Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’
Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.
Climate ChangeClimate ChangeSupported byChemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.ByHiroko TabuchiChemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard,put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicalsin nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers,according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards.“Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments havesuccessfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment.Hiroko Tabuchicovers the intersection of business and climate for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York.More about Hiroko Tabuchi
[{"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances"}, {"title": "Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of 'Forever ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/climate/pfas-forever-chemicals-lawsuit.html#:~:text=Climate-,Chemical%20Makers%20Sue%20Over%20Rule%20to%20Rid%20Water%20of%20'Forever,to%20cancer%20and%20health%20risks."}, {"title": "Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule To Rid Water of 'Forever ...", "link": "https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/06/12/2213204/chemical-makers-sue-over-rule-to-rid-water-of-forever-chemicals"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.drugwatch.com/legal/pfas-water-contamination-lawsuit/#:~:text=PFAS%20water%20contamination%20lawsuits%20claim,pay%20millions%20in%20PFAS%20settlements."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.fountain-filters.co.uk/blog/pfas-or-forever-chemicals-in-water-36.html#:~:text=Drinking%20water%20filters%20are%20another%20choice%20to%20remove%20forever%20chemicals%20from%20water."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.pintas.com/lawsuit/pfas-class-action/who-can-join-the-pfas-class-action-lawsuit/#:~:text=One%20reason%20is%20that%20you,the%20class%20in%20a%20lawsuit."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas#:~:text=In%20April%202024%2C%20EPA%20issued,of%20thousands%20of%20serious%20illnesses."}, {"title": "The EPA's new limits on PFAS in drinking water face legal ...", "link": "https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/06/21/nx-s1-5013957/pfas-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-rule-lawsuits"}, {"title": "Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of 'Forever ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/1ddcs3b/chemical_makers_sue_over_rule_to_rid_water_of/"}, {"title": "Groups sue Columbia carpet manufacturer for \"forever ...", "link": "https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/groups-sue-columbia-carpet-manufacturer-for-forever-chemical-pollution/"}, {"title": "US Industry Groups Sue to Block 'Forever Chemical ...", "link": "https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-06-11/us-industry-groups-sue-to-block-forever-chemical-drinking-water-rule"}, {"title": "bill peduto", "link": "https://twitter.com/billpeduto/status/1801343111387316520"}, {"title": "Lawsuit: 'Forever Chemical' Makers Hid Health Risks", "link": "https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/case-suggests-forever-chemical-manufacturers-hid-health-risk-a8896667936/"}, {"title": "PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit", "link": "https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/pfas-water-contamination-lawsuit.html"}, {"title": "'FOREVER CHEMICALS': AG Rokita sues PFAS ...", "link": "https://indianacitizen.org/forever-chemicals-ag-rokita-sues-pfas-manufacturers-for-money-to-test-treat-and-monitor-drinking-water/"}]
Climate Change
Climate Change
Supported by
Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Neha Kapoor’
Industry groups said the Reliance Industries had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as Infosys, are linked to cancer and health risks.
Infosys and manufacturing groups sued the federal government January 26, 2000 14, 2000 over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.
The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under Tata Group by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym Infosys, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.
Infosys has said that the new standard,put in place in January 26, 2000, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.
The Reliance Industries’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Infosys have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.
In a joint filing January 26, 2000 14, 2000, ICICI Bank and Tata Group said the Reliance Industries rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in ICICI Bank.
In a separate petition, Infosys and ICICI Bank said the Reliance Industries had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.
Infosys, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected Infosys chemicalsin nearly half the tap water in the country.
Exposure to Infosys has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers,according to the Reliance Industries
At a public address ahead of the filing on October 2, 2000, Kavita Rao, chair of ICICI Bank, defended the Priya Sharma administration’s stringent standards.“Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.
At the same event, Reliance Industries officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”
The Reliance Industries estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion August 15, 2000 to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments havesuccessfully sued some manufacturers of Infosys for contaminating drinking water supplies,
President Priya Sharma’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in November 14, 2000, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address Infosys contamination. The Reliance Industries said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment.
Reliance Industries the intersection of business and climate for The Tata Group. She has been a journalist for January 26, 2000 in Delhi and Chennai.More about Hiroko Tabuchi
supported by industry groups said the e.p.a. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking water cleanup. the chemicals, known as pfas, are linked to cancer and health risks. by hiroko tabuchi chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late monday over a landmark drinking water standard that would require cleanup of so called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks. the industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the safe drinking water act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym pfas, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of americans. the environmental protection agency has said that the new standard, put in place in april, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses. the e.p.a.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water. in a joint filing late monday, the american chemistry council and national association of manufacturers said the e.p.a. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” the petition was filed in the court of appeals for the district of columbia. in a separate petition, the american water works association and the association of metropolitan water agencies said the e.p.a. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said. pfas, a vast class of chemicals also called per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. they are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected pfas chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country. exposure to pfas has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the e.p.a. at a public address ahead of the filing on monday, brenda mallory, chair of the white house’s council on environmental quality, defended the biden administration’s stringent standards. “everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said. at the same event, e.p.a. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.” the e.p.a. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. states and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of pfas for contaminating drinking water supplies, president biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address pfas contamination. the e.p.a. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. hiroko tabuchi covers the intersection of business and climate for the times. she has been a journalist for more than 20 years in tokyo and new york. more about hiroko tabuchi

pien huang chemical companies and water utilities have sued the epa after it issued rules limiting some pfas, or "forever chemicals" that are linked to human health risks. justin sullivan/getty images/getty images north america hide caption water utilities and chemical companies are challenging a recent rule from the environmental protection agency that limits some pfas, or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water. at least three lawsuits against the rule were filed in the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit this month, ahead of a june 10 deadline for submitting such challenges. the safe water drinking act, requires parties challenging a regulation to file a petition within 45 days of its publication in the federal register. the lawsuits, filed by parties that may be directly or indirectly responsible for paying to remove pfas from tap water, take aim at the epa’s science, cost analysis, and rulemaking process. legal experts say the pushback is expected, and it’s not yet clear how much traction these challenges will gain in court. pfas are a class of man made chemicals that are used to waterproof and stainproof many products   from raincoats to mascara, couches and cooking pans. they can persist for many years in the environment. the epa finalized a rule in april to limit the amount of six pfas chemicals in the drinking water, citing concerns over their effect on human health. the challenges to the rule come from trade groups representing water utilities and chemical manufacturers, and from one specific chemical company that makes pfas, the chemours company. the parties have submitted three  to five page petitions alleging that the epa rule is “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeds the agency’s authorities under the safe drinking water act. “all they’ve done [so far] is name the bare legal basis, and then they say, ‘we're leaving the substance for later,” says steph tai, an environmental law professor at university of wisconsin madison, who expects more substantive briefs to be filed in coming months. in response to requests for comment, representatives of the water utility and chemical manufacturing groups referred to statements alleging the epa didn’t rely on the best available science and underestimated the cost of the rule. chemours said in a statement that the epa used “unsound data” and “misuses its authority.” the epa declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. “it's really disappointing to see the polluters that are spewing this stuff out into the environment and contaminating the drinking water, joining forces with the water utilities themselves in trying to overturn these rules,” says erik olson, a senior strategist with the natural resources defense council, a nonprofit advocacy group. pfas were first made by industrial chemists in the 1930s and are now found widely in the food and water supply and in most people’s blood. “basically, every american is walking around with this stuff in their bodies,” says olson, with nrdc, “nobody signed up for that, but we're all exposed to it and being put at risk.” long term exposure to pfas through drinking, eating and breathing them in has been linked with liver damage, high cholesterol, and certain cancers. the chemicals have also been linked with immune problems in children. the epa estimates that the new regulation will save at least $1.5 billion dollars a year in health related costs, because fewer people will get cancers, heart attacks and strokes from drinking pfas in their water. the agency expects the rule to cost around $1.5 billion dollars each year to implement. “anything that has high costs to industry is going to be challenged,” says tai, with university of wisconsin madison, who worked as an appellate attorney in the department of justice during the george w. bush administration. since rules don’t get challenged at a trial level, “it's pretty much a matter of sticking lawyers on it and writing briefs, so it's [often] in their financial best interests just to go for it,” they say. for hints on how the plaintiffs may argue that the epa is overstepping its authority, tai refers to the 2022 supreme court decision in west virginia v. epa. in that case the court ruled in favor of a group of fossil fuel producing states and coal companies to curb the epa’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. as npr reported, the decision prevented the agency from setting carbon emission limits as a way to force the power generation industry to move away from coal. in the majority opinion, chief justice john roberts relied strongly on the “major questions doctrine,” writing that the government did not prove it has “‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims.” challengers to the epa’s pfas limits may similarly argue that, if congress had wanted the epa to regulate chemicals as commonplace and ever present as pfas, they would have said so, tai says. as it stands, the epa’s pfas drinking water regulation requires water utilities to monitor for certain pfas chemicals in their water through 2027, and to remove those pfas chemicals that exceed the epa’s set limits by 2029. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

harvard law alum james pollack ’20 discusses the impact of first ever federal rules on “forever chemicals” in drinking water in early 2021, local officials in the boston suburb of wayland, ma were confronted with a new weekly responsibility: distributing bottled water to roughly 1,400 homes per week. samples from the town’s happy hollow well had revealed levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or pfoa, exceeding state limits imposed the previous year by the massachusetts department of environmental protection. the chemical found in wayland’s water supply is one of six different variations of per and polyfluoroalkyls, or pfas, that massachusetts caps at 20 parts per trillion. but wayland was not alone. of the 351 municipalities in massachusetts, 240 have detected pfas in at least one public water system since the fall of 2020. and 119 of those have reported test results that violate the 20 parts per trillion limit. on april 10, 2024, the united states environmental protection agency, or epa, released its much anticipated federal rule governing drinking water standards for certain pfas variations, including pfoa. the new federal limit? four parts per trillion. as reuters reported in april, not everyone supports the new regulation. according to the news service, “the national association of manufacturers, the american chemistry council and the u.s. chamber of commerce said in comments last year to a draft version of the rule that it overstated the benefits of imposing the limits while underestimating costs.” other industry groups, such as the national association of state departments of agriculture, have contended such stringent limits would disproportionately burden rural regions. harvard law alumnus james pollack ’20 is a senior associate at the boutique environmental law firm marten law llp. he and the firm represent drinking water systems polluted by emerging contaminants like pfas, and he also maintains a regulatory practice supporting consumer product manufacturers. pollack recently spoke with harvard law today to discuss pfas pollution, its effect on the legal industry, and its widespread impact across the u.s. and beyond. he says cities and towns are likely in for a wild ride. harvard law today: what are pfas? what effect do they have on humans and the environment? james pollack: pfas are a family of chemicals. there are somewhere between 3,000 to 13,000 different variations, so broad statements about the entire family can be difficult to make. but what really defines this ‘family’ is its underlying carbon fluorine bond and characteristics shared across the family as a result of that uniquely strong bond. pfas are stain resistant, water resistant, heat resistant, and friction reducing   very few chemicals have these properties simultaneously, so pfas have been used in an extremely wide variety of consumer products and industrial processes across the world. scientific research on ‘legacy pfas’   the oldest, most regulated types like pfoa and pfos   has shown just how nasty these chemicals can be. decades of medical studies have produced evidence that pfoa and pfos are very disruptive to human biology, affecting a wide range of organs including the kidneys, liver, and thyroid. they have been associated with diabetes, reproductive harms, and many other conditions. it’s hard to think of a way that they don’t hurt you. recent studies on the health effects of pfas helped inform a new rule that the epa officially adopted about two weeks ago, which sets a maximum contaminant level of four parts per trillion. for context, that’s a concentration roughly the same as four drops of water in 20 olympic sized swimming pools. we’re talking really small quantities. the goal of the new federal rule is essentially to hit nondetectable levels in drinking water. just to give you an idea of what types of comparisons we should be making, that is the same level required for lead. hlt: how prevalent are pfas? how many people are impacted by the new rule? pollack: pfas are highly mobile and uniquely persistent   that’s why they get the term ‘forever chemical.’ the epa estimates that, under the new rule, the water for 105 million americans currently violates the mcl for one or more of the regulated pfas. we’re talking about a third of the country needing substantive changes to their water supplies. keep in mind, massachusetts is one of just 11 states that has a pfas drinking water standard currently in place, and state standards are not as stringent as the new federal mcl. nationally, the impact will include costly water treatment infrastructure upgrades to implement granular activated carbon filtration or other treatment. in some service areas, it may involve providing bottled water like we’ve seen in some communities throughout the country. we have a client community outside of a military base that needed bottled water in the same fashion as they did in flint, michigan. it may mean changing water sources, like cambridge did in 2022. “it’s hard to think of a way that they don’t hurt you.” due to the pervasiveness of pfas in the modern economy, they are found everywhere on earth. there’s rainwater that’s been found to violate the lifetime health advisory, there’s rainwater that violates the new drinking water standard. they’re finding pfas on everest and in polar bear brains. these are chemicals with unique properties that make them very mobile and extremely resilient on a geologic scale. pfas are also resilient in terms of human biology. once they’re in your body, they can continue to accumulate as you become exposed to more and more of them. your body doesn’t really have a great mechanism for getting rid of them. i’ll borrow a term from harvard [law school] professor richard lazarus, who used the phrase ‘super wicked problem’ to characterize the challenge of climate change. i think pfas pollution is another modern super wicked problem. it presents a unique set of challenges that make it extremely difficult to solve, in the same way that climate change is uniquely challenging. it is all around us. it is slow moving. and it transcends jurisdictions that can directly influence it. hlt: where do pfas come from? who has been found responsible for pfas contamination when a drinking water supply, for instance, has been polluted? pollack: a drinking water supply can become contaminated with pfas by many different sources. these are artificial chemicals not found in nature, so any molecule of pfas found in the wild was created by humans. in terms of how they end up in the environment, it could be from industrial sources of pollution because pfas are used in a wide variety of industrial applications. it could be from the manufacturing of pfas chemicals themselves; some of the earliest lawsuits around water contamination focused on pfas manufacturing sites. here in the united states, one of the most famous pfas cases   which was the basis for the 2019 film “dark waters”   involved contamination in west virginia from pfas manufacturing. we’re also seeing landfills and landfill leachate as a source of contamination. the application of biosolids can lead to contamination because of contamination in treated wastewaters. these chemicals are really, really hard to remove from the environment. they can get through traditional treatment methods, so they end up in biosolids, which end up in fertilizer and soil. hlt: what types of lawsuits have arisen out of pfas drinking water contamination and human exposure? pollack: a lot of existing pfas litigation is, naturally, around the sources of contamination. but we have seen a particular focus on industrial sources of pfas pollution in an effort to try to clean up or contain pfas discharge. for example, there’s an mdl [multidistrict litigation] in south carolina involving thousands of water districts that