A PFAS update
This news update is part of a series on PFAS (per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, “Forever Chemicals”) in drinking water. You can read all the previous posts here.
First, I have a short announcement. In over a decade of work on State and County advisory committees, I evaluated hundreds of applications for tens of millions in ecosystem recovery grants. Not a week goes by that I’m not asked to present, to be on a panel, or give advice on a drinking water question. I’ve decided to offer more formally these grant writing, technical consulting and communication services in the drinking water and environmental fields to water systems, non-profits, governments and businesses. At this time, it seems more important than ever to note that all my services, including this newsletter, remain firmly based in science and focused on building community. Take a look!
The previous post in this series covered news under three headings, and we’ll use the same ones in this post: PFAS contamination from military facilities, the work of federal agencies, and PFAS from non-military facilities.
The Military
Last time, we introduced the DoD’s EPA MCL Implementation Memo which laid out a policy for prioritization of cleanup actions to address the EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFAS. While this looked reasonable, a policy is not a plan. The planning is delegated out to the DoD components and devolved down the regional commands and bases. The past two weeks offered two opportunities to see how that’s going. I’ve decided to share some of the correspondence to give you a feeling for the persistence required to get answers.
Our military PFAS site is Naval Air Station Whidbey. Last week, the NAS Whidbey Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met to receive an update from the Navy and its contractors and to ask questions. I sent in a written question:
I would like a status update on NAS Whidbey’s plans and timetable for implementing the DoD guidance for PFAS testing and cleanup covered in this memo: EPA MCL Implementation Memo.
and received an assurance that it would be covered.
The meeting followed a familiar pattern, with a rushed, dense, acronym-filled presentation by the Navy, with 46 slides in fewer minutes covering multiple cleanup topics, and just one question from a RAB member. By the time I realized my question had not been addressed, the meeting was over and the screen was black. I sent in a more specific follow up question:
Thank you for the update on plans for following the EPA MCL Implementation Memo at NAS Whidbey PFAS sites. According to the memo:
“This is DoD’s initial step to prioritize cleanup actions in private drinking water wells, including private drinking water wells located off-base at the 55 installations, where DoD has previously taken action for wells with levels of PFOS and PFOA above 70 ppt. As DoD works to complete actions to address off-base drinking water at the 55 installations with the highest known levels of PFAS, the Department will continue to identify and address private drinking water with PFAS above three times the MCLs from DoD releases at additional locations. DoD will then initiate remedial actions to address drinking water wells and public water systems with concentrations below three times the MCL value as described in the remedial action section of this guidance.”
You addressed implementing the guidance at wells below 70ppt within the areas already tested. What is timetable for the plan to continue to identify and address private drinking water with PFAS above three times, and subsequently below three times, the MCLs?
While waiting for an answer, there was another opportunity this week to put a finger on the pulse of DoD’s progress in the form of a DoD Public Information and Listening Session. A recording of the event will be available on the DoD PFAS website Public Outreach page within two weeks of the live event, and I’ll link it here for you.
The event was well done, with a clear, well-paced presentation, and plenty of time for public comment and questions from participants from around the country. A couple of the slides addressed answers to frequently asked questions, one of which was:
- How quickly will the September policy be implemented?
- The intent is for DoD Components to take immediate action to prioritize resources to identify impacted drinking water wells that exceed 3 times the MCL action levels, and implement interim actions per the policy and within the CERCLA framework.
“Intent” and “immediate” don’t really go together. I sent in another written comment, with this question:
How does the DoD plan to hold DoD components and sites accountable to “take immediate action”? “The intent is…” is insufficient. Without “teeth”, as an in-person commenter put it, DoD components and sites will continue to slow-walk implementation of this policy.
I’ll let you know when I hear something.
Meanwhile, I did hear back from NAS Whidbey. It’s not going to shock you to hear that the reply didn’t exactly answer my question:
First step is to identify wells above three times the MCLs and initiate interim actions as soon as possible.
That’s just restating the policy. So, I sent in another follow-up question:
An additional question if I may: In that first step, will you be working only within areas already tested? What is the protocol and timeline for stepping out testing to areas beyond those already tested?
I just received a reply that I direct this and any future questions to the Public Affairs Officers, from whom I just received this reply.
If additional drinking water investigations are needed based on the new DOD action levels, we will expand our sampling areas.
Which, again, is just restating the policy. I’ll let you know if I receive anything more substantial.
“Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence”
Ovid, circa 33 BC
If you’d like to help me hollow out stone, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Federal Agencies
A team from the US Geological Survey published a paper in Science on Predictions of groundwater PFAS occurrence at drinking water supply depths in the United States. The editor’s summary included this headline-grabbing note:
The model highlights that about 80 million people in the conterminous US rely on groundwater with detectable amounts of PFAS before treatment.
Follow the link above to read the full paper.
EPA has published a great set of tools to look at PFAS manufacture, release, and occurrence in communities, integrating data available nationally with other information from states, Tribes, and localities that are testing for PFAS.
For a description and introduction to this set of tools, including a webinar and instructions, follow this link: PFAS Analytic Tools | ECHO | US EPA, or this one to access the tools directly: PFAS Analytic Tools
In response to a petition from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham requesting EPA list PFAS as hazardous waste under RCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA has proposed a rule change that would provide clear regulatory authority to fully implement EPA’s statutory authority to require corrective action to address releases not only of substances identified as hazardous waste in the regulations but of any substance that meets the statutory definition of hazardous waste.
Of course, the Supreme Court’s Chevron Deference decision, which I discussed here, seeks to undermine the ability of EPA to do this kind of rulemaking, and the incoming administration’s department of government efficiency intends to take full advantage of that decision.
A talked to a friend at EPA last week. The mood is glum.
Testing at non-military PFAS sites
Last time, we were able to announce that the State Departments of Health and Ecology had agreed to set up a pilot study, probably here on Whidbey, to test private wells and smaller water systems around one of the water systems that has tested positive for PFAS. I don’t yet have an official update, but I did hear from sources at the County that Ecology had reached out for a list of private wells around one of our local PFAS sites. I’m encouraged.
Last week, a few of us engaged in PFAS issues gave input to Toxic Free Future on a budget request to the state legislature that they allow for $10 million in funding for PFAS mitigation, including building on this pilot program. Just two days later, the Seattle Times reported that With $10B deficit looming, Inslee calls on state agencies to make cuts.
With funding and regulatory power for EPA uncertain, states will be under pressure to step up with local regulations and programs, but it’s unclear how these can be funded.
Thanks, as always, for listening or reading. Next week is Thanksgiving here in the US, plus we’re busy getting ready to leave for New Zealand for the month of December. I expect to have plenty to write about!
The work described in this post took me many hours. If you value this work and feel moved to support it, a paid subscription to Mostly Water is a great way to do that, and of course I’m always grateful for your comments, likes, and shares.
