Limits for PFAS in drinking water signal a new phase in federal action on ‘forever chemicals’

Together, these rules mark the start of a new phase for the previously lackluster federal response to the PFAS crisis, which has only deepened as scientists better understand the risks that these ubiquitous chemicals pose to human and environmental health.

What are PFAS?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic chemicals that have been widely manufactured since the mid-20th century. Because they have useful greaseproofing, waterproofing and stain-proofing qualities, PFAS are now found in a huge variety of products, from cookware to food packaging to clothing. Their flame-retardant properties have also made them a common addition to firefighting foams, which have been most widely deployed at airbases and other military installations, as well as by fire departments. The structural properties that make these chemicals useful also mean they are nearly indestructible and do not decompose naturally, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” PFAS exposure has been linked to a variety of cancers, endocrine problems, birth defects and more health problems.

PFAS can shed off of products into the environment or leach into waterways and soil from manufacturing and disposal sites. As we detailed in our “Foodprint of PFAS” report, soil and water-borne PFAS are a particular problem on farms: They can make their way into crops and the bodies of livestock, ultimately contaminating our food supply.

Chemical companies have been aware of the potential problems with PFAS since the beginning, but concealed the information from regulators. The chemicals have come under wider scrutiny only in recent decades. As scientists learn more about PFAS, it’s increasingly apparent that they’re everywhere: Recent research found that nearly a third of groundwater samples from around the world contained PFAS, even when there was no obvious source of contamination. Even the spray from ocean waves registers high amounts.

The patchy federal response to the PFAS crisis

Despite the growing concern about the extent of PFAS contamination and the effects of exposure, however, the federal response to the crisis has been fairly slow. Some of the oldest PFAS, like PFOA and PFOS, were phased out of production in the mid-2000s after voluntary agreements between manufacturers and the EPA, but that’s done little to solve the problem: Huge quantities of PFOA and PFOS remain in the environment, and the government has yet to implement safeguards for limiting people’s contact with those existing chemicals. And rather than abandoning PFAS altogether, manufacturers have replaced PFOA and PFOS with hundreds of newer, less-studied “short chain” PFAS, like GenX, that are supposedly less dangerous because they move more quickly through our bodies. However, this also means they move more easily through the environment.

In the absence of an adequate national response, states like Maine have started to pull back the curtain on the true extent of PFAS contamination in water sources and farmland — inspiring louder calls for decisive action and support from the federal government. Outside of its earlier piecemeal fixes to specific chemicals, the EPA didn’t develop a comprehensive PFAS plan until 2021, when it released a strategic roadmap outlining its goals for the crisis. The agency prioritized mapping out how PFAS enter the environment, limiting those releases, holding polluters accountable for them and providing more funding to research and deploy PFAS remediation strategies.

How the new drinking water standards work

Under that framework, deciding appropriate limits for PFAS in drinking water was a critical first piece — one that required understanding what concentrations would pose a risk to health. The best research indicates that even concentrations measured in parts per trillion can be a risk, making the commitment of federal funds to water utilities a critical addition to the new drinking water rule: Running tests sensitive enough to detect these low levels is expensive.

Because there are so many kinds of PFAS — and because “safe” concentrations of individual PFAS may still be dangerous in combination — the new standard includes limits both for six of the most common PFAS in combination as well as setting individual limits.

Critically, the EPA’s new drinking water standards pave the way for the federal government to set other safety standards, especially in food. As Sarah Alexander, who has been deeply involved in helping coordinate Maine’s response to the PFAS crisis in her role as executive director for the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Organization, told FoodPrint in 2023, “We actually had a meeting with the FDA last fall to encourage them to set some standards and to not leave this up to a state-by-state approach. They pretty much told us that until EPA has enforceable drinking water standards that they could build off of, they really couldn’t start looking at food safety thresholds.”

Under the new rule, public water systems will have three years to complete initial testing, then five years after that to reduce PFAS contamination to acceptable levels, with non-compliant systems vulnerable to legal action. But even with the commitment of federal funds, remediating contaminated water supplies takes a lot of money and effort, as the available filtration systems require significant investment and ongoing upkeep. This could make implementing the new standards expensive for taxpayers.

Who foots the bill for remediating water systems?

That’s where the designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous chemicals comes in: The Superfund law forces companies to disclose PFAS releases and pay for cleanup, shifting the burden of responsibility back onto polluters and away from communities impacted by corporate misconduct.

Critically, liability for hazardous chemicals is retroactive under Superfund, so companies that previously released the chemicals can still be held responsible for cleanup under the law. PFOA and PFOS are still circulating widely in the environment, but all were manufactured by just a few companies — meaning the inevitable court battles over the cleanup bill may take less time than usual.

Using Superfund to formalize the corporate obligation to pay for PFAS cleanup complements a number of lawsuits that have already held chemical companies like 3M, DuPont, Chemours and Corteva liable for polluting municipal water systems around the country. Settlements for those cases have exceeded $11 billion, with that total expected to climb.

As chemical companies are increasingly held financially accountable, they may themselves choose to wind down PFAS production to avoid being burdened with astronomical costs. We needn’t expect them to do so voluntarily, however: Partial bans on the sale and manufacture of PFAS have already been imposed in several states, and given the urgency of stopping production, public health advocates have been vocal about the need for matching efforts from the federal government. Still, a federal ban is not likely to be imminent: Given the pressure from manufacturers of textiles, paper goods and other products that often rely on PFAS, the EPA is more focused on targeting the biggest sources of PFAS contamination than it is on banning the chemicals outright.

Slowing the trickle of PFAS into the environment is only half the work, however, and the agency’s next target is working to improve remediation methods. Certain filters can effectively remove PFAS from water, but there are limited options for destroying the chemicals once they have been extracted. There are even fewer options for removing PFAS from soil, and none that are developed enough to begin treating affected farmland. Coordinated efforts from the Department of Agriculture, which recently put $18 million towards researching PFAS relief and remediation methods in its proposed budget for the next fiscal year, will be an important next step.