Local Water Systems Grapple with 'Forever Chemicals'

Editor’s note: Since publication of this blog, the Environmental Protection Agency on April 10, 2024, announced strict limits on certain PFAS, which will require utilities to reduce them to the lowest level they can be reliably measured. Additionally, the federal government opened $1 billion in funding to help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems.

Last year several Washington public agencies found themselves members of a growing club: communities that are finding high levels of ‘forever chemicals’ in their drinking water. High levels of forever chemicals have been found in public water systems in Camas, Deer Park, Whidbey Island, Vancouver, Moses Lake, and Issaquah, to name just a few.

What does this mean and what can water providers do about it?

What Are Forever Chemicals?

Forever chemicals are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a large family of virtually indestructible synthetic chemicals that are resistant to heat, water, and oil. Such usefulness means that they have been widely employed in a variety of consumer products since the 50s — from dental floss, cosmetics, and food packaging to nonstick cookware, leather goods, and outdoor clothing — as well as firefighting foam and in some firefighting gear.

Extensive use of PFAS and their indestructible nature has led, not surprisingly, to widespread exposure. Researchers have found PFAS in humans, wildlife, and rainwater. In humans, exposure to some of the oldest and most studied PFAS has been linked to high cholesterol, reduced immune response, thyroid disease, increased risks of certain cancers, harm to developing fetus, and developmental effects and delays in children.

National and State-Based Regulatory Steps

Currently, there are no established federal standards for any PFAS compounds, but in 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued non-enforceable interim groundwater health advisory levels for two of the most commonly studied PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) — and in early February, it designated nine PFAS compounds as “hazardous constituents,” a step toward declaring them hazardous chemicals requiring cleanup nationwide. It’s expected the EPA will eventually set a maximum contaminant level and require water systems to test for and clean up certain PFAS from their water supply (see key EPA actions to address PFAS).

The Washington State Legislature has passed multiple bills regarding PFAS over the last decade, steadily restricting or outright banning the use of PFAS in most products (see RCW 70A.222.070, RCW 70A.400, and RCW 70A.350.090)

In late 2021, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) adopted PFAS drinking water standards to conduct mandatory testing for PFAS in Group A water systems (2,400 total systems) and Group A transient non-community water systems beginning in 2023. The rule sets the state action levels (SAL) for five PFAS chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perflourohexane acid (PFBS), and perflourobutane acid (PFHxS), as noted in the table below.

All testing data is publicly available on DOH’s PFAS Testing Results Dashboard.

According to the dashboard, over 1,261 Group A water systems have been evaluated, 249 of which have detected PFAS, 27 of which have reported PFAS over the state action levels. Those 27 systems are required to notify their customers of the results and test for PFAS more often. Water systems that find any level of PFAS must also include the test results in their annual water quality report.

PFAS Remediation

Current mechanical treatments for removing PFAS from water include granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, and reverse osmosis, none of which are simple or inexpensive.

GAC is the most common treatment, with many water systems already using it to remove other contaminants. Ion exchange is a newer technology that has not been implemented on a broad enough level to gauge its effectiveness, and reverse osmosis is the most effective technology, but it is also the most expensive, requires significant expenditures of energy, and wastes a lot of water, making it unviable for dry climates. And none of this touches on the long-term impact to water systems to install, run, and maintain these mechanical treatments.

For some local water providers, immediately managing PFAS contamination has meant taking a polluted source offline, an approach taken by the Highline Water District, Tacoma Public Utilities, and the City of Moses Lake.

The City of Vancouver also discovered varying levels of PFAS in its water wells, which is detailed on its Learn About PFAS webpage. Its’ draft PFAS management plan (2023) outlines short-term fixes as well as long-term projects. Temporary approaches to PFAS management has included adjusting operations to draw from wells with lower PFAS concentration and blending sources to dilute contaminated water. The city is also considering supplying customers with household water filters (or establishing a rebate program for lower-income customers to choose a preferred filtering option) to reduce their PFAS exposure, which, the plan estimates, could cost $3.5 million.

In the long term, Vancouver is proceeding with a $15.7 million project to install a water treatment system at a site with the highest concentration of PFAS. City officials estimate the project will take eight years to complete and cost roughly $235 million, with an additional $1.25 million annually in operational and maintenance costs. The project received a $12.7 million grant via the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Vancouver is also looking at moving existing wells to deeper sources, which would require state approval and treatment for manganese, making this another long-term approach.

Resources from Nationwide Litigation, Federal Government

As of July 2023, there were 15,000 claims filed nationwide against PFAS manufacturers, much of which were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (and being heard in the U.S. District Court for South Carolina). While nearly 600 cases have been settled (see the $1.185 billion settlement between DuPont, Chemours and Corteva and approximately 300 local water systems, or the $10.3 billion settlement between 3M and approximately 300 different water providers) many still remain open, including the lawsuit filed by Washington State Attorney General in May 2023 and one filed by King County a month later.

Funding from settlements may help water providers recuperate some costs associated with PFAS contamination, but it’s sobering to consider that the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) estimated the costs of cleaning up a single contaminated site could range from $5.3 million to $62.8 million.

In early 2023, the EPA announced that it would be awarding $10 billion in funding to states through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s State Revolving Fund Emerging Contaminants program to help identify and reduce PFAS contamination. Washington received $33 million in funding, some of which is available through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and similar grant or loan programs.

Communicating About PFAS Contamination

Communicating with the general public about the presence of PFAS in drinking water, even when it’s below established state action levels, can be a difficult process due to the complexity of the topic. Generally, agencies should be straightforward about the ubiquity and potential health risks of PFAS but also contextualize the relative amounts of PFAS that people may encounter.

A DOE grant helped the Lakewood Water District create a multimedia Pierce County Groundwater story map to explain what PFAS are, discuss sources and possible health effects of PFAS exposure, describe the county’s aquifer system and how water providers use it, and display recent PFAS test results across an interactive map. Other agencies cover similar topics in an online format, like the Yakima Health District's PFAS webpage or Thurston PUD’s Frequently Asked Questions About PFAS.

Agencies should emphasize any proactive actions taken to monitor or remove PFAS from water sources. The Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, which first learned of the presence of PFAS in its drinking water in 2015, hosts LetsTalkAboutOurWater, a website that comprehensively covers district news related to PFAS, including the district’s approach to PFAS clean up, test results, remediation steps (taken and planned), and announcements on funding secured for PFAS clean up.

Conclusion

Much remains on the horizon regarding PFAS contamination in drinking water, from potential new sources of funding, future litigation, and even new treatment technologies, but local agencies are doing what they can to address the issue and keep the public informed throughout the process.

Below are a few sources of information for water providers:

• American Water Works Association: WITAF 56 Technical Memorandum (2023) — Discusses the benefits and disadvantages or various existing PFAS treatment technologies
• Water Coalition Against PFAS: Correcting PFAS Myths - Misperceptions Risk Higher Clean-up Costs for Water Ratepayers
• Washington State DOE
  • Focus on: PFAS Cleanup Levels
  • Guidance for Investigating and Remediating PFAS Contamination in Washington State (2023)
  • PFAS Chemical Action Plan (2022) — Contains extensive information on the science of PFAS compounds.
• Washington State DOH: PFAS in Drinking Water 2021 Rulemaking Documents

For a list of current funding sources that may be applicable for PFAS remediation projects, see the Washington State Department of Commerce’s report: Funding Programs for Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects from September 2023.