Water Utility General Manager misinforms Madison alders on PFAS in our drinking water

Photo from Newsweek

*************

The new General Manager of the Madison Water Utility, Krishna Kumar, was invited to the November 29, 2021 Common Council President’s Work Group on Environmental Justice to inform the group of alders on how the Water Utility has been addressing PFAS in the city’s drinking water wells. See his presentation here.

Though Kumar shared some helpful background on how PFAS standards are developed at the local, DNR and EPA levels, unfortunately, he misinformed alders on several key points. The alders in the group, who don’t know the history of this issue, likely didn’t know what they weren’t being told.

Community advocacy, not Water Utility proactivity, is the reason all Madison wells were tested for many PFAS compounds

Mr. Kumar began his presentation by gushing about the Utility’s proactivity in testing for PFAS in all the city’s wells before they were required to–thereby generating a wealth of useful data. “We did such rigorous testing over the last three or four years,” he said, “that this formed the basis for some of the work the DNR is doing here, because we actively tested and then monitored and provided that data to the state.”

The Water Utility’s pride about this would be deserved if it was true. But it’s not. Though the Water Utility began testing a few Madison wells for a small number of PFAS compounds beginning in 2017, it didn’t test all its wells for a larger number of PFAS compounds until 2019–and it did not do so on its own initiative, out of concern for public health.

Here’s how it really happened. MEJO and other citizens learned about the PFAS in groundwater at the Truax Air National Guard base in 2018, educated themselves on the most up-to-date PFAS regulations and science, and based on this, lobbied the Water Utility Board for expanded and more frequent PFAS testing of all Madison wells. We also advocated for community engagement, a community PFAS Task Force, and other precautionary actions.

This advocacy to the Water Utility Board, along with excellent reporting by Steve Verburg at the Wisconsin State Journal–which helped raise public awareness about PFAS in our drinking water and its health risks –eventually convinced the Board to direct the Utility to do expanded PFAS testing, which produced comprehensive PFAS data from all Madison wells.

But the Water Utility not only did not do this testing willingly–it and Public Health Madison Dane County resisted it.  We and other community activists were dismissed (or simply ignored) and sometimes even ridiculed by some Water Utility staff, WU Technical Advisory Committee members and other government officials. Though it was demoralizing, we persisted. With the help of alders on the Water Utility Board, especially David Ahrens, we were ultimately successful.

WSJ photo caption: “As citizens groups prepared to ask the Madison Water Utility Board at its meeting on Tuesday for a more aggressive response to drinking water contamination believed to be emanating from Truax Air National Guard base, the utility announced it is taking a step advocates called for previously by testing for at least twice as many toxic compounds as it tentatively announced last month.” (Steve Apps, State Journal Archive).

The Water Utility did not shut down Well 15 out of concern for people’s health

Another bit of misinformation Mr. Kumar shared with alders is that Well 15 was shut down because it surpassed the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) “Hazard Index Level.” Well 15 IS in fact over the DHS Hazard Index, but it is indisputably incorrect that this is why the Water Utility shut the well down. The DHS Hazard Index was issued in June 2021, well after Well 15 was shut down (in March 2019).

In fact, when the well was shut down, the Water Utility assured the public that the water was safe. After this decision was announced, the Water Utility, DHS and Public Health Madison Dane County led a public meeting (March 2019) at which they tried to explain to an understandably befuddled and skeptical audience why the well was shut down, even while assuring that the water was perfectly safe to drink. Some residents were concerned that the utility would turn the well back on later without public discussion.

Their concerns were well-founded. We later learned from emails obtained in an open records request that–as we suspected–Well 15 was shut down against the Water Utility’s wishes, because then Mayor Paul Soglin demanded it, and because the utility and Public Health Madison Dane County did not believe the PFAS levels in Well 15 posed a health risk to anyone. As journalist Steve Elbow accurately reported in a December 2019 Cap Times cover story:

Did PFAS really disappear in nine Madison wells in 2021?