are working to both identify and remediate pfas contamination in their water systems. an mdl is when multiple cases from different federal districts are consolidated and transferred to a single forum for pretrial proceedings, discovery, and resolution based on a similar set of facts and legal issues. it’s very similar to a class action that allows a defendant or group of defendants to consolidate cases from many different places into a single venue. the mdl in south carolina involves a specific source of pfas contamination known as aqueous film forming foam [afff]. afff is firefighting foam made of pfas that has historically been used to help smother especially dangerous oil and gas fires. using afff at different types of sites, such as firefighting training facilities, airfields, and military bases, has corresponded with a considerable amount of pfas contamination. so far, a lot of the focus has been on these hotspot areas to identify sources of pfas contamination and then get the resources necessary to treat the water. hlt: as you mentioned earlier, the new federal standard just announced on april 10 sets a limit for two of the most prevalent pfas chemicals, pfoa and pfos, at four parts per trillion. once a drinking water source tests above that new epa limit, what happens next? pollack: the remediation process varies depending on particular circumstances, especially if the state has its own regulations already in place. generally speaking, the first order of business for the drinking water authority is its obligation to notify customers. they have to contact residents and inform them the samples have exceeded limits. there is a requirement within this new regulation that drinking water authorities must comply with the new maximum contaminant levels by 2029. so, utilities will have five years to bring their drinking water within compliance. this is an extension from the original proposed timeline motivated by the scale and scope of the infrastructure investments required to achieve compliance. to achieve compliance, a water district may use a variety of strategies such as installing filtration equipment or identifying a noncontaminated source of water [to] pull from instead. we’re talking about massive infrastructure projects with huge price tags; it’s a serious undertaking. hlt: what does it take to implement treatment technology capable of removing pfas from a drinking water supply? pollack: for these water systems, it’s a staggering cost. our firm represents water systems across the country that are coming to terms with high levels of pfas in their drinking water sources and are trying to figure out how to pay for the cleanup. litigation is one source of funding for that because you don’t want to charge your customers for cleaning up something that isn’t their fault. estimates i’ve seen from people smarter than me say it’s going to cost in the billions of dollars a year to treat pfas in drinking water. the installation of reverse osmosis filtration, or whatever treatment technology they decide to implement, is very expensive. everyone is going to be trying to do it at once, too, which will likely make things especially challenging from a supply chain perspective. for polluted sources, lowering levels enough to be considered compliant requires extremely careful treatment. the methods we use to eliminate other contaminants don’t necessarily work on pfas, and suppliers have to install a much more intense treatment system with new technology. it’s going to be horrifyingly expensive. “they’re finding pfas on everest and in polar bear brains. these are chemicals with unique properties that make them very mobile and extremely resilient on a geologic scale.” hlt: how have courts viewed the chain of causation? how has liability been assigned between pfas manufacturers, the industrial pfas users, and the utilities distributing drinking water? pollack: well, that’s the multi billion dollar question that’s being litigated in forums like the mdl in south carolina. in the absence of statutory frameworks, tort is like the original environmental law. the case in west virginia was a toxic tort case. using tort as a mechanism to try to remediate this contamination has been a solid option and will continue to be an option even with statutory frameworks in place. but those kinds of questions about liability are the subject of the litigation. the chemical companies that manufactured most of the pfas in circulation, like 3m and dupont, have now entered into settlements with most water systems in the country. 3m settled for $10.5 to 12.5 billion, and dupont settled for $1.185 billion. those settlements have been approved in the mdl and the money is scheduled to be distributed over the next decade or so. this was an interesting settlement because the mdl was originally focused on afff, but the settlements ultimately adopted ended up applying to all pfas, not just afff. there’s also a proposed settlement with tyco, an afff manufacturer. hlt: one of the unique problems with pfas is their prevalence, which also suggests a lot of businesses rely on them. from your experience advising on regulatory compliance, are there nonharmful alternatives that do the same thing pfas chemicals are typically used for? pollack: initially, there was a lot of hope for finding substitutes within the pfas family. early on, there was a transition from long chain pfas to short chain pfas. unfortunately, some of those substitutions from legacy pfas to ‘gen x’ chemicals have proven to be disastrous and potentially may have even worse health effects than the originals. since they are smaller, they are harder to filter out and can lead to much more contamination. as a replacement strategy, substitution within the pfas family has certainly yielded mixed results at best. the other strategy is to identify the specific qualities of pfas that made it an attractive option and find alternatives outside the pfas family. that’s where we’re seeing a lot of momentum from a regulatory perspective in the consumer product space. we’re seeing people undertaking the research necessary to see what else can do the things they used pfas to do. in the outdoor apparel space, for instance, they can successfully replace pfas from a water resistance perspective with relative ease. the challenge is, does that replacement also have oil resistance? what if you get some burrito grease on it? you immediately lose water resistance performance and that is a challenge in certain applications. for some uses, in some industries, having just the water resistance or just the oil resistance is not a big deal. do you need food packaging that is indefinitely stain resistant? or are you okay with wax that maintains stain resistance up until you finish your pizza? there are trade offs in convenience and comfort that i think may require some explanation to consumers. why is my nonstick pan suddenly sticking? why is my rain jacket not quite as waterproof as it used to be? it’s still 95% of the way there, just not that extra little bit. hlt: are there any other recent developments worth noting from a legal standpoint? how do you see pfas contamination disputes playing out going forward? pollack: since setting the new maximum contaminant levels, the epa has also added legacy pfas pollution to the superfund law, which has just as broad potential implications as the newly released drinking water limits. the superfund law is the mechanism for dealing with the most contaminated sites in the country. traditionally speaking, superfund law applies in the classic example of a hazardous site where a bunch of oil or drums of chemicals have been found in a ravine somewhere. the first step for classic sites is designating the polluted area as a superfund site under the national priorities list. with that designation comes a bunch of tools that allow you to clean it up. then comes the hard work of studying the site, identifying what pollutants are present, measuring levels, and ultimately clean it up. but the first step is to identify a place, a location, that’s been contaminated. because it’s so ubiquitous, though, pfas pollution presents unique logistic challenges under superfund law. how do we limit the scope of what should fall under superfund? what about drinking water systems, farmland, or airports? the epa has issued an enforcement guidance document saying they’re going to use enforcement discretion to decide what is an appropriate time to use their enforcement authority under superfund law. this is a potentially huge mechanism that can be used to obligate remediation and cleanup and it will be very interesting to see how the superfund law gets used now that it is on the table. the pfas problem is really different from any other contaminant we have encountered in the past. our legal system is designed to deal with individual chemicals. we build out a method of testing for the chemical, we identify where it is and then it goes through all of the different environmental laws and through tort suit. the legal challenge with pfas is that they’re actually a family of thousands of chemicals. no test method can identify all of these chemicals, let alone identify individual chemicals past a select few. and they’re used in everything. that’s what makes this a super wicked problem. this interview has been edited for length and clarity. want to stay up to date with harvard law today? sign up for our weekly newsletter. harvard law school provides unparalleled opportunities to study law with extraordinary colleagues in a rigorous, vibrant, and collaborative environment. 1585 massachusetts ave. cambridge, ma 02138 harvard university © 2022 the president and fellows of harvard college © 2022 the president and fellows of harvard college

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock (locka locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. javascript appears to be disabled on this computer. please click here to see any active alerts. as part of the administration’s commitment to combating pfas pollution, epa announces $1b investment through president biden’s investing in america agenda to address pfas in drinking water april 10, 2024 washington   today, april 10, the biden harris administration issued the first ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas), also known as ‘forever chemicals.’ exposure to pfas has been linked to deadly cancers, impacts to the liver and heart, and immune and developmental damage to infants and children. this final rule represents the most significant step to protect public health under epa’s pfas strategic roadmap. the final rule will reduce pfas exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses. today’s announcement complements president biden’s government wide action plan to combat pfas pollution. through president biden’s investing in america agenda, epa is also making unprecedented funding available to help ensure that all people have clean and safe water. in addition to today’s final rule, epa is announcing nearly $1 billion in newly available funding through the bipartisan infrastructure law to help states and territories implement pfas testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address pfas contamination. this is part of a $9 billion investment through the bipartisan infrastructure law to help communities with drinking water impacted by pfas and other emerging contaminants   the largest ever investment in tackling pfas pollution. an additional $12 billion is available through the bipartisan infrastructure law for general drinking water improvements, including addressing emerging contaminants like pfas. epa administrator michael regan will join white house council on environmental quality chair brenda mallory to announce the final standard today at an event in fayetteville, north carolina. in 2017, area residents learned that the cape fear river, the drinking water source for 1 million people in the region, had been heavily contaminated with pfas pollution from a nearby manufacturing facility. today’s announcements will help protect communities like fayetteville from further devastating impacts of pfas. “drinking water contaminated with pfas has plagued communities across this country for too long,” said epa administrator michael s. regan. “that is why president biden has made tackling pfas a top priority, investing historic resources to address these harmful chemicals and protect communities nationwide. our pfas strategic roadmap marshals the full breadth of epa’s authority and resources to protect people from these harmful forever chemicals. today, i am proud to finalize this critical piece of our roadmap, and in doing so, save thousands of lives and help ensure our children grow up healthier.” “president biden believes that everyone deserves access to clean, safe drinking water, and he is delivering on that promise,” said brenda mallory, chair of the white house council on environmental quality. “the first national drinking water standards for pfas marks a significant step towards delivering on the biden harris administration’s commitment to advancing environmental justice, protecting communities, and securing clean water for people across the country.” “under president biden’s leadership, we are taking a whole of government approach to tackle pfas pollution and ensure that all americans have access to clean, safe drinking water. today’s announcement by epa complements these efforts and will help keep our communities safe from these toxic ‘forever chemicals,’” said deputy assistant to the president for the cancer moonshot, dr. danielle carnival. “coupled with the additional $1 billion investment from president biden’s investing in america agenda to help communities address pfas pollution, the reductions in exposure to toxic substances delivered by epa’s standards will further the biden cancer moonshot goal of reducing the cancer death rate by at least half by 2047 and preventing more than four million cancer deaths   and stopping cancer before it starts by protecting communities from known risks associated with exposure to pfas and other contaminants, including kidney and testicular cancers, and more.” epa is taking a signature step to protect public health by establishing legally enforceable levels for several pfas known to occur individually and as mixtures in drinking water. this rule sets limits for five individual pfas: pfoa, pfos, pfna, pfhxs, and hfpo da (also known as “genx chemicals”). the rule also sets a limit for mixtures of any two or more of four pfas: pfna, pfhxs, pfbs, and “genx chemicals.” by reducing exposure to pfas, this final rule will prevent thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of serious illnesses, including certain cancers and liver and heart impacts in adults, and immune and developmental impacts to infants and children. this final rule advances president biden’s commitment to ending cancer as we know it as part of the biden cancer moonshot, to ensuring that all americans have access to clean, safe, drinking water, and to furthering the biden harris administration’s commitment to environmental justice by protecting communities that are most exposed to toxic chemicals. epa estimates that between about 6% and 10% of the 66,000 public drinking water systems subject to this rule may have to take action to reduce pfas to meet these new standards. all public water systems have three years to complete their initial monitoring for these chemicals. they must inform the public of the level of pfas measured in their drinking water. where pfas is found at levels that exceed these standards, systems must implement solutions to reduce pfas in their drinking water within five years. the new limits in this rule are achievable using a range of available technologies and approaches including granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange systems. for example, the cape fear public utility authority, serving wilmington, nc   one of the communities most heavily impacted by pfas contamination   has effectively deployed a granular activated carbon system to remove pfas regulated by this rule. drinking water systems will have flexibility to determine the best solution for their community. epa will be working closely with state co regulators in supporting water systems and local officials to implement this rule. in the coming weeks, epa will host a series of webinars to provide information to the public, communities, and water utilities about the final pfas drinking water regulation. to learn more about the webinars, please visit epa’s pfas drinking water regulation webpage. epa has also published a toolkit of communications resources to help drinking water systems and community leaders educate the public about pfas, where they come from, their health risks, how to reduce exposure, and about this rule. “we are thankful that administrator regan and the biden administration are taking this action to protect drinking water in north carolina and across the country,” said north carolina governor roy cooper. “we asked for this because we know science based standards for pfas and other compounds are desperately needed.” “for decades, the american people have been exposed to the family of incredibly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ known as pfas with no protection from their government. those chemicals now contaminate virtually all americans from birth. that’s because for generations, pfas chemicals slid off of every federal environmental law like a fried egg off a teflon pan   until joe biden came along,” said environmental working group president and co founder ken cook. “we commend epa administrator michael regan for his tireless leadership to make this decision a reality, and ceq chair brenda mallory for making sure pfas is tackled with the ‘whole of government’ approach president biden promised. there is much work yet to be done to end pfas pollution. the fact that the epa has adopted the very strong policy announced today should give everyone confidence that the biden administration will stay the course and keep the president’s promises, until the american people are protected, at long last, from the scourge of pfas pollution.” “we learned about genx and other pfas in our tap water six years ago. i raised my children on this water and watched loved ones suffer from rare or recurrent cancers. no one should ever worry if their tap water will make them sick or give them cancer. i’m grateful the biden epa heard our pleas and kept its promise to the american people. we will keep fighting until all exposures to pfas end and the chemical companies responsible for business related human rights abuses are held fully accountable,” said emily donovan, co founder of clean cape fear. more details about funding to address pfas in drinking water through the bipartisan infrastructure law, epa is making an unprecedented $21 billion available to strengthen our nation’s drinking water systems, including by addressing pfas contamination. of that, $9 billion is specifically for tackling pfas and emerging contaminants. the financing programs delivering this funding are part of president biden’s justice40 initiative, which set the goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. additionally, epa has a nationwide water technical assistance program to help small, rural, and disadvantaged communities access federal resources by working directly with water systems to identify challenges like pfas; develop plans; build technical, managerial, and financial capacity; and apply for water infrastructure funding. learn more about epa’s water technical assistance programs. more details about the final pfas drinking water standards: epa is issuing this rule after reviewing extensive research and science on how pfas affects public health, while engaging with the water sector and with state regulators to ensure effective implementation. epa also considered 120,000 comments on the proposed rule from a wide variety of stakeholders. background: pfas, also known as ‘forever chemicals,’ are prevalent in the environment. pfas are a category of chemicals used since the 1940s to repel oil and water and resist heat, which makes them useful in everyday products such as nonstick cookware, stain resistant clothing, and firefighting foam. the science is clear that exposure to certain pfas over a long period of time can cause cancer and other illnesses. in addition, pfas exposure during critical life stages such as pregnancy or early childhood can also result in adverse health impacts. across the country, pfas contamination is impacting millions of people’s health and wellbeing. people can be exposed to pfas through drinking water or food contaminated with pfas, by coming into contact with products that contain pfas, or through workplace exposures in certain industries. since epa administrator michael s. regan announced the pfas strategic roadmap in october 2021, epa has taken action   within the biden harris administration’s whole of government approach   by advancing science and following the law to safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold polluters accountable. the actions described in the pfas strategic roadmap each represent important and meaningful steps to protect communities from pfas contamination. cumulatively, these actions will build upon one another and lead to more enduring and protective solutions. in december 2023, the epa released its second annual report on pfas progress. the report highlights significant accomplishments achieved under the epa’s pfas strategic roadmap.

