Lakeland Currents, your public affairs program for north central Minnesota.

Production funding for Lakeland Currents is made possible by Bemidji Regional Airport, serving the region with daily flights to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

More information available at bemidjiairport.org.

Closed captioning for Lakeland Currents is sponsored by Nisswa Tax Service.

Tax preparation for businesses and individuals, online at nisswatax.com.

Hello again friends, I'm Jason Edens, your host of Lakeland Currents.

Thanks for joining the conversation again today and thanks for your ongoing support of Lakeland Public TV.

Water is essential for life but we probably all take it for granted on a daily basis.

We live in a part of the world that arguably has some of the cleanest water on the planet but that is changing rapidly.

There are an emerging...a whole bunch of emerging threats to your drinking water, one of which is a family of pollutants called "forever chemicals".

Why does this matter to you?

Because "forever chemicals" might actually be in your city's drinking water.

Here to help us find out are my two guests from the Minnesota Department of Health.

Karla Peterson is down in St. Paul and Todd Johnson is right here in Bemidji.

Todd and Karla, welcome to the program and thanks for making time for our conversation.

Thank you Jason, good to be here, thank you.

Absolutely.

Well first of all, what role does the Minnesota Department of Health play in keeping our drinking water safe?

Like, otherwise, please.

Yeah, so at the Minnesota Department of Health we essentially take the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and then implement it directly here in Minnesota but you know more and more we're interested in contaminants that aren't regulated.

You know, we have better analytical methods so we can find contaminants at lower concentrations that we may not have found before.

And so, there's a lot of work happening outside the Safe Drinking Water Act and, and beyond the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Well I guess I want to follow up because I'm surprised to learn that the Minnesota Department of Health is responsible for this.

I would have thought that it would have been, you know, under the jurisdiction, for example, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

So Todd, can you extrapolate a little bit?

Why exactly is Minnesota Department of Health responsible for this important task?

That probably goes way back to before Karla and I were involved but drinking water is about public health and I think from the big picture standpoint that's why the regulation of drinking water has been under the purview of the Minnesota Department of Health all these years as opposed to maybe the Pollution Control Agency, which is a model you see in some other states where the drinking water program is in the same organization that regulates pollution.

Early in my career, one of the people down in St. Paul who was in charge of the program told me, "Department of Health, the drinking water program protects people from the environment, where the Pollution Control Agency protects the environment from people."

So that's kind of how I illustrate it in my mind.

Oh, that helps me understand.

I appreciate that.

Well Karla, I was looking at your website and there's a list of contaminants to drinking water that literally goes from A to V, from what, Arsenic to Volatile Organic Compounds.

So I'm curious, how does a contaminant get either added or removed from that list?

Sure, so there's approximately a hundred regulated contaminants under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and when it comes to contaminants of emerging concern which are not regulated, you know, there's potentially thousands of contaminants and we we watch for emerging science and as we hear about potential contaminants of concern we'll often times investigate and determine if these are happening in Minnesota.

Um and so it's you know, it's any chemical that really, that we use in our everyday lives has the potential for entering our drinking water at some point.

So it's all about protecting the source and we do a lot of work around that as well.

But I mean, do you have the authority to add a contaminant to that list?

Or what's the process whereby these contaminants are added or removed?

Sure, so in Minnesota we don't have authority to regulate contaminants outside of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

And so essentially we just do a lot of extra work, uh to investigate and then you know, to notify the public when we do find contaminants of concern.

Um and again, it's a the list changes all the time as the science grows or there's more health risk information.

So it's a...it's a...it's a working list.

It changes over time.

I see.

So I want to be clear here, the Safe Drinking Water Act is different from the Clean Water Act correct?

Correct.

Yes.

So the Clean Water Act is all about protecting the environment, as Todd had mentioned.

And the Safe Drinking Water Act is about protecting people from the environment.

I see.

So is this another way then where MDH is responsible for ensuring that the Safe Drinking Water Act is effectively deployed here, as opposed to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is responsible for the Clean Water Act then?

Exactly.

Okay.

Well I was also surprised to see in that list a bunch of medications.

