XPost: alt.business, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
XPost: sac.politics, alt.politics.democrats

Earlier this year, federal and state researchers reported finding a new, potentially dangerous chemical in soil samples from multiple locations in
New Jersey. The compound was a form of PFAS, a group of more than 5,000 chemicals that have raised concerns in recent years because of their
potential link to learning delays in children and cancer, as well as their tendency to last in the environment for a long time.

But the new revelations, reported in the June issue of Science magazine,
stoked concerns among water-quality researchers and advocacy groups for
other reasons, too. It underscored how easy it is for manufacturers to
phase out their use of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) once the substances have been regulated, and replace them with newer, related
compounds that researchers know even less about. And it showed how
difficult it is for regulators to track and oversee these new compounds.


Why dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ are allowed in US drinking water

The authors of the Science report, from the Environmental Protection
Agency and the New Jersey department of environmental protection (DEP), identified the West Deptford, New Jersey, plant of a company called Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, a division of the Belgian chemical giant Solvay
SA, as the likely source of the contamination.

Solvay, in a statement to Consumer Reports, denies it is responsible.

But Solvay has been cited by the New Jersey DEP in the past for
contamination of soil and water with an older, now-regulated PFAS
compound. And the company has used a replacement PFAS at the facility for years, despite having failed to implement an official way for regulators
or independent researchers to analyze whether the new compound is present
in the environment, according to documents obtained by Consumer Reports
through a public records request.

Through that request, CR sought documents and communications between
Solvay and the agency related to the chemicals identified in the Science
study, and received more than 240 pages of filings that highlight the
company’s use of a PFAS replacement at its facility.

The records shed light on the struggle that regulators in New Jersey face
in identifying the environmental risks posed at the Solvay plant, as well
as the debate between both sides over how to remediate the company’s
substitute compound and limit new types of PFAS from being used in the
future.

The New Jersey DEP tells CR it believes Solvay is using “one or more” of
the replacement compounds identified in the Science study at the company’s facility. The replacements are “expected to have toxicity” and other
properties similar to currently regulated PFAS compounds, the agency says.
The DEP declined to answer questions about whether Solvay’s replacement compounds have been detected in public water supplies.

“The DEP will continue to use the best science available to evaluate
emerging contaminants to protect New Jersey’s public health and
environment,” the DEP says.

Environmental and health advocates say that because it takes years to
assess the risk of chemicals like Solvay’s new substitute, PFAS should be regulated as a group, with new compounds subject to the same regulations
as previously identified ones.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, objects to that idea,
saying that each compound is different, so the compounds should be
regulated individually.

Erik Olson, senior strategic director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization, says that
approach is impractical and unnecessary. “We don’t want to continue on
this toxic treadmill,” he says, “where one PFAS chemical is phased out
only to be replaced by one of literally thousands of others that have
similar chemical structures and can reasonably be expected to pose similar environmental and health risks.”

A fraught history
Until 2010, Solvay had used a PFAS compound at its New Jersey
manufacturing facility called PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid), which
preliminary research indicates may be linked to immune system and liver problems. A year earlier, New Jersey’s DEP detected the contaminant in
public water supplies in Paulsboro, a community near the plant. The New
Jersey DEP now attributes continued PFNA contamination around the facility
to Solvay.

The company retained a licensed remediation expert to assess that claim,
and says it has spent more than $25m in the process. In April, the company
told the DEP that it remains committed to investigating and remediating
PFNA impacts attributed to the West Deptford facility, according to
records obtained by CR.

But the company steadfastly denies responsibility for all PFNA
contamination. In an April 21 letter to the DEP, Solvay alleges the
department has maintained a “long-held erroneous belief” that the company
is responsible for all PFNA contamination near its facility, and points to
what it says are other possible nearby sources, including a former manufacturing site and a fire-training academy that uses firefighting
foam, a known source of PFAS.

“DEP has yet to act on this information, either to investigate and
remediate these PFAS discharges itself, or to require the dischargers to
do so,” the company says.

The DEP declined to comment about Solvay’s claim. But the agency has
previously said Solvay’s science does not support the conclusion that alternative sources are to blame for PFNA contamination.

In 2018, New Jersey adopted strict limits on how much PFNA can be present
in drinking water. And a year later, the state directed multiple
companies, including Solvay, to address PFAS contamination in the state.
The state claims in the directive that Solvay knew it was discharging
“large amounts” of PFNA into the environment from the facility at least as early as 1991. The company, the state alleges, “knew or should have known
of the adverse effects of PFNA exposure” because an industry group of
which it is a member had conducted toxicology studies in the 2000s.

This story is co-published in partnership with Consumer Reports. It is an extract of a longer piece which can be read in full on the Consumer
Reports website. Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertiser on this site

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/new-forever-chemicals- contaminating-environment-regulators-say

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)