PFAS chemical contamination—often called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment or human body—is now recognized as a widespread public health threat affecting drinking water, groundwater, and soil across the United States. Cleanup efforts are underway at military bases, industrial sites, and contaminated water systems, though the scale of remediation remains far smaller than the scope of contamination. Specific examples include the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base in North Carolina, where PFAS-contaminated drinking water exposed approximately 900,000 military members and their families over decades, and the manufacturing site in Ohio where PFOA (a specific PFAS chemical) contaminated the water supply of neighboring communities for years before detection.
The regulatory and legal response has accelerated significantly, with the Environmental Protection Agency establishing drinking water standards for certain PFAS chemicals and multiple class action lawsuits targeting manufacturers and companies responsible for contamination. State and federal agencies are working to identify contaminated sites, establish cleanup timelines, and provide affected communities with water treatment or alternative water supplies. However, the financial burden of remediation is substantial, the number of affected sites continues to grow, and disagreement persists over adequate protection levels versus the cost of achieving them.
Table of Contents
- What Are PFAS Chemicals and How Did Contamination Become So Widespread?
- Current Remediation and Cleanup Strategies for PFAS-Contaminated Sites
- Health Effects of PFAS Exposure and Community Health Protection Concerns
- Regulatory Standards and Ongoing Protection Updates
- Limitations and Gaps in Cleanup Capability and Health Protections
- Class Action Litigation and Corporate Accountability Mechanisms
- What Affected Communities Should Know About PFAS Exposure and Response Options
What Are PFAS Chemicals and How Did Contamination Become So Widespread?
pfas chemicals were developed in the 1940s for their heat-resistant and water-repellent properties, making them valuable for manufacturing firefighting foam, non-stick cookware (including the well-known DuPont product Teflon), food packaging, textiles, and water-resistant clothing. Rather than degrading over time, PFAS chemicals accumulate in the environment and in human tissue, which is why they earned the nickname “forever chemicals.” Once released into soil or water, PFAS migrates through groundwater and contaminates drinking water sources, and because treatment was not commonly performed until recently, exposure has been largely invisible to affected residents until testing revealed the chemicals in their water supplies.
contamination patterns show that military installations account for a disproportionate share of known PFAS sites, primarily due to decades of use of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) at firefighting training areas, runways, and aircraft hangars. Industrial manufacturing sites, particularly those that produced PFAS chemicals directly or used them in products, also remain major sources. Landfills accepting industrial waste, municipal wastewater treatment plants (which don’t effectively remove PFAS), and certain agricultural areas where contaminated biosolids were applied as fertilizer represent additional exposure routes that are now being mapped and assessed.
Current Remediation and Cleanup Strategies for PFAS-Contaminated Sites
Cleanup approaches vary depending on the contamination source and whether the PFAS is in soil or groundwater. For contaminated drinking water, municipalities have installed granular activated carbon (GAC) filters and ion-exchange resin systems, which remove PFAS before water reaches homes, though these systems require regular maintenance and replacement, adding ongoing costs. For groundwater contamination on industrial or military properties, remediation typically involves extracting contaminated groundwater, treating it through GAC or other filtration methods, and either discharging the treated water or reinjecting it.
However, these active remediation systems do not degrade PFAS chemicals; they only remove them from water, leaving the challenge of disposing of the contaminated filters or resin, which becomes hazardous waste. A significant limitation of current cleanup efforts is that remediation is expensive and slow—removing PFAS from groundwater or soil at many sites is projected to take decades or may not be technically or economically feasible, particularly at remote or large-scale contamination sites. Certain states and the EPA have identified thousands of potentially contaminated sites, but funding and personnel constraints limit how quickly these sites can be investigated, assessed, and added to remediation priorities. Some communities have opted for short-term solutions, such as providing bottled water or connecting homes to alternative water systems, rather than waiting for remediation—a response that shifts the responsibility from the polluter to the community itself.
Health Effects of PFAS Exposure and Community Health Protection Concerns
Research has linked exposure to certain PFAS chemicals to health effects including high cholesterol, thyroid disease, decreased vaccine response in children, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and liver inflammation. Studies of communities with documented PFAS contamination have found elevated levels of these chemicals in blood samples, correlating with ongoing exposure through drinking water and food. Because PFAS accumulates in the body over time, long-term exposure—even at low levels—can result in significant bioaccumulation, meaning that the health effects may not appear immediately but can manifest years after exposure begins.
Children are of particular concern because developing immune and reproductive systems may be especially vulnerable to PFAS disruption, and children in contaminated areas often have no choice but to consume the contaminated water they are served at school or at home. Vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, nursing mothers, and those with existing health conditions, may face heightened risks. In addition to drinking water, PFAS is present in some foods—particularly fish and shellfish from contaminated waterways, and dairy and meat products from animals fed with contaminated water or forage—creating multiple exposure pathways that are difficult for individuals to avoid entirely.
Regulatory Standards and Ongoing Protection Updates
The EPA established drinking water standards for two PFAS chemicals (PFOA and PFOS) in 2024, setting a maximum contaminant level below which communities must maintain their water supplies. However, these standards cover only a subset of the hundreds of known PFAS chemicals, and scientific understanding continues to evolve regarding which PFAS compounds pose the greatest health risks. Some states, including Michigan, New Hampshire, and others, have implemented their own state-level drinking water standards or guidance values that may be more stringent than federal standards, reflecting different risk assessments or political priorities.
The EPA has also designated certain PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under environmental laws, which triggers reporting and remediation obligations when these chemicals are released. At contaminated military and industrial sites under EPA oversight, cleanup must ultimately meet these standards, though timelines for achieving compliance at some sites extend into the 2030s or beyond. A critical gap in protection is that existing EPA standards do not address PFAS in groundwater that is not used as a drinking water source, or in soil, or in food—leaving significant exposure pathways unregulated and unmonitored.
Limitations and Gaps in Cleanup Capability and Health Protections
One fundamental challenge is that no cost-effective technology currently exists to destroy PFAS chemicals permanently; available methods only transfer them from one medium to another (e.g., from water to contaminated filter material). Some emerging technologies, including high-temperature incineration and experimental chemical degradation processes, show promise but are not yet deployed at scale, remain prohibitively expensive, or are not yet proven safe and effective across all PFAS variants. This means that for many contaminated sites, a permanent “solution” does not yet exist, and communities may face permanent exposure unless their drinking water is continuously treated. Another limitation is that not all contaminated sites have been identified or publicly disclosed.
Companies and property owners have incentives to avoid detection, as acknowledgment of contamination triggers legal and remediation liability. Voluntary testing programs and state-level site assessment initiatives have found new contamination, but the true scope of PFAS in groundwater and soil remains unknown. Additionally, the financial responsibility for cleanup is contested—manufacturers argue that responsibility lies with the military or industrial users, while those users argue that responsibility lies with the manufacturers who created and promoted PFAS without adequately warning of persistence and bioaccumulation concerns. This legal ambiguity has delayed remediation at many sites while liability disputes proceed through litigation.
Class Action Litigation and Corporate Accountability Mechanisms
Dozens of class action lawsuits have been filed against PFAS manufacturers, water utilities, and property owners, with claims alleging that defendants knowingly contaminated drinking water, failed to warn communities of risks, and bore responsibility for providing treatment or remediation. Some lawsuits target companies that produced PFAS chemicals directly, others target utilities that failed to test or notify customers of contamination, and still others target the United States military for decades of AFFF use without proper containment. Settlements in these cases have included funding for water treatment infrastructure, health monitoring programs, and cash payments to affected residents, though the amounts vary widely and often fall short of covering all actual costs of remediation and health consequences.
A notable example is the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which created a legal pathway for military families exposed to contaminated drinking water to pursue claims against the federal government. This legislation recognized that communities had no choice in their exposure and that the responsible parties (the military and the federal government) should bear accountability. Similar legislation has been proposed for other contaminated military bases and communities, though not all have been enacted, and many civil lawsuits continue to navigate the court system.
What Affected Communities Should Know About PFAS Exposure and Response Options
Residents who suspect or know that their water is contaminated with PFAS should contact their local water utility or health department to request testing results, which are often public record. If testing confirms PFAS in drinking water, residents can pursue several responses: using point-of-use filters (GAC filters certified to remove PFAS), using bottled water for drinking and cooking, connecting to alternative water systems if provided, or joining class action lawsuits to seek compensation or remediation funding from responsible parties. It is important to note that boiling water does not remove PFAS, and standard water pitcher filters (not specifically certified for PFAS removal) are ineffective.
Affected residents should also maintain documentation of water testing results, health concerns, and any notices received from their water utility, as these records are critical for any litigation or regulatory claims. Communities should advocate for their water utilities to implement or expand PFAS testing and treatment, and should monitor regulatory developments at the state and federal level, as standards and cleanup obligations continue to evolve. Individuals should be aware that settlements and regulatory standards represent ongoing negotiation and may not fully compensate for health impacts or provide permanent remediation, and that long-term health monitoring and continued water treatment protection may be necessary indefinitely in contaminated areas.
- —