TalkingPFAS

Talking PFAS Episode 44 Show Description/Notes/Links INTRO: Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  If you are new to the podcast, I encourage you to have a binge listen, as the content is, of course, still very relevant today as attention, regulation and litigation regarding PFAS chemicals continues to accelerate.  Today’s discussion is an Interview with two guests who were training people at the CRC Care Risk to Remediation Masterclass in Newcastle from the 1-5 May, 2023. My guests are Paul Nathanail from Nottingham, England, Technical Director of LQM, which specialises in contaminated land management in England and around the world.   I have previously interview Paul before, when he was a keynote speaker at CRC Care International Clean Up Conference in Adelaide, South Australia.  You can hear that very important discussion in episode 37. My second guest is Scott Warner, from California, who is a geologist, and has specialised as a hydrogeologist studying and assessing groundwater conditions, for 40 years.  Scott is the Principal Hydrogeologist for the BBJ Group.   In early May I had the privilege of attending one of the training days at the CRC Care’s 4th Risk to Remediation Masterclass.  This course was held from the 1-5 May, 2023, at Newcastle (NSW), Australia.  I interviewed Paul and Scott at the end of a long week and a long day of very in depth training.  It is important to clarify that this was not a course that was solely dedicated to PFAS remediation but remediation in general, which included PFAS.  CRC Care provided me with this information following the event: “The CRC are Risk to Remediation Masterclass was a five-day course that provided participants with the cutting edge skills to manage and remediate contaminated sites in Australia and globally.  This course was developed in response to the critical need to build capacity to address the growing global contamination crisis. While technical lessons learned through the study of past projects an advantage of this course was the semi-structured discussions problem-solving and personal interactions that allowed participants to consider the many facets of modern contaminant site assessment and remedial design.  The course also discussed aspects of sustainable low impact remediation approaches, climate change considerations, policy and regulatory matters and economic considerations, all within the context of gaining and maintaining a social licence to operate.                                There were 75 delegates present, and the Masterclass 2023 was attended by delegates from Australia and from overseas.  The delegates were from a varied background and experience.  They were from Department of Defence, regulators for EPA VIC and EPA Tasmania, Federal Government, consultants and practitioners, academia, scientists, researchers and early career professionals.  And the overseas delegates were from Malaysia and South Africa.  Now to my discussion with Paul Nathanail from the UK and Scott Warner from California. Special thanks to CRC Care for allowing me to attend. LINKS:  Link to Scott Warner’s survey: https://forms.office.com/r/iSZdvnN6XS Link to Scott Warner’s Wiley paper: https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21753 Link to Scott Warner’s company BBJ Group: https://www.bbjgroup.com/ Link to Paul Nathanail company LQM: https://www.lqm.co.uk/pages/meet-the-team Link to CRC Care: https://crccare.com/ OUTRO:          (With Important PFAS News from Australia) I hope to bring you some information from the ALGA event that I attended at the end of April later in this season.   PFAS NEWS AUSTRALIA I have some big. Australia PFAS news.  You might have heard me mention a Super Class Action which is now being referred to as a Multi-Site PFAS Class Action.  The following information is largely taken from a Shine Lawyers media release, but not all is a direct quote. The applicants in the multi-site PFAS Class Action represented by Shine Lawyers have reached an ‘in principle’ agreement with the Commonwealth to settle the multi-site PFAS Contamination class action against the Department of Defence. These are residents from seven communities across Bullsbrook (WA), Richmond (NSW), Wagga Wagga (NSW), Wodonga/Bandiana (VIC), Edinburgh (SA), Darwin (NT), and Townsville (QLD).  Shine Lawyers state that those seven communities were set to head to the Federal Court for the start of a trial which would examine the Commonwealth’s alleged responsibility for the spread of PFAS chemicals from military bases across the country into neighboring communities soil and groundwater.   Shine lawyers fought to compensate residents living near these military bases after their properties lost value due to contamination caused by these toxic chemicals and the parties have agreed in principle on an amount of $132.7 million and the break-up of that amount is yet to be determined but it could include up to 30,000 people.  Shine Lawyers joint head of class actions Craig Allsop said while the news is positive the outcome is still subject to approval by the Federal Court.  Shine Lawyers will continue to pursue compensation for residents of Wreck Bay in the matter of Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council and Anor -v- the Commonwealth.  And Justice Lee ordered a further remediation in the Wreck Bay proceeding and stood the hearing down until the 29th of May. I hope to bring you more about the super class action in the future in the podcast.  And I encourage any of the residents who were involved in this class action and would like to share their PFAS story to please reach out to me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com If you have not subscribed to the podcast I encourage you to subscribe so that you will not miss an episode.  As always all information in today’s episode is copyright but please feel free to share the episode via email or social media or wherever you share your podcasts and please contact me for republishing permissions.  Thanks again for listening - I value your feedback and suggestions. Listening Tip:  I know most of my listeners prefer to listen on their mobile, and I personally like to listen to podcasts on my mobile with earbuds, but for some people this episode might be better to listen to on a desktop.  This is only if you don’t like very mild background noise from the nearby bingo that was happening outside the room we interviewed in at the event venue.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Show Notes: Talking PFAS with Peter Murphy, MD EPOC Enviro (OPEC Systems) regarding PFAS remediation using their SAFF Foam Fractionation Technology – Published Wed 26/4/2023 Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  If you are joining us for the first time a very big welcome. I encourage you to listen to past episodes, with a range of really excellent guests from around the world. Just before I introduce today’s guest, I encourage you to have a listen to Episode 42, which published yesterday.  It is an update of the US EPA's proposed regulations regarding  PFAS in drinking water.   If the proposed MCLs are approved they will become mandatory levels.  As discussed in last week’s episode the guidelines and regulatory limits for certain PFAS keep going down. The number of PFAS lawsuits keep increasing, and the number of PFAS contaminated sites keeps growing.  This means there will be no shortage of PFAS remediation work for quite some time. In fact, in a PFAS remediation special edition of the Environmental Business Journal published in 2019 they state, and I quote: “The Environmental Business Journal has wrestled with the extent and scale of the PFAS Era in market terms.  The EBJ has published a working model which reflects a consensus on the scale of the emerging PFAS market.  The EBJ model includes major contributions from both waste and wastewater system upgrades and lifestyle costs as well as remediation.  The model published in 2019 points to the possibility of expenditures in excess of $160 billion over the next 20-30 years and over 40,000 sites or facilities where significant PFAS contamination will likely be identified and treated or remediated at some level.”                                      Today’s discussion is another chat about a PFAS remediation method.   Today’s guest is Peter Murphy Managing Director of an Australian based company, OPEC Systems.  OPEC Systems trades as EPOC Enviro around the rest of the world which stands for Emerging Pollutants of Concern.  Today we will be discussing at length EPOC’s PFAS remediation technology for removing PFAS from water and landfill leachate using their SAFF systems.  We also discuss the challenges that short chain PFAS compounds continue to present to remediators and how the SAFF has navigated these challenges so far.  SAFF system trials have already been conducted in Oakey QLD at a Department of Defence site, and at a landfill site in Telgay Sweden.  These two systems have now moved out of their trial period into a fixed contract period.  SAFF has also been trialed in UK, as well as an undisclosed location in the US on the East Coast of New York and will be involved in projects in Spain, Germany, Massachusett’s and Minnesota.  And just recently announced on the 13/4/2023 EPOC Enviro announced plans to open a major manufacturing facility in Statesville, North Carolina, with the first US built SAFF units scheduled to start PFAS remediation work in July 2023. Pete Murphy from EPOC states in their recent media release: “Our award-winning SAFF technology has already visited eight different US states, and we are looking forward to leveraging this impact to all corners of the globe including back home in Australia to help communities remediate their PFAS impacted waters.” However, despite the huge investments in remediation technology that are happening around the world, very little if any money has been invested to come up with solutions to clean up private land or farms that have been contaminated by PFAS.  That is certainly the case in Australia and indeed also in many other parts of the world.  I discussed this scenario very briefly with Pete today at the end of the episode. Please note: I am an independent journalist and a podcaster no money was received for today’s interview.  If in the future money is received from remediation companies (as sponsorship) to support the continuation of this podcast I will disclose this.  Also any discussions with remediation companies is for information purposes, I am not endorsing any product or remediation method over another. Copyright:  Please share the episode (in whole) with acknowledgement via social media or website, but anyone wishing to edit, alter, or republish any information from this podcast in another form is subject to copyright and must contact the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com. OPEC Information For more information on SAFF: www.epocenviro.com Phone: +1 844 662 3762 Email:  info@epocenviro.com Wiley articles: "PFAS Removal from Groundwaters Using Surface-Active Foam Fractionation" Burns et al Published 24/8/2021 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rem.21694 "Commercial Scale Remediation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances from a Landfill leachate catchment using Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)"  Burns et al 1/6/2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rem.21720  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Show Notes Talking PFAS Episode 42 – Published 25/4/2023 Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. Today’s episode is the launch of Season 6, and I want to give a big thank you to everybody who continually listens to Talking PFAS podcast, and for sending me your emails on how much you enjoy it.  If you are new to the podcast, I encourage you to have a binge, as the content, of course, is still very relevant today as attention, regulation and litigation regarding PFAS chemicals continues to accelerate.  In the Talking PFAS episode today we will be taking a closer look at what US EPA is doing regarding their proposed PFAS drinking water regulation. And it is important to note that I will be giving an overview, from their overview, so for you to get the full context of what they are doing, I strongly encourage you to look at their website.  Also I really encourage you to look at their two webinars.  One was on the 16/3/23 and one was on the 29/3/23.  They are excellent.  They will give you all the information that you need whether you are somebody affected by PFAS contamination, or responsible to keep it out of drinking water, or responsible to clean it up.  And also, they go into great detail in parts of these webinars, but for the most part they are very easy to understand. I just need to mention, in the intro, the proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation,  that US EPA has proposed, is not an enforceable regulation yet, as some information online  and some news articles have reported that it is.  It is simply a proposal at this point. Today I am going to share some key information from the US EPA webinars on these proposed  changes to drinking water regulation and I will put a link in my show notes.  And also the US EPA is running a virtual public hearing on May 4 and they are asking people to register and submit comments.  They will also take oral comments and written comments for this public hearing on May 4.  Throughout today’s discussion I am always talking about US EPA if I just say the word EPA, just for clarification. I will also be sharing some of my interview with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law.  This is a repeat from Episode 33 but I will not be publishing the whole of Episode 33.  But as we were discussing all of these changes it is relevant to today’s episode just to give people who are concerned about the legal ramification of these proposed changes.  So, I will be replaying it for the benefit of those listeners that are interested in litigation. So why is the US EPA proposing these drinking water regulations regarding PFAS.  As they stated in the webinar, “they are taking this action because safe drinking water is fundamental to healthy people and thriving communities.”  EPA stated, “we rely on water from the moment we wake up and make a cup of coffee to when we brush our teeth at night.  Every person should have access to clean, safe drinking water.  That is why EPA is acting now to protect people’s drinking water from PFAS contamination.”  As they stated in the webinar “The science is clear.  Long-term exposure to certain PFAS is linked to significant health risks.”  They continue to quote “people can be exposed to PFAS in a number of ways and when their drinking water is contaminated with PFAS it can be a significant portion of a person’s total PFAS exposure.”  This is very important to note, “based on EPA’s evaluation of current best available science,  PFOA and PFOS, are found to be likely human carcinogens.” Commenters on the proposed rule have until May 30th this year, 2023, to provide comments to the agency on the proposed rule.  Comments must be submitted to the public docket by May 30th for consideration. So, EPA is proposing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) to establish legal enforceable levels called Maximum Contaminant Levels, (MCLs) for short. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has the authority to set enforceable National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for drinking water contaminants and require monitoring of public water supplies.  To date EPA has regulated more than 90 drinking water contaminants but has not established National drinking water regulations for any PFAS. Now the Agency is developing a proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOS and PFOA and additional certain other PFAS.  The EPA is also considering regulatory actions to address groups of PFAS.   The Agency expects to issue a final drinking water regulation by the end of 2023, after considering public comments on the proposal. I am now going to play a portion of my interview with Boston Attorney John Gardella from Episode 33,  and I will ADD in some more relevant US EPA information around this, including the impacts that the new mandatory drinking water limits, if passed,  will have on public water system providers. Now Boston Attorney, John Gardella, has been a regular guest on the Talking PFAS podcast.  It is always a great, open and easy to understand conversation with him.  He is well-versed on PFAS and writes frequently in the National Law Review and you can catch up on his multiple PFAS articles there. All information is copyright – people can share links to the whole episode and share the show notes with full attribution to Kayleen Bell, journalist and producer Talking PFAS Podcast.  