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.
This edition highlights significant regulatory, legislative and litigation developments including:
- EPA’s draft guidance for reducing PFOA/PFOS risk in land-applied biosolids;
- The Department of Defense’s one-year AFFF waiver extension and ongoing challenges transitioning to fluorine-free foam alternatives;
- EPA’s proposed rollbacks of Biden-era PFAS drinking water standards and opposition from a coalition of 19 state attorneys general;
- New Mexico’s new hazardous waste classifications for AFFF and product-level PFAS restrictions under HB 140 and HB 212;
- California’s proposed PFAS pesticide ban (AB 1603) and its shift from prohibition to disclosure and monitoring;
- Court approval of New Jersey’s $3 billion PFAS settlements with 3M and DuPont entities; and
- The Environmental Appeals Board’s remand in In re City of Manchester, signaling potential PFAS effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
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. Federal Regulatory
EPA Issues Draft PFOA/PFOS Biosolids Guidance
On June 29, 2026, EPA Assistant Administrator Jessica L. Kramer issued a Draft Guidance Memorandum titled “Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) in Biosolids.” The guidance provides voluntary recommendations aimed at helping wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operators, landowners, farmers, state and Tribal water agencies, and the public mitigate risks associated with PFOA and PFOS in land-applied biosolids. The guidance is currently open for public comment until Sept. 4, 2026.
The guidance provides key recommendations for land applicators, WWTPs and the general public. For land applicators, EPA recommends avoiding application near fishable waters or reservoirs used as drinking water sources. EPA also recommends considering the type of crops grown on the land receiving the biosolids. Crops such as grain, fiber or corn for ethanol production are lower risk compared to those with higher potential human exposure such as leafy greens or soft fruits.
For WWTPs, EPA recommends implementing better system monitoring and sludge disposal. System monitoring, such as source identification and PFAS monitoring programs, can be utilized to identify PFAS entering a WWTP. For sludge disposal, EPA suggests composite liners for surface disposal units. If sludge is being incinerated, EPA suggests performance testing to confirm the PFAS is effectively combusted.
For the public, approximately 20% of sewage sludge is sold through soil amendment products available at local hardware stores or garden centers. EPA recommends researching these products prior to purchase and restricting application in areas used for animal foraging, vegetable growing or child play.
While the guidance is nonbinding, it signals EPA’s current thinking on PFAS risk management in biosolids and may foreshadow future regulatory action. Stakeholders should consider submitting public comments and evaluating their current practices in light of the recommendations.
DOD’s Ongoing Struggle With AFFF
In July 2026, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) released a congressional briefing justifying its exercise of a one-year waiver to extend the statutory deadline prohibiting the use and procurement of fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at military installations. The waiver, which extends the deadline to Oct. 1, 2027, comes from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 322 — FY 2020 and Section 315 — FY 2026. The NDAA allows the secretary to invoke up to two one-year extensions upon meeting certain briefing and certification requirements.
Underlying the extension is DOD’s continued struggle to identify viable fluorine-free foam (F3) alternatives. While DOD has published an F3 military specification, several challenges to broad F3 rollout persist, relating to the sheer volume of assets requiring conversion, timing needed to retrofit systems and F3 performance limitations in rapidly extinguishing fires.
DOD’s foam transition is only one dimension of its larger PFAS challenge. Currently, there are more than 700 DOD sites that have, or are likely to have, elevated levels of PFAS in water or soil. While DOD is working on remediating these sites, delays are pushing these efforts back by an average of a decade. Recently, Sen. Patty Murray published a letter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense, expressing concerns about these delays. Murray indicated that the delays could have significant impacts on communities living with PFAS-contaminated groundwater.
With DOD continuing to struggle to transition away from AFFF, historical contamination could become a congressional point of emphasis. Murray has requested a briefing by Aug. 21, 2026, to explain recent remediation delays.
EPA Proposed Rollbacks of PFAS Drinking Water Standards Catch Attention of State Attorneys General
On May 18, 2026, EPA announced two proposed rules that would partially rescind the Biden-era national drinking water standards for PFAS in public water supplies. The first proposed rule would rescind the Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs) and underlying regulatory determinations for four PFAS compounds, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. EPA asserts that the Biden administration failed to follow required procedural and substantive requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act when establishing these MCLs. The second proposed rule would establish an opt-in extension process for eligible water systems, allowing these systems up to two additional years to achieve compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs.
These proposed rollbacks caught the attention of a coalition of 19 state attorneys general, which filed a comment letter opposing these rollbacks. The AGs advance several legal arguments:
- The Safe Drinking Water Act’s Anti-Backsliding Provisions: The AGs argue that the SDWA’s anti-backsliding provision prohibits these rollbacks. While EPA can revise drinking water regulations, such revisions can only maintain or provide for greater protection of human health.
- EPA Cannot Lawfully Rescind Finalized Regulatory Determination: The AGs argue that the SDWA’s use of the phrase “determination to regulate” encompasses preliminary and final steps in the regulatory process. Once EPA has finalized a regulatory determination and established an MCL, the SDWA does not authorize EPA to simply reverse course and withdraw the standard.
- EPA’s Procedural Deficiency Argument is Unfounded: The AGs argue that the Biden administration did not fail to follow proper procedure. The AGs cite prior litigation defending the original rule, highlighting how EPA is contradicting its prior legal position.
- EPA’s Reliance on Loper Bright is Misplaced: The AGs argue that EPA’s use of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) as justification for the revision is incorrect. The AGs argue that Loper Bright does not authorize EPA to unilaterally withdraw regulations that were properly promulgated under clear statutory mandates.
In addition to legal arguments, the AGs argued that the proposed rollbacks would eliminate critical public health protections. The proposed rules could strip EPA of its authority to require public drinking water systems to test for PFAS contamination, identify PFAS in public water supplies and appropriately treat public drinking water. The comment letter signals that legal challenges are likely if rollback is finalized.
Potential PFAS Effluent Limits Coming to NPDES Permits
On Aug. 12, 2026, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued an order in In re City of Manchester (NPDES Appeal No. 25-04), partially denying and partially remanding a petition filed by Conservation Law Foundation challenging EPA Region 1’s renewal of an NPDES permit. The NPDES permit is for Manchester, New Hampshire’s wastewater treatment facility, which discharges into the Merrimack River. EAB remanded the permit to Region 1 to evaluate whether PFAS discharges may violate New Hampshire’s narrative water quality standards.
The EAB found that Region 1 erred when it repeatedly stated it could not conduct a reasonable potential analysis for PFAS without approved numeric water quality criteria. EAB emphasized that under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1), NPDES permits must achieve compliance with state narrative water quality standards, and that existing regulations provide methods for establishing water quality-based effluent limitations even absent pollutant-specific numeric standards. The board further found that the region’s concurrence with New Hampshire’s state-level reasonable potential analysis and its reliance on whole effluent toxicity limits were insufficient to demonstrate how the permit achieves compliance with the state’s narrative toxicity criteria and fish consumption designated use. On remand, the region must correct erroneous statements and evaluate whether PFAS discharges have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of New Hampshire’s narrative water quality standards.
While the EAB did not go as far as requiring EPA to include PFAS effluent limitations, Region 1 must provide a clearer record supporting its conclusion. This ruling could compel EPA regions nationwide to proactively evaluate PFAS discharges against existing narrative criteria and designated uses when renewing NPDES permits, potentially leading to PFAS-specific effluent limitations in federal discharge permits.
II. State Regulatory and Legislation
New Mexico’s PFAS Product Rules Go Into Effect
In April 2025, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed two bills into law that impact how PFAS is regulated in the state. In signing House Bill 140 (HB 140), Lujan Grisham amended New Mexico’s Hazardous Waste Act to classify two types of PFAS-related waste as state-listed hazardous wastes. HB 140 extends the full suite of existing hazardous waste regulatory infrastructure to these wastes. This includes generator standards, transporter requirements, manifest systems, permitting and corrective action obligations.
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) also created two new wastes codes. NMF1 is a nonspecific source waste, commonly known as F-listed waste, for remediation wastes generated from AFFF cleanup. NMU1 is a designation for unused, discarded commercial chemical products, commonly known as U-listed waste, for unused AFFF. On-site disposal or destruction of either of these wastes now requires a hazardous waste facility permit. Any shipment of these wastes must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest with one of the NMED codes mentioned above. Generators must comply with applicable hazardous waste storage, waste characterization and accumulation time-limit requirements. AFFF spills must be reported to NMED within 24 hours. If a release cannot be immediately remedied, it may require management through an RCRA permit or remediation plan.
