17�Թ�����

The EPA’s final rule setting national drinking water standards for PFAS should be vacated in its entirety, the 17�Թ����� and two allies said in an filed in federal court Monday.
��
What’s going on: The 17�Թ�����, 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 , 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 17�Թ����� 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.��