PFAS at the Tazlina Well
Water jug. Photo by Allison Sayer.
By Allison Sayer
Recently, residents filling up water containers at the Tazlina well were greeted with a notice stating “recent testing has detected elevated levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in our water supply.” Sampling conducted in May and June of 2025 “shows PFOS levels at 10.8 and 12.4 parts per trillion (ppt), respectively. This level is above the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ppt.”
The notice went on to state well owner Copper River Basin Regional Housing Authority (CRBRHA) is “actively working to address this issue by exploring options for treatment and remediation.”
I reached out to CRBRHA President/CEO Teri Nutter via email to learn whether these two tests were the only data on PFAS presence in the well water. Are these numbers an increase or decrease from any prior quantities?
According to Nutter, “The DEC received funding to do baseline testing of PFAS/PFOS on public water systems – we participated in the baseline testing and have shared the results with the public and recommended filtration remediation. When we acquired the Tazlina Water Well in 2015, DEC did not require testing for PFAS/PFOS. We do not know when the PFAS/PFOS has been present in the water.”
An MCL is an enforceable legal standard for drinking water. However, exceeding the PFAS MCL will not prompt any immediate changes. According to a fact sheet issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Systems that detect PFAS above the new standards will have five years to implement solutions that reduce PFAS in their drinking water.”
In addition to instituting the four ppt MCL for US drinking water, the EPA provided funding - over nine billion dollars nationally - for drinking water remediation in 2024. One billion dollars was explicitly meant for rural and Tribal communities, for public or privately owned water sources. I reached out to an EPA press representative to determine whether that funding still exists, but had not yet received a reply at press time.
A wide ranging discussion of this issue occurred within the Copper Valley News and Info Facebook group. Many residents were extremely upset or concerned, but some were not. Filters were widely discussed. The main sentiment seemed to be a desire to know more: What do these numbers really mean for human health and what will happen in the future? The nearest additional water source the public can use, for a fee, is in Kenny Lake.
Rebecca Schwanke, who is the state representative for the area including Tazlina and also a Tazlina well user, pointed out that other countries including Canada have higher allowable levels of PFAS than the US. Her comments were used with her permission. According to Canada Health, the allowable limit for Canadian drinking water is 30 ppt.
Prior to the 2024 designation of four ppt as the threshold requiring action on the part of the water provider, there was no federal legal standard. However, the EPA did issue a non binding “lifetime health advisory” (LHA) of 70 ppt for drinking water.
By Alaska state regulation, at levels above 70 ppt, “the responsible party must evaluate the extent of the contamination in the soil and groundwater, determine whether and to what extent drinking water supplies are impacted, provide treatment or alternative water if action levels are exceeded, and begin cleanup with DEC’s oversight.”
Statewide, over 93 communities, including many near airports or firefighting related facilities, have demonstrated drinking water PFAS concentrations above 70 ppt. Some could only be described as contaminated, such as a well in Gustavus showing 11,500 ppt of the chemical PFOS, a member of the PFAS family. Incidentally, the water testing in Gustavus was performed by an Ahtna, Inc. subcontractor.
102 Alaska communities have been shown to have drinking water PFAS levels below 70 ppt. Within that group, some would now be above the relatively new limit of 4 ppt. Others have no detectable PFAS in their water. As of press time, I had not yet reviewed all 102 reports.
This still doesn’t answer the question of whether long term consumption of water with an average PFAS level of 11 ppt is bad for you. And how long is long term?
This article can’t provide a clear cut answer, but CRR will continue to cover this story as it develops.
The short term recommendation from the US EPA, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Canada Health is to use a filter to reduce exposure. Any filters used should be certified by a reputable agency to filter PFAS specifically.
For a summary of research-based information regarding this family of chemicals and human health, along with links to fact sheets and additional study results, visit https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc .
Disclosure: CRBRHA and Ahtna, Inc. are Copper River Record advertisers. This did not influence our coverage of this story.