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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

How Will EPA’s New Rule about ‘Forever Chemicals’ Protect Your Drinking Water?

News Feed
Friday, April 12, 2024

How Will EPA’s New Rule about ‘Forever Chemicals’ Protect Your Drinking Water?A new EPA rule will limit PFASs, or “forever chemicals,” in your drinking water for the first time. Here’s what that means for youBy Katherine BourzacCavan Images/Getty ImagesThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced limits on “forever chemicals” in drinking water for the first time. The rule, detailed on April 10, applies to six persistent, toxic chemicals in a class called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). These substances are often colloquially referred to as forever chemicals because they do not readily break down in nature. But what does the agency’s announcement mean for the H2O that you consume daily?That depends on how swiftly drinking water suppliers respond: they now have three years to test for these PFASs and two years to remove the chemicals from our taps.PFASs have been widely used since the 1940s. They’re extremely durable, and they can repel both water and oil. They’re used in firefighting foams, nonstick cookware, stain-repelling clothing and food packaging, among other products. PFASs can enter the drinking water supply after they are discharged into rivers and lakes from manufacturing and processing facilities or industrial use. They can also enter the water system when firefighting foams seep into the ground. For people living near industrial sources of PFASs, drinking water is the main exposure route of these compounds.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.These chemicals were initially designed in an era when “we thought persistence was a great property,” says Cheryl Murphy, director of the Center for PFAS Research at Michigan State University. PFASs are strings of carbon atoms bound to fluorine atoms, resulting in one of the strongest chemical bonds found in nature. But the durability of the chemicals also means they accumulate in our body and in the environment. PFAS molecules have water-repelling and water-attracting parts—just like the lipid molecules that make up our cell membranes. “They transport really easily, hitching a ride on water molecules,” Murphy says. “They bind to our cell membranes and to proteins.”According to a 2023 U.S. Geological Survey study, 45 percent of tap water across the country contains PFASs. The substances have also been found in people’s blood and widely in the environment.Some water agencies already treat tap water for PFAS using technologies that include filters based on granulated activated charcoal and reverse osmosis. These methods clean up the water to make it safer to drink, but they leave behind PFASs as a waste product. Due to their persistence, these PFAS can’t be readily broken down. Murphy says scientists are still investigating technologies that can work at the scale needed to break down PFASs filtered from the nation’s water.For individuals concerned that there may be PFASs in their tap water before the EPA begins enforcing its new rule, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group recommends certain PFAS filters. Because PFASs don’t break down inside these filters, it’s important to follow the package directions and replace the filters when recommended. Bottled water is not necessarily free from harmful chemicals. A 2021 study tested 101 U.S. bottled water products and found that 39 contained PFASs.The new EPA regulation covers six of the more than 10,000 different kinds of PFASs. Five are regulated individually or as parts of mixtures, and the sixth is regulated when found in combination with one of the others above certain concentration limits. Those six PFASs are among the best studied and have been linked to adverse health effects, including cancer and immune system disorders. “Long-term exposure to certain types of PFAS has been linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, liver damage and high cholesterol,” said EPA administrator Michael Regan during a call with reporters on April 9. The agency estimates that these rules will protect 100 million people from exposure to PFASs at unsafe levels. “This action will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses,” Regan said.The EPA has estimated that 6 to 10 percent of the country’s 66,000 water systems will have levels exceeding the drinking water maximums for at least one of the six newly regulated PFASs. But we won’t know the extent of the problem until officials complete testing within three years.Murphy says that having the federal government mandate testing across the entire country addresses current inequities: today some states and water agencies test for PFASs, and some don’t. “It’s an environmental justice issue,” she says. Regulating these compounds at the federal level means every drinking water supplier will have to test for these six kinds of PFASs—and everyone in the U.S. will have access to more information about the safety of their water, Murphy adds. The EPA maintains a searchable database of violations of drinking water standards where this information will be available.

A new EPA rule will limit PFASs, or “forever chemicals,” in your drinking water for the first time. Here’s what that means for you

How Will EPA’s New Rule about ‘Forever Chemicals’ Protect Your Drinking Water?

A new EPA rule will limit PFASs, or “forever chemicals,” in your drinking water for the first time. Here’s what that means for you

By Katherine Bourzac

Little girl fills glass with water at kitchen sink

Cavan Images/Getty Images

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced limits on “forever chemicals” in drinking water for the first time. The rule, detailed on April 10, applies to six persistent, toxic chemicals in a class called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). These substances are often colloquially referred to as forever chemicals because they do not readily break down in nature. But what does the agency’s announcement mean for the H2O that you consume daily?

That depends on how swiftly drinking water suppliers respond: they now have three years to test for these PFASs and two years to remove the chemicals from our taps.

PFASs have been widely used since the 1940s. They’re extremely durable, and they can repel both water and oil. They’re used in firefighting foams, nonstick cookware, stain-repelling clothing and food packaging, among other products. PFASs can enter the drinking water supply after they are discharged into rivers and lakes from manufacturing and processing facilities or industrial use. They can also enter the water system when firefighting foams seep into the ground. For people living near industrial sources of PFASs, drinking water is the main exposure route of these compounds.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

These chemicals were initially designed in an era when “we thought persistence was a great property,” says Cheryl Murphy, director of the Center for PFAS Research at Michigan State University. PFASs are strings of carbon atoms bound to fluorine atoms, resulting in one of the strongest chemical bonds found in nature. But the durability of the chemicals also means they accumulate in our body and in the environment. PFAS molecules have water-repelling and water-attracting parts—just like the lipid molecules that make up our cell membranes. “They transport really easily, hitching a ride on water molecules,” Murphy says. “They bind to our cell membranes and to proteins.”

According to a 2023 U.S. Geological Survey study, 45 percent of tap water across the country contains PFASs. The substances have also been found in people’s blood and widely in the environment.

Some water agencies already treat tap water for PFAS using technologies that include filters based on granulated activated charcoal and reverse osmosis. These methods clean up the water to make it safer to drink, but they leave behind PFASs as a waste product. Due to their persistence, these PFAS can’t be readily broken down. Murphy says scientists are still investigating technologies that can work at the scale needed to break down PFASs filtered from the nation’s water.

For individuals concerned that there may be PFASs in their tap water before the EPA begins enforcing its new rule, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group recommends certain PFAS filters. Because PFASs don’t break down inside these filters, it’s important to follow the package directions and replace the filters when recommended. Bottled water is not necessarily free from harmful chemicals. A 2021 study tested 101 U.S. bottled water products and found that 39 contained PFASs.

The new EPA regulation covers six of the more than 10,000 different kinds of PFASs. Five are regulated individually or as parts of mixtures, and the sixth is regulated when found in combination with one of the others above certain concentration limits. Those six PFASs are among the best studied and have been linked to adverse health effects, including cancer and immune system disorders. “Long-term exposure to certain types of PFAS has been linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, liver damage and high cholesterol,” said EPA administrator Michael Regan during a call with reporters on April 9. The agency estimates that these rules will protect 100 million people from exposure to PFASs at unsafe levels. “This action will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses,” Regan said.

The EPA has estimated that 6 to 10 percent of the country’s 66,000 water systems will have levels exceeding the drinking water maximums for at least one of the six newly regulated PFASs. But we won’t know the extent of the problem until officials complete testing within three years.

Murphy says that having the federal government mandate testing across the entire country addresses current inequities: today some states and water agencies test for PFASs, and some don’t. “It’s an environmental justice issue,” she says. Regulating these compounds at the federal level means every drinking water supplier will have to test for these six kinds of PFASs—and everyone in the U.S. will have access to more information about the safety of their water, Murphy adds. The EPA maintains a searchable database of violations of drinking water standards where this information will be available.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Want to Lower Chemical Exposures in Pregnancy? Quit Nail Polish, Makeup and Hair Dye

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of...

