A new US Department of Defense policy seems to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's safety recommendations to control the chemical contamination of groundwater with extinguishing agents, raising criticism from legislators and activists demanding stringent regulations.
In particular, a US Department of Defense memo issued to military leaders in October provides for a ten-fold higher "control" of chemicals than the EPA recommended last spring . These filter levels are used as thresholds to determine whether the army needs to deepen its investigation and possibly eliminate chemical contamination, or whether it can simply ignore it and take no action.
The chemicals are perfluorinated substances and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), which have been used in hundreds of military bases throughout the country for decades to make fire-fighting foams. Synthetic chemicals are of particular interest in southeastern Pennsylvania, where communities near the Warminster, Warrington and Horsham military bases are affected by significant contamination of drinking water.
Since then, municipal officials in the three cities have passed policies to eliminate chemicals that are no longer detectable in drinking water. However tests have been high concentrations of chemicals in the blood of residents found and it will be conducted health studies . Some studies have already identified a link between chemicals and health effects, including high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, immunotoxicity, developmental effects and some cancers, although some believe that the science is incomplete.
The army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past five years to investigate the presence of PFAS at their bases across the country and to filter all drinking water supplies where two of the chemicals - PFOS and PFOA - are above the 70-pound safety limit per billion (ppt), recommended by the EPA.
However, this has led to a significant environmental impact of PFAS, especially in groundwater and soils near military bases. Communities, local residents and environmental activists are concerned that persistent pollution poses a continuing threat to human health and the environment, as well as to municipal budgets. Therefore, they urged a faster intervention of the army to clean it up. The military estimates that the total cost of cleaning across the country will exceed $ 2 billion and is cautiously turning to cost-effective solutions.
The EPA is also under pressure to act. As part of a National Action Plan for PFAS, in April the Agency published a draft recommendation for the purification of PFOS and PFOA contaminated groundwater. The recommendations, which are not legally binding, provide evidence of 40 ppm for PFOA or PFOS.
The EPA argued that this figure, which is below the drinking water level of 70 ppm, is justified by the fact that several PFAS are often associated and residents may be exposed to chemicals via "pathways". "Beyond Drinking Water The EPA wrote that the 40-point detection limit" would ensure that contaminated sites would be further evaluated rather than eliminated prematurely. "
By comparison, groundwater near military bases in the region regularly darkens hundreds or even thousands of parts per billion. The highest groundwater level found in Pennsylvania beneath the former Willow Grove Naval Reserve Base has so far been in excess of 300,000 ppt .
In its draft recommendation, the EPO noted that the detection levels are not genuine grades of purity, which can be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, the agency developed a "preliminary clean-up target" for cleaning PFAS in groundwater at 70 ppm and insisted that it be used.
"In situations where groundwater is used to drink water, the EPA expects those responsible to attack PFOA and / or PFOS levels above 70 ppm," the report said. the Agency
The DOD seems to disagree.
A memorandum signed by Robert McMahon, undersecretary for livelihoods, received from this newspaper, deals with the subject. The note, dated 15 October, lists the highest environmental officers of the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, the National Guard and defense logistics as the recipients.
The memorandum states that it contains "explanatory technical guidelines" for the study of PFAS and specifies a groundwater filtration level of 400 ppt for PFOS or PFOA when discovered individually. This value is ten times higher than recommended in the draft WPA document in these situations.
However, the DOD hint indicates that the detection level drops to 40 ppt when "multiple PFAS" is detected.
We do not know what the term "multiple PFAS" means. The reference also refers to a third chemical, PFBS, and sets detection levels of 40,000,000 ppt or 40,000 ppt when multiple PFAS are detected. However, there are thousands of additional chemicals in the PFAS family that go beyond the three mentioned in the memo.
Furthermore, the note does not mention the EPA groundwater purification targets of 70 percentage points or any other specific purity. This only indicates that filtration takes into account the chemical levels of cleaning from location to location.
"The memorandum states that" the site-specific risk assessment results will be used to determine if corrective action is needed, "in accordance with federal law." Our goal is to protect human health and the environment in a financially sound and risk-based manner. "
The content of the memo was criticized by those who called on the military and the EPA to do more.
US Senator Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat, led the efforts of the PFAS Congress as a senior member of the Senate Commission on the Environment and Public Works. He said communities across the country had paid or "expected" the cost of PFAS to clean up the chemicals, and the military was responsible.
"With this document, the Department of Defense seems to be doing more of the same, avoiding the responsibility for fighting PFAS contaminants that are higher than the health levels recommended by the EPA," he said. Carper said. "This document shows that we do not give the communities the security they need from the Department of Defense to protect them from PFAS contamination caused by their activities."
Betsy Southerland, former scientific director of the EPA Water Office, who worked for PFAS before leaving the agency in 2017, suggested that differences between the agencies were one of the reasons. The EPA had not finished its recommendations yet. He also explained that this was confusing, as DOD seems to allow a limit of 70 ppm for drinking water, but not groundwater, as recommended by the EPA.
"The DOD baffled everyone by saying that it supports the public drinking water supply by ensuring that tap water is compliant with both PFOA and water (with health advice) PFOS, either individually or in combination," he told Southland "However, DOD states with these hints that it will only value groundwater (case by case) so it will never use 70 ppt."
Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said regulators like the state of New Jersey often set filter ratings that meet drinking water standards.
"It aims to protect the public, who can use groundwater as drinking water, from contaminants," said Carluccio. "It makes no sense that DOD uses a detection level that could harm human health, and at first glance, these DOD policies should violate the EPA's guidelines."
Carluccio also said that the question highlighted the need for a specific and binding regulation of PFAS. The lack of such a regime allows organizations such as the army to attack the PFAS "in a hurry," Carluccio said.
"The seriousness of the cleanup task for DOD requires a federal regulation with a full set of standards for all environmental media," said Carluccio.
Questions sent by e-mail to a Defense Department spokesman on 6 November were not answered before the deadline expired.
Molly Block, an EPA spokeswoman, did not comment on a number of issues, including whether the agency approved the use of the filtration level of 400 ppm or whether she felt comfortable with the lack of DOD commitment to purify 70 ppm of groundwater. She cited the practice of the EPO "not to make any specific comments on the internal policies of another agency" and added that the EPO could not comment because its recommendations were still drafted.
"Remember that the EPA Groundwater Policy remains a draft of the document," said Block. "Since it was not published as a final document, the EPO can not give an answer that relates to certain numbers or possible measures."
According to Block, the EPA plans to complete its groundwater forecast by the end of the year or early 2020.
However, Block said the EPO had knowledge of the document on October 21, six days after it had apparently been sent to the DOD leadership, and was not involved in its creation.
"The EPA was not invited to review or consult its development," said Block.
© 2019 Bucks County Courier Time, Levittown, Pennsylvania - Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire