Prescott prepared for a million-dollar solution to its pollution, Part 2 – Bill Williams

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality helped ID Prescott’s pollutant, now the city has to get rid of it

Most of the reports on water in Arizona this past year have been about quantity, with the seven states who are in the Colorado River compact going to battle, as Lakes Mead and Powell shrink. Several of the seven did not ratify the compact in time to prevent the feds from stepping in and bringing rationing. And now that Mexico raised its hand and said they want to be the eighth member, we have an international water rights crisis.

But news has now turned from Quantity to Quality as hundreds of municipalities in the seven-state compact region have discovered PFAS and PFOS in their drinking water supplies.

Part one of this report described nasty chemicals which can elevate cholesterol, change liver function, and thyroid hormone levels, reduce immune response, create reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women, cause developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes, and create   Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers, according to the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA).

PFOA and PFOS are members of a chemical group called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and a newer one is now labeled PFBS.

This reporter sees this as possibly the most underreported story and possibly a ten-year long detective story because scientists know where the pollutants come from  but not how they got into drinking water.

No one in municipal governments we checked with are alarmists or ‘sky-is-falling’ types. Rather, they are all taking a concerned yet measured approach to getting rid of the pollutants.

Prescott and Prescott Valley were quick to respond, shutting off wells in both municipalities. But now the expensive work begins.

“We could see costs to remediate the pollution approaching hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions,” said John Heiney, spokesman for the City of Prescott.

Wells in Chino Valley, owned by the City of Prescott, tested positive, in the range of 2-to-3 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS. One well near Prescott Airport had 8 PFOS and 12 PFAS (ppt). The confusing EPA interim “life time exposure health advisory” for PFOA is 0.004 ppt. And EPA’s Interim “life time exposure health advisory” for PFOS is 0.02 ppt. A part per trillion of PFAS would roughly equate to ¾ of a teaspoon in Watson Lake. The EPA studies “life time exposure” to the 70-year-old level but municipalities want more and better research now.

A local environmentalist, associated with a regional citizens group, was not ready to be quoted for this article but emailed me the following: We are surprised that this stuff moved so quickly down to deep potable water reserves. There is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFAS, so there is no enforcement standard – yet. We need to recycle water but we have to be really careful about what we put into the ground. Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) – a high tech water purification technology – may serve to prevent contamination of groundwater by PFAS and other emerging contaminants – hundreds of chemicals that are not measured, with unknown health effects, that are certainly present in treated effluent. In Arizona, DPR has previously been impossible due to two factors: a) It has been illegal, but the Department of Environmental Quality is now rule-making to allow DPR. b) Economics. DPR costs roughly $1000 per acre feet of water… so this becomes a huge economic disincentive for DPR. I suspect that the growing concern with contaminated groundwater will level the playing field and that DPR might become the solution to provide safe drinking water. All this is theorizing right now.

An acre foot is approximately 326,000 gallons, which is enough water to cover an acre of land about 1-foot deep.

The Prescott public works department is planning for requests for proposals for not only consultants and contractors but also attorneys as a mounting class action lawsuit against major chemical companies has begun. As we reported, in part one, Prescott Valley and Prescott have heard from attorneys, some of whom started the lawsuit on behalf of Tucson and Marana, AZ.

This reporter has acquired a boiler plate court complaint (or pleading) from a law firm that might be used by plaintiffs Prescott and Prescott Valley. Language in the pleadings is stark; please note the defendants’ “might be” 3M, Dupont, BASF, Kidde and Raytheon, to name only a few, but nothing is set in alluvial – yet.

Excerpts from the proposed pleading:

At various times from the 1960s through today, Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFOS, PFOA, the chemical precursors of PFOS and/or PFOA, and/or products containing PFOS, PFOA, and/or their chemical precursors collectively,“Fluorosurfactant Products”), and/or assumed or acquired liabilities for the manufacture and/or sale of Fluorosurfactant Products. Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products have been used, stored, released,  and/or disposed of at, near, and/or in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s Property,  including Plaintiff’s water supplies. During these activities, Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products were stored, used, cleaned up, and/or disposed of as directed and intended by the Defendants, which allowed PFAS to enter the environment, and migrate through the soil, sediment, surface  water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating Plaintiff’s Property. As a result of the use of Defendants’ Fluorosurfactant Products for their  intended purpose, PFAS have been detected in Plaintiff’s Property,  thereby contaminating Plaintiff’s Property and causing damage to Plaintiff.

If Prescott hires water purity consultants, they will further assess the problem and begin remediation, according to Heiney, and the city may have to install some form of expensive carbon filtration. But the chain doesn’t stop there. The dirty filters or their sludge will have to be transported to government approved hazardous waste sites, similar to how toxins were disposed of from the county’s new jail construction site.

There is at least one hazardous waste disposal site in Yavapai County, and others in Nevada and Arizona, where municipalities can dispose of sludge.

This is what we do know about where it is: Fire retardants, drinking water, soil and water at or near waste sites, manufacturing or chemical production facilities that produce or use PFAS, food (including fish and deer meat), human breast milk, food packaging – like fast food containers/wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and candy wrappers, personal care products, biosolids like fertilizer from wastewater treatment plants that is used on agricultural lands which can affect ground and surface water, and animals that graze on the land. (part one has a more complete list).

The EPA hasn’t exactly been a reliant helper in all this, changing its guideline limits for PFAS in drinking water multiple times. EPA will have a maximum safe level by 2024.

This has caused problems for municipalities because as Heiney says, “Our wells were tested a couple of years ago and we were within guidelines, now the standard has changed and it is more serious. The standard could now go back up.”

For perspective, let’s do a regional roundup. Tucson’s pollution is described in Part one. Phoenix has PFAS in its drinking water too, and two years ago Luke Air Force Base began giving free bottled water to residents near the air force base (which stores fire retardants containing PFAS in case of jet crashes.)

The Water Services Division of Flagstaff continually tests Flagstaff drinking water sources, and after multiple assessments, no PFOS or PFOA have been detected.

Cottonwood, AZ discovered PFAS in one of its 23 wells at a level below 1 part per trillion according to water services director Tom Whitmer. Cottonwood has entered the program for small towns sponsored by ADEQ that has $3 million in funding to pay for water tests in small towns. Like most towns in Yavapai County the on-going major concern is arsenic in water, which is naturally occurring throughout Arizona. Cottonwood has sophisticated filters that can filter out arsenic down to EPA allowable levels but three of their well filters for arsenic cost the town $800,000. Whitmer says filters for PFAS could actually be cheaper. At this time, there is no plan for Cottonwood to join a lawsuit.

There have been light plane crashes at the old Cottonwood airport over the years, and crews sprayed them with fire retardant. Whitmer would like to get the filters that can help with PFAS but he has noticed the state of California has been buying them up.

California is, or will be, setting a much lower level of acceptable levels of PFAS than the U.S. EPA, because, well, that’s California.

Clarkdale, AZ owns two wells. “We have not detected PFAS because we have not tested,” said Water Resource Manager Lisa Waltschmidt. “We are communicating with the EPA and will test in the future.”

Camp Verde, AZ just bought, and set up, their water system so they are in a state of flux.

Jerome, AZ uses water from a spring in Jerome. The town has not tested positive for PFAS or PFOS.

Prescott Enews will update this story as needed.