Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) enter the environment through various industrial and consumer processes, leading to widespread contamination.
Once in the environment, PFAS can persist for long periods due to their resistance to natural degradation processes, resulting in accumulation in water bodies and soil.
Human exposure to PFAS typically occurs through ingestion of contaminated water or food, inhalation of contaminated air, and contact with products containing PFAS.
Research has linked PFAS exposure to several health problems, including developmental effects in children, increased risk of cancer, liver damage, immune system suppression, and thyroid hormone disruption.
The persistent nature of PFAS means that even low levels of exposure can lead to significant health risks over time.
Local Water Supplies
Drinking water is a major source of exposure, particularly in areas near industrial sites or military bases where PFAS have been used extensively.
PFAS pollution can enter public water supplies through various pathways.
Industrial discharge of wastewater containing PFAS directly into rivers and lakes can seep into the groundwater.
Runoff from sites where PFAS are manufactured or used can carry these contaminants into surrounding water bodies.
Landfills that receive waste containing PFAS can leach these substances into the groundwater, affecting both municipal and private wells.
Agricultural practices, such as the use of biosolids (sewage sludge) as fertilizer, can also contribute to PFAS contamination in water supplies.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have mapped the widespread contamination of drinking water by PFAS, showing just how destructive these chemicals have been to local water supplies across the country.
The interactive map from the EWG is available here.
Some of the most notable and well-known areas that have experienced PFAS water contamination include:
- Cape Fear River, North Carolina: The Cape Fear region has been heavily impacted by PFAS contamination, particularly from GenX chemicals used in industrial processes.
- Vancouver, Washington: In Vancouver, several water stations tested above state action levels for PFAS, prompting immediate action to mitigate the contamination.
- The remediation costs for Vancouver’s water system could exceed $235 million.
- Massachusetts: PFAS contamination has been found in at least 173 public drinking water systems across 86 communities in Massachusetts.
- Grayling, Michigan: Grayling has been grappling with PFAS contamination in groundwater wells, particularly affecting residents near Camp Grayling, a National Guard training facility that frequently used toxic firefighting foam.
- The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy is considering a $25.6 million grant to extend the municipal water line to replace contaminated wells.
- Stuart, Florida: Stuart discovered harmful levels of PFAS in its water supply in 2016, leading to significant legal action against manufacturers like 3M.
- This case is a bellwether for thousands of similar lawsuits in the AFFF litigation.
- Parkersburg, West Virginia: Parkersburg became widely known following the 2019 film “Dark Waters,” which highlighted the extensive PFAS contamination and subsequent lawsuits filed over the chemical’s harmful effects.
- Hoosick Falls, New York: Hoosick Falls has been a focal point for PFAS contamination due to industrial activities by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International.
Military Bases: A Major Risk for Public Water Systems
Military bases have been major sources of PFAS contamination in water supplies due to the extensive use of firefighting foam, specifically Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
In the 1960s, the US Navy collaborated with 3M to develop firefighting foam containing PFOA and PFOS.
These foams, used extensively for training and emergency response, contain high levels of PFAS, which can seep into groundwater and nearby water sources, leading to widespread contamination.
The persistent nature of PFAS means that even decades after their use, these chemicals continue to pollute water supplies, posing significant health risks to military personnel, their families, and surrounding communities.
Over 700 military sites across the United States have been identified as having documented or suspected discharges of PFAS chemicals.
These sites have used aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which contains PFAS, extensively for firefighting training and emergency response since the 1960s.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has confirmed that at least 455 of these sites have contaminated drinking water or groundwater with PFAS, affecting the health of service members, their families, and nearby communities.
Previous research has linked PFAS exposure at these sites to various health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system problems.
Despite ongoing cleanup efforts, the extensive contamination poses a significant challenge, with the DoD estimating that it could take decades and billions of dollars to remediate the affected areas.
Exposure to PFAS Containing Firefighting Products
Direct exposure to PFAS containing products is a significant risk.
As mentioned, AFFF is a type of firefighting foam that contains PFAS chemicals, and is currently at the center of a major personal injury litigation targeting manufacturers of these hazardous substances.
The AFFF Lawsuit is consolidated in South Carolina federal court, and plaintiffs include both individuals who suffered from direct exposure to toxic fire fighting foams, as well as communities dealing with tap water contamination resulting from the use of firefighting foam on military bases.
Firefighting products that are known to contain PFAS include both firefighting foams and firefighting gear.
Firefighting gear, including protective clothing and equipment, often contains PFAS chemicals to provide resistance to heat, water, and oil.
Research studies have also shown that firefighting gear may even release more PFAS when subjected to wear and tear.
Exposure to both PFAS containing firefighting foam and gear poses significant risks for firefighters, who are among the most heavily exposed populations to these hazardous substances.
Other Potential Routes of Exposure to PFAS
PFAS chemicals are ubiquitous and can be found in a wide variety of consumer and industrial products, leading to widespread exposure through everyday activities.
Products that may contain PFAS include:
- Non-stick cookware: Items such as Teflon-coated pots and pans.
- Water-repellent clothing: Outdoor gear, jackets, and umbrellas treated to repel water.
- Stain-resistant fabrics: Carpets, upholstery, and clothing treated to resist stains.
- Cleaning products: Some household cleaners and sprays that use PFAS for their grease-cutting properties.
- Industrial products: Various chemicals and coatings used in manufacturing processes.
- Certain food packaging: Fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, and other grease-resistant packaging.
- Cosmetics: Certain makeup, moisturizers, and personal care products containing PFAS for smooth application.
- Other: Ski waxes, dental floss, certain paints and varnishes, and textiles like carpets and furniture upholstery treated for stain resistance.
Exposure to PFAS in the general food supply is also a major concern for many Americans.
The FDA works to identify routes of exposure through food packaging and other food stuffs.
PFAS can migrate into food from packaging, especially when the packaging is exposed to fatty, salty, or acidic foods.
Testing by the FDA has shown detectable levels of PFAS in some seafood and produce, with certain types of seafood like clams and other bivalve mollusks being particularly susceptible to contamination.
The ongoing efforts to monitor and regulate PFAS in food aim to reduce dietary exposure and associated health risks.