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 EPA’s important proposed changes to reporting obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), continued federal regulatory developments concerning EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFAS and EPA and other agency efforts to address PFAS in soil, California’s new and revised PFAS advisory levels for drinking water and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent veto of legislation that would have banned the sale of certain PFAS-containing products, additional regulatory updates in Maine and Minnesota, updates concerning important litigation developments including federal officer removal in PFAS dockets and the status of the petition for review challenging EPA’s December 2020 Final Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane under TSCA, and actions in Australia and the EU related to PFAS. 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 Proposes New PFAS Reporting Rule under TSCA
On Nov. 10, 2025, the EPA proposed amendments to PFAS data reporting and recordkeeping regulations under TSCA Section 8(a)(7). The agency aimed to streamline compliance and reduce unnecessary burdens on industry while preserving its ability to collect essential information on PFAS use and safety. The original PFAS reporting rule, finalized in October 2023, required manufacturers and importers to report data on PFAS manufactured or imported between 2011 and 2022, but it faced criticism for imposing substantial compliance costs. (See previous Contaminants Compass updates on the TSCA reporting rule.) The EPA’s new proposal, under Administrator Lee Zeldin’s commitment to “smartly collect necessary information … without overburdening small businesses and article importers,” introduces exemptions for PFAS present at a de minimis threshold or below 0.1% in mixtures or articles, imported articles, certain byproducts, impurities, “small quantities” of research and development chemicals, and non-isolated intermediates, while clarifying data reporting requirements and modifying the data submission window.
One of the most significant changes in the proposed rule is the EPA’s plan to exempt importers of articles containing PFAS from TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements. The EPA explains that determining whether articles imported between 2011 and 2022 contain PFAS is an activity for which “manufacturers are unlikely to have known or reasonably ascertainable information.” The agency interprets Congress’s intent as limiting reporting obligations to manufacturers and importers of PFAS themselves, not to those importing finished articles that contain PFAS. The EPA also finds that requiring retroactive reporting from article importers would be unduly burdensome and would exceed the agency’s statutory authority under TSCA. The EPA is not attempting to exempt PFAS manufactured as byproducts for commercial purposes as listed at 40 CFR 720.30(g); manufacturers must report information on such byproducts if they are used commercially, as these uses may present important exposure pathways. However, reporting is not required for PFAS byproducts of non-PFAS substances unless those byproducts have a separate commercial use. These changes should deliver substantial cost savings to importers.
The EPA proposes to change the submission period so that it will start 60 days after the final rule’s effective date and remain open for three months. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed changes until Dec. 29, 2025. The final version of the proposed rule is available for review here.
Waterkeeper Alliance FOIA on PFAS NPDWR Delays and Rollbacks
On Oct. 21, 2025, the Waterkeeper Alliance submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records from Jan. 20, 2025, to Oct. 21, 2025, regarding the EPA’s NPDWR for PFAS. The request sought any communications, including text messages, emails, meeting notes, attendance logs, agendas and calendar invites, between EPA officials and outside parties “regarding modifications, delays, or rollbacks of the PFAS NPDWR.” It also requested “environmental information, analysis, and data relating to actions to weaken or delay compliance with the PFAS NPDWR” supporting delayed compliance for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031, and partial rescission for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO‑DA (GenX), and mixtures with PFBS. The FOIA request also sought the PFNA toxicity report, “reportedly completed last spring but not released to the public.” Citing a “compelling need” and environmental justice concerns, the Waterkeeper Alliance requests “expedited processing,” asserting that delay “could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to health, life, and safety,” and noting an “urgency for the public to understand the evidence related to EPA’s attempt to weaken the NPDWR.”
The EPA and Other Agencies Aim to Address Challenges of PFAS in Soil
The EPA and other federal agencies are working to address concentrations of PFAS in soil. Regulators are considering how to establish appropriate cleanup standards, particularly in situations in which background levels of PFAS from local and nonlocal sources may be comparable to or exceed proposed remediation targets. Steven Cook, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), discussed these issues in a recent speech at the annual Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials conference. He signaled that the EPA will address these issues by balancing environmental protection concerns and economic growth. The EPA established the Office of Superfund and Emergency Management, which merged the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, the Office of Emergency Management, and the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office under the umbrella of OLEM, to address these issues, among others.