Among other less than democratic and transparent actions in the past few years (including trying to ban the public from Water Utility Technical Advisory Committee meetings), in 2019 the utility tried to withhold data from the public, arguing that laypeople “wouldn’t understand it.” But we submitted open records requests for the full data, asked that it be made available to other residents without a records request, and demanded improved transparency. The Water Utility eventually made the full data publicly available.

Sadly, it appears that the Water Utility–aware that beleaguered citizen and media “watchdogs” are no longer watching during the Zoom-meeting pandemic–may again be adopting a less transparent approach to communicating with the public and city officials.

At last week’s meeting, Mr. Kumar shared confusing slides that were somewhat misleading and clearly designed to downplay concerns about PFAS levels in Madison’s drinking water.

In 2020, the Utility reported that “[a]t least some PFAS are present in every Madison well, with total amounts ranging from 2.5 to 47 parts-per-trillion.” But according to Kumar’s Nov. 29 presentation, in 2021, PFAS somehow completely disappeared in many wells!

One slide summarized the maximum levels of the ten PFAS compounds measured in Madison wells in 2020 and 2021 and highlighted that they were below the current standards. Nine wells, according to another slide, had “0 PFAS”–yup, ZERO.

In the past, problematically–as we pointed out in our October 2019 comments to the Board–the Water Utility reported levels under detection limits as “present,” without reporting what the detection limits were (the standard reporting protocol). But now the approach is to say these levels are “zero”? This is a new twist.

Kumar did not explain to alders how the PFAS could have entirely disappeared in these nine wells in 2021 even though in 2020 all Madison wells had PFAS detects. Were PFAS levels actually zero in these wells? That’s actually scientifically impossible to know given current analytical methods, so it is disingenuous and scientifically incorrect to report this. He could have said, more accurately, that the levels were below detection limits.

Regardless, nobody can assess what any of this means without seeing the lab reports. We asked WU Water Quality Manager Joe Grande for the lab reports, and he shared them. As we suspected, different analytical methods were used in 2021 than in previous years. Of course PFAS wasn’t “zero” in the nine wells–it was below detection limits using these methods.

Moreover, one round of testing isn’t enough to draw any conclusions about what is happening at these wells. To really know what is going on, as we argued (to no avail) at the end of 2019, more than once a year testing should be done, using the same methods (ideally with the lowest detection limits). [1]

The full set of 2021 PFAS data wasn’t shared with alders at the meeting, and as of the date of this article, it hasn’t yet been shared publicly (even though 2021 is almost over). The samples were taken in September and reported in October.

Don’t worry, the water is perfectly safe! Well, unless you consult the most recent science…

Kumar’s presentation repeatedly stressed that all Madison’s wells meet EPA’s current PFAS health advisories and proposed DNR PFAS standards–and only Well 15, currently offline, doesn’t meet the DHS “hazard index” guidance (linked above).

After Alder Charles Myadze asked about offering PFAS filtration systems to households, MWU water quality manager Joe Grande questioned the need for any filtration, assuring him and other alders that “[t]he current information we have is that probably levels that we’re seeing of PFOA and PFOS at levels below 20 ppt are probably not problematic to health. Again, I’m a water purveyer, I’m not a health expert. But that’s the guidance that we currently have, from our experts at the Department of Health Services.”

The DHS guidance aside, what does the most up-to-date science tell us about safe levels of PFOS and PFOS? At the December 8, 2021 Natural Resources Board meeting Darsi Foss, the agency’s Administrator of Environmental Management” said this: “Just last month, EPA transmitted to the National Science Advisory Board information on the health effects of PFOA and PFOS, and noted two things. First, that these studies indicate that the level at which negative health effects could occur are much lower than EPA previously understood, including near zero for certain health effects, especially PFOA, which they suspect is a carcinogen. Previous studies have shown that exposures to PFOA and PFOS may lead to reduced vaccine response, particularly in children.” (around 1.05.10 of the presentation).

This is far from brand-new scientific information. Internationally-renowned scientists who study the toxicology of PFAS compounds have argued for years that levels much lower than the proposed DHS standards can cause serious health problems, especially in vulnerable people–pregnant women, fetuses, infants, young children, elderly, and those with existing health problems. Also, PFAS can cross over the placental barrier into fetuses, and infants ingest far more water (and any PFAS in it) per body weight than adults, so protective limits for pregnant women and infants need to make adjustments for that.

MEJO cited some of this science in comments to the Water Utility Board in early 2019, almost three years ago–in part, to counter arguments by Water Utility Technical Advisory Committee members that the Utility should “wait for EPA” to come up with standards (and in the meantime should follow the 70 ppt standard).

The science showing serious health effects from PFOS and PFOA at levels well under 20 ppt has been out there for years. In 2018 Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard University, Dr. Philippe Grandjean, reported that a safe level of PFAS in drinking water would be 1 ppt. This was informed in part by a 2013 study showing that PFAS exposures diminished immune responses in children, along with other research. As Grandjean aptly notes: “The existing research on PFOS and PFOA clearly shows that, with time, these chemicals are much more toxic than we originally thought.”

More recently, other top scientists have proposed even lower levels. In 2019, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, told Sharon Lerner with the Intercept that based on recent studies, the standard for PFOA alone should be as low as 0.1 ppt, based on its association with pancreatic cancer.

To assess health risks, PFAS should be measured as a class

The Water Utility measures 33 PFAS compounds currently, but DNR is currently proposing groundwater standards for just two of them– PFOS and PFOA. Considering just these two PFAS compounds, however, does not address the health risks of what we’re actually drinking. Thousands of PFAS compounds have been produced in the last several decades, and new ones are being created almost every day. Most of them have made their way into the environment everywhere, including here in Madison. If we were to measure all of the PFAS in our groundwater and drinking water here, we would find hundreds, if not thousands, of types of PFAS compounds.

Given this, Birnbaum and other top scientists have been arguing for some time that the best way to assess risks and protect public health is to measure and regulate PFAS as a class (all the PFAS together)–since that’s what we’re ingesting, not just one or two or even thirty-three chemicals at a time. [2] This is what is done with PCBs.

MEJO advocated for a class-based approach in our comments to the Water Utility Board in early 2019. In May 2021, as the Wisconsin State Journal reported, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined 18 other state attorneys in submitting comments asking the EPA to regulate PFAS as a class, something the chemical industry has staunchly opposed.

Moving toward “summed-total” PFAS standards–not class-based standards, but the next best thing– in June 2021 the WI DHS recommended a standard of 20 ppt for PFOA, PFOS and four other regulated PFAS compounds combined, based on a “hazard index” approach. Twelve other regulated PFAS compounds, each with its own standard, are also included in the DHS hazard index calculations. These standards will very likely be lowered in time, as scientists, EPA and DNR are predicting. As more science is published, and standards lowered, the hazard index approach is designed to incorporate these changes [3]

While the DHS Health Index approach is a step in the right direction, at this point it’s a guidance on when to provide people with temporary emergency water, not a legal standard for levels in groundwater and drinking water. “DNR and DHS are now using this approach,” DNR explains, “to evaluate when the state or responsible party should provide temporary emergency water. DHS recommends utilizing bottled water or another safe alternative drinking water supply if the hazard index is equal to or greater than one.”

Couldn’t progressive, educated, innovative Madison own up to its responsibilities–and come up with some creative options to protect public health while state and federal agencies drag their feet?

As we wrote couple days ago, Mayor Rhodes-Conway’s Dec. 7 letter to DNR about the agency’s proposed drinking water PFAS standards gave the impression that the city is an innocent and powerless victim in regards to the PFAS that found its way into our drinking water, and what can be done about it.

This is far from the truth.

Firstly, the city has significant responsibilities for some of the PFAS in the drinking water here, including the high levels in Well 15–e.g., from its past ownership and use of the Dane County airport burn pits, Truax Landfill, other city landfills, and more.

