#pfas wastewater

[percasolutions]

Perca is a leading provider of advanced solutions in water treatment and waste management. Specializing in innovative technologies, they focus on offering sustainable methods for wastewater purification. Their services aim to address environmental challenges by efficiently treating wastewater and improving water quality. By using cutting-edge processes and tailored solutions, Perca supports industries in managing waste responsibly. Their expertise in wastewater purification ensures compliance with environmental regulations while contributing to sustainable development. With a commitment to eco-friendly practices, Perca is at the forefront of water treatment solutions.

[prose2passion]

not sure if groundbreaking is the word I would have used next to wastewater - sets the reader up for a too literal interpretation ...

[turtlesandfrogs]

Started the day by reading this article from the NY times, and I'm frankly, disturbed.

Some highlights:

"For decades, farmers across America have been encouraged by the federal government to spread municipal sewage on millions of acres of farmland as fertilizer. It was rich in nutrients, and it helped keep the sludge out of landfills."

Which I knew, and I knew that there were concerns about contaminants from like, the medications people were on. But human waste is part of the nutrient cycle, and it always made sense to me that it should be throughly composted and returned to agricultural lands, and I assumed that people in general were taking the steps necessary to make it safe.

But here's what I didn't know:

"The 1972 Clean Water Act had required industrial plants to start sending their wastewater to treatment plants instead of releasing it into rivers and streams, which was a win for the environment but also produced vast new quantities of sludge that had to go somewhere."

Which, yay, no longer polluting bodies of water, but now that means we're applying industrial waste water to agricultural lands. And have been since 1972. Which leads to this situation, among many others, I'm sure:

"The sludge that allegedly contaminated the Colemans’ farm came from the City of Fort Worth water district, which treats sewage from more than 1.2 million people, city records show. Its facility also accepts effluent from industries including aerospace, defense, oil and gas, and auto manufacturing. Synagro takes the sludge and treats it (though not for PFAS, as it’s not required by law) then distributes it as fertilizer."

So here's what some states are doing:

"In Michigan, among the first states to investigate the chemicals in sludge fertilizer, officials shut down one farm where tests found particularly high concentrations in the soil and in cattle that grazed on the land. This year, the state prohibited the property from ever again being used for agriculture. Michigan hasn’t conducted widespread testing at other farms, partly out of concern for the economic effects on its agriculture industry.

In 2022, Maine banned the use of sewage sludge on agricultural fields. It was the first state to do so and is the only state to systematically test farms for the chemicals. Investigators have found contamination on at least 68 of the more than 100 farms checked so far, with some 1,000 sites still to be tested.

“Investigating PFAS is like opening Pandora’s box,” said Nancy McBrady, deputy commissioner of Maine’s Department of Agriculture."

This is fun:

"The E.P.A. is currently studying the risks posed by PFAS in sludge fertilizer (which the industry calls biosolids) to determine if new rules are necessary.

The agency continues to promote its use on cropland, though elsewhere it has started to take action. In April, it ordered utilities to slash PFAS levels in drinking water to near zero and designated two types of the chemical as hazardous substances that must be cleaned up by polluters. The agency now says there is no safe level of PFAS for humans...

It’s difficult to know how much fertilizer sludge is used nationwide, and E.P.A. data is incomplete. The fertilizer industry says more than 2 million dry tons were used on 4.6 million acres of farmland in 2018. And it estimates that farmers have obtained permits to use sewage sludge on nearly 70 million acres, or about a fifth of all U.S. agricultural land."

There's more, but I wanted to condense it at least a little bit. I am glad we're raising awareness, and I'm glad we're starting to regular the amount in our drinking water, and I hope that we'll find a way to actually deal with PFAS. I am so frustrated that people are exposed in the first place, and in nigh inescapable ways.

Also, to all those people who were like, oh, organic isn't at all healthier for consumers? Guess what the organic standards don't allow to be applied?

[gottalottarocks]

You guys have probably heard that the EPA just set new Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the first time in decades for PFAS, which is BIG news in the industry, but not a surprise. I've been in meetings for months hearing about how new PFAS regulations were in the works, and the consensus in the environmental sector is that it's long overdue. But for the rest of you who've never heard of PFAS before I can break down what the big issues are and why they've taken so long to address.

^stolen from pubchem

So PFAS stands for per- and poly- flouroalkyl substances, and it's not one chemical compound, but an entire class of thousands of chemicals that have these chains of Carbon and Flourine atoms. For anybody who doesn't have a chem background fluorine is a nasty atom, it has seven electrons in its valence shell and it will do anything to fill it up to eight, creating incredibly strong bonds.

So you have really strong C-F bonds and these chains of C and F atoms are hydrophobic, which means these compounds are durable and water resistant, which makes them great for all sorts of industrial uses. And we've used them in everything: clothing, fast food wrappers, paints, solar panels, and non-stick pans just to start.

Unfortunately, these wonder chemicals are PBTM- Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic, and Mobile. They don't break down, they build up in the food chain, they have adverse health effects, and even though C-F chains are hydrophobic, additional compounds connected to them can make them soluble in water (so they're in our drinking water). We're starting to realize PFAS can raise cholesterol, inhibit immune response, interfere with your thyroid (part of your hormonal system), cause liver toxicity, is linked to cancer, and more!

At this point you're probably starting to think wtf, how did we allow the continued widespread use of these chemicals? Well, we have phased out quite a few high profile PFAS compounds including PFOA and PFOS, but we still want to regulate and test for them in our drinking water. While PFAS is in many different products, the biggest sources of contamination are industrial runoff, areas where fire fighting foams were tested and used, landfills that leach out PFAS into the surrounding area, and wastewater treatment plants. So don't feel too stressed about eating microwave popcorn or using nail polish.

The reason these regulations took so long to implement was because of how difficult it was to connect such small amounts of PFAS with health hazards. The level of concern for PFAS is extremely low- in the ppt (parts per trillion) range. When I sample for contaminants I'm generally testing in the ppm range and higher, for PFAS we're looking an entire scale lower. We literally did not have the technology before the last few decades to detect PFAS in the ppt range in water, let alone study their effects (you can't just impose massive regulations without any proof to back it up).

States that currently have PFAS limits in drinking water have mostly capped it in the 10-70 ppt range. The new MCLs are 4-10 ppt for the six PFAS compounds the EPA addressed, which are six of the most common and most studied PFAS compounds. Most of the bitching I've seen is about how much this will cost and that the new limits are too low. The conservative take on this is that there isn't enough evidence to support such low MCLs, although most people in the environmental industry feel that more and more research keeps coming out and will keep coming out (remember studying such small amounts of anything is difficult) to support these levels. On the other side of the spectrum, there's the consensus that this is just the beginning and that more and more regulations on PFAS will be needed.

And they're in the works! I saw a proposed rule by the EPA that would ban 12 (already defunct) PFAS substances from pesticides. It wouldn't really affect the current manufacturing of pesticides, but it would be a safeguard from letting them back into the manufacturing process in case of a conservative presidency.

If you're still here I'd like to end on the note that as our science improves, our understanding of how we have impacted the environment and our health will improve. We are constantly going to find out about the adverse effects of new chemicals or things that we may not even produce anymore, and that's a good thing. Over time we are going to make the world a healthier and safer place.

[wachinyeya]

From the article:

Researchers have invented a filter that removes harmful PFAS chemicals from water and recycles them in renewable batteries. 

University of Queensland scientists say they believe the technology will be on the market in three years.

What's next?

The filters will be trialled at a Brisbane wastewater treatment plant before being expanded to other sites.

[rjzimmerman]

Their Fertilizer Poisons Farmland. Now, They Want Protection From Lawsuits. (New York Times)

Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:

For decades, a little-known company now owned by a Goldman Sachs fund has been making millions of dollars from the unlikely dregs of American life: sewage sludge.

The company, Synagro, sells farmers treated sludge from factories and homes to use as fertilizer. But that fertilizer, also known as biosolids, can contain harmful “forever chemicals” known as PFAS linked to serious health problems including cancer and birth defects.

Farmers are starting to find the chemicals contaminating their land, water, crops and livestock. Just this year, two common types of PFAS were declared hazardous substances by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Superfund law.

Now, Synagro is part of a major effort to lobby Congress to limit the ability of farmers and others to sue to clean up fields polluted by the sludge fertilizer, according to lobbying records and interviews with people familiar with the strategy. The chairman of one of the lobbying groups is Synagro’s chief executive.

In a letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in March, sludge-industry lobbyists argued that they shouldn’t be held liable because the chemicals were already in the sludge before they received it and made it into fertilizer.

The lobbying has found early success. A bill introduced by Senators John Boozman of Arkansas and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, both Republicans, would protect sludge companies like Synagro, as well as the wastewater plants that provide the sludge, from lawsuits. A House bill has also been introduced.

Ms. Lummis will “work with President Trump’s E.P.A. to ensure ‘passive receivers,’ like water utilities and others, are protected from bogus third-party lawsuits,” her office said in a statement, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Synagro and Goldman Sachs declined to answer detailed questions. Synagro in its most recent sustainability report acknowledged the risks of PFAS contamination in its fertilizer, calling it “one of our industry’s challenges.”

Widespread manufacturing of PFAS began decades ago, with some of the country’s largest chemical companies making vast quantities and downplaying the risks. Water-resistant and virtually indestructible, the chemicals have been used in everything from nonstick pans and dental floss to firefighting gear and waterproof clothing.

