The Environmental Protection Agency is moving to roll back federal drinking water limits on four of the six PFAS “forever chemicals” that the Biden administration finalized last year, and is offering water systems a two-year extension on the deadline to meet limits on the two best-studied PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS. The announcement, made earlier this week, has drawn sharp pushback from longtime drinking water advocates in New Hampshire who say the change weakens public health protections for residents in the Granite State and across the country. As NHPR reported, the rule changes are now headed into a 60-day public comment period, with a virtual public hearing set for July 7, and the political fight over them is already heating up.

For New Hampshire, the rollback lands at an awkward time. The state has been one of the most aggressive in the country on PFAS in drinking water, having set its own limits back in 2019. State regulators say they are still ahead of the nation. But local activists, many of them mothers and residents from communities like the Seacoast and Merrimack who fought for years to get federal action in the first place, are warning that weakening the federal floor matters even for states that have their own rules.

What The EPA Is Actually Changing

There are two pieces to this rollback. The first piece is the formal proposed rescission of drinking water limits on four PFAS chemicals: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and a hazard index combination of those three plus PFBS. Those limits were finalized under the Biden administration as part of the first-ever federal Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFAS in drinking water. If the proposed rescission is adopted, public water systems across the country would no longer have to test for or treat to those federal limits for those compounds.

The second piece is a separate compliance extension. The EPA is proposing to allow public water systems to request an additional two years to come into compliance with the federal limits on PFOA and PFOS, the two most studied PFAS compounds. Those limits are not being rescinded. But the deadline for systems to install treatment to meet them would slide from 2029 to 2031.

The EPA framed the change in legal terms. In a press release, federal regulators said “the EPA’s proposal is solely based on a need to correct this unlawful procedure,” referring to the Trump administration’s position that the Biden-era PFAS rulemaking did not meet certain requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Officials said the agency would continue to evaluate PFAS in drinking water, and indicated that future requirements could be even stricter than the ones being rescinded. That promise of future stricter standards, however, is exactly what advocates are skeptical about.

What The Chemicals Are And Why They Matter In New Hampshire

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are the family of synthetic chemicals so persistent in the environment that they have earned the nickname “forever chemicals.” They have been used in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, stain- and water-resistant fabrics, food packaging, and a wide range of industrial processes. Once released, they bind to water, soil, and human blood serum and break down extremely slowly, if at all.

PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS have been studied less extensively than PFOA and PFOS, but the science to date links them to a worrying list of potential health effects. The EPA’s own published assessments and external studies have associated these compounds with immune system suppression, liver issues, reproductive harms, and thyroid effects. Some of these chemicals have already been detected in water samples drawn from sites in New Hampshire, and have been found in the blood of state residents who live near contamination sources. That is part of why New Hampshire residents care about this rollback in a way that residents of less-impacted states might not.

The two compounds whose limits are not being rescinded, PFOA and PFOS, are sometimes called “legacy” PFAS because they were the first widely used and the first to draw regulatory attention. Their links to cancer and other serious health effects are the most established in the scientific literature. The federal limits on those two compounds remain on the books. What is changing for PFOA and PFOS is the timeline.

What New Hampshire Advocates Are Saying

The advocacy community in New Hampshire is not pleased. Andrea Amico, founder of Testing for Pease and a longtime drinking water advocate based on the Seacoast, told NHPR that the rollback runs against the basic logic of federal environmental protection. “We need federal protective standards that protect all of us,” Amico said. “It really shouldn’t matter what state you live in.”

Amico zeroed in on the two-year extension for PFOA and PFOS in particular. “Places in New Hampshire that have to comply with the PFOS and PFOA EPA standards will have additional time to implement their treatment, which means that the communities that drink that water will be exposed to chemicals that the EPA is saying is not safe for an extended period of time,” she said. In other words, the federal government is not saying these chemicals are now safe at higher levels. It is just giving water systems more time to keep delivering water with higher levels of those chemicals.

Laurene Allen, a Merrimack resident and PFAS activist who has spent years on the issue locally, was more pointed. “[The proposed changes are] a giveaway to big industry,” she told NHPR. “We can drag things out and we can weaken things and amend things and create loopholes and reduce liability.” Allen’s town is one of the New Hampshire communities most affected by PFAS contamination linked to industrial operations.

Betsy Southerland, a former EPA water regulator who retired from the agency in 2017, told NHPR that the Biden-era limits were achievable. “The Biden administration had done extensive analyses on all the available treatment technology and the costs necessary to meet these limits. It’s very affordable and cost effective,” she said. That argument cuts against one of the standard justifications for any environmental rollback, namely that compliance is too expensive.

What New Hampshire Regulators Are Saying

State regulators in New Hampshire took a more measured tone, in part because the Granite State has been ahead of the federal government on PFAS for years. Brandon Kernen, who leads the state’s Drinking Water and Groundwater Bureau at the Department of Environmental Services, told NHPR that “New Hampshire is way ahead of the nation. We adopted drinking water standards back in 2019, and we actually started testing statewide private and public wells in 2016.”

That history matters. New Hampshire’s own PFAS limits were finalized in 2019 after intense local advocacy following contamination episodes at the former Pease Air Force Base, in Merrimack near the Saint-Gobain plant, and in other parts of the state. The state’s existing program was designed to fit cleanly into the federal framework once federal rules caught up. “The new federal regulations kind of fit in seamlessly to what we’re doing,” Kernen said. “We just have to adjust the standard and react accordingly.”

But state advocates say that being ahead is not the same as being protected long-term. State limits can be revised in either direction. Federal floors give state protections more durability and apply pressure on industry across state lines, including industrial polluters whose discharges affect downstream New Hampshire communities. “I’m grateful for the work that we’ve done here in New Hampshire,” Amico told NHPR, “but having federal protective drinking water standards for multiple PFAS protects New Hampshire residents as well as the entire nation.”

How This Fits Into A Bigger Federal-State Tug-Of-War

The EPA’s announcement is one of several federal environmental moves that have direct consequences for New Hampshire. The Trump administration has already moved to rescind the Roadless Rule, which affects the White Mountain National Forest. New Hampshire Review covered that fight in our reporting on the roadless rule rollback and the White Mountain National Forest. The administration has also pushed back on environmental groups in regional disputes, including a high-profile EPA versus advocates standoff over PFAS in Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant, which New Hampshire Review reported on earlier this month.

Drinking water is not the same as wastewater, and a national rulemaking is not the same as a single-permit fight. But the through-line is clear. The current federal direction is to slow down or scale back PFAS regulation. State regulators in New Hampshire say they can manage. State advocates say managing is not enough when the chemicals do not respect state borders.

The proposed rules are now subject to a 60-day public comment period. The EPA has scheduled a virtual public hearing on July 7. That is where New Hampshire residents who want to weigh in formally will have their best opportunity. Comments submitted in those windows go into the federal rulemaking record, and the agency is legally required to respond to substantive comments before finalizing any rule.

For New Hampshire households on private wells, the federal change matters less in the short term because private wells are not regulated by the EPA at the federal level anyway. The state’s testing programs continue. For households on public water systems, the federal change matters more. It determines what utilities are required to test for, treat to, and disclose to customers.

What This Means For Granite State Households

If you draw your water from a New Hampshire public water system, you are still covered by state PFAS rules that predate the federal rollback. If you are on a private well, your protection has always depended on testing and treatment you arrange yourself, with help from state programs. What is changing is the federal backstop for PFAS chemicals beyond PFOA and PFOS, and the federal deadline for utilities to install treatment for PFOA and PFOS. The state’s position is that the rollback is workable. The advocacy position is that workable is not the same as safe. The next 60 days will determine whether the federal rule is finalized as proposed, modified, or sent back to the drawing board.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which PFAS chemicals would no longer be regulated under the EPA's proposal?

The proposed rescission targets federal drinking water limits on PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (also known as GenX), and a combined "hazard index" that includes those three plus PFBS. Limits on PFOA and PFOS are not part of the rescission, but the deadline for water systems to comply with those two limits would be extended from 2029 to 2031.

Does this rollback affect New Hampshire's state-level PFAS rules?

No. New Hampshire adopted its own drinking water limits on PFAS in 2019 and began statewide testing of private and public wells in 2016. State officials say their program continues regardless of federal action, though they will adjust to track the federal framework once it is finalized.

What are PFAS and why are they called "forever chemicals"?

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large family of synthetic chemicals used in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, and many industrial processes. They are called "forever chemicals" because they break down extremely slowly in the environment and in the human body, building up in water, soil, and blood over time.

How can New Hampshire residents weigh in on the proposed rule?

The EPA's proposed rules are open for a 60-day public comment period, and the agency has scheduled a virtual public hearing on July 7. Residents can submit comments directly to the federal docket, which the EPA is required to consider before finalizing the rule.

What should I do if I have a private well in New Hampshire?

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has tested private wells for PFAS as part of its statewide program, and state guidance recommends periodic testing of private wells for a range of contaminants including PFAS. Treatment options include certain types of point-of-entry or point-of-use carbon and reverse osmosis systems certified to remove PFAS.

read more