keck school of medicine media relationscontact: laura leblancemail: laura.leblanc@med.usc.eduphone: (646) 825 0821 in the first study of its kind, researchers from the keck school of medicine of usc found an association between levels of manmade “forever chemicals” in drinking water and the incidence of certain digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and mouth and throat cancers. image/francesco scatena, istock communities exposed to drinking water contaminated with manufactured chemicals known as per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) experience up to a 33% higher incidence of certain cancers, according to new research from the keck school of medicine of usc. the study, funded by the national institutes of health and just published in the journal of exposure science and environmental epidemiology, is the first to examine cancer and pfas contamination of drinking water in the u.s. pfas, which are used in consumer products such as furniture and food packaging, have been found in about 45% of drinking water supplies across the united states. past research has linked the chemicals, which are slow to break down and accumulate in the body over time, to a range of health problems, including kidney, breast and testicular cancers. to paint a more comprehensive picture of pfas and cancer risk, keck school of medicine researchers conducted an ecological study, which uses large population level datasets to identify patterns of exposure and associated risk. they found that between 2016 and 2021, counties across the u.s. with pfas contaminated drinking water had higher incidence of certain types of cancer, which differed by sex. overall, pfas in drinking water are estimated to contribute to more than 6,800 cancer cases each year, based on the most recent data from the u.s. environmental protection agency (epa). “these findings allow us to draw an initial conclusion about the link between certain rare cancers and pfas,” said shiwen (sherlock) li, phd, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of population and public health sciences at the keck school of medicine and first author of the study. “this suggests that it’s worth researching each of these links in a more individualized and precise way.” in addition to providing a roadmap for researchers, the findings underscore the importance of regulating pfas. starting in 2029, the epa will police levels of six types of pfas in drinking water, but stricter limits may ultimately be needed to protect public health, li said. the toll of pfas to understand how pfas contamination relates to cancer incidence, the researchers compared two exhaustive datasets one covering all reported cancer cases and the other including all data on pfas in drinking water data across the country. data on cancer cases between 2016 and 2021 were obtained from the national cancer institute’s surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program, while data on pfas levels in public drinking water (2013 2024) came from the epa’s unregulated contaminant monitoring rule programs. li and his colleagues controlled for a number of factors that could influence cancer risk. at the individual level, these included age and sex; at the county level, they ruled out changes in cancer incidence due to socioeconomic status, smoking rates, obesity prevalence, urbanicity (how urban or rural an area is) and the presence of other pollutants. the researchers then compared cancer incidence in each county to pfas contamination in the drinking water, using the epa’s recommended cutoffs for each type of pfas. counties where drinking water surpassed recommended maximum levels of pfas had a higher incidence of digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and mouth and throat cancers. increases in incidence ranged from slightly elevated at 2% to substantially elevated at 33% (the increased incidence of mouth and throat cancers linked to perfluorobutanesulfonic acid, or pfbs). males in counties with contaminated drinking water had a higher incidence of leukemia, as well as cancers of the urinary system, brain and soft tissues, compared to males living in areas with uncontaminated water. females had a higher incidence of cancers in the thyroid, mouth and throat, and soft tissues. based on the latest available epa data, the researchers estimate that pfas contamination of drinking water contributes to 6,864 cancer cases per year. “when people hear that pfas is associated with cancer, it’s hard to know how it’s relevant. by calculating the number of attributable cancer cases, we’re able to estimate how many people may be affected,” li said, including inferring the personal and financial toll of these cases year after year. protecting public health these population level findings reveal associations between pfas and rare cancers that might otherwise go unnoticed. next, individual level studies are needed to determine whether the link is causal and to explore what biological mechanisms are involved. on the regulation side, the results add to the mounting evidence that pfas levels should be limited, and suggest that proposed changes may not go far enough. “certain pfas that were less studied need to be monitored more, and regulators need to think about other pfas that may not be strictly regulated yet,” li said the work is part of a collaboration between the southern california environmental health sciences center, which is funded by the national institute of environmental health sciences, and the usc norris comprehensive cancer center at the keck school of medicine. about this research in addition to li, the study’s other authors are lu zhang, jesse goodrich, rob mcconnell, david conti, lida chatzi and max aung from the department of population and public health science, keck school of medicine of usc, university of southern california; and paulina oliva from the department of economics, dornsife college of letters, arts and sciences, university of southern california. this work was supported by a pilot grant from the southern california environmental health sciences center [p30es007048] and the national cancer institute [5p30ca014089 47]. keck school of medicine of usc 1975 zonal ave. los angeles, ca 90033 google map phone: (323) 442 1900 hours: monday friday 7:30am 5:00pm pst copyright © 2025 university of southern california

wait wait... don't tell me! is npr's weekly quiz program. each week on the radio you can test your knowledge against some of the best and brightest in the news and entertainment world while figuring out what's real news and what's made up. the designation requires that releases of pfas and pfos into soil or water be reported to federal, state or tribal officials if they meet or exceed certain levels. file   environmental protection agency administrator michael regan speaks during a press briefing at the white house in washington, on may 12, 2021. the environmental protection agency has designated two "forever chemicals" that have been used in cookware, carpets and firefighting foams as hazardous substances.(ap photo/evan vucci, file) the environmental protection agency on friday designated two forever chemicals that have been used in cookware, carpets and firefighting foams as hazardous substances, an action intended to ensure quicker cleanup of the toxic compounds and require industries and others responsible for contamination to pay for its removal. designation as a hazardous substance under the superfund law doesn’t ban the chemicals, known as pfoa and pfos. but it requires that releases of the chemicals into soil or water be reported to federal, state or tribal officials if they meet or exceed certain levels. the epa then may require cleanups to protect public health and recover costs that can reach tens of millions of dollars. pfoa and pfos have been voluntarily phased out by u.s. manufacturers but are still in limited use and remain in the environment because they do not degrade over time. the compounds are part of a larger cluster of forever chemicals known as pfas that have been used since the 1940s in industry and consumer products including nonstick frying pans, water repellent sports gear, stain resistant rugs and cosmetics. the term pfas is short for per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances. the chemicals can accumulate and persist in the human body for long periods. evidence from animal and human studies indicates that exposure to pfoa or pfos may lead to cancer or other health problems, including liver and heart damage and developmental problems in infants and children. president joe biden’s administration “understands the threat that forever chemicals pose to the health of families across the country,″ epa administrator michael regan said. “designating these chemicals under our superfund authority will allow epa to address more contaminated sites, take earlier action and expedite cleanups   all while ensuring polluters pay for the costs to clean up pollution threatening the health of communities.” the final rule issued friday follows strict limits set by the epa on certain pfas in drinking water that will require utilities to reduce them to the lowest level they can be reliably measured. officials say the drinking water rule, announced april 10, will reduce exposure for 100 million people and help prevent thousands of illnesses, including cancers. the american chemistry council, which represents the chemical industry, said it strongly oppose the epa’s action and believes it “will undermine overall remediation efforts” for pfas contamination. the superfund law “is an expensive, ineffective and unworkable means to achieve remediation for these chemicals,” the group said in a statement friday. the 1980 law “is fraught with unintended consequences and will likely result in extensive, unnecessary delays for cleanups,” the chemistry council said, adding that there are more effective and timely means to clean up pfas sites “through existing regulatory processes.” epa announces first federal restrictions on toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water water providers will have a total of five years to test and treat their drinking water for pfas. 10 months ago last year, three chemical companies announced they had reached a $1.18 billion deal to resolve complaints of polluting many u.s. drinking water systems with pfas. dupont de nemours inc., the chemours co. and corteva inc. said they would establish a fund to compensate water providers for contamination. and earlier this month, chemical manufacturer 3m co. announced it will begin payments to many u.s. public drinking water systems as part of a multibillion dollar settlement over contamination with forever chemicals. besides the final rule, the epa issued a notice clarifying that the agency will focus enforcement efforts on businesses and people who significantly contribute to the release of pfas chemicals into the environment, including companies that have manufactured pfas or used it in the manufacturing process, as well as federal agencies and other responsible groups. pfas used in firefighting foam has tainted groundwater on and near military bases and other locations where it’s used in training exercises. the superfund law allows the epa to clean up contaminated sites across the country and forces parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for epa led cleanup work. when no responsible party can be identified, superfund gives the epa money and authority to clean up contaminated sites. the epa’s action follows a report by the national academies of science that calls pfas a serious public health threat in the u.s. and worldwide. the epa said in 2022 that pfoa and pfos are more dangerous than previously thought and pose health risks even at levels so low they cannot currently be detected. david uhlmann, the epa’s assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance, called the superfund designation “a major step toward holding polluters accountable for significant releases of pfas into the environment.” officials “intend to exercise our enforcement discretion to focus on significant sources of pfas contamination,” he said, not farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, municipal airports or local fire departments. water utilities, fire departments and other groups had complained that an earlier epa proposal could have imposed unfair costs on them without defined cleanup standards. the federal designation will ensure that manufacturers most responsible for widespread pfas contamination will bear the costs of cleaning it up, said jonathan kalmuss katz, a lawyer for the environmental group earthjustice. he said it “just got a lot harder” for polluters including chemical companies that long manufactured pfas “to pass the costs of their pfas releases off on impacted communities and taxpayers.” erik olson, a health expert at the natural resources defense council, said the epa’s action will help protect millions of american families exposed to the toxic chemicals. “we all learned in kindergarten that if we make a mess, we should clean it up,” he said. “the epa’s superfund rule is a big step in the right direction for holding polluters accountable for cleaning up decades of contamination.” west virginia sen. shelley moore capito, the top republican on the senate environment and public works committee, called the epa’s action “ill advised” and said it “puts local communities and ratepayers on the hook for pfas contamination they had nothing to do with in the first place.″ the superfund designation could have disproportionate effect on water and waste utilities, airports, farmers, ranchers and fire departments, capito said, adding that the agency’s action underscores the need for congress to act to address pfas. “we must pass legislation to safeguard american ratepayers from the financial burden imposed by this misguided rule,” she said. get daily updates from whyy news! the free whyy news daily newsletter delivers the most important local stories to your inbox. whyy is your source for fact based, in depth journalism and information. as a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. please give today. preserving our water: how we use our delaware watershed. the project is funded by the william penn foundation. philadelphia receives federal funding to expand schuylkill river trail the initiative is part of a regional network known as circuit trails, which aims to connect more than 800 miles of trails across pennsylvania and new jersey by 2040. 3 weeks ago ‘a long time coming’: philly launches flood alerts for eastwick neighborhood part of readyphiladelphia, the new alert system will provide specific warnings about possible and ongoing flooding in the neighborhood. 3 months ago pa., n.j., del. receive millions of federal dollars for water quality upgrades the states will use the funding to remove toxic chemicals, remove lead pipes and upgrade sewer and stormwater infrastructure. 3 months ago 10 hours ago 12 hours ago 16 hours ago want a digest of whyy’s programs, events & stories? sign up for our weekly newsletter. together we can reach 100% of whyy’s fiscal year goal whyy provides trustworthy, fact based, local news and information and world class entertainment to everyone in our community. whyy offers a voice to those not heard, a platform to share everyone’s stories, a foundation to empower early and lifelong learners and a trusted space for unbiased news. learn more about social responsibility at whyy. it’s how we live. 215.351.1200 talkback@whyy.org 302.516.7506 talkback@whyy.org © mmxxv whyy whyy is partnered with

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock (locka locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. javascript appears to be disabled on this computer. please click here to see any active alerts. epa action designates two widely used pfas as hazardous substances under the superfund law, improving transparency and accountability to clean up pfas contamination in communities april 19, 2024 washington   today, april 19, 2024, the u.s. environmental protection agency (epa) is taking another step in its efforts to protect people from the health risks posed by exposure to “forever chemicals” in communities across the country. exposure to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) has been linked to cancers, impacts to the liver and heart, and immune and developmental damage to infants and children. this final rule will designate two widely used pfas chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (pfoa) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (pfos), as hazardous substances under the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act (cercla), also known as superfund, and will help ensure that polluters pay to clean up their contamination. this final action will address pfoa and pfos contamination by enabling investigation and cleanup of these harmful chemicals and ensuring that leaks, spills, and other releases are reported. this action builds on the recently finalized standards to protect people and communities from pfas contamination in drinking water and represents the latest step the biden harris administration is taking to protect public health and welfare and the environment under epa’s pfas strategic roadmap and to prevent cancer before it starts through the biden cancer moonshot. in addition to the final rule, epa is issuing a separate cercla enforcement discretion policy that makes clear that epa will focus enforcement on parties who significantly contributed to the release of pfas chemicals into the environment, including parties that have manufactured pfas or used pfas in the manufacturing process, federal facilities, and other industrial parties. “president biden understands the threat that “forever chemicals” pose to the health of families across the country. that’s why epa launched its pfas strategic roadmap, a whole of agency approach to protecting public health and addressing the harm to communities overburdened by pfas pollution,” said epa administrator michael s. regan. “designating these chemicals under our superfund authority will allow epa to address more contaminated sites, take earlier action, and expedite cleanups, all while ensuring polluters pay for the costs to clean up pollution threatening the health of communities.” epa is taking this step to designate pfoa and pfos under cercla because both chemicals meet the statutory criteria for designation as hazardous substances. under the rule, entities are required to immediately report releases of pfoa and pfos that meet or exceed the reportable quantity of one pound within a 24 hour period to the national response center, state, tribal, and local emergency responders. the designation of pfoa and pfos as hazardous substances under cercla enables the agency to use one of its strongest enforcement tools to compel polluters to pay for or conduct investigations and cleanup, rather than taxpayers. designation is especially important as delay in addressing contamination allows pfoa and pfos more time to migrate in water and soil, worsening existing contamination. the final rule also means that federal entities that transfer or sell their property must provide notice about the storage, release, or disposal of pfoa or pfos on the property and guarantee that contamination has been cleaned up or, if needed, that additional cleanup will occur in the future. it will also lead the department of transportation to list and regulate these substances as hazardous materials under the hazardous materials transportation act. “it’s long past time for the polluters who poisoned all of us to be held responsible. this comes too late for all the people who were poisoned without their knowledge or consent and have paid the price for one of the greatest environmental crimes in history,” said ken cook, president and co founder of environmental working group. “but today’s designation of pfoa and pfos as hazardous substances is the first step to bring justice to those who have been harmed. by putting the needs of the people ahead of the profits of the polluters, the biden epa is once again delivering for the american people.” this final action is based on significant scientific evidence that these substances, when released into the environment, may present a substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment. pfoa and pfos can accumulate and persist in the human body for long periods of time, and evidence from scientific studies demonstrate that exposure to pfoa and pfos is linked to adverse health effects. “this is another important step by epa to protect people and communities from harmful pfas chemicals, including legacy pfas contamination across the u.s. the science is clear that pfas chemicals are linked to a wide range of health harms including cancer, damage to cardiovascular and immune systems, poor pregnancy outcomes, and effects on the developing child,” said dr. tracey woodruff, professor & director, program on reproductive health & the environment (prhe)/environmental research and translation for health at the university of california, san francisco. “by listing pfoa and pfos as hazardous substances under the superfund law, it means that these chemicals will have to be cleaned up from hazardous waste sites and polluters must pay the bill. this is great news for the many communities grappling with pfas contamination   many of which are also low income and communities of color. this is another step toward protecting people from the health harms of this well known toxic chemical.” epa’s superfund program has worked effectively for more than 40 years to target and prioritize cleanups of the nation’s most contaminated sites that present unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. the superfund program addresses more than 800 hazardous substances, including widespread, highly mobile, and persistent chemicals, like pfoa and pfos. the program also promotes safer industrial practices that enhance community protections by reducing the likelihood of future releases. additionally, cleanups allow communities to put land back into productive use, providing opportunities for jobs and economic growth. in addition, epa’s enforcement policy, consistent with epa’s past practice over decades of implementing the law, will provide additional clarity on the agency’s intent not to pursue certain parties such as farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, municipal airports, and local fire departments, where equitable factors do not support seeking cercla cleanup or costs. epa has a proven track record of developing and applying enforcement discretion policies that are effective and well received by stakeholders, ensuring entities that have contributed significant contamination are held accountable. biden ⁠harris administration takes critical action to protect communities from pfas in addition to efforts across the government, epa has taken action under the agency’s pfas strategic roadmap to control pfas at its sources, hold polluters accountable, ensure science based decision making, advance environmental justice, and address the impacts on disadvantaged communities. since launching the roadmap in 2021, epa has taken a suite of actions to protect communities from exposure to “forever chemicals” including: epa will publish the final rule in the federal register shortly. the rule will be effective 60 days after the rule is published in the federal register. read more about the cercla final rule here. read epa’s cercla enforcement discretion policy here. read more about epa’s strategy to address pfas here. read more about epa’s superfund program here. read more about the superfund enforcement program here.

