0:00

First time, the federal government is

0:02

on the cusp of regulating a class

0:04

of deadly so called forever chemicals

0:07

out of America's drinking water. The

0:09

EPA's proposal applies to six

0:11

of those chemicals known as PFAS

0:13

compounds and would require water

0:16

utilities to clean any detectable level

0:18

out of their systems. Doing so

0:20

could cost billions, and thousands

0:22

of their chemical cousins would remain unregulated.

0:26

Annie Snyder covers this closely for political,

0:28

and she joins me now. Annie, welcome, and thanks

0:30

for joining us. Let's back it up here a little bit,

0:32

though. There are thousands of these

0:35

PFAS chemicals'. Drinking water

0:37

is just one place that they're

0:39

found. So where else do we find them? How

0:41

common are they? They are

0:43

extremely common. They have been in widespread

0:46

consumer use since the nineteen forties.

0:48

They have an extremely strong chemical

0:50

bond that makes them very

0:53

useful for commercial purposes. They've been

0:55

used in non stick cookware. You know,

0:57

here you're not supposed to use your knife in

0:59

a teflon pan. That's because of these

1:01

chemicals. They've been used in camping

1:03

gear, staying resistant carpeting, military

1:06

firefighting foam that's been sprayed

1:08

at bases and installations around

1:10

the country and at airports around the country.

1:13

They are ubiquitous in the environment and because

1:15

of that very strong bond that makes them so

1:17

useful, they're also extremely difficult

1:19

to break down in the environment. So once they're

1:21

there, they typically stay there and they

1:24

bioalcumulate. That's not just in the environment,

1:26

in the rivers and streams where we get our water.

1:28

It's also in American blood. We breathe

1:30

them in. We keep them in our

1:32

food, and they're in food packaging as well.

1:35

And we also get them through our drinking water.

1:37

So why would we want to regulate them out? What

1:39

do we know about the links between some

1:41

of these chemicals and negative health impacts?

1:45

Yes. Well, as you mentioned, there are thousands. There's

1:47

estimated to be twelve thousand chemicals in

1:49

this class. Many of them we know

1:51

virtually nothing about, but we do

1:53

know something about some of them. The

1:55

best study these two that have

1:57

been in production since the night that were in production

1:59

since the nineteen forties, have been pretty

2:01

clearly linked with cancer and other health

2:03

ailments. Things like high

2:06

blood pressure, developmental impacts,

2:08

problem, birth defects, and

2:11

also immune system effects, one of

2:13

the kind of more interesting effects that we see

2:15

truly low levels of exposure is

2:18

an impact on the immune system that makes vaccines

2:20

less

2:20

effective. Howard Bauchner: So the EPA

2:23

saying they're going to be regulated up to detect

2:25

doable levels, does that mean lower levels are

2:27

considered safe? Not exactly.

2:29

So EPA's proposed

2:32

regulation here would limit six

2:34

PFAS. Two of these the

2:36

two that I mentioned earlier that are the most

2:38

well understood and are actually no longer

2:40

in production. Would be limited to

2:43

detectable levels. So EPA has

2:45

actually said that levels even

2:47

a thousand times lower than what could be protected

2:49

are still dangerous human health can still

2:52

cause negative health impacts.

2:54

But practically speaking, all that they can require

2:57

is for utilities a monitor for these chemicals'.

2:59

And if they find them, treat them so

3:01

thoroughly that they're below those detectable limits.

3:04

The other thing that EPI did in this regulation

3:06

is include limits for four other types

3:08

of PFAS chemicals. And some of these

3:10

are chemicals that are still in commercial

3:12

use. In fact, two of them are the ones that

3:15

the chemicals industry turned

3:17

to when they phased out those two older chemicals.

3:20

And for those, EPA is taking sort of an

3:22

innovative approach, which acknowledges that

3:25

these chemicals might have more

3:27

severe health effects in combination than

3:30

they do individual. So, Andy, we know some

3:32

states have already moved to to regulate

3:34

these compounds. To some degree, but this

3:36

is a proposed federal standard. How

3:38

easy would it be for water

3:40

utilities to meet these new

3:42

standards? What would it take? Technologically

3:45

speaking, there are absolutely technologies

3:48

that drinking water utilities could install

3:50

that would treat for these chemicals that are

3:52

pretty well proven. We've got things like granular

3:54

activated carbon and reverse osmosis. The

3:57

technologies are there, but they are not

3:59

as cheap. They are very expensive

4:01

to install in the first place, and

4:03

they also have ongoing operational

4:05

costs. And The way that our law is

4:07

set up right now, those costs would be

4:09

borne by customers. Those would show up on

4:12

people's regular, monthly,

4:14

or quarterly water bills. They

4:16

would not be paid for by the

4:18

polluters who put those chemicals there in the

4:20

first

4:21

place. Bauchner: And when you

4:23

step back here, how big a deal is

4:25

it that there could be a federal regulation

4:28

for this? Knowing what we know about the potential

4:30

impacts and and and this compound,

4:32

and the chemical compounds more

4:33

widely. How big a deal is this? It's

4:36

an extremely significant step. A little

4:38

bit of context here, the US has

4:40

not regulated a new contaminant in

4:42

drinking water in nearly thirty

4:45

years. The Congress overhauled

4:47

the Safe Drinking Water Act in nineteen ninety

4:49

six and made it significantly more difficult

4:52

for EPA to regulate chemicals'.

4:54

To regulate contaminants in drinking water.

4:56

And so if this rule is finalized and

4:58

that is a big if, it would be the first

5:01

major grade to the safety of the nation's

5:03

drinking water in nearly thirty years.

5:05

And what's worth noting is those same technologies

5:08

that can treat for these PFAS chemicals

5:10

would also, in many cases, remove

5:13

other contaminants from the drinking water as well.

5:15

And so it could have some very

5:17

significant improvements to the

5:19

nation's drinking water

5:20

alcohol. As Annie

5:21

Snyder from Politico joining

5:23

us tonight. Annie, thank you so much. Thank

5:26

you.