TalkingPFAS – Details, episodes & analysis

Talking PFAS Episode 44 Show Description/Notes/Links

INTRO:

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  If you are new to the podcast, I encourage you to have a binge listen, as the content is, of course, still very relevant today as attention, regulation and litigation regarding PFAS chemicals continues to accelerate. 

Today’s discussion is an Interview with two guests who were training people at the CRC Care Risk to Remediation Masterclass in Newcastle from the 1-5 May, 2023.

My guests are Paul Nathanail from Nottingham, England, Technical Director of LQM, which specialises in contaminated land management in England and around the world.   I have previously interview Paul before, when he was a keynote speaker at CRC Care International Clean Up Conference in Adelaide, South Australia.  You can hear that very important discussion in episode 37.

My second guest is Scott Warner, from California, who is a geologist, and has specialised as a hydrogeologist studying and assessing groundwater conditions, for 40 years.  Scott is the Principal Hydrogeologist for the BBJ Group.  

In early May I had the privilege of attending one of the training days at the CRC Care’s 4th Risk to Remediation Masterclass.  This course was held from the 1-5 May, 2023, at Newcastle (NSW), Australia.  I interviewed Paul and Scott at the end of a long week and a long day of very in depth training.  It is important to clarify that this was not a course that was solely dedicated to PFAS remediation but remediation in general, which included PFAS. 

CRC Care provided me with this information following the event:

“The CRC are Risk to Remediation Masterclass was a five-day course that provided participants with the cutting edge skills to manage and remediate contaminated sites in Australia and globally.  This course was developed in response to the critical need to build capacity to address the growing global contamination crisis.

While technical lessons learned through the study of past projects an advantage of this course was the semi-structured discussions problem-solving and personal interactions that allowed participants to consider the many facets of modern contaminant site assessment and remedial design. 

The course also discussed aspects of sustainable low impact remediation approaches, climate change considerations, policy and regulatory matters and economic considerations, all within the context of gaining and maintaining a social licence to operate.                               

There were 75 delegates present, and the Masterclass 2023 was attended by delegates from Australia and from overseas.  The delegates were from a varied background and experience.  They were from Department of Defence, regulators for EPA VIC and EPA Tasmania, Federal Government, consultants and practitioners, academia, scientists, researchers and early career professionals.  And the overseas delegates were from Malaysia and South Africa.  Now to my discussion with Paul Nathanail from the UK and Scott Warner from California.

Special thanks to CRC Care for allowing me to attend.

LINKS: 

Link to Scott Warner’s survey: https://forms.office.com/r/iSZdvnN6XS

Link to Scott Warner’s Wiley paper: https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21753

Link to Scott Warner’s company BBJ Group: https://www.bbjgroup.com/

Link to Paul Nathanail company LQM: https://www.lqm.co.uk/pages/meet-the-team

Link to CRC Care: https://crccare.com/

OUTRO:          (With Important PFAS News from Australia)

I hope to bring you some information from the ALGA event that I attended at the end of April later in this season.  

PFAS NEWS AUSTRALIA

I have some big. Australia PFAS news.  You might have heard me mention a Super Class Action which is now being referred to as a Multi-Site PFAS Class Action. 

The following information is largely taken from a Shine Lawyers media release, but not all is a direct quote.

The applicants in the multi-site PFAS Class Action represented by Shine Lawyers have reached an ‘in principle’ agreement with the Commonwealth to settle the multi-site PFAS Contamination class action against the Department of Defence.

These are residents from seven communities across Bullsbrook (WA), Richmond (NSW), Wagga Wagga (NSW), Wodonga/Bandiana (VIC), Edinburgh (SA), Darwin (NT), and Townsville (QLD).  Shine Lawyers state that those seven communities were set to head to the Federal Court for the start of a trial which would examine the Commonwealth’s alleged responsibility for the spread of PFAS chemicals from military bases across the country into neighboring communities soil and groundwater.  

Shine lawyers fought to compensate residents living near these military bases after their properties lost value due to contamination caused by these toxic chemicals and the parties have agreed in principle on an amount of $132.7 million and the break-up of that amount is yet to be determined but it could include up to 30,000 people.  Shine Lawyers joint head of class actions Craig Allsop said while the news is positive the outcome is still subject to approval by the Federal Court. 

Shine Lawyers will continue to pursue compensation for residents of Wreck Bay in the matter of Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council and Anor -v- the Commonwealth.  And Justice Lee ordered a further remediation in the Wreck Bay proceeding and stood the hearing down until the 29th of May.

I hope to bring you more about the super class action in the future in the podcast.  And I encourage any of the residents who were involved in this class action and would like to share their PFAS story to please reach out to me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com

If you have not subscribed to the podcast I encourage you to subscribe so that you will not miss an episode.  As always all information in today’s episode is copyright but please feel free to share the episode via email or social media or wherever you share your podcasts and please contact me for republishing permissions. 

Thanks again for listening - I value your feedback and suggestions.

Listening Tip:  I know most of my listeners prefer to listen on their mobile, and I personally like to listen to podcasts on my mobile with earbuds, but for some people this episode might be better to listen to on a desktop.  This is only if you don’t like very mild background noise from the nearby bingo that was happening outside the room we interviewed in at the event venue.

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Show Notes: Talking PFAS with Peter Murphy, MD EPOC Enviro (OPEC Systems) regarding PFAS remediation using their SAFF Foam Fractionation Technology – Published Wed 26/4/2023

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  If you are joining us for the first time a very big welcome. I encourage you to listen to past episodes, with a range of really excellent guests from around the world.

Just before I introduce today’s guest, I encourage you to have a listen to Episode 42, which published yesterday.  It is an update of the US EPA's proposed regulations regarding  PFAS in drinking water.   If the proposed MCLs are approved they will become mandatory levels.  As discussed in last week’s episode the guidelines and regulatory limits for certain PFAS keep going down. The number of PFAS lawsuits keep increasing, and the number of PFAS contaminated sites keeps growing.  This means there will be no shortage of PFAS remediation work for quite some time.

In fact, in a PFAS remediation special edition of the Environmental Business Journal published in 2019 they state, and I quote:

“The Environmental Business Journal has wrestled with the extent and scale of the PFAS Era in market terms.  The EBJ has published a working model which reflects a consensus on the scale of the emerging PFAS market.  The EBJ model includes major contributions from both waste and wastewater system upgrades and lifestyle costs as well as remediation.  The model published in 2019 points to the possibility of expenditures in excess of $160 billion over the next 20-30 years and over 40,000 sites or facilities where significant PFAS contamination will likely be identified and treated or remediated at some level.”                                     

Today’s discussion is another chat about a PFAS remediation method.   Today’s guest is Peter Murphy Managing Director of an Australian based company, OPEC Systems.  OPEC Systems trades as EPOC Enviro around the rest of the world which stands for Emerging Pollutants of Concern. 

Today we will be discussing at length EPOC’s PFAS remediation technology for removing PFAS from water and landfill leachate using their SAFF systems.  We also discuss the challenges that short chain PFAS compounds continue to present to remediators and how the SAFF has navigated these challenges so far. 

SAFF system trials have already been conducted in Oakey QLD at a Department of Defence site, and at a landfill site in Telgay Sweden.  These two systems have now moved out of their trial period into a fixed contract period.  SAFF has also been trialed in UK, as well as an undisclosed location in the US on the East Coast of New York and will be involved in projects in Spain, Germany, Massachusett’s and Minnesota. 

And just recently announced on the 13/4/2023 EPOC Enviro announced plans to open a major manufacturing facility in Statesville, North Carolina, with the first US built SAFF units scheduled to start PFAS remediation work in July 2023.

Pete Murphy from EPOC states in their recent media release: “Our award-winning SAFF technology has already visited eight different US states, and we are looking forward to leveraging this impact to all corners of the globe including back home in Australia to help communities remediate their PFAS impacted waters.”

However, despite the huge investments in remediation technology that are happening around the world, very little if any money has been invested to come up with solutions to clean up private land or farms that have been contaminated by PFAS.  That is certainly the case in Australia and indeed also in many other parts of the world.  I discussed this scenario very briefly with Pete today at the end of the episode.

Please note: I am an independent journalist and a podcaster no money was received for today’s interview.  If in the future money is received from remediation companies (as sponsorship) to support the continuation of this podcast I will disclose this.  Also any discussions with remediation companies is for information purposes, I am not endorsing any product or remediation method over another.

Copyright:  Please share the episode (in whole) with acknowledgement via social media or website, but anyone wishing to edit, alter, or republish any information from this podcast in another form is subject to copyright and must contact the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.

OPEC Information

For more information on SAFF: www.epocenviro.com

Phone: +1 844 662 3762

Email:  info@epocenviro.com

Wiley articles:

"PFAS Removal from Groundwaters Using Surface-Active Foam Fractionation" Burns et al Published 24/8/2021

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rem.21694

"Commercial Scale Remediation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances from a Landfill leachate catchment using Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)"  Burns et al 1/6/2022

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rem.21720

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. And if you are joining us for the first time welcome. 

My guest today is Professor Ian Cousins from the Department of Environmental Science at Stockholm University in Sweden.  Now I have interviewed Ian before in Episode 21 when we spoke about his PFAS Essential Use paper and I highly recommend a listen to that one. Professor Cousins has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of York and a PhD in environmental science from Lancaster University. 

He is well-known for his research on the sources, transport and fate and exposure pathways of PFAS.  In recent years Professor Cousins has written a series of policy related articles driven by his concern about the continued use of PFAS.  Today we are going to be discussing his recent perspective paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS” published in the Environmental Science & Technology journalist on the 2/8/2022.

Ian and colleagues state in their conclusion: “We conclude that PFAS define a new planetary boundary that has been exceeded based on PFAS levels in environmental media being ubiquitously above guideline levels.  Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with our conclusion that the planetary boundary for PFAS is exceeded. It is nevertheless highly problematic that everywhere on earth where humans reside, recently proposed health advisories can not be achieved without large investment in advanced clean up technology.”

I will be heading to Adelaide in a couple of days (actually here now) for the International Clean Up Conference Adelaide 2022 where I hope to talk to a range of experts in Australia and around the world about some of those advanced clean up technologies that might exist now or be emerging so stay tuned for that one. 

The US EPA has made some significant announcements regarding PFAS in the last couple of months and in today’s episode I will provide details of these. 

Ian Cousins et al paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)”

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765

EPA’s proposed rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances Federal Register

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-06/pdf/2022-18657.pdf

EPA Announces New Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS Chemicals

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-new-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfas-chemicals-1-billion-bipartisan

