On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed plans to roll back regulations concerning harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water, just a year after the Biden administration implemented its first national standards.
Last year, the administration claimed these rules could significantly reduce exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for millions. This initiative was part of a broader effort to improve drinking water quality, which also involved the removal of toxic lead pipes, responding to years of advocacy by activists.
Under President Donald Trump, the focus shifted to fewer environmental regulations and increased oil and gas production. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has rolled out a substantial regulatory rollback.
New information indicates plans to cancel specific PFAS restrictions and extend deadlines for the two most common types. Below are key points to understand about PFAS chemicals and the EPA’s role.
What are PFAS?
PFA, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have been around for a long time and permeate the country’s air, water, and soil. They were produced by companies like 3M and Chemours. These chemicals have useful applications, such as making non-stick frying pans effective and helping clothes repel water.
However, they don’t break down easily, which means they persist in the environment.
Why are PFAS harmful to humans?
Environmental activists have long warned about the health risks associated with PFAS, even before these concerns became widely known. The very properties that make these chemicals valuable—like their durability—pose risks to human health.
PFAS accumulate in the body. To address this, the Biden administration set limits for two common types—PFOA and PFOS—despite their ongoing presence in the environment.
Currently, exposure to certain PFAS is linked to a range of health issues. According to the EPA, conditions like kidney disease, low birth weights, high cholesterol, and some types of cancer can potentially be prevented.
The EPA’s guidance on PFOA and PFOS has evolved significantly in recent years, reflecting new scientific insights. For instance, back in 2016, the EPA stated that the combined levels of these substances should not exceed 70 parts per trillion, but later revised this to indicate that even lower levels were unsafe.
The EPA’s nuanced move
The EPA is now planning to revoke restrictions on three less commonly known types of PFAS, including GenX substances typically found in North Carolina, along with PFHXS and PFNA. This also includes plans to withdraw limits on PFAS mixtures.
Initial assessments suggest that the withdrawal may minimally impact utilities, as about 12% of U.S. water operators have already exceeded the Biden administration’s limits. However, most of these utilities are dealing with PFOA or PFOS issues.
For these two widely found chemicals, the EPA intends to keep current restrictions in place, but also extend the timeline for utilities to comply until 2031.
Reactions to the announcements
Some environmental organizations argue that the EPA lacks the legal authority to weaken regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act empowers the EPA to limit water contaminants and ensure that new rules are not looser than prior regulations.
“The law is very clear that the EPA cannot abolish or undermine drinking water standards,” said Eric Olson, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Activists assert that the agency’s decision not to uphold Biden-era rules could worsen public health outcomes.
The industry response has been mixed. The American Chemistry Council has questioned the scientific basis for the Biden administration’s stricter rules, suggesting that the previous administration had properly considered cost and scientific factors.
“EPA’s actions only partially address this issue and are vital to prevent serious impacts on communities and avoid unintended consequences,” the group said.
The American Water Works Association, representing major utility industry groups, expressed support for the EPA’s decision but also noted that these changes wouldn’t significantly alleviate the financial burden of PFAS rules.
Some utilities had been advocating for caps on PFOA and PFOS limits, according to Mark White, a drinking water leader at the engineering firm CDM Smith.
But what they received was an extension. “This means more time to address what we know—and more time overall. Some utilities are still assessing their current situations,” he added.
