The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a case involving the federal officer removal statute on March 2. Petitioners Maryland and South Carolina sought review of a 2025 Fourth Circuit decision addressing whether 3M could remove state-court PFAS actions to federal court under 28 USC § 1442(a)(1).

Maryland and South Carolina each filed two PFAS-related lawsuits against 3M: one seeking recovery for contamination arising from AFFF contamination, and another specifically excluding recovery for contamination arising from AFFF contamination. 3M removed all four cases under the federal officer removal statute based on its alleged role as a federal contractor producing MilSpec AFFF for the federal government.

The states moved to remand the non-AFFF cases, claiming their injuries were limited to PFAS contamination from non-AFFF products and were therefore unrelated to 3M’s alleged role as a federal contractor. The respective district courts agreed and remanded the non-AFFF cases. 3M appealed both remand orders, and the appeals were consolidated before the Fourth Circuit. The court overturned the remand orders, holding that 3M satisfied the “nexus” requirement of the federal officer removal statute because a fact-finder would need to determine the extent to which PFAS contamination comes from AFFF versus non-AFFF sources. The court remanded the cases to the federal district courts to consider the remaining elements of federal officer removal.

Maryland and South Carolina then petitioned for review of the decision with the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal officer removal statute allows federal contractors to remove lawsuits “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 USC 1442(a)(1). The states argued that “relating to any act” means acts specifically alleged in the complaint, which they claim is the production of non-AFFF products. 3M argued that the defendant’s theory of the case should instead be credited when determining whether removal is appropriate, and that the statute should be liberally construed in favor of removal. 3M’s stated theory of removal was that the commingling of sources of PFAS at the contaminated siteswarranted removal because resolving that issue necessarily implicates its actions in producing AFFF products for the federal government.

The states also argued that there was a circuit split among the Fourth Circuit and the First, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. 3M denied the existence of a clean circuit split, pointing out that, after the states’ petition was filed, the First Circuit ruled in a factually similar case, largely in line with the Fourth Circuit decision. 3M further argued that that the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit cases cited by Maryland are factually distinguishable, and pointed out that the Second Circuit (Connecticut v. 3M Company, No. 25-11 (2d Cir. docketed Dec. 23, 2024)) and Eleventh Circuit (Town of Pine Hill v. 3M Company, No. 25-10746 (11th Cir. docketed Mar. 7, 2025)) have yet to rule in PFAS-related federal officer removal cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, with Justice Alito recusing himself from the decision. One possible reason for the denial is the absence of a clean circuit split. While the Ninth Circuit case cited by the states allowed remand, that case involved opioid-related public nuisance claims, not PFAS claims. California by & through Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., 154 F.4th 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2025). The court found that PFAS cases are “unique,” and therefore distinct, because the federal and non-federal conduct can be “inextricably intertwined.” Id. at 1088–89. The circuit courts which have ruled in a federal officer removal PFAS case so far (First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits) have applied a broadly similar approach to the federal officer removal statute, suggesting there is no clear split at this time.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this issue in a different case, such as one of the pending Second or Eleventh Circuit appeals. The venue for PFAS cases has significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants, including differences in timing and discovery. For help navigating PFAS litigation, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.

On Nov. 10, 2025, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced its proposal to change reporting regulations for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). In its release, the EPA stated that these changes are intended to “make them more practical and implementable and reduce unnecessary, or potentially duplicative, reporting requirements for businesses” while ensuring access to PFAS safety and use information. The EPA identified the reporting regulations for reconsideration consistent with Executive Order 14219.

The proposed rule would modify TSCA’s 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting regulations. The current reporting regulations were finalized in October 2023 and required manufacturers and importers of PFAS that participated in such activity in any year between 2011 and 2022 to report data to the EPA. The reporting period for this information was scheduled to begin on Nov. 12, 2024, but in Sept. 2024, the EPA announced a delay in the reporting period to July 2025. In May 2025, the EPA announced that the reporting deadline would be extended to Oct. 13, 2026, with small businesses solely reporting on importing PFAS contained in articles allowed to extend their reporting deadline to April 13, 2027.

