EPA Proposes Limits for ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water

Once prized as innovative substances that could resist stains, water, grease and heat, PFAS are increasingly viewed as a threat because they persist in the environment and have been found in roughly 99% of the U.S. population.

The move represents a seismic shift in the regulation of the nation’s drinking water, and will require sweeping changes for thousands of water systems that will have to test for and treat a group of chemicals that have been the subject of growing concern among public health officials and people worried about the safety of water coming from their taps.

EPA Administrator

Michael Regan

cited the pervasiveness and emerging health risks of the chemicals at a press briefing announcing the proposed limits.

“What began as a so-called miracle, groundbreaking technology meant for practicality and convenience quickly devolved into one of the most pressing environmental and public health concerns in the modern world,” he said.

In its new proposed rule, EPA set a limit for two types of PFAS of 4 parts per trillion each in public drinking-water systems. The EPA also said it would regulate four other PFAS chemicals by requiring treatment if the combined level reaches a certain concentration.

Chemical industry groups said they had serious questions about the scientific analysis that the EPA had used to set extremely low limits for the PFAS chemicals.

“We believe that the standards proposed by the EPA lack a sound scientific basis and that EPA has not shown that they are necessary to protect public health or the environment,”

3M Co.

said in a statement.

The rule, if enacted, is likely to fuel fights over who will bear most of the cost for treatment systems in hundreds of communities. Water companies, states and communities have already filed thousands of lawsuits against companies that manufactured or used PFAS, seeking to recover costs for cleanups and filtration.

Hundreds of firefighters and others have also alleged in lawsuits that their exposure to PFAS caused cancers, and other health problems are part of some 3,000 PFAS cases consolidated in federal court in South Carolina. A bellwether trial set for June will help determine whether chemical companies are liable for drinking water contamination and health problems.

The judge overseeing the cases said they could pose an existential threat to the companies that manufacture the chemicals.

The proposed limits under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act come after more than two decades of study by the agency. The EPA has requested comment from the public, water-system managers and public-health professionals on the proposed rule, which the agency has indicated it aims to finalize by the end of 2023. Utilities typically have three years to comply, so they would have until the end of 2026.

The move is part of a broader push by the agency to tighten rules surrounding a group of chemicals that had gone largely unregulated for decades. The agency is also seeking to limit discharges of PFAS into waterways, and it has proposed designating the chemicals as hazardous substances under the federal superfund law, among other things.

The two individual chemicals that the EPA is proposing limiting are known as PFOA and PFOS. Companies phased out their production over the past two decades, but the long-term use of firefighting foam containing them at military facilities and airports is a frequent source of drinking-water contamination, according to the EPA. The chemicals and other PFAS have also tainted water after escaping from landfills, wastewater-treatment plants and textile and other manufacturers.

In December, 3M said it would stop using PFAS altogether in its products by the end of 2025. It stopped making PFOA and PFOS about two decades ago.

On Tuesday, 3M said that it believes the EPA’s proposed limits lack a sound scientific basis.

Major fast-food chains, cosmetics companies and others have said they are eliminating PFAS from their products amid growing consumer-products litigation and state laws banning the chemicals in products ranging from carpeting to food packaging and cosmetics.

Ten states already have enforceable limits on a handful of PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The EPA’s limits, if finalized, would supersede state regulations that had set higher thresholds.

Scientific understanding about the health risks from PFAS is still evolving, but a number of studies have shown links to a variety of cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and other issues. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, including roughly 700 that have been used in commerce in the U.S. in recent years, according to the EPA.

Both PFOA and PFOS were used beginning in the 1940s. In recent years, they have been studied by epidemiologists more than other PFAS.

The agency said that the rule, if fully implemented, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.

If finalized, the new limits would be the first that the EPA has set for a new chemical in drinking water under the process required by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, has said the chemicals are essential for products from cellphones to medical devices.

The council has argued against regulating the chemicals as a class, saying they have diverse properties.

The chemistry council said that it has serious concerns with the underlying science that the EPA used to develop its proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS and noted that the low limits would likely result in billions of dollars in compliance costs.

“PFOA and PFOS were phased out of production by our members over eight years ago. We support restrictions on their use globally, and we support drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS based on the best available science,” the group said in a statement.

The EPA estimates that between 3,400 to 6,300 public water systems, serving between 70 million and 94 million people, would be required to remove PFAS under the proposed rule. The agency estimated the cost of implementing the rule to be $772 million a year, with economic benefits of $1.2 billion a year from fewer cancers and other illnesses.

The American Water Works Association, an industry group whose membership includes 4,500 utilities that supply 80% of the nation’s drinking water, has estimated that the rule would cost much more.

Robert F. Powelson, president and chief executive of National Association of Water Companies, which represents private water utilities, said setting a national standard for PFAS provides clarity to utilities that have already been trying to control them in drinking water.

But he said the costs will fall disproportionately on smaller communities and low-income households and that the trade group is calling on Congress and the EPA to require that companies that made and used PFAS fund cleanups and treatment systems.

“Instead of coming from the pockets of water and wastewater customers and utilities, the polluters should be held directly responsible for the cleanup costs,” he said.

Colleen Arnold, president of Aqua, which operates water systems in eight states, said the company is already working on installing filtration systems at 40 sites to meet a standard it had set on its own in 2020.

Under the EPA’s stricter proposed limits, she said the company expects the number of sources requiring treatment will increase. So far, the company has completed six treatment facilities, each costing about $1 million to build in addition to annual maintenance costs.

She said the company is applying for federal grants and seeking aid from state legislatures to fund the treatment costs, which otherwise could be passed along to customers.

“The impact of this rule is huge,” she said. “It’s going to be a lot for small and medium systems that don’t have the customers to cover the costs.”

The proposed EPA limits are among the lowest for the roughly 90 contaminants that the agency regulates in drinking water. The maximum level for arsenic, for example, is roughly a thousand times higher.

Many labs today can only reliably quantify PFAS compounds at about 2 parts per trillion, making it impossible to set enforceable standards below that. Last June, the EPA set safe-consumption levels that are intended to be used as guidance for state regulators and others at roughly a thousand times lower than the PFOA and PFOS limits proposed Tuesday.

“In most of the scientific community there is growing consensus that there may be no safe level for these chemicals,” said Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Environmental groups praised the proposed regulations. Erik Olson, a senior director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposal groundbreaking. “That’s about as stringent as we were hoping for,” he said.

Write to Kris Maher at [email protected]

Once prized as innovative substances that could resist stains, water, grease and heat, PFAS are increasingly viewed as a threat because they persist in the environment and have been found in roughly 99% of the U.S. population.

The move represents a seismic shift in the regulation of the nation’s drinking water, and will require sweeping changes for thousands of water systems that will have to test for and treat a group of chemicals that have been the subject of growing concern among public health officials and people worried about the safety of water coming from their taps.

EPA Administrator

Michael Regan

cited the pervasiveness and emerging health risks of the chemicals at a press briefing announcing the proposed limits.

“What began as a so-called miracle, groundbreaking technology meant for practicality and convenience quickly devolved into one of the most pressing environmental and public health concerns in the modern world,” he said.

In its new proposed rule, EPA set a limit for two types of PFAS of 4 parts per trillion each in public drinking-water systems. The EPA also said it would regulate four other PFAS chemicals by requiring treatment if the combined level reaches a certain concentration.

Chemical industry groups said they had serious questions about the scientific analysis that the EPA had used to set extremely low limits for the PFAS chemicals.

“We believe that the standards proposed by the EPA lack a sound scientific basis and that EPA has not shown that they are necessary to protect public health or the environment,”

3M Co.

said in a statement.

The rule, if enacted, is likely to fuel fights over who will bear most of the cost for treatment systems in hundreds of communities. Water companies, states and communities have already filed thousands of lawsuits against companies that manufactured or used PFAS, seeking to recover costs for cleanups and filtration.

Hundreds of firefighters and others have also alleged in lawsuits that their exposure to PFAS caused cancers, and other health problems are part of some 3,000 PFAS cases consolidated in federal court in South Carolina. A bellwether trial set for June will help determine whether chemical companies are liable for drinking water contamination and health problems.

The judge overseeing the cases said they could pose an existential threat to the companies that manufacture the chemicals.

The proposed limits under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act come after more than two decades of study by the agency. The EPA has requested comment from the public, water-system managers and public-health professionals on the proposed rule, which the agency has indicated it aims to finalize by the end of 2023. Utilities typically have three years to comply, so they would have until the end of 2026.

The move is part of a broader push by the agency to tighten rules surrounding a group of chemicals that had gone largely unregulated for decades. The agency is also seeking to limit discharges of PFAS into waterways, and it has proposed designating the chemicals as hazardous substances under the federal superfund law, among other things.

The two individual chemicals that the EPA is proposing limiting are known as PFOA and PFOS. Companies phased out their production over the past two decades, but the long-term use of firefighting foam containing them at military facilities and airports is a frequent source of drinking-water contamination, according to the EPA. The chemicals and other PFAS have also tainted water after escaping from landfills, wastewater-treatment plants and textile and other manufacturers.

In December, 3M said it would stop using PFAS altogether in its products by the end of 2025. It stopped making PFOA and PFOS about two decades ago.

On Tuesday, 3M said that it believes the EPA’s proposed limits lack a sound scientific basis.

Major fast-food chains, cosmetics companies and others have said they are eliminating PFAS from their products amid growing consumer-products litigation and state laws banning the chemicals in products ranging from carpeting to food packaging and cosmetics.

Ten states already have enforceable limits on a handful of PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The EPA’s limits, if finalized, would supersede state regulations that had set higher thresholds.

Scientific understanding about the health risks from PFAS is still evolving, but a number of studies have shown links to a variety of cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and other issues. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, including roughly 700 that have been used in commerce in the U.S. in recent years, according to the EPA.

Both PFOA and PFOS were used beginning in the 1940s. In recent years, they have been studied by epidemiologists more than other PFAS.

The agency said that the rule, if fully implemented, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.

If finalized, the new limits would be the first that the EPA has set for a new chemical in drinking water under the process required by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, has said the chemicals are essential for products from cellphones to medical devices.

The council has argued against regulating the chemicals as a class, saying they have diverse properties.

The chemistry council said that it has serious concerns with the underlying science that the EPA used to develop its proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS and noted that the low limits would likely result in billions of dollars in compliance costs.

“PFOA and PFOS were phased out of production by our members over eight years ago. We support restrictions on their use globally, and we support drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS based on the best available science,” the group said in a statement.

The EPA estimates that between 3,400 to 6,300 public water systems, serving between 70 million and 94 million people, would be required to remove PFAS under the proposed rule. The agency estimated the cost of implementing the rule to be $772 million a year, with economic benefits of $1.2 billion a year from fewer cancers and other illnesses.

The American Water Works Association, an industry group whose membership includes 4,500 utilities that supply 80% of the nation’s drinking water, has estimated that the rule would cost much more.

Robert F. Powelson, president and chief executive of National Association of Water Companies, which represents private water utilities, said setting a national standard for PFAS provides clarity to utilities that have already been trying to control them in drinking water.

But he said the costs will fall disproportionately on smaller communities and low-income households and that the trade group is calling on Congress and the EPA to require that companies that made and used PFAS fund cleanups and treatment systems.

“Instead of coming from the pockets of water and wastewater customers and utilities, the polluters should be held directly responsible for the cleanup costs,” he said.

Colleen Arnold, president of Aqua, which operates water systems in eight states, said the company is already working on installing filtration systems at 40 sites to meet a standard it had set on its own in 2020.

Under the EPA’s stricter proposed limits, she said the company expects the number of sources requiring treatment will increase. So far, the company has completed six treatment facilities, each costing about $1 million to build in addition to annual maintenance costs.

She said the company is applying for federal grants and seeking aid from state legislatures to fund the treatment costs, which otherwise could be passed along to customers.

“The impact of this rule is huge,” she said. “It’s going to be a lot for small and medium systems that don’t have the customers to cover the costs.”

The proposed EPA limits are among the lowest for the roughly 90 contaminants that the agency regulates in drinking water. The maximum level for arsenic, for example, is roughly a thousand times higher.

Many labs today can only reliably quantify PFAS compounds at about 2 parts per trillion, making it impossible to set enforceable standards below that. Last June, the EPA set safe-consumption levels that are intended to be used as guidance for state regulators and others at roughly a thousand times lower than the PFOA and PFOS limits proposed Tuesday.

“In most of the scientific community there is growing consensus that there may be no safe level for these chemicals,” said Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Environmental groups praised the proposed regulations. Erik Olson, a senior director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposal groundbreaking. “That’s about as stringent as we were hoping for,” he said.

Write to Kris Maher at [email protected]