The Urgent Need for Stricter PFAS Regulations to Safeguard Water Quality and Public Health 

 Written by Ashton Danneels and Christophe Courchesne 

 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are increasingly making headlines due to their persistence in the environment and their harmful health effects. To address this problem, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a suite of important regulations. In April of 2024, the EPA introduced new Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water, signaling a critical regulatory shift. And in May of 2024, two types of PFAS are now classified as Hazardous Substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Together, these measures are a good start to address the pervasive PFAS contamination holistically, from drinking water safety to remediation of polluted sites around the country. Yet stricter PFAS regulations are still needed, both at the federal and state level, to protect public health and address widespread contamination. 

 Why Are Federal Regulations Necessary to Regulate PFAS?

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals widely used since the 1950s in industrial processes and consumer products. They are used to make non-stick cookware, water resistant fabrics, firefighting foam, and various types of food packaging. PFAS are characterized by their strong carbon-fluorine bonds which make them extremely durable. The chemicals are resistant to heat, water, and oil. These properties contribute to the reason they are so persistent in the environment and in the bodies of living organisms. These properties earned them the nickname of “forever chemicals,” since they are largely indestructible. Over time, PFAS bioaccumulate in living organisms, so they are particularly dangerous when they contaminate drinking water. Once believed to be harmless, PFAS are in fact unsafe and are increasingly linked to various health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system disorders, making it imperative for regulators to take aggressive action. 

EPA’s new regulations, discussed below, are a step in the right direction, but many environmental advocates and public health officials argue that stricter, more comprehensive regulations are still necessary.  

 Brief Overview of Important Federal Regulations Under the Biden-Harris Administration  

Under the Biden-Harris administration, numerous actions have been taken to regulate PFAS. Importantly, EPA has issued a final rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to address six PFAS chemicals present in drinking water. This rule sets enforceable drinking water standards and provides a mechanism for updates as new information becomes available. Maximum Contaminant Levels are the highest permissible concentration of a contaminant in drinking water; the standards are determined by balancing the health protection with the cost of the water treatment. 

Another significant measure was EPA’s designation of two PFAS substances—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)—as hazardous substances under CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund. This designation provides a tool to hold polluters accountable and enables cost recovery and enforcement actions to address PFOA and PFOS releases. 

The administration also took steps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by issuing a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to prevent the resumed manufacture or processing of hundreds of inactive PFAS without a rigorous, upfront EPA safety review. Additionally, EPA issued SNURs to ensure that existing protections imposed on PFAS manufacturers under TSCA’s New Chemicals Program are broadly applicable to all future manufacturers and processors of these chemicals. 

Lastly, the administration has prioritized funding the nation’s water infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Of the funds allocated by the BIL, $9 billion are dedicated to assisting communities and water systems impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. Additional federal funds are also available to support progress in addressing PFAS. 

 Looking Forward: The Case for Regulating PFAS Under the Clean Water Act  

PFAS contamination extends beyond just drinking water. These chemicals are routinely found in surface waters, groundwater, and soil. Federal laws like the Clean Water Act (CWA) should include PFAS-specific regulations. The CWA’s primary goal is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This regulatory strategy is consistent with the efforts of the PFAS Strategic Roadmap. Specifically, EPA provided guidance on how to use the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program as a tool to regulate point sources that discharge PFAS into waters of the United States.  

Explicitly including PFAS in the CWA would allow EPA to regulate discharges of these toxic chemicals from industrial facilities and other point sources that release PFAS into water bodies. This would be an essential step in addressing the widespread contamination of rivers, lakes, and streams across the country. By incorporating PFAS into the list of pollutants regulated under the CWA’s NPDES permit program, industries are required to limit their PFAS emissions into navigable waters. This limitation would reduce the environmental spread of these chemicals and would be help protect ecosystems, wildlife, and human health, particularly in communities dependent on these water sources. 

 Looking Forward: The Case for Regulating PFAS As a Chemical Class, not a Chemical-by-Chemical Basis 

 Similarly, the SDWA plays an important role in ensuring that public water systems meet health-based standards for contaminants. EPA’s recent MCL for PFAS in drinking water set levels for six PFAS chemicals. While a step in the right direction, there are nearly 15,000 types of these synthetic chemicals present in drinking water. Broader inclusion of PFAS past the six chemicals included in this MCL could ensure that public water systems nationwide are uniformly required to monitor, filter, and reduce PFAS contamination. If PFAS were regulated as a class, the SDWA rule would be more comprehensive, close existing gaps, and prevent piecemeal regulation. 

Regulating PFAS under both the CWA and SDWA would create a more complete framework for addressing PFAS contamination at multiple points in the water cycle—before it enters drinking water supplies and after it reaches water systems. This dual approach ensures that PFAS are not only removed from drinking water but also prevented from contaminating surface and groundwater sources in the first place. 

 Regulation as an Environmental Justice Imperative 

 Communities already grappling with environmental inequities, such as Flint, Michigan, and Wilmington, North Carolina, are more likely to be continuously exposed to contaminated water. Stronger enforcement of PFAS regulations by both the EPA and state agencies is crucial to protect at-risk residents of these communities. Without regulation, PFAS contamination will continue to disproportionately harm communities lacking the resources to implement expensive filtration systems or other remediation measures. It is essential for the federal government to not only set strict limits, but also to provide funding and technical support to help states comply. 

PFAS contamination disproportionately affects low-income and rural communities that often rely on local groundwater and those municipal water systems with limited resources. In these areas, the risk of exposure to dangerous levels of PFAS is higher, and without federal oversight, the burden of contamination could persist for years. For instance, rural water systems may lack the resources for the advanced filtration technology required to remove PFAS efficiently. Adding to the financial pressures, rural systems typically do not have enough customers where they can feasibly spread the rate increases to make up for the testing and treatment upgrades that are needed. A study found PFAS in the bodies of 97% of Americans tested; there is a growing demand for clearer guidance on remediation techniques and more robust funding sources to help under-resourced communities upgrade their water infrastructure.  

What’s Next for PFAS Regulation? 

 The new MCLs are just the beginning of what will likely be a long regulatory journey. Environmental groups are pushing for PFAS to be regulated as a class of chemicals rather than on a substance-by-substance basis, which could significantly broaden the scope of regulatory oversight. If this happens, it could lead to even stricter limits and increased pressure on industries to find safer alternatives to PFAS-based products. 

There are concerns that the Biden-Harris efforts to regulate PFAS could be repealed under the second Trump administration. The Trump campaign deregulatory posture suggests a hostility to incurring the costs of protecting public health from PFAS, especially when the cost of removing PFAS from tap water could reach $3.2 billion annually. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint for the next Republican administration, pledges to dismantle regulations, make EPA more receptive to industry-backed science, and defund significant research into toxic chemical exposure. And the courts may play a deregulatory role going forward as well; chemical companies have already filed lawsuits challenging the new MCL regulation. 

Instead of abandoning protective regulations, EPA and state agencies must work together to enforce the new MCLs and other PFAS rules while exploring further regulatory options. The urgency of the PFAS crisis cannot be overstated, and failing to act could leave millions of Americans exposed to dangerous levels of contamination for years to come. To truly protect public health and ensure environmental justice, EPA must continue to set strict, enforceable standards that reflect the latest scientific understanding of PFAS’s dangers.  

Author Bios 

Ashton Danneels is a third-year student at Vermont Law and Graduate School studying for a J.D. and Master of Environmental Law and Policy from Albuquerque, New Mexico. She is a senior staff member of the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. She hopes to work in toxics policy and regulation following law school with a focus on PFAS and water quality. 

Christophe Courchesne is the Director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic, Interim Director of the Environmental Law Center, and an Associate Professor of Law. Before joining Vermont Law and Graduate School in 2022, he was senior leader at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, leading work on the climate crisis, federal policy, environmental and racial justice, and clean energy. Professor Courchesne previously worked as an advocate at the Conservation Law Foundation and as a senior environmental associate at a large Boston law firm. He has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and various federal courts.