NORTHAMPTON, MA / ACCESS Newswire / September 9, 2025 / Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic compounds widely used in industrial and consumer products for their resistance to heat, water, and oil since the 1950's. Their persistence in the environment and potential health risks have prompted sweeping regulatory and legal actions across the United States. This post highlights the latest developments in PFAS regulation, litigation, and strategic implications for stakeholders.
EPA Regulatory Updates
Drinking Water Standards
In April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for each. The rule also included MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX), and a hazard index for mixtures of these substances.
However, in May 2025, the EPA announced that it will keep the current NPDWR for PFOA and PFOS and concurrently declared its intent to rescind the MCLs for four of the six PFAS, citing the need for further scientific review. The EPA plans to retain the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS and extended the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031.
CERCLA Designation
On July 8, 2024, the EPA's final rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), often coined the "Superfund Law," took effect.
This designation enabled the EPA and other agencies to compel cleanup actions and recover costs from potentially responsible parties. The rule as drafted was intended to have significant implications for industries linked to legacy/historical PFAS use.
Poignantly, the New York Times recently reported that Steven Cook, principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), met in late July with industry players challenging the Biden-era designation of PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA. And thereafter, the OLEM revised its recommendation on the rule to suggest repealing it rather than supporting it.
Litigation quickly followed the EPA's 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, industry groups challenged the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS, arguing that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority and failed to justify the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The D.C. Circuit Court initially granted multiple stays to allow the EPA's leadership to reassess its position. As of November 4, 2024, the Chamber coalition filed its opening brief. The case remains in the briefing phase, and no decision has been issued yet.
TSCA Reporting Requirements
The EPA finalized its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) rule in late 2023, requiring manufacturers and importers to report PFAS data dating back to 2011 through calendar year 2022. The reporting window was initially set for 2024 but has since been delayed twice. The current reporting period runs from April 13 to October 13, 2026, with an extended deadline of April 13, 2027, for small businesses and article importers.
The rule mandates disclosure of chemical identity, production volumes, uses, byproducts, exposure, and disposal practices. The EPA is considering adding exemptions and streamlined reporting for small entities and article (manufactured items) importers.
Questions about TSCA? Our Waste and Materials Management team is here to help.
Litigation Landscape
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
The PFAS MDL (MDL No. 2873), centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, consolidates over 10,000 cases involving aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and PFAS contamination near military bases, airports, and industrial sites. Judge Richard Gergel presides over the litigation, which includes claims against manufacturers such as 3M, DuPont, Tyco, and BASF.
In 2024, the court approved settlements totaling over $13 billion from 3M and DuPont to resolve claims from public water systems. Litigation continues to shape legal standards around liability, causation, and damages.
Broader Legal Trends
Beyond the MDL, there is a surge in consumer and state-level lawsuits targeting PFAS in products and water supplies. Legal uncertainty persists around legacy PFAS (e.g., PFOA, PFOS) versus newer short-chain and fluorinated replacements. Courts are grappling with scientific evidence and regulatory definitions, which vary across jurisdictions.
PFAS risks are evolving quickly. If you have legal questions or need guidance on potential impacts, connect with our team for support.
Legacy PFAS vs. Replacement Surfactants
Manufacturing of legacy PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS have largely been phased out in the United States and replacement chemicals (aka "replacement surfactants"), including short-chain PFAS and fluorinated alternatives, are now under scrutiny.
One would think with all the scrutiny on the legacy PFAS, legacy PFAS would be phased out, however PFOA and PFOS are essential for many products, such as electronics and pesticides. These products are deemed to contain PFAS as "currently unavoidable use" by some states.
The most-reported PFAS under Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) from 2020-2023, are?PFOA, PFOS, and a replacement surfactant HFPO-DA, aka GenX. Where combined quantities of HFPO-DA (GenX) and its ammonium salt account for more waste managed than any other TRI listed PFAS.
The EPA has recently adopted a risk-based approach to evaluating new PFAS, considering persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity.
Scientific debate continues over how to define PFAS, with some experts advocating for class-based regulation and others favoring compound-specific assessments.
EPA Strategic Direction
Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA has emphasized a "polluter pays" framework, source control, and effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs). On April 28, 2025, the EPA announced a sweeping initiative to address PFAS contamination through coordinated regulatory, scientific, and enforcement efforts. Of import the EPAs major PFAS action document introduced the following federally driven prerogatives:
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs): New discharge limits targeting PFAS in industrial wastewater.
TSCA Testing Strategy: Expanded testing under Section 4 to assess toxicity and exposure pathways.
CERCLA Enforcement: Continued designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances; litigation stays remain in effect.
Drinking Water Compliance: MCLs for six PFAS upheld with the intent to rescind four of the six; compliance deadline extended to 2031.
"Polluter Pays" Framework: Reinforced liability principles to shift cleanup costs to responsible parties.
Air Monitoring Initiatives: Launch of PFAS air emissions data collection and measurement protocols.
State Collaboration: EPA pledges deeper engagement with state regulators and tribal governments.
These developments reflect Administrator Lee Zeldin's commitment to science-driven regulation and environmental accountability. They also mark a significant shift in federal strategy and carry major implications for industry, municipalities, and environmental stakeholders. While implementation details remain forthcoming, stakeholders should prepare for increased scrutiny and evolving compliance obligations.
Practical Implications for Stakeholders
Manufacturers, importers, and property owners face growing compliance burdens. PFAS liabilities are increasingly material in real estate transactions and mergers and acquisitions. Proactive PFAS risk management, including site assessments, contractual protections, and regulatory tracking, is essential.
PFAS are NOT Forever
PFAS are notoriously resistant to degradation in the environment due to their strong carbon-fluorine bonds, making conventional treatment methods largely ineffective and are considered a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP). However, several technologies have emerged to sequester PFAS and/or reduce PFAS concentrations in water and other environmental media, calling for the public to ask whether the label of "forever chemicals" is a misnomer. These technologies fall into two main categories: removal (adsorption or separation/concentration) and destruction.
1. Removal Technologies
These methods focus on separating PFAS from water without breaking down the chemical structure:
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC): One of the most widely used and studied technologies, GAC effectively adsorbs long-chain PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS. Its performance depends on carbon type, contact time, and water quality parameters.
Ion Exchange Resins: Synthetic resins with charged functional groups selectively bind PFAS molecules. They offer high removal efficiency, especially for short-chain PFAS, and are often used in tandem with GAC.
High-Pressure Membranes (Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration): These membranes physically separate PFAS from water. Reverse osmosis is highly effective but generates a concentrated waste stream that requires further treatment.
Foam Fractionation: Another separation technology, fractionation leverages the physical properties of PFAS which has a hydrophobic and hydrophilic end that likes to stick to the air/water interface. By passing a gas (usually air) through the liquid, PFAS sticks to the bubbles which are then collected at the top of a vessel for subsequent disposal or destruction.
2. Destruction Technologies
These emerging methods aim to break the carbon-fluorine bonds and permanently eliminate PFAS:
Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO): Uses high temperature and pressure to oxidize PFAS in water. SCWO shows promise for complete mineralization but faces scalability and cost challenges.
Plasma-Based Treatment: Non-thermal plasma can generate reactive species that degrade PFAS. While effective in lab settings, commercial deployment is still limited.
Electrochemical Oxidation: Applies electrical current to degrade PFAS at the electrode surface. This method is under active development and shows potential for treating concentrated waste streams.
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs): Techniques like Fenton chemistry and UV/peroxide have limited success due to PFAS stability. They may be more effective when combined with other methods.
3. Integrated Treatment Trains
Given the diversity of PFAS compounds and site-specific conditions, many remediation strategies use a combination of technologies. For example, GAC may be used for initial removal, followed by SCWO or plasma treatment for destruction of residuals.
4. Limitations and Considerations
Short-chain PFAS are more mobile and harder to remove than long-chain variants.
Waste management of spent media and concentrate streams remains a challenge.
Cost and energy requirements for destruction technologies are significant.
Site-specific factors such as co-contaminants and water chemistry influence treatment efficacy.
How Antea Group Can Help
Navigating PFAS regulation and litigation requires strategic foresight and technical expertise. Antea Group offers comprehensive support, from compliance planning and risk assessment to stakeholder engagement and remediation strategy.
Contact us to learn how we can help you stay ahead of evolving PFAS obligations and mitigate risk with available technologies.
To learn more or connect with the authors on LinkedIn, see below:
Insurance / Legal:
Rosemarie Hebner
PFAS:
Jack Sheldon
Jason Lagowski
Caron Koll
Waste and Materials Management (TSCA, TRI, etc.):
Kara Van Blarcum
View additional multimedia and more ESG storytelling from Antea Group on 3blmedia.com.
Contact Info:
Spokesperson: Antea Group
Website: https://www.3blmedia.com/profiles/antea-group
Email: info@3blmedia.com
SOURCE: Antea Group
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire:
https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/business-and-professional-services/pfas-regulation-debrief-a-strategic-guide-for-stakeholders-1070711
