2/14/2025
WT Staff
Got water questions? Give us a call at 877-52-WATER (877-529-2837), or email us at info@wtny.us
February 16, 2025 447 pm EST
NRDC stands with US EPA in defense of PFAS "forever toxic chemicals" regulation for drinking water
"Well over twenty billion dollars is available for drinking water utilities to start to address PFAS contamination. We strongly urge utilities to take advantage of the money that's on the table right now and get going on pulling these contaminants out of their water, to protect their customers rather than litigating and dragging their feet."
Erik Olson, NRDC Senior Strategic Director for Health
Edited for clarity and length
WT: Thank you for joining us Erik. I'll get you to start out by giving us a little background on the Natural Resources Defense Council and your role there.
Erik Olson: I am the Senior Strategic Director for Health at Natural Resources Defense Council, we call ourselves NRDC, founded in 1970. I personally have been involved with the Safe Drinking Water Act for 40 years, starting at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Office of General Counsel. I have worked at various non-profits and foundations, I was the General Counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Deputy Staff Director there for a while.
WT: Give us some background on the involvement of NRDC in advancing protections for US water resources?
Olson: Sure. There are two separate laws in the US on water protection, one is the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates discharges from industry or sewage treatment plants into surface waters of the United States. Separately, we have the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which regulates the water coming out of taps in your home. NRDC has been very involved in both of those. We helped get the Clean Water Act passed in 1970, including amendments that were passed in 1972. More important for today's conversation is the SDWA, which was passed in 1974, signed by President Ford with bi-partisan support. NRDC was very involved, and I was personally very involved with the SDWA and 1986 amendments. I personally was also deeply involved in the 1996 SDWA amendments, that was the last time the law was substantially changed.
WT: Please tell us how emerging contaminants, new contaminant threats to drinking water quality are assessed and become part of the national drinking water standards. How rigorous is the process to assess and add new contaminants to the regulation?
Olson: Frankly, it is a really burdensome process. The law was changed a lot in 1996, making it much harder for EPA to adopt new controls on unregulated drinking water contaminants. There are about a hundred drinking water contaminants regulated in our tap water, even though we know that there are thousands of contaminants in our water supplies. What Congress did in 1996, the pendulum swung, it was Newt Gingrich at that time running the house, and there was real pressure to weaken the SDWA. Those efforts succeeded in making it much harder for EPA to develop rules for new drinking water contaminants.
EPA will issue what's called an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which requires the testing for up to 30 (new) contaminants of interest in the drinking water by utilities across the country. The large utilities all have to test, and a small portion of the smaller utilities do the testing with EPA funding. Following this process, EPA will make a determination as to whether a contaminant needs to be regulated (or not). EPA will first propose and then finalize a rule. For PFAS, per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the "forever toxic chemicals", EPA made a determination and moved forward with a proposed rule at the same time.
In all cases it just takes way too long for EPA to go from knowing that there's a problem in the water to actually getting a final rule out. And in fact, the first time EPA went through this whole process since 1996 was for these six PFAS contaminants in drinking water. That rule just came out last year (April 2024), so it was almost three decades before EPA could jump through all those hoops to get the rule out.
WT: I understand drinking water facilities have a period of time to to get ready for this. Can you tell us about the timeline for compliance with this new rule for PFAS?
Olson: The new rule for six forever toxic chemicals was issued April 2024. The utilities are given up to five years to come into compliance with new (SDWA) standards. However, a bunch of the chemical industry and the water utility trade associations joined together to challenge these rules. They have filed their opening briefs in the federal government. NRDC is also involved in that litigation (Intervenor); we have responded to those briefs. With the change in administration in Washington DC, the Trump administration is asking for that litigation to be put on hold. We don't know how long this case will be on hold and what will happen in the meantime.
WT: Is there a mechanism, Executive Order to stop the forward progression of this regulation to treat drinking water for PFAS? Is this part of the legal challenge?
Olson: Not really. The law is pretty clear. There is what we call an anti-backsliding provision in the SDWA that says that once a rule has been issued, EPA cannot go back and weaken that regulation. So there's no legal authority for EPA or for the Administration, for the President to roll that rule back. Also, there's something called the Congressional Review Act, which is a law that allows expedited appeal of EPA regulations. There is a short window of time when an appeal can take place. As this (PFAS) rule was issued back in April of last year, that window has come and gone, so they cannot use the Congressional Review Act to repeal this rule. Now I think all the eggs are in the litigation basket. We will see what happens. We think the (EPA PFAS) rule is strong and will survive litigation.
WT: Were you expecting a legal challenge at this stage? Is this normal?
Olson: Unfortunately, in the US we're very litigious. I won't say it was a huge surprise that the chemical industry sued over this. It's really disappointing though. The chemical industry that is polluting our water supplies has been joined by the water supplies themselves. The very facilities whose water is being polluted, are standing shoulder to shoulder with the chemical industry in challenging this rule.
We have seen a lot of the EPA rules challenged, not just in the drinking water arena. Just about every major rule the EPA issues, it seems industry will challenge it, if it imposes any requirements on them at all. So we'll see how this litigation goes forward. As I mentioned, the Trump administration is going to be asking for an extension of time, to look at what position they are going to take, it is possible they could change the position already taken in that litigation.
WT: Does the extension push back the timeline of the five years for facilities to comply?
Olson: The clock is ticking right now for the drinking water facilities. They have already lost almost a year, we are in February and this rule was issued in April of last year. So, the longer this litigation takes, the less time they will have to comply with that rule. Five years is the maximum time allowed by the law. The law says you automatically get three years to comply with new standards, however if EPA thinks that you have to spend a lot of money and a lot of effort for construction and capital investments, then you can get up to five years. EPA said this new rule is going to require a lot of capital investment, so five years was offered for compliance, understand that's from last April. That makes it 2029 when the utilities will have to be in compliance.
WT: Do you have any advice for drinking water facilities?
Olson: Well, I think one thing that is often not mentioned is that Congress has passed the bi-partisan Infrastructure Law with nine billion dollars, that's billion with a B, to help water drinking water utilities pay to clean up the PFAS and emerging contaminants in their water supplies. There is a separate huge chunk of money, almost twelve billion dollars that was poured into the State Revolving Funds for general drinking water infrastructure investments. And then separately, a lot of the water utilities filed litigation against the chemical manufacturers that make PFAS. Those cases have been settled for over twelve billion dollars.
There is a little over four years remaining to get this done, and some of these projects will take a lot of time. We are urging utilities to act now. This money isn't going to be available forever. It would be wise to take the money that's on the table, go forward with the really important upgrades and treatment to protect public health.
WT: How many drinking water facilities, what percentage of water utilities are impacted by this PFAS rule, that are going to have to make accommodation for treatment?
Olson: Well EPA estimates up to 105 million people in the US are drinking water from systems that exceed the six new PFAS standards. That's almost a third of the United States population served by facilities that would exceed the new EPA regulation. It is a very large number of water utilities that need to address this problem. A relatively modest number of large systems cleaning up their act can really benefit huge numbers of people. We are strongly urging both large and small systems to go forward with protections and that will yield real long-term health benefits.
Something we haven't really talked about is all the health benefits that come from reducing these PFAS. There is certainly reduced cancer, EPA estimates are a lot of other really significant public health benefits will result from removing these toxic chemicals from our water supplies. So let's just get a move on and do this.
WT: We agree! Thanks so much for your time Erik.
See Natural Resources Defense Council, here.
Where does PFAS contamination come from?
WT has reported on common sources of PFAS, including a series of articles on airports adopting PFAS-free fire-fighting foam, an interview with Director of Science Kyla Bennett of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) on vectors for PFAS contamination of surface waters and groundwater aquifers. Here we learned that artificial turf fields leach PFAS chemicals into the groundwater aquifers, and PFAS on all kinds of consumer goods coming in to the homes of America enters the municipal wastewater stream, combining to form new PFAS in the wastewater treatment plants. PFAS is continually released through treated wastewater effluent into the waterways, with PFAS-contaminated human bio-solids applied to farm fields.
What is the EPA doing about this?
WT reached out to the US EPA for comment on current and future plans to regulate PFAS levels discharged through the nation's wastewater streams. We asked the EPA about existing and future plans to regulate PFAS levels discharged from municipal wastewater treatment plants, including PFAS levels in biosolids allowed spread on farm fields.
Molly Vaseliou, EPA Spokesperson contributed the following response, including a General Statement, via email:
President Trump advanced conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families across the country in his first term and will continue to do so this term. The Trump EPA was also the first to ever issue a comprehensive nationwide PFAS action plan.
WT: Are there discharge limits currently for PFAS in municipal treated wastewater effluent?
EPA-Vaseliou: EPA has not issued enforceable limits on PFAS in municipal wastewater effluent. The agency has issued guidance to state permitting programs recommending that wastewater systems monitor for PFAS using the best-available methods and, where they are detected, take steps to reduce them using pre-treatment authorities.
WT: Will EPA limit PFAS in other waste, including human waste bio-solids spread on fields?
EPA-Vaseliou: EPA does not currently regulate PFAS in bio-solids. The Agency is reviewing the science and its statutory authorities to determine appropriate steps to reduce exposure to PFAS, including through biosolids.
WT: Can EPA comment on lawsuits related to PFAS contamination?
EPA-Vaseliou: In keeping with longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation.
WT: What percentage of the nation’s drinking water facilities are likely to implement PFAS measures?
EPA-Vaseliou: EPA estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce PFAS to meet the standards.
WT: What is the timeline for the PFAS maximum contaminant level regulation coming into effect?
For most drinking water rules, public water systems have 3 years to comply with the new MCL. However, the PFAS rule’s requirements for drinking water systems will be phased in over 5 years. Public water systems will be required to complete initial monitoring for PFAS in their drinking water in 3 years. They will also be required to inform residents of the levels of PFAS detected. Water systems that exceed the enforceable limits will have 2 additional years, 5 years total, to make any capital improvements needed to comply with the MCLs, reduce exposure, and better protect public health.
WT: Does EPA have any guidance for drinking water facilities getting prepared to address PFAS?
EPA-Vaseliou: Learn more at our website, here.
See WTNY.us prior article, "Fifty years of SDWA, is our drinking water safe? Part 1: "Forever Chemicals", PFAS ", here.
|
|
|
