Jackson Quinn brings PFAS water samples to a temperature-controlled room at a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency laboratory in Cincinnati in April. In the coming years, states will have to enforce new federal rules that require drinking water systems to test for PFAS and clean up their water if contamination is found. (Joshua A. Bickel/The Associated Press)
In recent years, Michigan has spent tens of millions of dollars to limit residents’ exposure to harmful “forever chemicals” called PFAS. And some cities have spent millions to filter polluted drinking water or to connect new, less polluted sources.
“We have made significant investments to get up to speed,” said Abigail Hendershott, executive director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, which serves as a coordinating group for the state’s testing, cleanup and public education efforts. “There is still a large part of the country that has not taken action.”
That’s going to change.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month issued new standards for PFAS levels in drinking water, giving water systems three years to conduct testing and another two years to install treatment systems if contaminants are detected. State officials and utilities say meeting the requirements will be difficult and expensive.
“This will require much more investment at the state level,” said Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, a group that brings together leaders of state health and environmental agencies. “It creates a large workload for everyone.”
PFAS chemicals are widespread, found in a wide range of everyday products and industrial applications, and do not break down naturally, meaning they remain in the human body and the environment indefinitely. Exposure has been shown to increase the risk of cancer, reduce fertility, cause metabolic disorders and damage the immune system.
So far, eleven states have set limits for PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in drinking water. Several others have pending rules or levels that require public notice. While the federal rule builds on these efforts, it also sets limits that are stricter than state promulgated rules.
“We’ve really looked to the states as leaders in setting standards and doing some of the basic science,” said Zach Schafer, director of policy and special projects for the EPA’s Office of Water. “It is the government agencies that will play the leading role [in implementing the national rule].”
Schafer said the agency estimates that 6% to 10% of water systems across the country will need to take steps to reduce PFAS contamination, at a cost of an average of $1.5 billion per year over 80 years .
Public health advocates say the EPA’s rule is an important step in ensuring all Americans have access to safe water. They say state actions show such efforts can work.
But some state regulators and water suppliers — even in states that already have their own rules — say the strict thresholds and timelines imposed by the feds will be difficult for many utilities to achieve. Although the Biden administration has committed billions in funding to help clean up the water supply, experts say the costs will far exceed the money available.
“It will have a significant impact nationally on water rates and water affordability,” said Chris Moody, technical supervisor for the American Water Works Association, a group that includes more than 4,000 utilities.
According to an estimate commissioned by the association, the national cost of cleaning up contaminated water is nearly $4 billion annually. The report shows that some households could face thousands of dollars in higher rates to cover the cost of treatment.
‘There are many concerns’
New Jersey became the first state to do so in 2018 to issue standards for PFAS in drinking water. While the state rules gave New Jersey a head start, officials say they still have a difficult task ahead of them in meeting the stricter thresholds.
“As we implement the EPA number, the number of non-compliant systems increases dramatically,” said Shawn LaTourette, state Environmental Protection Commissioner. “There are a lot of concerns about costs and implementation.”
LaTourette said state leaders are working to analyze which water systems may fall out of compliance if federal thresholds take effect. And he’s calling on lawmakers to provide more money to communities that can’t afford the upgrades.
In Washington state, utilities have begun testing for PFAS under state standards adopted by regulators in 2021. Officials say about 2% of water systems tested so far are out of compliance, but that number would rise to 10% when stricter federal limits are taken into account. State leaders say they can use the data they’ve collected to meet EPA testing requirements.
The agency could ask state lawmakers for a “substantial” staff increase to implement the new rules, said Mike Means, capacity development and policy manager at the Washington State Department of Health.
Michigan has had drinking water standards for PFAS since 2020. Hendershott said state officials are well prepared to incorporate the EPA’s thresholds. But the strict new limits could quadruple the number of water systems that don’t meet requirements.
Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals, said state efforts were critical to establishing federal rule.
“They created the urgency for the FBI to introduce these standards,” she said. “States that already have regulatory standards are definitely in a better position.”
‘It’s very expensive’
While many states have not yet set their own standards, some have implemented testing or taken other steps to address residents’ exposure.
This will require much more investment at the state level.
– Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Missouri has been testing water systems for PFAS for more than a decade and has created maps to alert residents of possible exposure. Of the 400 systems studied, 11 may have difficulty complying with the EPA rule, said Eric Medlock, an environmental specialist with the state Department of Natural Resources. The agency wants to bring in a chemist and lab equipment to conduct more tests in-house.
Medlock expressed concern that the federal limits are so stringent that they are close to the threshold of what can be detected.
“When you get to these very low detection levels that are right at the legal limit, that’s a problem,” he said. “We will have to enforce and regulate what the EPA has proposed. It’s going to be a problem.”
Medlock and others noted that in the longer term, states will have problems storing the waste products filtered from water, which carry their own PFAS contamination risk.
The infrastructure bill passed by Congress in 2021 includes $5 billion over five years to help communities deal with PFAS and other emerging pollutants.
More funding for the cleanup could come from lawsuits filed against chemical manufacturers. Thirty attorneys general filed suit against polluters, and Minnesota settled the case against 3M Company for $850 million. But leaders say such settlements are not a predictable source of funding.
In addition to the initial costs of installing treatment systems, utilities face ongoing costs, such as replacing filters and disposing of waste, that are less likely to benefit from federal grants and loans. Meanwhile, some water system leaders say federal compliance timelines may not be long enough.
“It takes time to design and build a major capital project,” said Erica Brown, chief policy and strategy officer for the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, a policy group that advocates for public water utilities. “It’s not one of those things where you say, ‘You have to do this year and next year,’ and you can just turn it on.”
And some officials fear the drinking water limits could lead to more national regulations on wastewater treatment plants and other entities whose discharges could affect drinking water sources.
“It seems like it’s going to be problematic because [treatment] is very expensive,” said Sharon Green, manager of legislative and regulatory programs at the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, an agency whose members operate 11 wastewater treatment plants.
Both state regulators and regulated utilities say state leaders need a broader approach to the PFAS problem than just treating the water that comes out of the tap. Officials must stop pollution at the source, regulate industrial activities and limit the products containing the chemicals.
“If we keep it out of the river at all,… [the utility] doesn’t have to spend millions of dollars for treatment,” said Jean Zhuang, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, an advocacy group focused on the South.
Although Southern states have not adopted drinking water standards for PFAS, Zhuang said South Carolina’s requirement that polluters disclose their discharges of PFAS is a good model for shutting down sources of contamination.
As states face the costs of solving the PFAS problem, some advocates also want them to remember the public health costs of inaction.
“People will ultimately consume less of these chemicals and get sick less often,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit public health organization.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Scott S. Greenberger: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Tweet.
Postal states must keep PFAS “forever chemicals” out of the water. It won’t be cheap. first appeared on Utah News Dispatch.
