Toxic Exposures
PFAS Is a Big Problem. EPA’s Plan to Deal With It Is Too Small.
PFAS contamination poses immense environmental and public health challenges. To stop the crisis, the EPA must interrupt the flow of the toxic chemicals reaching our water, soil and food chain every day.
By Tim Whitehouse and Jeff Ruch
Every day there is a new headline about discoveries of dangerous amounts of toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater, municipal wastewater systems, the soil outside military bases and on farms, freshwater fish, human blood, and even in mothers’ milk.
It seems like the PFAS pollution crisis is out of control.
This April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally set a maximum drinking water contamination limit for two of the oldest and most widespread PFAS.
That limit was set at 4 parts per trillion, but the EPA also acknowledged that there is no safe amount of PFAS for human consumption.
While this was an important regulatory step, the EPA does not appear to have grasped the implications of its own action.
Removing PFAS from our water will be very, very expensive, and it will not stop the endless cycle of contamination. To stop this crisis, the EPA must interrupt the flow of PFAS reaching our water, soil and food chain every day.
Although it is far less expensive and far more feasible to prevent PFAS from reaching the environment in the first place than removing these aptly named “forever chemicals,” EPA does not yet have a PFAS containment strategy.
In fact, it seems that EPA is spending more time impeding PFAS containment than implementing it. Consider these examples:
Plastic containers
Inhance Technologies fluorinates an estimated 200 million containers a year for a wide array of products, such as chemicals, pesticides, personal care products and fuels, as well as edible oils and flavorings.
The fluorinated linings create PFAS which leach into the containers’ contents. This means PFAS contaminates a huge portion of all U.S. commerce.
Yet, the EPA moved to block a citizen suit against Inhance Technologies on the grounds that the EPA was handling the issue. After the EPA’s enforcement effort was invalidated by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the EPA declined to appeal or take any other action.
As a result, the citizen groups are gearing up again to seek a ban on these PFAS-laden containers in favor of available alternative barrier technologies that do not create PFAS.
Biosolid fertilizers
Biosolid fertilizers are made from sewage sludge. PFAS are not removed at wastewater treatment plants, and EPA does not limit the amount of PFAS they can contain.
Yet under the Clean Water Act, EPA has long been required to identify toxic pollutants in biosolids and adopt regulations to prevent harm to human health or the environment.
Unfortunately, it is a responsibility the agency has neglected for decades.
Meanwhile, farms, ranches and dairies ranging from New Mexico to Maine have been devastated by PFAS contamination from biosolids.
Unfortunately, the EPA has ignored their pleas for assistance. Now some of these victimized farmers are suing EPA for its failure to prevent set standards for PFAS in biosolids.
Pesticides
PFAS has been found in many insecticides at incredibly high levels.
These PFAS are being taken up into the roots and shoots of plants, which means that they are entering our food supply through contaminated soils, water and the pesticides themselves.
Since these are “forever chemicals,” this contamination will last long after the pesticide application.
Ignoring a growing trove of evidence, the EPA contends there is no PFAS in pesticides and is discouraging states from testing.
The agency has even gone so far as to publish faulty test results in an attempt to conceal that scientists had confirmed the widespread presence of PFAS in pesticides.
Landfills
Disposal, transportation and importation of PFAS remains largely unregulated.
For example, huge amounts of PFAS are leaching out of U.S. landfills, burned in incinerators, and injected underground with no regulations.
Meanwhile, the agency has resisted efforts to designate hundreds of dangerous PFAS chemicals as “hazardous waste,” and regulate them stringently from cradle to grave.
Artificial turf
Currently, there are an estimated 18,000 synthetic turf sports fields in the U.S., with more than 1,000 new installations each year.
All brands of artificial turf tested contain PFAS in carpet grass fibers. Besides the direct human exposure, PFAS is leaching off these fields into nearby surface and groundwater, some of which are sources of drinking water.
In addition, there is growing evidence that the PFAS on these surfaces is rubbing off on players’ skin with worrisome consequences. Yet, the EPA has yet to even look at this exposure vector.
The environmental and public health challenges posed by PFAS are immense.
The EPA needs to do much more than it is doing. If the agency will not help abate exposures, it should at least get out of the way and allow states and non-governmental organizations to stop this contamination crisis.
Originally published by Common Dreams.
Tim Whitehouse is the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Jeff Ruch is the former executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and now serves as its Pacific director.
No comments:
Post a Comment