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

California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills

California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.

In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide. California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program. The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year. It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create. There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.“If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation. “We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them. “The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.

Chemicals
Climate
Government

Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability

The habitable zone of a planet might be key to whether life can survive there. But so are exoplanet atmospheres, scientists say. The post Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability first appeared on EarthSky.

Artist’s concept of exoplanet GJ 9827 d. It might be a steam world, with lots of water vapor in its atmosphere. Astronomers say exoplanet atmospheres are a key to whether or not life could survive on a planet. Image via NASA/ ESA/ Leah Hustak (STScI)/ Ralf Crawford (STScI)/ University of Montreal. Scientists focus on the habitable zone (where liquid water might exist) when they are gauging whether an exoplanet could be habitable. But exoplanet atmospheres are also key to whether a planet can maintain stable, life-supporting conditions. For life to persist on a planet, the environment must be stable. A planet’s surface, oceans and atmosphere can work together to regulate the system. By Morgan Underwood, Rice University EarthSky isn’t powered by billionaires. We’re powered by you.Support EarthSky’s 2025 Donation Campaign and help keep science accessible. Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability When astronomers search for planets that could host liquid water on their surface, they start by looking at a star’s habitable zone. Water is a key ingredient for life, and on a planet too close to its star, water on its surface may boil. Too far, and it could freeze. This zone marks the region in-between. But being in this sweet spot doesn’t automatically mean a planet is hospitable to life. Other factors, like whether a planet is geologically active or has processes that regulate gases in its atmosphere, play a role. The habitable zone provides a useful guide to search for signs of life on exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system orbiting other stars. But what’s in these planets’ atmospheres holds the next clue about whether liquid water – and possibly life – exists beyond Earth. The greenhouse effect On Earth, the greenhouse effect, caused by gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor, keeps the planet warm enough for liquid water and life as we know it. Without an atmosphere, Earth’s surface temperature would average around 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-18 C), far below the freezing point of water. The boundaries of the habitable zone are defined by how much of a greenhouse effect is necessary to maintain the surface temperatures that allow for liquid water to persist. It’s a balance between sunlight and atmospheric warming. Many planetary scientists, including me, are seeking to understand if the processes responsible for regulating Earth’s climate are operating on other habitable-zone worlds. We use what we know about Earth’s geology and climate to predict how these processes might appear elsewhere. That is where my geoscience expertise comes in. Picturing the habitable zone of a solar system analog, with Venus- and Mars-like planets outside of the “just right” temperature zone. Image via NASA. Why the habitable zone? The habitable zone is a simple and powerful idea, and for good reason. It provides a starting point, directing astronomers to where they might expect to find planets with liquid water. But without needing to know every detail about the planet’s atmosphere or history. Its definition is partially informed by what scientists know about Earth’s rocky neighbors. Mars, which lies just outside the outer edge of the habitable zone, shows clear evidence of ancient rivers and lakes where liquid water once flowed. Similarly, Venus is currently too close to the sun to be within the habitable zone. Yet, some geochemical evidence and modeling studies suggest Venus may have had water in its past. Though how much and for how long remains uncertain. These examples show that while the habitable zone is not a perfect predictor of habitability, it provides a useful starting point. How to have a stable environment What the habitable zone doesn’t do is determine whether a planet can sustain habitable conditions over long periods of time. On Earth, a stable climate allowed life to emerge and persist. Liquid water could remain on the surface, giving slow chemical reactions enough time to build the molecules of life. This let early ecosystems develop resilience to change, which reinforced habitability. Life emerged on Earth, but continued to reshape the environments it evolved in, making them more conducive to life. This stability likely unfolded over hundreds of millions of years, as the planet’s surface, oceans and atmosphere worked together as part of a slow but powerful system to regulate Earth’s temperature. Recycling inorganic carbon A key part of this system is how Earth recycles inorganic carbon between the atmosphere, surface and oceans over the course of millions of years. Inorganic carbon refers to carbon bound in atmospheric gases, dissolved in seawater or locked in minerals, rather than biological material. This part of the carbon cycle acts like a natural thermostat. When volcanoes release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide molecules trap heat and warm the planet. As temperatures rise, rain and weathering draw carbon out of the air and store it in rocks and oceans. If the planet cools, this process slows down. This allows carbon dioxide, a warming greenhouse gas, to build up in the atmosphere again. This part of the carbon cycle has helped Earth recover from past ice ages and avoid runaway warming. Even as the sun has gradually brightened, this cycle has contributed to keeping temperatures on Earth within a range where liquid water and life can persist for long spans of time. Similar cycles in exoplanet atmospheres? Now, scientists are asking whether similar geological processes might operate on other planets. And if so, how they might detect them. For example, if researchers could observe enough rocky planets in their stars’ habitable zones, they could look for a pattern connecting the amount of sunlight a planet receives and how much carbon dioxide is in its atmosphere. Finding such a pattern may hint that the same kind of carbon-cycling process could be operating elsewhere. The mix of gases in a planet’s atmosphere is shaped by what’s happening on or below its surface. One study shows that measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide in a number of rocky planets could reveal whether their surfaces are broken into a number of moving plates, like Earth’s, or if their crusts are more rigid. On Earth, these shifting plates drive volcanism and rock weathering, which are key to carbon cycling. Simulation of what space telescopes, like the Habitable Worlds Observatory, will capture when looking at distant solar systems. Image via STScI/ NASA GSFC. Keeping an eye on distant exoplanet atmospheres The next step will be toward gaining a population-level perspective of planets in their stars’ habitable zones. By analyzing atmospheric data from many rocky planets, researchers can look for trends that reveal the influence of underlying planetary processes, such as the carbon cycle. Scientists could then compare these patterns with a planet’s position in the habitable zone. Doing so would allow them to test whether the zone accurately predicts where habitable conditions are possible, or whether some planets maintain conditions suitable for liquid water beyond the zone’s edges. This kind of approach is especially important given the diversity of exoplanets. Many exoplanets fall into categories that don’t exist in our solar system. These include super Earths and mini Neptunes. Others orbit stars smaller and cooler than the sun. NASA’s Habitable Worlds Observatory The datasets needed to explore and understand this diversity are just on the horizon. NASA’s upcoming Habitable Worlds Observatory will be the first space telescope designed specifically to search for signs of habitability and life on planets orbiting other stars. It will directly image Earth-sized planets around sunlike stars to study their atmospheres in detail. Instruments on the observatory will analyze starlight passing through these atmospheres to detect gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and oxygen. As starlight filters through a planet’s atmosphere, different molecules absorb specific wavelengths of light, leaving behind a chemical fingerprint that reveals which gases are present. These compounds offer insight into the processes shaping these worlds. The Habitable Worlds Observatory is under active scientific and engineering development, with a potential launch targeted for the 2030s. Combined with today’s telescopes, which are increasingly capable of observing atmospheres of Earth-sized worlds, scientists may soon be able to determine whether the same planetary processes that regulate Earth’s climate are common throughout the galaxy, or uniquely our own. NASA’s planned Habitable Worlds Observatory will look for exoplanets that could potentially host life. Morgan Underwood, Ph.D. Candidate in Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Rice University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Bottom line: The habitable zone of a planet might be key to whether life can survive there. But so are exoplanet atmospheres, scientists say.The post Exoplanet atmospheres are a key to habitability first appeared on EarthSky.

