Posted by admin on March 4, 2021 · Leave a Comment
PFAS Contamination and Cost Recovery
By NRWA Cheyenne
On March 4th, 2021
“This report contains important information on PFAS contamination and a cost recovery program for testing, treatment and remediation initiated by the National Rural Water Association on behalf of rural water and wastewater utilities across America.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States since the 1940s. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both chemicals are very persistent in the environment and in the human body – meaning they do not break down and they can accumulate over time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects like kidney damage, cancer, developmental effects to fetuses, and other illnesses.
In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency lowered the health advisory level from 400 parts per trillion to 70 parts per trillion. Since that change was made, states have taken independent actions ranging from the adoption of the recommended health advisory level of 70 ppt to a much lower allowable level. As a result, systems of all sizes are experiencing increased cost for testing treatment and remediation. At the same time, the EPA has made PFAS contamination a priority and action has been taken to label PFAS as a hazardous substance. This will impact wastewater utilities and the disposal of bio-solids into a hazardous landfill if PFAS is detected.
In 2019, the National Rural Water Association recognized the financial burden on systems and joined the law office of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC to bring these systems together that have concerns or have been affected by PFAS contamination. This potential landmark contamination case could help water and wastewater systems recoup money spent on treatment and remediation. The sole purpose is to allow utilities the opportunity to recover their cost associated with testing, treatment and remediation with no upfront cost to the utility.
It is recommended that utilities register for cost recovery if they have tested and detected PFAS at any level or if the water source is near a potential PFAS contamination site. These sites include, but are not limited to, airports, military bases, fire training activity areas, landfills and/or manufacturing facilities. There are three key points to this action:
- The action is for cost recovery as opposed to punitive and is filed against the global manufacturers of the compounds, not any local companies who may have used them.
- There are no upfront costs to the utility to register for cost recovery.
- Once a settlement is reached, the utility has the option of accepting the settlement or declining.
Utilities can find more information about PFAS contamination here and register for cost recovery here.”
Note:
1. This is one reason the EPA should not set a formal standard.
2. The second reason – once it is removed from the water – where will it go and who will be responsible for this stuff??
3. Why we suggest ordering a Neighboorhood Hazard Reports
Informational PFAS Water Testing Program (PFAS PFOS Drinking Water Testing Forever Chemicals – PFOA, PFOS, Gen X Compounds in Drinking Water).
Get Treatment
EPA officials recommend NSF and ANSI Certified filters to reduce PFOA and PFOS. ” P473: Drinking Water Treatment Units – PFOA and PFOS — to verify a water treatment device’s ability to reduce perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to below the health advisory levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
Treatment Options: (Point of Use Filters meets P473 and other standards)
Aquasana OptimH2O Reverse Osmosis Under Sink Water Filter System
AO Smith 2-Stage Under Sink Clean Water Faucet Filter – NSF Certified Carbon Block Drinking Water Filtration System
Filed under Environmental Health, foaming agents, NSF P473, P473: Drinking Water Treatment Units – PFOA and PFOS, PFAS, pfos, POE, reverse osmosis · Tagged with forever chemicals, GenX, NSF P473, Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS contamination, PFOA, PFOS, Point of Use Filters meets P473
Posted by Brian on February 14, 2019 · Leave a Comment
EPA suggests consumers have water tested and use certified in-home filtration to remove or reduce levels of these toxic chemicals
LISLE, Ill. – The Water Quality Association supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) taking steps toward setting a safety threshold for highly toxic drinking water contaminants known as PFAS. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Thursday outlined a plan that addresses drinking water and cleanup concerns as well as monitoring of PFAS, expanding research and improving enforcement.
“We are encouraged that the EPA is continuing to move forward with establishing a consistent standard across the country for these dangerous chemicals,” said WQA Global Government Affairs Director David Loveday. “We strongly support the action plan’s recommendations that consumers have their drinking water checked by a certified laboratory and then use certified in-home filtration to remove or reduce any chemicals found.”
In September, a letter from WQA supporting further study of human health risks of PFAS contamination and using in-home treatment technologies to combat them was introduced into testimony before a U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. Research shows POU/POE treatment “can be used to successfully treat for these contaminants at the home or in a building,” said the letter from WQA Executive Director Pauli Undesser. “They cost only a fraction of the price our society would need to bear to upgrade our drinking water treatment plants for PFAS removal.”
Last May, Loveday and WQA Technical Affairs Director Eric Yeggy took part in the EPA’s PFAS National Leadership Summit, which called for a national management plan.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS, are man-made chemicals found in such things as firefighting foams and stain-resistant, waterproof and nonstick coatings. Because they break down slowly, if at all, they have turned up in drinking water systems across the nation in varying levels. Some individual states have begun regulating the chemicals.
For individuals concerned about PFAS, the EPA Plan states:
“The EPA recommends contacting your state for a list of laboratories that are certified to test for PFAS using EPA Method 537. If you find PFAS in your drinking water, certain PFAS can be reduced or removed through the use of in-home point-of-use or point-of-entry water filters. It is important to keep in mind that any in-home treatment device should be certified by an independent party.”
In-home technologies such as reverse osmosis, carbon filtration and anion exchange have been independently tested and proven to be a successful final barrier to treat drinking water for PFAS.
WQA is a non-for-profit, accredited independent third-party certification body by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Standards Council of Canada. WQA’s website provides additional information on PFAS chemicals and product certification.
As part of its annual DC Fly-In and the Water Resources Congressional Summit on March 5 and 6, WQA members and staff will discuss PFAS in meetings with Congressional and federal agency staffs. Fly-In registration is open through Friday, Feb. 15.
WQA is a not-for-profit trade association representing the residential, commercial, and industrial water treatment industry. WQA’s education and professional certification programs have been providing industry-standardized training and credentialing since 1977. The WQA Gold Seal certification program has been certifying products that contribute to the safe consumption of water since 1959. The WQA Gold Seal program is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).
pfas_fact_sheet_history_and_use__11_13_17
Water Testing Links
PFAS and GenX Water Testing
Microplastics in Water
Filed under city water testing, Clean Water Act, Community Health, consumer products, Contaminated water, Environmental Hazards, foaming agents, PFAS, plastics, POE, Water Testing, Well water testing · Tagged with drinking water, EPA Method 537, er- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, firegighting foams, in-home filtration, nonsitck coatings, PFAS, pFAS in commerical products, stain-resistant, water quality association, WQA
Posted by Brian on October 27, 2018 · Leave a Comment
The Science on Ozone Laundry Systems
by Jenn Beem
When we think about doing laundry we typically think of laundry detergents, fabric softeners, and hot water. Skin irritations and allergic reactions are often from detergents and other soaps left in fabrics. Most individuals use laundry detergent for flowery, “fresh” smelling odors. Laundry Detergents and fabric softeners contain Volatile Organic Chemicals, below are just a few of the hazardous materials.
Phosphates: Manufacturers use these to make detergents more effective in hard water, and to help prevent dirt from settling back on clothes when they’re washing. These chemicals have long been associated with environmental damage, particularly in our streams and waterways. They cause algae blooms that damage ecosystems.
Cleaning agents (surfactants): These are included in the formula to help the product clean better.
Stabilizers: These chemicals help stabilize the formula, so that it lasts longer on the shelf.
Bleach: It’s known to irritate skin, eyes, and lungs, and when it mixes with wastewater, it can form toxic organic compounds that have been linked with respiratory issues, liver, and kidney damage.
Brighteners: Chemicals that remain on the clothes to absorb UV light and help clothes “appear” brighter. These chemicals also remain on the clothes so they are most likely to come into contact with skin.
EDTA: Many detergents have eliminated these, but they’re often using ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-EDTA) in its place, which does not readily biodegrade, and has been found to be toxic in animal studies.
Fragrance: Manufacturers combine many chemicals to produce a fragrance—so you’ll believe your clothes are clean because they smell clean—and they don’t have to list those chemicals on the label because of trade protection.
Ozone as a detergent-less laundry cleaning solution kills micro-organisms found in dirty laundry – and does so 3000 time faster than bleach! Dr. Sheila Baker, Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Missouri-Columbia, scientifically examined the technology behind the use of Ozone for detergent-less laundry solutions. Her research is focused on designing task-specific ionic liquid systems, nano-materials and their hybrids for clean energy applications. In her paper, Report on Ozone Laundry Systems, Dr. Baker finds that “Ozone does work for removing stains,” examining how it works, its effectiveness, as well as the threefold benefits of ozone. Below are excerpts from that report.
History
Ozone for commercial laundry applications was first introduced in the late 1970s-early 1980s in penal institutions but their performance was poor. (1) A second generation in the 1990s had better performance, and their performance has increased since then due mostly to a better understanding of how these systems work. By 2009, there were over 4,000 commercial laundry facilities that were using ozone laundry systems. (1) Some newer systems today offer controlled and variable levels of ozone and sensors that monitor and sometimes control ambient ozone levels.
