The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first federal limits on so-called forever chemicals in public drinking water, a move that is expected to cost water utilities billions of dollars to filter out substances that have contaminated the water supplies of millions of people.
The agency is proposing maximum allowable levels in the nation’s public drinking-water systems for two compounds in a class of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which were used for decades in carpeting, clothing, food packaging, firefighting foam and other consumer and industrial products. The EPA also said it would regulate four other PFAS chemicals by requiring treatment if the combined level reaches a certain concentration.
The proposed limits under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act come after more than two decades of study by the agency and reflect growing concern over PFAS. 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.
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 chemicals, which are known as forever chemicals because they take a long time to break down, have been found throughout the environment and the U.S. population. In December, 3M Co. said it would stop using PFAS altogether in its products by the end of 2025.
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.
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 growing 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 a variety of products because of their ability to resist water, grease and stains and put out fires. They have been studied by epidemiologists more than other PFAS. On Tuesday, the agency reiterated that research has shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS can lead to serious health problems.
The agency said that the rule, if fully implemented, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.
“Communities across this country have suffered far too long from the ever-present threat of PFAS pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement announcing the proposed limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
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 appears to have used to develop its proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS.
“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.
In its new proposed rule, EPA set a limit for PFOA and PFOS of 4 parts per trillion each in public drinking-water systems.
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 such limits for the two chemicals would cost water systems $40 billion to comply with the rule. The association estimates that 12% of 49,000 community water systems, serving some 60 million people, would be required to install filtration systems.
The industry group said that the additional four PFAS covered by the rule would increase costs for water systems and communities.
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. Only dioxins are regulated at a lower level than the proposed PFAS limits.
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.