The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing new test methods for use by municipalities and industries to monitor the level of pollutants in water sources, including new testing procedures for per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) substances.

EPA announced the effort to develop new test procedures in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was posted on the Federal Register on Jan. 21, 2025.

The NPRM—Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule 22 for the Analysis of Contaminants in Effluent—seeks “to promulgate test procedures for the analysis of pollutants,” and EPA is accepting comments on the NPRM until Feb. 20, 2025.

Such new procedures to analyze water for pollutant congers—which are chemical substance related to other such substances—would “simplify the sampling requirements for two volatile organic compounds and make a series of minor corrections to existing tables of approved methods,” EPA says.

The development of new test procedures to identify pollutants in water, as well as updating approved test methods, is required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) because “the quality and consistency of the data collected” used to monitor for such pollutants is increased by new and updated test methods, the Federal Register notice says.

In addition, the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters unless the discharge complies with a “national pollution discharge elimination system” (NPDES) permit, which is a permit program that sets limits on what can be discharged.

NPDES permits must include conditions to ensure compliance with the technology-based and water-quality based requirements of the CWA, including restrictions on the quantity of specific pollutants that can be discharged, the NPRM says.

Because the procedures for the analysis of pollutants required by CWA are a central element of the NPDES permit program, permittees must use EPA-approved analytical methods that are sensitive enough to detect and measure pollutants at or below permit limits or water quality criteria. 

However, when the EPA has approved more than one method for a specific pollutant, permittees can choose which test procedure to use, according to the NPRM. 

Situations in which EPA-approved analytical methods must be used include: 

• When applications for NPDES permits have been filed. 
• When sampling or other reports are required under NPDES permits. 
• Other requests for quantitative or qualitative effluent data under the NPDES regulations. 
• State CWA certifications. 
• When sampling and analysis are required under EPA’s general pretreatment regulations for existing and new sources of pollution.

While EPA set Feb. 20, 2025, as the deadline to file comments on the NPRM, some stakeholders within the water testing and water utility sectors say because the NPRM is very complex the deadline is too short and should be extended by 60 days.

Jeff Smith, the director of operations at Complete Environmental Testing (CET), told The Driller EPA needs to extend the comment period by 60 days in part because the agency is behind technologically, and is seeking to catch up.

In addition, some stakeholders believe the EPA effort falls short of what is needed to advance the regulation of industrial discharges of PFAS, especially in relation to effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) already established by EPA for different industrial categories.

In a written comment, G. Tracy Mehan, III, executive director for government affairs, for the American Water Works Association (AWWA), said the EPA’s current effort “is not adequate to the goal” listed in the NPRM to identify industrial sources of contamination “that may warrant further study for potential regulation through national ELGs.”

“The current NPRM is too narrowly constructed to afford drinking water supplies the protection that is needed,” Mehan said. Furthermore, she said it is “arbitrary and capricious” for EPA “to develop regulations that hold public water systems accountable for concentrations of PFAS in their source water while not taking preparatory steps to control the introduction of those same contaminates into the nation’s waters from all likely high volume and/or high-level industrial sources.”

Cynthia A. Finley, regulatory affairs director for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), said municipal clean water agencies were not designed to have PFAS treatment capabilities. In addition, because there are no cost-effective methods to treat or remove PFAS, public water utilities would pass the costs for treating and removing those chemicals on to ratepayers. That would make “the public pay for the pollution costs of private entities that have financially profited from manufacturing and formulating PFAS chemicals in commerce,” according to Finley.

Therefore, the NACWA urges the EPA to expand its studies to include industries “that typically discharge wastewater that may contain PFAS” to publicly owned treatment works (POTW), which makes POTWs “passive receivers” of PFAS substances.

Jennifer Peters, national water program director for the Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, reflects those opinions saying, because industrial facilities are known to discharge PFAS in, or directly upstream of drinking water sources, “PFAS must be controlled at the source.”

The Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund urges EPA to use its authority provided by the CWA, as well as by other pollution prevention authorities, to prevent PFAS and other toxic chemicals from entering into drinking water sources. In addition, “drinking water systems should not have to bear the burden of removing PFAS from drinking water sources,” those organizations say.

EPA advises that comment submissions must include the docket identification number (Docket ID No.) established for this NPRM, which is “Docket ID No EPA–HQ–OW–2024–0328.” 

Comments can be submitted by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (EPA’s preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
  
  
• Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. 
  
  
• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except Federal Holidays). 

Those filing comments need to be aware that comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided.