PFAS:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Background

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a class of manufactured chemical compounds that have been in use since the 1950s. Recent advances in laboratory analysis of PFAS have revealed that these compounds, of which there are many thousands of different types, are present at trace levels in virtually every environmental media including ground and surface water, air, rain, soils, plants, and in the blood, organs and tissues of fish, animals, and humans. 

This should not come as a surprise as PFAS has been used in virtually every realm of product manufacturing including cosmetics, paper coatings, food wrappers, non-stick coatings in cookware, waterproofing, stain resistant fabrics, fire retardants, fire fighting foam, and most everything else made today.

The Regulatory Setting

With recent scientific studies suggesting some PFAS compounds may pose a health risk, environmental, social, and health advocates have pressured political leaders and regulatory agencies to act.  Drinking water was one of the first regulatory targets for PFAS control, and Massachusetts was one of a few states to establish a drinking water limit for 6 PFAS compounds in 2019. EPA followed quickly, proposing federal drinking water limits for a few PFAS in spring 2023. In 2023, the Massachusetts legislature was also advancing a bill to limit the use of PFAS in manufacturing.

Drinking water is one of the first regulatory targets for PFAS control, and has led many Massachusetts water systems to abandon contaminated sources, seek water from other systems, or design and construct treatment facilities. With the EPA-proposed drinking water limits, the American Water Works Association estimates national compliance costs to exceed $3 billion annually.  Wastewater treatment and biosolids disposal are the next likely targets for regulators and stormwater may not be far behind.

The State of Maine passed a land disposal ban for biosolids due to public and political concerns associated with PFAS. This means these biosolids can no longer be beneficially reused – a longstanding process. Further, it has caused capacity issues and price shocks in the regional biosolids disposal marketplace and led to a sharp increase in residuals disposal prices.

Need for Change

All parties agree that source control and phasing out the use of toxic PFAS is the best solution, but this will take time. In 2023, the Massachusetts legislature was advancing a bill to limit the use of PFAS in manufacturing; a good first step. It is also critical to remember that water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities do not generate or contribute PFAS to the environment, rather we must respond to the PFAS that is present in our source water or wastewater.

The challenge for water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities, as well as MCWRS, is to sift through the PFAS rhetoric and challenge political leaders and regulatory agencies to approach PFAS control through a reasonable and scientifically informed process.  Having all the relevant data to make public health protection decisions is critical to ensure that limited funds are expended wisely and effectively.  Political leaders must also identify and provide funding to support municipal and district water utilities in addressing their specific PFAS challenges. The billions of dollars for PFAS remediation identified by federal and state authorities fall far short of what is needed. 

Without substantial financial assistance, water and sewer ratepayers will be burdened with this new PFAS control initiative and other critical investments in water infrastructure will be sidelined.  Water and wastewater services will become unaffordable for an even larger number of ratepayers and add to a growing problem of households unable to pay water and sewer bills

MCWRS Advocacy

  • MCWRS is generally supportive of House Bill 2197/Senate Bill 1356, specifically, its focus on source control as the only viable means to reasonably address these widespread contaminants, but offered comments to make sure water utilities are represented throughout the bill.

    Wastewater systems do not add PFAS to their influent or effluent but simply receive what society sends via domestic and industrial sewage. Future costs for PFAS removal from wastewater and biosolids may dwarf those imposed on drinking water systems and ratepayers should not be expected to carry that burden without grant assistance.

    Any bill addressing PFAS should include an understanding of PFAS sources and risk. To date, MCWRS is not aware of any definitive studies that quantify the total PFAS intake from all such sources and determine which sources are most significant and thereby most critical for public health. It is strongly suggested that the PFAS Omnibus bill include provisions for funding research and testing of other materials to better determine where the most likely exposure to PFAS is coming from. Without that knowledge it is not possible to say whether regulations and rules for PFAS control are effective.

  • While it is now universally understood that PFOA and PFOS need to be regulated in drinking water through an MCL, MCWRS disagrees with a proposed MCL in the parts per trillion for the following reasons:

    • EPA’s cost estimate for nationwide compliance with the proposed MCL is significantly lower than estimates prepared by experts in the water profession.

    • EPA’s estimate of impacted water systems is much lower than the reality. EPA identified 6,300 systems being impacts, which equals out to 9.5% nationally. Massachusetts alone has reported that about 30% of utilities statewide will be impacted by the MCL, and there is nothing unique about Massachusetts when it comes to PFAS.

    • The public health benefits of the proposed MCL cannot be determined if there is no fill understanding of PFAS exposure levels from various sources.

    • It is unclear why EPA has not approached PFAS regulation from a relative risk perspective as is done with other water contaminants and public health risks in general.

    • There could be serious, unintended consequences from diverting large amounts of money to such a niche issue.

  • A majority of this legislation focuses on PFAS reduction through source contract at the manufacturing level. Additionally, a PFAS Remediation Trust Fund would assist municipalities in funding drinking water and wastewater treatment to remove PFAS. MCWRS continues to support source control efforts as the most effective way to address PFAS in wastewater and biosolids.

    However, this legislation also calls for DEP to establish regulations to phase out the use of biosolids as fertilizer, as well as preclude the disposal of biosolids in landfills.

    There is not enough scientific evidence to support the implied risk biosolid fertilizers add. PFAS compounds are found in much higher levels in more common household items like carpeting.

    If land application, landfilling and incineration are off the table for biosolids, ratepayers will spend more money to transport biosolids to other states, contributing more greenhouse gases.

  • Building off our concerns above, these bills would further drive up costs, discourage technological advances in PFAS treatment and destruction, and will inadvertently cause more environmental harm when the only viable option for biosolids management is shipping to another state or country with fewer restrictions.  

  • EPA released a Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS, the findings of which could have major implications for how wastewater treatment facilities manage biosolids.

    Of key concern is the methodology used to in this study. This Assessment relies on a computer model based on a family that lives on a farm, eating mostly food grown on the farm using biosolids; eating fish caught in waters contaminated with PFAS from biosolids and drinking water from a well also contaminated. This has not been field verified, raising doubt about its real-world applicability and conclusions. Modelling results may be useful to inform further investigation and study but should not be used as the basis for new rulemaking, legislation, policy and guidance.

    While it is noted this Assessment does not pertain to risks to the general public, advocacy groups, the media and some politicians are already suggesting this study is a definitive analysis of the health risks associated with land application of biosolids despite it being a draft out for public comment.

    The contribution of biosolids borne PFAS to the average American’s total PFAS intake should be compared to contributions from other household sources. That should inform where PFAS reduction efforts should focus.

Additional Resources