In a state where toxic chemicals from both military and industrial sources are found at dozens of sites and in water serving thousands of people, regulators soon will propose hard, enforceable limits for how much of those contaminants can be in drinking water.
That state is not Michigan.
The Republican-led government in New Hampshire is joining the state of New Jersey in taking a logical next step in PFAS response: Namely, establishing a legally enforceable standard for the chemicals in drinking water that public supply operators would be required to comply with under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Starting Jan. 1, New Hampshire will begin setting an MCL, or maximum contaminant level, for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS -- four PFAS compounds which are now regularly being found in both public and private drinking water supplies across Michigan.
Despite Michigan's widely praised effort to find PFAS contamination, state leaders have moved slowly toward setting a drinking water standard to regulate the persistent, toxic and pervasive "forever chemicals." This failure to act swiftly comes despite data showing that nearly 1.9 million people have been drinking some level of PFAS chemicals -- and statewide testing isn't even done yet.
What is stopping Michigan, which lauds itself as a national leader in tackling PFAS pollution, from doing what other states already are?
The question has been raised with increasing urgency.
"I think it's imperative that states pass a drinking water standard for these chemicals and they do it quickly," said Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama Administration.
Slow to take next step
Experts who are watching and waiting to see how Michigan will act say the next step is obvious: Pass a drinking water standard, preferably a strict one set at low concentration levels adequate to protect infants and unborn children from developmental effects of PFAS exposure.
But Michigan has been reluctant to make that move.
Throughout the spring and summer, Michigan Democrats kept asking why a House bill proposing a very low standard was languishing in committee, unable to get any acknowledgement from Republicans even as contamination was found in ever more places.
As of Oct. 16, 55 municipal systems in Michigan have found at least traces of PFAS their supply. The list includes cities like Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Bay City, Saginaw, Port Huron, Monroe, Escanaba, Grand Haven and many others.
Republicans finally answered this month, saying they will hold PFAS hearings after the election that will, among other things, consider a statewide PFAS standard of 5 parts-per-trillion in drinking water proposed by Rep. Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids.
"We need to determine what our standard is going to be," said Rep. Gary Howell, R-Lapeer, chair of the Natural Resources Committee, where the bill sits. "I don't know if the standard in Rep. Brinks' bill is the right one, but I want to get to the bottom of it."
Ari Adler, communications director for the governor, said that Snyder would support a PFAS drinking water standard "if it is done based on sound science and not soundbites."
"This is an easy issue to politicize and we have heard of instances where states have passed laws prematurely and then had to deal with unintended consequences," he said.
Adler said state regulators will recommend whether to pursue a standard after getting formal input this fall from a panel of science advisors led by Brown University epidemiologist David Savitz, who says his team is distilling the scientific evidence related to health impacts into a report that won't include recommended actions.
On setting an MCL through legislation, Adler said "any time we can do something through the Legislature and state statute is preferred."
In the wake of Flint's water crisis, the governor's office has been sensitive to criticism about its response to PFAS contamination. Snyder's team has responded to calls for investigation into early internal Department of Environmental Quality reports about PFAS that were largely ignored by declaring that Michigan is "leading the nation" on multiple fronts related to the issue.
The talking point has been repeated in reference to the creation of MPART, the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team that Snyder started in November in response to a mushrooming PFAS contamination problem in northern Kent County.
What MPART has done so far has indeed garnered praise, from critics and peer state regulators alike. Other states credit Michigan for aggressively seeking out PFAS in drinking water and sewage plants. The testing effort is pointing to the manufacturing sector as a significant source of PFAS-tainted wastewater getting into waterways like the Huron River, which is the primary source of drinking water for 118,000 people in and around Ann Arbor.
Nonetheless, David Andrews, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, which tracks PFAS emergence and regulations, said reducing exposure through rule-setting is a critical step that can happen concurrently with testing efforts.
"Testing is an important step, but it's not the be-all, end-all," Andrews said. "It's not the step that necessarily formalizes or ensures clean drinking water. Just being a leader on that first step doesn't necessarily make you a leader across the board."
Chris Kolb, president of the Michigan Environmental Council, called MPART's testing "good triage," but said "we need to do more."
"Once you start to test for these compounds, you are going to find them," Kolb said. "Then, the question becomes: What next?"
Waiting for the EPA
Michigan officials have repeatedly pointed to Washington, D.C., when asked about passing a drinking water standard. Snyder and the DEQ wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pass national rules, which is something federal officials say they're "considering" but have not firmly committed to doing.
The state has been vocal about getting national standards in place, both in public meetings and in private, where Snyder's team is pushing lawmakers and groups like the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators to pressure EPA on the issue.
Michigan hopes Congress can put its thumb on EPA and, perhaps, get the federal agency to do what it hasn't done since 1996 -- pass a national drinking water standard.
"That's what we're hoping for, is some political pressure," said Eric Oswald, director of the drinking water division at the Michigan DEQ.
Oswald estimated it could take up to two years for Michigan to set an MCL through administrative rule-making "depending on how much push it got." The process would involve public input, but would likely settle on a level that water utilities felt they could achieve through treatment technology like activated carbon, which Ann Arbor is moving toward and Plainfield Township has installed.
There's appetite for a standard among utilities. Ann Arbor's water treatment manager Brian Steglitz told EPA that during a public roundtable in Kalamazoo on Oct. 5.
"They want a number," said Oswald.
Bonnifer Ballard, director of the American Water Works Association in Michigan, said utilities are struggling to figure out how best to treat PFAS. Technologies like granular activated carbon don't remove all PFAS compounds with equal effectiveness.
Utility operators and drinking water regulators are quick to highlight scientific uncertainty around the risk posed by exposure to low levels of different PFAS compounds, arguing that requiring expensive treatment may not be the best use of limited funds.
Ballard said utilities want to see a "better understanding" of PFAS, but acknowledged that the science around health and engineering is "never going to be wrapped up in a bow."
"I don't know what the critical point is, but we have to do our due diligence before we can answer that question," she said.
A national leader: New Jersey
Nationally, whenever talk of standards comes up -- particularly in the context of establishing a strict one that sets maximum parts-per-trillion levels in the single digits or teens -- one state in particular is often cited as being the national leader: New Jersey.
Rob Bilott, an attorney instrumental in bringing PFAS contamination to light nationwide through a high-profile class action lawsuit against DuPont, cited New Jersey's deep knowledge of PFAS as a good example of how significant expertise exists at the state level.
"I think some of the states have some of the best people," Bilott said during a panel appearance in Flint this month. "New Jersey, in particular, is leading the country on really understanding comprehensively not only individual chemicals, but the whole class."
"Some of the states are leading on this much more so than the federal government," Bilott said.
In 2006 -- years before the federal government began nationwide sampling -- the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection began testing for two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFOA, in some drinking water systems after being alerted to contaminants found in Delaware River samples. Shortly afterward, state toxicologists analyzed health studies and developed a non-binding safety guidance number of 40 parts-per-trillion (ppt).
By contrast, the EPA was using much higher provisional numbers. In 2009, the EPA's interim advisory level was set at 400-ppt -- about five times the eventual advisory level set at 70-ppt in 2016.
Like Michigan, New Jersey is not shackled by laws that prohibit state rules from being more stringent than federal regulations. State scientists reviewed animal studies which showed PFAS exposure caused increased liver weight, liver toxicity and delayed mammary gland development. They concluded EPA's level was too high.
"We looked at literally thousands of papers on these PFAS -- or PFCs, as they were called then -- and saw some more subtle effects than EPA, including low-dose developmental effects," said Gary Buchanan, who heads the New Jersey DEP Office of Science.
