11/24/21
PFAS Updates from the U.S., Washington State and Canada

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced (2021-24565.pdf (govinfo.gov) ) that it is convening its Science Advisory Board (SAB) charged with “Analyses to Support EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Rulemaking for PFAS” starting December 16th with a series of four 5-hour meetings through January 7th. Meeting materials, SAB members, and other information are available at Meeting | US EPA.  EPA has prepared a list of “Charge Questions” for the SAB reviewers to assist them in reviewing EPA’s proposed approaches to deriving draft Maximum Contaminant Level Goals for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.  This same SAB process will be used for reviewing the risk assessment of those same PFAS in biosolids.

EPA has also said it plans to initiate a rulemaking to propose adding four PFAS chemicals to the list of hazardous constituents under RCRA: PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and PFBS (see EPA eyes new rules for PFAS in waste - E&E News (eenews.net)).  EPA is also moving ahead with other plans under its PFAS Strategic Roadmap. Still, the actions appear too slow for many of the states. According to Bloomberg Law, the states are ahead of the federal government in setting PFAS standards in soil for example, with Maine and Massachusetts way out in front (States Eclipse Feds in Cleaning ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Soil (1) (bloomberglaw.com)). 

It is heartening to see some states take more pragmatic approaches, given that PFAS is everywhere, including background levels in soils where there is no obvious source.  Michigan is one state that has taken a common sense approach with PFAS in biosolids.  And Washington State’s recently finalized PFAS Chemical Action Plan (CAP) is well thought out. The PFAS CAP builds on work dating back to 2016 with early concerns about PFAS. The Washington State Department of Ecology issued an interim CAP in 2018 with recommendations to address the problems with PFAS.  The CAP was updated several times along the way with additional input from an Advisory Committee and extensive public comment.

Washington State’s plan seems to start with the riskiest things such as PFAS in drinking water and contaminated sites. As for biosolids, the CAP states “It is premature to add or change regulatory limits given the absence of data from Washington biosolids and problems identified with models and their input parameters.”  Instead, recommendations include investigating land application sites where procedures mimic rates and practices under current state rules and collaborating with stakeholders to get accurate and precise biosolids data. In Appendix 8, on Biosolids, the CAP cautions that “adoption of extremely low regulatory limits for soil PFAS could have adverse consequences for organics and residual recycling, and may not provide demonstrated risk-reduction for human health and the environment.”  In stark contrast to New England states, Washington has not jumped ahead with testing of biosolids, given that there is no formal, consistent analytical method and that the Department of Ecology knows what to expect given the abundant screening data published in literature and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, across the border in Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment recently issued soil and groundwater quality guidelines for PFOS (Canadian Soil and Groundwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health: Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) (ccme.ca)).  The new guidelines for PFOS are 10 parts per billion (ppb) in soil and 600 parts per trillion (ppt) in ground water. This is good news for biosolids from the U.S. being land applied in Canada, because typical biosolids that are not highly-industrially-impacted, are unlikely to raise soil and groundwater PFOS levels above these guidance levels.