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of hairspray may want to think twice about those habits when they're pregnant or breastfeeding.New research links these and other personal care products, including hair dyes, fragrances, lotions, moisturizers and nail polishes to higher levels of so-called PFAS "forever chemicals" that are harmful to health. Researchers report in the November issue of the journal Environment International that they found significantly higher levels of these synethetic chemicals -- called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- in the blood and breast milk of women who used the products during pregnancy. Because they resist water, oil and heat, PFAS have been used in consumer products and industry since the mid-20th century, researchers said in background notes. Over the years, they have been linked to many health issues, including heart problems, liver disease and cancers.The new study suggests that exposure to PFAS during pregnancy could lead to variety of health issues for babies. They include preterm birth and lower birth weight, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders -- even a poorer response to vaccines, said study author Amber Hall, a postdoctoral research associate at Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island."People who are concerned about their exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy or while breastfeeding may benefit from cutting back on personal care products during those times," Hall said in a university news release.Her team analyzed data from a study conducted between 2008 and 2011 of 2,000 pregnant women in 10 Canadian cities. The data included measurements of PFAS levels in the blood at six to 13 weeks of gestation and in breast milk after the birth. Participants self-reported how often they used eight types of products during their first and third trimesters, as well as one to two days postpartum and then again, at two to 10 weeks after giving birth.At all points, higher use of nail care products, fragrances, makeup, hair sprays, gels or dyes was associated with higher levels of PFAS in the blood. Results for third-trimester use and breast-milk concentrations were similar.By way of example, researchers noted that pregnant women who wore makeup every day in their first and third trimesters had higher levels of PFAS than those who didn't. Those who used permanent hair color one or two days after delivery had 16% to 18% higher levels of PFAS in their milk. But Hall cautioned that the study probably underestimated the extent of PFAS exposure. It examined only four types of forever chemicals among thousands deployed in industry and commerce.She conducted the investigation with the director of children's environmental health at Brown, Joseph Braun, who has studied health effect of PFAS chemicals for more than a decade."Not only do studies like these help people assess how their product choices may affect their personal risk, but they can also help us show how these products could have population-level effects," he said. "And that makes the case for product regulation and government action."SOURCE: Brown University, news release, Nov. 12, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Chemicals
Health
Water

Turning automotive engines into modular chemical plants to make green fuels

The MIT spinout Emvolon is placing its repurposed engines next to methane sources, to generate greener methanol and other chemicals.

Reducing methane emissions is a top priority in the fight against climate change because of its propensity to trap heat in the atmosphere: Methane’s warming effects are 84 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year timescale.And yet, as the main component of natural gas, methane is also a valuable fuel and a precursor to several important chemicals. The main barrier to using methane emissions to create carbon-negative materials is that human sources of methane gas — landfills, farms, and oil and gas wells — are relatively small and spread out across large areas, while traditional chemical processing facilities are huge and centralized. That makes it prohibitively expensive to capture, transport, and convert methane gas into anything useful. As a result, most companies burn or “flare” their methane at the site where it’s emitted, seeing it as a sunk cost and an environmental liability.The MIT spinout Emvolon is taking a new approach to processing methane by repurposing automotive engines to serve as modular, cost-effective chemical plants. The company’s systems can take methane gas and produce liquid fuels like methanol and ammonia on-site; these fuels can then be used or transported in standard truck containers."We see this as a new way of chemical manufacturing,” Emvolon co-founder and CEO Emmanuel Kasseris SM ’07, PhD ’11 says. “We’re starting with methane because methane is an abundant emission that we can use as a resource. With methane, we can solve two problems at the same time: About 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from hard-to-abate sectors that need green fuel, like shipping, aviation, heavy heavy-duty trucks, and rail. Then another 15 percent of emissions come from distributed methane emissions like landfills and oil wells.”By using mass-produced engines and eliminating the need to invest in infrastructure like pipelines, the company says it’s making methane conversion economically attractive enough to be adopted at scale. The system can also take green hydrogen produced by intermittent renewables and turn it into ammonia, another fuel that can also be used to decarbonize fertilizers.“In the future, we’re going to need green fuels because you can’t electrify a large ship or plane — you have to use a high-energy-density, low-carbon-footprint, low-cost liquid fuel,” Kasseris says. “The energy resources to produce those green fuels are either distributed, as is the case with methane, or variable, like wind. So, you cannot have a massive plant [producing green fuels] that has its own zip code. You either have to be distributed or variable, and both of those approaches lend themselves to this modular design.”From a “crazy idea” to a companyKasseris first came to MIT to study mechanical engineering as a graduate student in 2004, when he worked in the Sloan Automotive Lab on a report on the future of transportation. For his PhD, he developed a novel technology for improving internal combustion engine fuel efficiency for a consortium of automotive and energy companies, which he then went to work for after graduation.Around 2014, he was approached by Leslie Bromberg ’73, PhD ’77, a serial inventor with more than 100 patents, who has been a principal research engineer in MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center for nearly 50 years.“Leslie had this crazy idea of repurposing an internal combustion engine as a reactor,” Kasseris recalls. “I had looked at that while working in industry, and I liked it, but my company at the time thought the work needed more validation.”Bromberg had done that validation through a U.S. Department of Energy-funded project in which he used a diesel engine to “reform” methane — a high-pressure chemical reaction in which methane is combined with steam and oxygen to produce hydrogen. The work impressed Kasseris enough to bring him back to MIT as a research scientist in 2016.“We worked on that idea in addition to some other projects, and eventually it had reached the point where we decided to license the work from MIT and go full throttle,” Kasseris recalls. “It’s very easy to work with MIT’s Technology Licensing Office when you are an MIT inventor. You can get a low-cost licensing option, and you can do a lot with that, which is important for a new company. Then, once you are ready, you can finalize the license, so MIT was instrumental.”Emvolon continued working with MIT’s research community, sponsoring projects with Professor Emeritus John Heywood and participating in the MIT Venture Mentoring Service and the MIT Industrial Liaison Program.An engine-powered chemical plantAt the core of Emvolon’s system is an off-the-shelf automotive engine that runs “fuel rich” — with a higher ratio of fuel to air than what is needed for complete combustion.“That’s easy to say, but it takes a lot of [intellectual property], and that’s what was developed at MIT,” Kasseris says. “Instead of burning the methane in the gas to carbon dioxide and water, you partially burn it, or partially oxidize it, to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which are the building blocks to synthesize a variety of chemicals.”The hydrogen and carbon monoxide are intermediate products used to synthesize different chemicals through further reactions. Those processing steps take place right next to the engine, which makes its own power. Each of Emvolon’s standalone systems fits within a 40-foot shipping container and can produce about 8 tons of methanol per day from 300,000 standard cubic feet of methane gas.The company is starting with green methanol because it’s an ideal fuel for hard-to-abate sectors such as shipping and heavy-duty transport, as well as an excellent feedstock for other high-value chemicals, such as sustainable aviation fuel. Many shipping vessels have already converted to run on green methanol in an effort to meet decarbonization goals.This summer, the company also received a grant from the Department of Energy to adapt its process to produce clean liquid fuels from power sources like solar and wind.“We’d like to expand to other chemicals like ammonia, but also other feedstocks, such as biomass and hydrogen from renewable electricity, and we already have promising results in that direction” Kasseris says. “We think we have a good solution for the energy transition and, in the later stages of the transition, for e-manufacturing.”A scalable approachEmvolon has already built a system capable of producing up to six barrels of green methanol a day in its 5,000 square-foot headquarters in Woburn, Massachusetts.“For chemical technologies, people talk about scale up risk, but with an engine, if it works in a single cylinder, we know it will work in a multicylinder engine,” Kasseris says. “It’s just engineering.”Last month, Emvolon announced an agreement with Montauk Renewables to build a commercial-scale demonstration unit next to a Texas landfill that will initially produce up to 15,000 gallons of green methanol a year and later scale up to 2.5 million gallons. That project could be expanded tenfold by scaling across Montauk’s other sites.“Our whole process was designed to be a very realistic approach to the energy transition,” Kasseris says. “Our solution is designed to produce green fuels and chemicals at prices that the markets are willing to pay today, without the need for subsidies. Using the engines as chemical plants, we can get the capital expenditure per unit output close to that of a large plant, but at a modular scale that enables us to be next to low-cost feedstock. Furthermore, our modular systems require small investments — of $1 to 10 million — that are quickly deployed, one at a time, within weeks, as opposed to massive chemical plants that require multiyear capital construction projects and cost hundreds of millions.”

Chemicals
Climate
Energy

The US no longer supports capping plastic production in UN treaty

Environmental advocates understand the announcement as a reversal, calling it “absolutely devastating.”

The Biden administration has backtracked from supporting a cap on plastic production as part of the United Nations’ global plastics treaty. According to representatives from five environmental organizations, White House staffers told representatives of advocacy groups in a closed-door meeting last week that they did not see mandatory production caps as a viable “landing zone” for INC-5, the name for the fifth and final round of plastics treaty negotiations set to take place later this month in Busan, South Korea. Instead, the staffers reportedly said United States delegates would support a “flexible” approach in which countries set their own voluntary targets for reducing plastic production. This represents a reversal of what the same groups were told at a similar briefing held in August, when Biden administration representatives raised hopes that the U.S. would join countries like Norway, Peru, and the United Kingdom in supporting limits on plastic production.  Following the August meeting, Reuters reported that the U.S. “will support a global treaty calling for a reduction in how much new plastic is produced each year,” and the Biden administration confirmed that Reuters’ reporting was “accurate.”  After the more recent briefing, a spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality told Grist that, while U.S. negotiators have endorsed the idea of a “‘North Star’ aspirational global goal” to reduce plastic production, they “do not see this as a production cap and do not support such a cap.” “We believe there are different paths available for achieving reductions in plastic production and consumption,” the spokesperson said. “We will be flexible going into INC-5 on how to achieve that and are optimistic that we can prevail with a strong instrument that sends these market signals for change.”  Jo Banner, co-founder and co-director of The Descendants Project, a nonprofit advocating for fenceline communities in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” said the announcement was a “jolt.” “I thought we were on the same page in terms of capping plastic and reducing production,” she said. “But it was clear that we just weren’t.” Frankie Orona, executive director of the nonprofit Society of Native Nations, which advocates for environmental justice and the preservation of Indigenous cultures, described the news as “absolutely devastating.” He added, “Two hours in that meeting felt like it was taking two days of my life.” Delegates follow the day’s proceedings at the third round of negotiations over a global plastics treaty in Nairobi, Kenya. James Wakibia / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images The situation speaks to a central conflict that has emerged from talks over the treaty, which the U.N. agreed to negotiate two years ago to “end plastic pollution.” Delegates haven’t agreed on whether the pact should focus on managing plastic waste — through things like ocean cleanups and higher recycling rates — or on tamping down the growing rate of plastic production. Nearly 70 countries, along with scientists and environmental groups, support the latter. They say it’s futile to mop up plastic litter while more and more of it keeps getting made. But a vocal contingent of oil-exporting countries has pushed for a lower-ambition treaty, using a consensus-based voting norm to slow-walk the negotiations. Besides leaving out production limits, those countries also want the treaty to allow for voluntary national targets, rather than binding global rules. Exactly which policies the U.S. will now support isn’t entirely clear. While the White House spokesperson told Grist that it wants to ensure the treaty “addresses … the supply of primary plastic polymers,” this could mean a whole host of things, including a tax on plastic production or bans on individual plastic products. These kinds of so-called market instruments could drive down demand for more plastic, but with far less certainty than a quantitative production limit. Bjorn Beeler, executive director of the nonprofit International Pollutants Elimination Network, noted that the U.S. could technically “address” the supply of plastics by reducing the industry’s projected growth rates — which would still allow the amount of manufactured plastic to continue increasing every year. “What the U.S. has said is extremely vague,” he said. “They have not been a leading actor to move the treaty into something meaningful.” To the extent that the White House’s latest announcement was a clarification and not an outright reversal — as staffers reportedly insisted was the case — Banner said the Biden administration should have made their position clearer months ago, right after the August meeting. “In August, we were definitely saying ‘capping,’ and it was never corrected,” she said. “If there was a misunderstanding, then it should have been corrected a long time ago.” Another apparent change in the U.S.’s strategy is on chemicals used in plastics. Back in August, the White House confirmed via Reuters’ reporting that it supported creating lists of plastic-related chemicals to be banned or restricted. Now, negotiators will back lists that include plastic products containing those chemicals. Environmental groups see this approach as less effective, since there are so many kinds of plastic products and because product manufacturers do not always have complete information about the chemicals used by their suppliers. Read Next Plastic chemicals are inescapable — and they’re messing with our hormones Joseph Winters Orona said focusing on products would push the conversation downstream, away from petrochemical refineries and plastics manufacturing facilities that disproportionately pollute poor communities of color. “It’s so dismissive, it’s so disrespectful,” he said. “It just made you want to grab a pillow and scream into the pillow and shed a few tears for your community.” At the next round of treaty talks, environmental groups told Grist that the U.S. should “step aside.” Given the high likelihood that the incoming Trump administration will not support the treaty and that the Republican-controlled Senate will not ratify it, some advocates would like to see the high-ambition countries focus less on winning over U.S. support and more on advancing the most ambitious version of the treaty possible. “We hope that the rest of the world moves on,” said a spokesperson for the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic, vesting hope in the EU, small island developing states, and a coalition of African countries, among others.  Viola Waghiyi, environmental health and justice program director for the nonprofit Alaska Community Action on Toxics, is a tribal citizen of the Native Village of Savoonga, on the island of Sivuqaq off the state’s western coast. She connected a weak plastics treaty to the direct impacts her island community is facing, including climate change (to which plastics production contributes), microplastic pollution in the Arctic Ocean that affects its marine life, and atmospheric dynamics that dump hazardous plastic chemicals in the far northern hemisphere. The U.S. “should be making sure that measures are in place to protect the voices of the most vulnerable,” she said, including Indigenous peoples, workers, waste pickers, and future generations. As a Native grandmother, she specifically raised concerns about endocrine-disrupting plastic chemicals that could affect children’s neurological development. “How can we pass on our language, our creation stories, our songs and dances, our traditions and cultures, if our children can’t learn?” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The US no longer supports capping plastic production in UN treaty on Nov 18, 2024.

