WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first federal limits on harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water, a long-awaited protection the agency said will save thousands of lives and kill serious diseases, including cancer , will prevent.
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 broken down in the environment and are linked to a variety of health problems, including low birth weight and kidney cancer.
“The scientific community is clear that long-term exposure to PFAS is associated with significant health risks,” Radhika Fox, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, said in an interview.
Fox called the federal proposal a “transformative change” to improve drinking water security in the United States. The agency estimates the rule could reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans and decrease rates of cancer, heart attacks and childbirth complications.
In Georgia, Dalton Utilities will receive over $1.5 million from the federal government for a pilot program to test PFAS removal methods, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last week, and Georgia will receive over $54 million from Environmental Protection Agency received to eliminate drinking water in communities contaminated by the chemicals.
“It’s a pretty expensive proposition” to remove these chemicals, Jevin Jensen, chairman of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners, said in a phone interview.
All residents of Whitfield County and several nearby Georgia counties rely on independently operated Dalton Utilities, and Jensen said he would like to know if a tariff surcharge could be expected.
But because the EPA’s decision didn’t come out until Tuesday, Jensen said he hasn’t spoken to the president of Dalton Utilities or the mayor of Dalton.
Representatives from Dalton Utilities did not respond to a request for comment before the deadline, and Dalton’s spokesman referred questions to the utility. How these new rules will affect other north-west Georgians remains to be seen and Fort Oglethorpe town manager Molly Huhn said in a telephone interview that she is investigating the issue.
Jensen said he’s been in talks with officials in Rome and they’re raising interest rates to invest in costly new reverse osmosis wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Rome News-Tribune reported earlier this month that the new plant will cost nearly $100 million.
The chemicals have been used in consumer products and industries since the 1940s, including non-stick pans, food packaging, and fire-fighting foam. Their use is now largely phased out in the United States, although some remain.
The proposal would set strict limits of 4 parts per trillion, the lowest that can be reliably measured, for two common types of PFAS compounds called PFOA and PFOS. In addition, the EPA wants to regulate the combined amount of four other types of PFAS. Water utilities must monitor PFAS.
The public will have a chance to comment, and the agency can make changes before issuing a final rule, which is 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 will be a challenge. Despite available federal funding, “significant rate increases will be required for most systems” that need to remove PFAS, the group said Tuesday.
Environmentalists and public health advocates have called for government regulation of PFAS chemicals for years. Over the past decade, the EPA has repeatedly raised its protective, voluntary health thresholds for the chemicals, but has not imposed mandatory limits on water utilities.
Public concern has increased in recent years as testing uncovered PFAS chemicals in a growing list of communities, often located near manufacturing sites or air force bases.
To date, only a handful of states have enacted PFAS regulations, and none have set limits as stringent as the EPA is proposing. By regulating PFOA and PFOS to the minimum levels that tests can detect, the EPA is proposing the strictest possible standards that are technically feasible, experts said.
“This is a truly historic moment,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “There are many communities that have had PFAS in their water for decades and have waited a long time for this announcement.”
The agency said its proposal will protect everyone, including vulnerable communities, and reduce disease on a large scale. The EPA wants water utilities to test, notify the public when PFAS are found, and remove the compounds if levels are too high.
Utilities that have high levels of pollutants are usually given time to fix problems, but they could face fines or the loss of federal grants if the problems persist.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents large chemical companies, criticized the EPA’s “misguided approach,” saying, “Those low limits are likely to result in billions of dollars in compliance costs.”
In a statement Tuesday, the group said it had “serious concerns about the underlying science used to develop the proposed rule,” adding, “It’s critical that the EPA gets the science right.”
The proposal would also regulate other types of PFAS, such as GenX chemicals, which manufacturers used as replacements when PFOA and PFOS were phased out from consumer products. The proposal would regulate the cumulative health threat of these compounds and mandate treatment when that threat is too high.
“Communities in this country have suffered from the ever-present threat of PFAS pollution for far too long,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. The EPA’s proposal could prevent tens of thousands of PFAS-related diseases, he said, and is a “great step in protecting all of our communities from these dangerous pollutants.”
Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, which is working to clean up a PFAS-contaminated section of North Carolina, said it’s important that those who released the compounds into the environment pay for the cleanup costs.
The EPA recently gave states $2 billion to get rid of pollutants like PFAS and will release billions more in the coming years. The agency also provides technical assistance to smaller communities that will soon be forced to install treatment systems, and the 2021 Infrastructure Act provides funding for upgrading water systems.
Still, it will be expensive for utilities to install new equipment, and the burden will be particularly high for small towns with fewer resources.
“This is an issue that has been passed on to utility companies through no fault of their own,” said Sri Vedachalam, director of water justice and climate resilience at Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc.
Many communities are having to offset the new PFAS requirements by removing toxic lead pipes and replacing outdated water mains that are prone to rupture, Vedachalam said.
Fox said there is “no one-size-fits-all” for how communities prioritize their needs, but said billions of dollars in federal funding are available for water improvements.
With government help, water utilities serving metropolitan areas should be able to spread the cost in a way that “no one notices,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group uses toxic chemicals from food, water, clothing and other objects.
Several states have already enacted limits for PFAS drinking water. Officials in Michigan, which has the strictest standards of any state, said the cost of removing PFAS in communities where it was found was reasonable.
Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the EPA proposal critical to protecting public health. “Setting strict standards will help ensure every family’s fundamental right to safe water flowing from their kitchen faucet,” he said.
___
Phillis reported from St. Louis. Times Free Press contributor Andrew Wilkins contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for reporting on water and environmental policies. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
