Focus on PFAS Part 6
Costs of municipal cleanup
Comments from Sierra Club Robert Lunz Group
Wednesday, May 1, 2024
Friday, March 8, 2024
Focus on PFAS Part 5
In the face of looming regulations and growing liability risks, companies are seeking help in managing waste containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals.” Dozens of start-ups are hoping to assist by supplying new technologies capable of destroying the carbon-fluorine bond. Once thought to be impossible to degrade, PFAS are proving to be no match for powerful techniques like electrochemical oxidation and supercritical water oxidation. Companies are also demonstrating that emerging technologies for PFAS destruction, like those that rely on the subcritical process hydrothermal alkaline treatment, plasma, ultraviolet light combined with photocatalysts, and sonolysis can break apart PFAS. When combined with technologies that concentrate PFAS on the front end, destruction technologies could provide a cost-effective way to eliminate PFAS in the environment and stop them from ending up in drinking water.
Scientists once wrongly assumed that the carbon-fluorine bond was almost impossible to break. And that meant there was no practical way to completely destroy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
PFAS contamination by the numbers
715
Number of US military sites that the Department of Defense is evaluating for potential contamination by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
~3,000
Number of open landfills in the US generating leachate containing PFAS
Nearly 12,000
Number of closed landfills in the US generating leachate containing PFAS
~65,000
Number of public water systems that will have to comply with US Environmental Protection Agency limits for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) proposed last year
4 parts per trillion
Limit proposed by the EPA for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water
$10.3 billion
Amount to be paid by 3M under a proposed settlement of a lawsuit filed by public water utilities over PFOA and PFOS contamination.
“They were truly thought to be ‘forever chemicals,’ ” says Julie Bliss Mullen, who began investigating technologies for removing PFAS from drinking water as an undergraduate in 2010. At the time, “destruction was not really on the table,” she recalls.
But Mullen was obsessed with breaking the carbon-fluorine bond. PFAS can be removed from water, but they just get transferred to another medium and eventually make their way back into the environment, she says. To stop that cycle, you have to destroy the molecules by breaking the “unbreakable” bond.
Around 2014, as a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Mullen got her hands on some electrodes and, as she puts it, “started playing around with electrochemical oxidation in the lab.” The process creates hydroxyl radicals and, unlike other advanced oxidation techniques, facilitates the direct transfer of electrons. “Those electrons will almost immediately break the carbon-fluorine bond if we’re able to get PFAS onto the anode surface,” she says.
Mullen won’t say how she attracts PFAS to the anode surface. But in 2017, she and the university filed for a patent and spun out a company, Aclarity, to commercialize the technology. Mullen never did finish her PhD. Today, as cofounder and CEO of the Massachusetts-based firm, she’s seeing big interest in the technology from landfill operators and wastewater treatment plants.
Aclarity is not the only company vying for a piece of the PFAS destruction market. Dozens of start-ups are working on technologies for destroying the chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and adverse effects on the liver and immune system. Some companies are already operating at full scale; others are not far behind. And it turns out that electrochemical oxidation is just one of many ways to break the carbon-fluorine bond.
Companies are developing an array of approaches, including supercritical water oxidation, hydrothermal alkaline treatment, plasma destruction, ultraviolet light combined with photocatalysts, and sonolysis. They all claim to break down most PFAS into less harmful chemicals, such as carbon dioxide, fluoride ions, and water. But complete destruction of all PFAS, including short-chain PFAS and precursors, is a stretch for some techniques.
Many of these start-ups are partnering with companies specializing in technologies that remove PFAS from contaminated water and concentrate it. The PFAS destruction start-ups come in at the end and destroy the concentrated PFAS.
It’s early days for PFAS destruction and too soon to tell which technologies will succeed in the marketplace. But entrepreneurs who started these companies see the possibility of permanently ridding drinking water of the once-invincible “forever chemicals.”
Wednesday, December 13, 2023
Focus on PFAS Part 1
Okay,
anyone who attends Lunz Group programs, reads the newspaper or listens
to the news knows that dangerous PFAS chemicals are everywhere, forever.
It’s a daunting issue! We include this Focus on PFAS in our newsletter
to help us explore this topic, to understand immediate threats to our
health and to identify solutions for our safety from these toxins.
We’ll toss out a topic for your consideration and encourage you to
engage in the dialogue and submit your own contributions. Here goes…
Drinking
Water: Yes, PFAS and related chemicals are in drinking water across
the country. Nina Fair spoke with Becky Thames, Lab Director at
Charleston Water System. Becky was forthcoming about CWS information
regarding PFAS. CWS has been voluntarily publishing an Unregulated
Compounds Report since 2017, as conditions (such as Covid) and
technology allow. (https://www.charlestonwater.com/232/Water-Quality-Reports)
EPA has proposed Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) of 4 parts per trillion
for drinking water. Once the MRLs are adopted, much work will still
need to be done at state and local levels to bring about those results.
It may be 2030 before consumers actually experience safer levels of PFAS
in drinking water. Meanwhile, it may be worth considering installation
of a home water filtration system. According to Duke University
research, the least effective PFAS filters are activated charcoal and
whole house systems. The most effective systems are dual-cartridge
under-sink and reverse osmosis systems. Do some research – we’d love to
hear what you discover!
Here's
a link to the Mount Pleasant Waterworks water quality report. Note on
page 7 a view of some of the chemical compounds included as PFAS
Here's a link to a PDF summary document
Focus on PFAS Part 3
Now we have some idea of PFAS exposure in our local water sources. And we’ve gathered a little information about filtration systems to help screen PFAS contamination until protective regulations are enacted. So, let’s look into the EPA proposal for regulating PFAS.
Data Collection:
Data collection by EPA is required under the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). All public water systems serving communities of 3,300 or more people must monitor for specific contaminants in their water. UCMR 5 listed the more than two dozen PFAS that these public water systems must monitor, including PFOA and PFOS.
Results of the monitoring data will be released over three years, with the first round of data issued in July 2023. Data is expected to show thousands of new locations across the U.S. confirmed to have PFAS in their water, affecting millions more Americans than previously known. This may support the estimate published by EWG scientists in 2020 that over 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their drinking water.
EWG’s PFAS map shows that there are more than 2,800 communities known to be plagued by these forever chemicals – but EPA’s upcoming data release is expected to indicate that the numbers are actually much higher.
Proposed EPA Regulations: The Biden EPA is taking the first concrete steps ever to tackle PFAS pollution. In March, it proposed bold new limits known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) that restrict the amount of six individual PFAS that can be in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. If finalized, this would be the first new MCL for drinking water contaminants by EPA in more than two decades. In addition to weighing health harms, these limits consider water treatment costs and feasibility. The proposed MCLs are 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and the same for PFOS. For the other four PFAS chemicals, the EPA is proposing a “hazard index” to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals. While these are the first federal proposed drinking water limits for PFAS, 10 states already have final or interim enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS.
Again, we’d love to hear from you! Visit Lunz Group Blogspot to learn more and to post your comments.
Article from TheState Newspaper
Online Data by Sample site in South Carolina. The Black River is in the PeeDee watershed
Here's a map of the PFAS sample sites
Focus on PFAS Part 2:
Our last article focused on PFAS in drinking water and mentioned home filter systems. Whole house and under-sink systems can be expensive. Environmental Working Group (EWG) just published an evaluation of countertop devices that lower PFAS levels by 100% (or close to it). Here are their top 4 recommendations:
Travel Berkey Water Filter
KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100% | INITIAL COST: $344.00
OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: 8+ YEARS (6,000 GALLONS) | ONE-YEAR COST: $344.00
This is an expensive filter. But it does offer a few perks for that large upfront cost, including 100 percent elimination of forever chemicals measured in these tests and a useful life of many years.
Pros: Non-plastic design; large water capacity; 100 percent PFAS reduction and exceptionally long filter life, at more than 8 years, if using 2 gallons per day.
Cons: Very high initial cost.
