History/News – ENVMAT https://blog.envmat.org environmental + materials blog Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:58:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.4 https://i0.wp.com/blog.envmat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/cropped-download__1_-removebg-preview.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 History/News – ENVMAT https://blog.envmat.org 32 32 195658657 MA Firefighters Sue 3M and DuPont https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/30/ma-firefighters-sue-3m-and-dupont/ https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/30/ma-firefighters-sue-3m-and-dupont/#respond Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:58:49 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=181 Continue reading MA Firefighters Sue 3M and DuPont]]> In February 2022, firefighters from towns throughout Massachusetts, including Worcester and Boston, sued chemical companies 3M and DuPont. The 15 firefighters allege that these chemical companies have manufactured PFAS-containing products for firefighting use that, unbeknownst to firefighters, expose them to negative health effects.

All of the firefighters mentioned in the lawsuit developed cancer, with most developing prostate cancer. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, America’s largest firefighting union, cancer is the leading cause of death for firefighters, which is consistent with PFAS’ links to cancer.

As mentioned in a previous three-blog series covering how the public found out about PFAS, DuPont and 3M are major industrial manufacturers of PFAS. They have manufactured PFAS for a variety of uses, including non-stick applications. Because PFAS has high temperature and chemical strength, they are consistently found in firefighting gear.

PFAS is a major component of aqueous film-forming films (AFFFs). Although most fire departments have discontinued their use of AFFFs, residual PFAS may still reside on the surface of firefighting gear.

Firefighters, in training and actual firefighting, have encountered PFAS from the foam they use and their equipment (source)


While reading the suit, I noticed that the document drew upon findings previously exposed in Rob Bilott’s lawsuit against 3M and DuPont(see earlier links). It’s interesting and fitting how such a landmark case has provided a precedent and framework upon which people inflicted with health complications from PFAS can punish chemical companies which have directly led to their exposure. Of all industries other than those that directly work with PFAS manufacturing, firefighting most urgently needs workplace regulations to keep these brave people safe.

Sources
Boston.com
WGBH.org



]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/30/ma-firefighters-sue-3m-and-dupont/feed/ 0 181 EPA National Testing Strategy https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/03/epa-national-testing-strategy/ https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/03/epa-national-testing-strategy/#respond Wed, 03 Aug 2022 00:46:34 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=165 Continue reading EPA National Testing Strategy]]> In October 2021, the EPA developed a new national testing strategy for PFAS that attempts to bypass some difficulties in screening for the thousands of PFAS in the environment. The EPA is now adopting a strategy of categorizing PFAS according to chemical structure and toxicity. In categorizing PFAS, EPA hopes to select a few specific PFAS that are representative of all PFAS, which allows sample testing to provide more substantive information. In this post, I’ll unpack how EPA proposes doing so.

Flowchart of EPA initial selection process for PFAS (source)

The EPA has a large database of chemicals called DSSTox, which provides extensive chemical-related data on over 800,000 compounds. From DSSTox, EPA has applied structural filters to weed out all chemicals that generally cannot be classified as PFAS. From there, EPA applies “primary structural categories,” which divide the selected PFAS into specific categories depending on chemical structure. After that, each primary category is divided into secondary categories that classify PFAS based on length. In literature, the length of PFAS have shown to affect how long they spend in the human body, in addition to adverse health effects.

Flowchart of EPA final selection process for PFAS (source)

When the PFAS has been categorized by structure, the EPA then applies filters based on whether a specific chemical has toxicity data and is industrially prevalent. On its initial selection run, the EPA selected 24 PFAS candidates that were representative of the numerous PFAS categories.

I believe that the categorization of PFAS based on structure and toxicity is a step in the right direction. Currently, official EPA drinking water testing methods analyze for ~30 PFAS, which were picked based on their industrial prevalence. In selecting specific PFAS candidates, EPA testing methods can be improved to provide more information about all PFAS in a sample, not just a select few.

Furthermore, I think that systematically categorizing PFAS by a central authority has implications beyond sample testing. If this standard of PFAS grouping is established in academia, the health effects of PFAS can be more extensively studied. In addition, adopting standards by which PFAS can be categorized will prevent chemical companies from avoiding regulations by inventing new PFAS.

For more information, check out this link.

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/03/epa-national-testing-strategy/feed/ 0 165 My Opinion on the New EPA PFAS Advisory Limits https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/01/my-opinion-on-the-new-epa-pfas-advisory-limits/ https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/01/my-opinion-on-the-new-epa-pfas-advisory-limits/#respond Mon, 01 Aug 2022 20:47:48 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=158 Continue reading My Opinion on the New EPA PFAS Advisory Limits]]> Hello, blog! It’s been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for my absence. In these past six months, a few notable events have happened with PFAS, the most notable of which is the new EPA advisory limits.

On June 15th, 2022, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new drinking water advisory limits for four specific PFAS: PFOA (0.004 parts per trillion), PFOS (0.02 parts per trillion), GenX (10 parts per trillion), and PFBS (2,000 parts per trillion). The previous 2016 advisory limits encompassed PFOA and PFOS only, limiting the sum of their concentrations in drinking water to 70 ppt. Thus, these new advisory limits are up to 17,000 times more sensitive than before. The two new PFAS, GenX and PFBS, are modern industrial alternatives to PFOA and PFOS. For the first time, the EPA is taking newer PFAS into account, and warning against their consumption. Additionally, the EPA has introduced $1 billion dollars of grant funding as part of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to mitigate the impact of PFAS on a state level.

In my opinion, the EPA’s vastly more sensitive advisory limits can be seen as controversial. The EPA’s new advisory limits are thousands of times lower below the detection limits of current PFAS testing methods. The rationale behind the EPA’s decision making is that, in reality, no amount of PFAS is safe for drinking water consumption. All things considered, how are people supposed to know if their drinking water is safe for consumption if they can’t even measure its PFAS concentration down to regulatory limits? It’s contradictory to what a concentration limit should be. Additionally, publishing such a limit undermines drinking water testing in states without PFAS regulations. In the absence of an enforceable, national PFAS limit for drinking water, what standard are Americans to rely on in order to check whether their water is safe? Initially, 70 ppt was a very testable limit to check the safety of drinking water. Now, you can’t even tell whether your water is safe or not.

Nevertheless, I am excited that the EPA has taken action to target newer PFAS that pose equally serious risks to our health. The EPA is planning on proposing a national PFAS drinking water regulatory limit in Fall 2022. I look forward to hearing about where the regulatory limit lies, since the EPA has declared that no amount is safe.

Overall, I am ecstatic that a governmental effort to protect the public from PFAS is underway. With the PFAS Action Act of 2021 pending review by the Senate, we are close to reaching a status quo where PFAS is not a massive health concern to all Americans.

Find out more here: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-new-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfas-chemicals-1-billion-bipartisan



]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2022/08/01/my-opinion-on-the-new-epa-pfas-advisory-limits/feed/ 0 158 Analysis of current PFAS situation and what needs to be done https://blog.envmat.org/2021/10/12/analysis-of-current-pfas-situation-and-what-needs-to-be-done/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/10/12/analysis-of-current-pfas-situation-and-what-needs-to-be-done/#respond Tue, 12 Oct 2021 02:48:09 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=98 Continue reading Analysis of current PFAS situation and what needs to be done]]> Currently, PFAS pollution is an issue that is lacking in two elements that are critical to its solution: legal regulation and public awareness. The lack of both of these has allowed chemical manufacturing companies to pollute our water sources without restriction, harming the health of hundreds of thousands of people.

When it comes to legal regulation of PFAS, the EPA has been incredibly lax in setting regulations for chemicals that have been obviously shown to cause negative health effects since the year 2000. This may be in part due to lobbying on behalf of large chemical companies, but another large part is the wide variety of PFASs. There are thousands of potential PFASs that chemical companies can use in manufacturing, and whenever one particular chemical catches too much heat, they can easily switch to other PFAS alternatives that they claim are safe, but in reality highly likely cause the same health effects.