Permission must be sought from the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com for any other reproduction/republishing use. Next episode to publish Wed 26/4/23 Interview with OPEC Systems (EPOC Enviro) regarding their SAFF PFAS remediation. Thanks again for listening :)  SHOW NOTE LINKS: Link to Episode 33 https://omny.fm/shows/talkingpfas/ep-33-boston-attorney-john-gardella-major-pfas-dev?in_playlist=podcast US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/pfas Suggested – EPA actions to address PFAS You can find information on the US EPA website above about all of these things we discussed in today’s Talking PFAS episode (and much more) : PFAS Strategic Roadmap National drinking water standard to limit six PFAS Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding for PFAS and Emerging Contaminants in Drinking Water Proposed Hazardous Substance Designation for PFOA and PFOS Science Advisory Board Review of Draft PFOA/PFOS Scientific Documents Rule Development for designating PFOA/PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances To watch the webinars I mentioned regarding the Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation go to https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Scroll down to find the webinars: March 29, 2023 Technical Overview of the Proposed PFAS NPDWR and March 16, 2023 General Overview Webinar on the Proposed PFAS NPDWR Read more about: Emerging Contaminants (EC) in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant (SDC) https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/emerging-contaminants-ec-small-or-disadvantaged-communities-grant-sdc#press Plus access the above link and then scroll down until you see “Funding Allotments” or go to this link: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/FY22_FY23_Combined_BIL_EC_Allotments%20Memo%20to%20WDDs_February%202023_signed.pdf This is the 3-page US EPA – Office of Water Memorandum regarding the Allotment of Funding FY 2022 & FY 2023 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Dated 13 February 2023 – that I mentioned in the Talking PFAS Podcast OEHHA – Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Listings and Responses) https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/notice-interested-parties-chemical-listed-effective-february-25-2022-known-state  “Effective February 25, 2022, for purposes of Proposition 65, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is adding perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (CAS RN 335-67-1) to the list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.” OEHHA Response to Comments Pertaining to the Notice of Intent to List Perfluorooctanoic Acid as Causing Cancer Under Proposition 65 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/responsecommentspfoa022522.pdf    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast, and if you are joining us for the first time, a very big welcome.  I encourage you to listen to previous episodes.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  This is the last episode of Season 5.  I will be taking a publishing break until the end of March, as I conduct some more interviews.  Before I introduce today’s guest, I have some news.  I am very pleased to announce that a collection of my PFAS interviews is now available as an oral history collection in the QLD State Library.  I will put a link to that collection in the show notes.  Today’s guest is the second last guest from the 2022 International Clean Up Conference posted by CRC Care, held in Adelaide, South Australia.  I have one more interview from Germany and that will go up in the break. My guest today is Dr Scott Coffin, a Research Scientist, with the California State Water Resources Control Board.  This is the Agency in California that governs the drinking water and all other water resources.  What I think was significant about this discussion with Scott was that from his position working for the California State Water Resources Control Board he was willing to share openly about PFAS and California’s water issues.  Here is a little of what he said: “So California has a legal mandate to ensure all of the data that we collect on the environment is transparent and accessible to the public.  It is a law since 2015, the Open Water Data Act and this means that any consumer in California, or anyone living in California, can find out what is in their drinking water, if they have PFAS monitored, even if it is unregulated which it often is they can find that information.” (Dr Scott Coffin) Since commencing this podcast in 2018 I have not found that same level of openness or willingness in Australia from water providers to talk about PFAS.  I believe it is time that the Australian water providers, those people tasked with providing safe drinking water to the public, actually become more transparent about what is in the public’s water.  And in particular advise whether PFAS or other contaminants are present. I hope you enjoyed today’s episode and a very big thank you for listening.  If you enjoy the Talking PFAS podcast I encourage you to please share with colleagues, friends, associates and get the word out about this podcast.  I love receiving the emails from listeners telling me how much you enjoy the podcast. LINKS mentioned in today’s podcast episode: Collection of PFAS Interviews as Oral history QLD State Library – by Kayleen Bell, journalist https://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/discovery/fulldisplay/alma99183795520502061/61SLQ_INST:SLQ Dr Scott Coffin Research Scientist III (Chemical Sciences) Microplastics Monitoring Subcommittee Co-Chair Division of Drinking Water.   https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ The paper that my guest Dr Scott Coffin mentioned about machine learning and PFAS – titled “A machine learning approach for prioritising groundwater testing for per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” Science Direct Journal of Environmental Management Volume 295, 1 October 2021.  Sarabeth George & Atray Dixit. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721014213?via%3Dihub Copyright:  All information in this podcast is copyright.  Please do share the podcast episode in its entirety with full attribution on websites, social media or email.  Permission must be sought from the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com for the content of this episode to by used or published in any written, audio or video content.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. Please note I am having some technical challenges with some podcast players not updating to my latest episode, especially Apple Podcasts and Spotify, which I am in the process of fixing.  I apologise for any inconvenience.  But you can always find the latest episode on my podcast host Omny Studio, and Podlink, Castbox, Podcast Addict, Podlink and Google podcasts.  If you enjoy this podcast please share to encourage more listeners to find this podcast. This is the finale for Season 5 of Talking PFAS.  I will be releasing two more episodes from international speakers from Clean-Up Conference 2022 in January, one speaker from California (up next) and one from Germany.  This will complete the series of interviews I recorded at Clean-Up Conference (2022). My guest today is Dr Mark Bowman, who is a Technical Director working for GHD based in Sydney, Australia.  He has worked on PFAS since 2005 helping to assess, clean-up and manage risks associated with their use.  Dr Bowman is widely published on PFAS management, and he also presented a session at the 2022 Clean-Up Conference on emerging contaminants, including PFAS. PFAS is a key focus for the team at GHD and Dr Bowman said their team had a strong presence at the Clean-Up Conference with up to 18 people attending including five from their Americas teams who are some of the leading people in North America dealing with PFAS and emerging contaminants. Dr Bowman said “GHD is championing PFAS response for clients in the Asia Pacific, Americas and Europe-Middle East. The company has industry leading PFAS response capabilities and is the most experienced and trusted team working to protect people and the environment from PFAS.” He also states: “GHD is successfully delivering PFAS contaminated site assessment, soil-water-sediment remediation, human health and ecological risk assessments, statutory audits, monitoring and strategic program management.  GHD also assists clients transition away from PFAS including advising on replacements and performing decontamination of plant and infrastructure.” In today’s episode Dr Bowman says a key take-away is this message, “it is fine to use a chemical that has been approved for commercial use but we need to ensure that unlike some of the challenges with PFAS where they have been dispersively released and haven’t controlled how we have used those chemicals that has been a key take-away.  We need to really not let those chemicals out into the environment in the first place.  It often doesn’t matter what the chemical is.  We don’t want it in our drinking water.  We don’t want them in our food.  We want to have safe, breathable air.  We want to have safe drinking water and it is best to ensure that we are not releasing chemicals into areas that we are using for food and water.” GHD Website  https://www.ghd.com/en/pfas.aspx Please note: I am an independent journalist and a podcaster no money was received for today’s interview.  If, in the future money is received from remediation companies (as sponsorship) to support the continuation of this podcast, I will disclose this.  Also any discussions with remediation companies is for information purposes, I am not endorsing any product or remediation method over another. Copyright:  Please share the episode (in whole) with acknowledgement via social media or website, but anyone wishing to edit, alter, or republish any information from this podcast in another form is subject to copyright and must contact the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast, and if you are joining us for the first time a very special welcome.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  Today’s episode was also recorded in September in Adelaide, South Australia at the International Clean-Up Conference.  My guests today are Gavin Scherer and Rachael Casson from AECOM and first up I will be speaking with Gavin Scherer.  Following my chat with Gavin I will be speaking with Rachael Casson, and you will hear her introduction before my discussion with Rachael.  Gavin has over 23 of consulting experience in environmental and contaminated land assessment and remediation.  The past 15 years has been in the service of AECOM. During his time in AECOM Gavin has led teams in both Australia and New Zealand including Australia’s largest geosciences and remediation services team, the Australian Department of Defence client account as well as Australia and New Zealand’s PFAS response teams.  Currently Gavin leads AECOM’s global PFAS commercialisation strategy, which includes focusing AECOM’s global team to develop, trial and bring to market a world-first onsite cost effective PFAS destruction solution known as De-Fluoro and Gavin is going to explain what De-Fluoro is in today’s episode. Rachael serves as a Director of AECOM’s International PFAS Program focusing on innovation and technical excellence.  She has over 22 years of consulting experience in contamination, assessment and management.  In 2008, Rachael recognised the emerging concern over PFAS with aviation and Defence clients positioning the AECOM team at the leading edge of the PFAS science.  She has worked on over 100+ PFAS related projects across the globe.  Rachael is part of the De-Fluoro Technical Development Team an electrochemical process that destroys PFAS in solution.  Her other research programs include plant PFAS uptake study and evaluation of the transformation of PFAS precursors into perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) downgradient of known source zones. AECOM’s De-Fluoro technology won the CRC Care Innovation Award at the 2022 International Clean-Up Conference in Adelaide.  The CRC Innovation Award recognises researchers and environmental consultants who develop innovative ways to monitor, assess and remediate environmental contamination.  The Award aims to inspire industry, businesses, communities, local government, schools and individuals to take action toward a more sustainable future.  AECOM’s De-Fluoro technology is one of the first commercially available economical and environmentally sustainable on-site destruction treatment for high concentration PFAS waste.  AECOM’s Global Initiative Leader, Gavin Scherer said the technology uses electrochemical oxidation to break the carbon-fluorine bonds in PFAS which causes the molecules to break down.  An estimated $2-$4 billion dollars worth of work is required to treat PFAS over the next decade. Link to Details about AECOM Award at 2022 International Clean-Up Conference presented by CRC Care https://az659834.vo.msecnd.net/eventsairaueprod/production-eventstudio-public/dd56e1e2846e452493a19f52014e910d AECOM Website https://aecom.com/ Please note: I am an independent journalist and a podcaster no money was received for today’s interview.  If in the future money is received from remediation companies (as sponsorship) to support the continuation of this podcast I will disclose this.  Also any discussions with remediation companies is for information purposes, I am not endorsing any product or remediation method over another. Copyright:  Please share the episode (in whole) with acknowledgement via social media or website, but anyone wishing to edit, alter, or republish any information from this podcast in another form is subject to copyright and must contact the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast and if you are joining us for the first time, a very special welcome.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.  To finish this season of Talking PFAS I will be publishing the remainder of the audio I recorded in September in Adelaide at the International Clean Up Conference, hosted by CRC Care. Today’s guest is Dr Richard Stewart, he is the Managing Director of RemBind which is a local company based in Adelaide, Australia,  but also has global reach.  They sell PFAS remediation products globally.  He is going to be talking today about the RemBind stabilisation product for PFAS and this is for use in soil.  It is added to the soil and it binds up PFAS and prevents it from leaching into the groundwater.  I managed to drag Richard off his stand at the Clean Up Conference in Adelaide for a very quick chat. Thank you for listening.  Please subscribe (and note my new host Omny ). Please note: I am an independent journalist and a podcaster no money was received for today’s interview.  If in the future money is received from remediation companies (as sponsorship) to support the continuation of this podcast I will disclose this. Also any discussions with remediation companies is for information purposes, I am not endorsing any product or remediation method over another. Contact Details RemBind: Company Website: https://rembind.com/ Email: info@rembind.com Richard Stewart Linked in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-stewart-8696713?original_referer= Copyright:  Please share the episode (in whole) with acknowledgement via social media or website, but anyone wishing to edit, alter, or republish any information from this podcast in another form is subject to copyright and must contact the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host, Kayleen Bell.  Episode 37 - Published 25/11/2022. Thanks for being patient listeners (as I have been unwell since the Conference).  It is good to be back with new episodes. For the next several weeks I will be bringing you episodes recorded at the International Clean Up 2022 Conference held in Adelaide mid-September, hosted by CRC Care.  I have already published two interviews recorded at the conference, episode 35 and episode 36 and I encourage you to have a listen.  There are six more to come from this conference, hopefully I can get them all up before Christmas, if not they will run into January, 2023. Today’s guest is Paul Nathanail from Nottingham, England, Technical Director of LQM, which specialises in contaminated land management in England and around the world.  Paul was a keynote speaker at the Clean-Up Conference and in today’s episode we will discuss details from his talk on PFAS.  In brief, Paul believes we need to form an International Working Group to look at the entire universe of PFAS and then break this universe down into galaxies of individual PFAS substances that have more or less the same chemical properties and more or less the same toxicity properties.  He will explain this in more detail in today’s discussion.  I would like to point out that he refers to this universe of PFAS chemicals at around 9000, and at the last count that I heard, was 12,000, so the PFAS universe seems to be growing all the time. Now to today’s chat with Paul Nathanail. LQM (Land Quality Management) based in England but they work all around the world.  https://www.lqm.co.uk/ Their website states: LQM is a specialist environmental consultancy based in Nottingham (UK) with an international track record of assessing and managing the risks posed to human health and the environment by contaminants in soil.  Increasingly, this is being done within a context of sustainable development and specifically sustainable brownfield regeneration.” About LQM from today’s discussion: “We are specialists in contaminated land management (not just PFAS).   LQM does high level consultancy.  We write a lot of technical guidance.  We developed the biggest set of soil screening levels that are used in the UK.  I helped to write the International Standard on Sustainable Remediation. We run training courses.  We write books and occasionally we go to conferences in far-flung placed like Adelaide.”  Paul Nathanail, Technical Director LQM Please subscribe to the podcast so you do not miss an episode.  Please share the podcast also on social media, or with colleagues etc, but please note all information in this episode is copyright so can not be reproduced in any way without permission from the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com *NB: The 10 million contaminated sites we speak about in this episode was a number that was given at the Clean Up 2022 conference – please note this number is not just PFAS sites, but would include some of those. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS podcast.  I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.   For the next several weeks I will be bringing you episodes recorded at the International Clean Up 2022 Conference in Adelaide mid-September, hosted by CRC Care. The Heads of EPAs of Australia and New Zealand known as (HEPA) are about to release the draft version 3.0 of the National Environmental Plan (NEMP) for public consultation. This version contains important new guidance and standards which builds on version 2.0 published in 2020. A brief overview on the draft NEMP was presented on Monday 12/9/2022 at Clean Up Conference 2022 in Adelaide by Dr Sara Broomhall who is the National co-ordinator for the PFAS NEMP & Director of Policy Advice and Integration Section from Department of Climate Change Energy, the Environment and Water. As well as being National co-ordinator of the PFAS NEMP Sara has also covered things such as Stockholm Convention’s global monitoring work and the OECD chemicals work which sets a lot of the global standards about how we do risk assessment of chemicals.  The NEMP has had over 27,000 unique downloads and unique page views from over 50 countries.  In NEMP 3.0 various areas requiring attention (leftover from NEMP 2.0) have been grouped under themes, and each theme is led by a jurisdiction in Australia and has a range of other jurisdictions participating and contributing to those themes. In brief: Theme 1 is PFAS Family – led by QLD – which will focus on international approaches to grouping. Theme 2 is Environmental data and monitoring – led by VIC & QLD. Theme 3 is Water – led by SA – and will focus on risk based criteria and guidance for beneficial reuse of biosolids. Theme 4 is Soil – led by NSW – and focuses on PFAS behaviour in soil including leaching and guideline values. Theme 5 is Resource Recovery & Waste – led by WA – which will focus on management of risks associated with PFAS in resource recovery products. Theme 6 is Site Specific Guidance – led by the Commonwealth – and it has three projects operating under it.  The first is a new section on approaches to remediation and management and Dr Sara Broomhall is the theme lead for that piece of work. The other two areas the Commonwealth will be responsible for is guidance on approaches to dealing with water from construction activities and then guidance on marine sediments. Dr Sara Broomhall’s co-presenter on Monday (12/9/2022) was Dr Shaun Thomas who is a Principal Advisor for Wastewater in the SA EPA, and he is the lead on Theme 3.  He is my special guest today. Shaun is involved in the National Chemicals Working Group which works under HEPA and works on the NEMP.  His main interest in PFAS is in biosolids and how we better manage the potential concentrations of PFAS in biosolids.  Shaun said “no two territories and states have exactly the same approach for biosolids, and they took this into consideration.  He said of the jurisdictions who had done some work already in the PFAS space QLD was the most prominent but his team also engaged quite heavily with NSW who have done a lot of work developing some guidance that hasn’t been published yet. *UPDATE The draft NEMP version 3.0 has been released https://haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/nemp-on-pfas Copyright Notice: Please share the entire episode with your colleagues and /or on your social media or website but with full contribution to the copyright holder Kayleen Bell Journalist & Producer Talking PFAS podcast. No editing or use of material here in articles is permitted without first contacting the rights holder at TalkingPFAS@gmail.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the next several weeks I will be publishing episodes from PFAS discussions I had in person with a range of people at the International Clean Up 2022 Conference which was held in Adelaide, South Australia.  This conference is hosted by CRC Care, and there were over 600 delegates (including about 100) online who attended from over 28 countries.  There were over 230 oral sessions, and far too many PFAS sessions to count or for one person to attend them all. Today’s guest is Professor Mark Patrick Taylor, and we will briefly discussed his research that he did with firefighters which used blood and plasma donations to reduce PFAS levels in their blood.  This research was published around April 2022, and received a lot of media attention. We will also explore Mark’s opinion of what PFAS means in the environment and people’s concerns around this class of chemicals and he will also talk generally about impacts of other chemicals in our world and what he says we can all do about it. The next discussion from Clean Up 2022 will be published on Monday 26/9/22 then weekly after that until the end of October.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. And if you are joining us for the first time welcome.  My guest today is Professor Ian Cousins from the Department of Environmental Science at Stockholm University in Sweden.  Now I have interviewed Ian before in Episode 21 when we spoke about his PFAS Essential Use paper and I highly recommend a listen to that one. Professor Cousins has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of York and a PhD in environmental science from Lancaster University.  He is well-known for his research on the sources, transport and fate and exposure pathways of PFAS.  In recent years Professor Cousins has written a series of policy related articles driven by his concern about the continued use of PFAS.  Today we are going to be discussing his recent perspective paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS” published in the Environmental Science & Technology journalist on the 2/8/2022. Ian and colleagues state in their conclusion: “We conclude that PFAS define a new planetary boundary that has been exceeded based on PFAS levels in environmental media being ubiquitously above guideline levels.  Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with our conclusion that the planetary boundary for PFAS is exceeded. It is nevertheless highly problematic that everywhere on earth where humans reside, recently proposed health advisories can not be achieved without large investment in advanced clean up technology.” I will be heading to Adelaide in a couple of days (actually here now) for the International Clean Up Conference Adelaide 2022 where I hope to talk to a range of experts in Australia and around the world about some of those advanced clean up technologies that might exist now or be emerging so stay tuned for that one.  The US EPA has made some significant announcements regarding PFAS in the last couple of months and in today’s episode I will provide details of these.  Ian Cousins et al paper “Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 EPA’s proposed rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances Federal Register https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-06/pdf/2022-18657.pdf EPA Announces New Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS Chemicals https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-new-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfas-chemicals-1-billion-bipartisanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast, and if you are joining me for the first time, welcome. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell. You can reach me at TalkingPFAS@gmail.com. The following show notes and all information in today's episode are copyright. Permissions must be sought to reproduce. The episode (and show notes) may be shared in its original form and its entirety for others to listen to. Today’s guest is Boston Attorney John Gardella a shareholder at CMBG3 Law. He is a member of the firm’s PFAS team which counsels clients on PFAS related issues ranging from state violations to remediation litigation. John has been a repeat guest on Talking PFAS before and due to his experience and expertise it is always a pleasure to speak with him about PFAS and litigation in the US.In today’s discussion we will be talking about several of his articles that he has written for the National Law Review. I will put a link to the articles we discuss today and his website in the show notes.There are several points of significance in today’s discussion with John which I will briefly mention here but we will unpack the details in our chat.California OEHHA added PFOA to list of chemicals known to cause cancer:On February 25, 2022, another significant step was taken when the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added PFOA to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The listing will create new warning label requirements for any product sold in California that contains PFAS, and may also increase enforcement action targeting of PFOA-containing products.US EPA PFAS Roadmap:The US EPA is taking many actions in regards to PFAS, outlined in a 20-page document called the PFAS Roadmap. John says for the first time they put a timetable on when they intend to release enforceable regulations for two PFAS in drinking water. There are currently no enforceable drinking water limits at the Federal level in the United States. This is something that many people in the US and the world are watching very closely.John says, “So, by this fall we will know what their intent is and then they have to go through a required process where they open up their proposal to public comment and so they are opening that up for one year and they intend to have by the fall of 2023 a drinking water standard in the United States for all states, which would be enormous.”In addition, “The US EPA intends to designate at least two types of PFAS, the PFOA and the PFOS as under the Super Fund Law.hazardous substances Rob Bilott – Lead attorney in lawsuit brought by a firefighter:On March 8 2022 the Ohio Court issued an opinion in the Hardwick v 3M case in which it certified a PFAS class action lawsuit that would include over seven million people. This is in relation to a lawsuit by a firefighter who is the lead plaintiff, with Taft lead Attorney Rob Bilott. The Ohio court ruled that the class of plaintiffs that would be allowed to proceed with the lawsuit (which is seeking medical monitoring) will be the “citizens of Ohio who have 0.05 ppt of PFOA and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum.For those who are unfamiliar with Attorney Rob Bilott’s work on PFAS there is plenty online and you can watch the Dark Waters Movie to see where his decades of PFAS litigation work all began. John said Attorney Rob Bilott’s team famously secured the now renowned C8 Science Panel in his PFAS litigation in West Virginia nearly two decades ago. It was the C8 Science Panel findings that significantly influenced litigation activity, regulatory and legislative activity with respect to PFAS and media attention on PFAS issues.John said what he believes will be significant is that Mr Bilott wants a new science panel convened that would include all residents of Ohio.John says, “there are 7 million people that live in Ohio, give or take a few but it is 7 million people and so just to put that in context a little bit. When he was in West Virginia about two decades ago now and he got his science panel through the litigation there, there were 70,000 citizens”Washington – PFAS Bill to regulate various consumer goods which contain PFAS & the DOE to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product: Just after my discussion with John, on the 31 March Washington’s Governor signed into law a Bill that we discussed in today’s episode. This Bill significantly accelerates the state’s initiative to develop regulations for various consumer goods that contain PFAS. This Bill also requires the Department of Ecology to name PFAS containing firefighting gear a priority product under the State’s Safer Products for Washington initiative.John says, “there has been a lot of regulation and legislation in the US in many States about firefighting foam, but this is certainly one of the first examples in the United States with respect to the firefighting gear.”PFAS in cosmetics:I have talked in detail about PFAS in cosmetics with John Gardella before in the Talking PFAS podcast, in episode 29. Since that discussion, as John’s team at CMBG3 Law predicted in early 2021, “the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry and the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits.” In less than three months four industry cosmetic giants were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS, which John says is significant news.LINKS:John Gardella's firm CMBG3 Law Bostonhttps://www.cmbg3.com/US EPA 20-Page PFAS Roadmaphttps://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024A selection of John's recent articles in National Law Review (many more available at his firm's website)https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cosmetics-and-pfas-lawsuit-alleges-false-marketinghttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/prop-65-lists-pfoa-carcinogenhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-pfas-standards-closer-to-adoption-epahttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/astm-standards-and-pfas-not-so-fasthttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-class-action-lawsuit-updateshttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-consumer-goods-target-washingtonhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pennsylvania-pfas-drinking-water-standards-commenthttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/wisconsin-pfas-standards-one-step-closer-to-realityhttps://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cercla-exemptions-movement-growsThis episode is dedicated to my darling Molly cavoodle dog and best companion ever who lay dying at my feet (and we didn't know she was that sick) while I tried to edit this. We lost her on the 11.4.22 that is why this episode was up so late. This episode was recorded with John Gardella on the 29/3/2022.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Talking PFAS Podcast. I am a journalist and your host Kayleen Bell.If you are joining me for the first time a very big welcome to you. I want to say thank you so much to my regular listeners for being patient with me while I took an extended break, which unfortunately became longer than I wanted due to an injury I suffered, but I am very much on the mend now.I appreciate you coming back to listen to Season 5 of Talking PFAS Podcast. As always I encourage you to share the podcast with your networks, if you have found value in it, and I would appreciate your review on iTunes, or feedback via email to TalkingPFAS@gmail.com.As the content in this podcast series, even the earliest episodes, is relevant to any person working with, researching or trying hard to avoid PFAS chemicals, I do encourage you to go back and visit previous episodes. Even though I believe all episodes of this podcast series are worth a listen, if you are new to the podcast and are interested in my editor’s choice selection, I strongly suggest a listen to Episode 1, 4, and 9 to start, followed by Episodes 17, 18, 22, 24 and 31.Since learning about this class of chemicals in 2018, I have travelled to many states of Australia, and interviewed people in person or over the phone from Oakey, Williamtown, Salt Ash, Fullerton Cove, Richmond, Katherine, Tasmania, Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney, Perth and Newcastle. This year I hope to visit many more people in many more towns to discuss with residents and others how PFAS chemical contamination has affected their properties and their lives.I have also had the privilege of interviewing many international experts to discuss PFAS from their medical, scientific, remediation, political, or expert opinion. I have interviewed some fantastic international guests from California, Sweden, Texas, Washington, Boston, Michigan, Switzerland, Colorado and California.This season I will bring you some more great discussions with Australian and International guests with the one goal being to understand PFAS chemicals better, and learn what is new regarding regulations and scientific discoveries about this complex class of compounds.Whilst health effects are still debated regarding PFAS chemicals, they have definitely been associated by experts with some PFAS compounds. However, one thing is abundantly clear from the experts I have spoken to, the of this class of chemicals is something which warrants a high degree of caution, and attention. Many experts argue that the persistence of this class of chemicals requires swift action and they recommend banning the whole group of PFAS chemicals.persistenceIn Australia, a class action between three communities in Australia and the Department of Defence settled out of court in 2020, and these communities received a payout of $212 million dollars, which after paying a huge amount of legal fees was divided amongst many thousands of impacted community members, but most as I understand, and I have not spoken to all, have not received enough compensation to move from their contaminated property.The class action payout was awarded due to property value losses that residents with contaminated properties had experienced. One of the conditions of the class action though was that they could have no future claims against the Department of Defence for PFAS contamination to their properties. However, they can still in the future make a claim against the Department of Defence for PFAS related health issues.This season, along with interviewing more experts, and discussing the latest PFAS research and regulatory actions in Australia and around the world, I hope to re-visit some people who were involved in the first PFAS class action in Australia. I will attempt to find out where are they now, and whether their lives have changed since the class action settled. This is important because in Australia right now SHINE Lawyers are involved in a further, larger super class action involving communities in WA, NT, SA, QLD, NSW and VIC.“Shine Lawyers is seeking compensation for property owners for economic loss, including the diminution in value of their land. Any action would be an open class action, meaning residents living in eight affected communities who meet certain criteria will automatically be included unless they choose not to be involved. National Special Counsel Joshua Aylward said he estimates up to 40,000 people live in these communities, and are affected by these chemicals.”Finally, as Australia is facing an election in 2022, I will also hope to find out what the Government intends to do about PFAS more broadly in Australia, and how much money they intend to set aside to contribute to PFAS Research and remediation or compensation in Australia. I was interviewed by ABC just prior to the 2019 Election and sadly many of the issues faced then still remain today.I hope you enjoy the recap of Season 3 & 4 today of Talking PFAS today and I hope you will join me for Season 5 of Talking PFAS, which will return on 29/3/21.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My special guest today is Alissa Cordner an Environmental Sociologist and Associate Professor in the Sociology Department at Whitman College which is in Eastern Washington State in the US. She has been working on PFAS since about 2014. She is the co-director of the PFAS Project Lab which is based at North Eastern University with Phillip Brown who is the other co-director. Alissa says "over the last 6-7 years we have been working on PFAS from a variety of social science perspectives, starting by trying the understand the social and scientific discovery of this class of chemicals and understand why they remain in such wide use, and production, and why they are such a ubiquitous contaminant, given that at least some actors have known for 50 years about their toxicity and exposure concern. What it is that has gotten us into this situation? We have worked on PFAS activism, trying to understand the rise of social movement activity related to PFAS and currently we are working on a number of projects and one of them is trying to understand the full and multifaceted costs of PFAS contamination." Today we discuss a commentary paper she and her team of experts have written called The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now" which was published in Environment Science and Technology Journal on the 7 July 2021.Today's episode of Talking PFAS is the Season Finale and the last episode for 2021. The podcast will return on the 25th of January, 2022. I will be taking a 3 month break to recharge my batteries, and then begin research and production of the next season of Talking PFAS, and I have some great guests lined up already. I hope in this extended break that you re-listen to some of your favourite episodes. I will also tweet some of my favourite episodes each month.Episodes mentioned in today's discussion, or episodes which complement today's discussion, are Episode 2, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, and I highly recommend listening for the first time or listening again to these.A very big thank you to all my listeners since 2018, and a very big thank you to all the guests in this podcast. I hope you will join me again in Jan 2022. Kayleen Bell, Journalist.Show Note Links: “The True Cost of PFAS and the Benefits of Acting Now”Alissa Cordner, Gretta Goldenman, Linda S. Birnbaum, Phil Brown, Mark F. Miller, Rosie Mueller, Sharyle Patton, Derrick H. Salvatore and Leonardo Trasandehttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03565. 2021, 55, 14, 9630-9633 Publication Date July 7, 2021Environ.Sci.Technol Debra J. Davidson debra.davidson@ualberta.ca.“Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: a case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada.”https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2017.1349638 July 28, 2017Environmental SociologySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest today is Dr Katie Pelch from Fort Worth Texas. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Centre. Dr Katie Pelch and colleagues published the PFAS-TOX Database in April, 2021. The database currently includes 29 of the most commonly studied PFAS mapped to 15 health outcome categories. Katie said what they found was quite a surprise. Contrary to the notion that there is very little research on replacement PFAS, the PFAS-TOX Database identified 742 studies on 29 select PFAS other than PFOS and PFOA that have been measured in the environment or in people.Many of the findings reflect health effects already linked to PFOA and PFOS, yet few PFAS in the data base have received regulatory attention. PFAS manufacturers continue to make and use new PFAS with very little oversight. This is one reason why experts in the field are urging the management of all PFAS as a single class of chemicals.Katie says the purpose of this database is to support government, businesses, academics and impacted citizens in quickly assessing the state of the science so that they can make timely decisions that protect public health and the environment. For today’s discussion you might find it helpful to have the PFAS-TOX Database open (see link below) but you can certainly listen to the episode without that.SHOW NOTE LINKS:PFAS-TOX Databasehttps://pfastoxdatabase.org/Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class Kwiatkowski et alPublished June 30, 2020 Environmental Science & Technology Lettershttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255“Cancer-causing chemicals found in Fort Worth well. Could they be in city water?” - Article Haley Samsel Fort Worth Star-Telegram July 10, 2020https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article244096547.htmlATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and Covid-19https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.htmlSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-cosmetics-financial-and-insurance-companies-noticePFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice – Monday, June 21, 2021John Gardella CMBG3 LawToday's Talking PFAS News Episode is a discussion with Boston Attorney John Gardella from CMBG3 Law in Boston. John has been a previous guest on the podcast in Episode 24 and I highly recommend a listen to that Episode too.Today we will be discussing PFAS in cosmetics in the US. We will be focusing our discussion on John's recent article published 21/6/21 in The National Law Review "PFAS in Cosmetics: Financial and Insurance Companies on Notice." In this article he writes about a recent Bill that was introduced into the Senate on the 15/6/21, called the "No PFAS in Cosmetics Act 2021." John also wrote about a recent study published in the Environmental Science & Technology Letters by Whitehead et al (corresponding author Graham F. Peaslee) called "Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics." John writes in his article "This study examined 231 cosmetic products sold in the United States and Canada. 52% of the products contained some degree of PFAS."https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240Study “Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics” Environmental Science & Technology Letters Whitehead et al – Corresponding author Graham F. PeasleeAt the time of publishing today’s episode of Talking PFAS News, this article has had 47219 views.Listeners you might remember in Episode 22 I discussed the use of PFAS in cosmetics with Juliane Gluge from Zurich Switzerland, as we discussed her paper “An Overview of the Uses of PFAS” In the supplementary material link below she described many cosmetic and personal care products where PFAS have been used, and may still be used. I highly recommend a listen to that episode as well.https://www.rsc.org/suppdata/d0/em/d0em00291g/d0em00291g1.pdf2.28 Personal care products and cosmetics – Page 198“PFAS have been used in cosmetics as emulsifiers, lubricants, or oleophobic agents (Kissa 2001). PFAS in hair-conditioning formulations can enhance wet combing and render hair oleophobic (Kissa 2001). PFAS have been used in creams e.g. to make the creams penetrate the skin more easily, make the skin brighter, make the skin absorb more oxygen, or make the cosmetic product more durable and weather resistant (Brinch, Jensen, and Christensen 2018). PFAS have been identified in cosmetics and personal care products in general, but also in anti-aging, anti-frizz, bar soap, BB/CC cream/foundation, blush/highlighter, body lotion/body cream, body oil, brow products, concealer/corrector, cream/lotion, cuticle treatment, eye cream/eyeshadow, eye pencil/eyeliner, face cream, facial cleanser, hair creams and rinses/conditioner, hair spray/mousse, hair shampoo, hand sanitizer, highlighter, lip balm/lip stick/lip gloss, lip liner, manicure products, makeup remover, mask, mascara/lashes, moisturer, nail polish/nail strengthener/nail treatment, powder, primer/fixer, scrub/peeling, shaving cream/shaving foam/shaving gel, sunscreen, and sunscreen makeup.” Juliane GlugeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My special guest today is Garret Ellison, an investigative environment reporter, at MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan who covers Michigan environment and The Great Lakes. Since 2016 he has specialised on reporting on PFAS and their impact on Michigan's people and environment. From 2017 to 2019 PFAS was about the only issue he was writing about, but he says he has lost count of how many PFAS articles he has written. As an investigative reporter he has broken many PFAS stories. His PFAS work has directly influenced State environmental policy and the creation of Michigan's first State specific drinking water standards for harmful chemicals. My discussion with Garret today will include the following 3M's lawsuit against the State of Michigan. We will also discuss PFAS contamination in the Wolverine Worldwide contamination in Rockford, where a nearby