In its Nov. 2025 proposal, the EPA proposes to incorporate exemptions on reporting related to activities where the EPA has identified “that manufacturers are least likely to know or reasonably determine” including:

  • PFAS manufactured/imported in mixtures or products at concentrations at or below 0.1%;
  • Imported articles;
  • Certain byproducts;
  • Impurities;
  • Research and development chemicals; and
  • Non-isolated intermediates.

The EPA is also proposing to update names used for consumer and commercial product categories by adding clarifying terms and also revise category code names associated with CC217 through CC221 and CC305. The EPA has stated that the revisions are intended to eliminate overlap between categories and increase reporter certainty in the identification of categories.

Within the proposal, the EPA identifies the industries that may be affected by the proposed changes by North American Industry Classification System code, clarifying that the list provided is not intended to be exhaustive. In addition to incorporating the de minimis exemptions, the EPA proposes technical corrections to clarify what must be reported in certain data fields and to adjust the data submission period. The EPA estimates that the proposed rule would reduce the total industry burden by 10-11 million fewer hours (at a cost savings of $786-$843 million) when compared to the Oct. 11, 2023 final rule. The EPA estimates a reduction of 9.3-9.9 million hours ($703-$761 million in costs).

While the rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, the EPA did make a pre-publication version of the proposal available on its website. Once the Federal Register notice is published, EPA will accept comments on the proposed changes for 45 days in docket #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0549.

On Sept. 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the agency’s own drinking water standards (MCLs) for four PFAS chemicals: PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA, and (through a “hazard index”) PFBS (referred to collectively as the “Index PFAS”). EPA is now apparently siding with the group of petitioners that are challenging the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which was promulgated in 2024 during the Biden administration. EPA is now claiming that the portion of the rulemaking process that resulted in the MCLs for the Index PFAS was procedurally improper, and that, as a result, the standards are invalid. EPA is continuing to defend the challenges to the portion of the rule that sets MCLs for the two most prevalent PFAS, PFOA and PFOS.

The alleged defect in the process for setting MCLs for the Index PFAS was EPA’s decision to propose goals and standards for those chemicals concurrently with its preliminary determination that they should be regulated. EPA is now alleging that Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1, requires EPA to propose to regulate a new contaminant – and consider comments on such a proposal – before it may publish even proposed drinking water standards.

EPA’s latest pronouncement against this portion of its own rule is not a complete surprise. In May of this year, EPA issued a press release “announcing its intent to rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for [the Index PFAS].” The press release did not, however, indicate that EPA would attempt to use the pending court challenges as the vehicle to eliminate the Index PFAS MCLs.

EPA’s latest position in the litigation does not necessarily mean the Circuit Court will vacate the Index PFAS MCLs. A number of entities, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), had previously intervened in the consolidated challenges to the PFAS standards on behalf of EPA. The intervenors have supported the rule separately from EPA and, according to EPA’s brief, intend to respond to EPA’s change-of-position on this issue. Furthermore, following the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412-13 (2024), EPA may no longer be entitled to Chevron deference for its interpretation of the SDWA and what is required and prohibited by Section 1412. Accordingly, it is not clear how much EPA’s new legal interpretation will affect the outcome of the litigation.

Further, a finding that the proper procedure was not followed would not automatically compel the court to vacate the rule. EPA’s brief acknowledges that when determining whether to vacate a rule, the court should consider both “the seriousness of the order’s deficiencies…and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed” (Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51) (D.C. Cir. 1993).) Given that the MCLs do not need to be met until 2029, vacating them at this stage is unlikely to be found to be disruptive. But there may be questions about whether the sequencing of the EPA’s actions was seriously deficient.

If EPA is unable to have the Index PFAS MCLs vacated, it could pursue the same result through a rulemaking process. Accordingly, many are now arguing that it appears increasingly unlikely that drinking water providers will ever have to comply with the Index PFAS MCLs.

For further information regarding PFAS MCLs, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.

EPA’s stance on the 2024 PFAS Rule continues to remain in the balance. But as the clock continues to run on litigation over the Rule, EPA may be forced to provide a conclusion in the near future.

