What will it cost local water systems to remove 'forever chemicals'? It depends, and many haven't been tested yet

Florence, Ala., water superintendent Ryan Wallace
(Photo by Dan Busey, Florence Times Daily)

When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed last week that it start regulating "forever chemicals," which are long-lasting and ubiquitous, the first question for many Americans may have been, "What are forever chemicals?" Wired magazine answers: "It’s a foreboding and informal name for human-made chemicals that coat nonstick pans, food packaging, and waterproof clothes before ending up in the water you drink. . . . High levels of exposure can cause fertility issues, developmental delays in children, and reduced immune responses, according to the EPA. They can also elevate the risk of several cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancer."

The first question for many local officials in the 40 states that have no limits for the chemicals may have been, "How much will this cost our taxpayers and ratepayers?" As often in such cases, it depends, but Amanda Hoover of Wired magazine suggests it's coming to a water system near you: the chemicals "have been detected in more than 2,800 locations in all 50 states and two territories, according to data from the Environmental Working Group." And many areas have not been tested.

Arizona has tested 450 of its 1,200 public water systems for the chemicals and found them in 72, Clara Migoya reports for The Arizona Republic. "Many utilities have shut down contaminated wells to limit exposure. Until now, only Tucson and Marana have put a treatment system in place." The state is "working with public water systems to identify funding," including a state priority fund and the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

In South Carolina, with 200 tests to go, "Updated statistics released Thursday show a disturbing trend," reports Sammy Fretwell of The State newspaper. "All told, regulators say 78 drinking water sources are polluted with forever chemicals at levels that exceed the recently announced federal standard of 4 parts per trillion for the two most well-studied types of the chemicals," perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFOA and PFOS. Collectively, the chemicals are called PFAS.

"A CBS News Colorado analysis of state testing records shows in 2020, 40 public water utilities in Colorado had levels of both PFOA and PFOS at or above 4 parts per trillion," Kati Weis reports. That is "the lowest limit at which the compounds can be detected with today's technology," The Arizona Republic notes. "If the chemical shows up, public water systems would have to clean it. For PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and [non-biodegradable] GenX compounds, the limit is relative. The combined limit of one or more of the chemicals would be calculated through an EPA-established hazard index."

"It's going to impact every water company in the country that gets surface water," Mike Doyle, chief utility manager in Florence, Ala., told Russ Corey of the Times Daily. Corey reports, "He said Florence is considering a reverse osmosis system to remove the contaminants, but that system is expensive to operate because of the amount of power it requires."

The rule won't affedct every water system, "but it's going to be a lot," Christopher Higgins, a Colorado School of Mines civil and environmental engineering professor who has studied PFAS for years, told Weis of CBS, who reports: "Higgins says while you wait for your water system to evaluate its PFAS levels, if you're concerned about it, you can use carbon filters or a reverse osmosis system to filter your drinking water at home. If you go with a carbon filter, Higgins advises changing the filter frequently. Higgins also says these proposed regulation changes will not affect private wells, and advises it's important if to get your water tested if your drinking water is supplied by a private well, especially if there have been fires in your community over the years where firefighting foam containing PFAS may have been used."

Overall costs of the proposed regulation are uncertain. EPA estimated annual costs at $772 million, "but Tom Dobbins, chief executive of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, which represents some of the largest public water utilities in the country, said the estimated cost for a single entity to filter out PFAS, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority in North Carolina, was $43 million," Lisa Friedman of The New York Times reports. EPA’s top water official, Radhika Fox, "emphasized that the economic benefits of the regulation are seen as far greater by EPA, with an estimated $1.2 billion per year in human health benefits — or over $100 billion in the lifetime of a child born today" reports E.A. Crunden of Environment & Energy News.