Maryland, My Maryland

WaPoo, Maryland sues maker of Gore-Tex, alleging decades of pollution

Maryland is suing the maker of Gore-Tex, the material used in popular waterproof fabrics, alleging the company knew for decades that substances used in its manufacture posed significant health risks in the Cecil County area but failed to notify the state or nearby communities about the dangers.

The Delaware-based company, W.L. Gore & Associates, operates more than a dozen facilities just across the state line in and around Elkton, Maryland. State officials say Gore polluted the area’s groundwater, surface water and soils with “forever chemicals,” even while company officials understood the potential for harm.

“It is unacceptable for any company to knowingly contaminate our drinking water with these toxins, putting Marylanders at risk of severe health conditions,” Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown (D) said in a statement Wednesday as his office filed a complaint in U.S. district court on behalf of the state’s departments of environment, health and natural resources.

The suit seeks to hold Gore liable for the state’s costs to investigate and clean up the contamination, as well as other damages.

The state’s action follows another lawsuit filed by a Maryland family, as well as a class-action lawsuit, making similar claims. During the past couple of years, Gore has worked to limit potential damage by conducting sampling around the sites and providing bottled water and water filtration systems to nearby residents, according to a company website, forward.gore.com.

The company denies the state’s allegations and “is surprised by the Maryland Attorney General’s decision to initiate legal action, particularly in light of our proactive and intensive engagement with state regulators over the past two years,” Gore spokeswoman Amy Calhoun said this week in a statement.

EPA,  EPA Releases Draft Health-Based Recommendations for PFAS Levels in Bodies of Water

EPA’s draft recommended human health criteria identify concentrations of three PFAS in a water body at or below where they are not expected to cause adverse human health effects from chronic (lifetime) exposure. The three chemicals are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). Human health criteria are not regulatory requirements and do not, on their own, compel any action. Rather they are information for entities, including state and Tribal regulators, to consider when making policy decisions that protect water quality.

The recommendations aren't there, but you can find them if you follow enough links. 

The interesting thing is that Maryland is suing Gore for violating standards that aren't set yet, and would have no force of law. 

The Wednesday Wetness

Delaware News, Newly Released Federal Report Highlights Complexity of PFAS Exposure 

Researchers hope the study, which shows the results of testing for seven different types of PFAS in household dust, may also help further educate consumers about PFAS. While the synthetic “forever chemicals” have tended to be most prominently associated with drinking water to date, scientists are now discovering that as much as 80% of a person’s exposure to PFAS may stem from use of everyday products.

Bay Journal, Concerns rise over PFAS exposure near MD Perdue plant

The 250-acre Perdue plant at the center of the Salisbury investigation contains a soybean-processing plant, a chicken hatchery and a grain-storage facility. MDE detected PFAS in wastewater there in September 2023 as part of a statewide campaign to test potential hot spots. The Perdue concentrations stood out, ranging from below detectable levels to 1,370 parts per trillion. The federal drinking water limit is 4 parts per trillion.

But neither the state nor Perdue notified the public until about a year after the initial discovery. They say it took time to drill additional monitoring wells on the west side of Perdue’s property and gather evidence that the groundwater contamination was migrating off-site.

“That’s when we had the information to inform the [other] property owners,” said Lee Currey, director of MDE’s water and science administration.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Merry Christmas! up on time at The Other McCain. 

The Wednesday Wetness

Fox 45: Levels of ‘forever chemicals’ in water exceed regulations in some Baltimore schools

Along with the stress of a new school year, some Baltimore area schools also are dealing with elevated levels of PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” found in their water systems.

Water testing detected elevated levels of PFAS in several schools in Baltimore, Howard and Harford counties. In some schools, bottled water will be the new normal while solutions are being worked on.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are an expansive group containing thousands of man-made chemicals that have been used to create several products, from nonstick pans to waterproof raincoats. Though their resistance to water and heat makes the chemicals useful, it also means that once they get into the environment they don’t readily degrade, which earned them the forever chemical nickname.

Which begs the question, where do the PFAS in these water supplies come from? Most of the region of concern uses treated surface water for drinking (unlike us, whose deep well water is 40,000 years old, and remarkably free of PFAS), and presumably the water supplies in the area around the affected schools is similarly contaminated. We'll probably find that out soon enough, as the PFAS testing mandate from EPA will kick in.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Sunday Morning Coffee up and garnering clicks at The Other McCain.

The Wednesday Wetness

WHYY, More than 30 Pa. schools detected toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in their drinking water that exceed EPA standard

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Leave Room For Cream ready for business at The Other McCain.

