XPost: alt.business, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics, alt.politics.democrats   
   From: drooler@gmail.com   
      
   The federal government has still not set limits for PFAS compounds, and   
   some allege that could be because it is a polluter of them itself   
      
   This story is co-published with Consumer Reports   
      
   n 2014, residents of Horsham Township, near Philadelphia, learned that   
   their water had been contaminated with potentially toxic chemicals linked   
   to an array of health problems, including learning delays in children and   
   cancer. Those residents include Frank and Lisa Penna, who allege in a   
   lawsuit that their water was among the contaminated supplies.   
      
   Known as PFAS, for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals in   
   this class of approximately 5,000 substances have become notorious as much   
   for their potential danger as for their perseverance. Because the chemical   
   bonds that hold the compounds together don’t break down easily, they last   
   a very long time – a reality that has led to a commonly used name for the   
   group: “Forever chemicals.”   
      
   PFAS compounds are also ubiquitous, used in a range of products, from   
   food-delivery boxes to nonstick cookware to stain-resistant clothing. But   
   one of the most troubling routes to PFAS exposure is drinking water that   
   has been contaminated by discharges from factories and other facilities.   
      
      
   US drinking water contamination with ‘forever chemicals’ far worse than   
   scientists thought   
      
   Indeed, PFAS have been detected in the drinking water of more than 1,400   
   communities in 49 states, according to research by the PFAS Project at   
   Northeastern University in Boston and the Environmental Working Group   
   (EWG), an advocacy organization that estimates that 110 million people may   
   have tap water contaminated with the chemicals.   
      
   Investigations begin   
   The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates US drinking water,   
   has been investigating PFAS since the late 1990s. It set voluntary   
   guidelines of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of the compounds   
   combined that are most studied and believed to be dangerous: PFOA, or   
   perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFOS, or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. (For   
   context, 1 ppt is the equivalent of one grain of sand in an Olympic-sized   
   swimming pool, according to some estimates.)   
      
   But despite the agency’s 20-plus years of information gathering, it still   
   has not issued an enforceable nationwide standard on PFAS. The agency has   
   failed to act even as more about the risks of the chemical group has   
   become known, and even as some scientists and environmental organizations   
   have concluded that a far lower concentration of PFAS in water–1 ppt–is a   
   more appropriate limit.   
      
   The EPA won’t comment on a proposed 1 ppt limit, saying it would be   
   “inappropriate to prejudge the outcome” of a regulatory process now   
   underway.   
      
   But David Andrews, senior scientist at the EWG, says the agency should   
   enact the stringent standard. “The scientific research supports a value of   
   1 ppt or lower to be health-protective,” he says.   
      
   And an examination by Consumer Reports found that while the EPA’s power to   
   regulate chemicals in water is limited, the agency has waffled for years.   
   “The EPA hasn’t taken a science-based approach to this issue,” says Brian   
   Ronholm, CR’s director of food policy. “It’s imperative for Congress to   
   pass legislation that establishes PFAS limits in drinking water.”   
      
   That lack of a national standard has implications not just for tap water   
   but also for bottled. That’s because bottled water is overseen by the Food   
   and Drug Administration, which regulates contaminants in bottled water   
   after the EPA sets a limit for tap water.   
      
   CR recently tested 47 bottled waters and detected PFAS in 43 of them.   
   Carbonated waters were more likely to contain PFAS, with several–including   
   Topo Chico, Bubly, and Polar–showing levels above the scientist-   
   recommended 1 ppt limit.   
      
   A regulatory vacuum   
   Consumer watchdogs and researchers have long called for action on PFAS. “I   
   first asked the EPA more than 19 years ago … and we are still waiting for   
   a comprehensive, national response,” says Robert Bilott, an attorney who   
   led a class action lawsuit in the 2000s that accused the chemical company   
   DuPont of contaminating drinking water in the Ohio River Valley with PFAS.   
      
   That battle, which led to a court-ordered study of 69,000 residents that   
   found significant health risks, was depicted in the 2019 movie Dark   
   Waters. DuPont, while denying any wrongdoing, agreed in 2017 to pay $335m   
   to settle the dispute.   
      
   Frank and Lisa Penna, the Horsham Township couple, allege one possible   
   explanation for the EPA’s delay: the government itself is a major PFAS   
   polluter and is avoiding substantial cleanup costs. In a 2016 lawsuit, the   
   Pennas allege that PFAS migrated from the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve   
   Base Willow Grove, near their home, into groundwater. Thousands of gallons   
   of firefighting foam, which contains PFAS, had been dumped at the base   
   during exercises over many years, they allege.   
      
   The Pennas also claim that tests of their private well found PFOA and PFOS   
   levels of 298 ppt and 701 ppt, respectively–up to 10 times the EPA’s   
   voluntary limit.   
      
   The Pennas’ case went to trial in August. Part of the government’s   
   defense? It can’t be held liable because PFAS remain “unregulated”.   
      
   Navy spokesperson Lt Gabrielle Dimaapi declined to comment on the Penna   
   case, citing ongoing litigation. But she says the navy has spent $200m   
   investigating and responding to potential PFAS concerns and is “working   
   collaboratively with our regulatory partners and concerned communities”.   
      
   Forty years of clues   
   In their lawsuit, the Pennas presented documents that they say show the   
   government knew of the possible risks of PFAS for decades before the EPA   
   moved to curtail their use –a claim the government denies. That includes a   
   1974 report commissioned by the air force that examined how to dispose of   
   aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), the technical name of firefighting foam,   
   because air force environmental personnel had “expressed concern for   
   disposing of AFFFs after use”.   
      
   Lt Ronald Kroop, who led the study, elaborated on those concerns in an   
   August 2019 deposition: “It’s going in the ground,” he said. “That was   
   acknowledged, accepted.” What wasn’t known – and needed to be – was the   
   impact that might have, he attested.   
      
   The burdensome law   
   Part of the problem, researchers say, is that Congress has also made it   
   hard for the EPA to act.   
      
   It wasn’t always so. When Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in   
   1974, it granted the EPA authority to regulate drinking water. Soon after,   
   the agency adopted standards for about two dozen contaminants, according   
   to research by James Salzman, an environmental law professor at UCLA.   
      
   But over the next two decades, water utilities began to push back, citing   
   the high cost of removing contaminants, and in 1996, Congress amended the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)