WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed limiting the amount of harmful ”forever chemicals” in drinking water to the lowest level that tests can detect, a long-awaited protection the agency said will save thousands of lives and prevent serious illnesses, including cancer.
The plan marks the first time the EPA has proposed regulating a toxic group of compounds that are widespread, dangerous and expensive to remove from water. PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated substances, don’t degrade in the environment and are linked to a broad range of health issues, including low birthweight babies and kidney cancer. The agency says drinking water is a significant source of PFAS exposure for people.
“The science is clear that long-term exposure to PFAS is linked to significant health risks,” Radhika Fox, assistant EPA administrator for water, said in an interview.
Fox called the federal proposal a “transformational change” for improving the safety of drinking water in the United States. The agency estimates the rule could reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans, decreasing rates of cancer, heart attacks and birth complications.
The chemicals had been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industry, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Their use is now mostly phased out in the U.S., but some still remain.
The proposal would set strict limits of 4 parts per trillion, the lowest level that can be reliably measured, for two common types of PFAS compounds called PFOA and PFOS. In addition, the EPA wants to regulate the combined amount of four other types of PFAS. Water providers will have to monitor for PFAS.
The public will have a chance to comment, and the agency can make changes before issuing a final rule, which is expected by the end of the year. Water providers will have time to adjust.
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators said the proposal is “a step in the right direction” but compliance will be challenging. Despite available federal money, “significant rate increases will be required for most of the systems” that must remove PFAS, the group said Tuesday.
Environmental and public health advocates have called for federal regulation of PFAS chemicals for years. Over the last decade, the EPA has repeatedly strengthened its protective, voluntary health thresholds for the chemicals but has not imposed mandatory limits on water providers.
Public concern has increased in recent years as testing reveals PFAS chemicals in a growing list of communities that are often near manufacturing plants or Air Force bases.
Until now, only a handful of states have issued PFAS regulations, and none has set limits as strict as what the EPA is proposing. By regulating PFOA and PFOS at the minimum amounts that tests can detect, the EPA is proposing the tightest possible standards that are technically feasible, experts said.
“This is a really historic moment,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “There are many communities that have had PFAS in their water for decades who have been waiting for a long time for this announcement to come out.”
The agency said its proposal will protect everyone, including vulnerable communities, and reduce illness on a massive scale. The EPA wants water providers to do testing, notify the public when PFAS are found and remove the compounds when levels are too high.
Utilities that have high levels of a contaminant are typically given time to fix problems, but they could face fines or loss of federal grants if problems persist.
The proposal would also regulate other types of PFAS like GenX Chemicals, which manufacturers used as a substitute when PFOA and PFOS were phased out of consumer products. The proposal would regulate the cumulative health threat of those compounds and mandate treatment if that threat is too high.
“Communities across this country have suffered far too long from the ever-present threat of PFAS pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said. The EPA’s proposal could prevent tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses, he said, “and marks a major step toward safeguarding all our communities from these dangerous contaminants.”
Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, which advocates for cleaning up a PFAS-contaminated stretch of North Carolina, said it was important to make those who released the compounds into the environment pay cleanup costs.
“Today is a good step towards tackling our nation’s massive PFAS public health crisis by including commercially relevant PFAS like GenX,” she said.
The EPA recently made $2 billion available to states to get rid of contaminants such as PFAS and will release billions more in coming years. The agency also is providing technical support to smaller communities that will soon be forced to install treatments systems, and there’s funding in the 2021 infrastructure law for water system upgrades.
But still, it will be expensive for utilities to install new equipment, and the burden will be especially tough for small towns with fewer resources.
“This is a problem that has been handed over to utilities through no fault of their own,” said Sri Vedachalam, director of water equity and climate resilience at Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc.
Many communities will need to balance the new PFAS requirements with removing poisonous lead pipes and replacing aged water mains prone to rupturing, Vedachalam said.
Fox said there “isn’t a one-size answer” to how communities will prioritize their needs. She said, however, that there are billions of dollars in federal resources available for water improvements.
The proposed rules are achievable and utilities have access to federal funds for drinking water upgrades, according to Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that works to get toxic chemicals out of food, water, clothing and other items.
Several states have already imposed PFAS drinking water limits. Officials in Michigan, which has the tightest standards of any state, said costs to remove PFAS in communities where it was found were reasonable.
If the rules are finalized and imposed, many communities will learn they have been supplying drinking water with harmful compounds. When people learn of problems, they may stop using tap water altogether, distrusting its safety, and turn instead to bottled water. That’s often a more expensive choice and one that can have negative health effects if people replace tap water with sugary drinks that cause cavities and contribute to obesity and other health problems.
“This,” Fox said, “is such an issue of concern for people.” ___
Phillis reported from St. Louis. ___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Follow the AP’s environmental coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.
“The chemicals had been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industry, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam.” Banning is nice for the next generations. Our toxic ashes however will outlast their containers and persist until the end of time.
One positive is that if/when a water supplier starts limiting PFAS to 4 parts per trillion, that water is all but guaranteed to be extremely pure.
The only concern will be contaminants that might make their way into the water between the plant and the point of use. If that is a potential issue, an inexpensive filter can be used. There will be absolutely no reason to buy bottled water.
Of course, there is no reason to buy it now, because commonly available filters can trap PFAS.
Lacking from this article is a discussion on what level of PFOAs is damaging, rater the FDA is saying if we can see it, then it’s bad. It would be very helpful to understand what studies gave shown are acceptable levels- maybe it is zero tolerance, rarely is that the case. Otherwise this is just paving the way for very expensive and potentially unnecessary federal action and mandates. But maybe that is the endgame afterall. Half a story really is worse than none.
Multiple animal studies in several species found measurable toxicity, birth defects, from chronic exposure, down to the limit of detection. Multiple other toxic effects have been documented ranging from causing cancers to causing endocrine disruption, at very low doses. Just go to google scholar and put in a search for PFAS toxicity studies and you will get over 17,800 results. When they say there is no safe level that is why. This is a long overdue and very necessary action. The compounds must be banned, should have been banned many years ago, and no production allowed, except for small scale specialized military uses, and nothing containing them allowed to be sold. The companies that made them are going to end up in receivership, since all their future profits will be needed to cover a fraction of the harm they have done. Large corporations have been playing legal games to divest themselves of ownership of the problem by splitting off as separate companies their current production operations. I don't think they will get away with their shell game. I recommend investing in companies that produce water filtration devices for home and large water systems use. One small example is I recall reading the results of well testing in Chico CA when I lived there and was concerned several years ago by the pattern of results that clearly outlined a plume that was moving towards the town's main drinking water wells. Likely coming from the local airport where they prepared large volumes of fire retardant to load fire fighting planes during the years when PFAS compounds were in fire fighting foam and of course there were spills. With no other source of drinking water available the town will be forced to add expensive filtration with no end date for the requirement. Small and large cities and towns all across the country face the same costs. Drinking water is going to go up up up in price. Look for future water bills to greatly increase.
Very interesting, thank you. I know that cookwear companies have all abandoned and distanced themselves from the PFAs used previously, going now to certain ceramic coatings now supposedly inert and harmless, until they are found out not to be. Pretty much everybody who eats has been exposed in some level.
Helpful comment FNP-reader, thank you. [thumbup]
Welcome to the discussion.
Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.