Policy and Legal

The litigation of the Biden administration’s limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water will resume this fall (POLITICO’s GREENWIRE, subscription). The NAM and other industry groups are leading the challenge against these standards, contending that they are unachievable and rely on invalid cost-benefit analyses.

What’s going on: In a court filing last week, the Environmental Protection Agency “said it and the … industry groups challenging the standards need until Aug. 1 to come up with a schedule for additional briefing, which was suspended earlier this year while EPA considered what to do.”

• In May, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would rescind and rework the standards for some substances while continuing to defend the equally unworkable standards for PFOA and PFOS.

A two-pronged strategy: While the NAM and its allies are awaiting the resumption of the court case, the NAM’s experts are pressing the administration to reconsider the standards for all six substances, including PFOA and PFOS. This week, they urged the EPA and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to revise the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.

• “The NAM supports health-protective and science-based safe drinking water standards. Manufacturers continue to innovate ways to protect the environment and our communities,” said NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Charles Crain. “The EPA’s [maximum contamination level] standards should encourage such innovation while setting attainable limits that water systems can realistically finance and meet. ”
• “Manufacturers support rational regulation of PFAS that allows manufacturers to continue supporting critical industries, while developing new chemistries and minimizing any potential environmental and public health impacts.”
• “Certain PFAS uses remain essential to the functionality and safety of products that underpin modern life, from semiconductor fabrication and advanced energy storage to lifesaving medical devices and aerospace systems, where no technically viable substitutes exist and are estimated to be decades out. PFAS regulations require a measured and evidence-based approach that the 2024 Final PFAS NPDWR lacks.”

In-person appearance: The NAM also reiterated manufacturers’ concerns to the EPA and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council in a public meeting on Monday.

• “[R]ules that are not feasible, cost effective or adequately supported by robust scientific analysis don’t just strain water systems, they cascade through water rates, capital plans, liability frameworks and ultimately the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing,” NAM Director of Chemicals Policy Reagan Giesenschlag said.
• “In a time of fragile supply chains, regulations that unintentionally push manufacturing offshore or stall investments in innovation are devasting and at odds with the President’s America First priorities.”

What to watch: The NAM will continue its advocacy directed at the federal agencies, while appearing again in court once those proceedings resume. There it will argue that the government’s cost-benefit and feasibility analyses are irretrievably flawed and violate both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.