5/22/2025
WT Staff
 Got water questions? Give us a call at 877-52-WATER (877-529-2837), or email us at info@wtny.us
May 22, 2025 304 pm EDT
EPA renounces Safe Drinking Water Act regulation on four PFAS, defers implementation on PFOA and PFOS to 2031
Last week, May 14, 2025, the US EPA announced the revocation of Safe Drinking Water Act laws on four PFAS while deferring enforcement of maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS until 2031.
In our last interview with Kyla Bennett, we heard about PFAS used in manufacturing artificial sports turf and rubber crumb surfacing contaminating drinking water, groundwater wells. We learned that PFAS cycle from households, from the consumer goods in our homes, emitted through the discharge of municipal wastewater effluent and biosolids, where PFAS is not regulated.
See the full article, here.
Interview edited for clarity and length.
WT: Thank you for coming back to speak with us again on "forever chemicals". Tell us about this recent announcement from the EPA on PFAS in drinking water.
Bennett: The announcement on May 14 was couched as protecting Americans from PFAS contamination, but when you look at the details, it was exactly the opposite.
What they announced is that they are going to rescind the drinking water laws, the maximum contaminant levels or MCLs for four of the six PFAS included in the final rule approved April of 2024. The announcement was to say, first of all, they are keeping the limits for PFOA and PFOS, but delaying implementation for another two years, to 2031. They want to rescind the regulations on the other four PFAS.
This is illegal.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, there is an anti-backsliding provision, which prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from weakening drinking water regulations that have already been passed.
WT: Since we spoke with you last about the PEER lawsuit against the EPA regarding PFAS in human waste biosolids, we understand there is no longer a proposed EPA rule to limit PFAS in waste discharges, including biosolids. Can you give us an update on the status of your suit?
Bennett: PEER has two lawsuits against EPA on PFAS. We are suing on the presence of PFAS in sewage sludge, the solids that come out of a wastewater treatment plant. These are chock-full of PFAS. The EPA has been allowing people to spread biosolids on farmland for fertilizer for decades. PFAS is getting into the soil, into groundwater drinking water supply, the fruits and vegetables, milk, meat and eggs, things like that. We are representing some farmers in Texas who have lost 56 cows, to what we believe is from PFAS contamination from the biosolids. They have also lost fish, they've lost horses and they themselves are sick. So we're suing EPA saying that they have failed to do their mandatory duty of protecting the public, that they need to put limits on the amount of certain PFAS in biosolids before it is allowed to be land-applied.
In mid January (2025) right before the Biden administration left, they issued a draft risk assessment on PFOA and PFOS, the two legacy PFAS in biosolids. They found in this draft risk assessment that one part per billion, or a thousand parts per trillion exceeds what they say is a safe level for humans. If this (draft) was ever finalized, it would help the case, though it does not seem likely with this administration.
From the American Cancer Society, "Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are part of a large group of lab-made chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Some of these chemicals have been in commercial use since the 1940s."
Our other lawsuit against EPA regards their failure to prevent a company from using PFOA on plastic containers. They "fluorinate" plastic containers to provide a barrier, so the contents don't leak out. When (regulators) say that PFOA is no longer manufactured in the United States, that is simply not true. It is being used in manufacturing, every day. PFOA leaches into the contents of those bottles, used for things like shampoo and conditioner, household cleaners, pesticides, food, gas, fuel, everything. So, those are our two lawsuits against EPA on PFAS issues right now.
WT: Can you name the company fluorinating plastic containers?
Bennett: Yes, it's called Inhance (Technologies). You know, EPA did the right thing on this, under pressure from PEER in December of 2023. EPA ordered Inhance to stop fluorinating containers with PFOA, Inhance refused to stop and appealed in the 5th Circuit, a court traditionally hostile to environmental issues. The 5th Circuit court ruled that EPA used the wrong legal vehicle to stop (the fluorination). So PEER is asking EPA to keep going, to use a different legal vehicle to get this practice stopped.
WT: How many companies would you say are manufacturing PFOA?
Bennett: One. Inhance.
There are different methods of fluorinating plastic containers. One is called "in-mold", when fluorine is added to the plastic when the bottle is formed. Inhance seems to be the only company, certainly the biggest company in the world that uses a post-mold fluorination process. So what that means is that companies will manufacture their plastic containers, almost always number two plastic - HDPE, then they ship the empty bottles to one of Inhance's eleven plants around the country.
Inhance places the plastic containers in a chamber, and sucks out as much oxygen as they can, but never all of it. This is a very, very difficult and expensive thing to do. The containers are blasted with fluorine gas. When fluorine gas comes into contact with oxygen molecules, nine different long chain PFAS and about five short chain PFAS form, one of which is PFOA. EPA says there's no safe level of that, yet, it is being formed in this fluorination process. PFOA is leaching into the contents of whatever is in those bottles, and then getting into our environment through the recycling process, through disposal of these bottles. It's a nightmare.
WT: They are not directly manufacturing the PFOA, rather it is an incidental happening?
Bennett: It is a known byproduct of their process. Inhance is aware, we are all aware and nobody is doing anything to stop it.
WT: Have you made any progress pressing EPA to keep going after Inhance, to stop this practise?
Bennett: A little bit of progress. We sued in Washington DC, telling EPA that they have failed their duty under a specific section of TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act. We have also done a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act for a bunch of the documents that Inhance had submitted to EPA. These were studies showing how much PFAS they were actually creating. And, when we got those documents under the FOIA, it was all redacted. So we didn't have those numbers, those safety numbers. Inhance claimed it was confidential business information, but you can't withhold health and safety data under the law, alleging confidential business information.
PEER appealed, and EPA agreed, said, "You're right. We're gonna give you all the documents un-redacted." Inhance then sued EPA. So now we're fighting with Inhance and EPA. EPA is trying to get us the information and Inhance has sued to stop them. So the cases are kind of all tangled up together now and but at least EPA did agree and say, "You know what, you are right. This is information you deserve to get."
We haven't seen the documents yet, we are waiting to see what happens.
WT: Thank you, we will check back with you again.
See WT article with Erik Olson, NRDC Senior Strategic Director for Health, NRDC stands with US EPA in defense of PFAS "forever toxic chemicals" regulation for drinking water, here.
|
|
|
