Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Pregnant? Researchers want you to know something about fluoride

Elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride was associated with increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in 3-year-olds, according to a study of children in Los Angeles.

Adding fluoride to drinking water is widely considered a triumph of public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the cavity-prevention strategy ranks alongside the development of vaccines and the recognition of tobacco’s dangers as signal achievements of the 20th century.But new evidence from Los Angeles mothers and their preschool-age children suggests community water fluoridation may have a downside.A study published Monday in JAMA Network Open links prenatal exposure to the mineral with an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.The findings do not show that drinking fluoridated water causes autism or any other behavioral conditions. Nor is it clear whether the relationship between fluoride exposure and the problems seen in the L.A.-area children — a cohort that is predominantly low-income and 80% Latino — would extend to other demographic groups.However, the results are concerning enough that USC epidemiologist Tracy Bastain said she would advise pregnant people to avoid fluoridated water straight from the tap and drink filtered water instead.“This exposure can impact the developing fetus,” said Bastain, the study’s senior author. “Eliminating that from drinking water is probably a good practice.”About 63% of Americans receive fluoridated water through their taps, including 73% of those served by community water systems, according to the CDC. In Los Angeles County, 62% of residents get fluoridated water, the Department of Public Health says.The data analyzed by Bastain and her colleagues came from participants in an ongoing USC research project called Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors, or MADRES. Women receiving prenatal care from clinics in Central and South Los Angeles that cater to low-income patients with Medi-Cal insurance were invited to join.Between 2017 and 2020, 229 mothers took a test to measure the concentration of fluoride in their urine during their third trimester of pregnancy. Then, between 2020 and 2023, they completed a 99-question survey to assess their child’s behavior when their sons and daughters were 3 years old. Among other things, the survey asked mothers whether their children were restless, hyperactive, impatient, clingy or accident-prone. It also asked about specific behaviors, such as resisting bedtime or sleeping alone, chewing on things that aren’t edible, holding their breath, and being overly concerned with neatness or cleanliness. Some of the questions the mothers answered addressed heath problems with no obvious medical cause, including headaches, cramps, nausea and skin rashes.Among the 229 children — 116 girls and 113 boys — 35 were found to have a collection of symptoms that put them in the clinical or borderline clinical range for inward-focused problems such as sadness, depression and anxiety. In addition, 23 were in the clinical or borderline clinical range for behaviors directed at others, such as shouting in a classroom or attacking other kids, and 32 were deemed at least borderline clinical for a combination of inward and outward problems.What interested the researchers was whether there was any correlation between a child’s risk of having clinical or borderline clinical behavioral problems and the amount of fluoride in his or her mother’s urine during pregnancy.They found that compared to women whose fluoride levels placed them at the 25th percentile — meaning 24% of women in the study had levels lower than theirs — women at the 75th percentile were 83% more likely to have their child score in the “clinical” or “borderline clinical” range for inward and outward problems combined. When the researchers narrowed their focus to children in the clinical range only, that risk increased to 84%, according to the study. The researchers also found that the same increase in fluoride levels was associated with an 18.5% increase in a child’s symptoms related to autism spectrum disorder, as well as an 11.3% increase in symptoms of anxiety. The amount of fluoride needed for mothers to go from the 25th to the 75th percentile was 0.68 milligrams per liter. As it happens, that’s nearly identical to the 0.7 mg per liter standard that federal regulators say is optimal for preventing tooth decay.Bastain said that allowed the researchers to compare what might happen to children in two parallel universes: a typical one where their mothers consumed fluoridated water during pregnancy, and an alternate one where they didn’t.“You can use it as a proxy for if they lived in a fluoridated community or not,” she said. What that thought experiment shows is that children in the fluoridated community face a higher level of risk. That said, it’s not clear when that risk becomes high enough to be worrisome. “We don’t know what the safe threshold is,” Bastain said. “It’s not like you can say that as long as you’re under the 75th percentile, there are no effects.”The study authors’ concerns about the effects of fluoride on developing brains didn’t come out of nowhere.The National Toxicology Program — a joint effort of the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration — has been investigating the issue since 2016. In a report last year that reviewed an array of evidence from humans and laboratory animals, a working group concluded “with moderate confidence” that overall fluoride exposure at levels at or above 1.5 mg per liter “is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” The working group added that “more studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.” A 2019 study of hundreds of mothers in Canada — where 39% of residents have fluoridated water — found that a 1-mg increase in daily fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.7-point reduction in IQ scores in their 3- and 4-year-old children. And among hundreds of pregnant women in Mexico, a 0.5-mg-per-liter increase in urinary fluoride went along with a 2.5-point drop in IQ scores for their 6- to 12-year-old children, researchers reported in 2017.Bastain and her colleagues write their study is the first they are aware of that examines the link between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral outcomes in children in the United States. The results are sure to be controversial, Bastain said, but there’s a straightforward way for pregnant people to reduce the possible risk.“It’s a pretty easy intervention to get one of those tabletop plastic pitchers” that filter out metals, she said. “Most of them do a pretty good job of filtering out fluoride.”

Unlocking Longevity – New Research Suggests That Aging Could Be Influenced by Random Changes

Aging clocks can accurately determine a person’s biological age, which can differ from their chronological age—the age calculated from their date of birth—due to environmental...

Aging clocks, which measure biological age with precision, can deviate from chronological age due to environmental influences like smoking or diet. Researchers at the University of Cologne found that these clocks actually track increasing random cellular changes, suggesting that biological aging could be influenced by stochastic variations in processes like DNA methylation and gene activity.Aging clocks can accurately determine a person’s biological age, which can differ from their chronological age—the age calculated from their date of birth—due to environmental influences like diet or smoking. The precision of these clocks indicates that the aging process follows a program.Scientists David Meyer and Professor Dr Björn Schumacher at CECAD, the Cluster of Excellence Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases of the University of Cologne, have now discovered that aging clocks actually measure the increase in stochastic changes in cells. The study was recently published published in Nature Aging.“Aging is triggered when the building blocks in our cells become damaged. Where this damage occurs is for the most part random. Our work combines the accuracy of aging clocks with the accumulation of entirely stochastic changes in our cells,” said Professor Schumacher. Less checks, more noiseWith increasing age, controlling the processes that occur in our cells becomes less effective, resulting in more stochastic results. This is particularly evident in the accumulation of stochastic changes in DNA methylation. Methylation refers to the chemical changes that affect DNA, the genome’s building blocks. These methylation processes are strictly regulated within the body. However, during the course of one’s life, random changes occur in the methylation patterns. The accumulation of variation is a highly accurate indicator of a person’s age.The loss of control over the cells and the increase in stochastic variation are not restricted to DNA methylation. Meyer and Schumacher demonstrate that the increase in stochastic variations also in gene activity can be used as an aging clock. “In principle it would be feasible to take this even further, allowing the stochastic variations in any process in the cell to predict age,” Schumacher said. According to the authors, it is above all crucial to ascertain if such aging clocks can show the success of interventions that slow the aging process or harmful factors that accelerate aging.Using the available datasets, the scientists showed that smoking increases the random changes in humans and that ‘anti-aging’ interventions such as lower calorie intake in mice reduce the variation in methylation patterns. They also showed that the stochastic noise is even reversible by means of reprogramming body cells to stem cells. The scientists compared human fibroblasts from the skin that were reprogrammed into stem cells and as a result of the reprogramming are rejuvenating. The high variation indicative of the age of the body cells was indeed reversed to the low stochastic noise of young stem cells.Meyer and Schumacher hope that their findings on the loss of regulation and the accumulating stochastic variations will lead to new interventions that can tackle the root cause of aging and may even lead to cellular rejuvenation. A target for such interventions could be repairing stochastic changes in DNA or improved control of gene expression.Reference: “Aging clocks based on accumulating stochastic variation” by David H. Meyer, and Björn Schumacher, 9 May 2024, Nature Aging.DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00619-x

Garden with terracotta 3D-print bricks wins Chelsea flower show green medal

Design created with no concrete and completely sustainable materials is first to win new environmental prizeA garden built with “humble” terracotta made into 3D-printed bricks has won the first green medal at Chelsea flower show for being the most environmentally sustainable design.This year’s show, held in the Royal hospital gardens in south-west London, has a strong environmental theme. At the press day on Monday, Dame Judi Dench was presented with a seedling taken from the Sycamore Gap tree felled in Northumberland. Continue reading...

A garden built with “humble” terracotta made into 3D-printed bricks has won the first green medal at Chelsea flower show for being the most environmentally sustainable design.This year’s show, held in the Royal hospital gardens in south-west London, has a strong environmental theme. At the press day on Monday, Dame Judi Dench was presented with a seedling taken from the Sycamore Gap tree felled in Northumberland.Dench, who has previously said she plants a tree every time one of her friends dies, said: “They let me name him and I named him Antoninus after Hadrian’s adopted son.” The Roman emperor Hadrian built Hadrian’s Wall, where the Sycamore Gap tree stood.The environmental innovation award is the first of its sort at Chelsea, and goes along with the gold, silver gilt, silver and bronze medals awarded to the most attractive and interesting gardens, all of which will be announced on Tuesday.Giulio Giorgi, a first-time Chelsea designer, said he created the green medal-winning World Child Cancer Nurturing Garden with no concrete, and with completely sustainable materials. Most gardens contain concrete in some form or another and the materials they are built from often contain the highest carbon footprint.The design will be relocated to RHS Garden Wisley in Surrey, where it will live on after the show as an educational facility. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/ShutterstockWhile the use of pollinator-friendly plants, wild areas and sensible use of water are well-known, easy ways to make a garden more sustainable, Giorgi said it was important to focus on the building materials as their carbon footprint was often forgotten.It was also constructed by hand, with no power tools used, to reduce the carbon emissions of the process.Giorgi said: “Often we use a lot of metal, glues, cement, and then all the energy we have to put in to build the gardens. The material in our garden is low-temperature-fired terracotta, which we made into 3D-printed bricks, connecting ancient tradition with new practices. It’s fired at only 800C so it can be fired by electricity, without gas. So even if there is a little carbon in it, it’s the lowest possible and terracotta stays porous, so it can take in water and release it when there is drought, which is very important.“And it also lets the air in and out which is very good for the root systems. So it’s a really good material for plants, but also for the planet because clay is a resource that can be found pretty much everywhere.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionMalcolm Anderson, the Royal Horticultural Society’s head of sustainability, said: “The garden has been made using products made entirely from soil and timber and in its construction no power tools have been used, only hand tools, so it is a fine example of how we can design and build gardens more sustainably in the future.”Judges considered end-of-life plans for the gardens and whether materials could be reused. The 3D-printed nature of Giorgi’s garden and the way the parts tessellate together mean it can easily be assembled and reassembled. As a result, when it is relocated to RHS Garden Wisley in Surrey, where it will live on after the show as an educational facility, the carbon emissions will be low as no materials will be wasted and it can be transferred wholesale.

Fish deaths in England’s rivers rise tenfold in four years

More than 216,000 fish died in 2022-2023, when England recorded a 54% increase in sewage spillsMass deaths of fish in England’s rivers have increased almost tenfold since 2020, with fears sewage pollution is exterminating life in the country’s waterways.Environment Agency (EA) data from the past four years shows an alarming rise in the number of fish deaths linked to sewage pollution, with figures escalating from 26,690 in 2020-2021 to 216,135 in 2023-2024. Continue reading...

Mass deaths of fish in England’s rivers have increased almost tenfold since 2020, with fears sewage pollution is exterminating life in the country’s waterways.Environment Agency (EA) data from the past four years shows an alarming rise in the number of fish deaths linked to sewage pollution, with figures escalating from 26,690 in 2020-2021 to 216,135 in 2023-2024.The Angling Trust, which analysed the data, is calling for an urgent government intervention. The charity highlighted that there was a 54% increase in the number of sewage spills – from 301,091 n 2022 to 464,056 in 2023. This correlates with a rise in fish deaths from 42,070 in 2022-2023 to 216,135 in the 2023-2024 period.The Angling Trust analysis shows Southern Water and Thames Water stand out as being responsible for most of the fish kill incidents linked to sewage pollution in 2023-2024.Stuart Singleton-White, the head of campaigns at the Angling Trust, said: “We can’t let these mass fish killings continue. This unprecedented increase in fish kills caused by sewage pollution is a clear indicator of the deteriorating health of our waterways. The public is quite rightly horrified by the huge environmental damage being done by sewage leaks in the name of water company profits.“If pollution from a private company were to kill over 200,000 birds, there would be national outrage. The water companies responsible for these sewage leaks – many of which are illegal – need to be brought under special measures immediately before our rivers, the fish and all the life in them are irreparably damaged.”The Angling Trust works with Fish Legal to hold the government to account over sewage spills and river health more generally. Fish Legal says the numbers are likely to be a vast underestimate, saying: “We’ve found through our own inquiries that the Environment Agency rarely follows up with a fish survey to assess the full impact of pollution, relying instead on counting dead fish when their officers do attend or reports from water companies when they don’t. Of course, counting and recording dead fish can only happen if there are any fish left in the river to kill.”Thames Water declined to comment. Southern Water, Defra and the Environment Agency have been contacted for comment.

Bird populations in the Amazon are declining without clear cause

Bird populations in the Amazon's Yasuní Biosphere Reserve have mysteriously dropped by half over 23 years, with climate change being a potential culprit.Bernardo Araujo reports for Mongabay.In short:The number of birds in Ecuador's Yasuní Biosphere Reserve has halved, according to a recent study.Researchers suspect climate change as the primary cause, despite the area being largely undisturbed by human activity.Similar declines have been observed in other tropical regions, indicating a broader environmental issue.Key quote: “There’s something called the dawn chorus, which is typical in tropical forests where lots of birds sing just before dawn. And over the last 10 years, that has just been going quieter and quieter with very few birds singing in the morning.”— John Blake, University of Florida professorWhy this matters: This decline in bird populations, even in pristine habitats, is indicative of the far-reaching impacts of climate change, raising alarms about the future of biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. For more, read our series, Winged Warnings: What birds are telling us about our planet's health.

Bird populations in the Amazon's Yasuní Biosphere Reserve have mysteriously dropped by half over 23 years, with climate change being a potential culprit.Bernardo Araujo reports for Mongabay.In short:The number of birds in Ecuador's Yasuní Biosphere Reserve has halved, according to a recent study.Researchers suspect climate change as the primary cause, despite the area being largely undisturbed by human activity.Similar declines have been observed in other tropical regions, indicating a broader environmental issue.Key quote: “There’s something called the dawn chorus, which is typical in tropical forests where lots of birds sing just before dawn. And over the last 10 years, that has just been going quieter and quieter with very few birds singing in the morning.”— John Blake, University of Florida professorWhy this matters: This decline in bird populations, even in pristine habitats, is indicative of the far-reaching impacts of climate change, raising alarms about the future of biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. For more, read our series, Winged Warnings: What birds are telling us about our planet's health.

Navy families report new water contamination

Families using the Navy's water system report new contamination, with lab results indicating the presence of PFAS chemicals.Catherine Cruz reports for Hawaii Public Radio.In short:Environmental groups held a news conference to discuss the PFAS contamination in water samples from Hickam, a military base.Red Hill Community Representation Initiative's Marti Townsend highlighted the dangers of overlapping water and fuel lines, leading to a toxic mix of chemicals.University of Hawaiʻi researchers found that fuel mixed with chlorine in water can create harmful substances, posing health risks such as cancer and liver damage.Key quote:"These two samples came from Hickam because these are military dependents who are living on base, and their water lines overlap with fuel lines. And they're basically living in a horrible toxic soup between the jet fuel that was released and mixed with chlorine to make toxic chemicals, and the PFAS, all of which you know affect your immune system."— Marti Townsend, chair of the Red Hill Community Representation InitiativeWhy this matters:Contaminated water poses serious health risks, particularly for immune system function, and this incident is another example of ongoing health issues with military base infrastructure. Read more: Pioneering study links testicular cancer among military personnel to ‘forever chemicals.’

Families using the Navy's water system report new contamination, with lab results indicating the presence of PFAS chemicals.Catherine Cruz reports for Hawaii Public Radio.In short:Environmental groups held a news conference to discuss the PFAS contamination in water samples from Hickam, a military base.Red Hill Community Representation Initiative's Marti Townsend highlighted the dangers of overlapping water and fuel lines, leading to a toxic mix of chemicals.University of Hawaiʻi researchers found that fuel mixed with chlorine in water can create harmful substances, posing health risks such as cancer and liver damage.Key quote:"These two samples came from Hickam because these are military dependents who are living on base, and their water lines overlap with fuel lines. And they're basically living in a horrible toxic soup between the jet fuel that was released and mixed with chlorine to make toxic chemicals, and the PFAS, all of which you know affect your immune system."— Marti Townsend, chair of the Red Hill Community Representation InitiativeWhy this matters:Contaminated water poses serious health risks, particularly for immune system function, and this incident is another example of ongoing health issues with military base infrastructure. Read more: Pioneering study links testicular cancer among military personnel to ‘forever chemicals.’

Politicians avoid discussing climate change during Indian elections

As India’s general elections approach, voters are facing climate-related hardships that politicians largely ignore.Sibi Arasu reports for the Associated Press.In short:Extreme heat and drought in Maharashtra state have left farmers struggling, with no substantial political focus on environmental issues.Increased cyclones along India’s eastern coasts have caused significant damage and deaths, with locals frustrated by unfulfilled political promises.Floods in Assam state are worsening, leaving residents on river islands vulnerable and dissatisfied with political inaction.Key quote: “Politicians are only talking about religion and caste. No one is talking about the environment or farmers' issues.” — Vaibhav Maske, farmer in MaharashtraWhy this matters: Ignoring climate change in political discourse undermines efforts to address its severe impacts on health, livelihoods, and regional stability. Effective policies are needed to protect communities from increasingly extreme weather events. Read more: Sabah Usmani on making cities healthy and just.

As India’s general elections approach, voters are facing climate-related hardships that politicians largely ignore.Sibi Arasu reports for the Associated Press.In short:Extreme heat and drought in Maharashtra state have left farmers struggling, with no substantial political focus on environmental issues.Increased cyclones along India’s eastern coasts have caused significant damage and deaths, with locals frustrated by unfulfilled political promises.Floods in Assam state are worsening, leaving residents on river islands vulnerable and dissatisfied with political inaction.Key quote: “Politicians are only talking about religion and caste. No one is talking about the environment or farmers' issues.” — Vaibhav Maske, farmer in MaharashtraWhy this matters: Ignoring climate change in political discourse undermines efforts to address its severe impacts on health, livelihoods, and regional stability. Effective policies are needed to protect communities from increasingly extreme weather events. Read more: Sabah Usmani on making cities healthy and just.

New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-old mother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.The new funding was applauded by community advocates around the country, but also met with some skepticism by those who have been waiting for relief for years, or in many cases, for decades. There are currently more than 1,300 sites around the US on the EPA’s priority list, designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). But progress has been slow, hindered by a range of bureaucratic hurdles that critics say prioritize politics over public health.The law allows the EPA to make the companies responsible for the contamination do the cleanup work themselves or reimburse the government for the costs of cleaning up the sites. This “polluters pay” model is a core component of CERCLA. But the complex and costly work required for the cleanups often is slowed by conflicts with the companies deemed responsible for paying for and managing the work and the challenges in trying to eradicate enormous amounts of hazardous waste that have become deeply embedded in soils and sediment.The lengthy process involved in planning and implementing cleanups in coordination with the companies responsible for the pollution leaves vulnerable people exposed to known health-damaging toxins for far too long, forcing communities to advocate for faster timetables and more stringent cleanup requirements, critics say.The law gives the EPA latitude to punish companies that don’t comply with EPA orders, including allowances for the recovery of up to three times its costs.“They (the EPA) have the legal authority, they need the political will,” said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). “They want to be the friend of these companies, not their regulators.”Millions at riskResearchers say that living within 1.8 miles of a Superfund site puts people at risk for life-long, adverse health effects. Roughly 21 million people live even closer – within a mile – of a Superfund site, where toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury pollute the water, air and soil.Health risks of close proximity to such hazardous substances include cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic mutations, according to the EPA.The San Jacinto River Waste Pits site is a prime example of the difficulties that come with the Superfund cleanup project. In the mid-1960s, the Champion Paper Mill hired McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation to dispose solid and liquid pulp and paper mill wastes contaminated with dioxins and furans into waste pits on the banks of the San Jacinto River. Two contaminated pits sprawl about 15 acres each, spilling dioxins into the river. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical compounds that can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere with hormones.People living in the area have suffered elevated rates of cancer, including abnormally high incidences of childhood cancers, according to a 2015 assessment by the Texas Department of State Health Services.For several years, the EPA has been trying to coordinate a cleanup strategy with the two companies deemed responsible for the contamination, working to excavate the contaminated soils, cap or otherwise contain the waste pits, and take other mitigation measures. Some work has been done, but the EPA and the companies involved still have not agreed on a final comprehensive action plan. The latest plan proposed by the companies contained a “serious deficiency”, according to the EPA.Last month, the EPA sent a letter to the project coordinator for the cleanup work regarding the lack of progress. The agency has given the companies another 90 days to produce a workable plan.Amid the delays, the community fears contamination continues. A petition to the EPA drawn up by community advocates states that “Time is of the essence.”“We need the EPA to use every authority granted under CERCLA to move this site to remediation,” the petition states. “The health and wellbeing of our community and Galveston Bay hinges on the successful cleanup of this Site…”Under fireThe issues seen in Texas are not unique.The EPA is also under fire for its handling of a Superfund site in Montana where waste from an aluminum company has contaminated groundwater and surface waters with what the EPA calls “contaminants of concern,” including cyanide, fluoride and various metals. The company, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC), operated from 1955 and 2009, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste that spreads over more than 900 acres north of the Flathead River.Testing found multiple contaminants in groundwater in the area, including cyanide, fluoride and metals such as aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium and vanadium, among others, according to the EPA.The federal government has known for decades that the area was dangerously polluted. In the 1960s, government researchers reported that emissions from the plant were impacting wildlife and in 1988, an EPA-commissioned report confirmed that cyanide, a known serious health risk, and other contaminants were going into the water from the plant. But it was not until 2016 that the site was added to the National Priorities List. It took until 2021for CFAC to finalize a cleanup feasibility study under EPA oversight. The agency then released a proposed cleanup plan in June 2023.Though long-awaited, the plan is not meeting with community approval. A grassroots organization called the Coalition for a Clean CFAC is petitioning the EPA and Montana Department of Environmental Quality over the plans to handle the toxic waste. The group says the EPA is poised to allow most of the contamination to stay in place behind a concrete wall that would be constructed. The group says the plan would “leave the toxic waste-in-place and restrict future economic redevelopment and human use. Forever.”“The community has been calling for a complete cleanup including off-site removal for a long time,” said Peter Metcalf, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Clean CFAC.In California, public health advocates have accused the US Navy and the EPA of failing to deal with the toxic dumping at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund site in a way that protects the public.The shipyard in San Francisco has been on the Superfund list since 1989, contaminated with radioactive waste, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum fuels, PCBs and other toxins from the naval activities there. While some remediation work has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction, critics say the work has not eradicated the hazardous waste but has merely capped and covered it up.Last year, the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) complained to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General, alleging the Navy has failed to properly inform the public about the dangers of the contamination at the site.As well, a group called Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice accuses the Navy and the EPA of violating CERCLA and other laws and says the Navy and EPA have failed to take action at the site that “assures protection of human health and the environment.”The group wants the EPA to force the Navy to do a “proper cleanup,” said Bradley Angel, Greenaction executive director.“Success” storiesThe EPA points to several of what it calls “success stories” and says that the Superfund cleanups are working to protect human health and the environment, “while also supporting community revitalization efforts and economic opportunities through redevelopment.”The agency points to a 200-acre former steel company site next to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The industrial work left the soil and water contaminated with heavy metals and buildings on the site were filled with asbestos. The EPA oversaw demolition of 70 buildings and removed underground contamination and dredged both the river and a creek. It counts the site as a success story in part because the site was turned into a light-rail commuter station and parking lot, and a museum was established on the site. The EPA said it also restored the riverfront and opened 34 acres of public greenspace along the river.One of the largest Superfund sites in the country, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also hailed by the agency as a success story. The agency spent many years working on a plan and has removed 2.75 million cubic yards of river mud dredged from the Hudson River that was contaminated with 310,000 pounds of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in 1977. The EPA said marked it the “largest and most technically complex environmental dredging work ever undertaken in the United States.” The agency is now monitoring the area for “natural recovery.”Concerns remain about the work, however. An independent study found that dredging the upper Hudson failed to reduce PCB concentrations to the target range set by the EPA. A group called Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH) is calling for a pause in the dredging and an adjustment to future remediation goals.“We’re calling on the agency to step back and see, this is your data, and we feel you’re even more off track than before,” said former EPA Region 2 administrator Peter Lopez, who is now executive director of policy, advocacy and science with a group called Scenic Hudson.A third EPA five-year review on how the river has been recovering will be released soon, according to EPA Public Affairs Specialist Larisa Romanowski.Money woesThe Superfund program has long faced money woes, including funding cutbacks, struggles to pry money from “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs), and a failure to properly manage costs. After the expiration of a special polluters tax on the chemical and petroleum industries in 1995, program funding declined to the point that by 2010 the EPA estimated that cleanup costs were outstripping funding, even as the list of sites being added to the program was increasing.From 1999 to 2020, annual appropriations for Superfund work dropped from $2.3 billion to just under $1.2 billion, resulting in cleanup delays, according to a report by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Environment America.During the period from 1999 to 2013, the EPA did not have enough money to pay for about a third of the cleanup work ready to begin, and from 2014 to 2021, the same was true for about one fourth of the projects ready to go, according to the groups.The outlook is much brighter going forward, however, due not only to the new money earmarked by the Biden administration, but also because of the reestablishment of the polluter pays taxes, which should provide a “steady stream of funding” to the program for at least the next several years, according to an updated report from the groups.“Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has eliminated the backlog of toxic Superfund sites waiting around for clean-up in communities across the country,” said Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America. “Going forward, polluters, not taxpayers, will pay to clean up their messes. That’s great news for Americans. But full relief will only come once we stop using toxic substances like PFAS and mercury. Until then, we’ll continue to suffer from contaminated water, dirty air and Superfund sites.”

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-old mother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.The new funding was applauded by community advocates around the country, but also met with some skepticism by those who have been waiting for relief for years, or in many cases, for decades. There are currently more than 1,300 sites around the US on the EPA’s priority list, designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). But progress has been slow, hindered by a range of bureaucratic hurdles that critics say prioritize politics over public health.The law allows the EPA to make the companies responsible for the contamination do the cleanup work themselves or reimburse the government for the costs of cleaning up the sites. This “polluters pay” model is a core component of CERCLA. But the complex and costly work required for the cleanups often is slowed by conflicts with the companies deemed responsible for paying for and managing the work and the challenges in trying to eradicate enormous amounts of hazardous waste that have become deeply embedded in soils and sediment.The lengthy process involved in planning and implementing cleanups in coordination with the companies responsible for the pollution leaves vulnerable people exposed to known health-damaging toxins for far too long, forcing communities to advocate for faster timetables and more stringent cleanup requirements, critics say.The law gives the EPA latitude to punish companies that don’t comply with EPA orders, including allowances for the recovery of up to three times its costs.“They (the EPA) have the legal authority, they need the political will,” said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). “They want to be the friend of these companies, not their regulators.”Millions at riskResearchers say that living within 1.8 miles of a Superfund site puts people at risk for life-long, adverse health effects. Roughly 21 million people live even closer – within a mile – of a Superfund site, where toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury pollute the water, air and soil.Health risks of close proximity to such hazardous substances include cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic mutations, according to the EPA.The San Jacinto River Waste Pits site is a prime example of the difficulties that come with the Superfund cleanup project. In the mid-1960s, the Champion Paper Mill hired McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation to dispose solid and liquid pulp and paper mill wastes contaminated with dioxins and furans into waste pits on the banks of the San Jacinto River. Two contaminated pits sprawl about 15 acres each, spilling dioxins into the river. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical compounds that can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere with hormones.People living in the area have suffered elevated rates of cancer, including abnormally high incidences of childhood cancers, according to a 2015 assessment by the Texas Department of State Health Services.For several years, the EPA has been trying to coordinate a cleanup strategy with the two companies deemed responsible for the contamination, working to excavate the contaminated soils, cap or otherwise contain the waste pits, and take other mitigation measures. Some work has been done, but the EPA and the companies involved still have not agreed on a final comprehensive action plan. The latest plan proposed by the companies contained a “serious deficiency”, according to the EPA.Last month, the EPA sent a letter to the project coordinator for the cleanup work regarding the lack of progress. The agency has given the companies another 90 days to produce a workable plan.Amid the delays, the community fears contamination continues. A petition to the EPA drawn up by community advocates states that “Time is of the essence.”“We need the EPA to use every authority granted under CERCLA to move this site to remediation,” the petition states. “The health and wellbeing of our community and Galveston Bay hinges on the successful cleanup of this Site…”Under fireThe issues seen in Texas are not unique.The EPA is also under fire for its handling of a Superfund site in Montana where waste from an aluminum company has contaminated groundwater and surface waters with what the EPA calls “contaminants of concern,” including cyanide, fluoride and various metals. The company, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC), operated from 1955 and 2009, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste that spreads over more than 900 acres north of the Flathead River.Testing found multiple contaminants in groundwater in the area, including cyanide, fluoride and metals such as aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium and vanadium, among others, according to the EPA.The federal government has known for decades that the area was dangerously polluted. In the 1960s, government researchers reported that emissions from the plant were impacting wildlife and in 1988, an EPA-commissioned report confirmed that cyanide, a known serious health risk, and other contaminants were going into the water from the plant. But it was not until 2016 that the site was added to the National Priorities List. It took until 2021for CFAC to finalize a cleanup feasibility study under EPA oversight. The agency then released a proposed cleanup plan in June 2023.Though long-awaited, the plan is not meeting with community approval. A grassroots organization called the Coalition for a Clean CFAC is petitioning the EPA and Montana Department of Environmental Quality over the plans to handle the toxic waste. The group says the EPA is poised to allow most of the contamination to stay in place behind a concrete wall that would be constructed. The group says the plan would “leave the toxic waste-in-place and restrict future economic redevelopment and human use. Forever.”“The community has been calling for a complete cleanup including off-site removal for a long time,” said Peter Metcalf, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Clean CFAC.In California, public health advocates have accused the US Navy and the EPA of failing to deal with the toxic dumping at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund site in a way that protects the public.The shipyard in San Francisco has been on the Superfund list since 1989, contaminated with radioactive waste, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum fuels, PCBs and other toxins from the naval activities there. While some remediation work has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction, critics say the work has not eradicated the hazardous waste but has merely capped and covered it up.Last year, the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) complained to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General, alleging the Navy has failed to properly inform the public about the dangers of the contamination at the site.As well, a group called Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice accuses the Navy and the EPA of violating CERCLA and other laws and says the Navy and EPA have failed to take action at the site that “assures protection of human health and the environment.”The group wants the EPA to force the Navy to do a “proper cleanup,” said Bradley Angel, Greenaction executive director.“Success” storiesThe EPA points to several of what it calls “success stories” and says that the Superfund cleanups are working to protect human health and the environment, “while also supporting community revitalization efforts and economic opportunities through redevelopment.”The agency points to a 200-acre former steel company site next to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The industrial work left the soil and water contaminated with heavy metals and buildings on the site were filled with asbestos. The EPA oversaw demolition of 70 buildings and removed underground contamination and dredged both the river and a creek. It counts the site as a success story in part because the site was turned into a light-rail commuter station and parking lot, and a museum was established on the site. The EPA said it also restored the riverfront and opened 34 acres of public greenspace along the river.One of the largest Superfund sites in the country, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also hailed by the agency as a success story. The agency spent many years working on a plan and has removed 2.75 million cubic yards of river mud dredged from the Hudson River that was contaminated with 310,000 pounds of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in 1977. The EPA said marked it the “largest and most technically complex environmental dredging work ever undertaken in the United States.” The agency is now monitoring the area for “natural recovery.”Concerns remain about the work, however. An independent study found that dredging the upper Hudson failed to reduce PCB concentrations to the target range set by the EPA. A group called Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH) is calling for a pause in the dredging and an adjustment to future remediation goals.“We’re calling on the agency to step back and see, this is your data, and we feel you’re even more off track than before,” said former EPA Region 2 administrator Peter Lopez, who is now executive director of policy, advocacy and science with a group called Scenic Hudson.A third EPA five-year review on how the river has been recovering will be released soon, according to EPA Public Affairs Specialist Larisa Romanowski.Money woesThe Superfund program has long faced money woes, including funding cutbacks, struggles to pry money from “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs), and a failure to properly manage costs. After the expiration of a special polluters tax on the chemical and petroleum industries in 1995, program funding declined to the point that by 2010 the EPA estimated that cleanup costs were outstripping funding, even as the list of sites being added to the program was increasing.From 1999 to 2020, annual appropriations for Superfund work dropped from $2.3 billion to just under $1.2 billion, resulting in cleanup delays, according to a report by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Environment America.During the period from 1999 to 2013, the EPA did not have enough money to pay for about a third of the cleanup work ready to begin, and from 2014 to 2021, the same was true for about one fourth of the projects ready to go, according to the groups.The outlook is much brighter going forward, however, due not only to the new money earmarked by the Biden administration, but also because of the reestablishment of the polluter pays taxes, which should provide a “steady stream of funding” to the program for at least the next several years, according to an updated report from the groups.“Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has eliminated the backlog of toxic Superfund sites waiting around for clean-up in communities across the country,” said Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America. “Going forward, polluters, not taxpayers, will pay to clean up their messes. That’s great news for Americans. But full relief will only come once we stop using toxic substances like PFAS and mercury. Until then, we’ll continue to suffer from contaminated water, dirty air and Superfund sites.”

Our Fixation on Forests as a Climate Solution Is Causing Problems

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. What is the value of a tree? It can provide a cool place to rest in the shade, a snack in the form of fruit, lumber to build a home, and cleaner air. But trees are increasingly being prized for one thing: […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. What is the value of a tree? It can provide a cool place to rest in the shade, a snack in the form of fruit, lumber to build a home, and cleaner air. But trees are increasingly being prized for one thing: their ability to capture carbon and counteract climate change.  Billions of dollars are flowing into projects to plant and protect trees so that governments and businesses can claim they’ve canceled out their emissions. Saving forests and planting trees are often portrayed as a “triple win” for the environment, economy, and people. According to a major report being presented on Friday at the United Nations Forum on Forests, however, that goal is proving more complicated than expected. The conversation about how to manage forests “has been overtaken by the climate discussion,” said Daniela Kleinschmit, an author of the report and the vice president of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, the network behind the research. The result? Indigenous peoples are getting pushed out of their lands because of carbon offset projects. Native grasslands are getting turned into forests, even though grasslands themselves are huge, overlooked reservoirs of carbon. And offset projects in forests, more often than not, fail to achieve all of the emissions benefits their backers had promised.  “It seems that the ongoing climate crisis has, to some extent, legitimized excessive forest management techniques, such as fertilization.” The new report, the first comprehensive assessment of how the world is governing its forests in 14 years, offers some good news—global deforestation rates have slowed down slightly, from 32 million acres a year in 2010 to 25 million in 2020. But what the report calls the “climatization” of forests has led to the rise of carbon sequestration markets that prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability, it found. Experts say that it’s possible to pursue the global goal of sequestering carbon in forests while also keeping locals happy—it would just take a more thoughtful approach that considers the tradeoffs and involves the people most affected. Daniel Miller, a professor of environmental policy at the University of Notre Dame, said that a narrow focus on forests’ environmental benefits misses “a huge part of the story.” Miller’s research has shown that forests can help fight poverty, since the edible goods found in them are often available during times of the year when people might go hungry. Having forests nearby can make land more productive, increasing crop yields by more than 50 percent in some cases. That’s because forests can enrich the soil, increase rainfall, and help with pollination. More than 3 billion people live within 1 kilometer (a little over half a mile) of forests and depend on them for jobs, like harvesting timber, and for food like nuts and mushrooms.  Forests can also help people adapt to a warming world. They regulate floods and landslides and sustain livelihoods that are jeopardized by climate change, said Ida Djenontin, a professor of geography at Penn State. But what looks like a promising carbon sequestration effort can have unexpected consequences that undermine those benefits. For example, Finland’s ministry of agriculture is trying to fertilize its forests to make them grow faster, in the hope that they will suck up carbon quickly and help the country meet its goal of going carbon-neutral by 2035. But according to the new report, the government didn’t account for the energy-intensive process of producing and transporting fertilizer, a large source of carbon emissions. The report also points out that fertilizing forests can end up hurting reindeer herding, since it stifles the growth of lichen that reindeer eat; one study found that it could also reduce berry production in forests by 70 percent. “It seems that the ongoing climate crisis has, to some extent, legitimized excessive forest management techniques, such as fertilization,” the report concludes.  The market for voluntary carbon offsets is predicted to grow from around $2 billion in 2021 to $250 billion by 2030.  Many forest offset projects don’t work as intended. An investigation last year found that only eight out of 29 rainforest offset projects approved by Verra, the world’s biggest certifier, had meaningfully reduced deforestation. The rest of the projects “had no climate benefit,” according to The Guardian, partially because the threat of those forests getting cut down had been vastly overstated. The narrative that forests can save the world from climate change is a tempting one for businesses and politicians—they can seemingly take care of their climate pledges if they’re willing to fork over the money, without having to do the hard work of reducing emissions. It also allows people to skip the hard conversations about cutting down on consumption, Kleinschmit said. The market for voluntary carbon offsets—the ones companies choose to buy—is predicted to grow from around $2 billion in 2021 to $250 billion by 2030.  Another problem is that “carbon cowboys”—a term for those seeking to profit off carbon offset schemes—can end up evicting Indigenous peoples from their homes. In 2015, Cambodian officials set aside more than 1,900 square miles of rainforest in the country’s Cardamom Mountains for a carbon offset project without consulting the Chong people that had lived there for centuries. Villagers were forced from their lands, and some were even arrested for collecting resin from trees, since carbon offset areas were monitored to stop locals from using the forest’s resources. In the United Arab Emirates, the company Blue Carbon has negotiated deals for millions of acres so it can launch offset projects aimed at protecting forests across Liberia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Much of that land has been held by Indigenous peoples. Since 1990, an estimated quarter-million people around the world have been pushed out of their homes in the name of conservation.  Global climate goals, of course, don’t have to come into conflict with local needs. Experts say it’s possible to balance the two effectively. Prakash Kashwan, an environmental studies professor at Brandeis University, said that locals can use resources from trees, at least on a smaller scale, without hurting a forest’s ability to sequester carbon, according to his research. Studies have demonstrated that involving Indigenous peoples and local residents in the process of decision-making is key to better social and environmental outcomes—including carbon sequestration.  “Allowing communities a say in how forests are managed is absolutely vital to more effective, lasting, and just forest governance, and for tackling these big global challenges that we face,” Miller said.

What will the EPA’s new regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water mean for Pennsylvania?

PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects. There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states. The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health. “This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards. “PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.” What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS. The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action. The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur. Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational. “Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN. The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.” Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters. “I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”What will this mean for Pennsylvania?One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN. Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants. “We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water AuthorityAt some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations. “What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water AuthorityAmmon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”

PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects. There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states. The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health. “This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards. “PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.” What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS. The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action. The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur. Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational. “Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN. The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.” Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters. “I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”What will this mean for Pennsylvania?One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN. Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants. “We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water AuthorityAt some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations. “What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water AuthorityAmmon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.