(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Prioritizing PFAS: The next government-wide plan to tackle ‘forever chemicals’ [1]

[]

Date: 2024-08

The contamination crisis from the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS is far from over, despite the Biden-Harris administration’s strides implementing its government-wide plan to combat PFAS pollution. EWG has identified steps the next administration should take to build on successes so far.

These steps are priority actions that the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense and others can pursue to reduce PFAS pollution. The plan also includes calls for boosting federal funding to address contamination.

PFAS contamination in the U.S. is widespread, tainting drinking water for millions, and contaminating Superfund sites and the air people breathe. And the health harms from exposure to these chemicals are well known, including testicular, kidney, liver and pancreatic cancer; reproductive problems; weakened childhood immunity; low birth weight; endocrine disruption; and more.

The Biden-Harris administration followed through on many key parts of its PFAS plan, including the landmark April 2024 announcement of drinking water standards for six PFAS, the designation of two notorious PFAS as hazardous substances, a new framework for reviewing PFAS uses, and $10 billion in water grants and loans to address PFAS and emerging contaminants.

But there’s much more that must be done.

What follows are the priority federal actions the next administration can pursue to continue the fight against forever chemicals.

Image

Environmental Protection Agency

Strengthen EPA oversight and enforce schedules for PFAS contaminated federal facilities . The EPA has authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to place federal facilities, including those under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, on the Superfund National Priorities List , or NPL. The agency’s oversight of NPL cleanups includes authority to make final decisions on cleanup remedies and the ability to enforce cleanup schedules. The EPA should expedite a review of federal facilities with PFAS contamination and place sites with the most serious PFAS contamination on the NPL to strengthen oversight of cleanups.

Designate more PFAS as hazardous substances . The EPA in April 2024 achieved a major milestone by designating two PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA. The designation will help jump-start cleanups, require reporting of PFAS releases, and enable the EPA and other agencies to hold polluters accountable. Over the next four years, the EPA should identify additional PFAS for which designation as a hazardous substance is appropriate and complete the designation process. And the agency should treat PFAS that appear with PFOA and PFOS or other hazardous substances at Superfund sites as “pollutants and contaminants” under CERCLA and require those PFAS to be cleaned up as well.

Certify destruction and disposal methods for PFAS . The EPA in April 2024 updated its interim guidance for the destruction and disposal of PFAS. Over the next four years, the agency should build on the guidance by establishing a program for the certification of PFAS disposal and destruction methods that are proven safe and effective.

Add more PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020 required the EPA to add certain PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, which requires manufacturers to report on chemical use, release, treatment, and disposal. The law identified a subset of PFAS to be immediately added to the TRI and created requirements for adding additional PFAS. The agency has added 196 PFAS to the TRI since then. The EPA was also required to make a determination on whether to add another subset of PFAS to the TRI at the end of 2021, including all PFAS “used to manufacture fluorinated polymers,” but it has not yet publicly done so. The EPA should make its determination public, add those PFAS to the TRI as soon as possible, and continue adding PFAS to the TRI as required.

Make industry identify health harms from PFAS . The EPA issued a national testing strategy in 2021 to identify and evaluate toxicity associated with PFAS. This identified 24 categories of PFAS that lack sufficient toxicity data to understand the human health effects. Over the next four years, the EPA should accelerate the use of test orders to complete the collection of health effects information for all categories of PFAS that EPA has identified as priority candidates for testing, and complete concrete actions identified in the testing strategy to address data gaps associated with PFAS.

Order industry to report how much PFAS are manufactured, imported and used, as well as their potential risks . In October 2023, the EPA issued a rule under Section (8)(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act that requires industry to report and retain records of the manufacture or import of PFAS and its uses, volumes, disposal, exposures and hazards. The rule will enable the EPA to better characterize the sources and quantities of manufactured PFAS. Over the next four years, the agency should ensure full compliance with this rule and publish periodic updates on the information reported to the agency. In addition, the EPA should prepare to use the information to guide regulatory priorities for safe management, use and disposal of PFAS, including identifying PFAS for toxicity assessment and identifying priority industries for regulation.

Expand research on the uptake of PFAS by crops and potential bioaccumulation . The EPA has initiated research to better understand the potential uptake of PFAS by crops. But it needs much more funding to examine the variety of crops that may be affected by PFAS contamination of agricultural land and water or other sources of contamination and the types of PFAS involved.

Identify non-industrial sources of PFAS . EWG estimates there could be nearly 30,000 industrial dischargers of PFAS into the environment, including into sources of drinking water. Research shows PFAS sources may also include household products such as toilet paper, PFAS-treated paper, leather products, carpets and other textiles, and even pharmaceuticals. Over the next four years, the EPA and other agencies should design and conduct research to identify and address significant sources of PFAS that may not be traditional “point source” contributors to water pollution.

Conduct research needed to control PFAS in air emissions . While the risks of PFAS in water have been documented sufficiently to support drinking water standards for some PFAS, less has been done to support Clean Air Act, or CAA, regulation of PFAS. Research on PFAS measurement, transport, sources of emissions, emissions from incineration and destruction, and inhalation toxicity is needed to inform monitoring and management of PFAS risks. Within the next four years, the EPA and other agencies should speed up research focused on eliminating gaps in the air research needed to support both CAA regulatory actions and state efforts to control PFAS risks.

Significantly ramp up research on PFAS . The EPA’s regulatory programs are supported by research on PFAS sources, transport, health effects, treatment and control technologies, safe disposal, alternatives, analytical methods and more. Additional funding is needed for EPA’s Office of Research and Development to carry out a PFAS research agenda that is closely coordinated with the agency’s regulatory authorities.

Give defense communities safe water to drink . At least 100 DOD facilities are known to have contaminated both public and private water supplies. The department has not provided alternative water at all facilities where water is contaminated above the EPA’s federal drinking water standards for PFAS. Providing safe alternative water should be an immediate and urgent priority. The military should continuously and actively survey water supplies potentially impacted by PFAS, including private wells, and fast-track the provision of safe alternative sources of water.

Ban incineration of PFAS-firefighting foam and other PFAS wastes until proven safe. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022 placed a temporary ban on the incineration of firefighting foam. The Pentagon subsequently issued a policy that allows such incineration, even though the EPA’s most recent guidance on PFAS disposal and destruction states that “uncertainties remain.” These uncertainties include whether harmful products of incomplete combustion or PFAS air emissions are formed by units operating at lower temperatures. In addition to firefighting foam, the DOD also generates PFAS waste from spent water filters, turnout gear and other military applications of PFAS. All PFAS waste incineration should stop until incineration technology and practices are proven effective at completely destroying PFAS and shown to not create harmful byproducts that could endanger the health of nearby communities.

Protect firefighters from PFAS used in protective equipment. Section 345 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023 instructs the military not to enter into contracts to procure or purchase personal protective equipment after fall 2026. This includes any equipment that provides protection to the upper and lower torso, arms, legs, head, hands,and feet. The Pentagon should prioritize compliance with this requirement before the 2026 deadline and share its expertise with other federal agencies with firefighting capacity to phase out both government and civilian use of protective equipment containing PFAS.

End the use of PFAS firefighting foam . The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020 requires the DOD to stop using firefighting foam containing PFAS by October 2024. In response, the DOD developed new firefighting foam specifications and identified safe and effective alternative foams that meet the new specification. The DOD should finally end the use of PFAS firefighting foam; replace PFAS with safer GreenScreen-certified foams; share its expertise with other federal agencies to end the use of PFAS fire-fighting foam across the government; and help civilian entities to shift to safer foams.

Double funding for PFAS cleanup . The cost of cleaning up the military backlog of contaminated sites is more than $40 billion , even without considering the full costs of PFAS cleanup. At current levels of funding, many installations won’t be cleaned up for 50 years or more. Over the next four years, the administration should double the Pentagon’s PFAS funding which should be reflected in the administration’s funding requests to Congress.

Reform the DOD cleanup program. The department’s Defense Environmental Restoration Program has no published strategy for accelerating PFAS cleanup, and defense communities often lack necessary information and technical assistance to clean up effectively. No final remedy has been approved for PFAS across the DOD’s hundreds of PFAS-contaminated sites. An interagency review of the DOD’s cleanup program should identify bottlenecks in decision-making and contracting processes, ensure cooperation among federal agencies and states to fast-track PFAS cleanup, and establish ambitious multi-year cleanup goals.

Empower communities to engage in DOD cleanups . Communities are legally entitled to participate in decision-making that affects their future well-being and safety. To improve community engagement, Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 gave the DOD authority to provide community technical assistance for cleanup. Yet the department has not announced the availability of assistance consistent with the new authority. Starting immediately and over the next four years, the DOD should work with EPA, which has an established technical assistance program , to design the program, fully fund such support, and vigorously publicize the availability of the program to help communities effectively participate in DOD cleanups.

Stop the spread of PFAS from federal facilities . Because PFAS are mobile and do not break down, every effort should be made to prevent the spread of PFAS from military installations and other federal sites. The EPA’s policy and practice at non-federal sites has long required early action to contain contaminated plumes of groundwater, even if final remedies have not been determined. The DOD needs to similarly make early actions a priority. The longer PFAS are allowed to migrate, the more it will cost to clean up, and the greater the public health threat. Within one year, the DOD should use a standardized, rigorous process to assess possible early actions to stop the spread of PFAS, set goals and deadlines for implementing interim and early actions, solicit input from regulators, communities and other experts, and publicly report on progress. In addition, the DOD should set aside funds to encourage the implementation of interim and early actions.

Tell the truth about PFAS cleanup costs and time frames . The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022 required the DOD to report to Congress the full cost of, and schedule for, PFAS cleanup. The department never produced a report that meets the statutory requirement. Prior to the first term of the 119th Congress, the DOD should provide Congress and the public with a full accounting of PFAS cleanup obligations, including “cost to completion” of cleanup, along with credible estimates of cleanup time frames. Along with this report, the department should publicly commit to specific goals for cleaning up a minimum of 50 installations with the most serious contamination over the next four years.

Assess the health implications of PFAS for military installations and establish a PFAS registry . The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019 required the DOD to assess the health implications of PFAS exposure, to include an estimate of the number of service members and veterans exposed to forever chemicals. EWG found the study was incomplete in several ways. The DOD should update the assessment to identify the true extent of PFAS exposure from military service, including consideration of past exposures for service members who served at multiple contaminated installations. It should also establish a registry to provide ongoing medical information and services to those exposed to PFAS.

Fully fund the FDA’s Office of Food Chemical Safety. As part of a reorganization in 2024, the FDA created an Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation. It is an important development in protecting consumers from harmful chemicals like PFAS in their food. But the FDA’s new commitment to review the safety of food and food packaging chemicals will not be realized unless full funding is provided to the office to ensure that chemicals and contaminants in food do not threaten our health.

Permanently end the use of PFAS in food packaging . In February 2024, the FDA announced that food packaging manufacturers have followed through on a commitment to phase out certain PFAS. While this represents a step toward eliminating PFAS, it does not prevent “regrettable substitution” – the use of other PFAS – nor does it ensure that the use of PFAS in all forms of food packaging and other food contact materials is permanently ended. Over the next four years, to prevent the introduction of food packaging and other food contact substances that contain PFAS, the FDA should ban PFAS in food contact substances and implement a program to rigorously review substances that come into contact with food. The FDA should also ban the use of fluorinated plastic containers for food storage. PFAS can form as part of the fluorination process and migrate into food stored in those containers, ultimately exposing people to the chemicals.

Set limits on PFAS concentrations in foods . PFAS can enter the food supply through plants and animals grown, raised or processed in contaminated areas, according to the FDA . In 2022, the FDA tested seafood samples , revealing a significantly higher percentage of detectable PFAS levels and different types of PFAS, compared to previous findings in its Total Diet Study, an ongoing assessment of U.S. consumers’ average dietary intake. The FDA has authority to set action thresholds for contaminants in food, such as toxic metals, but has not set such levels for PFAS. The agency should increase monitoring over the next four years to assess PFAS concentration in food and set action limits for foods known to have high levels of PFAS, such as seafood.

Assess PFAS alternatives for drugs and medical devices . PFAS are used in the manufacturing of FDA-approved drugs and medical devices. The FDA should consider whether safer alternatives are available.

Ban PFAS in cosmetics. Personal care products, such as soaps, lotions and deodorants, are regulated as cosmetics by the FDA, and are covered under the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act , which granted the FDA more control over these products, introduced recall authority, facilitated registration requirements and improved labeling. The FDA should use the agency’s new power to swiftly ban PFAS from use in personal care products.

Characterize PFAS risks from food . More scientific work is necessary to identify the types and levels of PFAS in food, determine possible health effects and fill gaps in knowledge needed to protect the food supply. Over the next four years, the FDA and the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service should develop a research agenda to address priority research needs, including improved methodologies to identify PFAS in additional foods and expanded testing under the Total Diet Study.

Accelerate research efforts to find replacements for PFAS . The DOE was one of the first federal agencies to adopt a department-wide strategy to address PFAS and institute policies to reduce the purchase of PFAS-containing products. The DOE also published an initial research plan for PFAS. The department should employ its unique research capabilities to support federal PFAS policy responses, such as disposal and destruction technology, in situ treatment, detection and measurement, and PFAS-free alternatives for national energy and national security applications.

Stop using PFAS firefighting foam at civilian airports and for other uses . The DOD has identified effective alternatives for PFAS firefighting foam, and Congress has authorized $350 million to help civilian airports transition to PFAS-free firefighting foam and protect firefighters . Over the next four years, the FAA should use available funding and authorities to complete the transition to safer alternative firefighting foams at civilian airports. Use of GreenScreen-certified foams should be prioritized to avoid regrettable substitution.

Remove PFAS-containing products from USDA’s BioPreferred label and federal purchasing requirements . The BioPreferred Program identifies bio-based products that are given preference for federal purchases. The program has certified more than 2,500 products in 100 product categories, but it does not screen out products that contain PFAS. As a result, the program may be working at cross-purposes with Biden-Harris administration efforts to reduce federal purchases of products with PFAS. The USDA should eliminate PFAS-containing products from its mandatory federal purchasing program, as well as its voluntary labeling program for all product categories in which safer alternatives are available.

Investigate the impact on agriculture of PFAS contamination from DOD facilities and other sources. More research is necessary to understand the potential risks of PFAS to animals and crops, and how farmers can mitigate harm. Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 requires the Pentagon to notify farmers and agricultural operators within a mile downstream of PFAS-contaminated ground water at military installations. The department in July 2023 reported it had notified 3,911 agricultural operators . The USDA and the DOD should provide additional funding to expand upon the EPA’s recently initiated study of PFAS risks and mitigation for agriculture.

Inform farmers about PFAS contamination risks. In cooperation with the DOD, the EPA, and states, the USDA should inform farmers of risks to land, animals and crops at locations near PFAS-contaminated military installations and other sources of contamination. Within four years, the agencies should work with states to provide guidance and technical assistance to farmers about mitigating PFAS harm to agricultural operations.

End federal purchases of unnecessary PFAS products. The GSA is eliminating the use of PFAS-containing cleaning products for thousands of federal buildings, and the Department of Defense no longer purchases certain products containing PFAS. These are important steps in the right direction, but represent only a small fraction of overall government procurement. While the Biden administration directed agencies to prioritize the purchase of safe substitutes for PFAS products, many obstacles remain to truly achieving the goal of PFAS-free federal purchasing. Over the next four years, the GSA – working with the EPA as well as the USDA’s BioPreferred program – should eliminate PFAS-containing products from federal purchasing catalogs. The EPA should update federal purchasing guidelines to recommend only PFAS-free products when PFAS-free alternatives are available.

Cover PFAS blood testing through Medicare and M∂edicaid . Populations with contaminated drinking water or living near sources of PFAS often have questions about the extent of their PFAS contamination and potential health risks. PFAS blood levels are an important indicator of exposure, but may be unaffordable for many people. The HHS should take steps to ensure that the costs of PFAS blood tests for wellness screenings and monitoring are covered under Medicare and Medicaid.

Update clinician guidance . In early 2024, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released guidance for clinicians about how to address individuals’ exposure to PFAS. The guidance failed to fully incorporate recommendations from a 2022 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report. The agency should expeditiously update the guidance in line with the report’s recommendations.

Conduct research to prioritize PFAS based on health effects . The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences should increase support of research on PFAS human health risks from individual PFAS or groups of forever chemicals, to help set priorities for federal policy responses, including potential EPA regulations.

Study health impacts in pollution hot spots. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018 required the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control to study the health effects of exposure to PFAS in communities impacted by contamination from military facilities. The so-called PFAS Multi-Site Study, or MSS, should be expanded to include communities harmed by industrial PFAS pollution, such as the Cape Fear region in North Carolina. The study should also consider clusters of illness that may be associated with PFAS from all sources of exposure, including occupational exposure.

Enforce against companies that make misleading claims about PFAS . The FTC should enforce against unfair or deceptive claims about PFAS, such as marketing claims that products are “PFAS free” based on vague definitions of forever chemicals, or testing procedures that aren’t designed to detect low levels of PFAS or all types of PFAS.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.ewg.org/research/prioritizing-pfas-next-government-wide-plan-tackle-forever-chemicals

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.