PFAS – What’s Happening Now? WACO Meeting - September 6, 2019 Jason Dadakis Executive Director of Water Quality & Technical Resources Orange County Water District
Outline • Background • Regulatory Update • Sources of PFAS to OC Groundwater Basin • Pilot Treatment Testing & Planning Studies • Legislative Outreach • Next Steps
BACKGROUND
What Are PFAS, PFOA & PFOS? • PFAS = Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (family of 1000s of chemicals) • PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid (C 8 HF 15 O 2 ) • PFOS = Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (C 8 HF 17 O 3 S)
Where are PFAS found?
PFAS Used Across A Wide Range of Industries and Consumer Products
FDA: PFAS Occurrence in Food • Meats & seafood • Produce irrigated with PFAS- impacted water • Milk from dairy using feed grown with PFAS-impacted water and/or soils
PFAS Exposure Pathways
REGULATORY UPDATE
OCWD PFAS Timeline • 2009: USEPA Provisional Health Advisories for PFOA & PFOS – PFOA = 400 ng/L – PFOS = 200 ng/L • 2013 – 2015: OCWD lab performs UCMR3 for local Producers (retailers) • 2016: USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory: PFOA + PFOS = 70 ng/L • 2018 (July) : CA DDW issues interim Notification & Response Levels – NL PFOA = 14 ng/L must notify local governing body – NL PFOS = 13 ng/L must notify local governing body – RL PFOA + PFOS = 70 ng/L DDW recommends source removal/treat/blend • 2019 (March): CA DDW issues PFAS Monitoring Orders to 12 Producers
California Notification & Response Levels Are Unique • Defined generally in state law (Health and Safety §116455) • Idea is to provide advisory levels ahead of enforceable MCLs • Specifics on how to determine are DDW policy • Only legal requirement : notification of governing body if > Notification Level • All other actions are recommendations from DDW policy • Setting Notification and Response Levels does not require – Peer review – Public notice – Public comment • AB 756 increases PFAS notification requirements Jan 2020
CA DDW PFAS Monitoring Orders Issued in March 2019 • 612 Wells • 192 Water Systems • 36 Counties • Requires one year of quarterly testing
12 OCWD Producers Received Testing Orders for 53 total wells Producer Rationale Anaheim Near UCMR3 detection or Landfill Buena Park Nearby Landfill East Orange County Water District Nearby UCMR3 detection City of Fullerton Nearby UCMR3 detection City of Garden Grove Nearby UCMR3 detection Irvine Ranch Water District Nearby UCMR3 detection or Airport Knotts Berry Farm Nearby Landfill Liberty Park Water Association Nearby Landfill City of Orange Nearby UCMR3 detection City of Santa Ana Nearby UCMR3 detection Serrano Water District Nearby UCMR3 detection Yorba Linda Water District Nearby UCMR3 detection
OCWD Laboratory: Testing for PFAS since 2013 • Only CA public agency lab w/ state certification for PFAS testing (EPA 537 Rev1.1 = 14 PFAS targets) • Sample collection guidance from State – No pre-packaged food, fast food wrappers, or foil – No waterproof field notebooks, ink, or clothing • Analysis and data reporting takes 2-3 weeks – Sample preparation (extraction) – Instrument analysis (LC-MS-MS) – Quality Assurance & Data Review
Producers with One or More Recent Monitoring Order Results Greater Than DDW NLs for PFOA or PFOS Producer Anaheim East Orange County Water District City of Fullerton City of Garden Grove Irvine Ranch Water District City of Orange City of Santa Ana Serrano Water District Yorba Linda Water District
August 23: New DDW Notification Levels • No USEPA or CA enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)…yet • Some other states have advisory values and proposed MCLs
State Type PFOA (ng/L) PFOS (ng/L) Other PFAS MI Advisory Panel Recommendation 8 16 MN Health Based Guidance for Water 35 15 PFBS, PFHxS, PFBA, NH Proposed MCL 12 15 PFHxS = 18, PFNA = 11 NJ Pending MCL 14 13 PFNA = 13 NY Proposed MCL 10 10 VT Drinking Water Health Advisory 20 combined w/ PFHxS, PFHpa, & PFNA PA Proposed MCL (via legislation) 5 5 WI Proposed Standard 20 combined MA Proposed MCL 20 combined w/ PFHxS, PFHpA, & PFNA
Effects of lowering DDW Response Level • Two OCWD area wells > 70 ng/L PFOA + PFOS Response Level (shutdown) • Reducing Response Level to PFOA = 10 ppt and PFOS = 40 ppt – 39 of 51 OC wells tested under Monitoring Orders would exceed RL in OCWD area – Project ~71 out of ~200 OCWD area wells *could* exceed (~100,000 acre-ft/yr pumping) • Preliminary estimates of OCWD area financial Impacts – If 39 wells lost = $30 million/yr in replacement treated imported water – If 71 wells lost = $50 million/yr in replacement treated imported water – Wellhead treatment for 71 wells = ~$850 million capital + 30-year O&M (very preliminary!!)
DDW Database*: Other Counties & Agencies Affected • Los Angeles County • San Luis Obispo County – Santa Clarita Valley Water • Alameda County – Pico Rivera – Zone 7 Water Agency – Glendale – Pleasanton – Montebello – La Habra Heights • Butte County – Cal Water Service Co – Chico • Riverside County – Cal water Service Co. - Oroville – Corona – Riverside * 75% of Ordered Systems – Elsinore Valley Reporting – Rubidoux CSD – Desert Water Agency – Eastern Municipal Water District
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF PFAS TO OC GROUNDWATER BASIN
Potential Local PFAS Sources • Military Bases – Former MCAS Tustin – Former MCAS El Toro – JFTB Los Alamitos • Municipal Airports • Landfills • Industrial Discharge/Release • Fire Training Areas • Water Supplies used to replenish OC Groundwater Basin
Managed Aquifer Recharge Portfolio WY 2017-18 Total Recharge = 286,735 af (Local dry year) Incidental 9% Santa Ana River (SAR) 26,112 Base Flow af 24% 69,232 af Groundwater Replenishment Captured 19,723 af Storm Flow 105,554 af System 7% (GWRS) 66,114 af 37% Raw MWD Imported Water 23% 23
GWRS & MWD results • GWRS – OCSD Secondary Effluent = 25–38 ng/L PFOA + PFOS – GWRS Final Product = Not detected (ND) – Reverse Osmosis = effective PFAS treatment • MWD OC-28: Not detected for PFOA & PFOS • Other MWD data non-detect for PFOA & PFOS
Santa Ana River (SAR)
PFAS in SAR at Imperial Hwy Aug 2016 – Present Averages (ng/L) PFOA: 20 PFOS: 17 PFOA+PFOS: 37 Min / Max (ng/L) PFOA: 10 / 40 PFOS: 10 / 28 PFOA+PFOS: 21 / 59
Upper SAR Watershed Monitoring PFOA & PFOS Results (ng/L) Average Reported for sites with multiple samples PFOA: 10 PFOA: 13 PFOS: ND PFOS: 15 PFOA: 6 PFOS: ND PFOA: 15 PFOA: 25 PFOS: 14 PFOS: 2 PFOA: 11 PFOS: 15 PFOA: 18 PFOA: 24 PFOS: 7 PFOA: 17 PFOS: 2 PFOS: 10 PFOA: 9 PFOS: 10 PFOA: 24 PFOA: 16 PFOS: 23 PFOS: 11 PFOA: 16 Surface Water Site PFOS: 14 (SAR or Creek) POTW Facility Effluent to SAR PFOA: 41 PFOA: 22 (Sites with n=2 / Site with n=8) PFOS: 29 PFOS: 16 (n = 19)
Occurrence of PFAS compounds in conventionally treated wastewater is well-established in literature
OCWD PILOT TREATMENT & PLANNING STUDIES
PFAS Treatment Technologies Carbon Adsorption: Ion Exchange Reverse Osmosis or granular activated (IX) resin Nanofiltration carbon (GAC) (RO or NF) • More conventional treatment, site specific, • Higher capital cost, concentrate disposal WQ factors in, footprint area also
OCWD Field Pilot Testing • Pilot will assess GAC, IX, and new alternative sorbents • Laboratory bench-scale testing of GAC with multiple Producer groundwaters • Consultant support from Jacobs • Testing to begin in October 8-12 months • Goal: inform & accelerate local retail agencies’ future treatment decisions
Planning Study with Producers • Goal: assess implementation of treatment for individual Producers – Number of wells impacted – Location of wells impacted – Space available – Number of treatment systems required – Integration into Producer operations – DDW Permitting & CEQA assessment – Planning-level capital cost estimates • Supplement to Treatment Pilot Testing activities • Proposals due September 19th
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
State Legislation • AB 756 (C. Garcia) PFAS – Amended to largely be redundant to current State Board regulations/policy – Still contains some enhanced public notification requirements – Passed Assembly & Senate, signed by Governor, effective January 2020 – OCWD took an oppose position and sent a veto request to Governor • AB 841 (Ting) PFAS – Would require OEHHA to adopt a work plan by 2021 – Plan to assess which PFAS should be identified as a potential risk to human health – Consideration given to PFAS likely to be present in CA water and feasible to detect – OCWD took a support position; this bill is now a 2-year bill
Recommend
More recommend
