EPA Scientific Advisory Board Approves PFAS Drinking Water Standards
This week, the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board issued a final report on the EPA’s assessment of risks associated with drinking water containing two of hundreds of permanent chemicals collectively known as PFAS. Unless you have a PhD in toxicology, most of that report will scratch your head (it was mine).
The gist of this report is that the Scientific Advisory Board believes that there is strong evidence that PFASs have adverse health effects, and on that basis there is a very high risk for at least two levels of these PFASs in drinking water. It’s what we think tight limits are good for.
You may remember that in June the EPA issued drinking water health advisory levels for these two PFASs, 0.004 ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS. These levels were several orders of magnitude tougher than his 70 ppt level that the Obama administration set for his PFAS pair total level.
Based on what the Scientific Advisory Committee has told the EPA, the mandatory drinking water standards the EPA intends to set later this year may not be zero, but they will challenge detection limits. .
As with most significant government actions, litigation over standards, whatever it is, is likely, but many water treatment upgrades are expected in the meantime and PFAS are already being consumed. There is expected to be ongoing concern about
The SAB’s August 22 final report, “Review of EPA’s Analyzes to Support EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Rulemaking for PFAS,” notes that the agency has reviewed national The announcement was made while preparing to propose the Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR). acid (PFOS) by the end of the calendar year. Such standards may serve as a level of purification at some contaminated waste sites, but in order to comply with standards set by the EPA, drinking water facilities must contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoro It also claims to reduce levels of alkylated substances (PFAS).
©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, Popeo, PC All rights reserved.National Law Review, Vol. XII, No. 237