Protecting Global Health by Restricting PFAS

By: Bea Meyer

Introduction

PFAS are a class of dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ that pose a serious risk to public health around the world. Governments need to take swift action to restrict PFAS production in order to prevent further accumulation of these chemicals in our environment and protect public health.

The Danger of PFAS

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of synthetic chemicals that are produced for a wide variety of consumer products and industrial purposes. These chemicals are a dangerous pollutant because they contaminate groundwater, surface water, and soil, and they accumulate in the environment over time rather than breaking down. This leads to elevated levels of PFAS in our drinking water and food supply, which then begins to accumulate in people, plants, and animals. This exposure to PFAS is linked to severe health issues in humans, ranging from reproductive complications to endocrine system disruptions to cancer.

This threat is growing and requires immediate action to remedy. Dangerous levels of PFAS have already been detected in almost every American’s blood, as well as in rainwater almost everywhere on Earth. Removing PFAS from the environment is difficult and expensive, so it is more effective to prevent them from being released in the first place. Recent moves by the United States and European Union mark significant progress toward reducing and eliminating PFAS around the world.

New U.S. Protections Against PFAS

The EPA is taking significant steps to address PFAS pollution. The most recent of these measures is a proposal to establish legally enforceable limits for six common PFAS in drinking water. This proposal goes beyond individual states’ previous PFAS regulations to create a uniform federal threshold.

This proposal arises under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and was announced by the EPA on March 14, 2023. It will address six of the most prevalent PFAS compounds detected in drinking water, and establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. Because different PFAS compounds tend to occur together, this proposal will also address other types of PFAS beyond the six identified. Under this proposal, water providers will be required to monitor for PFAS, notify the community when PFAS are found, and take action to remove PFAS when levels exceed the threshold. Providers will also be subject to fines or loss of federal grants if they fail to remedy problems within a reasonable timeframe. This proposed threshold will require the “tightest possible standards that are technically feasible.” The proposed regulation may reduce PFAS exposure for nearly 100 million Americans, which may reduce rates of birth complications, heart attacks, and cancer.

The EPA must consult various stakeholders before this proposal can enter into force, including the Science Advisory Board, representatives of small public water systems, and tribal officials. Concerns have already been raised about the proposal’s annual $772 million price tag, which many fear will result in higher water charges for Americans. Upgrading water treatment plants and providing ongoing monitoring and treatment will be expensive, particularly for small utility providers. However, these changes can be supported with federal funding programs, and they will reduce costs in the long term.

While removing these pollutants will be expensive, it will save money in the long term. The EPA estimates that $1.2 billion will be saved annually from reduced healthcare costs and premature deaths, which could make this proposal sustainable in the long term if it is implemented.

Along with this proposal, the EPA has also announced new federal funding opportunities that will become available to support the transition, including $2 billion from Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and $5 billion for small and disadvantaged communities. The agency will also provide technical support for the transition to smaller communities. However, despite these additional funding opportunities, this proposal will likely require significant rate increases to cover the costs of the changes. Water providers will also need to balance these new requirements with existing needs, such as removing lead pipes and maintaining water infrastructure. Additionally, while these funding opportunities may help ease the burden of new restrictions, the money likely would not be distributed for years. This would leave local providers and customers to pay for the changes upfront, which could make these changes cost-prohibitive for many communities.

There are significant issues to overcome with this proposal to ensure that the regulations are feasible and effective. While it may be a long road, this legislation has the power to prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious illnesses caused by PFAS exposure.

New EU Protections from PFAS

The European Union is also taking action to address PFAS pollution. Five EU countries recently submitted a proposal for sweeping restrictions on PFAS in the bloc. These restrictions would target all uses of PFAS, and would be one of the most significant bans on chemical substances in Europe.

These proposed restrictions will now undergo a lengthy review process through the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which may take upwards of a year to complete. Once complete, the final version must be approved by the European Commission and EU member states, and may enter into force as soon as 2026.

If the ban enters into force, it will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will take effect within 5 years, and it will prioritize phasing out uses of PFAS where known alternatives can be used. The second phase will be implemented over 12 years, and will address uses of PFAS for which no alternatives are currently known. This ban will have a major impact on PFAS production within Europe, and possibly beyond. The proposed ban will also apply to imported goods, which could extend this positive impact beyond the EU.

Conclusion

These proposals for addressing PFAS pollution are important first steps, but this problem requires more urgency and commitment from global actors. Because these compounds do not break down, they will continue to accumulate in the environment and pose a greater risk to human health. States need to take stronger action to prohibit the production of PFAS, as well as provide more resources to local utilities to test for and remove PFAS from waterways. These new protections are encouraging, but they are far from sufficient to protect against the problem of PFAS.