Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a class of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1950s to manufacture a wide range of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, clothes and electronics. PFAS have also been described as “forever chemicals” because they easily disperse and persist in the environment, where they’ve been found in drinking water, soil, air and even the food supply.
This week, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality opened public comment on its proposed rulemaking to regulate six types of PFAS compounds, adding them to the list of more than 800 hazardous substances the agency already regulates. Exposure to certain levels of PFAS may increase the risk for some types of cancer, lead to developmental delays in children, among other adverse health effects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last April, the EPA designated two PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances and created the first-ever, national drinking water standard for six PFAS chemicals.
Sarah Van Glubt is a cleanup project manager for the Oregon DEQ. She joins us to share what the proposed PFAS regulations would allow for, including testing and cleanup of possible contamination sites.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s to manufacture a gigantic range of products. They’ve been described as “forever chemicals” because they easily disperse and persist in the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to these chemicals may increase the risk for some types of cancer and developmental delays in children. Now, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is planning to add six types of PFAS to the list of hazardous substances that it regulates. Public comment on the proposed rules opened this week.
Sarah Van Glubt is a cleanup project manager for Oregon DEQ. She joins us now. It’s great to have you on Think Out Loud.
Sarah Van Glubt: Hi, thanks for having me.
Miller: So, your agency is going to be adding six PFAS to the list of more than 800 substances that you already regulate. Why these six particular chemicals?
Van Glubt: So these six PFAS are some of the best studied and understood PFAS compounds. They have really well-established toxicity research, and they’re pretty commonly detected in the environment. And we partly landed on this number because of input we received from our rulemaking advisory committee. So we convened a committee of 13 people that had a wide range of interests and backgrounds, and represented various groups that could be impacted by this rulemaking in different ways. The majority of them supported and recommended that we list these six compounds. Two of these are federal hazardous substances, and all six have EPA-established drinking water standards that public water systems will be required to comply with. So we agreed that it would be more protective of supporting a cleaner environment, and keeping our communities and ecosystems healthy.
Miller: How many more are out there that either were on the bubble or were possible, just to give us a sense for the scale of what’s not being talked about right now in Oregon?
Van Glubt: Do you mean the number of PFAS compounds?
Miller: Of other PFAS compounds, which there is reason to believe could have serious health effects in humans.
Van Glubt: Yeah, the total universe of PFAS compounds is several thousand of individual compounds. I’ve heard estimates up to about 15,000, though the estimates do vary a little bit because there’s so many of them. And you’re right. We do have some research indicating that other PFAS, and perhaps the entire chemical class, have some toxic characteristics. And we know that some other compounds have similar behaviors in the environment as the six we’re proposing to list, in that they can be very mobile in the environment, and very persistent and difficult to break down.
That said, we don’t currently have enough information to investigate and clean up all PFAS compounds, which is what this rulemaking is really relevant to. We don’t have analytical methods for all PFAS or screening levels for all PFAS, but that said, we know there’s a lot of great research coming out about PFAS all the time that we are tracking. And like I said, the majority of our advisory committee did support listing these six compounds. Some did recommend more; some recommended that we only list a couple of them.
So we landed on this number in part because of their feedback. But I do want to note that, like you said, we’re open for public comment and this is something we would really love people’s feedback on – what number of compounds and what compounds are the most appropriate for us to list?
Miller: What would the current proposed rules do?
Van Glubt: This rulemaking is really targeting, addressing releases to the environment. So our cleanup program would be most impacted by this rulemaking at DEQ. And the purpose of the program is, at its core, to protect people and the environment from releases of hazardous substances to the environment. We basically assess sites that are either known or suspected to be contaminated. We evaluate what kind of risk any sort of releases may be posing to nearby people, wildlife or ecosystems. And if there is risk, we oversee clean up actions to address that risk and make sure people aren’t being exposed.
Miller: I want to go back to the rulemaking – as you said, you welcome public comment. I’m just thinking, for me personally, I can read articles about health risks from these chemicals, and I have. But I’m largely ignorant about chemistry, epidemiology and toxicity. I’m just an Oregonian who wants you to keep me safe. I know that rulemaking is just a part of all rules and public comment is, but how valuable is it in a case like this where we need experts to look at complex scientific findings and make good policy?
