EPA Issues Final Rule on PFAS in Drinking Water

Photo by Ron Lach on Pexels.com

Today, the EPA issued the final National Primary Drinking Water Rule establishing Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”) for six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”).

PFAS, sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting chemicals found in many consumer products such as waterproof clothing, furniture, cookware, food packaging, and firefighting foams.

Expsosure to PFAS has been linked to various health problems including decreased fertility in woment, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancer.

The rule covers the PFAs PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFA as contaminants with individual MCLs. It also includes PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.

Public water systems must check for these harmful substances over the next three years. From 2027, they must report the results in their Annual Water Quality Reports. If any substances exceed the allowed levels, the water systems must find ways to lower their levels. Starting in 2029, if a water system has levels above the allowed limits, they must inform the public and take steps to lower the levels.

EPA says the rule will significantly reduce the level of PFAS in drinking water in the United States. EPA estimates that once implemented, this regulation will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million Americans served by public drinking water systems.

EPA estimates compliance with the rule will cost approximately $1.5 billion annually, but it says that its benefits, reduced medical bills, illness, and deaths will result in similar financial benefits.

The Biden administration has made $9 billion available to impacted communities in the Bipartisan Infrastructure law, and $12 billion for drinking water improvements. Whether this money can be accessed by private utilities is unclear.

While some public health advocates and scientists cheered the new rule, industry groups such as the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies were critical of its compliance costs, the New York Times reports.