PFAs in DMV area drinking water

[Anonymous]

First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

Where are you seeing that number?

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Is saying 4 ppt. Also your post is confusing ppq and ppt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

Where are you seeing that number?

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Is saying 4 ppt. Also your post is confusing ppq and ppt.

Sorry for the typo.... yes it should be ppq

EWG uses 30 ppq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

Where are you seeing that number?

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Is saying 4 ppt. Also your post is confusing ppq and ppt.

Sorry for the typo.... yes it should be ppq

EWG uses 30 ppq.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

Where are you seeing that number?

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Is saying 4 ppt. Also your post is confusing ppq and ppt.

Sorry for the typo.... yes it should be ppq

EWG uses 30 ppq.

Link?

https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ewg-standards.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, the correct term is PFAS, PFAs just covers the acids.

Second of all, they are setting unattainable limits. 30 parts per quadrillion is almost unmeasurable. Cost of remediation would be astronomical and the testing capacity in the US could never keep up.

Third, if they are held to this standard, prepare for your water bill to quadruple.

I can't imagine that many places in the world could attain 30 ppt PFOS.

Where are you seeing that number?

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Is saying 4 ppt. Also your post is confusing ppq and ppt.

Sorry for the typo.... yes it should be ppq

EWG uses 30 ppq.

Link?

https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/ewg-standards.php

Well, luckily the house bill appears does not mean the EWG's "health guideline" since it's not an MCL. I guess the EWG just needs to rename their document.

[Anonymous]

What standard does Europe use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What standard does Europe use?

The don't regulate at the individual compound.
They have a limit of 100 ppt for the sum of 20 PFAS and a limit of 500 for all PFAS (which is a little nuts since the definition of PFAS could be so broad that it would include things like Viagra)


Unless you live near an industrial site, the vast majority of PFAS detects in drinking water is PFOS, so you could reasonably say their standard is up to 100 ppt of PFOS.