Further, the city is not powerless to do anything about PFAS and the plethora of poisons discharged from other local polluters that end up in our drinking water, and could do something about it without sticking the costs to ratepayers (us).  With the political will, city leadership and decisionmakers–with citizen input–could find innovative ways to fund technological and other strategies to assure that the Water Utility can provide drinking water with the lowest possible PFAS levels to its residents.

I am not a policy expert, and perhaps this is an over-simplistic proposal–but couldn’t the city develop local policies that required all entities in the city that discharge PFAS and other contaminants into our surface and groundwater to pay into a fund to pay for drinking water filtration (or other strategies to prevent exposures)? Or, couldn’t it use its existing water pollution general ordinances and fine toxic pollution dischargers here–and then put the fines obtained into a fund for water filtration costs?

Couldn’t the city and/or county use the newly approved Dane County illicit discharge ordinance (which also covers the city, and will be enforced by Public Health Madison Dane County) to go after pollution dischargers?

I’m sure there are many other strategies the many “best and brightest” policy wonks in Madison could think of whereby the city could hold polluters accountable and help the Water Utility provide water with the lowest possible PFAS levels to residents, even while waiting for DNR and/or EPA to develop standards. These standards will take years, if not decades, to finalize. When standards are finally promulgated, they may not be very protective or science-based due to influences of polluters and other corporate actors–and, ironically, resistance from drinking water utilities.

And while agencies bicker about who is responsible and who will pay, race and class disparities–environmental injustices–are glaring and growing. While the city and Water Utility wait for years for other agencies to promulgate standards, highly educated and privileged people in Madison–who are more likely to be aware of the PFAS coming out of their taps and to understand its health implications–can purchase high-end water filters for their homes. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable people–low income people, often people of color–are much less likely to know about the PFAS and even if they are, not likely to be able to afford expensive filters for their taps. The most vulnerable of all, fetuses and babies, who ingest far more water (and hence PFAS) per body weight than adults, have no choices whatsoever.

It is wrong that in this highly privileged city, costs seem to be the highest priority, instead of finding creative ways to protect public health now–especially the most vulnerable people. Why? Moreover, public officials warn us that if they do have to spend money to reduce PFAS at wells, they have no choice but to pass costs on to resident ratepayers. Again, while more privileged Madisonians will be able to pay higher rates, less privileged residents may not.

In sum, instead of working to find ways to provide all Madisonians drinking water with as little PFAS as possible, our public agencies are downplaying the risks and assuring us our water is safe by ignoring the state-of-the-art science–so they can avoid spending money.

Is this really the best that educated, privileged and progressive, “science is real” Madison can do?

The Madison Water Utility Board is the policy-setting entity for the Water Utility

Last but not least, perhaps the most disingenuous misinformation in Mr. Kumar’s presentation to the Presidents EJ working group was related to the city’s and Water Utility Board’s authorities to set policy about our drinking water. Given the group’s mission, this is really important for these alders to understand as they discuss what to recommend in coming months.

In his slides, Kumar outlined MWU’s requirements on drinking water per DNR regulations. Later, when asked by an alder (albeit somewhat indirectly) about the Water Utility’s authority to set standards, Mr. Kumar said “my understanding is that we are guided by whatever DNR standards are because they are the enforcing agency for us.” In other words, he implied, the Water Utility has no choice but to wait for DNR’s PFAS standards to be promulgated and, at that point, will have to follow these.

This is not completely true. Further, as we pointed out in our previous post, it is both ironic and disingenuous, given that the utility’s lobbying group, the Municipal Environmental Group (MEG), is fighting hard to stop state standards from being developed at all, arguing that the DNR doesn’t even have the authority to do so.

Most importantly, Water Utility leaders have confirmed to us (and alders, in the past) that the Water Utility Board is the policy setting body for the Utility. In other words, though the utility has to meet certain DNR regulations, as outlined in Kumar’s presentation, the Board has authority to direct the utility on water quality standards (presumably as long as they aren’t weaker or less protective than the DNR’s and EPA’s) and other aspects of how the utility manages the city’s water supply and quality. The Board has set standards on other (regulated) contaminants and/or chemicals added to our drinking water, such as fluoride.

