On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed plans to weaken the regulatory standards for certain harmful "forever chemicals" in drinking water. This announcement comes roughly a year after the Biden administration had established the first-ever national standards to tackle these persistent chemicals. These chemicals, known as PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), have permeated the nation's air, water, and soil, leading to widespread environmental and health concerns. The Biden administration's original rules aimed to reduce PFAS exposure for millions of people as part of a broader initiative to improve drinking water quality. This initiative also included measures to eliminate toxic lead pipes and address the long-standing threat posed by forever chemicals. Under the new plan, however, the EPA intends to rescind limits on certain PFAS and extend deadlines for meeting standards for two of the most common types, PFOA and PFOS. PFAS have been manufactured for decades by companies like 3M and Chemours due to their useful properties. These chemicals are found in a variety of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, and even water-resistant clothing. Despite their utility, PFAS resist breaking down in the environment, which is why they are referred to as "forever chemicals." This persistence poses significant health risks, as PFAS can accumulate in the human body over time. Scientific advancements have shifted the understanding of the health impacts of PFAS exposure. Health risks associated with these chemicals include kidney disease, low birth weight, high cholesterol, and certain cancers. The Biden administration had set stringent limits for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion, reflecting the evolving consensus that no level of these chemicals is safe. In contrast, the EPA’s new proposal involves scrapping limits on three lesser-known PFAS types, including GenX substances, PFHxS, and PFNA, as well as a mixture of PFAS. The decision to withdraw these limits appears to have limited immediate consequences for most utilities, as sampling indicates that nearly 12% of U.S. water utilities exceed the Biden-era limits, primarily due to PFOA and PFOS. For these two common chemicals, the EPA plans to retain the current limits but extend the compliance deadline by two years, to 2031. This move has sparked controversy. Environmental groups argue that the EPA lacks the legal authority to relax the regulations, citing the Safe Water Drinking Act, which grants the EPA power to regulate water contaminants but includes provisions to prevent weakening existing standards. Erik Olson, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, insists, "The law is very clear that the EPA can’t repeal or weaken the drinking water standard." Environmental activists have criticized the EPA's decision, warning that it could exacerbate public health issues. Meanwhile, industry reactions have been mixed. The American Chemistry Council has questioned the scientific basis for the stringent rules set by the Biden administration, arguing that the Trump administration had appropriately considered both cost and scientific evidence. However, they acknowledge that the EPA's actions only partially address these concerns and that further steps are necessary to mitigate significant impacts on local communities. Utility industry leaders have expressed support for rescinding the limits on a mixture of chemicals but note that the changes do not substantially reduce the costs associated with the PFAS rule. Some utilities had hoped for higher allowable limits for PFOA and PFOS but welcomed the extension to meet the existing standards. According to Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO, this extension gives utilities more time to address these known harmful substances, as many are just beginning to assess their current standing. In summary, the EPA's decision to alter the regulations on PFAS represents a significant shift in the federal approach to tackling these persistent chemicals. While it provides some reprieve for utilities, it has raised concerns among environmental groups and sparked a debate over the balance between scientific evidence, public health, and economic considerations.