Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Dozens of Texas water systems exceed new federal limits on “forever chemicals”

News Feed
Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. In Texas, 49 public water utility systems have reported surpassing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits for five “forever chemicals” in drinking water, according to data submitted to the federal agency. Experts say there are likely more since not all water systems have submitted their data. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread and long lasting in the environment. They are called “forever chemicals” because they don't break down and can persist in water and soil, and even human blood indefinitely. The chemicals have been used since the 1940s to repel oil and water and resist heat. They have been included in thousands of household products from nonstick cookware to industrial products like firefighting foam. There are more than 12,000 types of individual forever chemicals, but new EPA standards announced last week set new limits for five of them: PFOA and PFOS have a limit of 4 parts per trillion while PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA have a limit of 10 parts per trillion. One part per trillion is equivalent to a single drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The new standards will require water utilities to meet them within five years. The EPA estimates that the new limits, which are legally enforceable, will reduce exposure for 100 million people nationwide and help prevent thousands of deaths and illnesses, including from cancer. One study found the chemicals in the blood of nearly 97% of all Americans. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to cancer, causing low birth rate and birth defects, damage to the liver and immune system, and other serious health problems. In 2022, the EPA issued health advisories that said the chemicals were much more hazardous to human health than scientists originally thought. “Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a press release last week. “That is why President Biden has made tackling PFAS a top priority, investing historic resources to address these harmful chemicals and protect communities nationwide.” EPA estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce PFAS to meet these new standards. The new standards will require all public water utility systems to submit PFAS data to the EPA. So far, only about 24% of them have submitted this data nationally. EPA expects all data to be submitted by 2026. In Texas, more than 420 public water systems have submitted PFAS results to the federal agency and 113 of them detected some level of PFAS in the water. Of those, nearly 50 public water systems reported at least one exceedance of any of the five chemicals that the EPA targeted. Some of the cities on that list include Abilene, Arlington, Baytown, Deer Park, Fort Worth, Grapevine, and Dallas (the full list can be found at the end of this story). “These are very harmful chemicals. It's even more important for [water systems] to address this in the drinking water to minimize the exposure of people in Texas,” said Maria Doa, a senior director of chemicals policy for the environmental nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, after looking at Texas’ PFAS results. Public water systems will have three years to complete their initial monitoring for these chemicals and will be required to inform the public of the level of PFAS measured in their drinking water. Fort Worth’s water system has already done both. Fort Worth’s water testing found three of the five newly-regulated contaminants exceeding limits. In the city’s North and South Holly water treatment plants, located on the west side near the city’s botanic garden and the zoo, PFHxS levels ranged from 12.2 to 25.8 parts per trillion, compared to the new federal limit of 10 parts per trillion. PFOA levels at both plants ranged from 4.2 to 8.3 parts per trillion, above the new limit of 4 parts per trillion. According to the city's website, the water system serves more than 1.3 million people in Fort Worth and surrounding communities. “Even though the rule does give us more time to come into compliance, we're not delaying our plans or anything,” said Mary Gugliuzza, a media relations and communications coordinator for the Fort Worth Water Department. Gugliuzza said that as soon as the city started seeing results come in last year it began the process of soliciting proposals for how to treat the chemicals. City officials expect to award a contract for PFAS treatment this summer. “To be honest, there's not a lot of technologies available for [treatment] and the cost to implement the technology is going to be very expensive,” Gugliuzza said. One method Fort Worth is considering using activated carbon, which is commonly used to filter contaminants from water. The activated carbon would attract and hold the PFAS for removal. The EPA has approved the use of activated carbon, reverse osmosis (purifying water using pressure) and ion exchange systems (a chemical process) to remove PFAS from drinking water. To help cities treat their water for PFAS, the EPA has allocated $9 billion through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But Gugliuzza said securing funding doesn’t mean everything will be paid for and some of the cost may be passed on to city water customers. Gage Zobell, a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, has been following the EPA’s PFAS regulations closely. The firm, which has an office in Dallas, represents some Texas utilities as well as 3M, a company that has been a major contributor to the production of PFAS. Zobell said the federal funding will not come close to covering the cost of removing PFAS from drinking water, which leaves water utilities with two options: charging their customers more to pay for upgrades required to meet the new standards, or suing the companies responsible for the PFAS in their water. Several cities are already seeking to sue chemical manufacturers. Last year, Fort Worth and Dallas rejected two class action settlements with chemical manufacturers 3M and DuPont, which faced hundreds of legal claims by U.S water providers that the companies polluted public drinking water with the chemicals. 3M had agreed to pay $10.3 billion and DuPont agreed to pay $1.2 billion. But the water systems in the neighboring North Texas cities said the settlements were “inadequate” and decided to opt out of the settlement so that they could file their own lawsuits against the chemical manufacturers. “The need for easy access to water is becoming expensive,” Zobell said. “This is only going to be adding to the expense … especially [in] dry and hot states like Texas, where rates already have to be high for your water.” The American Water Works Association released a study last year estimating the national cost for treatment systems to reduce just two of the five chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, to meet the EPA standards would surpass $3.8 billion per year. Viraj deSilva, a PFAS expert and senior treatment process leader at Freese and Nichols, a consulting and engineering firm, said Texas had been a bit slow to pursue PFAS treatment because the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, was waiting for federal limits to be finalized. He said companies that provide treatment for PFAS will now be in high demand and cities must take action now. Texas water utilities that have reported one or more PFAS chemical exceeding the new federal standard: Abilene Northeast and Grimes Water Treatment Plant Town of Anthony Arlington Pierce Burch Water Treatment Plant Baytown Area Water Authority Big Springs Water Plant Clear Lake Water Authority Childress Water Plant Cockrell Hill Water Plant Coupland: Manville Water Supply Corporation Dallas Water Utility Eula Water Supply Cooperation in Clyde Deer Park Surface Water Treatment Plant Duncanville Water Treatment Plant Edinburg Wastewater Plant City of Farmers Branch Town of Flower Mound Wastewater Treatment Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 133 Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 41 Fort Worth North and South Holly Water Treatment Plant Gastonia Scurry Special Utility District Georgetown San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant Grapevine Water Treatment Plant Greenville Water Treatment Plant Haltom City Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 119 Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 8 Houston: Spencer Road Public Utility District Hudson Oaks Lakeshore Plant Huntsville Palm Street Water Plant Irving MacArthur Pump Station Katy: Big Oaks Municipal Utility District Killeen: West Bell County Water Supply La Feria Water Treatment Plant City of Lake Worth City of Livingston Midland Water Purification Plant Prosper Custer Pump Station Port Lavaca Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Water Treatment Plant San Antonio Water System Castle Hills City of Seagoville Seguin: Springs Hill Water Supply Corporation Temple Water Treatment Plant Terrell North Texas Municipal Water District City of Tye Weatherford Water Treatment Plant West University Place Plant 1 and 2 Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