II. State Regulatory
California Issues New and Revised PFAS Advisory Levels for Drinking Water
On Oct. 29, 2025, the California Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) released amended notification and response levels for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFHxA in drinking water. The response level is a recommended threshold at which a drinking water source should be removed from service. To decide whether a response level was exceeded, the water system must calculate a quarterly running average. For PFOA and PFOS, notification levels (NLs) are set at 4 ppt and response levels (RLs) at 10 ppt for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS, based on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s toxicology. Although the EPA previously announced plans to rescind the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and the hazard index mixture of these chemicals plus PFBS, California established NLs and RLs for PFHxS. California also issued NLs and RLs for PFHxA, for which no MCL was established at the federal level. These levels do not themselves mandate monitoring unless a system is under an order, but when NLs or RLs are exceeded, requirements under Health and Safety Code §§ 116455 and 116378 apply, including reporting in Consumer Confidence Reports, notice to governing bodies and action within 30 days if an RL is exceeded.
| Abbreviation | Notification Level | Response Level | EPA MCL | Date Issued / Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFOA | 4 ppt | 10 ppt | 4 ppt | Oct. 29, 2025 |
| PFOS | 4 ppt | 40 ppt | 4 ppt | Oct. 29, 2025 |
| PFBS | 500 ppt | 5,000 ppt | Hazard Index* | March 5, 2021 |
| PFHxS | 3 ppt | 10 ppt | 10 ppt* | Oct. 29, 2025 |
| PFHxA | 1,000 ppt | 10,000 ppt | None | Oct. 29, 2025 |
| PFHpA | — | — | Requested |
*For PFNA, PFHxS, HFPODA (GenX), and mixtures with PFBS, the EPA has proposed to rescind these MCLs.
California Veto Rekindles PFAS Product Policy Debate
On Oct. 13, 2025, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed SB-682, which would have banned the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS including cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging and ski wax beginning Jan. 1, 2028, and cookware beginning Jan. 1, 2030. In his veto message, Newsom stated that “the broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” and he was “deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products.” The bill also would have directed the Department of Toxic Substances Control to provide clarifications and adopt implementing regulations. Newsom encouraged stakeholders to continue efforts to address the “prevalence of PFAS” without “sacrificing the ability of Californians to afford household products.”
Maine Finalizes PFAS in Products Rule: CUU Reporting and 2026 Sales Bans
Maine revised its PFAS in Products program, replacing the broad notification requirement previously slated for Jan. 1, 2025, with targeted sales prohibitions and a new reporting framework tied to Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) determinations. Effective Oct. 7, 2025, the amended Chapter 90 rule codifies CUU decisions and requires manufacturers with CUU-covered products to file a PFAS notification form and pay associated fees to continue selling products that would otherwise be subject to a sales ban taking place on Jan. 1, 2026. Beginning next year, Maine will prohibit the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS across multiple categories, including cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, juvenile and menstrual products, ski wax, upholstered furniture, and most textile articles. Listed products packaged in fluorinated or otherwise PFAS-containing containers will also be prohibited, even if the product itself lacks intentionally added PFAS. “Intentionally added PFAS” is defined at 38 M.R.S. § 1614(1)(D) as “PFAS added to a product or one of its product components to provide a specific characteristic, appearance or quality or to perform a specific function.” The Amended Chapter 90 rule clarifies that intentionally added PFAS “includes any degradation by-products of PFAS,” and provides that “products containing intentionally added PFAS include products that consist solely of PFAS.” Furthermore, intentionally added PFAS “does not include PFAS that is present in the final product as a contaminant or PFAS used in the manufacturing process or comes into contact with the product during the manufacturing process but is not present in the final product.” The amended Chapter 90 rule states that manufacturers may submit CUU proposals for products containing intentionally added PFAS, but each proposal must address a specific product category and industrial sector and be filed between 60 and 18 months before the relevant sales prohibition, with certain exceptions.
Minnesota PFAS Air Monitoring Study Using Pine Needles
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approved an Environmental Natural Resources Trust Fund-backed study entitled “Pine Needles Reveal Past and Present Airborne PFAS” that will assess PFAS levels in pine needles. As the proposal explains, “ambient air remains our least-studied environmental media,” and pine needles “are great passive air samplers because their waxy outer layer attracts airborne pollutants.” The initiative will analyze historic specimens dating back to the 1800s and early 1900s as well as from the 1940s onwards from the University of Minnesota’s Bell Museum Herbarium. It will also examine current samples across all 87 counties. It will leverage a volunteer monitoring network and Eurofins Environment Testing for nontargeted and targeted PFAS analytics. According to the plan, historic samples will reference pre-PFAS production, while more current samples targeting 75 PFAS will evaluate current levels in the air, including how much is caused by human activity, flagging risk areas for further investigation. MPCA is completing its sample collection and anticipates it will begin sharing analysis of the data in 2026, with plans to develop a publicly accessible statewide dashboard.
III. Litigation
Petition on Federal Officer Removal: PFAS Claims and AFFF Disclaimers
Maryland and South Carolina petitioned for writ of certiorari to decide whether “an action removed under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442, be remanded to state court when the conduct the defendant asserts as a basis for removal is not alleged as a basis for liability and did not cause any injury for which the plaintiff seeks recovery.” Their complaints targeted PFAS contamination from consumer and commercial products and did not “seek any remediation, restoration, damages, or any other relief related to any PFAS contamination caused by [aqueous film‑forming foam (AFFF)] or fluorosurfactants when used as ingredients of AFFF,” which is addressed in separate actions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit nevertheless allowed removal after accepting 3M’s theory that PFAS from the military’s rigorous specifications or MilSpec AFFF is “inextricably related to the States’ general allegations of PFAS contamination,” treating the states’ disclaimers as “artful pleading.” The petition countered that approach as incompatible with that of other circuits and with the Supreme Court’s precedent that the nexus must relate to the plaintiff’s “charged conduct.”
According to the petition, §1442’s “broad language is not limitless” and must be read to restore the statute’s focus on the plaintiff’s charged conduct. The states’ petition urged the court to clarify that removal is improper when a defendant invokes federal conduct concerning injuries the plaintiff has expressly and definitively disclaimed, as such a theory relies on “claims that do not exist.” The states also noted the practical effect of the Fourth Circuit’s rule, where state-law consumer-product cases are pulled into the AFFF multidistrict litigation even though no federal defense will be adjudicated on the claims as pleaded. The states further argued that the ruling violates their sovereignty interests, suggesting that “if allowed to stand, [it] would dramatically expand the scope of federal courts’ jurisdiction over cases founded entirely on state law far beyond what Congress intended, at the expense of the States’ ability to interpret and enforce their own laws.”
PFAS Drinking Water Cases Paused
On Oct. 23, 2025, the D.C. Circuit placed the challenges to the EPA’s PFAS drinking water rule in abeyance because of the appropriations lapse and instructed the parties to propose next steps within 10 days after funding is restored and DOJ civil litigation resumes. This pause follows the EPA’s Sept. 11, 2025, motion. It sought partial vacatur of the rule’s regulatory determinations and MCLs for PFNA, PFHxS and HFPO‑DA, and the hazard‑index mixture approach covering mixtures of the above and PFBS, while preserving and defending the PFOA/PFOS portions of the regulation based on the EPA’s view that elements of the former were not promulgated in a manner consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. See a previous Contaminants Compass for prior coverage of the final NPDWR.
College of Central Florida PFAS Class Action Removed to Federal Court
Residents, students, faculty, staff, visitors and neighbors of the College of Central Florida filed a class action alleging that on‑campus firefighting training with AFFF contaminated local drinking water with PFAS. The action names manufacturers and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, court‑supervised medical monitoring, and mitigation and remediation programs. According to the complaint, the property was previously the site of the Fire College, which trained firefighters in fire suppression and containment. The complaint cites August 2018 Florida DEP testing that found PFOS and PFOA in two of three campus wells at approximately 250,000-270,000 ppt and alleges the defendants knew or should have known of associated risks. Named plaintiffs include former employees and their minor children who claim they suffered injuries including thyroid disease, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis and other conditions from alleged consumption, inhalation or dermal absorption of PFOA and/or PFOS. On Oct. 15, 2025, Tyco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the federal officer statute and the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting a government‑contractor defense based on MilSpec AFFF and stating that PFAS from MilSpec uses at a nearby Part 139 airport may have commingled with impacts affecting the college and surrounding areas.
Status of Petition for Review Challenging EPA’s December 2020 Final Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane under TSCA
On Sept. 29, 2025, the EPA filed a motion to extend the stay of proceedings in the Fifth Circuit. The motion, which was not contested by the petitioners, sought to pause the litigation for an additional 90 days. The following day, the court granted the motion, formally extending the stay of proceedings as requested. This case began on Dec. 4, 2024, when Union Carbide Corporation filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit challenging several EPA actions in its December 2020 Final Risk Evaluation regarding 1,4-dioxane under TSCA. The petition sought judicial review of the EPA’s “Unreasonable Risk Determination for 1,4-Dioxane,” Section 6.5 of the Risk Determination (a final order withdrawing the TSCA Section 6(i)(1) order previously issued in December 2020), and the “Supplement to the Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane.” The petition asserts that these actions are reviewable as final orders and rules under TSCA Section 19(a)(1)(A).
IV. International
Australia: AICIS Launches PFAS Inventory Evaluation
In October 2025, the executive director of the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) started an assessment of the 522 PFAS listed on the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals to confirm if they have been introduced in Australia, in what quantities, and for what uses, and to identify any that warrant further review as part of AICIS’s Rolling Action Plan. As part of this process, everyone registered with AICIS between Sept. 1, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2025 (inclusive), will receive an email notice under section 76 of the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019. This notice requires registrants to provide information about any introduction or use in Australia of the 522 listed PFAS during 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Registrants must review the inventory list and indicate whether they have introduced any of the listed PFAS through import or manufacture. For each PFAS introduced, they must provide the chemical abstracts service number and chemical name, the mode of introduction, the total volume, and the end use. If registrants cannot provide any of these details, they must explain why. In addition, AICIS will invite registrants under section 75 to voluntarily share any other relevant information to support the executive director’s evaluation.
EU: ECHA Publishes Updated PFAS Restriction Proposal Under REACH
Recently, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released a revised proposal on PFAS under the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals regulation (REACH). Prepared by authorities in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden (the Dossier Submitters) after evaluating more than 5,600 consultation comments, the revised report, called the Background Document, forms the basis for ECHA’s Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio‑Economic Analysis (SEAC) opinions and may be further updated during committee review. The update includes evaluations for eight sectors not named in the initial 2023 proposal, including printing, machinery, sealing, other medical applications, military, explosives, technical textiles and general industrial uses. It also considers alternative options beyond a full ban or a ban with time‑limited derogations that could allow the product to be manufactured or used in a way that would still allow risk to be mitigated when risks can be controlled. Such options were evaluated for areas including PFAS manufacturing, electronics and semiconductors, transport, energy, sealing, machinery, and technical textiles. The exact restrictions have yet to be determined by the European Commission, in consultation with EU member states.
The update applies the 2021 OECD PFAS definition and outlines implementation tools, including concentration limits, reporting obligations and site‑specific management plans, alongside pragmatic derogations for secondhand articles, spare parts and specified recycling streams. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Dossier Submitters issued an updated summary of the completed Background Document that expands the assessment to 23 sectors and quantifies PFAS use and emissions, estimating 190,000 to 340,000 tons placed on the European Economic Area market in 2020. Absent action, 27.1 million tons are estimated to be used and 4.7 million tons emitted from 2025 to 2055. The summary compares restriction options and concludes that a ban with time‑limited derogations will achieve an approximately 83% emission reduction from 2025 to 2055, compared with about 96% under a full ban. It proposes continuing manufacturing under strict conditions with facility‑level emission limits to secure supply for derogated uses. ECHA is continuing its evaluation of PFAS manufacturing and horizontal uses, aiming to conclude discussions by the end of 2025 so that final RAC and SEAC opinions can be provided to the European Commission in 2026.
V. What We Are Reading
Eco-Friendly PFAS Capture-and-Destruction Technology Shows Rapid, High-Capacity Performance
Researchers at Rice University reported a layered double hydroxide (LDH) material composed of copper and aluminum with nitrate that captures and destroys PFAS from water with high capacity and speed, then enables regeneration of the LDH, allowing for reuse. In testing across tap, river and wastewater, a formulated LDH adsorbed PFAS 1,000 times more efficiently, and removed substantial PFAS 100 times more rapidly than commercial carbon filters. The performance is attributed to the LDH’s ordered layers and slight charge imbalance that create favorable binding sites for PFAS. To address the downstream waste problem, the team found a way to destroy PFAS by thermally degrading PFAS that was captured. They then heated it with calcium carbonate, and as a result, were able to destroy more than 50% of the PFAS that had been trapped without releasing toxic by-products. Early studies indicate that the LDH has the capacity for at least six such capture and destruction cycles, making it potentially the first sustainable system of its kind. If scaled, this material’s rapid and robust PFAS binding capacity, combined with its reusability, could offer advantages for municipal water treatment systems and industrial facilities by enabling more efficient PFAS removal, reducing operational costs and improving compliance with increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, while addressing challenges related to PFAS disposal and long-term environmental management.