Hydrogen Peroxide

Posted November 21st, 2020

Hydrogen Peroxide for Water Treatment: Treating Hydrogen Sulfide and Iron with Hydrogen Peroxide Injection


Water Treatment Grade 7% Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is one of the most powerful oxidizers available for water treatment. Although it can be used to control bacteria, it’s main use is as pretreatment for filters removing iron and hydrogen sulfide.

Less hydrogen peroxide than chlorine is required to treat iron and hydrogen sulfide. When hydrogen peroxide reacts, oxygen is liberated and an oxidant potential 28 times greater than chlorine is produced. It is this large charge of  liberated oxygen that makes hydrogen peroxide work so well.

Seven percent hydrogen peroxide (70,000 ppm) is the standard water treatment strength.  At this strength liquid hydrogen peroxide can be transported through normal shipping methods and is not considered hazardous.

Thirty-five percent hydrogen peroxide (350,000 parts per million) is sometimes used. It is a hazardous material and must be handled with great care. It usually requires dilution with distilled water for residential use. For this reason, for most home applications 7% hydrogen peroxide is the product of choice.

A Filter Is Required

Like air, ozone, and chlorine, hydrogen peroxide prepares contaminants to be removed by a filter.  The oxidizing agent is only half of the treatment. The filter that follows is necessary to remove the precipitated contaminants. Carbon is in most cases the filter medium of choice after hydrogen peroxide treatment.  Manganese dioxide media like Birm, Katalox and Pyrolox  can be destroyed by hydrogen peroxide.   Carbon, both standard and catalytic, works well for both hydrogen sulfide and iron removal.  Carbon also breaks down the residual peroxide, so there is usually no peroxide left in the service water. Mixed media filters, zeolite filters, and redox filters (KDF)  have also been used successfully.

If the water is very clean and no iron is present, a carbon block filter alone can be used following H2O2 injection, but in most cases–in all cases, if iron is present–a backwashing filter is required. The backwashing process can also clear the system of gas pockets which can form, so backwashing filters are preferred in most cases, even if only odor is being treated.

Stability and Storage

Hydrogen peroxide is exceptionally stable, having around a 1% per year decomposition rate.  Heat and sunlight can increase the rate of decomposition.  Dilution of the peroxide should be done only with the best water possible. Distilled water is preferred.  H2O2 reacts with impurities in the water and loses strength in the process.

If using 35% peroxide, the 35-percent solution should be diluted to 7%. To do this, add 5 parts distilled, reverse osmosis, or deionized water to 1 part 35% hydrogen peroxide. Seven percent hydrogen peroxide is usually fed without dilution although it can be diluted if the injection system will not feed it in small enough quantities.

Practical Treatment Limits

H2S2 can be used to treat up to 10 ppm iron.
There is virtually no limit for hydrogen sulfide. It is not uncommon to oxidize up to 70 ppm hydrogen sulfide with peroxide.

Dosage: Simple But Not So Simple

Figuring the dosage needed for your application could not be simpler.

Here’s the formula:

  • Well pump output rate in gallons per minute, multiplied by
  • Required dosage in parts per million, multiplied by
  • 1440—the number of minutes in a day—divided by
  • Solution Strength in parts per million, which equals
  • Needed Metering Pump Output in gallons per day (GPD).

Just joking about the “could not be simpler” part. Actually, dosage calculations are impossible and only work in college chemistry classes. In the real world, there will always be parts of the equation that you don’t know. However, working the formula helps you make an educated guess so you will know which size pump to buy and it will give you a starting place. Understand that in the end, there will always need to be some trial and error, some adjustment to your settings, then more trial and error. The information and calculator on this page may help, but don’t expect the calculator to give you a pat answer.

Other Considerations in Sizing and Setup

Use 0.4 ppm peroxide for each ppm of iron.  Hydrogen sulfide treatment is pH dependent. Use 1 ppm hydrogen peroxide for each ppm of hydrogen sulfide at pH 7.0.  The more alkaline the pH, the greater the dosage required. Adjust dosage accordingly for higher pH.

Warm water also causes oxygen to dissipate more quickly, so a higher dosage may be necessary as water temperatures increase.

Dosage is determined by the same formula as with other oxidants: gpm x 1,440  x dosage/ % concentration of  H2O2= chemical feed rate needed.

Never mix H2O2 with alkaline chemicals such as soda ash, limestone, or ammonia. This will cause the rapid decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide and might even result in a violent reaction.

If an alkaline chemical like soda ash is need to raise pH, feed with separate pumps.


Contact Time Required

One of the great advantages of using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine is that its reaction rate is much faster. Therefore, it is common to use hydrogen peroxide without a retention tank. Its reaction rate is so fast that a retention tank is usually not needed between the injection point and the filter.

Equipment Needed

As stated, a holding tank is usually not needed with hydrogen peroxide.  Inject the peroxide with a peristaltic pump. (Conventional pumps can be used, but they often require modification.)  If 7% peroxide is fed undiluted, a very low delivery rate pump (< 3 gpd, for example) is usually best in theory, but since hydrogen peroxide dosage needs don’t always follow theory, a higher dosage rate pump often works best.  If no holding tank is used, a static mixer at the injection point is recommended.  Injection is always before the well’s pressure tank. The filter, of course, follows the pressure tank.  A softener, if used, must be downstream of the filter.

Reference: Scott Crawford, “Residential Use of Hydrogen Peroxide for Treating Iron and Hydrogen Sulfide,” Water Conditioning and Purification,   December, 2009.

Pure Water Occasional.

New Study Finds Cause-And-Effect Between PFAS Consumption, Reproductive Issues

By Peter Chawaga


New research has underscored the pervasive health effects that can stem from one of the country’s most notorious drinking water contaminants — and it might become key in legal battles between consumers and the industrial operations responsible for introducing them into water systems.

The study looked at the health of residents of a Minneapolis suburb whose water contained elevated levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” before the installation of a municipal water supply filtration facility in 2006, and compared it with health outcomes for the residents after the filtration facility was installed. It found that expecting mothers and newborns experienced some alarming consequences when exposed to PFAS in drinking water.

“Oakdale residents who drank water polluted with toxic ‘forever chemicals’ experienced elevated rates of infertility, premature births and low birthweight babies due to the contaminants, according to a multiyear review of health records,” the Star Tribune reported. “The authors of the peer-reviewed research … say it’s the first to establish a causal link between the chemicals and reproductive impacts.”

The research found that babies in this suburb were 35 percent more likely to weigh less than five-and-a-half pounds at birth, 45 percent more likely to be born before 32 weeks, and that the general fertility rate was as much as 25 percent lower than in communities whose water wasn’t contaminated with PFAS. These health outcomes trended closer to the norm once the filtration facility was installed.

“The research team said the study is the first to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the filtration of drinking water containing high amounts of PFAS and better reproductive outcomes,” the Environmental Working Group explained. “Almost all previous studies have examined only the association between PFAS exposure and birth outcomes, not a direct cause and effect.”

Elevated levels of PFAS have been found in drinking water throughout the U.S. There are no federal limits on PFAS discharge, nor are there strict limits on PFAS levels in drinking water, though the U.S. EPA does maintain health advisories. A handful of states have taken their own action to reduce the presence of PFAS in source and drinking water.

As communities across the country look to hold industrial polluters responsible for the cost of removing PFAS from source water, the study may provide some critical legal ammunition. For instance, there are multiple lawsuits seeking damages from 3M and DuPont, two manufacturers of the chemicals.

“I think it will be used in litigation that has been filed and is going to be filed, not just here but in other countries as well,” former Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, who has successfully sued 3M for $850 million in environmental damages in the past, told the Star Tribune.

Though the results of the study are jarring, they may prove to be useful data points in the fight to rid drinking water of these particularly insidious contaminants. If so, that might be one small silver lining to come from this Minnesota suburb’s struggles.

Mr. Chawaga’s article is reprinted from Water Online. The original research reported is from Environmental Health. 


Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

With Hundreds Of Thousands Of Sites, Abandoned Mines Pose Significant Water Quality Threat

By Peter Chawaga

 “It will take 500 years for the Bureau of Land Management to complete an inventory of abandoned hard rock mines and features on its land.”

In August 2015, an accidental wastewater spill from Colorado’s Gold King Mine released a flood of contaminants into source water across three states. Though the U.S. EPA settled with the State of Utah earlier this month regarding the contamination there, it’s clear that the agency has a lot more work to do to protect other areas of the country from similar disasters.

