Trump’s EPA Refuses to Limit the Nasty Teflon Chemicals Lurking in Our Drinking Water

“I cannot make that commitment.”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency does not plan to set a legal limit for two nasty chemicals that lurk in some US drinking water, Politico reported this week. 

They’re part of a group of chemicals known as PFAS, for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These chemicals were once prized by a variety of industries for their ability to make surfaces resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. Until the United States started to phase them out in 2006, PFAS were used in everything from Teflon nonstick pans to microwave popcorn bags to fast-food wrappers to water-repellent clothing to furniture. They were also widely used at military bases in foams to extinguish aircraft fires. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that some studies suggest that they “affect growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older children,” “lower a woman’s chance of getting pregnant,” “increase cholesterol levels,” “affect the immune system,” and “increase the risk of cancer.”

Unfortunately, PFAS are stubbornly persistent in water and soil, and despite the phase-out, they remain a concern in drinking water supplies. Last year, a Pentagon report revealed that drinking water in 126 military installations across the country contains potentially harmful levels of PFAS. In 2017, the chemical giant DuPont and its spin-off company, Chemours, agreed to a $670 million settlement with residents of West Virginia’s mid-Ohio Valley claiming PFAS contamination of their drinking water from a nearby Teflon factory. (Here’s a 2016 New York Times Magazine deep-dive into the suit.)

For years, public-health advocates have been urging the EPA to establish a “maximum contaminant level” for PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Such a move would force water utilities to test for and and if necessary remove the chemicals from drinking water supplies. 

But the Trump administration does not plan to set a drinking water limit for two of the most common PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—Politico reported Monday, citing “two sources familiar with the forthcoming decision.” During his Senate conformation hearings on Jan. 16, acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler vowed to make “safe drinking water a top priority” and said the agency would release a plan for dealing with PFAS in the “very near future.” But when pressed to say if the EPA would set a maximum level for the chemicals within two years, he replied, “I cannot make that commitment.” 

Meanwhile, the EPA maintains a voluntary “health advisory” that the two most common of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, should not exceed 70 parts per trillion in drinking water. And in a draft report on PFAS released by the Department of Health and Human Services last June, researchers from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that the safe threshold is actually much lower: 7 parts per trillion for PFOS and 11 parts per trillion for PFOA

The EPA, then under since-departed administrator Scott Pruitt, tried to stop release of that report, “after one Trump administration aide warned it would cause a ‘public relations nightmare,'” Politico reported last year. 

The agency did not return emails asking for confirmation of its plans around PFOA and PFOS. 

A 2016 study by researchers from Harvard, the University of California–Berkeley, the University of North Carolina, and the EPA found that the drinking water for six million US residents exceeds the EPA’s voluntary limit. Environmental Working Group has a map of sites across the nation where drinking water is potentially contaminated with worrisome levels of PFAS. According to the EPA, activated-carbon treatment filters can effectively remove the chemicals. Here’s more information on home filtration of PFAS from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate