Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

Silicon Valley, California is the hub for some of the largest tech companies in the world. Apple, Google and Facebook are just some of the tech giants with headquarters located there. The name originates from the production of semiconductors, which uses a silicon chip in the manufacturing and production process. Silicon Valley is now home to several Fortune 500 companies and booming in economic success. What many people don’t know about this tech Mecca is that it’s also home to the highest number of Superfund sites in the United States.

Industrial History

In the early 1950’s, Silicon Valley was the premiere destination for modern day electrical engineering. The progressive and “modern” aesthetic of the Valley drew young engineers from all over the country. Aside from the possibility of prosperity, there was another major reason that people were flocking to the area: the absence of smokestacks. In fact, incoming tech companies had to follow strict zoning restrictions to ensure that smokestacks wouldn’t cloud the streets of Santa Clara. Young developers thought that prohibiting smokestacks would make the Valley all that more appealing to potential employees, and it did. Just because the effluent wasn’t visible to passersby, didn’t mean that Silicon Valley was a pure, pollutant-free destination. What I always like to say is “what can’t go up, must go down”. Discharge from industrial manufacturing of electrical equipment was being pumped underground where it eventually entered into groundwater. Environmental regulations were nonexistent, so dumping was the practical waste removal norm. There were also several solvent leaks between the years of 1950-1970 from defective infrastructure, the most famous being the Fairchild Spill of 1981. An estimated 14,000 gallons of trichloroethane (TCE) and 44,000 gallons of other solvents leaked into the groundwater supply of Santa Clara County. Several remediation efforts took place over the course of the next 30 years, such as underground vapor extraction wells (pump and treat), but volatile material is still very much present in the soil and groundwater of Silicon Valley.

What is TCE?

Trichloroethane (TCE) is a chemical solvent used in the manufacturing process of semiconductors. It’s an colorless, nonflammable liquid that is typically used as a solvent to remove grease from metals. According to a risk assessment done by the EPA in 2005, TCE is considered to be carcinogenic to humans by all exposure routes. TCE is linked with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Renal cell carcinoma, and liver cancer.

What is Superfund?

The Superfund program, also known as CERCLA, was created in the 1980’s to assist with the cleanup and mitigation of toxic contaminated sites. If a responsible party or partly responsible party cannot be identified, the Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over funding and site remediation. Currently, there are 23 Superfund sites located in the Silicon Valley, the highest concentration of designated toxic waste sites in the country.

Vapor Plumes

For the most part, drinking water is properly treated by municipal utility providers, with the exception of private wells. The largest concern to human health are volatile vapor plumes. These are chemicals that are trapped underground that rise to the surface and are released into the atmosphere. Vapor plumes are often sucked into ventilation systems in buildings and homes. This highly concentrated exposure of a known carcinogen in a confined space is extremely dangerous to human health. In 2013, the Google headquarters in Silicon Valley experienced a toxic exposure to TCE. Google was not involved in manufacturing of the silicon chips and arrived in Silicon Valley after the spill. They were however a Bone Fide Prospective Purchaser, which means they were aware of the contamination at the time of acquisition.

Other articles we think you might enjoy: 
Why Does EPA Allow "Acceptable Amounts" of Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water?
Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water
Endocrine Disruptors in Drinking Water

Analies Dyjak & Matthew Krug

February 14th 2019: The Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency posted the newly proposed “Waters of the United States” rule to the Federal Register. At its core, the proposed EPA WOTUS rule limits the water that EPA can regulate and monitor. By narrowing the scope of WOTUS definitions, this basically gives industries a roadmap of where it’s okay to pollute without the need for permitting. This is a big deal for the 45 million Americans who rely on well water for drinking and bathing. So, why should you care about the definition of waters of the United States?

"Waters of the United States"

This definition, also known as “WOTUS” has been up for debate for decades, and it’s interpretation has seen several Supreme Court cases. This proposed rule determines what waters the federal government is able to regulate and monitor. Generally, “waters” have traditionally been navigable waters such as oceans, rivers, ponds, and streams. As our scientific understanding of hydrology has improved, the scope of what are considered “waters” has expanded.

What Is Not Protected Under The Proposed Rule?

WOTUS definitions name certain waters as “excluded,” which, in this case, means they do not have a surface water connection. This means that groundwater, ephemeral streams, ditches, prior converted cropland and some wetlands and ponds are not included. This is a continued rollback of environmental regulations - and the 2019 EPA WOTUS rule proposal may have the farthest-reaching implications of all.

How Does This Proposed Rule Affect Drinking Water?

This rule puts the 45 million Americans that use private wells as a primary source of drinking water at risk. Private wells are not regulated by federal, state, or local governments, and agencies are not required to test for contaminants or ensure “compliance.” A 2006 study by the USGS concluded that private wells are already contaminated with various types of agricultural runoff, solvents, fumigants and inorganic compounds, the most common being arsenic and nitrates. Arsenic is a naturally occurring organic compound, that enters groundwater as bedrock weathers overtime. However, nitrates are used in fertilizers and enter both surface and groundwater from agricultural runoff. 8.4% of the wells tested in this study were in exceeded the federal standard for nitrates (we have an article dedicated specifically to nitrates in groundwater). Further, EPA does not provide recommended criteria or standards for private well users. By rolling back protections, private well users are being further kept in the dark.

How Did They Arrive At this Rule?

The proposed EPA WOTUS rule is primarily based off a majority opinion by Justice Scalia in the Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States. Scalia’s interpretation favored “traditional waters,” and steered away from Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus theory.” In his majority opinion, Scalia wrote that federal protections should cover:

“...only those wetland with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States.”

Who’s Driving?

The American Farm Bureau dominated the conversation at the press conference for the proposed EPA WOTUS rule in early December of 2018. Industries lobbied hard to limit the scope of jurisdictional waters. In a political landscape where there is an abundance of legislation grandfathered in to protect the chemical, fossil fuel, and agricultural industries, it should come as no surprise that the current administration did not break from tradition. The agricultural industry is not the only institution who will benefit from this proposed rule. Chemical manufacturing companies have to go through a rigorous permitting process determined by state or federal governments (NPDES) which regulate pollution. But now, with a clearly defined and reduced scope of what constitutes a water of the United States, these companies are able to map out how to circumvent regulation.

The federal government has designated this as “economically significant”

This means that the proposed rule with have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 

Our Take:

This proposed WOTUS definitions puts the 15% of the country at further risk of groundwater contamination. This population of people are now on their own in terms of monitoring their drinking water and keeping up with land use changes. Our science team will be submitting public comments on this proposed rule, which will be available on our website in the upcoming weeks. We encourage our readers to do the same thing! CLICK HERE for the link to the WOTUS public comment page.

Analies Dyjak & Eric Roy, Ph.D.
**UPDATE January 23, 2020: EPA Introduces Navigable Waters Protection Rule to replace WOTUS**

Editor's Note: Today, the US EPA and US Army Corps Of Engineers announced that they repealed the Clean Water Rule, and redefined which waters are regulated by the federal government under the Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule. The purpose of this article is to inform the public how this regulatory change can impact their drinking water. We will be updating this article continuously as we learn more and to answer frequently asked questions about changes in U.S water quality standards.

What Is WOTUS? 

Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) defines which bodies of water the Federal Government can regulate under the Clean Water Rule. In 2015 the Obama Administration worked to establish a definition for which waters can be regulated waters with the intent of protecting drinking water, ecosystems, wetlands, and endangered species. Most importantly for U.S. water quality standards, WOTUS definitions provided coverage to groundwater, as roughly 50% of the US population drinks groundwater, including the 15% of people who draw drinking water from private wells. The new WOTUS definition basically removes these protections, among other things.

How Will The New WOTUS Definition Impact Drinking Water?

In the press conference, EPA officials mentioned that the new change does not change the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This is intentionally misleading because private wells are NOT protected by the SDWA, and by removing federal protection from groundwater in general, the Trump administration is removing the only protection for people who have private wells, so those people really should be regularly testing their water quality, which is a giant financial burden to the citizen.

What Is Considered A Water Of The United States Under The Proposed Rule?

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries
• Navigable ditches
• Lakes
• Impoundments
• Wetlands 

What Is NOT Considered A Water Of The United States Under The Proposed Rule?

• Groundwater
• Water features
• Farm ditches
• Converted cropland

Who Drove The Legislation To Roll Back These Protections?

A coalition of lobbyists from various business organizations, led by the American Farm Bureau was responsible for driving this legislation. In fact, the American Farm Bureau had representatives from western agricultural states in the press conference audience.

What Can Citizens Do To Be Heard On The Topic?

As with any proposed rule, there is a public comment period. Our experts will be submitting public comments to the Federal Register. Once the link is live, we'll be posting it here.

There’s no denying that fracking has changed the course of energy production in the U.S., but not without some serious environmental impacts. Fracking severely threatens groundwater aquifers that millions of Americans depend on for drinking water. The viral videos of people lighting their tap water on fire are real, and the risk to human health is significant. Here’s an answer to the question "does fracking pollute groundwater?"

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Water Nerd
**Updated July 17, 2019 to include current data

For our 2018 Boston water quality issues report, we collected water quality test data from from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced these data with toxicity studies, scientific reports, and medical literature to determine information that we believe the public should be made aware of. The water filters that we offer in Boston and are optimized with this research in mind.

Where Does Boston Source Its Drinking Water? 

Boston sources its tap and drinking water from the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, both of which are over 35 miles west of the city. These two reservoirs combined supply 200 million gallons of water on a daily basis. Water from the Ware River can also be added to the drinking water supply if needed.

Lead in Boston’s Drinking Water

Lead enters Boston's drinking and tap water through older lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. When corrosion control measures put in place by the municipality fail (like what recently happened in Flint, Michigan), lead leaches into the drinking water, and can reach dangerous levels. Currently, 10% of samples analyzed for lead in Boston's drinking and tap water are over 9.7 parts per billion. Though Boston's water quality is currently in compliance with federal regulations, EPA, CDC, and The American Academy of Pediatrics all acknowledge that there is no safe level of lead, and federal regulations do not take into account levels measured at an individual tap.

Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) In Boston’s Drinking Water

Disinfection Byproducts are a category of emerging contaminants which means they have been detected in drinking water but the risk to human health is unknown. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria. EPA regulates two categories of DBPs: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids-5 (HAA5). Regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems. Boston had relatively low levels of both TTHMs and HAA5.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Boston's tap water quality issues, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
What is Chomium-6?
Lead In Drinking Water
Chloramine In Drinking Water