They are often called an “emerging contaminant.” They have been used in the manufacturing process to make cookware, clothes, shoes, furniture, and food packaging; they are also used in fire-fighting foams. As a result, they are pervasive in the environment and are detected in the blood serum of virtually everyone in the developed world. And at some level, yet to be determined, they pose a human health and environmental risk. They are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and they are a top priority for environmental regulators across the country.
PFAS Environmental/Scientific Concerns
What we do know is that PFAS are a human health and environmental concern. However, at what level and at how much of a concern is yet to be determined. The Centers for Disease Control stated, “Most people in the United States and in other industrialized countries have measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood.”
The scientific and environmental remediation challenges surrounding PFAS are many. While PFAS refers to a class of chemicals, the current focus of PFAS in the environment (soil and groundwater) has primarily been on just two chemicals within this class (perfluorooctanoic acid [PFOA] and perfluorooctane sulfonate [PFOS]). Unlike other chemicals that are typically assessed and remediated, there is a lack of toxicological data for these chemicals. PFAS chemicals are stable in the environment (they don’t degrade), they tend to bio accumulate, and they pose remediation challenges due to their chemical structure.
While there is not a thorough or consistent understanding of these chemicals, there is a lot of legislative activity developing to address this emerging issue.
PFAS in Michigan
According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), there are more than a dozen communities where PFAS has been detected. Some of the communities have more than one site with PFAS contamination (see Sites with Known PFAS Levels). In some Michigan communities, PFAS-impacted groundwater is a significant concern because residents are using the impacted groundwater for their drinking-water supply. One of the more high-profile examples of this is in Rockford where Wolverine Worldwide has been addressing historical PFAS issues. Wolverine has provided more than 300 whole-house filters for homes in the affected area and has a webpage dedicated to their efforts to address PFAS.
Not surprisingly, the Director of the MDEQ’s Remediation and Redevelopment Division, has stated that addressing PFAS is the Division’s top priority.
Michigan Executive Orders and Legislation
In response to the rapidly-developing issues surrounding PFAS, in November 2017, Governor Snyder issued executive order (EO) No 2017-4. The EO requires Directors of MDEQ, the Department of Human Health and Services, the Department of Military and Veteran Affairs, and Department of Agriculture to establish the “Michigan PFAS Action Response Team.” This team will, among other things, “make inquiries, conduct studies, consult with federal agencies, and receive public comments.”
Legislators in Michigan have also acted quickly, and in December 2017, they approved House Bill 4320. This Bill, among other things, “…include(d) $23.2 million for state remediation activities related to recently reported instances of groundwater contamination by a chemical called perfluoroalkyl…” It passed 109 to 1.
One sticking point: Michigan didn’t have a cleanup standard for soil or groundwater. So Michigan legislators acted very quickly again and adopted the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (for the two PFAS chemicals) and made them legally enforceable limits in Michigan.
Other States and Federal Government Actions
In the absence of federally-enforceable limits, some states are developing their own guidance and enforcement limits. The limits set by the states range from 400 times higher to 5 times less than the current EPA advisory levels. On January 12, 2018, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators sent a letter to EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director, Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald. In this letter, they urge the EPA and CDC to “…develop a unified message to the public and state’s regulators on what to do about PFAS…”
Active Investigation
One of the projects we are working on in Kansas involves assessment/remediation of groundwater surrounding a former Department of Defense (DoD) Site. Because DoD sites are potential sources of PFAS, we are assessing the groundwater at this site for the presence of PFAS. Below is an “impromptu” interview I provided following a recent public meeting in Kansas.
Potential Targets of PFAS Investigations
Because they are pervasive, the question for regulators (and subsequently the regulated community) is where environmental investigations may be focused. Most likely are manufacturing processes involving PFAS and locations where Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) was used for fire fighting. Beyond the manufacturers and DoD sites, investigations may include airports, refineries, landfills, platers, and publicly-owned treatment works, to name a few.
As more data are gathered and more is learned about the health and environmental risks associated with PFAS, expect, perhaps, quickly-developed regulatory changes to follow.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about assessment/remediation of PFAS. You can reach me at 248-932-0228, ext 117.