U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Virtual Public Meeting
April 19, 2022
Meeting Summary
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the meeting was for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update the
NDWAC on Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs and to consult with the NDWAC on a proposed
national primary drinking water regulation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Opening and Welcome
Ms. Elizabeth Corr, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the NDWAC, opened the meeting. She
thanked the technical support team, provided an overview of agenda logistics, and introduced NDWAC
Chair Lisa Daniels.
Chair's Welcome and Council's Introductions
Ms. Lisa Daniels, NDWAC Chair, welcomed participants to the meeting and asked the NDWAC members
and the Council's Centers for Disease Control liaisons to introduce themselves.1 She then introduced Mr.
Bruno Pigott, Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Water.
Office of Water's Welcome
Mr. Pigott stated it was an honor to speak with the NDWAC and conveyed that their work is important
for promoting water safety and has been invaluable to the Office of Water. He said it is "water's
moment" thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). He spoke about how the BIL provided much
needed funding for lead service line replacement, replacing aging infrastructure, and addressing
emerging contaminants such as PFAS. Mr. Pigott stated that the Office of Water looks forward to a
national drinking water standard for PFAS. He also discussed the newly formed NDWAC Working Group
which will inform the NDWAC's recommendations to EPA related to rule revisions of the Microbial and
Disinfection Byproducts Rules. Mr. Pigott thanked everyone for their participation and said he looked
forward to the meeting discussions.
1 Please see Appendix A for the list of NDWAC members and liaisons.
1
-------
Office Director's Update
Ms. Daniels introduced Dr. Jennifer McLain, Director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW). Dr. McLain welcomed and thanked the NDWAC members. She discussed EPA's
OGWDW priorities, which include implementing the BILto strengthen water and wastewater systems,
and touched on OGWDW's work with public water systems related to security. Dr. McLain highlighted
PFAS as an agency priority and discussed EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap. One of the key components of
the PFAS Roadmap is developing a national primary drinking water regulation. Additionally, under the
BIL there are significant funds available to address emerging contaminants, which will enable
investments in affected communities to mitigate impacts from these contaminants, specifically including
PFAS. She further explained that OGWDW is implementing the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) to require sampling of 30 contaminants between 2023 and 2025, including 29
PFAS and lithium. She also discussed lead in drinking water including lead service line replacement as a
priority for the administration and noted work on the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements. Dr. McLain
concluded by thanking the NDWAC and the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Revision Working
Group and noted that OGWDW is in the midst of other conversations on the CCR rule revisions and is
aiming to have a proposed rule in the spring of 2023.
Health Advisories (HAs) Update: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), and
Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS), Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
(PFBS), and Hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid and its
ammonium salt (referred to as "GenX Chemicals")
Ms. Betsy Behl, Director of EPA's Health and Ecological Division in the Office of Water's Office of Science
and Technology, provided a presentation on the development status of updated HAs for PFAS, including
updates to PFOA and PFOS HAs and new HAs for GenX chemicals and PFBS. Ms. Behl's presentation is in
Appendix B.
Council members did not have questions or comments on the PFAS HAs presentation.
Public Comment to the NDWAC
The Council members heard public comment from one registered commenter:
Dr. Joseph Cotruvo, Water Consultant, Joseph Cotruvo and Associates
This and other comments received in writing were circulated to Council members. To view the
comments, please refer to Appendix F.
Consultation: Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
(NPDWR) for PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA
Ms. Daniels introduced Dr. Ryan Albert, Chief of EPA's Standards and Risk Reduction Branch (SRRB) in
the Standards and Risk Management Division (SRMD) of OGWDW, who in turn introduced Mr. Alex Lan,
2
-------
PFAS NPDWRTeam Lead, SRRB, to present on the development of the proposed NPDWR. Mr. Lan
provided background on PFAS and the SDWA requirements for developing a drinking water regulation,
as well as key areas of consideration related to the development of the proposed PFAS NPDWR for
which EPA was seeking input from the NDWAC. Within the presentation, the key considerations focused
on four areas of the rule development including treatment, monitoring, public notification, and mixtures
of PFAS. See Appendix C for the presentation, which includes specific consultation discussion questions
for which the Council members were asked for their input.
NDWAC Discussion, Questions, and Comments
Various NDWAC members asked Mr. Lan, Dr. Albert, and Mr. Eric Burneson, Director of SRMD in
OGWDW, questions about PFAS and the information EPA presented related to the proposed rule
development. The discussion was divided into four question and answer sessions based upon the
proposed rule development key consideration areas within the presentation.
Treatment Considerations Question and Answer
NDWAC members provided the following comments regarding discussion questions posed by EPA staff
on the topic of treatment.
Ms. Shellie Chard voiced that, while disposal costs are important to consider in their cost analysis, EPA
also needs to include the costs of replenishing various exchange media for PFAS removal and to consider
whether said media regeneration/destruction methods are effectively destroying PFAS or simply
transferring it from one area to another (such as the air). She also said that EPA needs to consider
operations and maintenance costs. Traditional State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide availability for
capital costs but not ongoing maintenance. Workforce training is a third consideration, especially for
smaller systems. She added that consolidation is not an option for very small systems that are 25 miles
apart from each other.
Ms. Chard also discussed point-of-use (POU) water treatment systems, adding that EPA needs to
consider who owns and operates them. Is the homeowner going to give the city access to their property
to maintain residential POUs? Is EPA going to expect public water systems to maintain in-home units?
How many different POUs are there in each person's home? Will these POUs be tracked in SDWIS (Safe
Drinking Water Information System), and will the responsibility of tracking them fall on the public water
system? She does not see these expectations on a system as reasonable.
Mr. Scott Borman echoed Ms. Chard in that treatment systems will require further consideration, given
the ineffectiveness of conventional treatment systems. He also agreed that homeowners do not usually
let other people inside their properties. He only disagreed with Ms. Chard in that he thought that
regionalization is not as feasible as her remarks suggested. He added that residual disposal will present
another problem, as carbon will absorb PFOA and PFOS, which will go out with water plant residual. He
asked about water reuse and what they would do with the residuals. He noted that there are several
potential unintended consequences associated with treatment.
Mr. James Proctor emphasized that manufacturers may be disincentivized from bringing treatment
technology into the market, as there is currently pending litigation against people involved in the
lifecycle chain of PFAS. In addition, there are regulatory risks to keep in mind, and therefore safe harbor
may be needed for producers adhering to certain standards of construction.
3
-------
Mr. Jeffrey Szabo asked if EPA was considering exemptions to providers related to the disposal of the
waste post-treatment. Dr. Albert responded that OGWDW cannot specifically say what the EPA Office of
Land and Emergency Management is considering in their rulemaking effort for this potential action, but
the Office of Water is aware of this issue. EPA is also actively considering the implications of different
EPA actions related to PFAS.
Ms. Jennifer Peters stated that the burden to remove PFAS should not fall solely on public water systems
and that manufacturers and producers who release PFAS into the environment should be responsible
for limiting the formation and discharges of PFAS. Ms. Peters also stated that environmental statutes
such as the Clean Water Act should be used to prevent the discharge of PFAS into drinking water and
other statutes should be used to prevent the introduction of PFAS into the marketplace. She said the
only way to ensure the discontinuation of PFAS into the environment is by making a hazardous waste
designation. She concluded that the burden to remove PFAS should not fall solely on public water
systems.
Mr. Steven Elmore commented that there should be more research into the ultimate destruction and
disposal of PFAS. He cited examples of public water systems that use powdered activated carbon and
said EPA should monitor them for correct discharge and use. He also urged EPA to consider other
solutions, such as Wisconsin's policy that requires a new well to be identified for systems before they
apply treatment. EPA can emulate this policy by requiring systems to consider a new source before they
add treatment. Mr. Elmore also suggested that EPA include new sources contaminated with PFAS in
their economic analysis.
Ms. Alexandra Campbell-Ferrari asked how many public water systems are impacted by PFOA and PFOS.
She also asked about the likelihood of small system variances given potential technology costs, as well
as what is currently being done to focus on those who discharge PFOS and PFOA. Ms. Campbell-Ferrari
stated that she is concerned about consumers bearing the cost of treatment, as well as the impact of
PFAS residuals and incinerated substances containing PFAS.
Mr. Lan discussed the percentage of systems that reported PFOS or PFOA detections. Mr. Burneson
added it is too early to say if there will be small system variances. EPA first needs to establish whether
there are small system compliance technologies available. If not, they must consider particular variance
technologies that are both available and protective of public health, even if they do not comply with the
standard. If there are available technologies, they will be incorporated into the final rule, but the states
will decide if that variance will be created, and small systems would have to apply for this variance. He
stated that EPA is currently in the initial stages of determining which technologies, such as POU devices,
would be considered small systems compliance technologies.
Mr. Burneson responded to Ms. Campbell-Ferrari's third question and said that (as described in the EPA
PFAS Strategic Roadmap) EPA will limit discharges of PFAS from manufacturers. EPA will also use water
quality criteria to limit PFAS.
Ms. Nancy Quirk noted that research on treating PFAS is still ongoing and suggested therefore leaving
the option open that additional treatment technologies might arise. Ms. Quirk concluded by highlighting
the need to destroy PFAS particles before they enter land.
Ms. Daniels concluded the Treatment Question and Answer section with some comments about
treatment technologies for PFAS and noted that there is an option in her state that allows treatment
4
-------
technologies that do not yet exist to be later implemented by public water systems. She added that, in
some cases when contaminated wells are taken offline, nearby wells that remain online could have
elevated PFAS levels because the plume could move between wells. Additionally, it is important to
determine which types of PFAS are present. For bituminous-coal granular activated carbon (GAC), there
is potential for arsenic contamination. Startup procedures should be utilized, including backwashing and
flushing new or regenerated media, to get to a 30% bed expansion. For ion exchange, Ms. Daniels said
her state knew little about the new resins being used for PFAS removal, so her state required water
systems to conduct a pilot study prior to approving the technology.
Monitoring Considerations Question and Answer
NDWAC members provided the following comments in regard to discussion questions posed by EPA
staff on the topic of monitoring.
Mr. Szabo asked about composite monitoring and multiple entry points and wondered if a well field
comprised of three to four wells is considered a composite site. Mr. Lan responded by stating that
composite sampling pools samples together from multiple entry points. Mr. Burneson also clarified that
composite samples can be taken from multiple places.
Ms. Chard stated that PFAS chemicals are everywhere and asked how systems can qualify for a
monitoring waiver by proving a lack of PFAS use in the area. Also, under the standard monitoring
framework (SMF) for synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), a waiver would remove the compliance
monitoring for PFAS if the public water system can prove that PFAS has not been present in the area and
the public water system is not susceptible to PFAS exposure. She concluded that she does not see how
public water systems could get this waiver because PFAS is so ubiquitous in the environment.
Ms. Campbell-Ferrari stated that under the SMF for SOCs, a waiver would obviate the need for
monitoring if the public water system can prove that PFAS has not been used in the area or if water is
not vulnerable to PFAS contamination.
Mr. Borman added that states should look at UCMR data and third-party verified data. He said he is not
a fan of waivers and if the health impact is present, small systems are also susceptible. He
recommended it should be similar to SOC waivers that are based on sampling results.
Ms. Quirk explained that her system conducted UCMR 3 monitoring in 2016 and detected almost no
PFAS samples, but in 2018 her state started to detect PFOS and PFOA. Therefore, UCMR 3 might not be
the best data source due to the years it covers and the robustness of more current technology. Once her
system started receiving hits for PFOA and PFOS, they spoke with the state about the hazard index that
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources uses to determine when the public water system must
issue a health advisory. She added that she could see some conditions where systems could receive a
waiver, based on their water source. Systems getting water from a big body of water, such as Lake
Michigan, will see very little variation in their sampling.
Ms. Yolanda Barney stated that most of the UCMR 3 data is from surface water systems. Additionally,
the Source Water Assessment Program can help identify contaminants and vulnerabilities for public
water systems to see if a waiver is applicable. She asked about what EPA is doing to consider EJ
(Environmental Justice) in their PFAS work. Mr. Lan responded that UCMR 3 was a census of all large
5
-------
systems and a representative sample of small systems that covered both surface water and ground
water systems.
Mr. Elmore said that more recent data under EPA's Method 533 and Method 537 should be used
because detection limits are different and therefore UCMR 3 data may not give the entire picture. His
understanding is that the methods have not significantly changed, rather the detection limits are just
much lower. He wondered if the older data could be used as a screening tool or help frame the
economic assessment. Additionally, Mr. Elmore asked if all PFAS detected with a method will be
required to be reported, or just PFOA and PFOS? He described how Wisconsin has been using a hazard
index approach to look at multiple mixtures of PFAS and referred to the state's recommended ground
water standards and the state's work to see how a mixture of 18 different PFAS will cause potential
health impacts, observing that it would be useful to Wisconsin if all detections with a method were
required to be reported.
Mr. Lan clarified that UCMR 5 will require sample collection for 30 compounds captured between EPA's
533 and 537.1 methods and includes 29 PFAS plus lithium. Mr. Burneson further explained how the
method reporting limites are lower in UCMR 5 than in UCMR 3 due to analytical and method
improvements. For that reason, he agreed use of the more recent UCMR data was a good suggestion. He
also responded to Ms. Barney's point regarding EJ that EPA has already conducted some EJ meetings
and tribal consultations and, as a part of the rule development and proposal, will perform technical
analysis to determine any disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities.
Ms. Elin Betanzo asked if there were any concerns about laboratory capacity given new PFAS testing
requirements. Mr. Burneson responded that EPA has confidence in lab capabilities given the current
UCMR 5 timeline and is currently implementing a laboratory certification program. Additionally, one of
the reasons EPA is considering waiver requirements is to address lab capacity. Ms. Betanzo suggested
that there could be a phased schedule for monitoring.
Mr. Eagle Jones posited that small and tribal public water systems are not reflected in UCMR data, but
the promulgation of these regulations will require monitoring for these public water systems. He
wondered if there would be funding from federal agencies such as the Indian Health Service (IHS) or
from federal grants for these public water systems if significant treatment is required. He also asked
how regulations regarding the SMF will be incorporated.
Mr. Burneson responded that, for the BIL, there is specific tribal system funding. Dr. McLain added that
EPA is collaborating with the IHS to fund tribal infrastructure, including emerging contaminant concerns
through the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) grant. Mr. Lan added that one of
the benefits of the SMF is that it reduces the variability in monitoring. Dr. Albert added that EPA aims to
get UCMR 5 monitoring data from all public water systems serving more than 3,300 people (pending
Congressional appropriations). There are also ongoing monitoring efforts from EPA Regions to collect
voluntary PFAS sampling data from small tribal water systems.
Ms. Daniels concluded the Questions and Answer session on monitoring and stated that any additional
data should be evaluated and compared using QA/QC with historical data. UCMR 3 data has very high
detection limits and, therefore, that historical data would not compare well if, for example, EPA is
looking at a reporting limit of 5 parts per trillion (ppt). If this were a special primacy agency requirement,
each state would have to look at their own acceptance criteria and determine what data meets the
criteria anyway. She added that the public water systems she has seen already move forward also
6
-------
already have some slight differences in the levels they are observing and whether these levels are
referred to as a detection limit or a reporting limit.
Ms. Daniels then stated that Pennsylvania considers PFAS a chronic contaminant based on an earlier
study from Drexel and, therefore, it makes sense to use an SMF. The state is also contemplating
sampling waivers, although they do not yet have a firm grasp on what the waiver criteria would be. In
terms of sample compositing, Ms. Daniels added that Pennsylvania tries to give water systems as much
opportunity as possible for cost savings, but this might be difficult because labs would need to meet a
reported detection limit of l/5th, which would be very low given a reporting limit of 5 ppt. Pennsylvania
is also concerned about lab capacity due to UCMR 5 and that there are six to ten states with their own
MCLs that require extra testing beyond federal regulations. Outside of the drinking water programs,
most states that are active regarding PFAS also have active environmental cleanup efforts and are
conducting sampling on possibly hundreds of private wells in their investigation. Pennsylvania is also
conducting surface water sampling to look into ambient water. All this sampling demand will create
capacity concerns.
Public Communication Considerations Question and Answer
NDWAC members provided the following comments in regard to discussion questions posed by EPA
staff on the topic of public communication.
Mr. Borman stated that Tier 2 or Tier 3 Public Notification (PN) Rule notices are the most appropriate, as
PFOA and PFOS are a chronic issue from an operations standpoint. He also stated that PFAS violations
need to be included in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), but not every PFAS detection, as
including every PFAS detection would just alarm the public.
Ms. Daniels stated that there will be different mandatory health effects language across states.
Pennsylvania is considering Tier 2 PN notices in their proposed rulemaking and is including language
about sources, but the mandatory health effects language they use will not make sense for other states.
The challenge lies in determining national mandatory health effects language because of its variance
between states.
Ms. Campbell-Ferrari stated that, from a public perspective, it is best to notify the public of any detected
PFAS samples as soon as possible but be clear with the health effect language. She said language is
critical because the public needs to learn what this means for them in a way that does not cause public
panic. Ms. Campbell-Ferrari said that can be difficult, but it is important to notify the public for non-MCL
violations and for any detection. There could be heightened impacts for the children and elderly as well,
so it is best to notify and explain what that detection means.
Mr. Jones agreed that a Tier 2 PN would be most appropriate for PFAS and that it is consistent with PN
requirements. He echoed Ms. Campbell-Ferrari's comments and stated that providing information to the
public as soon as possible is necessary. He concluded that it is important to have that message for the
consumer.
Ms. Peters stated that the public needs to be notified when there is a violation, although ideally there
would be a PN Tier between Tier 1 and Tier 2 that this type of notification could fall under. Ms. Peters
stated that the CCR should contain information about the violation, as well as mandatory language
about potential health risks. She concluded that there should be an explanation about how people can
reduce their exposure to PFAS beyond drinking water risks.
7
-------
Ms. Betanzo echoed Ms. Campbell-Ferrari's and Ms. Peters' points about notifying the public whenever
PFAS is identified. She said that a Tier 2 notice may suffice but a notification of 24 hours seemed most
appropriate, and that it may be appropriate to identify a contamination level above the MCL that would
require 24-hour notice.
Ms. Daniels stated that, in a best-case scenario, the water supplier would explain why the contamination
occurred in the PN and what they are doing to correct it, which would usually include taking the source
of the contamination offline. However, it is not always possible for water suppliers to take sources
offline, such as in circumstances where no alternative water sources are available. In these
circumstances, PNs will be different and must include as much information as possible, including
treatment information.
Mixtures of PFAS Considerations Question and Answer
NDWAC members provided the following comments regarding discussion questions posed by EPA staff
on the topic of mixtures.
Ms. Betanzo stated that EPA should consider mixtures of PFAS and ensure the safety of the drinking
water as a whole. She also said that, to the extent possible, addressing multiple contaminants at once is
important.
Mr. Elmore stated a mixture of PFAS should be considered for regulations. He suggested that this should
include precursors. He concluded by stating that Wisconsin has a hazard index approach which takes
into effect a combination of contaminants. All PFAS detected in the method should be reported.
Mr. Borman agreed that adding additional rules for every type of PFAS would be unnecessary. He stated
it may be easiest to look at groupings in reporting for all PFAS. There will be differences between
individual species of PFAS, but the health effects will be similar for the group as a whole. He suggested
the creation of a family MCL to deal with each grouping at one time. He also stated that this could be
similar to total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA) that are grouped together for
regulation.
Ms. Daniels agreed that no one wants to analyze 4,000 PFAS at one time, especially since PFAS are not
the only contaminants of concern. She pointed out that groupings present a challenge as a study from
Drexel found that there were not enough similarities in health effects to group different types of PFAS
together. Pennsylvania ended up developing individual Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) as a
result. She also added that it is important to consider that there are other PFAS that impact customers
than just PFOA and PFOS.
Ms. Jana Littlewood stated that those responsible for PFAS discharges should be financially responsible
and reminded the group about the number of small systems in the U.S.
Ms. Barney thanked the online seminar presenters and said she learned much from this online seminar.
She urged EPA again to consider EJ when forming their regulations.
Ms. Daniels added that sources of PFAS contamination must be addressed, or systems will always be
playing catch-up with contaminants.
8
-------
Ms. Chard stated that the same consumers will pay for PFAS remediation, regardless of whether a
drinking water program or clean water program is responsible for their remediation. Additionally,
industrial discharge of PFAS into the public drinking water supply is an important pre-treatment aspect
to consider.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law(BIL) Implementation
Ms. Anita Thompkins, Director of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division (DWPD) in OGWDW,
presented on implementation of the BIL. Her presentation can be found in Appendix D.
NDWAC Discussion, Questions, and Comments
NDWAC members provided the following questions and feedback.
Ms. Daniels asked whether public water systems would include the cost for replacing the private portion
of a lead service line when they apply for funding for lead service line replacement. Ms. Thompkins
responded that public water systems will submit the cost of the full-service line replacement, including
both private and public portions, although some states may still have laws stating that they cannot pay
for the private portion of lead service line replacement.
Ms. Daniels added that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection will be adding some
new conditions for their lead service line replacement applications, such as providing follow-up sampling
and filters, and asked whether EPA supported these measures. Ms. Thompkins responded that EPA does
support those measures.
Ms. Campbell-Ferrari stated that the BIL created a rural and low-income pilot assistance program and
delegated authority over it to EPA but did not provide funding for it. She asked whether EPA would wait
until funding is provided before moving forward with it. Ms. Thompkins responded that EPA has been
working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the Low-Income
Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP), but that EPA does not begin work on projects until
funds have been appropriated, so the pilot program has not yet begun.
Ms. Campbell-Ferrari stated that there have been many groups examining the equity side of the SRF.
She had heard that EPA is doing a study on how equitable SRF funding has been and asked if it is correct
that EPA is conducting this study. Ms. Thompkins said that EPA tracks whether states are properly
providing funds to meet necessary conditions for SRF funding. Dr. McLain later responded further, prior
to her closing remarks at the end of the meeting, noting a report to Congress on compliance with fund
distribution that EPA is required to author and a current audit by the Office of Inspector General
regarding SRF distributions to disadvantaged communities to see if states are meeting their subsidy
goals for distribution to disadvantaged communities as identified in their Intended Use Plans, as well as
to see if EPA has identified and addressed barriers that hinder states from spending the maximum
allowed on loan subsidies for disadvantaged communities. Dr. McLain thought that either one of those
could be the study Ms. Campbell-Ferrari had cited.
Mr. Jones stated that he did not see much information in the general supplemental section of the
presentation about funding for tribes and asked whether tribes apply directly to the state through SRF
for funding. Ms. Thompkins responded that the greater of 2% of SRF funding or $20 million of SRF
9
-------
funding is set aside for tribal projects, and that EPA will work with IHS to make sure funds are set aside
to tribes. EPA is currently working on the implementation schedule for the tribes.
Ms. Daniels asked where funding for earmarked projects would come from. Ms. Thompkins explained
that funding for earmarked projects will be coming from the SRF program appropriation.
Ms. Daniels asked when more details would be available about Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation (WIIN) funding grants. Ms. Thompkins stated that EPA is in the process of working to
announce those funds and allocations. She stated that EPA also has traditional Small, Underserved, and
Disadvantaged Communities (SUDC) WIIN grants and is working through the process for announcing
those funds and allocations as well. Ms. Thompkins stated that EPA aims to complete these steps by the
end of Spring 2022.
Mr. Szabo asked if the earmarked funding will also go through the SRF. Ms. Thompkins explained that
EPA is still working through this question, but that earmarked funding is not planned to be managed
through the SRFs, and that it has never traditionally been done so.
Mr. Jones asked if there are funds identified in the BILto fund third party technical assistance providers
to help states identify disadvantaged communities and their needs. Ms. Thompkins responded that
there are no funds specifically set aside for this in the BIL, but that states can still take their set-asides
and use these funds to provide technical assistance. She added that EPA was also provided authority to
take technical assistance set-asides, so EPA will plan to provide technical assistance to states as well.
Mr. Szabo asked whether EPA would rely on states to develop their own scoring system to evaluate their
proposals, or whether EPA would develop their own criteria. Ms. Thompkins stated that the SRF
program is managed by the state, so they can develop their own criteria for scoring. EPA will review the
criteria that states create to ensure equity, but the state has the authority to set these standards.
Ms. Daniels asked when more information will be available about technical assistance hubs that EPA has
stated it will create. She added that states would look at the resources gaps they have and may use set
asides to fill in those gaps. Ms. Thompkins stated that EPA is still in the process of discussing the best
approach for the technical assistance hubs, and that EPA wants state drinking water administrators'
input when developing their plan. She stated that EPA is still receiving feedback from stakeholders but
will provide more information soon.
Ms. Daniels stated that it was unclear to her how Justice40 requirements for this funding would be
defined, applied, and tracked. She stated that the definition for EJ communities is a bit different than
disadvantaged communities and asked if states will be able to define EJ communities the same way that
they define disadvantaged communities. Ms. Thompkins stated that EPA will share this information as
soon as they receive it and stated that much of the Justice40 requirements will be based off information
that EPA has already collected.
Ms. Barney stated that Native American tribes seeking funding will have to work with IHS and that
funding for EJ projects can be used to extend from the utility's responsibility to homeowners with
regards to lead and copper.
Ms. Thompkins closed by stating that EPA is excited for this investment and historic down payment for
the United States' water infrastructure. Ms. Thompkins stated that this funding will make a significant
10
-------
impact on the lives of so many people, and that EPA looks forward to improving the water infrastructure
across the United States.
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) Rule Revisions Working
Group Update
Ms. Katie Foreman, Acting Associate Branch Chief for EPA's SRRB in OGWDW, presented information
about EPA's charge to the NDWAC to provide the agency with advice and recommendations that will be
used to inform the development of potential MDBP rule revisions and the working group that will
provide support to the NDWAC. Ms. Foreman's presentation can be found in Appendix E.
NDWAC Discussion, Questions, and Comments
Mr. Jones asked if he could participate in this working group as a member of the public. Ms. Corr
responded that there are NDWAC members on the working group, and NDWAC members will be the
ones providing the final advice to EPA. She noted that EPA prefers NDWAC members to participate in
this way, rather than as a member of the public, and that EPA will keep NDWAC members informed of
the working group proceedings.
Closing Remarks
After adding as previously noted to the discussion with Ms. Thompkins, Dr. McLain thanked NDWAC
members for all of the conversation and noted that the NDWAC members' input will be helpful as EPA
conducts their assessments and evaluations. Ms. Daniels also thanked the meeting attendees.
Ms. Corr adjourned the meeting.
11
-------
Appendix A:
NDWAC Roster
-------
NDWAC Roster 4/19/22
Members, National Drinking Water Advisory Council
Ms. Lisa D. Daniels, NDWAC Chair
Director, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Harrisburg, PA
Ms. Yolanda Barney
Environmental Program Manager
Navajo Public Water System Supervision Program
Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency
Window Rock, AZ
Ms. Elin W. Betanzo
Founder and Principal
Safe Water Engineering, LLC
Detroit, Ml
Mr. D. Scott Borman
General Manager
Benton/Washington Regional Public Water Authority
Rogers, AR
Ms. Alexandra Campbell-Ferrari
Co-Founder and Executive Director
The Center for Water Security and Cooperation
Washington, DC
Ms. Shellie R. Chard
Director, Water Quality Division
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, OK
Mr. Steven B. Elmore
Program Director
Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wl
Mr. Eagle Jones
Director of Water Operations
Pechanga Tribal Government
Temecula, CA
Ms. Jana Littlewood
National Rural Water Association
Board of Directors - Alaska Representative
Wasilla, AK
Ms. Jennifer L. Peters
National Water Programs Director
Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund
Littleton, CO
Mr. James M. Proctor, II
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
McWane, Inc.
Birmingham, AL
Ms. Nancy A. Quirk
General Manager
Green Bay Water Utility
Green Bay, Wl
Mr. Alex Rodriguez
President and Chief Executive Officer
DCG Public Affairs
Diversity Consulting Group, LLC
Santa Barbara, CA
Mr. Jeffrey W. Szabo
Chief Executive Officer
Suffolk County Water Authority
Oakdale, NY
Mr. Macaroy "Mac" Underwood
Principal Consultant
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Vestavia, AL
Liaisons, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Dr. Arthur S. Chang
Chief Medical Officer
Division of Environmental Health Science and
Practice
National Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, GA
Dr. Vincent Hill
Chief, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch
Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental
Diseases
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious
Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, GA
A-l
-------
Appendix B:
PFAS Health
Advisories Presentation
-------
April 19,2022
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes EPA to develop drinking water Health Advisories (HAs).
HAs are non-regulatory concentrations of drinking water contaminants that are defined as a level of
drinking water contaminant concentration for a specific exposure duration, at or below which exposure
is not anticipated to lead to adverse human health effects.
HAs can be developed more rapidly than SDWA regulations when concerns arise about drinking water
quality.
There are currently over 200 HAs that provide states/tribes and drinking water utilities technical
information on health effects, analytical detection methods, and treatment technology.
EPA is currently developing Final HAs for GenX chemicals and PFBS, which we expect to publish in Spring
2022, as stated in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap.
In November 2021, EPA committed to updating the HAs for PFOA and PFOS as quickly as possible, in
light of new data and the agency's draft health effects analyses developed to support the SDWA
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-2
-------
GenX Chemicals and PFBS
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
GenX Chemicals - Background
GenX is a trade name for a processing aid technology used to make high-performance
fluoropolymers without the use of PFOA. Hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid and its
ammonium salt are the major chemicals associated with the GenX processing aid technology.
Products that used to be made using PFOA may now rely on GenX chemicals. According to the
Chemours Company, fluoropolymers have "countless" industrial applications, including in the
medical, automotive, electronics, aerospace, energy, and semiconductor industries.
GenX chemicals have been found in surface water, groundwater, drinking water, rainwater, and air
emissions.
- " " "OH f f f F o"
FO
F F F F
FO
H
H N H
H
HFPO dimer acid
CASRN 13252-13-6
HFPO dimer acid ammonium salt
CASRN 62037-80-3
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-4
-------
GenX Chemicals - Health Effects and HA
Final HA will be based on EPA's 2021 final toxicity assessment for GenX chemicals:
Animal toxicity studies following oral exposure to GenX chemicals have found
health effects on the liver, the kidney, the immune system, and
developmental effects, as well as cancer.
The liver appears to be particularly sensitive after oral exposure to GenX
chemicals.
Chronic RfD is 3 x 10"6 mg/kg/day based on critical liver effects
(constellation of liver lesions as defined by the National Toxicology
Program Pathology Working Group) in parental female mice exposed to
HFPO dimer acid ammonium salt by gavage for 53-64 days.
Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential of oral exposure to GenX
chemicals in humans.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-5
-------
PFBS - Background
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and its related compound potassium perfluorobutane
sulfonate (PFBS) is a replacement chemical for PFOS, which was voluntarily phased out by
the primary U.S. manufacturer by 2002.
PFBS-based compounds are surfactants used primarily in the manufacture of paints,
cleaning agents, and water- and stain-repellent products and coatings.
PFBS has been identified surface water, wastewater, drinking water, dust, and a variety of
consumer products.
PFBS
K+PFBS
-------
PFBS - Health Effects and HA
Final HA will be based on EPA's 2021 final toxicity assessment for PFBS:
Animal studies following oral exposure to PFBS have shown health effects on the
thyroid, reproductive organs and tissues, developing fetus, and kidney following oral
exposure.
The thyroid appears to be particularly sensitive to oral PFBS exposure.
Chronic RfD is 3 x 10"4 mg/kg/day based on critical effect of decreased serum
total thyroxine (T4) in newborn (postnatal day (PND) 1) mice.
There are no known studies evaluating potential cancer effects of PFBS and so the
potential for cancer effects after PFBS exposure could not be evaluated.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-7
-------
PFOA and PFOS
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Previous and Current Uses:
Industrial and Consumer Products
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Cooking surfaces
Fire fighting foams
Toothpaste, shampoos, cosmetics
Semiconductor industry
Polishes and waxes
Electronics
Lu brica nts/su rfacta nts/em u Isif ie rs
Pesticide
Plumbing tape
Food containers and contact paper
Textiles and leather
Paints, varnishes, sealants
Cleaning products
And more...
NOTE: GenX chemicals replaced PFOA
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)
Metal plating and finishing
Fire fighting foams
Photograph development
Semiconductor industry
Aviation fluids
Flame repellants
Packaging papers
Oil and mining
Stain repellants on carpets and upholstery
Cleaning products
Paints, varnishes, sealants
Leathers, textiles
And more...
NOTE: PFBS replaced PFOS
ฃ% Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-9
-------
EPA's Assessment of PFOA and PFOS
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
October 2009:
PFOA and PFOS
listed on CCL 3;
initiated HESDs
2014: HESDs
for PFOA and
PFOS peer-
reviewed and
revised
November
2016: PFOA
and PFOS
listed on CCL4
January 2009:
Published
provisional HAs
for PFOA and
PFOS
May 2016:
Finalized
HESDs and
published
HAs for PFOA
and PFOS
CCL: Contaminant Candidate List
HA: Health Advisory
HESD: Health Effects Support Document
Reg Det: Regulatory Determination
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
March 2021:
Final positive
reg dets for
PFOA and
PFOS;
initiated
update of
health
analyses
2022:
Update HAs
for PFOA and
PFOS
I
Fall 2023:
Finalize
NPDWR
I I
March 2020: November 2021:
Preliminary Released draft
positive reg dets updated health
for PFOA and analyses for SAB
PFOS under Reg review;
Det 4 committed to
updating HAs as
quickly as possible
Fall 2022:
Propose
NPDWR
Office of Water
B-10
-------
Draft Health Effects Analyses for PFOA and PFOS
EPA is conducting extensive evaluations of human epidemiological and experimental animal study data
to support the SDWA National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOA and PFOS.
In November 2021, EPA released draft updated health effects analyses for Science Advisory Board review.
EPA evaluated over 400 studies published since 2016 and used new approaches, tools, and models.
PFOA
PFOS
# of new animal tox studies
25 relevant studies
29 relevant studies
# of new human epi studies
350 relevant studies
338 relevant studies
# of new cancer studies - epi; tox
13 (8 medium or high quality); 1
11 (8 medium or high quality); 0
Health effects observed
immune, developmental,
cardiovascular, hepatic,
reproductive, nervous, endocrine,
and metabolic effects and cancer
immune, developmental,
cardiovascular, reproductive,
endocrine, metabolic, and hepatic
effects and cancer
# of new PK or PBPK studies
44 relevant studies
37 relevant studies
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-ll
-------
Draft Health Effects Analyses for PFOA and PFOS
EPA's November 2021 draft analyses indicate that the levels at which negative health effects
could occur are likely much lower than previously understood when EPA issued the EPA's
2016 HAs for PFOA and PFOS (70 parts per trillion or ppt) - including near zero for certain
health effects.
EPA's 2021 draft noncancer reference doses (RfDs) based on human epidemiology
studies for various effects (e.g., developmental/growth, cardiovascular health outcomes,
immune health) range from ~10~7 to 10~9 mg/kg/day, two to four orders of magnitude
lower than the 2016 RfDs of 2 x 10~5 mg/kg/day.
In addition, PFOA is a likely carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) and PFOS is a suggestive
carcinogen.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-12
-------
Additional PFAS
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
PFAS IRIS Assessments
EPA will prioritize HA development for PFAS with IRIS assessments under development:
Chemical
Public Product(s)/Activity
Projected Date
Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA)
External Peer Review
February 22-23, 2022
Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA)
Public Comment Draft Release
External Peer Review
FY23 Q1
FY23 Q2
Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA)
External Peer Review
FY22 Q3
Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS)
Public Comment Draft Release
External Peer Review
FY23 Q2
FY23 Q2
Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA)
Public Comment Draft Release
External Peer Review
FY23 Q2
FY23 Q3
Source: EPA IRIS Program Outlook (February 2022)
ฃ% Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
B-14
-------
QUESTIONS
-------
Appendix C:
Proposed PFAS
NPDWR Presentation
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Purpose
To provide the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC) with information on the
development of the proposed per-and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)
To solicit input from NDWAC members on key areas
of the development of the proposed PFAS NPDWR
-------
Overview
Background
Key Areas of Consideration on
potential NPDWR requirements
Cost information and funding
considerations
Next steps
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-3
-------
Background
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-4
-------
PFAS Overview
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been in use since the
1940s.
There are thousands of types of PFAS chemicals, some of which may have
been more widely used than others.
PFAS can be found in stain and water repellants used in fabrics, carpets and
outerwear, among other consumer products.
PFAS can also be found at manufacturing and processing facilities, and
airports and military installations that use firefighting foams which contain
PFAS.
Over the past few years, science has progressed rapidly, and the agency
must move forward with actions that are based on this new science and a
better understanding of the challenges many communities are facing.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-5
-------
PFAS Health Effects and Drinking Water Occurrence
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) have been
the most extensively studied PFAS.
Both are very persistent in the environment and human body.
Current scientific research and available evidence have shown links between oral
exposure to studied PFAS chemicals and adverse health outcomes and effects,
including prenatal and postnatal development (e.g., low birth weight), cancer
(e.g., kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue damage), immune effects (e.g., antibody
production and immunity), and other effects (e.g., cholesterol changes).
PFOA and PFOS occur with a frequency and at levels of public health concern at
public water systems (PWSs) based on available occurrence information from the
third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3). Recent state PFAS
monitoring data demonstrates occurrence consistent with UCMR 3 monitoring.
Under UCMR 3, 4,920 PWSs were analyzed for PFOA and PFOS. A total of 162 PWSs (3.29%)
had reported detections (greater than or equal to the Minimum Reporting Level (0.02 ng/L
and 0.04 pg/L, respectively)) of at least one of the two compounds within 25 states, tribes,
and territories.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-6
-------
Regulating PFAS in Drinking Water
On March 3rd, 2021 EPA published the final regulatory determinations for PFOA and
PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
With the final regulatory determinations for PFOA and PFOS, EPA is developing a
proposed SDWA NPDWR for PFAS.
EPA is also evaluating inclusion of additional PFAS chemicals into the NPDWR as
supported by the best available science.
Additionally, EPA released the PFAS Strategic Roadmap in October 2021 which lays
out the Administrator's commitment to addressing PFAS. The plan includes an overall
strategy of tangible actions both upstream and downstream to deliver public health
benefits to all people.
Under the PFAS Roadmap, establishing a PFAS NPDWR is a key action. EPA anticipates
publishing the proposed rule for public comment in Fall 2022 and promulgating a
final rule in Fall 2023.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-7
-------
SDWA: Proposing an NPDWR
An NPDWR establishes requirements applicable to PWSs.
A PWS provides water for human consumption to at least 15 service
connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a
year.
EPA defines three types of PWSs:
Community Water System (CWS): Serves same population year round
Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS): Regularly supplies water to
at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year (e.g., school)
Transient Non-Community Water System: Serves water where people do not remain
for long period of time (e.g., gas station)
EPA does not anticipate that the PFAS NPDWR will affect transient non-community water systems.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-8
-------
SDWA: Proposing an NPDWR
For each contaminant receiving a positive determination, the Administrator shall:
Propose a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and NPDWR not later than 24 months
after determination and promulgate within 18 months after proposal
An MCLG is the non-enforceable level at which no known or adverse effects on
the health of persons occur and which allows for an adequate margin of safety. It
does not account for limits of detection and treatment technology effectiveness.
An enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is set as close as feasible to
the MCLG (taking costs and benefits into consideration).
If it is not economically/technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the
contaminant EPA may propose a Treatment Technique (TT) in lieu of an MCL.
Prevents known or anticipated adverse effects to the extent feasible
Minimizes overall risk by balancing risk from the contaminant and the risk from other
contaminants the concentrations of which may be affected by the TT
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-9
-------
SDWA: Proposing an NPDWR
EPA is seeking Science Advisory Board (SAB) input on draft documents, including
those that describe EPA's proposed approaches toward deriving the health-based
MCLGsfor PFOAand PFOS.
Within the documents are key inputs for deriving MCLGs including draft toxicity
values and the available animal toxicity and human epidemiological data on health
effects from exposure to PFOA and PFOS. They do not contain the draft MCLG values.
The SAB has formed a PFAS Review Panel and have developed a draft SAB PFAS
Review Panel report with recommendations which will be provided to the full
chartered SAB body. The chartered SAB members will review and provide input on
the draft report and it will be finalized and transmitted to the EPA Administrator as
early as August 2022.
EPA will consider the SAB's recommendations to inform the development of the
proposed MCLGs and NPDWR requirements.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-10
-------
SDWA: Proposing an NPDWR
Identify available technologies for contaminant removal
Small System Compliance Technologies (SSCT) that are affordable*
for:
Systems serving 25-500 people,
Systems serving 501-3,300 people, and
Systems serving 3,301-10,000 people
Best Available Technologies (BATs)
Examined under field conditions
Consider efficacy and cost
* If there are no affordable SSCTs for one or more category of small systems, EPA must identify variance technologies that may not achieve
compliance but that achieve the maximum reduction that is affordable and are "protective of public health".
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-ll
-------
SDWA: Proposing an NPDWR
A Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis that includes:
Quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction benefits from
removing the regulated contaminant and co-occurring contaminants;
Quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction costs of compliance;
Incremental costs and benefits;
Effects on sensitive populations such as infants, children, pregnant women,
and the elderly;
Any increased health risk that may result from compliance; and
Other relevant factors including the quality of information.
A determination as to whether the benefits of the proposed MCL
justify, or do not justify, the cost
If benefits do not justify costs, EPA may set the MCL at a level at which
health risk reduction benefits are maximized at a cost justified by the
benefits.
&/VEFIT
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
EJ Considerations for Proposing a Drinking Water Regulation
EPA is committed to ensuring the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
A priority action under EPA's Equity Action Plan is to also "develop a comprehensive
framework for considering cumulative impacts in relevant EPA decisions and
operationalize that framework in EPA's programs and activities/'
To directly support this commitment to EJ, EPA's Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis outlines particular technical approaches
and methods to help EPA analyze potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions.
As a part of the PFAS drinking water rule development process, EPA is currently
conducting this analysis and will provide this information when issuing the proposed
rule.
Within the analysis, EPA is considering if population groups of concern (e.g., low-
income populations) are disproportionately exposed to PFAS in drinking water.
EPA's analysis will also evaluate whether population groups of concern are
disproportionately affected by PFAS regulatory options under consideration.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-13
-------
Key Areas of Consideration
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Key Areas of Consideration for Potential NPDWR Requirements
EPA is considering practical monitoring options and treatment
technology feasibility to control for PFAS as a part of MCL and/or TT
requirements.
EPA is interested in input related to implementation challenges to
achieving MCLs and/or TTs.
EPA is specifically interested in input related to the following
proposed rule areas:
Treatment
Monitoring
Public notification
PFAS Mixtures
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-15
-------
Treatment Considerations
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-16
-------
PFAS Treatment - General Considerations
Traditional treatment technologies are largely ineffective at removing PFOA and PFOS to
drinking water levels protective of public health.
Some water systems with PFAS contamination will be required to install treatment or
take other actions to reduce PFAS levels in their drinking water.
EPA is evaluating technologies and has studies that demonstrate the following PFAS
reductions for each technology:
Activated carbon can remove greater than 92% and 95% of PFOA and PFOS, respectively.
Ion exchange achieved removal of greater than 75% and 92% of PFOA and PFOS, respectively,
however may not be as effective if not designed to remove PFOA and PFOS.
Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis are both highly effective in separating PFOA and PFOS, often to
a 99% reduction in both PFOA and PFOS.
These technologies may also remove other contaminants.
Some water systems may be able to reduce PFAS levels without installing treatment by
developing a new source of water that does not have PFAS contamination.
Un'tecl States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-17
-------
PFAS Drinking Water Treatment Overview
What Works
Broad
Considerations
Activated Carbon
Ion Exchange
Nanofiltration
Reverse Osmosis
"Longer Chain" PFAS are easier to remove
Site specific footprints
Formation from precursors
Ancillary benefits especially with DBP
These technologies have been demonstrated to
achieve or go below current analytical
quantitation limits in drinking water
Root
// ^OH Hex-
O
/ He fit
~
PFHpA
i Undeca-
Dodeca-
Trideca-
Tetradeca
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
United States
Environmental Protectio
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-18
-------
Act vated Carbon Background
Produced from:
-Anthracite, lignite, peat,
coconut husks, peach pits, etc
Activation - increases surface area
- Thermally (steam, pyrolysis), chemically
- May be reactivated
Granular
. ; V. ; v ,
' * "r I*//. I . ' '.I rf
>ฆ. 7 * %/ ' '' '
, |WjMI|IHI| I ; III flAjWI |lli| f:l|Tlnill(!|: I,:: M IHiJ '; jllilNllij (ifl H|tlll|li
-------
Activated Carbon Sorption
PFAS sorption to activated carbon varies by the characteristics of the PFAS
From =C7-C17 linearly dependent on chain length shifted by functional group
Harder sorption/treatment
Easier sorption/treatment
Lower Molecular Weight
Increased solubility
Increased polarity fluorotelomer
(more polar) sulfonic acids
(FTSAs)
perfluoroalkyl
carboxylates
(PFCAs)
perfluoroalkane
sulfonates
(PFSAs)
perfluorooctane
sulfonamides
(FOSAs)
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Higher Molecular Weight
Decreased solubility
Decreased polarity
(more nonpolar)
Office of Water
-------
Ion Exchange
Exchanges unwanted minerals
with less objectionable ones
Resins absorb PFAS and
replace it with a negative
anion
Resins may be reactivated
Reversible process
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-21
-------
Nanofiltration NF) and Reverse Osmosis (RO)
NF
> Removal occurs due to size exclusion and
diffusivity/solubility differences
> Typically characterized by Molecular Weight Cut
Off (MWCO) or NaCI/MgS04 rejection
>90-150 psi operating pressure
Feed Water
RO
Semi-Permeable Membrane
ฐcงtfoฐ0o
o ucPO
o C^hฐ
OO Product Water
rP) o3s0 (Permeate or Filtrate)
1 Q
Ooฐฐ^0oc,^)
> Removal occurs due to diffusivity/solubility
differences
^Typically characterized by NaCI rejection
>100-1,100 psi operating pressure (400 psi
minimum for desalinization but normally around
800-1,100 psi)
Solvent
Particle or
Solute Molecule
Driving Force
Pressure difference
Concentration difference
Temperature difference
Electric potential difference
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Treatment Residuals and Disposal
EPA has prioritized research on PFAS disposal options in different environmental
media and best management practices.
Evaluation of single use disposal options and reactivation potential of certain media,
concentrate disposal for NF and RO, and related uncertainties for each disposal
option.
EPA is also evaluating the actions that PWSs must take to dispose of treatment
residuals that contain PFAS, including actions resulting from other environmental
statutes that may impact drinking water treatment and disposal options.
EPA interim guidance is available for destruction and disposal of PFAS and PFAS-
containing materials from some products, including spent drinking water treatment
media.
As part of proposed PFAS NPDWR, EPA is considering the costs of various disposal
options for drinking water treatment residuals that contain PFAS.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-23
-------
Treatment: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to the identified of
treatment technologies for removal of PFAS (GAC/PAC, IX, RO and
IMF)?
Are there other treatment technologies that EPA should consider?
What non-treatment options for reducing levels of PFAS in drinking
water should EPA consider?
How should EPA consider the disposal of PFAS treatment residuals or
regenerating treatment media?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-24
-------
Monitoring Considerations
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
Monitoring
Monitoring is critical to assuring that water systems are providing
public health protection. EPA is evaluating requirements for PWSs to
conduct initial and ongoing monitoring that will be required under
the rule.
Possible options for initial monitoring of PFAS concentrations include:
Two or four samples collected over a period of one year, dependent on
system size
Use of recent, previously acquired PFAS drinking water data from the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) or a state-level drinking
water occurrence data collection program
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-26
-------
Monitoring
EPA is considering provisions for systems with multiple entry points to consider
analyzing composite samples to reduce analytical costs (i.e., a single analysis may
establish a below-detection-limit concentration across multiple entry points).
EPA is considering provisions for ongoing monitoring similar to current regulations
for Synthetic Organic Contaminants under the Standardized Monitoring Framework.
Systems may be granted a monitoring waiver by the primacy agency if a vulnerability
assessment finds that the contaminant has not been used in the area, or that the PWS can
prove it is not susceptible to contamination from that contaminant. Vulnerability assessments
must be updated every three years.
The frequency of monitoring for systems that do not receive waivers is set based upon a
comparison of past monitoring results to a "trigger level" and to the MCL. A trigger level is often
based on the sensitivity of analytical methods for the contaminant.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-27
-------
Monitoring
Standardized Monitoring Framework for Synthetic Organic Contaminants.
Synthetic Organic Contaminants
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Y8
Y9
Pop. > 3,300 (Below Trigger Level)
Waiver
X
X
X
No Waiver
**
**
Pop. < 3,300 (Below Trigger Level)
Waiver
X
X
X
No Waiver
*
*
*
Above Trigger Level
Reliably and Consistently < MCL
*
* * *
*
*
* *
*
Not Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Dfฃ 3|C + !)fc
3fc 3fc
X = No sampling unless required by the primacy agency
* = 1 sample per entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS)
** = 2 quarterly samples at each EPTDS. Samples must be taken during two quarters of a single calendar year during each 3-year compliance period.
**** = 4 quarterly samples at each EPTDS within time frame designated by the primacy agency
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-28
-------
Monitoring: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to:
How should available PFAS drinking water monitoring data be considered in the
initial monitoring requirements?
UCMR Data
State Data
Other Data
Should the PFAS regulation incorporate Standardized Monitoring Framework
provisions for Synthetic Organic Contaminants?
Monitoring waivers based on vulnerability assessments
Monitoring frequency determined based on previous monitoring results
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-29
-------
Public Communication Considerations
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-30
-------
Communication with the Public
PWSs may be required to issue public notification to customers if PFAS levels in drinking
water exceed regulatory standards.
Under the Public Notification Rule, there are three tiers of notification:
Tier 1: Immediate notice where there is potential for human health to be immediately impacted; water
systems have 24 hours to notify consumers
Tier 2: Notice as soon as possible where does not pose immediate risk to human health; within 30 days
of violation
Tier 3: Annual notice, does not have direct impact on public health
EPA is currently considering which notification tier will be required for proposed PFAS
regulation.
Community water systems may also be required to include PFAS information in the
Consumer Confidence Report distributed to their customers including:
The level of PFAS that is measured in the drinking water.
The potential health effects of any PFAS detected in violation of an EPA health standard.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-31
-------
Public Communication: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to:
How quickly should water systems be required to notify the public following a
violation of the PFAS standard?
What information should be included in Consumer Confidence Reports regarding
PFAS in drinking water?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-32
-------
Considerations for PFAS Mixtures
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-33
-------
PFAS Mixtures - Background
Since the 1940's, over 4,000 PFAS have been manufactured and used in a
variety of industries across the world (OECD, 2019). There are also over 700
TSCA-registered PFAS and over 9,000 PFAS based on the CompTox
Dashboard.
PFAS have been found around the world in abiotic media, aquatic and
terrestrial organisms, and humans.
Targeted and non-targeted analysis of environmental media, such as water,
has revealed the co-occurrence of multiple PFAS.
Among samples with reported levels of PFAS in UCMR 3: Two or more PFAS co-
occurred in 48% of sampling events; PFOA and PFOS co-occurred in 27% of
sampling events.
Human biomonitoring data indicates multiple PFAS in blood
Human health risks associated with exposure to mixtures of PFAS has not
been well characterized - few whole mixture studies; a formal PFAS
mixtures assessment has not been conducted by federal government
entities.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-34
-------
PFAS Mixtures - Background
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protectio
Agency
PFAS Strategic Roadmap:
EPA's Commitments to Action
2021-2024
EPA is investing in scientific research to fill data gaps in
understanding PFAS, including new research on "...how to
address groups and categories of PFAS/'
> EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap, 2021
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is considering "...to
further evaluate additional PFAS chemicals and provide
flexibility for the agency to consider groups of PFAS as
supported by the best available science/'
> EPA Final Regulatory Determinations 4, 2021
The EPA has regulated contaminants as a group in drinking
water, including disinfection byproducts (i.e., haloacetic acids
and total trihalomethanes).
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-35
-------
PFAS Mixtures
Some States are considering human health
risks posed by mixtures of PFAS and
different class-based approaches,
including:
State of Wisconsin's hazard index (HI)
approach for groundwater quality.
State of Rhode Island's considerations
for a class-based MCL based on
structural similarity and surrogate
toxicity.
State of Minnesota's Health Risk Index
approach to evaluate mixtures of
similar PFAS.
State of Massachusetts^ Total Hazard
Index waste site evaluation.
..and more.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
| February 2020 1
I Updated April 2021, March 2022 1
1
E
'f:f 'f--1 U '
Processes & Considerations for Setting State PFAS Standards
By Sarah Grace Longsworth, Project Manager, ECOS
Supported by & in conjunction with the ECOS PFAS Caucus
1 1
Office of Water
C-36
-------
PFAS Mixtures
Purpose: Provide a data-driven framework
for estimating human health risks
associated with oral exposures to mixtures
of PFAS, consistent with existing EPA
guidance.
Based on common health
outcomes/end points among PFAS.
Assumes dose additivity for chemicals with
common health outcomes.
Relies on EPA component-based mixture
assessment methods:
Hazard Index,
Relative Potency Factors, and
Mixture Benchmark Dose approach.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Draft Framework for Estimating Noucancer Health Risks Associated with
Mixtures of Per- and Polvfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water & Office of Research and Development
Washington. DC
EPA Document Number: EPA 822D-21-003
NOVEMBER 2021
Office of Water
C-37
-------
PFAS Mixtures
United States
^WlA Environmental Protection
M mAgency
When it is not economically or technologically feasible to
ascertain the level of the contaminant, SDWA authorizes EPA
to promulgate a Treatment Technique (TT)
an enforceable procedure or level of technological
performance that PWSs must follow to ensure control of
a contaminant.
would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on
the health of persons to the extent feasible.
The Surface Water Treatment Rules are examples of
treatment techniques that remove multiple contaminants
(pathogens)
Treatment technologies to remove PFOA and PFOS have been
demonstrated to co-remove other PFAS compounds and co-
occurring contaminants.
Office of Water
C-38
-------
PFAS Mixtures: Consultation Questions
How should EPA consider or address potential mixtures of PFAS
the proposed drinking water standard?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-39
-------
Cost Information and Funding
Considerations
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-40
-------
Cost Information
The proposed PFAS NPDWR will not uniformly impact every PWS.
Costs will vary significantly depending on monitoring results.
Only systems that exceed PFAS regulatory standards or action levels would need to
install treatment and incur these costs. Further, those treatment costs will vary
depending on source water characteristics.
There may also be point-of-use (POU) treatment options that may be more cost
effective for some systems, particularly very small systems, than centralized
treatment.
Costs will also vary based upon the extent to which systems must conduct and pay
for monitoring. EPA is considering multiple monitoring-related flexibilities to help
reduce burden and costs to systems.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-41
-------
Economic Impacts Public Water Systems
EPA estimated preliminary regulatory cost impacts associated with the proposed PFAS NPDWR.
These costs include monitoring and treatment components for systems that install treatment to
comply with the rule, including some POU cost estimates.
In determining costs, the agency typically accounts for a 20 percent operational safety margin,
which PWSs have previously incorporated to ensure drinking water rule compliance.
Treatment cost estimates developed based on externally peer-reviewed Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) models that are updated annually to capture changes in labor construction, and
commodities costs (https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-
models).
Treatment costs include both indirect and direct capital and operations and maintenance costs
annualized over a 20-year period.
EPA is considering the potential costs to systems associated with management of possible
simultaneous compliance issues that may get triggered with a PFAS drinking water regulation.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-42
-------
Monitoring and Treatment Cost Information
Annualized Cost per System of Proposed PFAS NPDWR by System Size (2020$, 3% discounting, numbers round to the closest hundred)
Population Served <500
Population Served
501 to 3,300
Population Served
3,301 to 10,000
Population Served
10,001 to 50,000
Population Served
50,001 to 100,000
Population Served
100,001 to 500,000
Monitoring Costs3
$900
($300 to $1,500)
$1,800
($600 to $2,900)
$2,100
($1,300 to $3,000)
$3,200
($1,900 to $4,500)
$5,400
($3,200 to $7,500)
$5,400
($3,200 to $7,500)
Treatment Costs:
GACb
$25,000
($19,800 to $30,300)
$110,900
($87,700 to $134,000)
$412,200
($335,000 to $489,500)
$1,246,400
($1,016,000 to $1,476,900)
$2,799,400
($2,281,900 to $3,316,800)
$8,947,800
($7,255,600 to $10,640,000)
Treatment Costs:
IXb
$19,500
($15,000 to $24,000)
$74,000
($59,100 to $88,900)
$262,400
($212,400 to $312,300)
$869,700
($692,700 to $1,046,600)
$2,036,400
($1,623,400 to $2,449,300)
$7,339,100
($5,777,400 to $8,900,800)
Treatment Costs:
POU ROc
$17,800
($1,700 to $33,800)
$128,500
($33,800 to $223,100)
$449,600
($223,100 to $676,000)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Data shown are the midpoint of estimated annualized costs per system, with the estimated range in parenthesis.
a) The ranges shown reflect differences in annualized monitoring cost between analytical methods that might be required (low cost of $302 for EPA Method 537.1 or high cost of $376 for EPA
Method 533), differing numbers of samples per year per entry point as noted in the text, and the number entry points per system (an average of 1 entry point for systems serving less than or
equal to 500 people and 2 entry points for systems serving more than 500). They do not consider potential cost savings that may be realized by utilizing existing monitoring data.
b) The range shown reflect differences in cost among treatment technologies (granular activated carbon or ion exchange), example PFAS contaminants (PFOA or PFOS), and variations in
treatment system design (high, mid, or low cost). Estimates assume 90 percent removal for GAC and IX. Treatment process designs assume the specified percent removal of PFOA or PFOS at
all entry points. Systems requiring lower removal percentages or with fewer-than-average entry points requiring treatment could have costs lower than the ranges shown. Systems requiring
higher removal percentages could have costs greater than the ranges shown.
c) The values shown reflect minimum, midpoint, and maximum population served within each size range divided by an average household size of 2.58 people to approximate the number of
residential connections that would need a POU RO device. Annualized cost includes POU RO device purchase ($312/unit) and installation (0.6 hours per unit for administrative time and 2
hours per unit for installation), which are annualized over a 10-year device useful life at 3%, plus annual filter maintenance costs ($93 for filters and 0.6 hours/unit). The values are based on
the plumbed-in RO costs and assumptions developed for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. RO devices are certified by third parties for contaminant removal effectiveness and currently
the removal standard is 70 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA notes that the standard for the final regulation may differ from 70 ppt.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-43
-------
Public Communication Cost Information
EPA estimates that public notifications can cost
systems approximately $1,100 (2020$ for Tier 1
notification) each though costs vary based on
system size and public notification tier.
EPA does not anticipate the PFAS NPDWR to
impose any significant additional costs associated
with Consumer Confidence Report requirements
since systems are already required to prepare a
report.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-44
-------
Funding Considerations
The recently enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides for significant investments
in safe drinking water infrastructure and drinking water programs.
EPA is working to ensure the funds are available to drinking water systems, especially those
within disadvantaged communities.
Specific funds to potentially support addressing drinking water PFAS contamination:
$11.7 billion: Funding to supplement the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
$4 billion: Funding to specifically address emerging contaminants, including PFAS, through the DWSRF
$5 billion: Funding through the Small, Underserved, and
Disadvantaged Communities Grants, which can be used to
address and remediate emerging contaminants, including
PFAS, in drinking water within disadvantaged communities
An example eligible project for all of these funds may
upgrading treatment technologies.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-45
-------
Next Steps
In addition to this consultation, EPA is seeking input from other key
stakeholders and entities to inform the proposed PFAS NPDWR.
Science Advisory Board, Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, Local, State
and Tribal government officials, environmental justice-related organizations,
and others
EPA anticipates publishing the proposed rule for public comment in
Fall 2022 and promulgating a final rule in Fall 2023.
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
C-46
-------
Consultation Questions
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-47
-------
Treatment: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to the identified of
treatment technologies for removal of PFAS (GAC/PAC, IX, RO and
IMF)?
Are there other treatment technologies that EPA should consider?
What non-treatment options for reducing levels of PFAS in drinking
water should EPA consider?
How should EPA consider the disposal of PFAS treatment residuals or
regenerating treatment media?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-48
-------
Monitoring: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to:
How should available PFAS drinking water monitoring data be considered in the
initial monitoring requirements?
UCMR Data
State Data
Other Data
Should the PFAS regulation incorporate Standardized Monitoring Framework
provisions for Synthetic Organic Contaminants?
Monitoring waivers based on vulnerability assessments
Monitoring frequency determined based on previous monitoring results
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-49
-------
Public Communication: Consultation Questions
What input do NDWAC members have related to:
How quickly should water systems be required to notify the public following a
violation of the PFAS standard?
What information should be included in Consumer Confidence Reports regarding
PFAS in drinking water?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-50
-------
PFAS Mixtures: Consultation Questions
How should EPA address potential mixtures of PFAS in the
proposed drinking water standard?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
C-51
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
ซmAgency
Office of Water
-------
Appendix D:
BIL Implementation
Presentation
-------
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Implementation Overview
I MrwjB| ^
April 19, 2022
United States
Environmental Protection
Mm Agency
Office of Water
-------
Implementation Overview
Key Priorities
BIL Funding Provisions
Nuts and Bolts
Disadvantaged Communities
Base Program Provisions
Community Technical Assistance
Next Steps
United States
Environmental Protectio
Agency
Office of Water
D-2
-------
BIL Implementation Key Priorities
Provide Flexibility to Meet Local Water Needs; A fundamental principle of the SRFsflexibility provided to
states and borrowers to addressing varied local water challenges.
Increase Investment in Underserved Communities: Use 49% of DWSRF General Supplemental funds and the
DWSRF Lead Service Line Replacement funds and at least 25% of the DWSRF Emerging Contaminants funds
as grants and forgivable loans to disadvantaged communities
Make Rapid Progress on Lead Service Line Replacement: Maximize the $15 billion dedicated to lead service
line removal, as well as other funding streams, towards President Biden's 100% goal
Tackle Forever Chemicals: Invest $5 billion through the SRFs to reduce people's exposure to perfluoroalkyl
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other emerging contaminants
Focus on Resilience, Climate, One Water Innovation: Prioritize projects for climate mitigation, adaptation,
coastal and drought resilience, flooding, natural infrastructure, and ecosystem preservation and restoration
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-3
-------
BIL Implementation Key Priorities
Support American Workers and Renew the Water Workforce: Renew America's water workforce
and create good-paying jobs in communities across America
Cultivate Domestic Manufacturing: Create long-term opportunities for domestic manufacturers
and manufacturing jobs and build resilient domestic supply chains for a wide range of products
Fully Enforce Civil Rights: Ensure federal funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination
based on race, color, or national origin
Refine State SRFs to Build the Pipeline of Projects: Strategically use new authorities and funds
from BIL as a catalyst to continue building and maintaining a robust project pipeline of SRF
projects
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-4
-------
The Bipartisan
Infrastructure
Law (BIL)
Significant new
appropriations for
supplemental DWSRF
and CWSRF funds for 5
years
Amendments to
SDWA 1452 and
CWA Title VI
(the SDWA DWSRF and
authorizing
Public Law No. 117-58
BIL is also referred to os:
INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT &. JOBS
ACT
BIPARTISAN N
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEAL J
United States
Environmental Protection
M mAgency
Office of Water
D-5
-------
State Revolving Fund (SRF) Funding in the BIL
Appropriation
FY 2022 ($)
FY 2023 ($)
FY 2024 ($)
FY 2025 ($)
FY 2026 ($)
Five Year Total ($)
CWSRF General
Supplemental
1,902,000,000
2,202,000,000
2,403,000,000
2,603,000,000
2,603,000,000
11,713,000,000
CWSRF Emerging
Contaminants
100,000,000
225,000,000
225,000,000
225,000,000
225,000,000
1,000,000,000
DWSRF General
Supplemental
1,902,000,000
2,202,000,000
2,403,000,000
2,603,000,000
2,603,000,000
11,713,000,000
DWSRF Emerging
Contaminants
800,000,000
800,000,000
800,000,000
800,000,000
800,000,000
4,000,000,000
DWSRF Lead Service
Line Replacement
3,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
15,000,000,000
,
A United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection
mw Agency d-6
-------
BIL Implementation Memo
Cover Memo
Attachment 1 - BIL Funding Implementation
CWSRF General Supplemental Funding
CWSRF Emerging Contaminants Funding
DWSRF General Supplemental Funding
DWSRF Emerging Contaminants Funding
DWSRF Lead Service Line Replacement Funding
Attachment 2 - CWSRF Base Program Implementation
The BIL amends the CWA to include new provisions applicable to the base CWSRF programs and unless
otherwise directed, applicable to projects funded in whole or in part with funds made available by BIL.
Attachment 3 - DWSRF Base Program Implementation
The BIL amends the SDWA to include new provisions applicable to the base DWSRF programs and unless
otherwise directed, applicable to projects funded in whole or in part with funds made available by BIL.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-7
-------
Capitalization Grants Application Process
Flexibility for states to combine Intended Use Plans (lUPs) and Project Priority Lists (PPLs) for both
the BIL and base funding or submit separate lUPs and PPLs for base and BIL funding
If combined, states must construct the lUPs and PPLs to ensure that EPA and the public can clearly
identify BIL- and base-eligible projects, including identifying additional subsidization and funding
amounts
The lUPs and PPLs must meet existing SRF requirements
States must submit separate grant applications for each BIL appropriation, and
separately from "base" SRF capitalization grant applications in grants.gov
BIL funds have the same CFDA (now called "Assistance Listing") number as base SRF capitalization
grants to ease the application process
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-8
-------
Timelines
Per law, states have until September 30, 2023, to apply for and receive the FY22 BIL capitalization
grants. The statutes require EPA to obligate the funds to states within that period of time.
States can submit cap grant applications to EPA Regions at any time.
It is important to submit applications in time for the EPA to process the award.
Per law and regulation, states have 1 year to commit funds (i.e., sign funds into final loans) after
each capitalization grant payment from EPA to the states.
Once EPA obligates the capitalization grants to the states, the funds will be available to states
pursuant to grant regulations.
States should make effort to draw down those capitalization grant funds within 2 years of cap
grant payments.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-9
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
3 Pots of Supplemental DWSRF Funds for 5 Years
GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS
(FOCUS: PFAS) SUPPLEMENTAL
LEAD SERVICE LINE
SUPPLEMENTAL
Un'tecl States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-ll
-------
DWSRF General
Supplemental
"$11,713,000,000 for capitalization grants for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act"
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
$1.9B
$2.2B
$2.4B
$2.6B
$2.6B
"Provided further, That for the funds made available under
this paragraph in this Act, forty-nine percent of the funds
made available to each State for Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the
State to provide subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of
assistance agreements with 100 percent forgiveness of
principal or grants (or any combination of these),
notwithstanding section 1452(d)(2) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12)"
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-12
-------
DWSRF General Supplemental
10% state match required for the first two years; match returns to the standard 20% for the
remaining three years
All DWSRF eligibilities
States may take set-asides
As directed by BIL, exactly 49% of this capitalization grant must be provided as additional subsidy
in the form of principal forgiveness or grants (or a combination of those)
States must provide additional subsidization to water systems that meet the state's
disadvantaged community criteria as described in section 1452(d) of the SDWA
States have flexibility to determine the amount of additional subsidization provided in a
given assistance agreement
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-13
-------
DWSRF Emerging
Contaminants (PFAS
Focus) Supplemental
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
"$4,000,000,000 for capitalization grants for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act"
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
$800M
$800M
$800M
$800M
$800M
"That funds provided under this paragraph in this Act shall
be to address emerging contaminants in drinking water with
a focus on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
through capitalization grants under section 1452(t) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act for the purposes described in
section 1452(a)(2)(G) of such Act: Provided further, That
funds provided under this paragraph in this Act deposited
into the State revolving fund shall be provided to eligible
recipients as loans with 100 percent principal forgiveness or
as grants (or a combination of these)"
Office of Water
D-14
-------
DWSRF Emerging Contaminants (PFAS Focus) Supplemental
No state match requirement
As directed by BIL, can only be used for DWSRF-eligible projects that "address emerging contaminants in drinking water with a
focus on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances."
Set-asides, if taken, must be used to either administer this capitalization grant or meet the stated purpose of these funds
As directed by BIL, 100% of this capitalization grant, net of set-asides taken, must be provided as additional subsidy in the form
of principal forgiveness or grants (or a combination of those)
States must direct at least 25 percent of these funds to disadvantaged communities (as defined by the state under SDWA 1452(d)) or
public water systems serving fewer than 25,000 persons
States have flexibility to determine the amount of additional subsidization provided in a given assistance agreement
Eligible:
DWSRF-eligible projects for which the primary purpose is to address PFAS or contaminants on any of EPA's Contaminant Candidate Lists
Note statutory PFAS focus; states must actively solicit for PFAS-focused projects
Not Eligible: Projects for which the primary purpose is to address contaminant(s) with a National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-15
-------
DWSRF Lead Service
Line Replacement
Supplemental
"$15,000,000,000 for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act"
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
$3.0B
$3.0B
$3.0B
$3.0B
$3.0B
"Provided further, That the funds provided under this paragraph in
this Act shall be for lead service line replacement projects and
associated activities directly connected to the identification,
planning, design, and replacement of lead service lines: Provided
further, That for the funds made available under this paragraph in
this Act, forty-nine percent of the funds made available to each
State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants
shall be used by the State to provide subsidy to eligible recipients in
the form of assistance agreements with 100 percent forgiveness of
principal or grants (or any combination of these), notwithstanding
section 1452(d)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
12)"
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-16
-------
DWSRF Lead Service Line Replacement Supplemental
No state match requirement.
As directed by BIL, can only be used for DWSRF-eligible "lead service line replacement projects and associated
activities directly connected with the identification, planning, design, and replacement of lead service lines."
Set-asides, if taken, must be used to either administer this capitalization grant or meet the stated purpose of these
funds
As directed by BIL, exactly 49% of this capitalization grant must be provided as additional subsidy in the form of
principal forgiveness or grants (or a combination of those)
States must provide additional subsidization to water systems that meet the state's disadvantaged community
criteria as described in section 1452(d) of the SDWA
States have flexibility to determine the amount of additional subsidization provided in a given assistance
agreement
Lead service line inventories are also eligible from both the loan and set-asides.
Any project involving the replacement of a lead service line must replace the entire lead service line, not just a portion,
unless a portion has already been replaced.
To address household affordability concerns, we encourage states to fund the private portion of service line
replacements at no additional cost to the homeowner.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-17
-------
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
SRF Nuts and Bolts
Jfc United States
Environmental Protection Office of Water
Agency
-------
BIL - Supplemental Funding Nuts and Bolts
Build America, Buy America Act: BIL creates the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act domestic
sourcing requirements for Federal financial assistance programs for infrastructure. EPA will issue a
separate memorandum for BABA after OMB publishes its guidance.
* Federal Civil Rights Responsibilities, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: EPA has a
responsibility to ensure that recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance from EPA
comply with federal civil rights laws.
Allotment: Per statute, EPA will use the existing SRF allotment formulas for all BIL SRF
appropriations. For the DWSRF, the allotment formula will change upon release of new data
derived from the Seventh Drinking Water Needs Survey and Assessment.
* Period of Capitalization Grant Availability and Reallotment: Per statute, funds will remain
available for obligation to states for the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and the
following fiscal year, per the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). After
that time, EPA will reallot any unobligated funds.
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-19
-------
BIL - Supplemental Funding Nuts and Bolts
Reporting: States must use EPA's SRF Data System to report key BIL project characteristics and
milestone information, no less than quarterly. Additional reporting may be required.
Recycled Funds: Once assistance recipients repay BIL funds to the state SRF program, those repaid
funds may be used for any SRF-eligible purpose.
Equivalency: Each BIL capitalization grant must meet the equivalency requirements separately.
Inter-SRF Transfers: States may only transfer funds between the CWSRF and DWSRF General BIL
capitalization grants and between the CWSRF and DWSRF BIL Emerging Contaminant capitalization
grants. Because there is no similar CWSRF appropriation to the DWSRF BIL Lead Service Line
Replacement appropriation, no funds may be transferred from or to the DWSRF BIL Lead Service
Line Replacement appropriation. States may not transfer BIL appropriations to or from base
appropriations.
United States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-20
-------
BIL - Supplemental Funding Nuts and Bolts
Green Project Reserve: If provided for in the annual appropriation, the green project reserve (GPR) is
applicable to the BIL capitalization grants for the corresponding fiscal year.
Blending Funds and Cash Draws: States may craft single assistance agreements (e.g., loans) that contain
multiple types of construction components and activities. BIL and base funds must be separately managed
and tracked for accounting purposes.
Reservation of DWSRF Set-Aside Authority: Consistent with the DWSRF regulations, states may
reserve the authority (under the 2%, 4%, and 10% set-asides) to take from future capitalization grants those
set-aside funds they have not included in workplans. However, given the narrower eligibilities under the BIL
Emerging Contaminants and Lead Service Line Replacement appropriations, future use of authority reserved
under those BIL capitalization grants will be limited to eligible uses under those grants.
Structuring Assistance Agreements: Assistance agreements may include any combination of additional
subsidization (i.e., principal forgiveness or grant) and repayable financing, subject to the limitations of the
BIL. States have flexibility to determine the amount of additional subsidization provided in a given assistance
agreement.
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-21
-------
Disadvantaged Communities
Effective Integration of the Program to Reach Disadvantaged Communities
Utilizing various funding sources and SRF eligible activities to support project
planning and design and pre-project costs
Review Disadvantaged Community Definition and Affordability Criteria
Evaluate criteria to meet requirements and address community needs
Review Priority Scoring and Ranking Criteria
Evaluate criteria to meet requirements and address community needs
Reaching Disadvantaged Neighborhoods within Larger Communities
Target benefits to individual ratepayers
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-22
-------
Implementation Memo Appendices
Appendix A: Allotment tables
Appendix B: CWSRF definition of emerging contaminants
Appendix C: DWSRF emerging contaminant project and activity examples
Appendix D: DWSRF lead service line replacement project and activity examples
Appendix E: Additional Information to Assist States with Developing a
Disadvantaged Community Definition and Affordability Criteria
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-23
-------
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
1/ DWSRF Base Program Changes &
ฃ% United States
Environmental Protection Office of Water
Agency
-------
Attachment 3:
Amendments to
SDWA 1452
(DWSRF Base Program
Amendments)
Reauthorizes the program at the following annual
amounts:
2022: $2.4B; 2023: $2.75B; 2024: $3.0B; 2025 & 2026: $3.25B
Expands allowable forms of SDWA 1452(d)
Disadvantaged Additional Subsidy
Grants, negative interest loans, other loan forgiveness, buying,
refinancing, restructuring debt
Raises minimum SDWA 1452(d) Disadvantaged
Additional Subsidy floor from 6% to 12%
American Iron & Steel procurement requirement made
permanent
Build America, Buy America procurement requirement
added
"Otx
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
-------
J\ Bipartisan Infrastructure Law IjL *'
Next Steps
*k -J Ste^i
United States
Environmental Protection
Mm Agency
Office of Water
-------
Next Steps
Ongoing Q and As and other memos as needed
Ongoing webinars (states and interested parties)
Ongoing trainings
SRF 101/201
BIL
Ongoing discussions and meetings/suggestions for forums and topics?
Un'ted States
Environmental Protectio
^^^1 a mAgency
Office of Water
D-27
-------
-------
Appendix E:
MDBP Rule Revisions
Presentation
-------
Consideration of Potential MDBP Rule Revisions
Update on Working Group to Inform NDWAC
Advice and Recommendations
Kati^ Foreman
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
April 19, 2022
oEPA
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
-------
Presentation Overview
&EPA
~ OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
Working group (WG) purpose
Background
WG membership
Scope of WG discussions
Timelines and next steps
E-2
-------
Purpose
In November 2021, EPA provided a charge to
the NDWAC seeking consensus
recommendations from the Council that would
improve public health protection provided by
the Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts
regulations and better assure the regulations
equitably protect consumers' health,
particularly disadvantaged communities.
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts [MDBP]
Rule Revisions Working Group will support the
work of the Council by developing
recommendations for the Council's
consideration.
&EPA
~ OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
r
E-3
-------
5 pp/v
Background: MDBP Rule Revisions
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
In January 2017, EPA announced the review results for the Agency's third Six-
Year Review (Six-Year Review 3) of NDPWRs.
Based on the Agency's review of newly available data, information, and
technologies, EPA identified the following eight NPDWRs as candidates for
revision.
Chlorite, Cryptosporidium, Haloacetic acids, heterotrophic bacteria, Giardia
iambiia, Legionella, Total Trihalomethanes, and viruses.
These eight NPDWRs are included in the following MDBP rules:
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rules
(D/DBPRs)
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)
Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1)
-------
Forming the WG
In November 2021, EPA requested nominations to serve on the MDBP Rule
Revisions WG.
More than 30 nominations were received by EPA.
WG members were selected by EPA in consultation with the NDWAC chair
based on the expertise, experience, and perspectives needed to inform
recommendations to the NDWAC on issues related to MDBP rules.
WG includes membership from state organizations, drinking water systems
of all sizes, and environmental and public interest representatives.
WG membership includes representatives with a variety of experience,
educational and professional backgrounds, and from diverse geographic
locations.
E-5
-------
WG membership
Working Group Member
Title and Affiliation
Lisa D. Daniels1 (WG Co-chair)
Director, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Andy Kricun, PE 2 (WG Co-chair)
Senior Fellow, US Water Alliance and Managing Director, Moonshot Missions
Elin W. Betanzo, PE 1
Founder and Principal, Safe Water Engineering, LLC
D. Scott Borman 1
General Manager, Benton/Washington Regional Public Water Authority
John Choate
General Manager, Tri County Regional Water Distribution District
Kay Coffey, PhD, PE
Engineering Manager and Public Water Supply Group Project Adviser, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Jeffrey K. Griffiths, MD, MPH&TM
Professor of Public Health and Community Medicine, and of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine
Michael Hotaling, MBA, PE
Facilities Manager (Retired), Newport News Waterworks Department
Jolyn Leslie, PE
Regional Engineer, Office of Drinking Water, Northwest Regional Office, Washington State Department of Health
Rosemary Menard
Water Director, City of Santa Cruz
William F. Moody, PE, BCEE
Director of the Bureau of Public Water Supply, Mississippi State Department of Health
Erik D. Olson
Senior Strategic Director, Health & Food, Healthy People & Thriving Communities Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Benjamin J. Pauli, PhD 2
Associate Professor of Social Science, Department of Liberal Studies, Kettering University
Nancy A. Quirk, PE 1
General Manager, Green Bay Water Utility
Lisa J. Ragain
Principal Water Resources Planner, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Alex Rodriguez1
President & CEO, Diversity Consulting Group
Lynn W. Thorp
National Campaigns Director, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund
Gary Williams
Executive Director, Florida Rural Water Association
1. Member of U.S. EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council
2. Member of U.S. EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
E-6
-------
Potential topics for WG discussions
&EPA
~ OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
Disinfectant residuals and opportunistic pathogens
Regulated and unregulated DBPs
Finished water storage facilities
Distribution system water quality management
Source water quality considerations, including DBP precursor
removal
Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) systems
Sanitary survey
Water Safety Plans
Consecutive and small systems
E-
-------
p
Anticipated
Working Group
Schedule and
Related Process
with NDWAC
V
WG meetings are anticipated from Spring
2022 through Summer 2023.
All meetings will be open to the public
to observe.
Meetings will be held on a monthly or
bimonthly basis.
First meeting will be May 2022
WG will update NDWAC on progress and
share meeting material, as applicable.
WG will prepare a final report for NDWAC's
consideration and deliberation on the
Committee's recommendations to EPA.
-------
imeline for Rule Revisions
svEPA
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER
AND DRINKING WATER
EPA has agreed to the following deadlines:
Rule proposal or a formal decision not to propose amended rules: by
July 31, 2024*= EPA may delay proposal until July 31, 2025, as
needed.
Final Agency Action: Final rule or withdraw proposal by September
30, 2027*. EPA may delay proposal until September 30, 2028, as
needed.
- * *
f
*L &
7
T
Source: Waterkeeoers Alliance, Inc. et al v. U.S. et al. EPA Settlement Agreement, filed June 1,
2020 (19 Civ. 899 (LJL)).
E-9
-------
Appendix F:
Public Comments to
the NDWAC
-------
Submission to National Drinking Water Advisory Council
April 11, 2022
Regulating Perfluoro (PFAS) Chemicals in Drinking Water
Joseph A Cotruvo PhD, BCES
(Draft in press Journal American Water Works Association)
PFAS chemicals in the environment are a dilemma, primarily because of their environmental
persistence, and the lengthy half-lives of some of them after ingestion. There are commercial PFAS
chemicals and many more byproducts that have been detected in the environment. There are numerous
exposure sources including in-home from soil repellant fabrics on treated furniture, clothes, and carpets,
and residues in some foods. There are low PPT levels in some surface waters, but presence in some
groundwaters at PPT's can be a primary source for those drinking water consumers, especially since
other sources and exposures are being reduced.
USEPA is currently developing standards for Perfluoroooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS) which were among the principal commercial PFAS chemicals in the US. PFOA is
primarily used as a surfactant and dirt repellant, and one of the PFOS major uses was in firefighting
foams at airports and military bases. They are no longer in production or in common use in the US by
agreements between industry and USEPA from around 2002-2006 and have been virtually eliminated
except as legacy contaminants in some foods, and some groundwaters that have slow turnover, and low
PPT levels in some surface waters. Some replacements include PFBA which has a much shorter ingestion
half-life.
About the year 2000 essentially every American tested positive for detections in blood serum at ppb
levels. The frequency and blood serum concentrations in the US population have declined significantly
since 1999-2000 as seen in CDC/NHANES monitoring data. The latest CDC data1 available were for 2017-
2018, so blood serum concentrations have likely been reduced further since then. These numbers below
would represent the net effect of bodily elimination and continued exposures. Workers in some PFAS
production plants had blood levels more than 100 times greater than the general population.
PFOA and PFOS examples from CDC:
PFOA 1999-2000, Geometric means: 5.21 ug/L; 2017-2018, 1.42 ug/L (over 70% decline)
PFOS 1999-2000, Geometric means: 30.4 ug/L; 2017-2018, 2.94 ug/L (over 90% decline)
There is no international or even US consensus on the health risks of the various PFAS chemicals at low
exposures, and they differ significantly by chemical and occurrence, and only a few have been
evaluated. There are several human epidemiological studies that have been conducted including in
occupational settings with high exposures as indicated by blood serum measurements. These human
data are likely the best sources of human toxicology and risk information, since various animals handle
PFAS chemicals in different ways and sometimes different than humans. It is generally felt that PFAS
chemicals with longer half-lives in the body contribute to higher risks.
Some US states have selected notifications or guidance or standards in the 5 ppt to low ppt teens. The
original EPA Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS are 70 ppt (0.07 ppb) each or combined. Several
F-l
-------
countries (e.g. Australia and UK) use 100 ppt (0.1 ppb) as a guidance or action level; Canada's current
drinking water guidelines2 are 200 ppt (0.2 ppb) for PFOA, and 600 ppt (0.6 ppb) for PFOS. The WHO has
drafted a drinking water guideline, but it has not yet been released. Since PFAS is an international issue,
it would be important for credibility to establish a process for quickly producing an international
consensus on PFAS values in drinking water and other exposure sources, to achieve scientifically
supportable and reasonable safe values and to provide a basis for public confidence in the outcome and
provide confidence in the risk assessment and regulatory processes.
EPA reported the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) results in 2017 for 6 PFAS
chemicals. There were 4,930 water supplies tested; about 80 % were large systems above 10,000
covering most of the population that more commonly use surface waters, the remaining approximately
800 were in small systems. PFOA was detected in 117 systems above the reporting limit (MRL) of 20 ppt
with 13 above the 70 ppt Health Advisory. PFOS was detected in 95 systems above the MRL of 40 ppt
and 46 were above 70 ppt. The next UCMR 5s between 2022 and 2025, will include analyses for 29 PFAS
chemicals in about 10,3 00 water systems, including all large systems (4,364) above 10,000 population,
plus about 5,147 systems between 3300 and 10,000, and about 800 systems smaller than 3,300. So, the
total numbers of systems tested will be more than 10,000, and the MRLs will be in single digits. PFOA
and PFOS's MRLs will be 4 ppt. More analytes and more than twice as many systems will be tested at
about one tenth of the prior reporting limits, so there will be many more positive detections. Also,
Health Advisory values will likely be reduced. It will still be important to obtain analyses from more
targeted very small systems that could be potential sources of exposure.
There is debate on whether to produce individual MCLs for higher concern PFAS, Total PFAS, or a
Treatment Technique requirement for enforceable drinking water standards. MCLs for a few of the most
commonly detected and more potentially harmful PFAS chemicals can be produced if an exposure and
sufficient toxicology basis can be generated. Monitoring must be technically and economically feasible
for an MCL. It is, at least technically feasible, as the UCMR 5 demonstrates. Analytical methods have
been developed for several PFAS chemicals with detection limits at low ppt concentrations. Compliance
monitoring costs would be significant. It would be essential to be consistent with the requirements in
the Safe Drinking Water Act regarding detection prevalence in drinking water supplies at public health
significant levels, and articulating health benefits that would be provided by a standard.
The logic for selecting a Total PFAS standard or a treatment requirement for total PFAS is tenuous,
because of the wide range of putative risks for individual PFAS chemicals. For example: Some Canadian
Screening values are: PFBA, 30,000 ppt (30 ppb); PFHxS, 600 ppt (0.6 ppb); PFNA, 20 ppt (0.02 ppb)2. For
a treatment technique, EPA would have to conclude that monitoring is not technically and economically
feasible.
Another difficult issue is management and controlled disposal of drinking water treatment concentrates
from effective anion exchange, reverse osmosis or granular activated carbon treatments, and even from
sewage treatment sludges. Since the PFAS chemicals are environmentally very stable, improper disposal
would likely put them back into the environmental exposure cycle. Destructive processes would be
ideal, but they are even more expensive and more difficult for small systems to handle. One non-
traditional compliance approach particularly suitable for very small systems is managed community-
wide Point of Use treatment at the kitchen tap of water consumed for drinking and cooking. As an
F-2
-------
example, this has been applied successfully for arsenic treatment and was found to be feasible and
reliable and the costs were about half the cost of equivalent central treatment3.
Accurate Relative Source Contribution (RSC) analysis is essential for determining drinking water's
contributions to total exposures and for putting that into perspective for consequences of regulations,
implementation costs, and cost effectiveness.
Small systems now have the greatest likely impacts and they are least capable of dealing with any water
quality problems. Lower is often better, but a balance of risks and monitoring and compliance costs is
always necessary to prioritize public expenditures and assure that drinking water funds are expended to
deal with the local drinking water's most important risks, which are mainly infrastructure and legionella
growth in plumbing.
EPA and OGWDW should support and participate in an international process of qualified and objective
PFAS experts to arrive at a credible consensus value for safe drinking water for PFAS chemicals and to be
in the mainstream of qualified scientific judgments.
About the author. JAC was Director OGW Drinking Water Standards Division to 1990, TSCA Risk
Assessment Division Director to 1996, and is a member of the World Health Organization Guidelines for
Drinking Water Quality Committee. Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, Water Consultant.
References
1. CDC/NHANES data.
https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/report/pdf/Perfluoroalkvl%20and%20Polvfluoroalkyl%20
Substances%20-%20Surfactants%20NHANES-p.pdf
2. Water Talk Government of Canada April 2019.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/water-talk-drinking-
water-screening-values-perfluoroalkvlated-substances.html
3. Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point of-Entry Decentralized
Public Water System. Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, EPA Grant x82952301,
March 2005.
4. UCMR 3. https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/data-summarv-third-unregulated-contaminant-
monitoring-rule
5. UCMR 5. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/ucmr5-factsheet.pdf
F-3
-------
Fiber Optic Sensing
Association
Connect and Protect
FOSA Statement for the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
The American Water Works Association estimates that 2.1 trillion gallons of potable water
is lost each year in the U.S. because of aging and leaking pipes, broken water mains,
theft, and faulty meters. In North America, it is estimated that between 20% to 50% of the
water escapes from water utilities' pipes before it is delivered to homes or businesses.
When a utility experiences leakage in its water distribution system, the losses drive up
production costs and force the water utility to withdraw more water from its sources than
its customers need, impacting the environment and increasing the energy required to
produce more water.
The Fiber Optic Sensing Association (FOSA) represents organizations involved with fiber
optic sensing systems used to monitor infrastructure. Specific to water pipelines, fiber
optic sensing technology is used to monitor for leaks.
WHAT IS FIBER OPTIC SENSING?
Fiber optic sensing works by measuring changes in the "backscattering" of light occurring
in an optical fiber when the fiber encounters vibration, strain, or temperature
change. It can be deployed to continuously monitor vehicle movement, human traffic,
digging activity, seismic activity, the health of structures and assets, temperatures, liquid
and gas leaks, and many other conditions and activities. Fiber optic sensing is used
worldwide to monitor smart infrastructure, including tunnels, railways, bridges, borders,
power stations, and pipelines.
Fiber optic sensing is not constrained by line of sight or remote power access and,
depending on system configuration, can be deployed in continuous lengths exceeding 45
km (30 miles) with detection at every point along its path. Cost per sensing point over
great distances cannot be matched by competing technologies and often existing
deployed fibers can be utilized.
Through a maintenance program that includes fiber optic leak detection, a water utility
can intervene on their lines and evaluate the precise location of tiny leaks, perform
remediation works with less disruption and reduce the cost of their containment
losses. With water losses reduced by even a small percentage, this technology rapidly
pays for itself, with the return on investment increasing over time due to the rising costs
of leaks that have been found and stopped. FOSA encourages the Council and water
utilities to consider deploying this technology in their operations and maintenance
Fiber Optic Sensing Associationฎ - 6841 Elm Street, #861, McLean, VA 22101
F-4
-------
investments to address the issue of potable water loss across the Nation, improve their
bottom lines and reduce costs for consumers.
ABOUT THE FIBER OPTIC SENSING ASSOCIATION
FOSA is a non-profit organization created in Washington DC in 2017 with the mission of
educating industry, government and the public on the benefits of fiber optic sensing.
Through webinars, videos, white papers, public presentations and public policy advocacy,
the organization provides information on the use of fiber optic sensing to secure critical
facilities, enhance public safety and protect the environment. FOSA members include AP
Sensing, Corning, Ditch Witch, Dura-Line, FEBUS Optics, Fotech Solutions, Graz
University of Technology, Hifi, NBG Fiber Optic Corp, NEC, Network Integrity Systems,
NKT Photonics, OFS, Omnisens, OptaSense, OZ Optics, Prysmian Group, Sensonic,
Senstar, Smartpipe Technologies, Terra Sound, the University of California - Berkeley,
and VIAVI Solutions.
For more information, see: https://www.fiberopticsensing.org/ or our YouTube channel,
https://www.voutube.eom/c/FiberOpticSensingAssociation
April 11, 2022
Fiber Optic Sensing Associationฎ - 6841 Elm Street, #861, McLean, VA 22101
-------
WaterAdvisory
Water & Health Advisory Council
Docket: FRL-9577-01-OW
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment on a proposed National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
The Water & Health Advisory Council's (WHAC's) mission is to provide clarity and context
to drinking water utilities and policy makers, public health professionals and the public to
help navigate complex issues and assure protection of our nation's drinking water supply.
We advocate a risk-based approach to identifying and addressing the challenges associated
with delivering safe drinking water to Americans, including emerging contaminants.
The Council supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) efforts to develop
a reasonable, risk- and science-based national drinking water standard PFOA/PFOS. Our
Council urges policymakers to be guided by the language and intent of the Safe Drinking
Water Act and prioritize actions that provide the greatest public health benefit.
The World Health Organization routinely makes clear that microbial contamination poses
the greatest risk to drinking water safety across the globe, and illnesses linked to these
contaminants claim thousands of lives daily.1 Here in the U.S., the American Society for Civil
Engineers recently gave our drinking water infrastructure a C- grade and estimated the
cost of upgrading our system to be in the vicinity of $500 billion.2 Systems with degraded
infrastructure are at higher risk of microbial contamination. Under these circumstances,
our Council strongly believes that investments in our drinking water must be primarily
focused on protecting citizens from these naturally occurring microbial contaminants.
The fact is that our nation's water systems have limited resources, funding, and operational
capacity. As such, a national PFAS standard must be fully substantiated by toxicity and
occurrence data before water systems are required to direct more funding and resources
towards PFOS/PFOA monitoring. As part of your deliberations, we urge you to consider a
risk- and science-based approach to PFAS regulations which include:
1. More Robust Occurrence Data. More occurrence data is needed to determine where
high-concentration areas of PFOS/PFOA exist nationally. There are regions in the U.S.
that face high PFOS/PFOA concentrations, and those communities require immediate
action and response. However, regulating PFAS on a national level must be based on
1 World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water
2 American Society for Civil Engineers:https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-water/
F-6
-------
accurate and current national occurrence data. A one-size-fits-all approach will require
water systems to regularly monitor, test and invest millions of dollars and staffing to
address contaminants that may not be impacting their community.
2. More Substantial Epidemiological and Toxicity Data. Based on the current
epidemiological and toxicological data available, regulating PFOA and PFOS does not
represent a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction as defined by previously
regulated contaminants.3 The Meaningful Opportunity for Health Risk Reduction is an
essential mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we believe it must be considered
as you deliberate on this proposed rule.
3. A Careful Assessment of Cost and Impact. A handful of known risks present the greatest
threats to our drinking water systems, and we must prioritize funding to the areas of
highest need. Some communities require swift remedial action to address unacceptable
levels of PFAS in their drinking water supply, while many others do not. As you evaluate
a national standard for PFAS, we ask that you consider how this will impact local water
systems that do not have a threat of PFAS in their systems. We have great concern that
such as national standard will shift funding priorities away from known threats
impacting public health, such as failing and aging water infrastructure and protections
against microbial contaminants.
The Safe Drinking Water Act calls on our nation's leaders to take effective steps towards
ensuring a safe, affordable, and reliable drinking water supply for everyone. We ask that
you continue to apply a science-based, risk- and cost-benefit analysis when approaching
regulating PFOA / PFOS. Our Council stands ready to provide additional comment,
testimony or other ways that our expertise can be of value to this process. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Water & Health Advisory Council
Rob Renner, Council Chair, Former Chief Executive Officer at Water Research Foundation
Chad Seidel, Ph.D., President, Corona Environmental Consulting
Joseph Cotruvo, Ph.D., BCES President, Joseph Cotruvo & Associates
Joyce Dinglasan-Panlilio, Ph.D., Division Chair and Associate Professor in Environmental
Chemistry at University of Washington-Tacoma
Kathryn Sorensen, Director of Research at the Kyi Center for Water Policy, Arizona State
University
314 September 2021, AWWA Water Science, "Does regulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances represent a
meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction?" By Katherine Alfredo, Chad Seidel, Amlan Ghosh
https://awwa.onlinelibrarv.wilev.com/doi/10.1002/aws2.124Q
F-7
------- |