Chemicals
Climate
Culture

Yorkshire town may bring first ‘forever chemicals’ legal case in UK

Residents claim contamination from Angus Fire factory has left them trapped and unable to sell their homesResidents in the UK town with the country’s highest identified concentration of “forever chemicals” have instructed lawyers to investigate the possibility of a first-of-its-kind legal claim against the firefighting foam manufacturer located in the centre of Bentham.In May this year, an investigation by the Ends Report and the Guardian revealed that the rural North Yorkshire town is the most PFAS-polluted place known to exist in the UK. The town is home to the firefighting foam manufacturer Angus Fire. Continue reading...

Residents in the UK town with the country’s highest identified concentration of “forever chemicals” have instructed lawyers to investigate the possibility of a first-of-its-kind legal claim against the firefighting foam manufacturer located in the centre of Bentham.In May this year, an investigation by the Ends Report and the Guardian revealed that the rural North Yorkshire town is the most PFAS-polluted place known to exist in the UK. The town is home to the firefighting foam manufacturer Angus Fire.PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and commonly known as “forever chemicals” owing to their persistence in the environment, are a family of about 10,000 chemicals that have been linked to a wide range of serious illnesses, including certain cancers. They are used in many consumer products, from frying pans to waterproof coats, but one of their most common uses is in firefighting foams.The Law firm Leigh Day has informed Angus Fire that, acting on behalf of residents, it has been instructed to investigate a case against the firm as a result of “alleged PFAS pollution in Bentham”.A spokesperson for Angus Fire said: “We have been advised by Leigh Day that it is under instruction to investigate a potential claim on behalf of one residency. We have not received notice of any legal action.”In the past 25 years, nearly 10,000 court cases have been filed in the US alleging harm from PFAS exposure. Some of these cases have already resulted in multi-billion dollar settlements. The case against Angus Fire would be be the first ever PFAS-related legal case in the UK.Charlotte Armstrong, a senior associate solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “Angus Fire state that they no longer manufacture or test any PFAS-containing foam products in Bentham, but that doesn’t help the people of Bentham. PFAS are ‘forever chemicals’, and unfortunately that means that the chemical pollution in the area is anything but a historic issue. Our clients and the wider community in Bentham are entitled to fully understand the extent of PFAS pollution in their community, so that those allegedly responsible can be held to account in terms of financial compensation and remediation.”After the initial investigation, Bentham town council asked Angus Fire to test the environment on Duke Street – a narrow residential road next to the factory – for PFAS.The test results, which were made available in October, revealed that soil adjacent to gardens on Duke Street was contaminated with elevated levels of PFAS. The land is owned by Angus Fire and is made available for use by residents, who use it to grow food. Residents were advised by Angus Fire to wash and peel vegetables grown on the land, to clean their homes of dust regularly, and to remove shoes before entering their homes.Residents of Duke Street have said that since finding out about the contamination they felt “trapped”.“At any point of buying a house, you would want the option to sell it, depending on what you want to do in your life,” said one person, who asked to remain anonymous. “At the moment, that would be a significant challenge. And with the uncertainty over how long it will take to remediate the land, we are essentially trapped in this situation.”Angus Fire has offered residents on Duke Street a series of financial “goodwill gestures”.A spokesperson for Angus Fire said it had “presented a number of options to residents whose properties border the legacy foam manufacturing and testing areas, which we believe could offer a constructive way forward and which also underscores our commitment to addressing the situation responsibly.“We recognise the concerns about potential environmental impacts from historic operations at our facility and regret the inconvenience and worry that this has caused.”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 promotionDuke Street residents have expressed concern about the risk of the contamination to their health.Dr Anna Watson, the director of policy and advocacy at the Chem Trust charity, said that while it was welcome that Angus Fire was “admitting responsibility for the irreversible PFAS pollution near their site in Bentham”, it was “heartbreaking to think of people being uprooted from their community, as well as having to deal with the anxiety of potential long-term health impacts from these toxic chemicals”.“The UK government needs to take urgent action to ban the use and manufacture of these chemicals as a group and be at the forefront of a global PFAS-free economy,” she said.Residents said they had had no correspondence with local or government officials over the contamination.An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We are working with North Yorkshire council and looking into historic PFAS contamination from the Angus Fire site. Our primary focus is to assess the risk to the environment and provide support to our partners on risk to residents.”North Yorkshire council’s assistant director for regulatory services, Callum McKeon, said: “We continue to work with partner agencies to assess historic PFAS contamination from the Angus Fire site at Bentham. Our key priority is to identify and address the risk to residents and continue to support our partner agencies with their ongoing investigations.”The Angus Fire spokesperson said: “Angus continues to work closely with independent industry-leading environmental consultants and in cooperation with our UK regulator, the Environment Agency, to better characterise the Bentham site and surrounding areas. These further investigations will help us better understand the extent of any PFAS contamination and assist in determining the remediation required.”

Chemicals
Food
Health

New report: Dow Freeport chemical plant leads nation in wastewater polluting

The Dow Freeport petrochemical plant in Brazoria County was found to be the top polluter of three toxic chemicals, causing downstream health risks to nearby communities of color and low-income households.

