WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - After a years-long wait, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has decided limits in drinking water for chemicals known as PFAS.
The EPA on March 14 announced its proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six chemicals in the PFAS family, with maximum contaminant levels even below what states that tired of waiting for federal guidance decided for themselves. What follows is a comment period before the regulation is finalized.
The EPA's advisory level of 70 parts per trillion stood as an unofficial limit for years, but if the NPDWR is finalized, the acceptable level will be only four parts per trillion.
PFAS are known as "forever chemicals" because the human body can't rid itself of them. Some research, funded by a DuPont settlement, suggests links to six diseases, including kidney and testicular cancers.
Plenty of critics have spoken out against a rush to regulate, arguing the science on the subject is nowhere near complete.
"(W)e have serious concerns with the underlying science used to develop these proposed MCLs and have previously challenged the EPA based on the process used to develop that science," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
"We are not alone in our concerns, as others have been on the record criticizing their development. And new peer-reviewed research also calls into question the basis for EPA's overly conservative approach to assessing one of the health endpoints."
Litigation has sprung up in recent years, including private lawyers aligning themselves with government officials to represent them on contingency fees. Many of the cases are in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in South Carolina federal court, while consumer class actions are also being filed around the country.
An Ohio class action hoped to represent basically everyone in the country, though the U.S. Court of Appeals says a class of Ohioans suffers from serious legal flaws.
Democrat members of Congress unsuccessfully sought to include PFAS in the Superfund law, opening countless businesses to liability. The federal government still requires PFAS in its firefighting foam on military bases but now seeks an official limit.
“The EPA’s misguided approach to these MCLs is important, as these low limits will likely result in billions of dollars in compliance costs," the ACC said. "The proposals have important implications for broader drinking water policy priorities and resources, so it’s critical that EPA gets the science right."
Fred Thompson of Motley Rice, one of the lead firms in the South Carolina PFAS MDL, submitted notice of the proposed EPA rules to the court.
"Given that there is no higher regulatory authority than EPA, no prudent water provider can ignore this important safety information even prior to it becoming legally enforceable," he wrote.