Delawareans face a possible increase in water rates to help utilities pay for costly technology to comply with strict new federal standards for curbing so-called forever chemicals in drinking water.
Utilities across the state may have to pay tens of millions of dollars, according to one estimate, for filtration that would cut the levels of PFOA and PFOS – two commonly found types of the pervasive PFAS family of chemicals – to almost zero.
In a landmark proposal last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said U.S. utilities should ensure that their water contained the two toxic chemicals at no higher than 4 parts per trillion (ppt), lower than any state that has regulated the chemicals, including Delaware.
The federal agency also proposed a combined limit on four other kinds of PFAS chemicals including PFNA and GenX, which some manufacturers have used to replace kinds of PFAS that have increasingly regulated by the states.
Last year, the First State proposed its own enforceable health limits on PFOA and PFOS at 21 ppt and 14 ppt, respectively, or a combined level of 17. But implementation of those levels is now on hold pending finalization of the new federal limits, expected by the end of 2023. If the EPA level is confirmed, it would apply to all states unless their own limits were stricter.
The unexpectedly low federal “maximum contaminant limits” signal how seriously the EPA takes the threat to public health posed by the chemicals in drinking water, and will add significantly to water companies’ costs, experts said.
“These are a type of chemical that just can’t exist in drinking water and so the level has to be virtually zero."Dr. Jerry Kauffman, Director of the University of Delaware’s Water Resources Center
The agency sets maximum contaminant limits because they are as close as possible to a “maximum contaminant limit goal” (MCLG) after accounting for the technical ability to detect and treat for a contaminant. In the case of PFOA and PFOS, the MCLG is zero because they are classed as likely carcinogens, and so the MCL is set as close as possible to that.
“These are a type of chemical that just can’t exist in drinking water and so the level has to be virtually zero,” said Dr. Jerry Kauffman, director of the University of Delaware’s Water Resources Center, and a long-time advocate for tough regulation of PFAS.
Kauffman estimated that the cost to Delaware utilities of complying with the new limit – if finalized – will be in the tens of millions of dollars. The extra cost is likely to be borne in part by ratepayers, and in part by the federal government, which now provides help through infrastructure funding to curb PFAS.
“It is probably going to be a split between the federal appropriation and the water rate,” Kauffman said.
Delaware is one of 21 states that have proposed or adopted health limits on some kinds of PFAS chemicals as more becomes known about their links to serious illnesses including some cancers, immune-system impairments, decreased vaccine response, liver damage, and elevated cholesterol. Now that the EPA has proposed the first federal regulation on the chemicals, the state rules are set to be overridden.
The man-made chemicals have been used since the 1940s in a wide range of consumer products including non-stick cookware and flame-resistant fabrics. Even though their use was phased out by major U.S. manufacturers, they accumulate in the human body, and do not break down in the environment, earning them the nickname ‘forever chemicals”. Scientists say PFAS, or per- and polyfluouroalkyl substances, can be found in the bloodstream of almost every American.
The Delaware Public Service Commission, which decides whether utilities can raise water rates, has not so far received rate-case applications to help pay for PFAS cleanup, but three of the regulated utilities – Artesian, Tidewater and Veolia – have indicated they will file applications this spring, without saying why, said Matthew Hartigan, executive director of the state regulator.
“Once those are filed we can break down how much of the increase (if any) is related to the PFAS issue,” he said. Rate-case applications are infrequent, typically being filed every 5-7 years, Hartigan said.
Veolia, formerly Suez, said in a statement that it is ready to comply with the new federal standards using technology that has allowed it to comply with PFAS regulations in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
“Veolia protects public health in the communities we serve by providing drinking water that meets or exceeds all safe drinking water standards, and we are ready to meet that responsibility under the EPA’s new proposal as well,” the company said in a statement.
In a sign of the costs of meeting the EPA’s new rule, the water company Aqua – which does not operate in Delaware -- estimated that it will cost about $1 million per system to cut the PFOA/PFOS level to a company standard of 13 ppt in 40 systems where it found the chemicals above that level. It aims to complete that program by 2026.
With the EPA now due to require the much tighter standard to 4 ppt, Aqua estimates it will need to treat a total of 300 systems in its eight-state territory including Pennsylvania and New Jersey at an estimated cost of $250-300 million, said the company’s president, Colleen Arnold.
“These are huge price tags... We don’t think customers or utilities should pay. They didn’t cause the contamination. This was done by chemical manufacturing.”Colleen Arnold, President of the water company Aqua
“These are huge price tags,” she said, especially for smaller systems where the cost may be shared by relatively few customers.
But Aqua is hoping to offset the cost with proceeds from a lawsuit it has filed against PFAS manufacturers including DuPont, 3M and about 20 others, alleging that the defendants made and sold their products knowing that they would be used in fire-fighting foam at sites like airports and military bases such as Dover’s US Air Force Base where high-levels of PFAS contamination have been found in groundwater.
“We don’t think customers or utilities should pay,” Arnold said. “They didn’t cause the contamination. This was done by chemical manufacturing.”
If the lawsuit fails to raise money for PFAS cleanup, Aqua may be able to get federal help but that source is “nowhere near enough” to pay for the cleanup of widespread PFAS and lead contamination of water systems nationwide, she said.
Without those possible sources of funding, it will be left to ratepayers to fund the cleanup, Arnold said.
Still, the Office of Drinking Water in the Department of Health and Social Services indicated that federal funds may in fact be available to help with the new costs.
“There is a large infusion of federal monies from various sources, but most notably funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL,” the office said in a statement. “These funds include specifically designated funds for emerging contaminants such as PFAS.
The BIL of 2021 provides $9 billion nationally to invest in water systems impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. Of the total, $4 billion is being made through state revolving funds, which are required to ensure that 25 percent of the money goes to disadvantaged communities. The remainder is being provided in grants to small and disadvantaged communities.
Delaware’s revolving fund allocation for “emerging contaminants” including PFAS is $7.6 million a year for five years, along with $462,000 a year for addressing emerging contaminants in the wastewater system. Delaware is now in year two of the period. Under the BIL program providing infrastructure grants for disadvantaged communities, Delaware has received $19 million for the first two years combined, and will get as-yet unspecified grants for the rest of the five-year period, said Michael Globetti, a spokesman for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Funding is also available via increases in the Drinking Water and Clean Water state revolving funds that could be used for PFAS cleanup, whereas funding for emerging contaminants must be used for that purpose, Globetti said.
Among utilities, Artesian Water Company said it has been testing for PFAS for the last 10 years, and expects to conduct additional testing and treatment to comply with the new federal rule, but does not yet know the cost of compliance.
Artesian, which supplies water to about 300,000 residents, mostly between Townsend and Hockessin, said it regularly gets help from the state revolving fund for water treatment, and will explore possible federal funding, but recognized that customers may have to pay in the end. “Ultimately, our customers bear the burden of these costs in their utility bill,” the company said in a statement.
“Given the new EPA proposal, the 17 is not as protective as it should be. Based on the latest toxicology and the scientific investigations, states like Delaware and the New England states are not as protective as the EPA’s standard.”Dr. Jerry Kauffman, Director of the University of Delaware’s Water Resources Center
Meanwhile, recent testing of five Delaware water sources by a University of Delaware team found PFAS would have met proposed state or federal rules at some sites but not at others. The tests in November 2021 found that all five sites – White Clay Creek at Newark and Stanton; Red Clay Creek at Stanton; Christina River, and Brandywine Creek -- complied with the federal limit for PFOS, and therefore would also have done so for the state rule if it had been implemented.
But only the Newark testing site at White Clay Creek met the federal standard for PFOA, and the Red Clay Creek at Stanton registered 53 ppt, or more than 10 times the proposed federal standard for that chemical, the tests found.
Asked whether the EPA proposal implies that the less-strict state standard would not fully protect public health, UD’s Kauffman said the stricter requirement does not suggest that public health would be at risk if the state rule had been adopted.
The combined level of 17 ppt would have been “pretty stringent”, and protective of public health, but the emerging science of PFAS indicates that the even stricter federal level is justified, he said.
“Given the new EPA proposal, the 17 is not as protective as it should be,” he said. “Based on the latest toxicology and the scientific investigations, states like Delaware and the New England states are not as protective as the EPA’s standard.”
