Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) PFAS Exemptions Explained

When brands first read Minnesota's or Maine's PFAS laws, many latch onto one phrase: currently unavoidable use. If PFAS is truly needed in your product, can you keep using it? Sometimes. But the bar is high, the process is formal, and it's not designed for convenience.

Here's how CUU works and whether it's worth pursuing.

Key takeaways

A CUU is a state decision that a PFAS use is essential and has no reasonable alternative.

"Essential" means for health, safety or the functioning of society, not for performance or cost.

Maine has granted some CUUs (including certain cookware); determinations last five years.

For most consumer goods, switching to PFAS-free alternatives is the more realistic path.

The legal test

Both Minnesota and Maine define a currently unavoidable use along these lines: a use of PFAS that the agency has determined, by rule, to be essential for health, safety or the functioning of society and for which alternatives are not reasonably available.

Two parts, both required:

Essential. The product's function matters to health, safety or society. A firefighter's turnout gear might qualify. A fashion rain jacket probably doesn't.
No reasonable alternative. Not "alternatives cost more" or "perform slightly worse," but "aren't reasonably available."

How it works in Maine

Maine has run the most CUU decisions so far. Manufacturers submitted proposals ahead of the 2026 sales bans. The state reviewed them and amended its Chapter 90 rule, effective October 7, 2025, to include CUU determinations. Staff recommended approving some cookware proposals, among others.

Under Maine's amended law, CUU determinations last five years, and the state can extend them by rule if the use stays unavoidable. Maine also narrowed its reporting so that only products with a CUU must report, by January 1, 2032. See Maine's PFAS law.

How it works in Minnesota

Amara's Law gives MPCA authority to determine currently unavoidable uses. A CUU can exempt a use from the bans, including the broad ban planned for January 1, 2032. Minnesota's process has been slower to take shape than Maine's, so check MPCA's current guidance before planning around it. Note that reporting still applies: a product with intentionally added PFAS sold in Minnesota is reportable regardless. See Amara's Law guide.

New Mexico's law also includes a CUU route, available from 2032. See New Mexico's PFAS Protection Act.

What evidence a CUU proposal needs

Agencies typically want:

Product description and the exact component using PFAS.
The function PFAS provides and why it matters for health or safety.
Alternatives analysis: what you tested, why each fails, and evidence.
Supply chain data: which PFAS, how much, from which supplier.
Timeline: when you expect an alternative to be available.

This is serious technical work. It usually takes months and expert input.

Should your brand pursue a CUU?

Ask honestly:

Question	If yes	If no
Does the product protect health or safety in a direct way?	Possible candidate	Unlikely to qualify
Have you tested PFAS-free alternatives and documented failures?	Stronger case	Do that first
Are competitors selling PFAS-free versions?	Weak case	Stronger case
Can you fund months of technical work?	Feasible	Consider switching instead

For most outdoor apparel, home textiles and furniture, many brands already sell PFAS-free versions. That makes "no reasonable alternative" hard to argue.

What an alternatives analysis looks like

If you think a CUU might apply, your alternatives analysis is the heart of the case. A useful structure:

Function needed. Describe exactly what the PFAS does, in measurable terms (for example, water column, oil repellency rating, heat stability).
Candidates tested. List every PFAS-free option you tried: product name, supplier, date.
Test results. Show how each performed against the need.
Why each fails. Not "slightly worse," but why it can't meet the health or safety need.
Market check. Are competitors selling PFAS-free versions? If yes, explain why yours is different.
Timeline. When you expect a workable alternative.

If you can't fill in step 4 with hard evidence, a CUU is unlikely, and the effort is better spent switching.

Example: two brands, two decisions

Brand A makes marine survival suits. PFAS-based finishes help suits shed water in extreme conditions that affect user safety. It has tested several alternatives with documented failures. A CUU discussion may be reasonable.

Brand B makes everyday rain jackets. Competitors sell PFAS-free versions at the same price. A CUU is very unlikely. Brand B switches to a PFAS-free DWR and PU membrane over two seasons.

The better path for most brands

Find where PFAS remains. Often it's one component: a membrane, a stain guard, a nonstick layer.
Ask suppliers for PFAS-free options. Mills and coaters have spent years developing them.
Test performance against your real-world needs, not lab maximums.
Phase out on a timeline that beats the ban dates.
Document everything, so if you do need a CUU for one use, your alternatives analysis is ready.

Questions to answer before pursuing a CUU

Does the product directly protect health or safety, or support essential functions of society?
Which exact component uses PFAS, and what does the PFAS do?
Which PFAS-free alternatives have you tested, with what results?
Are competitors already selling PFAS-free versions?
Can you fund months of technical work and expert input?
If approved, what's your plan to switch within the CUU period (five years in Maine)?

If you can't answer most of these with evidence, put the effort into switching instead.

Key terms

Currently unavoidable use (CUU): A use of PFAS the state finds essential for health, safety or the functioning of society, with no reasonable alternative.
Alternatives analysis: Documented testing of PFAS-free options and why each does or doesn't work.
Chapter 90: Maine's rule implementing its PFAS in products law, including CUU determinations.
Determination period: How long a CUU lasts; five years in Maine, renewable by rule.

The bottom line

A CUU is a narrow door meant for essential uses without real alternatives. For most consumer goods, the faster and safer path is switching to PFAS-free materials. If you do pursue a CUU, start with a rigorous alternatives analysis and expect months of work.

How Secuabase helps

We find exactly which components still contain PFAS across your line, so you know where you stand. If you decide a CUU proposal makes sense for one use, the supplier data and documentation we collect is the foundation you'll need.

For our first partners we run it free on one product line. Book a quick chat.

FAQ

What is a currently unavoidable use of PFAS?
A use the state has found essential for health, safety or society, with no reasonable alternative. It can exempt that use from bans.

Can consumer products qualify?
Some have, like certain cookware in Maine, but the bar is high.

Does a CUU last forever?
No. In Maine, five years, renewable by rule.

General information, not legal advice. Facts checked October 2026.

Sources