Pushback against the EPA’s new regulations for maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water continues to accelerate, with state and public drinking water system officials claiming the costs of removal will be much more than the EPA estimates.

 

PFAS drinking water regulations

In April, the EPA finalized the first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistent nature in both the human body and the environment.

“Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan in an Agency news release. “That is why President Biden has made tackling PFAS a top priority, investing historic resources to address these harmful chemicals and protect communities nationwide. Our PFAS Strategic Roadmap marshals the full breadth of EPA’s authority and resources to protect people from these harmful forever chemicals. Today, I am proud to finalize this critical piece of our Roadmap, and in doing so, save thousands of lives and help ensure our children grow up healthier.”

For perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), the EPA set a nonenforceable health-based goal of zero. This is called a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG). “This reflects the latest science showing that there is no level of exposure to these two PFAS without risk of health impacts,” states an EPA overview PowerPoint® presentation.

For perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA), collectively known as GenX chemicals, the EPA set MCLGs of 10 parts per trillion (ppt).

The EPA set enforceable MCLs at 4.0 ppt for PFOA and PFOS individually.

For GenX chemicals, the EPA set MCLs of 10 ppt.

The EPA is also regulating, through a hazard index (HI), mixtures of four PFAS: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. According to the Agency, decades of research show some chemicals, including some PFAS, can combine in mixtures and have adverse health effects, even if the individual chemicals are present at lower levels.

Impacts and costs of the rule

The EPA calculated measurable health benefits based on fewer cancers, lower incidences of heart attacks and strokes, and reduced birth complications. These benefits are estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion per year and include avoided costs of medical bills, income lost to illness, and death. Additional health benefits like developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects couldn’t be quantified, which means the benefits are likely higher, according to the Agency.

“Compliance with this rule is estimated to cost approximately $1.5 billion annually,” states the EPA Fact Sheet on the rule. “The Biden-Harris Administration has dedicated $9 billion through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help communities impacted by PFAS pollution in drinking water. In addition, another $12 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is available to communities to make general drinking water improvements, including addressing PFAS chemicals. Estimated costs include water system monitoring, communicating with customers, and – if necessary – installing treatment technologies.”

“Local municipalities have three years to carry out testing and monitor their levels of [PFAS] and five years to reduce the levels if harmful amounts are found,” Newsweek reports.

Many in the drinking water industry believe the EPA has grossly underestimated the costs of treating water for PFAS.

According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a nonprofit working to improve water quality and supply, it will cost “about $40 billion (between $2.5 and $3.5 billion a year) to operate and maintain water treatment systems,” the Newsweek article adds.

State regulations

Before the EPA’s PFAS drinking water rule, some states were taking the initiative to lead the way in implementing required PFAS monitoring and treatment.

Eleven states have already implemented PFAS limits within their drinking water systems, reports the Daily Montanan. Those states include Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

“Several others have pending rules or levels that require public notice,” the Daily Montanan article continues. “While the federal rule builds on those efforts, it also sets limits that are stricter than the state-issued rules.”

“We really have looked to the states as leaders in setting standards and doing some of the foundational science,” said Zach Schafer, director of policy and special projects for the EPA’s Office of Water, in the Daily Montanan. “The state agencies are the ones who will be playing the point role [in implementing the national rule].”

“Schafer said the agency estimates that 6% to 10% of water systems nationwide will need to take steps to reduce PFAS contamination, at a cost averaging $1.5 billion per year over an 80-year span,” the article adds. “[S]ome 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. While the Biden administration has dedicated billions in funding to help clean up water supplies, experts say the costs will far exceed the available money.”

According to the AWWA, the national costs of cleaning up PFAS-contaminated water are estimated at $4 billion per year, the Daily Montanan says. The report “found that some households could face thousands of dollars in increased rates to cover the costs of treatment.”

The EPA states its rule “is achievable and implementable.” Drinking water utilities will be able to implement these new requirements, as control technologies exist and are in use today. Existing water treatment technologies to remove PFAS from drinking water include granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange systems. The final rule doesn’t dictate how water systems remove these contaminants and is flexible to allow systems to determine the best solutions for their community. Public water systems can choose from multiple proven treatment options. In some cases, systems can close contaminated wells or obtain a new uncontaminated source of drinking water.

Even with the available federal funding to address PFAS drinking water contamination, many states say it isn’t enough money to correct the issues at the low levels required by the EPA’s new rule.

Many states have filed litigation against PFAS manufacturers to recoup some of the expenses.

“Thirty attorneys general have filed litigation against polluters, and Minnesota settled its case against 3M Company for $850 million,” the Daily Montanan adds. “But leaders say such settlements aren’t a predictable funding source.”

On top of installation costs for new treatment systems, the Daily Montanan notes that drinking water utilities also face ongoing costs to replace filters and dispose of wastewater containing PFAS, which are costs that aren’t covered by the federal funding sources.

Other water system executives say the federal compliance deadlines are too short.

Under the rule requirements, public water systems must:

• Conduct initial and ongoing compliance monitoring for the regulated PFAS.
• Implement solutions to reduce regulated PFAS in their drinking water if levels exceed the MCLs.
• Inform the public of the levels of regulated PFAS measured in their drinking water and if an MCL is exceeded.

Within 3 years of rule promulgation (2024 to 2027):

• Initial monitoring must be complete.
• Starting 3 years following rule promulgation (2027 to 2029):
• Results of initial monitoring must be included in Consumer Confidence Reports (i.e., Annual Water Quality Report).
• Regular monitoring for compliance must begin, and results of compliance monitoring must be included in Consumer Confidence Reports.
• Public notification for monitoring and testing violations.

Starting 5 years following rule promulgation (starting in 2029):

• Comply with all MCLs.
• Public notification for MCL violations.

“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, according to the Daily Montanan. “It’s not one of those things that you say, ‘You have to do this, and next year,’ and you can just turn it on.”

It isn’t a secret that the EPA was working on a rule to regulate PFAS in drinking water systems. In anticipation of these regulations, many drinking water systems have already begun the processes of putting filtration systems in place.

In many cases, consumers have already seen their water bills triple in average costs over the last few years.

"In the smallest systems, household-level impacts could exceed $3,500 annually and even in larger systems these impacts are expected to range from $50 to several hundred dollars," AWWA Regulatory Technical Manager Chris Moody said, according to Newsweek.