Hexavalent Chromium, 'Erin Brockovich' Chemical, Found In Tap Water Of 31 U.S. Cities

Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, first gained notoriety when the film "Erin Brockovich" highlighted the plight of Hinkley, California, where the groundwater had been contaminated. Now the first publicly available national survey on the contaminant from Environmental Working Group reveals that Hinkley isn't alone.

Laboratory tests commissioned by EWG have discovered that the chemical is present in the tap water of 31 out of 35 U.S. cities tested, or 89 percent. Norman, Oklahoma; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California returned the highest levels of contamination.

According to EWG, the National Toxicology Program concludes that hexavalent chromium drinking water contamination shows "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity" in laboratory animals, and that a recent review by the EPA found its presence in tap water "likely to be carcinogenic to humans."

Although in 2009 California began setting in motion proposed limits for the amount of the chemical allowed in tap water, the EPA has yet to set a legal national limit and doesn't require utilities to test for it.

See the image below, provided by EWG, to find out how each tested city ranked, and CLICK HERE to view the full study.

Comments

[richhhh]

05:02 PM on 01/25/2011

I was concerned when this issue first arose. I took a look at NSF’s website (National Sanitary Foundation) and found that they have a few at home solutions. There are a couple expensive solutions but the one I found easiest was a ZeroWater pitcher. It’s a pretty affordable and a super easy solution.

[MikeyJaii]

12:41 AM on 12/28/2010

I can't believe this is happening in America. Especially if we have the most advance water system in most of the countries.

[llibsetag]

10:20 PM on 12/27/2010

Mark my words : WATER will be the OIL of the 21 Century.

[Andrew Lopez]

12:47 AM on 12/25/2010

Basically
There is a problem with the drinking water and it should be addressed.

[ched]

12:52 AM on 12/24/2010

Villanova, PA (a chi-chi Philly Mainline suburb) is on a par with Millwaukee, WI? WTF is that about?

[pattyrenee]

08:18 PM on 12/23/2010

Yet they want to ban plastic water bottles than are recycled into chairs, dishes, etc. saving tress. I drink my water out of Arrowhead plastic bottles, then, recycle.

[ThomasPaine1776]

11:46 AM on 12/22/2010

And not ONE PERSON is going to even go to jail. Watch. This country sucks. It is not responsive to the people. We need a REVOLUTION.

[Lance Manling]

12:15 PM on 12/22/2010

If something is naturally occurring, who exactly should go to jail????

[mariusvinchi]

12:39 AM on 12/26/2010

Hexavalent Chromium is NOT "naturally occurring"

[ArthurSiegal]

09:07 PM on 12/21/2010

There are several states of chromium, and hexavalent chromium is believed to be much more dangerous and is thought to be a carcinogen. For EPA to respond to the report about chromium-6 by saying that it has a "total" chromium standard is quite disingenuous as that same standard applies to all forms of chromium and not just hexavalent.

Arthur Siegal
Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, PC
www.michigangreenlaw.com

[Lance Manling]

01:09 PM on 12/22/2010

http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/HexChromfacts082009.pdf

I guess one could say that you are being disingenuous in you above statement due to the following:

-The study compared CA public health goal (not enforceable) to Cr-6 with water sources around the country. What the study wants one to believe that if you exceed the CA health goal, that somehow you are in danger (which has yet to be proven).

-Since PHG do not utilize a CBA, something that EPA and other regulatory agencies must comply with. It is any wonder why CA is in the financial shape that its in.

-Since sampling protocol were not discussed in the EWG study, who know if there are any issues with this. EPA has established protocol for sampling. I don't see how testing for total chromium is problematic considering that Cr-6 is included in total chromium.

-Are you suggesting that every single substance that is in tap water should be tested for? As you can imagine, the huge cost of that would be? I suppose that is okay since CA ignores the costs associated with any action anyway.

-I must think that EWG and your organization must benefit from this little media event.

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGfacts.pdf

[mditty]

04:23 AM on 12/29/2010

Spoken like a true lawyer.... no one knows which side of this fence you stand on

[Lance Manling]

07:01 PM on 12/21/2010

WASHINGTON – Today, EPA issued the following statement and background information in response to a study released on December 20, 2010 by the Environmental Working Group:

“EPA absolutely has a drinking water standard for total chromium, which includes chromium-6 (also known as Hexavalent Chromium), and we require water systems to test for it. This standard is based on the best available science and is enforceable by law. Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA. The agency regularly re-evaluates drinking water standards and, based on new science on chromium-6, had already begun a rigorous and comprehensive review of its health effects. In September, we released a draft of that scientific review for public comment. When this human health assessment is finalized in 2011, EPA will carefully review the conclusions and consider all relevant information, including the Environmental Working Group’s study, to determine if a new standard needs to be set.”

Background:
Currently, the total chromium standard is 0.1 mg/L (100 parts per billion).
Our latest data shows no U.S. utilities are in violation of the standard.

More information on chromium:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/chromium.cfm

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/9a9bda12333b623385257800007e5c84?OpenDocument

[mariusvinchi]

12:54 AM on 12/26/2010

Flawed methodology produces flawed results. Several researchers (me included) have applied to conduct comprehensive long term effects of Chromium VI, and to a researcher, have been effectively shut down. The EPA based its "standard" on anecdotal evidence with virtually ZERO testimony from the scientific community before arbitrarily establishing standards. The EPA did the same thing with Benzine, Mercury, Lead and numerous other "industry sensitive materials."
OSHA has stronger regulations than the EPA!
My point is simply that the EPA uses "selective science" when it serves a political end. Politics and commercialism should never take precedence over health and safety.

[Lance Manling]

08:30 AM on 12/26/2010

What is Benzine? Never hear of that one.

[mditty]

04:24 AM on 12/29/2010

True!

[Oma Ruth]

06:25 PM on 12/21/2010

WHY did I know DC would be on this list?

[Marlyn]

04:33 PM on 12/21/2010

ABC News has this headline:
"Scientists Say No Need for Alarm Over Chromium-6 in Drinking Water"

and yet, in the article, there is no such scientist saying any such thing.

[Lance Manling]

07:02 PM on 12/21/2010

How about CDC, ATSDR?

[ThomasPaine1776]

11:50 AM on 12/22/2010

There's that LIBERAL MEDIA in action again. Oh, wait. that can't be liberal, if it is totally providing COVER for CORPORATE POLLUTERS....that must mean that the MEDIA, which is owned by BUSINESSPEOPLE, and are therefore BRETHEREN of ALL businessmen, must be instead CORPORATE MEDIA! In fact, that is what we should all call the media from now on: CORPORATE MEDIA.

[Jeanpierre Prieur]

03:53 PM on 12/21/2010

Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, first gained notoriety when the film "Erin Brockovich" highlighted the plight of Hinkley, California, where the groundwater had been contaminated. Now the first publicly available national survey on the contaminant from Environmental Working Group reveals that Hinkley isn't alone.

Laboratory tests commissioned by EWG have discovered that the chemical is present in the tap water of 31 out of 35 U.S. cities tested, or 89 percent. Norman, Oklahoma; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California returned the highest levels of contamination.

Looks like "the government" doesn't care about our health in this country!
Reposted by Green Home Plans
at http://bestgreensandiego.wordpress.com/

[Lance Manling]

07:05 PM on 12/21/2010

If you do a google search, you can find all the evidence to the contrary. These findings are using the California standard, which if the study did more cities in CA, you would find they don't meet the standard either.

[mditty]

04:34 AM on 12/29/2010

A) Of course you believe Google above the truth.
B) Of course you knew none of those that died from this real occurance
C) Of course you have very little basis ...other than google
D) Of course you know your inspiration to incite argument without validity prooves little more than your immaturity and ignorance to the true findings and facts that lie behind all of this.
BTW - your name is really GOP Rep Bill Flores isn't it?

[Eric Burke]

03:34 PM on 12/21/2010

Oh wait so there is a safe level of Hexavalent Chromium..­.

[DS432]

04:55 PM on 12/21/2010

Well, there is a safe (and necessary) level of Chromium, whether ingested as hexavalent or trivalent would certainly make a difference in toxic quantities; but in trace amounts, I can't say for sure.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/nutrition/chromium-in-diet/overview.html
According to the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the safe and adequate daily intakes of chromium are as follows:

Infants
0 to 6 months: 0.2 mcg
7 to 12 months: 5.5 mcg
Children
1 to 3 years: 11 mcg
4 to 8 years: 15 mcg
9 to 13 years: 21 to 25 mcg
Adolescents
males 14 to 18 years: 35 mcg
females 14 to 18 years: 24 mcg
Adult males
19 to 50 years: 35 mcg
older than 50: 30 mcg
Adult females
19 to 50 years: 25 mcg
older than 50: 20 mcg
pregnant: 29 to 30 mcg
lactating: 44 to 45 mcg
Note: mcg = micrograms

[mditty]

04:36 AM on 12/29/2010

Why would anyone want to ingest something non-natural like this. Its like saying - "well can we prove that uranium isnt truly behind the loss of hair and cancer that ultimately follows?" Not sure, lets test it on all of our capitals for 50 years to find out."

[plzchuteme]

10:52 AM on 12/22/2010

There is probably an RDA on Hexavalent Chromium.

[Eric Burke]

03:34 PM on 12/21/2010

Oh wait so there is a safe level of Hexavalent Chromium.... WTF MATE?

[CaptRalph]

02:10 PM on 12/21/2010

I wonder about Canadian cities. I have always declared I would never live in a place where I couldn't drink the tap water. I was raised up in Portland Oregon where the water was always wonderful from the Bull Run reservoir, and then on the west coast of Vancouver Island where we have no pollutants in our streams except natural ones, from animals. I don't drink bottled water and see it as its own pollutant. Should I be thinking differently? I hope not. Water is the elixir of life.