How Ozone Works
Ozone does work for removing stains from laundry. It works through an oxidation mechanism whereby ozone and an OH radical, a breakdown product from ozone and water, can both work as oxidants. Ozone is a superb antimicrobial agent and can eliminate even superbugs when used properly. Also, ozone is very economical. It works best in cold water and relaxes the fabric so no softener is required and shortens drying times. Due to the cold water and shorter dryer times, fabric life is often extended. As for whitening abilities, ozone is similar to hydrogen peroxide. The method for cleaning by ozone in water is based on two reaction mechanisms – a direct and an indirect mechanism. (2,3,5) The direct method occurs when ozone acts as the oxidizer itself to break chemical bonds. The indirect method involves ozone reacting first with water to produce OH-radicals followed by the OH-radicals oxidizing chemical bonds. When ozone and OH-radicals come in contact with soils and stains in linen, they help break chemical bonds to release the stain or soil. One kind of reaction (direct or indirect) will dominate, depending on various factors, such as temperature, pH and chemical composition of the water. The higher the pH and temperature, the more OH-radicals will be produced. While OH-radicals have even greater oxidizing power than ozone, they are very short-lived in solution.
Effectiveness
Ozone is considerably more effective at lower water temperatures such as cold or ambient temperature water. This is due to its increased stability and higher solubility at lower water temperatures. Thus, it is recommended to use ozone on cold water cycles. This saves energy from not needing to heat the water.
In a recent study, when compared to hydrogen peroxide, ozone utilized in cotton preparation was able to obtain a Stensby degree of whiteness of 81 of scoured samples which was comparable to hydrogen peroxide. (5) Further, no strength loss of the fabric was observed. As compared to chlorine bleach, the levels of ozone present may not always be high enough to offer the same level of bleaching stains. (1) For these cases, some chlorine may be required in conjunction with ozone to achieve the highest effectiveness. If a bleach cycle is required, a scouring agent (acid) or multiple rinse cycles may be required to lower the pH so as to prevent skin irritations. However, ozone can often be used with colored fabric without the concern for bleaching the fabric, unlike chlorine bleach. Further, for disinfection purposes, you can use ozone alone instead of bleach. Ozone can reduce or eliminate the need for fabric softeners. Fabric softeners increase drying times due to the way they coat fabrics. However, the way in which ozone and oxygen assist in relaxing the fabric, more water is extracted during the spin cycle so that less drying time is needed. Due to the cold water and shorter dryer times, fabric life is often extended. Basically, ozone oxidizes the soil in the fabric allowing it to detach easier.
Benefits of Ozone
The reported benefits of ozone are three-fold: economical, microbiological, and environmental.
Economical
A California hotel conducted a study over a 2-month period in a facility with 104 rooms to compare traditional an EcoTex ozone laundering system. (1) They found the annual costs of ozone vs. traditional laundry was less in the categories of electrical (30% savings), natural gas (81% savings), chemical (21% savings), water (26% savings), and labor (39% savings). A 2012 hotel study entitled ‘Ozone Laundry – 95 Room Hotel Payback Study” showed similar results and a savings of almost $780 per month. (6) They found that the ozone laundry system saved over 47% of fuel costs for boiler and dryer operation, with a 74% savings for the boilers (hot water) alone. In addition, the system eliminated softener costs, reduced electrical costs for the washers and dryers by about 13%, and reduced linen replacement costs by 10%.
Microbiological
Ozone has been shown to effectively control, disinfect, and/or totally eradicate microorganisms normally found in soiled laundry in many studies.1 For example, one study found that several microorganisms such as E. coli and many types of viruses were eradicated within minutes by ozone cold water laundering. (7) Even more impressive, the same was found for two superbugs (MRSA and C. difficile). These superbugs are often resistant to traditional hot water laundry processes. However, the disinfection is a time-dependent process. Ozone is effective in killing bacteria in 3 minutes and viruses in 6 minutes. So, in this aspect ozone laundry system out perform traditional systems. It is recommended that laundry wash cycles be 10-12 minutes in order to determine a concentration over time value that is the recommended method to report compliance with U.S. EPA disinfection requirements of drinking water.