Get Ready for the PFAS Bill

 At the Virginia Mercury, Removing PFAS from public water will cost billions and take time

Chemists invented PFAS in the 1930s to make life easier: Nonstick pans, waterproof clothing, grease-resistant food packaging and stain-resistant carpet were all made possible by PFAS. But in recent years, the growing number of health risks found to be connected to these chemicals has become increasingly alarming.

PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are now either suspected or known to contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and cancer, among other health issues.

They can be found in the blood of most Americans and in many drinking water systems, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency in April 2024 finalized the first enforceable federal limits for six types of PFAS in drinking water systems. The limits – between 4 and 10 parts per trillion for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA and GenX – are less than a drop of water in a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools, which speaks to the chemicals’ toxicity. The sixth type, PFBS, is regulated as a mixture using what’s known as a hazard index.

Meeting these new limits won’t be easy or cheap. And there’s another problem: While PFAS can be filtered out of water, these “forever chemicals” are hard to destroy.

My team at the University of Notre Dame works on solving problems involving contaminants in water systems, including PFAS. We explore new technologies to remove PFAS from drinking water and to handle the PFAS waste. Here’s a glimpse of the magnitude of the challenge and ways you can reduce PFAS in your own drinking water.
Removing PFAS will cost billions per year

Every five years, the EPA is required to choose 30 unregulated contaminants to monitor in public drinking water systems. Right now, 29 of those 30 contaminants are PFAS. The tests provide a sense of just how widespread PFAS are in water systems and where.

The EPA has taken over 22,500 samples from about 3,800 of the 154,000 public drinking water systems in the U.S. In 22% of those water systems, its testing found at least one of the six newly regulated PFAS, and about 16% of the systems exceeded the new standards. East Coast states had the largest percentage of systems with PFAS levels exceeding the new standards in EPA tests conducted so far.

Under the new EPA rules, public water systems have until 2027 to complete monitoring for PFAS and provide publicly available data. If they find PFAS at concentrations that exceed the new limits, then they must install a treatment system by 2029.

Our local water system had PFAS analysis done in the last year, and none was found, which is not surprising, since our water comes from deep underground (300-400 ft)

How much that will cost public water systems, and ultimately their customers, is still a big unknown, but it won’t be cheap.

The EPA estimated the cost to the nation’s public drinking water systems to comply with the news rules at about US$1.5 billion per year. But other estimates suggest the total costs of testing and cleaning up PFAS contamination will be much higher. The American Water Works Association put the cost at over $3.8 billion per year for PFOS and PFOA alone.

There are more than 5,000 chemicals that are considered PFAS, yet only a few have been studied for their toxicity, and even fewer tested for in drinking water. The United States Geological Survey estimates that nearly half of all tap water is contaminated with PFAS.

An analytical chemists dream. So many compounds to be tested for, so much money! 

Some money for testing and cleanup will come from the federal government. Other funds will come from 3M and DuPont, the leading makers of PFAS. 3M agreed in a settlement to pay between $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion to help reimburse public water systems for some of their PFAS testing and treatment. But public water systems will still bear additional costs, and those costs will be passed on to residents. 

Another big question is how to dispose of the captured PFAS once they have been filtered out.

Landfills are being considered, but that just pushes the problem to the next generation. PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” for a reason – they are incredibly resilient and don’t break down naturally, so they are hard to destroy.

Studies have shown that PFAS can be broken down with energy-intensive technologies. But this comes with steep costs. Incinerators must reach over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius) to destroy PFAS, and the possibility of creating potentially harmful byproducts is not yet well understood. Other suggested techniques, such as supercritical water oxidation or plasma reactors, have the same drawbacks.

So who is responsible for managing PFAS waste? Ultimately the responsibility will likely fall on public drinking water systems, but the EPA has no waste regulations for PFAS.
Steps to protect your home from PFAS

Your first instinct might be to use bottled water to try to avoid PFAS exposures, but a recent study found that even bottled water can contain these chemicals. And bottled water is regulated by a different federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, which has no standards for PFAS.

I can see push for that coming. 

Your best option is to rely on the same technologies that treatment facilities will be using:

• Activated carbon is similar to charcoal. Like a sponge, it will capture the PFAS, removing it from the water. This is the same technology in refrigerator filters and in some water pitcher filters, like Brita or PUR. Note that many refrigerator manufacture’s filters are not certified for PFAS, so don’t assume they will remove PFAS to safe levels.
• Ion exchange resin is the same technology found in many home water softeners. Like activated carbon, it captures PFAS from the water, and you can find this technology in many pitcher filter products. If you opt for a whole house treatment system, which a plumber can attach where the water enters the house, ion exchange resin is probably the best choice. But it is expensive.
• Reverse osmosis is a membrane technology that only allows water and select compounds to pass through the membrane, while PFAS are blocked. This is commonly installed at the kitchen sink and has been found to be very effective at removing most PFAS in water. It is not practical for whole house treatment, but it is likely to remove a lot of other contaminants as well.

