Pace® PFAS News and Views – February 2025

There’s been a lot of media coverage related to the recently issued “regulatory freeze.” Unfortunately, many articles lack specifics, leading to confusion regarding what the freeze means for existing and future PFAS regulatory actions. In this month’s News and Views, we share a few articles and insights to help clear up the confusion.

Regulatory Freeze Details

First, the Regulatory Freeze Pending Review (regulatory freeze) is a memorandum to department heads. According to legal experts, it is not uncommon for a new administration to issue this sort of order. However, the memorandum contains the three critical elements that may impact the regulatory landscape in the near term. Specifically, the memorandum directs agencies to:

• Not propose, issue, or publish any new rule until the department head or an individual designated by the new administration has had a chance to review the rule.
• Withdraw any rules sent to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) but not yet published so they can be reviewed and approved by the incoming administration.
• Postpone for 60 days any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.

A few articles have implied that the regulatory freeze impacts the National Primary Drinking Water Rules (NPDWR). It does not as those regulations were published in the Federal Register nearly a year ago. Nevertheless, a couple of key programs are impacted: the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and Effluent Limitations.

TRI Listing Order Delayed

As we reported last month, the EPA completed toxicity assessments for 9 PFAS. Per the National Defense Authorization Act, this triggered their automatic addition to the Toxic Release Inventory. On February 5, 2025, the EPA published an order postponing the implementation of these additions until March 21, 2025, per the regulatory freeze. The memorandum specifies that “no further action needs to be taken for those rules that raise no substantial questions of fact, law, or policy.” In our opinion, this addition seems likely to proceed without further delay.

Supplier Notification Clarification for TRI-listed PFAS

On January 17, the EPA also issued a proposal to clarify the supplier notification rules under TRI. Again, this proposal has not yet been finalized and sent to the OFR, so no withdrawal is needed. In fact, the comment period only recently closed on February 18.

Expansion of TRI-Covered Industry Sectors

In late December, the EPA granted a petition, in part, to expand the industry classifications covered by TRI reporting requirements. Specifically, the agency said it would begin the rulemaking process to add solid waste combustors and incinerators that fall under NAICS industry codes 562213 and 562219. That said, it denied the petitioners’ request to include sewage sludge incinerators, pyrolysis and gasification units, and other solid waste incineration units in the expansion.

If enacted, this action could significantly impact the solid waste industry. At this time, the EPA has not sent a draft proposal to the OFR for publication and public comment. It’s probable that they are still working on this, but we don’t yet know what the proposal will include or if it will be issued at all. We are watching for any movement on this one, but it likely won’t come for some time as there is plenty for the new administration to review.

Withdrawal of ELG Order for PFAS Manufacturers

The other significant PFAS-related action that has been delayed is the issuing of effluent limitations for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industries. The EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2021, announcing its intention to establish PFAS limits for effluent from PFAS manufacturers. These would be the first such PFAS effluent limitations issued at the federal level.

A proposal was sent to the White House for review, the last step before a final order could be released. Then, in January, the proposal was withdrawn because it fell within the scope of the regulatory freeze. No details were announced to the public, so we do not know what was in the final proposal. We could see the ball start rolling again on the rulemaking process in relatively short order. On the other hand, there is no specific timeline, and the agency could be asked to head back to the drawing board. This is definitely one to watch.

Case Study: PFAS in Bedrock

Last month, Pace® published a case study on an analysis we conducted of PFAS in bedrock at a former industrial site in the Northeastern United States. Since bedrock lies fairly close to the surface in many areas of the country, this case study may be of particular interest to those looking to assess the extent of PFAS contamination on an active or brownfield property.

Download: Testing PFAS in Bedrock

PFAS Pulse Podcast

Earlier this month, I was a guest on HPR’s PFAS Pulse Podcast where we discussed which available PFAS analytical methods are most appropriate for different sample types. In particular, we discussed the pros and cons of EPA 1633 and its use for analyzing PFAS in non-potable matrices like wastewater and landfill leachate. I also touched on the future of PFAS analytical methods and what we might see introduced in the next couple of years.

Listen: The Lab Perspective with Lindsay Boone from Pace® Analytical

More to Come...

Despite the regulatory freeze, there is plenty more we could have talked about his month, such as the EPA’s proposal to promulgate 1633 and 1621 under 40 CFR 136, the agency’s draft sewage sludge risk assessment, and the numerous PFAS-related bills being introduced at the state level. February is a short month, though, so I’ll soon have an opportunity to review these actions and more in our March edition of PFAS News and Views. In the meantime, if you have questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us.