With so much of scientific work concentrated on the two most major (and phased out) PFASs, PFOA and PFOS, more work needs to be done on the relationship between the chemical structure of PFAS and the human body, so that manufacturers cannot keep swapping chemicals to avoid regulations.

Another major part that is lacking is public awareness. The public, to a large extent, do not know about this threat to their health lurking in their water supplies. A lack of regulations on this matter further downplays the threat that this poses, because there is this misconception that if there are no regulations on this, then it is not urgent. Additionally, public awareness drives legal change, so it is a vicious cycle where public awareness of an urgent issue is low because politicians have not introduced legislation to deal with the issue.

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/10/12/analysis-of-current-pfas-situation-and-what-needs-to-be-done/feed/ 0 98 The Story of DuPont-3 https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/11/the-story-of-dupont-3/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/11/the-story-of-dupont-3/#respond Sat, 11 Sep 2021 03:00:18 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=96 Continue reading The Story of DuPont-3]]> (This story is summarized from an “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” by Nathaniel Rich from the New York Times”)

The legal fallout that ensued was quite dramatic. DuPont was fined by the EPA and gave a $70 million dollar award to affected communities. For a while, the case hung in a legal limbo as a panel of scientists performed experiments attempting to discern health effects caused by PFOA. Without conclusive links for PFOA, wrongful injury suits could not be filed.

After seven long years, in 2011, results came out. Among the six diseases linked, there were two types of cancer. For the past decade, DuPont has been settling wrongful injury cases in court.

Up next, we will have a discussion on corporate transparency and PFAS.

Side note
I will cover a discussion of this in future blog posts, but I felt I had to point something out here. Government agencies are about as much to blame as PFAS. They are the reason that chemical companies have been able to easily circumvent regulations; they are slow to respond and as a result cause great harm to people and the environment.





]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/11/the-story-of-dupont-3/feed/ 0 96 The Story of DuPont – 2 https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/03/the-story-of-dupont-2/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/03/the-story-of-dupont-2/#respond Fri, 03 Sep 2021 02:22:44 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=93 Continue reading The Story of DuPont – 2]]> (This story is summarized from an “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” by Nathaniel Rich from the New York Times”)

DuPont released a mass collection of records, all unsorted. In preparation for the trial, Bilott pored over them for months. As he read, he realized that he was dealing with a sinister chemical, the likes of which no one in the public knew but him.

PFOA was invented in the mid 1900s by 3M and was sold to various chemical manufacturing companies like DuPont. Even though 3M was well aware that it could pollute the environment in the 50s, they neglected proper disposal procedures and proceeded to dump tons of PFOA into the Ohio River. PFOA then made its way into the water sources of large populations in the region.

Additionally, there have been extensive internal studies on the effects of PFOA done by DuPont. Throughout the decades, DuPont researchers found that PFOA could contribute to abnormalities in animals. Work was also done with humans, as it was discovered that PFOA could easily circulate in the blood. DuPont tested pregnant employees with high PFOA blood concentrations and found birth defects. Despite all of this, DuPont did not release any information, demonstrating that they have prioritized profits over worker and public safety. DuPont was also glaringly aware that PFOA was being released into the environment. Water found in a local district was three times an internal safety limit.

If DuPont’s glaring neglect for safety and environmental well-being wasn’t demonstrative enough of their carelessness, what they did in the 90s will. A less toxic, safer alternative for PFOA was finally developed three decades ago. However, DuPont decided against doing so, since it was too much of a risk. This alternative did not see widespread usage until around 2010, well after the initial fallout from PFOA pollution ensued.

