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.

What will the EPA’s new regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water mean for Pennsylvania?

News Feed
Monday, May 20, 2024

PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects. There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states. The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health. “This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards. “PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.” What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS. The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action. The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur. Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational. “Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN. The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.” Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters. “I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”What will this mean for Pennsylvania?One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN. Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants. “We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water AuthorityAt some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations. “What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water AuthorityAmmon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”

PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects. There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states. The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health. “This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards. “PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.” What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS. The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action. The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur. Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational. “Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN. The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.” Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters. “I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”What will this mean for Pennsylvania?One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN. Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law. “Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants. “We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water AuthorityAt some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations. “What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water AuthorityAmmon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”



PITTSBURGH — Last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water.


The chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, liver and thyroid problems, reproductive problems, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, low birthweight and increased risk of birth defects, among other health effects.

There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS and evidence of the chemicals has been found in everything from carpets and cookware to food wrappers, makeup and bandaids. PFAS don’t break down naturally and have been detected in drinking water at more than 5,000 sites in all 50 states.

The new regulations, among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world, will go into effect on June 25 and set limits for six common PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX. Many researchers who study these chemicals have called on regulators to restrict these chemicals as a class rather than individually. But because the chemicals build up in our bodies over time, any reduction in exposure is likely to be beneficial for health.

“This is the first time the EPA has issued a rule on water contaminants in 28 years. So this is significant,” Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, executive director of Women for a Healthy Environment, a nonprofit environmental health advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN.

Eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have already adopted their own limits on PFAS in drinking water. The EPA’s new limits are stricter than any existing limits, so states are preparing to meet the new EPA standards.

“PFAS exposures are toxic even at low concentrations,” Naccarati-Chapkis said. “We didn’t think Pennsylvania’s state regulations went far enough, so we’re glad these new federal rules will better protect residents across the Commonwealth.”

What are the new limits and how will they protect our health?


The EPA’s new PFAS limits are 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for GenX, PFNA and PFHxS, all of which are newer PFAS that have been less extensively studied than PFOA and PFOS.

The regulations also create a “hazard index” to address combined risks from mixtures of chemicals. For PFNA, GenX, PFHxS and PFBS, water system operators will determine if the combined levels of two or more in drinking water pose a potential risk and require action.

The regulations also consider the levels of PFAS that can be detected by laboratories and the cost and feasibility of removing them. The EPA set “Maximum Contaminant Level Goals” for some PFAS, which represent the limit at which the agency has determined that no adverse health effects would occur.

Whenever the EPA has identified a cancer risk associated with a pollutant, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is set to zero, which the agency has applied to PFOA and PFOS. While the Maximum Contaminant Levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX are enforceable, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals are aspirational.

“Setting those goals to zero is an acknowledgement that there’s basically no safe level of exposure to these chemicals,” Carla Ng, an associate professor and PFAS researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told EHN.

The Biden administration expects the new regulations to “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.”

Additionally, the EPA recently classified PFOA and PFOS, two of the most common PFAS, as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund act, which gives the EPA the authority to clean up PFAS contamination and to recover the cost of these cleanups from polluters.

“I think these two pieces are one two-punch,” Ng said. “With both, now we’ll have a way to clean up not only water, but also other mediums like soil. That’s important because PFAS exposure also happens through things like indoor air and contaminated food, and this will allow us to start addressing those exposures too.”

What will this mean for Pennsylvania?


Pittsburgh river

One in three Pennsylvania drinking water systems had detectable levels of PFAS as of 2021. Additionally, PFAS have been detected in 76% of sampled rivers and streams throughout the state, many of which are used for drinking water.

In January 2023, six years after initially pledging to regulate the chemicals, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection passed limits of 14 ppt for PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in drinking water. Now, those limits must be tightened.

“Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent,” PA DEP spokesperson Neil Shader told EHN.

Pennsylvania’s regulations need to be updated within two years of the start date for the new federal rules. The agency plans to help water authorities address any challenges and secure funding.

