DOD to Set Higher PFAS Limits than EPA
The Defense Department is setting its own limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in drinking water—and it’s three times higher than the limit imposed earlier this year by the Environmental Protection Agency on public water systems (POLITICO Pro, subscription).
What’s going on: “In [a] Sept. 3 memo, the Pentagon’s top environmental official laid out a plan for prioritizing cleanup work near military installations with PFAS contamination caused by decades of spraying firefighting foam containing the chemicals. That plan calls for initially addressing only private drinking water wells with PFAS levels three times higher than the limits set by the EPA in drinking water regulation finalized by the Biden administration this spring.”
- Because the EPA’s PFAS rule, which is scheduled to go into effect in 2029, only applies to public water systems, the private water wells in the DOD’s plan will not be subject to it.
- But the DOD is responsible for sites with some of the highest levels of PFAS in the U.S., the agency says.
Conflicting limits: The Pentagon has set a limit of 12 parts per trillion for PFOA or PFOS concentration and 30 parts per trillion for PFHxS, GenX or PFNA contamination. Meanwhile, the EPA’s new limit for municipal drinking water systems is 4 parts per trillion.
- The DOD will also address public water systems affected by DOD sites, saying it “intends to expedite action at public water systems where authorized, prioritizing the most impacted sites for earlier action,” according to the memo.
- But the DOD does not set a threshold for action when a system’s PFAS content exceeds the new, conflicting EPA limits.
Why it’s important: “The Defense Department’s higher PFAS limits are evidence of division even within the Biden administration about how to set realistic PFAS drinking water standards that are supported by science and are economically feasible,” said NAM Director of Energy and Resources Policy Michael Davin. “This memo shows the need for the administration to go back to the drawing board on the EPA’s standards and come up with feasible standards.”