PFAS: Upcoming Stakeholder Information and Answers to Common Questions

Stakeholder meeting for regulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water

The Water Quality Control Division will host our kickoff meeting on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2024, from 1 to 2:30 p.m to discuss the statewide adoption of the EPA’s PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation under the Water Quality Control Commission’s Regulation No. 11. 

• Register for the PFAS kickoff meeting 

We invite all interested individuals to participate in the process but strongly encourage community and non-transient, non-community public water systems to attend. 

• Sign up through the PFAS drinking water rule engagement form if you would like to continue to receive email correspondence regarding this process.

PFAS Questions

What just happened with the PFAS rule?

On April 10, 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for five individual PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (known as GenX). The EPA is also setting a Hazard Index level for two or more of four PFAS as a mixture: PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.

Chemical	Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)	Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
PFOA	0	4.0 ppt
PFOS	0	4.0 ppt
PFHxS	10 ppt	10 ppt
HFPO-DA (GenX Chemicals)	10 ppt	10 ppt
PFNA	10 ppt	10 ppt
Mixture of two or more: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS	Hazard Index of 1 (unitless)	Hazard Index of 1 (unitless)

Table 1. New federal PFAS Regulatory Levels

Definitions

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health and allows for an adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are non-enforceable public health goals.  

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.   

Parts per trillion (ppt):  A ppt is a measurement of the quantity of a substance in the air, water or soil. A concentration of one part per trillion means that there is one part of that substance for every one trillion parts of either air, water or soil in which it is contained. One part per trillion is equivalent to one nanogram per kilogram ng/L.

Hazard Index (HI): The Hazard Index is a long-established approach that EPA regularly uses to understand health risk from chemical mixture. The HI is made up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the highest level determined not to have risk of health.

What is a Hazard Index?

Research shows that mixtures of PFAS can have additive health effects. This means that low levels of multiple PFAS that individually would not likely result in adverse health effects may pose health concerns when combined in a mixture. EPA’s Hazard Index MCL is set at 1 and applies to any mixture containing two or more of PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX. The Hazard Index is made up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the highest level below which there is no risk of health effects.

Is this going to impact my water system?

Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems must comply with the PFAS drinking water MCLs. Consecutive community systems and NTNC systems must comply with the MCLs as well but the requirements are less extensive.

When will I see this on my Monitoring Schedule? When do I need to start sampling? Am I going to need to install treatment?

By the end of 2026: 

• Systems must conduct initial monitoring or obtain approval to use previously collected monitoring data
• States must adopt PFAS rule into state regs

Starting in 2027: 

• Systems must start their ongoing compliance monitoring
• There are opportunities for reduced monitoring depending on the system’s initial monitoring results
• Systems must include results of their monitoring for the regulated PFAS in their Consumer Confidence Reports
• Systems must start issuing public notification for any monitoring and testing procedure violations

By the end of 2028:

• Systems that detect PFAS above the new standards must implement solutions that reduce PFAS in their drinking water to below the MCLs to remain in compliance with the rule

Starting in 2029: 

• Systems must comply with all regulated PFAS MCLs
• Systems must provide public notification for violations of the PFAS MCLs

What treatment methods will remove PFAS?

• Granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange and reverse osmosis are the most common methods of removing PFAS from drinking water. 
• Most conventional drinking water treatment methods will not remove PFAS.
• Powdered activated carbon (PAC) may remove some PFAS but testing is required to confirm.
• PFAS is not removed by boiling.

How do I deal with PFAS treatment residuals?

The EPA released an interim disposal guidance for PFAS media, backwash water, and RO concentrate. Their current recommended methods are:

• Underground injection
• Landfill
• Thermal treatment/incineration - this is the best option but isn’t widely available yet. Note that exhausted GAC media can be thermally regenerated for non potable use. 
• Interim storage for high PFAS content materials.

Are there labs to do this testing? Is it expensive?

• Testing costs vary from lab to lab and typically range from about $300 to $600 per sample. Systems must use an approved test method (EPA 533 or EPA 537.1) Be aware that there are lower cost PFAS tests available and while these may be good for applications like testing a private well, they may not be acceptable for compliance purposes. 
• Systems can sign up for CDPHE’s grant program for initial PFAS monitoring or reach out to [email protected].
• All labs on the EPA’s list of labs certified for PFAS testing are acceptable for compliance purposes.

Where can I find more information?

