Chemical Cultural Legacy

An earlier post regarded my travels to and from the National Alliance of Clean Water Agencies Water policy fly-in to Washington D.C. on April 3 and 4.  In that post, which you can find here, I noted that the issues we presented tell us a great deal about our culture and civilization.  In a sense, modern material  science and chemistry has allowed us benefits in our clothing, our packaging, and other articles of daily use.  These advances may allow for improvements, but the cost on the other end is not well known. The effects, of some materials, are now becoming known.  I attended three congressional meetings as part of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Commission in which we generally noted two main items:  polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) and funding.  Let me first deal with funding, but the bulk of this post will be on PFAS.

US Capitol

The clean water bills of the 1960's to 1970's allowed interceptors and state of the art treatment processes to be created in communities nationwide.  That initiative helped clean our national waters.  Those systems are now in need of major repairs and for many communities such repair costs may be prohibitive.  The EPA, according to David Ross, Assistant Administrator in charge of water desires to place planning above strict limits, and allow for collaboration to solve water problems.  MMSD has collaborated with over 46 other agencies in a phosphorus prevention program known as Yahara WINS.  Low interest loans and grants built the systems decades ago, and the government is making some interest loans, via the American Clean Water Infrastructure Act available today. With low interest loans, the federal government is essentially the bank.

US Capitol

Now on  to PFAS.  Most of us would have trouble pronouncing this word which describes a group of chemical components, polyfluoroalkyl.  PFAS have become well known over the course of the past year.  What are PFAS, and why are they now so important?  First, we now know that this family of chemical substances are noted to be ubiquitous in our environment.  The substances were/ are found in a variety of products we use, including by not limited to certain food packaging, stain resistant fabrics and materials, certain highly engineered clothing items such as Gore-Tex, non-stick cookware, and foam for certain fire fighting applications.  While common in the environment due to their wide-spread presence via use, there exists today two known hot spots in Wisconsin:  Truax Field in Madison due to fire fighting, and Marinette where some of the PFAS substances are manufactured.

Security line to get into Hart Senate Office Building

The April 10 issue of the "Wisconsin State Journal" (WSJ) noted the presence of PFAS in six of the 14 City of Madison municipal water wells tested.  Madison has a total of 23 municipal water wells.  Well 15, near Truax Field, has already been shut down in part due to PFAS.  The presence of parts of this chemical family in well #15 can probably be attributed to Truax Field, but the presence in wells on the west side of Madison have no known source.  However, it should be pointed out that the chemical is in very small amounts, in fact testing has advanced in just the past few years to detect levels not before detectable.  Then their is the case that no one really knows what is a safe level for this chemical family.  The WSJ news article notes the results are troubling because PFAS have made it 100's of feet below the surface of the earth from where the well water is drawn.  The daily use and manufacture of these chemicals were under the radar for a long time simply because analytical monitoring techniques were insufficient for detection. Much less how do you know to even test for this chemical family?  Today as advances in material science allow for the manufacture and use of the compound, so to is there now ways to detect this compound.  We are talking detection not in parts per million, or even parts per billion, but rather parts per trillion.  As an example something in one part  per trillion is equal to  one grain of sand in an Olympic sized swimming pool if it were filled with sand.

Library of Congress, Jefferson Building

Current thinking is that PFAS can "affect growth, learning and behavior of infants and older children."  (WSJ, 10 April 2019)  The article goes on to explain that it is also thought that exposure may lower a women's fertility, block important natural hormones, increase cholesterol, weaken the immune system and increase risk of cancer, and other diseases, to liver, pancreas, and kidneys.  But, it takes years for science to create what is an acceptable amount of exposure, and quite frankly no one really knows what, if any, entails an acceptable amount for PFAS.  The US EPA uses 70 ppt (parts per trillion or 70 grains of sand in a Olympic sized swimming pool filled with sand) for certain PFAS in drinking water, but there is no science to determine what level is suitable for bio-solids or treated waste water effluent, or other exposures.  As one environmental attorney said, there are plenty of items that are not a problem when measured in ppt.  He also noted that there may well be more PFAS in the dust in one's home than in our drinking water, bio-solids or waste water effluent.  After all, they do not naturally occur in water or waste water.  They are a cultural advent.

Caldwell Sculpture, Atrium of Hart Senate Office Building

The EPA health advisory for water is not enforceable.  Nine states are looking to set their own standards some as low as 10 parts per trillion.  PFAS become a concern for sewage treatment plants.  The treatment plant does not manufacture or combine materials to make PFAS.  PFAS make their way throught eh treatment plant process and end up in bio-solids and effluent.  Clearly, if Madison water is withdrawn with water that contains PFAS for daily needs most of that used water ends up at MMSD for treatement.  As MMSD literature says "While wastewater treatment plants are not sources of PFAS, traces of these chemicals may be found in the incoming waster water and outgoing effluent because the water reflects the chemistry of our daily lives."  (MMSD talking points to members of Congress, NACWA Water Policy fly-in April 3 and 4, 2019; italics added for emphasis)   What we use, what we eat and what we wear (clothes washing) ends in our waste water stream.  Think the medicines taken, the detergents used.  It is not only PFAS, but also siloxanes (common in personal care products) and other items of our daily lives.  Some more dangerous than others.  (Siloxanes do not appear to be dangerous to human health, from what is known at this point, but wreak havoc in the treatment process.)  Due to health concerns, PFAS are gradually being replaced, but will the replacement chemicals also pose a risk?

Our enjoyment of these products may well enhance life experiences but the elements and compounds from which many of these items are constructed get through the waste stream, and quite frankly they would be very, very expensive to remove, if they can be removed.  They do not break down or disintegrate, as far as I know.   If removable, the question in what state is the substance when removed?  Would it need to be disposed of in a highly regulated landfill? MMSD also treats the leach-ate from the Dane County landfill.  Because PFAS get through the treatment plant process, they will be found in the effluent and in the bio-solids.  Currently most MMSD bio-solids are land spread, so if  PFAS are in bio-solids they will be found in farm fields.  MMSD bio-solids are not spread on fields which grow crops eaten directly by humans, but rather fields used to for feed of mainly livestock.

Cherry Tree Blossoms

To control the use of this family of compounds would best require regulation at the source--i.e. stop its use in high-end articles of clothing, in non-stick cookware and in our food packaging.  Today it is PFAS, but in a later time frame it be substances found in the increasingly common anti-microbial clothing, or other trendy items.  So, yes, those seemingly environmentally conscious Subaru and Prius driving Yuppies may have clothing that is polluting the environment.  Perhaps it is now time to begin to question whether the advances in material sciences and chemistry have gone too far too quick.  Should we not be able to make sure that new compounds that will end up in our environment  are safe and can be treated by the waste water treatment process?  Treatment plants processes in almost all national treatment plants were not designed to remove the chemicals which we now find in our waste water.

Washington Monument

I noted to our congressional representatives that local, state and federal government priorities are expressed in their budgets;  MMSD does the same with its budget.  Much has been done, such as the 2018 American Water Infrastructure Act, but still more needs to be accomplished.  Clean water should be our priority as it drives our health, our lives and our economy.  When your making you next clothing or cookware purchase it may be worth some research as to what substances the product contains.  The question I pose is whether advances in  material sciences and chemistry in our society outstrip our ability to manage and control, and hence leave a legacy of pollution that we have yet to fully comprehend?  Will our descendants inherit a chemical cultural legacy?

Images by Author on visit to Washington D.C. on April 3 & 4, 2019

Sources:  USEPA, WI State Journal of 4/10/2019, MMSD