“DEP will take every step to ensure water authorities in the Commonwealth can meet state and federal limits for PFAS – including increased training and to help local operators understand the new federal rule,” Shader said. “Additionally, [the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority] has been able to fund 100% of all requests for the construction and installation of treatment facilities to date and has the financial capacity to address any additional requests for the foreseeable future.”

The EPA also offers assistance programs for water authorities that need help implementing monitoring and treatment of contaminants like PFAS. The Biden’s administration dedicated $9 billion in funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water through the $1 trillion infrastructure legislation that passed IN 2021, commonly known as theBipartisan Infrastructure Law.

“Pennsylvania is already working to revise its regulations to align with the federal rulemaking in places where the state rule is less stringent." - Neil Shader, PA DEP spokesperson

The new regulations do not apply to the approximately 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents whose water comes from private wells.

“DEP recommends private residents who choose to test their water use a state-certified laboratory using EPA-approved testing methods,” Shader said, noting that the agency offers a list of accredited laboratories online.

Ng said more resources are needed to help private well owners. “That has always been a big blind spot in Pennsylvania,” she said. “There’s very little protection for people with private wells, and we really need funds to help them do testing and treatment for PFAS and other contaminants as well.”

For some water authorities, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which provides drinking water to more than 500,000 people, the new rules won’t require many changes.

“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants,” Frank Sidari, chief environmental compliance and ethics officer at the Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority (PWSA), told EHN. “We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.”


Pittsburgh rivers

So far, Sidari said, the municipal authority’s monitoring hasn’t detected levels of PFAS high enough to prompt removal of the contaminants.

“We always try to be proactive about looking at emerging contaminants. We’ve been monitoring for PFAS since 2014, so it won’t be too difficult for us to prepare for the new federal regulations.” - Frank Sidari, Pittsburgh Sewer and Water Authority

At some smaller water authorities, the new regulations will require a bigger lift. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, which serves around 40,000 people in western Pennsylvania, began some voluntary monitoring for a list of 29 PFAS in both drinking water and source water in 2023 in anticipation of new EPA monitoring requirements, but the process is still new.

“This is an extremely complex group of contaminants,” Lou Ammon, manager of purification at the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, told EHN. “We have not received any resources to date and do not expect to receive any resources for our continued enhanced monitoring.”

While the state’s environmental agency said resources are available for water authorities that reach out to and request help removing PFAS, both Ammon and Sidari said they hadn’t received any outreach from state regulators advertising or offering resources to help with PFAS monitoring or removal.

To date, Ammon said, the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority hasn’t detected PFAS high enough to prompt new treatments, but “if we ever have to treat/remove PFAS from our water during treatment, I have not been informed of what resources we should expect to receive at that time.”

“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds,” Ammon said.

As of April 2024, attorney generals in 30 states, including Pennsylvania, have initiated lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating water supplies, according to Safer States, a national coalition of environmental health organizations.

“What I really think we need are regulations and remediation funding sources from businesses and corporations that have profited directly from the manufacture and use of these compounds.” - Lou Ammon, Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority

Ammon also called for regulation of PFAS in consumer products. Some states have begun banning PFAS in consumer products, but Pennsylvania has not.

“Every day that these direct consumer contamination sources are unregulated is a day that these compounds can be affecting the public’s health or contaminating source water,” Ammon said, “[and] that will ultimately need to be treated and paid for by water treatment plant rate-payers and in federal/state tax dollars, paid by the public.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Houston’s Fifth Ward residents offered free cancer screenings as water, soil testing continues

The cancer screening initiative comes weeks after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its first round of soil testing results from the area, which found elevated levels of highly toxic chemical compounds at some locations.

Sandra Edwards wears a “Creosote Killed Me” shirt, which were made in response to the creosote contamination allegedly caused by the Union Pacific Railyard. Taken on Jan. 27, 2021.Some residents of Houston's Fifth Ward, where there is ongoing soil and water testing for cancer-causing toxic chemicals, now have the opportunity to receive free cancer screenings as part of a new collaboration between city leaders and a national nonprofit. Houston City Council member Letitia Plummer has coordinated with the National Minority Quality Forum (NMQF) to bring the free screenings to Fifth Ward. The neighborhood will be the first of 20 sites nationwide to participate in NMQF's Cancer Stage Shifting Initiative. According to the Washington-based nonprofit, the new initiative aims to enroll 100,000 participants across the country over the next five years. Over the next several weeks in Houston, volunteers working alongside Egality Health will be going door-to-door to survey residents and provide the opportunity to be screened, with priority for those who have lived in the neighborhood the longest. Plummer said the program is designed to provide testing to those in Fifth Ward who might otherwise not have access to it. Fifth Ward is a predominantly Black and low-income community. "Not having access to health care or not having any type of early detection opportunities is really even more of a problem in the area," Plummer said. "Having the opportunity to have some type of early detection cancer screening is really, really paramount." The cancer screening initiative comes weeks after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its first round of soil testing results from the area, which found elevated levels of highly toxic chemical compounds at some locations. However, the results did not meet the EPA's threshold for immediate intervention, according to the agency. The soil testing occurred around the now-defunct Houston Wood Preserving Works — a wood treatment facility operated by the former Southern Pacific Railroad from 1911 to 1984. The facility is now owned by Union Pacific Railroad. According to the EPA, creosote, a likely human carcinogen, was the main preserver used at the facility. Plummer said 200 residents per year, for the next two years, will be able to participate in the screening program. "So, it's really important to note here that this is a blood analysis and we're looking for cancer indicators," she said. "So, if [indicators] come up, the next step would be for us to refer them to their primary care physician." If a resident tests positive for cancer indicators but doesn't have insurance, Plummer said the Harris County health department will assist in securing treatment. "If they are uninsured, then we have the commitment from Harris Health to get them eligible for a gold card," she said. "Once they get the card, then they will be able to have their [primary care physician] at Harris Health. ... Obviously, we'll track them along the way, so they'll never be left without information." Beyond screening residents for cancer, research will also be a key aspect of the initiative, Plummer said, especially since Black residents have been under-represented in past clinical research. "Historically, these medications don't work on Black and brown people ... and it's because we don't get in these studies," she said. "So, for medications to work better, we have to educate our communities to say, ‘Listen, I know historically y’all's mindset is the Tuskegee Experiment.' ... We've got to clear that and make sure that we set the record straight on how research works." Plummer said Fifth Ward's Grace Clinic will be administering the screenings and Quest Diagnostics will be conducting the lab testing. The research will also be conducted under an Institutional Review Board (IRB), which will review the ethics of the study. "IRB is a regulation of how research has to be done based on the federal government's Heath and Human Services," she said. "This is an IRB-approved test or screening. It gives validity to the process." NMQF and all of the other partners involved in the initiative will be hosting a community presentation from 5-8 p.m. Thursday at the DeLuxe Theater, 3303 Lyons Ave. Plummer said she hopes the screenings can start a chain reaction of future assistance to a community whose concerns have historically been overlooked. "I think it's important for people to understand that we had to start somewhere," she said. "We're not excluding anyone. We just had to get a starting point. And if this is successful, then I do believe that there will be an opportunity to do more tests. We just have to start."

Criminal' lack of cash leaves nine in 10 high-risk toxic sites unchecked

BBC investigation finds nine out of ten high-risk contaminated areas have not been tested.

'Criminal' lack of cash leaves nine in 10 high-risk toxic sites uncheckedTomos MorganBBC Wales InvestigatesPaul LynchBBC Shared Data UnitGetty ImagesSites with possible contaminated land could be where old factories, power stations, railway lines or landfill sites once wereThousands of sites potentially contaminated with toxic chemicals have never been checked by councils, a BBC investigation has found. Nine out of 10 "high-risk" areas have not been tested by councils responding to a BBC Freedom of Information request, and scientists fear they could pose a health risk.The sites are thought to contain substances such as lead or arsenic.The BBC Shared Data Unit found of 13,093 potentially toxic sites that councils have identified as high risk, only 1,465 have been inspected.The UK government has said that local unitary authorities have a statutory duty to inspect potentially contaminated sites but councils claim they do not have the money to do it.The research comes after the release of new Netflix drama Toxic Town which tells the story of families fighting for justice following one of the UK's biggest environmental scandals.The BBC's findings raise fresh questions about what exactly has been left beneath our feet from the UK's heavy industrial past."What we don't do in this country is do a full economic evaluation on the cost of things, including health and that feels almost criminal," said Dr Ian Mudway, a leading expert on the effect of pollution on human health."I'm not even certain we've achieved the point of scratching the surface."Contaminated land is a site that might have been polluted from its previous use - it could have been a factory, power station, a railway line, landfill site, petrol station or dry cleaners.If you live in a property constructed after 2000, any contamination issues should be covered by updated planning laws. How much land is contaminated in the UK?But if you live in a property built before 2000, the rules are less clear.The Environmental Protection Act requires councils to list all potential contaminated sites, and inspect the high-risk ones to make sure people and property are not at risk.But after contacting all 122 unitary authorities in Wales, Scotland and England about their contaminated land, 73 responded to the BBC's Shared Data Unit Freedom of Information request which revealed there were 430,000 potential sites identified in the early 2000s.Of those, 13,093 were considered to be potentially high-risk, which experts said should have then been subject to physical testing. Yet, more than 11,000 of them remain unchecked to this day.Half of Wales' 22 councils told the BBC they could not or would not give us figures - but those that did, identified 698 high-risk sites of which 586 have not been inspected.Despite the stunning backdrop, the River Ystwyth that flows through Cwmystwyth in mid Wales is among the most heavily polluted rivers in the UK due to the area's industrial pastWhere Robin Morris lives is home to more than 400 of Wales' 1,300 abandoned metal mines and its three rivers, the Ystwyth, Rheidol and the Clarach, are some of the most heavily-polluted in the UK.The Cwmystwyth mines in north Ceredigion date back to the Bronze Age and were abandoned in 1950, but spoils including a high level of zinc, cadmium and lead scatter the landscape and have polluted the River Ystwyth below.Many Cwmystwyth locals, like Robin, have filtration systems installed if they receive their water from the hills where the old mines were."We installed an advance filtration system and were assured it would take absolutely everything," he said.'Alarm bells'The BBC took a soil sample from Robin's garden on the banks of the Ystwyth and it revealed a very high reading of lead - well above the recommended safe level for gardening."It causes alarm bells to ring," Robin told BBC Wales Investigates."In light of the figures from your soil sample, we should have stopped growing vegetables long ago."It's just one sample, but other things that have happened in the past now seem to make more sense.Robin Morris added a water filtration system to his home's water supply so he can drink clean water"We had ducks and chickens, a couple of the ducks went lame and we did consult the vet, he thought it was because of lead contamination," added Robin.Ceredigion council said it was liaising with Wales' environmental body National Resources Wales to continually assess the health impact from the area's mining legacy.Dr Mudway insists there was "no safe level" of lead and told the BBC it could impact children's development as well as kidney and cardiovascular disease in adults. "Nothing is more of a forever chemical than lead," added the environmental toxicologist at Imperial College London."This is a hazard that has not gone away and is still a clear and present danger to the population.Dr Ian Mudway wants to raise public awareness of lead and other toxic chemicals"It's one of the few chemical entities for which we can calculate a global burden of disease - between half a million to just under a million premature deaths per year because of the release of lead into our environment."When you talk about the cost of ensuring that land is safe... that costs money up front."The costs of potential health effects, especially if they contribute to chronic diseases which people live with for 10 or 20 years, or the costs of remediating land, after when you realise that it's a high-level, dwarf the profits made at the other end of that cycle. That feels almost criminal. "The health cost is hardly considered at all."Huw ChiswellHuw Chiswell believes his daughter was most likely poisoned at their homeWhen Manon Chiswell was a toddler she suddenly stopped talking - doctors advised her family she was showing lots of autistic traits."I do have memories of being very closely monitored in Meithrin [nursery]... I always had an adult with me," said Manon, now 20. "I couldn't speak... they had to use a traffic light system, and yes or no cards to redirect me and help me communicate."But a blood test later found high levels of lead in Manon's blood.She was not autistic, she had been poisoned.Her father, Huw Chiswell, believed Manon was most likely poisoned at their home in Cardiff, which was near an old industrial site.A blood test found high levels of lead in Manon's blood"She used to eat earth [as a toddler] in the garden," he said. "There were railway sidings not far from where we lived at the time, so it's difficult to draw any other conclusions really, because once she'd stopped the eating, she got better."But it is not just about lead - a government report suggests that sites posing the greatest health risks were also contaminated by chemicals such as arsenic, nickel, chromium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in soil or water.PA MediaAn inquest into Zane Gbangbola's death concluded he was killed by carbon monoxide but his parents dispute the coroner's verdictCampaigners want a new law forcing councils to keep a public register of all potential contaminated sites.It is led by the parents of a seven-year-old boy who died from poisonous gas after the River Thames flooded their home in 2014, and they believe the fumes came from a nearby landfill.Zane's law - named after Zane Gbangbola - also calls for measures such as more money for councils to identify and test possible sites."You have to know that it exists before you can protect yourself," said Zane's dad Kye Gbangbola, who was left paralysed after the gas poisoning."Until we have Zane's Law people will remain unprotected."When tighter regulations on dealing with potentially contaminated land became law 25 years ago, the minister that pushed them through wanted just that.Now John Selwyn Gummer feels UK government funding cuts has meant far fewer inspections.John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben, was secretary of state for the environment between 1993 and 1997"There is no way in which local authorities can do this job without having the resources," said Lord Deben."Successive governments have under-provided for the work that we need to do."'There's a possibility some people's health is being threatened'Several councils have told the BBC that funding is the reason they had stopped checking possible contaminated land.Phil Hartley was one of hundreds of officers across the UK that used to check potential sites and Newcastle's former council contamination officer.He said the central government grant removal had led to a "collapse" in checks."Since the money dried up very, very few councils proactively go out looking for contaminated land sites because the council doesn't want to take the risk of finding them," said Mr Hartley."There's a possibility that some people's health is being threatened, which is not great."The UK government said local authorities had a statutory duty to inspect potentially contaminated sites, require remediation and maintain a public register of remediated land. "Any risk to public health from contaminated land is a serious matter," a spokesperson from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said.They also asked the Environment Agency to produce a new state of contaminated land report to provide the "best possible baseline of data to measure future policies related to contaminated land against".The bodies that represent councils in Wales and England both said a lack of cash meant they could not fulfil their duty.The Welsh Local Government Association said while Wales' 22 councils took their responsibility to check sites "seriously", progress was "increasingly constrained by a lack of dedicated funding and specialist resources".England's Local Government Association said: "Without adequate funding, councils will continue to struggle to provide crucial services - with devastating consequences for those who rely on them."You can watch Britain's Toxic Secret on BBC iPlayer and BBC One on Thursday 13 March at 20:30 GMT

North Sea collision may have ‘devastating’ impact on marine life, says expert

Fears grow over leaking fuel as investigations begin into cause of crash involving cargo ship and tanker off Yorkshire coastLeaking fuel from the collision between a cargo ship and oil tanker in the North Sea would have a “devastating” impact on marine life, an expert has warned, as investigations began into the cause of the crash.Fires continued to burn onboard both vessels 24 hours after the Stena Immaculate tanker was struck off the coast of Yorkshire on Monday morning. A search for a missing crew member was called off overnight. Continue reading...

Leaking fuel from the collision between a cargo ship and oil tanker in the North Sea would have a “devastating” impact on marine life, an expert has warned, as investigations began into the cause of the crash.Fires continued to burn onboard both vessels 24 hours after the Stena Immaculate tanker was struck off the coast of Yorkshire on Monday morning. A search for a missing crew member was called off overnight.As investigations were stepped up into the cause of the collision, a White House official reportedly refused to rule out foul play amid questions about why the cargo ship, the Solong – which was carrying cargo for the US military – appeared not to slow down or change course before striking the Stena Immaculate.Smoke billowing from a vessel after a cargo ship collided with a tanker carrying jet fuel off eastern England on Monday. Photograph: Bartek Śmiałek/APEnvironmental experts warned that the jet fuel leaking from the 183-metre-long vessel was toxic for humans and wildlife.Dr Simon Boxall, an academic in oceanography at the University of Southampton, said the Jet A-1 fuel had a “much higher toxicity” than crude oil and that “the impact on that on life in the oceans would be devastating”.Melanie Onn, the MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, said it had been a “shocking 24 hours” since the collision and that people were worried about the potential harm to the ecosystem.She said the government had not confirmed reports that the Solong was carrying the highly toxic chemical sodium cyanide when it ploughed into the Stena Immaculate.Onn told the Guardian on Tuesday: “They don’t know what the cargo is on that vessel. I think if it were sodium cyanide that would be really quite bad because it gets into contact with water and becomes airborne as well. It’s a very, very serious chemical.”Boxall said it was not clear whether any sodium cyanide had leaked into the ocean but that it was “not good news” if it had. “If they do fall into the sea in the middle of that huge fireball then they turn very rapidly to hydrogen cyanide, which is really quite a dangerous gas,” he told Sky News.Dr Seyedvahid Vakili, a maritime expert at the University of Southampton, said it was difficult to determine the main cause of the collision but that in most cases “human factors play a significant role”.“This is particularly relevant for container vessels where high workloads and fatigue can be major contributing factors. At this stage it needs further comprehensive investigation,” he said.A US sailor onboard the Stena Immaculate told CBS News that the Solong “came out of the blue”, giving those onboard “only seconds to react”.The crew member, who was not named, described how flames were lapping at the sailors as they evacuated the burning vessel, leaving some with singed hair.The whole incident from impact to evacuation lasted about 30 minutes, they said, adding that the operation was “textbook”.The crew member said the Stena Immaculate had anchored at that spot and relayed its coordinates on Sunday, meaning all other vessels should have known where it was.Matthew Pennycook, a government minister, said Coastguard aircraft were monitoring the site of the incident off the East Yorkshire coast. He said: “We are working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to assess the impact on water pollution. The fire is obviously still raging.”He added: “The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are well equipped to contain and disperse any oil spills. We don’t think air quality impacts are outside of normal levels, but we will keep the situation obviously under review.”

Fires Burn After Ships Collide off UK, Stoking Fears Over Environment

By Phil NobleWITHERNSEA, England (Reuters) - Fires continued to burn on Tuesday after two ships collided off the coast of northeast England a day...

WITHERNSEA, England (Reuters) - Fires continued to burn on Tuesday after two ships collided off the coast of northeast England a day earlier, adding to concerns the jet fuel carried by one and toxic chemicals aboard the other could cause an environmental disaster.Following the crash, both crews abandoned their ships and 36 people were brought ashore, the coastguard said. Rescue teams called off a search for a missing crew member from the Portuguese-flagged container ship Solong on Monday.The tanker Stena Immaculate, which carries jet fuel for the U.S. military, was at anchor when it was struck by the smaller Solong, releasing fuel into the sea.Equipment to minimise pollution at sea, such as spray dispersants for oil spills and containment booms, were on standby, said the British government, as its agencies prepared for action to protect the North Sea environment and wildlife.The potential environmental impact was being assessed, coordinated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and an East of England environmental group, and the situation was being monitored overhead by plane, the government said.Two maritime security sources said there was no indication that malicious activity or actors were involved in the incident.The Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel in 16 segregated cargo tanks, but it was unclear how much of it was spilt after at least one tank was hit, Crowley, the U.S. logistics group which operated the vessel, said on Monday.Onboard the Solong were 15 containers of sodium cyanide, a toxic chemical used mainly in gold mining, and an unknown quantity of alcohol, according to a casualty report from maritime data provider Lloyd's List Intelligence.Those cargoes could pollute the sea, harming large colonies of protected seabirds including puffins and gannets which live on the coast in the area, and the fish on which they feed.The crash occurred on Monday morning in a busy waterway, prompting a significant rescue response from British teams who sent aircraft, lifeboats and other vessels.While Britain's Marine Accident Investigation Branch will gather initial evidence, overall responsibility for investigating the crash lies with the U.S. and Portuguese authorities, the flag states of the vessels.(Writing by Sarah Young; additional reporting by Sachin Ravikumar, editing by Paul Sandle and Bernadette Baum)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Major ship collision in UK waters sparks fears of toxic chemical leak

A cargo ship carrying sodium cyanide collided with a tanker transporting jet fuel – scientists are warning of potentially severe environmental impacts

Fire and rescue services douse fires after a collision between an oil tanker a cargo ship carrying sodium cyanideGetty Images Europe Scientists fear a major collision between a cargo ship and a fuel tanker in the UK’s North Sea could cause a huge leak of toxic chemicals into delicate marine habitats, with potentially devastating consequences for local wildlife. A tanker called Stena Immaculate was moored off the coast of Hull, carrying 18,000 tonnes of jet fuel, when it was struck by the container ship Solong on 10 March. The Solong was carrying 15 containers of highly toxic sodium cyanide, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence. Both ships will also have been carrying tanks of bunker fuel to power their journeys. Ernst Russ, the owner of the Solong cargo ship, said in a statement that both vessels sustained “significant damage”. Huge fires spewing clouds of black smoke immediately broke out on the ships. One crew member from the Solong is still reported missing. “We are extremely concerned about the multiple toxic hazards these chemicals could pose to marine life,” Paul Johnston at Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Exeter in the UK, said in a statement. The crash happened in waters that are home to internationally significant populations of breeding seabirds, such as gannets, kittiwakes and puffins. Harbour porpoises and grey seals breed nearby, and the location is also on migration routes for wading birds and waterfowl. “Chemical pollution resulting from incidents of this kind can directly impact birds, and it can also have long-lasting effects on the marine food webs that support them,” said Tom Webb at the University of Sheffield in the UK in a statement. “We have to hope that any spills can be quickly contained and pollution minimised.” Crowley, the US-based firm managing the Stena Immaculate, told the Financial Times that jet fuel has leaked into the North Sea from a ruptured cargo tank. Jet fuel is made of light hydrocarbons and will therefore evaporate relatively quickly, potentially limiting its environmental impact. But the release of bunker fuel will have longer-lasting effects, said Alex Lukyanov at the University of Reading in the UK, in a statement. “Marine diesel can smother habitats and wildlife, affecting their ability to regulate body temperature, potentially resulting in death,” he said. “The environmental toll could be severe.” The release of sodium cyanide could also pose severe danger to aquatic life, as it inhibits oxygen uptake. It is not yet clear whether any sodium cyanide has entered the water. Johnston called on UK authorities to take urgent action to contain the release of toxic substances from the ships. “We must hope an environmental disaster can be averted,” he said. The UK government said it was working closely with the coastguard service to support the response to the incident. Speaking in the UK’s Parliament on 10 March, Baroness Sue Hayman, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said she was “shocked and concerned” at the news of the collision. She said work was underway to assess the scale and impact of any pollution from the collision.

Suggested Viewing

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.