Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 101

Ward Swanson – Barr Engineering Company

What are PFAS?

• Man made chemicals • aprox. 4000 – 6000 compounds

• Poly vs. Per fluorinated

Per-fluorinated naming convention (common compounds):

• P-per• F-fluorinated• X – length of carbon chain• A or S – definition of functional group 6:2 FTS

PFOA

PFOS

PFAS vs. PFCs

Perfluorinatedchemicals

“PFCs”

Perfluorcarbons (also called “PFCs”)

Per- and polyfluoroalkylsubstances

“PFAS”

Perfluorcarbons• Only carbon and fluorine atoms• Potential green house gas

PFAS• Oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur

and/or nitrogen atoms in addition to carbon/fluorine

• PFOA, PFOS, and thousands more

PFAS properties

• Heat, oil, stain, and water resistant

• Resistant to biodegradation

• Destroyed at high temperatures

• Semi-volatile

• Miscible in water

• Some affinity for organic carbon

PFAS – uses and history

• Used in coating and waterproofing processes, fire suppression and to reduce surface tension

• Production of PFOA and PFOS phased out

• Current products have different chemical makeup

• Historical chemicals were found to be persistent

• Historical production created PFAS mixture

perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA)

perfluoroctane sulfonate

(PFOS)

Research on the health effects of PFAS is evolving.

• 2016: EPA released health advisory levels for PFOA/PFOS of 70 parts per trillion levels

• 2018: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) draft report on PFAS listed potential health effects for some addtional PFAS compounds

• ATSDR acknowledges that “…cause and effect relationships have not been established for any of the effects and the effects have not been consistently found…”

• Research continues

18 states in the U.S. have established PFAS guidance or limits.

ConnecticutDelawareMassachusettsNew JerseyNew HampshireRhode IslandVermont

State has adopted EPA criteria (PFOA and PFOS) and/or has released revised state-specific criteria

Standards and guidance values for PFAS in groundwater, drinking water, surface water and wastewater are changing rapidly.

USEPA (PPT)

Minnesota(PPT)

Vermont (PPT)

New Jersey (PPT)

Michigan (PPT)

Nevada(PPT)

Standard/ Guidance

Health advisory levels (2016)

Health based guidance

values (2017)

Health advisory levels (2018)

Maximum contaminant

levels (2017/2018)

Generic cleanup criteria

(DW/GW, 2018)

Basic comparison level (2015)

PFOS 70 27 20 13 70 667

PFOA 70 35 20 14 70 667

PFOA + PFOS 70 -- 20 -- 70 --

PPT = parts per trillion

PFAS can be found in consumer products, and municipal and industrial sources.

Potential PFAS sources

− Industrial− Manufacturing− Consumer goods− Municipal WWTP sludge WWTP discharges Airports Landfills

Fate and transport in the environment

Many challenges exist in sampling and analyzing for PFAS.

• Rinse/equipment blanks are necessary

• Multiple materials commonly-used in investigations may contain PFAS

− Bentonite, lube oil for drilling tools, pipe dope, plumbing tape ,Teflon bailers, tape

• US EPA 537.1 – drinking water method

− State lists continue to grow

− EPA developing new methods

Remediation: techniques and challenges

• In-situ techniques include groundwater cutoff and containment and activated carbon injection.

• Soil treatment techniques include stabilization and thermal destruction (>950 °C)

ITRC Remediation Technologies and Methods for PFAS Factsheet

Water treatment: primary treatment technologies

Thank you!

PFAS in the East Metro: What do We Know?

James Kelly, M.S.

Manager, Environmental Surveillance & Assessment

Environmental Health Division

PFAS: A Classic Emerging Contaminant Challenge

• Widely present in the environment• Detected in drinking water and biota; other media

• Evolving understanding of fate & transport• New pathways and affected areas create sense the problem is

“getting worse”

• Evolving analytical capabilities• Expanding analyte lists and lower detection limits = “more

detections” and sense the problem is “getting worse”

• Limited remedial technology options

• Evolving risk assessment• Changing/differing guidance values = public confusion and

sense the problem is “getting worse”17

RiskCommunication

Overview of PFAS Health Effects: What do we know?• Laboratory Animal Studies (experimental, causal)

• Developmental Effects (e.g., ↓ body weight, delayed puberty & mammary gland development , accelerated puberty , changes in lipid metabolism & liver histology)

• Endocrine (e.g., ↓ thyroid hormones)• Immune (e.g., ↓ immune response, ↓ spleen & thymus weight)• Kidney (e.g., ↑ organ weight)• Liver (e.g., ↓ cholesterol, ↑ organ weight, evidence of cellular damage) • Cancer?

• Based on multiple animal species (rats, mice, monkeys, etc)• Carefully controlled to evaluate effects of PFAS only• Often conducted by industry scientists• Not all studies look at all types of effects• Often study single chemicals, not mixtures

11/30/2018 18

Overview of PFAS Health Effects: What do we know?• Human Epidemiology Studies (associations, not causal)

• Developmental (e.g., ↓ birth weight)• Endocrine (e.g., thyroid hormone levels)• Immune (e.g., ↓ vaccine response, ulcerative colitis)• Kidney (e.g., ↑ uric acid)• Liver (e.g., ↑ serum lipids and liver enzymes) • Cancer (e.g., testicular, kidney)

• Largest was the C8 Study in Ohio/West Virginia, over 30,000 people• Found “probably links” (legal term) between PFAS exposure and several health

conditions• Often have trouble determining exposure history• Difficult to evaluate mixtures of PFAS• EPA/CDC/ATSDR will be leading additional studies in PFAS exposed communities in

coming years11/30/2018 19

Setting MDH Health-Based Values for Water

Most Sensitive (subtle) Health Effects in AnimalsIdentify Exposure Level ≠ Health Effects

Add Margins of Safety (100 to 300-fold)

Reference Exposure Level% allowed to come from

drinking water

High-End Water Intake Rate

Health-Based Value for Lifetime Exposure

Additional Exposure Concerns• Impact of Bioaccumulation Potential

• Long half-life results in exposures, even short duration, to stay in body for years beyond period of external exposure

• Repeated exposures lead to accumulation (build-up) within the body

• Water concentrations in ppt result in serum concentrations in ppb

• Accumulated levels can be transferred to offspring• Placental transfer and Breastmilk transfer

• Much higher fluid intake rates in infants & young children11/30/2018 21

Additional (indirect) Exposure Concerns

11/30/2018 22

• PFOA

How PFAS Water Guidance has Changed

• MDH health-based guidance values evolve over time as additional research becomes available

• Surrogate values used when widespread detection of chemical in drinking water, but insufficient toxicological data to set an HBV

• Health Risk Index (HI): allows MDH to evaluate mixtures of similar chemicals

• Similar to TEQ approach • If HI > 1, considered an exceedance

23

PFOA PFOS PFBA PFBS PFHxS*2002 7 1

2006 1 0.6 1

2007 0.5 0.3 72009 0.3 0.3 7 72013 0.3 0.3 7 7 0.32016 0.07 0.07 7 7 0.072017 0.035 0.027 7 3/2 0.027

HI = PFOA[conc] + PFOS[conc] + PFBA[conc] + PFBS[conc] + PFHxS[conc]0.035 0.027 7 3 0.027

Blue = HRL; Red = HBV; Green = Surrogate

MDH Guidance Summary

• Based on protection of susceptible & highly exposed populations

• Protective for tap water used for drinking, cooking, showering, and other uses

• Cumulative – additivity assessment of chemicals with similar health endpoints

11/30/2018 24

Breastfeeding can be a significant exposure pathway for PFHxS, PFOS, and PFOA. However, breastfeeding is important for the short and long term health of both a mother and infant.

MDH recommends that women currently breastfeeding, and pregnant women who plan to breastfeed, continue to do so.

25

Well sampling effort & drinking water advisories

• ~2,600 wells sampled since 2003• Frequent, intensive monitoring of private wells:

• Near source areas

• Areas with high or changing PFAS concentrations

• Areas with complex geology

• Less frequent monitoring of “sentry” private wells:• Areas with low and stable PFAS concentrations

• Areas with relatively simple geology

• ~ 1,000 drinking water advisories issued

26

Municipal Well PFAS Impacts• MDH Advisories issued to Cities of Oakdale, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo,

St. Paul Park and Woodbury

• Oakdale – Carbon Treatment funded by 3M prior to 2007 Consent Order• 7 of 9 wells exceed MDH guidance

• Cottage Grove – “Temporary” Carbon Treatment for 2 wells• 8 of 12 wells exceed MDH guidance (water restrictions summer 2017)

• Lake Elmo – Discontinue use of Well #1(one of three wells)• 3M funded connection of ~200 homes to municipal supply prior to CO

• St. Paul Park – Discontinue use, one of three Wells• Temporary treatment planned for 2 wells

• Woodbury – Five of 19 wells impacted

Drinking Water Response Actions – East Metro

• GAC treatment where HRLs/HBVs exceeded

East Metro PFAS Biomonitoring Projects

• Directed by Minnesota Legislature in 2007 to test blood levels in East Metro communities (MN Statutes 144.995-144.998)

• Focused on adults in 2 communities: municipal water and private well users

• Studies in 2008, 2010, 2014

• Questions addressed

• Are residents in affected communities having unusual PFAS exposures?

• Have efforts to reduce drinking water exposure to PFAS worked?

• Do other factors (such as diet, consumer products, occupation) help explain PFAS levels?

11/30/2018 29

How biomonitoring studies worked

• Participants randomly selected • Water utility billing records

• Lists of people with contaminated private wells

• Contacted participants by mail, asked for informed consent, sent questionnaire

• Gave blood sample at local health clinics

• MDH Public Health Laboratory analyzed blood samples for 7-8 PFAS

• Returned individual and group results to participants

(Landsteiner et al., 2014, Journal of Environmental Health, v. 77)

11/30/2018 30

PFAS blood levels in long-term East Metro Residents (n=149)

1/30/2019 31

35.7

14.9

8.2

24.9

11.2

6.5

18.5

5.5 5.06.32.1 1.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

PFOS PFOA PFHxS

Geom

etric

mea

n (n

g/m

L)2008 2010 2014 US population

45%

59%

34%

PFAS in New Oakdale Residents (2014, n=156)

1/30/2019 32

7.2

1.8 1.6

6.3

2.11.3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

PFOS PFOA PFHxS

Geom

etric

mea

n (n

g/m

L)New Oakdale residents US population

Responding to Community Concerns

• Water Filtration Testing

• Very little information at first

• Laboratory and field testing confirmed viability of GAC, reverse osmosis, and small consumer units

• Garden Produce Study

• Identified uptake of PFAS in produce grown in gardens irrigated with PFAS contaminated water

• Primarily PFBA

• Below levels of health concern(Scher et al., 2018, Chemosphere, v. 196)

33

PFOS Concentrations in Minnesota Fish

Maximum mean concentration for any species from the waterbody

Conclusions

• PFAS will remain an active area of scientific research and we can expect new information and findings

• Response across programs, agencies, and jurisdictions is crucial and requires good coordination

• This will be a long-term issue in the East Metro

• MDH will continue to follow the science of PFAS carefully, and adjust public health advice accordingly

11/30/2018 35

36

James.Kelly@state.mn.us (651-201-4910)

Slide Sources: Helen Goeden, Ginny Yingling, Jessica Nelson, Pat McCann

PFAS and 3M Natural Resources SettlementCity Engineers Association Annual Conference

Kirk Koudelka | Assistant Commissioner for Land Policy

January 30th 2019

Brief history of PFAS in the east metro area

• 2002: 3M informs MPCA of PFAS in production wells at Cottage Grove facility

• 2007: MPCA and 3M agree to consent order outlining 3M is responsible for:

• Providing safe drinking water to affected residents

• Cleaning up PFAS waste disposal sites

• Monitoring groundwater

• 2010: Attorney General files Natural Resource Damage lawsuit on behalf of State, with MPCA and DNR as trustees

• 2016: EPA issued drinking water guidance for PFOS & PFOA (70 ppt for each)

• 2017: MDH updated health values for PFOS (27 ppt) & PFOA (35 ppt)

What is Natural Resource Damage?

• Natural resource damage is compensation for impacts to natural resources such as:

• Groundwater

• Surface waters (lakes, streams, and wetlands)

• Fisheries

• Wildlife

• Natural habitats

• Natural Resource Damage is not addressed under the 2007 consent order.

• 2010: Attorney General files Natural Resource Damage lawsuit on behalf of State, with MPCA and DNR as trustees

• 2018: Settlement reached between State and 3M for Natural Resources Damage

39

2018 Settlement: major components

• $850 million grant to the State

• $720 million immediately available to provide long-term solutions in the east metro area for:

• Clean and sustainable drinking water• Restoration and enhancement of natural resources

• Restrictions about how the grant can be used

• Expectations for community participation

• Preserves 3M’s obligations under the 2007 consent order

Priority one — safe drinking water

• Ensure clean drinking water to meet current and future needs

• Including, but not limited to Afton, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Maplewood Newport, Oakdale, St. Paul Park, Woodbury and townships of Denmark, Grey Cloud Island, West Lakeland

• Alternative sources of drinking water for cities and private well owners

• Treat existing contaminated drinking water wells

• Potentially connect homes with private wells to municipal drinking water systems

