PFAS in Biosolids: Regulations, State Requirements & What Wastewater Utilities Need to Know

What Would You Like to Know?

Already familiar with PFAS and biosolids? Jump directly to the issue most relevant to your utility.

What PFAS in biosolids requirements apply in my state?

View current state-by-state requirements, policies, guidance, and significant pending developments.

→ PFAS in Biosolids Regulations by State

What regulatory changes should my utility be watching?

Follow significant federal and state regulatory developments affecting biosolids management.

→ Latest PFAS in Biosolids Regulatory Developments

What could these requirements mean for our operations and budget?

See how testing, land-application restrictions, disposal requirements, and other changes can affect operations and costs.

→ Operational & Financial Impacts

What are the legal and liability issues?

Understand the federal designations, liability questions, proposed protections, and legal developments wastewater utilities should be monitoring.

→ Liability & Legal Developments

What should our utility be doing now?

Review the questions wastewater leaders should be asking about regulatory requirements, disposal options, costs, source control, funding, and preparedness.

→ Questions Wastewater Leaders Should Be Asking

Current PFAS in Biosolids Regulatory Landscape

Federal rules already govern how sewage sludge and biosolids are used and disposed of, but they do not currently establish PFAS limits for biosolids. EPA's existing standards, known as 40 CFR Part 503, regulate sewage sludge that is land applied, placed in a surface disposal site, or incinerated and include requirements for pollutant limits, management practices, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. PFAS, however, are not currently regulated pollutants under Part 503.

EPA is continuing to evaluate how PFAS should be addressed within that framework. In July 2026, the agency released Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids. The guidance does not establish enforceable PFAS concentration limits. Instead, it provides voluntary recommendations for wastewater treatment plants, state and Tribal agencies, landowners, farmers, and others involved in managing biosolids. The public comment period closed on October 5, 2026, and EPA has indicated that submitted comments may help inform future agency actions.

PFAS monitoring and source control are also becoming an increasingly important part of the federal approach. EPA recommends Method 1633A for measuring 40 PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, in sewage sludge. The agency has also recommended that states monitor biosolids for PFAS, identify likely industrial sources of PFAS entering wastewater systems, and use industrial pretreatment requirements where appropriate to reduce PFAS entering wastewater treatment plants.

Against that federal backdrop, states, Tribes, and local governments may impose additional or more stringent requirements. Those approaches can include:

• PFAS testing or monitoring requirements before biosolids can be land applied;

• concentration thresholds that trigger additional management, source-control, or disposal requirements;

• restrictions on where or how biosolids can be land applied;

• prohibitions on land application or on certain uses of PFAS-containing biosolids;

• requirements to identify and reduce upstream PFAS sources; and

• pending legislation or rulemaking that could change future biosolids management options.

These requirements do not always take the same regulatory form. Depending on the state, a PFAS-related obligation may appear in legislation, agency rules, wastewater or biosolids permits, interim management strategies, or non-binding guidance. For utilities operating within this evolving framework, understanding the status of a requirement is as important as understanding the requirement itself: what is enforceable today, what is agency guidance, and what is still proposed or under development.

The result is a regulatory landscape in which the options available to a wastewater utility can vary significantly by location. Testing, land application, source control, and disposal practices that remain available under one state's framework may carry additional conditions or restrictions in another.

PFAS in Biosolids Regulations by State

State approaches to PFAS in biosolids vary significantly. Some states require routine PFAS testing before biosolids can be land applied, some use concentration thresholds to determine when additional controls or alternative management are required, and others have restricted or prohibited certain forms of land application altogether.

‍

Because states regulate PFAS in biosolids differently, wastewater utilities may face very different requirements depending on where they operate. The examples below illustrate several of the regulatory approaches currently in use.

*Update as of: October 2026

Colorado

Colorado’s Biosolids-PFAS Interim Strategy requires PFAS monitoring by biosolids preparers and uses PFOS as an indicator for potential source-control action. A PFOS concentration of 50 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) or higher triggers requirements to identify and reduce significant PFAS sources entering the wastewater system. Colorado’s current approach focuses primarily on monitoring and source reduction rather than establishing a statewide PFAS concentration at which land application is automatically prohibited.

