Report Finds PFAS Levels Elevated Near Wastewater Sites
A new report released June 26 by Waterkeeper Alliance, in partnership with local Waterkeeper groups and the Hispanic Access Foundation, found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination at 98% of sampling sites across 19 U.S. states. The sampling focused on areas downstream from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and permitted biosolids application fields.
The report found higher concentrations of multiple PFAS types at 95% of WWTP downstream sites and 80% of biosolids downstream sites compared to their upstream counterparts. Frequently detected PFAS compounds included PFOA, PFHxA, PFBS, PFPeA, PFHpA, PFHxS, and PFOS at WWTP sites, and PFBA, PFBS, PFPeA, and PFHxA.
The study used passive samplers developed by SiREM, which were deployed upstream and downstream of 22 WWTPs and 10 biosolids sites for a minimum of 20 days. The approach was intended to capture time-averaged PFAS concentrations more effectively than grab sampling, said the alliance in a press statement.
Total PFAS concentrations exceeded the Environmental Working Group’s health-based threshold of 1 part per trillion at all WWTP sites and 90% of biosolids sites. Multiple sites also surpassed federal thresholds for PFOA and PFOS, with some recording levels above 10 ppt.
The report noted that unregulated PFAS compounds, such as PFPeA and PFHxA, were significant contributors to downstream concentration increases. At 17 WWTP sites and 6 biosolids sites, total PFAS concentrations rose downstream, with spikes as high as 3,000% and 5,100%, respectively.
The full report is available at waterkeeper.org.
However, we would like to offer an important clarification to provide readers a complete picture. While the article emphasizes that PFAS levels downstream of wastewater treatment facility (WWTFs) and biosolids land application sites exceed the Environmental Working Group’s 1 part per trillion guideline, it omits that nearly all samples upstream of WWTFs identified in the report already significantly exceeded the same threshold. This context is crucial, as it suggests that WWTFs are not the origin of these chemicals, but rather potential intermediaries in a much larger, systemic issue.
The article also fails to mention that data from the nine biosolids land application sites show an entirely inconsistent pattern: three showed increases, two showed significant decreases, and four showed only marginal change. In fact, one site even showed nearly all PFAS analytes decreasing to non-detectable levels downstream of the land application site. The inconsistency does not support the generalized assumptions that wastewater effluent and biosolids sites are major contributors to PFAS contamination.
As the clean water community has long maintained, public wastewater facilities do not manufacture or use PFAS in any stage of treatment. These substances enter collection systems from the thousands of everyday consumer products that contain them. Wastewater facilities are involuntary receivers of these persistent chemicals and the burden to address them should not fall solely on public utilities and ratepayers. There are over 10,000 PFAS chemical compounds, and they are utilized in nearly every product category. Many of these products end up shedding PFAS chemicals into our homes, our drains, and our bodies, and ultimately our waste management systems.
We’re deeply concerned that people are unknowingly being exposed to and buying products that contain PFAS – and to add insult to injury – could then end up footing the bill for clean-up costs to remediate this pollution. Current drinking water regulations are now requiring public utilities to clean up contamination at a cost of billions of dollars to water ratepayers, while the manufacturers of PFAS-containing products continue profiting from their sales.
Jessica Gauger
Director of Legislative Advocacy & Public Affairs
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
[email protected]
Amanda Joshi | Managing Editor
Amanda Joshi has more than 18 years of experience in business-to-business publishing for both print and digital content. Before joining Chemical Processing, she worked with Manufacturing.net and Electrical Contracting Products. She’s a versatile, award-winning editor with experience in writing and editing technical content, executing marketing strategy, developing new products, attending industry events and developing customer relationships.
Amanda graduated from Northern Illinois University in 2001 with a B.A. in English and has been an English teacher. She lives in the Chicago suburbs with her husband and daughter, and their mini Aussiedoodle, Riley. In her rare spare time, she enjoys reading, tackling DIY projects, and horseback riding.