The EPA set its first-ever drinking water limits for five types of PFAS chemicals, and nearly 50 of Texas public water systems have reported exceeding the new limits for at least one.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

In Texas, 49 public water utility systems have reported surpassing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits for five “forever chemicals” in drinking water, according to data submitted to the federal agency.

Experts say there are likely more since not all water systems have submitted their data.

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread and long lasting in the environment. They are called “forever chemicals” because they don't break down and can persist in water and soil, and even human blood indefinitely. The chemicals have been used since the 1940s to repel oil and water and resist heat. They have been included in thousands of household products from nonstick cookware to industrial products like firefighting foam.

There are more than 12,000 types of individual forever chemicals, but new EPA standards announced last week set new limits for five of them: PFOA and PFOS have a limit of 4 parts per trillion while PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA have a limit of 10 parts per trillion.

One part per trillion is equivalent to a single drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The new standards will require water utilities to meet them within five years. The EPA estimates that the new limits, which are legally enforceable, will reduce exposure for 100 million people nationwide and help prevent thousands of deaths and illnesses, including from cancer.

One study found the chemicals in the blood of nearly 97% of all Americans. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to cancer, causing low birth rate and birth defects, damage to the liver and immune system, and other serious health problems. In 2022, the EPA issued health advisories that said the chemicals were much more hazardous to human health than scientists originally thought.

“Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a press release last week. “That is why President Biden has made tackling PFAS a top priority, investing historic resources to address these harmful chemicals and protect communities nationwide.”

EPA estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce PFAS to meet these new standards.

The new standards will require all public water utility systems to submit PFAS data to the EPA. So far, only about 24% of them have submitted this data nationally. EPA expects all data to be submitted by 2026. In Texas, more than 420 public water systems have submitted PFAS results to the federal agency and 113 of them detected some level of PFAS in the water.

Of those, nearly 50 public water systems reported at least one exceedance of any of the five chemicals that the EPA targeted. Some of the cities on that list include Abilene, Arlington, Baytown, Deer Park, Fort Worth, Grapevine, and Dallas (the full list can be found at the end of this story).