• CDPHE's Water Quality PFAS website
• EPA’s Water Quality PFAS Website
• CDPHE's PFAS testing results in public water systems in Colorado

➽ Chelsea Cotton, Lead Drinking Water Engineer

PFAS Wastewater/Biosolids Sampling - SB20-218

Image courtesy of Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

The Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is pleased to announce a new program offering wastewater and biosolids facilities free lab analysis of wastewater and biosolids samples for PFAS. The program will be available during fiscal year 2025 (July 1, 2024 thru June 30, 2025) and funding dependent moving forward. To request a sample kit, please complete the Wastewater/Biosolids PFAS Sampling Request form located on the PFAS grant program webpage. 

The division has been implementing a proactive approach to control PFAS contributions to the environment that includes measuring and trying to understand levels of PFAS in biosolids and wastewater. The concept is to identify and reduce significant sources of non-domestic PFAS entering wastewater treatment facilities.

For more information visit the CDPHE's PFAS website and PFAS and Biosolids website. 

➽ Sierra Mitchell, PFAS Program Coordinator

New Policy Addresses Enforcement Discretion Questions on HB24-1344

The Colorado State Plumbing Board convened an emergency meeting on Wednesday, July 17, 2024 in response to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's request that the State Plumbing Board use its statutory discretion and not issue disciplinary actions until HB24-1344 has been fully implemented through Board rulemaking. During this meeting, the Board agreed and issued a policy stating that certified cross-connection control technicians would not be subject to discipline for inspecting, testing, and repairing backflow prevention devices through April 1, 2025.

This direction maintains public health protections, supports water utility compliance with drinking water regulations, and does not disrupt the lives of people and businesses operating under the prior status quo.

This timing also allows the General Assembly the ability to hear from all stakeholders and reconsider this issue and its implications for public health during the 2025 session. We hope to reach an agreement that allows technicians to do the critical work they were doing prior to the passage of HB24-1344.

To participate in rulemaking and stakeholder input opportunities with DORA, please sign up through this form.

Storage Tank Roofs - Issues with Metal and Corrugated Metal Roofs

Since Colorado’s storage tank rule went into effect in 2016 we have published many articles on different aspects of finished water storage tanks. Today we would like to focus on another important potential avenue of contamination, corrugated and metal storage tank roofs. 

In recent inspections for systems that have tanks with sheet metal and corrugated metal roofs, the water quality control division (division) has seen an increase in issues with seals between the roof of the tank, and the tank walls, vents, and access hatches. Corrugated tank roofs are of particular concern due to the gaps created by their corrugated ridges. Below are some of our most important lessons learned about metal and corrugated tank roofs.

Corrugated Tank Roofs Can be Difficult to Seal

The voids created between the ridges of a corrugated roof and the walls of a tank can be difficult to effectively seal and may be a desirable shelter for rodents and other small animals. It is also much more challenging to correctly seal roof penetrations for things like tank vents in a corrugated roof. If your system has a preexisting tank with a corrugated roof the division recommends more frequent periodic inspections of these tanks with a particular focus on the seals around the corrugated materials. 

Figure 1 - Improper seal between two corrugated panels

Figure 2 & 3 - Gaps left between corrugated roof and tank walls that can allow rodents and bugs to enter the tank, creating a public health risk.

Figure 4 - Light is visible from the interior of a tank around a vent in a corrugated roof showing that it is improperly sealed.

Figure 5 - Improper seal around a tank hatch.

Expanding Foam is not an Effective Method to Seal Gaps in Tank Openings

Figure 6 - Foam used to seal the interior of a tank.

It is not uncommon to see expanding foam used to seal gaps in corrugated tanks because it can easily fill large gaps. The use of this foam can lead to potential public health risks and sanitary defects. Foam used in exterior gaps can degrade rapidly due to weather and may be used by small animals as nesting material. Foam that is used as a sealant on the interior of tanks may deteriorate and flake off into the water posing a contamination risk itself over time. Condensation collecting on the foam can leach contaminants and then drip into the drinking water.

Metal Tank Roofs Can be Challenging to Inspect

We have seen tanks with metal roofs where it isn’t possible to examine the interface between the walls of the tanks and the metal roof without an interior inspection. A dislocation or break in the gasket material or a warpage or dislocation of the metal panels could allow the entrance of contaminants such as plants, insects, birds, and small animals into the tank. A brief walk around a tank is not effective in finding potential openings. An extendable mirror can be helpful for looking at tough to see locations around all storage tanks.

Drinking Water Design Criteria for Tanks

The division has outlined the requirements for tank roofs in the design criteria. This section of the criteria is currency undergoing a stakeholder update process. If you are interested in receiving updates on this process or getting involved you can find more information on our Drinking Water Design Criteria webpage. 

