EPA has made significant progress on PFAS regulation over the past three years, but more work remains.
Per- and polyfluoroalklyl substances (PFAS) are everywhere—in our water, soil, air, and food. PFAS have even been discovered at the summit of Mount Everest. A report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that over 97% of Americans have PFAS markers in their blood.
PFAS are a group of manufactured chemicals used in various products—including non-stick pans, food packaging, and firefighting foam—for nearly a century due to their useful non-reactive properties. The downside, however, is that PFAS break down very slowly and can build up in the environment and animals. Research suggests that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans, such as decreased fertility, developmental effects in children, and an increased risk of cancers.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working to implement regulations to counteract PFAS contamination. For example, in October 2024, EPA proposed adding several individual PFAS chemicals and 15 PFAS categories to the Toxics Release Inventory—a toxic chemical tracker published by EPA to support informed decision-making by companies, agencies, and the public. Earlier this year, EPA announced national drinking water standards for PFAS.
These proposals are a part of EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, a plan announced in October 2021 to “deliver tangible public health benefits” to people impacted by PFAS. Now that this PFAS roadmap has been in execution for three years, is EPA doing enough to meet its public health benefit goals and address the problem of PFAS contamination?
EPA’s PFAS roadmap focused on three central directives: research, restrict, and remediate. The agency identified several key approaches it planned to follow to achieve those directives.
First, EPA would account for the full lifecycle of PFAS and get upstream of the problem by limiting discharges and imposing restrictions on introducing new unsafe PFAS into commerce. EPA also aimed to hold polluters accountable for PFAS remediation efforts.
Second, EPA would invest in “science-based decision making” to fill gaps in understanding PFAS, identify additional types of PFAS that could pose health and ecological risks, and develop new methodologies for testing, measuring, and removing PFAS.
Finally, EPA would prioritize the protection of disadvantaged communities. It noted that the sources of PFAS contamination are often located near low-income communities and communities of color. EPA would need to engage these communities to ensure all people had equitable access to PFAS solutions.
EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan explained that this roadmap would not “solve our PFAS challenges overnight” but would ensure that federal, state, local, and Tribal governments are empowered to take meaningful action.
Since the launch of the PFAS roadmap, EPA has made significant progress toward achieving the plan’s goals.
In addition to the recent modifications to the Toxics Release Inventory and the national PFAS drinking water standards, EPA designated two of the most widely used PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA—the 1980 act that gave broad federal authority to agencies to respond to releases of hazardous substances. This designation enables EPA and other agencies to address sites contaminated with PFAS and expedite the cleanup process. EPA also invested in funding to develop better detection and removal technologies for PFAS.
The EPA’s roadmap and subsequent regulatory actions, including its new rule on PFAS in drinking water, have faced criticism. In April 2024, EPA’s final rule set legally enforceable levels for six types of PFAS in drinking water and allocated funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal to support PFAS testing and treatment in public water systems.
Industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed the new standards, arguing they overstated the benefits of imposing PFAS limits and underestimated compliance costs. Water utilities also expressed concern that EPA’s cost estimate for water treatment was low and that small water systems would struggle to comply.
Many environmental and public health groups have praised EPA’s stringent limits on PFAS. Ken Cook, the president of Environmental Working Group, called the rule the “most consequential decision to regulate drinking water in 30 years.”
Some commentators, however, have argued that the rule did not go far enough. Scientific researchers found that EPA’s drinking water standards only address half of the PFAS present at contaminated sites. Elsie Sunderland, a professor at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a senior author of the paper, urged EPA to adopt a much broader definition of PFAS chemical structures—a suggestion EPA did not follow in its final rule.
Looking beyond the national drinking water standards, some scholars and practitioners suggest that EPA’s roadmap overlooks other important aspects of the PFAS contamination problem.
For instance, Robert Glicksman and Johanna Adashek of The George Washington University Law School observe that EPA has taken no steps—and does not plan to within its PFAS roadmap—to regulate PFAS under the Clean Air Act. They recommend using Section 303 of the Act, which authorizes EPA to take emergency action to prevent air pollution, to curb and protect against the risk of airborne PFAS.
In addition, Katya Cronin of GW Law notes that EPA’s roadmap is encouraging but fails to address PFAS contamination in food. Cronin argues that EPA should ban PFAS in pesticides and set tolerances for PFAS in food products.
Ultimately, even critics of EPA’s PFAS roadmap acknowledge that it is a positive step in the right direction. As the EPA roadmap notes, future actions EPA will be necessary to fully address the scale and urgency of PFAS contamination and provide stronger protections for public health.