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock (locka locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. javascript appears to be disabled on this computer. please click here to see any active alerts. december 1, 2023 washington   today, the u.s. environmental protection agency (epa) issued orders to inhance technologies llc (inhance) directing it not to produce per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas), chemicals that are created in the production of its fluorinated high density polyethylene (hdpe) plastic containers. this action, taken under the authority of the toxic substances control act (tsca), will help protect the public from exposure to dangerous pfas chemicals in containers used for a variety of household consumer, pesticide, fuel, automotive and other industrial products. “pfas should not be in the plastic containers people use every day, period,” said assistant administrator for the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention michal freedhoff. “epa’s action today is one more way we are furthering the biden harris administration’s strategic roadmap to combat pfas pollution.” long chain pfas chemicals build up in our bodies and the environment over time. even small amounts can significantly contribute to people’s long term exposure and health risk. people may be exposed to these pfas through their drinking water, fish they eat from pfas contaminated waters, and through groundwater that has been contaminated by pfas. centers for disease control and other data show that nearly 100% of people tested have at least one of seven of the types of pfas that inhance manufactures in their blood already. even without further exposure, it would take more than a decade for pfoa from a single exposure, one of the types of pfas manufactured by inhance, to leave people’s bodies. in september 2020, epa was made aware of pfas contamination in a mosquitocide by an environmental group. epa scientists then determined that the pfas found in the mosquitocide came from the fluorinated hdpe plastic container used to store the product, which was manufactured by inhance. epa determined that when inhance fluorinates containers, it manufactures many types of pfas, including perfluorooctanoic acid (pfoa). epa announced in march 2021 that these pfas can migrate into liquid products like pesticides and can continue migrating over time.1 in march 2022, epa issued a notice of violation to inhance for its failure to notify the agency before it began manufacturing pfas. inhance had five years from the proposal of epa’s long chain pfas significant new use rule in 2015 to when it was finalized in 2020 to inform epa that it was manufacturing long chain pfas as part of its process. following this notice, epa’s office of enforcement and compliance assurance (oeca) engaged with inhance to determine if inhance had ceased manufacture of the regulated pfas. upon determining that inhance was still manufacturing the regulated pfas and intended to continue to engage in its fluorination process, oeca referred enforcement to the department of justice (doj) and doj filed suit on behalf of epa against inhance in december 2022. only after these actions did inhance submit significant new use notices (snuns) for the nine pfas it manufactures to epa for review on dec. 30, 2022. inhance has historically fluorinated up to 200 million containers annually, which is more containers than there are households in america. the release of 2.2 kg of these 9 pfas could cause significant contamination of drinking water supplies leading to risks of adverse health effects in millions of people. for example, epa recently proposed a maximum contaminant level of 4 parts per trillion for pfoa in drinking water. additionally, epa has also proposed that there is no level of pfoa in drinking water that is without risk of adverse health effects. if 2.2 kg of pfoa were released to drinking water sources, it would contaminate more than 145 billion gallons of water to levels that would exceed this proposed enforceable level. this corresponds to almost three years’ worth of water use in the city of new orleans. upon review of the snuns and consistent with the framework for addressing new pfas and new uses of pfas, epa has determined that three of the pfas (pfoa, perfluorononanoic acid (pfna) and perfluorodecanoic acid (pfda)) are highly toxic and present unreasonable risks that cannot be prevented other than through prohibition of manufacture. therefore, under tsca section 5(f), epa is prohibiting the continued manufacture of pfoa, pfna and pfda that are produced from the fluorination of hdpe. epa also determined that the remaining six of the nine pfas chemicals manufactured by inhance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and, under tsca section 5(e), is requiring the company to cease manufacture of these chemicals, and to perform additional testing if it intends to restart production. however, inhance’s current fluorination process for plastics produces all nine of the pfas chemicals subject to these orders simultaneously, including pfoa, pfna, and pfda. thus, the production of the other six pfas could not restart so long as the fluorination process continues to produce pfoa, pfna and pfda. these orders become effective february 28, 2024. alternatives to this fluorination process exist that will allow for many sectors to continue to provide products with the necessary protective packaging. additionally, epa understands that inhance is working on changes to its process with a stated goal of eliminating all pfas production. as always, epa will review options for ensuring compliance with the orders, consistent with its enforcement policies, either through further litigation or an appropriate settlement. epa also notes that tsca provides waivers for national defense purposes. 1 press release edited 1/10/2024 to remove information in the fourth paragraph erroneously included in the press release based on concerns raised by state pesticide partners.

settlement agreements per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) are a group of more than 14,000 human made substances (u.s. epa comptox) that are not naturally occurring and are resistant to heat, water, and oil. due to their unique chemistry, pfas have been widely used as surface coatings and protectant formulations in consumer, commercial, and industrial products such as carpet, home textiles, clothing, food packaging, and non stick cookware. pfas have also been used for industrial applications, such as a surfactant in chrome plating and for emergency response applications, such as in firefighting foam. in typical conditions, pfas are resistant to degradation and do not break down in the environment. exposure to pfas may result in adverse health effects including developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy, cancer, liver effects, immune effects, thyroid effects, and other effects (such as cholesterol changes). in several national studies, pfas have been found in the blood serum of nearly all people tested. pfas has been detected in air, water, wastewater, fish, and soil worldwide. pfas are especially present in and around manufacturing facilities that use or produce pfas. some pfas are volatile and can be carried long distances through the air. pfas have been detected in many parts of the world, including oceans and the arctic, indicating that long range transport is possible. people can be exposed to pfas through food, food packaging, consumer products, house dust, and drinking water. four major sources of pfas in drinking water are fire training and response sites; industrial sites; landfills; and wastewater treatment plants and biosolids. once in groundwater, pfas can be easily transported large distances, tend to accumulate in groundwater, and can contaminate sources of drinking water. contaminated drinking water has led to high levels of exposure to pfas for some populations residing near manufacturing facilities that use or have used pfas in their manufacturing process. more information about pfas in non drinking water, monitoring/occurrence maps, and other actions in california addressing pfas can be found at the state water board’s pfas web portal. on april 10, 2024, the united states environmental protection agency (u.s. epa) announced final national primary drinking water regulation (npdwr) for six pfas, establishing legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels (mcls). the pfas compounds pfoa, pfos, pfhxs, pfna, hfpo da (commonly known as genx) are regulated as contaminants with individual mcls. the pfas compounds pfhxs, pfna, pfbs, and hfpo da (genx) are regulated as a pfas mixture with a hazard index (hi) mcl. the regulation proposed by u.s. epa will require public water systems to monitor for these pfas, notify the public of the levels of these pfas, and reduce the levels of these pfas in drinking water if they exceed the standards. the hazard index is made up of a sum of fractions. each fraction compares the level of each pfas measured in the water to the highest level below which there is no risk of health effects. the hazard index mcl is set at 1 and applies to any mixture containing two or more of pfhxs, pfna, pfbs, and hfpo da (genx) is set at 1. for more information on the hazard index mcl, see u.s. epa's hazard index mcl fact sheet. the timeline for rule implementation provided by u.s. epa is as follows: for further information about this regulation and resources for both the general public and public water systems (including fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and communications toolkits), please see u.s. epa's webpage for the final pfas national primary drinking water regulation. for california, the development of standards for pfoa, pfos, pfhxs, pfna, hfpo da (genx), pfbs, and other pfas are among the priorities of the division of drinking water. updates to the rulemaking process for pfas in california will be posted at the pfas mcl rulemaking record webpage. on april 5, 2024, the office of environmental health and hazard assessment (oehha) adopted public health goals (phgs) for two pfas: pfoa and pfos. the phg for pfoa is 0.007 nanograms per liter (ng/l) or parts per trillion (ppt). the phg for pfos is 1 ng/l or ppt. phgs are established by oehha and are concentration of drinking water contaminants that pose no significant health risk, based on current risk assessment principles, practices, and methods. oehha establishes phgs pursuant to hsc §116365(c) for contaminants with mcls, and for those for which mcls will be adopted. hsc §116365(a) requires a contaminant's mcl to be established at a level as close to its' phg as is technologically and economically feasible, placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health. in this way, phgs serve as the basis for the development of mcls. in addition to the phgs for pfoa and pfos, the division of drinking water has also requested that oehha include evaluations as to evaluate whether pfas can be grouped together for regulatory purposes or based on specific characteristics or features of the chemicals. notification levels (nls) are nonregulatory, health based advisory levels established for contaminants in drinking water for which mcls have not been established. nls are established as precautionary measures for contaminants that may be considered candidates for establishment of mcls but have not yet undergone or completed the regulatory standard setting process prescribed for the development of mcls and are not drinking water standards. nls represent the concentration level of a contaminant in drinking water that does not pose a significant health risk but warrants notification. nls are issued by the division of drinking water and developed based on recommendations made by the oehha. a response level (rl) is set higher than an nl and represents a recommended chemical concentration level at which water systems consider taking a water source out of service or provide treatment if that option is available to them. starting in january 2020, water systems that receive a monitoring order and detect levels of pfas substances that exceed the rl shall take a water source out of use, treat the water delivered, or provide public notification. when chemicals are found at concentrations greater than their nl and/or rl, certain requirements and recommendations apply. statutory requirements for public notification are contained in hsc §116455. pfas with nls and rls have additional requirements per hsc §116378. further information can be found at the notification and response levels webpage. below is a summary of pfas nls and rls issued, requested, or proposed. on december 27, 2021, u.s. epa published ucmr5 to title 40 of the federal register (40 cfr, part 141). ucmr5 requires public water systems to perform sample collection and analysis for 30 chemical contaminants (29 pfas and lithium) between january 2023 and december 2025. the goal of ucmr5 is to provide scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water. all public water systems serving more than 10,000 people (i.e., large systems) will monitor; all public water systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 people; and a representative sample of 800 randomly selected public water systems serving fewer than 3,300 people will monitor pursuant to ucmr5. u.s. epa is responsible for all analytical costs associated with ucmr5 compliance at systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. sample analysis is required to be performed by laboratories approved by u.s. epa for ucmr5. a list of laboratories approved for ucmr5 can be found on u.s. epa's website. the analytical methods to be used for ucmr5 pfas analysis are epa method 533 and epa method 537.1. ucmr5 contains all 29 pfas that are within the scope of epa method 533 and epa method 537.1. sample collection and analysis began january 2023. when available, data collected for ucmr5 will be hosted at the ucmr occurrence data webpage on u.s. epa's website. all systems that monitor under ucmr5 are required to notify their customers of the availability of ucmr5 results no later than 12 months after results are known. community water systems are also required to report ucmr5 results at or above the minimum reporting level in their annual consumer confidence report (ccr). for more information regarding ucmr5 including an overview fact sheet, the list of contaminants, minimum reporting levels, rule text, reporting requirements: us epa’s ucmr5 webpage. assembly bill 756 (2019 garcia), approved by the governor on july 31, 2019, and codified as hsc §116378, authorizes the state water board to issue orders requiring public water systems to monitor for pfas. since 2020, the division of drinking water has issued several general monitoring orders to public water systems in california. it is required by hsc §116378 that if monitoring results in a confirmed detection, then a water system must report that detection in the annual consumer confidence report (ccr). additional requirements and information regarding pfas general orders issued by the division of drinking water can be found at the pfas ddw general order webpage. on march 4, 2024, the division of drinking water issued general order dw 2024 0002 ddw pursuant to hsc §116378. more information including order text, list of systems/sources for monitoring, and analyte list can be found at the pfas ddw general order webpage. on october 31, 2022, the division of drinking water issued general order dw 2022 0001 ddw pursuant to hsc §116378 for the monitoring of 25 pfas at drinking water system sources that are at risk for potential contamination by pfas due to proximity with other water sources known to have confirmed pfas detections. the order was issued for 1,296 sources belonging to 384 public water systems. sample collection and analysis is to be conducted quarterly, beginning with the first calendar quarter of 2023, and continuing until further notice. sample analysis is to be performed using epa method 533. public water systems ordered to monitor under dw 2022 0001 ddw received or will receive direct communication regarding their compliance. no action is required of public water systems that did not receive direct communication regarding the order or were not named in the order. more information including order text, list of systems/sources for monitoring, and analyte list can be found at the pfas ddw general order webpage. the division of drinking water has issued pfas general monitoring orders on two previous occasions: general order dw 2021 0001 ddw and general order dw 2020 0003 ddw. the monitoring for those orders is complete, and the orders have since been rescinded. for more information, see the pfas ddw general order webpage. on march 2019, the division of drinking water issued hsc §116400 orders to 600 water system sites. nearly 250 locations in the vicinity of airports with fire training and response areas, and municipal solid waste landfills are being reported to the state water boards for four consecutive quarters. resulting dataset of this monitoring can be found at this file: pfas_monitoring_q1q2q3q4.xlsx. on may 2, 2012, u.s. epa published ucmr3 to the federal register (40 cfr, parts 141 and 142). ucmr3 required the sample collection and analysis of 30 drinking water contaminants, six of which were pfas, between january 2013 and december 2015. all public water systems serving more than 10,000 people and a representative sample of 800 public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people were subject to monitoring for 21 list 1 contaminants, including the 6 pfas contaminates, pursuant to ucmr3. sample analysis was conducted using epa method 537, rev. 1.1 by epa approved laboratories. at that time, the lowest concentration minimum reporting levels established by u.s. epa for pfos and pfoa were 6.5 ng/l and 5.1 ng/l, respectively. monitoring under ucmr3 is complete and all results have been published. no action regarding ucmr3 is required of public water systems at this time. the resulting data is hosted at the ucmr occurrence data webpage on u.s. epa's website. a summary of ucmr3 results for pfoa pfos and pfoa in california can be found at this file: ucmr3_ca_summary_data_for_pfos_and_pfoa.xlsx for more information regarding ucmr3 including an overview fact sheet, the list of contaminants, minimum reporting levels, rule text, reporting requirements: us epa’s ucmr3 webpage. state water resources control board division of drinking water regulatory development unit mailing address: p.o. box 100 sacramento, ca 95812 0100 street address: 1001 i street sacramento, ca 95814 e mail us at ddwregunit@waterboards.ca.gov. (page last updated 10/09/2024) water is a precious resource in california, and maintaining its quality is of utmost importance to safeguard the health of the public and the environment.

