A Comprehensive Guide for Public and Private Agencies

A Multifaceted Approach to PFAS Remediation

PFAS are a group of human-made chemicals that have been used in various industrial and consumer products, such as firefighting foams, non-stick cookware, and waterproof fabrics. Manufacturers of these chemicals failed to warn the public that exposure to them could lead to serious negative health effects, including cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and immune system dysfunction. Now, as a result of decades of widespread use, PFAS compounds have been detected in soil and water across the country.

The ubiquity of PFAS contamination means that many communities will need to address it in more than one area. Once considered primarily a drinking water issue, counties and municipalities are now burdened with new costs and challenges across the spectrum of services they provide. An effective PFAS response must consider all potential sources, protecting local governments and residents from financial and public health risks.

Contamination impacts each entity in unique ways, often requiring a multifaceted approach to address various concerns. The areas in which municipalities and counties may consider exploring PFAS remediation include, but are not limited to:

• Drinking Water

• Wastewater Treatment Plants

• Airports

• Fire Training Facilities

• Landfills

PFAS Testing: UCMR and Beyond

The widespread presence of PFAS in the environment has led to contamination of groundwater and surface water around the world, including many U.S. public drinking water sources. Many water providers initially detected these contaminants through testing required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). UCMR 3 required testing for 6 different PFAS compounds between 2013 and 2015. These 6 compounds are now subject to federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). This means that water providers will not only need to continue monitoring into the future, but many must also install costly treatment systems to maintain compliance.

More recently, EPA included 29 additional PFAS compounds in UCMR 5, which requires testing between 2023 and 2025. While these PFAS still remain unregulated, monitoring results may spur further regulatory development at the federal and/or state levels.

Wastewater Testing for PFAS

Many states have also begun requiring wastewater systems to monitor their influent, effluent, and/or biosolids for PFAS using specialized testing methods. Although wastewater treatment facilities do not use PFAS, the chemicals may enter wastewater through the normal use and cleaning of PFAS-containing products. Wastewater systems also often treat leachate from landfills, which may contain PFAS from the disposal of those same products. The differences in testing requirements among states has created a challenging regulatory patchwork across the country.

In an effort to curb the potential spread of PFAS throughout the environment, some states have taken steps to limit the land application of biosolids if testing reveals elevated PFAS concentrations. This has caused biosolids disposal costs to increase exponentially for impacted wastewater operators.

PFAS Testing at Airports & Fire Training Facilities

Airports, fire training facilities, and fire stations nationwide are also beginning to test their soil and nearby groundwater for PFAS contamination. For decades, aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing PFAS was deployed at these sites in emergency and training situations. AFFF manufacturers never warned users that the foam could be hazardous, so no precautions could be taken to prevent contamination. In fact, federal regulations required the use of these firefighting foams at airports for many years.

Some airports have been required to test for PFAS to monitor for potential environmental and public health impacts, which could obligate municipalities and counties to pursue remediation. Others may voluntarily test to assess their financial and legal risks. Many airports are already incurring costs to monitor for PFAS, transition to fluorine-free foams, and clean up contaminated areas. Although some federal funding is expected to be available to airports to assist with this process, it is unlikely to fully cover the costs of PFAS remediation for years to come.

Effective PFAS Risk Communication Strategy

Press coverage, and in turn public awareness, surrounding the impact of PFAS is continuing to grow. Because of this, an effective PFAS risk communication strategy is essential in addressing these growing concerns over detections within communities. It is crucial to establish transparent and proactive communication plans. This includes collaborating with experts, local government officials, and health departments to develop a consistent and informative message, which helps to build trust within the community.  Additionally, providing context by explaining the causes and risks of contamination in clear and relatable language can alleviate concerns and improve public understanding. Learning from successful communication approaches used by utilities in previous incidents and following the recommendations of organizations like the CDC can further enhance the effectiveness of communication efforts.

Building an Effective Response

Transparent and proactive communication is key when addressing PFAS detections. Establishing trust with the community by sharing important facts and action steps promptly is essential.

Providing Context

To ease concerns, it is important to provide ample context regarding the cause and risks of contamination. Clear and simple language can help the public understand the situation better. For example, using relatable examples can enhance comprehension.

Learn from Successful Communication

Many local governments have effectively communicated with the public following PFAS detections. Adopting similar strategies employed by these cities and counties can serve as a useful starting point. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend the following best practices when communicating about public health issues:

1. Be First: People remember and rely upon the first source of information that they find.  

2. Be Accurate: Use plain language to explain the situation and express the known information at that moment.

3. Be Credible: Communicating with transparency and accuracy will make you a trusted source of information.

4. Be Empathetic: Messaging should speak to the needs of the affected community.

5. Promote Action: People want to know how they can lessen their exposure as well as what you, the utility, are doing to rectify the situation.

6. Show Respect: Attempts to over-reassure and suppress information often cause more harm than good.

By implementing effective communication strategies, cities and counties can address PFAS contamination and build trust within their communities.

Addressing PFAS Contamination: Treatment & Mitigation

As regulations evolve and public scrutiny of PFAS issues intensifies, municipalities and counties may be required to pursue PFAS remediation for contaminated sites and/or water sources. For many local governments, PFAS drinking water treatment projects are already planned or underway to ensure compliance with federal standards. Those impacted by contamination in other areas may need to explore additional treatment technologies for wastewater, biosolids, and soil.

PFAS Water Treatment Technologies

Removing PFAS from drinking water can be a complex process, as traditional water treatment methods are ineffective. Several advanced treatment technologies have proven successful for PFAS removal, including:

• Granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption  

• Ion Exchange (IX)

• Reverse Osmosis (RO)

These methods can also be utilized to remove PFAS from wastewater, but the cost can be prohibitive for many systems, leading many wastewater treatment facilities to seek alternative strategies. Each technology offers distinct advantages and considerations in removing PFAS compounds. The best choice for each municipality or county will depend on many factors, including the size of the system, the specific PFAS compounds present, and budget. Additionally, emerging technologies continue to be researched and may provide more treatment options in the future. Further examination will provide valuable insights into each method’s operational considerations, efficiency, costs, and environmental impacts. Consulting with an experienced environmental engineering firm will be helpful in selecting the appropriate water treatment method for each municipality or county’s unique situation.

PFAS Wastewater Treatment

As mentioned above, addressing PFAS in wastewater requires a different approach, as the drinking water treatment methods are generally inefficient and unaffordable for wastewater. Several technologies have been successfully implemented, including:

• Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)

• Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption

• Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs)

As with drinking water, the most effective methods for PFAS wastewater treatment depend on many factors. Because all currently available methods can be highly expensive for municipal and county budgets, pilot testing can be a helpful step to ensure that a solution is the best fit before implementing it at scale.  

Bench-scale and pilot-scale testing, which involve conducting experiments in smaller controlled environments, play a vital role in validating the chosen treatment technology. Bench-scale testing typically refers to laboratory-scale experiments conducted on a small sample size, allowing researchers to analyze the treatment process and assess its effectiveness.  

Pilot-scale testing, on the other hand, involves running trials on a larger scale, often in a simulated or representative operational setting, to evaluate the technology's performance under more realistic conditions. These testing phases enable researchers to assess factors such as equipment costs, labor requirements, and chemical needs, providing valuable insights into the overall lifecycle costs associated with the treatment technology. By collaborating with treatment experts and considering site-specific constraints, disposal options, and existing processes, the selection of the most suitable treatment solution can be ensured, facilitating the effective remediation of PFAS-contaminated sites and the long-term preservation of high water quality standards.

The Cost of PFAS Contamination Cleanup

The financial burden of PFAS contamination cleanup can be overwhelming, with costs reaching tens of millions of dollars and requiring years of ongoing maintenance. While treating PFAS in drinking water is already anticipated to cost municipalities and counties billions nationwide, adding treatment technology to wastewater plants is expected to be even more expensive. In fact, a 2023 report by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found that the cost of removing and destroying PFAS from all municipal wastewater facilities in Minnesota alone could range from $14 billion to $28 billion over 20 years.

To offset these expenses, many water providers have turned to legal action to hold manufacturers of PFAS-containing products accountable. For decades, large manufacturers have allowed hazardous substances to pollute our communities, leading to contamination. Leaders of impacted cities and counties may benefit from exploring litigation as a funding solution, reducing the financial impact on taxpayers and local budgets.

