ppt
Burlington with a high of 25.3 ppt
Pittsboro with a high of 11.2 ppt
City of Lumberton with a high of 15.1 ppt!
So, SGWASA still has high and dangerous levels of PFAS.
So already SGWASA customers were exposed for 4 years with high PFAS levels. And now SGWASA customers will be drinking the contaminated water for 3 more years. And how many decades before 2019 have they been drinking this contaminated water?
SGWASA is legally correct when they say they “meet all water quality standards.” But the PFAS new standards are just being finalized and put into place now. So you are still drinking contaminated water! Their statement is an "excuse" wouldn't you say? Maybe "excuse" is not the correct word?
Local elected officials should be talking about this and be doing something about this. They should be telling people to buy a water filter that will remove PFAS contaminants or telling them how to get money to buy one. They should be asking how are these chemicals getting into the SGWASA water? BUT NOT A WORD, correct?
This should be a current critical discussion! WHY ISN'T IT? Make mental notes on which of your elected officials are doing something to help you with good drinking water and when the next election comes up, make good use of that information!
This section below is a quick Summary of Some Major PFAS Health Problems by Experts
Reference given first, then summary of content:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9215707/
Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Mortality in U.S. Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Background:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are widespread environmental contaminants associated with diseases such as cancer and dyslipidemia. However, few studies have investigated the association between PFAS mixture exposure and mortality in general populations.
Objectives:
This study aimed to explore the association between PFAS mixture, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and mortality in U.S. adults by a nationally representative cohort.
Methods:
Adults ≥18 years of age who were enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (1999–2014) were included in our study. Baseline serum concentrations of seven PFAS were measured and individuals were followed up to 31 December 2015. Hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Association between PFAS mixture exposure and mortality was analyzed using the k-means method by clustering PFAS mixtures into subgroups. Association between PFOA/PFOS exposure and mortality was subsequently analyzed in both continuous and categorical models.
Compared with the low-exposure group, participants in the high-exposure group showed significantly higher risks for all-cause mortality (HR=1.38; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.80), heart disease mortality (HR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.51), and cancer mortality (HR=1.70; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.84). In single PFAS analysis, PFOS was found to be positively associated with all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality in U.S. adults.
Discussion
Results of our study suggest that serum PFAS were associated with increased risks of all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality in U.S. adults. In our study, PFOS contributed a large part to the strength of the PFAS–mortality association. Assuming a causal relationship, PFOS exposure was associated with ∼382,000 deaths in U.S. adults annually from 1999 to 2015, and the number decreased to 69,000 annually from 2015 to 2018.
In conclusion, we observed a positive association between PFAS mixture exposure and mortality among U.S. adults. Results also suggest that PFOS, not PFOA, contributed in large part to the strength of the PFAS–mortality association, especially for women and people without diabetes.
The decline of PFOS exposure levels in the United States reduced the number of deaths associated with PFOS from 1999 to 2018mortality (third vs. first tertile HR=1.57; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.07), heart disease mortality (third vs. first tertile HR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.57), and cancer mortality (third vs. first tertile HR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.83), whereas PFOA exposure had no significant association with mortality.
Assuming the observed association is causal, the number of deaths associated with PFOS exposure (≥17.1 vs. <7.9 ng/mL) was ∼382,000 (95% CI: 176,000, 588,000) annually between 1999 and 2015, and it decreased to 69,000 (95% CI: 28,000, 119,000) annually between 2015 and 2018. The association between PFOS and mortality was stronger among women and people without diabetes.
Environ Health Perspect. 2022 Jun; 130(6): 067007.
Published online 2022 Jun 22. doi: 10.1289/EHP10393
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
Current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to:
-
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
-
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes.
-
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
-
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response.
-
Interference with the body’s natural hormones.
-
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.
Certain Adults and Children May Have Higher Exposure to PFAS
Adults: Some people have higher exposures to PFAS than others because of their occupations or where they live. For example:
Industrial workers who are involved in making or processing PFAS or PFAS-containing materials, or people who live or recreate near PFAS-producing facilities, may have greater exposure to PFAS.
Pregnant and lactating women tend to drink more water per pound of body weight than the average person and as a result they may have higher PFAS exposure compared to other people if it is present in their drinking water.
Children: Because children are still developing, they may be more sensitive to the harmful effects of chemicals such as PFAS. They can also be exposed more than adults because:
Children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults, which can increase their exposure to PFAS.
Young children crawl on floors and put things in their mouths which leads to a higher risk of exposure to PFAS in carpets, household dust, toys, and cleaning products.
Breast milk from mothers with PFAS in their blood and formula made with water containing PFAS can expose infants to PFAS, and it may also be possible for children to be exposed in utero during pregnancy. Scientists continue to do research in this area. Based on current science, the benefits of breastfeeding appear to outweigh the risks for infants exposed to PFAS in breast milk. To weigh the risks and benefits of breastfeeding, mothers should contact their doctors.
The Intercept--2016/05/19. With-new-pfoa-drinking-water-advisory-dozens-of-communities-suddenly-have-dangerous-water/
The EPA report noted that in humans “the developing fetus and newborn is particularly sensitive to PFOA-induced toxicity.”
The levels released today are based on numerous studies connecting the chemicals with health effects. For PFOS, the report notes, studies of lab animals exposed to the chemical reported “developmental effects (decreased body weight, survival, and increased serum glucose levels and insulin resistance in adult offspring), reproductive (mating behavior), liver toxicity (liver weight co-occurring with decreased cholesterol, hepatic steatosis), developmental neurotoxicity (altered spatial learning and memory), immune effects, and cancer (thyroid and liver).”
The report also acknowledged research on human populations that has found associations between PFOS and immune suppression, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and reduced fertility. It also acknowledged a possible connection between PFOS and bladder, colon, and prostate cancer.
For PFOA, the research included studies on monkeys, rats, and mice showing “developmental effects (survival, body weight changes, reduced ossification, delays in eye opening, altered puberty, and retarded mammary gland development), liver toxicity (hypertrophy, necrosis, and effects on the metabolism and deposition of dietary lipids), kidney toxicity (weight), immune effects, and cancer (liver, testicular, and pancreatic).”
The new health advisory for PFOA was also based on human studies, which showed “associations between PFOA exposure and high cholesterol, increased liver enzymes, decreased vaccination response, thyroid disorders, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and cancer (testicular and kidney).” The EPA report noted that in humans “the developing fetus and newborn is particularly sensitive to PFOA-induced toxicity.”
“Taken together,” the report notes, “the weight of evidence for human studies supports the conclusion that PFOA exposure is a human health hazard.” The exact phrasing was used in the PFOS report as well.
Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act).
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. Examples of where PFAS can be found include cleaners, textiles, leather, paper and paints, fire-fighting foams, and wire insulation. Certain PFAS can accumulate and stay in the human body for long periods of time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. Get basic information on what PFAS are, where they are found, and other EPA actions.
PFAS are synthetic chemical substances with special properties and hundreds of manufacturing and industrial applications. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (PFCA), a subset of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that does not occur naturally in the environment.
EPA has investigated PFOA because it:
-
Is very persistent in the environment
-
Is found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population
-
Remains in people for a very long time
-
Causes developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
-
n the late 1990's, EPA received information indicating that perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS) was widespread in the blood of the general population and presented concerns for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. Following discussions between EPA and the 3M, the manufacturer of PFOS, the company terminated production of these chemicals.
-
Studies have found other related perfluorinated compounds, including perfluoroalkane sulfonates (PFSAs), in very small amounts in the blood of the general human population as well as wildlife. Although most of the health and environmental studies have focused primarily on PFOS, analysis of the structure of the compounds indicates that the results of those studies may be applied to a larger category of PFSA chemicals. EPA believes that the chemical similarity between PFOS and PFSA raises the likelihood that health and environmental concerns are similarly present for PFSA compounds. Following the voluntary phaseout of PFOS by the principal worldwide manufacturer, EPA took prompt regulatory actions in 2002 and 2007 under the TSCA to limit any future manufacture or importation of 271 PFSA chemicals, essentially encompassing all PFSA chemicals on the U.S. market.
Findings on PFOS and PFSA led EPA to review similar chemicals to determine whether they might present similar concerns. The agency began investigating PFOA in 1990s and found that it, too, is very persistent in the environment, is found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population and causes developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf
Evidence shows that PFOS is distributed within the body and can be transferred from pregnant women to their unborn children and offspring. PFOS is detected in both umbilical cord blood and breast milk, indicating that maternal transfer occurs (Apelberg et al. 2007;
GOOD REVIEW OF FILTERS: PAGE 59-60
What is the toxicity of PFAS? Seven types of toxicological effects associated with PFAS exposure have been identified using laboratory animal models: hepatic and metabolic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, obesogenicity, and tumor induction. Jun 28, 2019
2022 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discusses the new guidelines
June 22, 2022 – On June 15, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released updated health advisories warning that even tiny amounts of two types of man-made compounds, PFOS and PFOA, are harmful to humans. Currently these compounds are found in drinking water systems across the U.S. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discusses the new guidelines. The previous guideline, set in 2016, set a limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for both PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. The new advisories decrease that by more than a thousandfold. The new limit for PFOS is 0.02 ppt; for PFOA, it’s 0.004 ppt. Essentially, the EPA wants the limits to be as close as possible to zero as a growing body of research has shown how toxic these compounds are.
These new advisories are exactly in line with findings from some of our previous studies, which showed some of the serious health problems associated with PFAS exposure. For example, our 2012 study showed that children with higher PFAS exposure had a poorer response to routine childhood vaccinations against diphtheria and tetanus. We found that when PFAS exposure was doubled, children would lose 50% of the antibodies they should have had from their vaccinations—meaning that more and more of them were not being sufficiently protected against those diseases.
Our research has also shown that children with higher levels of PFAS when they were born—we measured the levels in cord blood—had lower antibody levels in response to later vaccinations. In addition, PFAS is transmitted through human milk. Unfortunately, the baby can end up with up to 10 times more PFAS in their blood than the mother had.
The EPA decided that since children are being born with PFAS in their bodies and they’re getting it from human milk, they needed to figure out how to limit exposure in the general population to protect pregnant women. This was really inventive. It is the first time that I know of that a U.S. regulatory agency decided to protect the child by setting an exposure limit that takes into account a mother’s exposure.
Q: A recent USA Today article noted that the new advisories “stunned” scientists and officials across the country. Why were people so surprised by the EPA’s move?
A: What is surprising is that the decrease is very, very big.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/technical-factsheet-four-PFAS.pdf
What Types of Health Outcomes are Associated with Exposure to These Four PFAS, and How Did EPA Develop the Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS?
Pregnancy: Application of Health Advisories to Different Exposure Scenarios:
Because the critical effects identified for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS are developmental effects that can potentially result from short-term exposure to these PFAS during a critical period of development, EPA guidelines support applying the lifetime health advisories for these three PFAS to both short-term and chronic risk assessment scenarios (U.S. EPA, 1991).
The lifetime health advisory for GenX chemicals used a chronic RfD from the final EPA toxicity assessment (U.S. EPA, 2021c) based on the critical effect of adverse liver effects in adults (parental females) from a subchronic study (53–64 day exposure). In the assessment, a 10X UFS for subchronic to chronic exposure was applied to derive the chronic RfD (U.S. EPA, 2021c). Because the critical effect identified for GenX chemicals is in adults, the HA applies to chronic exposure scenarios. The HA was based on exposure to lactating women, an adult life stage with the greatest drinking water intake rate. Application of the GenX chemicals HA to a shorter-term risk assessment scenario would provide a conservative, health protective approach in the absence of other information.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/toxic-chemicals-drinking-water/ Harvard School of Public Health:
Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects-National -National Institute of Health: 2020
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7530144/
Conclusions:
The complex family of PFAS compounds presents unique challenges to toxicologists and risk assessors. The effects of PFAS on human health differ based on compound, impact multiple overlapping biological systems, affect health outcomes at all life stages, and exposure levels (and mixtures) differ temporally and geographically. Importantly, early life PFAS insults may in fact disrupt placental growth and function, thereby increasing susceptibility for later life chronic health conditions, which may be further exacerbated by lifelong PFAS exposure. Thus, it is critical to improve our understanding of the developmental and adult health consequences associated with PFAS exposure over time, identify emerging PFAS threats to sensitive subpopulations, and develop tools to efficiently evaluate and characterize PFAS toxicity on sensitive targets such as the placenta. Future research is needed to determine if latent health effects of PFAS exposure are programmed or mediated by the placenta. Going forward, experimental toxicology studies designed to formally assess the placenta are needed to determine the sensitivity of this tissue towards PFAS and explore the molecular mechanisms of placental toxicity.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/PFASTaskForce/HHCBarlowBoydKempHoppeParr2019PFASToxicologypdf.pdf
Conclusions
The complex family of PFAS compounds presents unique challenges to toxicologists and risk assessors. The effects of PFAS on human health differ based on compound, impact multiple overlapping biological systems, affect health outcomes at all life stages, and exposure levels (and mixtures) differ temporally and geographically. Importantly, early life PFAS insults may in fact disrupt placental growth and function, thereby increasing susceptibility for later life chronic health conditions, which may be further exacerbated by lifelong PFAS exposure. Thus, it is critical to improve our understanding of the developmental and adult health consequences associated with PFAS exposure over time, identify emerging PFAS threats to sensitive subpopulations, and develop tools to efficiently evaluate and characterize PFAS toxicity on sensitive targets such as the placenta. Future research is needed to determine if latent health effects of PFAS exposure are programmed or mediated by the placenta. Going forward, experimental toxicology studies designed to formally assess the placenta are needed to determine the sensitivity of this tissue towards PFAS and explore the molecular mechanisms of placental toxicity.
https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/175/2/210/5812793
Negative PFAS affects on placenta by UNC Scientists: Paper one
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Differentially Inhibit Placental Trophoblast Migration and Invasion In Vitro
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.23004
Negative PFAS affects on placenta by UNC Scientists: Paper two
An assessment of serum-dependent impacts on intracellular accumulation and genomic response of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a placental trophoblast model
September 2022 SGWASA Meeting -- Quite a Disaster
A disaster in more ways than one. First a petition by SGWASA Customer John Mayo was to be discussed but it appeared to be purposely avoided! Mayo sent a copy of the petition to all SGWASA Board Members to be discussed at the meeting. Several Board Members claimed they did not receive the email so they postponed discussion of that topic. The petition was a request for SGWASA to provide customers with home water filters. An excellent idea for water contaminant issues!
