PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water: Louisville GenX Spike, Georgia Blood Study and Ohio Cleanup Plans Raise Alarm

Communities from Kentucky to Georgia to Ohio are waking up to the same unsettling reality: “forever chemicals” are showing up in their drinking water — and even in their blood — just as federal protections are being weakened and utilities scramble to catch up.

On December 1, 2025, new research from the UK’s Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) underscored how technically difficult and expensive it will be to remove these chemicals at scale, even as local U.S. stories from Louisville, Rome and Calhoun (Georgia), and Shadyside (Ohio) lay bare how high the stakes are. ^[1]

What are PFAS — and why are they in our taps?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a huge family of synthetic chemicals used for decades to make products non‑stick, stain‑resistant and water‑repellent — from cookware and food packaging to firefighting foam and technical fabrics. ^[2]

Their carbon‑fluorine bonds are so strong that PFAS barely break down in the environment or in our bodies. That’s why they’re nicknamed “forever chemicals.” A growing body of research links exposure, even at very low levels, to:

Kidney and testicular cancers
Thyroid and liver problems
Immune system suppression (including reduced vaccine response)
High cholesterol and developmental harms in children ^[3]

For years, PFAS weren’t regulated at the U.S. federal level. In April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally set the first nationwide drinking water standards for six PFAS, including GenX (also known as HFPO‑DA), at extremely low limits measured in parts per trillion. ^[4]

But the rule is now at the center of a political and legal tug‑of‑war, even as new data show just how widely these chemicals have spread.

Louisville’s GenX scare: 15‑fold spike in the Ohio River

In Louisville, Kentucky, staff at Louisville Water Company noticed something shocking last December: a roughly 15‑fold spike in levels of GenX — a newer PFAS used as a replacement for older compounds — in untreated water drawn from the Ohio River. ^[5]

Subsequent analysis traced the spike hundreds of miles upstream to Chemours’ Washington Works plant in West Virginia, a facility with a long history of PFAS pollution litigation and regulatory scrutiny. ^[6]

Key points from the Ohio River story:

Monitoring data showed GenX levels at Louisville’s intake jumping from below 5 parts per trillion (ppt) to above 50 ppt in November 2024 — five times the EPA’s current GenX drinking water limit of 10 ppt. ^[7]
West Virginia regulators previously tightened Chemours’ discharge permit after EPA concluded that GenX is toxic and persistent, but the plant has struggled to comply and has repeatedly exceeded its limits. ^[8]
The spike was so large it was detectable far downstream in drinking water systems that serve more than a million people, including utilities in Cincinnati and communities along the Ohio River. ^[9]

Louisville’s finished drinking water still met regulatory limits because the spike was detected in raw, untreated water. But the incident underscores a grim reality: even with modern treatment, utilities remain vulnerable to sudden upstream contamination they don’t control.

Regional oversight bodies like the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) have warned that recent GenX trends are “very concerning” and could threaten water systems’ ability to comply with new PFAS standards if discharges continue. ^[10]

Georgia blood study: PFAS levels high enough for medical follow‑up

Hundreds of miles away, residents of Rome and Calhoun, Georgia are seeing the PFAS problem in an even more personal way — in their own blood.

Researchers at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health recruited nearly 200 adults in the two communities for a PFAS exposure study. Their findings, shared in June and highlighted in local news this fall, are sobering: ^[11]

177 blood samples were analyzed from Rome and Calhoun residents.
40.1% of participants had levels of PFOA (an older PFAS) higher than 95% of the general U.S. population.
11.9% had similarly elevated levels of PFHxS, another PFAS compound.
For every 10 years someone had lived in the region, their total PFAS levels increased by about 7–8%, and closer to 11% for long‑time residents of Floyd County.
Overall, 76% of participants had total PFAS levels high enough to warrant “prioritized medical screening”, and 23% had levels high enough to justify additional medical tests, based on national clinical guidelines.

In other words, the majority of participants had PFAS levels high enough that doctors are advised to keep a closer eye on them for associated health problems.