[thoughtportal]

A group of bacteria has proved adept at destroying the ultratough carbon-fluorine bonds that give “forever chemicals” their name. This finding boosts hopes that microbes might someday help remove these notoriously pervasive pollutants from the environment.

Nearly 15,000 chemicals commonly found in everyday consumer products such as pizza boxes, rain jackets and sunscreens are recognized as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. These chemicals can enter the body via drinking water or sludge-fertilized crops, and they have already infiltrated the blood of almost every person in the U.S. Scientists have linked even low levels of chronic PFAS exposure to myriad health effects such as kidney cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis.

Current methods to destroy PFASs require extreme heat or pressure, and they work safely only on filtered-out waste. Researchers have long wondered whether bacteria could break down the chemicals in natural environments, providing a cheaper and more scalable approach. But carbon-­fluorine bonds occur mainly in humanmade materials, and PFASs have not existed long enough for bacteria to have specifically evolved the ability to digest them. The new study—though not the first to identify a microbe that destroys carbon-fluorine bonds—provides a step forward, says William Dichtel, a chemist at Northwestern University who studies energy-efficient ways to chemically degrade PFASs.

To identify a promising set of bacteria, the study’s authors screened several microbe communities living in wastewater. Four strains from the Acetobacterium genus stood out, the team reported in Science Advances. Each strain produced an enzyme that can digest caffeate—a naturally occurring plant compound that roughly resembles some PFASs. This enzyme replaced certain fluorine atoms in the PFASs with hydrogen atoms; then a “transporter protein” ferried the fluoride ion by-products out of the single-celled microbes, protecting them from damage. Over three weeks most of the strains split the targeted PFAS molecules into smaller fragments that could be degraded more easily via traditional chemical means.

By directly targeting carbon-fluorine bonds, the Acetobacterium bacteria partially digested perfluoroalkyls, a type of PFAS that very few microbes can break down. Even so, these Acetobacterium strains could work only on perfluoroalkyl molecules that contain carbon-carbon double bonds adjacent to the car­bon-fluorine ones. These “unsaturated” perfluoroalkyl compounds serve as building blocks for most larger PFASs; they are produced by chemical manufacturers and also emerge when PFASs are destroyed via incineration.

Scientists had previously demonstrated that a microbe called Acidimicrobium sp. strain A6 could break down carbon-fluorine bonds and completely degrade two of the most ubiquitous perfluoroalkyls. This microbe grows slowly, however, and requires finicky environmental conditions to function. And researchers do not yet fully understand how this bacterial strain does the job.

The Acetobacterium lines target a separate group of PFASs, and the team hopes to engineer the microbes to either improve their efficiency or expand their reach—potentially to more perfluoroalkyls. Lead study author Yujie Men of the University of California, Riverside, imagines the microbes would perform best in combination with other approaches to degrade PFASs. The range of chemical structures in these compounds means “a single lab cannot solve this problem.”

Any future commercial use of the microbes would face numerous hurdles, including breakdown speed and replicability outside of the lab, but Men looks forward to seeing how far her team can push the technique. “We’re paving the road as we go,” she says with a laugh.

[de-temple]

Today, Representatives Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), and Pat Ryan (NY-18), along with 13 additional members of Congress, introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to protect Americans and the environment from harmful forever chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The bill would establish a national drinking water standard for select PFAS chemicals, accelerate designation of PFOA and PFOS chemicals as hazardous substances, which EPA has recently proposed, limit industrial discharge, and provide $200 million annually to assist water utilities and wastewater treatment, among other provisions.

[percasolutions]

Perca is dedicated to promoting sustainable agriculture through innovative practices, focusing on the benefits of composting with Eisenia fetida. These red wiggler worms are highly effective in breaking down organic matter, resulting in nutrient-rich vermicompost that enhances soil health and fertility. Perca offers resources and solutions for both home gardeners and commercial growers, emphasizing the importance of using Eisenia fetida for sustainable farming. By integrating these worms into composting systems, Perca aims to reduce waste and improve agricultural productivity, contributing to a greener future.

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

The NY Times

By Hiroko Tabuchi

For decades, a little-known company now owned by a Goldman Sachs fund has been making millions of dollars from the unlikely dregs of American life: sewage sludge.

The company, Synagro, sells farmers treated sludge from factories and homes to use as fertilizer. But that fertilizer, also known as biosolids, can contain harmful “forever chemicals” known as PFAS linked to serious health problems including cancer and birth defects.

Farmers are starting to find the chemicals contaminating their land, water, crops and livestock. Just this year, two common types of PFAS were declared hazardous substances by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Superfund law.