Then, a presentation of a specific water contaminant called PFAS was discussed and it was very poor.
We know much of the discussion must focus on some technical material and most of the SGWASA Board is probably not technically trained, but with the proper presentation and proper question and answer period, it might have worked. The EPA website has plenty of good reading material and I hope the SGWASA Board will read some of that (see below) and slowly bring themselves up to speed on this major health issue.
One glaring horrid error at this meeting was a sad, apparently conscious effort to not discuss the high levels of PFAS in SGWASA water when it was previously measured. When asked question several times question such as “was our water contaminated when measured?” or “should customers be concerned or alarmed,” or “were our values over the EP Advisory levels,” there was no answer given. The one and only time PFAS was measured at SGWASA was in 2019. And the amounts are available to everyone and in fact were on the SGWASA web site at one point. They are at high levels. When the Hazen Company person was asked those questions of how much PFAS was in SGWASA water or asked if customers should be alarmed, the questions were not answered.
There is no excuse for not referring to this data at this meeting, and customers need to see this as a grave disservice to them. Treating them like children with censorship, disrespect and almost seeming to be hiding information is scary indeed.
A complex chart shown by Hazen Company persons was far too technical for most people there to absorb in the limited time.
The discussion period was poorly done. I could not tell who was asking a question and the questions were answered poorly if answered at all.Hazen Company should have done a better job. Much simpler charts and explanations might have done it.
Below are four points of confusion, misunderstanding, misinformation at the meeting.
Point One: EPA Advisory Levels versus Minimum Reporting Level.
Yes, the recent EPA advisory levels of exposure on PFAS are very low – yes, they are near zero (.02 ppt for one chemical and .004 ppt for the other chemical.) They are set so low because they are dangerous. There is the long-term goal to get them to zero in American drinking water. These advisories have been dropped very low recently because of new data and research showing they are more dangerous than we thought previously.
Because laboratory instruments that test water can’t measure at these low levels. So no one expects you do that. So, to take care of that problem, the EPA sets a much higher level that all modern instruments can easily measure: It’s strangely called the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) defined as--“the minimum quantitation level that, with 95 percent confidence, can be achieved by capable analysts at 75 percent or more of the laboratories using a specified analytical method (recognizing that individual laboratories may be able to measure at lower levels.”
In other words, a confidence “safe” measuring level is set much higher than the low advisory levels such that we will know labs can measure at that level. If a test amount is above the MRL we can be quite confident it is correct. For the two chemicals of concern, PFOA and PFOS, the MRL is 4 ppt. You can see that 4 ppt is far above the advisory levels of 0.004ppt for PFOA and 0.02ppt for PFOS.
When measured in 2019, the amount of those two PFAS chemicals in our SGWASA water was a total of 34.3 ppt! Way above the current “confidently known” MRL level of 4 ppt. So, our water at that time was “confidently known” to be unsafe in terms of our health. In terms of the Health Advisory level HAL) for PFOS, set now at .02 ppt, that means that our one measurement was 1125 times higher or112,500% higher, than the HAL. (that’s 22.5 ppt of PFOS in our test divided by .02). For PFOA, with HAL of .004 ppt, it is 2950 times higher or 295,000 % than the HAL (that’s 11.8 ppt in our test divided by .004). SO WHAT ARE THE LEVELS NOW!
Point Two: Concept of Life-Time Advisory Level. A big misunderstanding at this meeting was the fact that the EPA Advisory (.02 ppt and .004 ppt figures) is a “lifetime advisory.” Discussion at the meeting showed people thought this had no meaning because they thought that meant one would only need to worry as one grew old! No, that is irrational thinking; just a brief thought on that shows you that is a silly conclusion. If you drink water with a contaminant and it that builds up in your body, adults, children and a fetus could quickly get a buildup of these very stable contaminants. Why would you think that nothing would be building up in you body with constant drinking of water from birth?
EPA quote: “EPA's lifetime HAs are based on peer-reviewed toxicological studies of exposure of animals to PFOA and PFOS, applying scientifically appropriate uncertainty factors. The development of the HAs was also informed by epidemiological studies of human populations that have been exposed to PFOA and PFOS. The HAs are set at levels that EPA concluded will not result in adverse developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breast-fed infants, who are the groups most sensitive to the potential harmful effects of PFOA and PFOS. EPA's analysis indicates that exposure to these same levels will not result in adverse health effects (including cancer and non-cancer) to the general population over a lifetime (or any shorter period) of exposure to these chemicals.”
