The US is cracking down on PFAS, but not fertilizers

This story was originally published by Grinding and appears here as part of the Climatic desk collaboration.

Earlier this month, The Environmental Protection Agency designated two types of “permanent chemicals” as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.. The measure will make it easier for the government to force manufacturers of these chemicals, called perfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, to bear the costs of removing them from the environment.

The EPA “will focus enforcement on parties that significantly contributed to the release of PFAS chemicals into the environment, including parties that have manufactured PFAS or used PFAS in the manufacturing process, federal facilities, and other industrial parties.” ”. the agency explained in a press release.. The appointment comes immediately after an EPA rule that limits the acceptable amount of the two main types of PFAS found in the United States, PFOS and PFOA, to just four parts per billion.

While the EPA’s new restrictions are innovative, they only apply to part of the country’s extensive PFAS pollution problem. This is because drinking water is not the only way Americans are exposed to PFAS, and not all companies that spread PFAS into the environment deliberately add the chemicals to products. In Texas, a group of farmers whose properties were contaminated with PFAS from fertilizers say the manufacturer should have done more to warn buyers about the dangers of its products. The first-of-its-kind lawsuit illustrates how much more regulation will be needed to rid the environment (and Americans’ bodies) of evergreen chemicals.

PFAS have been around since the mid-20th century, when chemical giants DuPont and 3M began incorporating them into products like nonstick cookware, firefighting foam, and duct tape. The chemicals, ultra-effective at repelling water, quickly became ubiquitous in products used by Americans every day: pizza boxes, takeout containers, popcorn bags, waterproof mascara, raincoats.

But the stable molecular bonds that make the chemicals so effective in these applications also make them dangerous and long-lasting. The chemicals bind to the blood and tissues, where they can build up over time and contribute to a variety of health problems. Chemicals have been linked to testicular, kidney, and thyroid cancers; cardiovascular disease; and immune deficiencies. For decades, as Chemical companies led by 3M obscured the dangers of PFAS. According to federal regulators and the public, the chemicals leaked into the environment and migrated into soil and drinking water supplies. They also infiltrated us; 97 percent of Americans have PFAS in their blood..

PFAS are also found in our droppings, which is a problem because of where that waste ends up. Biosolids, the concentrated byproducts of waste treatment plants, are commonly spread on farms as fertilizer. The products are incredibly cheap, a selling point for farmers who often work on razor-thin profit margins. Some 19 billion pounds of sewage sludge spread on farmland in 41 states between 2016 and 2022. The EPA estimates that 60 percent of biosolids in the U.S. are applied to agricultural lands..

there is growing evidence that biosolids are riddled with everlasting chemicals that have traveled through people’s bodies. EPA’s New PFAS Rules Do Not Apply to Biosolidsmeaning this pollution still goes largely unnoticed. The EPA said it aims to conduct a first assessment of PFAS in biosolids later this year., which may result in new restrictions. Preliminary research has shown that PFAS contained in waste sludge are absorbed by crops and, in turn, consumed by livestock.; It has even been found in chicken eggs. Some farmers aren’t waiting for the federal government to act.

In February, five Johnson County, Texas, farmers sued Synagro, a Maryland-based biosolids management company, and its Texas subsidiary. Synagro contracts with more than 1,000 municipal wastewater plants in North America and handles millions of tons of waste every year. The company separates liquids and solids and then treats the solids to remove some toxins and pathogens. But PFAS, thanks to their strong molecular bonds, can resist conventional wastewater treatment. Synagro reuses 80 percent of the waste it treats, some of which is marketed as Synagro Granulite fertilizer.

The lawsuit claims that Synagro “falsely markets” its fertilizers as “safe and organic.” The plaintiffs accuse the company of selling fertilizers with high levels of PFAS and failing to warn farmers about the dangers of PFAS exposure. They say an individual on a neighboring property used Synagro Granulite and then the product made its way to his farm.

Johnson County Environmental Crimes Investigator Dana Ames opened an investigation after the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office. Ames tested soil, surface water and well water samples from affected farms for PFAS. She found contamination ranging from 91 to 6,290 parts per billion in soil and water samples from the plaintiffs’ properties. The county also analyzed tissue from two fish and two calves at those farms. The fish returned up to 75,000 parts per billion. The liver of one of the calves tested a staggering 610,000 parts per billion of PFOS, about 152,000 times higher than the EPA’s new PFAS limits for drinking water.

The plaintiffs voluntarily stopped selling meat, fish and other agricultural products after discovering the contamination. They are suing Synagro to recover their losses and, they say, there is bound to be more damage. Synagro, the complaint states, did not conduct adequate environmental studies and the company “knew, or reasonably should have known, of the foreseeable risks and defects of its biosolid fertilizer.”

A Synagro spokesperson said Grinding The company denies the “novel and unproven” accusations. “EPA continues to support land application of biosolids as a valuable practice that recycles nutrients into cropland and has not suggested that any changes to biosolids management be required,” the spokesperson said, noting the lack of federal regulations. .

Ames, the researcher, said federal and state inaction is the real root of the problem. “The EPA has failed the American people and our regulatory agency here in the state of Texas has failed Texans by allowing this to continue and allowing farms and people to become contaminated as well,” Ames said. Grinding.

In response to GrindingFollowing request for comment, EPA confirmed that recent federal restrictions on PFAS do not affect the application of biosolids to agricultural lands. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality declined to comment on the ongoing litigation in Texas.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an environmental nonprofit that helped organize PFAS testing at plaintiffs’ properties in Texas, is considering filing its own lawsuit against the EPA for failing to implement restrictions on PFAS in biosolids. “They have a mandatory duty to look at what contaminants are in these biosolids and set standards for them,” said the group’s science policy director, Kyla Bennett, a former EPA employee. “They have not complied.”

The Texas plaintiffs are not the only farmers struggling with a PFAS contamination problem due to the use of biosolids. Maine has already banned the use of biosolids as fertilizer in 2022 after dozens of farms tested positive for permanent chemicals. A Michigan farmer who used biosolid fertilizers was forced to close his 300-acre farm after state officials found PFAS. on your property. Any agricultural land in the US that has seen the use of biosolids products is likely to have a PFAS problem.

“No one is immune to this,” Bennett said. “If people don’t know that their farms are contaminated, it’s because they haven’t looked.”