How fluoropolymer makers are trying to hold on to their business

Read the full story at Chemical & Engineering News.

As the materials face regulatory fire, producers look to eliminate problematic polymerization aids.

PFAS rule sets up sprawling legal war

Read the full story at GreenWire.

EPA’s historic move to regulate “forever chemicals” in drinking water has set the stage for a multi-pronged courtroom slugfest among the agency, water utilities that must comply with the rule and multinational conglomerates that have flooded the environment with the toxicants linked to a long list of health problems, including cancer.

Although lawsuits cannot be filed until EPA finalizes its PFAS proposal, interested parties will spend the coming months filling the regulatory docket with comments that will eventually inform the final rule or shape opponents’ future legal challenges against the agency — and one another.

Case law on the topic is limited: EPA’s proposal marks the agency’s first enforceable standard of its kind for PFAS and its first effort to regulate a drinking water contaminant in over 25 years.

Which state you live in matters for how well environmental laws protect your health

Pesticide use on school playing fields varies from state to state. matimix/iStock/Getty Images Plus

by Susan Kaplan, University of Illinois at Chicago

Your child could go to gym class on Monday morning and play soccer on a field that was sprayed over the weekend with 2,4-D, a toxic weedkiller that has been investigated as possibly causing cancer. Alternatively, the school grounds may have been treated with a lower-toxicity weedkiller. Or maybe the grounds were managed with safe, nontoxic products and techniques.

Which of these scenarios applies depends in large part on your state’s laws and regulations today – more so than federal regulations.

For example, Texas requires all school districts to adopt an integrated pest management program for school buildings; IPM prioritizes nonchemical pest control methods and includes some protections regarding spraying of grounds. Massachusetts also restricts pesticide use on school grounds. Illinois requires IPM for school buildings only if economically feasible. States also vary greatly in the education and technical assistance they provide to implement these practices.

Two men with sprayers connected to hoses walk across a lawn, spraying it. One has a backpack container with liquid inside.
Chemical pesticides can be harmful to human health. Huntstock/Brand X Pictures via Getty Images

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is involved in some baseline pesticide functions, shortcomings of the main pesticide law, along with industry influence, can leave vulnerable groups like children inadequately protected from these exposures.

EPA registers products for use based on a finding that they do not cause an “unreasonable” risk but considers economic costs and benefits, an approach that can result in decisions that pose health risks. And required labels may omit ingredients considered trade secrets.

As an environmental health lawyer and professor, I teach, write and think about the pros and cons of one level of government or the other overseeing environmental health – the impact of the natural and human-made environment on human health. Pesticides on school grounds are just one example of the problem of uneven protection from one state to the next.

Congress eased off, states stepped in

State policy choices have become more important for limiting people’s exposure to pollution and toxins as the federal government has increasingly retreated from major environmental health lawmaking.

Many of the country’s major environmental health laws were passed in the 1970s on the momentum of the environmental movement and with bipartisan support that is rarely seen today.

For example, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 required U.S. EPA to regulate a wide range of air pollutants, in some cases based explicitly on protecting human health. They were approved 374-1 in the House and 73-0 by the Senate and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon signed the law that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1971.

A 1970s-era photo of cars on a freeway with 'Santa Monica' on the sign.
Concerns about smog from vehicles that choked cities like Los Angeles helped lead to environmental laws in the 1970s. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

One analyst has written that groups that pressed legislators for environmental protection later splintered into groups advocating for and against environmental laws, reflecting an emerging debate over the appropriate extent of regulation.

At the same time, after the success of many federal environmental health laws, attention turned to problems that are harder for Washington to solve. With state environmental programs growing, some suggested that the U.S. EPA’s role should shift from compelling to catalyzing – from requiring specific pollution-reducing actions to helping states act by providing increased information and help with compliance. Yet this view acknowledged that under this scenario, residents of some states would enjoy stronger environmental health protections than others.

Reflecting this dynamic and the extent of political division in the U.S., even when the federal government does create tougher environmental regulations, they are often reversed by the succeeding administration or challenged in court.

Sometimes, states should make the decisions

In some cases, it makes sense to leave decisions to states. A health department in a western state may focus on protecting vulnerable groups from wildfire smoke, given the growth of blazes in that part of the country. Some states may welcome fracking operations while others prefer to keep them out.

