1. The PFAS Tsunami: A Dive into the Current Wave of Issues Facing the Clean Water Community
Emily J. Remmel, BS, MS, Esq.
Director, Regulatory Affairs
ACEC Indiana
September 26, 2019

3. PFAS 101 and EPA’s Action Plan

5. Sources of PFAS Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Dental floss
Non-stick cookware and utensils
Polishes, paints, sealants, and waxes
Stain repellant carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics
Cleaning products
Personal care products and cosmetics (nail polish, eye makeup)
Stain and water-repellant apparel (including Gor-Tech)
Household dust/lint
Grease/Oil-resistant food packaging and containers
Contaminated food

6. CnF2n+1-R Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
A family of synthetic organic substances containing one or more carbon (C) atoms where all the hydrogen (H) atoms have been replaced by fluorine (F) atoms
Significant interest in the two “long-chain” perfluoroalkyl acids:
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
≥6 fully florinated carbons
Alternatives to perfluoroalkyl acids are the polyfluoroalkyl substances or “short-chain”:
GenX
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
≤5 fully florinated carbons
CnF2n+1-R
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

7. Understanding Precursors
3,000+ different chemical varieties
Manufactured PFAS precursors (alcohols/amides) are less stable compounds that undergo transformation or degradation to PFAS
Can occur through biological processes and abiotic processes
Common analysis (EPA Method 537) does not evaluate precursors
Precursors have different physical and chemical properties
Lead to different fate, transport behavior
Source: Wang et al., A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) 51 Envtl. Sci.& Tech (2017).

8. Exposure Pathways; Fate & Transport
Ingestion (food and water)
Air inhalation
Dust ingestion
Dermal exposure through direct skin contact w/consumer products
Source: Sunderland, Elsie et al., A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects, 29 J. of Exposure Sci. & Envtl. Epidemiology (2019)

9. How Did We Get Here? Decatur, AL1 Parkersburg, WV Cape Fear, NC2
Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Received wastewater effluent from a number of local PFOS manufacturers and other industries using PFAS containing materials
Between , Decatur provided over 24,000 dry metric tons of biosolids to local farmers as soil amendment
5,000 Ha of agricultural fields
Multi-City sampling and analysis effort
No detectable levels in public drinking water systems
Found 5,000 ppt in liquid effluent
Found in Tennessee River downstream of WWTP
All biosolids samples were significantly below EPA’s health-based screening levels
But, still a concern that land application of biosolids could be factor in transport of PFAS in the environment
Chemours Fayetteville Works site
Started manufacturing GenX in 2009 as a replacement for PFOA
NC DEQ began sampling in 2017 from 12 drinking water related sites along Cape Fear River
Found GenX in all but 1 sample (groundwater well)
July 2017, NC Dept. of Health and Human Services set drinking water health goal for 140 ppt
Chemours stopped discharging GenX
Significant decreases in GenX
But, two new PFAS (Nafion byproducts 1 &2) continued (other source?)
NC DEQ taking enforcement actions
NPDES permit
Air permit
DuPont’s Washington Works site
Used PFOA to manufacture Teflon in 1951
Also known as C8
DuPont found early evidence of toxicity
Elevated levels of PFOA in drinking water
Did not reduce air emissions
Employees witnessing severe illnesses and/or deaths; children birth defects
Purchased additional property to use as landfill for non-hazardous material
Led to groundwater contamination
Litigation and settlement of $343 million
C8 Science Panel
Epidemiological study
Found link between PFOA exposure to 6 diseases
PFAS contamination of drinking water was first reported in the US in public and private drinking water supplies near a fluoropolymer manufacturing facility in Washington, WV in 1999
Following the shift in PFAS production away from PFOS, PFOA and their precursors, different PFASs may now be accumulating in drinking water and become relevant for human exposure. Newer PFASs, such as GenX, have been detected at high concentration (hundreds of ng L −1 ) in the Cape Fear River watershed in North Carolina, downstream of a PFAS manufacturing plant [52]. The largescale implications of such findings have yet to be evaluated and knowledge of the international significance of drinking water contamination by PFASs continues to advance at a rapid pace.
1 Lindstrom, et al. Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA 45 Envtl. Sci. & Tech (2011)
2 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Update on PFOA/PFOS/GenX, presented May 16, 2018 available at:

