As a criminal investigation continues into what sickened farmers in a Texas county and killed their fish and livestock, the fertiliser and biosolids management company that has been blamed has commissioned its own lab analysis that it claims absolves the firm of responsibility.
The case, which began in late December 2022, involves the death of hundreds of fish, cattle and horses on farmland in Johnson County, Texas, that is adjacent to Grandview farm, where Synagro Granulite fertiliser was applied. Dana Ames, an environmental crimes investigator with Johnson County who is leading the criminal investigation, collected samples of the fertiliser, soil, pond water, well water, as well as fish and animal tissue, from the two farms near Grandview for analysis and found that they were contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl and substances (PFAS).
More than 613,000ng/l of PFAS were detected in the liver of a stillborn calf on a farm neighbouring Grandview, and two fish tested at more than 74,000ng/l and 57,000ng/l of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), respectively. And testing showed that a sample of the fertiliser itself contained 13,000ng/l of PFOS per 100g. By comparison, last year the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released long-awaited regulations that set national and enforceable drinking water standards for six PFAS, which specified 4ng/l for PFOS.
Based on those results, Ames and Kyla Bennett, an ecologist with the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer) who served as a consultant for the investigation, suggested that the fertiliser was contaminated with PFAS that leached onto the neighbouring farms and caused the damage. The product is made from biosolids, which is municipal wastewater-treated sewage sludge from the city of Fort Worth.
Beyond this criminal investigation, which Ames hopes to wrap up soon, there are two other related legal cases running in parallel – a lawsuit launched by Peer to force the EPA to start regulating PFAS in biosolids, and a liability lawsuit by affected farmers against Synagro and its Texas affiliate.
Move to dismiss
Synagro denies that its fertiliser has harmed the health of farmers or livestock and fish in Johnson County. The company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit and it is now publicising the findings from the newer testing it has commissioned of soil and water samples from Grandview. This latest analysis, conducted by a consulting firm, concluded that Synagro’s fertiliser ‘could not be the source’ of the high PFAS levels found on nearby farms. While some soil samples on Grandview had measurable PFAS concentrations, Synagro reports that all individual PFAS were below measurable limits except a few, which were all reported below 0.7ng/l, well within ‘background soil concentrations’ observed across the US.
‘I do stand by the assessment … this was based on soil and water samples taken on the farm where Granulite was applied and data in the formal Peer report,’ says Linda Lee, an agronomist and environmental and ecological engineer at Purdue University, who reviewed the analysis for Synagro and was not paid by the company. She notes, however, that there is ‘no explanation’ for the extraordinary PFAS concentrations reported in the fish or the stillborn calf, although she has not received access to this data to review it.
Two decades ago, Lee was approached by DuPont – a major manufacturer of PFAS – to gauge her interest in developing what she calls ‘the science for studying PFAS’. She says the company gave her $500,000 (£386,000) with no strings attached, which she then used to purchase her first liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometer that was essential for pursuing PFAS research. Subsequently, Lee says she secured numerous grants to study the fate and transport of PFAS, as well as their ecotoxicity, toxicity and remediation.
Ames says these latest findings reported by Synagro do not affect her criminal investigation. ‘We have no concerns – we are solid in our investigation,’ she tells Chemistry World. ‘Eventually, all of the evidence will be heard by the courts, and ultimately judges and juries will make the determination.’
Synagro claimed that it cannot provide Chemistry World with the full report detailing the results of the new analysis it commissioned due to the ongoing litigation. But Pam Racey, Synagro’s chief commercial officer, maintains: ‘We know that the fingerprint of the PFAS they found on their property doesn’t match the Granulite.’
James Slaughter, Synagro’s outside counsel, suggests that many factors could contribute to the high PFAS levels detected on the plaintiffs’ farms, including a large aquifer beneath that land. He adds that ‘there is just not the linkage of causation there showing a plausible case that there was this massive migration of PFAS that they posit in their lawsuit and in their very public claims’.
The case will come down to ‘a battle of the scientific experts’, Bennett says.
In the meantime, on 25 March, members of the Fort Worth city council voted to cancel the city’s 10-year contract with Synagro to process the city’s biosolids. As part of the agreement, Fort Worth will pay $2.4 million to Synagro for past operations and maintenance costs. The city’s water utility plans to take over operation and maintenance of the biosolids facilities on 5 April.
No comments yet