Contaminants Compass: March 2026 Edition

Contaminants Compass provides updates, legal observations and actionable tips to navigate the evolving legal challenges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and similar chemicals and products.

Following up on McGuireWoods’ first Contaminants Compass CLE of 2026, this edition includes a look back at some of the most significant regulatory developments concerning PFAS and similar chemicals and products in 2025, and PFAS trends to watch in 2026.

This edition addresses, among other topics, the Trump administration’s progress against its 2025 PFAS plan, including changes in EPA’s approach to drinking water regulations and CERCLA designations, as well as state actions on biosolids, PFAS bans on sports equipment and other outdoor gear, liability limitation efforts and EPA rules on PFAS destruction and disposal.

Look for new editions every month, and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area with questions regarding PFAS issues.

I. 2025 Look Back

Last year saw a flurry of important actions and events as governments and organizations grappled with how to tackle forever chemicals and other contaminants.

EPA’s PFAS Plan

Under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, EPA published PFAS “action plans” for addressing PFAS contamination. On April 28, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s new action plan setting forth the current administration’s priorities and goals. EPA’s 2025 PFAS plan focused on three central themes: (1) strengthening the science, (2) fulfilling statutory obligations and enhancing communication, and (3) building partnerships.

Strengthening the Science

In connection with its first announced central theme, EPA identified the following actions:

Designate an agency lead to better align and manage PFAS efforts across agency programs; 
Implement a PFAS testing strategy under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4 to seek scientific information informed by hazard characteristics and exposure pathways;  
Launch additional efforts on air-related PFAS information collection and measurement techniques related to emissions;
Identify and address available information gaps when not all PFAS can be measured and controlled;
Provide more frequent updates to the PFAS Destruction and Disposal Guidance —from every three years to annually — as EPA continues to assess the effectiveness of available treatment technologies; and 
Ramp up the development of testing methods to improve detection and strategies to address PFAS.

Fulfilling Statutory Obligations and Enhancing Communication

In connection with its second announced central theme, EPA identified the following actions:

Develop effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers and evaluate other ELGs necessary for reduction of PFAS discharges;
Address the most significant compliance challenges and requests from Congress and drinking-water systems related to national primary drinking-water regulations for certain PFAS; 
Determine how to better use Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authorities to address releases from manufacturing operations of producers and users of PFAS; 
Add PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory in line with Congressional direction from the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act; 
Enforce Clean Water Act and TSCA limitations on PFAS use and release to prevent further contamination;  
Use Safe Drinking Water Act authority to investigate and address immediate endangerment;
Achieve more effective outcomes by prioritizing risk-based review of new and existing PFAS chemicals;
Implement section 8(a)(7) to smartly collect necessary information, as Congress envisioned and consistent with TSCA, without overburdening small businesses and article importers; and
Work with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that operates on a “polluter pays” principle and protects passive receivers.

Building Partnerships

In connection with its third announced central theme, EPA identified the following actions:

Advance remediation and cleanup efforts where drinking-water supplies are impacted by PFAS contamination; 
Work with states to assess risks from PFAS contamination and the development of analytical and risk assessment tools; 
Finish public comment period for biosolids risk assessment and determine path forward based on comments; 
Provide assistance to states and tribes on enforcement efforts;  
Review and evaluate pending state air petitions; and 
Resource and support investigations into violations to hold polluters accountable;

Importantly, EPA’s plan focused on improving and advancing PFAS research, reporting and testing. It also laid the groundwork for holding PFAS polluters accountable under several different enforcement and liability authorities. As a result, EPA’s 2025 PFAS plan indicated that the agency intended to preserve at least some of the previous administration’s PFAS regulations and would continue to develop further regulations at the federal level. Below is an update on the progress of some of those most important actions that EPA included in its PFAS plan.

NPDWRs Remain for PFOA and PFOS

On May 14, 2025, EPA announced its intent to keep the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). In April 2024, EPA under the Biden administration announced the final NPDWR for six PFAS:

PFOA
PFOS
PFHxS
PFNA
HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX Chemicals)
Mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA has the authority to set national limits on contaminants in drinking water, which are known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). EPA sets MCLs at a level designed to ensure that drinking water is safe for human consumption. The NPDWR also requires public-water systems to monitor for all six PFAS. Under the current rule, public water systems must complete their initial monitoring by April 2027 and must comply with the MCLs by April 2029.

But while the Trump EPA announced in May 2025 that it would keep the regulations for PFOA and PFOS, it also announced its intent to extend the compliance deadlines for those MCLs by two years to April 2031. EPA also announced its intent to rescind the MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX Chemicals and mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS and to reconsider its determinations to regulate those contaminants under SDWA. According to EPA, it did so “to ensure the determinations and any resulting drinking water regulation follow the Safe Drinking Water Act process.” EPA’s draft proposals to extend the compliance dates for PFOS and PFOA and to reconsider its actions for the other PFAS are under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

CERCLA Designations Remain for PFOA and PFOS

On Sept. 17, 2025, EPA announced its intent to retain the prior administration’s designation of PFOA and PFOS, as well as their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). But in a slight shift, EPA announced its intent to develop a “CERCLA Section 102(a) Framework Rule” to uniformly provide future hazardous substance designations.

CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, has a major focus on the cleanup of hazardous substance and waste sites. But it also imposes broad, retroactive and potentially costly liability on classes of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) connected to releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

The PFOA and PFOS CERCLA designations impact businesses in several important ways. In addition to their potential liability, PRPs should be aware that EPA could issue information requests, investigate waste sites and order cleanup of PFOA and PFOS contamination at existing and, in all likelihood, future Superfund sites. But litigation could change that, and the previously stayed litigation challenging EPA’s CERCLA designations has restarted, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hearing oral argument in January 2026. Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, Case No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.).

TSCA Changes

On Nov. 10, 2025, EPA released proposed amendments to its “8(a)(7) Rule,” which requires businesses to report information to EPA on the manufacture and import of a wide range of PFAS, including when it is present in a mixture or in finished articles. That rule, as its name suggests, comes from Section 8(a)(7) of TSCA. That provision, which Congress added in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, mandated that EPA promulgate a rule “requiring each person who has manufactured a chemical substance that is a [PFAS] in any year since January 1, 2011,” to report information described in TSCA Section 8(a)(2)(A) through (G). That reporting requirement includes a broad range of information, including information related to PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, disposal, exposures and existing information on environmental or health effects.

EPA’s proposed amendments would significantly reduce reporting requirements under the current rule, which was promulgated in October 2023, through the incorporation of several new exemptions. For example, EPA’s proposal includes a de minimis exemption for PFAS found in concentrations below 0.1% in any domestically manufactured or imported chemical substance or mixture, regardless of the total production volume of the substance or mixture. According to EPA, the de minimis threshold is appropriate because manufacturers and importers are unlikely to have information down to these levels, given that labeling and recordkeeping practices during the lookback period for reporting were less stringent. EPA also explained that “a uniform 0.1% de minimis threshold would relieve manufacturers of burden related to investigating the relevant exemption level and applying different concentrations to different PFAS.”

The proposal would also exempt imported articles from the reporting obligation. As with de minimis concentrations, EPA believes that manufacturers are unlikely to have information on the PFAS contents of articles imported during the reporting period. EPA also proposed exemptions for the manufacture of PFAS as a byproduct, impurity or non-isolated intermediate, and for PFAS manufactured or imported in small quantities for research and development purposes. Finally, EPA proposed to push back the window for submission of required reports, which currently runs from April 13, 2026, to Oct. 13, 2026. The public comment period for EPA’s proposed rule ended on Dec. 29, 2025.

II. 2026 Trends to Watch

State Actions to Address Biosolids Containing PFAS

Biosolids are nutrient-rich organic materials derived from sewage sludge, the byproduct of wastewater treatment. Once treated, stabilized and processed to meet EPA’s Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503), biosolids may be disposed through landfill, incineration or land application. In recent years, environmental organizations, states and other stakeholders have raised concerns about PFAS levels in biosolids that may be applied to agricultural fields such as fertilizer or soil additives. In response, numerous states are imposing new regulations or enacting legislation regarding the land application of biosolids from wastewater-treatment plants. If land application is restricted or prohibited, alternative disposal options remain limited; landfills may not want additional biosolids, and incinerators may not have additional capacity. A previous Contaminants Compass discussed EPA’s January 2025 Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment, which evaluates potential risks associated with land-applied biosolids containing PFOA and PFOS.

State legislatures and environmental regulators have enacted, or are considering enacting, stricter land-application regulations or outright bans. Maine banned the land application, sale and distribution of sludge-derived products in 2022. Connecticut followed with a ban on the use and sale of PFAS-containing biosolids, effective in 2024 and 2025. Rhode Island now requires operators that distribute or land apply biosolids to conduct quarterly testing and submit results to state regulators, who are empowered to deny permits as of 2025. Last year, New York enacted regulations requiring facilities producing biosolids-derived soil-amendment products to conduct PFAS sampling and analysis. New York has filed legislation requiring testing and reporting of groundwater, biosolids and soil for PFAS through 2026 and a proposed five-year moratorium on land application and sale of biosolids. Mississippi also filed legislation requiring annual testing of sludge and compost and directing regulators to set PFAS limits for land-applied sludge.

Other states have taken a tiered approach to biosolids land-application regulation. Michigan adopted a three-tiered system in 2024: Biosolids with PFAS concentrations greater than 100 ppb are not allowed for land application; concentrations between 20 ppb and 100 ppb are subject to reduced application rates of 1.5 dry tons per acre; and concentrations below 20 ppb face no restrictions. Maryland is considering draft legislation that would implement a similar three-tiered approach beginning Oct. 1, 2027, with further restrictions by Sept. 30, 2029. Virginia enacted a three-tiered system effective July 1, 2027, with thresholds based on PFOS or PFOA levels and more stringent requirements taking effect July 1, 2029, when the thresholds will apply to combined PFOS and PFOA concentrations.

PFAS Bans in Sports Equipment

The recent Olympic Winter Games captivated audiences across the world and featured amazing feats by some of the world’s best athletes. But what audiences may have missed, particularly in competitions featuring the world’s elite skiers and snowboarders, was a ban on high-performance glide waxes containing PFAS.

Skiers and snowboarders used fluorocarbon-based waxes for decades, which are hydrophobic and provide glide-enhancement in wet and snowy conditions. As a result, fluorinated ski waxes became staples in winter-sports communities. They also evolved over the years to include purer forms of PFAS more commonly used in nonstick pans and foam fire extinguishers.

In 2019, the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), which governs ski and snowboard competitions, announced a ban on the use of fluorinated ski wax products in competition. Effective 2023, the ban included testing for fluorinated ski waxes using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. A simple and reliable technique used across many industries, infrared spectroscopy measures the interaction of infrared radiation with matter by absorption, emission or reflection. In practice, FIS now uses a compact spectrometer that can be mounted on a track that also holds a ski or snowboard beneath. An infrared spectrum is subsequently produced, which is then evaluated by a statistical model that the FIS has developed.

Last month, FTIR testing resulted in the three Winter Olympic disqualifications involving two South Korean cross-country skiers and a Japanese snowboarder after their equipment tested positive for PFAS waxes. But the disqualifications only applied to events in which the equipment tested positive, not complete bans from the Winter Olympic games.

The FIS’s fluorinated ski wax ban signals a significant shift in attitudes about PFAS and performance-enhancing products in competitive sports. Multiple states have also recently banned ski wax with PFAS additives, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont. Other states are expected to enact bans in the years to come. These steps are consistent with additional state actions regulating or banning PFAS in products including sporting goods, artificial turf, and outdoor apparel and camping gear.

Several states have enacted bans on artificial turf containing PFAS. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, Colorado banned the installation of artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS. Vermont, also effective Jan. 1, 2026, prohibited the manufacture, sale, offering for sale, distributing for sale or distributing for use artificial turf to which PFAS has been intentionally added in any amount. New York banned PFAS in “carpet,” a term defined to include artificial turf, and by Dec. 31, 2026, no carpet is allowed to be sold that contains or is treated with PFAS substances. Maine prohibits selling or distributing artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS after Jan. 1, 2029. Rhode Island similarly prohibits selling or distributing artificial turf containing PFAS after Jan. 1, 2029.

States have also targeted PFAS in outdoor apparel designed for severe wet conditions. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, Connecticut requires “outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions” containing PFAS to carry a label stating it is “Made with PFAS chemicals.” The statute defines such apparel as “outdoor apparel that are extreme and extended-use products designed for outdoor sports experts for applications that provide protection against extended exposure to extreme rain conditions or against extended immersion in water or wet conditions, such as from snow, in order to protect the health and safety of the user and that are not marketed for general consumer use, including, but not limited to, outerwear for offshore fishing, offshore sailing, whitewater kayaking and mountaineering.” Connecticut’s labeling requirement transitions to a complete ban on Jan. 1, 2028. California banned PFAS in most textile articles effective Jan. 1, 2025, with an exception for outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions until Jan. 1, 2028. However, since Jan. 1, 2025, such apparel must include a “Made with PFAS chemicals” disclosure. Effective Jan. 1, 2028, New York will prohibit the sale of new outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS at or above state-established levels. Rhode Island and Maine have imposed a ban on outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions beginning Jan. 1, 2029, unless also accompanied by a disclosure stating “Made with PFAS chemicals.”

Continued and Accelerated State Action

States continue to pass laws and regulations regarding PFAS, particularly when it comes to consumer products. For example, effective Jan. 1, 2026, another phase of Colorado’s Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Consumer Protection Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-601 et seq.) bans the sale or distribution of cleaning products that are not medical-floor maintenance products, cookware, dental floss, menstruation products and ski wax that contain intentionally added PFAS. The installation of artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS is also prohibited.

Other PFAS bans took effect in the new year as part of a consumer-product phaseout timelines. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have additional consumer-product bans on products containing PFAS, as well as reporting and labeling requirements — all of which took effect in the new year. That trend will continue throughout 2026 and into 2027, with additional state restrictions going into effect for numerous consumer products.

Limitation of Liability

As the potential avenues for PFAS-related liability grow, federal and state legislators are continuing to explore ways to limit exposure to that liability. For example, the Georgia legislature is currently considering bills that would shield certain industries from PFAS lawsuits. Although recently withdrawn, House Bill 211, known as the PFAS Receiver Shield Act, sought to protect the state’s manufacturing, textile and agriculture industries. To do so, it provided that absent gross negligence, no so-called “PFAS receiver” shall be held liable for damages in any lawsuit arising from or related to that PFAS receiver’s intended or incidental use, receipt or disposal of PFAS. However, House Bill 211 did not include any limitation of liability for manufacturers of PFAS.

In a separate but related bill, Senate Bill 577, the Coordinated PFAS Remediation Act, seeks to reserve all PFAS-related claims for Georgia — giving state authorities exclusive control over PFAS enforcement and litigation efforts. In its current form, Senate Bill 577 also provides that “[o]n and after July 1, 2026, no local government may bring or maintain an action asserting a PFAS claim.” As a result, Georgia, through its attorney general, would be the sole plaintiff in PFAS-related lawsuits after July 1, 2026.

Unsurprisingly, these proposed measures have been the subject of significant debate, underscoring the increased tension between industrial stakeholders and the public as governments continue to grapple with PFAS contamination and remediation efforts.

Updated EPA Guidance on Destruction and Disposal

Consistent with its May 2025 PFAS plan, EPA is in the process of updating its guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS-containing materials, with the draft guidance document currently under review at the OMB. EPA’s destruction and disposal guidance does not impose any binding requirements, but it is intended to be a scientific and technical resource for decisionmakers when selecting among various disposal alternatives for PFAS and PFAS-containing materials. EPA’s most recent guidance document, published in 2024, found that underground injection, hazardous waste landfills and thermal destruction (including incineration) have a lower potential for environmental release of PFAS compared to other technologies. While the contents of EPA’s current draft updated guidance are not yet public, the Department of Defense also recently released its own “interim guidance” on its internal PFAS disposal practices that is generally more permissive of incineration under some circumstances. EPA is expected to solicit public comment on the updated guidance once it is published, as it did for its 2024 guidance document.

Potential Action on Petition for Regulation Under Clean Air Act

Since Aug. 29, 2024, North Carolina, New Jersey and New Mexico have had a petition pending before EPA asking that the agency regulate emissions of four PFAS — PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and HFPO-DA — under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the petition asks that EPA designate these four PFAS as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) subject to regulation under Section 112 of the CAA. Sources regulated under that provision already must comply with stringent emission standards for other HAPs, and if EPA grants the states’ petition, it would need to determine which source categories emit these HAPs and promulgate standards for them, subject to CAA-mandated stringency requirements.

Recently, the three petitioner states asserted that EPA’s 18-month statutory deadline to respond to their petition expired in February 2026. EPA disputes that assertion, taking the position that its deadline for action under the CAA does not apply until EPA determines the petition is administratively complete — meaning that the 18-month deadline has not even begun to run. The dispute sets up the possibility for conflict as these states press for quicker action by EPA. It is possible the states could even pursue litigation against EPA seeking to compel action on their petition. If the states are successful in their efforts, it could significantly expand the regulatory landscape for PFAS by requiring control of emissions, an area that federal and state regulators have yet to develop.