I think acetaminophen, for example, is in that list of potential contaminants to drinking water.

How does that get into our drinking water?

I can take it, or Todd.

Um yeah okay.

I can start.

Um, so, essentially it's it's the water cycle.

So you know, as we take in medication our bodies aren't designed to absorb all 100% of that prescription or that medication.

And so we excrete that you know, when we go to the bathroom.

And that enters our wastewater stream and is oftentimes down...upstream of a potential drinking water source.

And so you know you can remove some contaminants in a wastewater treatment plant but you're not going to be able to remove all of them.

And you know, fortunately for us in Minnesota the concentrations are typically very very low because there's there's a lot of dilution that's happening between that wastewater effluent into the water body and then the water treatment plant taking water out of that same water body.

Okay.

Well let's move on now to this new family of pollutants that are called, generally speaking, "forever chemicals" or PFAS.

What exactly are they and how harmful to human health are they?

Todd?

So PFAS, as you just mentioned, is often referred to as the "forever chemicals".

They're a broad class of chemicals that, actually there's probably thousands of them.

We're not aware of all of them but they're commonly used in products, historically like Scotchgard, Teflon, no-stick chemicals.

Uh, you take out a frying pan, that's a no-stick frying pan.

It's got PFAS on the surface that... to make things not stick to it.

Even if you take out a package, of like say, brownie mix and dump that out, all that powder just slides right out of that package really really well.

There's probably a PFAS coating on that.

So historically those classic compounds have been used in a wide variety of products.

a rainwear rubber boots or, excuse me, boots that have been coated to be waterproof.

They're a great great product as far as you know usage wise.

They have a lot of beneficial uses but unfortunately they're very persistent in the environment too.

Once they get into the environment they don't break down naturally, which, a lot of contaminants will.

And that same properties make them move through the environment quickly they don't stick to soil.

So they'll they'll slide right through the soil and enter the groundwater and move into groundwater.

So, it's this persistence that you reference, that's why they're called "forever chemicals"?

Correct, correct.

They don't break down naturally.

And you use the term half-life with a lot of chemicals, which means that over X... the half-life is measured in years.

Let's say a half-life of a compound is one year.

That means the concentration in that compound will be reduced naturally by 50% in one year.

PFAS chemicals have a really really really long half-life.

Okay.

So Karla, I want to ask you a little bit about the implications to human health, right.

And one of the things that I want to better understand is Bioaccumulation.

If these chemicals are known as "forever chemicals" and they're persistent, how long do they last in our bodies and again what is the risk to human health?

So, when it comes to Bioaccumulation there's been several studies and one good example is actually the city of Oakdale, Minnesota.

They took a look at exposure of residents in that community.

Oakdale had some of the highest concentrations of PFAS until they built a treatment plant.

So they were actually able to measure concentrations in people's blood before the treatment plant was built and then after to see you know, what was the change?

And there was a pretty significant reduction in blood levels of PFAS in those residents.

And you know, that only took, I would say it was about five...five to eight years, I believe?

After the treatment plan was built that they conducted the study to show show those drops in blood levels.

So it does it eventually does you know leave your system but it does accumulate.

Okay.

Well according to a 2015 study from the CDC - the Centers for Disease Control, 97% of Americans have "forever chemicals" in their bloodstream.

And I still haven't heard from either one of you, what's the risk to human health?

So I can go ahead Todd.

Yeah, I can take that.

We always like to preference this by saying, "We're engineers not toxicologists".

But, so we can touch base on some of the bigger aspects of the health effects.

So you know, PFAS compounds in humans can cause things like higher cholesterol levels, liver function...reduced liver function, thyroid disease.

It can be an increase in kidney and testicular cancer but our toxicologists always say that this is kind of an emerging science you know.

There's been so much new research every year developing on the health effects that those understanding of the health effects are continually changing.

But one thing that's kind of stayed the same at least as long as I've been following it, is that one of the main drivers for developing a standard in drinking water or guidance value in drinking water, what we call it is the buildup in time in the body of a childbearing...a woman of childbearing age.

So what can happen is over time if that woman consumes water let's just say with PFAS that'll build up in her body and the main concern is not so much to build up in her body but the transfer of those chemicals into the fetus while that baby is in her body.

And after the baby's born, by breastfeeding.

And so when they develop these guidance values that they set for what might be considered a "safe" value for a PFAS compound in water, that's the driver.

Is that woman of childbearing age and that infant or fetus that is exposed to the chemical actually.

So it sounds like that, please Karla, I'm sorry.

Yeah and I can add to that.

There's benefits of breastfeeding as well, so it's all about balancing those risks.

And so we try to share that messaging, that you know, breastfeeding is good but just an awareness that...around PFAS as well.

Sorry.

No, no, not at all.

So if 97% of us have this in our bloodstream, where's it coming from?

So yeah sure.

The...

So there's atmospheric deposition.

So you can find it you know, throughout the world actually.

And essentially it's from smokestacks that emit PFAS into the environment.

So that's one one source.

In groundwater it's typically related to either a plume associated with a landfill or or a spill.

And then in addition, it was used as part of firefighting foam and so communities that may have used that foam during exercises or during large fires, it can seep into the groundwater.

Interesting.

Well you've mentioned Oakdale, which I believe is in the east metro but it's not just happening in the metro right?

And so it's my understanding that Bemidji, the City of Bemidji, also had this in its municipal drinking water.

Todd, how'd that happen on your watch?

Um, well we have to go back to, as Karla mentioned one of the uses for these firefighting...for these PFAS compounds is it's used in what are called Aqueous Film-Forming Foams or Aqueous Fire -Fighting Foams.

The acronym for that is a triple 'F'.

What that is, is a foam that fire departments historically have used to put out fires that are pretty hot or volatile.

They're often used at military facilities where you might have jet fuel on aircraft carriers.

So a lot of fire departments historically nationwide over the...over the years have been trained in use of these forms to put out fires.

And historically the City of Bemidji is one of those fire departments that have trained with these Aqueous Film-Forming Foams on how to put out a fire jet fuel fire.

And they did a lot of training out at the city airport which is out on the northwest part of town.

And it just so happens that the city wells are also located uh actually on the east end of that airport property.

So over time the city used that foam out at the airport, did some training and those compounds leached through the soil into the groundwater and moved vertically over and were impacted on the city's wells.

So what's the mitigation for that?

I mean, if if this was in the city's water supply how do you treat that at this point?

Is it still there for example?

The PFAS compounds are still in the city wells out there.

When we first started monitoring the wells for these compounds, the city would shut off a well that had the higher concentrations of these compounds, over what levels that the Department of Health would recommend.

But what happened over time Jason, is they would shut down that hot well or that high well and start begin to use other wells more frequently, is...by using those other wells more frequently and pumping more water into to those wells.

These compounds just moved... migrated to the other wells that they were using.

And so the city eventually got to the point where they pretty much had this PFAS in all their wells.

And they were working with us over this time.

We were monitoring these levels in their wells and it became apparent that to the city that sooner or later they might have to do something here.

So the city began to look at their options.

'Do we drill another well outside of this plume?

Do we move our well field to another part of town?

Or a third option is, okay, if we don't want to move our wells and it appears that our best bet is to just put in some type of treatment system.'

So long term the city determined that that was what their best option was.

To continue to use the wells at the airport but to put in a treatment system that would remove these compounds and that's what they did.

They put in a treatment system.

It's called a Granulated Activated Carbon.

You often hear the acronym called GAC system and that went online early in 2021.

And what that does is, you have this, these vessels that hold this carbon and that you pump the water through these vessels and those PFAS compounds just kind of get absorbed through that carbon.

A lot of these people have heard of carbon filters.

You can put them on the end of your sink or they might be actually in your kitchen and the refrigerator just to remove any taste and odor compounds.

But they're also very effective at removing PFAS on a larger municipal scale.

Okay.

So that was reactive right?

So there was, there was a spill basically and it got into the municipal drinking water supply.

But what is the MDH doing to prevent this from getting into future water supplies?

Are...what are you doing on a proactive basis?

Karla?

We're working...oh sorry.

Yeah, so actually Todd could probably describe this better than I could so I'm going to let him go ahead.

He's much more familiar with the different projects that are happening.

Yeah, well statewide the state has a task force over the MPCA that's been developing a statewide PFAS plan - statewide PFAS project, and it's a plan to I think of it maybe as a cradle-to-grave plan to try and get our hands and control PFAS is from the time they're produced till the time that they're disposed of and to try and do a better job of that.

Maybe by regulating their production a little better.

Trying to get a handle on where the sources of PFAS are; as far as manufacturers that are producing them.

Where they're disposed of.

If they are in the environment in a wastewater stream, what can we do to prevent them from being discharged at certain points in the wastewater.

And all the way to where we're at.

We're kind of the end of the line here, monitoring for them in a drinking water supply.

And actually the state...even though these compounds aren't regulated Jason, which means that we're not required to, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, sample all of our municipal or community public water supplies in the state for PFAS like we would be for a regulated compound, it's our goal to do that.

Because we know they're a potential threat.

Right now we have plans in place to sample public water supplies so that at least nine percent of the people in the state who consume water through a municipality or community water system have had their water sampled by the year 2025.

Interesting.

So you answered a question that I was just about to ask, which is whether or not this is even captured by the Safe Drinking Water Act right.

So I'm hearing you say that it's not a regulated contaminant according to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

That's correct.

Which means we are not required to sample all of our community water systems for this compound.

Which also means there is no legally enforceable threshold or number that is a safe number in a city water supply.

Just because they're not regulated doesn't mean we as an agency shouldn't do anything about it.

But we're not legally obligated to.

And across the country, states are doing different things.

As some states have come up with their own, legally enforceable, standards for these PFAS compounds.

And on the other extreme we have states, where by statute, they're not allowed to come up with any standards that are more stringent than anything that the federal government puts out.

So on the other extreme some states aren't allowed to do anything.

We lean towards, we don't have enforceable standards but we do have some what we call health-based guidance values, which are purely health-based numbers.

That we're recommending that cities meet if we're finding it in their drinking water.

And you know if cities find it in their drink water it's been our experience that they do what they can to remove it.

To inform their customers that it's there and then take any action they can to make sure that their customers aren't exposed to that.

So Karla, tell us a little bit more about this Blueprint.

I understand that the state is kind of starting this process about better understanding PFAS and the risks to, you know, municipal drinking water supplies or community water supplies.

And I also want to ask you, do you think this should be part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Karla?

Sure.

So the PFAS Blueprint is an interagency or a statewide plan to address PFAS from cradle-to-grave as Todd described.

And really taking a look at the source and reducing source concentrations.

And at the same time addressing drinking water.

And so there's a multi-pronged approach basically.

And a lot of the focus is, you know, looking at the sources like landfills where firefighting foam has been used.

Really being strategic and trying to reduce those source concentrations and then on a statewide basis we are sampling at community water systems throughout the state.

And I'd say we're about halfway complete in getting that done.

And I'll just say we shouldn't be surprised to find PFAS in drinking water but almost always, it's below the health guidance values.

Those few sites where it was above a health guidance value was definitely related to a point source, either a landfill or a firefighting foam situation.

And so at least that's heartening that you know even if we find it, almost always, it's below health guidance values.

So these health guidance values are interesting because if this is a contaminant that bioaccumulates then is that threshold taken into consideration?

The fact that this may continue to add up in our bodies?

So, and I'll reiterate I'm an engineer also, so our toxicologists could speak much better to that than I could but essentially when they develop health risk studies, they look at more than just drinking water.

And so we're exposed to PFAS in food wrappers, you know our clothes.

You know there's just a lot of exposure throughout the environment.

And drinking water is just one of those but it's something that we can measure and we can address.

And so that's why there's just a lot of focus on PFAS and drinking water.

And yes it does bioaccumulate but once you stop that exposure that bioaccumulation stops, you know immediately essentially.

And so you can see drops .

..a drop in blood levels after that exposure is discontinued.

Okay.

Well, for those of us that depend on community water systems, is there a way that we can find out if this is in our drinking water?

For example, if I live in Brainerd or you know elsewhere in the state, is there some resource or database where I can find out if there's a risk?

Sure.

I'll start and hand it off to Todd.

We're developing a PFAS Dashboard on our website and so we'll be able to share those results with the public, you know, as soon as we're able to share them with the water system themselves.

And I believe it's scheduled to go online within the next few weeks to a month.

Okay.

So there will be a resource where citizens of Minnesota can find out if there's PFAS in their community water supply, is that correct?

Correct.

And Todd made a really good point that for any community that exceeds the health guidance values, they're notified immediately.

If...the consumers are notified right away.

And so there's no...in that case, those consumers are getting direct information.

They don't have to come to our dashboard to find that.

Okay.

So last question about "forever chemicals".

For those folks that aren't on community water supplies, right?

Or city water supplies?

And they depend on well water, are "forever chemicals" of risk?

You know Jason, as Karla said, it wouldn't surprise us if we found some low levels of "forever chemicals" in a lot of waters.

But where we know there's a source, the east metro is a classic example here, where we've really had a lot of experience with these PFAS compounds.

Where you know there's a source, whether it's a manufacturing facility or a dump site, where these chemicals have been released, we've worked in coordination with our sister agency the Pollution Control Agency to try and get our handles, our hands around that plume you know.

See where that plume is migrating, how big it is.

And for the most part, private wells that are near those sources of contamination, would be sampled for PFAS, by either our agency or the MPCA and associated with that plume.

So where we know there's a source we try and sample.

Whether it's a community system like a municipality or private wells where there's a known source of that.

So we do our best where we know that it is, to try and sample not only community systems but to get those private wells sampled too Jason.

Well let's talk briefly a little bit about contaminants of emerging concern.

It's my understanding that the Minnesota Department of Health is responsible for you know keeping emerging contaminants on your radar, right?

So what are, in your opinion, the biggest threats to municipal drinking water in Minnesota over the course of the next decade, Karla?

So PFAS, number one, it's ubiquitous.

You can find it anywhere.

So as you mentioned before, you shouldn't be surprised to find PFAS in drinking water but it is unusual to see it exceed the health guidance values.

So really there's a lot of focus and energy on addressing PFAS.

You know and I'll say, the science around contaminants of emerging concern, it's growing.

And so as we have new information about health risks and also analytical results, so analytical methods are constantly improving, as well.

So we can test for more contaminants and at lower concentrations.

So, you know, I can't tell you actually right now what will be those contaminants of concern in the next 10 years because we're learning as well.

I will...I can assure you though when we do find out about it we we take action.

And so we don't let that information just sit.

We move ahead and take action in addressing it.

Well speaking of taking action, you two and your colleagues are kind of invisible heroes, right?

Or unsung heroes?

You're all working behind the scenes on behalf of all Minnesotans to ensure that we have clean drinking water.

So I kind of want to ask you two is this just a job or is this something that you're very passionate about?

Let's start with you Todd.

Yeah, no that's not just a job Jason.

I've been in this business for 24 years now.

And I think when I first started working for the health department I thought I'd get some experience and drink water and maybe move on to another side of the engineering field.

Karla and I are both engineers by trade but you know one thing that I really like about my job is the you know, we know we're protecting public health.

We're doing some good.

And it's just a great feeling to know that when you go home every day you've done your best to try and protect the public health of the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

And it's just great job satisfaction in that.

Karla final words?

Yeah, I would completely agree.

And Todd and I have both been in this industry for the same amount of time and people also tend to stick around.

I think there's a lot of people that are engaged in this topic and and passionate about it.

Because it is really satisfying to know that you're saving lives and that just feels really good so, thank you.

Well I want to thank you both for the work that you do and of course I want to thank you for your time today.

It was great to meet you both.

You're welcome Jason.

And I want to thank all of you for joining me once again.

I'm Jason Edens, your host of Lakeland Currents.

You can Tweet me @currentspbs.

Be kind and be well, see you next week.