Connecticut

Direct land application of wastewater sludge was already not permitted in Connecticut before the state adopted additional PFAS-specific restrictions. In 2024, Connecticut prohibited the use, sale or offering for sale of PFAS-containing biosolids or wastewater sludge as a soil amendment, effective October 1, 2024.

The restriction affects products such as pelletized biosolids-based fertilizers and other soil amendments that could otherwise provide an outlet for wastewater residuals. Connecticut DEEP notes that most sewage sludge generated by wastewater treatment plants in the state is instead incinerated.

Maine

Maine has prohibited the land application of sludge generated by municipal, commercial and industrial wastewater treatment facilities since 2022. The state's land-application prohibition also covers certain sludge-derived composts and other products, eliminating a management option historically available to wastewater utilities.  

Maine has since added requirements affecting sludge sent to solid waste facilities. Under legislation effective in April 2026, generators must characterize sludge according to a Maine Department of Environmental Protection-approved plan that includes PFAS sampling and analysis beginning no later than January 2027 .  

For additional background on the state's wastewater challenges and biosolids management, see our analysis of PFAS contamination in Maine

Maryland

Maryland currently requires wastewater treatment plants whose biosolids are land applied to test for PFOA and PFOS, with sampling frequency based on the amount of sewage sludge generated. Those requirements took effect January 1, 2025. The state’s existing guidance also uses tiered concentration ranges to recommend reduced application rates or discontinuation of land application at higher PFAS concentrations. Maryland Department of the Environment

Maryland strengthened that framework in 2026. HB 925/SB 719, approved by the governor and effective October 1, 2026, establishes future PFAS restrictions for land-applied sewage sludge. Beginning October 1, 2028, sludge containing 50 parts per billion or more of regulated PFAS may not be applied to agricultural or marginal land, while concentrations from 25 to less than 50 ppb will trigger additional management requirements.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts requires PFAS testing for residuals approved for land application. Holders of an Approval of Suitability (AOS) generally must monitor residuals for PFAS quarterly and submit their results to MassDEP.

Quarterly monitoring has been required for land-applied residuals with an AOS since 2020, building on annual PFAS monitoring that began in 2019. Massachusetts has not established a statewide PFAS concentration limit for biosolids comparable to some other states, but PFAS testing is incorporated into the state’s residuals approval program.

Michigan

Michigan uses a tiered approach based primarily on concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. Under the state's Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids Containing PFAS , facilities that land apply Class A or Class B biosolids must sample the finished product for PFAS at least once each calendar year before land application.

When either PFOA or PFOS reaches 100 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg), Michigan considers the biosolids industrially impacted and prohibits land application. Concentrations of 20 µg/kg to less than 100 µg/kg trigger additional requirements, including reduced application rates or an approved alternative mitigation strategy, wastewater sampling and source reduction.

Minnesota

Minnesota's Biosolids PFAS Strategy requires wastewater treatment facilities intending to land apply biosolids to test them for PFAS before application. Beginning September 2025, facilities must collect at least one representative sample per cropping year and analyze it for 40 PFAS compounds using EPA Method 1633A.

Minnesota applies increasingly stringent requirements based primarily on PFOA and PFOS concentrations. At 125 µg/kg or higher for either compound, biosolids are considered industrially impacted and cannot be land applied. Lower concentrations can trigger notification, source-identification and reduction measures, reduced application rates and additional reporting requirements.

For additional context on the state's contamination challenges, treatment considerations and potential cost-recovery options, see our Minnesota biosolids and PFAS overview  

New Hampshire

New Hampshire is moving toward concentration-based PFAS standards for land-applied biosolids. Under RSA 485-A:5-d , legislation enacted in 2026 requires the Department of Environmental Services to begin rulemaking by June 30, 2027 to establish PFAS concentration standards and soil-testing requirements for land-application sites.

Beginning January 1, 2028, land application will be prohibited when biosolids or soil PFAS concentrations exceed the applicable standards established through that process.

New York

New York uses an interim concentration-based strategy for recycled biosolids. The Department of Environmental Conservation’s DMM-7 policy requires PFAS sampling and establishes response levels for PFOA and PFOS.

Concentrations above 20 µg/kg trigger additional sampling and reduction measures, while DEC will prohibit recycling when either PFOA or PFOS exceeds 50 µg/kg until concentrations are reduced below the state’s criteria. In June 2026, DEC also finalized DMM-7A, expanding PFAS sampling requirements to biosolids-derived products such as compost and heat-dried products.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island requires PFAS testing for biosolids that are distributed or land applied. Under Rhode Island General Law, Section 46-12-42, new applicants seeking approval to distribute or land apply biosolids must submit PFAS test results with their applications.

Operators with existing approvals must test biosolids quarterly and report their results to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Quarterly sampling began during the final quarter of 2025. The law also authorizes DEM to deny an application when approval would pose an environmental or public health risk.

Vermont

Vermont requires PFAS testing of biosolids generated in or approved for import into the state. State rules also require PFAS testing of soil and groundwater at certified Class B biosolids and stabilized septage land-application sites, generally at least annually. Vermont DEC

Vermont’s Interim Strategy for Managing PFAS in Residuals, effective April 2024, adds PFAS screening and management measures for certain biosolids and other residual materials. The strategy is intended to reduce the potential transfer of PFAS to soil and groundwater while the state continues evaluating longer-term regulatory approaches.

Washington

Washington enacted temporary statewide PFAS biosolids sampling requirements in 2025. Under Chapter 70A.226 RCW, most facilities covered by the state’s general biosolids permit must sample applicable biosolids for PFAS between January 1, 2027 and June 30, 2028.

Facilities must use an accredited laboratory and EPA Method 1633A or an approved alternative and submit results to the Washington Department of Ecology. The resulting data will be used to develop recommendations for future biosolids management and presented to the legislature by July 2029.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin added statewide PFAS monitoring requirements for sewage sludge generators in 2026. The Department of Natural Resources issued a new PFAS Monitoring for Sewage Sludge Generators general permit on July 1, 2026, requiring covered facilities to monitor and report PFAS concentrations.

The supplemental permit applies to sewage sludge generators with valid Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that do not already contain PFAS limitations or conditions. Wisconsin also maintains an interim strategy intended to limit land application of significantly PFAS-impacted material and encourage source identification and reduction.

‍

Taken together, these approaches show why simply asking whether a state regulates PFAS in biosolids does not provide enough information for a wastewater utility. A utility may also need to know:

• Is PFAS testing required before land application?

• Which PFAS compounds must be analyzed?

• Are there concentration thresholds or action levels?

• Do certain results trigger source-control requirements?

• Is land application still permitted?

• Are additional restrictions scheduled to take effect?

Latest Regulatory Developments for PFAS in Biosolids

New legislation, agency guidance and monitoring requirements can affect how wastewater utilities manage biosolids and plan for future expenses. The updates below highlight significant developments at the state and federal levels, including new requirements, pending deadlines and changes that could affect biosolids management.

*Last updated: September 22, 2026

‍

What Do These Regulations Mean for Wastewater Systems?

PFAS biosolids regulations can affect far more than a utility's compliance obligations. New testing requirements, land-application restrictions and disposal limitations can change how wastewater systems manage biosolids, allocate resources and plan for future infrastructure needs.

The operational consequences will depend on a utility's existing biosolids management practices, available treatment and disposal options, and the specific requirements in its state.

Testing and monitoring requirements

New PFAS testing requirements may require utilities to adjust existing sampling schedules, laboratory arrangements, reporting procedures, and communications with regulators or landowners.

For example, under Minnesota's Biosolids PFAS Strategy , wastewater facilities intending to land- apply biosolids must test them for PFAS before application. Depending on the results, facilities may need to reduce application rates, implement source-reduction measures, or discontinue land application. They must also communicate relevant results to regulators and affected landowners or farmers.

