We finally reached the stage where EPA is nearing the completion of the process that leads to a new drinking water rule being added to the Safe Drinking Water Act to address per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). This has been a long journey, and there is still a ways to go before a rule is in place and implemented. Several years ago two PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, were part of the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3). We started working to address PFAS in drinking water in 2016 after we became aware of their presence in drinking water at several communities in El Paso County. Our efforts continued through the 2020 sampling project and today in implementing the updated PFAS health advisory EPA issued in June 2022.
EPA made the decision to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act in late 2021 and in March 2023 published a draft rule for public comment. The draft rule for PFAS establishes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) and a novel (at least within the Safe Drinking Water Act) Hazard Index approach to address four more PFAS compounds - PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS. Of these, PHHxS which is often associated with firefighting foam has been detected most often in Colorado. During its fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5) testing EPA is again sampling for multiple PFAS compounds, so more of these may be addressed in future rule revisions.
EPA indicated that after the public comment period on the draft rule, it anticipates finalizing the PFAS rule in early 2024. States typically have two years to adopt a final rule, and then the compliance date follows a year of initial monitoring. So the compliance date for this rule would be sometime in 2027 if the normal schedule is followed.
EPA structured this draft rule to model other chronic organic contaminants with quarterly monitoring and compliance based on a running annual average of those results. Reduced monitoring options are available. Violations of the MCL or Hazard Index would result in Tier 2 public notice. We support this approach as compared to a possible approach treating violations as an acute health risk warranting Tier 1 public notice.
There is a significant need for EPA guidance on this rule that addresses treatment design and conduction pilot studies, residual waste handling and disposal, reduced monitoring and the trigger level, public notice and communications and much more. This is very important to foster state implementation and water system compliance.
We believe that there are many feasibility concerns associated with addressing PFAS contamination in drinking water generally, and these become even more challenging with MCL values set at the practical quantitation limit that many laboratories can reliably achieve. Although the laboratory Colorado has been using can get lower values than the MCLs, this one laboratory will not be able to serve all the water systems that need to test. Lab capacity could become a significant problem, and the turnaround time to obtain results could also become very slow.
This rule will also require significant new resources to implement. Colorado has been able to implement several new rules the last decade involving disinfection, water haulers, storage tanks, backflow prevention and cross connection control, and the revised total coliform rule without adding program resources for implementation. However, with this PFAS rule coming essentially at the same time as the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the Consumer Confidence Rule (CCR) revisions, the division must obtain additional resources to support maintaining primacy into the future.
In addition to feasibility concerns with laboratory capacity and program resources, financial resources for water systems to secure compliance will also be needed. The State Revolving Fund and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have provided a boost, but this will not be enough funding for all the needed projects. These funding sources help with initial design and construction activities, but do not help with the long-term operating and maintenance costs. For PFAS, residual handling and disposal costs are likely to be high, and these costs will need to be borne by water utilities and ultimately rate payers. Small systems will face special challenges with the costs and need for higher operator certification levels if treatment needs to be installed.
As always, we will be engaging stakeholders in developing the PFAS rule for Colorado. Fortunately, we have many staff that are experienced with PFAS that understand the issues and challenges, and have been helping water systems address contamination. This will enable us to identify assistance, policy and training needs. We will strive to help water systems meet the requirements of the PFAS as best we can considering our funding and resource levels. Our goal will be to get as many systems as possible into compliance before the required deadline. I advise you to learn about the new draft PFAS rule and take steps to prepare your water system for it. If you have not yet collected PFAS samples from your system, I advise you to contact us and we will test your water for free. Getting in front of this now while funding is available is the best approach to keeping tap water safe for your customers.
Thank you,
➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager
