May 30, 2023
The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
NCHR is a nonprofit think tank that conducts, analyzes, and scrutinizes research on a range of health issues, with particular focus on which environmental exposures are most dangerous for consumers. We do not accept funding from companies that make products that are the subject of our work, so we have no conflicts of interest.
We agree that this proposed rule will improve public health, reducing cancer, heart disease, stroke, low birth weight, and other harms to adults and children. It will save lives. However, we have several concerns and here are our recommendations to improve the proposed rule.
- The PFAS limit should be changed to 2 parts per trillion (ppt).
We disagree with the EPA that 4 ppt is the lowest level that can be reliably tested and removed. Eurofins routinely and reliably measures 2 ppt in water and it is likely that 2 ppt will be widely usable to measure and remove PFOA and PFOS well before this rule is finalized. Since EPA acknowledges that no level of PFOA and PFOS is safe, the limit should be 2 ppt.
- This is an important first step in PFAS regulation, but it needs to be strengthened in several ways to protect human health.
- We understand the agency’s desire to be flexible, but flexibility in monitoring requirements will likely generate a huge loophole. EPA needs more explicit limits to prevent a weakening of these regulations.
- The U.S. is far behind many other countries in its efforts to regulate PFAS. More than 180 countries have moved to ban PFOA chemicals from production.[1]The EPA proposed rule is an important first step, but it is long past time for the EPA to define PFAS broadly, regulate them as a class, and ban all non-essential uses.
- Companies that produce PFAS should bear the financial burden.
We appreciate that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) provides funding for these efforts, but it’s time to start shifting the costs to the companies that have made these chemicals. These companies continue to profit while American citizens suffer from exposure to PFAS. When companies are held financially responsible, they will be less likely to inundate us with PFAS in products. Taxpayers are already stuck with the health risks; it is not fair for municipalities and taxpayers to also get stuck with the work and the cost.
Lastly, we recommend additional clarity and urgency to speed up the timeline for finalizing this national standard, and implementing it once finalized.
[1] Hogue, C. (2019). Governments endorse global PFOA ban, with some exemptions. C&EN Chemical and Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistentpollutants/Governments-endorse-global-PFOA-ban/97/i19#