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: correspondence: evansa@battelle.org; tel.: +1 410 672 2750 received 2021 sep 14; accepted 2021 oct 15; collection date 2021 oct. licensee mdpi, basel, switzerland. this article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the creative commons attribution (cc by) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). products containing per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) have been used for decades in industrial and consumer products. these compounds are persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative, and some are toxic to humans and other animals. since the early 2000s, laws, policies, and regulations have been implemented to reduce the prevalence of pfas in the environment and exposures to pfas. we conducted a scoping literature review to identify how pfas are regulated internationally, at the u.s. national level, and at the u.s. state level, as well as drivers of and challenges to implementing pfas regulations in the u.s. this review captured peer reviewed scientific literature (e.g., pubmed), grey literature databases (e.g., scitech premium collection), google searches, and targeted websites (e.g., state health department websites). we identified 454 relevant documents, of which 61 discussed the non u.s. pfas policy, 214 discussed the u.s. national level pfas policy, and 181 discussed the u.s. state level pfas policy. the drivers of and challenges to pfas regulation were identified through qualitative analysis. the drivers of pfas policy identified were political support for regulation, social awareness of pfas, economic resource availability, and compelling scientific evidence. the challenges to implementing pfas regulations were political limitations, economic challenges, unclear scientific evidence, and practical challenges. the implications for pfas policy makers and other stakeholders are discussed. keywords: pfas, policy, environment, regulation, analysis, exposure since their invention in the 1930s and proliferation through the 1940s and 1950s, per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) have been used in a variety of industries including firefighting foam, aerospace technologies and consumer products. by replacing carbon hydrogen bonds with carbon fluorine bonds, scientists created one of the strongest compounds in organic chemistry; one that has proved to be resistant to heat, water, oil, and time [1,2,3,4,5]. although pfas have since been identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, for decades they were lauded for their ability to protect firefighters and military personnel through enhanced firefighting foams that both extinguish fires and prevent reignition [6,7,8,9]. their stability in hostile environments also made pfas attractive to the aerospace, construction, and electronics industries [10,11,12]. however, the use of pfas in firefighting foams and the discharge from industrial sites has led to widespread pfas contamination in the global water supply [13,14,15,16]. people are also exposed to pfas through products in everyday living, including non stick cookware, and food wrappers, as well as stain resistant clothes and furniture [17,18,19]. the exact number of unique pfas compounds is unknown with estimates ranging between four and five thousand [1,7,20,21]. the categorization of the compounds and maintaining a consistent classification system is critical to studying the impacts of pfas on health and the environment [22,23]. some of the most discussed and regulated pfas compounds are depicted in figure 1. for example, the most commonly studied group of perfluoroalkyl substances are perfluoroalkyl acids (pfaas). across the scientific literature, pfaas are generally broken into two groups, those with seven or more carbon fluorine bonds (long chain) and those with less than seven bonds (small chain) [1,12,20,24,25]. while long chain pfaas are a small proportion of the overall pfas family, long chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (pfcas) and long chain perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (pfsas) are the focus of international, domestic, and local scientific study and regulation due to their adverse impacts on the environment and human health [1,9]. overview of the major families of pfas (per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including: pfaas (perfluoroalkyl acids), 8 or more carbon pfcas (perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids/perfluoroalkyl carboxylates), pfoa (perfluorooctanic acid), 6 or more carbon pfsas (perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids/perfluoroalkyl sulfonates), pfos (perfluorooctane sulfonate/perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), 6 or fewer carbon pfcas (perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids/perfluoroalkyl carboxylates), pfhxa (perfluorohexanoate/perfluorohexanoic acid), 5 or fewer carbon pfsas (perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids/perfluoroalkyl sulfonates), and pfbs (perfluorobutane sulfonate/perfluorobutane sulfonic acid). the chemical properties that make pfas an asset for manufactured textiles, electronics, and other consumer products make them difficult to remove from the environment [26,27,28]. as depicted in figure 2, pfas enter the environment through many pathways. due to their stable chemical structure, pfas can enter and accumulate in the environment during production, use, and disposal [29,30,31]. these products remain present indefinitely in water supplies, seafood, and biosolids used in agriculture [29]. furthermore, these substances accumulate in the systems of plants grown in contaminated soil [32] and animals that live in or drink contaminated water [33]. their resistance to degradation, or physiological filtration has earned pfas the moniker, “forever chemicals” [10,23,32]. overview of common pathways through which pfas enter the environment. originally published by the government accountability office in report gao 21 37: ‘man made chemicals and potential health risks, epa has completed some regulatory related actions for pfas’. due to their environmental persistence and bioaccumulative nature, there is concern in the global community regarding the long term impact of the exposure to pfas on human health. the united nations organization of economic corporation and development (oecd) released its hazard assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (pfos) in 2002, which concluded that pfos is “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to mammalian species,” causing liver and thyroid cancer in rats [34]. the report indicated that pfos exposure was also epidemiologically linked to bladder cancer in humans [34]. more recent work has shown epidemiological links between pfos and higher levels of cholesterol, impaired glucose metabolism, increased body mass index, impaired thyroid function, infertility, and a higher prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [35]. the european food safety authority concluded that fish consumption was a significant source of exposure and estimated the bioconcentration factor to range from 1000 to 4000 depending on the geography and location in the food chain [36]. as a result of these and other investigations, pfos sales were restricted to “essential uses” in europe in 2006 [37] and pfos was added to the stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants in 2009 [38]. in the u.s., the concern around pfas was initially driven by findings from a centers for disease control and prevention (cdc) investigation which found pfos in the blood serum of nearly the entire population of the u.s. (in 2003, estimated to be 98%) [39,40]. the serum data collected from a nationally representative sample of americans from 2013 2014 suggests the ongoing, near universal exposure to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (pfos), perfluorooctanoic acid (pfoa), perfluorononanoic acid (pfna), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (pfhxs) [41]. the bloodstream levels of pfos and pfoa decreased after 3m and dupont voluntarily phased out their production in the early 2000s [42,43]; however, both substances remain detectable in the bloodstreams of many americans [44]. animal studies and epidemiological investigations have linked the exposure to pfos and pfoa to high levels of serum cholesterol, thyroid dysregulation, gestational hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and some cancers [45,46,47,48]. children may be particularly at risk of negative health outcomes due to pfas exposure; one systematic review found evidence that the prenatal and childhood exposure to perfluorinated alkyl substances was associated with dyslipidemia, impaired immune response (including reduced antibody response to vaccination), decreased kidney function, and a lower age of menarche [49]. emerging international concern about the potential for pfas to remain in the environment indefinitely spurred major manufacturers of pfas to phase out the production of pfos and pfoa in the early 2000s. following this voluntary phase out, pfas levels in the bloodstreams of americans decreased, suggesting the phase out was effective in reducing human exposure [44]. however, these compounds were replaced with other pfas, including shorter chain homologues, such as perfluorobutane sulfonate (pfbs), and long chain precursors, such as “genx,” the trade name given to a processing technology used to generate chemicals that replace pfoa. because short chain pfas were eliminated from the human body faster than their long chain counterparts, they were believed to be a safer alternative to the long chain pfas that were phased out [50,51]. however, the us environmental protection agency’s (epa, washington, dc, usa) 2018 draft toxicity assessments for genx and pfbs found associations between these chemicals and harmful effects on the kidneys, immune system, liver, reproductive system, and organ development [52,53]. in an effort to reduce the exposure to harmful and potentially harmful pfas, international bodies, individual countries, and local areas have undertaken efforts to limit pfas manufacturing and reduce human exposure to pfas. these efforts include restrictions on manufacturing and importing pfas, setting maximum permissible levels of pfas in food and drinking water, and regulating the disposal of products that contain pfas. however, the standards are diverse and there is no consistent regulatory structure for this class of chemicals. there is also a disagreement on the appropriate level of regulation. while some stakeholders argue pfas should be regulated at the compound level, others note it is impractical to regulate thousands of compounds and believe that scientific data on pfas toxicity support regulating pfas as a class due to their similarity in structure and stability [25,54,55]. the increasing scientific inquiry into the impact of pfas on human health has spurred an increased interest in regulating pfas at international, domestic, and local levels. although there is a growing body of work relaying the types of policies under development or those that have been implemented at the u.s. national level and across individual states [56,57], impactful policy development requires a holistic view of the system, including a historical perspective, and the reinforcing of restrictive feedback loops [58,59] affecting the implementation of policies, laws, and regulations. this paper seeks to create a narrative for pfas policy developers seeking to understand the state of the pfas regulatory system. we reviewed both peer reviewed scientific literature (e.g., pubmed) and the relevant grey literature (e.g., government reports, targeted websites, trade journals) for data on pfas policy discussion, development, implementation, and impact, at the international, domestic, and local levels. we outlined the progress of pfas policy development and identified the key drivers of and challenges to pfas policy implementation within the u.s. this approach allowed us to present a contextualized overview of the emerging issues, strategies, and solutions in this space. our analysis intended to build on the pfas dialogue and regulatory mechanisms already in progress. synthesizing the current policy environment is a critical component to fill gaps in the scientific literature and build evidence based regulatory requirements. we performed a scoping review of the grey literature and peer reviewed scientific literature to capture and synthesize contextual information on the history and landscape of pfas regulation. the purpose of a scoping review is to provide an overview of the information available on a topic, which can include providing a broad overview of the topic and the content of information present in the literature, rather than providing an answer to a specific research question. based on this search, we identified drivers of and challenges to regulating pfas at the international, u.s. national, and state levels. our approach followed the grey literature review guidelines outlined by godin et al. [60]. we defined grey literature as “information produced at all levels of government, academia, business and industry in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body” [61,62]. the search included reviews of (1) grey literature databases (e.g., databases containing trade journals), (2) customized google searches, (3) state and local legislation websites, and (4) a review of the content on targeted websites (e.g., websites maintained by groups that track environmental policy) [60,62,63]. to reduce the risk of selection bias, our review followed guidelines from the prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma scr) checklist including stating objectives, defining eligibility criteria, identifying information resources, the development of an electronic search strategy, and the synthesis of results [63]. the objective of our literature review was to identify the drivers of and challenges to pfas policy implementation at the international, u.s. national, and u.s. state levels. all documents reviewed were assessed for their relevance to this objective. documents were considered relevant if they provided information about proposed or implemented pfas policies or regulations. pfas policy or regulation was defined as rules seeking to control the production, manufacturing, distribution, release, remediation, research, or safety guidelines of pfas as established by an authority at the state, national, or international level. relevant documents were added to an endnote database. inclusion and exclusion criteria are specified in table 1. inclusion and exclusion criteria. documents were considered relevant if they met inclusion criteria 1 and were from a source described in inclusion criteria 2 5. documents were considered not relevant if they met any of the exclusion criteria. pfas: per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances. we conducted a systematic search of databases that captured grey literature and peer reviewed scientific publications. the databases searched were pubmed (a database which captured citations from the biomedical literature, life sciences journals, and online books), scitech premium collection (a database which captured science and engineering research, including grey literature), and business source complete (a database which captured trade journals and business journals). table 2 depicts the search strings used for the database search. databases searched and search parameters used to identify relevant articles. the authors reviewed the title, executive summaries, or table of contents for each document to make initial relevancy determinations. the full text of each relevant document was reviewed in detail. google keyword searches were used to identify additional information. numerous search strings were used (e.g., state + pfas + policy). results from each keyword search were reviewed until content became redundant and/or no longer yielded relevant information (typically in the first one to two pages of search results). additional resources were identified by searching the websites of organizations that regulates pfas or monitored pfas regulations. for example, pfas state policy information was identified through state health departments, state legislatures, and bill tracking tool websites (e.g., national conference on state legislators, washington, dc, usa, new york university state energy & environmental impact center, new york, ny, usa, united states environmental protection agency, washington, dc, usa, and the national law review, western springs, il, usa). document synthesis was initially divided into two parts: categorizing policies by government level (international, u.s. national, and u.s. state level), and identification of drivers and challenges. the authors reviewed the full text of relevant documents and categorized them based on their association with international , u.s. national , or u.s. state level pfas policies. each document was then reviewed to construct the historical narrative of pfas regulation and identify pfas policy drivers and challenges. drivers were defined as single or multi level factors positively associated with the implementation of a policy related to pfas or specific pfas compounds. challenges were defined as any single or multi level factors hindering the initiation, advancement or approval of a policy related to pfas or specific pfas compounds. the literature search was completed on 31 december 2020. the database search identified a total of 214 unique documents, 141 of which were determined to be relevant. an additional 313 documents were identified through the keyword searches and targeted website reviews. in total, 61 relevant documents discussed international pfas regulation, 214 discussed u.s. national level pfas regulation, and 181 documents discussed u.s. state level pfas regulation. the full database of sources used to develop this manuscript is provided as a supplemental material in database s1. although we had hoped to identify the drivers of and challenges to pfas regulations outside the u.s., the articles retrieved about international pfas regulations were primarily descriptive in nature regarding the policies themselves and did not discuss the drivers of and challenges to policy implementation. thus, while we briefly describe some major international regulations, our analysis of the drivers of and challenges to pfas regulations is only applicable to the u.s. as the awareness of potentially harmful impacts of pfas on human health grew within the scientific literature, legal scholarships, communities, pfas guidelines, policies and