If you have a private well instead of a public drinking water system, that doesn’t mean you’re safe from PFAS exposure. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources estimates that 71% of shallow private wells in that state have some level of PFAS contamination. Using a certified laboratory to test well water for PFAS can run $300-$600 per sample, a cost barrier that will leave many private well owners in the dark.

As I've said before, I consider the PFAS scare to be the next big push by the regulatory state. The costs will far exceed the benefits.

The Wednesday Wetness

WSLS10 News, Gov. Youngkin passes bill to monitor and create action plans for public water systems that detect PFAS

“We said, ‘Yeah, we’ll check all of our reservoirs and share the data with you.’ We happened to find one of these compounds in our Spring Hollow Reservoir,” Sarah Baumgardner, Director of Public Relations for the Western Virginia Water Authority said.

That compound is a part of our daily lives but shouldn’t be in our drinking water.

The Western Virginia Water Authority has been testing waterways and reports that PFAS levels have decreased at Spring Hollow Reservoir over the last several years.

“We are spending a lot of money and a lot of time to treat the water with granular activated carbon so that it is removed we are pleased to say it’s been effective,” Baumgardner said.

MD Issues Fish Consumption Advisories for PFAS

Balmer Sun, Maryland issues new advisories for fish contaminated with PFAS; crabs and oysters given all-clear

About two years after issuing its first-ever fish consumption advisory associated with PFAS contamination, Maryland issued a slew of new warnings.

The state’s first advisory in 2021 was limited to the Piscataway Creek in Prince George’s County, which runs near Joint Base Andrews and empties into the Potomac River near Fort Washington. But this round is far more comprehensive, following years of testing of different fish species for PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” known to cause cancer and other health problems — at locations frequented by recreational anglers in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

The dozens of new advisories released Friday by the Maryland Department of the Environment are spread across Maryland waterways, and cover a variety of fish species. The largest number of new advisories were assigned to large and smallmouth bass, sunfish including bluegill, and white perch, according to a document provided to the Baltimore Sun.

Most of the advisories don’t recommend not eating those fish, but rather limiting how many are consumed. Blue crabs and oysters in Maryland waters were tested for PFAS as well, but the results indicated no need for meal limits, according to the MDE, which conducts the monitoring and issues the advisories.

Only a few fish species in the Piscataway should be avoided altogether by the general population because of PFAS contamination, according to MDE. The data also showed children should avoid consuming Northern snakeheads caught in the Mattawoman Creek, large and smallmouth bass in the Conococheague Creek and sunfish in the Monocacy River.

For the remainder of the advisories, MDE recommended a maximum number of servings a person should have per month, given the potential for negative health impacts. Those span from one serving every other month to eight in a month.. . .

Based on the sampling results, Maryland officials used federal guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to tabulate how much of any one fish would be safe for consumption, Apperson said.

It’s estimated that if a person ate more than the recommended amount of a given fish every month for 30 years, they would face a 1-in-10,000 risk of negative health outcome, according to MDE.

During a public meeting Wednesday about the new fish advisories, some attendees expressed worry that Maryland’s use of the current federal standards may mean its advisories don’t go far enough.

I ran through the advisories for anything of interest to me. I found it interesting that Black Sea Bass, a species we occasionally catch in the mainstem of the Bay, has an advisory to only eat 2 meals a month (only 1 for children) based on PFAS. It would be hard to catch enough of them here to eat more than one meal a month, though, of course, you should consider the exposure cumulative with other fish. Black Sea Bass in the Bay are migratory, coming into the Bay from the ocean in the warmer months. If they are contaminated with PFAS, they must be getting it out in the ocean, or at least on their way up the Bay.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Outstanding In Her Field out at the Other McCain.

Pennsylvania Pursues PFAS

 At the Bay Journal, Pennsylvania to crack down on 'forever chemicals' in streams and rivers

After a statewide survey showed that 76% of 161 tested rivers and streams were contaminated to some extent with PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said it will set safety thresholds for the chemicals in surface waters.

PFAS is the shorthand term for per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of about 9,000 chemicals widely used in consumer products, from nonstick cookware and stain-resistance products to water-repellent clothing and even food packaging.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that exposure to some PFAS pose health risks. Some studies on animals and humans have linked varying levels of exposure with harm to the immune system, disruptions in reproductive and fetal development, hormone disruption and increased risk of cancer.