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast, and if you are joining me for the first time, welcome. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. You can reach me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.
The following show notes and all information in today's episode are copyright. Permissions must be sought to reproduce. The episode (and show notes) may be shared in its original form and its entirety for others to listen to.
Today’s guest is Boston Attorney John Gardella a shareholder at CMBG3 Law. He is a member of the firm’s PFAS team which counsels clients on PFAS related issues ranging from state violations to remediation litigation. John has been a repeat guest on Talking PFAS before and due to his experience and expertise it is always a pleasure to speak with him about PFAS and litigation in the US.
In today’s discussion we will be talking about several of his articles that he has written for the National Law Review. I will put a link to the articles we discuss today and his website in the show notes.
There are several points of significance in today’s discussion with John which I will briefly mention here but we will unpack the details in our chat.
California OEHHA added PFOA to list of chemicals known to cause cancer:
On February 25, 2022, another significant step was taken when the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added PFOA to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The listing will create new warning label requirements for any product sold in California that contains PFAS, and may also increase enforcement action targeting of PFOA-containing products.
US EPA PFAS Roadmap:
The US EPA is taking many actions in regards to PFAS, outlined in a 20-page document called the PFAS Roadmap. John says for the first time they put a timetable on when they intend to release enforceable regulations for two PFAS in drinking water. There are currently no enforceable drinking water limits at the Federal level in the United States. This is something that many people in the US and the world are watching very closely.
John says, “So, by this fall we will know what their intent is and then they have to go through a required process where they open up their proposal to public comment and so they are opening that up for one year and they intend to have by the fall of 2023 a drinking water standard in the United States for all states, which would be enormous.”
In addition, “The US EPA intends to designate at least two types of PFAS, the PFOA and the PFOS as under the Super Fund Law.hazardous substances Rob Bilott – Lead attorney in lawsuit brought by a firefighter:
On March 8 2022 the Ohio Court issued an opinion in the Hardwick v 3M case in which it certified a PFAS class action lawsuit that would include over seven million people. This is in relation to a lawsuit by a firefighter who is the lead plaintiff, with Taft lead Attorney Rob Bilott. The Ohio court ruled that the class of plaintiffs that would be allowed to proceed with the lawsuit (which is seeking medical monitoring) will be the “citizens of Ohio who have 0.05 ppt of PFOA and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum.
For those who are unfamiliar with Attorney Rob Bilott’s work on PFAS there is plenty online and you can watch the Dark Waters Movie to see where his decades of PFAS litigation work all began. John said Attorney Rob Bilott’s team famously secured the now renowned C8 Science Panel in his PFAS litigation in West Virginia nearly two decades ago. It was the C8 Science Panel findings that significantly influenced litigation activity, regulatory and legislative activity with respect to PFAS and media attention on PFAS issues.
John said what he believes will be significant is that Mr Bilott wants a new science panel convened that would include all residents of Ohio.
John says, “there are 7 million people that live in Ohio, give or take a few but it is 7 million people and so just to put that in context a little bit. When he was in West Virginia about two decades ago now and he got his science panel through the litigation there, there were 70,000 citizens”
Washington – PFAS Bill to regulate various consumer goods which contain PFAS & the DOE to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product: Just after my discussion with John, on the 31 March Washington’s Governor signed into law a Bill that we discussed in today’s episode. This Bill significantly accelerates the state’s initiative to develop regulations for various consumer goods that contain PFAS. This Bill also requires the Department of Ecology to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product under the State’s Safer Products for Washington initiative.
John says, “there has been a lot of regulation and legislation in the US in many States about firefighting foam, but this is certainly one of the first examples in the United States with respect to the firefighting gear.”
PFAS in cosmetics:
I have talked in detail about PFAS in cosmetics with John Gardella before in the Talking PFAS podcast, in episode 29. Since that discussion, as John’s team at CMBG3 Law predicted in early 2021, “the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry and the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits.” In less than three months four industry cosmetic giants were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS, which John says is significant news.
LINKS:
John Gardella's firm CMBG3 Law Bostonhttps://www.cmbg3.com/
US EPA 20-Page PFAS Roadmaphttps://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024
A selection of John's recent articles in National Law Review (many more available at his firm's website)
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cosmetics-and-pfas-lawsuit-alleges-false-marketing
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/prop-65-lists-pfoa-carcinogen
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-pfas-standards-closer-to-adoption-epa
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-standards-and-pfas-not-so-fast
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-class-action-lawsuit-updates
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-consumer-goods-target-washington
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pennsylvania-pfas-drinking-water-standards-comment
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wisconsin-pfas-standards-one-step-closer-to-reality
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cercla-exemptions-movement-grows
This episode is dedicated to my darling Molly cavoodle dog and best companion ever who lay dying at my feet (and we didn't know she was that sick) while I tried to edit this. We lost her on the 11.4.22 that is why this episode was up so late. This episode was recorded with John Gardella on the 29/3/2022.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.
If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you. I want to say thank you so much to my regular listeners for being patient with me while I took an extended break, which unfortunately became longer than I wanted due to an injury I suffered, but I am very much on the mend now.
I appreciate you coming back to listen to Season 5 of Talking PFAS Podcast. As always I encourage you to share the podcast with your networks, if you have found value in it, and I would appreciate your review on iTunes, or feedback via email to TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.
