ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
New & Improved: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
Think your Water Bottle is "BPA Free"? Better double check.
U.S. Forest Service: Fracking Killed Trees
On Conservation: Even your water can be reused
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
GAO Flunks Some States on Tap Water Quality Monitoring
By Morgan Andersen, EWG Summer Government Affairs Assistant and Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst
A new report from the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, shows that a number of states have made serious errors in tap water safety data reporting. GAO attributed the lapses to inadequate funding and oversight.
The GAO report, released July 19 by Reps. John Dingell (D-MI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), highlights serious deficiencies in state compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. It comes a week after another GAO report detailed many problems in the implementation of another aspect of the Safe Drinking Water Act: its provisions for monitoring unregulated water contaminants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates certain contaminants nationwide and issues other guidelines for water quality. However, the EPA grants states the right to monitor and regulate drinking water contaminants if their rules meet or exceed federal standards.
GAO finds serious monitoring lapses
The investigative agency found that when EPA audited 19 states in 2007, fully one-fifth of health-based violations were not reported completely or correctly. In a 2009 audit of 14 states, the percentage of incorrect or incomplete violation reports climbed to 26 percent. In 91 percent of these instances, GAO found, state authorities had failed to cite offending water systems or report the violations.
The GAO estimated that in 2009, states did not report 84 percent of monitoring violations. Many of the systems that had failed to monitor their water quality also incurred actual health-based violations.
Depending on the severity of a water system's lapses, states are empowered to take enforcement actions ranging from advisories to fines. GAO found that states failed to report correctly 27 percent of the enforcement actions lodged against community water systems.
The GAO attributed reporting failures to "inadequate training, staffing, and guidance, and inadequate funding to conduct those activities" on behalf of the states and water utilities.
GAO also scolded EPA for failing to maintain high standards for state reporting and for poor management of compliance assistance funding.
Less reliable data, potentially unsafe water
EPA Administrator Jackson has shown great leadership in developing a comprehensive Drinking Water Strategy. The new strategy was developed to better leverage existing legislation to protect the nation's drinking water supply.
It lays out four goals: "[1] Address contaminants as a groups rather than one at a time so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively. [2] Foster development of new drinking water technologies to address health risks posed by a broad array of contaminants. [3] Use the authority of multiple statutes to help protect drinking water. [4] Partner with states to share more complete data from monitoring at public water systems (PWS)."
While the administrator's actions are welcome, the GAO report is evidence that the EPA should develop its own tap water quality database (to fill that gap, EWG creates one from local data) and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act more aggressively.
EPA discontinued its drinking water quality audits last year for lack of money. The GAO said these audits might resume this year, but at a slower pace. Without the information generated by this program, Americans have less assurance that their water quality meets national standards.
The GAO reports also shows that EPA demands too little of the states. The agency's 2006 goal was for 90 percent of health-based drinking water violations to be reported completely and correctly. A 10 percent margin of error is far too high when it comes to serious health risks.
Worse, the EPA has no goal for complete, accurate data on monitoring violations.
The agency attempts to spend its budget on those water systems with the most serious compliance problems. If it does not know which systems are worst, it cannot spend taxpayer money effectively.
The EPA's new Enforcement & Compliance History Online database is a notable improvement in advancing public knowledge of water quality nationwide. But if the data feeding into it are flawed, its value is limited.
In response to the GAO report, EPA officials have promised to audit incoming data more intensely. They also say that the agency's access to information will advance when its Safe Drinking Water Information System is updated - sometime around 2014. It has promised other technical improvements to fill its data gaps.
A problem you can't see is a problem you can't fix
The EPA has been loudly and unfairly criticized for overreaching and needlessly consuming taxpayer money. Yet GAO's findings bring to light how critical it is for Congress to fund the audits that allow EPA to investigate its own workings. Without this funding, the agency cannot carry out the enforcement measures it needs to ensure the safety of the American people.
Indeed, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee used this new GAO report to severely criticize their Republican counterparts for proposing cuts of over $134 million from the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, which gives states and water utilities needed funding to assist with legal compliance and the protection of public health.
"Rather than slashing funding for this critical public health resource, Congress should be moving legislation to improve the reporting and policing of drinking water violations," said Waxman, who serves as the committee's ranking member.
Given the evidence the GAO has provided, it is deeply troubling that the EPA risks losing even more funding.
Instead of crippling the EPA's ability to identify and target health violations in tap water reporting, Congress should ensure that the agency can fund internal reviews and fix critical problems. Moreover, the EPA itself should do more to target the worst compliance issues.
All in all, the EPA seems to be moving in the right direction with a strategy that contemplates a more highly integrated and robust approach to gathering data on water safety. Next generation technologies could help it pinpoint the areas and utilities that need compliance funding the most. But without accurate data in the first place (which this report shows is lacking), it's the old story - garbage in, garbage out.
GAO Knocks EPA Tap Water Monitoring
By Morgan Andersen, EWG Summer Government Affairs Assistant and Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst
A new report from Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, shows that a number of states have made serious errors in tap water safety data reporting. GAO attributed the lapses to inadequate funding and oversight. 
The GAO report, released July 19 by Reps. John Dingell (D-MI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), highlights serious deficiencies in state compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. It comes a week after another GAO report detailed many problems in the implementation of another aspect of the Safe Drinking Water Act: its provisions for monitoring unregulated water contaminants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates certain contaminants nationwide and issues other guidelines for water quality. However, the EPA grants states the right to monitor and regulate drinking water contaminants if their rules meet or exceed federal standards.
GAO finds serious monitoring lapses
The investigative agency found that when EPA audited 19 states in 2007, fully one-fifth of health-based violations were not reported completely or correctly. In a 2009 audit of 14 states, the percentage of incorrect or incomplete violation reports climbed to 26 percent. In 91 percent of these instances, GAO found, state authorities had failed to cite offending water systems or report the violations.
The GAO estimated that in 2009, states did not report 84 percent of monitoring violations. Many of the systems that had failed to monitor their water quality also incurred actual health-based violations.
Depending on the severity of a water system's lapses, states are empowered to take enforcement actions ranging from advisories to fines. GAO found that states failed to report correctly 27 percent of the enforcement actions lodged against community water systems.
The GAO attributed reporting failures to "inadequate training, staffing, and guidance, and inadequate funding to conduct those activities" on behalf of the states and water utilities.
GAO also scolded EPA for failing to maintain high standards for state reporting and for poor management of compliance assistance funding.
Less reliable data, potentially unsafe water
EPA Administrator Jackson has shown great leadership in developing a comprehensive Drinking Water Strategy. The new strategy was developed to better leverage existing legislation to protect the nation's drinking water supply.
It lays out four goals: "[1] Address contaminants as a groups rather than one at a time so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively. [2] Foster development of new drinking water technologies to address health risks posed by a broad array of contaminants. [3] Use the authority of multiple statutes to help protect drinking water. [4] Partner with states to share more complete data from monitoring at public water systems (PWS)."
While the administrator's actions are welcome, the GAO report is evidence that the EPA should develop its own tap water database and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act more aggressively.
EPA discontinued its drinking water quality audits last year for lack of money. The GAO said these audits might resume this year but at a slower pace. Without the information generated by this program, Americans have less assurance that their water quality actually meets national standards.
The GAO reports shows that EPA demands too little of the states. The agency's 2006 goal aimed to see that 90 percent of health-based drinking water violations were reported completely and correctly. A 10 percent margin of error is far too high when it comes to serious health risks.
Worse, the EPA has no goal for complete, accurate data on monitoring violations.
The agency attempts to spend its budget on those water systems with the most serious compliance problems. If it does not know which systems are worst, it cannot spend taxpayer money effectively.
The EPA's new Enforcement & Compliance History Online -- ECHO -- database is a notable improvement in advancing public knowledge of water quality nationwide. But if the data feeding into it are flawed, its value is limited.
