“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 MAHA Report’s assessment of public health risks from exposure to PFAS, an update on stakeholder actions in response to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements, the findings of a recent study of the alleged presence of PFAS in beer, an update on Minnesota’s proposed PFAS disclosure rules, new PFAS-related legislation in Washington and Maine, and ongoing litigation in New Jersey and North Carolina federal courts over alleged PFAS contamination.
Look for a new edition every month and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods team with questions regarding PFAS issues.
I. What’s Happening on the PFAS Federal Regulatory Front
MAHA Commission Report Highlights Regulatory Actions to Limit PFAS Exposure
On May 22, 2025, the Presidential Commission to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) released its MAHA Report assessing the potential environmental, behavioral and medical drivers for childhood chronic diseases. Among the environmental drivers discussed in the report, the commission noted that exposure to synthetic chemicals in air, drinking water, food and consumer products pose risks to children’s “long-term health, including neurodevelopmental and endocrine effects.” The MAHA Report identifies PFAS as chemicals of concern for childhood exposure, citing research indicating that exposure to high levels of PFAS “has been associated with a variety of health effects, including immune suppression and, changes in cholesterol in children.” It goes on to highlight the EPA’s regulatory efforts to confront PFAS exposure by implementing national enforceable drinking water standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and to reconsider regulatory determinations for four other PFAS. The MAHA Report also references the EPA’s “new agency-wide strategy” to combat PFAS contamination, announced April 28.
Chemical Coalition Withdraws TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking Revisions to TSCA 8(a)(7) Reporting Rule
The May 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass reported that 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 companies asked the EPA to revise the reporting rules to include standard exemptions for byproducts, impurities, articles, research and development materials, non-isolated intermediates and low-volume (below 2,500 pounds annually) manufacturing. They also requested that small manufacturers be exempt from the reporting requirements, which is standard for many TSCA reporting requirements.
On May 16, 2025, the group emailed the EPA to withdraw its petition, according to the EPA’s letter closing out the petition. The companies withdrew their petition following the EPA’s May 12announcement of an Interim Final Rule delaying the deadlines for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule and extending the start of the reporting period by nine months.
New Study Links PFAS in Beer to Municipal Water Sources
A recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology investigated the presence of PFAS in beer. Researchers adapted EPA Method 533, typically used to measure PFAS levels in drinking water, to assess PFAS contamination in beer. Testing beer from various regions and types of breweries, the study found that PFAS were detected in most beers, especially those from smaller breweries near water sources with high PFAS levels. The study highlighted that perfluorosulfonic acids, specifically PFOS, exceeded the U.S. EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) for PFOA or PFOS. McGuireWoods covered the EPA’s proposed changes to the MCL Rule and related litigation in previous Contaminants Compass issues.
The study tested for 17 different PFAS in 23 different lagers and ales across four categories: beers brewed in North Carolina, beers from Michigan and California, popular U.S. beers and international brands. Beers were selected from breweries in areas with high PFAS levels in drinking water. Domestic beers from areas with high PFAS levels in drinking water showed at least one PFAS in 80% of samples, with PFHxA and PFOA being most common. Overall, the study found a strong correlation between PFAS in local drinking water and beer. While PFAS levels were elevated in beers from North Carolina, California and Michigan, they were also detected in other national and international beers, indicating that PFAS exposure in beer is a concern across brands. International beers were less likely to contain PFAS, while nearly 20% of U.S. breweries are in areas with detectable PFAS in local water, emphasizing the importance of water treatment in the brewing process. A significant correlation between PFAS levels in county-level drinking water and beers highlights the impact of local water sources on contamination, concluding that drinking water is a primary source, especially for small craft breweries. The study suggested that further research could better identify exposure risks by analyzing more beverages for PFAS concentrations, evaluating packaging materials and examining the associations between PFAS and different beer types.
II. What’s Happening on the PFAS State Regulatory Front
Minnesota Extends Public Comment Period on Proposed Reporting Rule for PFAS-Containing Products
On May 22, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) held a public hearing on proposed regulations implementing a 2023 law that 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. The deadline to submit comments on the proposed rule was May 26, which the MPCA extended to June 23due to significant interest in the rulemaking. The MPCA received over 66 written comments in advance of the hearing, and over 100 participants attended the May 22 hearing where additional oral comments were submitted.
As discussed in the May 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass, manufacturers subject to the rule would be required to submit initial reports to MPCA by Jan. 1, 2026. Beginning Feb. 1, 2027, manufacturers must update their reports by Feb. 1 every year if there have been significant changes to the product or new information is available. 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, and they must maintain records of communications with other manufacturers related to PFAS reporting compliance.
III. What’s Happening on the PFAS State Legislative Front
Washington Passes Legislation Requiring Testing for PFAS in Biosolids
On May 17, 2025, the governor of Washington signed Senate Bill 5033, which will require municipal wastewater treatment facilities to test their biosolids for PFAS over a two-year period. The legislation directs the Department of Ecology to publish PFAS sampling guidance by July 1, 2026. In accordance with the department’s guidance, facilities generating biosolids must sample quarterly for PFAS from Jan. 1, 2027, until Sept. 30, 2028. All sampling results must be submitted to the department by Sept. 30, 2028. Following submission of the testing results, the department must submit a report to the legislature summarizing its analysis of the levels of PFAS chemicals in biosolids in Washington and providing recommendations on how to regulate or otherwise address PFAS in biosolids going forward.
Washington’s legislation comes on the heels of a draft risk assessment published by the EPA in January 2025 showing that there may be human health risks associated with exposure to PFAS from using or disposing of biosolids. The January 2025 edition of Contaminants Compass discussed the EPA’s biosolid risk assessment. For additional information regarding PFAS and biosolids, see the June, October and November 2024 editions of Contaminants Compass.
Maine Enacts Legislation Requiring Testing of Landfill Leachate for PFAS
On May 30, 2025, the governor of Maine signed into law An Act to Protect Groundwater and Surface Waters from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Landfill Leachate, which establishes PFAS testing and reporting requirements for landfill leachate. Under this law, entities that discharge wastewater must maintain records and annually report to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection the origin, volume and final disposition of landfill leachate. Any solid waste landfill that collects and manages leachate must conduct sampling and analysis of leachate for PFAS in accordance with a department-approved water quality monitoring plan. Entities must report the testing results to the department, which will publish the results to the public. Maine’s law also allows property owners abutting a landfill to request one-time PFAS testing of their private drinking water wells to be performed by the owner or operator of the landfill. If contamination attributable to the landfill leachate is detected, additional testing and analysis may be required.
IV. What’s Happening on the PFAS Litigation Front
NJ PFAS Contamination Trial Begins Without 3M After Proposed Settlement
On the eve of a trial scheduled to begin May 19, 2025, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced a proposed settlement agreement with 3M to resolve natural resource damages claims related to PFAS contamination at the Chambers Works facility in Salem County, New Jersey, and other facilities where 3M supplied PFAS for decades. If approved by the court, the settlement would also release 3M from liability for any present and future PFAS-related claims that New Jersey could assert against 3M. In exchange for the releases in the settlement, 3M agreed to pay the state up to $450 million over the next 25 years.
With 3M no longer in the case, New Jersey’s claims against the remaining defendants proceeded to trial on May 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The claims center on three state laws, the Spill Compensation and Control Act (SCCA), the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA). A novel aspect of this case is that District Judge Renée Marie Bumb will hold six bench trials focused on specific claims and defenses.
Trials 1 and 2 will cover the state’s SSCA and remediation claims against each defendant. Trial 3 will focus on the WPCA claims against both entities. Trials 4 and 5 will address specific defenses raised by defendants, including one based on a 2005 Compensatory Restoration Administrative Consent Order and another invoking the government contractor defense. Trial 6 will cover New Jersey’s fraudulent transfer and ISRA-related claims. It will take several months to complete all of the minitrials. Developments in these trials will be covered in subsequent issues of Contaminants Compass.
V. What’s Happening With Other Emerging Contaminants
Groups Sue POTW and an Industrial Discharger Over 1,4-dioxane Discharges
Two environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center sued the City of Asheboro, North Carolina, and a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic manufacturer, StarPet, on June 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that discharges of 1,4-dioxane from the city’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) violate the Clean Water Act. The city’s WWTP is a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that accepts wastewater from residences, businesses and industrial facilities. According to the suit, the city’s WWTP discharges high levels of 1,4-dioxane into the Haskett Creek, which is upstream of drinking water supplies. The complaint alleges that StarPet, which discharges to the WWTP under an industrial user permit, is the leading source of 1,4-dioxane to the city’s WWTP. Plaintiffs assert that discharges of 1,4-dioxane were detected in drinking water supplies downstream of the WWTP at levels that pose a risk to human health.
1,4-dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical and emerging contaminant commonly found as a byproduct in the manufacturing of certain chlorinated solvents, paint strippers, greases, waxes and PET plastics. 1,4-dioxane is also present as a byproduct in consumer products such as deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics. The EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” although it has not established a federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water. According to the EPA’s technical fact-sheet, 1,4-dioxane is highly miscible in water and is relatively resistant to biodegradation in water and soil.
The plaintiffs sued under the CWA citizen-suit provision alleging statutory violations of the CWA. As to the city, the complaint alleges 1,4-dioxane discharges from the WWTP are not authorized under the city’s National Discharge Pollution Elimination System permit and are therefore unpermitted discharges in violation of the CWA. Against StarPet, the plaintiffs allege that the company is violating federal Pretreatment Standards by causing unlawful pass through and bypass by discharging 1,4-dioxane to the city’s WWTP. The complaint further alleges the city failed to prevent the pass through of 1,4-dioxane and to enforce its sewer ordinances in violation of the CWA. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, civil penalties and costs of litigation.
VI. McGuireWoods to Host Webinar on PFAS Litigation
Join McGuireWoods for the latest installment of the Contaminants Compass CLE Series on Aug. 20, 2025, from 12-1 p.m. (ET). The webinar will provide an overview of the litigation landscape, developing issues and related updates, and offer advice on how to prepare for and defend against PFAS lawsuits. McGuireWoods’ Shannon Kasley, former U.S. Attorney Michael Easley and former North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park will provide an overview of the PFAS litigation landscape, identify new trends and related updates, and discuss how to prepare for and defend against those evolving trends.
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.