In signing House Bill 212 (HB 212), Lujan Grisham enacted the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act to regulate products containing intentionally added PFAS. HB 212 resulted in two implementing rules, one targeting PFAS in consumer products (20.13.2 NMAC) and another targeting AFFF (20.13.3 NMAC). The consumer products rules took effect on July 1, 2026, and the AFFF rules took effect on Aug. 1, 2026.
Key regulatory changes associated with HB 212 include production prohibitions, use restrictions, inventory tracking and labeling standards. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, certain products containing intentionally added PFAS may not be sold in New Mexico. These initial products include cookware, food packaging and AFFF. Additional restrictions go into effect on Jan. 1, 2028, with the goal of a general ban by Jan. 1, 2032. AFFF use is now limited to emergency purposes, which includes extinguishing a fire in a life-threatening situation, but excludes training or storing AFFF in fire suppression systems. AFFF inventory is also subject to stricter tracking. NMED requires inventory information to be submitted by May 1 of each calendar year. The inventory submission must include product information, quantity, storage information, use history and transfer or disposal history. Containers must also contain clear labels with information on the AFFF.
Particularly interesting is the definition of “storage” under 20.13.3 NMAC. Storage is defined as “holding AFFF products containing intentionally added PFAS in a physical area of a facility for greater than 24 hours.” This short window will potentially have significant impacts across businesses in New Mexico. Annual inventories of de minimis quantities may show up during environmental due diligence, complicating real estate and environmental due diligence practices across the state.
With these new rules now in effect, PFAS in New Mexico are subject to additional significant regulatory scrutiny.
For additional information, see the October 2025, April 2026, and July 2026 Contaminants Compass editions.
California’s Proposed PFAS Pesticide Ban Hits Snag
Assembly Bill 1603 (AB 1603), introduced on Jan. 16, 2026, by Assembly Member Nick Schultz, sought to phase out pesticides containing PFAS in California agriculture. According to Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) testing in 2023, 37% of California-grown produce samples contained traces of PFAS pesticides. These detections spanned 78 produce types.
AB 1603, as originally proposed, included a partial PFAS ban by 2030 and a complete ban by 2035. As AB 1603 progressed through the legislature, the focus shifted from a complete ban to disclosure and monitoring. These disclosure and monitoring obligations would be overseen by the DPR to better track use trends. AB 1603 passed the California State Assembly and gained approval through several Senate committees. As of Aug. 3, 2026, AB 1603 remains in committee, with approximately one month remaining in the 2026 legislative session.
Due to the apparently significant use of PFAS pesticides in California, AB 1603 drew strong opposition from agricultural industry groups. AB 1603 opponents argued that the ban was overbroad and lacked appropriate chemical-specific risk assessments. While AB 1603’s original goal is no longer under consideration, the idea of a PFAS pesticide ban potentially lays the groundwork for future legislation.
III. Litigation
Judge Approves New Jersey’s $3 Billion PFAS Settlements
As discussed in the July 2026 edition of Contaminants Compass, U.S. District Judge Renée M. Bumb previously signaled her intent to approve proposed settlements worth a combined $3 billion to resolve New Jersey’s claims of PFAS contamination by 3M and various DuPont entities. After two hearings to consider the fairness of the proposed settlements, Bumb officially signed off on the judicial consent orders on Aug. 7, 2026.
The consent orders resolve environmental enforcement actions brought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection against 3M and DuPont entities for widespread PFAS and other chemical contamination at major industrial sites across the state. Under the consent orders, the settling defendants will pay New Jersey up to $1.325 billion in Natural Resource Damages and Abatement Damages over 25 years, with the DuPont entities also committing to approximately $1.2 billion in additional remediation obligations. In exchange, the defendants receive broad releases from PFAS-related claims asserted by New Jersey on behalf of itself, its political subdivisions and the public, without admission of liability.
McGuireWoods supports clients as they assess and mitigate their PFAS risk, develop and apply business operational responses to changing PFAS laws and regulations at federal and state levels, and defend litigation as it arises, including navigating and coordinating national scientific defenses in novel contexts. For questions, contact the authors or a member of the PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area.