What are the ‘forever chemicals’ that the EPA is limiting?

Aug 22, 2023

The Morning Meeting with Al Tompkins is a daily Poynter briefing of story ideas worth considering and more timely context for journalists, written by senior faculty Al Tompkins. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.

The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to limit some of what are commonly called “forever chemicals” in U.S. drinking water.

The chemicals that will be limited, broadly called PFAS, go by the names PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. They were first used in the 1940s and are all around us, in our clothing, packaging and food, and it is pervasive in tap water.

Because they are so widely used, PFAS can enter the environment from multiple sources. Because they break down very slowly, concentrations of PFAS can accumulate in people, animals and the environment over time and can end up in the water sources you rely on.

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators warns that while the new guidelines are a “step in the right direction,” you may pay higher water bills to remove the chemicals. Water departments also would be required to notify the public if it detects higher than allowable PFAS levels. The federal government, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provides $9 billion to help with the costs, especially in disadvantaged areas of the country.

The EPA says:

We now know that some PFAS can cause serious health problems if you are exposed to them – even at low levels – over a long period of time. Drinking water is one of several ways people may be exposed to PFAS and reducing PFAS in drinking water helps reduce PFAS health risks. Exposure to the PFAS EPA is proposing to regulate can increase the risks of a range of health effects, including:

While announcing the proposed rules, The EPA said “over time, if fully implemented, the rule will reduce tens of thousands of PFAS attributable illnesses or deaths.”

The National Resources Defense Council says:

Many of these problems, including kidney cancer and thyroid disease, turned up in the C8 studies, which monitored the health of about 69,000 people in West Virginia who were exposed to certain PFAS in their drinking water. Key adverse effects of some PFAS were known by chemical industry scientists decades ago but were not disclosed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the public.

For example, EPA issued a multimillion-dollar fine to manufacturer DuPont because of the company’s “multiple failures to report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment” from the PFAS perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8). Now, scores of independent studies show PFAS can be toxic to adults and especially children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable. Some PFAS have even been known to build up in a child before birth. Alarmingly, PFAS were detected in the breast milk, umbilical cord blood, or bloodstreams of 98 percent of participants in a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But in the C8 report, notice how many conditions were suspected to be linked to the “forever chemicals” but the evidence did not pan out.

Other sources say the link to human cancer is less clear, but there is an established link in lab rats. Poison.org (which is from the nonprofit National Capital Poison Center and is not a government agency), notes:

Because of their environmental persistence, PFAS chemicals are found in drinking water, dust, air, and food. PFAS are also found in the bloodstreams of almost all adults living in the United States. The widespread human exposure to PFAS has raised questions concerning the potential health effects of these chemicals. In studies involving rats, PFAS exposure has been linked to cancer. However, the significance of this is unclear. Rat bodies are not the same as human bodies, and the pathways involved in cancer cell growth in rats are often different than those in humans. In addition, the body’s processing of PFAS compounds is different in humans than in some other animals. Because of this, it can be difficult to establish a strong link between PFAS exposure and cancer.

The EPA’s rules will set “maximum contaminant levels” for the chemicals. Ten states (New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and Vermont) did not wait for the federal government and imposed their own limits.

The Environmental Working Group says more than 200 million Americans may have these chemicals in their drinking water now. A few years ago, the Environmental Working Group released drinking water data from dozens of cities around the country that showed levels of the “forever chemicals” far above what would be allowed under this new regulation:

(Environmental Working Group)

EWG has been tracking this issue for nearly two decades with little progress, until this week:

The limits, known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, are the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. The MCLs announced are 4 parts per trillion, or ppt, for PFOA and 4 ppt for PFOS. For the other four PFAS the agency is proposing using a “hazard index” which is a tool used to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals.

EWG says many of the states that didn’t wait for the federal government set levels higher than the new federal rules:

New Jersey was the first to set to a maximum contaminant limit for the compound PFNA, at 13 ppt, and has proposed standards of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA.

(Environmental Working Group)

The EPA’s proposal is just that. It is open to public comment before it becomes a rule. Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the public will be given 60 days to provide comments. The EPA says it expects to finalize the rule by the end of this year.

The list includes:

Get details on all of these here.

Twice in the last few days I heard people who should know better call the failed bank in California the “Silicone Valley Bank.” So, let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of the difference between “silicon” and “silicone.”

Silicon is a naturally occurring chemical element. You will find it as the 14th element on the periodic table. It is the second most common element in the earth’s crust (after oxygen.)

PolymerSolutions says:

Pure silicon is rarely seen in nature. It’s often bound with oxygen to form silica, or silicon dioxide. If you are a beach-goer, you’ve likely felt silica between your toes–as it is a major component of sand. Its abundance makes it a great building material for a variety applications.

(PolimerSolutions.com)

But why do we have Silicon Valley or the Silicon Valley Bank? That’s because silicon is widely used in electronics and computer technology because it conducts electricity. Live Science explains:

Silicon has many industrial uses: As silica, silicon is a key ingredient in bricks, concrete and glass. In its silicate form, the element is used to make enamels, pottery and ceramics.

Elemental silicon is a major player in modern electronics because it’s an ideal semiconductor of electricity. When heated into a molten state, silicon can be formed into semi-conductive wafers, to serve as the base for integrated circuits (microchips).

In fact, Silicon Valley, the southern region of the San Francisco Bay Area, earned its name due to the high concentration of computer and electronics companies in the area producing silicon-based semiconductors and chips.

Silicone is a synthetic substance that also contains silicon. Usually, silicone is a rubber-like substance that has low toxicity and tolerates heat well. Live Science says, “In the medical field, silicone can be found in implants, catheters, contact lenses, bandages and a variety of other things. You can also find silicone in a number of personal care items, including shampoos, shaving cream, personal lubricants.”

Plumbers use silicone to make watertight seals around pipe connections. Perhaps part of the confusion is because silicone also is widely used in electronics, but as insulation.

ZMEScience sums it up:

So, the difference between the two should be evident by now. They’re both useful for the world economy, but one is a naturally occurring chemical element while the other is a man-made polymer.

Associate silicon with: chemistry, geology, computers, chips, semiconductors, Silicon Valley, cement, bricks, glass.

Associate silicone with: insulation, molds, foam, coatings, cookware, firestops.

A Q&A with Kate Cox, the new program director for Poynter’s Leadership Academy for Women in Media

Plus, a forward-looking correction about glyphs in the New York Times; and is a Newsom-DeSantis debate imminent?

Both Gannett and Lee Enterprises reported digital growth in the most recent quarter as total revenue fell.

‘It’s been the ride of a lifetime. It’s been nonstop. It’s been challenging. ... And there’s never a shortage of things to write.'

There is no shortage of great journalism, and here are some of the best explainers, analyses, commentaries and perspectives so far

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.