The honest framing. PFAS is a genuinely serious long-term public health issue that deserves clear, factual information — not fear-based marketing. This page reports what the verified data actually shows for Middle Tennessee utilities: which ones have detected PFAS, at what concentrations, compared to both EPA’s new legal limits and EWG’s more conservative health guidelines. The goal is to help you make an informed decision, not to scare you into buying something you may not need.
What Is PFAS — The Short Version
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals used since the 1940s in non-stick cookware (Teflon), stain-resistant fabrics, food packaging, firefighting foam (AFFF), and industrial processes. They are called “forever chemicals” because the carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry — PFAS do not break down in the environment or the human body. They accumulate in soil, groundwater, surface water, and human tissue.
PFAS enter drinking water primarily through industrial discharge near manufacturing sites, military and airport firefighting foam (AFFF) training sites, landfill leachate from PFAS-containing products, and agricultural land treated with PFAS-contaminated biosolids (sewage sludge used as fertilizer). The Cumberland River, Harpeth River, and Stones River — the source waters for most Middle Tennessee utilities — have all been monitored for PFAS contamination.
Health context: Long-term exposure to PFAS at elevated concentrations is associated with increased risk of certain cancers (kidney, testicular), thyroid disease, immune system suppression, elevated cholesterol, and adverse reproductive outcomes. These are documented associations from epidemiological studies at higher exposure levels. The health risk from water at or near the new 4 ppt EPA MCL is a subject of ongoing scientific research. EWG’s 0.5 ppt guideline reflects a more precautionary approach based on the current evidence base.
The national PFAS contamination picture — EWG February 2026
9,728
confirmed PFAS-contaminated sites across 50 states, D.C., and four territories
176M
people in communities where drinking water has tested positive for PFAS (UCMR5 data)
200M+
Americans estimated to have PFOA or PFOS at 1+ ppt in their water (2020 EWG study)
Source: EWG PFAS Contamination Map, updated February 12, 2026. UCMR5 data covers approximately 95% of community water systems tested under the rule. View EWG’s interactive PFAS map →
Middle Tennessee PFAS Status by Utility
The following reflects the most recent available data from EWG’s Tap Water Database and verified Consumer Confidence Reports for the 17 utilities covered in the Tennessee Water Authority guide series. PFAS testing was expanded significantly under EPA’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5) beginning in 2023 — more utilities now have more recent and comprehensive PFAS data than was previously available.
Milcrofton Utility District
TN0000247 · Spring Hill / Williamson-Maury Co. border
PFOA detected above EWG’s 0.5 ppt health guideline per EWG Tap Water Database. Serves portions of the Spring Hill and Thompsons Station area. Source water includes Duck River influence. RO is the recommended treatment.
Above EWG guideline
Spring Hill Water Department
TN0000247-area · Spring Hill, Maury County
PFOA detected above EWG’s 0.5 ppt health guideline. Spring Hill area has two utilities with PFAS concerns — Milcrofton UD and Spring Hill WD. Both draw from the Duck River watershed. Below EPA’s new 4 ppt MCL. NSF/ANSI 58 RO is recommended for drinking water.
Above EWG guideline
Franklin Water Department
TN0000246 · Franklin, Williamson County · Harpeth River
2025 CCR verified: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, GenX (HFPO-DA), PFNA, and PFBS all detected near or at detection limits but below EPA’s 4 ppt MCL. Franklin WD proactively reported individual compound levels including PFOA at trace concentrations. Below both EPA MCL and at or near EWG’s 0.5 ppt guideline. Continued monitoring recommended.
Detected — below MCL
Harpeth Valley Utility District
TN0000286 · Nashville / Williamson Co. border
2023 CCR: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, GenX, PFNA, PFBS all reported as not detected (ND). Updated monitoring under UCMR5 may reveal additional data. Below both EPA MCL and EWG guideline as of last reporting.
Not detected (2023)
Nashville Metro Water Services
TN0000494 · Cumberland River · 2025 CCR
Zero PFAS detection across all six UCMR5-monitored compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, GenX, PFNA, PFBS) as of 2024/2025 reporting. Cumberland River source water and Nashville’s treatment process have not shown PFAS at detectable levels. One of the better-performing large utilities on PFAS in the region. Continue annual CCR review.
Zero detection
Lebanon Water System
Wilson County · Cumberland River source
2025 CCR verified: PFOA not detected. Lebanon WS reported a clean PFAS profile alongside other positive findings (zero violations, strong compliance scores). Cumberland River source water is performing well on PFAS.
Not detected
Smyrna Water System
TN-area · Stones River / Percy Priest Lake
2025 CCR: PFAS not detected. Smyrna WS draws from Percy Priest Lake (Stones River watershed). No PFAS detection as of most recent reporting. Hardness remains the primary water quality concern for Smyrna customers (estimated 10–14 GPG).
Not detected
La Vergne Water System
TN · Percy Priest Lake source · 2025 CCR
2025 CCR: PFAS not detected. La Vergne also confirmed zero lead service lines in its distribution system (LSLI completed). Percy Priest Lake source water showing no PFAS contamination at current detection thresholds.
Not detected
Murfreesboro, Clarksville, Hendersonville, Gallatin, Springfield, Mount Juliet, Brentwood, Columbia, Dickson, Nolensville
Multiple utilities · Various source waters
PFAS monitoring data from most recent CCRs does not show PFAS above EWG guidelines. Nolensville NCGUD / Milcrofton UD area overlap warrants attention. All utilities are subject to ongoing UCMR5 monitoring. Check your city guide for the most current PFAS status for each utility.
See city guides
Key finding
The majority of Middle Tennessee utilities show no PFAS detection. Two utilities in the Spring Hill area are the primary concern.
Of the 17 utilities in the Tennessee Water Authority guide series, the confirmed PFAS detections above EWG health guidelines are concentrated in the Spring Hill / Williamson-Maury County border area — specifically Milcrofton Utility District and Spring Hill Water Department. Nashville MWS, Lebanon, Smyrna, and La Vergne all show zero PFAS detection in their most recent reporting. This does not mean those utilities are permanently PFAS-free — ongoing monitoring is essential — but the current verified data does not support widespread alarm for the majority of Middle Tennessee utility customers.
The PFAS Compounds You’ll Encounter in Tennessee Water Reports
Not all PFAS are created equal. Different compounds have different health profiles, different EPA limits, and different prevalence in Middle Tennessee water. These are the ones that appear in EWG data and Tennessee CCRs.
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic Acid
EPA MCL: 4 ppt (April 2024)
EWG guideline: 0.5 ppt
The most studied PFAS compound. Used in Teflon manufacturing. Associated with kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system effects. The primary PFAS of concern in Middle Tennessee based on current detection data.
Detected above EWG guideline: Milcrofton UD, Spring Hill WD. Not detected: Nashville MWS, Lebanon, Smyrna, La Vergne.
PFOS
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
EPA MCL: 4 ppt (April 2024)
EWG guideline: 1 ppt
Used in Scotchgard and firefighting foam (AFFF). Largely phased out of U.S. manufacturing but persists in the environment. Military installations and airports are primary source points. Clarksville (Fort Campbell area) is the primary Middle Tennessee PFOS risk area to monitor.
Not detected in most Middle Tennessee utilities as of current reporting. Clarksville area warrants continued monitoring given Fort Campbell proximity.
PFHxS
Perfluorohexane Sulfonate
EPA MCL: 10 ppt (April 2024)
EWG guideline: 1 ppt
A shorter-chain PFAS compound used in firefighting foam and stain repellents. Associated with thyroid and immune effects. Harpeth Valley UD reported ND (not detected) in 2023 CCR. Franklin WD reporting available in 2025 CCR.
Not detected at significant levels in current Middle Tennessee CCRs. Part of UCMR5 monitoring package.
PFBS
Perfluorobutane Sulfonate
EPA MCL: Hazard index (mixtures)
EWG guideline: 1 ppt
A short-chain PFAS introduced as a replacement for PFOS after its phase-out. Less well-studied but increasingly detected in surface water nationally. Regulated under EPA’s hazard index approach rather than a standalone MCL. Detected at trace levels in Franklin WD 2025 CCR (below MCL).
Franklin WD: PFBS 0.0014 ppt (far below EPA MCL). Nashville MWS: ND.
PFNA
Perfluorononanoic Acid
EPA MCL: 10 ppt (April 2024)
EWG guideline: 0.2 ppt
A longer-chain PFAS associated with liver toxicity, immune effects, and developmental harm. Used in fluoropolymer manufacturing. Not widely detected in Middle Tennessee utilities at this time but included in UCMR5 monitoring and EWG database tracking.
Not detected in Middle Tennessee utilities as of current reporting data.
GenX / HFPO-DA
Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid
EPA MCL: 10 ppt (April 2024)
EWG guideline: 1 ppt
A “next generation” PFAS used as a PFOA replacement in fluoropolymer manufacturing. Associated with liver, kidney, and immune effects in animal studies. Harpeth Valley UD 2023 CCR: ND. Not detected in Middle Tennessee utilities as of current reporting.
Not detected in current Middle Tennessee CCRs. Part of UCMR5 monitoring package.
EPA’s 2024 PFAS Rule: What Changed and What It Means for Tennessee
April 2024 marked the most significant development in drinking water regulation in decades. EPA finalized the first-ever federal MCLs specifically for PFAS compounds — requiring public water systems to test, monitor, and ultimately remove PFAS from drinking water.
2016
EPA Health Advisory
Non-enforceable PFOA/PFOS combined advisory: 70 ppt
EPA issued its first health advisory for PFOA and PFOS combined at 70 parts per trillion. This was not a legally enforceable limit — utilities were not required to test or treat. Many did not. The advisory drew attention to the issue but had limited regulatory force.
2021
EPA Interim Health Advisories
PFOA advisory lowered to 0.004 ppt; PFOS to 0.02 ppt
EPA’s updated science dramatically lowered its health advisory levels — orders of magnitude below the 2016 guidance. These remained non-enforceable advisories but signaled that the 2016 levels were grossly inadequate and that EPA was moving toward much stricter enforceable limits.
Tennessee utilities were not yet required to act, but forward-thinking utilities began monitoring more comprehensively.
2023
UCMR5 Monitoring Begins
All public water systems required to test for 29 PFAS compounds
EPA’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule required all utilities serving more than 3,300 people to test for 29 PFAS compounds between 2023 and 2025. This is the source of much of the current detection data for Middle Tennessee utilities, including the Harpeth Valley UD, Franklin WD, Nashville MWS, and Lebanon data now available in CCRs.
Most of the current PFAS detection data for Middle Tennessee utilities — including zero detections at Nashville MWS and Lebanon — comes from UCMR5 testing.
2024
EPA Final Rule — April 2024
First-ever enforceable federal PFAS MCLs finalized
EPA finalized legally enforceable MCLs: PFOA 4 ppt · PFOS 4 ppt · PFHxS 10 ppt · PFNA 10 ppt · HFPO-DA (GenX) 10 ppt · Mixtures of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS regulated via hazard index. This was the most significant federal drinking water regulation in decades — the first time PFAS have had legally enforceable limits in U.S. water supplies.
Middle Tennessee utilities above these new MCLs are currently in full compliance by existing standards — they have until 2029 to meet the new limits. Milcrofton UD and Spring Hill WD, which have detected PFOA above EWG’s 0.5 ppt guideline, should confirm their levels relative to the new 4 ppt MCL in their next published CCRs.
2024
Superfund Designation — April 2024
PFOA and PFOS designated as hazardous substances under Superfund law
Alongside the MCL rule, EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA / Superfund). This designation would jumpstart PFAS cleanups at contaminated sites and allow EPA to hold polluters financially accountable for remediation. The designation currently faces a pending legal challenge.
The Superfund designation is particularly relevant for the Clarksville area given Fort Campbell’s proximity. Military installations are among the highest-risk PFAS source sites nationally due to historical AFFF firefighting foam use. Department of Defense cleanup progress at most contaminated military sites has been described as minimal.
2027
Compliance Assessment (est.)
Utilities must complete initial system assessments
Utilities are expected to complete initial compliance assessments and begin treatment planning if their PFAS levels require remediation. Utilities serving Spring Hill, Milcrofton, and other affected areas will need to evaluate treatment options including granular activated carbon, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis at the utility scale.
2025
Regulatory Rollback — May 2025
EPA signals it will eliminate MCLs for four of the six regulated PFAS compounds
In a significant reversal, the EPA announced in May 2025 that it plans to eliminate the PFAS maximum contaminant levels for four of the six compounds finalized in the April 2024 rule — retaining limits only for PFOA and PFOS. The agency also announced it plans to extend the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. This is an active regulatory situation. Tennessee Water Authority will update this page as the regulatory status evolves.
As of June 2026: PFOA and PFOS limits (4 ppt each) are expected to remain in force. Limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS mixtures are under review. Monitor your utility’s CCR and the EPA’s PFAS regulatory page for current compliance requirements.
2031
Revised Compliance Deadline (est.)
EPA extended compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031 for PFOA/PFOS
The original April 2029 compliance deadline has been extended to 2031 per EPA’s May 2025 announcement. Utilities with PFOA or PFOS above the 4 ppt MCL must achieve compliance by the revised deadline. The five-year window from the original rule gives utilities time to install treatment systems, find alternative sources, or blend water supplies to dilute PFAS levels below the MCL.
If Milcrofton UD or Spring Hill WD have PFOA above 4 ppt, 2031 is the current expected compliance target. If their PFOA is already below 4 ppt (only above EWG’s 0.5 ppt guideline), they are already in compliance with the current rule. Monitor forthcoming CCRs for confirmed levels relative to the 4 ppt MCL.
EWG vs EPA: Understanding the Gap
One of the most common points of confusion for Middle Tennessee homeowners is why EWG’s guidelines are so different from EPA’s new MCLs. The gap is real and significant — and understanding it helps you make an informed decision about your own household.
| Compound | EPA MCL (2024) | EWG Health Guideline | Ratio (EPA/EWG) | Basis for difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFOA | 4 ppt | 0.5 ppt | 8x more lenient | EPA balances health protection with technical/economic feasibility. EWG uses studies suggesting effects below 1 ppt. |
| PFOS | 4 ppt | 1 ppt | 4x more lenient | EPA feasibility-based. EWG based on immunological studies at lower concentrations. |
| PFHxS | 10 ppt | 1 ppt | 10x more lenient | Less studied than PFOA/PFOS. EWG applies precautionary approach. |
| PFNA | 10 ppt | 0.2 ppt | 50x more lenient | Animal studies suggest effects at very low levels. EPA MCL set at technically feasible level. |
| GenX (HFPO-DA) | 10 ppt | 1 ppt | 10x more lenient | Newer compound with limited long-term human data. EWG applies precautionary standard. |
The honest explanation
Water that meets EPA limits is legal. Whether it meets your personal health standard is a separate question.
EPA’s MCLs are set by balancing health protection with what is technically achievable at scale and economically feasible for utilities to implement. EWG’s guidelines are set purely at the health-protective level without economic consideration. Neither is wrong — they reflect different mandates. A utility in full compliance with the 4 ppt MCL is not hiding anything or doing anything illegal. A homeowner who chooses to use an RO filter to achieve closer to the 0.5 ppt level is making a precautionary personal health decision that the science supports. Both positions are reasonable. Tennessee Water Authority reports both numbers so you can make your own informed decision.
How to Remove PFAS from Drinking Water
Not all filters remove PFAS. The effectiveness varies dramatically by technology. Here is what works, what doesn’t, and what it costs for Middle Tennessee homeowners.
A typical under-sink reverse osmosis system — storage tank (left) and multi-stage filter housing (right). NSF/ANSI 58-certified RO systems are the only residential treatment technology verified to remove PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS from drinking water. Required for Milcrofton UD, Spring Hill WD, and H.B.T.S. customers where PFOA has been detected above EWG health guidelines.
