17吃瓜在线

Policy and Legal

Policy and Legal

17吃瓜在线, Allies Urge Court to Vacate PFAS Rule

By 17吃瓜在线 News Room

The EPA鈥檚 final rule setting national drinking water standards for PFAS should be vacated in its entirety, the 17吃瓜在线 and two allies said in an filed in federal court Monday.

What鈥檚 going on: The 17吃瓜在线, 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:

  • 鈥嬧嬧嬧婽he 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鈥檚 statutory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and flout the act鈥檚 express procedural requirements.
  • The EPA failed to consider reasonable alternatives or respond meaningfully to public comments that undercut its judgment.
  • The agency 鈥渓acked sufficient data to regulate鈥 HFPO-DA, one of the PFAS chemicals that falls under the rule.

Why it鈥檚 important: PFAS 鈥渁re substances at the center of modern innovation and sustain many common technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, defense systems, life-saving therapeutics and renewable energy sources,鈥 according to the brief.

  • The 17吃瓜在线 and its co-petitioners 鈥渟upport 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.鈥

What鈥檚 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.

View More