10. The Phase-Out of PFOA/PFOS
After growing concerns about the potential environmental and toxicological impact, EPA invited 8 major industrial companies that manufacture PFOA/PFOS to join in a global stewardship program to voluntarily phase out these chemicals.
2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program
Goal:
By not later than 2010, commit to achieve a 95% reduction (measured from baseline 2000) in
facility emissions to all media of PFOA, precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA, and higher homologue chemicals; and
Product content levels of PFOA, precursors, and higher homologue chemicals
Commit to eliminate PFOA, their precursors, and higher homologue chemicals from emissions and products by no later than 2015
Similar initiatives in other countries:
Canada
European Union
Stockholm Convention
* Even though PFAS is no longer manufactured in the US, other countries still produce PFOA/PFOS and the products that contain them. They are imported into the US.

11. EPA’s Health Advisory for PFOA/PFOS
In 2016, EPA established lifetime health advisories (HAs) for PFOA and PFOS
Set levels at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) combined concentrations
Not a regulation
Not an MCL
Based off the best available peer-reviewed studies of PFOA and PFOS on rats and mice AND informed by epidemiological studies of humans exposed
Protective of the most sensitive population: fetuses during pregnancy and breastfed infants
Calculated based on drinking water intake of lactating mother
Notification required to state agency if water samples trip the 70 ppt threshold
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls draft report published in 2018
Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) – daily human exposure over a given duration; based on non-cancer health effects; used as screening tool
Different than EPA’s HA which uses reference doses (RfD)
Some groups have extrapolated from the ATSDR report, that EPA’s health advisories are not protective enough and must be reduced by an order of magnitude or 7-10 ppt for PFOA, PFOS
For chemical contaminants that are non-carcinogens but can cause adverse non-cancer health effects (for example, reproductive effects), the MCLG is based on the reference dose. A reference dose (RfD) is an estimate of the amount of a chemical that a person can be exposed to on a daily basis that is not anticipated to cause adverse health effects over a lifetime.
To determine the RfD, the concentration for the non-carcinogenic effects from an epidemiology or toxicology study is divided by uncertainty factors (for example, for sensitive subpopulations).  This provides a margin of safety for consumers of drinking water.
The RfD is multiplied by body weight and divided by daily water consumption to provide a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL).
The DWEL is multiplied by the relative source contribution. The relative source contribution is the percentage of total drinking water exposure for the general population, after considering other exposure routes (for example, food, inhalation).

12. Attention to PFAS has increased
Attention to PFAS has increased. When sampling was done initially there were only X sites in the U.S. with contamination. Here, in May of this year, the EWG found significantly more sites with PFAS contamination.
Source: The Environmental Working Group, PFAS Contamination in the U.S. Interactive Map (May 2019); available at

13. On February 14, 2019, EPA published their Action Plan on PFAS

14. Priority Actions Long-Term Actions

15. Absent Federal Action, States Are Moving Quickly

16. States are Stepping Up Policies on PFAS
New Jersey – 13 ppt for PFNA in September 2018; proposing 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS
Vermont – 20 ppt for 5 PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA) on May 16, 2019
New York – proposed 10 ppt MCL for each PFOA and PFOS individually in December 2018
$855M in capital costs; $45M in O&M costs
California – proposed notification levels at 14 ppt PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS; combined PFOA/PFOS at 70 ppt
North Carolina – set a health goal (health screening goal) of 140 ppt for GenX in 2017
Minnesota – Health-based guidance levels of 35 ppt PFOA; 15 ppt for PFOS; 47 ppt for PFHxS

