No Surprise: PFAS Found Near Wastewater Treatment Plants & Biosolid-Applied Lands
A Sliver Of Hope: New Research Says Certain Gut Microbes May Offer Protection From PFAS | Plus, Learn How One Small VA Town Fought a Huge Data Center
A new analysis from Waterkeeper Alliance warns that 98 percent of tested waterways across 19 states contain toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and in particular downstream from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and sites where biosolids have been applied.
Listen, we’ve known we have a huge PFAS problem, and now we have more data to prove it. That’s a good thing.
In fact, elevated levels of PFAS were detected at 95 percent of sites located downstream from WWTPs, while 80 percent of sampled sites downstream from biosolids application fields were also contaminated.
Land application of biosolids refers to the spraying, spreading, incorporation, or injection of sewage sludge (the EPA typically uses the term biosolids) into or onto the land to either condition the soil or fertilize crops or vegetation grown in the soil.
The new report, which was created in partnership with local Waterkeeper groups and the Hispanic Access Foundation, builds on the 2022 Phase I report, which found PFAS contamination in 83 percent of tested U.S. rivers, lakes, and streams.
The more we test, the more we find….
The Phase II report looked specifically at sites downstream from permitted biosolids application fields and WWTPs in disproportionately impacted communities in 19 states.
“There is no denying that PFAS contamination is a national crisis,” Marc Yaggi, CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance said in a statement. “Our latest sampling confirms that it’s widespread and persistent, threatening waterways and public health across the country.”
Vanessa Muñoz, waterways program manager at Hispanic Access Foundation added in the statement that “what is often overlooked is who is being exposed to it and why, and unfortunately Latino and other communities of color are disproportionately faced to bear the burden.”
These findings build upon a 2023 study led by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which found that people who live in communities with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic/Latino residents are more likely to be exposed to harmful levels of PFAS in their water supplies than people living in other communities. The researchers connected this finding to the disproportionate siting of sources of environmental pollution including PFAS contamination such as major manufacturers, airports, military bases, wastewater treatment plants, and landfills that are typically located near watersheds serving these communities.
The most detected PFAS found:
WWTPs: PFOA, PFHxA, PFBS, PFPeA, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFOS.
Biosolids: PFBA, PFBS, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA.
While we do have national drinking water standards for the two main types of PFAS (PFOA and PFOS), we have a gap in federal limits for PFAS in biosolids despite the EPA knowing of its presence since at least 2003. In 2023, EPA estimated that 60 percent of biosolids were land-applied for agriculture, reclamation, or other uses with 31 percent applied to U.S. agricultural land.
Some states like Maine, Connecticut, and Michigan have placed bans or limits on the use of land application of biosolids, but it’s a motley mix of regulations.
In 2024, the EPA said it has no obligation to regulate PFAS in biosolids in a federal lawsuit brought by farmers in Texas, alleging they have been harmed by PFAS contamination from the spreading of biosolids on agricultural land.
“Currently, there is little accountability for PFAS entering our environment and water through poorly regulated pathways,” Yaggi said. “American communities are exposed daily, often unknowingly, and many face serious, disproportionate health risks. The tools to address this crisis exist, but the political will is lacking. We cannot afford more watered-down regulations and loopholes for industrial source polluters. The science is clear: EPA and lawmakers must act decisively, and with urgency, in the public’s interest.”
This new data is on top of recent research that found PFAS in private wells throughout Pennsylvania.
Waterkeeper Alliance urges EPA and lawmakers at all levels to:
Establish and enforce federal standards for PFAS in drinking water and surface water discharges under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act
Prohibit the land application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids
Implement class-based regulation of PFAS instead of individual compounds to help address the health risks posed by exposure to multiple PFAS chemicals, prevent harmful substitutions, and streamline monitoring, treatment, and enforcement efforts
Prioritize funding for PFAS monitoring and the deployment of treatment technologies to protect all communities, especially those disproportionately impacted by forever chemicals and other forms of pollution.
The latest Environmental Protection Agency data show that more than 158 million Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have PFAS in their drinking water.
