Chromium-6 (the Erin Brockovich carcinogen) in our water

You may have heard the the well-respected Environmental Workiing Group has a new report out about a carcinogenic contaminant that is in most Americans' water supplies.

'Erin Brockovich' Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans

Published in September, the article (and accompanying map) provides a chilling and detailed history of this contaminant and why it is in so many Americans' water and, more importantly, why the EPA has not regulated it. For example, 

The American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's powerful lobbying arm, argued that before formally releasing the draft for public comment, the EPA should wait for the publication of studies funded by the Council and the Electric Power Research Institute on the biological mechanisms through which chromium-6 triggers cancer. In an April 2011 letter obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, Vincent Cogliano, acting director of IRIS, responded to the chemistry lobby that "granting your request could entail a delay of unknown duration with no public discussion or review of the strong new studies that are now available."

That's exactly what happened.

An external review panel, which the Center for Public Integrity later found included three members who consulted for PG&E in the Brockovich case, pressured the EPA to grant the American Chemistry Council's request. In 2012, the EPA quietly announced that the draft risk assessment will be held up until the chemical lobby's studies are finished. EWG and other public health groups objected vociferously, not only due to the delay on chromium-6 but "the dangerous precedent suggested by delaying risk assessment activities to allow incorporation of as-yet unpublished, industry-funded research."

The EPA's prediction of when the risk assessment will be released for public comment has been pushed back repeatedly – from 2015 to the second quarter of 2016, and then to early 2017. When asked for an update, Cogliano wrote in an Aug. 24 email to EWG: "We expect to release a draft health assessment document in 2017, though I wouldn't use the word 'early.'"

 In La Crosse, where contamination is relatively high according to the EWG map, no plan of upgrading filters has been put forward by the City's Water Utility. An October 13 letter to the editor, requests the mayor and city address the problem immediately.

There is an effort underway to make a more formal multi-organization request of this nature (if your organization would like to be involved, please email CRSierraClub[at]gmail.com).

In the meantime, city water bills have been mailed for the July through October service period. As you write out your check to pay for your water, consider that that water is contaminated and so far nothing has been planned or done to address the problem. You may want to contact the city's water utility (utilities[at]cityoflacrosse.org or 608 789-7536) to find out what they intend to do about this problem (which has been going on for some time already) and when. 

According to the EWG report, the City of Onalaska also has a contamination problem. Not every county or water utility has been tested, so you might want to check your water supply. 

This is also a reminder that there is a water quality listening session with the US EPA Region 5 Administrator in Eau Claire on November 15. [To carpool to the event, please email Pat.] After reading the EWG report, you might like to attend and ask why the EPA does not have published chromium-6 guidelines yet.