EPA enabled widespread contamination of farmland from PFAS in fertilizer, lawsuit alleges
By Shannon Kelleher
US regulators failed to prevent toxic PFAS in fertilizers from contaminating farmland across the country, alleges a lawsuit filed this week by a watchdog group on behalf of two Texas farm families who suffered health problems after their properties were polluted.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the Clean Water Act by failing to identify at least 18 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in treated sewage sludge spread on farmland even though scientific evidence suggests the chemicals are present in the sludge, according to the complaint filed June 6 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The EPA also neglected to develop regulations restricting several other PFAS chemicals the agency has previously recognized exist in sewage sludge, according to the complaint. As a result of its inaction, the EPA has enabled “millions of acres” of land to become contaminated with PFAS-laced sewage sludge, exposing many communities to the harmful chemicals, the lawsuit alleges.
“PFAS poisoning of farmlands is fast becoming a national agricultural emergency,” PEER attorney Laura Dumais said in a press release. “EPA needs to act immediately to protect farmers and our food supply from this toxic mess.”
The EPA declined to comment.
PFAS are a class of nearly 15,000 human-made chemicals that have been linked to many health problems, including certain cancers and reproductive issues. These highly persistent so-called “forever chemicals” have been used for decades in consumer products, including non-stick cookware, food packaging, and industrial products, and are widely present in the environment.
Lawsuit alleges company illegally discharged cancer-causing TCE for decades
By Shannon Kelleher and Carey Gillam
A Mississippi auto parts company illegally dumped toxic waste for more than 50 years, poisoning workers and sparking a cluster of cancer cases, according to a lawsuit filed this week by a group of former employees.
The lawsuit, filed June 4 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, names EnPro Industries and multiple other corporate entities as defendants in the case, alleging they participated in illegally discharging trichloroethylene (TCE) into the environment, contaminating soil, air and groundwater, and knowingly exposing workers to the cancer-causing chemical.
“This greedy company cheated to cut costs at the expense of human health and risking countless lives,” Nick Rowley, co-founder of the national public interest law firm Trial Lawyers for Justice, said in a press release. “The scope and scale of harms and losses caused by this wrongdoing is devastating.”
TCE is a clear, colorless liquid that is used as a degreasing solvent and dry cleaning agent, among other uses. It is considered a human carcinogen by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The chemical is also known to damage the heart, liver, kidneys, and many other organs in the human body. It can also break down into other chemicals known to cause cancer in humans, including vinyl chloride. As well, a recent study found “circumstantial” evidence linking TCE to the doubling of global Parkinson’s disease diagnoses over the past 30 years
TCE can be found in the drinking water of 19 million people, according to the Environmental Working Group.
The EPA has recently proposed banning all uses of TCE, but the chemical industry is fighting the move. The American Chemistry Council asserts TCE is valuable for many industrial uses.
Battles brew over radioactive wastewater discharge from shuttered nuclear plants
By Dana Drugmand
An effort by New York to ban radioactive waste from polluting the Hudson River has embroiled the state in a bitter legal battle emblematic of challenges facing communities across the country as they wrestle with what to do with the waste from shuttered nuclear power plants.
At the heart of the matter in New York is a law enacted last August that aims to block plans by Holtec International to discharge more than one million gallons of radioactive wastewater into the river during the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. The company sued the state in April, arguing that the discharge was allowed under federal regulations, which preempt state regulation.
The state filed a countersuit, asking the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss Holtec’s claims and validating the state new.
The United States has long had the largest nuclear power plant fleet in the world, with nuclear power accounting for roughly 20% of annual electricity generation from the late 1980s into 2020, according to the US Congressional Research Service. There are currently more than 90 commercial nuclear reactors in operation at 54 nuclear power plants in 28 states. But many have been closed over the last decade, with more scheduled for closure, due to economic challenges and battles with environmental and public health advocates who cite a number of risks associated with the facilities.
The battlegrounds extend far beyond New York. Holtec is facing similar community opposition to its plan to discharge radioactive wastewater from the decommissioning Pilgrim nuclear plant in eastern Massachusetts into Cape Cod Bay, for instance.
“It’s very clear no one wants this radioactive waste in the water,” said Santosh Nandabalan, an organizer with Food & Water Watch who campaigns against the radioactive wastewater dumping. “I think Holtec needs to get with the program now that there’s a law, and we’re going to hold them accountable to it by continuing to use this people power to ensure our Hudson River does not become a dumping ground.”
Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien told The New Lede that Holtec’s goal is to “safely decommission these plants and return the property to be economic engines for the communities that they reside in.” He said the company has “been open and forthright… answering questions as they have arisen.”