The primary issue is that there is no comprehensive inventory of mining sites that might be poised to release untreated wastewater containing lead, copper, silver, manganese, cadmium, iron, zinc, or mercury into source water.

“A 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office explored the breadth of the problem, uncovering some sobering statistics that should give one pause,” according to an AP News report on the extent of the potential water contamination problem posed by the country’s abandoned mines. “The Bureau of Land Management estimates that based on current staffing and resources, it will take 500 years for the agency to complete an inventory of abandoned hard rock mines and features on its land.”

The EPA currently estimates that there are about 500,000 abandoned mine sites on federally protected sites across the country. It has been working on some of these sites for more than two decades and the costs associated with this work are incredibly high.

“EPA spent $2.9 billion through fiscal years 2008 through 2017 to identify, clean up and monitor hazards at abandoned hard rock mines,” per AP. “13 Western states …. spent a collective $117 million in nonfederal funds during the same period.”

With so much work needed to even fully map the issue on a federal level, some states have been working to address abandoned mine contamination within their own borders. The Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ), for instance, plans to launch an inventory of discharging mines in its state.

“After the Gold King Mine spill happened, we got a lot of inquiries if this were problematic in Utah,” said Steve Fluke, administrator over a program within the UDWQ mining division, according to The Denver Post. “I would not want to say they are ticking time bombs waiting for a Gold King Mine incident, but they need to be looked into.”

With such a monumental task facing EPA and its mandate to protect the country’s source water quality, it’s likely that other states will make similar efforts. But no matter which agencies take up the issue, it’s going to be a time-consuming and expensive effort.

Source: Water Online.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement



Viqua IHS22-D4

Posted August 28th, 2020

The Viqua IHS22-D4:  The ideal Sediment, Carbon, and UV Unit for Large Homes



The Viqua IHS22-D4. An Ideal Whole Home Treatment 

The IHS22-D4 Unit from Viqua features Viqua’s compact but powerful D4 UV system–twice as strong as it needs to be even at 12 gpm flow rate– plus a 5 micron sediment filter and Viqua’s highly effective carbon block filter for chlorine, general chemicals, lead, and taste/odor improvement.

Features & Specs

Disinfection Flow Rates
30mJ/cm2 12 GPM (45 lpm) (2.7 m3/hr)
40mJ/cm2 9 GPM (34 lpm) (2.0 m3/hr)




Dimensions 25 1/5″ x 12″ x 28″ (64 cm x 30 cm x 70 cm)
Shipping Weight lbs (kg) 35 lbs (15.9 kg)
Connection Size 3/4″ FNPT/MNPT
Power Consumption 50W

This unit is our part #UV894, and the price is $995, shipped free to any lower-48 US address. It is not on our main website, but can be ordered any time by phone: 940 382 3814.  Approximate annual upkeep for filters and UV lamp replacement is $230. Normal lamp replacement interval is one year, and the unit reminds you when it’s time to replace the lamp.

Please see our main website for other Viqua UV units.

Planning and Installing Residential UV Units



The Viqua illustration above shows an ideal UV installation with pretreatment, individual optional by-pass assemblies for the all components, and the UV unit itself. It also shows an optional solenoid and temperature management valve, which would not be needed for most residential installations.


UV always needs at least one pretreatment item, a 5-micron or tighter sediment filter somewhere in front of the UV unit to assure that there are no particles in the water to shade pathogens from the germicidal light.

Additional pretreatment depends on the quality of the water.  Water to be treated should have less than seven grains per gallon hardness, less than 0.3 ppm iron and less than .05 ppm manganese. The carbon filter shown in the diagram is optional and might be included to improve taste, remove extraneous chemicals, remove a small amount of odor, or even to remove chlorine or chloramine if city water is being treated. Carbon will not address iron, manganese, and hardness. The softener in the picture will treat hardness and small amounts of iron and manganese. If iron and manganese are excessive, separate treatment will be needed.

The UV Itself

UV units are sized mainly by gallons per minute treatment capacity. Typical “whole house” residential sizes are 10 to 18 gpm. The UV unit pictured above is a free-standing unit, but systems are also sold that have the sediment and/or carbon stage(s) built on the same frames as the UV chamber. See picture below. Most residential UV units are 115V systems that plug directly into a wall outlet.


