EPA announces vision for PFAS policy and commences rulemaking activity

In late April, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin issued a press release announcing EPA’s anticipated policy platform for addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment. At first glance, EPA’s announcement seems to signal that the Trump Administration intends to at least partially continue to advance the Biden Administration’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which is a notable departure from its deregulation efforts in other areas of environmental policy. It is important to note that, as evidenced during his confirmation hearing, Administrator Zeldin served on the inaugural bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force, and is on record supporting certain PFAS legislation. As the head of EPA, he is capitalizing on the opportunity to have a more direct impact on PFAS regulation.

However, EPA’s announcement also forecasts several critical differences and departures from the Biden Administration’s PFAS policy platform. 

The similarities and differences of Administrator Zeldin’s approach compared with the prior administration are discussed in more detail below.

The Trump Administration EPA: Anticipated framework and initial regulatory activity for addressing PFAS

Per Administrator Zeldin, the current EPA’s PFAS agenda will be guided by the following principles:

1. Strengthening the science
2. Fulfilling statutory obligations, and
3. Enhancing communication and building partnerships.

The current EPA also intends to align its PFAS agenda with its “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative, particularly in furtherance of Pillar 1, “Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American,” and Pillar 3, “Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership.” Moreover, EPA intends to designate a single agency lead to oversee agency-wide PFAS initiatives.

EPA’s announcement outlines several initial priority PFAS-related policy objectives under the new administration:

Objective 1: Strengthening the science

• TSCA section 4 testing: EPA plans to utilize its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 4 testing order authority to seek and obtain scientific data on PFAS hazard characteristics and exposure pathways, ramping up the development of testing methods to improve detection and strategies to address PFAS.
  
  
• Increased focus on PFAS air emissions: EPA signaled interest in expanding efforts to evaluate PFAS air emissions and explore measurement techniques.
  
  
• More frequent disposal guidance: EPA intends to more frequently update its PFAS Destruction and Disposal Guidance, providing annual updates as it assesses destruction, disposal, and treatment options and technologies.

Objective 2: Fulfilling statutory obligations and enhancing communications

• Developing ELGs: EPA intends to continue the Biden Administration’s efforts to develop Effluent Limit Guidelines (ELGs) for certain industry sector wastewater discharges. EPA specifically identifies PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers as target industries, but also signals its intention to evaluate ELGs for other industries.
  
  
• Drinking water regulatory adjustments: EPA plans to address the “most significant compliance challenges and requests from Congress and drinking water systems related to national primary drinking water regulations for certain PFAS,” which suggests that EPA is actively mulling over whether, and how, to modify its Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) finalized under the prior administration.
  
  On May 14, 2025, EPA shed further light on this plan, issuing a subsequent press release announcing its intent to extend compliance deadlines for the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) maximum contaminant limits (MCLs), establish a “federal exemption framework,” and rescind and reconsider the MCLs for hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulphonic acid (PFHxS), individually, as well as the novel hazard index MCL for mixtures of these three analytes, plus perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS).

• Changes to TSCA PFAS reporting rule: EPA signaled its intent to modify its TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule to ease compliance burdens on small businesses and article importers. As an immediate initial step, on May 12, 2025, EPA issued an interim final rule extending – for the second time – the reporting period for covered entities.
  
  Submissions are now due by October 13, 2026 for most manufacturers, and April 13, 2027 for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers. EPA expressly acknowledged its continued review of the rule’s substantive requirements and may soon propose significant changes, which could go so far as to exempt article importers altogether from reporting requirements.
  
  
• Prioritizing risk-based PFAS reviews: EPA seeks to establish “more effective outcomes by prioritizing risk-based review of new and existing PFAS chemicals.” Although broadly stated, EPA appears to suggest here that it plans to conduct TSCA risk assessments on a PFAS chemical-by-chemical basis to ascertain – and, critically, differentiate – the environmental and health risks among this large family of chemicals. In turn, EPA may be carving a future path towards authorizing certain uses of specific PFAS under TSCA, which could potentially preempt certain state efforts to restrict those uses.
  
  
• Potential elevation and enhancement of RCRA authorities: EPA plans to assess how to use its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorities to address releases by PFAS producer and user manufacturing operations. Notably, EPA’s announcement did not indicate the Agency’s intentions with respect to the proposed rule designating nine PFAS as RCRA hazardous constituents.
  