Ten states, including Pennsylvania, have set safety limits for levels of PFAS in drinking water.

But until now, only Michigan, Minnesota and Florida have adopted thresholds for the chemicals in surface water. A study by a Vermont state agency warned that setting mandatory limits on PFAS in surface water is “logistically difficult, would take a long time and be very expensive.”

Pennsylvania’s DEP said it would ramp up monitoring of waters where the chemicals were found and would require some wastewater treatment plants to monitor for PFAS. The agency said the standards for PFAS in streams and rivers would mandate limits on known discharges through industrial discharge permits.

A fish consumption advisory was issued for one stream, Neshaminy Creek in the Delaware River watershed, as a result of the study.

The water samples, collected by DEP in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, were tested for 33 different chemicals.

Researchers said results pointed to several likely sources of contamination.

Electronics manufacturing, wastewater treatment plants and developed areas with stormwater runoff appeared to be top sources in urban areas.

“This is the first statewide study that associates electronics manufacturing as a source of PFAS in streams, which is likely an underrecognized but significant source of PFAS contamination,” said Sara Breitmeyer, a USGS chemist and lead author of the study. “Our study contributes new information on PFAS sources to surface water in Pennsylvania, which will help regulatory agencies address the growing concerns of PFAS’s ecological and human health impacts across the state.”

In some rural areas, DEP said, the chemicals may have come from natural gas fracking operations. The fluids and foams used for drilling and hydraulic fracturing of gas wells can contain PFAS, the study points out. In towns with combined sewage systems, heavy rain can cause stormwater and wastewater to mingle. If the stormwater runoff contains PFAS, it could then enter the wastewater stream, too, and become part of the discharge from treatment plants into local waters.

“To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first description of PFAS associations with the local catchment sewer infrastructure in rural oil and gas development regions,” the study concludes.

Runoff from farmland may also be contributing, it says.

“This study has expanded our understanding and will assist in determining what steps need to be taken in addressing issues associated with this emerging contaminant,” said DEP Secretary Rich Negrin. “Our findings have already helped and will continue to guide DEP’s actions regarding where to focus resources on identifying, tracking and addressing potential sources of PFAS contamination.”

'Forever Chemicals' Linked to Girls Growing Up

I've been critical in the past of the recent adoption of PFAs as the newest pollutant of concern, due to lack of evidence for actual impacts at environmentally relevant concentrations.  This study claims corelative evidence that PFAS may be delaying the onset of puberty in girls. Med Press, Research shows PFAS exposure may delay girls' puberty

Research from the University of Cincinnati shows that exposure to PFAS may delay the onset of puberty in girls. The research was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

This study is the first longitudinal research that included the component of the role hormones play in the delay, according to Susan Pinney, Ph.D., of the Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences in the UC College of Medicine and corresponding author of the study.

She says the delay of puberty in girls can lead to negative long-term health outcomes, including a higher incidence of breast cancer, renal disease and thyroid disease.

"Puberty is a window of susceptibility," Pinney says. "Environmental exposures during puberty, not just to PFAS, but anything, have more of a potential for a long-term health effect. What these have done is extended the window of susceptibility, and it makes them more vulnerable for a longer period of time."

The published research describes the findings from studying a total of 823 girls who were 6 to 8 years old when they were enrolled in the study—379 were in the Greater Cincinnati area, the other 444 were in the San Francisco Bay Area. Researchers wanted to start the girls in the study before they hit the beginning of breast development. Then they followed them with exams every six to 12 months to see when they experienced the first signs of breast development and pubic hair.

The results found that 85% of the girls in the two cohorts had measurable levels of PFAS. Pinney says this PFAS research is unique because the hormone component was included and they discovered evidence of decreased hormones. The hormones that were decreased with PFAS exposure were consistent with findings of the delay of the onset of puberty.

"The study found that in girls with PFAS exposure puberty is delayed five or six months on average but there will be some girls where it's delayed a lot more and others that it wasn't delayed at all," Pinney says. "We are especially concerned about the girls at the top end of the spectrum where it's delayed more."

The study also found that over 99% of the girls in the two cohorts had measurable levels of PFOA, one of the most important of the PFAS.

My long unused statistical background makes me very suspicious that this may be one of those cases where some other factor that corelates with PFAS concentrations may well be responsible for the effect, for example, diet, or exposure to other chemicals. Meanwhile, in the real world, scientists and medical folk are worried about the opposite, an increasing trend toward earlier onset of puberty in girls, particularly during and after the COVID lock:

Psychology today: Why More Kids Are Starting Puberty Earlier Than Ever Before

New Yorker: Why More and More Girls Are Hitting Puberty Early

US News Health: Why Are Girls Starting Puberty Earlier?

NYT: Puberty Starts Earlier Than It Used To. No One Knows Why

So, which is the problem?

"Forever Chemicals" Found in Straws, Chesapeake Bay

'Dangerous' paper straw

From UPI, Harmful 'forever chemicals' found in 'eco-friendly' paper straws

Paper straws, meant to be an eco-friendly alternative to plastic, may not be better for the environment, a new study concludes, warning that they also contain "forever chemicals" that can harm human health.

"Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than those made from plastic," said researcher Thimo Groffen, an environmental scientist at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. "However, the presence of PFAS in these straws means that's not necessarily true."

For this study, published Thursday in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants, Groffen and colleagues tested 39 straw brands in a variety of materials for poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Turtle murdering plastic straw

Straws were paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic. Each straw went through two rounds of testing for PFAS.

PFAS were found in 69% of the straws. Testing detected 18 different PFAS. These chemicals were found in 90% of paper straws; about 80% of bamboo straws; 75% of plastic straws, and 40% of glass straw brands. PFAS were not detected in any of the five types of steel straws tested.

The finding for glass straws really surprises me. The high temperatures involved in making glass should either destroy or at least evaporate any organo-fluorine compound. It must come from subsequent handling or packaging. 

Expensive, reusable steel straw

The most commonly found PFAS was perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which has been banned worldwide since 2020.

Testing also detected trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS). These "ultra-short-chain" PFAS are highly water soluble and so might leach out of straws into drinks, according to the study.

These all may pose limited risk to human health because people tend to use straws only occasionally and chemical concentrations were low, researchers said. But the chemicals can build up in the body for years.

Is that a glass straw?

 

"Small amounts of PFAS, while not harmful in themselves, can add to the chemical load already present in the body," Groffen said in a journal news release.

It's not known if the straws contained the PFAS to waterproof them or because of contamination from soil used to grow materials or water used in manufacturing.

PFAS are used in many everyday products, including nonstick pans and outdoor clothing. They make these items resistant to water, heat and stains, but break down very slowly over time and can persist in the environment for thousands of years.

They're associated with health problems, such as lower response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer.

Researchers said the prevalence of PFAS in the straws suggests they were added as a waterproof coating.

"The presence of PFAS in paper and bamboo straws shows they are not necessarily biodegradable," Groffen said. "We did not detect any PFAS in stainless steel straws, so I would advise consumers to use this type of straw -- or just avoid using straws at all."

PFAS laden Smallmouth Bass

Chesapeake Bay Program,  Bay scientists turn attention to ecological impacts of "forever chemicals"

When it comes to how PFAS impacts the health of wildlife in the Bay, there was a variety of data presented at the workshop. Heather Walsh, a fish biologist from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), shared findings on PFAS accumulation in blood plasma from smallmouth bass in the Potomac and Susquehanna River watersheds. Four PFAS chemicals were detected in every bass, including PFOS, PFUnA, PFDoA, and PFDA, and concentrations of PFDoA and PFUnA were higher in males than in females. Future studies are being conducted to determine the health effects of PFAS alone and in combination with other factors that have the potential to impact fish health like rising temperatures, increasing nutrients, exposure to other chemicals like pesticides and mercury, and disease.

PFAS laden oysters

Additionally, Marie DeLorenzo of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) presented on how PFAS accumulates in ocean life, which impacts food chains in the Bay. Preliminary results from NOAA studies indicated that the most sensitive species were larval mud snails, followed by sheepshead minnows, grass shrimp and oysters. Through NOAA’s Mussel Watch Program, the federal agency is monitoring 28 PFAS compounds in sediment and bivalves, helping to develop a national database for PFAS in coastal environments that resource managers can use.

Scientists at the workshop also investigated the question of how much PFAS has already accumulated in the Bay’s wildlife. Since 2020, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has been studying PFAS occurrence in water, fish tissue and oysters in locations that include the St. Mary’s River, Piscataway Creek and tributaries on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. In fall 2021, MDE began its strategic sampling of fish tissue for PFAS in harbors, bays and metro regions. Data appear to indicate certain PFAS, especially PFOS (a particularly hazardous PFAS chemical that has been voluntarily phased out in the US), have substantial variability between fish species and do not appear to accumulate in certain mollusks and crustaceans. Channel catfish, for example, were found to have significantly less PFAS than largemouth bass, sunfish and perch, but questions on species diet and food chain dynamics exist. To date, PFAS have not been identified in mollusks in the Chesapeake Bay.

We see lots of studies of distribution of PFAS, and indeed, they are ubiquitous, and given their very long life span in the environment, they're going to be found there for a very long time. I've seen lots of talk about them being associated with health effects, but little evidence of direct effects.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Salma Hayek up on time at The Other McCain.

Maryland, My Maryland

 WBOC, Maryland Sues 3M, Dupont, Others for Environmental PFAS Contamination

The Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has announced two lawsuits filed against multiple chemical manufacturers for the alleged widespread contamination of Maryland’s natural resources and damage to Marylanders’ health.

The lawsuit, according to the Maryland Department of the Environment, alleges that the manufacture, marketing, and sale of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by these companies, including 3M and DuPont, have polluted the State’s environment and put the health of Marylanders at risk.

The first lawsuit tackles the contamination caused by PFAS present in fire fighting foam that has been used by the U.S. military, airports, industrial facilities, and fire departments. The second suit addresses PFAS contamination from other sources, including consumer products, which were introduced through industrial facilities. That suit includes the use and disposal of the products, landfills with PFAS waste, and wastewater treatment plants with PFAS-contaminated waste streams.

The lawsuit alleges the chemical manufacturers knew the dangers of using PFAS products for years but kept the risks secret and continued the manufacturing, marketing, and sales of their PFAS products in Maryland for profit.

“Those who would choose to pose a risk to Marylanders' well-being must be held accountable,” said Gov. Wes Moore. “By filing these claims, Maryland is making clear that we value health, safety, and preserving our state's precious natural resources for future generations over corporate profits.”

The Department of the Environment says PFAS in humans and animals has been linked to diseases such as kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and low birth weight, and may also impair the immune system.

The two lawsuits aim to recover damages and costs of the investigation, cleanup, restoration, and treatment of Maryland’s natural resources from PFAS contamination. Both suits were filed on behalf of the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of Environment, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Maryland Department of Health.

I've been sitting on these too long, so I'll just throw them out here:

Bay Journal,  ‘Forever chemicals’ found in fertilizer raise concerns

Bay Journal, EPA proposes limits on ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

TNation, Are Forever Chemicals Really Killing Us?

There’s certainly some evidence to suggest that these chemicals can cause harm at high enough concentrations. But there’s also a great deal of observational data showing correlations with all sorts of endpoints that, rather than showing true evidence of harmful effects, may simply reflect that PFAS levels are a good marker for general health (more on that later).

This is inherently the problem with observational research. First, despite all the recent attention, PFAS aren’t a new group of chemicals (1). They’ve been around since the 1940s, and humans have been exposed to these compounds for about 70 years.

They’re present in various products that most people use in their homes: paper and cardboard packaging, Teflon coating, Scotchgard, cosmetics, and the list goes on. The two most widely known are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).

They’re also commonly used in building materials. Given their widespread use and their persistence in the environment (in the air, dust, water, and soil), they’ll continue to be found in our bodies for a long time to come.

However, blood levels of PFOA and PFOS have been greatly declining in the U.S. population since manufacturers have begun phasing them out of products.

While epidemiological studies show an association between these chemicals and cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, there are also associations between disease/death and terrible lifestyle choices. That may be confounding the association between PFAS and kicking the bucket.

For example, fast food, pizza, microwave popcorn, ice cream, soda, fried (not omega-3 rich) fish, candy, salad dressing, butter, cheese, and white rice have positive associations with PFAS levels. However, eating at home shows an inverse association with PFAS levels, while going out for fast food is associated with a higher level.

Those eating a diet in omega-3-rich fish, fiber, fruit, and vegetables also show lower PFAS levels (4), while consuming a diet rich in fried fish, low-fiber foods, and high-fat bread/cereal/rice/pasta was associated with higher PFAS plasma concentrations.

This begs the question: Are at least some of these proposed adverse effects of PFAS simply confounded by the fact that lifestyle choices known to improve health are associated with lower PFAS exposure, while unhealthy choices are associated with higher PFAS exposure?

It’s not surprising given that PFAS are found in fast food containers and packaging, non-stick paper, pizza boxes, and plastic used for various foods (butter, microwave popcorn, ice cream, candy).

Water To Get More Expensive

 Zeta Cross at WaEx, New EPA regulations for safe water expected to cost municipalities billions

For the first time in 26 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued new guidelines for drinking water safety. Municipal utilities will be required to install expensive filtration systems to lower the amount of PFAS in water supplies.

PFAS and PFOS are a class of 14,000 chemicals that contaminate the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans. The chemicals are used in a wide variety of products, from non-stick pans and stain-resistant treatments for clothing and furniture to semiconductor coatings and firefighting foam.

