Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026

Section 201 would set up two centers — one at a large research university paired with a National Laboratory, one at a rural university. Both would have to offer PFAS water testing to towns and individuals in their regions at reasonable cost, and would open within 1 year unless the EPA reports a delay.

Section 102(b)(4) would bar the sale of carpets, rugs, fabric treatments, food packaging, children's products, and oil-and-gas products containing PFAS one year after enactment. Cosmetics, handbags, indoor furnishings, and most clothing follow at 2 years, outdoor furnishings at 4, and severe-weather rain gear at 5. Used versions of these items could still be resold.

The bill's definitions in section 2 leave public water systems, sewage treatment works, solid waste facilities, and composting sites out of the terms “manufacturer” and “user.” They receive PFAS from others rather than make it, so the phaseout, reporting, and fee duties would not land on them or on your water bill.

Each yearly report under section 102(a)(2) would have to state how many people are exposed to each PFAS at work, how many are expected to be, and for how long. The EPA would publish those reports for public comment, with trade secrets handled under existing chemical law.

Section 108 would let any person file suit against a PFAS maker or user who breaks a rule under this law, or against the EPA for missing a required duty. You would give 60 days' notice first (90 days for an urgent-danger claim), and a court could order the other side to pay your lawyer and expert costs.

Section 202 would change the federal cleanup law so a state statute of repose cannot cut off a PFAS injury or property claim before the person knew what caused it. For substances named hazardous on or after August 1, 2022, the clock starts at the later of that naming or the day the person knew.

Section 111 would send challenges to final EPA rules under this law to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., within 90 days. A rule not challenged in that window could not be questioned later, even as a defense in an enforcement case.

Section 106 would let the EPA require monitoring equipment, sampling, and records from PFAS makers and users, and enter their premises at reasonable times to inspect and copy records. What the EPA collects would be released to the public, apart from protected trade secrets.

Section 107(c) would make it a crime to recklessly violate a material requirement of this law. A conviction could bring a fine sized to strip the profit from each day of violation, up to 5 years in prison, or both.

Section 110 would make federal agencies follow federal, state, and local PFAS laws, and waives the government's immunity from fines and orders. Individual federal employees could face criminal fines or prison, though they would not be personally liable for civil penalties for acts within their duties.

Section 203 would add a rule to the federal cleanup law so a bankruptcy filing does not pause claims over PFAS and similar lasting toxic chemicals against companies that are not themselves in bankruptcy. It applies to cases already pending on the day of enactment, but does not disturb judgments already final.

Section 113 would have the EPA set a yearly report fee and a petition fee by rule within 2 years, after a workload study and 90 days of public comment. If the EPA misses that deadline, each fee is $100,000; small manufacturers may be charged less, and federal, state, and nonprofit petitions pay nothing.

Starting at enactment, section 103(b) would direct every federal agency, working with the EPA and the General Services Administration, to stop buying products known to contain PFAS as far as is practical. Agencies could survey what they buy and pause purchases until they find safer products.

Section 103(a) would set it as national policy that PFAS contamination be cleaned up to levels that do not pose an unreasonable risk, and that destruction and disposal come first in any cleanup plan. Agency decisions under this law would have to line up with that policy and the best available science.

Under section 109, if PFAS use poses an imminent and unreasonable risk of serious or widespread harm, the EPA could order a company to stop or bring suit against it, without weighing costs. Companies that willfully ignore such an order face daily fines.

Section 110 would subject federal facilities that make or release PFAS — including military sites — to state and local PFAS requirements, administrative orders, and penalties, with the government's immunity waived. The President could grant a one-year national security exemption, renewable each year.

Section 102(c) would ban every nonessential use of PFAS 10 years after enactment. After that date a use counts as nonessential unless the EPA has designated it essential, meaning it is critical to health, safety, or society and has no safer substitute.

Section 104 would make it unlawful for any maker or user to release PFAS into the environment above the level a validated test can detect, 10 years after enactment. The EPA would issue a rule setting the schedule and the test methods within 7 years, and could move faster on specific chemicals.

Under section 102(a), the EPA would publish each company's yearly PFAS report within 180 days of receiving it and take public comment for at least 90 days. The reports cover uses, volumes, releases at any detectable level, byproducts, and disposal methods. Company phaseout plans, due at 3 years, would also be made public.

Section 109(c) would require a company causing an imminent PFAS danger to pay for immediate public notice within the affected radius. That means alerts to local officials, water plants, schools, libraries, and community media, plus public meetings and regular updates.

Under section 102(b)(3), anyone may petition the EPA to require a faster phaseout than the 10-year schedule. The EPA would publish the petition within 180 days, take at least 90 days of comment, and decide within 1 year; if it agrees, companies must revise their plans.

Section 201(g) would end both research centers on October 1, 2034. The EPA could extend them only by notifying Congress that the work is still needed and describing what funding it would take.

Section 110(d) would let the President exempt a federal agency from PFAS laws for national security, for one year at a time, and normally requires that exemption be made public. The President may waive that public notice when national security calls for it, though a report to Congress is still due each January 31.

Section 201 would open the main center only to a university with at least $750 million in yearly research spending that sits near a population center of 5 million or more, applying jointly with a National Laboratory. Very few schools meet that test.

The rural center under section 201 would be limited to a university in a state listed in a veterans health statute that also belongs to the National Security Innovation Network's Rocky Mountain region. That pairing narrows the field to a small set of schools.

Section 201(h) would take $25 million of the Defense Department's fiscal 2027 environmental research and technology funds and hand it to the EPA for these two centers. The money stays available through September 30, 2036, and up to 4 percent may go to EPA overhead.