The Rule

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule designating two widely used per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) —perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)—as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Notably, the Rule was the first time EPA used CERCLA section 102 to list hazardous substances by regulation. The Rule became effective July 8, 2024.

Challenges to the Rule

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various industry groups filed a petition on July 10, 2024, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Rule. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. EPA, et al., Case No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. 2024). In the most recent filing in the case through August 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s fifth unopposed motion for a 30-day stay extension of the stay of the litigation. The request follows in a series of extensions already granted by the appellate court since the Trump administration began participating in early 2025, including on February 24, April 30, June 2, and July 11. The stated purpose of the continuing stay is to allow EPA leadership additional time to finalize its legal position on the Rule. Now, with a September 17 deadline to tell the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit how it plans to proceed on industry’s challenge to the Rule, it appears that EPA will soon be forced to confirm its position.

Despite the ongoing Rule challenge, states and other entities have already cited the Rule in their filings of cost recovery claims under CERCLA’s section 106 in efforts to recoup costs from potentially liable parties for PFAS cleanups.

Possible Outcomes

Considering that EPA has,  for several months, been punting on whether to uphold the 2024 rule, it could be a signal that the Agency is steering toward reversing its planned support for the Rule. In this regard, the New York Times reported that Steven Cook, principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM),  recently met with industry parties challenging the Rule and, the following business day, OLEM revised a recommendation on the Rule to suggest repealing it, rather than supporting it.

In contrast to these recent signals, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin suggested support for the Rule as recently as April 28, 2025, when he announced support for maintaining the “polluter pays” model with respect to PFAS, while noting plans for targeted liability carveouts for so-called “passive receivers.”

Nevertheless, the issue remains the subject of litigation, and as indicated in documents filed with the court, no decisions have been made, and Administrator Zeldin has yet to publicly confirm his decision on the future of the Rule.

Taft attorneys have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation for more than two decades and have worked on issues involving these chemicals from before they were regulated to their current status as a focal point of state and federal environmental regulation. For help navigating PFAS laws, contact Taft attorneys Frank Deveau, Will Gardner, and Tommy Sokolowski.

In 2023, Minnesota enacted Amara’s Law (Minn. Stat. § 116.943), requiring certain reporting and implementing prohibitions of intentionally-added PFAS in certain products. The law requires manufacturers of intentionally-added PFAS-containing products to report specified information to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by January 1, 2026. These reports must include the type of PFAS added to the product and its purpose in the product. In June, the MPCA stated its intent to extend the reporting deadline, but did not specify a date.

On July 23, the MPCA announced that the reporting deadline would be extended from January 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. This provides an additional six months for manufacturers to submit their initial reports of products sold in Minnesota that contain intentionally-added PFAS. This extension means that manufacturers will have three years between when the law was enacted and the reporting date. The MPCA stated that the extension was justified to allow manufacturers more time to “establish agreements with suppliers to report on their behalf” and to “become familiar with a new reporting platform.” The agency also stated that its decision was made in light of ongoing engagement with stakeholders.

This reporting deadline extension comes on the heels of the 2025 Minnesota Legislature expanding the list product categories that are exempt from the provisions of Amara’s Law (Minn. Sess. Laws 1Sp2025 ch. 1, art. 4, s. 19 and 20). The list of exemptions has been expanded to include products that contain intentionally-added PFAS solely in electronic components or internal components and in several types of children’s vehicles.

Note: this post contains links to articles written in Italian.

On June 26, the Court of Assizes of Vicenza issued a criminal judgment convicting 11 chemical plant executives for environmental crimes related to PFAS contamination. Pollutants from the Miteni chemical plant are alleged to have spread across more than 70 square miles in northern Italy’s Veneto region, impacting soil, groundwater, and drinking water for an estimated 350,000 people. The historic ruling marks the first time a court has held corporate managers criminally liable for PFAS pollution.

PFAS exposure from Miteni chemical plant

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals known for their resistance to water, grease, heat, and corrosion. These “forever chemicals” widely found in consumer products are extremely persistent in the environment and the human body. As testing for PFAS expands globally, studies have revealed that a vast majority of people now carry these chemicals in their blood.

In 2013, after scientists detected high levels of PFAS in water bodies near the Miteni chemical plant, the Veneto government began blood testing residents of surrounding provinces. The region declared a state of emergency due to PFAS contamination in 2018. In 2020, a “Red Area” of maximum exposure covered approximately 230 square miles including 30 municipalities and approximately 140,000 people. One study of residents in the Red Area found higher relative risk for general mortality, diabetes, cerebrovascular diseases, and some forms of cancer. Another study found evidence of increased mortality from cardiovascular disease, and kidney and testicular cancer.

Corporate transitions and executive accountability

While ownership of the Miteni facility had shifted over time, the court found that corporate transactions did not absolve individual responsibility for the alleged pollution of one of Europe’s largest groundwater basins and resulting environmental disaster. Founded in 1965, the chemical plant operated as a subsidiary of Mitsubishi from the 1980s until the plant was sold to International Chemical Investors Group (ICIG) in 2009 for the price of one euro. The plant closed due to bankruptcy in 2018.

Former leaders from Miteni, Mitsubishi Corporation, and ICIG were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 2 years and 8 months to 17½ years. Notably, the court imposed harsher sentences than prosecutors had requested, totaling more than 141 years across the 11 convictions. Civil damages totaled over €75 million (approximately $80 million USD), including over €56 million awarded to Italy’s Ministry of the Environment, €6.5 million to the Veneto Region, and compensation for nearly 300 civil parties comprised of private individuals and public entities. The judgment also recognized the joint liability of the convicted executives for future cleanup and environmental restoration costs.

Evolving trends in PFAS liability

Among the key arguments raised by the defense were the lack of Italian laws regulating PFAS and the lack of available technologies to detect PFAS at the time of the alleged conduct. However, evidence was introduced at trial indicating that the company had been aware of the toxic, bioaccumulative nature of PFAS since the 1990s. While the legal proceedings are not yet final and the ruling remains subject to appeal, the case already has gained international attention, as it appears to be the first time  individual company executives have been held personally responsible for PFAS contamination.

June’s sentencing follows a historic ruling by the Court of Vicenza recognizing for the first time, a causal link between the death of a Miteni plant worker and his exposure to PFAS. New forms of legal recognition for individuals harmed by PFAS are emerging in international courts, as scientific awareness and litigation efforts expand. In later 2023, Sweden’s Supreme Court held that PFAS in the blood of residents constitutes personal injury.

This case highlights the ever-evolving legal landscape surrounding PFAS liabilities. For further information regarding PFAS and litigation, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.

Taft Summer Associate Callia Téllez contributed to this article.

With a new administration in Washington, D.C., the environmental community has been at the edge of its collective seat awaiting word on the fate of one of the most significant elements of EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap – the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for selected PFAS. The MCLs, following EPA’s initial – though unenforceable – PFAS Health Advisory Levels – were promulgated on April 10, 2024, and quickly became the cornerstone of EPA’s PFAS regulatory initiative. MCLs not only govern the quality of drinking water, but also are used to derive groundwater standards and clean-up standards across the country.

In a May 14, 2025 press release, EPA gave the first indication of how it intends to proceed.  Significantly, the agency stated that it intends to keep in place the existing MCLs of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for the two most well-known PFAS – PFOS and PFOA – but will extend the initial compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. EPA claims that this extension is intended to allow water utilities additional time to install any new treatment technologies needed to meet the standards. Despite keeping the MCLs for PFOS and PFOA, EPA also announced its plan to withdraw other elements of the final April 2024 PFAS MCL rule, specifically the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of those chemicals plus PFBS, pending possible reintroduction this Spring.

EPA’s plan has been widely reported by the media and environmental organizations as a retreat on efforts to address PFAS in the nation’s drinking water. Yet there are also those in the scientific community who claim that leaving the 4 ppt standards for PFOA and PFOS in effect is extremely significant as it will still drive extensive PFAS reductions nationwide, even if the standards for the other PFAS are temporarily withdrawn. They argue that the PFOA and PFOS standards will still drive the need for new – and expensive – treatment technologies for the vast majority of PFAS-impacted systems across the country, which will significantly reduce overall PFAS levels in drinking water. For example, in data from a group of water treatment systems gathered under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, average PFOA concentrations exceeded the 4 ppt standard in 6% of the systems, and PFOS exceeded the standard in 7.2% of the systems. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, 89 Fed. Reg. 32,532, 32,601-02. In contrast, none of the PFAS standards EPA plans to withdraw were exceeded in more than 0.6% of systems. Id. There are those that claim that the types of treatment systems needed to meet the PFOA and PFOS MCLs often also treat other PFAS chemicals found in the water. Thus, they argue that the practical effect of eliminating the MCLs for the other PFAS chemicals may not, at the end of the day, significantly alter the overall net PFAS levels in the nation’s water, as long as water systems are still required to implement the type of treatment necessary to meet the new PFOA and PFOS MCLs.

Similarly, it is also being reported that delaying implementation of the PFOA and PFOS MCLs by an additional two years may not have much impact on the pace at which PFAS levels in drinking water systems are actually lowered. Many drinking water systems are already stating that they will not be able to put treatment systems in place by 2029, regardless of what the MCLs require. Thus, it is being argued that the additional two year reprieve will push back any government enforcement, but not necessarily the pace of the nation’s water system actually reaching the 4 ppt standards.

The Fourth Circuit overturned the remand of two lawsuits Maryland and South Carolina brought against 3M and other PFAS manufacturers. Maryland v. 3M Co., No. 24-1218, 2025 WL 727831 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). The ruling expands the reach of the federal officer removal statute, making it easier for certain defendants to remove their cases to federal court.

Maryland and South Carolina each brought two PFAS-related lawsuits against 3M: one involving claims arising from AFFF contamination, and another limited to non-AFFF PFAS claims. 3M removed all of the cases to federal court under the authority of the federal officer removal statute, 28 USC Section 1442. The statute allows agencies, federal officers, and “any person acting under that officer” to transfer cases to federal court. To qualify, a private defendant must plausibly allege three elements: “(1) that it acted under a federal officer, (2) that it has a colorable federal defense, and (3) that the charged conduct was carried out for or in relation to the asserted official authority.” Anne Arundel Cnty., Maryland v. BP P.L.C., 94 F.4th 343, 347–48 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178, 228 (4th Cir. 2022)). The third element is known as the nexus requirement.

3M claimed the federal officer removal statute applied because it produced AFFF for the United States military. Maryland and South Carolina sought to avoid this basis for removal by filing the non-AFFF PFAS lawsuits, arguing that because the states are not seeking recovery from AFFF contamination in those lawsuits, there is no relationship between the charged conduct and the federal authority. The respective district courts agreed and remanded the cases to state court. 3M’s appeals were consolidated before the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit vacated the remand, holding that where AFFF and non-AFFF PFAS are commingled, determining the scope of non-AFFF PFAS contamination will inherently require assessing the extent of AFFF contamination—a determination best suited for federal district court. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Baker v. Atlantic Richfield Company, which held that the question of whether a company’s pollution stems from its work for the federal government or more general manufacturing operations is a factual question that a federal trial court should decide. 962 F.3d 937, 943–44 (7th Cir. 2020).

The Fourth Circuit’s decision follows on the heels of the Seventh Circuit’s decision to remand the state of Illinois’s case against 3M. People ex rel. Raoul v. 3M Co., 111 F.4th 846, 848–49 (7th Cir. 2024). There, Illinois agreed it would not seek liability for “mixed PFAS contamination”—that is, sources contaminated with both AFFF and non-AFFF PFAS. Maryland and South Carolina refused to make a similar concession in this case. As a result, the Fourth Circuit believed that the factfinder will need to determine how much of the PFAS contamination stems from AFFF versus non-AFFF sources. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the complexity of unraveling those questions confirmed that 3M’s federal work is “inextricably related” to the charged conduct.

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit ruled that 3M had satisfied the nexus requirement and remanded the case to the respective district courts to assess the remaining elements. In dissent, Judge Henry F. Floyd warned that the majority’s decision expands the nexus requirement too far. An allegation that pollutants are commingled, without more, presents a connection that is “too tenuous to support removal jurisdiction.” The majority’s decision requires defendants to make only the “slightest connection” between the claims and the work the defendants performed for the federal government.

It is likely that some PFAS or AFFF manufacturers will try to rely upon the Fourth Circuit’s decision to argue that any PFAS contamination must necessarily be inextricably commingled with AFFF-derived PFAS, thereby satisfying the nexus requirement for removal. It remains to be seen whether other courts will embrace such an expansive interpretation of removal principles. For help navigating PFAS litigation, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.

Those required to comply with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have been afforded an eight-month delay, shifting reporting to commence July 11, 2025, and be completed by Jan. 11, 2026. Reporting was supposed to commence Nov. 12, 2024, before this delay was announced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The delay is driven by funding shortages leading to delays in the reporting software development.

Under the rule, persons that manufacture or have manufactured or imported PFAS and PFAS-containing articles in any year since Jan. 1, 2011, are required to report to EPA PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, disposal, exposures, and existing information on environmental or health effects. The reporting rule is intended to allow EPA “to better characterize the sources and quantities of manufactured PFAS in the United States.”

In the direct final rule extending the reporting deadlines, EPA indicated that it did not anticipate receiving adverse comments on the extensions but, if it did, it would withdraw the direct final rule allowing for the extension. The direct final rule is open for comment through Oct. 7, 2024. Given that the EPA identified that a five percent reduction to the TSCA program’s 2024 budget was resulting in the EPA making “difficult choices” on priorities, it is not clear how the agency would achieve the software deployment by Nov. 12, 2024, if it withdraws the direct final rule due to adverse comments.

Under the EPA’s definition of PFAS, the EPA has identified at least 1,462 PFAS for possible reporting under TSCA. This extension, if it holds, will allow more time for manufacturers to gather the necessary information to be ready for reporting submissions on July 11, 2025. The additional time will also allow for more outreach to these manufacturers to ensure that those affected by the reporting requirements are aware of them and able to familiarize themselves with the applicable requirements.

New Jersey, North Carolina, and New Mexico are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add four PFAS chemicals—PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and GenX—to the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. The Petition highlights the environmental and health risks posed by PFAS, particularly their persistence in the atmosphere and potential to contaminate soil and water.

While these chemicals are best known for their contamination of drinking water, the release of PFAS into the air has become an increasing concern. According to the Petition, airborne PFAS can settle on land or water bodies, leading to the same contamination problems seen in groundwater, but over potentially wider areas.

The Petition and Its Key Points

The Petition outlines the dangers of PFAS emissions from industrial sources and requests that the EPA formally recognize them as HAPs under the Clean Air Act. If this request is approved, industries that release PFAS into the atmosphere would be subject to stricter regulations aimed at controlling and reducing emissions. Specifically, these industries would have to adopt Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, requiring them to limit emissions to the lowest feasible levels using the best available technology.

The Petition highlights that airborne PFAS emissions contribute to widespread environmental contamination, affecting both air and water quality. It also stresses that these pollutants do not break down naturally and can travel significant distances, leading to far-reaching impacts. Listing PFAS as HAPs would require industries to report their emissions, install advanced emission control technologies, and undergo more rigorous permitting processes.

Health and Environmental Impact

The health risks associated with PFAS exposure are well-documented, including cancer, liver toxicity, and developmental issues in children. In particular, PFOA and PFOS—two of the four PFAS named in the petition—have been studied extensively and are linked to severe long-term health effects. GenX and PFNA, though less widely studied, are believed to pose similar risks.

By tackling PFAS through the lens of air pollution, the Petition takes a broader view of the risks these chemicals pose, recognizing that PFAS emissions can contribute to contamination beyond localized water sources. The states argue that regulating PFAS emissions under the Clean Air Act is a necessary step in protecting public health and preventing the chemicals from entering the environment through multiple pathways.

Overall, the Petition underscores the urgency of addressing PFAS pollution from all angles, including air emissions, and represents a new frontier in the regulation of PFAS. The Petition highlights the growing concern regarding the presence of PFAS in more than just drinking water and the associated impacts to human health and the environment. For further information regarding PFAS in pesticides, contact a member of Taft’s Environmental group.