Contaminants Compass is a monthly newsletter that provides updates, legal observations and actionable tips to navigate the evolving legal challenges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and similar chemicals and products.
Look for new editions every month, and feel free to reach out to members of the McGuireWoods PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area with questions regarding PFAS issues.
I. Federal Regulatory
D.C. Circuit Won’t Let EPA Vacate PFAS Rules Until Litigation Moves Forward
A federal appeals court has rejected, for now, the EPA’s effort to vacate a series of PFAS rules issued by the previous administration.
The matter stems from April 2024, when the EPA issued the first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for PFAS. This rule established enforceable drinking water standards or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS chemicals. It also requires public water systems to complete initial monitoring by April 2027, to implement controls to achieve the MCLs by April 2029 and to provide public notification to consumers if MCLs are violated.
Two groups of plaintiffs challenged the MCL rule on Oct. 7, 2024, alleging that the rule violates the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is infeasible and creates significant risks for water system compliance and water affordability. Litigation is underway in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Court of Appeals stayed that litigation for several months as the EPA evaluated its position regarding MCLs following President Trump’s inauguration. In September 2025, the EPA moved for vacatur of the MCLs and underlying regulatory determinations for four PFAS chemicals in the litigation in the D.C. Circuit. In its motion, the EPA argued that the April 2024 rule should be vacated because the EPA improperly issued its regulatory determination and final rule simultaneously, denying the public the opportunity to comment on and participate in the rulemaking process.
On Jan. 21, 2026, the D.C. Circuit Court unanimously denied EPA’s vacatur request, finding that the “parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action.” The decision keeps the 2024 standards fully in place for now. Final briefs are due in early March.
II. State Regulatory
Concerns Over PFAS in Waste Grow in Virginia Legislature
The growing concerns over the presence of PFAS in public waste have spurred a handful of bills under review in the Virginia General Assembly. This public waste is turned into biosolids – a sludge which is then used as fertilizer on farms across Virginia. Currently, the commonwealth does not test the biosolids for PFAS before it is applied on farms by permit holders.
Senate Bill 386 proposes to ban permit holders that distribute or apply biosolids in Virginia from distributing or applying any biosolids that contain any presence of PFAS. The bill would also levy fines on any permit holder that spreads biosolids containing PFAS.
House Bill 880 proposes to require sewage treatment facilities to test for PFAS once a month. Another bill, SB138, proposes to require sewage treatment facilities to test for PFAS each quarter of a year; if PFAS are found, then the testing would be allowed to be extended.
We will continue to monitor these proposed rules as they move through the rulemaking process and will provide updates if the bills become law and effective dates are established.
N.C. EMC Rule Requires Dischargers to Monitor, Minimize PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
On Jan. 8, 2026, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) passed rules establishing monitoring and minimization programs for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. The rules will be subject to 60-day notice and comment and sent to the Rules Review Commission before the rules can be codified. If promulgated, the rules would apply to both direct dischargers and significant industrial users (SIUs) discharging to publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
The PFAS rules target three specific compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (GenX). These rules apply to industrial direct dischargers with individual NPDES permits and POTWs with local pretreatment programs, and all SIUs. The 1,4-dioxane rules cover facilities engaged in specified industrial activities identified by SIC and NAICS codes. Covered industries include chemical manufacturing, pharmaceutical preparation, petroleum refining, plastics manufacturing, textile mills, metal fabrication, motor vehicle manufacturing, hazardous waste treatment and disposal, and solid waste landfills, among many others.
Under the rules, dischargers will be required to conduct quarterly monitoring for one year to characterize baseline concentrations of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in their discharges. Representative historical sampling data collected within the preceding four and one-half years may satisfy the baseline monitoring requirement if it meets the specified criteria. If any baseline effluent result is above the lowest reporting concentration (i.e., not non‑detect), the discharger may be required to perform semiannual monitoring going forward. Ongoing monitoring continues for each discharge point until four consecutive effluent samples are reported as non-detect.
Facilities required to conduct ongoing monitoring must also develop and submit minimization plans for PFAS and/or 1,4-dioxane. A minimization plan must include best management practices such as pollution prevention, good housekeeping, raw material substitution, operational efficiency improvements and treatment technologies, along with an implementation timeline, estimated annual reductions and reduction goals.
Facilities that discharge wastewater directly or indirectly to surface waters in North Carolina should evaluate whether they are subject to these proposed rules and begin planning for compliance. Key action items include identifying applicable SIC/NAICS codes for 1,4-dioxane coverage, assessing current PFAS and 1,4-dioxane concentrations in intake and effluent streams, evaluating historical monitoring data that may satisfy baseline requirements, and identifying potential sources and reduction strategies in anticipation of minimization plan requirements.
We will continue to monitor these proposed rules as they move through the rulemaking process and will provide updates as the effective dates are established.
III. Litigation
Smucker Pet Food Buyers Win Class Certification in PFAS Disclosure Fight
On Jan. 22, 2026, a California federal judge certified a class of California consumers who accuse The J.M. Smucker Co. (Smucker) of failing to disclose risks of PFAS in certain pet food packaging. In doing so, Judge William Orrick rejected Smucker’s arguments that PFAS exposure on each class member’s pet is too individualized for classwide resolution and standing challenges.
The suit alleges that J.M. Smucker and Post Consumer Brands, which in 2023 acquired certain Smucker pet food brands at issue, failed to disclose that the pet food and packaging may contain PFAS, even though PFAS has been found to materially influence animal health.
Plaintiffs further allege Smucker violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law through misleading claims that the products are healthy and safe despite the risk of PFAS contaminating pet food and the food packages.
A jury trial is scheduled for Oct. 27, 2026, in San Francisco.
Colorado Drinking Water Agency Sues Denver for ‘Forever Chemical’ Contamination From Firefighting Center
On Jan. 20, 2026, the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District filed suit against the city and county of Denver, Colorado, for allegedly contaminating the district’s water supply for decades with PFAS-containing firefighting foam runoff from Denver’s firefighting training center.
South Adams alleges the PFAS contamination is “ongoing” and has forced the district to build an $80 million water treatment facility to provide safe water supply to the public. In addition to the expenses incurred for building the facility, South Adams alleges it faced higher expenses, including the costs of changing costly filters more frequently to eliminate PFAS and the extra spending on Denver water for dilution.
The lawsuit claims that South Adams has test results from wells at the fire training facility at issue and includes a comparison of those levels with current EPA standards. According to the suit, in November 2025 district wells were measuring as high as 342.6 ppt PFOA and PFOS, combined, which is measurably higher than the EPA national drinking water maximum levels for PFOA and PFOS of 4.0 ppt.
After the discovery of PFAS contamination in its drinking water supply in 2018, South Adams alleges it took immediate action to ensure its drinking water supplies were compliant with EPA and state water quality standards and guidelines for domestic use. South Adams seeks to recover from Denver the deficit between state and federal funding it received and South Adams’ costs of response attributable to Denver’s alleged actions.
NGOs Threaten North Carolina County With Citizen Suit Claiming PFAS Contamination from Landfill
On Jan. 14, 2026, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of St. Pauls Community Association for Progress and Winyah Rivers Alliance, served Robeson County, North Carolina, with a notice of intent to sue (NOI) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) over alleged PFAS contamination stemming from the county’s landfill. This case represents an emerging trend in citizen enforcement, filing PFAS litigation against municipal landfills, which have historically handled waste from PFAS manufacturers.
The NOI alleges the landfill has contaminated public groundwater supply wells and private wells due to ongoing, unpermitted discharges of PFAS from the landfill’s stormwater outfalls, leachate collection and landfill gas systems, borrow areas, toe drains and ditches, which seep into Big Marsh Swamp and adjacent wetlands. Specifically, the NOI contends that the landfill has contaminated groundwater supply for the county’s Rocco Water Treatment Plant, which relies on groundwater wells approximately 1 mile from the landfill. According to the notice, the Rocco Plant now has the highest total PFAS levels in finished water of any water treatment plant in North Carolina and the highest concentration of GenX in finished water of any groundwater-based water system in the nation.
The NOI demands that the county take immediate action to address the contamination, including:
- Suspending use of the water treatment plant until the county installs sufficient treatment to eliminate PFAS in the drinking water that is supplied to customers. Until that is done, the county should provide no‑cost PFAS‑free water to affected customers of the plant.
- Expanding private well surveys within 2 miles and provide alternative water and whole‑house treatment where PFAS is detected.
- Expanding PFAS sampling to characterize leachate/groundwater and identify industrial sources, ensure compliance with the CWA and RCRA, and cease accepting waste from PFAS manufacturing facilities.
Unless the county resolves these violations during the statutory notice periods — 60 days for CWA and RCRA open dumping claims, and 90 days for RCRA endangerment claims — the community groups intend to file a citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Keep an eye out for updates soon, as McGuireWoods’ popular Contaminants Compass CLE series will be back in March.