PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)

PFAS are a class of thousands of different chemicals that have been manufactured and used in a variety of commercial products since the 1940s – from everyday household items to food packaging – due to its heat, moisture, and stain resistance and non-stick qualities. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals, followed by PFHxS and PFNA. These chemicals do not break down in the environment or human body, and can accumulate over time. There is evidence that PFAS exposure can lead to adverse health effects.

ASDWA Resources

ASDWA’s Statement on EPA’s proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS
ASDWA PFAS MCLs White Paper – November 2021: This White Paper entitled, “Lessons Learned from States and Challenges Ahead in Setting State-Level Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Standards,” provides an overview of current state PFAS efforts and seven topic sections on the key components of the regulatory setting process for states that are developing or considering developing PFAS drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) regulatory standards or guidelines, or want to take other actions to assess and address PFAS. View the November 29, 2021 webinar recording and slides here.
ASDWA PFAS Laboratory Testing Primer for State Drinking Water Programs and Public Water Systems – February 2021: This primer provides guidance on how state drinking water programs can work with laboratories to test per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water samples collected from public water systems. The document provides information on: selecting an analytical method; finding a qualified laboratory; specifying PFAS analytes and reporting limits; sample collection procedures; testing results variability and interpretation; and EPA’s work on new analytical methods.
ASDWA Technical Bulletin to Laboratories Reporting PFAS Analysis Using EPA Methods 533, 537, or 537.1 – October 2020: This bulletin was developed in partnership with the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) to alert laboratories to inconsistencies when reporting analytical results for PFAS.
ASDWA PFAS Water Utility Treatment Case Study – Town of Blades, Delaware – December 14, 2018: This case study was developed for ASDWA by the Town of Blades, where high levels of PFOA and PFOS were found in their wells. The town worked with the state, EPA, and many partners to undertake subsequent actions to add GAC treatment and investigate the source of contamination. The case study includes information about their efforts; their treatment needs, considerations, and decisions; and the associated costs.
Download the ASDWA PFAS Fact Sheet – October 2020 that includes the information on this webpage in a 2-page PDF.

ASDWA Comment Letters and Testimony

ASDWA Joint Letter of Comment with ACWA, ECOS, and ASTSWMO on EPA Changes to EPCRA PFAS Reporting Requirements and Supplier Notifications for Chemicals of Special Concern – February 2023: Our joint comments support EPA’s action to add PFAS to the list of Chemicals of Special Concern (CSC) with specific requirements for reporting under EPCRA; remove the de minimis exemption for Supplier Notification Requirements for PFAS and all chemicals on the list of CSC; and request that EPA pursue a supplemental rulemaking to ensure that all PFAS added to the TRI are also added to the CSC List.
ASDWA Comments on EPA’s Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for PFOA and PFOS – June 2022: These comments broadly support this Clean Water Act action and recommend that EPA consider additional PFAS; move forward with actions to develop human health criteria recommendations for water bodies used as drinking water sources; and develop guidance for addressing PFAS in discharge permits.
ASDWA comments on EPA PFAS NPDWR federalism consultation – April 2022: In these comments, ASDWA outlined state perspectives and concerns regarding EPA’s upcoming proposal to regulate PFOA and PFOS.
ASDWA SAB PFAS Review Panel Comments to EPA on the Draft Framework for PFAS Mixtures – December 30, 2021: These comments focus specifically on optimizing the value of the draft framework for estimating noncancer health risks associated with PFAS mixtures.
ASDWA Letter of Comment on EPA Draft IRIS Toxicological Review of PFBA – October 19, 2021: These comments focus on the value to state drinking program administrators (as co-regulators) of EPA issuing toxicity assessments, and provide recommendations for prioritizing PFAS for future toxicity assessments and developing risk communication messaging.
ASDWA Joint Letter of Comment with ACWA and ECOS on EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements – September 27, 2021: Our joint comments support the promulgation of a robust, comprehensive and transparent rule to help states’ and water systems’ understanding of, and ability to assess and address PFAS.
ASDWA Joint Letter of Comment with ACWA, ECOS, and ASTSWMO on EPA’s ANPRM for PFAS Effluent Limitations Guidelines – May 17, 2021: Our joint comments highlight the need to prevent PFAS pollution and difficulty in generating PFAS data due to the lack of analytical methods for monitoring surface waters.
ASDWA Letter of Comment on EPA Interim PFAS Destruction and Disposal Guidance – February 22, 2021: This letter highlights concerns for state drinking water programs and water utilities and provides recommendations for EPA to undertake a holistic lifecycle approach to assess and address PFAS destruction and disposal impacts for drinking water and to protect public health.
ASDWA Supplemental Comments on EPA’s Fourth Regulatory Determination – June 8, 2020
ASDWA Comments with Appendices on EPA’s Preliminary Fourth Regulatory Determination that includes positive preliminary determinations for regulating PFOA and PFOS – April 17, 2020
ASDWA and AMWA Joint Letter of Recommendations to EPA on PFAS Risk Communication – May 15, 2020: This joint letter provides recommendations to EPA for developing risk communication messages for states and water systems to use when communicating with their customers and the public about PFAS.
ASDWA Joint Letter of Comment with ACWA and ECOS to EPA on Adding PFAS to TRI-EPCRA Reporting – February 3, 2020: Our joint comments support the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requirements and subsequent EPA action for listing both individual and classes of PFAS, but recommend that the NDAA reporting threshold of 100 lbs is too high and should be determined through consultations with states.
ASDWA Letter of Comment on EPA’s Draft Interim Recommendations for Addressing Groundwater Contaminated with PFOA and PFOS – June 10, 2019: ASDWA’s comments make note of ASDWA’s previous comments to EPA on multiple PFAS topics and provide new suggestions for EPA that are both directly related to the recommendations in the document and also in the broader context of cleanup program efforts and in related guidance.
Joint ASDWA Letter of Comment with ECOS, ACWA, and ASTSWMO on EPA’s PFAS Action Plan – April 4, 2019:. While the letter commends EPA for the development of the Action Plan and acknowledgement of state challenges, it also recommends that the Action Plan needs to: consider setting limits for other PFAS (beyond PFOA and PFOS) in various media; focus on keeping PFAS out of the environment; provide timelines for actions; and address PFAS as a class.
ASDWA Letter to EPA on Clarifying Use of the DWSRF for PFAS and Unregulated Compounds – January 23, 2019: ASDWA submitted a letter recommending that EPA publish a memo clarifying that states can use the DWSRF to assess and address PFAS and other unregulated contaminants with adverse human health effects to allow water systems to get priority points on DWSRF loan applications to purchase and install additional treatment technology to remove these compounds.
ASDWA Letter of Comment on EPA’s Draft Toxicity Assessments for GenX and PFBS – January 22, 2019: ASDWA’s comments on EPA’s Draft Toxicity Assessments summarize state and water system challenges with EPA issuing HAs and toxicity assessments versus a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulation with an established Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
ASDWA Letter of Comment to EPA on CCL5 and UCMR5 – December 4, 2018: ASDWA’s comments included recommending that PFAS (as a group) be included in the final Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL5). The letter also included reference to ASDWA provided informal recommendations to EPA on the inclusion of more PFAS compounds in the final UCMR5.
ASDWA President’s Congressional Testimony on PFAS – September 6, 2018: ASDWA President, Lisa Daniels provided testimony at a PFAS hearing of the Subcommittee of the Environment of the House Energy and Commerce Committee asking Congress to direct federal agencies to develop unified risk messaging; list PFAS as a hazardous substance; provide additional funding to EPA and states; and expand the PFAS focus to encompass all programs and media; and more.
ASDWA Letter of Comment to EPA PFAS Docket – July 20, 2018: ASDWA submitted its letter of comment to the EPA PFAS National Leadership Summit and Engagement comment docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0270) at regulations.gov. The letter emphasizes the continuing challenges and continuing need to address all ASDWA’s recommendations from the January 12, 2018 letter, and the need to do more to ensure the protection of public health from PFAS compounds through the provision of safe drinking water. In addition, the letter expressed support for EPA’s current commitments and highlighted the need for EPA to take additional actions to: work with CDC ATSDR on health risks and messaging; develop a national plan that includes PFAS actions with a budget and timeline; address multiple PFAS compounds holistically through all EPA programs and media and at the source; include PFAS compounds again in UCMR5; and consider needs and implications for state and EPA funding that is being diverted from essential core drinking water activities to address PFAS contamination.
ASDWA PFAS Letter of Recommendations to EPA and CDC – January 12, 2018: ASDWA sent a letter to EPA and CDC with detailed recommendations to assist states with the growing problem of PFAS in drinking water by forming a federal-state working committee and developing a unified message, promptly, to the public and state regulators on what to do about PFAS. The letter also provides specific recommendations for multiple categories of topics including: direct engagement with states on any new PFAS advisories and guidelines; the need for more health effects research for additional PFAS compounds and considerations for analytical methods; as well as guidance for wastewater discharges, underground injection control, soil leaching standards, and air emissions.

ASDWA PFAS – Source Water Protection Guide and Toolkit

ASDWA developed this guide and toolkit with support from a Project Advisory Council (PAC) with representatives from nine states (Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin), and the Cadmus Group. The purpose of the guide is to demonstrate and share effective strategies for addressing PFAS contamination risk in source waters that will help inform policy decisions, assist state drinking water programs in protecting public health, and encourage collaboration and communication among states and water utilities.

The tool includes three main components and a factsheet:

The ASDWA PFAS SWP – Decision Support Tool is downloadable in Excel and provides examples of state actions to address PFAS contamination. It includes an update form for states and other organizations to submit updates or new entries for the Tool.

The factsheet for Communicating with Industry on PFAS Contamination includes best practices and questions with fillable fields to support state planning efforts.

The Technical Appendix includes an overview of PFAS, chemicals of concern, PFAS in the U.S., and state PFAS profiles.

The Mapping Guide aids identifying and mapping source waters that are vulnerable to PFAS contamination.

Download The Guide and Toolkit

Learn More About the Toolkit – in this webinar, ASDWA showcases the newly developed PFAS Source Water Protection Guide and Toolkit, sharing effective strategies for addressing PFAS contamination risk in source waters.

Watch Now

PFAS Background: The understanding of potential drinking water impacts from PFAS has significantly increased over the past decade. This class of chemicals started to get publicity in 2001 & 2002 due to water contamination from the Washington Works Plant located outside of Parkersburg, West Virginia, on the West Virginia/Ohio border. The class-action lawsuit against DuPont due to water contamination at Little Hocking Water District and Lubeck Public Service District generated additional publicity. In 2006, DuPont and other manufacturers such as 3M, agreed to principally phase out the production of PFOA and PFOS.

EPA’s Final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for Six PFAS

On April 26, 2024, EPA released the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFOA and PFOS, along with four additional PFAS. EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX). In addition to these five MCLs, EPA included a Hazard Index for mixtures of two or more of four PFAS including PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS. The Hazard Index is a tool used to evaluate potential health risks from exposure to chemical mixtures. This approach has been used in other EPA programs, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), but this is the first time it has been used for a drinking water standard. Additionally, EPA has finalized Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for each of the six PFAS. The MCLs and MCLGs are as follows.

Proposed NPDWR

	Compound Name	Proposed MCLG	Proposed MCL
PFOA	Perfluorooctanoic acid	0 ppt	4 ppt
PFOS	Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid	0 ppt	4 ppt
GenX	Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid	10 ppt	10 ppt
PFHxS	Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid	10 ppt	10 ppt
PFNA	Perfluorononanoic acid	10 ppt	10 ppt
Mixture	Two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS	HI = 1 (unitless)	HI = 1 (unitless)

*Hazard Index (HI) is unitless

For the Hazard Index, the rule proposes a ratio for two or more of the four PFAS to be used to calculate a compliance value based on detected levels of PFAS. If the combination of ratios is at or above 1 (unitless), then water systems will be expected to reduce the levels of these PFAS. Depending on the level of contamination found, water systems may need to take action even if only one of the four PFAS is present.

EPA’s 2022 Health Advisories: On June 15, 2022, EPA released the long-anticipated updated interim health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, as well as the final health advisories for GenX and PFBS. Under the 2022 HA levels, PFOA and PFOS are no longer combined. PFOA’s HA level is now 0.004 ppt, and PFOS’s HA level stands at 0.02 ppt. GenX and PFBS have HAs for the first time at 10 and 2000 ppt, respectively.

EPA PFAS Health Advisories

	Compound Name	2009 EPA HAs	2016 Revised HAs	2022 EPA HAs
PFOA	Perfluorooctanoic acid	400 ppt	70 ppt (individual and combined sum with PFOS)	.004 ppt*
PFOS	Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid	200 ppt	70 ppt (individual and combined sum with PFOA)	.02 ppt*
GenX	Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid	NA	NA	10 ppt
PFBS	Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid	NA	NA	2000 ppt

*EPA interim health advisory levels.

What is a drinking water health advisory?

Health advisories are not legally enforceable and reflect EPA’s assessment of the health risks of a contaminant. Unlike the legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), health advisories are based solely on EPA’s assessment of the risks and are not based on any consideration of the feasibility, costs, or benefits of reducing contaminant levels.

Provisional vs. Interim vs. Final Health Advisory

From EPA: EPA can develop interim or provisional HA levels to provide information in response to an urgent or rapidly developing situation. Interim or provisional HAs are also based on health-based hazard concentrations above which action should be taken to reduce exposure to unregulated contaminants in drinking water. In contrast, final health advisories are based on final health effects assessments.

In the case of PFOA and PFOS: These interim health advisories are intended to be in place during the time interval between initial understanding of health effects and publication of the final health advisory or maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. EPA anticipates proposing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation by the end of 2022 and finalizing it by the end of 2023.

HAs Versus Regulatory Standards Create Challenges: Use of HAs as guidance, versus a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulation with an established Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) creates challenges for state drinking water programs and public water systems. The HAs for PFOA and PFOS do not provide clarity on necessary actions for water systems to address the compounds, and how to communicate their actions and the associated health risks to the public.

State Regulatory and Oversight Challenges: States are having to make tough decisions about whether or how to implement HAs and address PFAS in drinking water in the absence of federal standards. The table below shows the states that have proposed or established PFAS standards or guidelines that are lower or different than EPA’s HAs. These numbers demonstrate the variation in health risk goals and risk reductions among states in the absence of federal standards and are creating public confusion about what levels of PFAS are safe in drinking water.

2019 EPA PFAS Action Plan: Commitments by EPA in the action plan included:

Proposing a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS by the end of 2019.
Determining if a SDWA regulation is appropriate for a broader class of PFAS.
Including a larger group of PFAS in UCMR5.
Working through its regulatory development process for listing PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances.
Continuing to use its authority under TSCA to review new PFAS and issuing supplemental proposed Significant New Use Rules.
Finalizing the toxicity assessments for PFBS and GenX in 2019.
Developing draft toxicity assessments for PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA in 2020.
Developing guidance to facilitate cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
Developing new tools to characterize PFAS in the environment and materials to communicate about PFAS.

Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3): Due to escalating concerns, six PFAS compounds were included in EPA’s final UCMR3. UCMR3 monitoring occurred between January 2013 and December 2015 and included two to four quarterly samples at mostly large water systems throughout the country using EPA Method 537. As typical for the UCMRs, EPA regularly released the UCMR3 monitoring data, starting in late 2013.

EPA’s 2009 Provisional and 2016 Revised Health Advisories (HAs): In 2009, EPA established provisional health advisories (HAs) for PFOA at 400 parts per trillion (ppt) and for PFOS at 200 ppt; those two numbers were the benchmark at that time, even though an EPA health effects review was underway. Based on the provisional health advisories, national occurrence in UCMR3 for PFOA and PFOS, at the time, appeared to be relatively low. In May 2016, EPA released revised HAs for the sum of PFOA and PFOS at 70 ppt. This numerical reduction significantly increased the number of water systems impacted.

State Actions to Address PFAS in Drinking Water

State	Drinking Water Action	Compound	Level (ppt)
California	Response Levels Notification Levels	PFOA PFOS PFBS PFOA PFOS PFBS	10 40 5000 5.1 6.5 500
Connecticut	Action Level	Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA	70
Illinois	Health Advisory Levels 7/27/21	PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFBS PFHxA	2 14 21 140 2100 560,000
Massachusetts	Adopted Regulation 9/16/20	Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, PFDA	20
Michigan	Adopted Regulation 8/3/20	PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFBS PFHxA GenX	8 16 6 51 420 400,000 370
Minnesota	Health Based Guidance for Water Surrogate of PFOS HBV	PFOA PFOS PFHxS	35 15 47
New Hampshire	Adopted Regulation 10/1/19	PFOA PFOS PFHxS PFNA	12 15 18 11
New Jersey	Adopted Regulation Adopted Regulations 6/1/20	PFNA PFOA PFOS	13 14 13
New York	Adopted Regulation 7/30/20	PFOA PFOS	10 10
North Carolina	Health Advisory	GenX	140
Vermont	Adopted Regulation 3/17/20	Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA	20
Washington	State Action Levels 1/1/22	PFOA PFOS PFNA PFHxS PFBS	10 15 9 65 345
Wisconsin	Adopted Regulation 8/1/22	Sum of PFOA and PFOS	70

Click to expand the section below to see more examples of state efforts:

More PFAS Contamination Sites are Being Found: The number of PFAS contaminated sites continues to grow. Over the past decade, PFAS contamination was found in many more locations beyond where the UCMR3 required water systems to conduct monitoring. Initially, contamination was thought to be somewhat limited to the chemical manufacturing facilities but has now expanded to include military bases, fire-fighting foam application, storage, and disposal sites, manufacturing sites of fire-retardant materials, landfills, and many other locations, including some that appear to be caused by air deposition.

State PFAS Sampling Maps – Action Plans – Resources

State	PFAS Sampling Maps, Action Plans, and Resources.
California	PFAS Map Tool with Site Investigation and Drinking Water Test Results.
Colorado	Colorado PFAS Action Plan Fact Sheet 2020 Sampling Plan Website
Connecticut	Interagency PFAS Task Force Action Plan
Iowa	PFAS Action Plan
Maine	PFAS Task Force Report
Massachusetts	MA Energy & Environmental Affairs Data Portal: Search Drinking Water for “Contaminant Group,” “PFAS” or “PFCS” or for individual compounds under “chemical name.”
Michigan	MI PFAS Site Investigation web page: Includes drinking water sample results for multiple sites throughout the state.
Minnesota	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Interactive Map showing private wells with advisories in the sampling area near St. Paul.
New Hampshire	NH PFAS Investigation website and GIS maps and data and PWS test results
New Jersey	NJ 2009 Study Report: Occurrence of PFAS in Drinking Water Sources throughout the state.
New York	Funding and Actions or Emerging Contaminants
North Carolina	NC PFAS Testing Network Final Report
Ohio	PFAS Public Water System Testing
Pennsylvania	PA PFAS Statewide Sampling Results
South Carolina	PFAS Drinking Water Strategy
Vermont	Draft PFAS Response Plan and Drinking Water Monitoring Results
Washington	PFAS Chemical Action Plan and Drinking Water Testing Standard
Wisconsin	PFAS Action Plan

