Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Monitoring And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KDHE briefed committee on PFAS: persistence, monitoring, and anticipated federal rules
Summary
Leo Henning of KDHE presented an informational briefing on PFAS — their persistence, common sources, recent EPA actions, monitoring results in Kansas, and anticipated cleanup and testing challenges — and answered questions about potential impacts to drinking water, livestock and biosolids management.
Leo Henning, director of the Division of Environment at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, briefed the committee on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, describing their chemical persistence, common uses, monitoring findings in Kansas and likely regulatory developments.
Henning explained PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals characterized by strong carbon–fluorine bonds that resist natural degradation. He listed common uses — firefighting foams (AFFF), nonstick cookware (Teflon), stain repellents for textiles, and grease-resistant food packaging — and said those properties explain the chemicals’ persistence in soil, water, biosolids and landfill leachate.
Henning said EPA has begun promulgating drinking-water standards for six PFAS chemicals with maximum contaminant levels in the range of 4 to 10 parts per trillion and in April 2024 listed PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) as hazardous substances. KDHE staff have been sampling drinking water systems and other media; Henning reported EPA sampled 40 municipal systems in the state and found two exceedances of the drinking-water standards. KDHE has started voluntary stream and lake sampling and has detected low levels of PFAS “in many places” across Kansas; Henning said Clinton Lake was the only lake with a higher detection in KDHE’s sampling to date. Fish tissue and biosolids sampling detected some localized elevated results that KDHE will investigate further.
On the regulatory timeline, Henning said KDHE expects further federal rulemaking in the coming year or two: cleanup standards for water quality, wastewater effluent and biosolids, additional hazardous‑waste designations under RCRA, and possibly air-emissions requirements. Henning called a potential human-health criterion at the parts‑per‑quadrillion level a “wild card” because such a threshold would drive much lower standards across media and create measurement and implementation challenges; he said KDHE’s lab currently can test drinking water per EPA method 533 but would need to invest an estimated $600,000 plus annual operating costs to stand up broader testing capability (method 1633) for tissues, soils and other media.
Committee members asked about agricultural impacts. Henning said animals that drink contaminated surface water can accumulate PFAS in tissues; he cited a high-profile dairy case in New Mexico where PFAS contamination tied to an AFFF release at a nearby Air Force base led to contaminated milk, loss of marketability and euthanasia of affected cattle. Henning said biosolids application to farmland, landfill leachate handling, and contaminated-site monitoring and cleanup will be significant issues for Kansas going forward.
Henning emphasized many uncertainties remain: sampling is ongoing, standards are evolving, and costs for testing, treatment and remediation are likely to be substantial. He said KDHE will coordinate with other state agencies including the Department of Agriculture and will follow federal standards as they are finalized.
Why it matters: PFAS are persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals with emerging federal drinking-water standards and likely multi-media regulatory requirements. The state will face choices about testing capacity, biosolids management, landfill leachate treatment, wastewater treatment upgrades and contaminated-site remediation; these choices carry fiscal and operational implications for utilities, landfills, farmers and public health agencies.