Now, Synagro is part of a major effort to lobby Congress to limit the ability of farmers and others to sue to clean up fields polluted by the sludge fertilizer, according to lobbying records and interviews with people familiar with the strategy. The chairman of one of the lobbying groups is Synagro’s chief executive.

In a letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in March, sludge-industry lobbyists argued that they shouldn’t be held liable because the chemicals were already in the sludge before they received it and made it into fertilizer.

The lobbying has found early success. A bill introduced by Senators John Boozman of Arkansas and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, both Republicans, would protect sludge companies like Synagro, as well as the wastewater plants that provide the sludge, from lawsuits. A House bill has also been introduced.

Ms. Lummis will “work with President Trump’s E.P.A. to ensure ‘passive receivers,’ like water utilities and others, are protected from bogus third-party lawsuits,” her office said in a statement, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Synagro and Goldman Sachs declined to answer detailed questions. Synagro in its most recent sustainability reportacknowledged the risks of PFAS contamination in its fertilizer, calling it “one of our industry’s challenges.”

Widespread manufacturing of PFAS began decades ago, with some of the country’s largest chemical companies making vast quantities and downplaying the risks. Water-resistant and virtually indestructible, the chemicals have been used in everything from nonstick pans and dental floss to firefighting gear and waterproof clothing.

Even as PFAS has turned up in wastewater, the government has continued to promote the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer. And while Donald J. Trump’s election raises the prospect that PFAS restrictions might be rolled back, alongside other environmental rules, Synagro is pressing ahead in the effort to protect itself from expensive lawsuits.

The company is already facing all manner of legal challenges. This year a group of ranchers in Johnson County, Texas, stopped sending their cattle to market and sued Synagro for damages after a neighboring farm used sludge fertilizer on its fields. County investigators found 32 types of PFAS in the ranchers’ soil and water. Synagro has contested those allegations.

Residents of San Bernardino County, Calif., have also sued the company, over exposure to PFAS and other pollutants when an open-air pit of biosolids caught fire at a Synagro subsidiary. In October, a cattle farmer in Randolph County, Mo., filed an intent to sue Synagro and another biosolids company, saying the companies had acknowledged that PFAS chemicals may be present in the sludge but continued to provide it to farmers.

“I think it’s terrible,” said Donald Craig, the Missouri farmer, who alongside two local environmental groups is demanding that Synagro cease supplying sludge fertilizer in the state. He and the coalition have also petitioned the state to ban the use of the fertilizer altogether. “It’s disgusting. It needs to be outlawed.”

The current lawsuits against Synagro don’t make claims under America’s Superfund law, which requires corporations to clean up toxic contamination. But that landmark law is likely to be central to future cases, because of the E.P.A.’s decision this year to designate two major kinds of PFAS as hazardous substances under the law. The industry’s lobbying seeks to inoculate Synagro and others from lawsuits, even over decades-old contamination.

“What the biosolids companies are doing is attempting to buy themselves a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” said Mary Whittle, an attorney with Guerrero & Whittle who is representing the Texas ranchers. All this protects a business model that “makes Synagro rich while destroying America’s farmland,” she said.

How PFAS Ended Up on Farmland

The federal government has long encouraged the use of sludge as fertilizer in part because it would otherwise need to be disposed of another way — dumped in landfills, or burned — potentially releasing greenhouse gases and other pollution. In addition, sludge contains nutrients that encourage plant growth, and helps reduce use of fertilizers made from fossil fuels.

But a growing body of research shows that, unbeknown to farmers, fertilizer made from the sewage that flows from homes and factories can contain heavy concentrations of PFAS, which can then contaminate farmland.

It’s difficult to know how much fertilizer sludge is used nationwide, and E.P.A. data is incomplete. The industry says that more than two million dry tons were used on 4.6 million acres of farmland in 2018. And it estimates that farmers have obtained permits to use sewage sludge on nearly 70 million acres, or about a fifth of all U.S. agricultural land.

Researchers have found the chemicals in products as varied as milk, eggs, fruit juice and seafood.

Only one state, Maine, has begun systematically testing agricultural land for PFAS. So far, it has found 68 farms with significant contamination. In 2022, the state banned the use of sludge fertilizer and has since set up a fund to support affected farms.

Lawmakers in Washington are only starting to take notice. The Senate version of a stalled farm bill would have created a $500 million fund to be used to clean up farms, buy out farmers, monitor health, and fund testing for PFAS, essentially shifting the costs onto taxpayers. The fate of the measures, modeled on Maine’s approach, remained unclear.

“It could be that ultimately millions of acres of farmland is contaminated with biosolids, and may no longer be suitable for agriculture unless they are cleaned up,” said Scott Faber, an attorney with the Environmental Working Group and adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University. But there’s another possibility, he said: “They may simply be too expensive to clean up.”

Smelly but Profitable

Sewage sludge is a lucrative business.

When local water utilities treat sewage, and filter out the water, it leaves behind a thick sludge. Companies like Synagro take the sludge from more than 1,000 wastewater facilities in North America, which is then sold as inexpensive fertilizer.

While Synagro does not publicly report financial results, its earnings hit $100 million to $120 million last year, analysts estimated. An investment fund run by Goldman Sachs, West Street Infrastructure Partners III, acquired Synagro in 2020 in a deal reported to be worth at least $600 million.

As concerns over PFAS risks have grown, Synagro has stepped up its lobbying.

In 2022, the company set up a nonprofit, the Coalition of Recyclers of Residual Organics by Practitioners of Sustainability at Synagro’s corporate headquarters, and installed the company’s chief executive, Bob Preston, as chairman, according to the group’s tax filings. Since its founding, the group has spent $220,000 on federal lobbying, disclosure forms show.

In a statement, the nonprofit said the bills it lobbied for would “ensure liability resides with the manufacturer of these chemicals.”

Mr. Trump’s return to office introduces a new complication: The E.P.A.’s designation of some PFAS as hazardous under the Superfund law could be rolled back. Project 2025 calls for removing the hazardous-substance designation, and a major industry group has challenged the E.P.A.’s move in court.

Ryan McManus, government-affairs manager at the American Public Works Association, which represents water utilities and wastewater-treatment plants nationwide, and which has been key player in the effort to lobby Congress, said his group remained “very focused on a legislative solution because ultimately you could have another administration four years from now that decides to reverse course.”

Risks Hidden for Years

The argument that sludge companies aren’t liable because the chemicals were already in the sludge is based on the fact that PFAS manufacturers for years had minimized the dangers. Lawsuits, news articles and peer-reviewed research have chronicled how chemical giants 3M and DuPont, the original manufacturers of PFAS, for decades hid evidence of the chemicals’ dangers.

The chemicals are now so ubiquitous in the environment that nearly all Americans carry PFAS in their bloodstream. As many as 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS through tap water.

In a statement, 3M said it was starting to exit PFAS manufacturing. 

Under a sweeping settlement last year, 3M is paying $10 billion to cities and counties to test for and clean up PFAS in public water supplies. The E.P.A. has said that almost no level of exposure is safe, and this year imposed strict limits on drinking-water contamination for six types of PFAS.

Synagro and the sewage plants say they are simply at the end of that chain of contamination. We “do not manufacture or profit from PFAS,” Michael Witt, general counsel at Newark’s Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, said at a hearing this year. “Industry did that.”

But critics point to research that for years has detected PFAS in wastewater. Recent studies have also explored how the chemicals can move from the soil into water and plants, and then to the livestock that feed on them.

Regarding Synagro, “it seems crazy to be able to say they’re a passive receiver and they shouldn’t be liable, that they know it’s harmful but they’re going to continue to sell it,” said Laura Dumais, an attorney with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that assisted the Texas ranchers with PFAS testing. “It’s like CVS selling a tainted medicine and saying, ‘We can’t be liable and we’re just going to continue to sell it.’”

Wastewater treatment plants say they are finding it increasingly difficult to find landfills to accept sludge, partly because landfill operators are themselves wary of contamination. “They don’t want their landfill to potentially become a Superfund site,” said Mr. McManus of the public-works association.

‘They’re Not Even Aware’

The E.P.A. continues to promote sludge as fertilizer. It regulates harmful pathogens and some heavy metals in biosolids, but not PFAS. The agency is working on a risk assessment that it intends to release this year, the first step in determining whether new standards are necessary.

Some farming groups support the Senate bill, saying it would also offer them protection against potential lawsuits. “Your neighbor or anybody out there could sue you for the price of a postage stamp,” said Courtney Briggs, senior director for government affairs at the American Farm Bureau. Farmers, she said, are “victims, and often they’re not even aware” of the danger.

But experts point out that the Superfund law already exempts farmers from cleanup responsibilities. So farmers would gain little, while becoming unable to themselves sue, Mr. Faber said.

Neither can farmers easily sue the PFAS manufacturers, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer intended for the chemicals to be released onto farmland, Kate R. Bowers, legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, testified at a recent hearing.

That leaves ranchers like Tony Coleman, one of the plaintiffs in the Texas case against Synagro, in limbo. They have now taken legal action against the E.P.A., saying that it failed to properly regulate PFAS in fertilizer. The agency is pushing to dismiss the lawsuit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/climate/sludge-fertilizer-synagro-lobbying.html?searchResultPosition=2

[a-queer-little-wombat]

Yes to all of that.

And also.

Do you "glorious revolution" folks have even the slightest idea how delicately balanced our *food* infrastructure is? Clean water infrastructure? Sewage and trash infrastructure?

[Ignore for a moment the issues of lead, PFAS, etc in water supplies. I'm talking about basic access to potable water AT ALL.]

In the first day of revolution, hundreds of thousands of people have died from acute medical issues. In the first week, millions have died from lack of water and more are beginning to die of starvation. In the first month, millions more are starving to death because the stores have been emptied and no trucks are coming to replenish them. In the first month, millions are dying of dysentery and cholera due to lack of sanitation (water pumps stopped working, wastewater isn't moving, water sanitation facilities aren't working, thus literal feces are piling up). In the first month, millions are dying from chronic, ongoing medical conditions that they can no longer get medications or support for (diabetes, thyroid, cancer, asthma, anaphylaxis, high blood pressure, etc).

How long will it take you to get those services back up and running? How many people will die before you do?

Remember, too, that in those first few hours, the billionaires got on their planes and jetted out of your reach.

I think a lot about how, if the glorious violent revolution happens, every kid with significant medical needs in a hospital where power gets cut will die.

You can decide you're willing to sacrifice your own life, but you don't get to tell everybody else on the planet that they're acceptable collateral damage.

[tsmom1219]

Study tracks PFAS, microplastics through landfills and wastewater treatment plants

Microplastics and PFAS flow into wastewater treatment plants from landfill leachate, left, and from storm and sanitary sewers. Both contaminants accumulate in biosolid waste, most of which is carted out and spread on agricultural fields. On the right, a sample of the microplastics recovered from wastewater treatment plants in Illinois. Photo by Fred Zwicky, University of Illinois News…

[torrentlaboratory23]

PFAS Testing for a Safer Environment | Torrent Laboratory

Torrent Laboratory provides PFAS testing in drinking water, wastewater, and more. Certified by top agencies, we ensure accurate detection and fast turnaround times. Protect your community with Torrent's reliable PFAS testing services.

[plethoraworldatlas]

There is a call-to-action at the end of this article. Please don’t leave without taking action! Thank you!

What Are Biosolids?

“Biosolids” is the word waste treatment industry marketers came up with to rebrand sewage sludge, the solid byproduct of wastewater treatment processes. The reason the industry needed to rebrand sewage sludge was because they planned on marketing and selling the nutrient-rich waste to farmers and home gardeners as cheap fertilizer and compost products.

But biosolids aren’t just rich in nutrients. Biosolids can contain high levels of toxic PFAS “Forever Chemicals” (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) that aren’t removed during the waste treatment process. And neither are the phthalates, pesticides, PCBs, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, microplastics, heavy metals, and innumerable other harmful substances that have been found in biosolids.

Applications of biosolids contaminate the soil with toxic PFAS and other chemicals, which are then taken up by crops grown in that soil. PFAS also migrates to contaminate groundwater and surface waters. The meat, milk and eggs of livestock become contaminated when the animals consume adulterated crops and water.

The biosolids industry and the commercial fertilizer and compost companies that use biosolids continue to claim that the products are safe and non-toxic. Even municipalities have been giving out biosolids fertilizer and compost to farmers, community gardens, and home gardeners for free, without warning about the dangers.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), though aware of the problem, still allows the commercialization of toxic biosolids. Just as alarming, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) actively promotes the use of biosolids as fertilizer to commercial farmers. We suspect this is due to the revolving door and corporate capture of our regulatory agencies and the resulting collusion, favoring corporate profits over human or environmental health.

In 2022, Sally Brown, Research Professor at the University of Washington and veteran biosolids industry lobbyist, was selected by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to serve on USDA’s inaugural Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture.

Sally Brown once called environmental activists “ecoterrorists” for a successful protest on March 4, 2010, that stopped the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission from giving away sewage sludge as “organic biosolids compost” for home and school gardens.

As you’ll soon read, it’s Sally Brown that is the ecoterrorist for promoting biosolids.

Biosolids Poisoning Farms and Farmers Across America

The practice of using biosolids as fertilizer on conventional farms has been happening for decades but has, more recently, turned into a national catastrophe, creating a crisis for farmers and ranchers across the country.

Although the use of biosolids as fertilizer is prohibited in organic agriculture, even organic farms have been hit hard.

March 22, 2022, The Guardian reported:

Maine organic farmers Johanna Davis and Adam Nordell bought Songbird Farm in 2014. By 2021 the young family with their three-year-old son were hitting their stride, Nordell said. But disaster struck in December. The couple learned the farm’s previous owner had decades earlier used PFAS-tainted sewage sludge, or “biosolids”, as fertilizer on Songbird’s fields. Testing revealed their soil, drinking water, irrigation water, crops, chickens and blood were contaminated with high levels of the toxic chemicals. The couple quickly recalled products, alerted customers, suspended their operation and have been left deeply fearful for their financial and physical wellbeing. “This has flipped everything about our lives on its head,” Nordell said. “We haven’t done a blood test on our kid yet and that’s the most terrifying part. It’s f#####g devastating.” Ironwood Organic Farm, about six miles from Songbird Farm, tested its water and found high levels suspected to have migrated from a neighbors’ sludge-packed field. The small produce farm pulled its products, halted operations and is nervously awaiting more test results. “I spent my entire adult life building this farm,” said Nell Finnigan. “Everything is at stake for us, and this is a tragedy for anyone who comes up with a high [groundwater] well test.” Stoneridge Farm, a small dairy operation more than 100 miles south of Songbird Farm, discovered in 2016 that sludge and paper mill waste used as fertilizer had probably contaminated its cows and milk. Stoneridge killed most of its livestock in 2019. Co-owner Fred Stone was denied federal assistance for his tainted milk because one of its milk tests came in just below the state’s limit, but Stone didn’t feel comfortable selling it. Now his family of four, which believes PFAS is behind their health ailments from thyroid disease to reproductive problems, survives on welfare and friends’ and family’s generosity. Stone said he could have continued to sell contaminated food: “This is the cost of having a moral compass and doing the right thing.” “I don’t know how we are going to get debts paid,” he added. “I don’t know how the Christ we are going to live. I don’t know how we’re going to survive.”

...

March 11, 2024, KCUR reported:

“This is a hundred-year-old operation,” Jason Grostic said. “My grandpa milked cows, my dad milked cows, I milked cows, (then) got into the beef industry. It’s in my blood.” But Grostic may be at the end of the line. Two years ago, he was blindsided when the state of Michigan ordered him to shut down his farm, citing high levels of PFAS in both his beef and soil. Grostic had been using biosolids, a treated byproduct from wastewater plants, to fertilize his crops, which he then fed his cattle. But what he thought was a cost-effective fertilizer, turned out to be laden with PFAS. It’s a risk, Grostic said, no one warned him about — and now his 400-acre farm has been deemed unusable. “I took a fertilizer source that was recommended and was EPA-approved, and the government dropped the ball by not testing it and assuring it was a clean product,” he said.

We encourage you to watch the VICE Special Report, “The Hidden Chemicals Destroying American Farms,” a year long investigation featuring Jason Grostic and his experience with biosolids and PFAS. It will shock you.

[healthcaremarketanalysis]

PFAS Testing Solutions: Market Growth, Opportunities, and Innovations

The global PFAS testing market in terms of revenue was estimated to be worth $110 million in 2023 and is poised to reach $217 million by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 14.4% from 2023 to 2028. The new research study consists of an industry trend analysis of the market. The new research study consists of industry trends, pricing analysis, patent analysis, conference and webinar materials, key stakeholders, and buying behaviour in the market.

Download PDF Brochure

PFAS Testing: Market Dynamics Driver: Greater regulatory emphasis on effective pollution monitoring and control Authorities in many countries have started enacting various policies and legislations for effective pollution monitoring and control. Regulations and legislations set forth by government organizations have triggered the testing, inspection, and certification of environmental samples by governments and manufacturing companies. In this regard, regulatory bodies have introduced guidelines regulating the inspection, sampling, and testing of environmental samples to detect the presence of pollutants and contaminants.

Restraint: Stringent storage requirements for PFAS testing reagents and analytical standards Globally, the demand for solvents, reagents and analytical standards is increasing because of the rising number of PFAS analysis and environmental testing activities; wastewater plants and industries like food and beverages require analytical reagents and standards for parent compounds to carry per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances investigations. The PFAS testing solvents and reagents should be in the required amount and should have high purity levels. This is a major challenge as their integrity can be easily affected by degradative processes.

Opportunity: Regulatory agencies to control environmental pollution due to PFAS contamination The extensive health threats related to PFAS, the government has implemented PFAS testing regulations, which leads to the increasing adoption of environmental pollution equipment for PFAS. Additionally, in October 2021, the US EPA announced the Agency’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, mapping out the agency’s approach to addressing the pollution due to PFAS contamination. The agency also established the EPA Council on PFAS in April 2021 to execute a bold, strategic, whole-of-EPA strategy to protect public health and the environment from the impacts of PFAS.

Challenge: Inadequate supporting infrastructure and the shortage of skilled professionals Testing & certification practices in several developing countries lack organization, sophistication, and technology. The lack of the basic supporting infrastructure for setting up testing laboratories is another major challenge to the growth of the market. Testing service providers in some developing regions also face challenges in obtaining samples from manufacturing companies as they are fragmented and dominated by small enterprises. Other key issues include a lack of institutional coordination, a shortage of equipment, technical skills, and expertise for legislating legislation at the grassroots; and a lack of updated standards.

North America is expected to be the largest market for the PFAS testing industry during the forecast period. The PFAS testing market has been segmented into five major regions, namely, North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. North America, comprising the US and Canada, held the largest share of the global market in 2022. On the other hand, the Asia Pacific market is estimated to register the highest growth rate during the forecast period. North America accounted for a share of 45% of the market, followed by Europe with a share of 35%. This region is witnessing growth due to greater regulatory emphasis on effective pollution monitoring and control High adoption of advanced analytical technologies and growing funding for environmental testing.

Prominent players in the PFAS Testing market include:

Merck KGaA (Germany)

Agilent Technologies (US)

LGC Limited (UK)

Waters Corporation (US)

Biotage (Sweden)

AccuStandard, Inc. (US)

Request Sample Pages

Recent Developments of PFAS Testing Industry

In August 2022, Agilent Technologies, Inc. plans to invest $20 million to expand its Shanghai manufacturing center to meet growing demand in China for the company’s advanced liquid chromatography (LC), spectrometer, and mass spectroscopy (MS) systems.

In June 2022, MACHEREY-NAGEL GmbH & Co. KG introduced NUCLEODUR PFAS and PFAS Delay, HPLC columns for the analysis of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

In September 2020, Waters Corporation established its Innovation and Research Laboratory in Massachusetts (US). For the innovation of analytical instruments and their consumables, which will strengthen the product portfolio of analytical products and consumables of Waters Corporation.

Conclusion: The PFAS testing market is poised for significant growth, driven by increasing environmental and health concerns, stringent regulatory standards, and advancements in testing technologies. PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and human body, have been linked to various adverse health effects, prompting a global demand for comprehensive testing solutions.

[spotlightstory]

Water systems warn Americans could soon see major rate hikes to filter out toxic ‘forever chemicals’

05/26/24 The Hill

In exchange for cleaner water, Americans around the nation may soon have to pay hefty prices. 

Let me fix this: In exchange for water without corporate chemicals that cause cancers and child development issues the nation must upgrade the system and citizens will pay.

Water systems are starting to warn residents of massive rate hikes as they prepare to install technology to filter out toxic chemicals in a family known as PFAS.

Utilities from South Florida to upstate New York have warned customers that they could see significant price increases after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that they remove the substances, which have been linked to a number of cancers and other diseases, from their systems.

Last month, the EPA said it will require utilities whose water systems contain high levels of six types of PFAS to remove them from the water. 

PFAS, which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of chemicals that have been used to make a variety of nonstick and waterproof products and firefighting foam. 

The substances have also become ubiquitous in the environment, due in part to the fact that they tend to persist for a long time instead of breaking down.

Exposure to these so-called forever chemicals has been linked to increased risks of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, weakened immune systems, high cholesterol, and developmental issues in children. 

Now, for the first time, utilities around the nation will be required to get them out of their drinking water to prevent customers’ exposure. But that will come at a price. 

Last month, officials with Broward County, a populous South Florida locale, warned residents that those on county water could see “double or triple water rates for users.”

Alan Garcia, director of Broward County Water and Wastewater Services, told The Hill an average monthly bill for water is currently around $26. He agreed that amount could “potentially triple” as the county filters out PFAS — though he said it’s not clear whether rates will actually increase by that much.

His utility has 66,000 accounts — representing an estimated 230,000 people.

Fort Worth, Texas, officials also warned of consequences for ratepayers ahead of the EPA setting the rule last month.

“It’s going to be expensive, and it’s going to impact our ratepayers, and we’re going to be doing everything we possibly can to get some federal support in terms of the funding, but we’re going to have to move forward,” Fort Worth Water Director Chris Harder told Fort Worth Report.

It’s not entirely clear yet which water systems will need to filter out PFAS. The rule gives utilities a few years to test their water to determine if their levels of the chemicals fall above federal thresholds. If they do, utilities will then have to install technology to get rid of them.

Water providers recently settled a major class action lawsuit against manufacturers of PFAS, and chemical giants could have to collectively pay billions of dollars to offset treatment costs. 

But, Moody said, the settlements are not expected to be enough to defray the expense. 

“If you do get money through it, it’ll likely only help you with maybe a third or a fourth of the costs,” he said. 

The added costs do come with the notable benefit of lowering communities’ exposure to the harmful substances: Garcia described PFAS treatment as “probably something important to do.”

But, he said, “we’re sort of paying the price” of companies’ PFAS use. 

And, companies are STILL using these chemicals in products.