Local radio coverage in Rome reported that people who drank more bottled or filtered water tended to have lower PFAS levels, reinforcing the role that drinking water likely plays in exposure. ^[12]

These findings come after years of concern over PFAS contamination in the Coosa River basin and a major settlement with upstream polluters: textile manufacturers, the city of Dalton and chemical companies agreed to pay Rome $184 million, primarily to build a new water filtration plant designed to remove PFAS. ^[13]

Shadyside, Ohio: A village tries to eradicate PFAS from its taps

In the village of Shadyside, Ohio, PFAS is now a standing item on the council agenda.

At a council meeting on November 25, 2025, consulting engineers briefed elected officials on recent test results showing that PFAS levels in the village’s drinking water, drawn from an aquifer connected to the Ohio River, have fallen from earlier peaks but still hover just under federal limits. ^[14]

Highlights from the Shadyside plan:

Earlier sampling found PFAS above EPA’s new enforceable limits; current results are just below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), but the exact behavior of the underlying aquifer remains uncertain. ^[15]
The Ohio EPA is backing a $750,000 principal‑forgiveness loan (effectively a grant) so Shadyside can complete a holistic water study, looking at treatment options, new sources, and regional partnerships. ^[16]
Engineers laid out four big decisions for the village:
- Whether to keep an independent water system or connect to nearby Bellaire’s system (which currently shows lower PFAS levels).
- Whether to invest in granular activated carbon (GAC) filters or other treatment technologies at the existing plant.
- Whether to develop alternative water sources.
- How to address aging pipes and even a legacy water line that lies exposed and occasionally freezes in a local creek. ^[17]

GAC, one of the most widely used PFAS treatment methods, can substantially reduce many PFAS compounds but requires space, significant capital outlays and ongoing maintenance — a heavy lift for a small village. ^[18]

Shadyside is a microcosm of a much larger national issue: small, cash‑strapped utilities must choose between expensive treatment upgrades, new sources or regional mergers — all while trying to reassure residents that the water is safe.

December 1, 2025: New science and technology raise the bar

While U.S. communities confront the costs of PFAS cleanup, new research published on December 1, 2025 is reshaping what’s considered technically possible — and financially realistic — in drinking water treatment.

DWI & Cranfield: Testing how well different technologies remove PFAS

In a major study released today, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) in England and Wales, working with Cranfield University, reported results from a multi‑year evaluation of PFAS removal technologies across different water sources. ^[19]

Key findings include:

48 different PFAS compounds have been detected in English and Welsh water sources, from short‑chain chemicals like PFBA to longer‑chain compounds such as PFOS.
The team tested six core treatment approaches:
- Granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption
- Surface‑modified clay adsorption
- Ion exchange (IEX)
- Membrane filtration (nanofiltration and reverse osmosis)
- Advanced oxidation processes
- Coagulation and filtration
Long‑chain PFAS are generally easier to remove. Short‑chain compounds — especially four‑carbon PFAS like PFBA — broke through treatment systems quickly, remaining stubbornly hard to capture.
Membrane technologies achieved over 90% removal for most PFAS and more than 80% even for some short‑chain compounds, though they can be energy‑intensive and expensive.
Ion‑exchange resins showed strong long‑term removal, but require frequent media replacement and careful waste handling.

The study concludes that no single technology is a silver bullet. Instead, utilities will likely need tailored, multi‑step treatment trains based on the specific PFAS “cocktail” in their raw water and on local economic constraints. ^[20]

Guernsey Water: 99.95% compliance, but with heavy investment

Also today, Guernsey Water in the Channel Islands reported 99.95% compliance with UK drinking water standards in its 2024 water quality report, covering more than 6,000 lab analyses. ^[21]

To sustain that level of performance, the utility:

Brought forward capital work to upgrade a treated‑water storage tank after a single sample failure.
Completed major refurbishments at a treatment works, adding UV disinfection and boosting resilience.

The message is clear: maintaining safe water in a world of complex contaminants requires continuous infrastructure upgrades, not one‑off fixes. ^[22]

Great Lakes PFAS Summit and lab expansions

The Great Lakes PFAS Summit, hosted by Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, begins this week (Dec. 2–4, 2025), bringing together federal, state and local officials to share the latest science and policy developments on PFAS in the region’s water resources. ^[23]
In Indiana, PFAS testing company Forever Analytical announced today that it is expanding lab capacity in South Bend and in the Netherlands to meet surging demand for rapid PFAS screening using proton‑beam technology, enabling “total PFAS” measurements in minutes. ^[24]

Together, these developments show that PFAS has matured from a niche concern into a global water‑industry priority, with research labs, utilities and regulators racing to keep up.

Regulation whiplash: EPA rollbacks vs tougher rules abroad

Even as detection and treatment technologies advance, regulatory signals are mixed, especially in the United States.

U.S. EPA: From historic standards to attempted rollbacks

In April 2024, EPA finalized the first National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and a mixture standard that includes PFBS), setting enforceable limits as low as 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for several others. Utilities must complete initial monitoring by 2027 and comply by 2029. ^[25]
In May 2025, the agency announced it would keep the current PFOA/PFOS standards but intended to rescind the regulatory determinations for GenX, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS, and extend compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS. ^[26]
By September 12, 2025, according to a detailed analysis from NRDC and partner groups, EPA formally told a federal court it would no longer defend the standards for four PFAS and asked judges to void its own determinations — a move environmental lawyers say skirts the Safe Drinking Water Act’s anti‑backsliding protections. ^[27]
NRDC estimates that more than 73 million people are served by water systems with PFAS levels above the very limits EPA now seeks to delay or scrap. ^[28]

The rollback effort is still being litigated, and environmental organizations continue to defend the standards in court.

Adding to the controversy, a short news segment on November 25 reported that EPA had approved two new pesticides containing PFAS‑type chemicals, while also relaxing reporting requirements for products with PFAS and proposing weaker limits on these substances in drinking water. ^[29]

Europe and UK: Moving toward broader PFAS bans

By contrast, regulators in Europe and the UK are moving toward tighter controls:

A recent legal briefing notes that PFAS are increasingly being listed as substances of very high concern under EU and UK chemicals law, with several compounds now effectively banned under Persistent Organic Pollutants rules. ^[30]
In August 2025, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) opened a six‑month consultation on a UK‑wide restriction on PFAS in firefighting foams, citing risks that are “not adequately controlled” and proposing broad limits on marketing and use, with transitional periods. ^[31]
In Washington State, a new “Safer Products” rulemaking focuses specifically on regulating PFAS‑containing consumer products, with the legislature directing regulators to adopt PFAS restrictions in certain goods by December 1, 2025. ^[32]

Taken together, these moves suggest a global trend toward treating PFAS as a class of hazardous chemicals, even as U.S. federal standards face a potential rollback.

What this means for communities — and what people can do

The picture that emerges from Louisville, Georgia, Shadyside and today’s new research is stark:

PFAS contamination is widespread, from major rivers like the Ohio to small community wells. ^[33]
Exposure is measurable in people’s blood, at levels that medical experts say justify additional screening for related health problems. ^[34]
Cleaning these chemicals out of drinking water will require costly, technically complex systems that many smaller utilities struggle to afford on their own. ^[35]
At the same time, the regulatory floor is moving, with some governments tightening PFAS rules while others attempt to loosen them. ^[36]

For individual residents, the options are imperfect but real:

Check your utility’s PFAS results. Public water systems covered by the PFAS rule must monitor for these chemicals and share results; many states and utilities post PFAS data online. ^[37]
Consider certified filters for drinking and cooking water. EPA and independent experts point to reverse osmosis and granular activated carbon systems as the most effective home options for reducing PFAS levels, provided filters are properly maintained. Boiling water does not remove PFAS. ^[38]
Support local planning and funding. From Shadyside’s holistic water study to Rome’s filtration plant and PFAS settlement claims that could evaporate if utilities miss deadlines, community engagement can help ensure that available money is actually used to upgrade infrastructure. ^[39]

The science of PFAS is complex, and the politics are messy. But the trend line in 2025 is clear: the era of ignoring forever chemicals in drinking water is over. The question now is whether regulation, enforcement and investment will move fast enough to match what Louisville’s samples and Georgia’s blood tests already show — PFAS contamination is not an abstract risk, but a present‑day reality.