Environmental Impacts
The use of ozone for laundry also has environmental benefits. The strong oxidizing power of ozone and OH-radicals initiate the conversion of most organic components of the soiling materials into more readily biodegradable byproducts. (8) The discharged water from laundry wastewater systems that use ozone typically contain higher levels of oxygen which benefits receiving streams, lakes, and rivers by providing oxygen for the natural microorganisms to do a better job of breaking down discharged pollutants into carbon dioxide and water. (8)
Oxidizer Pro INC.
If you are interested in hearing more about how our American Made Detergent-less laundry system works, we will be happy to answer all your questions. Our revolutionizing detergent-less laundry product is not only ecofriendly but also very safe and healthy. We look forward to speaking with you soon.
Phone: 440-746-0343
Website: www.oxidizeit.com
Email: info@oxidizeit.com
References
References
Rice, R. G.; DeBrum, M.; Cardis, D.; Tapp, C., The ozone laundry handbook: A comprehensive guide for the proper application of ozone in the commercial laundry industry. Ozone: Science and Engineering 2009, 31 (5), 339-347.
Von Gunten, U., Ozonation of drinking water: Part I. Oxidation kinetics and product formation. Water Research 2003, 37 (7), 1443-1467.
Hamilton Gordon, A.; Ribner Bruce, S.; Hellman Thomas, M., The Mechanism of Alkane Oxidation by Ozone. In Oxidation of Organic Compounds, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY: 1968; Vol. 77, pp 15-25.
Von Gunten, U., Ozonation of drinking water: Part II. Disinfection and by-product formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chlorine. Water Research 2003, 37 (7), 1469-1487.
Eren, H. A.; Ozturk, D., The evaluation of ozonation as an environmentally friendly alternative for cotton preparation. Textile Research Journal 2011, 81 (5), 512-519.
DEL Ozone Laundry Saves Hotel $9,000 a Year. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/10/17/del-ozone-laundry-saves-hotel-9000-a-year / (accessed April 14, 2013).
Cardis, D.; Tapp, C.; DeBrum, M.; Rice, R. G., Ozone in the laundry industry – Practical experiences in the United Kingdom. Ozone: Science and Engineering 2007, 29 (2), 85-99.
Rice, R. G.; DeBrum, M.; Hook, J.; Cardis, D.; Tapp, C., Economic and environmental benefits of ozone in ozone laundering systems. Ozone: Science and Engineering 2009, 31 (5), 348-356.
Filed under Community Health, conservation, consumer products, environmental education, Environmental Health, foaming agents, Homeowner, ozone · Tagged with Jenn Beem, laundry, Oxidize It™, oxidizeit, oxidizeit.com, ozonation, Ozone
Posted by Brian on September 26, 2015 · Leave a Comment
Initial Press Release (Partial) – Chemical Spill – Potter County, PA (Please like and share with others)
“JKLM ENERGY, LLC INITIATES RESPONSE TO RELEASE OF SURFACTANT AT REESE HOLLOW DRILLING LOCATION IN SWEDEN TOWNSHIP, POTTER COUNTY WEXFORD, Pa (Sept.24) – JKLM Energy, LLC (JKLM) today released information on the company’s ongoing efforts to respond to an incident in which a surfactant solution used in the drilling and completion of natural gas wells is believed to have migrated into shallow subsurface and ground water during initial drilling activities at the Reese Hollow 118 Pad located off Burrows Road in Sweden Township, Potter County, Pa. Surfactants are also referred to as “foaming agents” or “soap.” The migration was discovered following the use of the surfactant to free a broken drill bit piece in the well at 570 feet below ground on September 18th.“
“Local residents with questions may contact Dean Boorum, JKLM’s community liaison, at (814) 598-3960. The company is also establishing a website (www.northhollowresponse.com) to provide regular updates as the groundwater investigation and response process continues.”
Link to Information Portal
Link to Press Release –
“JKLM ENERGY, LLC TO PROVIDE DAILY UPDATES TO COMMUNITY ON PROJECT WEBSITE No Isopropanol Present in Five of Six Initial Well Water Samples Closest to Drilling Location WEXFORD, Pa (Sept.25) – JKLM Energy, LLC today announced plans to issue daily updates to the public regarding the release of drilling chemicals at its Sweden Township, Potter County wellpad. These updates, along with previous press releases and related information will be available at www.northhollowresponse.com, beginning at 4:00 PM today. As of September 24, 2015 JKLM Energy, LLC received lab results from six water sources that had potential groundwater contamination. These results included four of the five private water wells with foamy characteristics for the presence of isopropanol, the chemical of principal concern in the incident, which was not detected in those four wells. The material was also not detected in a sample collected from a spring located in the area of the investigation. The private well with foam closest to the drill site contained 15 ppm (parts per million) isopropanol, which is at the Act 2 standard for aquifers serving residential uses, the threshold for state drinking water standards. These sampling results are consistent with the belief that the aquifer would continue to disperse and degrade the isopropanol as it is transported through the aquifer by means of normal water flow.”
