Cronkite school of journalism at Arizona state university. Geoff: The environmental protection agency has set for the first time that forever chemicals which are harmful to human health must be removed from U.S. Drinking water. It is a moment that public.
Health advocates have long called for. >> The head of the EPA said these new rules could be “Life changing.” The agency will require municipal water suppliers to virtually eliminate six different chemicals that are.
Currently in the water 100 million Americans drink every single day. They are collectively known as pfas, and they have been linked to certain cancers and birth complications. According to the CDC, nearly all Americans have measurable.
Amounts of pfas in their blood today. So for a closer look at this, we are joined by Melanie Benish, vice president of government affairs for the environmental working group which is one of the organizations that has been pressing for this for years.
Welcome. >> Nice to be here. >> These chemicals have been around for a very long time. I was looking at the listed all the different things they are in. Pizza boxes, nonstick pans, they make are clothes and furniture.
Stain resistant but they can make us sick. How big of a move do you think this is for the EPA today? >> This is a consequential, historic monumental decision from the EPA. This is probably the most consequential decision the EPA.
Has made with regards to drinking water in a generation. It is really hard to overstate the importance and the impact of this rule. Pfas are incredibly ubiquitous. The contamination in the united States is incredibly pervasive. And this is the single most.
Efficient way that the EPA can reduce our exposure to these toxic chemicals. >> I mentioned Michael Regan seems to think that this could change people's lives. You seem to believe that health applications here are enormous. >> It is hard to overstate.
In fact, how significant the impacts are on public health. Not only life changing regulation, this is a lifesaving regulation. Because of these new rules, people will be exposed to significantly lower amounts of pfas. And thousands of lives.
Will be saved and there will be tens of thousands fewer like heart — preeclampsia, immune effects, hypertension, and list goes on and on and on. So this is really an incredibly consequential, life saving decision by the EPA. >> Given that there are.
Thousands of pfas chemicals, two have a sense as to why it took the EPA this long and of those thousands, why did they justpick these six to come out of the water? >> Pfas chemicals have been around for a long time. And the chemical companies.
Manufacturing these chemicals have been dumping them into the water of Americans for decades. So, Americans have been drinking contaminated water for decades. That's because the manufacturers of these chemicals lied. They didn't tell their workers, they did not tell the.
Regulators, they did not tell the EPA, they did not tell the nearby communities. They did not tell anyone about the risks of these chemicals which allowed them to get away with evading environmental regulation for decades. Until this EPA finally stepped.
In to regulate these six pfas chemicals. And even though this is the six of the potentially thousands of pfas chemicals, what is really smart about this regulation is it is targeting six of the best studied pfas. >> We are the ones we know the.
Clearest effectsof. >> The regulation is crafted in such a way that it addresses them as a mixture and it addresses a combination OFP pfas chemicals that ensures that the steps that utilities will have to take to comply be it seeking out alternative sources.
Of water or selling filtration technology, will effectively treat for the whole class of pfas. Even though the regulation is targeting this six, when you filter them out, they are not going to just go those — through those six.
You will get much more of the class and other contaminants. >> Water suppliers have strongly come out against this and they say this will cost a fortune. The EPA estimates it could cost $1.5 billion per year to do this. The industry says it will cost.
Way more than that. And that it will be costs that fall and consumers including communities that may not be able to afford this. What is your response to that? >> I think what is really important is to think about cost of not taking action.
The pa has he calculated $1.5 billion in public health benefits and that comes in the form of fewer cases of bladder cancer and fewer cases of hypertension and fewer heart attacks and fewer strokes, fewer affects from lower birth weights.
The cost of not taking action is more people getting sick and ultimately more people losing their lives. For decades, the public has been bearing the cost of exposure to these chemicals in the form of illness and in the form of medical cost and in the form of.
Social cost and anxiety around being exposed to these chemicals and watching their friends and family get sick. I don't want that to get lost in the conversation around cost. For the utilities that will need to take auction to upgrade their systems, there resources.
Available. Congress has already provided $10 billion in infrastructure funding that can be used to help water utilities filter out these chemicals. Some of that money is targeted to small rural communities. The EPA is making funds.
Available to private well owners which are typically not covered by drinking water regulations. And water utilities have been successfully bringing private litigation against chemical manufacturers like 3M and Dupont and having getting recuperating their costs in settlements.
So the resources will come, but what is really is important — what is important is to acknowledge the tremendous cost that comes from not taking action and how important it is that the EPA is now finally taking action because the results of that action will be.
Like safe — lives saved. >> Thank you so much for being here. >> Thank you.
