being followed by City/ Chemours to resolve our problem?
From The Editor | June 15, 2016 (Posted 8:30 A.M. 28 June 2016)
How To Remove PFOA And PFOS
By Peter Chawaga, Associate Editor, Water Online
Last month the U.S. EPA updated its drinking water guidelines for PFOA and PFOS (also known as perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, respectively) apparently in response to rising attention paid to the dangers of these chemicals in drinking water
Small communities in New York, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and West Virginia have all recently become concerned with their exposure to PFOA and PFOS, which found their way into drinking water supplies through nearby industrial plants and military bases. The health risks of exposure to the chemicals include developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breastfed infants, cancer, liver effects, immune effects, thyroid effects, and more. Citizens are rightly concerned over the years they’ve spent drinking contaminated water and the new EPA guidelines were designed to set stricter limits on the chemicals.
The agency’s assessment is that drinking water with concentrations of PFOA and PFOS below 70 parts per trillion will not result in adverse health effects over a lifetime of exposure. Seems we heard the same about .4ppb for sometime also?
“If these chemicals are found in drinking water systems above these levels, system operators should quickly conduct additional sampling to assess the level, scope, and source of contamination,” Joel Beauvais, the EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for the office of water, wrote on an agency blog. “They should also promptly notify consumers and consult with their state drinking water agency to discuss appropriate next steps.”
However, Beauvais’ blog post was notably devoid of any precise steps for treatment strategies for removing PFOA and PFOS. When the EPA placed the chemicals on its “Contaminant Candidate List 3” and “Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule” years ago, the Water Research Foundation (WRF) was prompted to conduct a study into “Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances” which has now been released.
To test for PFOA, PFOS, and other poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), principal investigators Eric R.V. Dickenson and Christopher Higgins evaluated 15 full-scale water treatment systems throughout the country to see how they were dealing with the contamination.
“We thought the information would be most credible if it were obtained by sampling actual water treatment facilities before and after treatment, as opposed to investigating removal in laboratory and research facilities,” the WRF said. “This approach required involving utilities in areas known or suspected to have PFOS and PFOA in their water supplies. We also wanted to involve utilities with a variety of water treatment technologies and processes.”
The facilities used a wide range of treatment methods, like anion exchange, reverse osmosis, microfiltration, river bank flotation, and more.
The WRF found that aeration, chlorine dioxide, dissolved air flotation, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, granular filtration, and microfiltration were all ineffective for removing PFASs including PFOA and PFOS. Anion exchange was moderately effective in treating PFOA, highly effective for PFOS, and failed to remove several other PFASs. Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis proved to be the most effective methods of removing even the smallest PFASs. Granular activated carbon (GAC) was shown to be adept at removing most PFASs and it may be the average utility’s best bet for PFOA and PFOS contamination.
“In many cases, the most cost-effective treatment for removing PFOA and PFOS will be GAC, though water utilities will need to test GAC to determine site-specific performance,” the WRF said.
According to the WRF, PFOA and/or PFOS occurrence has been discovered in 30 states. The WRF advised that any water treatment plant that’s near a chemical manufacturing operation or military base should be on alert for PFASs contamination. While the EPA’s recent guidelines are a non-enforceable suggestion, municipalities should still take heed.
“Some states may choose to regulate PFOA and PFOS based on these guidelines or, in the case of states that already have regulations for PFOA and PFOS set higher than the health advisory levels, lower the maximum amount allowed in water,” the WRF said.
At this stage, it’s difficult to determine whether PFOA and PFOS will continue to be a pressing issue around the country or if requirements to stop using the chemicals and the new EPA guidelines will be enough to curb the threat. Either way, if these contaminants are a problem we now have the information necessary to fight back. As long as someone can afford to do something?
Took me a small road trip Friday ( 24th), to observe what was discussed at the City Council meeting of the 23rd, when a Mr. Stauffer asked to talk to the City Council. But also noted our Mr. Rapp greeting him and thanking him for coming. He has to ask to speak but is thanked for coming; interesting?
In any case, it was the same old story of water run off and its effects on a home. This person lives at what would be the bottom of a depression (?). Water flow is down and into his driveway and then it seems down and into his garage which was build below ground level. The construction alone is a recipe for disaster. I have forever avoided any house with a down slope into the garaged area. The only change was the current home where the City Employee (protected by Mr. Nohe and Mr. Rapp), have allowed water drainage to use my property as a holding pond. City says NO PROBLEM. But, Favoritism/ Cronyism might be good terms to use here?
He has apparently been flooded several times in past few years and the recent 3.75" of rain did not help his issue a bit.
I drove slowly by and stopped with a brief look down the driveway. Garage was full of this and that so could not see well past even the truck parked there. I am going to surmise there is a basement but could not see any door into it from garage. Cannot imagine taking groceries and such up the driveway into the home so am going to stay with a basement of some sort.
Mr. Metz or Mr. Rapp advised would cost $300K to fix his problem. Is the house even worth $300K? I am going to say not likely. Better question was WHY was a home allowed to be built in an area like that? Was said it was the last home built in that block? I could believe that. Why was it not required to put fill in to raise against just that problem? Suspect the Vienna Code at the time was non existent on such issues?
IF and I repeat IF there is no basement or it can be waterproofed and closed off from garage, why not fill in garage area and give owner variance to build a carport in front of house to street IF and again IF enough room to allow for street width and sidewalk as per current City Ordnance for streets? I say a Carport because I think the home has windows where it would go?
And it too close to the street for direct carpool, how about an egress that allows for a cross yard type driveway/ carport to stay on Mr. Stauffer's property?
And the ground would have to raised enough to stop further flow down to where old garage entry was at? Would raising that cause flooding to other homes nearby? Every action has a reaction so I would think some potential there if raised too much and too much can be inches? Of course this would allow or necessitate the raising of the curb (?) to better direct water elsewhere?
Now I am aware that this idea will get nothing but negative reviews, but at least a potential solution if a couple of factors can be met? My impression from watching these meetings for years was he got a chance to talk, but not a prayer for a solution. You know, the polite "lets do lunch"?
I am not sure who would pay for what, but it would be a bloody battle to take to Court in this County no matter how in the right the home owner might be? Would Mr. Rapp City/ Utility Board assist in such a project if all could agree to it? At least two of the Utility Board Members squalled like Hell at just a $5K settlement because of apparent City obligation in another case? This is not going to happen for $5K.
A very quick observation and thought only. But at least an idea? Nothing in concrete; not the only solution or necessarily the best. 'nuff said'.
(Paid for by the Candidate- Lawrence J. Wilson for Mayor of Vienna).