Tag: Environment

The Unfinished Cleanup: PFAS in the Anacostia 

Rivers running around Washington, D.C. are no stranger to contamination. Aging combined sewer systems routinely dump wastewater into local waterways through discharges known as combined sewage overflows, while legacy pollution from past military activities pollute the water as well, particularly in the Anacostia. D.C.’s agencies have evolved to address the environmental stressors of sewage and industrial pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), but certain industrial pollutants remain unaddressed. 

The Anacostia River Park, which borders the Anacostia River, is a Superfund site (a contaminated site listed under CERCLA’s National Priority List for cleanup) due to chemical dumping associated with former U.S. military activities. The river itself contains remnants of this cheap dumping practice that has harmed generations of primarily communities of color living by and off the river, from playing in its river banks to consuming its fish. After over 150 years of dumping toxic waste into the river, the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia sued the U.S. government in early 2025 under CERCLA and the Brownfield Act. OAG alleged that the dumping was an intentional act of noncompliance with environmental laws, seeking “costs, damages, and a declaration of future liability” against the government. 

D.C.’s Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE) initiated the Anacostia River Sediment Project to clean up the river’s contamination in 2013, culminating in the release of the 100% Design Report in the summer of 2025. The report outlines the remedial design with considerations such as the feasibility, cost, and benefits of certain remediation design options, factoring in stakeholder input. While the report is a milestone in clean up efforts and is partially funded by entities like Pepco who contributed to its pollution, it is largely aimed at PCB contamination, leaving out other contaminants like PFAS which have been documented to reside in the Anacostia watershed. In line with the report, D.C.’s OAG alleged that the river contained PCBs and other industrial contaminants such as heavy metals, notably leaving out any mention of PFAS – which in some regards, may be the most insidious pollutant in the river due to their persistent, bioaccumulative nature. However, the District’s 2023 suit against major chemical corporations like 3M acknowledges that corporations and the DOD used and released products containing PFAS into the river; establishing an understanding of PFAS contamination.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a class of highly persistent, stable, and health-harming chemicals that have evaded substantive national and global regulation for decades. This regulatory ‘hole’ has been permitted via a lack of governmental oversight, systemic failures to hold corporations accountable for dumping, and improper corporate disclosures as to the toxicity of the chemicals. PFAS have been shown to cause a myriad of health conditions, from increased cholesterol to developmental effects to cancer. The exposure pathways of PFAS are well documented, where the chemicals can impact humans via dermal exposure, ingestion, and inhalation and often travel through industrial discharges into bodies of water as exceptionally mobile, stable compounds. The chemicals then bioaccumulate in various ecosystems, meaning that seafood in water bodies contaminated by PFAS are unsafe to consume. DOEE’s fishing advisory issued in 2024 highlights this fact and advises the public not to eat eel, carp, striped bass, or largemouth bass caught in the Anacostia due to high PFAS levels and to instead opt for smaller fish containing less PFAS in their tissues. Maryland’s Department of the Environment similarly issued a fishing advisory for the watershed for PFAS contamination.

The chemicals as both a class and individually are not yet adequately addressed in our drinking water, let alone our water bodies. With the U.S. EPA setting back its PFAS drinking water regulations at the dawn of the second Trump Administration, it is no surprise that water bodies and water quality are not a focus in the PFAS space. There is no government attempt to remediate PFAS in the Anacostia River as there is for PCB and other harsh contaminants, but the chemicals are present. OAG’s 2023 natural resource damages complaint against chemical manufacturers, seeking monetary damages, states that “PFOA and/or PFOS were detected at all locations tested” in D.C.’s waterways. 

The Anacostia Riverkeeper found 8-10 different PFAS chemicals in the six samples collected from the river. The measurable PFOA (a common, “long chain” PFAS compound) concentrations in the samples ranged from 3.5-8 ppt, despite the EPA’s advisory limit of 0.004 ppt, and PFOS (another long chain PFAS compound) concentrations similarly ranged from 4.7-7.7 ppt, exceeding the EPA’s PFOS advisory limit of 0.002 ppt. Furthermore, the Environmental Working Group took water samples at certain locations across the U.S. and found significant levels of PFAS in samples from the Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling military installation situation along the Anacostia. For instance, one sample taken from the base was discovered to have a combined value of 10.6 ppt of the two “short-chain” PFAS (PFHxA and PFPeA) measured in the study. 

Demonstrating the urgency of the public health issue and the recognized presence of PFAS in the river, the Anacostia Riverkeeper submitted public comments to DOEE to its “Early Action Area Remedial Design Report” at the 90% design phase, urging the agency to incorporate remediation plans for PFAS in its 100% Design Report. The Riverkeeper noted that it was “irresponsible for [DOEE] to know there is PFAS contamination in the Anacostia River but to not consider it in [the] [remediation], potentially yielding a final product that is already outdated before it’s even constructed.” The agency responded that it was infeasible at that point in the project because PFAS samples were not incorporated into the plan and “revisions would delay the project by years.”

Given budgetary limitations, the decision to exclude PFAS from river remediation efforts is a multi-pronged determination based on cost, time, resources, and practicality. PFAS are notoriously difficult and costly to filter from water (although there are emerging more cost-effective techniques) and now local governments and utility companies are made to grapple with federal and corporate failures. The argument that the addition of PFAS into the plan would significantly alter a nearly decades-long remediation planning process has merits, but at the same time, PFAS remediation should become a priority for federal and local governments to protect human and ecological health. This is especially pertinent following the allegations in the District’s natural resource damages complaint. 

Although drinking water regulations are likely the first step, addressing the Anacostia’s PFAS contamination in some capacity should be made part of D.C.’s plan to remediate the river. This effort is necessary to safeguard the health of the communities that rely on and live by the river. It would also be a showing to other governments that water quality remediation includes PFAS – contaminants that have been ignored for far too long to the detriment of our health.

Deregulating the EPA: How the Elimination of the Endangerment Finding Ignores Health Consequences for Infants and Children

This month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the subsequent emission regulation standards that have accompanied it. Published by the EPA on December 15, 2009, the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act found that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—contribute to air pollution and endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. In the sixteen years since the endangerment finding was published, scientific evidence supporting each impact noted in the finding has become virtually indisputable; every ton of emissions increases the severity of expected climate impact, and every exposure to compound climate events “can increase morbidity and mortality.” Notably absent from the Agency’s news release is any discussion of or consideration for the health impacts that the finding sought to protect against.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks has directed government agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks that may “disproportionately affect children” since 1997. In its full report, the EPA uses careful language to skirt this obligation, stating that children “are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population.” The statement points out the obvious–children are breathing air with the same chemical composition as everyone else–while ignoring the reality that the health consequences of air pollution have a far greater impact on growing and developing bodies than it does on fully developed adults. 

Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused overall warming and more extreme weather patterns and heat events. In looking at the health impacts on children, the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 Policy Statement outlined the specific effects of increased emissions against real health consequences. One study analyzed infant mortality data on an individual level against outdoor air temperature data for over 60,000 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases between 1972 and 2006, finding that a ten degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the summer was associated with an 8.6% increase in the risk of SIDS. For black infants, the increased risk was 18.5%. In addition to the risk of rising temperatures, an analysis of six years of pediatric respiratory health data in San Diego County found particulate pollution from wildfires to be approximately ten times more harmful to children’s health than particulate matter from other sources. While climate change alone is not the sole cause of wildfires, the scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming contributes significantly to the trend of larger, more severe wildfires across California and the Southwest. 

Air pollution and heat exposure from climate change are also associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, with higher risk found among black mothers, and mothers with asthma. Continued exposure to air pollution after birth can also affect lung development, leading to a greater risk of lung disease.

While the announcement from the EPA this month focused its priorities on the American consumer’s freedom to buy whatever car they want, it ignores its own origins as an agency founded on principles of achieving national air quality standards and reducing automobile pollution. The science of the last sixteen years makes it abundantly clear that not only does climate change increase the risk of negative health outcomes, but those risks are substantially higher for children and other high risk groups. The battle over this deregulation, however, has only just begun. The American Public Health Association, jointly with numerous other health and environmental groups, has already filed suit challenging the EPA and California is expected to follow soon.