United States Environmental Protection Agency's Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid, and Related Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 2024 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level: Part 1 - Analysis of Public Comments.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Critical Reviews in Toxicology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-20 DOI:10.1080/10408444.2024.2415893
My Hua, Kylie McCauley, David Brew, Jonathan Heywood, Jacob Siracusa, Michael Stevens, Dennis Paustenbach
{"title":"United States Environmental Protection Agency's Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid, and Related Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 2024 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level: Part 1 - Analysis of Public Comments.","authors":"My Hua, Kylie McCauley, David Brew, Jonathan Heywood, Jacob Siracusa, Michael Stevens, Dennis Paustenbach","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2415893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In March 2023, the EPA proposed a 4.0 ppt maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) (each) and a hazard index approach for four other PFAS. The EPA sought public feedback on the proposed MCL in early 2023 and received 1626 comment submissions <i>via</i> the PFAS docket website (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114). Final MCLs were promulgated on April 10, 2024. Our analysis of the PFAS docket identified 128 comments that had a reasonable degree of scientific merit, with 57 comments endorsing the regulations and 71 questioning the MCLs public health utility. Critics noted the lack of evidence for adverse health effects at low PFAS exposures, the rule's significant impact on the economy, and the EPA's selection of published papers which the Agency chose to support their views. Many well-substantiated comments highlighted that few, if any, adverse health effects were reported at doses as much as 100-1000 times above those associated with the proposed drinking water guidelines. We found that the comments which discussed the evidence linking PFAS exposures below 200 ppt in drinking water to adverse health effects were equivocal. Most of the well-documented science based comments indicated that the data did not justify setting a 4.0 ppt MCL. It was noted that the EPA MCL was quite different from drinking water standards in other countries (up to 8-140 fold lower). During the review, it became apparent that a 4.0 ppt MCL may have little effect on PFAS blood concentrations in most Americans since drinking water accounts for less than 20% of their total PFAS intake. Additionally, a significant portion of the American population consumes minimal amounts of tap water. Commenters noted that the financial burden for treatment and cleanup was much higher than what was reported in the justification for the final MCL which was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and eventually promulgated. It is possible that EPA underestimated the financial impact on the nation by up to 100 to 200-fold. Our analysis indicates that many, if not most, of the scientifically rigorous comments on the EPA's proposed MCL were not acknowledged or considered by the Agency. We conclude the article by offering sixteen recommendations for the EPA to consider if Congress or the courts choose to reopen the evaluation of these MCLs. These included convening an international expert panel, reevaluating the appropriateness of the LNT model for PFAS, ensuring adequate time for study quality assessment and cost-benefit analysis, considering an approach to implementing a series of MCLs, critically reevaluating scientific studies, adhering to EPA risk assessment guidelines, addressing SDWA compliance concerns, revisiting the Hazard Index approach, and ensuring thorough and transparent review of public comments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"321-367"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2415893","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In March 2023, the EPA proposed a 4.0 ppt maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) (each) and a hazard index approach for four other PFAS. The EPA sought public feedback on the proposed MCL in early 2023 and received 1626 comment submissions via the PFAS docket website (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114). Final MCLs were promulgated on April 10, 2024. Our analysis of the PFAS docket identified 128 comments that had a reasonable degree of scientific merit, with 57 comments endorsing the regulations and 71 questioning the MCLs public health utility. Critics noted the lack of evidence for adverse health effects at low PFAS exposures, the rule's significant impact on the economy, and the EPA's selection of published papers which the Agency chose to support their views. Many well-substantiated comments highlighted that few, if any, adverse health effects were reported at doses as much as 100-1000 times above those associated with the proposed drinking water guidelines. We found that the comments which discussed the evidence linking PFAS exposures below 200 ppt in drinking water to adverse health effects were equivocal. Most of the well-documented science based comments indicated that the data did not justify setting a 4.0 ppt MCL. It was noted that the EPA MCL was quite different from drinking water standards in other countries (up to 8-140 fold lower). During the review, it became apparent that a 4.0 ppt MCL may have little effect on PFAS blood concentrations in most Americans since drinking water accounts for less than 20% of their total PFAS intake. Additionally, a significant portion of the American population consumes minimal amounts of tap water. Commenters noted that the financial burden for treatment and cleanup was much higher than what was reported in the justification for the final MCL which was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and eventually promulgated. It is possible that EPA underestimated the financial impact on the nation by up to 100 to 200-fold. Our analysis indicates that many, if not most, of the scientifically rigorous comments on the EPA's proposed MCL were not acknowledged or considered by the Agency. We conclude the article by offering sixteen recommendations for the EPA to consider if Congress or the courts choose to reopen the evaluation of these MCLs. These included convening an international expert panel, reevaluating the appropriateness of the LNT model for PFAS, ensuring adequate time for study quality assessment and cost-benefit analysis, considering an approach to implementing a series of MCLs, critically reevaluating scientific studies, adhering to EPA risk assessment guidelines, addressing SDWA compliance concerns, revisiting the Hazard Index approach, and ensuring thorough and transparent review of public comments.

美国环境保护局的全氟辛酸、全氟辛烷磺酸以及相关的全氟烷基和多氟烷基物质2024年饮用水最大污染物水平:第1部分-公众意见分析。
2023年3月,美国环保署提出了全氟辛酸(PFOA)和全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)(每种)的最大污染物水平(MCL)为4.0 ppt,并对其他四种全氟辛烷磺酸采用危害指数方法。EPA于2023年初就拟议的MCL征求公众反馈,并通过PFAS摘要网站(摘要ID: EPA- hq - ow -2022-0114)收到了1626份意见。最终mcl于2024年4月10日公布。我们对PFAS摘要的分析确定了128条具有合理程度的科学价值的评论,其中57条评论支持该法规,71条评论质疑mcl的公共卫生效用。批评人士指出,缺乏证据表明低PFAS暴露会对健康产生不利影响,该规定对经济产生重大影响,以及EPA选择发表的论文来支持他们的观点。许多有充分证据的评论强调,在剂量高达拟议饮用水准则相关剂量100-1000倍的情况下,几乎没有任何不良健康影响的报告。我们发现,讨论饮用水中低于200 ppt的PFAS暴露与不利健康影响之间的证据的评论是模棱两可的。大多数有据可查的基于科学的评论表明,这些数据并不能证明设定4.0 ppt的MCL是合理的。有人指出,环境保护局的MCL与其他国家的饮用水标准有很大不同(最高可低8-140倍)。在审查过程中,很明显,4.0 ppt的MCL可能对大多数美国人的PFAS血液浓度几乎没有影响,因为饮用水占他们总PFAS摄入量的不到20%。此外,很大一部分美国人只消耗少量的自来水。评论者指出,处理和清理的经济负担远高于提交管理和预算办公室(OMB)并最终公布的最终MCL的理由中所报告的负担。美国环境保护署可能低估了对国家的财政影响,低估幅度可能高达100到200倍。我们的分析表明,许多(如果不是大多数的话)对EPA提出的MCL提出的科学严谨的评论并没有得到EPA的承认或考虑。在文章的最后,我们提出了16条建议,供环保署考虑国会或法院是否选择重新评估这些mcl。这些措施包括召集国际专家小组,重新评估LNT模型对PFAS的适用性,确保有足够的时间进行研究质量评估和成本效益分析,考虑实施一系列mcl的方法,批判性地重新评估科学研究,遵守EPA风险评估指南,解决SDWA合规性问题,重新审视危害指数方法,并确保对公众意见进行彻底和透明的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信