Alameda County panel hears experts on PFAS health risks, monitoring and local treatment; county plans outreach and comment letters

Alameda County officials and water‑system experts told the Health Committee on June 8 that per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose a credible public‑health concern in drinking water, and outlined monitoring, treatment and regulatory steps underway at state and local levels.

The update, led by Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss, featured Dr. Chris Banks of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), representatives of the State and San Francisco Bay regional water boards, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and a resident who described elevated blood levels. OEHHA senior toxicologist Dr. Chris Banks summarized health evidence and the office's public‑health goals: a PFOA public‑health goal of 0.007 parts per trillion (ppt) and a PFOS goal of 1 ppt, with higher noncancer protective concentrations described in his presentation.

Why it matters: OEHHA’s public‑health goals feed into state rulemaking and future maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are enforceable standards water systems must meet. State Division of Drinking Water staff said California will adopt the new federal MCLs for PFOA and PFOS and pursue a second stage of rulemaking that could cover PFHxS and consider a mass‑based or treatment‑technique approach to address many PFAS that federal rules do not. That second stage could take years, officials said.

What the water boards reported: Stefan Kahina, supervising sanitary engineer for the state Division of Drinking Water, said federal MCLs (the federal rule centers on PFOA and PFOS at 4 nanograms per liter) require monitoring and that California’s stage‑2 rulemaking will explore broader approaches and additional compounds. Kimberly West of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board said the regional board is prioritizing sites that can contaminate groundwater used for drinking — including airports, fire‑training areas, refineries, chrome platers, laundries and landfills — and is requiring owners to test soil and groundwater and pursue cleanup where warranted.

Local response and costs: Zone 7 Water Agency’s Ken Min described voluntary PFAS monitoring since 2018, the temporary shutdown of a production well that represented about 16% of capacity during drought, and staged deployment of ion‑exchange treatment plants (Stoneridge, 2023; a second facility coming online in 2025; a planned third for 2028). He said Zone 7 has invested tens of millions (noting figures of roughly $16M, $28M and a planned ~$35M for successive facilities) and that ratepayers and grants have funded portions of the work. ACWD’s Michelle Walden said ACWD’s 2024 ion‑exchange facility treats up to 6 million gallons per day (expandable to 15 MGD) and that treated water meets current state and federal standards.

Community health concerns: Jill Buck (Go Green Initiative) urged the county to prioritize testing access and clinician education after she reported PFHxS serum levels well above national norms in personal testing. Buck asked the county to monitor ‘‘hot spots’’ and to help clinicians implement National Academies recommendations for testing and follow‑up. Dr. Banks and county staff agreed ingestion (especially drinking water) is the dominant exposure pathway and that populations with historical exposure may still carry body burdens even after treatment reduces tap‑water concentrations.

County next steps: Dr. Moss said county health will develop a local PFAS information page with materials for clinicians and residents, improve public outreach, track state and federal rulemaking and submit comment letters opposing any federal rescission of PFAS protections. He said the county will pursue clinician outreach as a static, persistent resource while exploring longer, more complex options for funding testing or epidemiologic surveillance, and that the agency will return to the committee with more concrete proposals in the next 6–12 months.

Representative quotes: "The public health goal for PFOA is set at 0.007 parts per trillion," Dr. Chris Banks said, stressing how conservative the science‑based guidance values are. "We did derive both cancer‑based and noncancer‑protective concentrations." "We've been exposed to PFAS without our consent, without our knowledge," resident Jill Buck told the committee, urging accessible testing and clinician education.

What’s uncertain or unresolved: Presenters said many PFAS compounds remain unregulated at the federal level, analytical challenges limit detection at very low concentrations, the full set of sources across industrial, commercial and domestic contributors is still being mapped, and long‑term disposal of PFAS‑laden treatment media (resins) carries open scientific and logistical questions.

What to expect next: California will pursue a multi‑stage rulemaking process; the state and regional boards will continue monitoring and site investigations; local agencies will expand treatment as needed; and Alameda County Health said it will develop web resources, pursue clinician outreach and file comment letters in relevant public comment windows. The committee did not take formal votes during the update.

Reporting note: Quotes and technical values above are taken from expert presentations to the committee and the public period on June 8.