“These are very harmful chemicals. It's even more important for [water systems] to address this in the drinking water to minimize the exposure of people in Texas,” said Maria Doa, a senior director of chemicals policy for the environmental nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, after looking at Texas’ PFAS results.

Public water systems will have three years to complete their initial monitoring for these chemicals and will be required to inform the public of the level of PFAS measured in their drinking water. Fort Worth’s water system has already done both.

Fort Worth’s water testing found three of the five newly-regulated contaminants exceeding limits. In the city’s North and South Holly water treatment plants, located on the west side near the city’s botanic garden and the zoo, PFHxS levels ranged from 12.2 to 25.8 parts per trillion, compared to the new federal limit of 10 parts per trillion. PFOA levels at both plants ranged from 4.2 to 8.3 parts per trillion, above the new limit of 4 parts per trillion.

According to the city's website, the water system serves more than 1.3 million people in Fort Worth and surrounding communities.

“Even though the rule does give us more time to come into compliance, we're not delaying our plans or anything,” said Mary Gugliuzza, a media relations and communications coordinator for the Fort Worth Water Department.

Gugliuzza said that as soon as the city started seeing results come in last year it began the process of soliciting proposals for how to treat the chemicals. City officials expect to award a contract for PFAS treatment this summer.

“To be honest, there's not a lot of technologies available for [treatment] and the cost to implement the technology is going to be very expensive,” Gugliuzza said.

One method Fort Worth is considering using activated carbon, which is commonly used to filter contaminants from water. The activated carbon would attract and hold the PFAS for removal.

The EPA has approved the use of activated carbon, reverse osmosis (purifying water using pressure) and ion exchange systems (a chemical process) to remove PFAS from drinking water.

To help cities treat their water for PFAS, the EPA has allocated $9 billion through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But Gugliuzza said securing funding doesn’t mean everything will be paid for and some of the cost may be passed on to city water customers.

Gage Zobell, a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, has been following the EPA’s PFAS regulations closely. The firm, which has an office in Dallas, represents some Texas utilities as well as 3M, a company that has been a major contributor to the production of PFAS.

Zobell said the federal funding will not come close to covering the cost of removing PFAS from drinking water, which leaves water utilities with two options: charging their customers more to pay for upgrades required to meet the new standards, or suing the companies responsible for the PFAS in their water.

Several cities are already seeking to sue chemical manufacturers. Last year, Fort Worth and Dallas rejected two class action settlements with chemical manufacturers 3M and DuPont, which faced hundreds of legal claims by U.S water providers that the companies polluted public drinking water with the chemicals. 3M had agreed to pay $10.3 billion and DuPont agreed to pay $1.2 billion.

But the water systems in the neighboring North Texas cities said the settlements were “inadequate” and decided to opt out of the settlement so that they could file their own lawsuits against the chemical manufacturers.

“The need for easy access to water is becoming expensive,” Zobell said. “This is only going to be adding to the expense … especially [in] dry and hot states like Texas, where rates already have to be high for your water.”

The American Water Works Association released a study last year estimating the national cost for treatment systems to reduce just two of the five chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, to meet the EPA standards would surpass $3.8 billion per year.

Viraj deSilva, a PFAS expert and senior treatment process leader at Freese and Nichols, a consulting and engineering firm, said Texas had been a bit slow to pursue PFAS treatment because the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, was waiting for federal limits to be finalized. He said companies that provide treatment for PFAS will now be in high demand and cities must take action now.

Texas water utilities that have reported one or more PFAS chemical exceeding the new federal standard:

