(Trend) 2023, US - Safe Drinking Water Act - Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation For Specified PFAS (IF12367)
(Trend) 2023, US - Safe Drinking Water Act - Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation For Specified PFAS (IF12367)
(Trend) 2023, US - Safe Drinking Water Act - Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation For Specified PFAS (IF12367)
supplies—or a treatment technique if an MCL is not the combined risk of potential noncancerous health effects
feasible (42 U.S.C. §300g-1(b)(4)(B)). Concurrent with associated with these PFAS.
proposing a regulation, SDWA requires that EPA publish
and seek public comment on a “health risk reduction and Treatment Technologies
cost analysis” (HRRCA) for each contaminant covered by EPA notes that conventional and most advanced water
the proposed regulation (42 U.S.C. §300g-1(b)(6)(C)). treatment options are ineffective at removing PFAS from
water. To meet the MCLs, EPA proposes that the best
For each drinking water regulation, SDWA requires EPA to available treatment technologies are anion exchange (AIX),
identify a list of best available technologies, treatment granular activated carbon (GAC), reverse osmosis (RO),
techniques, and other means that EPA finds to be feasible and nanofiltration (NF). Operation of these technologies
for the purposes of meeting the MCL. SDWA requires EPA would require either waste-stream disposal or treatment-
to identify treatment technologies that achieve the MCL and residuals disposal. Nontreatment options available to water
are “affordable” for small systems (42 U.S.C. §300g- systems to achieve compliance include (1) replacing a water
1(b)(4)(E)(ii)). Each regulation also establishes monitoring source with a new water source that meets the MCLs or (2)
and reporting requirements. EPA may extend the deadline buying water that meets the MCLs from another system.
to publish a final rule for up to nine months (42 U.S.C.
§300g-1(b)(1)). Regulations generally take effect three As required by SDWA, EPA’s proposal identifies
years after promulgation. EPA may allow up to two added technologies that are “affordable” for small systems. EPA
years if the Administrator finds that capital improvements finds that GAC and AIX are affordable for systems that
are needed. On a system-by-system basis, states can provide serve 10,000 or fewer individuals. For systems serving
the same two-year extension (42 U.S.C. §300g-1(b)(10)). more than 3,300 individuals, RO and NF are considered
affordable. For systems serving 3,300 individuals or fewer,
EPA’s Proposed PFAS Regulation EPA finds that RO or NF would be affordable when RO or
On March 14, 2023, EPA announced its proposed national NF point-of-use devices that treat to the MCLs and meet the
primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) for PFOA and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International
PFOS. The agency also proposed a positive RD for several /American National Standards Institute certification
other PFAS: perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), standard become available. As of the date of EPA’s
perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), hexafluoropropylene proposal, such devices are not available; accordingly, the
oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and its ammonium salt (also affordable technologies for water systems serving 3,300 or
known as a GenX chemicals), and perfluorononanoic acid fewer individuals are GAC and AIX.
(PFNA). In the same notice, EPA proposed that the
NPDWR include these PFAS. EPA’s proposal was Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
published at 88 FR 18638 on March 29, 2023. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-
58) provides supplemental appropriations for the Drinking
MCLGs and MCLs for PFOA and PFOS Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and for another
For PFOA and PFOS, EPA proposed to set the MCLG at SDWA program dedicated to emerging contaminant
zero. In NPDWRs, EPA sets the MCLG at zero for projects. IIJA provides $800 million annually for FY2022-
microbial contaminants and for a contaminant that EPA (1) FY2026 through the DWSRF for grants to water systems
has evidence that it may cause cancer, and (2) cannot for projects that address emerging contaminants with an
determine a dose that is considered “safe.” SDWA emphasis on PFAS. For small and disadvantaged
generally requires EPA to establish the MCL as close to the communities, IIJA provides $1.0 billion annually for
MCLG as feasible (42 U.S.C. §300g-1(b)(4)(B)). The FY2022-FY2026 for projects to address emerging
proposed NPDWR includes MCLs for PFOA and PFOS contaminants. The term “emerging contaminant” has no
each at 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), which EPA finds to be federal definition but is mainly understood to mean
the lowest level that can be reliably measured by existing unregulated contaminants for which scientific information
analytical methods, referred to as the detection limit. on potential risks is still evolving. As such, these IIJA funds
are intended for projects to address contaminants without
Hazard Index for Four Other PFAS NPDWRs though EPA states that PFAS projects will
Instead of numerical MCLGs and MCLs for each of the remain eligible for these funds.
other four PFAS in the agency’s proposed regulation, EPA
proposes to use a hazard index approach to evaluate the Should EPA meet the SDWA timeframe to finalize the
potential risks of these chemicals in aggregate. This PFAS NPDWR, the regulation would go into effect in
involves assessing concentrations of each substance relative September 2027. EPA states that it intends to finalize the
to that substance’s “health based water concentration” rule by the end of 2023 and does not plan to delay the
(HBWC) and combining those relative values together to effective date of 2026. EPA’s proposal anticipates that
calculate the hazard index. EPA’s proposal includes smaller systems that need to install treatment to meet the
HBWCs for PFHxS at 9.0 ppt; HFPO-DA at 10.0 ppt; PFAS MCLs would use the IIJA emerging contaminant
PFNA at 10.0 ppt; and PFBS at 2,000 ppt. Water systems funds for these projects. These funds could help offset
would divide the sampled concentrations of each PFAS by capital costs, yet communities would remain responsible for
its respective HBWC, and then sum these relative values to the operation and maintenance of these technologies.
calculate the aggregate hazard index value. EPA proposed a
MCLG and MCL for the combination of these four PFAS at Elena H. Humphreys, Analyst in Environmental Policy
a hazard index of 1. The hazard index is intended to address
IF12367
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Safe Drinking Water Act: Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Specified PFAS
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.