PFAS: Final considerations in developing a rule to address PFAS that may include MCLs

In March and April 2022, Aqua Talk blogs discussed initial steps that EPA will likely be considering as it moves forward in developing a rule to address  per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that may include MCLs. The first blog post discussed timing and health risk considerations, while the second blog article started to dig into the many variables and decisions that EPA must make determinations on to develop the rule. These determinations include which systems the rule will apply to, the compliance and monitoring framework, public notice requirements including health effects language, and treatment considerations. In this last article of the series we will cover other issues involved with regulating PFAS and the possibility that EPA will regulate PFAS as a group, similar to how disinfection by-products are regulated, and require treatment techniques to remove PFAS, similar to the approach for cryptosporidium. 

As EPA approaches this PFAS rule, it will need to determine which PFAS to regulate and whether to regulate them separately, group them together, or establish an overall treatment technique. If EPA chooses to regulate PFAS individually, it would first establish a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for each substance. The MCLG is the highest concentration that people can be exposed to with no anticipated health effects. For many contaminants, including carcinogens, MCLGs are set at zero (0). But MCLGs are not enforceable; they serve as public health goals. Then, EPA would consider laboratory detection and quantification issues, treatment technology effectiveness and costs compared to benefits as it sets the MCL values. However, in general EPA is required to set MCLs as close to MCLGs as possible within technical limitations, such as laboratory detection values. For PFAS, EPA will also need to give serious consideration to the challenges associated with disposal.

If EPA chooses to regulate PFAS as one or more groups, it must determine how many and which PFAS to include. This could be done based on similarity of health effects, chemical structures or other considerations. Once the group or groups are determined, then the process would work similar to the above. From May 2016 to June 2022, the health advisory grouped two PFAS compounds with the level set at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS added together. Prior to that time, and also starting again in June 2022, the health advisories were separate. In June 2022, EPA also set individual health advisories for PFBS and GenX chemicals. Vermont and Massachusetts used a grouping method to develop their state PFAS rules.

Another alternative at EPA’s disposal would be to establish a treatment technique rule for PFAS. A similar structure exists within the surface water treatment rule for cryptosporidium. If EPA took a similar approach to regulating PFAS, then it could establish a monitoring schedule where water systems would periodically monitor for PFAS at water sources or entry points. The group of PFAS compounds to be tested would likely encompass most or all of them captured by available laboratory methods. Then EPA would need to establish a single threshold or multiple thresholds for requiring treatment of the impacted sources. EPA would also need to define the technologies and other technical criteria associated with the treatment technique. The benefit of this approach would be that the public could be protected more quickly from compounds likely to have health effects, while there is still insufficient health study information available to set an MCL. One of the PFAS chemicals often associated with firefighting foam is PFHxS. It is found at sites in Colorado with PFAS contamination and does not yet have a health advisory, though EPA is working to develop one. No states have taken this approach in developing their own PFAS rules.

At this point, the overall approach that EPA will take to develop the national PFAS rule is uncertain, but we should not have too long to wait. EPA is expected to publish its draft PFAS rule in December 2022. This will trigger a public comment period when water systems, states and the general public can comment on it. Then EPA plans to finalize the rule by December 2023. That is a very fast pace for EPA to move through a rulemaking process, but there is strong momentum for that to happen. The draft rule will give us a peek at some of the key decisions likely to inform the final rule that we have covered in this series of three articles. We should also learn more about the effective date, compliance monitoring period and final compliance date as well. After a final rule is published, then the division will move forward with a stakeholder process to set Colorado’s PFAS rule. 

I hope these articles have provided a sense of what is involved with developing a national PFAS rule, the key decisions to be made and various considerations to be undertaken as well. Perhaps it has given some ideas on areas to focus attention on when a draft rule is published and spurred thoughts about the types of comments you may have. Whatever happens, we will continue to work forward together at keeping tap water safe.  Thank you.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Capacity – why is it important, and what can I do about it?

You may have heard the term “TMF” come up in a sanitary survey or a design review, but do you really know what it means and how it can affect your water system? TMF stands for Technical, Managerial, and Financial Capacity of a public water system (PWS), and it affects

the ability of a PWS to operate in an effective and proactive manner, to protect public health, successfully apply for funding, and to meet compliance and design requirements. 

Not having adequate TMF increases the chance that a PWS will be unable to acquire the right level of operations or engineering expertise, will be unable to complete public notice or other regulatory requirements or will be unable to pay for emergency repairs or capital improvement projects. Not being able to demonstrate sufficient TMF will also disqualify your PWS from certain funding opportunities, including low interest loans, principal forgiveness, and grants. With the large influx of Federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there will soon be many funding opportunities available. Don’t miss out on this opportunity because your TMF is inadequate — take steps now to set up your PWS for success. 

Key components of TMF:

Technical	Managerial	Financial
Regulatory Compliance	Organization	Cash Flow Analysis and Financial Plan
Water Resource Management	Planning	User Charge System
Treatment	Recordkeeping	Financial Audit
Distribution	Certified Operator	Insurance
Personnel

How do I know if I have adequate TMF? 

You can perform a self-assessment of your TMF by using the Drinking Water Projects Technical, Managerial and Financial Capacity User Guide. Drinking water projects that apply for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding complete a TMF evaluation that is embedded in the Project Needs Assessment required for every applicant. If you have questions about SRF funding or the TMF evaluation included in the application you may contact your regional SRF Project Manager indicated on this map. If your PWS is receiving compliance violations, sanitary survey significant deficiencies or violations or multiple requests for information on a design submittal, these are also indications that your PWS is lacking in some area of TMF.

Where can I go for more assistance? 

The Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) has capacity coaching available for free through the Local Assistance Unit. PWS can request assistance by filling out the Coaching Assistance Form. Additionally, the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) can provide guidance and assistance by contacting your DOLA Manager or by reaching out to the DOLA Water and Wastewater Program Manager, Desi Santerre at desiree.santerre@state.co.us.

What are the requirements if I am setting up a new community or non-transient, non-community PWS?

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that states ensure that all new community or non-transient, non-community systems beginning operations after October 1, 1999 demonstrate their TMF before starting operations. To that end, CDPHE has an extensive New System Capacity Planning Manual that contains step by step instructions, applicability, and a host of links to helpful resources.

➽ Margaret Talbott, P.E., Drinking Water Compliance Manager

Facility Operator Certification: Thank you and good-bye

By the time you read this, I’ll be gone. (How’s that for a dramatic way to announce my August 1, 2022 retirement?) For the better part of 17 years, I have worked with the operator certification program in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 

I remember when certification applications were paper documents that had to be mailed, faxed or hand-delivered by a hard deadline well before the scheduled exams so a team of subject matter experts could review, in one or two days, every application for that particular exam cycle. The correct number of paper tests for each category and class then had to be ordered from ABC, the company that provides the certification exams used by Colorado. Approved applicants took paper exams administered at specific locations on specific dates during two or three annual exam cycles. After passing the exams, operators still needed to pay a processing fee before their operator certificates would be issued. The whole process took months. 

The CCWP portal streamlined the application process enormously. The Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board’s (board) vision to improve customer service to operators by way of the CCWP portal turned out to be providential when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Because everything could be done electronically, interruptions to Colorado’s certification of operators were relatively minor. This was not the case in many other states.

I have great respect for the individuals who have served, and those who currently serve, on the board. Through their efforts, reasonable and clear certification requirements have been set forth in Regulation 100. Additional information for consistent implementation of the certification requirements are provided in the board’s policy and guidance documents. The board has ensured that the standards for certification are high enough to protect public health and the environment, while flexible enough to accommodate a broad spectrum of candidates through the multiple options and substitutions allowed to meet education and experience requirements.

I have a high regard for the staff of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, the board office staff, and the board’s counsel from the Attorney General’s office. From the top down, serious efforts are made to keep everyone’s focus on the primary goal: the protection of public health and the environment. I have enjoyed working in an organization that recognizes and rewards integrity, commitment, hard work, dedication, and professionalism. 

I have also enjoyed working with the CCWP office staff. These individuals excel in providing outstanding customer service. Since the launch of the CCWP portal, they have identified and resolved a myriad of issues. Thanks to their efforts, the portal now works better than the original design.

For the certified operator community and the owners/administrators of treatment facilities, I have nothing but admiration. You are on the front lines of efforts to provide safe drinking water to consumers and clean water for discharge into the environment. Most of the time there is no public recognition for the work you do, but we would be in a world of hurt without you. 

A few years ago, I made the decision to become a certified water treatment operator. It was instructive to go through the application and testing process. It certainly gave me a better understanding of what the program asks of candidates. In preparation for the class D water exam, I took several courses available through the course catalog. Without exception, the course providers were dedicated individuals, many of them certified operators, who were committed to my success in passing the certification exam. Some stayed after a classroom event to tutor participants who needed a little extra coaching. All were patient with questions and helpful when something didn’t make sense.

It has been my honor and pleasure to work with the many stakeholders of this program. Thank you all for the work you do and the way you do it.

➽ Nancy Horan, Facility and Operator Outreach and Certification Board Liaison