Despite the Biden-Harris administration casting itself as good stewards of the environment, a Democratic senator is raising the alarm that the Pentagon could resume toxic incineration of forever chemicals.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) revealed earlier this month that his office received evidence that the Pentagon was mulling whether to reauthorize the incineration of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) — commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they can take centuries to break down.
“I am concerned by recent reports that indicate the DoD is seeking approval to once again incinerate PFAS. This would be a mistake,” Brown declared publicly earlier this month.
“PFAS do not break down easily and are linked to a variety of serious health issues, including cancer, liver damage, fertility problems, and developmental problems in children.”
The synthetic substances are used in a vast array of everyday products such as cellphones, nonstick cookware, waterproof fabric and insulation. They are particularly prominent in the military due to their use in firefighting foams, weapons and uniforms.
The military is believed to be sitting on millions of gallons worth of PFAS-laden waste.
Technically, there are different iterations of PFAS — over 7 million, by one study, depending on the exact definition used.
The Pentagon has concluded that numerous types of PFAS are “critical to the national security of the United States.”
The issue is so important and the complexity so pronounced that the Pentagon has established a PFAS Task Force to conduct extensive research on it.
One of the most pressing problems is the question of how to dispose of PFAS. The Pentagon and other government agencies have doled out grants to research better ways of dumping those forever chemicals.
A controversial method that has been used in the past is incineration, but that leads to air pollution and can result in incomplete destruction.
There are over a dozen incineration facilities in the US that have been used to burn PFAS since 2018, including in East Liverpool, Ohio; Aragonite, Utah, Cottage Grove, Minn.; Kimball, Neb.; El Dorado, Ark.; Deer Park, Texas; Arkadelphia, Ark.; East Chicago, Ill.; Sauget, Ill.; Cohoes, NY; and Wilmington, Del., per a tracker kept by Bloomberg.
Congress previously nestled a temporary moratorium on the Pentagon’s incineration of PFAS into its National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2022. That moratorium has since expired, but the Defense Department has kept the pause going.
Brown’s office explained to The Post that there are concerns that a version of the NDAA for fiscal year 2025 that cleared the House of Representatives would pave the way for incineration to resume.
His office said it heard directly that the Pentagon is actively considering a resumption of incineration, but did not divulge from where.
Of particular concern for the Ohio senator — who is facing a tough race for re-election — is East Liverpool, which is home to a large waste incinerator.
Brown penned a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Oct. 9 outlining those concerns.
“It is my understanding that DoD is actively working to update its PFAS waste disposal guidance. As you can imagine, communities like East Liverpool are concerned about the potential health and environmental impacts of the DoD starting to incinerate PFAS in their backyards, again,” he pleaded.
Start and end your day informed with our newsletters
Morning Report and Evening Update: Your source for today’s top stories
Thanks for signing up!
The Buckeye State senator urged Austin to not allow the Defense Department to authorize PFAS incineration “in Ohio or elsewhere.”
The Post has spoken to multiple industry insiders who believe that the Pentagon is seriously considering the resumption of PFAS incineration, having heard it from lower-level officials, none of whom responded to inquiries.
“There’s what I would consider a pregnant pause with this issue right now, in terms of guidance,” one insider told The Post. “There’s really two camps right now, people that really don’t want to use incineration because they know it’s wrong long-term, and people that do because they just want to do just good enough.”
“And the real question is, is ‘good enough’ really good enough for society?”
Certain types of PFAS were discovered in the blood of over 98% of Americans, according to one study. Another study from researchers at Harvard University concluded that in 2016, over 6 million Americans had PFAS in their drinking water that was above the threshold of what the EPA deemed safe.
When asked about PFAS incineration, a Pentagon spokesperson refrained from answering directly whether a resumption of incineration is on the table, but explained that it is conducting a review of the policy.
“The Department continues to prohibit incineration,” the spokesperson said. “The DoD is in the process of updating the July 11, 2023, PFAS destruction and disposal guidance.”
“DoD plans to publish updated guidance in the next few months and will provide advance notice should department determine it will allow incineration of PFAS-containing materials at hazardous waste incinerators.”
The spokesperson explained that the Pentagon is trying to align its practices with the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently updated guidance, which concluded in part that incineration “can potentially destroy PFAS without significant environmental releases.”
“There is uncertainty associated with this option because it is based on limited research.”
That same insider explained that in its updated guidance, the EPA hadn’t really backed a specific means of disposal for PFAS, punting the issue.
“The challenge with the Department of Defense is that they were looking for the EPA to tell them they could use incineration,” the insider surmised. “It came up short of actually telling them what they can and cannot do.”
The EPA has designated certain types of PFAS as hazardous substances.
PFAS has emerged as a concern in other states as well. Maine faced one of the largest spills in the country due to a fire suppression system that went haywire in Naval Air Station Brunswick.
Multiple facilities with the capability of incinerating those toxic forever chemicals are sited in battleground states and others have suffered from spills in the past.
During a radio interview last month in Wisconsin, home to two major waste combustors, Vice President Kamala Harris was asked about how communities in the state were “struggling with toxic PFAS contamination in their water supply.”
“My commitment to these issues is longstanding,” Harris replied. “We are in the process of delivering nearly $2 billion in funding to help Wisconsin and the communities within Wisconsin address toxic PFAS chemicals.”
“Donald Trump refused to protect communities from PFAS and he has sided again and again with polluters rather than with the families of Wisconsin.”
One poll from Marquette University Law School in June concluded that 68% of voters were somewhat or very worried about PFAS in their drinking water.
Wisconsinites have seen stories about groundwater contamination in certain parts of the state such as Campbell on French Island, where the issue was reportedly linked to firefighting foam at a nearby airport.
Pennsylvania campaigns director of Clean Water Action Steven Hvozdovich last month penned an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review warning against the possibility of the Pentagon reviving PFAS incineration.
“Anyone who cares about the basic health and safety of the region’s children must demand that DoD not burn these chemicals here — or anywhere else, for that matter,” Hvozdovich wrote in the piece.
Beyond disposal, PFAS has emerged as a health concern for veterans, particularly those who worked in military facilities where they were exposed to spills. In September, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced it was studying whether the chemicals were linked to kidney cancer in veterans.
Back in April, the Biden-Harris EPA announced its first-ever “national drinking water standard” for PFAS. The EPA also unveiled a $1 billion investment to help address drinking water contamination.