States can also serve as laboratories of innovation, and the experiences of state programs and policies can inform federal actions.

But this regulatory patchwork creates inequities. If you live in one of the dozen-and-a-half states that follow California’s tailpipe emissions standards rather than the less stringent federal standards, you probably benefit from reduced air pollution.

The same holds for East Coast residents within the confederation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which limits greenhouse gas emissions – and other air pollutants in the process. A recent study that compared RGGI states with neighboring non-RGGI states concluded that data “indicate that RGGI has provided substantial child health benefits,” including a reduction in childhood asthma cases.

Drinking water limits or labeling requirements for PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – also vary by state. PFAS are found in products from nonstick cookware to some personal care products, and they have been linked with a range of troubling health effects. Because of their toxicity, broad scope of contamination and longevity in the environment, 18 states’ attorneys general are asking for a federal law.

How you can hold lawmakers to account

Environmental health often suffers from a cycle of panic and neglect. People worry about a concern like the chemical alar used on apples, until the next issue erupts. The public can keep up pressure on state and federal decision-makers to consider how the environment affects health in an array of ways:

  • One person can be dismissed as an outlier, so start a group or join other groups that have similar interests.
  • Research the problem and best practices and possible solutions, like program or policy development, education or stepped-up enforcement. Then call, email and send letters to elected representatives and request a meeting to clearly and concisely explain your concerns and ideas.
  • Identify a “champion” – someone in a position to spearhead a change, like a school nurse or facilities manager – and reach out to them.
  • Get the issue into the local news media by writing op-eds and social media posts. Be sure to communicate benefits of the action you’re advocating, like improved school attendance or financial return on investment.
  • Attend public meetings and speak on the issue during the public comment period. Successes at the local level can provide examples for state officials.

Susan Kaplan, Research Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

New PFAS guidelines – a water quality scientist explains technology and investment needed to get forever chemicals out of US drinking water

PFAS can be found in hundreds of water systems in the U.S. d3sign/Moment via Getty Images

by Joe Charbonnet, Iowa State University

Harmful chemicals known as PFAS can be found in everything from children’s clothes to soil to drinking water, and regulating these chemicals has been a goal of public and environmental health researchers for years. On March 14, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed what would be the first set of federal guidelines regulating levels of PFAS in drinking water. The guidelines will be open to public comment for 60 days before being finalized.

Joe Charbonnet is an environmental engineer at Iowa State University who develops techniques to remove contaminants like PFAS from water. He explains what the proposed guidelines would require, how water utilities could meet these requirements and how much it might cost to get these so-called forever chemicals out of U.S. drinking water.

1. What do the new guidelines say?

PFAS are associated with a variety of health issues and have been a focus of environmental and public health researchers. There are thousands of members of this class of chemicals, and this proposed regulation would set the allowable limits in drinking water for six of them.

Two of the six chemicals – PFOA and PFOS – are no longer produced in large quantities, but they remain common in the environment because they were so widely used and break down extremely slowly. The new guidelines would allow for no more than four parts per trillion of PFOA or PFOS in drinking water.

Four other PFAS – GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS – would be regulated as well, although with higher limits. These chemicals are common replacements for PFOA and PFOS and are their close chemical cousins. Because of their similarity, they cause harm to human and environmental health in much the same way as legacy PFAS.

A few states have already established their own limits on levels of PFAS in drinking water, but these new guidelines, if enacted, would be the first legally enforceable federal limits and would affect the entire U.S.

A water droplet sitting on a piece of fabric.
Chemicals used to create water-repellent fabrics and nonstick pans often contain PFAS and leak those chemicals into the environment. Brocken Inaglory/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

2. How many utilities will need to make changes?

PFAS are harmful even at extremely low levels, and the proposed limits reflect that fact. The allowable concentrations would be comparable to a few grains of salt in an Olympic-size swimming pool. Hundreds of utilities all across the U.S. have levels of PFAS above the proposed limits in their water supplies and would need to make changes to meet these standards.

While many areas have been tested for PFAS in the past, many systems have not, so health officials don’t know precisely how many water systems would be affected. A recent study used existing data to estimate that about 40% of municipal drinking water supplies may exceed the proposed concentration limits.

3. What can utilities do to meet the guidelines?

There are two major technologies that most utilities consider for removing PFAS from drinking water: activated carbon or ion exchange systems.

A membrane treatment system.
Water treatment systems can use activated carbon or ion exchange to remove PFAS from drinking water. Paola Giannoni/E+ via Getty Images

Activated carbon is a charcoal-like substance that PFAS stick to quite well and can be used to remove PFAS from water. In 2006, the town of Oakdale, Minnesota, added an activated carbon treatment step to its water system. Not only did this additional water treatment bring PFAS levels down substantially, there were significant improvements in birth weight and the number of full-term pregnancies in that community after the change.

Ion exchange systems work by flowing water over charged particles that can remove PFAS. Ion exchange systems are typically even better at lowering PFAS concentrations than activated carbon systems, but they are also more expensive.

Another option available to some cities is simply finding alternative water sources that are less contaminated. While this is a wonderful, low-cost means of lowering contamination, it points to a major disparity in environmental justice; more rural and less well-resourced utilities are unlikely to have this option.

4. Is such a major transition feasible?

By law, the EPA must consider not just human health but also the feasibility of treatment and the potential financial cost when setting maximum contaminant levels in drinking water. While the proposed limits are certainly attainable for many water utilities, the costs will be high.

The federal government has made available billions of dollars in funding for treating water. But some estimates put the total cost of meeting the proposed regulations for the entire country at around US$400 billion – much more than the available funding. Some municipalities may seek financial help for treatment from nearby polluters, while others may raise water rates to cover the costs.

5. What happens next?

The EPA has set a 60-day period for public comment on the proposed regulations, after which it can finalize the guidelines. But many experts expect the EPA to face a number of legal challenges. Time will tell what the final version of the regulations may look like.

This regulation is intended to keep the U.S. in the enviable position of having some of the highest-quality drinking water in the world. As researchers and health officials learn more about new chemical threats, it is important to ensure that every resident has access to clean and affordable tap water.

While these six PFAS certainly pose threats to health that merit regulation, there are thousands of PFAS that likely have very similar impacts on human health. Rather than playing chemical whack-a-mole by regulating one PFAS at a time, there is a growing consensus among researchers and public health officials that PFAS should be regulated as a class of chemicals.

Joe Charbonnet, Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Public health vs. economic growth: Toxic chemical rules pose test for Biden

Read the full story in the New York Times.

The Biden administration is preparing to impose some of the first new rules in a generation to restrict or ban an array of toxic chemicals that are widely used in manufacturing, presenting the White House with tough choices between its economic agenda and public health.

Many of the substances in question are important to industries that President Biden has backed through other policies intended to bolster global competitiveness and national security, such as semiconductors and electric vehicles.

Corporations are framing the decisions about new regulations for an initial group of toxic chemicals as putting at risk the administration’s drive to nurture the American economy of the future. Environmental and public health groups are stressing the need to focus on protecting workers and communities from substances known to carry health risks, such as cancer, liver and kidney damage and infertility.

A major lobbying clash is already underway. Chip makers, the burgeoning electric vehicle industry and other companies, including military contractors, are pressuring the administration to water down the new rules, saying the repercussions of a ban or new restrictions could be crippling.

EPA announces accelerated action on four organophosphate pesticides based on updated exposure assessments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced an effort to expedite protections on some high-risk uses of four organophosphate pesticides. The Agency is releasing the updated occupational and non-occupational spray drift exposure risk assessments for these four pesticides – diazinon, ethoprop, tribufos and phosmet – several years ahead of the scheduled completion of EPA’s work on these chemicals in order to seek early mitigation prior to completing the standard registration review process.

Diazinon, ethoprop, tribufos and phosmet are part of the group of pesticides known as organophosphates. These pesticides are used in both agricultural (e.g., fruit and nut trees, vegetables and herbs, cotton) and non-agricultural settings for a range of purposes. Diazinon and phosmet controls insects, ethoprop controls worms and other soil pests, and tribufos defoliates cotton prior to harvest. These pesticides are currently undergoing registration review, a process that requires EPA to reevaluate pesticides every 15 years to ensure that as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of causing no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

As part of the registration review process, EPA assessed the potential risks to people who mix, load, and apply the four pesticides, farmworkers who work with crops that have been treated with these pesticides, and bystanders who are potentially exposed to spray drift, including families living in agricultural communities.