As the content in this podcast series, even the earliest episodes, is relevant to any person working with, researching or trying hard to avoid PFAS chemicals, I do encourage you to go back and visit previous episodes. Even though I believe all episodes of this podcast series are worth a listen, if you are new to the podcast and are interested in my editor’s choice selection, I strongly suggest a listen to Episode 1, 4, and 9 to start, followed by Episodes 17, 18, 22, 24 and 31.
Since learning about this class of chemicals in 2018, I have travelled to many states of Australia, and interviewed people in person or over the phone from Oakey, Williamtown, Salt Ash, Fullerton Cove, Richmond, Katherine, Tasmania, Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney, Perth and Newcastle. This year I hope to visit many more people in many more towns to discuss with residents and others how PFAS chemical contamination has affected their properties and their lives.
I have also had the privilege of interviewing many international experts to discuss PFAS from their medical, scientific, remediation, political, or expert opinion. I have interviewed some fantastic international guests from California, Sweden, Texas, Washington, Boston, Michigan, Switzerland, Colorado and California.
This season I will bring you some more great discussions with Australian and International guests with the one goal being to understand PFAS chemicals better, and learn what is new regarding regulations and scientific discoveries about this complex class of compounds.
Whilst health effects are still debated regarding PFAS chemicals, they have definitely been associated by experts with some PFAS compounds. However, one thing is abundantly clear from the experts I have spoken to, the of this class of chemicals is something which warrants a high degree of caution, and attention. Many experts argue that the persistence of this class of chemicals requires swift action and they recommend banning the whole group of PFAS chemicals.persistence
In Australia, a class action between three communities in Australia and the Department of Defence settled out of court in 2020, and these communities received a payout of $212 million dollars, which after paying a huge amount of legal fees was divided amongst many thousands of impacted community members, but most as I understand, and I have not spoken to all, have not received enough compensation to move from their contaminated property.
The class action payout was awarded due to property value losses that residents with contaminated properties had experienced. One of the conditions of the class action though was that they could have no future claims against the Department of Defence for PFAS contamination to their properties. However, they can still in the future make a claim against the Department of Defence for PFAS related health issues.
This season, along with interviewing more experts, and discussing the latest PFAS research and regulatory actions in Australia and around the world, I hope to re-visit some people who were involved in the first PFAS class action in Australia. I will attempt to find out where are they now, and whether their lives have changed since the class action settled. This is important because in Australia right now SHINE Lawyers are involved in a further, larger super class action involving communities in WA, NT, SA, QLD, NSW and VIC.
“Shine Lawyers is seeking compensation for property owners for economic loss, including the diminution in value of their land. Any action would be an open class action, meaning residents living in eight affected communities who meet certain criteria will automatically be included unless they choose not to be involved. National Special Counsel Joshua Aylward said he estimates up to 40,000 people live in these communities, and are affected by these chemicals.”
Finally, as Australia is facing an election in 2022, I will also hope to find out what the Government intends to do about PFAS more broadly in Australia, and how much money they intend to set aside to contribute to PFAS Research and remediation or compensation in Australia. I was interviewed by ABC just prior to the 2019 Election and sadly many of the issues faced then still remain today.
I hope you enjoy the recap of Season 3 & 4 today of Talking PFAS today and I hope you will join me for Season 5 of Talking PFAS, which will return on 29/3/21.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My special guest today is Alissa Cordner an Environmental Sociologist and Associate Professor in the Sociology Department at Whitman College which is in Eastern Washington State in the US. She has been working on PFAS since about 2014. She is the co-director of the PFAS Project Lab which is based at North Eastern University with Phillip Brown who is the other co-director. Alissa says "over the last 6-7 years we have been working on PFAS from a variety of social science perspectives, starting by trying the understand the social and scientific discovery of this class of chemicals and understand why they remain in such wide use, and production, and why they are such a ubiquitous contaminant, given that at least some actors have known for 50 years about their toxicity and exposure concern. What it is that has gotten us into this situation? We have worked on PFAS activism, trying to understand the rise of social movement activity related to PFAS and currently we are working on a number of projects and one of them is trying to understand the full and multifaceted costs of PFAS contamination." Today we discuss a commentary paper she and her team of experts have written called The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now" which was published in Environment Science and Technology Journal on the 7 July 2021.
Today's episode of Talking PFAS is the Season Finale and the last episode for 2021. The podcast will return on the 25th of January, 2022. I will be taking a 3 month break to recharge my batteries, and then begin research and production of the next season of Talking PFAS, and I have some great guests lined up already. I hope in this extended break that you re-listen to some of your favourite episodes. I will also tweet some of my favourite episodes each month.
Episodes mentioned in today's discussion, or episodes which complement today's discussion, are Episode 2, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, and I highly recommend listening for the first time or listening again to these.
A very big thank you to all my listeners since 2018, and a very big thank you to all the guests in this podcast. I hope you will join me again in Jan 2022. Kayleen Bell, Journalist.
Show Note Links:
“The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now”Alissa Cordner, Gretta Goldenman, Linda S. Birnbaum, Phil Brown, Mark F. Miller, Rosie Mueller, Sharyle Patton, Derrick H. Salvatore and Leonardo Trasandehttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03565. 2021, 55, 14, 9630-9633 Publication Date July 7, 2021Environ.Sci.Technol
Debra J. Davidson debra.davidson@ualberta.ca.“Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: a case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada.”https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2017.1349638 July 28, 2017Environmental Sociology

