Analies Dyjak, M.A. | Head of Policy   
**Updated 4/7/2022 to include latest regulatory information 

Millions of Americans drink water contaminated with PFAS chemicals every single day. Cities in Wisconsin, including Madison and Milwaukee have some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country. PFAS are known human carcinogens, increase the risk of miscarriage in pregnant women, and cause other irreversible health impacts. This article is about these failures, as well as the importance of limiting pollutants at the source. 

Wisconsin's Recent Failure To Regulate PFAS Effluent Into Waterways

The Wisconsin state legislature recently voted for the reversal of a bill that would have create limits for PFAS effluent in waterways. Act 101 had the potential to reduce PFAS levels at the source, before reaching municipal water systems. More specifically the bill would have allowed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to set non-enforceable “indicator levels,” which would be used for treating foam before being discharged into the waterways. The legislature ultimately voted not to allow PFAS effluent limits and removed the “treatment” definition to exclude the term “immobilize, remove or destroy the contaminant.” The reason lawmakers voted against this portion of the bill had nothing to do with PFAS, but rather concerns about the DNR overstepping its authority, and the potential effects on businesses that use and produce firefighting foam.

PFAS have been detected in the drinking water of Wisconsin’s state capital of Madison. Madison uses groundwater, which can be particularly susceptible to PFAS contamination. PFAS are also present at alarming concentrations in Milwaukee, specifically near the General Mitchell International Airport. Total PFAS in groundwater near the airport is 202,161 parts per trillion, according to the Environmental Working Group. These levels are nearly 3,000 times higher than what EPA claims to be safe. For perspective, the state is proposing a regulatory level of 20 parts per trillion for total PFAS in drinking water. 

What Does Controlling PFAS At The Source Mean For Drinking Water?

Putting limits on PFAS concentrations at the effluent level is a proactive way to reduce its presence in drinking water. It also reduces the burden on municipal treatment facilities, which are often under-funded and typically not equipped to handle high levels of pollution. Effluent controls make the polluters responsible, rather than the public. 

What Are Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s)?

A popular technique for limiting pollution effluent is a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL. TMDL is a set amount of daily pollution that a waterbody can endure while still being able to meet water quality standards. Under a TMDL, each major polluter is allocated a certain amount of pollution that they must meet on a daily basis in order to be in compliance. It’s important to point out that TMDL’s do not exist for every pollutant, including things like PFAS, Chromium 6, and other harmful known human carcinogens. 

TMDL’s are often used to limit the amount of Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Sediment in a waterbody. The largest and most well known TMDL is the Chesapeake Bay, which includes the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. It has a limit of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus, and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year. It’s important to point out that neither the state of Wisconsin or the federal government are currently proposing TMDL limits for any PFAS compounds in any body of water. In recent years regulators have proposed NPDES permits for PFAS substances, which could be an alternative solution to TMDL's.

What Does This Mean For Other States?

PFAS are not currently regulated at the federal level - which is problematic because states are entirely on their own for determining how to address PFAS polluters and PFAS in drinking water. Certain states have created both enforceable and non-enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water. Because PFAS are so nuanced and so little is known about how to deal with their presence in drinking water, states are desperately looking for guidance from other states and the federal government. 

There are two prominent issues with regulating PFAS at the state level:
1. Municipal water systems will be required to spend a tremendous amount of money to remove PFAS. This referred to as an "unfunded mandate," which is very unpopular in local governments.  
2. Industries impacted by state-level regulations will have little incentive not to move to a neighboring state, where such PFAS regulations don't exist. This isn't very appealing for states trying to grow their economies. 

Current Update

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services recommended a MCL of 20 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.  However, on February 22, 2022, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board voted instead to approve a drinking water standard of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS. Legislative approval is still needed before this standard becomes part of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 809.

Our Take

The prospect of regulating PFAS chemicals appears to be bleak. What we do know is that PFAS are incredibly harmful to human health, and that drinking water is the most common route of exposure. The best way to protect you and your family is to stay informed and understand what new regulations and legislations mean for you. If you live in an area with known PFAS contamination, you may want to consider purchasing a water filter rated to remove it. 