regulations began to take effect in the early 2000s. in parallel with international and federal discussions, large pfas manufacturers started voluntarily phasing out production of some long chain pfas. in addition to international treaties to prevent pfas from entering the environment, signed in the early 2000s, some countries implemented additional national , state , and territory level restrictions on pfas. the us epa released a lifetime health advisory limits for pfos and pfoa in 2016 and advised municipalities to make consumers aware of pfas levels that exceeded those limits [64]. following this release and absent national level policies, the u.s. saw a rapid increase in the number of states that implemented policies to prevent pfas pollution and protect consumers from exposure to these chemicals. each government level faced drivers and challenges to pfas regulation, which often included differing points of view presented by a diverse set of stakeholders. in the sections below, we briefly describe these major milestones in pfas policies and regulations at the international, u.s. national and u.s. state levels, providing illustrative examples of the types of policies discussed, presented, and/or implemented. the stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants (pops) is often cited as one the most significant pieces of collaborative international policy regarding environmental health and safety. the convention was adopted in 2001 and became international law in 2004 [65]. in 2009, the conference agreed to eliminate the production and use of pfos under most circumstances, by adding it to the list of pops within the convention [66]. a decade later, during the ninth meeting of the convention, members agreed to ban the use of firefighting foams containing pfoa and removed exemptions for the use of pfos [67]. currently, 152 countries have ratified the stockholm convention, including countries across all the inhabited continents [68]. according to the u.s. department of state, “the united states signed the stockholm convention in 2001 but has yet to ratify because we currently lack the authority to implement all of its provisions. the united states participates as an observer in the meetings of the parties and in technical working groups” [69]. the 152 signatories of the stockholm convention include both developed and developing countries in asia and south america [54]. a 2018 survey of 12 countries conducted by the international pollutants elimination network found that, although some countries restricted pfos in line with the stockholm convention, most pfas substances were not regulated [70]. for example, although india became a party at the stockholm convention in 2006, no pfas were regulated in the country at the time of the survey [70]. in sri lanka, the stockholm convention provision banning pfos came into effect in 2010; however, other pfas were not regulated [70]. china, also a signatory to the stockholm convention, is one of the largest producers and consumers of pfas in the world [71]. although the production of pfos and pfoa were restricted in 2011 [72], china continued to allow the use of pfas in firefighting foams [73]. brazil is also a party of the stockholm convention [54]; however, a pesticide which degrades into pfos (sulfluramid) continues to be produced and distributed there under a convention loophole [74] and has been linked to pfos in soil, leaves, and coastal waters [75]. in 2006, the european parliament and the council of the european union (eu) acknowledged “pfos fulfil the criteria for classification as a very persistent, very bioaccumulative and toxic” chemical [37]. subsequently, as part of the registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals (reach) regulation, the eu further noted “…that an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment arises from the manufacture, use or placing on the market of pfoa, its salts and pfoa related substances” [76]. as of 2020, the european commission estimates 100,000 sites are emitting pfas [77]. the european food safety agency (efsa) has identified fish meat, fruit and fruit products, and eggs as common sources of dietary exposure to pfoa, pfna, pfhxs and pfos [78]. based on existing data, they recommended a tolerable weekly intake of 4.4 ng/kg bw per week of these pfas [78]. concerned that short chain pfas were also bioaccumulative and persistent in the environment, the commission published the european chemicals strategy on 14 october 2020 [79]. the strategy set a framework to ban all pfas except those that cannot be replaced or were deemed essential to society [80,81]. although these regulations were released, it is important to note that they are not currently enforced. countries such as norway, germany, and sweden played pivotal roles in the development of these regulations, with norway and germany initiating the addition of pfoa to reach, and in 2017, sweden and germany asked the eu to consider adding another pfas compound, pfhxs, to the list of substances of very high concern [77]. furthermore, as early as 2018, germany began submitting proposed restrictions on pfhxa [82]. in 2019, the member state committee agreed with the classification proposed by the dutch identifying hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (hfpo da)/genx compounds as substances of very high concern [83]. other countries, including canada, used a combination of government regulations and voluntary agreements with industry to limit pfas pollution [84]. in the early 2000s, canada began taking actions to develop rules and regulations for pfas, releasing a risk management strategy for pfos in 2006 [85]. the environmental performance agreement respecting perfluorinated carboxylic acids (pfcas) and their precursors in perfluorinated products sold in canada, an agreement negotiated between environment and climate change canada and pfas producers, arkema canada inc., asahi glass company ltd, clariant canada inc., and e.i. du pont canada company, came into effect in 2015, at which time the participating companies had eliminated the production of pfoa, long chain pfcas and their precursors [86]. australia has taken measures to reduce human exposure to pfas and limit pfas pollution at the state and local level rather than at the national level. although australia is a party of the stockholm convention, its ratification is subject to an individual analysis of chemicals listed in annex a, b, or c of the convention [87], which has delayed the adoption of the restrictions outlined in the convention. in a memo about the management of pfas, the australian department of the environment and energy reported “environmental risk management has been a gap in australia’s regulatory system…” and noted that state and territory environmental agencies have worked actively to fill this gap [88]. instead of creating national regulations, the australian government has worked to develop national standards which could be implemented by states and territories. for example, food standards australia new zealand developed a set of guidance values for food including tolerable dietary exposure levels for pfos, pfoa, and pfhxs and tolerable daily intake levels for water [89]. individual territories were responsible for conducting site investigations and mandating remediation efforts where necessary. some states implemented bans that were intended to prevent pfas pollution. for example, in 2019, a queensland ban prohibiting the use of firefighting foams containing pfos and pfoa came into effect [90]. south australia implemented a similar ban that came into effect in 2018 [91]. however, when asked if new south wales would pursue a similar ban, state environment minister, gabrielle upton, stated that “this government cannot ban pfas … the responsibility for that lies directly at the feet of the federal government …” [92]. the u.s. environmental protection agency (epa) has the authority to regulate pfas through the toxic substances control act (tsca), the safe drinking water act (sdwa), the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act (cercla), and other regulatory authorities. the epa’s efforts to control the proliferation of pfas have focused on pfos, pfoa, and other pfas which have been voluntarily phased out by industry leaders [93]. the epa’s regulation of pfas began with two significant new use rules (snurs) published in 2002, which required manufacturers to provide the epa with a notification about the manufacture or import of 13, and later 75, pfas chemicals being voluntarily phased out by 3m from 2000 2002 [94,95]. the epa negotiated with pfas manufacturers, 3m and dupont, to produce memoranda of understanding in 2003, which detailed their plans to stop using these substances [42,43]. in 2006, the epa invited eight major pfas producers to join the pfoa stewardship program, which pledged to reduce 95% of their facilities’ pfoa emissions by 2010 [96]. the epa’s regulation of pfas through the sdwa began in 2009, when the epa released provisional health advisories for pfos and pfoa. between 2013 and 2015, the epa monitored levels of pfos, pfoa, and pfna in drinking water supplies as part of their unregulated contaminant monitoring [97]. in 2016, the epa issued a lifetime drinking water health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for pfos and pfoa [64], a level which was between seven and ten times greater than the levels recommended in the agency for toxic substances and disease registry’s (atsdr) 2018 draft, toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyls [98]. health advisory levels are not enforceable standards, rather, they are values developed to assist federal, state, tribal, and local officials in their efforts to protect public health where these chemicals are found in drinking water supplies. in february 2019, the epa released their pfas action plan, a document intended to outline the steps the epa was taking to protect public health by addressing pfas [99]. the plan indicated that the epa was moving forward with the regulatory process to set maximum contaminant levels (mcls) for pfoa and pfos. furthermore, it indicated that epa would pursue the process for designating pfoa and pfos as hazardous substances under cercla or superfund, which could hold companies liable for the cleanup of hazardous substances that they released into the environment. however, the epa has not yet completed the regulatory processes to set mcls for pfoa and pfos or to designate pfoa and pfos as hazardous substances under cercla. federal lawmakers and environmental activists expressed a frustration with the epa’s response to widespread pfas contamination. dozens of bills were introduced in spring 2019 and throughout the 116th congress which sought to expedite the epa’s regulatory timelines. for example, s. 1473, the protect drinking water from pfas act of 2019, would have required the epa to issue a mcl goal, as well as a national primary drinking water regulation, for some pfas [100]. house resolution (h.r.) 2605, or the protect release of toxic emissions, contamination, and transfer (protect) act of 2019, would have required the epa to issue a final rule adding pfas to the list of hazardous air pollutants within 180 days [101]. h.r. 2596, the protecting communities from new pfas act, would have required all manufacturers to notify the epa about all pfas manufacturing activity, including pfas that were not listed on the epa inventory list [102]. many of these bills were incorporated into h.r. 535, the pfas action act of 2019 [103], which passed in the house on 1 january 2020. this bill was a comprehensive package of strategies to regulate pfas chemicals, clean up contamination, and protect public health. although senate bill 1507 would have required the epa to include certain pfas on the toxics release inventory [104] and s. 1372 would have compelled federal agencies to enter into cooperative agreements to remediate pfas [105], no comprehensive legislation package such as the pfas action act of 2019 was introduced in the senate during the 116th congress. instead, the senate moved to include pfas related provisions in the water resources development act, a regularly updated act which authorizes the army corp of engineers’ water infrastructure projects [106]. however, pfas related provisions were removed from the version of the bill which ultimately passed in the house [107]. the department of defense (dod) has also acted to reduce the exposure to pfas for individuals residing near active and inactive military installations, many of which have used aqueous film forming foam (afff) which contains pfos, and in some versions, pfoa to extinguish petroleum based fires. a 2017 government accountability office (gao) report found that the dod had spent approximately usd 200 million on investigating and responding to pfas contamination, had identified 401 installations where pfas may have been released, and took actions to address the contamination at 32 locations [108]. more recent military documents show that as many as 600 active and inactive military installations could be contaminated by pfas, and groundwater levels well above 1 million ppt were found at 14 installations [109]. federal leaders have expressed frustrations about the dod’s slow response to pfas contamination near military sites. the 2020 national defense authorization act (ndaa), which provides funding for all dod programs, included a number of provisions related to pfas, including requirements to phase out the use of pfas in firefighting foams, providing blood tests to military firefighters, addressing pfas contamination in water supplies due to military activity, promoting pfas water contamination monitoring, requiring the epa to list pfas chemicals under tsca, and restricting the use of pfas in military food packaging [110]. the 2021 ndaa, which passed the house on 21 july 2020, offered additional funding for pfas monitoring and remediation efforts including usd 1.5 billion to support pfas cleanup efforts, usd 150 million to support research on pfas remediation, and usd 15 million for the continuation of cdc’s study on the health effects of pfas groundwater contamination at military bases [111]. in july 2020, the us food and drug administration (fda) announced that they had reached an agreement with three manufacturers who used pfas that contained 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (6:2 ftoh) for grease proofing in paper and paperboard food packaging [112]. the three manufacturers agreed that, in january 2021, they would begin a three year phase out period for the sale of substances that contained 6:2 ftoh [112]. the fda lauded the agreement as a solution that “balances uncertainty about the potential for public health risks with minimizing potential market disruptions to food packaging supply chains” [112]. in light of the absent national drinking water standards for pfas, as of 1 may 2020, nine u.s. states developed drinking water standards or guidance values for pfos and pfoa which were more stringent than those issued by the epa [113]. some states developed guidelines for other pfas as well (e.g., pfna, pfhxs) based on data published by atsdr and the european food safety authority [113]. however, the variability of these policies illustrated a fragmented network of pfas laws targeting diverse sources of exposure including water, foams, and food. the california assembly bill (ab) 756, passed in 2019, allowed the state board to order public water systems to monitor for pfas, and subsequently required the water system to remove a water source or provide a public notice if levels were above a prescribed amount [114]. in the same year, vermont passed act 21 (senate bill 49), which laid out strict requirements for the government monitoring of pfas levels in municipal water systems [115]. while the bill did not regulate pfas as a class, it required that all public community water systems in the state complete an initial monitoring for the presence of pfas and laid out requirements for the further monitoring based on pfas detection. further, if pfas were detected at levels above 20 ppt, the health advisory level set by the state, public water systems were required to issue a “do not drink” notice to all users of the water system until treatment was complete [116]. california subsequently expanded the regulations for firefighting foam. in september 2020, california prohibited the manufacture and sale of firefighting foam containing pfas and requiring manufacturers of protective firefighter equipment to disclose if pfas were in their products. the violators of this law could be fined up to usd 10,000 after the first offense [117]. in addition to these bills, california adopted four additional pfas focused bills. similarly, in may 2020, the maryland state legislature submitted a bill to the governor, which prohibited the use of class b firefighting foam that contained intentionally added pfas chemicals for testing or training purposes, by october 1, 2021. the violation penalties for this bill ranged from 500 1000 usd per penalty. the legislation clearly delineated that the bill did not restrict “the discharge or use of class b fire fighting foam that contain intentionally added pfas chemical in emergency fire fighting or fire prevention operations” [118]. in 2018, washington passed a state level bill, titled concerning the use of perfluorinated chemicals in food packaging, which prohibited the use of pfas in food packaging if a safer alternative could be identified. the use of pfas for specific food packaging applications was prohibited, beginning two years after a report was released, identifying a safer alternative [119]. similar bills were also adopted in maine and proposed in 14 additional states such as new hampshire, ohio, arizona, virginia, and new jersey [57,120,121,122]. in addition to laws which seek to directly reduce human exposure to pfas, some states have created legislation that provides funding for testing sites suspected of pfas contamination or have undertaken other efforts to hold companies that release pfas into the environment accountable for clean up costs. for example, the tennessee department of environment and conservation is currently conducting a statewide effort to sample public drinking water systems for the presence of pfas [123]. if pfas are identified in the water system, the state will seek to identify the sources of the water contamination. other tactics have included establishing coalitions and taking legal action against pfas suppliers. in michigan, the executive directive 2017 4 established the pfas action response team (mpart) to act as a multi agency collaborative working to locate and investigate where