PFAS Observer
In a move that signals potential policy shifts under the new administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA’s requests for 60-day stays in two high-profile cases challenging Biden-era PFAS regulations. The stays, issued on February 7 and February 25, 2025, temporarily pause litigation over EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the agency’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Both stays were requested by the EPA and its new administrator, Lee Zeldin, as the second Trump administration appears to be reassessing its approach to PFAS regulation. The move raises questions about whether the administration will revise or rescind these regulations.
Last April, the EPA made headlines with two major PFAS regulations: First, the National Primary Drinking Water Rule (NPDWR) established the first-ever MCLs for PFAS in drinking water. Then, it made the first-ever CERCLA hazardous substance listing for PFAS. Unsurprisingly, these rules drew immediate legal challenges from industry groups, utilities and environmental organizations.
In American Water Works Association (AWWA), et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir. 2024), water industry organizations argue EPA failed to base the PFAS MCLs on the best available science and that the limits are inadequate to protect public health. Meanwhile, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. EPA, et al., No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. 2024), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry petitioners contend that EPA exceeded its authority in listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. They argue that EPA’s interpretation of the “substantial danger” standard is overly broad and inconsistent with CERCLA’s intent. Additionally, they claim that the agency’s cost-benefit analysis is deficient under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it fails to justify the significant liability and cleanup costs on imposed businesses. The cases have each been consolidated with related industry challenges, while environmental groups have intervened in both of the cases to argue in favor of EPA’s regulations.
This February, EPA moved, without opposition, to place both cases on hold for 60 days, citing the need for new agency leadership to be briefed and review the contested rules. The D.C. Circuit approved both requests, pausing litigation while the administration evaluates whether to maintain, modify or abandon these PFAS regulations.
EPA’s requests underscore a period of regulatory uncertainty as the Trump administration reconsiders the Biden-era approach to PFAS. Whether the administration will seek to roll back the rules—and whether courts will ultimately uphold its decisions—will shape the future of PFAS liability for businesses, utilities and other stakeholders.
Pillsbury attorneys will continue to monitor EPA’s PFAS rulemaking, ongoing litigation and broader developments in environmental regulation.
RELATED ARTICLES
EPA Finalizes Rule Designating PFAS Substances as “Hazardous Substances” Under CERCLA
EPA Finalizes Stringent Regulation of PFAS in Drinking Water