Utilities subject to similar requirements may need to account for laboratory turnaround times, additional staff responsibilities, recordkeeping, and the possibility that sampling results could require changes to planned biosolids management activities.

Changes to land application practices

For utilities that rely on land application, PFAS concentration thresholds or new restrictions can directly affect existing management arrangements. Depending on the regulatory requirements and sampling results, a utility may need to reduce application rates, identify additional application sites or discontinue land application altogether.

Michigan's interim biosolids strategy, for example, requires reduced application rates or an approved alternative mitigation strategy when PFOA or PFOS concentrations reach certain thresholds. Higher concentrations prohibit land application, requiring utilities to arrange alternative treatment or disposal.

These restrictions may require utilities to reconsider long-standing arrangements with farmers and landowners, adjust biosolids handling and storage practices, or identify alternative outlets before existing management options become unavailable.

Alternative disposal and hauling arrangements

When land application becomes restricted or unavailable, wastewater utilities must evaluate alternative ways to manage their biosolids. Options may include landfill disposal, incineration or other permitted treatment and management methods, depending on facility capabilities and available regional infrastructure.

Maine illustrates the challenges associated with losing an established management option. Following its 2022 land-application ban, wastewater systems became increasingly dependent on a limited number of landfills. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has documented the resulting disposal-capacity challenges and efforts to evaluate alternative sludge management and treatment options.

For utilities facing similar restrictions, alternative disposal may introduce longer transportation distances, additional hauling arrangements, limited receiving-facility capacity, and changes to existing disposal contracts.

For a closer look at these challenges, see our article on biosolids bans and rising costs for wastewater systems.

Treatment and destruction considerations

Utilities may also need to evaluate whether existing treatment and processing infrastructure can accommodate changing biosolids management requirements. Options such as additional dewatering or drying can reduce the amount of material requiring transportation and disposal, while more extensive treatment or destruction technologies may require significant infrastructure investments.

However, reducing sludge volume does not necessarily eliminate PFAS. EPA's 2026 Interim Guidance on PFAS Destruction and Disposal discusses available management technologies, including landfilling and thermal treatment, as well as their limitations and remaining scientific uncertainties.

Utilities evaluating these options should consider facility compatibility, demonstrated treatment performance, residual waste management, permitting requirements, and the long-term reliability of available technologies.

Identifying and reducing upstream PFAS sources

Reducing the amount of PFAS entering a wastewater treatment plant may help limit contamination in its biosolids. Understanding how PFAS enter municipal wastewater can help utilities identify significant industrial contributors, evaluate sampling results and determine where source-control or pretreatment measures may be appropriate.

EPA has recommended PFAS monitoring and industrial source-control measures to help reduce PFAS entering wastewater treatment facilities. Michigan's biosolids strategy also requires source investigations and reduction plans when specified concentration thresholds are reached.

While source reduction may improve future biosolids quality, utilities must still manage existing material and meet applicable requirements. Source control should therefore be considered alongside testing, treatment, and disposal planning rather than as a replacement for those activities.

Planning for future management requirements

Even when a utility's current biosolids practices remain permissible, changing regulatory requirements can introduce uncertainty into long-term planning.

Utilities may need to evaluate the flexibility of existing hauling and disposal contracts, the availability of alternative receiving facilities, potential infrastructure investments and the consequences of losing an established management option.

Evaluating these vulnerabilities early can help utilities maintain flexibility and make more informed decisions about their long-term biosolids management strategies.

What Could PFAS Requirements for Biosolids Cost Utilities?

The financial effects of PFAS biosolids requirements can extend well beyond the cost of laboratory testing. Depending on a utility’s current biosolids management practices and the regulatory approach in its state, expenses may arise from sampling, hauling, alternative disposal, treatment, infrastructure changes and long-term capital planning.

The total cost will vary significantly from one system to another. Rather than relying on a single estimate, utilities should evaluate the specific cost categories that could be affected if testing requirements increase or existing biosolids management options become more limited.