The Viqua 12 gpm unit above has sediment filter and lead-removal carbon block built onto the same frame as the UV chamber.

The first step in regulating microplastics in water is defining microplastics


 Microplastics are becoming a persistent water quality problem but they are not currently regulated. Microplastics can enter drinking water supplies through sources like surface runoff, atmospheric deposition and sewer overflows, according to the World Health Organization. The health effects aren’t well understood, but studies have found small plastic particles can migrate from animals’ digestive systems into other organs.


Before a contaminant can be regulated, it must first be defined. California recently approved the nation’s first definition of microplastics. Definition is the first step in requiring local suppliers to test drinking water for small plastic particles that could hurt human health. Other states are expected to take their cue from California.

Although chemical companies lobbied against the definition, the California regulatory board stuck to its original proposed definition:  “solid polymeric materials to which chemical additives or other substances may have been added, which are particles which have at least three dimensions that are greater than 1 nanometer and less than 5,000 micrometers.” The definition excludes naturally derived polymers that haven’t been chemically modified, which can include “bioplastics” made from starch and other biomass.

This probably means that eventually drinking water agencies in California will have to test their supplies for plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and report their findings.

Regulation of plastics in water is uncharted territory, but California has now taken the first step.


Article adapted from Debra Kahn, “California becomes first state to define ‘microplastics’ in water.” from June of 2020.   Politico.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Cattle Found To Be Major Cause Of Water Scarcity

by Peter Chawaga

Gazette Introductory Note: It isn’t uncommon when a “recent scientific analysis” discovers something that has been common knowledge for decades. In this case, what has just been discovered is that raising cattle for food is an environmental disaster. In addition to the twenty-fold waste of water (as compared with direct human consumption of plants), there is an equally significant amount of water pollution that goes with animal agriculture. When your city water supplier puts the familiar list of water saving tips (like, don’t run water continually while you brush your teeth) in with your utility bill, the list almost never includes real water saving tips like “stop eating pigs and cows.”   

Persistent water stress throughout much of the U.S. is linked to multiple causes, including climate change that is warming temperatures and growing populations that put additional strain on available source water. And now, a recent scientific analysis is pointing the finger at another culprit: the cattle industry.

A scientific study published in Nature suggests that cattle are one of the major drivers of water shortages, primarily because of the water required to grow the crops that feed them.

“Across the U.S., cattle-feed crops, which end up as beef and dairy products, account for 23% of all water consumption,” The Guardian reported in a summary of the study. “In the Colorado River Basin, it is over half.”

The Colorado River Basin services some 40 million people in seven states, and is so overdrawn that it rarely reaches the ocean as it once did regularly, per the report. But it is far from alone as a drought-stricken water source in the country. Lake Mead, as another example, hasn’t been full since 1983 and has been reduced by nearly two-thirds over the last 20 years — and almost 75 percent of that decline has been caused by cattle-feed irrigation, the study found.

“It takes a lot of water to make a double-cheeseburger,” according to The Guardian, as it framed the impact in a way many Americans may better understand. “One calculation puts it at 450 gallons per quarter-pounder. The study also found that most of the water-intensive beef and dairy products are being consumed in western cities.”

For those who are concerned about rising source-water scarcity, it’s clear that new solutions and changes to old behavior are needed. The researcher behind the study proposed that leaving farmland idle without irrigation, a practice known as “fallowing,” may be needed.

“[The researcher] noted that the strategy should be temporary and rotational, and that ranchers should be compensated because they lose income growing nothing,” per The Guardian. “Fallowing is at least twice as effective as other water-saving tactics, according to [the] analysis.”

Plant-based meat alternatives may also help with growing source-water scarcity, as consuming less beef and dairy may be the only real solution to this growing stress on the water supply. A meatless Beyond Burger generates 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and has almost no impact on water scarcity, according to the report summary.

To read more about U.S. water supply issues, visit Water Online’s Water Scarcity Solutions Center.


Source: Water Online.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

How Modern Wastewater Treatment Changed our World

Without wastewater treatment, diseases and infections would ravage our society.

by Trevor English


Wastewater treatment is often an overlooked necessity of civilization. Without proper sewer systems, wastewater treatment plants, and overall regulation, our cities would be ripe with disease and human waste everywhere.