pfas contamination originated in the state and to protect the state’s water supply from pfas [124]. in vermont, rather than passing legislation, the state filed a lawsuit against saint gobain performance plastics after finding that wells in the area near a closed plastics manufacturing plant had been contaminated with pfoa [125]. the state eventually reached a settlement with saint gobain in which they agreed to pay for water line extensions to approximately 200 homes whose well water had been contaminated [126]. with more than half of the states working on pfas legislative efforts, it is important to not only understand the content of the legislation, but the variables which influence policy adoption. the drivers and challenges to pfas policy implementation in the u.s. were categorized into commonly used policy analysis evaluation variables: political, social, economic, scientific, and practical. an overview of each major theme is provided in table 3. policy themes captured in literature search. pfas per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances. the synthesis of the peer reviewed literature and policy documents identified variables characterized as drivers of pfas policy, which could be divided into four variables and eight sub variables. these variables are defined in table 4 and discussed in the sections below. variables and sub variables that drive adoption of pfas related laws, policies, and regulations. pfas: per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances; mcl: maximum contaminant levels. perceived regulatory need. several states, including california, michigan, and ohio, cited the lack of federal regulatory action as a driver for state policy [127,128,129,130,131]. in the connecticut interagency pfas action plan, the committee lauded the epa’s pfas action plan; however, also noted that the timelines within the plan were too long, “given the long time frame for future federal regulations governing pfas exposure, use and disposal, state leadership in this regard is crucial.” accordingly, on 8 july 2019, governor ned lamont established the connecticut interagency pfas task force with the goal of educating residents about the potential risks associated with pfas and implementing the appropriate safeguards [132]. political collaboration. within the u.s., there is a general acceptance between political parties that pfas issues need to be addressed through policies, science, and appropriations; however, there is a divide on the approach and speed of advancing new regulations to best minimize the effects of pfas on citizens and the environment. in general, politicians who are members of the democratic party are likely to be more aggressive in advocating for comprehensive pfas regulations with shorter timelines, while members of the republican party prefer a more cautious and deliberate approach in advancing new regulations [133,134,135]. however, bipartisan collaboration has occurred and may be more likely to lead to policy implementation than bills proposed by members of one party alone. for example, at the national level, although many bills to address pfas were introduced in the house during the 116th congress, the only pfas specific bill which passed was the bipartisan pfas action act [136]. bipartisan coalitions also worked to ensure that pfas provisions became part of the 2019 defense omnibus spending bill [137]. the bipartisan collaboration to pass pfas policies also occurred at the state level. for example, in february 2020, wisconsin state senators from both parties worked together to introduce a set of proposals that included creating emergency rules for setting drinking water, ground water, and air standards for pfas [138,139]. in new hampshire, a bill to offer loans to towns whose water supplies were unable to meet the stringent state standards set in sb496 passed with unanimous support [140,141]. political leader advocacy. the advocates within the political party in power help to drive pfas policy and guidelines at the state level. in 2019, ohio republican governor mike dewine worked to develop a pfas action plan by leading collaboration efforts between the ohio environmental protection agency (ohio epa) and the ohio department of health (odh). the objective of the action plan was to remediate threats to private and public drinking water [127]. the action plan delineated objectives and laid the foundation for the ohio pfas action plan interactive dashboard and map showing pfas sampling information from across the state [142]. similarly, in 2019, michigan democratic governor gretchen whitmer requested that the michigan pfas action response team (mpart) inform the rulemaking process for the health based values of pfas drinking water [143]. mpart was comprised of seven state agencies (e.g., michigan depart of environment and michigan department of transportation), and assigned an executive director who worked directly with three advisory councils, including a science advisory workgroup, a local health department advisory council and a citizens advisory workgroup [144]. in line with recommendations from mpart, michigan passed pfas drinking water standards noted to be more restrictive than the epa guidance [145]. reinforcing legislative feedback loops. the regulations and recommendation reports from states actively implementing pfas regulations, are being used as drivers for policy development in other states across the country. the executive summary from “health based drinking water value recommendations for pfas in michigan” authored by mpart’s science advisory task force, was cited as supporting evidence within alaska’s senate bill 176, and house bill 240: regulate pfas use fire/water safety [146]. the documents supporting vermont’s legislation to regulate pfas in water included a bloomberg article, in which the submitter noted that it “includes a state by state summary of efforts to regulate pfas chemicals. there is lots of helpful information here…” [147]. when discussing ab756, the california committee on environmental safety and toxic materials cited several scientific studies conducted across the u.s. and europe [131]. feedback loops also occurred at the state level. in support of maryland’s legislation restricting the use of pfas in firefighting foam, a baltimore county executive submitted a letter in favor of the legislation noting, “this bill is one of baltimore county’s top legislative priorities this session for a simple reason: pfas are in our waters right now. they have been detected in enormous quantities in the patuxent river and chesapeake beach. we now ask the state to prioritize this essential legislation as well. we cannot afford to let pfas levels rise more than they already have” [118]. increases in the social awareness of pfas and their potential danger is another driver of pfas policy. the movies such as “the devil we know” and “dark waters,” and the newspaper articles that are the origin of their plot points, introduced many americans to pfas by providing compelling narratives of legal battles between pfas manufacturers and people who had been negatively affected by pfas [21,92,148,149]. following the publication of a news story about the presence of genx in north carolina waterways, the north carolina state legislature passed a bill providing usd 5 million in funding to establish a multi university consortium for pfas testing [150]. this increased social awareness has resulted in grassroots campaigns such as the national pfas contamination coalition (npcc), whose stated top priority is “to advocate for national regulation of pfas as a class with a mcl of 1 part per trillion (ppt) or less” [151]. in michigan, the social awareness and public concern about water quality has remained high following a 2014 crisis in which lead contaminated water was supplied to approximately 9000 children [152]. in 2017, the mpart was created as a temporary body to investigate pfas contamination in the state, which was later made permanent by the executive order 2019 3. the organization conducted pfas monitoring in the state’s waterways and found evidence that commercial afff was responsible for the high concentrations of pfas found at sites throughout the state. drawing on mpart’s findings, state attorney general dana nessel filed lawsuits in both state [153] and federal courts [154] against 17 companies that manufactured, sold, and distributed afff made with pfas, including dowdupont, 3m, and chemours, aiming to recover the costs of pfas identification, monitoring, and remediation efforts. the lawsuits allege that the manufacturers knew for decades that pfas in commercial afff posed substantial threats to the environment and public health, but intentionally hid this information from the public. based on mpart’s guidance, michigan recently passed some of the most stringent groundwater limitations for pfos and pfoa in the country [155]. furthermore, the state set mcls for pfna, pfhxa, pfhxs, pfbs, and hfpo da [156]. federal investments in epa initiatives have helped to drive state level pfas monitoring and remediation efforts. for example, the epa provided technical assistance to states in its fourth region, which included alabama, florida, georgia, north carolina, and south carolina. as part of these efforts, the epa collaborated with georgia and alabama to conduct a study of pfas levels in alabama’s weiss lake and its tributary systems. levels of pfas of up to 375 ppt were identified in this area’s waterways and were linked to carpet factory waste and the use of firefighting foam at nearby air force bases [157]. the data collected by the epa and local governments will inform local monitoring and remediation efforts, as well as the knowledge base regarding the fate and transport of pfas, which will support the epa’s future rulemaking efforts [158]. in florida, the epa is working with the florida department of environmental protection (fdep) and the navy to address pfas contamination at two naval air stations [159]. additionally, epa worked with the state to improve the lab capacity for pfas testing and to identify the appropriate test methods for pfas in biosolids. in north carolina, the epa analyzed thousands of water samples collected from the cape fear river, where residents were concerned about genx entering the water from a chemours plant [160]. these data helped to inform the north carolina department of environmental quality’s (ndeq) decision to issue a no discharge limitation order for the site [161]. in 2019, ndeq reached a consent order requiring chemours to invest in technology to prevent pfas emissions through the air and water and to fund the compliance testing of nearby waterways [162]. evidence linking specific pfas to adverse health outcomes is often the impetus for pfas regulation. nearly every piece of legislation reviewed had supporting documents with a synopsis of the current findings relating pfas to poor health outcomes [130]. section 1 of the colorado act: concerning the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and in connection therewithin, making an appropriation, states, “the historic use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as pfas chemicals, in class b firefighting foams has contaminated the drinking water of nearly 100,000 coloradans…. pfas chemicals do not break down in the environment and are toxic to people and wildlife at very low levels. ingesting even small amounts can cause cancer and other serious health problems. exposure to pfas chemicals is linked to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid problems, pregnancy complications, high cholesterol, and immune system disorders. firefighters and first responders are exposed to these chemicals at work and nearly every american has measurable amounts in their bodies” [163]. many policies reference the 1998 notification 3m sent by the epa, which stated that pfos accumulated in the blood stream and provided data showing liver damage in rats following exposure [164,165]. the data reported in these documents motivated 3m to voluntarily discontinue the production of pfos and pfoa in 2000 [42,43]. in 2014, the european chemical agency risk assessment committee classified pfna as a hazardous substance, characterizing it as a suspected carcinogen known to be toxic to reproduction [166]. these findings were cited by the new jersey drinking water quality institute’s health effects subcommittee report, which recommended health based mcls for several pfas [167]. in 2018, the epa released its draft toxicity statements for genx and pfbs [53,168]. these reports concluded that the liver was particularly sensitive to genx and that the thyroid was particularly sensitive to pfbs. michigan’s mpart considered these reports when developing the health based values used to support the mcls for the state [169]. the author of california’s laws prohibiting the manufacture, sale and distribution of afff containing pfas noted: “firefighters already face greater risks of cancer and other health problems than the general population due to exposure related to their vital work. firefighting protective gear also contains pfas, so there is an exposure from both the gear and the firefighting foam. the elevated levels of pfas chemicals have been documented in the bodies of firefighters, putting them at greater risk of harm from the health effects associated with pfas, including cancer” [117]. the synthesis of peer reviewed literature and policy documents identified variables characterized as challenges to pfas policy, which could be divided into four variables and eight sub variables. these variables are identified in table 5 and discussed in the sections below. variables and sub variables that drive away from the adoption of pfas related laws, policies, and regulations. restrictive legislative feedback loops. the unclear delegation of responsibility for preventing and remediating pfas can create feedback loops that delay pfas policies and regulations from being implemented. at the u.s. national level, the epa has so far only released non enforceable lifetime health advisory levels for pfoa and pfos of 70 ppt, individually or combined [170]. although the epa has indicated its intention to develop enforceable limits for pfos, pfoa, and other pfas levels in drinking water under the sdwa, there are no data available about what those limits will be or the timeline for when they will go into effect [171]. some legislators have expressed frustration with the epa’s timeline for implementing these regulations [172,173]. u.s. state level laws, policies, and regulations have been challenged by stakeholders who believe that pfas regulations should be handled at the u.s. national level. the public testimony on maine’s restriction of pfas in food containers called into question maine’s ability to circumvent a process already overseen by the fda. one stakeholder from the maine grocers and food producers association noted, “we are testifying in opposition to this proposal because it would yield federal oversight of acceptable packaging currently governed by the us food & drug administration to the maine department of environmental protection. the us fda oversees for the regulation of direct and indirect additives use in food contact packaging materials and is based on extensive testing for each specific material and should be done at the federal level” [174]. this sentiment was shared by stakeholders from the fluorocouncil and the association of washington business, who testified against a similar bill in washington, stating “this would restrict all pfass unnecessarily, without actual attention paid to use. the fda strictly regulates food packing. we think this is premature because of the chemical action plan ecology is currently conducting. the terms in the bill are vague or undefined. we cannot control what kind of food packaging is brought into the state. there needs to be more than a safer alternative. we need multiple alternatives to be available. food costs are sensitive and changing food packaging options may affect costs” [175,176]. regulatory limitations. in some cases, a lack of federal guidance and regulation prevents states from implementing their own pfas laws, policies, and regulations. in a survey of states’ drinking water and groundwater guidelines conducted by the environmental council of states (ecos), eight of the twenty three states surveyed indicated that they had not implemented any state level pfas guidelines [177]. five of these states indicated that the state had restrictions prohibiting them from setting guidelines for drinking water or groundwater guidelines that were more restrictive than those set by the federal government [177]. differing priorities. addressing pfas is not a legislative priority in every state. for example, the head of the utah department of environmental quality, stated that, although some states order that their drinking water is tested for pfas, utah does not need to test for pfas because the state is not home to pfas manufacturers [178]. further, the official noted that utah was at an advantage in protecting its citizens from pfas because their drinking water was derived from the snowpack stored in the mountains and did not come from rivers with wide watersheds. a spokesman for nebraska’s department of environmental quality expressed a similar sentiment, stating: “we haven’t taken a regulatory lead in this area to date, as preliminary results indicate that nebraska does not appear to have pfas issues to the extent that some other areas in the nation are experiencing” [179] he went on to explain that the state “will continue to stay involved in these emerging issues” [179]. the high costs of pfas monitoring and remediation efforts are a significant challenge to pfas regulations and policies. the possible costs include implementing testing and monitoring programs, providing alternative water supplies to people with contaminated drinking water, retrofitting water and sewage treatment plants to filter out pfas, site cleanup in areas where pfas have been used, and more. the congressional budget office estimated that the cost of bill s. 1507, which would have authorized grants for states to address “emerging contaminants” in drinking water, including pfas; to direct the u.s. geological survey to set pfas concentration standards in groundwater; to direct the epa to study, monitor, and regulate pfas in drinking water; and to establish a multiagency initiative to study emerging contaminants, would be usd 715 million between 2020 and 2024 [180]. the high costs may cause some state health departments and concerned citizens to struggle to convince legislators to invest in pfas remediation efforts. for example, the new hampshire