“EPA Sounds the Alarm: Sewage Sludge’s ‘Forever Chemicals’ Linked to Cancer Threat”

Subscribe to The Brief, the daily newsletter from The Texas Tribune that keeps readers informed about the most significant Texas news.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a long-anticipated risk evaluation regarding PFAS in sewage sludge, revealing that the associated risks are substantially higher than previously thought, potentially threatening human health.

Known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS comprise a group of chemicals recognized for their severe health and environmental effects. They are utilized in a variety of consumer goods and can easily enter urban wastewater systems, leading to contamination of biosolids generated from sewage, which are often transformed into fertilizer marketed to farmers and ranchers as a more economical substitute for chemical fertilizers.

For many years, fertilizers derived from sewage have been endorsed as an eco-friendly method of recycling municipal waste. The EPA has even supported their application, but now it is alerting that biosolids may carry certain cancer risks. The evaluation disclosed that, in some cases, the risks significantly surpassed the agency’s acceptable limits “by several orders of magnitude” concerning human health.

“This draft assessment delivers critical information that can guide future actions by federal and state entities, as well as measures that wastewater systems, farmers, and other stakeholders can implement to safeguard individuals from PFAS exposure while ensuring that American industry continues to support our nation’s food and energy needs,” stated Jane Nishida, the acting administrator of the EPA.

Based on the EPA’s assessment, approximately 56% of the country’s sewage sludge is distributed on agricultural fields, golf courses, and residential lawns and gardens. It remains uncertain how much of this sludge contains PFAS and if any present levels are hazardous.

Although the EPA has established limits for specific PFAS in drinking water, there are no mandates to test biosolids for these chemicals or to inform farmers and ranchers that they could inadvertently be employing contaminated fertilizer derived from biosolids on their land.

The EPA will accept public feedback on the draft risk evaluation for a period of 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register and plans to issue a final version after considering public comments and making necessary amendments. The agency stated that it will leverage the findings to formulate guidelines aimed at minimizing PFAS exposure risks.

Last year, the Tribune reported that farmers in Johnson County filed a lawsuit against a fertilizer company, claiming that it sold fertilizers derived from PFAS-laden municipal waste that poisoned their land and resulted in the death of their livestock. The farmers also initiated legal action against the EPA, alleging that the agency failed to impose restrictions on PFAS in biosolids while being aware of the health threats posed by these chemicals. The farmers assert that contamination has hindered their ability to sustain their livelihoods.

“This issue is being addressed all over the nation daily, and it’s a disaster unfolding. I’m shocked it has taken such a long time for anyone to take notice,” expressed Tony Coleman, a farmer in Johnson County who has suffered the loss of numerous cattle.

Similar occurrences have been reported across the nation as farmers and ranchers who unknowingly applied PFAS-contaminated fertilizers made from sewage sludge on their properties have been compelled to shut down after realizing their lands and livestock are tainted.

Certain states, including Maine and Michigan, have implemented measures to restrict PFAS in biosolids. Texas has yet to undertake similar steps, although several rural counties have enacted resolutions urging farmers to cease the use of biosolids until further testing is performed.

In the meantime, state Rep. Helen Kerwin of Johnson County has proposed legislation mandating monthly PFAS testing of products containing biosolids while imposing penalties on offenders, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently initiated legal action against chemical corporations 3M and DuPont, accusing them of misleading the public regarding the dangers of PFAS.

The EPA’s evaluation, intended to assess health risks to humans and livestock, modeled scenarios wherein sewage sludge containing as little as 1 part per billion of PFOA or PFOS — two of the most commonly used forever chemicals — was applied to land. In particular scenarios, it found that even a solitary application of sewage sludge could lead to human health risks that exceed the EPA’s cancer risk threshold of 1 in 100,000, indicating that for every 100,000 individuals exposed, one additional case of cancer could arise.

The report further noted that exposure risks can differ from farm to farm, but key factors exacerbating PFAS contamination include the application frequency of sludge, the quantity applied, and regional climatic conditions.

The analysis conducted by the EPA indicated that the overall food supply isn’t endangered by the usage of biosolids containing PFOA or PFOS; however, it acknowledges that certain “hot spots” and particular farming practices may encounter heightened levels of these chemicals if contaminated sludge has been utilized. According to the agency’s evaluation, the individuals most at risk are those who consume milk from pasture-raised cows fed with PFAS-tainted soil and water, fish from lakes affected by PFAS-contaminated runoff, and beef or eggs derived from hens or cattle raised in PFAS-affected pastures.

“This truly validates what these affected individuals already understand; there is a contamination issue occurring, and we must ensure that the farmers in Johnson County who are impacted can obtain the cleanup funds they require from those responsible for creating the issue initially,” remarked Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst specializing in PFAS with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.