Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to eliminate PFAS chemicals from most uses and the environment, imposing significant new regulatory burdens and liabilities on industries while bolstering research and legal recourse for affected individuals.
What it actually does
This bill mandates a comprehensive phaseout of nonessential uses of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called 'forever chemicals,' within 10 years. It prohibits detectable releases of all PFAS into the environment, establishes a process for designating 'essential uses' based on scientific review, and creates Centers of Excellence for PFAS research and remediation. Additionally, it expands environmental liability for hazardous substances, including PFAS, by adjusting state statutes of repose and limiting bankruptcy protections for PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic) chemical claims.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step to protect public health and the environment from the pervasive and harmful effects of PFAS, which accumulate in the body and persist indefinitely in nature. They contend that a comprehensive, class-based approach is necessary to address the widespread contamination and that the bill's ambitious timelines and strict release prohibitions are essential to safeguard communities and ecosystems from these 'forever chemicals.'
Opponents contend
Opponents are likely to contend that the bill's aggressive phaseout timelines and 'no detectable release' standard are technically and economically infeasible for many industries, potentially leading to significant economic disruption, job losses, and supply chain issues. They may also argue that the expanded liability provisions and limitations on bankruptcy protections could stifle innovation and investment, while the broad definition of PFAS and the essential use designation process could create regulatory uncertainty and unnecessary burdens.
The bill is substantial and contains detailed regulatory mechanisms and legal amendments, requiring careful reading to fully grasp its implications.
Title I, Sec. 101
National Academies Review of Essential PFAS Uses
This provision mandates the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enter into a 10-year agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies will review scientific evidence to determine what constitutes an 'essential use' for PFAS, establish criteria for such designations, and prioritize nonessential uses for phaseout. This scientific guidance will inform future regulatory decisions by the EPA.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that engaging the National Academies ensures that the designation of essential PFAS uses is based on the best available, independent scientific evidence, fostering public trust and regulatory robustness. This approach prevents arbitrary decisions and builds a strong foundation for the comprehensive phaseout.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that relying on a multi-year scientific review could delay urgent regulatory action, allowing harmful PFAS uses to continue longer than necessary. They may also raise concerns about the potential for industry influence on the definition of 'essential use' during the review process.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for immediate action against PFAS with the desire for thorough, scientifically defensible regulatory decisions. It trades speed for scientific rigor, potentially delaying some phaseouts but aiming for more robust and sustainable policy.
Title I, Sec. 102(a)
Mandatory PFAS Manufacturer and User Reporting
This section requires all manufacturers and users of PFAS to submit annual reports to the EPA. These reports must detail essential and nonessential uses, the volume and concentration of PFAS used, chemical identities, any environmental releases, safer alternatives considered, and disposal methods. The EPA will publish these reports for public comment and conduct data quality reviews.
Title I, Sec. 102(b)
General PFAS Phaseout Timeline and Plans
This section mandates that manufacturers and users of PFAS must complete a full phaseout of all nonessential uses within 10 years of the bill's enactment. Each entity is required to submit a detailed plan and schedule to the EPA for achieving this phaseout. The Administrator has the authority to accelerate this schedule based on public comment or petitions, and plans can include verifiable transfers of PFAS stocks for research purposes.
Title I, Sec. 102(b)(4)
Accelerated Phaseout in Specific Consumer Products
This provision establishes specific, accelerated phaseout timelines for PFAS in certain consumer products, overriding the general 10-year schedule. Within 1 year, PFAS will be prohibited in carpets, rugs, fabric treatments, food packaging, juvenile products, and oil/gas products. Within 2 years, cosmetics, indoor textiles, indoor upholstered furniture, accessories, handbags, and most indoor/outdoor apparel are prohibited. Outdoor textiles and upholstered furniture are phased out in 4 years, and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions in 5 years, with exceptions for the resale of used products.
Title I, Sec. 102(c)
Essential Use Designation Process
Beginning 10 years after enactment, all PFAS uses will be prohibited unless specifically designated as 'essential' by the EPA Administrator. This designation can occur through a petition process initiated by any person, where the petitioner bears the burden of proof, or through an alternative designation process initiated by the Administrator via public rulemaking. All decisions must be based on the best available science and National Academies recommendations, with extensive public review and comment periods.
Title I, Sec. 104
Prohibition on PFAS Releases
This section makes it unlawful for any manufacturer or user to release any quantity of PFAS above the threshold of detection into the environment, starting 10 years after the bill's enactment. The EPA Administrator is required to finalize a rule within 7 years to establish a schedule for this phaseout of releases and to define the applicable detection methods and relevant thresholds. The Administrator can also establish earlier phaseouts for specific PFAS substances.
Title II, Sec. 201
Establishment of PFAS Research Centers of Excellence
This section directs the EPA Administrator to establish two Centers of Excellence: one as a bi-institutional collaboration between an eligible research university and a National Laboratory, and another at an eligible rural university. These centers will focus on developing and maintaining capabilities for measuring PFAS contamination in water and other environmental media, and for evaluating and benchmarking emerging PFAS removal and destruction technologies. They are required to make their capabilities available to researchers, municipalities, and individuals at reasonable cost.
Title II, Sec. 202
Federal Commencement Date for State Statutes of Repose
This section amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to establish a 'federally required commencement date' for state statutes of repose. For personal injury or property damages caused by hazardous substance exposure, if a state's statute of repose would start earlier, the federal date (when the plaintiff knew or should have known the injury was caused by the substance) will apply instead. It includes a special rule for substances newly designated as hazardous after August 1, 2022, such as many PFAS.
Title II, Sec. 203
Automatic Stay Exception for PBT Claims in Bankruptcy
This section amends CERCLA to add a new provision (Sec. 313) stating that the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not automatically halt (stay) judicial, administrative, or other actions against a 'nondebtor entity' (e.g., an affiliate or related company) for 'PBT claims' (claims related to persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals, including PFAS). This applies even if the claim is against the debtor or the debtor's estate, preventing companies from using bankruptcy to shield related entities from environmental liabilities.
The definition of 'manufacturer' is expanded to include importers and exporters of products that are known to contain perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Sec. 2(4)(B)
Why it matters:While defining terms upfront is standard legislative practice, the inclusion of importers and exporters significantly broadens the regulatory net, impacting a wider range of businesses than might be immediately apparent from the bill's titles.
Case for: Supporters argue that this broad definition is essential to ensure comprehensive regulation of PFAS across the entire supply chain, preventing companies from circumventing domestic manufacturing prohibitions by importing or exporting PFAS-containing products. It closes a potential loophole and ensures global accountability.
Case against: Critics may contend that this expansion imposes significant new compliance burdens on entities that do not directly produce PFAS but merely handle products containing them, potentially disrupting international trade and requiring extensive due diligence on product composition.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of regulated entities, bringing international trade businesses under the purview of PFAS reporting and phaseout requirements, potentially increasing compliance costs and data collection efforts across global supply chains.
The Administrator may approve verifiable transfers of remaining PFAS stocks in the possession of a manufacturer or user to accredited research consortia (including Centers of Excellence, National Laboratories, and universities) for research into destruction, detection, and remediation of PFAS.
Sec. 102(e)(2)
Why it matters:It's a practical mechanism for managing existing stockpiles of PFAS, allowing for their safe handling and utilization for scientific advancement rather than immediate disposal, which aligns with the bill's research goals. Its placement is logical within the context of managing remaining stocks.
Case for: Proponents argue that this mechanism is crucial for safely managing existing PFAS stockpiles while simultaneously advancing critical research into effective destruction and detection methods. It prevents the premature disposal of valuable research material and supports the long-term goals of PFAS elimination.
Case against: Critics might express concern that allowing continued transfers and handling of PFAS, even for research, could pose ongoing risks of accidental release or exposure if not rigorously managed. They may argue for immediate destruction over prolonged storage and research.
Estimated impact: This provision facilitates scientific progress on PFAS solutions by making existing chemical stocks available to researchers, potentially accelerating the development of new destruction and detection technologies, and ensuring safe management of legacy PFAS.
Amends CERCLA to establish a 'federally required commencement date' for state statutes of repose for personal injury or property damages caused by hazardous substance exposure, overriding earlier state commencement dates. It includes a special rule for substances newly designated as hazardous after August 1, 2022, such as many PFAS.
Title II, Sec. 202
Why it matters:Amending existing statutes with technical language is standard legislative practice. However, the profound impact on legal recourse for victims and the potential for increased corporate liability could be obscured by its legalistic phrasing and placement within a broader bill.
Case for: Proponents argue that this amendment is crucial for ensuring justice for victims of long-term exposure to hazardous substances, especially those like PFAS whose harms may not manifest or be understood until years after exposure. It prevents state laws from prematurely barring legitimate claims, ensuring a fair opportunity for legal recourse.
Case against: Opponents may argue that overriding state statutes of repose creates legal uncertainty and significantly increases the long-term liability exposure for businesses, potentially impacting their financial stability and ability to plan for future risks. They might also view it as federal overreach into state tort law.
Estimated impact: This provision could open the door to a wave of new lawsuits for historical hazardous substance contamination, including PFAS, potentially leading to billions of dollars in new liabilities for companies and significant changes in environmental litigation.
Amends CERCLA to add a new section (Sec. 313) that specifies that filing for bankruptcy does not automatically stay (halt) judicial, administrative, or other actions against a nondebtor entity for 'PBT claims' (including PFAS claims) against the nondebtor, debtor, or estate.
Title II, Sec. 203
Why it matters:As an amendment to existing, intricate federal statutes, its technical nature is standard. However, the significant alteration to bankruptcy protections for environmental claims could be strategically placed to avoid immediate scrutiny, despite its profound impact on corporate financial strategies and accountability.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision closes a critical loophole that allows corporations to evade responsibility for PBT contamination by strategically using bankruptcy filings to protect related solvent entities. It ensures that polluters remain accountable for the full scope of environmental damage, even when one part of a corporate structure faces financial distress.
Case against: Opponents may argue that this amendment complicates and undermines the established principles of bankruptcy law, potentially making it harder for companies to reorganize and emerge from financial distress. They might contend it could lead to increased litigation, uncertainty for corporate structures, and higher costs of capital for businesses.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly alter the landscape of environmental liability in bankruptcy, making it harder for companies to shed PBT-related liabilities through corporate restructuring and potentially increasing the financial burden on solvent affiliates for historical contamination.