The Biden administration has announced a two-pronged initiative aimed at reducing exposure to “forever chemicals” — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that have been linked to cancer and other health problems.
Environmental groups and their allies on Capitol Hill hailed the administration’s PFAS program as a major boon for public health; industry organizations and EPA critics in Congress voiced concerns about the cost of the plan.
One part of the program is regulatory: the first legally enforceable national drinking water standard for PFAS. The other part of the program is financial: almost $1 billion that has just been made available from the Jobs and Infrastructure Investment Act and directed to states and territories to fund PFAS detection and treatment systems.
At an April 9 press conference to preview the administration’s PFAS actions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael S. Regan described the new standard as “ a comprehensive and life-changing standard” whose goals “can be achieved through a range of available technologies and approaches that many water systems are using today.”
White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Brenda Mallory said at the briefing that the standard “will protect 100 million people from exposure to PFAS, prevent tens of thousands of serious illnesses and save lives.”
The standard sets limits for five types of PFAS, including the most common, PFOA and PFOS. The EPA is also setting limits for any combination of four PFASs, including so-called GenX chemicals.
The standard requires public water systems to monitor and reduce levels of PFOA and PFOS. Under the standard, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS will be 4 parts per billion. The MCL is an enforceable target. For the chemicals PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX, the MCLs are 10 parts per billion.
In explaining the reason for the limits on PFAS mixtures, the EPA said the chemicals can often be found together in mixtures “and research shows that these mixtures can have combined health effects.”
More specifically, EPA’s mixture limit applies to any mixture of two or more of the following: PFAS, PFNS, PFHxS, PFBS, and “GenX Chemicals.”
The EPA estimates that 6% to 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems may need to take steps to reduce PFAS to comply with the new standard. Water systems will have three years to complete initial monitoring of the chemicals and must inform the public about the levels of PFAS found in drinking water. If PFAS levels are determined to be exceeded, water systems must reduce the chemicals within five years.
Regarding the $1 billion in IIJA funding, a senior administration official, speaking on background, said the aid would be distributed to states and territories through the state water revolving fund program existing potable, as subsidies, not in loans.
The funds can be used for drinking water systems and also for private wells, he said.
Reaction to the administration’s PFAS actions was mixed.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Tom Carper (D-Del.) praised the program as “a historic step to protect public health.” Carper praised the EPA for taking “a thoughtful approach to giving utilities time to deploy new and emerging technologies” to address PFAC contamination.
But the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), said the PFAS rule “takes the wrong approach, which will lead to increased costs for local water systems and ultimately , of the taxpayers”.
The American Water Works Association said in an April 10 statement that it was studying the content of the final regulation, but referred to its comments on the previous version of the EPA’s proposed rule, saying it is ” concerned that the financial and health impacts of the rule will be.” not precisely characterized.” AWWA added that it estimates the cost of the standard “is more than three times greater than the agency’s calculations.” It said, “The magnitude of these additional costs will lead to challenges affordability to many communities.”
Asked at the briefing about a possible “rollback” to the standard by critics, Regan said: “We are very confident that we have designed a very durable rule, within our legal authority, that begins to protect people from harmful contaminants that are appearing. in their drinking water.”
