EPA to delay limits on PFAS in drinking water

The US Environmental Protection Agency plans to give drinking-water utilities an extra 2 years to meet strict limits for two of the most toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).

In a May 14 press release, the agency says that it will defend the limits for those two PFAS. But it also says it plans to roll back and revisit limits for four others—perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, which is used in Chemours’s GenX product).

Last year, the EPA set limits for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 4 parts per trillion each and gave public drinking-water systems 5 years to comply. In response to pushback and legal challenges from water utilities, the agency now says it will propose a rule this fall to delay the compliance date until 2031. But the EPA also says it will support the Department of Justice in defending the PFOA and PFOS drinking water limits in ongoing litigation.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has delayed proceedings in that case (American Water Works Association et al. v. EPA, case no. 24-1188) three times this year at the request of the EPA under the administration of President Donald J. Trump. The latest court order, on May 14, directs the EPA to file motions by June 4.

State drinking-water systems welcome the EPA’s plan to extend the compliance date for PFOA and PFOS. “With the current compliance date of 2029, states and water systems are struggling with the timeframes to complete the pilot testing, development of construction plans, and building the necessary treatment improvements,” Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, says in the EPA’s press release.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, claims that the EPA did not follow sound science when it developed the PFAS drinking-water limits. “It is critical that on an issue of this scale, EPA gets the science and policy right, and that the Agency uses the currently available data to inform the regulation,” the group says in a statement. “As originally proposed, the regulations were expected to impose billions of dollars in unfunded mandates on local communities and raise water rates by thousands of dollars per household in some jurisdictions.”

Although the ACC is pleased that the EPA is addressing concerns of water utilities and local governments related to some of the PFAS limits, the group is pushing the EPA to revisit all the limits. “EPA’s actions only partially address this issue, and more is needed to prevent significant impacts on local communities and other unintended consequences.”

Environmental groups are opposed to any further delays in getting toxic PFAS out of drinking water. “The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it’s sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come,” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, says in a statement. “The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases,” he says.

A potential decline in EPA funding could make compliance with the PFAS limits in drinking water even more challenging for states already struggling to pay for upgrades to water infrastructure.

Earlier this month, the White House proposed a budget for fiscal 2026 that would slash $2.5 billion from the EPA’s state revolving loan funds. Those funds are used to help states pay for water infrastructure projects, including those related to removing PFAS from drinking water. In addition, the proposed budget would cut $1.0 billion from the EPA’s Categorical Grant programs, which also help states clean up drinking water.

During a May 14 subcommittee hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, lawmakers questioned EPA administrator Lee Zeldin about the proposed cuts to the drinking-water state revolving funds.

The state revolving funds have strong bipartisan support, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies subcommittee, said at the hearing. “We are looking at a budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we are all in agreement on,” she noted, asking why the EPA would move away from such a critical program that provides access to clean water.

Zeldin responded that “there has been a bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by Congress to earmark.” He clarified that the proposed budget does not zero out the state revolving funds. Lawmakers should have conversations among themselves about the appropriate funding level for the state revolving funds, the future of the program, and whether earmarks will continue to be used to reduce the balance, he said.

When asked about recent and anticipated staff layoffs at the EPA, Zeldin responded that the agency’s Office of Water is planning to add people to work on PFAS. Tackling PFAS “is a very high priority,” he said, noting that the agency is shifting resources to work that is required by law. “We are going to fulfill all statutory obligations.”