What California's Chemicals Phase Out Means for Procurement

California has imposed strict health targets on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS – synthetic compounds widely used in manufacturing for their resistance to heat, oil and water.

Known informally as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS accumulate in soil, water and the human body, creating regulatory, procurement and clean-up challenges for both public and private sectors.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has now adopted new public health goals for two of the most studied PFAS compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). These non-enforceable health targets complement legislative action under Assembly Bill 347, giving authorities broader enforcement tools to regulate PFAS use at the product level.

The impact of these new thresholds is set to reverberate across supply chains and public infrastructure procurement, demanding long-term adjustments in material sourcing, testing and compliance management.

Tightening water safety standards

OEHHA sets new health-based targets at 0.007 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 1 ppt for PFOS.

These values are not enforceable by law but act as public health goals (PHGs) – scientifically derived benchmarks used to inform the development of regulatory standards for drinking water systems. They indicate the concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected over a lifetime of exposure.

Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director for the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water, says: “OEHHA’s adoption of these public health goals for PFOA and PFOS is an important step toward addressing the long-term effects of forever chemicals.

"The PHG values will enable us to develop standards that water systems will have to achieve to help minimise these chemicals in our drinking water."

The OEHHA’s process involves five years of scientific review and public consultation, reflecting a long-term commitment to risk-based, evidence-led regulation. While these goals do not immediately translate into legally-enforceable limits, they guide the development of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) – the standards drinking water systems are required to meet.

For procurement leaders in water treatment, the announcement signals a shift in baseline expectations for chemical monitoring and filtration technology, with a direct impact on sourcing decisions, cost modelling and supplier evaluation criteria.

Product-level controls target PFAS at the source

Alongside water quality measures, Assembly Bill 347, led by former Assemblymember Phil Ting, introduces new tools to limit PFAS contamination by addressing its use in products before it enters the environment.

The bill strengthens the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), expanding its authority to conduct product testing, certify compliance and issue administrative penalties.

It also introduces a move towards an “essential use” framework, which allows PFAS to be used only where they are considered necessary for health, safety or critical function – such as in specific medical or firefighting equipment.

Former OEHHA Director Lauren Zeise adds: "We know PFOA and PFOS can be harmful at low levels and California is leading by adopting these scientifically rigorous and health protective goals to inform how water suppliers treat these chemicals in drinking water."

For procurement teams in manufacturing and consumer goods, this essential use standard means engaging earlier with suppliers to review chemical inputs, reformulate products or identify viable alternatives. It also shifts emphasis from end-of-pipe solutions to upstream product design, affecting contracts, testing specifications and certification requirements.

Clean-up costs rise

PFAS are used in a wide range of industrial and consumer applications, from non-stick cookware and food packaging to waterproof textiles and firefighting foam. Their molecular structure makes them extremely durable – a quality that underpins their commercial appeal but also makes them resistant to natural breakdown.

Health studies link PFAS exposure to cancer, hormonal disruption, reduced immunity, liver damage and developmental issues. With 45% of US tap water found to contain detectable PFAS and 98% of Americans carrying these chemicals in their blood, contamination remains widespread.

PFAS contamination concentrates around industrial facilities, landfills and firefighting training sites, making groundwater management and remediation complex and expensive. California’s PFAS clean-up costs already exceed US$500m, with more than US$1bn in additional remediation projects planned.

Industry groups continue to raise concerns around cost and practicality, particularly for fluoropolymers – a type of PFAS used in non-stick coatings. Manufacturers point to US Food and Drug Administration approval for food-contact use and argue for case-by-case regulation.

Regulators maintain that treating PFAS as a single chemical class is necessary to prevent substituting banned compounds with equally harmful alternatives. This position informs both procurement and regulatory policy, shaping the requirements for product design, supplier certification and environmental reporting.

Ultimately, California’s dual approach – combining water safety goals with product-level controls – sets a clear regulatory direction. For procurement teams, it marks a call to re-evaluate material standards, supplier practices and long-term sustainability frameworks.