EPA Finalizes National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Certain PFAS
On April 10, 2024, EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS.
On April 10, 2024, EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS. To inform the final rule, EPA evaluated over 120,000 comments submitted by the public on the rule proposal, as well as considered input received during multiple consultations and stakeholder engagement activities held both prior to and following the proposed rule. EPA expects that over many years the final rule will prevent PFAS exposure in drinking water for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.
EPA is also making unprecedented funding available to help ensure that all people have clean and safe water. In addition to today’s final rule, $1 billion in newly available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.
EPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) establishing legally enforceable levels, called Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six PFAS in drinking water. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA as contaminants with individual MCLs, and PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS using a Hazard Index MCL to account for the combined and co-occurring levels of these PFAS in drinking water. EPA also finalized health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these PFAS.
The final rule requires:
Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027.
Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.
Recent Posts
Combating Burnout: Key Strategies for a Healthier Workplace
Exploring the shadowy impact of workplace stress, this article delves into how pervasive job-related burnout threatens personal well-being and dampens productivity and communication. Discover essential strategies for employers to foster a supporti...
Workplace stress is a significant yet often overlooked safety risk that can impact a number of people. According to research by the American Institute of Stress, 83% of workers in the United States experience stress related to their jobs.1 Workplace stress causes, on average, 120,000 deaths each year.2 This stress doesn't just impact personal well-being; it also undermines job performance, productivity, and interpersonal communication.
There are many different causes of workplace stress. Concerns about job security, such as the fear of reduced hours or layoffs, can weigh on employees. Similarly, taking on additional responsibilities without adequate support or feeling unable to take sufficient breaks can increase stress levels. A significant stressor for many is being unable to maintain a healthy work-life balance, especially if there is an expectation to respond to work-related emails and answer work calls during personal time.
While the list of stressors extends beyond these examples, the collective impact can significantly affect your overall well-being. Fortunately, there are steps employers can take to alleviate workplace stress. A survey conducted by the American Psychological Association in 2021 revealed that over 87% of employees believe employers can help alleviate stress by offering flexible work hours, promoting the use of PTO, or encouraging employees to take regular breaks throughout the day.3 These proactive measures not only improve employee satisfaction but also foster a healthier and more productive work environment. The World Health Organization estimates that for every dollar an employer spends on mental health concerns, they receive a return of four dollars.1 Investing in mental health support benefits individuals and produces a return for employers, highlighting the importance of employee well-being in the workplace.
When we are stressed, fatigued, or mentally unwell, our ability to perform tasks safely and effectively is decreased. By addressing mental health concerns and providing support, employers promote a healthier work environment and enhance overall safety. Take some time to see what kinds of support your workplace offers.
1 World Health Organization. “Mental Health at Work.” 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/promotion-prevention/mental-health-in-the-workplace.
2 Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. “The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States.” March 13, 2015. Management Science, 62(2), 608-628
3 American Psychological Association. “Vacation Time Recharges US Workers, but Positive Effects Vanish within Days, New Survey Finds.” June 27, 2018. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/06/vacation-recharges-workers.
Recent Posts
Using Artificial Intelligence to Interpret and Predict ESG Initiatives
I think there is a misunderstanding in today’s world regarding what AI is and what it can do. The latest trend is generative AI, a form of artificial intelligence capable of generating new content. This can be seen from things like ChatGPT, which can write entire novels when given a prompt on a particular subject, or DALL-E, which can create amazing images. Not every AI falls into this category, though. Other types of AI, such as predictive analytics and machine learning algorithms, are also relevant. This distinction is helpful in realizing that AI cannot independently generate completely new ideas; AI models are trained on existing data and patterns. Recognizing this fact will help set realistic expectations for what AI can and cannot do. It will not create an unknown product that the world has never seen.
“If the hot new fad is AI, surely there must be some way to incorporate that into our current business to make us more efficient.” The answer is yes! AI algorithms can analyze large datasets to identify trends, assess environmental impacts, or evaluate organizational social governance practices.
AI can make all aspects of your company’s environmental, health, and safety goals more efficient. You can leverage current AI tools with no platform by feeding it your data and asking for suggestions on improvements. For example, you can train generative AI with your current accident data. With a few of the correct prompts, it can generate a safety plan to help improve worker safety or perhaps identify vulnerabilities you haven’t even thought of.
In the future, AI will not only interpret existing data but also predict our future goals. Using predictive analytics and AI-driven forecasting models, we can anticipate environmental risks, forecast resource demands, and predict social trends. Looking further into the future, I can envision a scenario where workers wear AI components to help them identify hazards, prevent injuries, or even maximize their productivity.
There are some drawbacks to AI that also need to be considered. Ultimately, the predictive models are only as good as the data given to them. Companies are also responsible for protecting private individual data. It’s essential to make sure the data is high-quality and ethically handled. Companies must have a transparency and accountability policy regarding sensitive data.
AI technologies will have a positive and profound impact on sustainability, social responsibility, and corporate governance, and I encourage you to begin researching how AI data-driven models can help your company right now.
Recent Posts
EPA News Update: Proposal to Change RCRA Regulation
News Update
On January 31, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a proposal to change the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This change adds nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals to its existing list of hazardous constituents.
To learn more about this change, read here. To read more EPA news, visit the EPA website.
Update: Notice of this proposal was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2024.
Recent Posts
Designation of PFOA and PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
EPA maintains a list of over 12,000 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals.’ Learn more.
The EPA maintains a list that currently includes over 12,000 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are known to accumulate in the environment as well as bodies of people and animals and may be linked to harmful health effects relating to reproduction, thyroid and liver function, the immune system, and cancer. These are commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain a strong carbon-fluorine bond, don’t break down over time, and can dissolve in water.
In October 2021, the EPA released a PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which outlines plans to research, restrict, and remediate PFAS. The term PFAS refers to synthetic or man-made chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in many household and industrial products. They are known for their resistance to grease, oil, water, and heat and have been used in various products, including stain- and water-resistant fabrics, carpets, nonstick cookware, cleaning products, paints, and fire-fighting foams.
The PFAS Strategic Roadmap included a commitment to designate specific PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Such designations would trigger various actions and regulations involving reporting, notification, cleanup, remediation, and cost/liability.
In September 2022, the EPA proposed a rule to designate two of the most widely used PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and their salts and structural isomers — as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The EPA is currently reviewing comments received on this proposed rule, and a final rule is expected as soon as August 2023.
If this designation is finalized, facilities across the country would be required to report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity assigned to these substances. CERCLA section 102(b) states that the reportable quantity of any hazardous substance is one pound unless changed by other regulations; therefore, any person in charge of a facility would need to report releases of PFOA and PFOS of one pound or more within a 24-hour period. The EPA has the authority to initiate or oversee the cleanup and remediation of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. So the hazardous substance designations would also enhance the ability of federal, tribal, state, and local authorities to obtain information about the location and extent of releases.
CERCLA already grants the EPA authority to address PFOA and PFOS releases because they are considered to be pollutants and contaminants, and EPA can respond if the release or threat of release presents an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. However, if PFOA and PFOS are designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, then EPA can respond without making a determination of imminent and substantial danger.
CERCLA establishes a legal framework for holding responsible parties accountable for costs associated with cleanup. The proposed rule would, in certain circumstances, force the polluter to pay by allowing EPA to seek to recover cleanup costs from a responsible party or to require such a party to conduct the cleanup.
EPA anticipates that a final rule would generally encourage and create incentives for better waste management and treatment practices by facilities handling PFOA or PFOS. As more research is conducted, EPA plans to consider listing additional PFAS as hazardous substances. In April 2023, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking the public for input regarding potential future hazardous substance designations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under CERCLA.
For more information regarding PFAS, visit EPA’s website.
Catherine Nies is a Chemical Data Management Specialist. Her responsibilities focus on the output end of our Foundation system, verifying the information and deciding what reports to produce, including Tier II, permit summaries, EPCRA reports, and any other high-priority needs of our clients. A second responsibility for Catherine is tracking EPA, OSHA, CDC, and state and local regulatory updates.
Recent Posts
Dramatic History of PFAS Leads to Present-Day EPA Actions
I’ll admit it — I’m a true crime junkie.
It started with a podcast and has moved into documentaries. Never, not once, did I imagine that my professional life would seep into my guilty pleasure. I was happily binging on a new podcast when suddenly the topic went from unsolved historical mysteries to the Dupont Chemical Scandal, which is a 20-year legal battle between Dupont (the manufacturers of such products as Teflon) and a West Virginia farmer whose cows kept mysteriously dying. Bonus: There’s a newer movie about this case as well! Dark Waters contains a rather star-studded cast too including Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, and Tim Robbins.
A recently proposed EPA rule has once again brought Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) or ‘forever chemicals’ into conversations and compliance questions. For more technical information on what PFAS are and the proposed rule, check out our blog post on the topic.
Dupont Chemical and PFAS: An Extremely Abbreviated History
In 1802 (not a typo…1800s, people!), Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, who emigrated from France after the French Revolution, founded a company to produce gunpowder called E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company near Wilmington, Delaware. Being a horrid name for all the marketing reasons (kidding, I have no idea why), the company was later renamed Dupont. Fast forward to 1930 when Dupont and General Motors joined to form Kinetic Chemicals to produce Freon.
In January 1935, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company formally opened the Haskell Laboratory of Industrial Toxicology, which at the time was "one of the first in-house toxicology facilities." According to a 1935 news item in the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry journal,“the purpose of the du Pont facility was to thoroughly test all du Pont products as a public health measure to determine the effects of du Pont's finished products on the health of the ultimate consumer and that the products are safe before they are placed on the market.”
Now, I’m not going to throw stones or try to spoil the ending here but based on what happens next, I’m not so confident that this Haskell Lab crew was cut out for the job.
In 1937, a 27-year-old research chemist named Roy Plunkett was working with Freon refrigerants and accidentally (yes, accidentally) invented a new chemical. Polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a saturated fluorocarbon polymer, would become known as the "first compound in the family of Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs).” PFCs are a group of hundreds of human-made compounds collectively known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances or PFAS or forever chemicals.
After ten years of research, this saturated fluorocarbon polymer would be introduced under its commercial name, Teflon. Side note: Roy would later be inducted into the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame for his invention of Teflon.
DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, started using PFAS in their manufacturing process in 1951. Shortly after which, a Dupont employee received an inquiry into the possible toxicity of ‘C8.’ Quick explanation in the most simple way I can: C8 is basically an eight carbon chain chemical structure that includes Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), which are long-chain PFAS. C8 is super stable and hardy and literally takes forever to break down. OH!! and it’s really good at attaching to soils and migrating into aquifers. So, in 1956, a study at Stanford University found that PFAS binds to the proteins in human blood, and five years later an in-house DuPont toxicologist deemed C8 to be toxic and should be handled with extreme care. Around this same time, it is known that DuPont buried as many as 200 drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River near the plant. SPOILER ALERT: This was not a well-thought-out plan.
Alright so that’s the backstory blip as it pertains to DuPont, but please note I’ve left out A LOT about 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), the Oakdale Dump, PFAS in firefighting foams, Wolverine, and just general poor handling of a potentially toxic substance since way back.
Fast forward to 1998 when Robert Bilott with Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP (a Cincinnati based attorney) took the case to represent Wilbur ‘Earl’ Tennant. Tennant was a farmer in Parkersburg, West Virginia, who blamed DuPont’s Washington Works facility for his cattle dying. Ok, so that sentence doesn’t even do it justice. Over 250 of Tennant’s cattle died of a ‘mysterious wasting disease.’ While the cause of death was never conclusively linked with the chemical contamination from DuPont, the company quietly settled with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount. Sidenote: This farmer did dissections on his own cows in attempts to determine and document cause of death because area veterinarians didn’t want to get involved. He recorded and documented his findings on video including “blackened teeth, liver, heart, stomachs, kidneys and gall bladder; unusual discolorations — some dark, some green — and textures; cows with stringy tails, malformed hooves, giant lesions protruding from their hides and red, receded eyes; cows suffering constant diarrhea, slobbering white slime the consistency of toothpaste, staggering bowlegged like drunks.”
The Tennant family purchased 68 acres along West Virginia Route 68 in 1968 but in 1984 they sold a portion of their adjoining land to Dupont. This land was to become the Dry Run Landfill. The Tennant family claims that there was noticeable difference in the land within a year of the property sale. Cattle began to die, deer carcasses were found, and “there were no minnows in the streams.”
In 1999, Bilott filed a federal suit in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of Wilbur Tennant against DuPont. A report commissioned by the EPA and DuPont and authored by six veterinarians (three chosen by the EPA and the others by DuPont) found that Tennant's cattle had died because of Tennant's "poor husbandry," which included "poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control."
While performing research during the suit, Bilott found an article identifying a surfactant called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA aka C8) in Dry Run Creek. So, in 2000 he requested more information through a court order to DuPont. DuPont was ordered to submit 110,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1950s. A year later (2001), DuPont settled out of court with Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Shortly after which, Bilott made a substantial submission to the EPA and US Attorney General demanding that "immediate action be taken to regulate PFOA and provide clean water to those living near."
While Tennant settled, Bilott filed a class action suit against DuPont in August 2001. According to a 2004 report by ChemRisk, an industry risk assessor hired by DuPont, “Dupont's Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works plant had dumped, poured and released over 1.7 million pounds of C8 or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into the environment between 1951 and 2003.”
In 2017, DuPont agreed to pay $671 million to settle with approximately 3,550 personal injury claims involving the leak of PFOAs used to make Teflon in Parkersburg, West Virginia. DuPoint denied any wrongdoing.
Obviously, this is a seriously brief snapshot and by no means an exhaustive history of DuPont’s use and handling of PFAS or use in other applications. Find more information and actions to address public health at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
From the Center for Disease Control’s website:
“In the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (Fourth Report), CDC scientists measured PFOA in the serum (a clear part of blood) of 2094 participants aged 12 years and older who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2003–2004. Serum PFOA levels generally reflect exposure that has occurred over several years. By measuring PFOA in serum, scientists can estimate the amount of PFOA that has entered people’s bodies.
CDC scientists found PFOA in the serum of nearly all the people tested, indicating that PFOA exposure is widespread in the U.S. population.”
In summary, some guy accidentally invented a chemical that has been around since the late 1930s and is now being phased out because it has been shown to cause increased cholesterol levels, low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS)...oh and it will definitely mess up your livestock if they drink from a contaminated water source!
Time to go buy a cast iron skillet!