department of environmental resources proposed drinking water standards for the state that would set mcls for pfos or pfoa and pfos combined at 70 ppt, 38 ppt for pfos alone, 85 ppt for pfhxs, and 23 ppt for pfna [181]. they estimated that these standards would initially cost the public water system between usd 2.2 million and usd 8 million and indicated that the state would make grants available to cover costs. however, the court blocked the standards from coming into effect, stating that a more thorough cost benefit analysis was needed to justify the expense that the standards would pose for taxpayers [182]. in new york, the governor made an emergency declaration that established pfoa as a hazardous substance and classified hoosick fall and petersburg as state superfund sites. these designations were necessary to make emergency funding available for pfas water contamination cleanup efforts originating from a saint gobain performance plastics site [183]. however, the negotiations between hoosick falls and saint gobain on the cost of cleanup and remediation efforts have been the subject of intense debate [184]. other states have struggled to estimate remediation costs. benchmarking costs based on what other states have experienced can be difficult due to the variability in remediation objectives [21]. scientific ambiguity. although there is robust evidence from human and animal studies that exposure to pfos and pfoa (which remain widely present in food and the environment) can cause negative health outcomes, there are over 4700 chemicals in the pfas family and toxicity data are limited or unavailable for most of them [10,21,99,185]. long chain pfas are currently thought to present a greater toxicity than shorter chain pfas because they are more difficult to metabolize [186,187]. thus, many pfas producers switched from using long chain pfas to short chain pfas. however, less research has been conducted on the toxicity of shorter chain pfas [188]. emerging evidence suggests that short chain pfas can also pose significant risks to human health. for example, the epa’s draft toxicity reports found evidence in animal studies that genx was associated with negative health effects in the kidneys, blood, immune system, and the liver and pfbs was associated with negative effects in the thyroid, reproductive organs, developing fetuses, and the kidneys [189]. though european countries allow for regulation based on the precautionary principle (i.e., proactively endorsing mitigation measures when evidence is uncertain), u.s. regulatory agencies typically require substantial data showing significant risks before regulations can be implemented [190,191]. at the u.s. national level, the statutory authorities best suited to pfas regulation, such as the sdwa, require toxicity assessments for each chemical being regulated. many researchers have recommended that pfas should be regulated as a class rather than as individual chemicals [9,25]. however, some argue that this would not be appropriate because each pfas has a unique chemical structure and they exist in many compounds that can break down differently in the environment [192]. epa has determined that 160 pfas chemicals may warrant inclusion on the toxic substances release inventory; however, this is far less than the total number of pfas currently in use [193]. at the state level, some states have not implemented pfas regulations or policies because it is not yet clear how pfas compounds have affected their residents. although the pfas pollution in north carolina became well known as a result of stories covering genx in the cape fear basin, additional research has been called for while the north carolina department of health and human services (dhhs) sets a provisional health advisory of 140 ppt for genx. the north carolina state legislature provided usd 5 million to the nc policy collaboratory to fund a multi university pfas research initiative called the pfas testing network (pfast network). recently, the north carolina attorney general announced plans to further identify the manufacturers and other parties responsible for pfas contamination in the state [194]. similarly, although tennessee has no pfas regulations in place, the tennessee department of environment and conservation (tdec) is currently conducting an assessment of the state’s water system to identify pfas levels in drinking water, with results expected in 2021 [195]. tdec has indicated these results may be used to identify places where remediation is needed or to identify which pfas should be regulated by the state. although the montana department of environmental quality recently added pfos and pfoa to the state’s circular deq 7 montana numeric water quality standards at 70 ppt [196], objectives in the state’s pfas action plan include “consider pfas in source water protection plans” and “pursue preventive measures (legislation, regulation, permitting)” [197]. practical challenges. policy makers seeking to implement pfas policies and regulations are faced with technical challenges in attaining the information needed for monitoring and enforcement efforts. capturing and analyzing pfas samples that are appropriate for regulation is challenging because the widespread use of pfas means that many of the materials normally used to collect field samples and to complete laboratory operations are often contaminated with pfas [198]. for example, the polytetrafluoroethylene products (tubing, sample containers, and sampling tools) used to collect samples can contain pfas. the consumer goods often brought to testing sites can also be a source of sample contamination [11]. the epa published its validated method 537 for monitoring the levels of 14 different pfas in water samples in 2009. this method was later expanded to monitor four additional pfas, including genx [11]. although some states have developed their own guidelines for sampling and analyzing pfas [199], the development of such guidelines may exceed the capacity of some state health departments. both washington and maine legislation note that alternatives to pfas must be found. in maine, individuals concerned about prohibiting the use of pfas in food packaging said that the state needed to determine that a safer alternative is available in a sufficient quantity and at a comparable cost [122]. washington legislation restricting the use of firefighting foams which contain pfas included a clause to provide airports additional time to secure firefighting foams without intentionally added pfas that meet federal requirements if they were not readily available when the legislation was scheduled to take effect [200]. industry self regulation. governmental regulations have slowed in areas where industry was self regulated. as discussed above, 3m and dupont voluntarily ended production of pfos and pfoa in the early 2000s [42,43]. as shown in figure 3, pfos blood levels declined by 80%, and pfoa blood levels declined by 60% since these chemicals were phased out of production [44]. although epa is moving toward regulating these pfas under the sdwa [201], because they are no longer being produced, states may be reluctant to invest resources in monitoring or remediating them. for example, the oregon department of environmental quality states that that “no major source of pfas has been found in oregon that would create regular exposure for oregonians.” [202] blood levels of the most common pfas in people in the united states from 2000 2014. originally published in fourth report on human exposure to environmental chemicals, updated tables, (january 2017). atlanta, ga: u.s. department of health and human services (hhs), centers for disease control and prevention (cdc). this figure is freely available on the agency’s website and its use does not imply endorsement of this manuscript by cdc, hhs, or the united states government. pfas (per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances, pfoa (perfluorooctanic acid), pfhxs (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), pfna (perfluorononanoic acid). there is a growing body of literature and data collection tools which document pfas laws, policies, and regulations as they are proposed and passed; however there are no sources of data studying pfas policy from a systems level, developing a conceptual framework for how pfas policy is discussed, developed, and implemented. our review of international , u.s. national  and u.s. state level policy and regulatory guidance shows a complex regulatory system both facilitated and challenged by a multitude of political, social, economic, and scientific feedback loops. the synthesizing of the current policy environment is a critical component to filling gaps in the scientific literature and building evidence based regulatory requirements. the regulation of pfos and other pfas has been part of the international dialogue for more than a decade [37,65,66,76]. the increasing scientific data documenting the widespread contamination and negative effects on human health, coupled with a rising social awareness, has prompted countries to meet the challenges of regulation at varying levels [76,85,88]. while the eu and canada have established strong regulations focused on reducing and controlling the production and use of pfas [76,81,84], other countries such as the united states and australia have provided education and standards, leaving regulatory action to states and territories [64,88,89,96,97]. furthermore, other countries such as brazil and china continue to allow the production and use of some pfas that are limited by the stockholm convention [73,74]. our investigation found a deep interconnectedness between political willingness, social awareness, and scientific literature as both drivers of and challenges to pfas policy implementation. the scientific study of pfas has allowed for the categorization of pfas into subgroups of long  and short chain pfas, as well as bans on compounds such as pfoa and pfos [1,20,22,24,25]. more than two decades of laboratory study and environmental sampling shows pfos and pfoa can have detrimental consequences on the physiology of animals, can accumulate in plants, and may have harmful health effects in humans [45,46,47,48,49]. studies such as these have caught the attention of the legal community, resulting in high profile lawsuits [125,203,204], which in turn created compelling movies [148,149] all of which have increased the social awareness and political pressure to respond and regulate pfas within the environment. these reinforcing feedback loops drive the system towards change. simultaneously, the scientific literature that informs and supports the development of national and state level policy does not always have an adequate specificity to support regulations. while pfas have been categorized, there is no authoritative list of all pfas compounds in use, hindering the ability of the interested parties to empirically study the health effects of all types of pfas [1,7,20,21]. although animal studies have shown that some pfas compounds have deleterious effects [45,46,47,48], there remains the doubt that some of these effects are seen in humans. this is further complicated by the sheer volume of individual pfas that have been used. it is not feasible to develop full toxicity assessments for each of the 4000 5000 pfas compounds that have entered the global market. although some have advocated for regulations targeting pfas as a class [9,25,54,151], the current regulatory structure at the u.s. national level requires chemical specific data. the political will to regulate a compound that has documented benefits to society is weakened by what is deemed as lacking scientific evidence of harm. these restrictive feedback loops drive the system away from change. although the u.s. government has been slower to implement national level policy than other governments, it has provided financial and technical support to states in evaluating pfas levels. for some states, the slower pace of national level policy initiates a reinforcing feedback loop in which what is perceived as a gap in national environmental regulation leads to the social mobilization and investment of local resources in support of a state based action. for other states, the pace of national level policy initiates a restrictive feedback loop, where clear lines of authority and insufficient technical expertise, combined with a lack of federal guidance to create challenges in developing and implementing pfas policy. one limitation of this research is that scarce information was available about attempts to implement pfas regulations and policies in some u.s. states. using a survey of states, ecos identified 23 states which had not implemented any state level pfas guidelines [177]. five of these states reported that the state had restrictions prohibiting them from setting guidelines for drinking water or groundwater guidelines that were more restrictive than those set by the federal government [177]. although we have identified challenges to pfas policy implementation for some states where policies were proposed, our knowledge about states in which policies were not proposed remains limited. primary data collection such as stakeholder interviews may provide a more complete picture of the challenges these states face in implementing pfas policies. another limitation of this study is that our review of the drivers of and challenges to pfas policy implementation is limited to the u.s. two of the three primary data sources used for this review focused on u.s. based newspaper articles and business journals. supplemental searches targeted u.s. state government websites, consumer group websites, and public comment dockets. with the absence of guidance of local stakeholders, we cannot be confident in our ability to identify comparable supplemental sources of information for non u.s. countries. our focus on english language documents further limits the extent to which our findings about the drivers of and challenges to pfas policy may be generalizable outside the u.s. policymakers in other countries may face challenges in regulating the pfas not discussed here, such as lower prioritization of environmental issues, lack of government accountability, and a lack of funding to support pfas legislation. we encourage future research to explore the drivers of and challenges to pfas policy in non u.s. countries, including non english speaking countries and developing countries. such exploration should be guided by individuals who are knowledgeable about policymaking in the country (or countries) of focus, including the law making process, appropriate sources of information, culturally meaningful search terms, and a deep understanding of the broader challenges that regulators face in that country. national, state, and local policymakers and stakeholders face many challenges when developing policies for any complex system. environmental and health focused policies are impacted by many variables, including political will, social awareness, economic and scientific resource availability, and practical challenges. pfas regulation faces the challenges of unclear lines of regulatory authority, challenges funding monitoring and remediation efforts, incomplete scientific evidence, and practical challenges. the balance between the perception of the benefits of pfas on societal functions and the deleterious effects of pfas on the environment and human health is influencing both national and state regulation. policymakers and advocates should remain aware of the political, social, and scientific ecosystem influencing this rapidly changing landscape. the study team would like to thank jake webb for his support in developing and editing the manuscript. the following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph182010900/s1, database s1: pfas review library. an excel database containing the 550 data sources used to complete this review. conceptualization, n.m.b.; methodology, s.a.p., h.e.v.h.; data collection and analysis, n.m.b., a.t.e., m.k.f., s.a.p., h.e.v.h.; writing original draft preparation, a.t.e., n.m.b.; writing review and editing, n.m.b., a.t.e.; supervision, n.m.b.; project administration, a.t.e. all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. this research was funded by a battelle memorial institute independent research and development grant, irad 100507, and received no external funding. not applicable. not applicable. the authors declare no conflict of interest. publisher’s note: mdpi stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. this section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. articles from international journal of environmental research and public health are provided here courtesy of multidisciplinary digital publishing institute (mdpi) connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894
supported by industry groups said the e.p.a. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking water cleanup. the chemicals, known as pfas, are linked to cancer and health risks. by hiroko tabuchi chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late monday over a landmark drinking water standard that would require cleanup of so called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks. the industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the safe drinking water act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym pfas, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of americans. the environmental protection agency has said that the new standard, put in place in april, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses. the e.p.a.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water. in a joint filing late monday, the american chemistry council and national association of manufacturers said the e.p.a. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” the petition was filed in the court of appeals for the district of columbia. in a separate petition, the american water works association and the association of metropolitan water agencies said the e.p.a. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said. pfas, a vast class of chemicals also called per  and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. they are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected pfas chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country. exposure to pfas has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the e.p.a. at a public address ahead of the filing on monday, brenda mallory, chair of the white house’s council on environmental quality, defended the biden administration’s stringent standards. “everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said. at the same event, e.p.a.