Point Three: Confusion arose about the meaning of a “one time test point. That refers to the one test SGWASA had in 2019. Some SGWASA board members said being only a one-time test is meaningless. They implied it was meaningless! That is more bad thinking. In fact, I have been recently demanding SGWASA NEEDS TO DO MORE TESTING! The one-time test showed dangerous levels, so obviously you need to keep testing. We do not have just two choices of testing once or testing often! The one-time PFAS measurement SGWASA had in 2019 showed we had a very dangerous level of PFAS. WHAT IS IT NOW?
In fact the one and only good idea that came out of this meeting in my opinion is that everyone agrees we need more testing! OF COURSE! Customers need to know if they should buy a filter for their home! We need information!
Point Four: The Hazen Company speaker, when asked if SGWASA PFAS levels were similar to other nearby water companies and he stated: “Not unusual for Piedmont. Close to what you will see in some other nearby regions. Yes”
I will be in touch with NC Water authorities soon about this, but I took a quick look at several nearby water systems: here they are compared with SGWASA:
SGWASA: 34.3 ppt
Henderson Kerr-Lake: 5.5 ppt
Durham-Rougemont: zero (below MRL)
Durham 1: 7.6 ppt
Durham 2: 2.3 ppt
Just that quick glance shows SGWASA is much higher than those listed. Is Hazen qualified to give SGWASA advice on contaminants in our water?
___________________________________________________________________________
The Hazen speaker gave a quick note of what he called a plan to work with SGWASA on the PFAS problem, but it was very vague in timeline.
We need to do testing immediately to compare with previous 2019 test results for PFOA and PFOS. So SGWASA customers can buy a home filter or move out of town.
See this EPA website for many fascinating questions and answers about PFAS contaminants.
SGWASA Struggles with Handling PFAS Contaminant Problem
Here we discuss a common industrial contaminant found in most American’s drinking water including yours. Most of us have these chemicals “stored” in our bodies. It has been found in SGWASA water in high amounts. SGWASA even shows you that data on their website. See below for details.
On its website SGWASA has given their opinion on the high levels of these contaminants in their water called PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances). If you are a SGWASA customer, you should know that their website presentation is badly done inour opinion and is contradictory, incomplete, and certainly inaccurate regarding some facts related to your health.
Here are two of their critical paragraphs on the SGWASA website, in quotes:
“On June 15, 2022, the US EPA reduced its health advisory levels (“HAL”) for two chemicals - PFOA and PFOS from 70 parts per trillion to interim levels of 0.004 and 0.02 parts per trillion. SGWASA is committed to adhering to all state and federal water quality standards. SGWASA’s drinking water meets all current State and federal regulatory requirements, and therefore remains safe for consumption.”
“The EPA’s interim HALs are guidance and not regulatory requirements. EPA’s Interim HALs are meant to identify the amount of a chemical a person can be exposed to for their entire life (70 years) without it causing any adverse health impacts. Results greater than the Health Advisory Levels do not mean that there is an emergency or violation. Accordingly, exceedances of these interim levels for some period going forward while EPA adopts regulatory requirements and water systems figure out how to meet those requirements, does not mean that public health is at risk or that public drinking water is unsafe.”
POINT ONE: No one said anything about SGWASA being in violation. The EPA is just now setting pollution levels and standards for these chemicals, so no water company anywhere in the USA could violate non-existing standards. So that statement on the SGWASA website has no meaning whatsoever. But I assume you would like to see data on what experts say about these chemicals, not just SGWASA!
POINT TWO: Stating their water “remains safe for consumption” is false, because its water has shown high amounts of several of these types of pollutants which greatly exceed the new advisory levels! And the simple fact that these new maximum advisory safe levels were set very low, much lower than what has been found in SGWASA water, contradicts the very reason the new EPA levels were set! As noted by SGWASA, new discoveries of the damage these contaminants can cause to your health, has caused the EPA to reduce the advisory amounts downward to extremely low amounts for the two chemicals of main concern. From 70 parts per trillion, to .004 ppt for one contaminant and .02 ppt for the other. Note that .004 parts per trilion means 4 thousandths of one ppt! Those are huge reductions. The EPA believe there is danger in amounts even near zero!
