Author: tandrews

RT NEWS – Published time: 31 Jul, 2017 17:21

By Angel Hsu and Carlin Rosengarten
*Feb 24, 2016
Air quality, Data, Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

Last year was the hottest year on record — and by a wide margin, too. By early summer atmospheric CO2 concentrations silently ticked past 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in a million years, an outcome of fossil fuel combustion. The planet shows other troubling signs of rapid environmental change, including ocean acidification and warming, dwindling polar ice, and dramatic biodiversity loss, to name a few.

The 2016 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), like no other study, captures the current state of environmental governance and gives a snapshot of the world’s human and ecological health. Launched at World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland last week, the 2016 EPI ranks 180 nations, representing 99 percent of the world’s population, on their environmental performance in two broad categories: protection of human health and protection of ecosystems. Within these two objectives the EPI scores countries in nine issue areas comprised of 20 environmental indicators. Beyond country rankings, the project’s results provide a data-rich narrative about the world’s environment and national-level environmental policy.

So what does the 2016 EPI find?

Progress in many areas, calamitous decline and degradation in others. First, some good news: more people have access to water that is safe to drink than ever before — the number of people lacking access to clean water was nearly halved from 1 billion in 2000 to 550 million in 2015. And because of this improved access, waterborne illnesses today cause only 2 percent of human deaths worldwide.
Now for the bad news: our air is getting worse. The air we breathe is making us sick and blunting our productivity. There has been a steady increase in air pollution over the last decade and thus in human exposure to toxic air. More than 3.5 billion people — half the world’s population — breathe air deemed unsafe by World Health Organization standards. Air pollution is now responsible for 10 percent of all human deaths. The EPI shows that more than half of China and South Korea’s populations, for instance, are exposed to unsafe levels of pernicious air pollutants. In India and Nepal the proportion is nearly three-quarters.

Air’s decline and water’s improvement tell an intuitive story. As nations grow wealthier, governments invest in water treatment and distribution infrastructure. Economic development is thus associated with improved water quality and access. With economic growth comes industrialization and urbanization, which lead, of course, to more air pollution and an increase in human exposure. This is why we see improvements in water indicators in rapidly growing economies, like China and India, alongside worsening air quality.
Unsafe air, however, is not solely a problem for developing nations — it is a global issue. Nitrogen-oxide compounds (NOx), which are leading agents of respiratory diseases in humans, foul the air in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, where NOx levels, driven by the widespread use of diesel fuels in vehicles, exceed China’s. New laws are set to drastically reduce tailpipe emissions in Europe, while in China and India, coal-fired power plants and the introduction every day of thousands of new vehicles to the roads continues to push NOx levels beyond what humans can safely tolerate.

Other narratives contained in the 2016 EPI point to a paradox of modernization. For instance, while habitat protection, both terrestrial and marine, is at an all-time high — more than 15 percent of the world’s land area and 8 percent of marine habitats now have official protection — biodiversity continues to decline at a staggering clip, with the vertebrate extinction rate at least 100 times the natural, or “background,” rate. Fisheries too are in dire straits, with more than a third of the oceans fish stocks overexploited or collapsed.

But what grab the attention of national governments around the world are the Index’s country rankings. While it is not very useful to compare each nation to all the others, comparing peer countries is a fruitful way to draw meaning from the ranks and scores. Nordic countries took the top four spots in the 2016 EPI with Finland leading the pack, while Somalia and other troubled states occupy the bottom. The rankings show that environmental performance is essentially a governance issue. If a nation does not care for its environment it also does not care for its people. In the EPI’s ranks we see how environmental indicators are proxies for measures of livability and human wellbeing.

The 2016 EPI, full of data and figures, is a text for interpreting the world’s environmental status. The Index reports on the current state of knowledge and also points to areas where information is scarce and the science is poor. Better data is our goal. All areas of environmental measurement will have to be enhanced and their capacities enlarged if we want to inform effective policy, improve management, and achieve the ambitions set forth by the SDGs and Paris Climate Agreement.

Some nations are on a path to sustained environmental and human health, while many countries struggle to meet essential needs. To manage our shared planet, we have to take stock of where we stand. Setting goals is important but insufficient. Determining how to achieve these goals and putting new ideas into action are greater challenges. The EPI is designed to catalyze this process, using the best available data to project the world’s environmental conditions for everyone to see. We measure change so that people can affect the world in ways beneficial to their environments and to themselves.

