Contaminants Compass is a monthly newsletter that provides updates, legal observations and actionable tips to navigate the evolving legal challenges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and similar chemicals and products.
This edition highlights the EPA’s prioritization of review for chemicals used for data center projects, the EPA’s Unified Regulatory Agenda and upcoming actions, developments concerning Minnesota and New Mexico PFAS reporting rules, and dismissal of a suit to compel the EPA to regulate biosolids.
Look for new editions every month and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods team with questions regarding PFAS issues.
I. Federal Regulatory
EPA Initiative to Review Chemicals Used for Data Center Projects
Pursuant to Executive Order 14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” the EPA announced on Sept. 18, 2025, an initiative to prioritize the review of new chemicals under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) intended for use in data center projects. Executive Order 14318 directs the EPA to expedite the permitting of federal and nonfederal lands that impact the development of projects, such as AI data centers or related infrastructure and components. The EPA explains that it will prioritize the review of certain new chemicals that will be used for AI data centers and the infrastructure that powers them, such as high voltage transmission lines, to reduce the regulatory burden on companies looking to invest in these technologies. To determine if a chemical qualifies, the EPA provides instructions for submitters on how to make requests and what supporting information to provide.
The EPA’s Seven Upcoming PFAS Actions
Last month the Office of Management and Budget released the EPA’s Unified Regulatory Agenda outlining seven upcoming PFAS-related actions. These actions include the following:
- In April 2026, the EPA plans to finalize its proposed rule to amend regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by adding nine PFAS to the list of hazardous constituents in 40 CFR part 261. If finalized, when corrective-action requirements are imposed at an RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facility, these PFAS would be among the hazardous constituents expressly identified for consideration in assessments and, when necessary, further investigation and cleanup of these facilities. Currently, the EPA is considering comments received during the 60-day public comment period for the proposed rule.
- In February 2026, the EPA plans to finalize a rule adding individually listed PFAS and PFAS categories to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Pollution Prevention Act.
- In November 2025, the EPA plans to finalize a proposed rule adding certain PFAS to the TRI guidelines to align supplier-notification provisions with the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act requirement that the EPA annually add new PFAS compounds to the TRI. This revision would confirm that the TRI supplier-notification provision requires covered suppliers to notify customers receiving a mixture or other trade name product containing a TRI-listed PFAS of the chemical’s presence with the first shipment of each calendar year, with the requirement beginning on Jan. 1 of the applicable year.
- In October 2025, the EPA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the deadline for public water systems to comply with the April 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation’s Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFOA and PFOS. The EPA plans to finalize the proposed rulemaking in April 2026.
- In December 2025 the EPA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the TSCA regulation for reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PFAS. The regulations currently require manufacturers, including importers, of PFAS to report data from 2011 through 2022 to the EPA related to exposure and environmental and health effects of PFAS. The proposed rule is set to modify the scope of the reporting requirements and potentially provide for certain exemptions. The EPA plans to finalize the proposed rulemaking in June 2026.
- In November 2025, the EPA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to require permit applications to include monitoring and reporting for PFAS discharges. The current list of pollutants in the NPDES application regulations has not been substantially updated since 1987. This proposed rulemaking seeks to update requirements for several of the existing NPDES permit applications and to address monitoring and reporting of PFAS. The EPA plans to finalize the proposed rulemaking in May 2027.
- In January 2026, the EPA plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards to address PFAS discharges from manufacturing facilities.
II. State Regulatory
Administrative Law Judge Disapproves of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Reporting Rules
Earlier this year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a new request for comments pertaining to the reporting of PFAS intentionally added to products and the fee to administer the reporting system under the state’s Amara’s Law. For months the agency fielded comments that predominantly focused on the lack of feasibility of meeting the proposed rule’s Jan. 1, 2026, initial reporting deadline and on the proposed due diligence standard to be applied to regulated entities under the rule.
A Minnesota Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the proposed rules and identified procedural and substantive deficiencies in the proposed rule package. The chief ALJ issued an order adopting in full the ALJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regarding the rule package. The ALJ’s review pointed to a failure of the MPCA to include an assessment of the cumulative effects that the proposed rule would have with federal regulations under TSCA concerning PFAS reporting. The ALJ identified five provisions of the proposed rules that were not related to MPCA’s objective, did not find support in the administrative record, or exceeded or conflicted with underlying statutes. The ALJ offered recommendations to correct the identified substantive defects.
As a result of the order, the MPCA will need to cure the deficiencies identified and resubmit the rule to the chief ALJ for approval or seek reconsideration from the chief ALJ of the ALJ’s original ruling.
For additional information regarding Minnesota’s PFAS use prohibitions and reporting requirements, see the January, May, June and August 2025 editions of Contaminants Compass.
New Mexico Labeling Requirements for All Products Containing PFAS
On Oct. 8, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department petitioned the state’s Environmental Improvement Board to adopt proposed rules to implement New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act. The proposed rules implement the PFAS Protection Act by phasing out and prohibiting the sale of consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, establishing consumer-facing labels for products that contain intentionally added PFAS and establish reporting requirements for manufacturers of products containing PFAS. If adopted, the rules will take effect on July 1, 2026.
For additional information regarding New Mexico’s PFAS use prohibitions and reporting requirements, see the April 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass.
III. PFAS Litigation
Court Dismisses Citizen Suit Seeking to Compel EPA Regulation of Sewage Sludge
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Sept. 29, 2025, addressing a citizen-suit action against the EPA and intervenor-defendant National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) seeking to compel agency action regarding the regulation of biosolids under the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed the action on behalf of several Texas farmers and ranchers who claimed harm from PFAS contamination in biosolids. PEER’s complaint asked for an order directing the EPA to identify certain PFAS in its next biennial report and to regulate other PFAS pursuant to deadlines set by the court. The EPA and NACWA moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
In its memorandum, the court granted the EPA and NACWA’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that while the Clean Water Act imposes a nondiscretionary duty on the EPA to review regulation on a biennial basis, it “does not mandate that EPA also identify and regulate sewage-sludge pollutants within the same time frame.” The court also stated that neither the Biennial Report nor the EPA’s failure to list pollutants in the report constitutes final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, an interested party can petition the EPA to initiate a rulemaking to identify or regulate a pollutant. The EPA’s denial of such a petition could constitute final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act review.
For additional information regarding action by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, see the September 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass.