The Spirals of Elsewhere

Today, April 13 by your calendar, is The Spirals of Elsewhere according to the Universal Solar Calendar. The name sound like it could be a Sun Ra song title or the name of a Pete Namlook album. 

On Wednesday, April 10 (Day of the Boar), the U.S. EPA established national limits in drinking water for six types of so-called "forever chemicals." Two types of the chemicals, commonly used in nonstick or stain-resistant products such as food packaging and firefighting foam, won’t be allowed to exceed 4 parts per trillion (ppt) in public drinking water under the new rule. Three additional chemicals will be restricted to 10 ppt. 

The "forever chemicals" are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of man-made chemicals that include PFOA and PFOS as well as GenX, a newer generation of chemicals created as a replacement for PFOA. Since the 1940s, PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, such as nonstick or stain-resistant food packaging and firefighting foam. Both PFOA and PFOS are very persistent in the environment and in the human body, meaning they don’t break down and they can accumulate over time (hence, "forever chemicals"). 

Manufacture of PFOA and PFOS began in the 1940s, but the substances have been largely phased out of U.S. chemical and product manufacturing in the mid-2000s. They have mostly been replaced by newer types of chemicals within the same class, however, the older chemicals still persist in the environment.

There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human-health effects. One of the biggest health concerns associated with PFOA is an increased risk of kidney cancer. Exposure to high levels of PFOS has also been associated with an increased risk of liver cancer. GenX chemicals have been shown in animal studies to damage the liver, kidneys and immune system, as well as liver and pancreatic tumors. The EPA estimates that the new limits will prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious illnesses. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. Wednesday's rule established legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels and health-based, nonenforceable MCL Goals for six PFAS.

The EPA’s 4 ppt limit reflects the lowest levels of PFOA and PFOS that laboratories can reasonably detect and public water systems can effectively treat. But, according to the EPA, water systems should aim to totally eliminate the chemicals, because there are no safe levels of exposure. The EPA also set a limit for mixtures of GenX chemicals PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS. Public water systems will have to use an equation developed by the EPA to determine whether the cumulative concentrations of the chemicals exceed the agency’s threshold. 

Regulatory standards for PFAS in drinking water have already been established in eleven states. Unfortunately, those 11 states don't include my home state of Georgia. The EPA estimated that 6% to 10% of the country’s public water systems - 4,100 to 6,700 systems in total - will need to make changes to meet the new federal limits.

Public water systems that don’t currently monitor for PFAS will have three years to start. If they detect PFAS at levels above the EPA limits, they will have two more years to purchase and install new technologies to reduce PFAS in their drinking water. The most common way to remove PFAS from water is through an activated carbon filter; other options include reverse osmosis or ion exchange resins. But even once water is treated for PFAS, it can take between two to eight years for the amount in our bodies to decrease by half, so it may take many years for substantial decreases in our exposure to occur.

In September 2022, the first proposed rulemaking relative to PFOA and PFOS designated them as hazardous substances under CERCLA (commonly known as "Superfund"). EPA additionally issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public input on whether to designate other PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.  This proposed rulemaking was open for comment through June 2023. After reviewing the public comments on the proposed rule, EPA made the limits official on Wednesday.

The implications of EPA’s rule are far-reaching and will not be limited to public water systems. An estimated 66,000 public water systems will be subject to this rule with compliance costs expected to range from $772 million to $1.2 billion annually. The drinking-water limits are a significant next step in the regulation of PFAS in the environment and likely are the first in a series of standards as EPA continues its push to regulate and reduce exposure to PFAS.

In addition to the requirements on public water systems, the new rule will require PFOA and PFOS to be considered at the cleanup of Superfund sites. This could potentially include the addition of new potentially responsible parties to existing Superfund sites and new sites added to the Superfund National Priorities List based on PFAS contamination, as well as the possible reopening of previously closed sites under the five-year review process. The rule will also trigger the release-reporting requirement under both CERCLA and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 

Litigation will likely increase as additional cost-recovery and contribution claims are filed. Some public water systems have already sued companies that manufacture or previously manufactured PFAS, aiming to hold them accountable for the costs of testing and treating for PFAS. One such lawsuit resulted in a $1.18 billion settlement last year for 300 drinking water providers nationwide. Another lawsuit awarded $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion, depending on the level of contamination found, to public water systems across the country through 2036.

The addition of PFOA/PFOS and other PFAS as CERCLA hazardous substances poses several challenges, including the following:

• Limited testing methods and lab capacity
• Lag in development of remediation/treatment methods
• Absence of clear guidance for disposal/destruction of PFAS remediation wastes
• Environmental justice considerations for disposal/destruction sites

I would like to note that these same concerns were and will be present any time a new substance is added to the CERCLA list of hazardous substances.

Industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council argue that the new regulation isn't based on sound science or realistic economic data. The ACC argues that EPA has relied on an assessment of potential health effects that is fundamentally flawed; overstated the non-cancer risks associated with PFOA and PFOS exposure; failed to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal justify the costs; and significantly underestimated the costs of complying with the proposed standard and the number of systems that will be impacted.

Assessments of health risks associated with exposures to chemicals are extremely complex and complicated studies, and disagreements will always be found among experts, consultants, and advocates looking for reasons to discredit the results. However, EPA risk assessments are peer-reviewed and subject to public review and comments, and a consensus is reached on controversial aspects and findings. While all may not agree on every aspect of each study, a majority does, despite the concerns by industry groups trying to discredit the results.

Virtually all health risk assessment overstate the cancer and non-cancer risks by design. As we're dealing with human health in these assessments, and the studies they rely on are based on limited populations and carry inherent uncertainties, the only prudent approach is to overestimate the identified risk, usually by a factor of 10. To reduce the risk to the lowest possible level would leave the public vulnerable to risks only revealed by subsequent studies, or expose the most sensitive receptors (young children, the elderly, etc.) to concentrations tolerable only to the healthy.

The challenge to prove cost-benefit demonstrations seems moot when dealing with potential deaths. While it could be argued that, say, $1M is too much to pay to avoid $100k in additional health-care costs, is it too much to pay to avoid deaths? Your death? Your child's? What is the bottom-line, profit/loss price of a human life?  

I have no doubt that if a Trump administration, or any Republican administration for that matter, comes into office in the next few years, these and other environmental regulations will be taken off the books and voided in short order. The country and our drinking water will be that much less safe, as businesses avoid costs of compliance and litigation. That's one trade-off I don't want to see.