In July 2019, MEJO and the Greater Sandburg Neighborhood Association advocated that the Water Utility adopt Vermont’s PFAS standard for Madison’s water. Water Utility leaders actually seriously discussed and considered this–which shows that it wasn’t legally out of the question. In fact, in line with our requests, notes from the August 19, 2019 Water Utility Technical Advisory Committee meeting (pg. 15-16 of the pdf) say: “Individual polling conducted after the meeting showed broad support for employing the Vermont standard of 20 ng/L for 5 PFAS chemicals as an interim standard until the DHS evaluates the expected toxicity of a broader range of PFAS.”  (I was at that meeting. One key reason it wasn’t approved by the TAC, not mentioned in the notes, is that a couple influential TAC member questioned–without reading the actual policy–whether the PhD-level Vermont scientists who came up with the standard considered any scientific studies.)

At this point, the Vermont standard may or may not be the best one for Madison–but this is one option among many. For instance, WU Board could recommend the Wisconsin DHS “hazard index” (HI) approach as official policy for the Madison Water Utility. This would hardly be radical–see footnote #3–and at this point, it would only affect Well 15. And it’s a dynamic and flexible approach. If EPA and/or DNR develop more protective standards for individual PFAS compounds in the future (which is likely, based on developing science), these new standards would be incorporated into the HI. If, on the other hand, EPA and/or DNR develop less protective standards, which is certainly possible (due to corporate, municipal, and military lobbying, and legislative resistance), having the DHS hazard index in place would still be a protective policy for Madison’s drinking water.

Again, there are many other more protective options that could be considered for Madison instead of just “waiting for DNR” or “waiting for EPA.”

Is the Water Utility hoping to turn Well 15 back on, with or without filtration?

Mr. Kumar’s comments also indicated–albeit in a vague and indirect way–that the Water Utility may be hoping to turn Well 15 back on without filtration if DNR promulgates the 20 ppt PFOA and PFOS standard, since the levels of these two compounds are under 20 ppt in the well and filtration is costly.

The Water Utility’s webpage on Well 15 says the PFAS levels in the well are “low” and that “[w]hile water at Well 15 does not exceed any state or federal health-based drinking water standard, Madison Water Utility will not operate the well until the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) recommends groundwater standards for 34 types of PFAS, which it is currently investigating.”

It’s unknown when this promise was made. Is this still the Utility’s stance? It will be a while before DHS recommends groundwater standards for 34 types of PFAS. Does the Water Utility really plan to wait till this is done?

Towards the end of the meeting, Alder Grant Foster asked Kumar about Water Utility decisions regarding Well 15. “Even though Well 15 is below DNR standards,” he asked, “is there anything that would stop us from keeping that well out of service or waiting till there is treatment on it…what would decisionmaking look like?”

Kumar answered: “Right now with DHS guidelines, we don’t meet the hazard index. That’s one reason we shut that well down.” [Again, the 2nd statement is incorrect.] He continued, “Now with DNR coming with this new draft rule, we will probably will be OK. We also took into account public sentiment around it. There was so much uncertainty 2-3 years ago when we started this journey. Now slowly some clarity is coming around. Lack of a standard is a very scary place for us to be…If the state comes up with a standard then we have something to rally around. It’s going to be a tough public policy call. I’ll also add one other element in that mix. Well 15 is a very strategically important asset. To shut that down and not use that asset is not a very smart thing to do, with a standard emerging and the cost/benefit analysis…”

Hmmm. What does “we will probably be OK” mean? And “we will have something to rally around”? What does “a tough policy call” on the “cost/benefit analyses”? This sounds like the Water Utility is considering turning the well back on without filtration even if it is over the WI DHS hazard index level.

The Utility has already argued more than once that the PFOA and PFOS levels in Well 15 are “safe” because they are under 20 ppt–in March 2019 and again on Nov. 29, 2021.

Would the Water Utility dare to argue, again, that Well 15 water is “safe” and doesn’t need filtration?

Will the CC President’s EJ Group and Water Utility Board do the right thing?