17. The Federal Legislative Response

18. “The Big Three”
H.R.535/S.638 – PFAS Action Plan of 2019 (Reps. Dingell [D-MI] & Upton [R-MI)] / Sen. Carper [D-DE] & Capito [R-WV] with 32 cosponsors) - Requires EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
H.R.2377/S.1473 – The Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act (Reps. Boyle [D-PA] &  Fitzpatrick [R-PA] / Sens. Capito [R-WV] & Gillibrand [D-NY]) – Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act and requires EPA to set an MCL for all PFAS chemicals within two years 
H.R.2577/S.1507 – PFAS Release Disclosure Act – (Rep. Delgado [D-NY] & Gallagher [R-WI] / Sens. Capito [R-WV], Gillibrand [D-NY] & Carper [D-DE]) – Amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 to require reporting on releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Note the who is important – all bipar cosponsors and some unlikely pairings, heavy influence of localized GW crises; 1 & 3 has the Senate EPW Ranking Dem and a key EPW Republican. 

19. Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act
H.R. 1976
S. 960
PFAS Detection Act of 2018
U.S. Geological Survey funding of $45M to develop advanced testing methods
H.R. 1863
S. 858 -
Requires Secretary of Defense to provide blood testing for firefighers of the DoD
H.R. 2533
Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act
Requires EPA Administrator to Establish, within 180 days, a program to award grants to PFAS-afected water systems
H.R. 2566
Requires EPA to establish a lable under the Safer Choice prgram for cookware that is PFAS-free
H.R. 2570
PFAS User Fee Act of 2019
Establishes a trust fund, financed through user fees from PFAS manufactures to pay ongoing O&M costs of water treatment and drinking water treatment plants
H.R. 2591
PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019
Prohibits the incineration disposal of fire-fighting foam containing PFAS under the SWDA
H.R. 2596
Amends TSCA to prevent introduction of any new PFAS into commerce
H.R. 2600
Toxic PFAS Control Act
Amends TSCA to regulate and prohibit the manufacturing of existing and new PFAS
H.R. 2605
Requires EPA Administrator to list PFAS as a hazardous air pollutant under CAA
H.R. 2608
Requires comprehensive health testing of al PFAS under TSCA
H.R. 2626
Amenda CERCLA to require clean up at federal facilities to meet state limits for PFAS
H.R. 2638
Requires EPA to issue guidance for firefighters and first responders to minimize health risks from exposure
H.R. 2741
Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s America Act
Creates a PFAS infrastructure grant program for affected community water systems to pay for capital costs associated with treatment technologies
H.R. 2800
PFAS Monitoring Act of 2019
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require continued and expanded monitoring of PFAS in drinking water
H.R. 2827
Keep Food Containers Safe From PFAS Act of 2019
Amends Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem any PFAS used as a food contact substance to be unsafe and therefore treated as adulterated
H.R. 1417
S. 611
Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability Act of 2019
Provides funding under DWSRF to address PFAS
H.R. 1567
S. 675
Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Damages of 2019
Authorizes DoD to provide water for ag purposes to areas and to acquire real property for areas affected from the military
H.R. 2195
S. 1105
PFAS Registry Act of 2019
Requires Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs to establish and maintain a registry for individuals that may have been exposed to PFAS on military installations
S. 1372
PFAS Accountability Act
Encourages federal facilities to expedite cooperative agreements with states and commit federal dollars
S. 1534
Requires DoD to conduct an assessment of quantum computing technology to address problems associated with exposure to PFAS

21. PFAS and the Potential Impacts to the Water Sector

22. Drinking Water

23. National Primary Drinking Water Standards
To regulate PFOA/PFOS, or the broader class of PFAS chemicals, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA must find that the contaminants:
May have adverse health effects
Occur frequently (or substantial likelihood that it occurs frequently) and at levels of public health concern;
In the sole judgement of the Administrator, the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for people served by public water systems
EPA Action Plan: initiating steps to evaluate the need for an MCL for PFOA/PFOS
Congressional bills requiring EPA to develop MCL for PFAS as a class

24. Water Quality Standards

25. The Possibility for WQS for PFAS
PFAS Action Plan – Is the data available?
EPA tentative timeframe is 2021
PFAS Detection Act - $45M to USGS to develop new advanced technology to detect PFAS and conduct nationwide surface water sampling
2019 National Water Policy Fly-In
EPA OST Director, Deborah Nagel mentioned WQS are coming down the pike on PFAS
Hurdles:
Technology available?
Costs?
Meaningful health and environmental protections if PFAS still in production/consumer goods?

26. Biosolids OIG Report Notes:
The EPA OIG raised concerns over the practice of applying biosolids – issuing a report that criticizes the biosolids office for failing to adequately assess and communicate the potential risks associated of 352 pollutants in biosolids sampled over the last few decades. The report states that EPA’s controls are incomplete or have weaknesses and may not fully protect human health and the environment. 
The Office of Water and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance responded to the OIG Report calling parts of the report “biased” and raising concern about the lack of scientific understanding. 
In response EPA is increasing its risk assessment work and efforts to finalize the biennial reviews of biosolids on time.
Major takeaways –Report uncovered no evidence of actual harm to human health or the environment. Report could be beneficial to the biosolids program because it will add more resources and beef up documentation of the safety of biosolids practice.   

27. Potential for Biosolids Impacts
Land application is becoming a challenge
What about past and ongoing land application? What does this mean for my utility?
Some states taking a more measured approach – focused on collecting data
But, we are lacking analytical methods for biosolids 
Data leads to question: What levels are protective?
Landfilling may not be a long-term option; landfills are being targeted as a source of PFAS as well
Incineration is getting a closer look
What temperatures are required for complete destruction of PFAS?

28. Pretreatment

29. Pretreatment Program Objectives
Michigan DEQ

31. Other

32. Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated that EPA protect the public from “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals
Grandfathered in the 62,000 chemicals already on the market
Only 200 of 84,000 chemicals in the current TSCA Inventory tested
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016)
Mandated EPA to evaluate existing chemicals against a risk-based safety standard
EPA finalized a rule to establish a process for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation
EPA PFAS Action Plan: “New chemical reviews under TSCA ensure that unreasonable risks are addressed prior to commercialization. The issuance of SNURs [Significant New Use Rule] for existing PFAS chemicals prohibits new uses for these chemicals until the EPA determines whether the significant new use presents an unreasonable risk and takes appropriate actions as required by TSCA to address any unreasonable risk.”

33. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
Section 313 of EPCRA – Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Provide public with information about chemicals listed on the TRI, including releases, other waste management, and pollution prevention from reporting facilities
Tracks management of toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to public health and the environment
Requires annual reporting of how much chemical is released to the environment and/or managed through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment
Currently no PFAS chemicals listed
EPA Action Plan – is data and information available to fulfill listing criteria?
Listing PFAS on TRI list, could help public wastewater utilities in pretreatment efforts
Would help identify manufacturing/industrial PFAS sources

34. PFAS in Air Emissions Air is a significant source of PFAS
Chemical manufactures
Commercial applications
Incineration requires high temperatures > 1000 degrees Celsius
Can result in PFAS by-products
No accepted source and ambient air methods for testing PFAS in air emissions
EPA Action Plan – develop analytical methods for PFAS and PFAS precursors in media other than drinking water, including air emissions
Several states are ramping up efforts to look at emissions
Including from sewage sludge incineration (SSI) processes
SSI does not burn at high enough temperature
Reporting thresholds = 0

35. Questions?
Emily J. Remmel Director, Regulatory Affairs National Association of Clean Water Agencies 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC