Comments to The National Drinking Water Advisory Council On EPA’s Proposed Revisions to SDWA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations For Some PFAS Chemicals
Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to move forward with plans to delay and reconsider Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) limits for 6 (per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) PFAS chemicals. These regulations were developed using extensive scientific analysis on the health effects and occurrence in drinking water sources as well as consideration of feasibility and consideration of benefits and costs. The process also included extensive stakeholder outreach and public comment. Around half of our country’s population drinking water is contaminated with PFAS. In California, monitoring has identified 9 PFAS in the state’s drinking water sources, 5 of which are among the 6 regulated under EPA’s current regulations. One or more of those 6 PFAS have been detected in drinking water sources serving 25 million Californians and levels found exceed the current limits in sources serving 11 million people. Now is not the time to reverse the first‐ever Safe Drinking Water Act limits on some PFAS.
EPA Should Not Extend the Compliance Deadlines for PFOA and PFOS
Extending the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) from 2029 to 2031 is not consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s anti‐backsliding provisions, which state that revisions must retain or increase health protection.
PFOA and PFOS first appeared on the Safe Drinking Water Act Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in 2009. Out of the tens of thousands of possible chemicals, pathogens and other potential drinking water contaminants, there was enough information at that time on health effects and occurrence for these chemicals to be included in a list of 116 contaminants that merited further action. In the ensuing 16 years, information on PFOA and PFOS and their health effects and occurrence in drinking water has increasingly confirmed the need for drinking water limits. EPA and state agencies should be focusing on providing all assistance possible to enable systems to come into compliance. At a time when aggressive action is needed, there is no scientific justification for EPA to delay public safety another two years.
EPA Should Not Reconsider Limits for PFHxS, GenX, PFBA, and PFNS
Rescinding and reconsidering the Regulatory Determinations and limits for PFHxS, GenX, PFBA, and PFNS would also be back‐sliding by removing protections now in place. Developing limits for additional PFAS should not have been a surprise. In the 2021 Final Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Fourth Contaminant Candidate List, EPA stated its intention to move forward on additional PFAS chemicals if sufficient health effects and occurrence information became available:
EPA notes that although SDWA does not require the Agency to complete regulatory determinations for the contaminants on the fifth CCL until 2026, because of the significant progress related to developing new high‐quality PFAS information, combined with the Agency’s commitment in the PFAS Action Plan to assist states and communities with PFAS contaminated drinking water, EPA will continue to prioritize regulatory determinations of additional PFAS in drinking water. The Agency is committing to making regulatory determinations in advance of the next SDWA deadline for additional PFAS for which the Agency has a peer reviewed health assessment, has nationally representative occurrence data in finished drinking water, and has sufficient information to determine whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.1
The concept of reducing public health risk from groups of chemicals is not new. Several SDWA regulations address groups of contaminants, including regulations around disinfection byproducts and radionuclides. One of the principles in EPA’s 2010 Drinking Water Strategy was to “address contaminants as a group rather than one at a time so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost‐effectively.”2 EPA’s Science Advisory Board noted that the Hazard Index approach is “a reasonable approach for estimating the potential aggregate health hazards associated with the occurrence of chemical mixtures in environmental media.”3
Weakening PFAS drinking water regulations will be too costly
As stated above, the 2024 PFAS MCLs were developed after a thorough review of both technical feasibility and cost implications. This analysis is supplemented by the experience of water systems throughout the country that have been proactive in addressing this long‐known problem by developing appropriate treatment based on the various PFAS found in their source water. If, however, EPA rescinds the limits for PFHxS, GenX, PFBA, and PFNS, EPA will be sending a message that systems need only invest in treatment that addresses PFOA and PFOS, which may be inadequate to treat the small chain chemicals. Consequently, systems with additional PFAS in their source water may not adequately address the serious health threat those chemicals pose to consumers. In addition, improper investment upfront could lead to future infrastructure needs which will be more expensive to add on. EPA must, therefore, avoid a “penny wise and dollar foolish” policy that will burden both water systems and their ratepayers with further costs.
The SDWA regulations in place for 6 PFAS chemicals are a major step forward in limiting PFAS in drinking water. EPA should not extend the compliance deadline for limits on PFOA and PFOS and should keep the limits for the other four PFAS chemicals in place.
We wholeheartedly support EPA’s stated intention to treat PFAS chemicals holistically and to hold polluters accountable. To do so, we need these regulations to stand. As we speak, more PFAS chemicals – those with SDWA regulations and those without – are entering our bodies and the environment. Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund urge EPA to leave SDWA limits in place and put its effort into using all possible authority to keep PFAS chemicals out of our water and the environment, eliminating their use wherever possible. This includes developing Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines (known as ELGs) for all relevant industrial categories at an unprecedented pace so that wastewater permits can start restricting industries that make and use these chemicals from discharging them into water bodies, including drinking water sources.
1 Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations, p. 12278‐79 2 “EPA Administrator Jackson Outlines New Vision for Clean, Safe Drinking Water, EPA press release, March 22, 2010
3 Review of EPA’s Analyses to Support EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Rulemaking for PFAS, EPA Science Advisory Board, August 22, 2022, p.91
Contacts:
Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director, lthorp@cleanwater.org
Andria Ventura, California Legislative & Policy Director, aventura@cleanwater.org
