Globally, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are increasingly becoming a focus of environmental and product safety regulatory efforts. These substances are colloquially referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence and toxicity in human health and the environment. As consumers, investors, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) become more aware of the dangers of PFAS, they’re putting pressure on manufacturers to evaluate, report on, and reduce their reliance on these chemicals.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a PFAS reporting rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It requires companies to disclose extensive PFAS data dating back over a decade. Failure to comply could result in fines, but more critically, ignoring this and other similar PFAS regulations could also disrupt your company’s operations, market access, and ability to draw in revenue.
The PFAS reporting window: What’s required?
On Oct. 11, 2023, the EPA published its final rule under TSCA Section 8(a)(7), requiring manufacturers and importers, including those importing articles containing PFAS, to report detailed data about their PFAS usage between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2022. The scope of the rule is broad; there are no de minimis exemptions for volume or business size, and it applies even to PFAS embedded in coatings, electrical components, and subassemblies.
The reporting window opens on April 13, 2026, and closes on Oct. 13, 2026. Small businesses that exclusively import articles or produce under 10 kg of PFAS annually for research purposes have until April 13, 2027, offering a limited extension to comply.
Reporting details vary based on whether the manufacturing/importing was of a substance or article, or for R&D purposes. To complicate things further, the scope of substances covered is based on a broad definition of PFAS, not a specific list of substances. This means that if a chemical meets the structural definition of a PFAS according to the EPA, it must be reported, regardless of whether it is currently listed in TSCA inventories.
The consequences of non-compliance: More than just fines
Failure to meet TSCA reporting requirements comes with significant consequences, both regulatory and commercial.
Regulatory penalties
Non-compliance with TSCA, including reporting violations, can result in civil and criminal penalties. The EPA can impose fines for civil liabilities of up to $37,000 per day, per violation. In severe cases, company executives could face criminal charges and prison time for willful violations. In one recent case, a company settled with the EPA for $112,000 for violating the TSCA chemical substances reporting rule.
Legal liability and brand damage
The legal landscape around the use of PFAS is becoming more aggressive. Litigation is coming from government prosecutors as well as private citizens via class-action lawsuits, which are increasingly targeting not just the PFAS producers, but also the downstream manufacturers that may have used PFAS in their products. The lawsuits are just as likely to involve fraud (such as greenwashing allegations) as they are to involve personal injury or environmental contamination.
Financial risk around the use of PFAS is also coming from insurance companies beginning to exclude PFAS-related claims from policies or require extensive disclosures to underwrite coverage. And like the insurers, investors are worried about future financial liabilities as governments scramble to find revenue to support extensive clean-ups of PFAS contamination, including clean-ups of impacted drinking water.
Market disruption
The result of all this litigation and regulation is the disappearance of PFAS from the supply chain, causing a major obsolescence ripple effect across the industry.
Additionally, as an increasing number of jurisdictions at the local, state, and national levels restrict the use of PFAS in products, market access is becoming more complicated. Products found to contain PFAS may be pulled from shelves, leading to revenue loss and reputational damage. Companies could also lose access to key markets around the globe, especially as jurisdictions like the EU, Canada, and Japan, enact their own bans and other disclosure requirements.
What leading manufacturers are doing to stay ahead
The companies that will succeed are investing in PFAS management programs right now to address both regulatory compliance and broader business risks. Some best-in-class practices include:
● Supply chain engagement: Top manufacturers are sending targeted PFAS disclosure surveys to their suppliers. These surveys gather precise chemical composition data and minimize reliance on less reliable sources like Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), which are not required for most articles and often omit proprietary substances like PFAS.
● Automated data collection: By using platforms that automate supplier outreach and evaluate bills of materials, companies can rapidly build centralized databases and generate PFAS declarations at the touch of a button.
● Integrated risk management: Leading manufacturers are mapping PFAS use across product lines as well as in their operations, identifying high-risk areas for obsolescence and regulation, and strategically redesigning or making material substitutions to future-proof their product offerings.
● Cross-functional teams: Compliance isn’t being left to legal or EHS departments. These issues affect products themselves, so engineering, procurement, and product teams are working collaboratively to support full-scope PFAS identification and response.
This level of preparation not only supports regulatory compliance but also addresses the broader operational risks associated with PFAS, such as insurance exclusions, customer and investor pressure, supply disruptions, and product obsolescence.
Act now or risk falling short
If you haven’t yet started collecting data to meet your TSCA PFAS requirements, there’s no more time to waste. The amount of historical data needed and the complexity of modern supply chains make compliance a major challenge.
Here's what you should prioritize immediately to make up for lost time:
- Internal audit: Go over internal records such as procurement data, chemical inventories, and maintenance logs to identify known PFAS use in your operations and manufacturing processes.
- Supplier surveys: Send out supplier engagement campaigns to request PFAS disclosures. Make sure you also educate your suppliers about the importance of transparency and the scope of the EPA’s mandate.
- Prioritize high-risk products: Focus on parts and materials that have performance traits commonly associated with PFAS, such as non-stick coatings, electrical insulation, waterproofing or thermal stability. Any products you manufacture that have these properties are the most likely to contain regulated substances.
- Plan for redesign: If you find PFAS in critical components, start looking for alternatives and prepare for potential product redesigns. Redesigns often require requalification, especially for highly regulated industries like aerospace or medical devices.
- Document everything: Maintain thorough due diligence records, including supplier communications, data declarations, and risk assessments. These records will be key to demonstrating compliance to the EPA and other stakeholders.
From compliance to competitive advantage
The TSCA PFAS reporting rule marks a pivotal moment for manufacturers. While the reporting window may seem distant, the scale of the task and the potential consequences of non-compliance to this and reporting rules in other jurisdictions demand immediate and strategic action.
Best-in-class manufacturers are setting the standard by proactively gathering supply chain data, investing in digital platforms to automate and analyze their products, and integrating PFAS risk management, both regulatory as well as obsolescence, into their broader sustainability strategy. For others, the clock is ticking, and the cost of delay is high.
Manufacturers that respond effectively won’t just survive the PFAS era — they’ll emerge with stronger supplier relationships, greater brand trust, and a distinct competitive edge in markets that are increasingly demanding transparency and environmental responsibility.
