EPA Outlines New AI Strategy and Governance Framework

/in ,

EPA plans to accelerate the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the agency’s operations, according to two documents released in October 2025.

The documents—an AI strategy and associated “compliance plan”—come in response to the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence and a related memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“EPA is investing in its overall architecture to deploy more robust AI tools. These investments include data fabric, cloud infrastructure, network infrastructure, and additional security, operational, financial, and post deployment monitoring tools,” the compliance plan states.

According to the AI strategy, EPA is investigating “Expanding a pilot into a coding-focused generative AI tool” for software development, “Procuring more American Generative AI tools,” and “Expanding Generative AI capabilities in its cloud vendors.”

Current AI projects include a machine learning model that predicts pollution exposure pathways, a model that assists with records scheduling, and a model to aid in facility inspections, according to the AI strategy.  In addition, in May 2025, EPA introduced an internal generative AI chat tool for employee use.

Neither document discusses whether AI may be used to speed new chemical or pesticide reviews, though EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noted that it was a possibility earlier this year.

AI Governance and Risk Management

To comply with OMB’s memo, EPA established a political-level AI Governance Board chaired by the Deputy Administrator, which will oversee and coordinate the responsible use of AI across the agency.  The board is assisted by a subcommittee with “delegates from the many diverse offices across EPA,” the AI strategy states.

EPA says these governance structures will implement risk-mitigation controls for “high-impact” AI use cases.  Additional risk-management efforts include employee training, development of a “Generative AI Rules of Behavior” guide, and ongoing monitoring and feedback cycles for AI systems.

The agency also emphasized its commitment to transparency, pointing to its practice of making code publicly available on platforms such as Data.gov and GitHub.  According to the compliance plan, “EPA’s GitHub site is one of the more popular federal government GitHub repositories for staff development, collaboration, and code sharing.”

More on EPA’s active projects, and other AI use cases, can be found on EPA’s AI Use Case Inventory.

Senate EPW Committee to Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal

/in , ,

On November 19, 2025, at 10am, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing to “Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal Policy.”

The hearing will include the following panelists:

  • Eric Gerstenberg, Co-CEO of Clean Harbors, an environmental and industrial services company
  • Leah Pilconis, General Counsel of Associated General Contractors of America
  • Kate R. Bowers, Supervisory Attorney at the Congressional Research Service

Clean Harbors conducted a PFAS incineration study in 2024 in conjunction with EPA and the Defense Department (DOD).  According to EPA, the incinerator’s tested PFAS destruction and removal efficiencies “ranged from 99.95 to 99.9999 percent.”

The study followed procedures outlined in EPA’s 2024 interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal, discussed in a previous post.  EPA must update this guidance as necessary and at least every three years.  The forthcoming hearing is likely to shape the direction of those updates.

Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA

/in , , , ,

EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule fails to satisfy Congress’s intent that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical and significant new use reviews be transparent, a workers union told the Ninth Circuit on October 16, 2025.

In its opening brief, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) cites its own experience attempting to secure information about the health hazards facing employees in one of its bargaining units.  Although a UAW representative was told by the company that it was producing two new chemicals, he was unable to locate any information on them on ChemView, EPA’s database of new chemical information, the brief states.

“EPA’s disclosures about new chemicals do not routinely include…two key factual components – employer name and location – since the employer is not necessarily the submitter, the submitter’s name is often claimed as CBI, and facility location is not among the fields that can be searched in ChemView,” UAW states.

“Without access to information about who may produce a new chemical and where it may be manufactured, potentially exposed workers and their unions cannot – as a practical matter – engage with EPA before the Agency imposes occupational controls that may or may not adequately protect the workers,” which is their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the brief reads.

UAW and other unions jointly raised these concerns in August 2023 comments on EPA’s proposed new chemicals procedural rule.  However, according to the brief, EPA completely ignored the comment during the rulemaking—a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to the brief.

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

In their 2023 comments, the unions proposed a mechanism through which EPA could mandate the disclosure of information to unions or workers, which they argue would preserve the information’s confidential status.