In response to the GAO report, EPA officials have promised to audit incoming data more intensely. As well, they say that the agency's access to information will advance when its Safe Drinking Water Information System is updated sometime around 2014. It has promised other technical improvements to fill its data gaps.
A problem you can't see is a problem you can't fix
The EPA has been loudly and unfairly criticized for overreaching and needlessly consuming taxpayer money. Yet GAO's findings bring to light how critical it is for Congress to fund the audits that allow EPA to investigate its own workings. Without this funding, the agency will not be able to carry out the enforcement measures it needs to ensure the safety of the American people.
Indeed, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee used the report to severely criticize their Republican counterparts for proposing cuts of over $134 million from the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, which gives states and water utilities needed funding to assist with legal compliance and the protection of public health.
"Rather than slashing funding for this critical public health resource, Congress should be moving legislation to improve the reporting and policing of drinking water violations," said Waxman, who serves as the committee's ranking member.
Given the evidence the GAO has provided, it is deeply troubling that the EPA risks losing even more funding.
Instead of crippling the EPA's ability to identify and target health violations in tap water reporting, Congress should ensure that the agency can fund internal reviews and fix critical problems. Moreover, the EPA itself should do more to target the worst compliance issues.
All in all, the EPA seems to be moving in the right direction with a strategy that contemplates a more highly integrated and robust approach to gathering data on water safety. Next generation technologies could help it pinpoint the areas and utilities that need compliance funding the most.
But without accurate data in the first place, it's the old story - garbage in, garbage out.
Reusing Your Gray Water: State Laws Vary for Homeowners
By Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst
Recently, we took a look at the water-saving potential of residential "gray" water, which, naturally, leads people to wonder: Can I use this technology in my home, too?
The answer? It depends.
Some states stricter than others
Nearly all states have long required that households dispose of used water through the sewer system, no matter its quality and purpose. Georgia exemplifies the antiquated status quo in gray water law: all used water must be filtered and treated like sewage. Homeowners who want to use gray water -- water from baths, showers and laundry -- would have to install a full-fledged treatment system. This makes no financial sense, so they don't.
But recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency endorsed gray water use in order to conserve fresh water, and some states have been moving to relax their laws to permit gray water to be channeled to landscaping and toilets. Several states -- California, New Mexico and Texas -- are encouraging responsible gray water use in order to alleviate water shortages in drought-prone regions. The added benefit: they reduce the amounts of chemicals being used in wastewater treatment.
But individual state laws vary widely. For instance:
- California and New Mexico permit do-it-yourself projects that meet basic health standards. California, New Mexico and Texas allow surface drip irrigation of plants if it minimizes contact with humans and domestic animals and doesn't lead to ponding or runoff.
- Other states, among them Arizona and Utah, have intricate regulations that make the installation of home gray water systems prohibitively difficult, specifically:
Arizona has separate laws for surface and subsurface gray water use - with "surface" defined to mean soil to a depth of two feet. The state requires a filtration device and a settling tank to separate solids from gray water. Fecal coliform levels in gray water released within two feet of the ground's surface must be monitored daily. This task is not feasible for most homeowners.Utah allows only subsurface drip irrigation. A local health department must clear the design before its installation.
When considering a gray water system, research your local wastewater laws carefully. Every state has its own set of regulations and guidelines, and municipalities often add more restrictions.
Where your gray water comes from and where it goes matter
Gray water includes untreated water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks and washing machines, although specific definitions vary from state to state. Most gray water definitions don't include:
- Kitchen sinks and dishwashers, because the water contains food waste;
- Garage drains and other drainages likely to be contaminated with toxics or hazardous chemicals.
In some communities, gray water may be used for drip irrigation and toilet flushing. Building systems for these purposes is relatively simple.
In other places, you can use gray water only for underground irrigation. That means you must construct trenches and subterranean drainage fields that meet restrictions to protect the water table, flood plains, nearby water bodies and land uses.
A gray water system usually has a holding tank to regulate flow and maintain releases within legal limits. Most states that permit gray water use require that these tanks be covered or enclosed to prevent them from becoming breeding places for mosquitoes and from creating other water-related health problems.
Gray water pipes and tanks generally must be labeled as such and frequently must read "non-potable" to prevent accidental consumption.
Increasingly, gray water laws focus on results, not design. By establishing clear, simple safety expectations for residential gray water systems, states and municipalities can minimize paperwork, technical details and headaches for everyone involved.
How to install a gray water system
Guides for DIY-gray water systems are plentiful. Many are free and accessible online through states and municipalities or from manufacturers of gray water recycling equipment.
Here are a useful few sites:
Prefabricated gray water systems can cost a few thousand dollars, so they may not be for everyone. Some locations like Arizona offer government rebates to offset installation costs.
Even if a gray water system is not for you, you can save water around the home by using classic strategies such as running your washer when it's full and aiming outdoor sprinklers judiciously.
Have you installed a residential gray water system? If so, please share your experiences! Here's one personal account to learn from.
[A big thanks to Flickr CC and krikit for the hose water pic.]
GAO to EPA: Improve Implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act
By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative Analyst, Morgan Andersen, EWG Summer Government Affairs Assistant, and Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst
A Government Accountability Office investigation released last week has found that the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to protect drinking water and public health from dangerous contaminants are inadequate.
During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works, David Trimble, GAO Director of Natural Resources and Environment, testified that in 2003 and 2008, EPA's unregulated contaminant monitoring program decided not to regulate 20 contaminants.
These decisions were based on data availability, not concern about public health, Trimble said. The agency lacked significant occurrence and health effect data, the GAO found, because it did not require testing for nine contaminants, as the law permits. Some of the data the agency acquired was collected with insensitive methods.
EPA Needs Better Internal Guidance and Policies
The report by the GAO, Congress's watchdog arm, emphasized that the agency needed to develop better internal guidance and policies to carry out its responsibilities under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 11 of the 20 decisions EPA's Office of Water did not consider children's health as required by law and failed to develop specific testing levels for children.
Part of the problem, according to GAO, was that the agency has not developed internal guidance on when and how to analyze the effects of contaminants on children. The GAO concluded that EPA has not defined when a contaminant is of great public health concern and has not developed a process to decide which contaminants merit higher priority for study. The report singled out EPA's dismissal of the risks of perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel and munitions. The report found that this decision, made by the Bush administration in 2008, was not based on a full, publicly visible review of the available scientific evidence. The Obama administration reversed the decision soon after taking office.
Robert Perciasepe, EPA's deputy administrator, responded that the agency was moving to address many of these shortcomings and to act more rapidly and transparently. He said that the agency hoped to increase efficiency by regulating multiple similar chemicals as a group and that it was giving priority to the protection of vulnerable populations such as women and children.
What about Chromium-6?
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked whether residents of Norman, Okla., are at risk from chromium-6 in drinking water. EWG fans will remember from our December 2010 report, "Cancer-causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap Water," that Norman had the highest detected level of hexavalent chromium of 35 city water supplies tested.
Dr. Steven Patierno, head of the George Washington University Cancer Institute and a defense witness in chromium-6 lawsuits, testified that Norman residents are "absolutely not" at risk. After his statement, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sharply questioned his credibility and told him "[i]f people came with your attitude and... appeared in court in favor of the defense we wouldn't get anywhere....That's just not going to get us anywhere when money gets involved in the equation."
The National Toxicology Program, an arm of the National Institutes of Health, has developed what it calls "strong evidence" that water containing chromium-6 causes cancer in lab animals. An EPA draft toxicology assessment released last September also cited significant cancer concerns.
Chairwoman Boxer said she and the committee would look closely at the EPA's progress in implementing the GAO report's recommendations to ensure that all Americans, particularly women and children, have access to reliably safe drinking water. We certainly hope they do. It would be hard for the agency to do any less.
