Blog

May 09, 2023

EPA proposes first PFAS drinking water regulations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing the first legally

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing the first legally enforceable national drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals, drawing widespread praise from public health groups and concern from the chemical industry over some of the science.

On March 14, the agency proposed regulations that would set strict new limits for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFOA and PFOS, while regulating four others — PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS and GenX — as a mixture with hazard limits when at least one of them is present.

The new regulations are aimed at drinking water systems, but plastics companies from resin firms to processors have been subject to regulations and legal settlements with government agencies in Michigan, Vermont and elsewhere over PFAS contamination from manufacturing operations.

There's a move within plastics product makers to remove PFAS chemicals from production processes.

EPA's new proposal was praised by environmental and health groups, which called it unprecedented and a public health milestone in cleaning up drinking water.

"Today's announcement by the EPA is historic progress," said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group in Washington. "More than 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. Americans have been drinking contaminated water for decades. This proposal is a critical step toward getting these toxic poisons out of our water."

In New York state, where concerns arose around two Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plants in 2016, environmental groups used the EPA proposal to urge state officials to make their own PFAS standards stricter.

"Today's historic victory is the result of yearslong advocacy by PFAS-impacted communities and scientists, who demanded that our government stop exposure to these cancer-causing chemicals," said Rob Hayes, director of Clean Water for Environmental Advocates New York.

That group said the EPA proposal, if enacted, would be the first new toxic chemicals the agency has regulated in drinking water in over 20 years.

However, the American Chemistry Council, while saying it backed restrictions on PFOA and PFOS and said its members phased out production of the two chemicals more than eight years ago, also questioned some of the science in EPA's proposal.

It said other health agencies, including the World Health Organization, have different views on PFOA and PFOS thresholds, and questioned the EPA's approach setting what are called maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs.

"The EPA's misguided approach to these MCLs is important, as these low limits will likely result in billions of dollars in compliance costs," ACC said. "The proposals have important implications for broader drinking water policy priorities and resources, so it's critical that EPA gets the science right."

The trade group said it supported some restrictions and drinking water rules.

"We support restrictions on their use globally, and we support drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS based on the best available science," it said.

Outside of plastics, PFAS chemicals are used in a wide range of products and industries, including cleaners, paper, textiles, cosmetics and firefighting foams.

For its part, EPA set the safe levels of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 4 parts per trillion, the lowest levels it said can be reliably measured.

For the other four chemicals, it said that water systems would use a hazard index calculation, as defined in EPA's proposed rule, to determine if the combined levels of those four constitute a risk. It also proposed, as a health advisory goal, zero parts per trillion exposure.

The agency said the rule, if finalized, would require water systems to test and remediate.

"EPA anticipates that if fully implemented, the rule will, over time, prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses," it said.

"Communities across this country have suffered far too long from the ever-present threat of PFAS pollution," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "EPA's proposal to establish a national standard for PFAS in drinking water is informed by the best available science, and would help provide states with the guidance they need to make decisions that best protect their communities."

EPA said the 2021 infrastructure law included $10 billion for municipalities to address emerging drinking water contaminants like PFAS, with $2 billion of that made available last month.

The National Ground Water Association applauded the EPA's proposal.

"For too long, communities across the country struggled with patchwork regulations and limited guidance on how to safely manage these chemicals, which impact the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans," said NGWA CEO Terry Morse.

The American Chemistry Council warned of what it saw as substantial risks from poorly thought-out regulations.

"We have serious concerns with the underlying science used to develop these proposed MCLs and have previously challenged the EPA based on the process used to develop that science," it said. "We are not alone in our concerns, as others have been on the record criticizing their development. And new peer-reviewed research also calls into question the basis for EPA's overly conservative approach to assessing one of the health endpoints."

It said, for example, that the agency has not yet evaluated two of the four chemistries it wants to use in the hazard index.

ACC, which backed drinking water standards based on the "best available science," said that PFAS compounds come from a broad mix of chemistries and should not be regulated with a one-size-fits-all approach.

"PFAS are a diverse universe of chemistries critical to renewable energy applications like solar and wind power, medical devices, the production of life-saving drugs, as well as cellphones, tablets and semiconductors, among many other uses," the group said. "All PFAS are not the same, and they should not all be regulated the same way."

Do you have an opinion about this story? Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with our readers? Plastics News would love to hear from you. Email your letter to Editor at [email protected]

Please enter a valid email address.

Please enter your email address.

Please verify captcha.

Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe.

View the discussion thread.