Iyala Simba, city programs director at the Illinois Environmental Council, says PFAS are miniscule chemical compounds that are impossible to see and impossible to avoid.

“Food wrappers and pizza boxes contain PFAS to make them grease-proof,” she told The Center Square.

The Illinois Environmental Council successfully lobbied for the gradual phase out of firefighting foam, which contains heavy concentrations of PFAS. The chemical compounds are known as “forever chemicals” because they never break down. PFAS are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems and birth defects.

Note the weasel word "linked to" not caused by. The actual evidence that PFAs are harmful to people in the concentrations found in water systems is, shall we say, sketchy.

“This is an issue that we are going to be dealing with for decades, if not hundreds of years because of how these chemicals are set up. They are not meant to break down,” Simba said.

In 2021, Illinois received millions of federal dollars to mitigate PFAS contamination. The new EPA drinking water guidelines are expected to cost Illinois municipalities billions of dollars.

“This is something that a lot of water treatment plants are really afraid of because they can’t begin to cover the costs,” Simba said.

Municipalities are expected to initiate lawsuits against PFAS producers, including the U.S. military, which uses firefighting foam at airports and training facilities, and chemical companies DuPont, Chemours and 3M, which use PFAS in hundreds of applications from non-stick cookware and rain gear to construction materials and packaging.

Previous guidelines for forever chemicals in drinking water were 70 parts per trillion. The EPA set 4 parts per trillion as the new guideline. Scientists say that 4ppt is a huge improvement, but they emphasize that no traceable level of forever chemicals in drinking water is “safe.”

Our local water system was forced to test for PFAS this last year. As we expected, we showed no detectable concentrations. Our water is from fairly deep wells, and the water is isolated from the surface for many thousands of years, so any contamination would have to come from the system itself. Water systems that rely on surface water, streams, rivers and lakes, as Washington DC and Baltimore do, are far more likely to see PFAS contamination. We were gratified with the outcome, but we will still have to test the water periodically to make sure no contamination has occurred. It's not our biggest expense, but it's a new one.

And FWIW, As cleanup costs mount, Pentagon to stop use of firefighting foam that contains PFAS

Battered by years of criticism from U.S. lawmakers and environmental advocates, the Department of Defense will stop purchasing PFAS-containing firefighting foam later this year and phase it out entirely in 2024.

The replacement for Aqueous Film Forming Foam has yet to be determined, and advocates are frustrated it’s taken so long to halt the use of a product containing a “forever chemical” that at high levels of exposure may lead to increased risks for cancer, among other effects. The pace of cleanup at potentially contaminated military installations and nearby communities also has come under scrutiny by Congress.

The Defense Department began searching for a fire suppressant that was more effective than water after a horrific fire aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967 killed 134 sailors and injured 161.

It sure looks like Maryland and DC were hot spots for military use of firefighting foam containing PFAS.

'Forever' Chemicals High In Maryland

 Chesapeake Bay Mag, “Forever Chemicals” National Report Shows Highest Levels In Md. Waterways

One of Maryland’s leading riverkeeper organizations is calling for the state to increase testing for “forever chemicals” in local waterways—after a national report found more of the chemicals in Maryland waterways than anywhere else.

The Waterkeeper Alliance tracked levels of PFAs (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), manmade chemicals that end up in waterways and can be highly toxic over time. The study looked at PFA levels in 114 watersheds around the country, including 16 in the Chesapeake region.

Maryland had the highest total number of detections and the highest number of different PFAS compounds of any state.

The study’s authors call out Piscataway Creek in the upper Potomac rivershed for having the highest concentration of PFAs. La Trappe Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River, had the second highest number of detections in the state for three of the five most prevalent compounds.

ShoreRivers, whose Eastern Shore riverkeepers took the samples analyzed for the Waterkeeper Alliance study, is sounding the alarm on these concerning numbers.

“The results of this study clearly demonstrate the need to urgently increase monitoring for these chemicals in our rivers,” said Matt Pluta, ShoreRivers’ Choptank Riverkeeper and Director of Riverkeeper Programs. “Once we begin detecting PFAS in local waterways and on our land, it’s only a matter of time before we begin to detect them in the fish, crabs, oysters, and even venison that we eat.”

Where do these “forever chemicals” come from, anyway? They are used in manufacturing to make Teflon non-stick cookware, firefighting foam, stain-resistant fabrics, water-repellant clothing, fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and have at times been found in Scotchgard. They don’t break down and have been found in people, wildlife and the environment itself.

With continued exposure, PFAs have been linked to cancer, as well as thyroid, liver and kidney disease, and developmental problems in babies.