New & Improved: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative Analyst
The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, introduced June 24 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) has a simple aim: to give the federal Food and Drug Administration the authority to protect consumers from dangerous ingredients in cosmetics.
What the FDA Can - and Can't Do
The Obama administration recently classified formaldehyde a known human carcinogen. Yet the FDA does not have the power to require a recall of Brazilian Blowout and other formaldehyde-laden hair-straighteners. EWG fans will remember our April 2011 report "Flat-Out Risky" that turned up reports of hair loss, blisters, burning eyes, noses and throats, headaches and vomiting among salon workers and customers using these products.
The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) gives the FDA authority to require pre-market testing, recall dangerous products and restrict ingredients in prescription drugs and medical devices. Just last year Congress extended the agency's powers so that it could mandate safety inspections of food facilities and recall products. But despite the law's name, the FDA's authority over cosmetics is severely limited by the two pages of the cosmetics title of FFDCA that have not been comprehensively updated since 1938. Under current law, FDA can't require a recall of dangerous products from store shelves, can't force companies to disclose what ingredients are in the fragrance, colors or dyes in a product, and can't require pre-market safety testing.
The Safe Cosmetics Act Would Make Personal Care Products Safer
The Safe Cosmetics Act would require safety tests of all ingredients in personal care products. It would empower FDA to prohibit and restrict the use of certain dangerous ingredients, including carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxins. The agency could recall products that fail to meet safety standards and require product labels to list each ingredient, including those that make up fragrance. Currently a loophole in the law allows companies to just list fragrance on a product label despite most fragrances being composed of multiple, possibly dangerous, chemicals.
Fragrances can contain chemicals linked to serious health problems. In a 2010 study the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group found that 17 popular fragrance products contained an average of 10 chemicals linked to allergic reactions and four chemicals linked to hormone disruption. In fact, most chemicals found in fragrances have never been assessed for safety. We have a right to know all the ingredients we use on our bodies and we have a right to know they are safe.
The new bill is similar to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, sponsored by the same House members, but with some important changes designed to help small personal care product companies.
Under the new version of the legislation, hobbyists and microbusinesses would be exempt from registering with the FDA. Those small businesses that make less than $10 million in annual gross receipts would not be required to pay a registration fee. The 2010 version set the bar at $1 million in annual gross receipts and required all businesses to register.
The 2011 version would give priority to food-grade ingredients - ingredients that have already been determined safe as food additives- for use in cosmetics without limit.
The Personal Care Products Council, the hired gun of major cosmetics makers, has argued that its clients need business certainty. We couldn't agree more. We're confident that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 would do just that by requiring all personal care products to meet the same standard for safety.
Learn More & Take Action!
Want to learn more and get involved with this vital legislation? Click here.
Think your Water Bottle is "BPA Free"? Better double check.
By Margot Pagan, EWG Summer Press Intern
Is your reusable water bottle aluminum? In an effort to be more sustainable and protect my health, I made the switch from plastic water bottles to my reliable metal bottle that I carry with me every day. I thought this switch was a positive change, which is why I'm a little concerned to read headlines that "Metal Water Bottles May Leach BPA." Just when I thought I was doing something good for my health and the environment, I learn otherwise. Just my luck!
Aluminum water bottles aren't just aluminum
The issue is that some aluminum water bottles aren't just aluminum - they're lined with a resin meant to prevent that bad aluminum taste in your water. Problem is, the resin is epoxy, and epoxy is made with bisphenol A, or BPA, which is a synthetic estrogen. The epoxy molecule is unstable. It comes apart and releases BPA readily into whatever it touches.
This new study from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine has discovered that switching from polycarbonate to aluminum might not protect you from BPA exposure as well as you thought. Keep in mind - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has called for parents to take action to reduce their children's exposure to BPA. The chemical isn't healthy for any age group: it is linked to an alarming list of health conditions - breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
The study found that epoxy-lined aluminum bottles (including older SIGG bottles) leached BPA. But SIGG's new linings, made of a synthetic the company calls Ecocare did not emit the troublesome chemical. Stainless steel bottles, which are unlined, were also free of BPA.
BPA is an essential ingredient of polycarbonate, a hard, clear plastic ideal for safety glasses, safety helmets and computer and cell phone houses. Until a few years ago, Nalgene water bottles were made of polycarbonate. Like epoxy, polycarbonate is unstable and, experiments show, readily leaches BPA into surrounded liquids, even cold water. Nalgene, Camelbak and some other sports bottle makers moved to a non-BPA-based plastic called Tritan. The University of Cincinnati study found bottles made with Tritan did not emit BPA.
BPA leaching by the "worst" water bottles is still less than the amount you'd get from a serving of most canned foods but still important to consider since exposures add up.
The study also examined the effects of BPA on heart muscle cells and found that increasing exposure to this estrogen-like chemical can result in potentially deadly heart arrhythmias in rodents. This finding leads the group to suggest that heart arrhythmias could be an issue for women specifically, because they already have natural estrogen in their bodies.
Does the Claim "BPA Free" Mean Anything?
"BPA free" is not a defined and consistent term, noted the study's author Scott Belcher in an interview with Science News. For "BPA free" to have a useful meaning for consumers there should be regulations to limit its use, Belcher said.
Legislation to control BPA in food containers, especially those made for infants and children, is making its way through lawmaking bodies, with varying degrees of success.
In Maine, a bill to remove BPA from children's products became law without the signature of Gov. Paul LePage. Now Maine's Environmental Health Strategy Center is accusing LePage of foot-dragging and has petitioned the state Attorney General to force LePage to put the law into effect. LePage is famed for declaring that BPA is harmless, except that "some women may have little beards" if exposed to the chemical. (LePage confused it with another sex hormone, testosterone).
Meanwhile, in California, the state assembly is moving the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act, which would bar BPA in bottles or cups intended for infants or children three years of age or younger.
So what should you do to protect your health?
- Buy a glass or stainless steel bottle without an epoxy liner.
- Examine the inside of a bottle. A golden-orange coating indicates a material that can shed BPA, while a white coating doesn't. Contact the manufacturer to see if it has tested its product for BPA leaching.
- Don't put hot liquids in your water bottles.
Remember, BPA is most harmful during pregnancy and early childhood. Pregnant women, babies and children should take extra efforts to avoid BPA. Check out what EWG has been saying about kid-size Klean Kanteen bottles.
Buying a water bottle might seem like a simple purchase (it should be, right?), but doing your BPA research before you buy could grant you peace of mind that your bottle isn't leaching BPA.
U.S. Forest Service: Fracking Killed Trees
By Justine Chow, Natural Resources Summer Researcher
Chemical-laden wastewater generated by a natural gas hydraulic fracturing operation killed more than half a stand of trees in a field study at the Monongahela National Forest, according to a new report from the U.S. Forest Service.
In a study of possible environmental impacts of gas drilling, published in this month's Journal of Environmental Quality, in June 2008, Forest Service researchers sprayed more than 80,000 gallons of fracking fluid on a half-acre area of hardwood trees in the Fernow Experimental Forest, a plot within the Monongahela Forest in West Virginia. They immediately observed "severe damage and mortality of ground vegetation" and, 10 days later, premature leaf drop. Two years after spraying, 56 percent of the large trees were dead.
Figure 9.-- Fluid application site 1, with non-treated forest in background, Fernow Experimental Forest. Photo taken May 17, 2009. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.
The author, Mary Beth Adams, wrote that she and her fellow researchers were surprised by the dramatic die-off. "The risk to vegetation was assumed to be minimal," she wrote. " However, obvious and measurable damage to vegetation did occur from these fluids at three different locations."
According to Businessweek Magazine, some drilling industry personnel countered that the study did not accurately reflect normal disposal practices, which they said would have involved spreading that much wastewater over a much larger area.