New or modified storage tanks being submitted to the Department for approval must meet the design criteria. Also, the Department intends to update the design criteria to clarify that we will not approve tanks moving forward with corrugated metal roofing. However, during a sanitary survey an inspector will not issue a significant deficiency solely based on your existing tank not meeting the current design requirements unless there is a condition identified during the sanitary survey that is a potential threat to public health (examples include unprotected openings to tanks, missing/damaged screens, unsealed/un-gasketed hatches, improperly sealed tank roofs, etc.).

Figure 7 - Excerpt from the current Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems (2022 Edition)

Identification of Sanitary Defects and Risks to Public Health

If a supplier finds an animal or other concerning debris in an improperly sealed storage tank please contact the division’s emergency line at 1-877-518-5608 as soon as possible but within 24 hours of discovery. The drinking water acute team will consult with you on next steps.

If suppliers identify a sanitary defect, it must be documented upon discovery. Also, a corrective action schedule in accordance with the Storage Tank Plan must be developed to fix it as soon as possible. Take photographs before and after making repairs. By doing so, suppliers can avoid a violation for not correctly implementing the storage tank rule.

Sanitary defects that are discovered during sanitary surveys may be cited as significant deficiencies or possibly even as a Tier 2 (treatment technique) violation of the storage tank rule for permitting a known sanitary defect. The risk of violations is especially present for defects that should be ‘obvious’ to anyone performing a periodic tank inspection.

Additionally, if suppliers do not follow the corrective action schedule that they developed, they will also be in violation of the storage tank rule. Avoid violations of the storage tank rule by proactively identifying sanitary defects and then documenting that the supplier is following a corrective action schedule to fix them.

➽ Chelsea Cotton, P.E., Lead Drinking Water Engineer

Mandatory Regulatory Training (MRT) Changes Coming in 2025!

In the Fall of 2023, the Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board (board) formed a subcommittee to evaluate whether revisions or updates should be made to the board’s guidance for Mandatory Regulatory Training (MRT), Board Guidance 19-1, and associated content and to ensure the intent and purpose of MRT are being applied. The division (in collaboration with the subcommittee) determined there were areas for improvement and clarification. 

The division solicited feedback from stakeholders in May 2024 on the proposed changes to Board Guidance 19-1 and its associated content and presented the subcommittee’s proposed revisions to the board at its June 25, 2024 board meeting. The board approved the proposed revisions to Board Guidance 19-1 and its associated Specific Curriculum Elements. 

To allow time for implementation, the revised version will become effective on January 1, 2025, and the current Board Guidance 19-1 remains effective through December 31, 2024. 

The revisions that were approved: 

• Provide more detail, clarification, and consistency.
• Remove the two-hour cap on MRT courses. 
• Swap the term “required minimum content” with “specific curriculum elements.” 
• Change the format of the specific curriculum elements from PowerPoint slides to a “Reference Guide” that specifies which information is required and which is optional.
• Only allow an MRT course to count as core Training Units (TUs) once per certificate renewal cycle to ensure operators are diversifying their learning by not only taking MRT courses to renew their certification(s). 

Although not yet in effect, you can view the revised guidance document and associated Reference Guide on the board’s website. 

What does this mean for certified operators?

Operators are still required to complete an MRT course when applying for a certification examination, applying for reciprocity, or renewing a certification. As mentioned above, come January 1, 2025, the completion of an MRT course will count as core Training Units (TUs) only once per renewal cycle. Operators may continue to take an MRT course more than once per renewal cycle but any additional attendance at an MRT course within that three-year cycle would count as flexible (or “flex”) TUs. This change helps ensure certified operators are diversifying their learning and not only taking MRT courses to renew certification(s). 

What does this mean for course providers? 

Should a training provider, utility, or other entity desire to provide MRT in 2025 (and thereafter), they must include all the Specific Curriculum Elements outlined in the Reference Guide during each MRT course delivery. The process for submitting and obtaining MRT course approval remains the same. 

As mentioned above, the content of the Reference Guide is not materially different from the current required course content provided in the PowerPoint slides. The format of the content was changed and now indicates which information is required and which is optional (items with a check box and in bold font are required course content; the optional content is bulleted and not in bold font). 

One approved change was to simplify instances where course providers are to show operators where to find division compliance tools, regulations, policies, and guidance documents. Course providers are still required to explain the differences and importance of each and where to find more information when needed. However, walking through examples, including providing the links, click-paths, and/or keywords to search for online, will now be considered optional content and not required course content. Clarification was also added to indicate that all courses, not only online courses, are required to have assessments, and examples of acceptable types of in-person assessments were added. 

Other important changes to note for course providers relevant to the learning objectives is that a certified operator’s mission to protect public health and the environment was added to the sections covering the role of a certified operator (Regulation 100), and for wastewater treatment, industrial wastewater treatment, and wastewater collection, an overview of the tables located at the end of each permit was added to the section on understanding how to read a permit. 

For questions related to these updates, feel free to contact Jessica Morgan at [email protected]. 

➽ Jessica Morgan, Facility and Operator Outreach and Certification Board Liaison

Most Frequently Cited Significant Deficiencies and Violations - Inspection Year 2023

The Field Services Section (FSS) wrapped up the 2023 inspection year (IY 23) in September 2023 and the new IY 24 inspection year started and is almost halfway over! We appreciate all the assistance from public water systems in completing 491 sanitary surveys in 2023. IY24 started October 1, 2023 and FSS inspectors have completed 297 site visits to date. In this article we will share the top 10 most frequently cited significant deficiencies and violations from IY23 and a sneak peek into IY24 trends to raise awareness and help operators identify and correct issues before they become a potential health threat or citations in a sanitary survey. 

According to Regulation 11, Section 11.3(72), a significant deficiency means: any situation, practice, or condition in a public water system with respect to design, operation, maintenance, or administration, that the state determines may result in or have the potential to result in production of finished drinking water that poses an unacceptable risk to health and welfare of the public served by the water system. Field-based Violations of Regulation 11 have either Tier 2 or Tier 3 public notice requirements that are dependent upon the severity of the violation and any potential public health effects, pursuant to Regulation 11, Sections 11.33(1)(a,b), 11.33(2)(a), 11.33(3)(a) and 11.33(4)(a). All issued notifications must comply with the general content and distribution requirements and notice reporting requirements that are included in Regulation 11.33(5),(6) and (7).

During the 2023 inspection year, 1,256 significant deficiencies and violations were cited in 491 sanitary surveys. The Top 10 most frequent inspection citations were:

Storage tank deficiencies (F310 and T310), in the distribution system and before the entry point (CT tanks) combined account for 16% of all citations in IY23 and 17% of all citations in IY22. Storage tank deficiencies can include improperly protected screens, hatches and overflows. This underscores the importance of robust routine tank inspections under the Storage Tank Rule and also for tanks that are used for contact time or before entry point. 

The next most frequently cited significant deficiency, with 9% of the total IY23 and IY22 citations, was for wellhead pathways of contamination (S030). This can include loose wellhead seals, missing or damaged vent screens, missing gaskets, broken/open electrical boxes/conduit, cracked sanitary seal plates and wellheads. 

Backflow prevention and cross connection control (BPCCC) has four violations and a significant deficiency that make the Top 10 list, including failure to develop BPCCC annual reports, failure to develop or implement the BPCCC program (both Tier 3 public notice violations), and failure to meet the assembly testing ratio and method inspection ratio which were a Tier 2 public notice violations. Combined, all the BPCCC violations and significant deficiencies make up 26% of the citations in IY23. In 2023 the Division streamlined the BPCCC rule with the Water Quality Control Commission and the assembly and method compliance ratios were combined. In IY24 the M614 and M615 violation codes were replaced with one code, the M619 for Inadequate Backflow Prevention Annual Compliance Ratio due to combining assembly testing ratios and method inspection ratio.

A newcomer to the Top 10 is the Bacteriological Sampling Plan R518 violation which can include not performing representative sampling of the distribution system, not having a sampling plan, not rotating sample locations or not following the plan. 

In IY24 to date, 673 significant deficiencies and violations have been cited. The majority of these citations are the same as the IY23 Top 10 with the addition of two other findings:

• Violation R536 - MONITORING DISINFECTION (T3); Failure to Monitor Groundwater EP Residual Disinfectant.
• Significant Deficiency T116 - GROUND WATER TREATMENT; Supplier could not demonstrate adequate operation of approved groundwater treatment processes which are being used for compliance with Regulation 11.

Please check your water systems for these issues to protect public health and avoid significant deficiencies and violations during your next sanitary survey. If you would like additional assistance on technical issues or sanitary survey preparation, please sign up for individualized coaching here.  For any questions or concerns about sanitary surveys please email our Field Services team at [email protected]. Thank you for all your efforts to protect public health!

➽ Heather Young, PE, CWP, Field Services Section Manager

Public Health Success in Partnership

Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch and The Town of Monument Partner to Provide Drinking Water

Town of Monument, CO

Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch successfully closed out their long-standing enforcement order after many hurdles and plot twists. This is a story of collaboration between water systems and with Department staff. Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch is a mobile home community in El Paso County that serves approximately 250 people. 

In 2014 to 2018, Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch was struggling to maintain compliance with a variety of regulatory requirements. As a result, in 2018, the Department issued an Enforcement Order due to the system's failure to comply with The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11) and The Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements (Regulation 100).  The purpose of the Order was to provide deadlines and oversight to keep Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch on track toward returning to compliance and maintaining long-term compliance with Regulation 11 and Regulation 100.

Later in 2018, water samples collected from a proposed well indicated elevated concentrations of combined radium -226 and -228 and resulted in violations of the maximum contaminant level (MCL). Radionuclides such as these can occur naturally in water sources as a result of the erosion of natural deposits. While they are not an acute health risk for short-term consumption, there are chronic risks including a higher risk of developing cancer if water with elevated radium levels is consumed over a long period of time. Even though Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch had resolved all but one of the prior violations, the Department issued an amendment to their Order to bring the new MCL violations into the corrective action oversight provided by the Order.

The owner of Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch expressed frustration at the complexity of this new MCL violation but continued to work with their contract Professional Engineer and the Department to explore affordable solutions. Even though this water system serves full-time residents, as a private, for-profit business, the owners could not qualify for funding assistance (grants or low interest loans) from local, state or federal agencies. Collaborative communication between the Department, the system, and contract engineers was dedicated to designing a solution that would effectively reduce the concentration of combined radium in the water. Several ideas were considered, but only a few were realistically going to ensure future compliance. The system decided to install treatment to remove radium, but complications developed throughout the process: the financial burden of the total cost of the project was becoming an increasing concern, and they were not allowed to discharge the removed radium as a waste stream which eliminated some treatment options. The remaining treatment option added extra cost beyond the treatment installation and operation/maintenance. They would need to use a treatment that captured the removed radium in a resin instead of discharging it in a waste stream. This would require obtaining a hazardous waste handler permit for the Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch itself, and they would also pay indefinitely for a specially permitted waste hauler service to remove the resin on a regular frequency. 

In 2022, a new partner entered the conversation. The Town of Monument informed the Department of plans to construct a water line that was going to run along the property edge of Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch as part of a new storage tank construction project. Given the complications that Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch was experiencing with installing treatment for their own water supply, they were enthusiastic about this new development. When the Department received confirmation from the Town of Monument that they were willing to provide a connection to Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch, as well as confirmation from Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch that they would accept the connection and disconnect their wells, the Department readily agreed to the change of plans.

Despite having exhausted significant effort and resources toward implementing solutions for an improved water system and treatment for combined radium, ultimately, Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch decided that the best way to return to compliance was to tie in with the Town of Monument. In December 2023, the connection was completed and the wells were disconnected. Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch is now classified as a consecutive system receiving finished drinking water from another regulated water system, and the water being distributed to its residents is now in compliance with Regulation 11. 

While Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch demonstrated admirable determination in attempting to independently return the water system to compliance with all regulations, ultimately, success was found in partnership, as expressed in these testimonials from Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch and The Town of Monument. This highlights the important lesson in weighing perseverance against the path of least resistance: sometimes the simplest option is the best option. The Department is committed to a culture of health that prioritizes safe drinking water for all consumers and works hard to facilitate success stories such as these.

It is also important to take into consideration how existing regulations now apply to Palmer Lake Mobile Home Ranch moving forward. Consecutive water systems are still required to comply with Regulations 11 and 100, there are just differences in the applicability of certain rules. Additionally, the new water quality testing program under the Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act will begin this year. This program is designed to address community member concerns, identify water quality issues, and remediate water quality issues at parks throughout Colorado.

Did you know that Colorado has hundreds of small mobile home parks that receive finished drinking water from a regulated water system? 

QUIZ: If a mobile home park does not have a well or treatment system, but bills customers for water, what regulations apply? Choose the correct answer:

1. The plumbing code alone
2. The plumbing code and the new Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act
3. The plumbing code, the new Mobile Home Park Water Quality Act, DOLA’s Mobile Home Park Oversight program, and Regulation 11 within the distribution system
4. None of the above are fully correct; it’s complicated!

Look for the answer in a future AquaTalk article!

➽ Lauren Fracasso Compliance Specialist for South Unit

➽ Emily Clark Enforcement & Field Findings Compliance Lead