resident's blood test results returned at a staggering level of 5,000,000 ppt! We also discuss PFAS in Wurtsmith Air Force Base, in Oscoda. I highly recommend a listen to the previous episode 27 Talking PFAS News where Garret discusses two new bills just introduced into Congress this month, and if passed will directly affect the military regarding PFAS. Also in that episode we discuss some new preliminary research from Indiana, that reveals PFAS levels in a rain sample from Cleveland Ohio returned levels of 1000ppt. You can read many PFAS articles that Garret has written here:https://muckrack.com/garretellison/bioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s Talking PFAS News is focused on PFAS in Michigan, Great Lakes, and also some new pending legislation that could result in stricter rules for the US military regarding PFAS. My special guest is Award Winning investigative/enterprise environment reporter Garret Ellison from MLive and Grand Rapids Press in Michigan. Today we discuss three of his recent stories, and because of Garret’s extensive PFAS reporting, he will also be the special guest in the next Talking PFAS Feature which will publish on June 17, 2021. In today’s episode we only have time to briefly mention that in April, 2021 3M filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan which seeks to invalidate their new drinking water and groundwater clean-up limits for PFAS. In Talking PFAS Feature Garret talks much more about the 3M lawsuit as well as many other PFAS contamination issues in the Michigan and Great Lakes area.For today’s show notes I am publishing links to three of Garret’s articles (with short excerpts) published by MLive and used with Garret’s permission. It might be useful to have Garret's articles open as you listen today.Links & Excerpts to articles in today’s discussion by Garret Ellison, content used with permission“It’s literally raining PFAS around the Great Lakes, say researchers.” June 8, 2021“CLEVELAND, OH — Rain that fell on Ohio this spring contained a surprisingly high amount of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to raw data from a binational Great Lakes monitoring program that tracks airborne pollution.Rainwater collected in Cleveland over two weeks in April contained a combined concentration of about 1,000 parts-per-trillion (ppt) of PFAS compounds. That’s according to scientists at the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), a long-term Great Lakes monitoring program jointly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Canada.” Source Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.comhttps://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/its-literally-raining-pfas-around-the-great-lakes-say-researchers.html“Two Michigan air bases on “Filthy Fifty” Senate PFAS priority list.” June 9, 2021https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/06/two-michigan-air-bases-on-filthy-fifty-senate-pfas-priority-list.html“WASHINGTON, DC — Two former Air Force bases in Michigan are on a “Filthy Fifty” list of sites where the U.S. Defense Department would have to expedite cleanup of toxic “forever chemical” contamination under new Congressional legislation.Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda and K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in the Upper Peninsula are among priority installations with toxic PFAS pollution marked for speedier cleanup under the bill package, which allocates $10 billion for remedial work nationwide and puts the Pentagon under a deadline schedule to complete construction.“Filthy Fifty Act” and “Clean Water for Military Families Act” were introduced in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 8. The bills were introduced by Democratic Sens. Alex Padilla of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, representing the two states with the most bases on the list.” Source credit Garret Ellison MLive gellison@mlive.comhttps://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/05/3m-sues-michigan-seeks-to-invalidate-pfas-drinking-water-rules.html“3M sues Michigan, seeks to invalidate PFAS drinking water rules” May 7, 2021“LANSING, MI — Minnesota chemical manufacturing giant 3M has sued the state of Michigan, claiming the state’s new drinking water limits for the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are flawed because they were created through a “rushed and invalid regulatory process.”The lawsuit, filed in the state Court of Claims on April 21, seeks to invalidate the state’s drinking water limits and groundwater cleanup criteria for seven different per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that went into effect last summer.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's extended Talking PFAS News edition is discussing the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS in Tasmania. Primarily this episode focuses on the use of PFAS firefighting foams by the Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS). PFAS became an issue of focus during the recent State election in May. My guests today are journalist Rob Inglis from The Examiner and Advocate Newspapers in Hobart, and Sharon McLay who was a candidate for the Animal Justice Party in the recent election. Sharon also has a 30 year history of previously being a professional firefighter for the MFB in Victoria. Rob Inglis wrote some recent articles about PFAS foams in Tasmania after firefighters refused to use foams which contain PFAS. The United Firefighters Union have also shared their opinion with Rob Inglis and at a press conference (prior to the May State election) in Hobart. Today's episode also will include statements from AirServices and TasPorts regarding their use of firefighting foams containing PFAS or actions to remove them. In 2018 the Tasmanian EPA published a PFAS Action Plan for Tasmania, which was updated in August, 2019. This update provides a record of actions taken so far by TFS, Airservices and Tasports. Plus I received updated comments from these organisations which are read throughout today's episode.SHOW NOTES:Rob Inglis Journalist - Recent PFAS Articles discussed today:https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7219762/really-nasty-firies-ablaze-over-use-of-toxic-foam-in-tasmania/https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7233142/tasmanian-firefighters-refuse-to-use-pfas-foam-linked-to-cancer/Remediation of PFAS-related impacts ongoing scrutiny and review - Australian PFAS Inquiry JSCFADT https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/PFASRemediationTasmania PFAS Action Plan - Progress Update August 2019:https://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/PFAS%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Tasmania%20Progress%20Update%20Aug%202019.pdfSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My special guest today is Environmental Lawyer Claire Smith from Clayton UTZ in Sydney, Australia to discuss and explain the NSW EPA PFAS Firefighting Ban,Below is a portion of her written commentary on 18 March, 2021."The Environmental Operations (General) Amendment (PFAS Firefighting Foam) Regulation 2021 has been introduced and will impose a ban on the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam in NSW, subject to some exceptions.On 1 March 2021, The NSW Government Introduced the Environmental Operations (General) Amendment (PFAS Firefighting Foam) Regulation 2021. The Regulation will amend the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 and impose a ban on the use of per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).NSW is the third jurisdiction in Australia to regulate PFAS use, and the second jurisdiction to introduce a ban, after Queensland began regulating PFAS-containing firefighting foams in 2016 and South Australia introduced a similar ban in 2018.The Ban on the use of PFAS firefighting foam for the purposes of training and demonstrations came into effect on 1 April, 2021 with other restrictions operating from 26 September, 2022 onwards.The Regulation will make it a criminal offence to:Use PFAS firefighting foam for the purposes of firefighting training or demonstrationsUse PFAS except to extinguish a "catastrophic" fire, or fire that has the potential to be catastrophic (a catastrophic fire is defined in the Regulation to mean a fire involving a combustible accelerant, including petrol, kerosene, oil, tar, paint or polar solvents including ethanol) or to extinguish a fire on a watercraft in State or prescribed watersSell a portable fire extinguisher containing the precursor to PFAS firefighting foam.The maximum penalty for any of these offences will be $44,000 for a corporation and $22,000 for an individual."Written by Claire Smith & Cloe Jolly Clayton UTZhttps://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2021/march/nsw-introduces-ban-to-prevent-pfas-contaminationhttps://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/contaminated-land/regulation-of-pfas-firefighting-foamsCopyright Kayleen Bell JournalistSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.