  
• Commitment to “Polluter Pays” model, but silence on CERCLA implementation: The current administration reaffirmed the prior administration’s “polluter pays” model for addressing PFAS contamination, and plans to work with Congress to shield passive receivers (eg, water treatment facilities, landfill operators, waste, and recycling facilities) from liability – a policy framework which may garner bipartisan support. EPA did not, however, expressly identify any policy initiatives under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), nor did it clarify its position regarding the prior administration’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances.
  
  There is ongoing litigation over this rule from the prior administration, and this case too is currently being held in abeyance in the Washington, DC circuit. Here, EPA requested the court hold this case in abeyance “to allow new Agency leadership to conclude its review of the underlying rule,” and the court has since directed the Agency to file a motion to govern future proceedings by May 30, 2025.

Objective 3: Building partnerships

• Finish public comment period for biosolids risk assessment: EPA committed to finishing the public comment period for its draft biosolids risk assessment, but it appears uncertain whether it will finalize the prior administration’s draft evaluation.
  
  
• Foster cooperative federalism: EPA emphasized that cooperative federalism will serve as a primary guiding framework for its PFAS regulatory efforts, including collaboration with states to assess PFAS risks, develop evaluative tools, and assist with enforcement.

Comparing the Trump and Biden Administration EPA PFAS platforms

The current EPA’s approach to PFAS regulation reflects both continuity with and divergence from the Biden Administration’s PFAS regulatory platform. Like the Biden Administration EPA, the current EPA intends to retain the “polluter pays” principle as a foundational policy, develop and collect information and data on PFAS in the environment, and evaluate methodologies for regulating PFAS under all available federal laws at EPA’s disposal.

However, the Trump Administration EPA has forecasted likely modifications and relaxations of Biden-era PFAS rules, including the TSCA PFAS reporting rule and SDWA NPDWR. The Agency also appears to be pivoting toward a redirected focus on risk-based evaluations of PFAS, which could preempt stricter state regulation of those chemicals, and a potentially greater emphasis on PFAS air emissions and RCRA regulatory initiatives. Moreover, the current EPA’s initial PFAS announcement does not identify specific regulatory deadlines for each initiative, though EPA has emphasized that its announcement is only the first, not last, set of contemplated actions to address PFAS.

Below, we look at key comparisons between the Biden and Trump Administrations’ PFAS platforms:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

	Biden Administration’s policy	Trump Administration’s policy
Timelines for implementation	The PFAS Strategic Roadmap provided detailed timelines for specific regulatory actions.	Timelines for implementation have not been specifically identified, and the applicability of previous timelines has not been acknowledged or addressed.
Preemption of state PFAS laws	Generally afforded states the opportunity to more strictly regulate PFAS.	May seek to utilize TSCA risk management authority to preempt stricter state PFAS regulation.
CERCLA	EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.	EPA proposes “polluter pays” approach, and supports legislation by Congress to exempt passive receiver liability, but is otherwise silent on regulation of PFAS under CERCLA.
TSCA section 8(a)(7) reporting	EPA’s final rule requires detailed information submissions from manufacturers and importers – including PFAS-containing article importers and small businesses – on PFAS use, production, and hazards. Compliance deadlines were extended to give EPA more time to implement the rule.	EPA signaled its intention to reconsider implementation of  section 8(a)(7) “without overburdening small businesses and article importers,” and may ultimately amend the rule to exempt or otherwise ease obligations for these entities and activities. Compliance deadlines were extended to give EPA more time to prepare to implement the rule and to consider reopening part of the rule to public comment.
ELGs	EPA had proposed ELGs for the chemical, plastic, and synthetic fiber manufacturing sectors. EPA also determined that revised ELGs and pretreatment standards are warranted for landfills.	In January 2025, EPA withdrew the Biden Administration’s proposed ELGs from OMB review. EPA announced its intention to develop ELGs for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers, and evaluate other ELGs to reduce PFAS discharges, but did not expressly reaffirm ELG development for landfills.
SDWA	Finalized NPDWR setting MCLs for six PFAS.	EPA announced a plan to extend compliance deadlines for the PFOA and PFOS MCLs, establish a “federal exemption framework,” and to rescind and reconsider the MCLs for HFPO-DA, PFNA, and PFHxS, individually, as well as the novel hazard index MCL for mixtures of these three analytes plus PFBS (including PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA).

Looking ahead

Recent federal proclamations on PFAS policy reflect a complex, morphing regulatory landscape amid an ongoing transition to a new administration. At minimum, it remains clear that addressing PFAS remains a priority topic for EPA – and environmental law more broadly – and will likely continue to be subject to a continuously evolving web of regulation.

DLA Piper’s Environmental practice group and PFAS Task Force continue to monitor changes to PFAS laws.

For questions or assistance, please contact the authors.