  • Abilene Northeast and Grimes Water Treatment Plant
  • Town of Anthony
  • Arlington Pierce Burch Water Treatment Plant
  • Baytown Area Water Authority
  • Big Springs Water Plant
  • Clear Lake Water Authority
  • Childress Water Plant
  • Cockrell Hill Water Plant
  • Coupland: Manville Water Supply Corporation
  • Dallas Water Utility Eula Water Supply Cooperation in Clyde
  • Deer Park Surface Water Treatment Plant
  • Duncanville Water Treatment Plant
  • Edinburg Wastewater Plant
  • City of Farmers Branch
  • Town of Flower Mound Wastewater Treatment
  • Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 133
  • Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 41
  • Fort Worth North and South Holly Water Treatment Plant
  • Gastonia Scurry Special Utility District
  • Georgetown San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant
  • Grapevine Water Treatment Plant
  • Greenville Water Treatment Plant
  • Haltom City
  • Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 119
  • Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 8
  • Houston: Spencer Road Public Utility District
  • Hudson Oaks Lakeshore Plant
  • Huntsville Palm Street Water Plant
  • Irving MacArthur Pump Station
  • Katy: Big Oaks Municipal Utility District
  • Killeen: West Bell County Water Supply
  • La Feria Water Treatment Plant
  • City of Lake Worth
  • City of Livingston
  • Midland Water Purification Plant
  • Prosper Custer Pump Station
  • Port Lavaca Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Water Treatment Plant
  • San Antonio Water System Castle Hills
  • City of Seagoville
  • Seguin: Springs Hill Water Supply Corporation
  • Temple Water Treatment Plant
  • Terrell North Texas Municipal Water District
  • City of Tye
  • Weatherford Water Treatment Plant
  • West University Place Plant 1 and 2

Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS?

In Australia, the taxpayer has footed the bill for the forever chemical clean-up so far. But this will have to change.

EdBelkin/ShutterstockA landmark legal settlement has once again focused our attention on the dangers of “forever chemicals”. This class of chemicals, technically known as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are widely used to make nonstick or waterproof products. The problem is, the chemicals move easily around the environment, pollute groundwater and rivers, are often carcinogenic – and they don’t degrade. This month, one of the largest makers of these chemicals, 3M, had its offer of A$16 billion to clean up PFAS-contaminated waterways approved by a US court. It’s just the latest in a series of PFAS lawsuits across the United States. While increased attention is welcome, there’s no guarantee of success. Removing and destroying PFAS from wastewater streams across a single US state, Minnesota, would cost a minimum of $21 billion over 20 years. Globally, a recent report by the chemical safety nonprofit ChemSec found the costs of PFAS remediation alone amount to around $26 trillion per year – not including rising healthcare costs from exposure to PFAS, or damage to the environment. The 3M settlement is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem now is how to actually clean up these chemicals – and prevent further pollution. Remediation is expensive – and uncertain In Australia, contamination is worst in firefighter training grounds and on defence force bases, due to the long-term use of firefighting foams full of PFAS. The discovery of this contamination triggered a wave of lawsuits. The Department of Defence has since paid out more than $366 million in class action lawsuits. Defence has also assumed responsibility for managing, remediating and monitoring PFAS contamination on and around its bases. In 2021, the department began to actively set about remediation. Read more: Removing PFAS from public water systems will cost billions and take time – here are ways you can filter out harmful 'forever chemicals' at home That sounds promising – find the pollution and fix the problem. But the reality is much more complicated. A 2022 parliamentary inquiry described PFAS remediation as an emerging and experimental industry. This is correct. There’s a great deal of basic scientific research we have to do. This is not a simple problem. These chemicals seep into the soil and groundwater – and stay there. It’s hard to get them out. As a result, most remediation work at defence bases to date has been part of research and development, rather than a wide-scale permanent cleanup. To help, the defence department has brought in three major industry partners, including Emerging Compounds Treatment Technologies. We don’t know how they are doing the cleanup or if their methods work, as this information is not publicly accessible. The three companies have sought intellectual property protection to support their technological advantage in the growing PFAS remediation market. One of the companies, Venetia, told the parliamentary inquiry: [there] are still significant gaps in knowledge in keys areas such as human health toxicology, PFAS behaviour in the environment and remediation of PFAS in soil and water PFAS is a much bigger problem Significant PFAS contamination has now been reported in: – Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel construction site. Soil contamination at the most polluted site is hundreds of times worse than a threshold set by the state’s environmental protection agency – Western Australian mines – WA waste management facilities – Southeast Queensland water reclamation plants – Perth’s public and private airports – Operating and closed landfills. The full extent of PFAS contamination in Australia is still emerging. Recent research has found Australia is one of several toxic hotspots for PFAS, relative to the rest of the world. Getting forever chemicals out of groundwater is going to be hard – but necessary. Mumemories/Shutterstock Worse, current monitoring practices are likely to be underestimating how much PFAS is lingering in the environment, given we usually only track a handful of these chemicals – out of more than 16,000. Experts have called for: improved understanding of the range of PFAS embodied in consumer and industrial products […] to assess the environmental burden and develop mitigation measures The more we look, the more alarming the picture appears. Emerging research has found PFAS in consumer products such as cosmetics, packaging, waterproofing, inks, pesticides, medical articles, polishes and paints, metal plating, pipes and cables, mechanical components, electronics, solar cells, textiles and carpets. The size and complexity of PFAS contamination suggests we are in for a very long and expensive process to begin cleaning it up – especially given we are still making and using these chemicals. Read more: Controversial ‘forever chemicals’ could be phased out in Australia under new restrictions. Here’s what you need to know How should we respond? To start addressing the problem, here are three important steps. 1. Introduce a “polluter pays” principle. The introduction of this concept is what forced 3M to pay up in the US. Australia has yet to follow suit, which is why the public has been footing the bill. If we introduce this legal principle, manufacturers will have to take responsibility. This would make it much less attractive for companies to make polluting products – and shift the burden from taxpayers to the companies responsible. Australia’s government is considering pursuing similar legal action against 3M. 2. Set PFAS contamination standards in line with other OECD countries, or better. Earlier this month, the US implemented the first legally enforceable national drinking water standards for five PFAS compounds and two PFAS mixtures. Australia’s current acceptable drinking water guidelines allow up to 140 times more PFAS in our water than these strict new US standards. In the US, these new standards are drawing new investment in remediation. 3. Take it seriously. For years, many of us thought all you had to do to avoid PFAS was not to buy nonstick pans. But these chemicals are now everywhere. They’re highly persistent and don’t leave our bodies easily. Every single person on the planet is now likely to have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. Reducing this dangerous chemical load is going to take a lot of work to clean up existing hotspots, stop further production, and prevent recirculation of PFAS in recycled products or in our food. The 3M settlement is a good start. But it’s only a start. Tackling this problem is going to be hard, but necessary. Read more: PFAS: how research is uncovering damaging effects of 'forever chemicals' Rachael Wakefield-Rann receives research funding from various government and non-government organisations. She does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would financially benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment.Sarah Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Chemicals
Food
Health

The toxic trouble with tires, for salmon and fish kills

A chemical called 6PPD, which is added to rubber tires, is released when tires hit pavement. It reacts with ozone to become a different chemical, 6PPD-q, which can be extremely toxic — so much so that it has been linked to repeated fish kills in Washington state.

For decades, concerns about automobile pollution have focused on what comes out of the tailpipe. Now, researchers and regulators say, we need to pay more attention to toxic emissions from tires as vehicles roll down the road.At the top of the list of worries is a chemical called 6PPD, which is added to rubber tires to help them last longer. When tires wear on pavement, 6PPD is released. It reacts with ozone to become a different chemical, 6PPD-q, which can be extremely toxic — so much so that it has been linked to repeated fish kills in Washington state.The trouble with tires doesn’t stop there. Tires are made primarily of natural rubber and synthetic rubber, but they contain hundreds of other ingredients, often including steel and heavy metals such as copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc.As car tires wear, the rubber disappears in particles, both bits that can be seen with the naked eye and microparticles. Testing by a British company, Emissions Analytics, found that a car’s tires emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles per kilometer driven — from 5 to 9 pounds of rubber per internal combustion car per year.And what’s in those particles is a mystery, because tire ingredients are proprietary.“You’ve got a chemical cocktail in these tires that no one really understands and is kept highly confidential by the tire manufacturers,” said Nick Molden, CEO of Emissions Analytics. “We struggle to think of another consumer product that is so prevalent in the world and used by virtually everyone, where there is so little known of what is in them.”Regulators have only begun to address the toxic tire problem, though there has been some action on 6PPD.The chemical was identified by a team of researchers, led by scientists at Washington State University and the University of Washington, who were trying to determine why coho salmon returning to Seattle-area creeks to spawn were dying in large numbers.Working for the Washington Stormwater Center, the scientists tested some 2,000 substances to determine which one was causing the die-offs, and in 2020 they announced they’d found the culprit: 6PPD.The Yurok Tribe in Northern California, along with two other West Coast Native American tribes, have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to prohibit the chemical. The EPA said it is considering new rules governing the chemical. “We could not sit idle while 6PPD kills the fish that sustain us,” said Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, in a statement. “This lethal toxin has no place in any salmon-bearing watershed.”California has begun taking steps to regulate the chemical, last year classifying tires containing it as a “priority product,” which requires manufacturers to search for and test substitutes.“6PPD plays a crucial role in the safety of tires on California’s roads and, currently, there are no widely available safer alternatives,” said Karl Palmer, a deputy director at the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. “For this reason, our framework is ideally suited for identifying alternatives to 6PPD that ensure the continued safety of tires on California’s roads while protecting California’s fish populations and the communities that rely on them.”The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association says it has mobilized a consortium of 16 tire manufacturers to carry out an analysis of alternatives. Anne Forristall Luke, USTMA president and CEO, said it “will yield the most effective and exhaustive review possible of whether a safer alternative to 6PPD in tires currently exists.”Molden, however, said there is a catch. “If they don’t investigate, they aren’t allowed to sell in the state of California,” he said. “If they investigate and don’t find an alternative, they can go on selling. They don’t have to find a substitute. And today there is no alternative to 6PPD.”California is also studying a request by the California Stormwater Quality Association to classify tires containing zinc, a heavy metal, as a priority product, requiring manufacturers to search for an alternative. Zinc is used in the vulcanization process to increase the strength of the rubber.When it comes to tire particles, though, there hasn’t been any action, even as the problem worsens with the proliferation of electric cars. Because of their quicker