Local Bradford County News Report
Another News Report
Another Report
JKLM ENERGY PROJECT UPDATE, OCTOBER 1
Total number of water samples (water wells, springs and surface water sources) analyzed to date (93), and those found with the presence of methylene blue activated substances (MBAS), isopropanol (IPA) and acetone, a constituent that is expected to be found as isopropanol breaks down in the environment. In a correction from yesterday’s update, a total of five samples have been returned with levels of MBAS above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s non-health secondary standard of 0.5 parts per million (ppm). 5 samples above MBAS standard and 1 above isopropanol standard.
Learn More about Foaming Agents in Well Water
Video –Potter County’s water sources contaminated (9/25/2015) – Must Watch – Solid Information. (53 gallons of chemical used – final concentration or 0.25 % or 2500 mg/L after initial dilution). (Clarity requested- did it say it moved 8000 feet in 1 day?)
dep-notice-of-violation-jklm-energy (9/30/2015)
Our Comments
Testing Should include general water quality, MBAS, isopropanol, and acetone. When isopropanol breaks down in the environment, this is a possible daughter. This would suggest running a full VOC can with TICs to pick up daughters. Therefore, the equivalent of a Tier II may be advisable. The breakdown of isopropanol to acetone was based on feedback and expert information from B.F. Environmental Consultants and Quantum Laboratories.
Drinking Water Standard for foaming agents or MBAS – methyl blue activated substances or surfactants is 0.5 mg/L – potential aesthetic problems.
“Methylene blue active substances (MBAS) are anionic surfactants that can be detected by colorometric or color reaction methods. An MBAS assay is a type of analysis that makes use of a substance called methylene blue in order to detect the existence of foaming agents, detergents as well as other anionic substances in water under testing. With the MBAS assay method, undesirable components in water samples can be detected appropriately. This prevents water corrosion or contamination.”
Acetone – Drinking Water Standard – No formal Standard, but there is a clean up standard of 33 mg/L, but New Jersey has a standard of 6 mg/L. (Also Acetone can be naturally occurring). If evaluating acetone, it would be advisable to collect preserved and unpreserved samples and analyze samples as soon as possible. In some cases, the preservation method may create some acetone.
MSDS Sheet – sec-PROPYL ALCOHOL, ISOPROPANOL, PROPAN-2-OL, IPA – ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
Another MSDS Sheet (another source)
More MSDS Sheets – F-485 and Rock Drill Oil 150 (We could not determine the specific one so we are using the “Gulf” as an example)
National Drinking Water Database – Forming Agents
Recommended Baseline Testing – Get The App (FREE)
Informational Course On Fracking and other Energy Courses – The Process
Actions:
- If you have any testing done as part of this action, please consider releasing this data to the Citizen Groundwater and Surface Water Database. Fill out the attached form and mail the data to the following address:
Mr. Brian Oram, PG
Keystone Clean Water Team
15 Hillcrest Drive
Dallas, PA 18612
Please note- if you have baseline testing done already you may have some information on the level of surfactants in the water if you had a MBAS test done.
- Informational Screening Testing – Get your water screened for water contamination including isopropanol – Informational Screening Water Kit (Not Certified) Covers about 200 parameters, plus a review of any predrilling data – Only $ 275.00. Email
- Drinking Water Guide for Pennsylvania.
Filed under Clean Water Act, Community Health, Contaminated water, environmental education, Environmental Hazards, Environmental Health, Environmental Reports, foaming agents, Groundwater, isopropanol, marcellus shale, private well water testing, Water Testing, Well water testing · Tagged with acetone, B.F. Environmental Consultants, chemical spill, Coudersport, driling muds, drilling chemicals, F-485, foam, foaming agent, foaming agents, fracking chemicals, groundwater, Isopropanol, JKLM ENERGY, methyl blue activated substances, natural gas drilling, Potter County, Quantum Laboratory, reese hollow, rock drill oil 150, Sweden Township, water contamination
