PFAS in water
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a virtual public hearing on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, on two proposed rules that would reshape federal PFAS drinking water regulation. Public comment on both closes Monday, 20 July 2026.
The first proposal would rescind the regulatory determinations and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three PFAS plus perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).
The second would keep the existing 4 parts per trillion (ppt) MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in place, while allowing drinking water systems to request two additional years, to 2031, to reach compliance.
EPA's position is procedural rather than scientific. The agency argues that the Biden administration's 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation combined regulatory determinations and enforceable standards for these four PFAS in a single step, when the Safe Drinking Water Act requires the two to happen sequentially.
EPA has said that, once the current regulations are rescinded, it intends to follow through on a commitment to evaluate the same substances for potential future regulation, and has not ruled out reinstating tighter limits through a corrected process.
For water testing labs and instrument suppliers, the immediate effect of a rescission would not be a change in water chemistry. It would be a change in what utilities are legally required to test for, and how often.
Since the 2024 rule, public water systems have been required to complete initial monitoring for six PFAS by 2027, with PFOA and PFOS carrying the tightest limits.
Laboratories serving those systems built out capacity for high-resolution liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods capable of quantifying PFAS to low parts-per-trillion levels.
If the Hazard Index and individual MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA and GenX are rescinded, that specific testing obligation falls away at federal level, even though the underlying analytical capability, and much of the equipment, remains in place.
Several states are not waiting for the federal picture to settle.
Maine and Minnesota are proceeding toward near-total PFAS product bans by 2032, and multiple states already regulate specific PFAS compounds, PFAS-containing firefighting foam, or soil remediation independently of federal drinking water rules.
For instrument vendors and contract laboratories operating across state lines, this means state-level requirements, rather than the federal MCL list, are increasingly the practical driver of testing demand.
EPA has been explicit that these are proposals, not final rules, and that the 2024 regulation remains legally in force until any rescission is finalised.
The agency expects to take final action later in 2026, but the outcome of pending litigation over the original 2024 rule, currently before the DC Circuit, adds a further layer of uncertainty.
For laboratory managers and procurement teams, that uncertainty argues against assuming demand for PFAS analytical capacity will simply track the federal Hazard Index list.
State requirements, voluntary utility testing, and the compliance extension itself, which still requires PFOA and PFOS monitoring on the original schedule regardless of any exemption granted, all point toward sustained rather than declining need for PFAS-capable instrumentation.
Laboratories and instrument suppliers with PFAS capability built primarily around the 2024 federal list should review exposure to state-specific requirements now, rather than waiting for EPA's final rule.
Suppliers report continued interest in PFAS instrumentation from state agencies and utilities operating under state-level standards, suggesting the addressable market may prove more resilient than the federal rescission proposal alone would indicate.
IET 36.3 May
Product directory
.jpg)
