WRD PFAS Update

STEPHANIE KAMMER

DEQ – WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

Strong carbon-fluorine bonds

Surfactants

Hydrophobic (repels water) and oleophobic (repels oil, fat, grease)

Began developing in 1940’s

5,000+ compounds today

2

Why the concern?

Pervasive

Persistent

Bioaccumulative

Associated with adverse health effects

Scarcity of information in scientific literature

Incomplete regulatory structure

3

PFAS Cycle

4

Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART)Executive Order 2019-3

Unique multi-agency approach

Leads coordination and cooperation among all levels of government

Directs implementation of state’s action strategy

5

6

www.Michigan.gov/PFASresponse

Water Resources DivisionFish Contaminant Monitoring

Surface Water Sampling/Source Tracking

Point Source Monitoring

Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP)

Biosolids

MPART Technical Workgroups with WRD Lead◦ Surface Water

◦ Wastewater

◦ Biosolids

◦ Treatment Technology

DEQ Water Quality Criteria for PFASMichigan developed Rule 57 Human Noncancer Values (HNV) for both PFOS and PFOA in surface waters

PFOS builds up in fish tissue to a higher degree than PFOA

HNV

(nondrinking)HNV (drinking) FCV FAV AMV

PFOS (ng/L) 12 11 140,000 1,600,000 780,000

PFOA (ng/L) 12,000 420 880,000 15,000,000 7,700,000

Human Noncancer Values (HNVs); Aquatic Life Final Chronic Value (FCV), Final Acute Value (FAV), and Aquatic Maximum Value (AMV)

DEQ Fish Contaminant Monitoring

Data for DHHS “Eat Safe Fish” guidelines

40 waterbodies and average 600 samples per year

~1,300 fillet samples from 55 waterbodies have been analyzed for PFAS to-date

*Best indicator of significant source

https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/0,5885,7-339-71548_54783_54784_54785---,00.html

Waterbodies with PFOS Driven Fish Consumption Advisories

Northeast Crawford Lake Margrethe Southeast Lapeer Lake Pleasant

Northeast Iosco Allen Lake SoutheastSt. Clair, Macomb,

WayneLake St. Clair

Northeast IoscoAu Sable River (downstream of the

Foote Dam; includes Van EttenCreek)

SoutheastOakland, Livingston,

and Washtenaw Counties

Huron River

Northeast Iosco Clark’s Marsh Southwest BerrienSt Joseph River

(downstream of the Berrien Springs Dam)

Northeast Iosco Van Etten Lake Southwest KentRogue River (upstream of

the Rockford Dam)

Southeast Bay Saginaw River Southwest Kent Freska Lake

Southeast Bay, Saginaw Saginaw River Southwest KentPonds at 4300 Cannonsburg

Rd, Belmont

Southeast Genesee, SaginawFlint River (downstream of Mott

Dam)Southwest St. Joseph County Long Lake

SoutheastGenesee, Lapeer,

Saginaw

Flint River (upstream of Mott Dam, including the Mott and Holloway Reservoirs and North and South

Branches of the Flint River)

Upper Peninsula Marquette Silver Lead Creek

Surface Water Sampling for PFAS

Over 300 ambient surface water samples from 20 waterbodies◦ St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit Rivers sampled for PFAS in 2017 – PFOS was consistently low

Seven major watersheds sampled intensively as part of source tracking investigations

o Kalamazoo Rivero St. Joseph Rivero River Raisino Clinton River

o Rogue Rivero Huron Rivero Flint Rivero Grand River - 2019

PFAS-containing FoamHighly concentrated levels of PFAS identified in foams on surface waters with PFAS sources

Foam at the Hubbell Pond Dam in Milford (9/8/2018)

Portage Lake Date: 9/28/18

Advice from DHHS:• PFAS do not go through skin readily• Adults and children should avoid contact and swallowing foam • Try to keep pets out of areas with foam and rinse them off to

prevent them from swallowing the foam

Wastewater National Study, ACS, 2016

•PFOS/PFOA found greater than EPA lifetime health advisory (70 ng/l) in public drinking water sources for 6 million US residents

•Number of PFOS/PFOA manufacturers, military fire training areas, and WWTPs in watersheds were significant predictors of PFAS detection in public water supplies.

13

2017 Flint River/Lapeer

◦ 2013/2016 Elevated levels in Flint River

◦ Restrictive fish consumption advisories due to PFOS

◦ Source tracked back to Lapeer WWTP◦ Industrial User – chrome plater◦ High PFOS effluent and biosolid

concentrations◦ Biosolid application – impact to

resources?

2018 Industrial Pretreatment Program PFAS Initiative

• 95 Wastewater Treatment Plants with IPPs• Screen industrial users for

PFAS• Sample users and effluent• Control/reduce discharges• Monitoring

95 POTWs with IPPs:• 94 IRs* Submitted• 1 IR Overdue

*IR = Interim Report

Bin 2: 23Sources found but

POTW Effluent ≤WQS

Bin 1: 40No sources

PFOS/PFOA found

Bin 3: 22Sources found and

POTW Effluent >WQS

IPP PFAS Requirements Complete

• Source reduction recommended• Semi-annual PFAS monitoring required• Local limits and PMP recommended

3a: 15Effluent concentrations of moderate priority2

• Source reduction required• Quarterly POTW effluent monitoring required• Local limits recommended• Pollutant Min Plan SUO provisions

recommended

3b: 7Effluent concentrations at highest priority3

• Source reduction required• Monthly POTW effluent monitoring required• Biosolids monitoring required• Local limits recommended• Pollutant Min Plan SUO provisions

recommended

IPP PFAS Initiative Status Update 2-28-2019

Bin TBD: 9Interim Report submitted but a bin determination cannot be made as staff have not yet reviewed the report, the report was determined to be incomplete, or sample results (from IUs and/or POTW effluent) are still pending

Bin 3b: 7 POTW effluent conc. of highest priority

•5 are medium sized WWTPs which receive significant industrial inputs from chrome plating facilities• High PFOS concentrations in effluent >50 ng/l

• 4 also have high PFOS concentrations sludge/biosolids 1000 ng/g or greater

• 4 have GAC treatment units installed at source

• Significant reductions in PFOS in effluents once treatment installed

•1 large WWTP with many industrial sources with elevated levels of PFOS• Variable PFOS concentration in effluent

• PFOS concentrations in biosolids at 21 ng/g

•1 former military base where AFFF training was conducted. WWTP also has industrial sources and received landfill leachate• Variable PFOS concentration in effluent

• PFOS concentrations in biosolids at 387 ng/g

Required: Monthly PFAS monitoring; biosolids sample; source reduction/control

Sources PFAS to WWTPs found (so far)

• Platers (Decorative Chrome on Plastic; Hard Chrome)

• Aluminum Anodizing (Hex Chrome conversion coatings)

• Also groundwater from former plating sites (infiltrating to sanitary sewers; or groundwater cleanup sites)

Metal Finishers: Significant sources 180 - 240,000 ppt PFOS

Sources PFAS to WWTPs found (cont’d)

• Sites where AFFF used (Air Force Bases, refineries, etc.): PFOS 240 - 45,000 ppt

• Paint manufacturers/former sites: PFOS 6,047 ppt

• Landfill leachate: PFOS non-detect - 4000 ppt

• Medical Products (implants, patches, tubing): 25 ppt

• Paper Mfg/former sites: PFOS 20 - 150+ ppt

• Centralized Waste Treaters (CWTs): PFOS 13 - 650 ppt

• Industrial Laundry facilities: PFOS 29 - 50 ppt

BiosolidsMPART PFAS Biosolids Workgroup

◦ Stakeholder Committee

Statewide Biosolids Study

Industrially Impacted Sludge/Biosolids

Land Application Field Screening◦ Screen fields that received industrially impacted biosolids (3b facilities with high PFOS concentrations)◦ Screen fields that received biosolids at “typical” low/average concentrations

MPART Biosolids WorkgroupMDEQ WRD, RRD, MDARD, DHSS◦ Review current science and work collaboratively with stakeholders, EPA and

the Science Advisory Panel to evaluate risk and develop appropriate guidance and criteria.

◦ Expand knowledge of PFAS and biosolids within waste water collection and treatment systems to develop guidance to WWTP’s regarding land application of biosolids containing PFAS◦ Literature searches

◦ Biosolids FAQs

◦ Biosolids Sampling Guidance

◦ Site Selection Criteria

Biosolids Stakeholder CommitteeWWTPs , DHSS, MSU, MDARD, Land App Contractors, MABA, Ag Trades groups, AECOM, WRD

Next Meeting –◦ Review results of Land App site investigations

◦ Review results of WWTP Biosolids Study

Guidance on handling Industrially impacted sludges

Statewide Biosolids Study

• Sample Effluent, Influent, & Biosolids from 41 WWTPs

• Sample select fields from WWTPs with high conc. of PFOS in biosolids◦ Wixom, Ionia and Bronson

◦ Revisit City owned field in Lapeer (complete)

• Sample fields from WWTPs with “typical” PFOS concentrations in biosolids

• Identify data gaps

• In lieu of criteria, develop guidance to assist with biosolids management decisions

Statewide WWTP Biosolids Study

October –November 2018

41 WWTPs Evaluated

Selection Criteria:

20 Largest

3.0 – 9.0 MGD ( 8 WWTPs)

0.5 – 3.0 MGD ( 8 WWTPs)

0.2 – 0.4 MGD ( 5 WWTPs)

Selected WWTP included:

Various treatment processes

No industrial users

Influent, Effluent, Sludge/Biosolids

WWTP Influent and Effluent Data

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

PFOS Influent PFOS Effluent PFOS WQS

WWTP Influent and Effluent Data

1

10

100

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

PFOS Influent PFOS Effluent PFOS WQS

0 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 11 11 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 20 21 22 25 42 43 43 55 78 91160 161

387

9831,060

1,200

1,680

2,150

150.24

12.80

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

PFOS ng/g PFOS Mean ng/g PFOS Median ng/g Industrially Impacted

150 12.8

Statewide Study - WWTP Stabilized Sludge/Biosolids PFOS Results

23 3

45 5

6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 911 11

13 13 13 14 14 15 15 1620 21 22

25

42 43 4355

7891

160 161

387

983

1,060

1,200

1,6802,150

150.24

12.8

1

10

100

1000

10000

PFOS ng/g PFOS Mean ng/g PFOS Median ng/g Industrially Impacted

150 12.8

Statewide Study - WWTP Stabilized Sludge/Biosolids PFOS Results

PFAS in Sludge /Biosolids - When is it considered industrially impacted?

•WWTP’s biosolids/sludge w/ PFOS concentrations near or above1000 ng/g or greater

•WRD determination – suspension of residual management program

•Determination whether “industrially impacted” is based on a number of factors

◦ Review of land application studies with high PFAS concentrations (Decatur, Alabama)

◦ Literature review of known concentrations of PFAS in biosolids

Sample type

PFOS (µg/kg)

(range)

PFOA (µg/kg)

(range)

Nationally representative biosolid samples

(sample collected 2001)

(Venkatesan and Halden 2014) 308 - 618 12 - 70

Water resource recovery facilities in Mid-Atlantic

region of the US (sample collected from 2005 – 2013)

(Armstrong et al. 2016) BDL - 68

BDL -

601

Municipal biosolids from Chicago area (sample

collected from 2004 – 2007) (Sepulvado et al. 2011) 80 - 219 8 - 68

Various stages of wastewater treatment samples from

Kentucky (sample collected in 2005)

( Loganathan et al. 2007) 8.2 - 990 8.3 - 219

Various stages of wastewater treatment samples from

Georgia (sample collected in 2005) (Loganathan et al.

2007) < 2.5 - 777 - 130

New York State wastewater treatment plant (sample

collected in 2005) (Sincair and Kannan 2006) <10 - 6518 - 241

No regulatory Limit - Looking to EPA to lead

Page 30

*Excludes industrially impacted solids that are no longer being land applied

Land Application Site Screening•Field Selection Procedure to prioritize fields for screening

•April 2019 – Field Screening• Land App sites used by WWTPs with high PFOS

concentrations

◦ Wixom, Ionia, Bronson

◦ Revisit City owned field in Lapeer (complete)

◦ Soils, drain tiles, surface waters

• Land app sites used by WWTPs with low/avg. PFOS concentrations ranges• 1 - <5 ng/g

• 3 - 6 – 25 ng/g

• 1 - 26 – 60 ng/g

Biosolids – Next steps

Compile / Analyze results from IPP initiative and the statewide WWTP biosolids sampling

Continue Biosolids MPART / stakeholder group meetings

Land Application Site investigations, compile /analyze results

Develop Guidance for land application of biosolids based on study results

Questions

Stephanie Kammer, Water Resources Division

Kammers@michigan.gov

517-897-1597

https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/