Categories
Homepage

Will DuPont have to pay for PFAS cleanup?

DuPont, a large contributor of PFAS production and contamination may have found a loophole to avoid assuming primary liability for PFAS cleanup and damage compensation. Beginning in 2015, the New Jersey company initiated transactions to The Chemours Company, Corteva Inc, and a new DuPont that would transition the responsibility of cleanup. However, these smaller companies do not have the funds to support the tens of billions of dollars needed to cover all damages. Read More. 

Categories
Homepage

NC Schools Implement New Water Filtration Systems

Schools in New Hanover and Brunswick counties in North Carolina have set plans in motion to install a new water filtration system to protect school drinking water from industrial contamination. The plan comes after Brunswick county was determined to have the highest levels of PFAS water contamination in the country. Actor Mark Ruffalo, among others, spoke at a press conference at the North Carolina Legislative Building in Raleigh explaining that more needed to be done to address the water contamination problem and the health of children in schools. Read More.

Categories
News Archive

States are taking action against PFAS

Although the EPA has voiced that matters concerning PFAS, a “forever” chemical, will continue to be a priority in 2020, over half the states in the country have decided to encourage their own regulations. Some states have preexisting rules preventing them from enforcing stricter water regulations above those set by the EPA. Other states, including Michigan and New York have surged forward to set stricter regulations and encourage more contamination cleanup efforts. Read More. 
 
 

Categories
Homepage

Long Island Receives Grant Money to Clean Up Water Contamination

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that the state’s Environmental Facilities Corporation will direct $120 million in grant money towards assisting Long Island and villages’ water plans. Included is the Village of Mineola that currently has three major water system projects underway to help meet 1,4-dioxin and PFAS treatment requirements. 23 total grants have been given out to Long Island and villages to assist in water remediation projects. Read More.

Categories
Backyard Talk

PFAS & Superfund NOT a Compatible Marriage 

The federal house of representatives passed a bill that would designate certain types of PFAS “hazardous” under Superfund. (PFAS are  per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, man-made chemicals.) Many of our friends on capital hill sponsored this bill and voted in favor.
Trump has been very clear that he has no intentions of signing the bill if it was ever to get through the Senate and land on his desk.  But what is the bill really about?  It’s about what to do about this chemical that is showing up all across the country in drinking water. It is also a backdoor way to set a safe  level or standard for PFAS in drinking water and for the Superfund program to cleanup and hold accountable those who are responsible for the pollution.
As this idea was being described to me by congressional staff this past summer, I just scratched my head. The Superfund program HAS NO MONEY. In fact, there are 34 unfunded Superfund sites that are shovel ready that can’t afford a shovel.  This is the largest number of unfunded shovel ready sites, meaning everything is ready to begin cleanup, in decades if not longer.
The recent bill authorizes $800 million to fund infrastructure upgrades that reduce PFAS exposure and to local entities for cleanups. Again, I just scratch my head. Does Congress really think that amount of money is enough to clean up all the PFSA contaminated lands, water and dumpsites?  There are thousands of places where towns, cities and states are concerned about this chemical impacting people’s drinking water.
How exactly does this bill work with the 1,3000 plus Superfund sites, some that have waited for decades to get testing or clean up plans. Trump gave Superfund in his EPA budget $2,878 million for the entire program why does congress think he would be willing to give PFAS $800 million?
Is this legislation about dumping a serious public health problem into a deep hole (Superfund) so no one can be held responsible? The Superfund program should be used to cleanup the country’s most dangerous sites, not serve as a dumping ground for serious complicated problems Congress can’t or doesn’t want to deal with.
By Lois Marie Gibbs, Founder of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice

Categories
Homepage

President Trump Rolls Back Pollution Regulations on Streams and Wetlands

On Thursday, January 23rd, the Trump Administration finalized the removal of the “Waters of the United States” regulations set in place during the Obama Administration. The removal of the 2015 rules was highly backed by the coal and farm sectors, that can now dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into waterways. Trump’s new water rule, the “Navigable Water Protection Rule,” will still protect larger bodies of water, including the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River, but will reduce the protection of smaller water systems that could still sweep pollutants into those larger systems. Read More. 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Interpreting Testing Results; The Basis for No Cause for Alarm

Not too long ago, a local leader in a community in Nevada asked if I could review a set of water testing data. The sample was taken from a water storage tank that provides drinking water to the town where she lives. The town had painted the inside of the storage tank, but now the water has a strong chemical odor and four volatile chemicals were found in the water sample.
The concentration of all four chemicals in the water was below the federal drinking water standards and as far as the town was concerned, the conversation was over. The water was safe to drink. But is it really? What’s the basis for saying this?
Federal drinking water standards are based on exposure to a single substance in isolation of any other risks and reflect only a limited exposure, typically one day, from a single route of exposure, ingestion. But this is not how people are typically exposed which is to multiple chemicals at the same time. The federal standards do not address the cumulative risks posed by exposure to multiple chemicals over time. Further, these standards fail to address potential synergistic effects which are adverse health effects that are greater than would be predicted or expected based on exposure to individual chemicals alone or in combination.
Consequently, estimating risks posed by exposure to multiple chemicals in drinking water using federal drinking water standards underestimates the true risks people face drinking and using this water on a regular basis. Scientifically, we do not know how much these other factors add to the risks a person faces when drinking water with multiple contaminants. Even though each of the four chemicals in this example were found at concentrations below the federal drinking water standards, this does not mean that there is no risk when consuming or using this water. It does mean that science cannot inform this question.
Yet you hear all time when tests results are interpreted by government agencies that there is no cause for alarm. The standards are used like the proverbial line in the sand. On the one side, people are safe, and on the other, there’s endless debate over what the numbers mean. In truth, it’s not that simple.
In this case, each of the four chemicals found in the water affect the central nervous system and the liver. This means that these organ systems are all targeted simultaneously by each of these four substances. The health impact on the central nervous system (CNS) and the liver resulting from exposure to all four of these substances at the same time is difficult to judge because there is little or no information on exposure to multiple chemicals simultaneously. In addition to these targeted effects on the nervous system and the liver, these chemicals pose other specific health risks whether its skin irritation, the ability of the body to fight infection, or damage to the kidney or the heart. In many cases, some chemicals are considered carcinogens, that is, exposure increases the risk of developing cancer. The EPA’s health goal for exposure to all suspect carcinogens in drinking water is “zero” indicating that any exposure to this substance increases the risk of developing cancer over time. But EPA adjusts the health goal to reflect the realities of setting a drinking water standard at a concentration of “zero.”
In addition, because all these substances are volatile, they will evaporate into the air when a person takes a shower. One study compared the risk posed by taking a 15-minute shower versus normal consumption of drinking water and found that the risk of taking a 15-minute shower was greater than drinking the water (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969785903493?via%3Dihub). This risk is not included the federal drinking water standard.
While the concentration of these substances in the water may be below the federal drinking water standards, there is significant uncertainty about the cumulative risks posed by simultaneous exposure to these four volatile chemicals in drinking water, especially over time.
This is just one example of how difficult it is to interpret the results of water testing. This situation is quite common, whether it’s contaminants in drinking water, chemicals in ambient air or contaminants in soil. Interpreting air and soil testing is even more difficult because there are no federal standards that define what levels are acceptable and what are not. Instead, EPA uses guideline values that are not enforceable and subject to political whims.
CHEJ can you interpret the results of any testing results you’re concerned about. Contact us if you have test results you need help interpreting.

Categories
Homepage

The House approved bill to regulate PFAS

On Friday, January 10, the House of Representatives passed HR 535: PFAS Action Act of 2019. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to designate PFAS chemicals as a dangerous substance under the Superfund law within one year of the enactment of the bill. The bill is aimed at reducing the risk of water contamination from PFAS forever chemicals. Read More.

Categories
Homepage Water News

NC Taxpayer Pay for School’s Water – Not Polluters

Cumberland County is the latest to approve spending millions to provide public drinking water to two schools and an area with well contamination caused by the Chemours chemical company. Read more.

Categories
Homepage Water News

West Virginia Lawmakers Announce Plans Regulate PFAS

A group of Democratic West Virginia lawmakers announced plans Monday to introduce legislation to regulate a group of toxic, man-made fluorinated chemicals.  Del. Hansen said the bill, which is still being drafted, would require facilities that use or produce PFAS chemicals to disclose that information to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Read more.