Van Glubt: You’re right, the science around PFAS can be very complicated, especially since there’s so many of them. There’s a lot of new research coming out in the last number of years, so our understanding is really quickly evolving around these compounds. For our advisory committee, for example, we really wanted to make sure to have some experts in the academic research world as well, and people who really understand some of that science. And we do largely lean on our internal staff as well at DEQ. We have some great toxicologists, hydrologists and engineers who are looking at these sorts of issues.
I hear you. Our goal, ultimately, in our clean up program … We really take our job seriously in protecting human health and the environment, and we want to make sure we’re setting ourselves up for success in the rules that we have in place. And this rulemaking is so important because without this rulemaking and without listing these compounds, we’re not able to require parties who may have caused contamination to address that contamination. So we really want to make sure we have rules in place so that the burdens associated with dealing with adverse health impacts or any sort of testing or treatment requirements aren’t falling on our communities.
Miller: How much can be done to mitigate once these chemicals are found? They’re known colloquially as “forever chemicals,” so how much can be done to clean them up?
Van Glubt: We have a number of existing technologies that we’ve used for many other types of contaminants that can also be applied to PFAS. And the approach really depends on the specific site and its characteristics, but generally there’s a few buckets of cleanup actions. One would be removal. So something like excavation, physically digging up contamination and removing it, so that people and wildlife aren’t exposed. We have some treatment methods, especially for water. Something like granular activated carbon can be used to filter water and it doesn’t destroy the chemicals, but it removes it and captures them from the water.
The last kind of overall category would be something like isolation. So if we can’t get rid of all of the contamination out of site, which sometimes we can’t because of the site complexity, we can physically isolate that contamination to prevent anyone from coming into contact with it. So something like a cap at the land surface, like paving a site can be really useful.
So it’s all about addressing the contamination that’s there and making sure that exposure risks to people in the environment are being addressed.
Miller: As you noted last year, the EPA added some PFAS to its list of federally-regulated hazardous substances and said that states have to test for them in drinking water systems. That’s separate from what you’re talking about here. The current EPA though, has been very clear that what it cares about most is environmental deregulation. Will that have an effect on state level rules?
Van Glubt: For the rulemaking we’re talking about here, the answer is no. Our rulemaking is completely separate from federal actions and we’re not tied to what is happening at the federal level. So, there are kind of two components. We need this rulemaking. Even though the EPA listed some of these as hazardous substances, we still need to do this for Oregon in order for us to be able to take action and clean up these sites. But at the same time, if the federal rules do change and we have our own in place, there’s no impact to our rules. We’re still able to address these compounds in the same way.
So we’ve really recognized a need for this rulemaking and a need for these rules to be in place to be protective of Oregonians and our natural resources. And we’re very lucky that that will still be the case with these rules in place, regardless of what changes may or may not happen at the federal level.
Miller: PFAS can be found in countless consumer products: water, soil, air, food, human bodies, human fetuses, penguin eggs in Antarctica. The list goes on and on and on. What sites or or what venues are you most focused on in Oregon for these six chemicals?
Van Glubt: We have a number of industries and types of facilities that are associated with PFAS use and that are known to be more likely to be release points to the environment. All of these types of facilities we have in Oregon. So sites that have used firefighting foams that are pretty notorious for containing high concentrations of PFAS are a big one – places like airports, military installations and fire training facilities. Other types of industries are bulk fuel facilities, metal plating operations, electronics such as semiconductor manufacturing, and some paper products manufacturing.
So a big part of what’s important about this rulemaking is that we really need better information and data about these sources and potential release sites in Oregon. And it will enable us to gather more information so that we can really answer that question of where these sources are and what’s most important in Oregon. Most of our data right now is related to sites that have used those firefighting phones, but that doesn’t mean those other sources are important too, we just need more information.
Miller: Sarah Van Glubt, thanks very much.
Van Glubt: Thank you so much.
Miller: Sarah Van Glubt is a cleanup project manager for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.