Chemicals
Climate
CO2

Some California landfills are on fire and leaking methane. Newly proposed rules could make them safer

California is considering adopting new rules to better identify and more quickly to respond to dangerous methane leaks and underground fires at landfills statewide.

A vast canyon of buried garbage has been smoldering inside a landfill in the Santa Clarita Valley, inducing geysers of liquid waste onto the surface and noxious fumes into the air.In the Inland Empire, several fires have broken out on the surface of another landfill. In the San Fernando Valley, an elementary school has occasionally canceled recess due to toxic gases emanating from rain-soaked, rotting garbage from a nearby landfill. And, in the San Francisco Bay Area, burrowing rodents may be digging into entombed trash at a landfill-turned-park, unloosing explosive levels of methane.These are just a few of the treacherous episodes that have recently transpired at landfills in California, subjecting the state’s waste management industry to growing scrutiny by residents and regulators.Landfill emissions — produced by decaying food, paper and other organic waste — are a major source of planet-warming greenhouse gases and harmful air pollution statewide. But mismanagement, aging equipment and inadequate oversight have worsened this pollution in recent years, according to environmental regulators and policy experts.This week, the California Air Resources Board will vote on adopting a new slate of requirements to better identify and more quickly respond to methane leaks and disastrous underground fires at large landfills statewide.The proposal calls for using satellites, drones and other new technologies to more comprehensively investigate methane leaks. It also would require landfill operators to take corrective action within a few days of finding methane leaks or detecting elevated temperatures within their pollution control systems.In recent years, state regulators have pinpointed at least two landfills in Southern California experiencing “rare” underground landfill fires — largely uncontrollable disasters that have burned troves of buried garbage and released toxic fumes into the air. More recently, a new state satellite program has detected 17 methane plumes from nine landfills between July and October, potentially leaking the flammable gas into unwanted areas and contributing to climate change.Proponents of the proposed rule say the added oversight could help reduce California’s second-largest source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere much more than carbon dioxide. It could also bring relief to hundreds of thousands of people who live nearby landfills and may be exposed to toxic pollutants like hydrogen sulfide or benzene.“Curbing methane emissions is a relatively quick and cost-effective way to reduce the greenhouse pollution that’s wreaking havoc with our climate,” said Bill Magavern, policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air. “But [we’ve] also been involved in updating and strengthening the rule because we’re seeing the community impacts of leaking landfills, particularly at places like Chiquita Canyon, where we have a landfill fire that is making people in the community sick.”Nearly 200 landfills statewide would be subject to the proposed requirements — 48 are privately owned and 140 are government-owned.Many landfill operators oppose the rule, saying the new requirements would saddle the industry with an untenable workload and millions of dollars each year in added costs. These costs could be passed on to residents, whose garbage fees have already risen significantly in recent years.Sacramento County officials, who operate the Kiefer Landfill, said the proposed protocols were not feasible. “As a public landfill, Kiefer cannot quickly adapt to regulatory shifts of this magnitude, and these increased costs would ultimately burden the community it serves,” Sacramento County officials wrote in a Nov. 10 letter to the state Air Resources Board.The vast majority of landfills are already required to monitor for leaks and operate a gas collection system — a network of wells that extend deep into the layers of buried waste to capture and destroy methane.A hot messChiquita Canyon Landfill in Castaic has become the poster child for the issues plaguing California’s waste management system.A blistering-hot chemical reaction began inside the landfill’s main canyon in May 2022, roasting garbage in a roughly 30-acre area.Starting in April 2023, residents of Castaic and nearby Val Verde began to take notice. They called in thousands of odor complaints to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, with many citing headaches, nausea, nosebleeds and difficulty breathing.Later that year, state regulators learned that the landfill’s temperatures had risen above 200 degrees, melting plastic pipes used to collect landfill gases. An air district inspector also witnessed geysers of liquid waste bursting onto the surface and white smoke venting from large cracks spreading across the reaction area.Air sampling found elevated levels of lung-aggravating sulfur pollutants and cancer-causing benzene. Air samples in 2023 detected benzene concentrations more than eight times higher than the state’s short-term health limit at Hasley Canyon Park, which abuts Live Oak Elementary School, alarming local parents.“I personally have transferred my children to different schools further away,” said Jennifer Elkins, a Val Verde resident whose children attended Live Oak. “I spend three hours a day driving my kids to and from school. The commute has been a sacrifice, but it’s also been well worth it, because I know my children are breathing cleaner air, and I have seen their health improve.”The landfill, owned by Texas-based Waste Connections, installed new heat-resistant equipment to extract liquid waste in an attempt to reduce broiling temperatures. It also installed a large covering over the affected area to suppress odors. It permanently closed and ceased accepting waste this year.Still, the reaction area has tripled in size and could consume the entire 160-acre canyon for many more years. During other underground landfill fires, elevated temperatures have persisted for more than a decade.The issue is, once these broiling temperatures start consuming landfill waste, there’s little that landfill operators can do to snuff them out.The fumes from Chiquita Canyon have pushed some longtime residents to consider moving. After more than 25 years in Val Verde, Abigail DeSesa is contemplating starting anew somewhere else.“This is our life’s investment — our forever home that we were building for retirement and on the verge of paying off,” DeSesa said. “And we may have to start over.”“I don’t know that I can outlast it,” DeSesa added.Chiquita Canyon is not alone.Earlier this year, the South Coast air district learned about another fiery chemical reaction brewing inside El Sobrante Landfill in Corona. In August, Waste Management, the landfill’s owner and operator, acknowledged there was a two-acre “area of concern” where landfill staff had observed temperatures climbing above 200 degrees. Riverside County inspectors also found several fires had ignited on the landfill’s surface in recent years, according to public records.Environmental advocates fear that many more landfills may be on the precipice of these largely unmanageable disasters.According to an analysis by California Communities Against Toxics, there are 18 landfills in California that have had prolonged heat signatures detected by NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System, an online tool using satellite instruments to detect fires and thermal anomalies.At least 11 of these landfills requested and received permission from either federal or local environmental regulators to continue operating with higher temperatures than currently allowed, according to public records obtained by the environmental organization.These regulatory exemptions are part of the problem, said Jane Williams, the group’s executive director.“We have 11 landfills across California that have been granted waivers by the government to basically ‘hot rod’ the landfill,” Williams said. “We would really like EPA and state agencies to stop granting landfill waivers. It’s a permission slip to speed in a school zone.”Under newly proposed revisions to state rules, operators must be more transparent in disclosing the temperatures in their gas collection systems. If operators detect elevated temperatures, they must take action to minimize the amount of oxygen in the landfill.While these rule changes might be coming too late to fix the issues near Chiquita Canyon, locals hope it will help others who live in the orbit of the nearly 200 other large landfills in California that could be subject to these rules.“While there’s still a fight here to try to address the concerns at Chiquita Canyon Landfill, we know that there’s an opportunity to really prevent this kind of disaster from happening anywhere else in our state,” said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo.Dangerous leaksMeanwhile, many other landfills are releasing unsafe amounts of methane, an odorless gas produced by bacteria that break down organic waste.These emissions present two critical issues.First, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas — capable of warming the atmosphere 80 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide over 20 years. Following California’s large dairy and livestock operations, landfills emit the second-most methane statewide.Second, methane is the primary constituent in natural gas. It can ignite or explode at certain concentrations, presenting a serious safety risk in the event of uncontrolled releases. Several times over the last few years, regulators have detected potentially explosive concentrations in the air and shallow soil near several landfills.Under current landfill regulations, operators are required to monitor for excessive methane leaks four times a year. Many operators hire contractors to walk across accessible portions of the landfill with a handheld leak-monitoring device, an approach that some environmental advocates say is unreliable.In addition, some areas of the landfill are not screened for methane leaks if operators consider them to be unsafe to walk across, due to, for example, steep hills or ongoing construction activities.“Landfills have to monitor surface emissions, but they do that in a very inefficient way, using outdated technology,” Magavern said.Starting this past summer, California has partnered with the nonprofit organization Carbon Mapper to use satellites to detect methane leaks, and already has found 17 coming from landfills. In one case, researchers saw a large methane plume appear to emanate from Newby Island Landfill in San José and drift into a nearby residential neighborhood.Although the state has notified these landfill operators, it currently cannot require them to repair leaks detected via satellite. That would change under the proposed amendments to the state’s landfill regulations. Operators would also have to use state-approved technology to routinely scan portions of their landfills they deem inaccessible.The proposed amendments seek to prevent the most common causes of methane emissions. A series of surveys of landfill operators found 43% of leaks in recent years were caused by one or more of a facility’s gas collection wells being offline at the time.The new rules would require that such wells can only be offline for up to five days at a time for repairs. Operators would also be required to install gas collection systems within six months of when garbage is first placed in a new part of a landfill — rather than the 18-month time frame currently allowed.In addition, landfills would be forced to take actions to fix a leak within three days of detection, rather than 10 days. In theory, that should help reduce the risk of leaks from things like cracks in landfill covers (typically a layer of soil or plastic covering) and damaged components of gas collection systems — two other major sources of leaks that landfill operators have reported.The amended landfill rules could collectively cost private companies and local governments $12 million annually.Some say that’s well worth the cost.A contingent of residents who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill are flying to Sacramento to attend the state Air Resources Board meeting. They are expected to testify on how the fire and landfill emissions have unraveled the fabric of the semi-rural community.Elkins, the Val Verde resident, appreciated the area’s natural beauty — picturesque hillsides, wildlife and opportunities for stargazing without bright city lights. However, now her family hardly spends any time outdoors due to the noxious odors.Some of her neighbors have moved away, but Elkins and many other longtime locals cannot, no matter how they fear for their health and safety. “The homes are not selling,” she said. “Other homes sit vacant, and community members are paying two mortgages just to get away. And for many of us, it would be financial suicide to move away and start over somewhere new.”