Though dilution may have been able to save a few of the trees in the Forest Service experiment, as critics suggest, the study fully demonstrates the power of intensely saline wastewater associated with fracking. Fracking fluid may contain other destructive chemicals as well. With permits from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, companies regularly and legally spray such fluids into forests and, in some cases, near residential areas.
The Forest Service study raises serious questions about the toxicity of fracking fluid. Natural gas drilling, including fracking, has boomed in recent years as more companies find natural gas extraction increasingly profitable.
Where is the research on the effects of this technology? It's troubling that this study is one of the very few published environmental papers on modern fracking processes and the only one so far that seemed to do a long-term, start-to-finish study at a drilling site. A recent May 2011 study by scientists at the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment examined methane contamination in water wells near gas drilling operations. The Forest Service study was the first to deal with land contamination, and judging from the paper's findings, there is still a lot of ground (excuse the pun) to cover.
There is plenty of debate about natural gas markets and geological formations among research institutions but not enough empirical evidence concerning what happens to water and vegetation once drilling begins.
The U.S. Environmental Protection has only just started a larger long-term study that may address the potential environmental impacts described by the Forest Service paper.
While the U.S. needs to shift dependence away from foreign oil and dirty coal, let's make sure that we're not blindly fleeing down an unknown path. Without adequate research, the unforeseen obstacles along the way may render domestic natural gas as unsavory as its "dirtier" fossil fuel counterparts.
On Conservation: Even your water can be reused
By Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst
When I was growing up in Pennsylvania, my mother used to admonish me to conserve water during droughts. "Turn off the faucet while you brush your teeth," she'd say, "and take a shorter shower." Most people have heard this advice. But is it the most effective way to reduce water use?
This might come as a surprise, but fully half of home water use occurs outdoors. Watering a garden, lawn or those new trees commonly requires more water than washing the day's dishes, doing a load of laundry or taking an entire family's worth of showers.
Deconstructing home water use
Research by Colorado-based water engineering firm Aquacraft has found that 46 to 59 percent of residential water consumption goes on outdoors. In summer, a time of intense lawn watering and (naturally) heaviest water shortages, outdoor use claims up to 78 percent of the total.
That's a lot of water out of the hose.
As one would expect, research has shown outdoor water use to be strongly tied to climate. A lawn of turf grass in an arid region, of course, needs more watering than the same lawn in a wetter area. Those hot, dry areas tend to have a lot of swimming pools, as well - another water hog.
Ironically (and perhaps tragically), the places using the most water outside are the places that often have the least water to spare. People in the arid Southwest use 59 to 67 of their scarce water outdoors, compared to only 22 to 38 percent in cooler, wetter regions.
The good news is that there are efficient methods to irrigate lawns and gardens.
Treated water for you - and your plants?
If you draw your water from a municipal utility rather than a well, all the water piped to your home has been treated to drinking water quality -- at a significant cost to ratepayers. When we spray treated water on lawns and golf courses and pipe it through the toilet, that's overkill.
Researchers and water conservation departments say that much of the water we use inside, depending on its first use, can be recycled for certain forms of irrigation as what is commonly known as gray water.
Gray water is a win win
In a 2010 study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Water Research Foundation estimated that gray water reuse systems can save at least 30 percent of total household water consumption. Yet the same study found that only 7 percent of American households are using these systems. Even in California and Texas, the two states where gray water technology has gained greatest acceptance, fewer than 15 percent of households have installed such systems.
Gray water is a promising concept popular with smart growth advocates around the globe because it offers immediate savings. Municipal utilities encourage gray water systems because they ease pressure on the water treatment plant and reduce wastewater. Homeowners can offset the installation costs of gray water systems with lower water bills - a definite plus these days - and guiltlessly enjoy outdoor plants, even in arid regions.
Sound like a good idea? Come back soon for our next blog in which we take a look at some of the laws on gray water use in different states and assess different ways household water can be reused.
