The EPA’s proposed scaling back of portions of the federal PFAS drinking water regulations is significant, but businesses should not mistake it for a retreat from PFAS compliance risk.

On May 1, 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget completed its interagency review of two EPA proposed rules that would scale back portions of the Biden era PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. OMB clearance means EPA may now publish the proposals in the Federal Register, likely in the near term.

The proposals would:

• Extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) from 2029 to 2031; and
• Rescind entirely the MCLs for PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA (GenX), and mixtures containing two or more of those compounds and PFBS.

This is a big deal for nearly every commercial real estate owner. There will be winners and losers.

The current federal standards, finalized in April 2024, established MCLs of 4 parts per trillion (.. an incredibly small amount equivalent to maybe 4 drops of water in 20 Olympic size swimming pools) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX chemicals, along with a Hazard Index for certain PFAS mixtures. Water systems currently must complete monitoring by 2027 and install treatment systems by 2029.

We previously blogged about the extraordinary scope of PFAS contamination in PFOA and PFOS Now Hazardous Substances Under Superfund Law, noting that a study cited by EPA estimated that 99.7% of Americans have detectable PFAS in their blood. PFAS contamination is now so pervasive that it affects virtually every activity people are involved in.

And we more recently blogged, EPA is Retaining the CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation for PFAS | Green Building Law Update, describing how PFAS concerns have become embedded in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.

However, even if portions of the federal drinking water rule are rescinded, PFAS liability exposure is not disappearing.

Importantly, the rollback proposals do not eliminate the existing federal MCLs unless and until EPA completes notice and comment rulemaking and survives judicial review. The current standards remain legally in effect today.

Moreover, litigation is continuing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In January 2026, the court denied EPA’s effort to summarily vacate the challenged PFAS MCLs, and in March 2026 denied EPA’s motion to sever and stay the litigation concerning PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS mixture standards. Accordingly, the existing federal PFAS standards remain operative while both the litigation and administrative rulemaking proceed on parallel tracks.

For businesses in many states, including Maryland, however, the larger point is this: Maryland is not a passive follower of federal PFAS policy.

Studies indicate Maryland’s waterways have among the highest or even the highest levels of these “forever chemicals.” The Maryland Department of the Environment has already moved differently on PFAS monitoring, disclosure, stormwater permitting, biosolids oversight, and remediation protocols. Maryland historically adopts environmental standards more stringent than federal baselines, but in this instance, it is relying on EPA enforceable limits.

But Maryland, despite being slow to act in the PFAS space beyond using federal grants for testing, is now partially funding some projects, including the now under construction granular activated carbon facility to clean up the drinking water in the Town of Hampstead. Maryland was criticized last month as misguidedly focusing on agricultural application of biosolids; enacting Senate Bill 719 and House Bill 925, which prohibit the application of sewage sludge to agricultural or marginal land if the sewage sludge has a total concentration of PFAS of 50 parts per billion or more, but with Maryland doing nothing to hold the polluters accountable or reduce discharges into waterways, the government operated waste treatment plants that excrete the biosolids.

Maryland’s widespread testing and sampling PFAS monitoring requirements are expected to continue regardless of any EPA rollback. That includes ongoing sampling directives affecting community water systems, non transient non community systems, and private groundwater sources and surface water intakes.

Businesses should also expect PFAS to remain a material issue in:

• Real estate transactions;
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments;
• Stormwater management;
• Biosolid spreading on agricultural land; and more.

Because PFAS is already integrated into CERCLA enforcement and toxic tort litigation, rollback of certain drinking water standards does little to reduce long term litigation exposure.

Indeed, states may become even more aggressive if federal standards weaken. Commentators are already observing that PFAS regulation is increasingly shifting to the states.

For Maryland facility owners and operators, prudent next steps now include:

• Track risk through legal counsel who can assist with screening solutions;
• Continuing compliance planning based on the original 2029 timetable;
• Developing dual track capital plans assuming either 2029 or 2031 compliance dates;
• Reviewing historical sampling data for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS mixture impacts;
• Updating environmental reserve analyses and transaction diligence protocols; and
• Preparing supportive comment letters once EPA formally publishes the proposed rollback rules.

In the near term, businesses should also review risk communication materials provided to tenants, customers, employees, and investors. PFAS disclosures increasingly appear in financing documents, environmental indemnities, and transactional representations and warranties.

Longer term, sophisticated businesses should integrate PFAS treatment energy loads and operational costs into infrastructure planning. Granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis systems can materially increase both operating expenses and electrical demand. Companies should also evaluate possible cost recovery avenues, including litigation, insurance claims, grants, and state revolving fund programs.

Meanwhile, EPA itself continues to advance PFAS related initiatives, from updated guidance on PFAS destruction to disposal technologies.

Including, on April 02, 2026, EPA announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List. The CCL is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. Contaminants listed on the CCL may require future regulation and PFAS is listed on this draft CCL.

PFAS is not going away. The term “forever chemicals” remains apt. The science is evolving, regulation remains fluid, and compliance costs will almost certainly continue to rise.

There will be winners and losers in the environment and politics of PFAS. Businesses will not be able to insulate themselves from the shocks of PFAS if they slow PFAS planning merely because Washington may be reconsidering portions of the federal rules. The regulatory, transactional, and litigation risks remain very real.