The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave the thumbs up to a proposed new rule addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” that critics say could add thousands of dollars to households’ annual utility bills.
PFAS are chemicals used to produce fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist grease, heat, oil, and stains. They have been prevalent in consumer goods since the 1940s. In recent years, studies have discovered that their widespread usage has led to their slipping into the nation’s public water systems.
In March 2023, the White House announced the nation’s “first-ever drinking water standard,” working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address “PFAS pollution” and “protect public health.”
The EPA published a report in February that revealed that drinking water for roughly 70 million Americans tested positive for these chemicals.
A year later, the suggested rulemaking is entering its final stages.
The OMB approved the proposal on March 27, effectively reducing the health advisory limit for two types of PFAS in all drinking water from 70 parts per trillion (ppt), which was established by the Obama administration in 2016, to 4 ppt.
The White House Office of Regulatory Affairs will review the rule by May 22.
This comes soon after the administration announced a $5.8 billion funding initiative to clean up drinking water and upgrade the infrastructure.
Pushing Back Against PFAS
Over the years, other countries have introduced PFAS limits as per recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO). Sweden introduced a limit of 90 ppt, while Japan set a standard of 50 ppt. Canada has been working on cutting the national limit to 30 ppt.In September 2022, the WHO released a background document to outline guidelines for drinking water quality. The international entity noted that PFAS cannot break down in the human body or environment at 100 ppt.
Observers, including former OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, questioned whether the decision is grounded in science and why the current administration settled on 4 ppt.
“They don’t have any reasons for it other than they don’t like this stuff,” Mr. Mulvaney told The Epoch Times. “I’ve not seen any scientific justification for what they’re trying to do to ban this stuff.
“It’s a mystery science that they see that nobody else can see.”
In contrast, the EPA has imposed limits for arsenic in the water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). For cyanide and lead, the standards are 200 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively.
The Epoch Times reached out to the EPA for further clarification but didn’t receive a reply by press time.
The federal government is not the only one tackling PFAS. Several states have started focusing on the issue.
Minnesota, for example, recently passed a law partially restricting PFAS in some consumer products beginning next year. A complete ban is planned to go into effect in 2032. But North Star State officials contend that cleaning up the infrastructure will be the hardest and costlier endeavor.
Financial and Security Costs to Curb PFAS
Critics warn that the new rule could increase households’ utility bills, which have already risen by 26 percent since January 2021.A recent Black & Veatch report developed for the American Water Works Association (AWWA) found that the proposal could raise water costs by $80, to $11,150 per year. In addition, the AWWA estimates the adjustments could boost new annual costs for water utilities by nearly $4 billion.
At a March 2023 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Radhika Fox projected that the total annualized costs would be as much as $1.2 billion.
But these estimates do not “even begin to consider the knock-on effect on the products that use this stuff,” Mr. Mulvaney said.
The former White House chief of staff under former President Donald Trump was surprised to learn that the Department of Defense (DOD) had publicly opposed this plan, warning that it would pose a national security risk.
Pentagon officials submitted an August 2023 report to Congress, asserting that it “is reliant on the critically important chemical and physical properties of PFAS to provide required performance for the technologies and consumable items and article which enable military readiness and sustainment.”
“Losing access to PFAS due to overly broad regulations or severe market contractions would greatly impact national security and DOD’s ability to fulfill its mission,” the report stated.
The Pentagon forecasts that it could cost billions to clean up the PFAS infiltration in its infrastructure.
Green Regulatory Push
Since 2021, the administration has introduced a tidal wave of environmental regulations and rules, from upgrading the nation’s infrastructure to encouraging purchases of electric vehicles. A key plank of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, emphasized in the Inflation Reduction Act, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.However, many of the incumbent’s policy implementations are at risk of being axed in 2025, as President Trump has vowed to sign various executive orders to bolster coal, crude oil, and natural gas development if elected in November.
Whether a potential Trump administration could reverse this rule or not, Mr. Mulvaney noted that officials would need to go through the same process.
“The general rule is that the process by which a rule or a reg becomes a rule or reg is roughly the same process as undoing,” he said.