Believe it or not, much of the modern wastewater management technology we consider standard in any 21st century home, things like toilets and sewer pipes, are actually relatively new in the grand scheme of history.

The history of wastewater treatment

That’s not to say that sewer systems haven’t been around for ages. After all, the ancient Romans had a complex system of sewers at the peak of their empire. Rather, the knowledge of how poorly managed wastewater can drastically impact the health of society is relatively new.

The Romans had a centralized sewage management system, although it was fairly rudimentary by today’s standards. Open and closed ditches and pipes would carry away excrement and trash, primarily using rainwater runoff. The contaminated water would then flow into large concrete tanks that let the sewage settle out before the water was allowed to flow into the nearby rivers. There was indoor plumbing, and public latrines were also built over the sewers.

COVID-19 from a Water Guy’s Perspective


By Peter S. Cartwright, PE

Gazette Introductory Note: Now that we’re about half a year into the COVID-19 era, we’ve had truckloads of opinions and advice from the experts and the non-experts, the wise and the foolish, the Democrats and the Republicans, the holy and the unholy, the vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers–in short,  from just about everyone. So, the views of a water treatment professional are in order. Below is an article by Mr. Peter Cartwright, a highly respected water treatment veteran. Mr. Cartwright’s article appeared in the July 2020 issue of Water Conditioning and Purification magazine. 


There’s so much we don’t know about the virus behind this pandemic, but we are learning a little more each day. To the microbiologists, this virus is known as SARS-CoV-2, closely related to SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2002-3. Most of the current scientific information and recommendations are based on what we learned in dealing with the SARS virus, but there are significant differences. The normal incubation period is two to 14 days after infection; however, during this time, these people may be contagious without even knowing they are infected.

What are its effects?

In addition to the well-known symptoms of fever, coughing and loss of breath, the CDC has recently added chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat and loss of taste and/or smell. Additionally, medical personnel are now reporting blood clots and issues with kidneys, heart, intestines, liver and the brain. Doctors also suspect a link between COVID-19 and a rare inflammatory condition, Kawasaki Disease.


So where did this particular virus come from? Virologists estimate that about 1.7 million viruses are lurking on this planet, 75 percent of which are in wildlife. Many of the dangerous ones (SARS, MERS, Ebola, rabies, etc.) have been identified in bats and are readily transmitted to humans, possibly through another vector such as snakes. There is lack of agreement on the specific source of this one.

Is it waterborne?

COVID-19 is spread through respiration from the lungs. Diseases such as salmonellosis and cryptosporidiosis result from eating or drinking but the experts do not feel that COVID-19 can be spread that way. In other words, we catch this disease from inhaling, not from eating or drinking. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a March 19 Interim Guidance wherein they state: ”Although persistence in drinking water is possible, there is no evidence from surrogate human coronaviruses that they are present in surface or groundwater sources or transmitted through contaminated drinking water. The COVID-19 virus is an enveloped virus, with a fragile outer membrane. Generally, enveloped viruses are less stable in the environment and are more susceptible to oxidants, such as chlorine.”

The virtually ubiquitous practice of chlorinating municipal drinking-water supplies in the US has reinforced the conclusion that this virus will not survive in drinking water. This document goes on to state: “Heat, high or low pH, sunlight, and common disinfectants (such as chlorine) all facilitate die off.” In centralized water treatment applications, WHO specifies a free-chlorine concentration of equal or greater than 0.5 mg/L, at least 30 minutes contact time and pH < 8.0. For non-centralized applications, in addition to chemical treatment (0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite or equivalent disinfectant), they recommend “…boiling or using high-performing ultrafiltration or nanomembrane filters, solar irradiation and, in non-turbid waters, UV irradiation.” Based on this, POU RO technology should be effective. All of these assume careful, hygienic handling practice.

This WHO document also states: “There is no evidence that the COVID-19 virus has been transmitted via sewerage systems with or without wastewater treatment.” As with other pathogenic viruses, it may be present in sewage, but does not appear to present a greater operational hazard to wastewater plant workers wearing the necessary protective equipment.

So how is it spread?

The bad news is that the COVID-19 virus appears to be transmitted through the air in tiny droplets, typically larger than 5µ. Although the virus itself is extremely small, measuring about 0.1µ, it is readily carried in respiratory droplets. When someone coughs or sneezes, huge quantities of droplets are released. What may not be so obvious is that we spray droplets even by talking (also breathing?). These droplets may be suspended for a long time (hours?) and travel significant distances by air movement. The six-foot rule is just an educated guess and some experts feel it should be much farther, perhaps up to 12 feet.

This underscores the value of face masks. It is suggested that N95 masks be reserved for medical and other personnel in direct contact with infected people. This is good advice, as these masks are manufactured to ensure filtration of at least 95 percent of particles as small as 0.3 microns. The good news is that most droplets containing the virus are much larger than this and, depending on the particular face-mask construction, should be effective at removing these droplets. Even home-made masks constructed from old T-shirts or other cloth will help prevent the wearer from infecting people nearby.

The second pathway of COVID-19 exposure is from surfaces. Experts estimate that the virus is infectious for as much as three hours in droplets, four hours on copper surfaces, 24 hours on cardboard and three days on plastic or stainless steel. Note the antimicrobial credit given to copper, which also includes brass. It also appears to be able to survive on the soles of shoes for up to five days. The SARS-CoV-2 virus will not survive for any length of time outdoors, thanks to the excellent disinfecting properties of UV radiation from sunlight. It appears that UV radiation in the 200 to 222-nm wavelength will effectively inactivate (kill) the virus without harm to human skin. It is also readily inactivated by wiping surfaces with bleach solutions (four teaspoons per one quart of water).

The virus can readily enter the body through mucous membranes around the eyes, nose and throat. It is critically important that we keep the virus particles off our hands (which is why we are inundated with advice regarding hand-washing) and to avoid touching your face. If you think of this virus as sitting on everything you touch, that should be motivation to constantly wash. The experts tell us that the optimum procedure is with soap and water (for 20 seconds) and that hand sanitizer (minimum alcohol concentration of 60 percent) should be used only if soap and water are not available.

Facts and fallacies

As with anything so dominant in the news and on social media today, there is a plethora of misinformation circulating. The list below presents some of these along with the truth as provided by respectable authorities.

  • The virus that causes COVID-19 is more deadly than any other pathogen. The data so far indicate the fatality rate at one to three percent; SARS was 11 percent and MERS was 34 percent.
  • Getting COVID-19 is a death sentence. 80 percent of those infected have mild symptoms and get well.
  • This disease is less deadly than the flu. COVID-19 appears to be more deadly than the seasonal flu.
  • The virus that causes COVID-19 is the most infectious pathogen. Pathogens that cause measles, polio, diphtheria and whooping cough are more contagious.
  • Pneumonia and flu vaccinations will protect you from COVID-19. No, they won’t.
  • Antibiotics will work. These are only for bacterial infections and will not work on viruses.
  • Sipping water every 15 minutes will prevent infection. Absolutely will not work.
  • Taking garlic, ibuprofen, echinacea, vitamin C, zinc, elderberry juice, green tea, steroids and other home remedies. There is no evidence that any of these will prevent infection or lessen the symptoms.
  • Hand dryers will kill this virus. No.
  • Either cold or hot weather will kill it. No evidence to support this.
  • Hot baths will prevent infection. No.
  • It can be transmitted through mosquito bites. No evidence to support this.
  • If you cannot hold your breath for 10 seconds without coughing, you have COVID-19. This is not true.
  • Wash your hands with antibacterial soap. While hand washing with soap is absolutely the best way to remove the virus from your skin, the antibacterial ingredient is considered ineffective and is actually a significant pollutant in water supplies.

And the future?

Unfortunately, without much more testing, it will be virtually impossible for the experts to gain the critical knowledge necessary to trace this pandemic and make informed decisions about when and how we can return to some semblance of normalcy. Will recovered patients be immune to reinfection? For how long? Will blood plasma containing antibodies from these people help those with COVID-19 disease recover more quickly? When flu season comes this fall, will COVID-19 come back with a vengeance? Unanswered questions.

At the time of this writing, there is an antiviral drug, Remdesivir, which has shown promise in small studies and has been approved for treatment in hospital settings. Another one, Leronlimab also appears promising in limited trials. Meanwhile, there are at least 70 drugs under development globally, including vaccines from Oxford University and China, as well as those under development by Bointech/Pfizer and Moderna. In the meantime, we owe it to ourselves and loved ones to maintain a healthy lifestyle and outlook, both physically and mentally. The byword today is stay safe—we will get through this if we all work together!

Source: Water Conditioning & Purification.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

NM funds PFAS studies while cleanup languishes and regulations remain years out

Laura Paskus

July 14, 2020

Gazette Introductory Note: This article from New Mexico National Public Radio provides an excellent overview of the history of PFAS contamination and underlines the many difficulties that stand in the way of cleanup. It offers yet another example of the US military’s role as an irresponsible polluter of the nation’s water and of the shortcomings of highly politicized governmental regulatory agencies.

While New Mexico’s lawmakers stare down a $2 billion budget shortfall and a recession, state taxpayers are shelling out $1.1 million to study groundwater contamination from Cannon Air Force Base. That’s in addition to money New Mexico is spending on three pending lawsuits with the U.S. Department of Defense over PFAS contamination at Cannon and also Holloman Air Force Base.

“The [cleanup] progress would be more quick, and we would have more resources devoted to the problem if the responsible party would do the right thing: delineate the contamination and clean it up without us—the regulatory agency—scouring for the resources to do something that the DOD is responsible for doing,” says Stephanie Stringer, the New Mexico Environment Department’s Resource Protection Division Director.

If the military were involved, she says, “There would be a more cohesive and comprehensive effort toward final cleanup.”

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are found in firefighting foams the military started using in the 1970s.

In 2018, monitoring wells near Cannon and Holloman Air Force bases revealed perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination from those foams at levels from hundreds to thousands of times more than a federal lifetime advisory says is safe.

In Clovis, PFAS contamination has also been found in off-base wells, including those that supply water to dairies and the city’s drinking water system.

This family of thousands of chemicals was invented in the 1930s. They are molecules of joined carbon and fluorine atoms, and they’re incredibly difficult to break. Even though they’re toxic—causing health problems ranging from immune disorders to cancer—they’re useful in products like food wrappers, dental floss, ski wax, and even microwave popcorn bags. PFAS can also be found in weather-proof clothing, fire-retardant furniture, and stain-resistant carpet. Not to mention non-stick cookware.

Instead of tackling the problem—and halting the further spread of PFAS in underground water supplies—the Air Force sued New Mexico when the state tried to force a cleanup under the military’s state hazardous waste permit.

In turn, the state sued the Defense Department, asking a federal judge to compel the Air Force to act on, and fund, cleanup at the two New Mexico bases.

To NMED’s knowledge, the military is not working on cleanup at either of the two bases, says Stringer.

In an email to NMPBS, Sen. Tom Udall wrote that he has been “continually disappointed with the Department of Defense’s slow response and handling of the PFAS situation in New Mexico.”

“The state of New Mexico should not have to shoulder these burdens, and the Department of Defense should be taking proactive steps to delineate the plume, start cleanup, and prevent the plume from spreading and making the situation worse,” according to Udall.

The senator pointed to New Mexico’s “rich tradition of military service” and said the Defense Department “owes it to the state and our communities to take immediate action on this serious problem.”

Udall also noted that under the National Defense Authorization Act Congress passed last year, the PFAS Damages Act authorized the Defense Department to provide fresh water and filtration for agricultural purposes and to buy contaminated land at a fair price from private landowners. It also required the military to submit a cleanup plan.

“It is beyond unacceptable that the DOD has missed the deadlines set out in the legislation despite our delegation’s continued requests,” according to Udall. “I am still extremely disappointed with the slow speed and lack of attention to resolving this matter.”

Staff at Cannon Air Force Base did not respond to NMPBS’s requests for information on cleanup. But Denise Ottaviano, chief of media relations at Holloman Air Force Base answered questions via email, writing that the base is committed to “working with regulators and community leaders.”

“We share concerns about potential PFOS/PFOA contamination of drinking water and we are moving aggressively to protect drinking water supplies affected by our former Air Force activities,” she wrote, adding that the Air Force is “planning additional efforts” consistent with federal law to “define the nature and extent of PFAS impact at Holloman.”

“These future efforts will help determine plume size, direction, and any needed remediation,” she added.

Ottaviano wrote that the contaminated groundwater “does not impact drinking water sources for Holloman AFB or the surrounding community.”

Drinking water is not pumped from beneath the base, according to Ottaviano, but rather comes from well fields 12 to 35 miles southeast of the installation. Those wells continue to be tested, she wrote, and have not been contaminated with PFOS or PFOA.

“It is beyond unacceptable that the DOD has missed the deadlines set out in the legislation despite our delegation’s continued requests,” according to Udall. “I am still extremely disappointed with the slow speed and lack of attention to resolving this matter.”

For now, in addition to fighting the Pentagon in court, New Mexico regulators are trying to divine the extent of the groundwater contamination at Cannon, as well as around the city of Clovis.

This spring, the New Mexico State Legislature allocated $1 million for the agency to work on delineating the PFAS plume—to understand where the contamination is and how it is moving underground—and another $100,000 to create and implement a well testing program in Curry and Roosevelt counties.

In the coming months, the New Mexico Environment Department will start determining which wells should be tested and included within the program.

Precautions due to COVID-19 will make that harder than normal, points out Rebecca Roose, NMED’s Water Protection Division Director.

“You can’t just gather people together in a community center and talk it out,” she says. “We’re going to have to figure out the right balance to make sure the opportunities to learn about and participate in the program aren’t limited by people’s broadband access or having a computer at home.”

Trying to clean up and control PFAS in New Mexico—and across the United States—is complicated by the fact that the regulatory framework has not caught up with what scientists understand about the dangerous environmental and health impacts of PFAS, says Roose.

In the early 1980s, for instance, the company DuPont studied PFOA in its pregnant workers. The company learned then that the toxic chemical crossed the placenta—moving from the mother to her developing baby. In the 1990s, another manufacturer, 3M, told regulators a different chemical in the PFAS family had built up in the blood of people who worked in their plants back in the 1960s.

Since then, chemicals in the PFAS family have been linked to reproductive and developmental problems, liver and kidney disease, and immune system problems. Exposure has also been linked to high cholesterol, low infant birth weights, thyroid hormone disruption. And cancer.

“There’s enough scientific documentation for us to understand the clear and critical health risks of the class of PFAS chemicals,” says Roose. But federal and state regulatory regimes aren’t up to the challenge of controlling their release into the environment—and drinking water.

The key right now, she says, is getting the science right and moving forward with regulations as quickly as possible.

Not only that, she says, the military needs to accept its responsibilities.

“Fewer of our resources at NMED would be directed to the conflict—and the constant struggle with DOD to have them step up and take responsibility for the contamination at Cannon and Holloman,” Roose says. “We wouldn’t have to be devoting so many resources to litigation and we wouldn’t have to be seeking additional resources from the legislature.”

The state of New Mexico, like states across the nation faced with PFAS contamination from military bases, is hamstrung by a lack of regulations for PFAS.

Without a drinking water standard for the chemicals, states, tribes, and local governments can’t hold polluters responsible for contamination and cleanup.

In 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a PFAS Action Plan, one that would move the agency toward regulating PFOS and PFOA, just two of the roughly 7,000 chemicals in the PFAS family.

Earlier this year, EPA proposed those regulations for public comment.

At that time, the New Mexico Environment Department submitted comments, supporting regulations for PFOS and PFOA, and requesting that the agency add four additional compounds, consider grouping the family of compounds for regulation instead of considering them on an individual basis, and expedite the rule-making process.

But in May, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler told a senate committee the EPA can’t set a standard within a year, as requested by some Democratic and Republican U.S. senators who pressed the agency to act more quickly.

Even under a best-case scenario, the EPA is likely three to four years away from finalizing the regulatory limits for the two compounds, estimates Roose.

In its comments to the EPA, NMED also implored the agency to set regulations based on the best available science, and not just the health advisory EPA set in 2009 of 70 parts per trillion in drinking water.

The well-documented bioaccumulative effects of the chemicals, according to NMED’s comments, merit standards more closely aligned with those now enacted by some states, including New York, which set drinking water standards for PFAS at 20 parts per trillion.

In response to questions about the plan’s implementation, an EPA spokeswoman emailed text from a news release earlier this year. She also noted that during the public comment period, which ended in June, the agency received more than 11,000 comments on the proposed rule.

Souce: PBS, New Mexico.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement