NEWS
EPA acts twice on PFAS
The US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) has taken two separate actions on per- and polyfluorinated substances ( PFAS ). Both are part of its PFAS strategic roadmap , which aims to implement legislation by Q4 to reduce and destroy PFAS contamination in water , air and soil .
Under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation , the agency has laid down new standards with legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels ( MCLs ) on five individual PFAS . These are more stringent than previously mooted limits :
• 4 parts per trillion ( ppt ) for perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA ) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ( PFOS ); and
• 10 ppt for perfluorononanoic acid ( PFNA ), perfluorohexane sulfonate ( PFHxS ) and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid , or GenX Combinations of two or more of PFNA , PFHxS , GenX and perfluorobutane sulfonate ( PFBS ) also face limits . However , the short-chain species of PFAS , perfluorobutanoic acid ( PFBA ), is not included . Some critics noted that , although it is less toxic that C 8 compounds , PFBA is harder to remove from water because it does not readily adsorb to surfaces .
Public water systems have three years to begin monitoring and two more to implement compliance systems . An estimated 6-10 % of the public drinking water systems subject to the rule will have to act to meet these new standards . Chemical manufacturers are not directly impacted but the EPA believes that they will be under pressure from water companies to release fewer PFAS .
The agency is offering nearly $ 1 billion to help states implement testing and treatment and to assist owners of private wells . However , the American Water Works Association said that compliance will cost around $ 1.5 billion / year and will not bring significant health benefits .
The American Chemistry Council ( ACC ) argued that peer-reviewed research questions “ the basis for EPA ’ s overly conservative approach to assessing one of the health endpoints . Even EPA ’ s own Science Advisory Board severely criticised much of the underlying science behind the proposed standards .”
In addition , the ACC added , “ since this proposal was first announced , new real-world data has become available through national monitoring that confirms the rationale for this proposal is based on inaccurate and out-of-date information … We strongly support the establishment of a science-based drinking water standard , but this rushed , unscientific approach is unacceptable .”
A few days later , the EPA announced a final ruling designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation & Liability Act ( CERCLA , or Superfund ). The designation requires entities to report releases of over 1 lb ( 0.45 kg ) within 24 hours to the National Response Centre and state , tribal and local emergency responders
The EPA also set an enforcement discretion policy focused on parties
that significantly contributed to the release of PFAS into the environment , including parties that have used them in manufacturing processes , in federal facilities and other industrial parties . A Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register and will take effect 60 days later .
The ACC , noting that PFPA and PFOS have not been produced in the US for over ten years , again questioned the scientific basis for the ruling . “ Furthermore , CERCLA is an expensive , ineffective and unworkable means to achieve remediation for these chemicals . CERCLA is fraught with unintended consequences and will likely result in extensive , unnecessary delays for clean-ups ,” it said .
While some environmental groups welcomed the move , Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ( PEER ) said that the approach failed to address the many PFAS with terminal end products that end up as PFOS and PFOA . “ These regulations allow industry to substitute new PFAS variations faster than the EPA can regulate them ,” PEER said . Only a total ban would eradicate contamination .
6 SPECIALITY CHEMICALS MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED 1981