POINT THREE: Just because this is a “lifetime health advisory” from the EPA, does not mean you need to wait 70 years and hope it doesn’t have any effect. That is a serious flaw in the SGWASA statement and logic. Many people of course have been drinking SGWASA water for years as they age including children, and the contaminants in question will build up in your body. The chemical bonds in these contaminants are extremely strong and so the chemicals do not break down. EPA has calculated all this into their health advisory. This advisory is a serious decision made by many health professionals, epidemiologists, animal laboratory studies etc., that indicate we need to lower the amounts of these contaminants we drink, to much lower levels than they previously thought were safe. And this is what the new advisories do. THEY WARN YOU and suggest you and SGWASA do something about it! NOW! They are clearly stating that if your water has levels of PFAS contaminants higher than their advisories given above, you are clearly at risk for disease. And again, I note, SGWASA water has shown levels in their drinking water much higher above the new advisory levels. SGWASA water is 49.4 ppt and the safe levels for one contaminant is .02 ppt and the other is .004 ppt. Do the math please and you should get nervous and see the huge difference in their water and the new advisory levels. There is no way one can then state their water is “safe to drink.”
POINT FOUR: SGWASA is clearly saying “don’t worry, no problem.” A horridly dangerous attitude. Strange that they do not put the advisory information up against THEIR OWN HIGH LEVELS OF THE CONTAMINANT! Remember, hundreds of EPA experts looked at new data and, wanting to protect Americans, dropped the maximum recommended amount much lower than it was; they do not do this casually. They see danger to your health at levels above these new advisories and warn you that you and SGWASA need to do something about it. Some of us have asked SGWASA to do a new test for PFAS contaminants to see current amounts, but they have declined that request.
Below are quotes from the EPA: Do these quotes sound like what SGWASA is saying, that “there is no public risk, and your water is safe.”
EPA quote one: “exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women. Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes. Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response. Interference with the body’s natural hormones. Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.”
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
EPA quote two: “If You Get Your Water from a Public Drinking Water System, find out if PFAS are in your drinking water as well as ask them to test the water for PFAS or to share information with you.”
EPA quote three: “Individuals concerned about levels of PFAS found in their drinking water should consider actions that may reduce exposure, including installing a home or point of use filter.” “If you remain concerned about the level of PFAS in your drinking water, contact your state environmental protection agency or health department and your local water utility to find out what actions they recommend. If possible, consider using an alternate water source for drinking, preparing food, cooking, brushing teeth, preparing baby formula, and any other activity when your family might swallow water. Consider installing an in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. Learn about certified in-home water treatment filters. “
Sign this petition which asks SGWASA to provide you with a good water filter for this kind of contaminant discussed above.
To SGWASA Board Members and Executive Director - July 26, 2022
I know that all of you are familiar with the group of industrial chemicals called per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS. They have been produced in the United States since the 1940s and are now found throughout the environment, in our air, food, cooking utensils, water, and our bodies. There are thousands of PFAS with potentially varying effects and toxicity levels. Current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to:
-
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
-
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes.
-
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
-
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response.
-
Interference with the body’s natural hormones.
-
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.
See EPA website on this topic.
The EPA of course regulates water contaminants for our safety. Once a chemical has been determined to be dangerous to health, they set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) that water companies must meet. The EPA is in the process of doing that now for PFAS.
But the EPA also issues Health Advisories (HAs). The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to issue HAs for contaminants that are not yet subject to these MCL Regulations. HA documents provide technical information on chemical and microbial contaminants that can cause human health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. HA values/levels identify the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water at which adverse health effects and/or aesthetic effects are not anticipated to occur over specific exposure durations (e.g.,1 day, 10 days, a lifetime). HAs primarily serve as information to drinking water systems and officials responsible for protecting public health when emergency spills or other contamination situations occur. EPA issued a Health Advisory for PFAS in 2016 for some very common PFAS chemicals.
On June 15, 2022, the EPA issued interim, updated drinking water health advisories for several PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) that replace those EPA issued in 2016. They did this because of new scientific evidence for the health dangers of these two PFAS
The agency’s new health advisories provide technical information that federal, state, and local agencies can use to inform actions to address PFAS in drinking water, including water quality monitoring, optimization of existing technologies that reduce PFAS, and strategies to reduce exposure to these substances. EPA has stated that it “encourages states, Tribes, territories, drinking water utilities, and community leaders that find PFAS in their drinking water to take steps to inform residents, undertake additional monitoring to assess the level, scope, and source of contamination, and examine steps to reduce exposure. Individuals concerned about levels of PFAS found in their drinking water should consider actions that may reduce exposure, including installing a home or water filter.” See more details here.
The updated advisory levels, which are based on new science and consider lifetime exposure, indicate that some negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero.
I have found one record of SGWASA PFOA and PFOS measurements in their raw water in 2019: Using those figures from 2019 for PFOA and PFOS, SGWASA, with the new updated advisory levels noted above, would surpass the advisory levels by huge amounts. Extremely high amounts.
