The Challenge of Getting PFAS Out of Drinking Water

Trying to keep forever chemicals out of public drinking water can feel like a game of whack-a-mole — or “whack-a-molecule,” said Steph Tatham, senior drinking water and water quality expert at Eastern Research Group, an environmental and public health-focused consulting firm.

She and other experts speaking on a panel at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ summit last week noted that there are still many unknowns about forever chemicals — also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — and that new kinds are frequently being created.

“The PFAS that are in production are constantly shifting over time,” Tatham said. “We don’t have methods to measure all of them.”

PFAS is a category that encompasses more than 15,000 synthetic long-chain chemicals that are resistant to heat, water and oil and which are widespread in consumer and industrial products. These chemicals break down very slowly, and have been found in water, air and soil, and in the blood of people and animals. Some kinds of PFAS have been linked to health issues like cancers, liver damage and miscarriage when they build up in the body over time, and some states have banned their use in products like clothing, cookware and menstrual supplies.

Last year the EPA announced there are no safe levels of two kinds of PFAS, and gave water systems a 2029 deadline to limit contamination to four parts per trillion. The EPA has since pushed back the deadline until 2031, out of concern that water systems needed more time to meet the standard. That goal was to spare not-yet-ready systems from consent decrees and noncompliance fees, letting them instead focus funds on addressing the problem, said John Eunice, principal deputy association administrator for the EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.

Originally, the EPA set limits on four other kinds of PFAS, too, but withdrew them, citing missteps in the regulatory process; the EPA expects to make an announcement on these four in the fall.

The good news is that current treatment methods like activated carbon filtration and ion exchange do well at removing PFAS, said Rye, N.H., Water District Administrator Brian Goetz. But implementing and maintaining a public water system with that kind of treatment setup can be costly. The filters often remove not just PFAS but also other materials, like iron and manganese, which can quickly clog them up. Replacing filters for such large systems isn’t easy: “When they get replaced, they cost $50,000 and it takes two weeks,” Goetz said. “The complexity, in my eyes, is not the technology to treat. It’s just the bigger picture.” With EPA compliance deadlines approaching, jurisdictions could see heated competition for engineers, and tariffs on steel may also add challenges, he added.

EPA technical assistance and other support is important, especially for small jurisdictions with slim staffing, Tatham said. She recalled one community where the water system was overseen on a part-time basis by the local child-care center director. Technical help can make a big difference for individuals trying to tackle this alone. The EPA’s PFAS OUTreach program promises “tools, funding, and technical assistance,” and the EPA water technical assistance program also offers supports like water quality testing, operator training and help navigating federal funding opportunities.

States can assist smaller partners and residents. Goetz highlighted a New Hampshire program providing rebates to owners of private wells to help them install treatment systems and connect to public drinking water systems.

But money is still a concern. Goetz was the public works director of Portsmouth, N.H., in 2014, when the city discovered PFAS contamination in its water, stemming from a nearby air force base’s use of firefighting foam. The city was able to get the base to help pay for cleanup, but when PFAS is discovered in isolated areas where there’s no clear polluter at fault, then public water systems have to find a way to fund the fixes. That could mean big rate hikes on water bills, Goetz said.

The costs can rise into the millions of dollars depending on the kind of water system. The cheapest option is still to find a different water source, Tatham said: “Can you interconnect with a system that doesn’t have contamination? Can you drill your well a little bit deeper?”

While the federal government has invested resources into addressing PFAS contamination, some experts say it still falls short, especially given the ongoing costs of new systems. Available funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for example, provided funding to address PFAS — but that runs out next year, while water systems must be maintained for many more years to come, said Alan Roberson, senior advisor at the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.

“There's just not enough money,” Roberson said. “I don't really have an answer for the challenge.”