acceleration and greater torque, electric vehicles wear out tires faster and emit an estimated 20% more tire particles than the average gas-powered car.A recent study in Southern California found tire and brake emissions in Anaheim accounted for 30% of PM2.5, a small-particulate air pollutant, while exhaust emissions accounted for 19%. Tests by Emissions Analytics have found that tires produce up to 2,000 times as much particle pollution by mass as tailpipes.These particles end up in water and air and are often ingested. Ultrafine particles, even smaller than PM2.5, are also emitted by tires and can be inhaled and travel directly to the brain. New research suggests tire microparticles should be classified as a pollutant of “high concern.”In a report issued last year, researchers at Imperial College London said the particles could affect the heart, lungs, and reproductive organs and cause cancer.People who live or work along roadways, often low-income, are exposed to more of the toxic substances.Tires are also a major source of microplastics. More than three-quarters of microplastics entering the ocean come from the synthetic rubber in tires, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the British company Systemiq.And there are still a great many unknowns in tire emissions, which can be especially complex to analyze because heat and pressure can transform tire ingredients into other compounds.One outstanding research question is whether 6PPD-q affects people, and what health problems, if any, it could cause. A recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters found high levels of the chemical in urine samples from a region of South China, with levels highest in pregnant women.The discovery of 6PPD-q, Molden said, has sparked fresh interest in the health and environmental impacts of tires, and he expects an abundance of new research in the coming years. “The jigsaw pieces are coming together,” he said. “But it’s a thousand-piece jigsaw, not a 200-piece jigsaw.”California Healthline is a service of the California Health Care Foundation produced by KFF Health News, an editorially independent program of the KFF.

Chemicals
Health
Science

We are all contaminated with plastic, a test reveals

A test by Million Marker has unveiled widespread plastic contamination in humans, with bisphenols and phthalates present in most individuals. Jeffrey Kluger reports for Time.In short:Recent testing shows a significant presence of bisphenols and phthalates, chemicals linked to severe health risks, in the human body.Efforts to mitigate these risks include lifestyle changes and regulatory actions aimed at reducing exposure.Global discussions are underway to establish stricter regulations on plastic pollution to protect public health.Key quote: “These chemicals are everywhere. They’re in the atmosphere around us. Even in the lab, when you try to test for them, you have to control for background contamination. They really are the canaries in the chemical coal mine.”— Dr. Christos Symeonides, principal researcher for plastics, Minderoo FoundationWhy this matters: The ongoing international efforts to regulate plastic use reflect the gravity of this global issue, making it a pressing topic for both public health and environmental policy. Read more: Everything you need to know for the fourth round of global plastic pollution treaty talks.Go deeper: How willful blindness keeps BPA on shelves and contaminating our bodies

A test by Million Marker has unveiled widespread plastic contamination in humans, with bisphenols and phthalates present in most individuals. Jeffrey Kluger reports for Time.In short:Recent testing shows a significant presence of bisphenols and phthalates, chemicals linked to severe health risks, in the human body.Efforts to mitigate these risks include lifestyle changes and regulatory actions aimed at reducing exposure.Global discussions are underway to establish stricter regulations on plastic pollution to protect public health.Key quote: “These chemicals are everywhere. They’re in the atmosphere around us. Even in the lab, when you try to test for them, you have to control for background contamination. They really are the canaries in the chemical coal mine.”— Dr. Christos Symeonides, principal researcher for plastics, Minderoo FoundationWhy this matters: The ongoing international efforts to regulate plastic use reflect the gravity of this global issue, making it a pressing topic for both public health and environmental policy. Read more: Everything you need to know for the fourth round of global plastic pollution treaty talks.Go deeper: How willful blindness keeps BPA on shelves and contaminating our bodies

Chemicals
Health
Pollution

Opinion: Houston's petrochemical exports fuel Europe's growing plastics crisis

Europe grapples with escalating plastic pollution, driven by petrochemical imports from Texas. A recent report by Amnesty International shows how some of these imported petrochemical products are linked to environmental racism, and calls for more stringent rules to restrict the proliferation of polluting plastics. Alysha Khambay writes in euobserver.In short:European shores are increasingly littered with plastic pellets, causing environmental emergencies and threats to marine life.Petrochemicals linked to human rights abuses in Texas are contaminating Europe's plastic supply, with European companies implicated.New EU rules and a potential UN plastics treaty aim to tackle the entire lifecycle of plastics, highlighting the need for global accountability in the industry.Key quote: "Combined with a tough new UN plastics treaty, the new EU directive could help turn the tide against plastics in Europe – which can’t come soon enough for the continent’s beaches, bottle-blighted rivers, and all those communities suffering at the hands of the plastics and fossil fuel industries." — Alysha Khambay, report author and researcher at Amnesty InternationalWhy this matters: The involvement of European companies in harmful practices abroad punctuates the urgency for stringent international regulations to safeguard health outcomes and mitigate widespread environmental damage. Read more: Texas has more chemical emergencies than any other state and they’re disproportionately affecting Latino communities.Learn more about the UN plastics treaty talks happening in Ottawa this week.

Europe grapples with escalating plastic pollution, driven by petrochemical imports from Texas. A recent report by Amnesty International shows how some of these imported petrochemical products are linked to environmental racism, and calls for more stringent rules to restrict the proliferation of polluting plastics. Alysha Khambay writes in euobserver.In short:European shores are increasingly littered with plastic pellets, causing environmental emergencies and threats to marine life.Petrochemicals linked to human rights abuses in Texas are contaminating Europe's plastic supply, with European companies implicated.New EU rules and a potential UN plastics treaty aim to tackle the entire lifecycle of plastics, highlighting the need for global accountability in the industry.Key quote: "Combined with a tough new UN plastics treaty, the new EU directive could help turn the tide against plastics in Europe – which can’t come soon enough for the continent’s beaches, bottle-blighted rivers, and all those communities suffering at the hands of the plastics and fossil fuel industries." — Alysha Khambay, report author and researcher at Amnesty InternationalWhy this matters: The involvement of European companies in harmful practices abroad punctuates the urgency for stringent international regulations to safeguard health outcomes and mitigate widespread environmental damage. Read more: Texas has more chemical emergencies than any other state and they’re disproportionately affecting Latino communities.Learn more about the UN plastics treaty talks happening in Ottawa this week.

Chemicals
Health
Pollution

Puzzling Scientists for Over 50 Years – A “Holy Grail” Chemical Mystery Has Been Solved

A mystery that has puzzled the scientific community for over 50 years has finally been solved. A team from Linköping University, Sweden, and Helmholtz Munich...