The Agency identified the following potential risks for each pesticide:

  • The diazinon assessment identified potential risks to workers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide, and to bystanders (including farmworkers) who could be exposed to spray drift.
  • The ethoprop assessment identified potential risks to workers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide, and to bystanders (including farmworkers) who could be exposed to spray drift.
  • The phosmet assessment identified potential risks to workers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide, workers conducting certain post-application activities (e.g., weeding, hand harvesting, or workers re-entering treated areas), and bystanders (including farmworkers) who may be exposed to spray drift. 
  • The tribufos assessment identified potential risks to workers who mix, load, and apply the pesticide, and to bystanders (including farmworkers) who may be exposed to spray drift.

Although registration review for these pesticides was not scheduled to be completed until 2025-2026, after recognizing that several of uses of these four pesticides present significant human health risks, EPA is taking accelerated and early action to address these risks. This will allow the Agency to put important protections in place quickly for some high-risk uses of these pesticides, while allowing time to work through the complicated scientific issues that need to be addressed before completing registration review.

EPA is currently meeting with the technical registrants of the four pesticides about early risk mitigation. The types of mitigation under consideration include cancellation of uses and formulation types, prohibition of application methods, increased personal protective equipment for pesticide handlers, spray drift requirements, and new restrictions on when workers can reenter treated fields and perform harvesting and other types of post-application activities. The Agency is asking the registrants to submit label amendments that reflect the necessary risk mitigation measures for each of these four organophosphates and is prepared to expedite label reviews in order to implement the protections as quickly as possible.

The updated exposure risk assessments are now available in the registration review dockets, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0351 (diazinon), EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0560 (ethoprop), EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0883 (tribufos) and EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0316 (phosmet) at www.regulations.gov.

Given the expedited nature of this effort, the Agency is not taking comment on these assessments. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on the four occupational and non-occupational spray drift risk assessments when the cases progress through the next step of registration review with the proposed interim decision, which will include the full updated human health risk assessment for each. EPA expects to issue the proposed interim decisions in fiscal year 2025 (tribufos) and fiscal year 2026 (ethoprop, diazinon and phosmet).

New York lawmakers consider three packaging EPR bills

Read the full story at Resource Recycling.

New York lawmakers are trying to make their state the fifth in the nation to pass an extended producer responsibility law for packaging, and some stakeholders feel like this is the year.

EPA issues final rule cutting interstate smog

Read the full story at The Hill.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday morning announced finalized new rules on interstate air pollution, regulating downwind interstate pollution.

The latest “Good Neighbor” rule will affect nitrogen oxide pollution that is a key ingredient in smog from facilities in 23 states. On a call with reporters, EPA Administrator Michael Regan estimated about 80 million people in the U.S. live in areas downwind of smog pollution.

Facing drought, Western states seek to deny groundwater to foreigners

Read the full story at Stateline.

As the American West battles its worst megadrought in over 1,200 years, state elected officials throughout the region are rethinking how groundwater is used and who gets access to it — with some even targeting foreign-owned companies.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Arizona, California, Texas, Utah and Washington state are considering legislation that aims to protect their states’ water supplies by banning foreign companies from owning or leasing land. Elsewhere in the United States, state lawmakers have rushed to try to ban foreign companies, especially from China after the recent spy balloon saga, from owning land — primarily for national security reasons.

Read more Stateline coverage of how communities across the West are grappling with drought that’s worsening because of climate change.

EU lawmakers approve CO2-cutting targets and expanding forest carbon sinks

Read the full story from Reuters.

The European Parliament gave its final approval on Tuesday to tougher national targets to cut emissions in some sectors, and expand CO2-absorbing natural ecosystems like forests.

The two laws are part of a major package of climate change legislation passing through the European Union’s policymaking process, designed to ensure the 27-country bloc cuts greenhouse gas emissions 55% by 2030, from 1990 levels.