A pair of bills introduced in the House and Senate this month would require EPA to establish a national primary drinking water regulation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water within two years – an aggressive timeline that could complicate the scientific review and public comment processes called for under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Both bills come just months after EPA released its long-awaited PFAS Action Plan. That plan said the agency would aim to make a determination on whether to establish a drinking water regulation for two of the most prevalent PFAS – PFOA and PFOS – by the end of the year. The new legislation would go much further by directing EPA to finalize a regulation for thousands of PFAS substances within two years of enactment of the legislation.
The House proposal, H.R. 2377, the Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act, specifically would require the regulation to apply to “total PFAS.” The Senate measure (S. 1473) omits the word “total” and would also direct EPA to consider “options for tailoring monitoring requirements” for water systems that “reliably and consistently” detect PFAS in drinking water at concentrations below any legal limit eventually established by EPA.
Both bills would supersede SDWA’s statutory process and timeframes for developing new drinking water regulations. Under the law, EPA must propose a national primary drinking water regulation within two years of making a determination to regulate. Then, after considering public comment, the agency is required to publish a final drinking water regulation for the contaminant within 18 months of announcing the initial proposal. It is not clear how the bill’s strict two-year timeframe for finalizing a PFAS regulation would affect EPA’s scientific review and public engagement processes.
The next steps for each bill are not immediately clear, but the House proposal has the support of Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) – the respective chairmen of the House committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction over drinking water policy. This is a strong indication that the bill is likely to advance through those committees and to the House floor this year.