PFAS Litigation Trends for Cost Recovery: A Strategic Approach

Since the mid-20^th century, manufacturers have produced various hazardous substances without warning consumers or the government, leading to contamination of drinking water, wastewater, municipal airports, fire training sites, landfills, and more. Local government leaders who do not explore cost recovery options against these manufacturers may be leaving money on the table. With today’s increasing challenges and operational costs, local governments benefit from thinking outside the box and taking advantage of novel funding sources.

When considering litigation, decision-makers may feel apprehensive about the costs and labor involved in bringing a case from start to finish. While the litigation process can sometimes be intensive and time-consuming, this is not the case for municipalities and counties seeking legal cost recovery for PFAS impacts. Because so many entities have filed similar claims against the same manufacturers, the cases have been grouped together in a multidistrict litigation (MDL). The MDL consolidates the discovery and pretrial motions, saving time and money for both sides. This means municipalities and counties can effectively benefit from work that has already been done for previous cases, leading to a simpler process and less stress for busy local government leaders.

Below, we outline the litigation process for contamination cost recovery cases, then compare it to the simpler process for cases consolidated in the PFAS MDL.

Navigating the Litigation Process

The litigation process can be very lengthy and complex. Partnering with a law firm experienced in contamination litigation streamlines the process and minimizes the time and resources required from local governments. Since counties and municipalities may already be working with limited staff and resources, minimizing the time and effort required to seek cost recovery is crucial. Here are the key steps involved in the litigation process:

1. Investigation - The legal team assists in identifying the probable source of contaminants and conducts preliminary factual research.

2. Filing the lawsuit and initial disclosures - The legal team files a complaint on behalf of the water utility, collaborating with the utility to gather evidence.

3. Fact discovery - Both parties have access to each other's information, exchanging documents and providing requested information.

4. Mediation - Accused polluters may opt for settlement rather than going to trial. The legal team helps determine an appropriate sum for settlement.

5. Expert discovery - The legal team conducts additional research, including consulting specialists to provide expert analysis.

6. Settlement or trial - Once evidence has been exchanged, parties may choose to settle or proceed to trial.

How the PFAS MDL Can Help Save Time & Resources

For municipalities and counties seeking PFAS cleanup cost recovery, the litigation process may be even simpler. Since the MDL consolidating these cases has been in progress since 2018, much of the litigation work has already been completed. In fact, as a result of the MDL, PFAS manufacturers 3M, DuPont, BASF, and Tyco have already offered drinking water providers settlements with a combined total of nearly $15 billion. While there is no guarantee that any future settlements will be offered for PFAS impacts in other areas such as wastewater, airports, or fire training facilities, these claims can still be filed within the MDL. By following the example set by drinking water providers, local government leaders can seek similar recovery for the costs they may incur or have already incurred.

It is also important to note that, since the MDL was initially formed in 2018, litigation has been in progress for years already. The judge overseeing the MDL has expressed interest in resolving the MDL efficiently, in an effort to minimize the costs and labor for all parties involved. This may indicate that those who file cases now could enjoy an even smoother and more expedient journey to potential cost recovery than those who filed the first cases back in 2018.

Experience and Success at SL Environmental Law Group

When looking to identify the best environmental law firms, it’s best to consider those with experience in the niche in which you are seeking assistance. With over 20 years of focused expertise in contamination cases, SL Environmental Law Group is a trusted leader in the water litigation space. Our past experience includes successful representation of numerous reputable organizations.

Having helped over 150 clients recover more than $1.2 billion through settlements and trials since 2003, our seasoned team excels at water contamination litigation while also providing tailored insights on regulatory impacts, contamination sources, and legal guidance.

Preparing for Impending Regulations and Potential Liability

Now that EPA has imposed federal PFAS regulations, municipalities and counties face new obligations. Taking a proactive stance is crucial, involving comprehensive communication strategies, identifying suitable treatment options, and seeking legal counsel to mitigate PFAS costs. Our firm operates on a contingency fee basis, ensuring no upfront litigation costs for water systems and their ratepayers.

Take the Next Step

Download our eBook for a deeper look into how your municipality or county can address PFAS concerns. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss your specific situation in more detail, please reach out to our team to schedule a free consultation where we can confidentially discuss your circumstances and chart a path forward.