EPA shrugs off concerns about drugs in water

Third of three parts.

PHILADELPHIA -- Just a century ago, this historic city notched by the Delaware and Schuylkill treated these rivers as public sewers, but few cared until the waters ran black with stinking filth that spread cholera and typhoid. Today, municipal drinking water is cleansed of germs -- but not drugs.

Traces of 56 human and veterinary pharmaceuticals or their byproducts -- like the active ingredients in medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems -- have been detected in Philadelphia's drinking water.

Starting their winding journey in medicine cabinets and feed bins, they are what's left of drugs excreted or discarded from homes and washed from farms upriver.

More Coverage Stories Bottled water has no drug standards to meet [03/12/08] Part II: Our drugs wind up in fish, too [03/11/08] Why water test results have been secret [03/11/08] Part I: Drugs on tap -- in our drinking water [03/10/08] Drugs in our drinking water [03/10/08] Video What are the consequences?

Is Philadelphia worried? Not so far. Tens of millions of Americans here and elsewhere drink water that has tested positive for minute concentrations of pharmaceuticals, and they don't even realize it, the Associated Press learned during a five-month investigation.

Though U.S. waterways coast to coast are contaminated with residues of prescription and over-the-counter drugs, there's no national strategy to deal with them -- no effective mandates to test, treat, limit or even advise the public.

Benjamin H. Grumbles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's assistant administrator for water, told the AP the agency recognizes that this contamination in water supplies is a growing concern and that government has some catching up to do: "Our position is there needs to be more searching, more analysis."

He said the EPA has launched a four-pronged approach: to identify the extent of the problem, to "identify what we don't know and close the gap," to take steps using existing science and regulatory tools, and finally, to increase dialogue and awareness with water providers and state and local agencies.

But none of those goals has any regulatory firepower.

Some researchers, environmentalists, health professionals, water managers and bureaucrats say it's time for government to do more.

"The onus has been on the scientific community to provide the research, but at this point the evidence is conclusive," says U.S. Geological Survey scientist Steven Goodbred, who has studied carp in drug-tainted waters. "Now it's up to the public and policy makers to decide what they want to do about it."

Yet water regulators are barely budging:

bull; The government has set no national standards for how much of any pharmaceutical is too much in waterways or taps. Drugs in the environment are "not currently a priority" of the National Center for Environmental Health, says spokesman Charles L. Green, at its parent U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

bull; Though the Food and Drug Administration can review the environmental impact of new drugs, it has never rejected one on this basis, according to Raanan Bloom, an FDA environmental officer. Most pharmaceuticals are excluded from environmental review on the basis of their presumed low concentrations in water.

bull; Even though residues of many types of prescription and over-the-counter drugs have been discovered in scores of watersheds and drinking water systems nationwide, the EPA says it awaits more survey data before considering action.

The agency has little information "that goes into whether these substances are occurring in the environment #8230; and at what level," says Suzanne Rudzinski, a manager at EPA's Office of Water.

When contacted directly by the AP, many water utilities confirmed whether they had tested for the presence of pharmaceuticals in their water. But federal agencies and industry groups declined to identify the cities and treatment plants where traces of pharmaceuticals had been found during independent studies, citing confidentiality concerns.

Philadelphia has found more pharmaceuticals in its source and drinking waters than any of the other 61 big water providers surveyed by the AP.

David A. Katz, a deputy water commissioner for the city, said the water was tested so heavily out of vigilance: "We choose to know; we choose to look."

Under no obligation to tell, Philadelphia keeps it quiet when tests show that drugs have reached its drinking water, the AP found.

Philadelphia Water Department spokeswoman Laura Copeland provided the findings for an AP survey but added: "We don't want to create any perception where people would be alarmed."

John Muldowney, who oversees the city's three drinking water treatment plants, said no immediate upgrades are planned to filter out pharmaceuticals.

"Based just on the data that's available now #8230; we would be risking spending a lot of money, a lot of public funds, for very little health benefit," he explained.

Grumbles, the EPA's top water pollution official, said the agency has embarked on four studies specific to the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater and fish tissue.

The EPA is also engaged in a national study -- expected to be completed by the end of the summer -- to examine how long-term health care facilities and nursing homes dispose of pharmaceuticals.

"We don't really know what to do with waste pharmaceuticals," acknowledges Laura Brannen, executive director of the professional group Hospitals for a Healthy Environment.

And what of the drug waste generated by millions of U.S. households? It's exempt from these rules. The EPA again says it would be impractical to act.

In fairness, even those pressing for action realize that regulators must strike a hard balance between potential benefits and costs. Several recent studies indicate that even very dilute pharmaceuticals can harm human cells, but scientists are still unsure if there's a significant health risk from drinking water with trace drugs.

"This is a complex issue because each and every one of us is a part of this problem. But there's no doubt we need a new standard of wastewater treatment," said environmental toxicologist Greg Moller at the University of Idaho. "If the limits were there, believe me when I say it could be done."