FDA-approved PFAS and Drinking Water – Q&A on Textile Mills and Environmental Permits

Published on by in Academic

FDA-approved PFAS and Drinking Water – Q&A on Textile Mills and Environmental Permits

Tom Neltner presents you Q&A on textile mills and environmental permits

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director, and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Independent Consultant

cloth_fabric_textile_silk_cotton_design_tailor_shop-646851.jpg!d

Representative image, Source: PxHere

In May 2018, we released a  blog highlighting paper mills  as a potentially significant source of  drinking water contamination  from 14 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved poly- and per-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) used to greaseproof paper. We showed that wastewater discharge could result in PFAS concentrations in rivers in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s  70 parts per trillion (ppt) health advisory  level for drinking water contamination for PFOA and PFOS, the most studied of the PFASs. We identified  269 paper mills  with discharge permits that warrant investigation. Readers of the blog have asked some important questions highlighted below. As with most issues involving PFAS, there are many gaps in what we know. Based on the information provided in response to EDF’s Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) request  to FDA, we hope to fill in some of the gaps and highlight key information needed to better understand the risks of PFASs.  

Question 1: Could textile mills also be a source of PFASs in drinking water?

The answer is “probably.” The FDA-approved PFASs can be used in coating paper that contacts food to repel oil, grease, and water. The same or similar FDA-approved PFASs may be used for non-food uses such as coating textiles to resist stains and repel water.

The processes used to coat paper and textiles differ in some aspects that could affect a mill’s environmental releases. For paper, the PFASs are typically added to the wet wood fibers to be made into paper. In contrast, we understand that PFASs are applied to textiles after the water is removed. Therefore, we would suspect that the amount of PFASs, whether as polymers or impurities, released with the wastewater of a textile mill would be lower compared to that of a typical paper mill. However, there is very little data available to assess the potential environmental release of PFASs from textile mills. Unlike with FDA approvals, there is no environmental review of a chemical’s use in non-food consumer products.[1] So, it would be worthwhile to investigate textile mills for use of PFASs in addition to looking at paper mills.

Using an EPA database[2], we identified 66 textile mills (PDF and EXCEL) in the US, two thirds of which are located in North and South Carolina. Based on wastewater flow, the two largest mills are both operated by Milliken. Its largest facility is in Greenville, South Carolina with a water discharge of 72 million gallons per day (MGD). The second largest is in Bacon, Georgia with a water discharge of 15 MGD. DuPont’s Old Hickory facility, near Nashville, Tennessee, had the third greatest flow at 10 MGD. We do not know whether any of the facilities use and discharge FDA-approved PFASs.

Question 2: Would an environmental permit writer be alerted to the presence of FDA-approved PFAS in wastewater discharge?

The answer is “no.” EPA has not added any PFAS to either the CWA’s Section 311 Hazardous Substance List or Section 307 Toxic Pollutant List, which would trigger required reporting or chemical testing. Since PFASs are not on either of these lists, a facility discharging wastewater to surface water does not need to notify the permit writer of the presence of PFASs when applying for or renewing its Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These permits must be renewed every five years.

To renew an NPDES permit, the facility must submit a Form 2C. A new facility must submit Form 2D. These forms provide the basis of the regulators review and approval of a permit. Absent any reporting or testing alerts, a permit reviewer would be unlikely to evaluate the potential environmental and public health impacts of the discharge and set appropriate limits.

In addition, chemicals on the CWA’s hazardous substance list are subject to significant release reporting and liability for cleanup costs. If a company notifies the state in its permit application that the chemical on the hazardous substance list may be present in the discharge, they can get an exemption from these release reporting and liability risks (also known as a permit shield).

This gap is not unique to NPDES permits. A manufacturer discharging wastewater to a municipal sewage treatment plant (STP) would not be obligated to notify the STP operator (as they would with some other chemicals) because no PFAS is on the CWA lists. Similarly, air pollution permits would not cover PFASs, because the chemicals are not on lists of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.

 

Read Full Q&A on: EDF

Media

Taxonomy