WASHINGTON, DC — Appeals judges upheld a landmark rule that allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force polluters to clean up two widespread toxic “forever chemicals” or reimburse governments and other parties for doing so.

On Tuesday, Aug. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected an industry challenge to EPA’s designation of the individual compounds PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.

The ruling preserves one of the federal government’s strongest tools for holding companies financially responsible for PFAS contamination in drinking water, groundwater, rivers and soil.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors of America and National Waste & Recycling Association sued to overturn a Biden-era rule enacted in 2024, arguing that EPA exceeded its authority and failed to adequately account for full cleanup costs.

A three-judge panel disagreed, concluding EPA reasonably found that releases of PFOA and PFOS may present a substantial danger to public health, welfare or the environment.

The court also rejected arguments that EPA’s consideration of the rule’s costs and benefits was legally deficient. The underlying Superfund law did not require EPA to quantify every future cleanup cost before designating the chemicals as hazardous, the court concluded. The EPA supported its decision with evidence about the toxicity, persistence, mobility and widespread occurrence of PFOA and PFOS.

Industry groups did not meaningfully contest EPA’s scientific findings about the dangers posed by the chemicals.

The ruling leaves EPA’s rule in effect while the industry groups decide whether to seek reconsideration or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earthjustice, which intervened alongside EPA on behalf of environmental and community groups, called the ruling a major victory for communities contaminated by PFAS.

“For too long, industrial polluters have profited from the release of toxic PFAS while sticking taxpayers and communities with the bill when those releases need to be cleaned up,” said Earthjustice senior attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz. “Today’s decision affirms EPA’s authority to hold those companies responsible for the harms they cause.”

Industry groups and EPA did not immediately issue statements.

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large family of synthetic chemicals used for decades in firefighting foam, stain-resistant fabrics, nonstick cookware, food packaging and numerous industrial processes. The chemicals are commonly called “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in the environment and can accumulate in people and wildlife.

Exposure to some PFAS has been linked to kidney and testicular cancers, immune system effects, increased cholesterol, liver damage, decreased vaccine response in children and developmental problems.

PFOA and PFOS are two of the oldest, most widespread and best studied compounds in the PFAS family.

EPA finalized the hazardous-substance designation in April 2024, marking the first time the agency used its discretionary authority under Section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to add chemicals to the Superfund program.

The rule took effect in July 2024. It allows EPA to order parties responsible for PFOA and PFOS contamination to investigate or clean up polluted property. EPA can also perform cleanup work and seek reimbursement.

State and local governments, water utilities, property owners and other private parties that incur qualifying cleanup expenses may also sue responsible parties to recover costs.

The Chamber and other groups argued the designation would create a wave of costly litigation involving not only chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters but businesses and public agencies that received PFAS-contaminated material.

Those so-called passive receivers can include landfills, wastewater treatment plants, drinking water systems, airports, fire departments, farms and property owners that did not manufacture PFAS but may nonetheless become entangled in Superfund claims.

EPA issued an enforcement policy with the rule saying it would concentrate on PFAS manufacturers, federal facilities and other parties that significantly contributed to contamination. The agency said it generally did not intend to pursue farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, publicly owned airports and local fire departments when equitable considerations weigh against enforcement.

That policy guides EPA but does not change the Superfund law or prevent private parties from suing passive receivers.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin acknowledged those concerns after the Trump administration reviewed the rule last year and elected to keep defending. Zeldin said EPA would use its discretion to protect passive receivers but called on Congress to create clearer statutory exemptions.

The Superfund decision contrasts with the administration’s treatment of separate federal PFAS drinking water standards.

The Trump EPA is proposing to retain limits for PFOA and PFOS while allowing some public water systems two additional years to comply with standards finalized under Biden in 2024. The agency is also moving to rescind and reconsider limits for PFHxS, PFNA and GenX, along with a standard governing mixtures of several PFAS compounds.

Those drinking water requirements arise under a different federal law and are the subject of separate litigation.

The hazardous substance rule has drawn opposition from industry because Superfund generally imposes strict liability, meaning parties may be held liable without proof that they acted negligently.

The Chamber previously estimated that assessing and cleaning up PFOA and PFOS at non-federal Superfund sites could cost more than $17 billion over 30 years.

The EPA argued that many cleanup costs are not newly created by the designation. Rather, the rule helps transfer costs that governments and communities would otherwise bear to companies and other parties responsible for the contamination.

Appellate judges concluded uncertainty about future sites, cleanup methods and liability disputes did not prevent EPA from acting on extensive evidence that PFAS may pose a substantial danger.

©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit mlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.