ASDWA PFAS Recommendations to EPA and CDC

ASDWA’s State Drinking Water Program Recommendations to EPA and CDC on PFAS (1/12/18) includes the following recommendations:

Form a working committee with ASDWA, EPA, CDC, and Department of Defense (DoD) leadership.
Develop a unified message and work with other stakeholders to minimize the potential adverse effects to public health and the environment.
Directly engage with states on any new federal actions and support current state efforts to consistently assess and address PFAS; and develop guidance for public water systems.
Conduct more health effects research and increase funding and support non-targeted analyses of drinking water for known and unknown PFAS, and substitute compounds.
Develop rules or guidance for other media (e.g., UIC, wastewater, soil leaching, air emissions).
Directly engage with stakeholders and industry to assess and address the universe of known and unknown PFAS compounds, and evaluate fire-fighting foam and alternatives.
Address laboratory and sampling needs for analytical methods and standards, lab vendors, standardization of lab results, and increase lab programs and capacity beyond UCMR3.

The Number of PFAS Being Manufactured Continues to Grow: The number of PFAS compounds that might be a cause of concern is thought to be in the hundreds and continues to grow. Since the phase-out of PFOA and PFOS, companies have shifted to “short-chain” PFAS such as GenX, which is now a significant concern in the Cape Fear Watershed downstream of a Chemours manufacturing plant in North Carolina. The increasing number of PFAS of concern is creating a host of data collection and analysis issues, as regulators and researchers are struggling to get enough robust health effects, analytical methods, and treatment data to make smart decisions.

Drinking Water Treatment Resources

ASDWA PFAS Water Utility Treatment Case Study – Town of Blades, Delaware – December 14, 2018: This case study was developed for ASDWA by the Town of Blades, where high levels of PFOA and PFOS were found in their wells. The town worked with the state, EPA, and many partners to undertake subsequent actions to add GAC treatment and investigate the source of contamination. The case study includes information about their efforts; their treatment needs, considerations, and decisions; and the associated costs.

ASDWA Webinar: PFAS Treatment Options and Considerations for Drinking Water Utilities – October 2018: This webinar shared information from four companies that offer PFAS treatment technologies for drinking water utilities.

EPA Website on Drinking Water Treatment Technologies – August 2018: The site includes some general information on reducing PFAS in drinking water using activated carbon, ion exchange, and high-pressure membranes. The site also includes a link to EPA’s Drinking Water Treatability Database with more information.

New Jersey Recommendations for PFAS Drinking Water Treatment Options – June 2015: This document developed by the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute Treatment Subcommittee provides drinking water treatment options for removing PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA, as well as some short case studies with treatment information and costs from a few water utilities. There are two addendums dated August 2016 and November 2017 to the original document that update information about treatment and the case studies.

Cape Fear Public Utilities Desktop Evaluation of Alternatives – GenX and Other PFAS Treatment Options Study – July and September 2017: This document includes two Technical Memorandums (TMs) developed by Black & Veatch. The first TM1 compares treatment methods – Granular Activated Carbon, Ion Exchange, and Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration for the water utility, and the second TM2 presents planning level opinions of probable cost for treatment options previously selected in TM1.

Additional Resources

EPA Resources:

EPA web page with state by state PFAS resources including fact sheets, websites, health advisories, and more.
Health Advisories for PFOS and PFOA
PFAS Fact sheet
EPA updated Method 537.1: In November 2018 EPA released this updated Method 537.1 that can now test for 18 PFAS in drinking water.
Cross-Agency effort press release
PFAS methods and guidance for sampling and analyzing water and other environmental media (Technical Brief)
Website: https://www.epa.gov/pfas

CDC:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – Health Effects of PFAS

Department of Defense (DoD) Resources:

DoD PFAS website
DoD PFAS Presentation_March 2018 – This presentation summarizes and details DoD’s ongoing work and provides detailed spreadsheets on the individual sites (by service branch) that have been tested.
Presentation and Webinar – September 2017 – “Research and Development Needs for Management of DoD’s PFAS Contaminated Sites”
HR 2810 DOD PFAS Health Study and Exposure Assessment – December 2017 – This legislation appropriates $7 million to DoD to work with CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on a study to assess human health implications of PFAS contamination in water.

Industry Resources:

NGWA report on “Groundwater and PFAS – State of Knowledge and Practice.”
ITRC technical and regulatory guidance documents, and Internet based training course – see the website and fact sheets.

Water Research Foundation (WRF) Resources:

WRF PFAS web page: The page includes information about PFAS and related research projects.
Treatment Mitigation Strategies for PFAS (project #4322) and Webcast – June 2016

Risk Communication Resources

ITRC Risk Communication Toolkit– This toolkit includes a risk communication plan template; examples of tools to assist practitioners identify and assess the target audience; and aids for developing SMART goals and key messages, evaluating stakeholder needs and values, and communicating environmental sampling results and risk reduction measures to the public and media.
ECOS – June 2018: Case Studies on State-Level Risk Communication of PFAS and HABs
WRF project #4551 – 2017: Guide, Webcast, and Slides on Terminology Guidance for Water Professionals (or, What You Say Is Not What People Hear…). The guide is formatted with very simple and easy to use tables and focuses on communicating with the public on contaminants of emerging concern. It also provides helpful short descriptions in lay language for talking about 127 specific contaminants, including 1,4‐Dioxane and PFOA and PFOS.
EPA Risk Communication in Action The Risk Communication Workbook – August 2007: Includes basic concepts of risk, communication, and tools and techniques for their application.

For more information on how states are addressing PFAS, contact Stephanie Schlea at sschlea@asdwa.org or Deirdre White at dwhite@asdwa.org

ASDWA’s PFAS News Feed

ASDWA publishes content covering various areas of the drinking water program.

Learn More

New EPA WaterTA Assistance for PFAS and Emerging Contaminants in Small and Disadvantaged Water Systems

November 21st, 2024 Deirdre White

On November 20, EPA announced a new "Tackling Emerging Contaminants" initiative as part of the Water Technical Assistance (WaterTA) program. The funding is provided from the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities (EC-SDC) grant program. The goal of the initiative is to help 200 water systems over the next three years. The assistance will include water…

+ Read More

EPA Releases Updated 2023 PFAS TRI Data

November 7th, 2024 Deirdre White

EPA has released updated Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data that includes reporting on PFAS. The updated data show that during 2023, facilities managed over 1,563,509 pounds of production-related waste of PFAS, and 61 facilities collectively submitted 168 TRI reporting forms for 46 discrete PFAS. This is the fourth year since PFAS was added to the…

+ Read More

USGS Publishes PFAS Groundwater Contamination Report and Map

October 31st, 2024 Deirdre White

On October 24, 2024, the U.S. Geological Survey published a report and map sharing the findings of a study using predictive modeling to understand where PFAS may contaminate public and private wells that supply drinking water. These national estimates of PFAS occurrence are intended to help members of the public, water suppliers, and regulators understand…

+ Read More

PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)

ASDWA Resources

The tool includes three main components and a factsheet:

Download The Guide and Toolkit

ASDWA PFAS Fact Sheet

New EPA WaterTA Assistance for PFAS and Emerging Contaminants in Small and Disadvantaged Water Systems

EPA Releases Updated 2023 PFAS TRI Data

USGS Publishes PFAS Groundwater Contamination Report and Map