Chemicals
Climate
CO2

New Texas petrochemical facilities are mostly in low income areas, communities of color, study finds

Researchers evaluated the neighborhoods around 89 proposed or expanding petrochemical facilities across the state using a screening tool from the EPA.

Environment Researchers evaluated the neighborhoods around 89 proposed or expanding petrochemical facilities across the state using a screening tool from the EPA. David J. Phillip/APThis aerial photo shows the TPC petrochemical plant near downtown Houston, background, on Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)A recent report from Texas Southern University found that new and expanding petrochemical facilities in Texas are overwhelmingly located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Researchers evaluated the neighborhoods around 89 proposed or expanding petrochemical facilities across the state using a screening tool from the Environmental Protection Agency. They looked at air pollution and proximity to other "hazardous facilities" in the areas. Data related to the race, education, income level and languages within the areas was also collected. Sign up for the Hello, Houston! daily newsletter to get local reports like this delivered directly to your inbox. "The communities that are on the fenceline are getting pollution and they also are getting poverty," said Robert Bullard, one of the study's authors. "And also, if you look at the infrastructures within those neighborhoods that have these facilities, they are of poor quality." The report found that 9 in 10 of the facilities are located in counties with "higher demographic vulnerability" – meaning they had more people of color, more low-income residents, or both, compared to the state and national averages. Over half of the new facilities were slated to be built in communities that have a higher proportion of people of color than the national average. Meanwhile, 30% of the facilities were slated to be built in areas with a poverty rate higher than the national average. "Segregation and racial redlining actually segregated pollution, and it segregated people," Bullard said. The analysis also found that the proposed facilities were being built in areas that are already struggling with air pollution. About 1 in 5 of the proposed facilities are located within the top 10% of areas nationwide with the highest amount of particulate matter pollution, and 46% of the new facilities are slated to be built within the top 10% of communities across the country with the highest amount of air toxins. The facilities were concentrated in 9% of Texas counties, with nearly half of them located in Harris County or Jefferson County.

Chemicals
Education
Pollution

Georgia moves to regulate ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS in drinking water

Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division has proposed new drinking water rules that would strictly limit two PFAS “forever chemicals,” PFOA and PFOS, by 2027, mirroring narrowed federal standards while leaving communities and utilities to grapple with the high cost of filtration.

Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division has proposed new drinking water rules that would strictly limit two PFAS “forever chemicals,” PFOA and PFOS, by 2027, mirroring narrowed federal standards while leaving communities and utilities to grapple with the high cost of filtration.

Chemicals
Water

Suggested Viewing

Sprayed

An exploration of what happens when whole communities get exposed to toxins: Naled sprayed on Miami residents to fight Zika virus, Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietcong, and release of GMO mosquitoes in Brazil with pyriproxyfen added to drinking water to fight dengue. What are the results for nature and humanity? We meet Agent Orange survivors at Vietnamese detoxification and rehabilitation centers, parents of babies born with microcephaly from Zika virus, and Florida residents dealing with efforts to kill mosquitoes carrying Zika virus. Perspectives of doctors, scientists, and politicians are balanced with voices of ordinary citizens and victims to explore concerns about the potential impact on current and future generations.

Chemicals
Health
Science

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals
Social Justice
Health

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

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

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.