HR-8016-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Sponsored by Betty McCollum (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would require manufacturers and users of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called "forever chemicals") to submit annual reports to the EPA on their essential and nonessential uses of PFAS. It would mandate a full phaseout of nonessential PFAS uses within 10 years of enactment, set deadlines to phase out the sale of certain PFAS-containing products, and require federal agencies to stop purchasing products known to contain PFAS where practicable. The bill would also grant the EPA civil and criminal enforcement authority, allow citizens to sue PFAS manufacturers and the EPA, and modify bankruptcy rules so that PFAS-related liability claims cannot be shielded by a debtor's automatic stay.
Who benefits
Communities near PFAS manufacturing sites or military bases with known PFAS contamination, who may see reduced ongoing exposure. Drinking water consumers broadly, as PFAS have been detected in water systems serving an estimated 200 million Americans. People with documented PFAS-related health conditions (certain cancers, thyroid disease, immune suppression) who gain new legal tools through citizen suits. Competing manufacturers who have already transitioned away from PFAS. State attorneys general and private plaintiffs pursuing PFAS liability claims, who benefit from the bankruptcy exemption. Alternative chemical and materials companies that would gain market share as PFAS uses are phased out.
Who is hurt
PFAS manufacturers (e.g., companies in the fluorochemical industry) who face compliance costs, reporting burdens, and expanded liability. Industries that rely heavily on PFAS — including semiconductor fabrication, aerospace, food packaging, firefighting equipment, and medical device manufacturing — that may face supply chain disruptions or higher input costs during the phaseout. Workers in PFAS-dependent manufacturing sectors who may face job losses or facility closures. Federal contractors whose product lines include PFAS-containing materials and who would lose government procurement contracts. Consumers of products where PFAS-free alternatives are not yet cost-competitive, who may face higher prices. Companies in bankruptcy proceedings involving PFAS claims, who lose automatic stay protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that PFAS chemicals persist indefinitely in the environment and human bodies, and that the EPA has detected them in the blood of 97% of Americans, according to CDC biomonitoring data. They contend that voluntary industry action has proven insufficient — PFAS contamination has spread to thousands of drinking water systems and military installations — and that a mandatory phaseout with enforceable deadlines is the only mechanism that will stop ongoing accumulation. They further argue that the 10-year timeline and essential-use exemptions give industry adequate time to develop alternatives while protecting public health.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a blanket 10-year phaseout ignores the fact that PFAS are a chemically diverse class of thousands of compounds, many of which have no currently available substitutes in critical applications such as semiconductor manufacturing, aircraft hydraulics, and certain medical devices. They contend that eliminating these uses on a fixed timeline could disrupt domestic supply chains in sectors central to national security, and that the bill's broad liability provisions — including the bankruptcy exemption — expose companies to retroactive, open-ended legal risk that could deter domestic chemical manufacturing investment without proportionate public health benefit.
Constitutional context
The bill's EPA reporting mandates and phaseout requirements rest on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), the same foundation as existing environmental statutes. Under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will independently review EPA's interpretation of any ambiguous statutory terms — such as what qualifies as an "essential use" — without deferring to the agency, potentially creating litigation vulnerability around those definitions. The bill's citizen suit and enforcement provisions could also face scrutiny under the major questions doctrine if EPA exercises broad discretionary authority in implementing the phaseout thresholds.
Checks and balances
The EPA gains significant new rulemaking and enforcement authority, including civil and criminal penalty powers; this authority is checked by citizen suit provisions (which can also be used against the EPA itself), federal court review under the post-Loper Bright independent judgment standard, and Congress's ongoing appropriations and oversight power.
Historical precedent
The EPA's 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation set the first federal maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act, establishing a partial regulatory precedent, though no prior federal law has attempted a comprehensive PFAS phaseout of this scope.