Fortunately, the decision about Well 15 is not just up to the Water Utility. The utility doesn’t need to wait for DNR to promulgate standards– which will be be fought tooth and nail by Wisconsin industries, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Republicans in the Legislature and, again, water utilities themselves via their lobbying organizations.

As articulated above, the Madison Water Utility Board has the authority to set PFAS standards for its drinking water that it believes are as protective as possible for all of its residents, especially the most vulnerable–and/or to direct the utility to take other actions to protect residents from exposures to harmful levels of PFAS. The Water Utility Board members are appointed by the mayor, and currently the board includes two alders.

In some of our last comments to the Board, on October 22, 2019, we asked: “What will the Water Utility’s decision–making  process be related to the future use of Well 15? How will the public, especially those in the Well 15 service area, be informed and engaged in this decision if/when it occurs?” 

We never received an answer. The question is still very important.

There are other things the Water Utility Board could do to be more proactive and protective regarding PFAS in our drinking water. At the very end of 2019, we asked the Water Utility Board to recommend that the utility test for PFAS more frequently to detect seasonal and other fluctuations. This request was ignored, and the Water Utility decreased testing to just once a year.

Then the pandemic and lockdowns began, and since then the community has been largely in the dark about decisions on PFAS in Well 15 and levels of PFAS other Madison wells. Some of this information is on the Utility’s website, but few know that this information is there, especially the most vulnerable communities. Putting information on a website does not suffice as meaningful public engagement.

As we go into 2022, will alders on the President’s EJ Working Group have the foresight and courage to recommend the most science-based and health protective standards for city residents? Will they consider innovative strategies to prevent harmful PFAS exposures, especially among the most vulnerable people in our community? Will they demand that city residents–including low income communities who are often more exposed to contaminants and more affected by rate increases–are meaningfully engaged in determining what these strategies might be? Will the Water Utility Board?

Will “science-loving” Madison residents be willing to advocate for this?

Or, will they just accept what the Water Utility and city staff and leadership seem to be telling them–that protecting public health and the most vulnerable among us, based on the most current science, is too expensive?

Time will tell…

**********

[1] Given that the Water Utility spent the last couple of years comparing the PFAS drinking water results from different labs and different methods, it’s hard not to conclude that it selected the labs and methods likely to produce the lowest levels. But maybe that’s too cynical?

[2] Not unexpectedly, chemical producers and industries that discharge PFAS are strongly opposed to more protective standards and class-based approaches, and their lobbying groups and attorneys have fought them at the state and federal levels (successfully to date). Chemical producers and polluters would prefer the “whack-a-mole” process of chemical regulation–an approach that will allow them to keep creating and spewing myriad PFAS compounds into infinity– even individual compounds are slowly regulated, usually one at a time. They know the game very well: By the time one or a few compounds are regulated at levels they can’t meet, they will be prepared with slightly different chemical compounds that aren’t regulated yet to replace them. This cycle can go on forever.

[3] According to the June 2021 WI DHS letter: “Using a hazard index approach is appropriate for assessing risk of compounds with similar health effects as it uses the assumption of dose additivity to assess the noncancer health effects of a mixture of PFAS compounds. The hazard index approach is used or recommended by a number of agencies including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development (EPA ORD) among other national and international organizations. DHS has also utilized a hazard index approach for other groundwater contaminants such as pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). As applied by DHS, the hazard index is the summation of individual hazard quotients (HQ). The HQ is the ratio of the exposure doses for DONA, PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFDA, PFTeA, PFUnA, PFDoA, PFODA, HFPO-DA , PFBA, PFHxA, and the combined recommended standard to N-EtFOSE, NEtFOSAA, NEtFOSA, FOSA, PFOA, and PFOS divided by their respective recommended public health enforcement standard.”

Click to access 2019.11.26.-MEJO-Water-Utility-Board-comments.pdf

Click to access 2019.11.26.-MEJO-Water-Utility-Board-comments.pdf

Click to access 2019.10.22.WUB-comments.REVISED.pdf