Process Matters: Why EPA's PFAS Drinking Water Revisions are not a retreat from PFAS Regulation
Recent headlines have led some observers to conclude that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is weakening its stance on PFAS regulation. In reality, the latest EPA proposal tells a more nuanced story—one centered not on whether PFAS should be regulated, but on whether federal agencies followed the legal procedures required to establish those regulations in the first place. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
On May 18, 2026, EPA announced proposed modifications to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for PFAS. Importantly, EPA did not propose eliminating the enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, the two most studied and historically significant PFAS compounds. The agency retained the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for both chemicals. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
Instead, EPA proposed rescinding previously established standards for four additional PFAS compounds and certain PFAS mixtures while restarting the rulemaking process associated with those chemicals. According to EPA, this action is intended to address concerns that the prior rulemaking may not have fully complied with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
Following the Process
One of the foundational principles of American government is that agencies must follow established statutory procedures when creating regulations. Whether one agrees with a particular regulation is often less important than whether the regulation was developed according to the authority granted by Congress.
EPA acknowledged that legal concerns had been raised regarding the methodology and procedural basis used to regulate PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX chemicals), and certain PFAS mixtures. Those concerns are not merely academic; they are currently the subject of ongoing litigation challenging whether the agency properly complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com]
The distinction is important.
Removing a regulation because the regulatory process was flawed is not the same as declaring a contaminant safe. Likewise, requiring agencies to comply with statutory procedures does not constitute abandonment of environmental protection. Rather, it reflects the principle that federal regulations must be legally defensible if they are to withstand judicial review and remain enforceable over the long term. [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
PFOA and PFOS Illustrate the Difference
The contrast between PFOA and PFOS and the four rescinded PFAS compounds is significant.
PFOA and PFOS have undergone extensive scientific review and have been the focus of years of federal investigation, litigation, toxicity assessment, and regulatory development. EPA specifically chose to retain the drinking water standards for these compounds while continuing enforcement efforts. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
Many environmental professionals also recognize that PFOA and PFOS traveled a more established federal regulatory pathway, culminating in significant federal actions, including their designation under CERCLA as hazardous substances. By contrast, the four PFAS compounds removed from the drinking water regulation are being sent back through a process that EPA now believes requires additional review and procedural support. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
The lesson is straightforward: scientific concern alone is not enough. Federal agencies must also satisfy the statutory requirements established by Congress.
This Is Not Deregulation
Critics have suggested that the proposed changes represent an effort by the Trump Administration to dismantle PFAS protections. The actual EPA proposal suggests otherwise.
Alongside the proposed revisions, EPA reaffirmed the existing national drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, announced nearly $1 billion in funding for drinking water projects addressing PFAS and emerging contaminants, and stated that future rulemaking could ultimately result in stricter requirements for the PFAS compounds currently being reconsidered. [epa.gov], [dechert.com]
In other words, EPA is not saying these substances should never be regulated. EPA is saying the agency intends to revisit the rulemaking process and build a regulatory framework it believes can withstand legal scrutiny and comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. [dechert.com], [epa.gov]
The Bigger Picture
For communities concerned about PFAS contamination, the environmental challenge remains unchanged.
PFAS compounds continue to be detected in drinking water, surface waters, soils, sediments, wildlife, and human blood samples across the United States. Whether a particular regulation is delayed, revised, or reconsidered does not alter the underlying reality that PFAS contamination remains a significant environmental issue requiring long-term solutions. The EPA continues to recognize PFAS as a public health concern and maintains enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS. [epa.gov], [epa.gov], [mondaq.com]
At WEL, we believe it is important to distinguish between politics and process. Environmental regulations should be based on sound science, but they must also be developed according to the legal procedures established by Congress. When agencies fail to follow those procedures, courts and subsequent administrations are often compelled to revisit and correct the record.
The recent EPA proposal should therefore be viewed less as a retreat from PFAS regulation and more as a reminder of an enduring principle of American governance:
The process matters.
When regulations are built upon both sound science and proper legal procedure, they are far more likely to survive judicial scrutiny, endure changes in administration, and provide the long-term certainty that utilities, communities, businesses, and environmental stakeholders need. [mondaq.com], [dechert.com], [epa.gov]