For PFOS, the new advisory level is 0.02 parts per trillion, (ppt) and the 2019 SGWASA figure was 22.5 ppt, which is1125 times the advised amount! Or 112,500 % higher! The previous advisory level was 70 ppt, so this is a gigantic reduction because of new data showing a need for more safety.
For PFOA, the new advisory level is 0.004 ppt and the 2019 SGWASA figure was 11.8 ppt, which is 2950 times the advised amount! Or 295,000% higher! Again, the previous advisory level was 70 ppt, so this is a gigantic reduction vbecause of new data showing a need for more safety.
To indicate the danger of these chemicals, note that as a reference, 1 ppt is one droplet of water in an Olympic swimming pool! Note that the new advisory amounts are less than 1 ppt! An Olympic swimming pool holds 660,000 gallons of water, which equates to 10.56 million 8-ounce glasses of water. Sounds like very dangerous PFAS chemicals to me.
I
n the next few years, the EPA will set MCL standards for these dangerous substances and they will start to be finally removed from our drinking water. Obviously, SGWASA will need to determine the source of the PFAS and some theories are already being studied by local residents.
But because SGWASA had very significant amounts when measured in 2019, SQWASA CUSTOMERS NEED TO KNOW WHAT AMOUNTS MIGHT BE IN OUR WATER NOW! And as EPA stated, they need to undertake additional monitoring to assess the level, scope, and source of contamination, and examine steps to reduce exposure
Note that both the EPA and NC Department of Environmental Quality, state that SGWASA customers should be informed of the PFAS levels in our water NOW, in order to decide whether we would want to get home filters to remove these toxic substances.
Please let me know when SGWASA will be having their water tested for PFAS levels and how, when and where you are likely to make that announcement. I thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Frank McKay
Response from SWASA Executive Director, Scott Schroyer, Below With Our Comments in red text
Thank you for your email today (7/27/22) to the South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA) Board of Directors and me regarding the US EPA’s recent announcement regarding the Health Advisory Levels (HAL’S) for PFOA and PFOS. Please know that SGWASA is committed to adhering to all state and federal water quality standards and that SGWASA’s drinking water meets all State and federal regulatory requirements, and therefore remains safe for consumption.
"Safe" is a meaningless term in the sense that these toxins are known to be in SGWASA water at levels much higher than the current advisory levels. Not only higher than the advisory, but higher than the Minimum Reporting Level. (See below)
With respect to PFAS, water utilities, such as SGWASA, are “passive receivers” of PFAS. We do not produce or manufacture PFAS. Instead, these chemicals are present in source waters that are treated to produce drinking water. PFAS chemicals have been used in all sorts of products that the public interacts with daily. The products range from takeout food containers, non-stick cookware, cosmetics, waterproof clothing, fabric softener, to a whole host of other consumer/household products. For more information on PFAS, please review the following website link.
This Paragraph above repeats some basic facts but does not answer our question of when will you have a PSAF test done so we have critical information?
Following the June 15, 2022 announcement by the US EPA regarding the HAL’s for PFOA and PFOS, SGWASA has been engaged with Hazen & Sawyer consultants to assist us on our journey with PFAS/PFOS compliance, communications, testing (we anticipate PFAS testing this fall; results to the public will follow), and mitigation strategies to adhere to state and federal water quality standards. Hazen & Sawyer guided SGWASA in a similar manner most recently with the $14,000,000 water treatment plant disinfection byproducts improvement project that was completed earlier this year. This project shows SGWASA’s commitment to our customers to provide improved water quality that meets state and federal water quality standards.
While you are on "your journey,” Your customers are drinking PFAS at levels which exceed the advisory levels for safety. What Hazen and Sawyer did for you in the past has absolutely nothing to do with the need to give us a current lab Test for PFAS toxin level in our water! Many want to think about getting a home water filter to remove PSAF! Or not drink the water!
Regarding the recent US EPA announcement of the health advisory levels (“HAL”) for two chemicals - PFOA and PFOS from 70 parts per trillion to interim levels of 0.004 and 0.02 parts per trillion, this incredible reduction from the 2016 HAL leaves many water systems and well water users around the country above the interim HALs. These levels are so low they cannot even be measured.
Your statements here are confused and/or incorrect. You indicated that EPA very often cannot measure to the exact level of the decided safe level because it is often difficult for instruments to measure as low as 0.004 ppt and 0.02 ppt. Yes, that is true but almost irrelevant. You left out the fact that to allow for this, the EPA sets a higher number, a "Minimum Reporting Level," (MRL) above the .004 and .02 levels. This is a number that can be easily measured, and it is the number that needs to be met now with the new June 2022 EPA Advisory. If the readings are at or above this MRL level, this allows a high confidence that the MRL readings are true. The MRL for the two known PFAS chemicals in your water was raised to 4 parts per trillion. And your water is still far above that as reported by the NC PFAS Testing Network noted above. From 300% to 560% higher depending on which specific chemical we look at. It is thus unsafe to drink for a lifetime or a few years. Or a few months. We should note the difficulty of measuring low levels of PFAS means that it is possible for PFOA or PFOS to be present in drinking water at levels that exceed health advisories even if testing indicates no level of these chemicals. The fact that the experts set the life-time safety level so low as .004 and .002, getting close to zero, certainly shows you how dangerous they think these toxins are for our health. I consider your answer very over simplified and lacking critical thinking, missing critical facts and illogical.
The "incredible reduction" in level recommendations you mention is due to the fact that new evidence shows PFAS as more dangerous and toxic than were thought and known previously. That includes new evidence showing effects on children! To state the levels are so low they can't be measured is irrelevant for SGWASA because YOUR LEVELS have been shown to be very high and CAN be measured and exceed the current standards as noted above. Your attitude seems inexcusable and dangerous to me. WE NEED A NEW TEST DONE TO SHOW US THE CURRENT LLEVELS OF PFAS in our water Now!
The EPA’s interim Advisories are guidance and not regulatory requirements. EPA’s Interim HALs are meant to identify the amount of a chemical a person can be exposed to for their entire life (70 years) without it causing any adverse health impacts. Results greater than the Health Advisory Levels do not mean that there is an emergency or violation. Accordingly, exceedances of these interim levels for some period going forward while EPA adopts regulatory requirements and water systems figure out how to meet those requirements, does not mean that public health is at risk or that public drinking water is unsafe.
Again very poor logic. Yes, no one can legally force you to meet advisory levels; by definition advisories are just that. But as we keep repeating, customers need to know current levels to decide whether they should get water filters. Or move out of town. Plus Democracy demands we know what we are drinking. Contaminant levels cannot be secret; some government agency will need to get our water tested for PFAS chemicals!. Do we need to do it ourselves? Relative to the "Lifetime Advisory," you seem to be suggesting that it won't hurt us for a few years if we drink the toxins in your water! Are you suggesting that because we have a Lifetime to play with in terms of this advisory figure, are you saying we need not pay attention to a few months or years? Rather absurd logic we think. It will be years before our water is cleared of PFAS because next year EPA ill require SGWASA and thousands of other water companies to measure for PFAS and then there is another year of analysis and Public Comments. So two or three years before we might get safe drinking water. Assuming we determine the source of the PFAS! Two or three years of drinking your contaminated water is a horrid idea. We need a current measurement for PFAS in your water. Many think an independent group should do this measurement.. Perhaps our towns should have this test done or the State of NC. WE NEED A PSAF TEST DONE NOW!
For now, please know that SGWASA continues to work diligently to characterize any PFAS chemicals in our systems and to minimize or eliminate the loadings. Furthermore, SGWASA will continue to strive to minimize PFAS levels while the US EPA adopts regulatory levels that we will then ensure we meet. We expect those regulatory levels will be higher than the Interim HALs for PFOS and PFOA which were announced recently.
How will SGWASA "minimize PFAS? Tell us how you will do that? A major study is needed to locate the source of these toxins; technology to remove it from the water is needed; remediation of the source areas will be needed! Massive costs and time! There is no reason to think future regulatory levels will go any lower than current advisory levels. New data that has been coming in shows them to be more dangerous than we thought; that is the trend.
In closing, we’re working on our communications program to inform our customers on this important topic. We’ll be rolling out information soon on our website, in our utility bills, and at the monthly Board of Directors meetings.
Very unfortunate, that you are unwilling to have your water tested for PFAS so that we have that valuable information for making decisions for our health and the health of our children. It would appear logical that you should also start trying to determine how these toxins are getting into the lake from which you draw the water. A relative quote follows from the EPA: "Based on the new data and draft analyses, the levels at which negative health effects could occur are much lower than previously understood when EPA issued the 2016 Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS, including near zero MRL for certain health effects." That means that they previously set the previous advisory at 70 ppt maximum that should be in your drinking water and now they have dropped that way down to .004 ppt for one chemical and .02 ppt for the other. A huge decrease in the recommended level. See that here.
Thank you for your interest in this important topic. I will share a copy of this email with the Board of Directors.
Regards,
Scott N. Schroyer
Executive Director
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Maybe it is time for SGWASA to provide good water filters for all SGWASA customers for their homes? The military history of the origins of SGWASA, its numerous violations of water quality in the past, the customer complaints about bad smells, bad tastes and the known contaminants in the water (as above) and even the recent inability to find the cause of a bad odor in a certain neighborhood, strongly suggest this home filter idea needs to be put in place.
HERE IS A PETITION FOR YOIU TO SIGN TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA!
https://www.change.org/p/sgwasa-water-filters-for-customers-1a19b4cf-12fc-476b-8057-7bfef1f1a093