• Promote water conservation

• Preserve open spaces that recharge drinking water sources

Priority two — enhance natural resources

• Restore and enhance natural resources in the east metro area and downstream on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers

• Restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat

• Restore access to outdoor recreation

• MPCA and DNR have immediate access to $20 million in grant funds

Other items

Other expenses:

• $125 million from settlement for outside counsel

• $4.5 million reimbursement for Cottage Grove’s and MPCA’s 2017 costs under the 2007 Consent Order

• $300,442 reimbursement for past state expenditures relating to the 3M Settlement

2007 Consent Order covers temporary drinking water needs up to $40 million or 5 years – serves as a “bridge” until long-term solutions

Summary of funding mechanisms

Financial framework

• Settlement requires grant to be deposited in Remediation Fund, Legislature established in law the Water Quality and Sustainability Account

• Funds statutorily appropriated to MPCA & DNR

• Use of dollars governed by agreement and overseen by District Court

• Financial framework established by M.S. 116.155, 115B.17, 115B.20, and 115B.22

Communications and outreach

• Open houses/listening sessions held in April, including public comment on Work Group and technical subgroup structure

• Developed webpage 3MSettlement.state.mn.us and email govdelivery list• Provides regular updates and documents including meeting agendas and summaries,

presentations, and finalized documents

• Planning public meetings during drafting of Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan

• Regular legislative fiscal and progress reports (due August and February each year)

• Regular legislative updates with local legislators

Local participation

• MPCA and DNR will work collaboratively communities to develop and prioritize drinking water and natural resources projects

• Three goals:

• Broad participation

• Transparency

• Balance

Groups structure

• Government and 3M Working Group and Citizen and Business Group that will provide recommendations on projects and priorities to the MPCA and DNR.

• Final decisions made by MPCA and DNR

• Future creation of subgroups will serve as technical resources to the groups and agencies.

• Drinking Water Supply

• Groundwater Protection, Sustainability, Conservation and Recharge

• Natural Resources Restoration and Enhancement

Work Groups

• Work Groups first meetings were July 13, 2018; monthly meetings

• Developed a shared understanding of the 3M Settlement implementation process and sequencing

• Startup phase (July-December 2018) – Understand the problem and develop process for project identification, evaluation, and recommendation

• Planning phase (January-December 2019) – Identify a reasonable range of options, evaluate options, and develop recommendations for drinking water supply

• Implementation (January 2020 and on) – Develop detailed project implementation plans, enter into funding agreements

Work Groups – activities

• Conducted planning activities

• Developed common understanding of how Work Groups operate

• Conducted visioning exercise of what success would look like and from it developed overall goals

• Developed draft screening and evaluation criteria for Priority 1

• Developed local government capacity grants to ensure participation in technical subgroup

• Received presentations on

• PFAS history and patterns in East Metro Area

• Multi-community water systems

• PFAS treatment technologies for drinking water

Work Groups – activities, continued

• Established December 2019 goal for Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan

• Will outline how long term drinking water supply is addressed for all communities

• Developing expedited grant program for certain projects during drafting and implementation of Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan

• Separate from the short term drinking water needs covered under 2007 Consent Order

Subgroups

• Set up Drinking Water Supply Technical Subgroup 1 (SG-1) in December 2018

• First meeting December 19th, 2018; monthly meetings at least

• Developed SG-1 charter

• Held first two meeting• Provided overview of project planning process, and progress to date

• Introduced and discussed Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan goal

• Initiated document compilation and additional information needs for community profiles

• Discussed and requested feedback on initial list of technical approaches to evaluate

Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan

• Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan

• Compile and review regional background information (July 2018 – February 2019)

• Write, review, revise: Introduction and Background (January 2019 – April 2019)

• Identify and evaluate technical approaches (October 2018 – March 2019)

• Write, review, revise: Technical Approaches Evaluation (March 2019 – May 2019)

• Identify, screen and evaluate projects (December 2018 – July 2019)

• Write, review, revise: Concept-Level Project Development, Screening and Evaluation; Detailed information on specific projects appendix (June 2019 – August 2019)

• Develop and evaluate alternatives; select preferred alternative (June 2019 – September 2019)

• Write, review, revise: Alternatives Development; Compile draft final report; review (September 2019 – October 2019)

• Revise and prepare final report (November 2019 – December 2019)

Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan, continued

2019 other planned activities

• Groundwater Protection, Sustainability, Conservation, and Recharge Technical Subgroup (SG-2)

• Plan to initiate Spring 2019

• Natural Resources Restoration and Enhancement Technical Subgroup (SG-3)

• Plan to initiate Fall 2019

Questions?