Researchers have solved a 50-year-old mystery about why organic matter in water resists degradation, finding that the oxidative dearomatization reaction transforms biomolecules into stable, diverse forms, significantly impacting global carbon cycles.A mystery that has puzzled the scientific community for over 50 years has finally been solved. A team from Linköping University, Sweden, and Helmholtz Munich have discovered that a certain type of chemical reaction can explain why organic matter found in rivers and lakes is so resistant to degradation. Their study has been published in the journal Nature.“This has been the holy grail within my field of research for over 50 years,” says Norbert Hertkorn, a scientist in analytical chemistry previously at Helmholtz Munich and currently at Linköping University.Let us take it from the beginning. When, for example, a leaf detaches from a tree and falls to the ground, it begins to break down immediately. Before the leaf decomposes, it consists of a few thousand distinct biomolecules; molecules that can be found in most living matter. The decomposition of the leaf occurs in several phases. Insects and microorganisms begin to consume it, while sunlight and humidity affect the leaf, causing further breakdown. Eventually, the molecules from the decomposed leaf are washed into rivers, lakes, and oceans.Chemical Transformation Mystery UnraveledHowever, at this point, the thousands of known biomolecules have been transformed into millions of very different-looking molecules with complex and typically unknown structures. This dramatic chemical transformation process has remained a mystery that has confounded researchers for over half a century, until now.David Bastviken, professor of environmental change at Linköping University, Sweden. Credit: Charlotte Perhammar“Now we can elucidate how a couple of thousand molecules in living matter can give rise to millions of different molecules that rapidly become very resistant to further degradation,” says Norbert Hertkorn.The team discovered that a specific type of reaction, known as oxidative dearomatization, is behind the mystery. Although this reaction has long been studied and applied extensively in pharmaceutical synthesis, its natural occurrence remained unexplored.In the study, the researchers showed that oxidative dearomatization changes the three-dimensional structure of some biomolecule components, which in turn can activate a cascade of subsequent and differentiated reactions, resulting in millions of diverse molecules.Study Findings and TechniquesScientists previously believed that the path to dissolved organic matter involved a slow process with many sequential reactions. However, the current study suggests that the transformation occurs relatively quickly.The team examined dissolved organic matter from four tributaries of the Amazon River and two lakes in Sweden. They employed a technique called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to analyze the structure of millions of diverse molecules. Remarkably, regardless of the climate, the fundamental structure of the dissolved organic matter remained consistent.“Key to the findings was the unconventional use of NMR in ways allowing studies of the deep interior of large dissolved organic molecules – thereby mapping and quantifying the chemical surroundings around the carbon atoms,” explains Siyu Li, a scientist at the Helmholtz Zentrum and lead author of the study.In biomolecules, carbon atoms can be connected to four other atoms, most often to hydrogen or oxygen. However, to the team’s surprise, a very high fraction of the organic carbon atoms was not connected to any hydrogen but instead primarily to other carbon atoms. Particularly intriguing was the large number of carbon atoms bound specifically to three other carbons and one oxygen atom, a structure being very rare in biomolecules.According to David Bastviken, professor of environmental change at Linköping University, this renders the organic matter stable, allowing it to persist for a long time and preventing it from rapidly returning to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane.“This discovery helps explain the substantial organic carbon sinks on our planet, which reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” says David Bastviken.Reference: “Dearomatization drives complexity generation in freshwater organic matter” by Siyu Li, Mourad Harir, David Bastviken, Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin, Michael Gonsior, Alex Enrich-Prast, Juliana Valle and Norbert Hertkorn, 24 April 2024, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07210-9Funding: Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Vetenskapsrådet, European Research Counci

Chemicals
Climate
Nature

Suggested Viewing

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals
Science
Health

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture
Chemicals
Business

The Story of Plastic

A searing expose uncovering the ugly truth behind the global plastic pollution crisis. Striking footage shot over three continents illustrates the ongoing catastrophe: fields full of garbage, veritable mountains of trash; rivers and seas clogged with waste; and skies choked with poisons from plastic production and recycling processes with no end in sight. Original animations, interviews with experts and activists, and never-before-filmed scenes reveal the disastrous consequences of the plastic flood around the world – and the global movement rising up in response.

Chemicals
Pollution
Crisis

928 The Threat Continues...

Since the 1950s deadly nuclear fallout has threatened millions of Americans from nuclear fallout carried east in the atmosphere across the United States, from the Nevada Test Site. “928 The Threat Continues...” tells the story of massive contamination from concentrated nuclear fallout that rained down during heavy storms, on communities and major cities for 40 years. Hundreds of thousands of cancer cases and deaths were the result. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy knew the truth, but covered it up. Multiple generations may still face the long-term affects. Through current interviews with scientific experts and surviving victims across the country, plus footage from historic interviews with victims, whistle-blower scientists and journalists, we tell the devastating story of those affected by the deadly radioactive fallout. In Act 3, obscure government videos from US government websites reveal that the threat of cancer death to Americans from Nevada Test Site contamination continues even today! NTS has been renamed, the Nevada National Security Site or NNSS. Presidential administrations from Harry Truman to the present day have kept the highly contaminated former Nevada Test Site operating. Donald Trump while in office ordered the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to start testing newly designed battlefield nuclear weapons at the NNSS despite the existence of The Non-Proliferation Treaty – 1970. Not withstanding the treaty, the extremely reckless aboveground testing area at the NNSS called Big Explosives Experimental Facility or B.E.E.F. tests non-nuclear bombs that send tons of highly contaminated nuclear dirt 10,000 feet into the atmosphere where the winds carry it east. It needs to be stopped now! The film asks viewers to inform their congressman and vote.

Chemicals
Crisis
Government

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.