Experts have concluded that potentially harmful chemicals called PFAS — otherwise known as forever chemicals — have contaminated some of Connecticut’s water supply, though the list of possible sources for the pollution remains a topic of debate.
At the Oct. 22 meeting of the Connecticut Bond Commission, a sum of $3 million was allocated to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection for PFAS testing, research, and mitigation efforts. During the proceedings, runoff from damaged solar panels was mentioned as a potential source of PFAS entering the water.
State Sen. Holly Cheeseman (R-37) questioned how the funds would be distributed across the state, emphasizing her desire that solar panels be investigated as a source of PFAS contamination.
“We as a state have encouraged people and farmers to install solar panels,” she said at the meeting. “I think it behooves us to help them mitigate any contamination.”
Graham Stevens, chief of DEEP’s Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse, fielded Cheeseman’s comments on behalf of the organization, replying that more research is needed to determine many PFAS contamination sources.
“Because they’re emerging, I think the science is still working to catch up on how any PFAS that might be present in solar panels might pose a continued risk to people’s drinking water,” Stevens said. “This is really important in Connecticut because 23% of Connecticut uses wells for drinking,” he added.
PFAS are a group of extremely resilient chemicals known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances that have been widely used in industrial manufacturing and consumer products since the 1940s. Their heat-, water- and oil-resistant properties which make them so useful in products such as non-stick pans, stain-proof fabric and electrical equipment also mean that they are “extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment,” according to DEEP’s website.
Knowledge of the chemicals’ toxic and pollutive potential was not publicly widespread until the 1990s and 2000s, when research and lawsuits against companies like DuPont (whose workers fell ill after PFAS exposure) gained media traction, encouraging corporations and government organizations to regulate PFAS usage. Due to their durability, however, they are still found extensively throughout the environment, and even in our bodies – a 2015 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found PFAS in the blood of 97% of Americans in its sample pool.
When asked whether DEEP has investigated the potential of solar panels leaching PFAS into groundwater, Stevens replied, “At this time, the potential pollution risks posed by other concentrated sources of PFAS is of primary concern to DEEP.” He affirmed that the funds will be mobilized towards projects “that are determined by DEEP to be of the greatest importance to protecting human health and the environment,” and noted that “this may change as our knowledge of risks in Connecticut change.”
Publicly, the jury is still out as to whether solar panels pose a significant risk as a source of PFAS contamination. Cheeseman noted that older solar panels, built before the past five years, pose the greatest threat as many new models are manufactured without PFAS. A 2018 article from The Carolina Journal reported that the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that PFAS compounds were used in manufacturing solar panel components, though little research on the topic has been made available since.
Michael Trahan, executive director of the Connecticut Storage and Solar Association, said he is “not aware of any documented incidents directly linking PFAS to groundwater contamination where solar panels are sited.” He added that he suspects any contamination from solar panels would be due to disposal of parts, not where the panels were installed, and state legislature is currently drafting disposal regulations for the equipment.
Other groups have expressed that the lack of solid information is concerning. Saving Green, a Coxsackie, NY based advocacy group, called for more definitive research on PFAS in Solar Panels. “While studies may not be conclusive, the lack of definitive conclusions and transparency raises concerns,” the group stated in public letter addressing a proposed solar development nearby.
Cheeseman voiced her concerns that future funding for PFAS contamination and mitigation efforts address the whole state, not just specific sites. “We have many rural communities who may not be defined as environmental justice communities who are reliant on wells and I want to make sure we are taking them into account as we track this possibly very hazardous chemical,” she said.
