ADEQ outlines PFAS testing, mitigation grants and local projects; Prescott flagged as eligible for state funds

The subcommittee heard a detailed briefing from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) sampling, federal and state compliance timelines, and grant funding to help small and disadvantaged public water systems mitigate contamination.

Sarah Conrad, project manager in ADEQ's drinking water section, told the committee that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion and PFNA at 10 parts per trillion. She described the federal compliance timeline tied to initial monitoring and future regular compliance monitoring and noted EPA had proposed further rulemaking on some PFAS and possible adjustments to compliance dates.

Conrad said ADEQ conducted sampling for public water systems that serve 3,300 people or fewer because those systems were not covered by EPA's UCMR 5 (unregulated contaminant monitoring rule round 5). ADEQ's small-system sampling showed that about 12 percent of sampled systems had at least one regulated PFAS compound above the MCL; she said the EPA data for larger systems showed a similar percentage. ADEQ's public map and dataset record no-sample, below-MCL and above-MCL results for small systems across the state; Conrad said the Prescott area and parts of Yavapai and Gila counties show detections in some nearby small systems (Ponderosa Park, Pinehurst Water Company and Groom Creek were cited).

Conrad described $84 million now allocated to ADEQ (federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds, received across multiple fiscal years) specifically for PFAS mitigation in small and disadvantaged communities. She said Prescott is classified as a disadvantaged community under ADEQ's eligibility criteria and thus is eligible to seek support. "Prescott is considered a disadvantaged community, and so you would be eligible for this funding," Conrad told the subcommittee.

ADEQ said it maintains a prioritized list of systems based on measured PFAS levels, system size and economic disadvantage; the agency has about 88 systems on that priority list. The agency is not running an open competitive grant process for these dollars, Conrad said: ADEQ reaches out to communities on its list and then works through options that can include (in order of preference where feasible) non-treatment solutions such as interconnection to a neighboring system, well inactivation/blending, or, where necessary, treatment. ADEQ's preferred treatment technologies are ion exchange, granular activated carbon (GAC) and reverse osmosis; the agency noted point-of-use and point-of-entry devices currently do not meet the PFAS MCL certifications required for full compliance and that DEQ would not pursue permits for such systems until certifications align with MCLs.

Conrad outlined several local- and regional-level projects already under way or in design. Examples included interconnections for mobile-home parks in Star Valley and Globe, a multi-well feasibility and planned treatment design in Payson, pilot testing at Ponderosa Park, dynamic flow profiling work at Blue Hills (Dewey-Humboldt) and rapid small-scale column testing for Chino Valley. She said ADEQ covers design and construction contracts directly and that grant funds cannot be used for ongoing operation and maintenance; Build America Buy America requirements apply to funded projects.

Council members raised questions about likely cost burdens and who should pay for treatment when contamination is associated with federal installations. Councilman Gamboji and others said they wanted assurances that ADEQ funding is targeted to systems with demonstrated need. Conrad said ADEQ prioritizes systems with higher measured PFAS and that some Department of Defense remediation and funding efforts are separate, but she added ADEQ was specifically targeting small or disadvantaged systems through the state-administered funds.

ADEQ also pointed to technical resources on its website including decision trees for mitigation strategies, public maps of sampling results and planned webinars and forums (ADEQ plans a PFAS forum in Phoenix in March). ADEQ staff said they will follow up individually with Prescott staff about possible collaborative projects and options for nearby small systems that could be served by Prescott infrastructure or interconnections.

No formal action was taken at the meeting; staff said discussions would continue with ADEQ and that any city decisions (for example, to pursue interconnections) would be brought back to the subcommittee and council for review.