Here & Now

Is Any Amount of PFAS Safe?

Zac Schultz:

Earlier this week, a legislative committee allowed new regulations for PFAS contamination to go into effect. A day later, the Environmental Protection Agency released new federal recommendations on PFAS that show Wisconsins new standard is not nearly strong enough to protect human health. Joining us now is Dr. Beth Neary,co-president of the Wisconsin Environmental Health Network. Thanks for your time.

Beth Neary:

Good evening.

Zac Schultz:

Wisconsins new standard on PFAS is 70 parts per trillion for drinking water which matches the old federal recommendation but the EPA’s new standard for one of these so-called forever chemicals is .004 parts per trillion. For those of us that don’t work in parts per trillion, just how big of a difference is that?

Beth Neary:

That’s quite a big difference. So let me but parts her trillion in perspective for you. If I dropped a drop or two of water in an Olympic sized pool, that’s a part per trillion. So what this is saying is this chemical — this toxin is actually a chemical, is very dangerous at very, very low levels.

Zac Schultz:

Manufacturers and chemical companies are opposed to these standards at any level. Saying it will cost too much to comply or it may not even be possible to reach these standards. Are those realistic concerns?

Beth Neary:

Yes, they’re realistic concerns but the reason the EPA came out with this advisory, this has no legal implications to it at this point. It’s an advisory. They’re saying the 70 parts per trillion was an advisory, that’s the old advisory from 2016 that Wisconsin was properly following. So Wisconsin was doing everything it could do. But based on new science, they have come to the conclusion that the 70 was far too high and they need to set lower levels. But yes, the challenge is going to be how do we reach these levels. And that’s yet to be determined.

Zac Schultz:

Now, your specialty is in pediatrics. What does exposure to these contaminants do to children?

Beth Neary:

Okay. Specifically, over time, we’ve learned that the impact of these chemicals are that they can interfere with the body’s natural hormones, which act at very small levels, too. It can increase cholesterol levels. It can increase the risk of certain cancers. And in children, some recent studies show it’s affecting the immune system, to the point where children may not be responding properly to some vaccines and as far as children, it can have effect on developmental disabilities. In pregnancy, women who are exposed can have higher blood pressure and have lower birth weight children.

Zac Schultz:

Now, there are a number of communities across Wisconsin that have found levels of PFAS in their drinking water. Are they doing enough? Can they do enough? What should people who are hearing this information do if they know that there’s PFAS in their faucet?

Beth Neary:

For example, let’s look at Marinette. They have had a problem there and the DNR has stepped up and held the feet of the polluters to provide water for the people in Marinette. In French Island, we also have had a number of people exposed. But what we really need to do is test more. We need to know where the problem is and how to act on it. But the first thing we need to do is test all across the state. The city of Madison has tested all their municipal wells and I would anticipate municipal wells across the country are going to start testing before we can act.

Zac Schultz:

We’ve also heard about a lawsuit filed by Dane County against the Wisconsin DNR because of these new standards and Dane County is typically known as one of the more progressive counties. If they’re suing, saying they can’t have this kind of level enforcement, what does that say for the rest of the state meeting these new standards?

Beth Neary:

You hit on a very difficult situation. We know that many of the companies who have made these chemicals over the years have made quite a bit of money from the use of these chemicals. So I think it shouldn’t be on the onus of the municipalities or the taxpayers. It should be on the onus of the manufacturers to fund the cleanup. If you mess it up, clean it up.

Zac Schultz:

There’s new types of chemicals that are part of this PFAS family and they have their own recommendations that are quite a bit higher than the new federal level, the federal suggestions. What do we know about them and what should we be monitoring there?

Beth Neary:

What we know about some of the substitute chemicals are they do have properties that are very similar to the ones that they are replacing. And that’s showing up in some of the studies, too. But what people listening are going to say, what can I do as an individual? What can you do as an individual is to ask your municipality to test for it and then what can you personally do? You can use water filters. We do know filters work temporarily. But yes, we are looking at a situation that’s going to require many minds to come in and help us figure out how do we clean this up. But that gets at something else. We’re involved in cleanup. That’s two parts. The other part is we need to stop the flow of these chemicals into the environment. So we need to stop what I call nonessential uses of these chemicals. So do we need to have a fry pan that’s nonstick? Not necessarily. So there are some nonessential uses of these chemicals that we could eliminate from society.

Zac Schultz:

Thanks for your time today, doctor.

Beth Neary:

You’re welcome. Thank you for having me.