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/09/03/the-story-of-dupont-2/feed/ 0 93 The Story of DuPont – 1 https://blog.envmat.org/2021/08/22/the-story-of-dupont-1/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/08/22/the-story-of-dupont-1/#respond Sun, 22 Aug 2021 22:04:14 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=86 Continue reading The Story of DuPont – 1]]> (This story is summarized from an “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” by Nathaniel Rich from the New York Times”)

It all started in 2000.

A farmer’s cows suddenly start dying off. His name is Wilbur Tennant. Tennant’s farm is close to a newly DuPont-owned landfill. A creek connects the landfill and the fields of Tennant’s farm.

Quite soon after DuPont establishes their landfill, weird things start happening to his cattle. Patches of missing hair, discolorations in their organs, and giant lesions are only a few of the conditions that his cattle start suffering from. Nearby veterinarians who he approaches for help nearby refuse to help him.

Suspicious of the circumstances, Tennant approaches an environmental lawyer named Rob Bilott. Tennant shows him the damning evidence of his cows, and Bilott agreed to take the case, despite the fact that he had only ever represented corporations in legal cases, not the other way around.

Bilott filed a suit on behalf of Tennant against DuPont in the summer of 1999. In response, DuPont commissioned a study with six veterinarians from both the EPA and DuPont. The study, weirdly enough, concluded that the health problems were caused by poor animal husbandry, despite the cattle being perfectly fine before the landfill was established.

With this unbelievable conclusion, Bilott decided to do some digging for the trial. He came across a letter sent to the EPA by DuPont that referred to a mysterious substance called “PFOA” present in the landfill.

After being denied access to records regarding PFOA from DuPont, Bilott filed a court order to legally force DuPont to release information. What he discovered next was shocking.

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/08/22/the-story-of-dupont-1/feed/ 0 86 PFAS Act of 2021 – Thoughts https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/25/pfas-act-of-2021-thoughts/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/25/pfas-act-of-2021-thoughts/#respond Sun, 25 Jul 2021 03:11:08 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=82 Continue reading PFAS Act of 2021 – Thoughts]]> I am quite ecstatic that the PFAS Action Act of 2021 was passed this week. Our politicians, with bipartisan cooperation, have recognized a threat that needs to be taken care as soon as possible, and have taken steps to expedite change. The act is something that will propagate massive changes that will ultimately benefit the welfare of the American people greatly.

The act not only tackles the problem at the consumer level, but also at the industrial level. By aiming to limit the pollution of our waterways with PFAS, we can not only decimate the amount of PFAS that gets into our bodies to cause harm, but also protect our environment.

On the industrial side, this act is not too harsh on manufacturing corporations. This act does not outright ban PFAS, but seeks to prevent its leakage into water specifically. This will coerce corporations into slowly reducing, if not outright eliminating, their PFAS production.

However, there are some criticisms regarding the act, mostly from Republicans. Representative Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) called the act, “overwhelming, heavy-handed, and unscientific” in addition to being “aggressive expansion of federal power.” I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Representative Rogers is blowing this act out of proportion with her words. This act is the complete opposite of what she is saying. This act is light-handed and scientific. It does not force industrial corporations to outright stop using PFAS. What the bill is looking to accomplish is to make PFAS more regulated, which the government has done multiple times in the past with other controlled substances,

Additionally, it should be noted that the largest financial contributor to Representative Rogers’ campaign through a period of 17 years ($150,539) is a company called Nelson Irrigation, which sells agricultural irrigation equipment. Irrigation water has been viewed with interest when it comes to PFAS, since it can increase the amount of PFAS present in soil. Therefore, Representative Rogers has an incentive to speak out against this bill.

Something fishy may be amiss…
(screenshot from opensecrets.com, link is in sources)

When all is said and done, I hope that at the very minimum, this act will make the regulations regarding PFAS more defined, instead of being a patchwork of confusing laws at the state level.

Sources

thehill.com

opensecrets.org

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/25/pfas-act-of-2021-thoughts/feed/ 0 82 House of Representatives Passes PFAS Bill https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/21/house-of-representatives-passes-pfas-bill/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/21/house-of-representatives-passes-pfas-bill/#respond Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:38:47 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=72 Continue reading House of Representatives Passes PFAS Bill]]> Today, the House of Representatives passed the PFAS Action Act of 2021 with a vote of 247 for to 159 against. The bill “establishes requirements and incentives to limit the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, and remediate PFAS in the environment.”

The act, if passed, requires the EPA to:

  1. Designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances
  2. Decide whether all PFAS should be designated as hazardous substances
  3. Declare a national standard for PFAS, which should at a minimum include PFOA and PFOS and protect vulnerable subpopulations, within 2 years
  4. Test for PFAS
  5. Decide on how to test for PFAS
  6. Establish a $200M grant program to assist affected communities for PFAS water treatment within 180 days
  7. List PFOA and PFOS as air pollutants within 180 days
  8. Set regulations on incineration of PFAS in 6 months
  9. Label consumer products as PFAS-free within 1 year
  10. Issue guidance on how to minimize use of equipment containing PFAS
  11. Establish a website pertaining to the testing of household well water within 1 year
  12. Develop a risk communication strategy for PFAS

Many states (CA, NM, CO, NC, MN, MI, OH, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME) have set a standard for PFAS in drinking water, but the majority have not. Adoption and enforcement of a national standard would improve public health greatly and reduce pollution of PFAS to the environment.

I think that this bill is a major first step in regulating PFAS in the environment. The 2021 PFAS Action Act protects the safety of people and does so on a reasonable timescale. Hopefully, the government exhibiting an interest in regulating PFAS will mean that industrial manufacturers will not only find safer ways to produce their products but also think twice before haphazardly dumping PFAS into waterways.

I will keep the blog updated as developments come! I am excited to see that more awareness is being brought to PFAS by the US government.

Sources

congress.gov

jdsupra.com

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/21/house-of-representatives-passes-pfas-bill/feed/ 0 72 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – the new lead? https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/18/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-the-new-lead/ https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/18/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-the-new-lead/#respond Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:13:17 +0000 https://blog.envmat.org/?p=61 Continue reading Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – the new lead?]]> Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a family of chemicals commonly found in products that resist grease, oil, or water. Examples of this include stain-resistant carpeting, rain jackets, and food packaging.

Chemically, they consist of fluorine atoms attached to an alkyl chain, forming a fluorocarbon. This structure gives them a strong chemical inertness, or inability to react with other molecules. This is caused by the carbon-fluorine bond, which is very strong. It is due to this property that PFAS are used so extensively in the industrial sector.

PFAS molecules (image credit: https://cen.acs.org/sections/pfas.html)


However, this property has proved to be very problematic for not only the environment but also for public health. PFAS do not break down naturally in the environment. In fact, this has earned them a nickname: “the forever chemicals.”

Furthermore, when PFAS gets into your body, it stays there for many, many years. This is a major health concern, even if there isn’t a lot of conclusiveness among studies when it comes to finding a direct link between PFAS in the body and adverse health effects. So far, the strongest evidence for a connection is for dyslipidemia, a condition in which a patient has elevated cholesterol levels. This can lead to blood clots and heart disease.

Additionally, PFAS are water-soluble, so they can seep into water sources especially easily. Through water sources, PFAS can find their way into households via seafood, drinking water, etc.

Within the past decade, PFAS have garnered more and more attention, and so governments at the local and federal level have released recommended limits for these substances in drinking water in order to protect the public. The EPA has set its level for PFOA and PFOS (two of the most studied PFAS) at 70 parts per trillion (ppt). In my own state of Massachusetts, the limit of PFAS in drinking water was declared at 20 ppt for six PFAS, also known as the PFAS6: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHpA, and PFDA.

Sources:

mass.gov

nationalgeographic.com

wikipedia.org

Sunderland et al. (2019) A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. 

]]> https://blog.envmat.org/2021/07/18/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-the-new-lead/feed/ 0 61