Input Stories

The Environmental Protection Agency asked a federal court last week to toss limits on some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water, standards put in place under the Biden administration that the EPA will no longer defend (E&E News).

• The EPA asked that limits be axed on four of the six substances in the Biden administration’s rule, because the agency followed an invalid process in finalizing the rule that robbed the public of the opportunity to weigh in.

NAM at the forefront: The NAM vigorously opposed  these drinking water standards throughout the rulemaking process and has continued its advocacy since the rule was promulgated in April 2024.

• The NAM argued that the levels selected were infeasible and the impacts on supply chains would be severe, as there are no viable alternatives for many key applications of these chemicals.

The legal challenge: The NAM also launched a legal challenge in June 2024, filed in the D.C. Circuit alongside the American Chemistry Council.

• As the NAM’s opening brief sets forth, the standards for all six chemicals at issue (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, PFNA and PFBS) violate the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and constitute arbitrary and capricious rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• After President Trump took office and the EPA changed hands, the D.C. Circuit agreed to pause the case to give the new administration time to review the rule.

The new EPA position: This past May, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would retain the standards for PFOA and PFOS and rescind the rest—the same position the agency has now introduced to the court. In moving forward with the request to vacate the standards for four substances, it has declared it will still defend the limits on PFOA and PFOS.

• The NAM will continue to argue that the standards for all six are invalid—they were based on faulty calculations, with costs that vastly outweigh the benefits and would set back crucial sectors like the semiconductor, telecommunications and defense industries.

What’s next: The NAM will file a response to the EPA’s motion to vacate on Sept. 26.

• It will file a reply brief on the merits, focusing on the serious deficiencies with the standards for PFOA and PFOS, later this fall with oral argument expected in early 2026.

The last word: “While the NAM presses forward with our challenge to the drinking water standards, we remain deeply concerned with the human health assessment that underlies the EPA’s regulatory determinations of PFAS,” said NAM Director of Chemicals, Materials and Sustainability Policy Reagan Giesenschlag.

• “Regulatory determinations must rest on gold-standard science to strengthen U.S. manufacturing leadership.”