Block 3

 

 

 

Block 4

PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)

PFAS are a class of thousands of different chemicals that have been manufactured and used in a variety of commercial products since the 1940s – from everyday household items to food packaging – due to its heat, moisture, and stain resistance and non-stick qualities. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals, followed by PFHxS and PFNA. These chemicals do not break down in the environment or human body, and can accumulate over time. There is evidence that PFAS exposure can lead to adverse health effects.

ASDWA Resources

 

ASDWA PFAS – Source Water Protection Guide and Toolkit

ASDWA developed this guide and toolkit with support from a Project Advisory Council (PAC) with representatives from nine states (Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin), and the Cadmus Group. The purpose of the guide is to demonstrate and share effective strategies for addressing PFAS contamination risk in source waters that will help inform policy decisions, assist state drinking water programs in protecting public health, and encourage collaboration and communication among states and water utilities.


The tool includes three main components and a factsheet:

The ASDWA PFAS SWP – Decision Support Tool is downloadable in Excel and provides examples of state actions to address PFAS contamination. It includes an update form for states and other organizations to submit updates or new entries for the Tool.

The factsheet for Communicating with Industry on PFAS Contamination includes best practices and questions with fillable fields to support state planning efforts.

The Technical Appendix includes an overview of PFAS, chemicals of concern, PFAS in the U.S., and state PFAS profiles.

The Mapping Guide aids identifying and mapping source waters that are vulnerable to PFAS contamination.

Download The Guide and Toolkit

Learn More About the Toolkit – in this webinar, ASDWA showcases the newly developed PFAS Source Water Protection Guide and Toolkit, sharing effective strategies for addressing PFAS contamination risk in source waters.

PFAS Background: The understanding of potential drinking water impacts from PFAS has significantly increased over the past decade. This class of chemicals started to get publicity in 2001 & 2002 due to water contamination from the Washington Works Plant located outside of Parkersburg, West Virginia, on the West Virginia/Ohio border. The class-action lawsuit against DuPont due to water contamination at Little Hocking Water District and Lubeck Public Service District generated additional publicity. In 2006, DuPont and other manufacturers such as 3M, agreed to principally phase out the production of PFOA and PFOS.

(NEW!) EPA’s Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for Six PFAS

On March 14, 2023, EPA released the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFOA and PFOS, along with four additional PFAS. EPA is proposing to set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 4 ppt for PFOS, levels at which they can be reliably measured. In addition to these two MCLs, EPA is proposing to address four additional PFAS (GenX, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS) as a mixture using a Hazard Index. The Hazard Index is a tool used to evaluate potential health risks from exposure to chemical mixtures. This approach has been used in other EPA programs, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), but this is the first time it has been used for a drinking water standard. Additionally, EPA is proposing Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for each of the six PFAS. The MCLs and MCLGs are as follows.

Proposed NPDWR

  Compound Name Proposed MCLG Proposed MCL
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 0 ppt 4 ppt
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 0 ppt 4 ppt
GenX Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HI = 1.0 HI = 1.0
PFBS Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid HI = 1.0 HI = 1.0
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid HI = 1.0 HI = 1.0
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid HI = 1.0 HI = 1.0

*Hazard Index (HI) is unitless

For the Hazard Index, the rule proposes a ratio for each of the four PFAS to be used to calculate a compliance value based on detected levels of the four PFAS. If the combination of those four ratios is at or above 1.0, then water systems will be expected to reduce the levels of these PFAS. Depending on the level of contamination found, water systems may need to take action even if only one of the four PFAS is present. EPA will be creating a webpage with a calculator tool for water systems to determine their Hazard Index. Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the public will be given 60 days to provide comments.

EPA’s 2022 Health Advisories: On June 15, 2022, EPA released the long-anticipated updated interim health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, as well as the final health advisories for GenX and PFBS. Under the 2022 HA levels, PFOA and PFOS are no longer combined. PFOA’s HA level is now 0.004 ppt, and PFOS’s HA level stands at 0.02 ppt. GenX and PFBS have HAs for the first time at 10 and 2000 ppt, respectively.

EPA PFAS Health Advisories

  Compound Name 2009 EPA HAs 2016 Revised HAs 2022 EPA HAs
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 400 ppt 70 ppt (individual and combined sum with PFOS) .004 ppt*
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 200 ppt 70 ppt (individual and combined sum with PFOA) .02 ppt*
GenX Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid NA NA 10 ppt
PFBS Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid NA NA 2000 ppt

*EPA interim health advisory levels.

What is a drinking water health advisory?

Health advisories are not legally enforceable and reflect EPA’s assessment of the health risks of a contaminant. Unlike the legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), health advisories are based solely on EPA’s assessment of the risks and are not based on any consideration of the feasibility, costs, or benefits of reducing contaminant levels.

Provisional vs. Interim vs. Final Health Advisory

From EPA: EPA can develop interim or provisional HA levels to provide information in response to an urgent or rapidly developing situation. Interim or provisional HAs are also based on health-based hazard concentrations above which action should be taken to reduce exposure to unregulated contaminants in drinking water. In contrast, final health advisories are based on final health effects assessments.

In the case of PFOA and PFOS: These interim health advisories are intended to be in place during the time interval between initial understanding of health effects and publication of the final health advisory or maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. EPA anticipates proposing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation by the end of 2022 and finalizing it by the end of 2023.

HAs Versus Regulatory Standards Create Challenges: Use of HAs as guidance, versus a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulation with an established Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) creates challenges for state drinking water programs and public water systems. The HAs for PFOA and PFOS do not provide clarity on necessary actions for water systems to address the compounds, and how to communicate their actions and the associated health risks to the public.

State Regulatory and Oversight Challenges: States are having to make tough decisions about whether or how to implement HAs and address PFAS in drinking water in the absence of federal standards. The table below shows the states that have proposed or established PFAS standards or guidelines that are lower or different than EPA’s HAs. These numbers demonstrate the variation in health risk goals and risk reductions among states in the absence of federal standards and are creating public confusion about what levels of PFAS are safe in drinking water.

2019 EPA PFAS Action Plan: Commitments by EPA in the action plan included:

  • Proposing a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS by the end of 2019.
  • Determining if a SDWA regulation is appropriate for a broader class of PFAS.
  • Including a larger group of PFAS in UCMR5.
  • Working through its regulatory development process for listing PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances.
  • Continuing to use its authority under TSCA to review new PFAS and issuing supplemental proposed Significant New Use Rules.
  • Finalizing the toxicity assessments for PFBS and GenX in 2019.
  • Developing draft toxicity assessments for PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA in 2020.
  • Developing guidance to facilitate cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
  • Developing new tools to characterize PFAS in the environment and materials to communicate about PFAS.

Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3): Due to escalating concerns, six PFAS compounds were included in EPA’s final UCMR3. UCMR3 monitoring occurred between January 2013 and December 2015 and included two to four quarterly samples at mostly large water systems throughout the country using EPA Method 537. As typical for the UCMRs, EPA regularly released the UCMR3 monitoring data, starting in late 2013.

EPA’s 2009 Provisional and 2016 Revised Health Advisories (HAs): In 2009, EPA established provisional health advisories (HAs) for PFOA at 400 parts per trillion (ppt) and for PFOS at 200 ppt; those two numbers were the benchmark at that time, even though an EPA health effects review was underway. Based on the provisional health advisories, national occurrence in UCMR3 for PFOA and PFOS, at the time, appeared to be relatively low. In May 2016, EPA released revised HAs for the sum of PFOA and PFOS at 70 ppt. This numerical reduction significantly increased the number of water systems impacted.

State Actions to Address PFAS in Drinking Water

State Drinking Water Action Compound Level (ppt)
California

Response Levels

Notification Levels

PFOA

PFOS

PFBS

PFOA

PFOS

PFBS

10

40

5000

5.1

6.5

500

Connecticut Action Level Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA 70
Illinois Health Advisory Levels 7/27/21

PFOA

PFOS

PFNA

PFHxS

PFBS

PFHxA

2

14

21

140

2100

560,000

Massachusetts Adopted Regulation 9/16/20 Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, PFDA 20
Michigan Adopted Regulation 8/3/20

PFOA

PFOS

PFNA

PFHxS

PFBS

PFHxA

GenX

8

16

6

51

420

400,000

370

Minnesota

Health Based Guidance for Water

Surrogate of PFOS HBV

PFOA

PFOS

PFHxS

35

15

47

New Hampshire Adopted Regulation 10/1/19

PFOA

PFOS

PFHxS

PFNA

12

15

18

11

New Jersey

Adopted Regulation

Adopted Regulations 6/1/20

PFNA

PFOA

PFOS

13

14

13

New York Adopted Regulation 7/30/20

PFOA

PFOS

10

10

North Carolina Health Advisory GenX 140
Vermont Adopted Regulation 3/17/20 Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA 20
Washington State Action Levels 1/1/22

PFOA

PFOS

PFNA

PFHxS

PFBS

10

15

9

65

345

Wisconsin Adopted Regulation 8/1/22 Sum of PFOA and PFOS 70

Click to expand the section below to see more examples of state efforts:

More PFAS Contamination Sites are Being Found: The number of PFAS contaminated sites continues to grow. Over the past decade, PFAS contamination was found in many more locations beyond where the UCMR3 required water systems to conduct monitoring. Initially, contamination was thought to be somewhat limited to the chemical manufacturing facilities but has now expanded to include military bases, fire-fighting foam application, storage, and disposal sites, manufacturing sites of fire-retardant materials, landfills, and many other locations, including some that appear to be caused by air deposition.

State PFAS Sampling Maps, Action Plans, and Resources.
California PFAS Map Tool with Site Investigation and Drinking Water Test Results.
Colorado Colorado PFAS Action Plan Fact Sheet2020 Sampling Plan Website
Connecticut Interagency PFAS Task Force Action Plan
Iowa PFAS Action Plan
Maine PFAS Task Force Report
Massachusetts MA Energy & Environmental Affairs Data Portal: Search Drinking Water for “Contaminant Group,” “PFAS” or “PFCS” or for individual compounds under “chemical name.”
Michigan MI PFAS Site Investigation web page: Includes drinking water sample results for multiple sites throughout the state.
Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Interactive Map showing private wells with advisories in the sampling area near St. Paul.
New Hampshire NH PFAS Investigation website and GIS maps and data and PWS test results
New Jersey NJ 2009 Study Report: Occurrence of PFAS in Drinking Water Sources throughout the state.
New York Funding and Actions or Emerging Contaminants
North Carolina NC PFAS Testing Network Final Report
Ohio PFAS Public Water System Testing
Pennsylvania PA PFAS Statewide Sampling Results
South Carolina PFAS Drinking Water Strategy
Vermont Draft PFAS Response Plan and Drinking Water Monitoring Results
Washington PFAS Chemical Action Plan and Drinking Water Testing Standard
Wisconsin PFAS Action Plan
 
ASDWA PFAS Recommendations to EPA and CDC

ASDWA’s State Drinking Water Program Recommendations to EPA and CDC on PFAS (1/12/18) includes the following recommendations:

  • Form a working committee with ASDWA, EPA, CDC, and Department of Defense (DoD) leadership.
  • Develop a unified message and work with other stakeholders to minimize the potential adverse effects to public health and the environment.
  • Directly engage with states on any new federal actions and support current state efforts to consistently assess and address PFAS; and develop guidance for public water systems.
  • Conduct more health effects research and increase funding and support non-targeted analyses of drinking water for known and unknown PFAS, and substitute compounds.
  • Develop rules or guidance for other media (e.g., UIC, wastewater, soil leaching, air emissions).
  • Directly engage with stakeholders and industry to assess and address the universe of known and unknown PFAS compounds, and evaluate fire-fighting foam and alternatives.
  • Address laboratory and sampling needs for analytical methods and standards, lab vendors, standardization of lab results, and increase lab programs and capacity beyond UCMR3.

The Number of PFAS Being Manufactured Continues to Grow: The number of PFAS compounds that might be a cause of concern is thought to be in the hundreds and continues to grow. Since the phase-out of PFOA and PFOS, companies have shifted to “short-chain” PFAS such as GenX, which is now a significant concern in the Cape Fear Watershed downstream of a Chemours manufacturing plant in North Carolina. The increasing number of PFAS of concern is creating a host of data collection and analysis issues, as regulators and researchers are struggling to get enough robust health effects, analytical methods, and treatment data to make smart decisions.

ASDWA PFAS Water Utility Treatment Case Study – Town of Blades, Delaware – December 14, 2018: This case study was developed for ASDWA by the Town of Blades, where high levels of PFOA and PFOS were found in their wells. The town worked with the state, EPA, and many partners to undertake subsequent actions to add GAC treatment and investigate the source of contamination. The case study includes information about their efforts; their treatment needs, considerations, and decisions; and the associated costs.

ASDWA Webinar: PFAS Treatment Options and Considerations for Drinking Water Utilities – October 2018: This webinar shared information from four companies that offer PFAS treatment technologies for drinking water utilities.

EPA Website on Drinking Water Treatment Technologies – August 2018: The site includes some general information on reducing PFAS in drinking water using activated carbon, ion exchange, and high-pressure membranes. The site also includes a link to EPA’s Drinking Water Treatability Database with more information.

New Jersey Recommendations for PFAS Drinking Water Treatment Options – June 2015: This document developed by the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute Treatment Subcommittee provides drinking water treatment options for removing PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA, as well as some short case studies with treatment information and costs from a few water utilities. There are two addendums dated August 2016 and November 2017 to the original document that update information about treatment and the case studies.

Cape Fear Public Utilities Desktop Evaluation of Alternatives – GenX and Other PFAS Treatment Options Study – July and September 2017: This document includes two Technical Memorandums (TMs) developed by Black & Veatch. The first TM1 compares treatment methods – Granular Activated Carbon, Ion Exchange, and Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration for the water utility, and the second TM2 presents planning level opinions of probable cost for treatment options previously selected in TM1.

 

EPA Resources:

CDC:

Department of Defense (DoD) Resources:

Industry Resources:

Water Research Foundation (WRF) Resources:

Risk Communication Resources

 

For more information on how states are addressing PFAS, contact Stephanie Schlea at sschlea@asdwa.org or Deirdre White at dwhite@asdwa.org

ASDWA PFAS Fact Sheet

Download a PDF-version of this webpage.


ASDWA’s PFAS News Feed

ASDWA publishes content covering various areas of the drinking water program.

Learn More

President Biden Unveils 2025 Budget Request Including an 8.4% Increase in Funding for EPA

March 12th, 2024 Stephanie Schlea On March 11, President Biden released his $7.3 trillion budget request “detailing his vision to protect and build on the Administration’s progress and invest in all of America to make sure the middle class has a fair shot and we leave no one behind.” While the request outlines the President’s funding priorities, Congress determines federal…

EPA Requests Public Comment on Draft IRIS Toxicological Review for PFNA

March 8th, 2024 Stephanie Schlea On March 7, EPA announced the availability of the Agency’s Draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) and Related Salts for review and public comment. The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development develops “impartial toxicity information independent of its use by EPA’s program and regional offices to set national standards…

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to PFAS Contamination in Private Wells

March 1st, 2024 Stephanie Schlea On Febraury 26, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Angus King (I-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced bipartisan legislation to address PFAS contamination in private wells. The Technical Fix for the State Response to Contaminants Program bill would ensure that states have the flexibility to use funding from the $5 billion Small or Disadvantaged…