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
How Did Hydroviv Filters Perform in a Duke University PFAS Removal Study?
Do TDS/ppm Meters Actually Work? What Do They Tell Me About My Water?
Are These 5 Contaminants In Your Drinking Water?

“Forever Chemicals” or PFAS are a category of contaminants that are found in drinking water supplies across the country. PFAS are associated with the production of both chemical and consumer products - most notably, it’s use in firefighting foam or AFFF. Military installments engage in on-base training activities that require the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam. The Department of Defense (DoD) has granted approval for 8 facilities across the country to burn PFAS chemicals. Many of these communities did not have problems with PFAS contamination prior to contracts with DoD.

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Head of Policy

North Carolina has been at the heart of a drinking water crisis. At least 1 million North Carolinians have been exposed to unsafe levels of an unregulated contaminant called Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, PFAS, or "forever chemicals." The source of the contamination traces back to a fluorochemical operation in Fayetteville - causing widespread contamination in municipal drinking water and in private wells. This article will discuss two companies’ legal tactics to try and avoid liability, and how the victims of this tragedy continue to be left in the dark. 

Polluter v. Polluter 

You may already be familiar with the two companies at the root of this crisis in North Carolina. In short, DuPont had been manufacturing and distributing a category of chemicals called Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances or PFAS, since the 1980's. DuPont created Chemours - a spinoff company in charge of overseeing all fluoro-chemical operations, including the entire category of PFAS chemicals. In doing so, Chemours assumed direct liability for DuPont’s decades of chemical contamination - including all environmental and public health damages. According to the 2019 lawsuit, Chemours claimed that DuPont was not entirely forthcoming about the amount of damages the spinoff company was to incur. Chemours claimed that they were set up by DuPont to be “financially overwhelmed,” and ultimately bankrupt. When Chemours took over DuPont in 2015, they agreed to historical liabilities of no greater than $1.42 billion. Chemours claimed that DuPont wildly underestimated the totality of the liabilities. For example, the cost of one particular class action lawsuit, including 3,500 cancer and bodily harm claims associated with exposure to PFOA, was grossly underestimated. DuPont claimed that settlement would cost no greater than $128 Million, while Chemours ended up owing $671 Million for that case alone. 

Chemours v. DuPont was ultimately dismissed by a Delaware judge in 2019. This was bad news for Chemours, and even worse news for the tens of thousands of individuals impacted by PFAS contamination. Both companies have been trying to delay and reorganize, in order to pay the absolute least amount of money to the state of North Carolina as possible. If you want to learn more about other Chemours’ litigation in North Carolina, click here. We also have an article about an unrelated case against DuPont, which you can find here.

North Carolina Attorney General Sues DuPont and Chemours

Soon after Chemours sued DuPont, the state of North Carolina turned around and sued both companies. On October 13, 2020, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, sued DuPont and Chemours for PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River. The single Chemours plant in Fayetteville has caused widespread PFAS contamination throughout several major North Carolina counties, including New Hanover, Bladen, Pender, and Brunswick. The recent lawsuit is calling for both Chemours and DuPont to pay for all “past and future costs, necessary to investigate, assess, remediate, restore, and remedy” all damages. We'll have updated information on our blog and social media (@hydroviv_h2o) as this story unfolds. 

How Has PFAS Impacted The State of North Carolina?

There's no way to fully estimate how this negligence has impacted North Carolinians. What we do know is that exposure to PFAS chemicals has been associated with a variety of negative health effects, including: an increased risk of cancer, decreased immune function, increased cholesterol, and more. In a study completed just this year, a team of Yale researchers found that exposure to PFAS increases the risk of miscarriage by 80-120%. A PFAS variety that's especially problematic in the Cape Fear River, called GenX, was deemed a "probable carcinogen" by EPA in 2018. On April 10, 2024, the US EPA has announced drinking water standards to limit exposure to 6 types of PFAS chemicals, including GenX. PFAS have been detected at levels well above public health recommendations in Wilmington, Leland, Winnabow, and other cities that draw water from the Cape Fear River and its tributaries.

What Can I Do?

Media coverage has been propelled by community organizers throughout impacted areas in North Carolina. Organizations like North Carolina Stop GenX in our Water, Cape Fear River Watch, Clean Cape Fear, and many others have “blown the whistle” on what’s going on in North Carolina. We recommend following these organizations, as well as our social media channels (@hydroviv_h2o) to stay up to date. It's important to point out that North Carolina is not the only state that has PFAS in its drinking water. Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and California are just some of the states where PFAS have become a serious threat. The Environmental Working Group created a map which shows areas of the country with detectable levels of PFAS in drinking water. You can check out the map here.

If you are planning on purchasing a water filter, make sure that it’s rated to remove PFAS chemicals. Most pitcher, faucet, and countertop systems are unable to remove PFAS. Check out this PFAS filtration removal study completed by Duke and NC State. 

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
PFAS Detected in Several Popular Bottled Water Brands 
5 Things You Need To Know About Drinking Water Right Now
How Did Hydroviv Filters Perform in a Duke University Filter Study?

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Policy Nerd

New York and Michigan have recently set enforceable standards for PFAS contamination in drinking water. Both of these states have been hit extremely hard by PFAS contamination in the last year. Both New York and Michigan set their own PFAS standards because this category of harmful contaminants are not currently regulated by the federal government. 

New York PFAS Standards: 

New York State has adopted standards for two PFAS variations: PFOA and PFOS. Water utilities are now required to reduce PFOA and PFOS to 10 parts per trillion (each). Materials processing, textile manufacturing, industry and machinery services in upstate New York and on the New Jersey are responsible for the high levels of PFAS in water. An incineration facility in Cohoes, New York had been burning PFAS in the form of AFFF since 2018. A study out of Bennington College determined that PFAS were being detected downwind of the facility, and that the compounds were not being entirely burned. Further research is necessary to determine if surrounding groundwater is impacted in the town Cohoes. The New York PFAS standards are depicted in the table below:

PFAS Chemical	NY State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
PFOA	10 parts per trillion
PFOS	10 parts per trillion

Michigan PFAS Standards:

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) has recently set enforceable standards for 7 different PFAS compounds. Michigan has been hit harder by PFAS contamination than almost any other state. In January of 2020, the state of Michigan filed a lawsuit against 17 companies for damages resulting from exposure to PFAS chemicals, and for concealing toxicological information. Some of the companies involved in the lawsuit include 3M, DuPont, and Chemours. During the summer of 2019, the Governor’s office announced a state of emergency Parchment and Cooper Township, Michigan. PFAS levels in Parchment drinking water were detected as high as 1,587 parts per trillion, which is 23 times higher than EPA’s Public Health Advisory for PFAS. The Michigan EGLE mapped out areas of the state where PFAS levels in groundwater exceed 70 parts per trillion. The Michigan PFAS standards are depicted in the table below:

PFAS Chemical	MI State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
PFNA	6 parts per trillion
PFOA	8 parts per trillion
PFOS	16 parts per trillion
PFHxS	51 parts per trillion
GenX	370 parts per trillion
PFBS	420 parts per trillion
PFHxA	400,000 parts per trillion

What Does This Mean for Municipalities?

Municipalities will be required to comply with new state regulations, meaning that water providers will need to update existing treatment facilities. Removing PFAS at the municipal level is not cheap. In North Carolina, a water treatment facility is updating its filtration system to remove PFAS chemicals. The initial updates will cost $35.9 million, with annual maintenance fees of $2.9 million. Rate payers are responsible for paying for these updates, which can significantly increase your monthly water bill. 

Federal Standards Are Much Less Strict

For a bit of perspective, the current federal Public Health Advisory levels established by EPA are much less strict. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS are considered “unsafe” when detected at an individual or combined concentration of 70 parts per trillion or higher. PFOA and PFOS are the only two PFAS variations that currently have federal Public Health Advisory Levels. It’s important to note that Public Health Advisories are non-enforceable, and that municipal water providers are not required to follow them. If a contaminant is detected at a level higher than a Public Health Advisory in a state that does not have its own MCL, the utility or municipality is not required to take action.

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:
What Are Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?
Yale: PFAS Increase Risk of Miscarriage
How Did Hydroviv Filters Perform in a PFAS Removal Study?

Analies Dyjak, M.A.  |  Policy Nerd

The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce recently held a virtual hearing about the nation's drinking water. The hearing discussed how Congress can revamp the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to better protect public health. Our team at Hydroviv has been aware of its shortcomings for years, and even testified on a similar subject last October. This blog highlights some of the major regulatory hurdles, and why it’s so difficult to regulate new tap water contaminants like PFAS.

What is the Safe Drinking Water Act?

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was created by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1974, to protect drinking water sources throughout the United States. The SDWA is responsible for setting national standards called National Primary Drinking Water Standards for roughly 90 contaminants. Unfortunately, it’s widely accepted throughout the scientific community that the SDWA is outdated, and no longer works to protect public health.

EPA, Bureaucracy, and "Sound Science":

Both members of congress and the scientific community are critical of EPA’s approach to regulating drinking water. The current process has failed to regulate a new contaminant since 1996. This is especially alarming at a time when chemical and industrial manufacturing are at an all time high. Any type of industrial activity can make surrounding waterways susceptible to pollution, resulting in compromised drinking water. Chemicals developed in the last 24 years go entirely unchecked by the time they enter your municipal water system. What’s worse is the bottled water companies use the same contaminated sources as tap water, and follow weaker reporting standards. EPA claims to preach "sound science," but has failed to follow scientific recommendations.

PFAS and The Safe Drinking Water Act:

The recent hearing on the SDWA was prompted by the fact that a category of known human carcinogens called Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are not regulated under this law. PFAS are known to cause an increased risk of cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and other adverse health effects. Because PFAS are not regulated, municipalities are not required to test for or remove PFAS from tap water. The EPA has created non-enforceable public health advisories for two different types of PFAS; PFOA and PFOS. Certain states have developed their own more stringent health advisories and some have even created enforceable standards. Health advisories use the best available science and epidemiological studies to determine a “safe” level of contamination in drinking water. While the goal of a health advisory is certainly positive, they fail to create actionable change. Health advisories are not enforceable, and therefore municipal water providers are not required to follow them. It's also important to mention that PFAS are not a "new" contaminant, and that they have been on EPA's radar for years. EPA first recommended setting a public health goal for both PFOA and PFOS eleven years ago in 2009.

Is a National PFAS Standard Realistic? 

Proponents for a National Standard: When states have a variety of different public health advisory levels or even state standards, it creates a lapse in risk communication and fosters distrust. Public distrust may occur if “state A” has a lower PFAS standard than “state B.” This is especially true for neighboring states that may share the same aquifer, river, or tributary. Proponents believe that if EPA has enough scientific evidence to develop a Public Health Advisory, they should be able to create a national enforceable standard for PFAS. 

Opponents for a National Standard: Municipalities lose big time whenever a new water quality standard is created. Opponents believe that imposing a regulation, and requiring municipal water treatment facilities to purchase expensive equipment that will remove a contaminant that is not present in their water, is not a responsible use of resources. One of the issues with this argument is that there is no federal mandate for testing, so most municipal systems don’t even know if PFAS are present. Some regulators claim that there are too many types of PFAS to regulate, and that it’s impossible to set a standard for the entire category of PFAS. Currently, there are only testing standards for 29 different PFAS variations, despite there being over 5,000 known variations present in the environment. 

Our Take:

The SDWA impacts people every single day. Every time someone turns on their water, the health and safety of what’s coming out of their tap is dictated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. As is, the SDWA does not go far enough to protect American’s, including our most vulnerable populations (infants, pregnant moms, and older adults). Industrial manufacturing companies are entirely unrestricted when it comes to developing new products, and chemicals pushed to the market are essentially “safe” until proven otherwise. This sort of regulatory approach comes at a serious cost to human health. Regarding PFAS, there is enough scientific and epidemiological research to conclude that this category of chemicals should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
The Ins and Outs of Drinking Water Regulation
Hydroviv's PFAS Update: 2020
Military Bases Have The Highest Levels of PFAS