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
90–99%
The most effective household PFAS removal method. The semi-permeable RO membrane physically rejects PFAS compounds including PFOA, PFOS, and short-chain PFAS. NSF/ANSI 58 certification with PFOA specifically listed is the gold standard. Under-sink point-of-use system protects drinking and cooking water at the kitchen tap.
$600–$2,000 installed · ~4 cents/gallon · Filter replacement 6–24 months
PFAS-Specific GAC / NSF P473
70–90%
Granular activated carbon specifically rated for PFAS removal — must carry NSF/ANSI P473 certification or be documented for PFAS reduction. Standard GAC without PFAS-specific rating is less effective, especially for short-chain PFAS. Works well as a pre-filter before RO to extend membrane life.
$800–$3,000 (whole-house) · Media replacement every 3–5 years depending on flow and PFAS loading
Standard Filters & Softeners
0–10%
Standard activated carbon (GAC), catalytic carbon, water softeners, sediment filters, KDF media, UV sterilization, and acid neutralizers do NOT effectively remove PFAS. Boiling water concentrates PFAS rather than removing it. Refrigerator filters are generally not rated for PFAS removal unless specifically NSF P473 certified.
Not recommended for PFAS removal
Critical purchasing note: When shopping for PFAS removal, look for the specific contaminants listed in the NSF/ANSI 58 certification documentation — not just the certification number. An RO system carrying NSF/ANSI 58 for TDS reduction may or may not have been tested for PFOA/PFOS specifically. Verify that PFOA is explicitly listed in the certification’s contaminant reduction claims before purchasing. If a manufacturer cannot provide documentation confirming PFOA is covered, it may not be.
What Middle Tennessee Homeowners Should Actually Do Now
The appropriate response depends entirely on which utility serves your home or whether you are on a private well. Here is the specific recommended action for each situation.
1.
Look up your address on EWG’s interactive PFAS contamination map
EWG maintains a live interactive map of 9,728 confirmed PFAS-contaminated sites across the U.S., searchable by zip code. Enter your zip code to see whether any contamination sites are near your address and whether your specific utility system appears in the map’s database. This is the fastest first step for any Middle Tennessee homeowner with PFAS concerns. View EWG’s PFAS map →
7.
Find your utility — not your city
The Spring Hill area has multiple utilities with very different PFAS profiles. Milcrofton UD has PFAS concerns; Nashville MWS does not. La Vergne shows zero detection; Smyrna shows zero detection. Your water quality is determined by which utility’s pipe connects to your meter — not which city you live in. Find your utility name on your water bill or your city guide.
2.
Read your utility’s most recent CCR for PFAS
Every regulated utility must publish an annual Consumer Confidence Report. Look for the PFAS section (added under UCMR5 requirements from 2023 onward). If your CCR predates UCMR5 monitoring, request updated PFAS data from your utility directly. Your city guide on Tennessee Water Authority links directly to each utility’s CCR.
3.
Milcrofton UD or Spring Hill WD customers: install an RO system
If your utility is Milcrofton UD or Spring Hill WD, an NSF/ANSI 58 certified under-sink reverse osmosis system at the kitchen tap is the recommended action. At $600–$2,000 installed and approximately 4 cents per gallon, it provides comprehensive PFAS reduction for drinking and cooking water. Verify that PFOA is specifically listed in the NSF/ANSI 58 certification documentation — not just that the system carries the 58 certification.
4.
Nashville MWS, Lebanon, Smyrna, La Vergne customers: continue monitoring
Your current CCR data shows zero PFAS detection. A precautionary under-sink RO system is still beneficial for other reasons (TTHMs, nitrate, chromium-6, nanoplastics, taste) but is not urgently required for PFAS specifically based on current data. Check your utility’s CCR annually as UCMR5 data continues to be published through 2025.
5.
Private well owners: test for PFAS
Private wells are not covered by EPA PFAS monitoring requirements. If your well is near a military installation, airport, industrial facility, or agricultural land that may have received PFAS-contaminated biosolids, a one-time PFAS baseline test is strongly recommended. TDEC-certified labs test for PFAS in well water. If PFAS is detected, an under-sink RO system is the recommended household treatment.
6.
Do not make purchasing decisions based on fear-based sales pitches
Some water treatment companies use PFAS as a sales tool regardless of your utility’s actual detection status. “Your water has dangerous forever chemicals” is not an accurate statement for Nashville MWS customers. An honest water treatment professional will show you your utility’s actual CCR data before recommending any system. If they won’t, submit their quote for a free independent audit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Nashville Metro Water Services reported zero PFAS detection across all six UCMR5-monitored compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, GenX, PFNA, PFBS) in its 2024/2025 monitoring. The Cumberland River source water and Nashville’s treatment process have not shown PFAS at detectable levels. Nashville MWS is one of the better-performing large utilities on PFAS in Middle Tennessee. Annual CCR review remains important as UCMR5 data continues through 2025, but current data does not support PFAS-specific alarm for Nashville MWS customers.
Based on EWG Tap Water Database and verified CCR data, the confirmed PFAS detections above EWG health guidelines in our 17-utility guide series are: Milcrofton Utility District (PFOA above EWG’s 0.5 ppt guideline) and Spring Hill Water Department (PFOA above EWG guideline). Franklin Water Department has reported PFAS compounds at trace levels below the EPA MCL of 4 ppt. Nashville MWS, Lebanon Water System, Smyrna WS, and La Vergne WS all report zero PFAS detection in their most recent CCRs. Harpeth Valley Utility District (2023 CCR) also reports zero detection.
EPA finalized the first-ever legally enforceable PFAS MCLs in April 2024: PFOA at 4 parts per trillion, PFOS at 4 ppt, and 10 ppt limits for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX. Utilities have until April 2029 to comply. If your utility has PFAS above these limits (which may apply to Milcrofton UD or Spring Hill WD), they are legally required to treat it to below MCL levels by 2029. If your utility already shows zero detection (Nashville MWS, Lebanon, Smyrna, La Vergne), the rule doesn’t change your current situation — but it requires ongoing monitoring. The rule does not address private wells, which fall outside EPA jurisdiction.
Most standard refrigerator filters are not certified for PFAS removal. Standard refrigerator filters use activated carbon that is effective for chlorine and taste/odor but not specifically rated for PFAS compounds. Some newer refrigerator filters carry NSF P473 certification for PFAS reduction — check the specific model’s certification documentation. For reliable PFAS removal, a dedicated under-sink reverse osmosis system is more effective and provides documented, certified performance data for PFOA and PFOS specifically.
Spring Hill area utilities (Milcrofton UD and Spring Hill WD) are in full compliance with all current EPA regulations including the new 4 ppt PFOA MCL. The PFAS detected in these utilities is above EWG’s more conservative 0.5 ppt health guideline — but EWG guidelines are not legally enforceable limits. Tennessee Water Authority recommends that customers of these utilities use an NSF/ANSI 58 certified under-sink RO system as a precautionary measure given the detected PFOA levels. The water is not illegal, not in violation, and not in a category that requires an emergency notice — but proactive filtration is a reasonable and proportionate response based on current science.
Yes, if any of the following apply: your well is within several miles of Fort Campbell or any military installation (Clarksville area), near a regional or municipal airport where AFFF fire suppression foam has been used, near an industrial facility that manufactured or processed PFAS-containing products, or if your agricultural land has received municipal biosolids (sewage sludge) as fertilizer, which can contain PFAS. A one-time baseline PFAS test from a TDEC-certified laboratory costs approximately $150–$300 depending on the number of compounds tested. If PFAS is detected, an under-sink RO system is the recommended household treatment.
No. A standard salt-based water softener uses ion exchange to remove calcium and magnesium (hardness). PFAS compounds are not effectively captured by standard softener resin. A water softener is an important system for Middle Tennessee households dealing with hard water — but it provides no meaningful PFAS protection. If your utility has detected PFAS and you also have hard water, you need both a softener (for hardness) and an RO system (for PFAS and drinking water quality). These systems are complementary, not interchangeable.
Know your utility’s PFAS status before you act.
Find your city guide for verified CCR data, or submit a quote for a free independent audit if you’ve been pitched a PFAS filter system.
Related guides