The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first federal restrictions on harmful “permanent chemicals” in drinking water, protections the agency hopes will save thousands of lives and prevent serious diseases, including cancer.
The plan would limit toxic PFAS chemicals to the lowest levels that tests can detect. PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated substances, are a group of compounds that are widespread, dangerous and expensive to remove from water. They are not harmful to the environment and are linked to various health problems, including low birth weight and kidney cancer.
“The science is clear that long-term exposure to PFAS is associated with significant health risks,” Radhika Fox, the EPA’s assistant administrator for water, said in an interview.
Fox called the federal proposal a “transformational change” to improve the safety of drinking water in the United States. The agency estimates the rule could reduce exposure to PFAS for nearly 100 million Americans, reducing rates of cancer, heart attacks and birth complications.
The chemical has been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industries, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Its use has now been largely phased out in the US, but some still persist.
The proposal would set a strict limit of 4 parts per trillion, the lowest level that can be reliably measured, for two types of PFAS compounds called PFOA and PFOS. In addition, the EPA wants to regulate the combined amounts of four other types of PFAS. Water suppliers must monitor for PFAS.
The public will have an opportunity to comment, and the agency may make changes before issuing a final rule, expected by the end of the year.
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators called the proposal “a step in the right direction” but said compliance would be a challenge. Even with federal money, “significant rate increases are needed for most 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 protective and voluntary health thresholds for these chemicals but has not imposed mandatory limits on water supplies.
Public concern has grown in recent years as tests show PFAS chemicals in a list of communities often near manufacturing plants or Air Force bases.
To date, only a handful of states have issued PFAS regulations, and none set limits as stringent as the EPA’s proposed. By regulating PFOA and PFOS at the minimum test-detectable amounts, the EPA is proposing the most stringent standards technically possible, experts say.
“This is a 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 that have been waiting a long time for this announcement.”
The agency said the proposal would protect everyone, including vulnerable communities, and reduce disease on a large scale. The EPA wants water suppliers to conduct tests, notify the public when PFASs are found and remove the compounds when levels are too high.
Utilities with high levels of contamination are usually given time to fix problems, but could face fines or lose federal grants if problems persist.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents large chemical companies, slammed the EPA’s “misguided approach” and said, “this low limit will result in billions of dollars in compliance costs.”
In a statement Tuesday, the group said it had “serious concerns with the underlying science used to develop” the proposed rule, adding: “It is important that EPA gets the science right.”
The proposal would also regulate other types of PFAS such as GenX Chemicals, which manufacturers use as substitutes when PFOA and PFOS are removed from consumer products. The proposal would regulate the cumulative health threat from these compounds and mandate treatment if the threat is too high.
“Communities across this country have long suffered from the threat of PFAS pollution,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. The EPA’s proposal could prevent tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses, he said, “and marks a major step forward in protecting our entire community from these dangerous contaminants.”
Emily Donovan, founder of Clean Cape Fear, which advocates cleaning up areas of North Carolina contaminated with PFAS, said it’s important to make those who release the compounds into the environment pay for the cleanup.
The EPA recently made $2 billion available to states to get rid of contaminants such as PFAS and will release billions more in the coming years. The agency also provides technical support to small communities that will be forced to install treatment systems, and there is funding in the 2021 infrastructure legislation to upgrade water systems.
However, it will be expensive for utilities to install new equipment, and the burden will be very difficult for smaller cities 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 have to balance the new PFAS requirements by removing toxic lead pipes and replacing old water sources that are prone to bursting, Vedachalam said.
Fox said there is “no one-size-fits-all answer” to how communities will prioritize their needs but said billions of dollars in federal resources are available for water improvements.
With federal help, water providers serving metropolitan areas should be able to spread the cost in a way that “no one will see,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization working to get it. toxic chemicals come out of food, water, clothes and other things.
Several states have implemented PFAS drinking water restrictions. Officials in Michigan, which has the strictest standards of any state, say the cost of removing PFAS in communities where it’s found is reasonable.
___
Phillis reported from St.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for water and environmental policy coverage. AP is solely responsible for all content. Follow AP’s environmental coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.