Opponents to discharging the radioactive wastewater, according to O’Brien, are trying to “push fear over facts.” He said the “reality [is] that you get more radiation from ingesting a banana or brasil nuts that you would from discharge.”
“Taking on Big Oil”; Vermont enacts Climate Superfund Act
By Dana Drugmand
Vermont has enacted a first-in-the-nation law that holds major fossil fuel companies financially responsible for the climate pollution associated with their products, a move applauded by environmental advocates.
Following passage by the legislature earlier this month, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law on Thursday without his signature. He cited several concerns in a letter to the state senate secretary, warning that “Taking on Big Oil should not be taken lightly.”
The measure, dubbed the Climate Superfund Act, aims to recover climate-related costs incurred by the state from large oil and gas companies whose production of carbon-based fuels ultimately resulted in over a billion metric tons of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions between 1995 and 2024 – pollution that is wreaking havoc on communities across the country in the form of deadly heat waves, catastrophic flooding and storms, and other extreme weather events.
Vermont experienced its worst flooding in nearly a century last summer when heavy rains caused rivers to overflow their banks, wiping out floodplain crops, washing out roads and bridges, and damaging homes and small businesses throughout the state.
“In order to remedy the problems caused by washed out roads and houses, downed electrical wires, damaged crops, and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also have to contribute to fixing the problem they caused,” Vermont state representative Amy Sheldon of Middlebury said from the House floor on May 3.
In passing the new law, Vermont is taking the first step in shifting some of the cost burden of responding and adapting to such climate-related disasters from taxpayers and onto the corporate polluters whose products are driving climate breakdown, according to environmental advocacy groups.
“The ‘polluter pays’ principle is the bedrock of the environmental movement,” said Johanna Miller, energy and climate program director at the Vermont Natural Resources Council. “With the enactment of the Climate Superfund Act, Vermont is demonstrating that it values Vermonters and their pocketbooks over Big Oil profits.”
Paraquat ban stays alive, advances in California
By Carey Gillam
A proposal to ban the weed killing chemical paraquat cleared the California State Assembly last week and now faces a fight in the State Senate over what would be the first such ban in the country.
The ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, outlawing the “use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce” of any pesticide product that contains paraquat. The bill provides for a process that allows state regulators to reevaluate paraquat and potentially reapprove it with or without new restrictions.
A chief concern cited by backers of the bill is research linking chronic paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease, an incurable and debilitating brain disease considered a top cause of death in the United States.
The final vote in the Assembly was 46-16 in favor of the bill, but opposition is expected to be stronger in the Senate, according to staffers with the office of Assemblymember Laura Friedman, who introduced the measure. California’s Senate Policy Committee is expected to take it up sometime before July 4, they said.
Friedman partnered with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to introduce the proposed ban. An EWG analysis found that paraquat is disproportionately sprayed in areas of California largely inhabited by Latino farmworkers and their families.
The action to ban paraquat in California comes as several thousand farmers, agricultural workers and others are suing paraquat maker Syngenta, alleging they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat.
Postcard from California: Are corporate “climate offsets” just greenwashing?
By Bill Walker
Apple touts the newest model of the Apple Watch as its first “carbon neutral” product – made with “100% clean energy” and “recycled and renewable materials” and shipped by “lower-carbon modes” instead of by air. But a close look at the watch’s environmental specs shows that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in its manufacturing and supply chain only goes so far.
More than one-fifth of the claimed savings in emissions are attributed to Apple’s purchase of so-called climate offsets, including shares in a project to plant eucalyptus timber plantations in eastern Paraguay, far from its Silicon Valley headquarters or its factories in China.
The project’s backers say the climate offsets it is buying reflect a reduction in eastern Paraguay’s emissions from cattle ranching, a leading source of planet-heating methane. But human rights groups say the scheme is driving peasant farmers from their land for little actual climate gain as most of the newly planted trees will be harvested quickly for consumer products.
Apple is but one of many corporate giants that has pledged to cut its company-wide emissions to “net zero” by 2030, joined by Google, Disney, Netflix and many more brands.
Even ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron – the multinational oil companies that are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the last decade – say they will be net zero by 2050.
According to the nonprofit Net Zero Tracker, more than 1,000 of the world’s largest companies have publicly declared goals of net zero by midcentury or before.
To get there, most plan to claim their purchases of climate offsets, also known as carbon credits, as emissions reductions. Through exchanges called verifiers or certifiers, companies buy, sell and trade shares in schemes that promise to reduce emissions, supposedly offsetting the climate pollution the companies can’t, or won’t, eliminate from their own operations.
US regulator accused of “egregious” misconduct in PFAS testing of pesticides
By Carey Gillam
Documents obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate the agency may have presented false information to the public about testing for harmful contaminants in pesticides, according to allegations being made by a watchdog group and a former EPA research fellow.
The claims come almost a year to the day after the EPA issued a May 2023 press release that stated the agency found no per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in testing of samples of certain insecticide products. The press release contradicted a published study by the former EPA researcher that had reported finding PFAS in the same pesticide products.
PFAS contamination is a hot topic in environmental and public health circles because certain types of PFAS are known to be very hazardous for human health, and world governments and public health advocates are pushing to sharply limit exposure to these types of chemicals. Accurate testing for PFAS contamination is key to regulating exposure, making the accuracy and transparency of EPA testing a critical issue.
The allegations that the EPA incorrectly reported some PFAS test results were made Tuesday by the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), led by former EPA employees.
PEER Director of Scientific Policy Kyla Bennett said that the organization obtained pesticide product testing data from the EPA through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The documents they received back from the EPA showed the agency had indeed found PFAS in the tested products, directly contradicting the press release the agency had issued.
“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Bennett. “You don’t get to just ignore the stuff that doesn’t support your hypothesis. That is not science. That is corruption. I can only think that they were getting pressure from pesticide companies.”
Joining in the allegations is environmental toxicologist Steven Lasee, who authored the 2022 study that the EPA challenged. Lasee is a consultant for state and federal government agencies on PFAS contamination projects and participated as a research fellow for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development from February 2021 to February 2023.
Norfolk Southern agrees to $310 million settlement over Ohio train derailment
By Shannon Kelleher
Norfolk Southern Corp. on Thursday announced it will pay more than $300 million to resolve investigations by three US agencies in the aftermath of a catastrophic train derailment last year that contaminated the town of East Palestine, Ohio with toxic chemicals.
The settlement resolves “all claims and investigations” by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the US Department of Interior arising from the February 2023 derailment in which 38 train cars carrying vinyl chloride and other hazardous chemicals ran off the tracks in northeastern Ohio.
The EPA said the company had agreed to the following:
Spending $235 million on past and future cleanup costs
Paying a $15 million civil penalty for violations of the Clean Water Act
Paying $25 million for a 20-year community health program that includes medical monitoring and mental health services.
Spending approximately $15 million to implement long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface water for a period of 10 years.
Paying $15 million for a private drinking water monitoring fund that will continue the existing private drinking water well monitoring program for 10 years.
Paying an estimated $6 million to implement several environmental remediation projects.
Norfolk Southern additionally said it would repay the EPA $57 million for response expenses and will spend $244 million on safety initiatives. These will include new monitoring devices along its tracks and better alarms for detecting overheated wheel bearings, according to the EPA.
“We are very, very pleased that Norfolk Southern has agreed to settlement terms that hold them accountable for disrupting the lives of the people of East Palestine, and help to bring some justice and a path towards closure to those who were affected by this disaster,” Rebecca Chattin Lutzko, interim US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said during a press conference on Thursday. “This settlement communicates to other, similar companies that they must take full responsibility for their actions.”
California paraquat ban moves forward
By Carey Gillam
California has moved a step closer to banning the controversial weed killing chemical paraquat after a key state legislative committee on Thursday allowed the measure to proceed.
The ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, outlawing the “use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce” of any pesticide product that contains paraquat. The bill provides for a process that allows state regulators to reevaluate paraquat and potentially reapprove it with or without new restrictions.
A chief concern cited by backers of the bill is research linking chronic paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease, an incurable and debilitating brain disease considered a top cause of death in the United States.
Several thousand farmers, agricultural workers and others are suing paraquat maker Syngenta, alleging they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat.
“California is the breadbasket of the nation. Farm workers put food on our table, and we should do everything we can to make their jobs safer,” California Assemblymember Laura Friedman said. “No one should run the risk of chemical exposure on the job leading to their contracting Parkinson’s disease.”
Friedman, who partnered with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to introduce the measure, said it passed “not only because banning paraquat is the right thing to do,” but also because there are “readily available, safer, affordable alternatives.”
The movement of the bill out of the appropriations committee this week now sets it up for a vote by the full Assembly next week. A vote has to be completed by Friday, May 24, in order for the measure to be moved to the state Senate for consideration. A majority of 80 Assembly members is needed to keep the bill alive.
New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains
By Barbara Reina and Carey Gillam
Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.
But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.
There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.
“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-oldmother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area’s contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”
The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.
In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.