You can use EWG’s Tap Water Database and search by ZIP code to see reports from your water utility about contaminants they’ve detected or use this interactive PFAS map as another tool to see where these chemicals contaminate drinking water. Many locations exceed the EPA’s 2024 standards of 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, two of the most well-studied types of PFAS.
If you get your drinking water from a private well, you may want to test your water to find out exactly what’s in it. You can contact a state-certified lab for professional analysis. Some counties may offer free or discounted tests, so check with local authorities first. We also like the test kits from Tap Score, if you have the means to work with them.
Both carbon-based and RO water filters can help reduce PFAS in your drinking water.
To read the full report from Waterkeeper Alliance, go here.
Gut Instincts
Scientists have discovered that certain species of microbe found in the human gut can absorb PFAS, and that boosting these species in our gut microbiome could help protect us from the harmful effects of PFAS.
The new study, conducted by scientists at the University of Cambridge, identified a family of bacterial species, found naturally in the human gut, that absorb various PFAS molecules from their surroundings.
This research shows the first evidence that our gut microbiome could play a helpful role in removing toxic PFAS chemicals from our body, but it hasn’t been tested in humans.
That’s the next step. Researchers want to use their discovery to create probiotic supplements that can boost the levels of these helpful microbes in the gut, to protect against the toxic effects of PFAS.
“Given the scale of the problem of PFAS ‘forever chemicals,’ particularly their effects on human health, it’s concerning that so little is being done about removing these from our bodies,” Dr Kiran Patil in the University of Cambridge’s MRC Toxicology Unit and senior author of the report said in a statement.
“We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells. Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects.”
This research offers new hope because as readers of this newsletter know: PFAS is in everything and already in us. From waterproof clothing and non-stick pans to lipsticks and food packaging, PFAS is hard to avoid and takes thousands of years to break down.
“The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now,” said Dr Indra Roux, a researcher at the University of Cambridge’s MRC Toxicology Unit and a co-author of the study. “We haven’t found a way to destroy PFAS, but our findings open the possibility of developing ways to get them out of our bodies where they do the most harm.”
It’s good to know that researchers are approaching the PFAS problem from a new angle. As we wait for regulations and enforcement to catch up, we may have more ways to protect ourselves.
Data Centers Continue To Strain Power & Water Resources
This massive industry is growing extremely fast, requiring huge amounts of energy, land, and water to operate. In Virginia, it’s big business.
For local governments, attracting data centers to their municipalities means a financial boon. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said in 2024 that Virginia’s existing data centers brought in $1 billion in tax revenue.
When data centers are proposed in Virginia, their applications are approved by the county, city, or town they plan to build them.
But recently a rural community in Southern Virginia fought one of the country’s biggest gas-powered data centers—and won.
“Northern Virginia has been dubbed the “Data Center Capital of the World,” with 507 data centers located north of Richmond, Virginia, a higher concentration than in any other state or country,” writes Julia Tilton for The Daily Yonder. “Artificial intelligence (AI) is driving a sharp increase in power demand from data centers, which are critical for powering the large language models on which the technology is built. These giant buildings house the computers and servers necessary to store and send information, and they can consume millions of gallons of water each day.”
She writes about the trend to develop data centers in rural areas across the country, particularly in the Southeast. Proposed data center campuses in Bessemer, Alabama, Davis, West Virginia, and Oldham County, Kentucky have all drawn local opposition; a common thread is developers limiting public access to information about the projects.
In Pittsylvania County, Virginia, residents said persistent engagement with local government was the key to pushing back on building a huge new data center in their area.
Read the full story here.
What do you think about this new PFAS research and a potential probiotic that could help your body shed some of these toxic compounds? Do you want us to keep covering data centers? Tell us what you think in the comments below.
I like to hear stories of small towns winning against corporations and big business re data centers or anything else that ruins the land/water. Please post more about that too.
In the article, there is mention of an effort to block the “land application of biosolids” (contaminated with PFAS). Then where do they propose putting biosolids? PFAS manufacturing needs to stop.