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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This edition highlights EPA\u2019s important proposed changes to reporting obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), continued federal regulatory developments concerning EPA\u2019s National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFAS and EPA and other agency efforts to address PFAS in soil, California\u2019s new and revised PFAS advisory levels for drinking water and Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
EPA Proposes New PFAS Reporting Rule under TSCA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Nov. 10, 2025, the EPA proposed amendments<\/a> 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<\/a> updates on the TSCA reporting rule.) The EPA\u2019s new proposal, under Administrator Lee Zeldin\u2019s commitment to \u201csmartly collect necessary information \u2026 without overburdening small businesses and article importers,\u201d introduces exemptions for PFAS present at a de minimis<\/em> threshold or below 0.1% in mixtures or articles, imported articles, certain byproducts, impurities, \u201csmall quantities\u201d of research and development chemicals, and non-isolated intermediates, while clarifying data reporting requirements and modifying the data submission window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most significant changes in the proposed rule is the EPA\u2019s 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 \u201cmanufacturers are unlikely to have known or reasonably ascertainable information.\u201d The agency interprets Congress\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EPA proposes to change the submission period so that it will start 60 days after the final rule\u2019s 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Waterkeeper Alliance FOIA on PFAS NPDWR Delays and Rollbacks<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Oct. 21, 2025, the Waterkeeper Alliance submitted a FOIA request<\/a> to the EPA for records from Jan. 20, 2025, to Oct. 21, 2025, regarding the EPA\u2019s 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 \u201cregarding modifications, delays, or rollbacks of the PFAS NPDWR.\u201d It also requested \u201cenvironmental information, analysis, and data relating to actions to weaken or delay compliance with the PFAS NPDWR\u201d supporting delayed compliance for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031, and partial rescission for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO\u2011DA (GenX), and mixtures with PFBS. The FOIA request also sought the PFNA toxicity report, \u201creportedly completed last spring but not released to the public.\u201d Citing a \u201ccompelling need\u201d and environmental justice concerns, the Waterkeeper Alliance requests \u201cexpedited processing,\u201d asserting that delay \u201ccould reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to health, life, and safety,\u201d and noting an \u201curgency for the public to understand the evidence related to EPA\u2019s attempt to weaken the NPDWR.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EPA and Other Agencies Aim to Address Challenges of PFAS in Soil<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), discussed these issues in a recent speech<\/a> 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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n California Issues New and Revised PFAS Advisory Levels for Drinking Water<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Oct. 29, 2025, the California Water Resources Control Board\u2019s Division of Drinking Water<\/a> (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\u2019s 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 \u00a7\u00a7 116455 and 116378 apply, including reporting in Consumer Confidence Reports, notice to governing bodies and action within 30 days if an RL is exceeded.<\/p>\n\n\n\nII. State Regulatory<\/h6>\n\n\n\n