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest today is Dr Katie Pelch from Fort Worth Texas. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Centre. Dr Katie Pelch and colleagues published the PFAS-TOX Database in April, 2021. The database currently includes 29 of the most commonly studied PFAS mapped to 15 health outcome categories. Katie said what they found was quite a surprise. Contrary to the notion that there is very little research on replacement PFAS, the PFAS-TOX Database identified 742 studies on 29 select PFAS other than PFOS and PFOA that have been measured in the environment or in people.
Many of the findings reflect health effects already linked to PFOA and PFOS, yet few PFAS in the data base have received regulatory attention. PFAS manufacturers continue to make and use new PFAS with very little oversight. This is one reason why experts in the field are urging the management of all PFAS as a single class of chemicals.
Katie says the purpose of this database is to support government, businesses, academics and impacted citizens in quickly assessing the state of the science so that they can make timely decisions that protect public health and the environment. For today’s discussion you might find it helpful to have the PFAS-TOX Database open (see link below) but you can certainly listen to the episode without that.
SHOW NOTE LINKS:
PFAS-TOX Databasehttps://pfastoxdatabase.org/

Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class Kwiatkowski et alPublished June 30, 2020 Environmental Science & Technology Lettershttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255

“Cancer-causing chemicals found in Fort Worth well. Could they be in city water?” - Article Haley Samsel Fort Worth Star-Telegram July 10, 2020https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article244096547.html

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and Covid-19https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cosmetics-financial-and-insurance-companies-noticePFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice – Monday, June 21, 2021John Gardella CMBG3 Law
Today's Talking PFAS News Episode is a discussion with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law in Boston. John has been a previous guest on the podcast in Episode 24 and I highly recommend a listen to that Episode too.Today we will be discussing PFAS in cosmetics in the US. We will be focusing our discussion on John's recent article published 21/6/21 in The National Law Review "PFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice." In this article he writes about a recent Bill that was introduced into the Senate on the 15/6/21, called the "No PFAS in Cosmetics Act 2021." John also wrote about a recent study published in the Environmental Science & Technology Letters by Whitehead et al (corresponding author Graham F. Peaslee) called "Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics." John writes in his article "This study examined 231 cosmetic products sold in the United States and Canada. 52% of the products contained some degree of PFAS."

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240
Study “Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics” Environmental Science & Technology Letters Whitehead et al – Corresponding author Graham F. Peaslee
At the time of publishing today’s episode of Talking PFAS News, this article has had 47219 views.
Listeners you might remember in Episode 22 I discussed the use of PFAS in cosmetics with Juliane Gluge from Zurich Switzerland, as we discussed her paper “An Overview of the Uses of PFAS” In the supplementary material link below she described many cosmetic and personal care products where PFAS have been used, and may still be used. I highly recommend a listen to that episode as well.https://www.rsc.org/suppdata/d0/em/d0em00291g/d0em00291g1.pdf
2.28 Personal care products and cosmetics – Page 198“PFAS have been used in cosmetics as emulsifiers, lubricants, or oleophobic agents (Kissa 2001). PFAS in hair-conditioning formulations can enhance wet combing and render hair oleophobic (Kissa 2001). PFAS have been used in creams e.g. to make the creams penetrate the skin more easily, make the skin brighter, make the skin absorb more oxygen, or make the cosmetic product more durable and weather resistant (Brinch, Jensen, and Christensen 2018). PFAS have been identified in cosmetics and personal care products in general, but also in anti-aging, anti-frizz, bar soap, BB/CC cream/foundation, blush/highlighter, body lotion/body cream, body oil, brow products, concealer/corrector, cream/lotion, cuticle treatment, eye cream/eyeshadow, eye pencil/eyeliner, face cream, facial cleanser, hair creams and rinses/conditioner, hair spray/mousse, hair shampoo, hand sanitizer, highlighter, lip balm/lip stick/lip gloss, lip liner, manicure products, makeup remover, mask, mascara/lashes, moisturer, nail polish/nail strengthener/nail treatment, powder, primer/fixer, scrub/peeling, shaving cream/shaving foam/shaving gel, sunscreen, and sunscreen makeup.” Juliane Gluge

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My special guest today is Garret Ellison, an investigative environment reporter, at MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan who covers Michigan environment and The Great Lakes. Since 2016 he has specialised on reporting on PFAS and their impact on Michigan's people and environment. From 2017 to 2019 PFAS was about the only issue he was writing about, but he says he has lost count of how many PFAS articles he has written. As an investigative reporter he has broken many PFAS stories. His PFAS work has directly influenced State environmental policy and the creation of Michigan's first State specific drinking water standards for harmful chemicals.
My discussion with Garret today will include the following 3M's lawsuit against the State of Michigan. We will also discuss PFAS contamination in the Wolverine Worldwide contamination in Rockford, where a nearby resident's blood test results returned at a staggering level of 5,000,000 ppt! We also discuss PFAS in Wurtsmith Air Force Base, in Oscoda.
I highly recommend a listen to the previous episode 27 Talking PFAS News where Garret discusses two new bills just introduced into Congress this month, and if passed will directly affect the military regarding PFAS. Also in that episode we discuss some new preliminary research from Indiana, that reveals PFAS levels in a rain sample from Cleveland Ohio returned levels of 1000ppt.
You can read many PFAS articles that Garret has written here:https://muckrack.com/garretellison/bio

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s Talking PFAS News is focused on PFAS in Michigan, Great Lakes, and also some new pending legislation that could result in stricter rules for the US military regarding PFAS. My special guest is Award Winning investigative/enterprise environment reporter Garret Ellison from MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan. Today we discuss three of his recent stories, and because of Garret’s extensive PFAS reporting, he will also be the special guest in the next Talking PFAS Feature which will publish on June 17, 2021. In today’s episode we only have time to briefly mention that in April, 2021 3M filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan which seeks to invalidate their new drinking water and groundwater clean-up limits for PFAS. In Talking PFAS Feature Garret talks much more about the 3M lawsuit as well as many other PFAS contamination issues in the Michigan and Great Lakes area.
For today’s show notes I am publishing links to three of Garret’s articles (with short excerpts) published by MLive and used with Garret’s permission. It might be useful to have Garret's articles open as you listen today.
Links & Excerpts to articles in today’s discussion by Garret Ellison, content used with permission
“It’s literally raining PFAS around the Great Lakes, say researchers.” June 8, 2021
“CLEVELAND, OH — Rain that fell on Ohio this spring contained a surprisingly high amount of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to raw data from a binational Great Lakes monitoring program that tracks airborne pollution.Rainwater collected in Cleveland over two weeks in April contained a combined concentration of about 1,000 parts-per-trillion (ppt) of PFAS compounds. That’s according to scientists at the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), a long-term Great Lakes monitoring program jointly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Canada.” Source Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.com
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/its-literally-raining-pfas-around-the-great-lakes-say-researchers.html

“Two Michigan air bases on “Filthy Fifty” Senate PFAS priority list.” June 9, 2021
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/two-michigan-air-bases-on-filthy-fifty-senate-pfas-priority-list.html
“WASHINGTON, DC — Two former Air Force bases in Michigan are on a “Filthy Fifty” list of sites where the U.S. Defense Department would have to expedite cleanup of toxic “forever chemical” contamination under new Congressional legislation.Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda and K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in the Upper Peninsula are among priority installations with toxic PFAS pollution marked for speedier cleanup under the bill package, which allocates $10 billion for remedial work nationwide and puts the Pentagon under a deadline schedule to complete construction.“Filthy Fifty Act” and “Clean Water for Military Families Act” were introduced in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 8. The bills were introduced by Democratic Sens. Alex Padilla of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, representing the two states with the most bases on the list.” Source credit Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.com
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/05/3m-sues-michigan-seeks-to-invalidate-pfas-drinking-water-rules.html
“3M sues Michigan, seeks to invalidate PFAS drinking water rules” May 7, 2021
“LANSING, MI — Minnesota chemical manufacturing giant 3M has sued the state of Michigan, claiming the state’s new drinking water limits for the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are flawed because they were created through a “rushed and invalid regulatory process.”The lawsuit, filed in the state Court of Claims on April 21, seeks to invalidate the state’s drinking water limits and groundwater cleanup criteria for seven different per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that went into effect last summer.”

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.