COUPLAND — Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency set limits for the first time on a group of contaminants known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” and at least one local water source has tested positive.
Erik Prinz, general manager of Manville Water Supply Corp., said the utility was alerted about two weeks ago that some of its water samples sent to the EPA came back with trace amounts over the new limit for PFAS contaminants.
“Within a few months from now there will be better info out there to speak on about what truly is putting us over the limit. We are monitoring and testing and will have a resolution for it. We’re going to be working with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to really focus on where those bad samples are coming from,” Prinz said, adding the results point to water from the Edwards Aquifer and could potentially originate in the same well.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are commonly called “forever chemicals” because they never break down and can accumulate over time in the human body as well as in bodies of water and even in the soil, researchers said.
Though there are thousands of PFAS, the EPA recently began monitoring 29 of them and the new ruling sets limits for five contaminants, also known as “GenX Chemicals.”
“The Safe Drinking Water Act specifies that every five years EPA is required to monitor for priority contaminants that may be present in drinking water but are not yet subject to EPA drinking water regulations,” according to the government agency. “These data can support future regulatory determinations, the development of national primary drinking water regulations and other actions to protect public health,” as is the case with the new limits on PFAS.
All public-water systems are required to sample for 29 PFAS and lithium starting in 2023 to 2025.
“By reducing exposure to PFAS, this final rule will prevent thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of serious illnesses, including certain cancers and liver and heart impacts in adults, and immune and developmental impacts to infants and children,” according to the EPA statement.
Samples submitted in 2023 by Manville contain traces of 10 of the monitored PFAS, including two of the five targeted chemicals which exceed the newly set levels.
Jonah Water Special Utility District samples contained traces of five monitored PFAS, including one of the newly regulated chemicals, but measured well below the regulated limit.
Samples from Hutto water supplies showed traces of four of the 29 PFAS being monitored. No traces were found of the five PFAS the EPA has set limits for.
All three water suppliers tested above the healthy level for lithium.
Taylor water results were not available, and it was unclear whether they had been sent in to the EPA. A Taylor spokesperson said the city will comply with all reporting requirements by the 2025 deadline.
More than 420 water systems in Texas have submitted their samples and 113 detected some level of PFAS in the water. Forty-nine had levels which exceeded the new limits on at least one of the chemicals, including Manville and nearby Georgetown’s San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant.
The EPA has approved the use of activated carbon, reverse osmosis (purifying water using pressure) and ion-exchange systems (a chemical process) to remove PFAS from drinking water.
It has given suppliers five years to bring their levels into compliance. In Manville’s case, Prinz says the company has the potential option to discontinue use of a contaminated water source.
“Right now Manville has some major projects we’re working on to bring groundwater into our system that has not had any PFAS in it, so this additional water source we’re supposed to be getting in the next two to three years will allow us to just shut off any wells that are over the limit,” Prinz said.
One of the main causes of PFAS in drinking water is output from manufacturing plants. DuPont and 3M are facing lawsuits for practices which led to PFAS pollution in several cities, according to the suits, and industry experts expect more fallout over the costly process of treating contaminated water.
“Some of the public water suppliers haven’t gotten their samples in to the EPA yet so I kind of wonder if that list isn’t going to get bigger when it’s all said and done,” Prinz said. “I think it’s going to be a statewide if not a nationwide thing we’re all going to have to address.”