By Aaron Kesel
JULY 29, 2017

The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit research organization environmental watchdog, released a searchable database Thursday that shows almost 50,000 public water systems in the U.S. are contaminated with dozens of harmful chemicals.

Some of the chemicals found in your drinking water include – arsenic, hexavalent chromium, radiation, chloroform, perfluorooctanoic acid, Bromodichloromethane, Dichloroacetic acid, Barium, and Uranium; and that’s just scratching the surface of the 250-plus contaminants the group discovered.

EWG researchers spent the last two years collecting data from independent state agencies and the EPA for drinking water tests conducted from 2010 to 2015 by 48,712 water utilities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Researchers tested the utilities for approximately 500 different contaminants, finding a whopping 267 contaminations of Americans’ water supplies.

EWG’s database is an interactive map where you can click on each state and review their test results.

In the results are listed contaminants found above health guidelines and above legal limits.

A subsequent report released with the database noted that contaminants detected in the nation’s tap water included:

93 linked to an increased risk of cancer. More than 40,000 water systems had detections of known or likely carcinogens exceeding established federal or state health guidelines – levels that pose minimal but real health risks, but are not legally enforceable.
78 associated with brain and nervous system damage.
63 connected to developmental harm to children or fetuses.
45 linked to hormone disruption.
38 that may cause fertility problems.
Chromium-6, made notorious by the film “Erin Brockovich.” This carcinogen, for which there are no federal regulations, was detected in the drinking water supplies serving 250 million Americans in all 50 states.
1,4-Dioxane, an unregulated compound that contaminates tap water supplies for 8.5 million people in 27 states at levels above those the EPA considers to pose a minimal cancer risk.
Nitrate, chemical from animal waste or agricultural fertilizers, was detected in more than 1,800 water systems in 2015, serving 7 million people in 48 states above the level that research by the National Cancer Institute shows increases the risk of cancer – a level just half of the federal government’s legal limit for nitrate in drinking water.
“Legal is not safe,” argued Nneka Leiba, director of Healthy Living Science at the EWG. “In many cases, it’s far from safe.”
Overall, the organization found more than 250 million Americans are drinking water with “unsafe” levels of various contaminants.

Last year, the EWG found that two-thirds of Americans’ water is contaminated with the carcinogen that Erin Brockovich exposed – chemical chromium 6 or hexavalent chromium – affecting the tap water of more than 218 million Americans. That’s an additional 32 million Americans that are affected by other chemicals highlighted in this new study.

A 2008 study by the National Toxicology Program found that chromium-6 in drinking water caused cancer in rats and mice that were exposed to the chemical.

EWG is urging consumers to use a drinking water filter to reduce the level of chemical intake in the human body. They’re also pressing the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to update their rules on chemical contaminants found in drinking water that “can pose what scientists say are serious health risks – and still be legal.”

“Americans deserve the fullest picture possible of what’s in their tap water,” EWG President Ken Cook said. “But they won’t get that information from the government or, in many cases, from their utilities. The only place they’ll find that is EWG’s drinking water report.”

“Just because your tap water gets a passing grade from the government doesn’t always mean it’s safe,” Cook added. “It’s time to stop basing environmental regulations on political or economic compromises, and instead listen to what scientists say about the long-term effects of toxic chemicals and empower Americans to protect themselves from pollutants even as they demand the protective action they deserve from government.”

It’s been 20 years since the EPA last passed any new drinking water regulations. Regardless, it’s clear that municipalities have not been following them.

If you’re in the U.S. you can check your own water supply by visiting the Tap Water Database, which allows anyone in the U.S. to enter their zip code or local utility’s name and find out what’s lurking in their local water supply.

Peterson Air Force Base dumped 150,000 gallons of PFC-laced water into Colorado Springs’ sewer system

Health workers are piecing together a complicated puzzle in El Paso County, Colo. In January, three cities — Security, Fountain and Widefield — noticed synthetic chemicals known as PFCs in the drinking water.

Historically, these compounds had been used to make products like carpet and firefighting foam. The Environmental Protection Agency has linked exposure to low birth weights, and even forms of cancer. And the Pentagon says it’s examining hundreds of military base sites for possible contamination.

In the city of Security, south of Colorado Springs, resident Brenda Piontkowski has visited a filtered water station every other day for months because she says water at home isn’t safe.

“All I know is it’s not healthy,” she says. “I can’t drink my tap water.”

That’s because her tap water has PFCs, or perfluorinated compounds. Most people have been exposed to very small amounts in fabric or cookware.

But a few places across the country have elevated levels in drinking water. The city of Security is one of those spots. The EPA links higher exposure levels to a number of health concerns.

This May, the agency made health advisory levels for PFCs more strict. “These numbers incorporate a margin of protection, and would be protective over the course of a lifetime of exposure in drinking water to these levels,” says Joel Beauvais, an EPA deputy assistant administrator. “And they would also be protective against the developmental effects that might be associated with short-term exposures during pregnancy.”

The EPA has worked since the early 2000s to phase out production of PFCs. Water contamination has been linked to locations where the chemical itself is produced as well as airfields where a specific PFC-laden firefighting foam was used.

In Colorado, health officials say nearby Peterson Air Force Base is one likely source. And they point out further investigation is needed.

“It’s important for us to study the problem and see where they’re located so we spend the future dollars on the right places,” says Daniel Medina, who has helped coordinate PFC research across the Air Force.

Since 2010, the Air Force has spent $137 million to study the scope of the problem. It says nearly 200 installations warrant more in-depth inspections for PFCs.

“The Air Force is committed to human health and the environment,” says Angelina Casarez, an Air Force spokeswoman. “We are working diligently to sample groundwater and drinking water to ensure the safety and well-being of those on and off our installations.”

She says people who are concerned about their water should contact their local health department or water authority.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Defense says it’s examining hundreds of other sites for possible contamination.

Enlarge this image

Construction workers prepare to cut a pipe for a new infrastructure project for the Security, Colo., Water and Sanitation District. The project is needed to ensure drinking water is 100 percent PFC free. Grace Hood/Colorado Public Radio hide caption

toggle caption Grace Hood/Colorado Public Radio

Construction workers prepare to cut a pipe for a new infrastructure project for the Security, Colo., Water and Sanitation District. The project is needed to ensure drinking water is 100 percent PFC free.

Grace Hood/Colorado Public Radio

In the city of Security, Colo., Water and Sanitation District Manager Roy Heald has a different goal: drinking water that’s 100 percent PFC free.

“That’s not as easy as you might think,” he says. “It’s not a matter of just flipping a switch and shutting off a well.”

The city uses a combination of groundwater from wells and surface water from rivers. It’s the groundwater that exceeds the EPA advisory. Crews are working hard to make it easier to blend in surface water and improve the infrastructure. But Heald says those projects could cost each person who receives a water bill.

“This has not affected our rates yet, but unless there’s relief from somebody else, it has to,” Heald says.

That relief could come from the Air Force itself. Earlier this summer, it announced it will spend more than $4 million to help install filtration systems for Colorado water districts. And there are plans to phase out the firefighting foam on military bases.

But in Colorado it could take years until studies conclusively decide who’s responsible. And that leaves Heald and the city of Security’s ratepayers on the hook for now.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/493967897/chemicals-in-drinking-water-prompt-inspections-of-u-s-military-bases?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160915

WASHINGTON (04 April 2016) — Lessons learned the hard way in the aftermath of D.C.’s 2004 water crisis are benefiting residents in Flint, Michigan, who have been forced to deal with lead in their drinking water. “People don’t realize this — the extent of the problem in D.C. was about 20 to 30 times larger than Flint,” says Virginia Tech environmental engineer Marc Edwards, who has been instrumental in researching the immediate and long-term effects of lead in water in both the District of Columbia and Flint. “There was more lead poisoning, more exposure of people.”

http://wtop.com/dc/2016/04/flint-d-c-s-drinking-water-crisis-even-worse/

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/examining-federal-administration-of-the-safe-drinking-water-act-in-flint-michigan-part-2/

The national pretreatment program is a component of the NPDES program. It is a cooperative effort of federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies established to protect water quality. Similar to how EPA authorizes the NPDES permit program to state, tribal, and territorial governments to perform permitting, administrative, and enforcement tasks for discharges to surface waters (NPDES program), EPA and authorized NPDES state pretreatment programs approve local municipalities to perform permitting, administrative, and enforcement tasks for discharges into the municipalities’ publicly owned treatment workspublicly owned treatment worksA treatment works (as defined by CWA section 212) that is owned by a state or municipality [as defined by CWA section 502(4)].

This definition includes any devices or systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant. The term also means the municipality [as defined in CWA section 502(4)] that has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a treatment works. [40 CFR 403.3(q)] (POTWs). The program is designed to:

• protect POTWs publicly owned treatment worksA municipal or public service district sewage treatment system. infrastructure, and
• reduce conventional and toxic pollutant levels discharged by industries and other nondomestic wastewater sources into municipal sewer systems and into the environment.