March 14, 2023
Contact: Clint Richmond
617-423-5775
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its first-ever legal standard for two PFAS “forever chemicals” -- PFOS and PFOA -- proposing a limit of no more than 4 points per trillion (ppt) for each chemical in drinking water. EPA is also setting a combined standard for the total hazard posed by four other PFAS chemicals -- PFHxS, PFBS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA or GenX -- in drinking water. More than 200 million people in the United States are estimated to currently have unhealthy levels of PFAS in their water. EPA estimates the new standard, when enacted in 2024, will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs per year and prevent death and serious diseases like cancer, heart attacks, and strokes.
The announcement is a rare move for EPA which has not updated its drinking water standards for more than two decades. In the short term, the costs of testing and removing PFAS from water will largely be covered by billions of dollars of Inflation Reduction Act funding directed toward drinking water treatment, including $5 billion for PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
The announcement is a clear acknowledgment that PFAS chemicals are more potent than previously believed. Last summer, EPA dramatically lowered its lifetime health advisory levels for PFOS and PFOA from 70 parts per trillion combined to 20 and 4 parts per quadrillion, respectively. When finalized, the new drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA will be the lowest limit for any chemical the EPA regulates in water. While the proposed limits are a notable improvement from no limit, they are still more than 250 to 1,000 times higher than the amount EPA says is “safe” or ideal in water.
In response, Sierra Club Senior Toxics Policy Advisor Sonya Lunder issued the following statement:
“EPA’s strong new limits for these six PFAS chemicals will prevent serious illnesses and save lives. EPA must keep its momentum by issuing rules to limit the production and use of PFAS chemicals and control their cleanup and disposal. In the long term, polluting industries, not the public, must pay the full cost of removing these ‘forever chemicals’ from the environment.”
In response, Massachusetts Sierra Club Chapter director Deb Pasternak said:
"The EPA limits will expand Massachusetts’ already strong drinking water standard. However, we need much more federal support to pay for new expensive filters to remove PFAS. PFOS and PFOA are finally legacy products, and the EPA should next stop the use of the other 12 thousand types of synthetic PFAS petrochemicals. Unfortunately that process will take years, so we call on states like ours to take the lead on restricting PFAS in the marketplace as soon as possible to keep these 'forever chemicals' out of drinking water in the first place."
In response, Massachusetts Sierra Club Chapter Toxics Lead Clint Richmond said:
"The EPA has now clearly stated that the two best known PFAS are harmful to human health, which environmental stakeholders have been saying for years. This reinforces the imperative for the state legislature to phase out and restrict the entire class of PFAS ‘forever chemicals,’ as outlined in the ‘An Act to protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS’ filed by Rep. Kate Hogan and Sen. Julian Cyr, along with related bills protecting children and farmers.”
"The EPA is proposing much lower limits for PFOS and PFOA, which if adopted will impact a lot of water systems in the Commonwealth. This prioritizes the need to hold manufacturers like 3M, Chemours and Dow accountable for the pervasive pollution from these forever chemicals. The EPA is also adding two more chemicals, GenX and PFBS, bringing the total number of regulated PFAS by the state or federal government to eight. However, these latter two should not have much impact here. GenX is seldom found in Massachusetts drinking water and its values are thankfully not high. PFBS is frequently found but the EPA considers this significantly less harmful than all the others, and its levels are not high enough that action would be required because of this one alone."