New Jersey scientists even went to Washington to argue their case. "We pointed out where they weren't even following their own guidance for risk assessment," said Buchanan.
In September, the state formally passed a standard for PFNA, a lesser-known PFAS compound, of 13-ppt. The state is poised to set similarly low standards for PFOS and PFOA.
Other states are adopting New Jersey's work.
California took a step toward developing PFAS drinking water standards this summer by using New Jersey's work to set notification levels of 13-ppt for PFOS and 14-ppt for PFOA.
Darrin Polhemus, California water board deputy director for drinking water, said he asked the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to look at the analysis other states had done on PFAS when water systems there began to detect the chemicals.
The state plans to do its own analysis for a standard-setting process, but Polhemus said New Jersey's work offered a good leg to stand on in the meantime. The administrative process in California is slow and it could take several years to pass a standard. If the EPA were to pass a national rule, California could likely adopt it within one year.
But he's not optimistic.
"I think we (peers in other states) all kind of understand that we're on our own at the moment," Polhemus said. "None of us are holding our breath for EPA to step in."
What is the right safety level?
New Jersey's standards have been seized on by public health advocates who want to see either state or national PFAS standards set as low as possible.
Yet, were Michigan officials to even acknowledge New Jersey's low PFAS numbers in a meaningful way at this point, some say the state would face not just embarrassment because of the lengths to which it has defended the adequacy of 70-ppt as a safe water threshold, but also big questions about emergency decisions made thus far.
Snyder's team says 70-ppt is the action level used for "decision-making purposes." In public meetings, state toxicologists routinely give lengthy, esoteric explanations about how EPA developed its level.
Official literature and FAQ sheets sent to schools where the well is being tested call 70-ppt safe water. Michigan even enshrined the level into state law this year when it passed a PFAS cleanup criteria of 70-ppt for groundwater used as drinking water.
But all of that was undercut when the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released toxicological profiles for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA this summer with risk levels that mirror the lower thresholds New Jersey is formalizing into law.
In New Jersey, Buchanan called the ATSDR's numbers an "affirmation of the science we found by looking at what's out in the literature."
Michigan officials have lauded their emergency response in Parchment, where PFOS and PFOA at 1,520-ppt was found in city water in July. The statewide testing regimen helped get 3,000 people there off contaminated water, officials say.
But if Michigan were using New Jersey's pending standard for PFOS and PFOA, the water now pushed into Parchment pipes from the city of Kalamazoo system -- water already being drank daily by about 190,000 people -- would, itself, be considered unsafe. In June, finished Kalamazoo water tested at 19-ppt for PFOS and PFOA.
Other Michigan cities have moderate levels of Total PFAS, which is the sum of all PFAS compounds -- not just PFOS and PFOA -- in a given sample. Some systems have only found detections of these other compounds, putting them in a kind of regulatory netherworld where there's neither rules that require any action, nor solid health guidance from the federal government on how to act.
Nonetheless, the chemicals are there.
Grand Haven -- which pulls from a Lake Michigan intake right next to the Grand River mouth -- tested at 20-ppt for Total PFAS in August. Their PFOS and PFOA number is 8-ppt. Kalamazoo's Total PFAS, found in a groundwater peaking station this summer, is 72-ppt.
The city of Evart in Osceola County recently tested at 20-ppt Total PFAS. In Calhoun County, Albion also tested at 20-ppt Total PFAS. The commonly-known compounds PFOS and PFOA -- the basis of the EPA advisory level -- were not found in either of those samples.
Kolb, the Michigan Environmental Council president, said whether a standard moves forward through administrative rule-making or in the legislature, it's high time to get the ball rolling.
"At some point, the legislature and the administration need to recognize the severity of the situation and put forward a process that's going to establish a drinking water standard. We need to make sure we're protecting the public, whether through filtration and treatment, dollars to clean up sites and plans to address the next contaminant of concern."
"I'm not sure what we're waiting for."