Michael StravatoThe Dow chemical plant along the Brazos River in Freeport, Texas.The Dow petrochemical plant in Freeport, Texas was found to be the worst wastewater polluter in the nation, according to a new report. That's one of the findings of the Environmental Integrity Project's (EIP) latest study entitled, "Plastic's Toxic River," which was released Thursday afternoon. The report, which looks into data from 2021 to 2023, found that dozens of petrochemical plants — factories that use oil and gas to make plastics, industrial chemicals and pesticides — have been breaking federal regulations without substantial, if any, repercussions. Among the 70 petrochemical plants the EIP reported on, 58 were found to have violated at least one wastewater regulation. Only eight plants have been penalized, with the average fine being $266. Krisen Schlemmer, a senior legal director at Bayou City Waterkeeper, a Houston-based environmental protection nonprofit, emphasized in a webinar that when it comes to violating wastewater regulations, "some of the worst actors are here in our backyard in Texas." Among the plants that have violated the Clean Waters Act, 28 are in Texas, leaving only two plants in the state that have not broken federal wastewater regulations. Local environmental experts and the report's authors point to the Environmental Protection Agency's lax regulations for why plants have continued to dump dangerous — and at high amounts lethal — chemicals into waterways. Jen Duggan, the EIP’s executive director, said it’s communities of color and low-income households that are the most at risk. "The unchecked pollution from these plants hurts peoples' livelihoods and quality of life, it puts our health at risk," Duggan said. "It puts our health at risk, and it shifts the cost of cleaning up this pollution to communities instead of the companies who are creating it.” The Dow plant in Brazoria County was the report's top wastewater polluter of three toxic chemicals: dioxin, nitrogen and phosphorus, and dioxin. Dioxin is a potent and toxic chemical that has been linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, hormone imbalances and weakened immune systems. Just one drop of dioxin is enough to contaminate 44 swimming pools, according to the EPA. Yet, there aren't federal limits to the amount of dioxins plastics and chemical plants can release into waterways. The Dow Freeport plant released more than 800 grams of dioxins into the Brazos River in 2022. Additionally, according to the report, in 2023 it released more than 3.3 million pounds of nitrogen and nearly 700,000 pounds of phosphorus into the river. Schlemmer said both chemicals "degrade water quality, making it difficult for life to survive in the water. Yet, these are exactly the things that the Dows Freeport facility was found to have discharged into the Brazos River, which is upstream from popular fishing spots as well as a surfside beach." To encourage tougher regulations over petrochemical plants, the report's authors made five recommendations to protect communities and wildlife: Require the use of modern wastewater pollution tracking technology Prohibit dumping plastic pellets into waterways Update and improve monitoring requirements in permit applications and permits Increase enforcement of Clean Water Act permit violations and impose penalties Improve permit transparency and recordkeeping

Chemicals
Health
Water

Suggested Viewing

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Business

Bag It

Bag It examines our society’s use and abuse of plastic. The theme of the film focuses on plastic as it relates to our society’s throw away mentality, our culture of convenience, and our over consumption of throwaway products and packaging—things that we use one time and then, without another thought, we throw them away. Bag It offers a candid view of the disturbing realities of our culture. And, it suggests concrete solutions to our plastic addiction. The film will raise public awareness on the many issues related to plastic and inspire change, both on the individual level and on the public policy level.

Chemicals
Waste
Culture

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals
Social Justice
Health

The Story of Plastic

A searing expose uncovering the ugly truth behind the global plastic pollution crisis. Striking footage shot over three continents illustrates the ongoing catastrophe: fields full of garbage, veritable mountains of trash; rivers and seas clogged with waste; and skies choked with poisons from plastic production and recycling processes with no end in sight. Original animations, interviews with experts and activists, and never-before-filmed scenes reveal the disastrous consequences of the plastic flood around the world – and the global movement rising up in response.

Chemicals
Pollution
Crisis

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

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.