ShoreRivers says “concerning levels” of PFAs were detected in five out of eight water samples they collected. The waterways with high levels were La Trappe Creek (near the Trappe wastewater treatment plant), Mill Creek on the Wye East River, Morgan Creek on the Chester River, and another Mill Creek, this one in the Sassafras River watershed.

This study underscores the importance of safeguarding against wastewater pollution, Pluta says. “The PFAS results from La Trappe Creek at the point where the Town of Trappe’s wastewater treatment plant discharges underscore the need to upgrade and modernize the treatment technology at these older systems before contamination levels get worse.”

I'm not terribly concerned about PFAs. If they were really harmful, we would have seen effects in the real world, and lab tests before now. Certainly some PFAs are potentially harmful, but the concentrations being detected are very low, there are a large number of PFAs and not all are equal in effect. See this at I&I New EPA Regulations Are Bureaucratic Overreach At Their Worst.

I see this as an example of the "shark effect," the need for regulatory agencies, and their remora like associated NGOs to keep moving to keep growing, finding new issues, straining the science to find additional problems to regulate.

Maryland, My Maryland

ABC 47, MD bill could help eliminate PFAS out of the environment “Strong support, it unanimously passed:”

Knocking PFAS Chemicals out of the environment, a health and safety Maryland bill is moving forward to help this come to light.

“Strong support, it unanimously passed the Senate it’s now I believe moving through the House side,” Senator Mary Beth Carozza said.

It’s called the George Walter Taylor Act named after a firefighter who died from cancer linked to PFAS exposure.

"Linked to" is not the same as "caused by." Essentially all fire fighters have been exposed to PFAs at higher levels than the majority of us. That does not mean that every cancer, even every cancer of types "that can be tied" to PFAs in firemen are caused by PFAS. In the absence of PFAS they would likely suffer the same rate of those cancers as the population as a whole.

“It just goes to show when you learn that something like this toxic chemical can have this type of detrimental effect on our firefighters that you work through it and we ended up passing this ban,” Sen. Carozza said.

The bill would protect Marylander’s from toxic PFAS chemicals by banning the use of fire fighting foam laced with them, as well as carpets and food packaging.

“As far as the packaging, that is a huge issue certainly some companies are starting to make their changes already on their own, for instance McDonald’s is,” Cindy Dillon, the Chair of the Lower Eastern Shore Group of the MD Sierra Club, said.

Health experts warn that these chemicals are everywhere, and if they get in your body, they are there forever impacting us in many ways.

As such, and essentially indestructible in the environment, the law can't possibly eliminate PFAS in the evironment, it can only prevent more from being used, and lowering people's exposure to it.

“The biggest ones that everyone thinks of are the cancers that are related to it, I mean there’s a myriad of cancers that can be tied back to it, but also like pregnant woman can have hypertension, low birth weight,” Christopher Truitt, Assistant Chief of EMS at the Salisbury Fire Department, said.

Truitt said the news on banning fire fighting foam is great, especially because their job of taking on those fires is already a dangerous one.

“We use it for any kind of liquid type fires, so gasoline fires, petroleum based fires, things of that nature, and fortunately we don’t run into that a lot,” Truitt said.

But, while we don’t know if this bill will make it to the Governor’s desk yet, some advocates we spoke with are hopeful.

“That’s a huge problem that its already in our environment, but if they we can stop it being introduced continuing to pour into our environment that would be a step in the right direction,” Dillon said.

Christopher Truitt said currently there’s no body on the market that sells PFAS free fire fighting gear. So, they’ll need to look at where they will get gear and equipment from and then they will need to evaluate costs.

I confess to being unconvinced by the evidence for the toxicity of PFAS. I think this might be an example of the The Decline Effect – Part 2:  How Does This Happen?

What exactly is the decline effect? Is it the fact that certain scientifically discovered effects decline over time the more they are studied and researched? Almost, but not really. The Wiki has this definition for us:

“The decline effect may occur when scientific claims receive decreasing support over time. The term was first described by parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine in the 1930s to describe the disappearing of extrasensory perception (ESP) of psychic experiments conducted by Rhine over the course of study or time. In its more general term, Cronbach, in his review article of science “Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology” [ also .pdf here ] referred to the phenomenon as “generalizations decay.”  The term was once again used in a 2010 article by Jonah Lehrer published in The New Yorker.”

Some hold that the decline effect is not just a decrease of support over time but rather that it refers to a decrease in effect size over time – or, according to some, both because of one or the other. That is, the support decreases because the effect sizes found decrease, or, because of decreasing support, reported effect sizes decrease. The oft cited cause of the decline effect are: publication bias, citation bias, methodological bias, and investigator effects. Part 1 of this series was an example of investigator effects.