The Morning Journal (Lorain, OH)

Chemicals in waterways focus of plan

- By Ellen Knickmeyer, Michael Casey and John Flesher

The chemical compounds are all around you. Many states have found them seeping into water supplies.

WASHINGTON >> The chemical compounds are all around you. They’re on many fabrics, rugs and carpets, cooking pots and pans, outdoor gear, shampoo, shaving cream, makeup and even dental floss. Increasing numbers of states have found them seeping into water supplies.

There’s growing evidence that long-term exposure to the perfluoroa­lkyl and polyfluoro­alkyl compounds, or PFAS, can be dangerous, even in tiny amounts.

The Environmen­tal Protection Agency released a plan Thursday that includes moving toward setting a maximum level for PFAS in drinking water nationwide.

At hearings around the country last year, local and state officials said such an action would be needed to stop contaminat­ion and hold polluting parties responsibl­e.

But environmen­talists, Democratic members of Congress and state officials said the agency wasn’t moving quickly enough to address the issue.

WHAT ARE PFAS?

Industries use the chemicals in coatings meant to protect consumer goods from stains, water and corrosion.

DuPont says its scientists invented the earliest form of the nonstick compound in 1938. They were impressed with how water and grease slipped off the new substance and how it seemed never to break down — winning it the name “forever compound.” Various types soon were on the market, first in Teflon products. Thousands of variants have been produced since then, for a host of uses.

By the 1970s, manufactur­ers conceded that PFAS were building up in the bodies of employees who worked with them. Recent scientific reports have estimated that nearly all people in the U.S. have some PFAS chemicals in their blood. Studies of workers exposed on the job and people who drank contaminat­ed water, in addition to lab analyses of animals, have pointed to ties between some PFAS types and human illness.

Industries have phased out two of the most-studied versions of PFAS. Manufactur­ers say newer forms are safer and don’t remain in the human body as long as older types. Some researcher­s say too little is known about them to be sure of that.

WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY?

DuPont agreed to a court-supervised public health study after a farmer in Parkersbur­g, West Virginia, brought a lawsuit blaming runoff from a PFAS facility for the deaths of his cattle. The 20052013 study monitored and tested nearly 70,000 people who had been drinking water tainted with PFOA, one of the two kinds of PFAS since phased out of production.

The study found “probable links” between high levels of PFOA in the body and excessive cholestero­l levels, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, and problems in pregnancie­s.

The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry said last year that medical studies pointed to “associatio­ns” between the industrial compounds and those ailments, and also to liver problems, low birth weight and other health issues.

The federal toxicology report also says EPA’s “advisory level” of 70 parts per trillion of PFOA and PFOS — the two older, phasedout versions — in drinking water is too weak. Before the report was released, a White House email disclosed by Politico called it a “potential public relations nightmare.”

HOW WIDESPREAD IS EXPOSURE?

EPA-mandated testing of about 5,000 of the roughly 150,000 public water systems in the U.S. that was completed in 2016 found dangerous levels of the same two PFAS compounds in 66 systems. Local and state testing since then has identified high levels in scores of additional systems.

Contaminat­ed materials are disposed of in landfills and sewage treatment systems. Firefighti­ng foams are sprayed on the ground. The chemicals seep into soil, waterways, sediments and groundwate­r; some are incinerate­d, generating air pollution.

Many states aren’t waiting for the EPA, particular­ly regarding groundwate­r and, more recently, drinking water.

New Jersey and Vermont are among those that have set standards more stringent than the EPA’s; New Hampshire may join them.

New York is considerin­g the toughest standard yet. In December, a state drinking water commission recommende­d a maximum limit of 10 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS.

That follows revelation­s of widespread PFAS contaminat­ion in several communitie­s.

 ?? GARRET ELLISON — THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS VIA AP ?? The Rogue River flows underneath Algoma Ave. NE in Algoma Township, Mich. The Michigan DEQ is asking Wolverine World Wide to expand perfluoroa­lkyl and polyfluoro­alkyl compounds, or PFAS, testing in the area. There’s growing evidence that long-term exposure to the perfluoroa­lkyl and polyfluoro­alkyl compounds, or PFAS, can be dangerous, even in tiny amounts. The Environmen­tal Protection Agency is looking at how to respond to a public push for stricter regulation of the chemicals, in production since the 1940s. A decision is expected soon.
GARRET ELLISON — THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS VIA AP The Rogue River flows underneath Algoma Ave. NE in Algoma Township, Mich. The Michigan DEQ is asking Wolverine World Wide to expand perfluoroa­lkyl and polyfluoro­alkyl compounds, or PFAS, testing in the area. There’s growing evidence that long-term exposure to the perfluoroa­lkyl and polyfluoro­alkyl compounds, or PFAS, can be dangerous, even in tiny amounts. The Environmen­tal Protection Agency is looking at how to respond to a public push for stricter regulation of the chemicals, in production since the 1940s. A decision is expected soon.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States