Clearly Filtered Water Pitcher with Affinity Filtration Technology
KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100% | INITIAL COST: $90.00
OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~50 DAYS (100 GAL.) | ONE-YEAR COST: $436.50 (COST + 7 FILTERS PER YEAR)
One of three filters tested that achieved a 100 percent reduction in PFAS from drinking water, it nevertheless takes a fair amount of time to use – it took twice as long as some other brands for the water to pass through the filter into the pitcher.
Pros: Total PFAS elimination; clear design makes it easy to track how much water remains; the large pitcher size means refilling is less frequent.
Cons: EWG user experience suggests it can be tricky to install the filter correctly and make sure it is tightened to the reservoir; the water passes slowly through the filter; filters need to be pressure-primed at the faucet, which is difficult and can be annoying – and not accessible for those with upper body or hand strength limitations.
Zero Water 7 Cup 5-Stage Ready-Pour Water Filter Pitcher
KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 100%. | INITIAL COST: $24.99
OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~10 DAYS (20 GALLONS). | ONE-YEAR COST: $646.06 (COST + 37 FILTERS/YEAR)
The third filter tested eliminated 100 percent of the forever chemicals. The sale price makes it one of the filters with the lowest initial cost for an average family of four consuming 2 gallons per day – it cost our tester less than $25 to buy the filter and pitcher.
Pros: 100 percent reduction of PFAS and low initial cost; replacing filters is simple and quick.
Cons: The tradeoff for the low upfront cost is that the filters have a short life and must be replaced often, which means costs soon add up; the water reservoir is small and you'll need to frequently refill the pitcher.
Epic Pure Pitcher
KEY STATS: PFAS REDUCTION: 98% | INITIAL COST: $70.00
OVERALL VALUE: FILTER LIFE: ~75 DAYS (150 GALLONS) | ONE-YEAR COST: $247.87 (INITIAL COST + 5 FILTERS
Our tester’s overall favorite to use, this filter’s design is simple – it has a large reservoir that is easy to access and refill. Replacing filters is also straightforward. The filter removed about 98 percent of forever chemicals in the drinking water tested.
Pros: The longer filter life of 150 gallons means paying for fewer replacement filters, and it’s less expensive in the first year than the three filters that reduce 100 percent of the PFAS.
Cons: This filter has a higher initial cost than some other varieties, though cost of the replacement filters is mid-range.
Again, we’d love to hear what you discover about PFAS in your world! You can post your comments on Facebook page for Robert Lunz Group South Carolina Chapter Sierra Club.
FOCUS ON PFAS Part 4
December 12, 2023
Okay, we know that PFAS is everywhere in our external environment and within 99%
of us humans. So, what’s being done and how can we avoid it?
What’s Being Done?
Federal action to stop the flow of PFAS and clean up PFAS contamination is moving
What’s Being Done?
Federal action to stop the flow of PFAS and clean up PFAS contamination is moving
too slowly. But progress has been made.
• The Biden administration in 2021 laid out a PFAS action plan.
• In early 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled proposed
national drinking water standards for six PFAS.
• California and other states have banned or regulated PFAS in personal care
products, children’s products, some textiles, carpets and rugs, and firefighting foam,
among other products.
• Under market pressure, some big retailers have eliminated or reduced PFAS in their products.
What Can You Do to Lower Your Risk?
Think about taking these steps recommended by EWG:
• Filter Your Water: Consider buying a countertop or undersink filter system that can eliminate
nearly 100% of PFAS.
• Coming Clean: It’s hard to know what’s in your cleaners – companies aren’t required to disclose
• Coming Clean: It’s hard to know what’s in your cleaners – companies aren’t required to disclose
their ingredients. Try to find EWG VERIFIED Cleaners.
• Good Grooming: Choose personal care products without PTFE or fluoro ingredients. Look for
• Good Grooming: Choose personal care products without PTFE or fluoro ingredients. Look for
products with the EWG VERIFIED® mark, which are free from ingredients of concern.
• Cooking Utensils: Avoid using nonstick cookware and utensils. Teflon, which makes your
• Cooking Utensils: Avoid using nonstick cookware and utensils. Teflon, which makes your
cookware nonstick, is the granddaddy of all forever chemicals.
