“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).
This edition highlights the EPA’s maintenance of current Maximum Containment Levels (MCLs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and a planned extension of compliance deadlines, stakeholder actions in response to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements, the EPA’s further delay in TSCA reporting obligations and signaling the potential for additional changes, an update on the new PFAS reporting requirements in Minnesota, and PFAS-related legislative action in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Look for a new edition every month and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods team with questions regarding PFAS issues.
Special Contaminants Compass: April 2025 Edition Update
A special April 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass reported on the EPA’s April 28, 2025, announcement of a comprehensive set of actions targeting PFAS contamination as part of the Trump administration’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative. Litigation against these announced actions is likely, as attorneys general from 15 states led by California and Washington sued on May 9, 2025, alleging that Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order declaring an energy national emergency exceeded presidential authority and powers available under the National Emergencies Act.
I. What’s Happening on the PFAS Federal Regulatory Front
EPA Retains MCLs for PFOA and PFOS and Aims to Extend Compliance Deadlines
On May 14, the EPA announced it will maintain the current MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, and plans to extend compliance deadlines from 2029 to 2031 by proposing another rule this fall, which is to be finalized in spring 2026. The April 2024 Contaminant Compass issue discussed the Biden administration’s final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS. The NPDWR set enforceable MCLs for six PFAS in drinking water, including 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and adopted a hazard index mixture MCL for mixtures containing two or more of HFPO-DA, PFNA, PFHxS and PFBS. With this most recent announcement, the EPA intends to rescind regulations for the four other PFAS compounds other than PFOA and PFOS and the hazard index mixture MCL “to ensure that the determinations and any resulting drinking water regulation follow the legal process laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act.” The agency also plans to support public water systems by launching the PFAS OUT initiative, providing resources and technical assistance to address PFOA and PFOS levels above the EPA’s MCL.
As reported in previous Contaminant Compass issues, the Biden administration’s NPDWR has been challenged, and the litigation is currently stayed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On May 13, the Trump administration requested an additional 21-day abeyance to allow the EPA time to decide on its course of action. On May 14, the D.C. Circuit granted the request, giving the administration until June 4 to file motions to govern future proceedings.
McGuireWoods will continue to monitor the discussions and litigation around the NPDWR.
Stakeholders Petition EPA to Amend TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule
On May 2, 2025, a group of chemical companies submitted a petition to the EPA requesting amendments to the PFAS reporting rules under Section (a)(7) of the TSCA. The petition was filed pursuant to TSCA Section 21, and references the Feb. 19, 2025, executive order, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.”
The petition focuses on the October 2023 final rule requiring companies to report data on PFAS substances. Petitioners argue that, unlike other TSCA Section 8(a) rules, the October 2023 PFAS reporting rule does not include standard exemptions for by-products, impurities, articles, research and development materials, non-isolated intermediates, and low volume (below 2,500 pounds annually) manufacturing. Petitioners also note that the rule does not exempt small manufacturers, even though related TSCA provisions typically do.
Additionally, the petition requests that the EPA revise the data submission requirements. Petitioners seek to replace the obligation to submit all existing environmental and health information with an option to provide “robust summaries,” such as those used by the European Chemicals Agency.
The petition raises questions about the consistency with which TSCA provisions are applied and suggests that additional flexibility could reduce administrative burden while still fulfilling regulatory objectives. The EPA has not yet indicated how it will respond.
EPA Further Delays TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule Deadline to April 2026
On May 12, 2025, the EPA announced an Interim Final Rule delaying the reporting deadlines for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule and extending the start of the reporting period by nine months. The new submission period will now start on April 13, 2026, and end on Oct. 13, 2026, with an alternate end date of April 13, 2027, for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers. This extension will allow the EPA more time from the previous reporting date of July 11, 2025, to develop and test the reporting application it needs to collect the required data. The October 2024 edition of Contaminants Compass discussed earlier delays of this reporting rule, and the January 2024 edition of Contaminants Compass discussed the requirements for manufacturers and importers of PFAS from 2011-2022 to report data related to exposure and environmental and health effects.
The EPA identified constraints in the timely development and testing of the Central Data Exchange software as the primary reason for the delay. The agency stated that it has not been able to conduct industry beta testing, and maintaining the original timeline would require data submission before verifying the technological capacity to accept it, which could negatively impact its ability to collect and make that data available to the public. Congress recently allocated additional funding to the EPA in the FY2025 Continuing Resolution to enhance the TSCA program’s IT infrastructure. The EPA anticipates that with the nine-month extension and these additional funds, it “may be able to improve functionality of the reporting application and databases.”
The EPA also mentioned the possibility of reopening aspects of the rule for public comment in light of the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14219, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation.” However, this rule does not change any part of the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Rule in 40 CFR part 705, except for the data submission period dates. This interim final rule will be open for comment for 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
II. What’s Happening on the PFAS State Regulatory Front
Comment Period Open for Minnesota Proposed Rule Requiring Reporting of PFAS-Containing Products
On April 21, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released the proposed “PFAS in Products: Reporting and Fees Rule” for public consultation. The rule is part of Minnesota’s 2023 Products Containing PFAS law, which requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold, offered for sale or distributed in the state, including products exempt from PFAS prohibitions, such as medical devices.
Under the proposed rule, manufacturers must submit initial reports to MPCA by Jan. 1, 2026. Reports must include product descriptions, PFAS chemicals used, concentration levels (or total organic fluorine as a proxy) and manufacturer details. The rule also calls for manufacturers to engage in substantive due diligence and information gathering from their supply chain to ensure that all reportable data is known. Manufacturers must also maintain records of communications with other manufacturers related to PFAS reporting compliance for at least five years.
The rule calls for a proposed filing fee of $1,000 for the initial report and $500 for annual updates or recertification requests. Beginning Feb. 1, 2027, manufacturers must update their reports annually by Feb. 1 every year if there have been significant changes to the product or new information is provided. If no update is required, manufacturers must submit an annual recertification.
The proposed rule includes a waiver request process for manufacturers if substantially equivalent information is publicly available. It also includes a 90-day extension request to the reporting deadline if manufacturers require more time to comply. Manufacturers can apply for trade secret protections for certain sensitive information, including chemical names or identification numbers.
The proposed rule outlines exemptions from reporting requirements, including products governed by federal law that preempts state authority, specific firefighting foams, food packaging already restricted by other Minnesota laws and used products. Exemptions also apply to certain pesticides and classified information provided to federal agencies.
The public comment period for the proposed rule is open until May 21, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. (CT). An oral comment hearing will be held on May 22, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (CT). Manufacturers and other interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments or participate in the hearing to provide feedback on the proposed rules.
III. What’s Happening on the PFAS State Legislative Front
North Carolina General Assembly Considers Legislation Allowing Utilities to Recover Remediation Cost
The North Carolina General Assembly is advancing House Bill 569, legislation that establishes a cost recovery framework for public water utilities impacted by PFAS. The bill empowers the North Carolina secretary of Environmental Quality to require manufacturers responsible for PFAS discharges exceeding allowable levels in public drinking water systems to cover all necessary removal and remediation costs. Liable parties may face joint-and-several responsibilities regardless of the total number of contributing parties.
The bill also includes provisions allowing reimbursement for ratepayers. If a utility previously increased rates to cover PFAS remediation costs and is later reimbursed from the responsible party under an official order, the utility must adjust rates accordingly or refund the ratepayers.
H.B. 569 passed in the North Carolina State House on May 7, 2025, with a vote of 104-3. It was referred to the state Senate Committee on Rules and Operations on May 8. McGuireWoods will continue to track and report any updates as H.B. 569 is considered.
Tennessee Passes Law Requiring “Best Available Science” Standard for PFAS Regulations
On April 21, 2025, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 880 requiring state agencies to base rules governing PFAS and other chemicals on a “best available science” standard. The law defines “best available science” as science that is “reliable, unbiased, and reasonably applied to the agency’s regulatory action,” “maximizes the quality, objectivity, and integrity of information,” and “involves the use of supporting studies that are conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices utilizing data collected by generally accepted methods or best available methods.” The law applies to state rules that are stricter than applicable federal regulations or rules adopted in the absence of a federal regulation.
The “best available science” standard mandates that new regulations be based on reliable, unbiased science that demonstrates a direct link to human harm, which mirrors the standard set in the Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 and Daubert, which seek to prevent the introduction of “junk science” in federal proceedings.
The original version of S.B. 880 contained a provision barring the use of “supporting studies” that were published in journals that charge “publication or submission fees to authors.” The provision was removed after stakeholder testimony was presented that acknowledged reputable journals may charge administrative fees to authors seeking publication.
The legislation follows a trend in state actions related to PFAS regulation as states respond to changes across the regulatory front at the federal level. McGuireWoods is closely monitoring these changes and will continue to provide updates.
IV. McGuireWoods to Host Webinar on PFAS Considerations in Transactions
Join McGuireWoods for the latest installment of the Contaminants Compass CLE Series on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. (ET). The webinar will provide an overview of managing PFAS risks in transactions. McGuireWoods’ Dave Franchina and Matt Giordano will be joined by Geosyntec senior principal engineer Kaitlyn Rhonehouse and Marsh managing director Jim Vetter. They will cover topics such as brownfields developments, Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments, and strategies for addressing risk through insurance products and indemnification and other provisions in transactional documents. Panelists will also address cleanup standards and emerging issues related to PFAS in permitting.
CLE credit applications will be made on behalf of attendees.
McGuireWoods supports clients as they assess and mitigate their PFAS risk, develop and apply business operational responses to changing PFAS laws and regulations at federal and state levels, and defend litigation as it arises, including navigating and coordinating national scientific defenses in novel contexts. Click here to learn more.
Additional Resources
McGuireWoods’ sister newsletter, “Environmental Vanguard,” is a quarterly newsletter sharing key insights from leading environmental attorneys and consultants at the forefront of regulatory, litigation and policy developments. If you face environmental legal challenges and are not receiving Environmental Vanguard, ask your McGuireWoods contact to add you to the distribution list. The May issue covers the EPA’s focus on “cooperative federalism” under the Trump administration; the start of the process for a new “waters of the United States” rule; the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s new advisory bulletin on pipeline safety management systems; the EPA’s announcement that it plans to reconsider the Endangerment Finding; and President Donald Trump’s executive memorandum freezing federal wind project approvals.