GoGreenNation news

Why New York City has some of the worst air in the world right now

Smoke shrouds the sun as it rises behind the skyline of lower Manhattan in New York City on June 7, 2023. | Gary Hershorn/Getty Images Canada’s smoke blanketing the US is just the latest example of intensifying wildfires. New York City had the worst air quality of any major city in the world Tuesday night, according to air quality technology company IQAir. Earlier that morning, the National Weather Service issued an air quality alert — a warning indicating high levels of air pollution and therefore related health risks — for residents in New York state, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Unhealthy air pollution levels can lead to a range of adverse health reactions, from eye, nose, and throat irritation to decreased lung and heart function. It’s even worse for at-risk groups, such as children, seniors, and those with heart and lung problems. Fortunately for New York City, where there’s smoke, there’s not always fire (at least in the immediate area). The flames causing this public health crisis are actually well over 300 miles away, in Quebec, Canada. Smoke is drifting across the northeastern US, and the dry winds accompanying it in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are increasing the risk of new fires cropping up. “I don’t think people appreciate that smoke can travel for hundreds if not thousands of miles, and so it’s often that we don’t have control of the situation, even though we are dealing with the impacts of it,” said Edward Avol, professor emeritus of the environmental health division of the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine. Still, this extreme fire event and its long-ranging smoke trail indicate a much larger and concerning trend: wildfires are getting worse, lasting longer, and occurring more frequently, primarily due to climate change. Although wildfires are a natural part of an ecosystem’s life cycle, when extreme, they create catastrophic damage to both the natural and human world. The crucial thing, experts told Vox, is that we must learn to adapt, especially as extreme weather events become more regular. “There’s no future where we don’t have fire,” said Matthew Hurteau, a biology professor at the University of New Mexico. “So we have to start thinking about: how do we live in a more smoky world?” Climate change is making fire season more severe Canada is on track to experience its most destructive wildfire season on record. More than 160 forest fires raging across Quebec contribute significantly to this unfortunate milestone. The province’s fire season normally begins in early May, and usually destroys only a square mile by early June. But this year, fires across the province consumed 600 square miles by June 3. Last week, the Canadian province was only battling 10 blazes, but that number soared to 153 fires on Monday. As of Tuesday, Quebec only had enough wilderness firefighters on the ground to fight 30 of these fires, but Quebec Premier François Legault said in the coming week, 200 firefighters from France and the US will join the approximately 480 wilderness firefighters already on the ground. This outbreak in fires is due to low humidity and rain, and lightning strikes — conditions that are becoming more common due to climate change. Our atmosphere acts like a sponge, absorbing water from our ecosystems, said Hurteau, who studies climate change mitigation and adaptation in forest systems. The size of our atmospheric “sponge” depends on the temperature: the hotter the climate, the bigger the sponge. Because of climate change, this sponge is gulping up a lot of our planet’s moisture, leading to drier, more fire-prone regions. “Those forests burn periodically. I think what’s unique about this year is that the forests are so dry that the fires are many times larger than they normally are,” said Hurteau. In addition to worsening fires, climate change and the fossil fuels that cause it are increasing air pollution, both directly and indirectly. At a 2020 House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Drew Shindell, a professor of earth science at Duke University, stated that limiting global warming to 2°C would prevent 4.5 million premature deaths (some due to air pollution) over the next 50 years. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images The Statue of Liberty is shrouded in a reddish haze as a result of Canadian wildfires on June 6. Most of New York state, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts reported “unhealthy” Air Quality Index (AQI) levels Tuesday, June 6. AQI indicates the level of health concern from air pollution and provides guidance accordingly. The number, which is shared by the EPA, falls between zero and 500. As Vox’s Rebecca Leber explains: ”AQI numbers are color-coded from ‘good’ to ‘hazardous’: The higher the number, the worse the pollution and the darker the colors.” An AQI of 101 to 150 — the orange zone — means the air is unhealthy for sensitive groups, like people with heart or lung disease, or children. New York entered the red zone (150-200) for most of yesterday, but crossed into the purple zone with an AQI of 218 last night. At the red, purple, and maroon levels, the air is unhealthy for all groups and people should limit or completely avoid spending time outdoors. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued a citywide air-quality health advisory Tuesday, and NYC public schools will not have outdoor recess. Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement that conditions are “expected to deteriorate” Wednesday afternoon and evening. Unfortunately, the incidence of extreme fire events like these will only become more likely from here, the United Nations Environment Programme predicts, with a 14 percent increase projected in the next seven years. This isn’t to say all wildfires are universally bad. In moderation, fires serve an essential role in the natural world. Forest fires clear old, dead foliage, and release seeds that then sprout into new healthier, stronger growth. But now, warmer and drier climates create these extreme fire events which prevent forests from regenerating post-fire. And, it’s important to note that not all types of forests can withstand the same frequency of fires, said Hurteau. For example, boreal systems, which are found across Canada, should burn very infrequently, he added. “If it burns too frequently, you end up completely changing the vegetation,” said Hurteau. “Depending on the system, we can intervene in ways, and in some places that might be lighting fires, so that we’re restoring ecologically appropriate fire. And then in some places, it’s going to be trying to exclude fire.” What to do when the air quality is unhealthy Between 1960 and 2000, the air quality in the US was improving, but in recent years pollution from climate change-caused fires, droughts, and heat have begun to unravel this progress. Globally, air pollution results in an estimated 7 million premature deaths annually, which means recognizing the signs of this sometimes invisible killer is vital. You can check AQI levels on your phone’s weather app, the EPA’s AirNow website, or with a physical air quality monitor. When AQI levels are in the red zone, like in New York currently, the guidance is to stay indoors and try to prevent smoky air from coming inside. Seal doors and windows as much as possible, and ensure that air conditioning systems have the right filtration systems. For those in New York City right now, even a window AC unit is “better than nothing,” said Avol, since at minimum it’ll filter larger particles. If you have a HEPA air filter lingering around from the early days of the pandemic, now it’s a good time to turn it on. We also often underestimate exactly what we’re breathing in. It’s not just the smoke from a wildfire that can do damage, but also the way the particles from a fire chemically react in the air, which increases the level of other contaminants, like ozone, said Avol. If a wildfire burns in a forest, then it’s primarily shrubbery and trees turning to ash, but when a fire destroys homes, power lines, cables, and other materials, it can release other dangerous, non-organic particles. “The initial thing that people think of — because of the smoke — is it must be wood burning,” he said. “Which, 90 percent of the time that’s a big part of it, but it’s not the only thing and may not be the only thing of health concern.” If you can’t stay indoors, then following the same masking rules used to manage the Covid-19 pandemic provides the most significant level of protection. When possible, wear a N95 mask secured tightly across your face, covering your nose and mouth, said Avol. Avoid strenuous activity outdoors — such as a run — if you’re in a sensitive group. (Even if you are healthy, it’s still worth limiting your exposure outside as negative air pollution effects are cumulative.) Last, because air quality can have such a detrimental effect on vulnerable populations — children, the elderly, pregnant people, those with lung and heart problems — check in on neighbors and loved ones. If you or someone you know is experiencing symptoms like dizziness, aggravated cough, or headaches, try to head to cleaner air indoors with the AC running. If the symptoms intensify to include chest tightness, pain when breathing, or difficulty breathing when not doing physical activity, seek medical attention. These methods aren’t foolproof, but they will help us live through the smokier future ahead. “Even if we shut off fossil fuel emissions tomorrow, we still have a certain amount of warming in the system that’s already happened,” said Hurteau. “We’re going to have to figure out how to live with it. We’re going to have to figure out how to manage our relationship with fire, and we’re going to have to figure out how to manage the ecosystems as they’re impacted by fire in different ways.”

How can I avoid eating food with ‘forever’ chemicals?

Read more

Read more

EPA Ends Trump-Era Bid to Kill Pollution Rules for Plastics Recycling

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Reversing its own Trump-era proposal, the US Environmental Protection Agency has spurned a lobbying effort by the chemical industry to relax clean-air regulations on two types of chemical or “advanced” recycling of plastics.  The decision, announced by the EPA […]

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Reversing its own Trump-era proposal, the US Environmental Protection Agency has spurned a lobbying effort by the chemical industry to relax clean-air regulations on two types of chemical or “advanced” recycling of plastics.  The decision, announced by the EPA on May 24, covers pyrolysis and gasification, two processes that use chemical methods to break down plastic waste. Both have largely been regulated as incineration for nearly three decades and have therefore had to meet stringent emission requirements for burning solid waste under the federal Clean Air Act.  But in the final months of the Trump administration, the EPA proposed an industry-friendly rule change in August 2020 stating that pyrolysis does not involve enough oxygen to constitute combustion, and that emissions from the process should therefore not be regulated as incineration. Pyrolysis, or the process of decomposing materials at high temperatures in an oxygen-free environment, has been around for centuries. Traditional uses have ranged from making tar from timber for wooden ships to transforming coal into coke for steelmaking.

States take matters into their own hands to ban toxic ‘forever chemicals’

At least 106 laws have passed in 24 states banning or restricting the use of forever chemicals, which are linked to health risks but commonly found in products.

At least 106 laws have passed in 24 states banning or restricting the use of forever chemicals, which are linked to health risks but commonly found in products.

US lead pipe replacements stoke concerns about plastic and environmental injustice

Roughly 9.2 million lead pipes deliver drinking water to homes, schools and other buildings in the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate released last month. The Biden administration has announced its intention to replace all lead service lines within 10 years; and in 2021, Congress made $15 billion available for lead service line replacement through the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year. The EPA estimates the average cost to replace a lead service line is $4,700, putting the total need at $43 billion. Scientists and drinking-water advocates say this fund is only a starting-point. A 2020 EPA analysis failed to consider many health outcomes from lead exposure, causing some experts to fear there’s a lack of willingness at the agency to address the problem. This could change, with new regulations on lead exposure expected from the EPA in September 2023. Advocates say upcoming rules need to include a mandate and funding for utilities to fully replace lead service lines so everyone can benefit from the program, including low-income customers. Complicating lead pipe replacement are alternatives that may carry health risks of their own. A new report from Beyond Plastics, the Plastic Pollution Coalition and Environmental Health Sciences highlights a growing body of research that has found toxic chemicals in PVC and CPVC pipes — commonly used to replace lead lines — that have the potential to leach into drinking water. Health advocates say that in replacing lead lines, cities and states need to select safe materials to avoid a regrettable substitution, and many say copper is the best option. (Environmental Health Sciences publishes Environmental Health News, which is editorially independent.) The EPA has chosen not to regulate plastic pipes or look into their potential health effects, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told Environmental Health News (EHN). “We’ve had about a half a dozen meetings with EPA, and every office we meet with points to another office,” she said, “It’s a lot of buck passing.” Lack of federal motivation on lead replacementLead was a common material for service lines, the pipes that connect a building to a water main, until Congress banned them in 1986 due to health risks. There is no safe level of lead exposure, the EPA says. In children, lead affects growth, behavior, IQ and more. Lead can impact pregnancies, causing early births and damage to a baby’s brain, kidneys and nervous system. In adults, lead can impact cardiovascular health, kidney function and fertility. Research has found that minority and low-income households are more likely to face lead exposure, often because their homes were built during the decades when lead service lines were most prevalent.The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which requires utilities to address contamination when more than 10% of customer taps have high levels of lead or copper. The Trump administration revised the rule, adding new testing requirements and protocols intended to require more action from utilities to reduce lead exposure. When the agency released their economic analysis of the rule revisions, “I was appalled,” Ronnie Levin, instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former EPA senior scientist, told EHN. The EPA recognizes eight health outcomes caused by lead, and eight that are likely caused by lead. “They only monetized one,” Levin said. Related: Check out Beyond Plastics' "The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes" reportThat means they didn’t quantify many health outcomes the rule revisions would improve by lowering lead exposure. With the single health outcome monetized, the EPA analysis found roughly $160 to $330 million in costs from the revisions, and $230 to $800 million in benefits. “EPA considered both the quantifiable and the nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits in promulgating the final Lead and Copper Rule…EPA exercised discretion to determine the approaches used to quantify benefits,” a spokesperson for the EPA told EHN in an email. Levin ran the numbers herself, including as many EPA acknowledged health outcomes from lead as she could. In a non-peer-reviewed preprint study, she and a coauthor estimate $9 billion in health benefits and an additional $2 to $8 billion in savings on plumbing materials thanks to corrosion control required by the Lead and Copper Rule revisions. The EPA’s underestimation of benefits demonstrates a lack of investment to address lead in drinking water, Levin said. “EPA, when it really wants to do something, loads on all the benefits it can marshal.” She’s concerned the incomplete health benefits analysis means the agency isn’t committed to solving this problem. Environmental injustice and lead replacementUnder the Biden administration, the Lead and Copper Rule will see another set of changes, which the EPA plans to announce in September 2023. The agency told an appeals court in December 2022 that it expects to require replacement of all lead service lines in that rulemaking. Some utilities are ahead of the curve, and have used funds from last year’s infrastructure act and other sources to jump start lead service line replacement. “But until we actually get a requirement that those lead pipes are pulled out, we’re concerned that a lot of communities are just going to shrug their shoulders,” Erik Olson, attorney and senior strategic director of the NRDC’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, told EHN. To access state funds, utilities have to hire consulting firms to put together proposals for lead service line replacement, Olson explained. Low-income communities with fewer resources might not have the capacity to access the programs available now, but could be motivated with better funding and a mandate to replace service lines. Currently, the EPA is rolling out a technical assistance program in four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to help disadvantaged communities access funds. “We’re hoping that EPA will require the full replacement and at the expense of the utility, because otherwise we’re just not going to see a solution to this problem and it really will be an environmental injustice,” Olson said. When lead service lines are replaced by utilities, the Lead and Copper Rule requires them to address the portion they own. But that ownership is up for debate: many utilities say the property owner owns part of the service line, and that the utility is only responsible for a portion of it. Olson said utilities have been unable to provide documentation to back up this claim when asked by NRDC. Still some cities, including Washington D.C., have required customers to pay for a portion of a lead service line replacement, generally costing a few thousand dollars. A study of this program in Washington D.C. found that low-income neighborhoods were far less likely to receive full service line replacements. Neighborhoods with more Black residents were also less likely to receive full replacements. Instead, in many places the utility performed partial replacements, leaving some lead pipe intact. These partial replacements “may be worse than doing nothing,” the study said. The partial replacement process can disturb pipe coatings and speed up corrosion, leading to higher lead contamination of water. For example, research on partial lead service line replacements in Halifax, Canada,, found that a partial replacement more than doubled lead release in the short term, and had no beneficial effects on lead contamination after six months. In 2019, Washington D.C.’s council changed their program to better fund full replacements and address past partial replacements. “EPA strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial lead service line replacement,” said the EPA spokesperson. PVC piping health impactsThe material that goes in to replace lead pipes can also create health concerns. Common replacements for lead service lines include pipes made from copper and plastics such as high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Plastic pipes tend to be the cheapest option, but a report last month highlights serious health risks from plastic PVC and CPVC pipes. Scientists have identified 59 chemicals that can leach from PVC pipes, but there’s a dearth of research on exactly what concentrations could be found in home tap water and what health risks they pose. The report shows that some toxics leach from plastic pipes, including vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and phthalates and organotins, endocrine-disruptors that impact the body’s hormone system. Plastic pipes, particularly PVC and CPVC, could represent a regrettable substitution for lead pipes, said Enck in a press conference about the report. “EPA does not have requirements for plumbing materials beyond the requirements for lead-free,” Senior Communications Advisor for EPA, Dominique Joseph, told EHN in an email. “EPA has supported the development of independent, third-party testing standards for plumbing materials under NSF/ANSI 61, which has been incorporated into many state and local plumbing codes.” The report raises concerns about the rigor of the NSF/ANSI 61 standard, which was developed by NSF International, an industry-funded organization. Beyond concerns for chemical leaching into drinking water, “Plastic pipes are an environmental justice issue,” Enck said. The vinyl chloride that makes the pipes is largely produced in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, where surrounding communities face exposure to the carcinogen. Vinyl chloride was the principal chemical released in the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was also carrying PVC pellets on their way to a PVC pipe manufacturer, said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store at Toxic-Free Future, at a press conference for the report. Copper can also corrode from pipes and cause health issues in high concentrations, but this is less common than high lead levels, and can be managed with corrosion control, said NRDC’s Olson. Recycled copper is the best choice for service lines to protect public health, the report concludes.Cities take action on lead pipesSome cities have made drinking water exposures a priority, and set an example for others to follow, Olson said. He points to Newark, New Jersey, which replaced more than 20,000 lead service lines with copper at no expense to property owners within a few years.Somerville, Massachusetts, is replacing all of its non-copper service lines with copper, prioritizing lead pipe removals first. “Copper tubing is the preferred water service material as it is sturdier and has a longer life span,” Karla Cuarezma, project manager for Somerville, said in an email to EHN. Troy, New York, also plans to replace lead pipes with copper. This pipe material preference has been in the city’s code for many decades, and they’re planning to stick with it, Chris Wheland, Troy’s superintendent of public utilities, told EHN. He added that at high water pressures plastic pipes don’t last as long. After facing criticisms for a slow start to the lead service line replacement program, Troy is putting a $500,000 fund to work to identify lead service line locations and begin some replacements. But Wheland said this is only a start, Troy will need $30 million to finish the job and replace all of its lead service lines. “We also have many other programs that we have to fund,” he said, “I still have to maintain the water plant, I still have to maintain pipes to the water plant and out of the water plant, because if I don’t have a water plant to give you water, there’s no sense in worrying about the lead pipe.”

Roughly 9.2 million lead pipes deliver drinking water to homes, schools and other buildings in the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate released last month. The Biden administration has announced its intention to replace all lead service lines within 10 years; and in 2021, Congress made $15 billion available for lead service line replacement through the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year. The EPA estimates the average cost to replace a lead service line is $4,700, putting the total need at $43 billion. Scientists and drinking-water advocates say this fund is only a starting-point. A 2020 EPA analysis failed to consider many health outcomes from lead exposure, causing some experts to fear there’s a lack of willingness at the agency to address the problem. This could change, with new regulations on lead exposure expected from the EPA in September 2023. Advocates say upcoming rules need to include a mandate and funding for utilities to fully replace lead service lines so everyone can benefit from the program, including low-income customers. Complicating lead pipe replacement are alternatives that may carry health risks of their own. A new report from Beyond Plastics, the Plastic Pollution Coalition and Environmental Health Sciences highlights a growing body of research that has found toxic chemicals in PVC and CPVC pipes — commonly used to replace lead lines — that have the potential to leach into drinking water. Health advocates say that in replacing lead lines, cities and states need to select safe materials to avoid a regrettable substitution, and many say copper is the best option. (Environmental Health Sciences publishes Environmental Health News, which is editorially independent.) The EPA has chosen not to regulate plastic pipes or look into their potential health effects, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told Environmental Health News (EHN). “We’ve had about a half a dozen meetings with EPA, and every office we meet with points to another office,” she said, “It’s a lot of buck passing.” Lack of federal motivation on lead replacementLead was a common material for service lines, the pipes that connect a building to a water main, until Congress banned them in 1986 due to health risks. There is no safe level of lead exposure, the EPA says. In children, lead affects growth, behavior, IQ and more. Lead can impact pregnancies, causing early births and damage to a baby’s brain, kidneys and nervous system. In adults, lead can impact cardiovascular health, kidney function and fertility. Research has found that minority and low-income households are more likely to face lead exposure, often because their homes were built during the decades when lead service lines were most prevalent.The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which requires utilities to address contamination when more than 10% of customer taps have high levels of lead or copper. The Trump administration revised the rule, adding new testing requirements and protocols intended to require more action from utilities to reduce lead exposure. When the agency released their economic analysis of the rule revisions, “I was appalled,” Ronnie Levin, instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former EPA senior scientist, told EHN. The EPA recognizes eight health outcomes caused by lead, and eight that are likely caused by lead. “They only monetized one,” Levin said. Related: Check out Beyond Plastics' "The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes" reportThat means they didn’t quantify many health outcomes the rule revisions would improve by lowering lead exposure. With the single health outcome monetized, the EPA analysis found roughly $160 to $330 million in costs from the revisions, and $230 to $800 million in benefits. “EPA considered both the quantifiable and the nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits in promulgating the final Lead and Copper Rule…EPA exercised discretion to determine the approaches used to quantify benefits,” a spokesperson for the EPA told EHN in an email. Levin ran the numbers herself, including as many EPA acknowledged health outcomes from lead as she could. In a non-peer-reviewed preprint study, she and a coauthor estimate $9 billion in health benefits and an additional $2 to $8 billion in savings on plumbing materials thanks to corrosion control required by the Lead and Copper Rule revisions. The EPA’s underestimation of benefits demonstrates a lack of investment to address lead in drinking water, Levin said. “EPA, when it really wants to do something, loads on all the benefits it can marshal.” She’s concerned the incomplete health benefits analysis means the agency isn’t committed to solving this problem. Environmental injustice and lead replacementUnder the Biden administration, the Lead and Copper Rule will see another set of changes, which the EPA plans to announce in September 2023. The agency told an appeals court in December 2022 that it expects to require replacement of all lead service lines in that rulemaking. Some utilities are ahead of the curve, and have used funds from last year’s infrastructure act and other sources to jump start lead service line replacement. “But until we actually get a requirement that those lead pipes are pulled out, we’re concerned that a lot of communities are just going to shrug their shoulders,” Erik Olson, attorney and senior strategic director of the NRDC’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, told EHN. To access state funds, utilities have to hire consulting firms to put together proposals for lead service line replacement, Olson explained. Low-income communities with fewer resources might not have the capacity to access the programs available now, but could be motivated with better funding and a mandate to replace service lines. Currently, the EPA is rolling out a technical assistance program in four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to help disadvantaged communities access funds. “We’re hoping that EPA will require the full replacement and at the expense of the utility, because otherwise we’re just not going to see a solution to this problem and it really will be an environmental injustice,” Olson said. When lead service lines are replaced by utilities, the Lead and Copper Rule requires them to address the portion they own. But that ownership is up for debate: many utilities say the property owner owns part of the service line, and that the utility is only responsible for a portion of it. Olson said utilities have been unable to provide documentation to back up this claim when asked by NRDC. Still some cities, including Washington D.C., have required customers to pay for a portion of a lead service line replacement, generally costing a few thousand dollars. A study of this program in Washington D.C. found that low-income neighborhoods were far less likely to receive full service line replacements. Neighborhoods with more Black residents were also less likely to receive full replacements. Instead, in many places the utility performed partial replacements, leaving some lead pipe intact. These partial replacements “may be worse than doing nothing,” the study said. The partial replacement process can disturb pipe coatings and speed up corrosion, leading to higher lead contamination of water. For example, research on partial lead service line replacements in Halifax, Canada,, found that a partial replacement more than doubled lead release in the short term, and had no beneficial effects on lead contamination after six months. In 2019, Washington D.C.’s council changed their program to better fund full replacements and address past partial replacements. “EPA strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial lead service line replacement,” said the EPA spokesperson. PVC piping health impactsThe material that goes in to replace lead pipes can also create health concerns. Common replacements for lead service lines include pipes made from copper and plastics such as high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Plastic pipes tend to be the cheapest option, but a report last month highlights serious health risks from plastic PVC and CPVC pipes. Scientists have identified 59 chemicals that can leach from PVC pipes, but there’s a dearth of research on exactly what concentrations could be found in home tap water and what health risks they pose. The report shows that some toxics leach from plastic pipes, including vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and phthalates and organotins, endocrine-disruptors that impact the body’s hormone system. Plastic pipes, particularly PVC and CPVC, could represent a regrettable substitution for lead pipes, said Enck in a press conference about the report. “EPA does not have requirements for plumbing materials beyond the requirements for lead-free,” Senior Communications Advisor for EPA, Dominique Joseph, told EHN in an email. “EPA has supported the development of independent, third-party testing standards for plumbing materials under NSF/ANSI 61, which has been incorporated into many state and local plumbing codes.” The report raises concerns about the rigor of the NSF/ANSI 61 standard, which was developed by NSF International, an industry-funded organization. Beyond concerns for chemical leaching into drinking water, “Plastic pipes are an environmental justice issue,” Enck said. The vinyl chloride that makes the pipes is largely produced in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, where surrounding communities face exposure to the carcinogen. Vinyl chloride was the principal chemical released in the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was also carrying PVC pellets on their way to a PVC pipe manufacturer, said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store at Toxic-Free Future, at a press conference for the report. Copper can also corrode from pipes and cause health issues in high concentrations, but this is less common than high lead levels, and can be managed with corrosion control, said NRDC’s Olson. Recycled copper is the best choice for service lines to protect public health, the report concludes.Cities take action on lead pipesSome cities have made drinking water exposures a priority, and set an example for others to follow, Olson said. He points to Newark, New Jersey, which replaced more than 20,000 lead service lines with copper at no expense to property owners within a few years.Somerville, Massachusetts, is replacing all of its non-copper service lines with copper, prioritizing lead pipe removals first. “Copper tubing is the preferred water service material as it is sturdier and has a longer life span,” Karla Cuarezma, project manager for Somerville, said in an email to EHN. Troy, New York, also plans to replace lead pipes with copper. This pipe material preference has been in the city’s code for many decades, and they’re planning to stick with it, Chris Wheland, Troy’s superintendent of public utilities, told EHN. He added that at high water pressures plastic pipes don’t last as long. After facing criticisms for a slow start to the lead service line replacement program, Troy is putting a $500,000 fund to work to identify lead service line locations and begin some replacements. But Wheland said this is only a start, Troy will need $30 million to finish the job and replace all of its lead service lines. “We also have many other programs that we have to fund,” he said, “I still have to maintain the water plant, I still have to maintain pipes to the water plant and out of the water plant, because if I don’t have a water plant to give you water, there’s no sense in worrying about the lead pipe.”