Some 70 years after they entered widespread chemical use, the federal government is finally regulating the so-called “forever chemicals” found in everything from nonstick cookware to menstrual products.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday released the nation’s first drinking water standards for six types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. These long-lasting synthetic chemicals do not break down naturally in the environment and have been linked to cancer, heart and liver problems, developmental damage and other health issues.
Under the new rule, drinking water concentrations of two of the most thoroughly studied and common of these substances – PFOA and PFOS – will be limited to the lowest limit the EPA believes is technologically possible, about 4 parts per trillion, reflecting scientists’ understanding that there is no safe exposure level for them . Three other common PFASs will be limited to 10 parts per trillion, either measured on their own, in combination with each other, or with one otherwise unregulated chemical.
The compounds that are regulated represent a fraction of the entire class of chemicals—more than 15,000 different variants fall under the PFAS umbrella. Still, the EPA estimates that its new rules will protects about 100 million people of exposure and prevent tens of thousands of serious diseases, especially cancers.
“We are one big step closer to turning off the faucet forever on chemicals once and for all,” agency chief Michael Regan told reporters Tuesday. He also announced nearly $1 billion in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to help states and private well owners test and clean up any contamination. The funding adds to the $21 billion that Congress has already made available through legislation to improve drinking water systems, $9 billion of which is earmarked specifically for cleaning up this class of chemicals.
The regulations announced Tuesday represent the EPA’s strongest action yet to address the threat of perpetual chemicals, one likely motivated by increasing concern about ubiquitous contamination in people’s bodies and the environment. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all Americans have PFAS in their bloodand researchers have found the chemicals in people’s brains, placentas, liversand umbilical cords.
Forever chemicals have grown so widespread that rainwater contains them in most places on earth unsafe concentrations. A study published this week found harmful levels in 31 percent of groundwater tested around the world — even though the samples were taken far from any obvious source of contamination.
Chemical companies already known in the 1970s that PFAS were building up in people’s bodies and could cause serious effects, but continued to use them for decades. Major US manufacturers such as 3M voluntarily stopped producing the chemicals in the early 2000s, but potentially facing billions of dollars in damages from consumer protection lawsuits brought by more than half of the attorneys general in the United States.
“How do you regulate something that’s already out of the box?” asked Daniel Jones, co-director of the Michigan State University Center for PFAS Research. “They are still around, in the soil and in the water.” Now, he says, the focus is on cleaning.
In 2016, the EPA published a non-binding public health advisory recommending that drinking water contain no more than 70 parts per trillion of PFOA and PFOS. In 2021, it began work on a “strategic roadmap” to formalize regulations and released a proposal last year which generated about 120,000 comments. The final regulation adds maximum contaminant levels for PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX chemicals, rather than just limiting their combined use as previously proposed, albeit at higher concentrations than allowed for PFOA and PFOS.
While the EPA deliberated, at least 11 states adopted rules limiting PFAS in drinking water. Those regulations will be replaced by the federal guideline.
Environmental and public health experts applauded the rule, even as they acknowledged its shortcomings. Katie Pelch, an environmental health scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said regulating PFAS on a chemical-by-chemical basis is risky. Manufacturers may exchange a restricted compound for something similar that may be less studied and yet equally dangerous.
“We need to define PFAS more broadly and take action against the entire class of chemicals, so we’re not just trading one toxic chemical for another,” Pelch told Grist. Although the EPA tests for more than two dozen of the chemicals in drinking water, a 2023 study by Pelch and her colleagues found a dozen compounds that the agency does not include. The other problem is the sheer amount of time it would take to evaluate each PFAS individually – potentially many lives.
The EPA did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, but a senior Biden administration official said on a press call that, to make the most robust policy possible, the agency has chosen to address chemicals for which there are the greatest amount of evidence is what proves their toxicity.
“We feel very confident that we have designed a very durable rule, well within our statutory authority, that begins to protect people from harmful contaminants showing up in their drinking water,” the official said.
States have five years to meet the new drinking water standards — three years to test their water supplies and two years to reduce concentrations of the regulated PFAS, if necessary. For up to 10 percent of the 66,000 water systems subject to the rule, this could mean upgrading their filter processes, according to the EPA. Available options, funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, include common filtration methods already in use today, such as a granular activated carbon system, similar to a charcoal filter, or reverse osmosis, which filters out contaminants using a semi-permeable membrane .
The agency lets utilities decide which method works best for their community. In Wilmington, North Carolina, a granular activated carbon system has already been effective in removing the PFAS targeted by the EPA’s rule, and the same technology could help remove others that are not subject to the regulation.
“The state you live in shouldn’t affect whether or not PFAS is in your drinking water,” Pelch said. “The EPA will help us address that.” While the new rules don’t fully prevail in the vast blanket of perpetual chemicals in our environment, every step forward matters.
Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers play no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.
