EPA’s Michael Regan explains why ‘forever chemicals’ won’t all be regulated at once
EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited Raleigh on Oct. 18, to announce the agency’s plans to address contamination from so-called “forever chemicals.”
In his former role, as secretary of North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality, Regan became familiar with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances when research and reporting revealed that the chemical company Chemours had been discharging a compound called GenX into the Cape Fear River and emitting it into the air around its Fayetteville Works plant.
It quickly became clear that the plant had been a source of pollution for decades, back to when it was owned by DuPont. The Delaware-based company spun off Fayetteville Works and other fluorochemical parts of its business in 2015.
Under Regan, DEQ reached a consent order with Chemours that required the the company to take steps to keep the chemical from reaching the environment, an agreement that has resulted in nearly $15 million in penalties to this point. The new federal plan, called the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, outlines steps including publishing health advisories for GenX and other PFAS, establishing a PFAS testing program and using federal laws to prevent additional PFAS from being discharged into waterways.
Scientists have linked PFAS with an array of health effects including low birth weight of children, increased risk of kidney and testicular cancers, and increased cholesterol levels. The man-made chemicals are typically very slow to degrade in the natural environment.
Outside of the Lower Cape Fear, PFAS have been found in the Jones County town of Maysville’s drinking water supply, coming down the Haw River into Pittsboro’s water treatment plant and in well water around the Chemours plant.
Before the announcement, Regan discussed the plan with The News & Observer, as well as how his experience with the chemicals in North Carolina has shaped the approach now being taken by federal regulators.
Here are excerpts from that conversation. Answers may have been lightly edited for clarity.
GenX and PFAS in NC
Question: How did your experience with this issue in North Carolina inform what we’re seeing today?
Regan: It had a tremendous impact. These chemicals are impacting communities all across the country and so as I’ve been traveling all across the country, it’s been chilling to see how many stories mirror the experience we had here in North Carolina.
But as you recall, I had only been on the job for maybe a month or two and the interesting thing about that is, I sort of came into the job as secretary thinking about climate change, understanding we had to clean up coal ash. But GenX was a shock to the system.
And spending time in people’s homes talking about this issue with caregivers wondering if the terminal illness of their loved one was associated with their drinking water or the parents that we met wondering if there were long-term impacts to children, it had a profound impact on me as I approached the GenX situation in North Carolina and that just carried over to the national level.
As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve had more interactions like that, which has served as a catalyst for keeping a laser focus on action and delivering for the American people.
Q: Do you hear the same story from community to community?
Regan: You know, similar stories from community to community. (They’re) wondering, why can’t their respective state go further? What is EPA doing? And how is EPA serving as a partner to the states so that people can be protected?
And yes, I mean the stories are eerily similar all across the country.
Q: In your note that made the PFAS council, you were talking about strong leadership and I know that one of your frustrations at DEQ was a lack of that coming from the federal level. What in this plan is there that you would have liked to have as a state-level (regulator) in 2017?
Regan: In a matter of days, if not a week or so, we’re going to issue a toxicity assessment specifically for GenX. That would have been hugely important for us as we looked at attempting to set a drinking water standard, determine how to best protect communities and move forward as a state. That’s critically important.
We’re going to list PFAS as a hazardous contaminant under our Superfund program, under CERCLA not only to determine what levels should be clean enough for protecting human health but the instrumentation there to force the polluter to pay for that level of cleanup. That would have been hugely helpful.
Just the overall information sharing as we gather information. We’re going to announce a national testing strategy which will be for 20 categories which will cover more than 2,000 chemical compounds.
And we’re going to collect that information not only to inform our rulemaking but to share with the states so that they can move in concert with us or even quicker. That level of sharing of data and information would have been extremely important.
And we’re moving aggressively to set drinking water limits for PFAS, and just knowing that the federal government was moving in this direction, collecting this level of information, willing to share this level of information, coming up with toxicity assessments for GenX and for other perfluorinated compounds.
All of those, I recognize as a formal state regulator as being profoundly helpful to the American people at large but to every state regulator in this country. When I talk with secretaries of the environment all across the country, these are the things that they’re looking for. So it’s a partnership, and we’re rebuilding and we’re moving as urgently as possible, but these are the things that will be helpful on the ground.
Regulating PFAS
Q: By having the 20 categories in the testing program, is that a way to regulate category by category instead of maybe as an overriding class?
Regan: What we’ll do is instead of regulating each chemical compound individually, we’re looking at groups or categories and the sizes of those groups and categories may vary. And what we’re pledging to do is the more information that we get, the more resources we get, the more we can do.
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of these chemical compounds, and so when you look at it as just a complete class, there is so much that is unknown that could jeopardize the process.
And let me be clear, we are moving with a sense of urgency and with a focus because we know that the industry is going to be prepared. And we’re going to follow the science, we’re going to follow the law and we’re going to move as aggressively as we can, looking at these categories in a way that we can produce durable regulations that are not legally vulnerable.
Q: When you say the industry is going to be prepared, do you mean legally or do you mean with replacement chemicals?
Regan: I think all of the above. I think legally we will see a lot of pushback and challenge, but I also think that there will be industry leaders out there that will step up with replacement strategies, as well.
And so we want to be prepared for all of the above, and that’s why it’s important for us to put the necessary resources towards this issue, to look at the components of this strategy, follow through on those components and with a sense of urgency also move with a sense of deliberate and careful action so that these rules that we put in place can be durable and longstanding.
This story was produced with financial support from 1Earth Fund, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work.
This story was originally published October 21, 2021 at 9:05 AM.