“EPA can require entities submitting new chemical or significant new use applications to notify their affected employees that they are submitting these applications and to make the applications, the health and safety studies submitted with the application, and any risk evaluations completed by EPA available to the employees and their unions upon request, contingent on the requester agreeing to confidentiality protections,” the comments state.

Reiterating arguments made in the comments, UAW’s brief contends that this process would not run afoul of TSCA section 14, which governs CBI protections: “While Section 14, like [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]  Exemption 4, allows EPA to withhold confidential information submitted to the federal government…neither Exemption 4 nor TSCA Section 14 prohibits EPA from mandating third party disclosure of CBI.”

UAW argues that unions and workers routinely enter into similar confidentiality agreements to access other sensitive information, like financial information about corporate profits.  The union also points to a 1985 Third Circuit decision, which it argues “directed OSHA to permit direct employee access to claimed trade secret information if the workers signed a confidentiality agreement” under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Case Details

The suit is consolidated with other challenges to the 2024 new chemicals procedural rule brought by environmental groups.  As discussed in a previous post, those groups are arguing that the rule’s failure to categorically exempt new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) from certain expedited reviews violates TSCA.

The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

EPA Issues Proposed Rule Adding Significant PFAS Reporting Exemptions

/in , ,

As anticipated, EPA has published a proposed rule that would introduce several significant exemptions to the one-time PFAS reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule.

The proposal, published November 13, 2025, follows significant industry criticism of the 2023 rule’s expansive scope.  EPA first signaled that it was considering narrowing the rule’s requirements in May of this year, when the agency delayed its implementation for the second time.

“The proposed changes to improve reporting regulations will support [EPA] Administrator [Lee] Zeldin’s ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’ initiative by reducing regulatory reporting burdens and providing greater regulatory certainty to industry, resulting in a net reduction in cost while ensuring that EPA receives the PFAS data that are most relevant to the agency,” the agency said in a press release accompanying the proposed rule.

What are the Proposed Exemptions?

EPA proposes to exempt the following categories from the PFAS reporting requirements:

  • PFAS manufactured (including imported) in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1% or lower
  • Imported articles
  • Byproducts not used for commercial purposes
  • Impurities
  • Research and development chemicals
  • Non-isolated intermediates

These exemptions are similar to those under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, with the addition of the 0.1% de minimis exemption.

EPA is also proposing to eliminate the streamlined reporting form for article importers and R&D manufacturers because those entities would now be fully exempt under the proposed rule.  For the same reason, EPA would remove the alternative reporting deadline for small manufacturers that would exclusively report as article importers.

Changes to the Submission Period

EPA’s proposal would likely delay the start of the reporting period once again.  The current opening date is April 13, 2026, but under the proposed rule, the reporting window would begin 60 days after the final rule’s effective date.

If EPA issues a final rule in June 2026—as indicated by the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda—and the rule takes effect 30 days after publication, the reporting period would open in September 2026.  However, because the proposal was released a month earlier than the Unified Agenda projected, EPA may also finalize the rule ahead of schedule, potentially resulting in an earlier start date.

The proposal would also shorten the reporting window from six months to three months, with EPA claiming that submitters “have had adequate time to consider how they intend to comply with the rule.”

Statutory Basis

In the proposed rule, EPA argues that the exemptions would better align the regulation with TSCA section 8, which directs EPA to avoid duplicative reporting, minimize compliance costs on small manufacturers, and limit reporting obligations to persons likely to have relevant information.

EPA also cites TSCA section 2(c), which requires that EPA carry out the statute “in a reasonable and prudent manner” and to “consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action.”

At the same time, EPA notes that it may in the future determine that certain currently exempted information “is necessary to support particular regulatory actions.”

Comments on the proposed rule are due December 29, 2025.  More on the TSCA PFAS reporting rule can be found in our archive.

ACI Pushes Senate to Address EPA Bottlenecks in New Chemical Reviews

/in , ,

In an October 23, 2025, letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) called for “targeted changes” to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to accelerate new chemical reviews under the statute.

“ACI members are experiencing considerable challenges with [EPA’s] ability to meet its statutory deadlines under [TSCA], namely, to review and make final determinations on new chemicals within 90 days,” hindering innovation and the development of more eco-friendly products, the letter reads.

ACI also asked the committee to consider the “adverse impact” of significant new use rules (SNURs), which it claims are being applied to restrict “most” new chemicals.

“EPA has taken this route as TSCA requires EPA to consider ‘reasonably foreseen’ uses in new chemical reviews,” ACI wrote.  “The lack of a clear definition in the TSCA for the term ‘reasonably foreseen’ has led EPA staff to take an overly conservative approach that focuses heavily on theoretical hazards instead of utilizing a risk-based approach that prioritizes the specific conditions of use provided by manufacturers about the intended use of new chemistries.”

Meanwhile, ACI’s general counsel, Douglas Troutman, has been nominated by President Trump to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on October 29, 2025, in a party-line vote.

PFAS Reporting Rule Update: OMB Clears Path for EPA to Ease Requirements

/in , ,

EPA is a step closer to easing PFAS reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review of a proposed rule on October 24, 2025, that is likely to introduce exemptions.

Background: The Current PFAS Reporting Rule

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule, finalized in 2023, requires entities that manufactured or imported PFAS in any year from 2011–2022 to report extensive data to EPA.  Unlike other TSCA reporting obligations, the rule does not exempt articles, de minimis quantities, byproducts, or impurities—drawing criticism from industry groups, who argue that its broad scope is both unnecessary and overly burdensome.

As discussed in a previous post, the rule’s original 2024 reporting deadline has already been delayed twice to 2026 because of technical difficulties.  However, in the most recent postponement, EPA signaled that it was considering reopening elements of the rule to align with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.  On August 29, 2025, it submitted the proposal to OMB for regulatory review.

What’s Next

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, the rulemaking will incorporate “certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the reporting rule.”  The proposed rule is expected in December 2025, and EPA plans to finalize the rulemaking in June 2026.

More on the PFAS reporting rule’s requirements can be found in a previous post.

Proposed 2026 MSGP: Is Your Facility Prepared for PFAS Stormwater Monitoring Requirements?

/in ,

EPA’s proposed 2026 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity would require quarterly monitoring for PFAS—a significant expansion of federal stormwater compliance obligations that facilities should begin preparing for now.

The MSGP implements Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements across 29 industrial sectors.  EPA released the proposed permit in December 2024.  Once finalized, it will replace the current 2021 MSGP, which expires at the end of February 2026.

The MSGP applies only to areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, most US territories, much of Indian country, and certain federal facilities.  In a webinar, EPA estimated that 2,000 facilities will be directly affected.  However, because many states model their stormwater NPDES permits after EPA, the MSGP is likely to influence stormwater requirements nationwide.

PFAS Monitoring Requirements

Under the proposed 2026 MSGP, operators in 23 industrial sectors would be required to conduct quarterly indicator monitoring for 40 PFAS compounds for the duration of the permit.  The list includes PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly known as “GenX”)—the six PFAS subject to EPA’s April 2024 national drinking water standards.

Testing must be performed using EPA Method 1633, which uses liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify and quantify individual PFAS analytes.  Importantly, the proposed PFAS monitoring is “report-only” and does not include benchmark thresholds or require follow-up actions at this stage.

An EPA fact sheet states that the agency will use the data “to conduct an initial quantitative assessment of the levels of PFAS in industrial stormwater, further identify industrial activities with the potential to discharge PFAS in stormwater, and inform future consideration of potential PFAS benchmark monitoring for sectors with the potential to discharge PFAS.”

Other proposed monitoring updates include new or revised benchmark monitoring parameters for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and selected metals in specific industrial sectors.  EPA is also proposing a modified benchmark monitoring schedule, with quarterly monitoring required for the first three years of permit coverage or until twelve quarters of monitoring data are collected.

Timeline and Related Actions

EPA intends to issue the final 2026 MSGP before the 2021 MSGP expires on February 28, 2026.  Once the final permit is published, operators will need to submit new Notices of Intent (NOIs) for coverage under the new permit.

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, EPA is also advancing several related PFAS initiatives under the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):

  • PFAS Monitoring in NPDES Applications: EPA plans to propose a rule in November 2025 to update several NPDES application forms to include PFAS monitoring and reporting requirements.
  • Effluent Guidelines for PFAS Manufacturers: EPA expects to propose revisions to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards in January 2026, addressing PFAS discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS.
  • Drinking Water Standards: EPA is also expected to delay compliance deadlines for its national drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, and to rescind requirements for the other four PFAS included in the 2024 rule.

The comment period on the proposed 2026 MGSP closed on May 19, 2025.  More on the proposal can be found on EPA’s website.

EPA Eliminates Backlog of TSCA Substantial Risk Notifications

/in ,

EPA has cleared the backlog of section 8(e) submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) thanks to process improvements, the agency announced on October 10, 2025.

TSCA section 8(e) requires that persons notify EPA when they obtain information that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that a chemical they manufacture, process, or distribute “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.”

According to the announcement, EPA assembled a team to address the backlog, which reviewed more than 3,000 submissions.  Approximately 920 of those submissions were flagged as “high interest and distributed across the agency.”

To prevent future backlogs, the announcement notes that EPA has established a workgroup to develop process improvements, enhanced its categorization system for incoming submissions, and implemented an automated notification system that alerts staff to relevant submissions.

More on TSCA section 8(e) submissions can be found on EPA’s website.

EPA Adds PFAS to TRI List for 2026 Reporting

/in , ,

On October 7, 2025, EPA announced the addition of a new PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): PFHxS-Na (CASRN 82382-12-5).  PFHxS-Na is a salt associated with the PFAS PFHxS (CASRN 335-46-4).

The addition takes effect January 1, 2026.  EPA will likely publish the formal amendment to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals in the Federal Register shortly.

Why Was This PFAS Added?

PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI list after EPA finalized a toxicity value for PFHxS and its salts in a 2025 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) report.  Under the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), PFAS must be added to the TRI list when certain criteria—such as a finalized toxicity value—are met.

According to the announcement, the other PFAS identified in that IRIS assessment are already on the TRI list.

Implications for Reporting Entities

Supplier notifications for PFHxS-Na will be first required as of January 1, 2026, and reporting companies will be required to include PFHxS-Na in their Reporting Year 2026 reports, according to an EPA webpage.

With this update, EPA says that a total of 206 PFAS are now subject to TRI reporting.  The agency previously added nine PFAS to the TRI list in January 2025 for Reporting Year 2025 reports, which are due July 1, 2026.

In addition, EPA has proposed a rule to add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories to the TRI list, while also formalizing the criteria for automatic PFAS additions.  The Trump administration’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda indicates that EPA will finalize the rule in February 2026.

More on that rulemaking and EPA’s other TRI PFAS actions can be found in our TRI archive.

EPA Not Required to Regulate PFAS in Sewage Sludge, Court Rules

/in ,

EPA is not required to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal judge ruled on September 29, 2025, in Farmer v. EPA, No. 24-cv-1654.

The CWA defines sewage sludge as “solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.”  Every two years, the law mandates that EPA review its sewage sludge regulations and release a report “for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants [in sewage sludge] and promulgating regulations for such pollutants.”

The case was brought by a group of farmers, a nonprofit that promotes organic agriculture, and an organization representing Potomac River watershed residents.  The plaintiffs argued that the widespread use of sewage sludge as fertilizer introduces PFAS into the food chain and contaminates water and property.  “EPA’s failure to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge exposes Plaintiffs to continuing harm from future applications of sewage sludge on nearby properties,” their June 2024 complaint states.

They sought a court order requiring EPA to identify 18 specific PFAS in its next biennial report and to regulate 11 PFAS that the agency had already identified in previous reports—including PFOA and PFOS.

In its opinion, the D.C. District court concluded that the plaintiffs’ request exceeds the CWA’s requirements because the statute does not impose date-certain deadlines on the agency.  “Although the plain language of the CWA imposes a non-discretionary duty on EPA to review its regulations on a biennial basis, it does not mandate that EPA also identify and regulate sewage-sludge pollutants within the same time frame,” the opinion states.

The court further held that neither the biennial report nor EPA’s failure to list pollutants in that report constitutes a final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review.  However, the court noted that the plaintiffs could challenge EPA’s inaction through a CWA petition, the denial of which “could constitute a final agency action” under the APA.