Policy and Legal

The EPA’s final rule setting national drinking water standards for PFAS should be vacated in its entirety, the NAM and two allies said in an opening brief filed in federal court Monday.
 
What’s going on: The NAM, the American Chemistry Council and U.S. chemical company Chemours asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn the EPA’s rule, announced in April, which requires that municipal water systems nationwide remove six types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from drinking water. Trade groups representing the water systems have also sued to overturn the rule.  
 
The grounds: The rule is unlawful and must be set aside for the following reasons:

• ​​​​The EPA used a deeply flawed cost-benefit analysis to justify the rule.
• The EPA conducted a woefully incomplete feasibility analysis that ignores whether the technology and facilities necessary for compliance actually exist.
• Critical parts of the rule exceed the agency’s statutory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and flout the act’s express procedural requirements.
• The EPA failed to consider reasonable alternatives or respond meaningfully to public comments that undercut its judgment.
• The agency “lacked sufficient data to regulate” HFPO-DA, one of the PFAS chemicals that falls under the rule.

Why it’s important: PFAS “are substances at the center of modern innovation and sustain many common technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, defense systems, life-saving therapeutics and renewable energy sources,” according to the brief.

• The NAM and its co-petitioners “support rational regulation of PFAS that allows manufacturers to continue supporting critical industries, while developing new chemistries and minimizing any potential environmental impacts. But that requires a measured and evidence-based approach that the [r]ule lacks.”

What’s next: Briefing in this case will continue through the spring, with oral argument to follow and a decision from the D.C. Circuit expected in late 2025.