Don’t use it. Choose stainless steel or cast iron instead.
• Takeout Containers: Cut back on fast food and greasy carry-out. Many containers are
• Takeout Containers: Cut back on fast food and greasy carry-out. Many containers are
treated with PFAS, which then leach into our food. That includes microwave popcorn bags.
• Stain- and Water-Repellent Clothing: This is a tough one for us outdoor types!
• Stain- and Water-Repellent Clothing: This is a tough one for us outdoor types!
They’re usually made with PFAS. Look for products that say they’re PFAS-free, like furniture
and carpets that haven’t been pre-treated.
Again, we’d love to hear from you! Visit Lunz Group Blogspot to learn more and to
post your comments.
Friday, August 18, 2023
Editorial: South Carolina needs to get serious about new wetlands protection
- BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF
- Jul 29, 2023
This Carolina Bay is protected from development because it is the feature of Woods Bay State Park, but other Carolina Bays face an uncertain future because of shifting laws and regulations regarding isolated wetlands. Provided
Heidi StoneTwo significant recent events should work together to push the issue of protecting South Carolina’s isolated wetlands toward the top of lawmakers’ agendas for the coming year.
The first is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency that held that only wetlands connected to other surface waters are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. That limits federal jurisdiction to areas with, in the ruling’s words, a “continuous surface water connection with a larger body of water.” While many in the environmental community have expressed concerns that the ruling — and the diminution of federal protection — will endanger more wetlands with development, that does not have to be the case.
States are free to step in and enact their own regulations to protect isolated wetlands, and we would urge S.C. lawmakers to do just that. Our state’s coastal plain has several Carolina Bays, isolated wetland features now apparently unprotected by the Clean Water Act. These unique and somewhat mysterious areas offer important habitat to unique birds and plants, and they also act as filters, improving regional water quality. One has been made into Woods Bay State Park in southwestern Florence County.
But Carolina Bays are far from the only sort of isolated wetlands left unprotected by the high court’s May ruling, which arrived at a moment when we are appreciating wetlands even more, not only for their contribution to biodiversity and water quality but also for their ability to limit flooding.
That’s where the other major development comes in: the June 29 release of South Carolina’s Strategic Statewide Resilience and Risk Reduction Plan, which recognizes the new realities regarding both flood-prone landscapes and our shifting regulatory landscape.
“The (Sackett) decision puts some of South Carolina’s unique isolated wetlands features such as Carolina Bays at risk of unregulated development,” the plan says in one of its recommendations: “Isolated wetlands, such as Carolina Bays, offer habitat and flood mitigation in South Carolina. A majority are in the coastal zone where populations are increasing and therefore at an increased risk of loss to development. New state legislation should be enacted to regulate the alteration of these unique systems to reduce the potential loss of function.”
This might not be the most significant of the plan’s many recommendations, but it could represent some of the lower-hanging fruit. In a similar vein, the plan also recommends maintaining natural protection against flooding by prioritizing conservation work in areas known to help with absorbing heavy rainfalls and swollen rivers. The plan notes that the South Carolina Office of Resilience has public and private databases “identifying areas where floodwaters are expected, where wetlands can help absorb excess water, and those areas where water is most likely to infiltrate the ground as opposed to creating excess runoff. Protecting these areas may help attenuate the impact that future development has.”
While conservation work is vital for many reasons, an increased focus on protecting landscapes, particularly wetlands, will help lessen future flood risk.
Many environmentalists fear the new Supreme Court precedent will lead to further damaging decisions because many believe the notion of an isolated wetland is an oxymoron, since we know relatively little about how water is connected underground. Also, some lands are wet only certain times of the year, and it’s unclear which ones still will face review under the Clean Water Act, the goal of which is no net loss of our nation’s wetlands.
We share their concerns and urge state lawmakers to address them by acting next year to adopt new state-level protections. Many lawmakers bristle at federal intervention in areas where they believe state government could handle things better; this wetlands issue represents a chance for them to prove we can do better. But we’ll only succeed if they act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)