In part one of this four-part series, we discussed what PFAS are, the issues with these forever chemicals, the impacts on human and animal health, and how they are ingested. 

In part two, we’ll cover what scientists are learning about how to destroy something that is considered “forever”, what’s being done nationally, and what’s being done in our neighboring state of Wisconsin. 

Part three will cover what Minnesota is doing about PFAS. 

Removing and destroying PFAS

Removing and destroying PFAS is expensive and requires a lot of resources. Technology does exist to be able to remove them from water sources (surface and drinking supplies), but these methods don’t destroy PFAS -  meaning - something still has to be done to get rid of them. 

One of these forms of removal includes burying them, but because they never break down, the risk of them simply migrating somewhere is high. 

Some solutions for destroying these chemicals are exposing them to high heat (temperatures of over 2,730 degrees Fahrenheit are needed since PFAS are used in firefighting foam and need to be hotter than fire). This method, however, is energy-intensive, and finding facilities that can reach this temperature is difficult. 

Plasma Reactor In Action Destroying PFAS Photo Courtesy Dr. Stephen Richardson (GSI Environmental)

Other methods tried have been to destroy the PFAS with (source):

• supercritical water oxidation (the EPA states: organic compounds, usually insoluble in liquid water, are highly soluble in supercritical water. In the presence of an oxidizing agent (such as oxygen), supercritical water dissolves and oxidizes various hazardous organic pollutants)

• plasma reactors (Plasma-based water treatment uses electricity to convert water into a mixture of highly reactive species (i.e. plasma) that rapidly and non-selectively degrade recalcitrant organic contaminants, including PFAS and many others)

• dimethyl sulfoxide and sodium hydroxide (lye) are combined with PFAS at 120⁰ C and with no extra pressure. This causes parts of the PFAS atomic bond to break off. You can read about the entire process here. 

Many of these methods have been discovered by scientists very recently (as in, August of 2022 for the third method), and more research is still needed. 

The good news is that many of these options to destroy PFAS do not require harsh components or other chemicals. However, finding infrastructure to be able to operate at a large scale needed to address all of the PFAS existing is expensive. 

One of the best ways to address PFAS is to prevent them from entering the environment in the first place.

What is being done about PFAS on a national level? 

In June of 2022, the EPA reduced the parts per trillion (ppt) considered “safe” in drinking water (for four PFAS out of 5,000-9,000) from 70 ppt to less than one ppt as a recommendation or advisory. 

This reduction states that if PFAS are detected in the water supply, it’s too high. But since these are recommendations, no enforcement or punishments can be issued to lower the levels. 

The EPA is supposed to release more information on how the department plans to address PFAS in the environment and drinking water later this year. 

If a drinking water source is identified to have levels over the newly issued less than one ppt, the EPA is not advising any action needs to be taken. 

“The EPA is not saying that the new interim values mean that people who currently have drinking water above the new interim values, but below their state’s current health-based values, must make any immediate changes to their source of water, whether municipal systems or private wells, whether bottled water or treated water” (source). 

Many states are taking matters into their own hands through local health departments, soil and water conservation districts, and other entities. According to the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 11 states have instituted their own health advisories or notification levels. These rules are a mixed bag of mandates and guidance, covering nine PFAS chemicals. 

Wisconsin and PFAS

The State of Wisconsin has put a lot of resources into addressing PFAS recently. In July of this year, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit seeking to force nearly 20 companies that he alleges contaminated the environment with PFAS to reimburse the state for investigations and cleanup efforts. 

On top of this lawsuit, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers included $1 million for the collection effort in his budget proposal to lawmakers last year, as well as a $10 million grant program for local governments to address PFAS contamination.

Evers also proposed creating 11 new positions to carry out the state’s action plan for the chemicals in addition to funding for PFAS testing in public water supplies.

Additionally, the state is moving forward with efforts to collect and dispose of roughly 25,000 gallons of firefighting foam that contain PFAS in an effort to reduce contamination.

So, what is Minnesota doing to address PFAS? Part three will explore major areas PFAS have been identified in drinking water sources, groundwater, and surface water, as well as what is being done in those areas to keep our waters safe.