Testing and sampling

PFAS monitoring requirements can introduce new laboratory, sampling, and administrative costs. Utilities may need to collect additional samples, use approved analytical methods, coordinate with qualified laboratories, and incorporate PFAS results into reporting, permitting, or biosolids management decisions.

Those costs may be relatively predictable compared with what can follow if sampling results trigger additional regulatory requirements or limit how biosolids can be managed.

Transportation and hauling

If a utility can no longer use an existing land-application site or nearby management option, transportation costs can increase quickly.

Alternative facilities may be farther away, require different hauling arrangements or charge higher tipping or acceptance fees. Utilities may also need additional storage or handling capacity if receiving facilities have limited availability or if biosolids cannot be moved on the same schedule as before.

Maine provides a useful example. Following the state’s prohibition on land application, wastewater systems became increasingly dependent on landfill and other disposal options, contributing to concerns about disposal capacity and rising costs.  

Alternative disposal

Losing access to land application can force utilities to evaluate more expensive or operationally complex alternatives.

Depending on what is available regionally, options may include landfilling, thermal treatment, or other permitted disposal or treatment pathways. EPA’s 2026 Interim Guidance on PFAS Destruction and Disposal discusses landfills, thermal treatment, and underground injection as large-scale management options while emphasizing that each has different limitations, uncertainties, and potential for environmental release.  

For wastewater utilities, the financial question is therefore not simply the cost per ton of disposal. Availability, transportation distance, contract terms, facility capacity, and future regulatory restrictions can all affect the long-term cost of a management strategy.

Treatment and infrastructure

Some utilities may consider treatment or processing changes to reduce sludge volume, alter biosolids characteristics, or respond to future PFAS management requirements.

Those changes can range from modifications to existing dewatering or drying processes to more substantial infrastructure investments. More advanced PFAS treatment or destruction options may involve significant capital expenditures, ongoing operating costs, and additional residual management requirements.

Because the technology and regulatory landscape continue to evolve, major infrastructure investments should be evaluated in the context of both current requirements and plausible future management constraints.

Capital planning and contingency costs

One of the more difficult financial challenges is uncertainty.

A utility may be operating within current requirements while knowing that pending legislation, new concentration thresholds, or future disposal restrictions could change its available options. That uncertainty can affect contract negotiations, reserve planning, capital improvement programs and decisions about whether to invest in alternative biosolids management capacity.

Utilities may therefore want to model more than one scenario, including:

• continued use of existing biosolids management practices;  

• additional PFAS testing and monitoring;  

• reduced or discontinued land application;  

• increased hauling distances;  

• higher disposal or tipping fees;  

• temporary storage needs; and  

• new treatment or infrastructure investments.  

Identifying these potential cost categories early can also make it easier to document PFAS-related expenses and evaluate available funding or cost-recovery options.

Funding, Manufacturer Responsibility & Cost Recovery

Funding, Manufacturer Responsibility & Cost Recovery

As wastewater utilities identify the potential costs of PFAS biosolids management, an important question is how those expenses will be funded. Federal and state programs may help support certain projects, but utilities may still face costs that fall outside available funding.

Evaluating public funding, documenting PFAS-related expenses, and considering potential cost recovery from responsible manufacturers can help utilities develop a more comprehensive financial strategy.

Federal and state funding opportunities

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Emerging Contaminants program provides funding to states for eligible projects addressing PFAS and other emerging contaminants in wastewater, stormwater, and nonpoint source pollution.

Eligible projects can include PFAS treatment infrastructure, certain planning and design activities, and improvements to publicly owned landfills designed to accept biosolids containing emerging contaminants. Funding availability, application procedures, and project priorities vary by state.  

However, not all PFAS-related expenses qualify. EPA's funding eligibility guidance generally excludes routine compliance monitoring, ongoing operations and maintenance, and standalone source-identification activities. Certain sampling expenses may qualify when they are integral to planning or designing an eligible capital project.  

Utilities should evaluate available funding against both their immediate compliance needs and longer-term biosolids management plans.

Addressing potential funding gaps

Even when public funding is available, it may not cover every PFAS-related expense a utility incurs.

Recurring laboratory testing, increased hauling and disposal expenses, additional staffing, and changes to existing management contracts can create ongoing financial obligations alongside larger infrastructure investments.

These expenses may also arise before a utility secures funding for a major project, creating additional challenges for budgeting and long-term planning.

Identifying which costs may qualify for public assistance and which will require alternative funding can help utilities better understand their potential financial exposure.

Manufacturer responsibility and cost recovery

Wastewater treatment plants receive PFAS from a variety of upstream industrial, commercial and residential sources. Although these systems generally do not manufacture PFAS themselves, they may incur significant costs managing contamination in their wastewater and biosolids.

Many wastewater utilities have pursued legal claims against PFAS manufacturers to seek recovery of contamination-related expenses. For example, Maine's York Sewer District has pursued litigation against PFAS manufacturers to recover current and anticipated costs associated with contamination in its wastewater and biosolids, as discussed in our analysis of PFAS liability and cost recovery for wastewater utilities .  

The existing PFAS settlements for public drinking water systems do not provide compensation for wastewater or biosolids-related claims, which would need to be pursued separately.

For utilities facing or anticipating PFAS-related costs, pursuing available legal claims against PFAS manufacturers may be an effective component of broader financial planning, to shift some of the financial burden from utilities and their ratepayers to the companies responsible for PFAS contamination.

Documenting PFAS-related costs

Regardless of the funding approach, maintaining accurate records of PFAS-related expenses can help utilities understand their financial exposure, prepare funding applications, and evaluate potential cost-recovery claims.

Relevant documentation may include:

• PFAS sampling results and laboratory invoices.

• Historical and current biosolids management costs.

• Hauling and disposal contracts, invoices and changes in disposal arrangements.

• Engineering assessments, treatment evaluations and infrastructure estimates.

• Records of additional staffing, operational changes and other expenses attributable to PFAS.

• Available information about significant upstream PFAS sources.

Maintaining these records as costs arise can help distinguish existing operating expenses from additional costs associated with PFAS contamination or changing regulatory requirements.

Where appropriate, utilities can use this information to evaluate public funding, assess potential recovery from responsible manufacturers, and inform long-term financial decisions.

Liability & Legal Developments Wastewater Utilities Should Watch

Beyond new testing and biosolids management requirements, wastewater utilities face evolving legal questions about PFAS contamination and who may be responsible for associated cleanup costs. Key developments that warrant attention include federal hazardous substance designations, potential liability for utilities that receive PFAS from upstream sources, and proposed legislation to protect passive receivers from liability.

CERCLA and its implications for wastewater utilities

In 2024, EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) . The designation, effective July 8, 2024, expanded the federal government's authority to address releases of these chemicals and pursue recovery of eligible cleanup costs from responsible parties.  

Under CERCLA, liability can be strict and retroactive, potentially extending to parties that did not manufacture the hazardous substances involved. For wastewater utilities, this raises questions about potential responsibility for PFAS received through municipal wastewater, including contamination associated with effluent, biosolids and their disposal.  

The designation also establishes a reporting requirement for non-exempt releases of PFOA or PFOS that meet or exceed one pound within a 24-hour period. However, the designation does not itself establish PFAS discharge limits, impose new biosolids concentration standards, or automatically require a wastewater utility to undertake cleanup activities.  

Passive receiver liability and EPA enforcement discretion

Most wastewater utilities receive PFAS from industrial, commercial, and residential sources rather than producing the chemicals themselves. These systems are commonly referred to as passive receivers, but that status alone does not provide a blanket exemption from potential CERCLA liability.

EPA's PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy, issued in April 2024, explains that the agency intends to focus enforcement efforts on parties that significantly contributed to PFAS contamination, including manufacturers and certain industrial sources. The policy identifies water utilities, municipal landfills, farmers, and other entities that EPA generally does not intend to pursue for cleanup actions or costs based on equitable considerations.

However, enforcement discretion is not the same as statutory liability protection. EPA's policy does not prevent third parties from pursuing claims against wastewater utilities, and a future administration could modify the agency's enforcement priorities. EPA reiterated these limitations in September 2025 while announcing its decision to retain the PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designation.  

For additional background on the financial implications of potential CERCLA liability, see our analysis of PFAS regulations, CERCLA liability and cost considerations for wastewater utilities

Proposed protections for wastewater utilities

Congress has considered legislation intended to address the potential liability of water and wastewater systems that receive PFAS through ordinary operations.

The Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act (H.R. 1267) , introduced in February 2025, would establish conditional CERCLA liability protections for specified water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, municipalities and associated contractors. The proposed protections would apply to qualifying activities performed in accordance with applicable environmental laws, including certain biosolids management and disposal activities. The bill preserves liability in cases involving gross negligence or willful misconduct.  

As of September 2026, H.R. 1267 remains in committee and has not been enacted. Wastewater utilities therefore cannot rely on its proposed protections under existing federal law.  

Recent litigation and remaining legal uncertainty

The CERCLA designation has also faced legal challenges. On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected challenges to EPA's PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designation, leaving the 2024 rule in place. The court concluded that EPA had acted within its statutory authority and adequately addressed the legal and procedural challenges raised by industry petitioners.  

The decision addressed the validity of EPA's designation; it did not establish a general liability exemption for wastewater utilities or resolve how CERCLA liability will apply in every individual contamination case.

For utility leaders, important issues to monitor include potential changes to federal enforcement policy, the status of proposed legislative protections, further litigation and developments affecting potential recovery of PFAS-related costs from manufacturers.

Understanding the distinction between current law, agency enforcement policy, and proposed protections can help utilities evaluate their legal exposure alongside their operational and financial planning.

What Should Wastewater Leaders Be Doing Now?

As PFAS biosolids requirements continue to evolve, wastewater utilities can take steps to understand their regulatory exposure, evaluate existing management practices, and prepare for potential operational and financial changes.

The following questions provide a framework for utility leadership teams to assess where they have clear answers, where additional information may be needed and which decisions warrant further planning.

What PFAS biosolids requirements currently apply to our utility?

Review current state regulations, permit conditions, and applicable agency guidance to determine whether PFAS testing, monitoring, reporting, or biosolids management requirements apply to your system. Distinguish between enforceable requirements, interim agency policies, and proposed changes that have not yet taken effect.

What regulatory developments should we be monitoring?

Identify pending legislation, published rulemaking proposals, and upcoming implementation deadlines that could affect your utility's biosolids management practices. Establish a process for reviewing regulatory updates and evaluating their potential operational consequences without assuming that proposed requirements will necessarily become law.

Could our current land application or disposal practices become restricted?

Consider how changes to testing requirements, concentration thresholds, or land-application restrictions could affect existing biosolids management arrangements. Review current contracts, receiving facility requirements, and the availability of alternative management options if existing arrangements become unavailable.

What alternatives are available, and what would they cost?

Evaluate alternative hauling, treatment, and disposal options before they become necessary. Consider transportation distances, facility acceptance requirements, processing capacity, anticipated expenses, and any infrastructure changes that may be required.

Understanding these alternatives can help utilities assess their financial exposure and avoid making significant operational decisions without adequate preparation.

Do we understand our significant upstream PFAS sources?

Review available monitoring data and information about industrial or commercial dischargers that may contribute PFAS to the wastewater system. Where appropriate, investigate opportunities to reduce contamination through source identification, industrial pretreatment, or other pollution-prevention measures.

EPA provides resources for developing PFAS monitoring strategies and identifying industrial sources that wastewater utilities can use when evaluating their existing programs.  

Are we adequately documenting PFAS-related costs?

Maintain records of sampling results, laboratory expenses, hauling and disposal costs, treatment evaluations, infrastructure assessments, and other PFAS-related expenditures.

Where possible, document historical biosolids management costs alongside new expenses. This can help utilities understand how PFAS requirements are affecting their budgets and provide supporting information for future funding applications or potential cost-recovery claims.

What public funding may be available?

Evaluate federal and state funding opportunities, including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Emerging Contaminants program, to determine whether planned PFAS-related projects may qualify for financial assistance.

Consider the limitations of available programs when planning for recurring expenses. For example, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Emerging Contaminants program generally supports eligible capital projects and associated planning but does not cover routine operations and maintenance or ongoing compliance monitoring.  

Which PFAS-related costs may warrant evaluation for potential recovery?

Determine which expenses may be attributable to PFAS contamination, including additional testing, changes to biosolids management, increased disposal costs, and potential treatment or infrastructure investments.

Wastewater utilities may also want to evaluate whether they have grounds to pursue cost recovery from PFAS manufacturers or other responsible parties. This assessment should account for the utility's particular circumstances, potential legal claims, and any relevant litigation or settlement developments.

Maintaining organized financial and operational records can help support that evaluation.

Who is responsible for coordinating our utility's PFAS response?

PFAS biosolids management may require coordination across operations, engineering, finance, procurement and legal teams, as well as municipal leadership.

Establish clear responsibilities for monitoring regulatory developments, reviewing sampling results, evaluating alternative management options, and tracking PFAS-related expenses. Regular communication among these groups can help ensure that operational decisions, financial planning, and potential legal considerations are evaluated together.

Utilities do not need to have every answer immediately. Identifying outstanding questions, assigning responsibility, and establishing a process for revisiting decisions can help leadership teams respond as requirements and available information change.

Understanding PFAS in Wastewater & Biosolids

Understanding how PFAS move through wastewater treatment and into biosolids helps explain why land application, disposal and source control have become important regulatory concerns.

EPA's 2025 draft sewage sludge risk assessment identified potential health risks from PFOA and PFOS under certain modeled exposure scenarios. Those findings do not establish the actual risk at an individual site, but they help explain the increased regulatory attention being directed toward biosolids management.

What are biosolids?

Land application allows wastewater utilities to beneficially reuse biosolids and recover nutrients. However, when biosolids contain PFAS, that practice can introduce persistent chemicals into soil and potentially create pathways to groundwater, surface water, crops, and livestock. These pathways have also raised regulatory and financial concerns for affected farms.

Biosolids are the nutrient-rich solids produced during wastewater treatment that have undergone additional processing to meet applicable requirements for beneficial land application. They can be used as fertilizers or soil amendments on agricultural land and other permitted sites.

Why has land application become a regulatory concern?

EPA distinguishes biosolids from untreated sewage sludge, although the terms are often used interchangeably. Learn more about sewage sludge and biosolids .  

The extent of contamination and potential exposure depends on several factors, including PFAS concentrations, application history, soil characteristics, local hydrology, and land use. The presence of PFAS in biosolids does not necessarily mean that every application site will experience the same impacts.  

How does PFAS enter wastewater?

Yes. When PFAS-containing biosolids are land-applied, certain PFAS may persist in soil, move into groundwater, enter nearby surface waters through runoff or be taken up by crops and livestock.

PFAS can enter municipal wastewater systems through industrial and commercial discharges, landfill leachate, and household wastewater. Sources include manufacturing operations, certain industrial processes, commercial facilities, and the use or washing of PFAS-containing consumer products.

Can PFAS in biosolids reach soil or water?

Because wastewater treatment plants receive wastewater from multiple upstream sources, identifying the origin of PFAS contamination can be challenging.  

Additional treatment technologies may reduce PFAS concentrations, but their effectiveness varies by compound and waste stream. Captured PFAS and treatment residuals must also be managed appropriately. EPA's guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal discusses available technologies and their limitations.  

How does PFAS end up in biosolids?

The conventional wastewater treatment process is generally not designed to effectively remove or destroy PFAS. Processes that remove organic matter, nutrients and pathogens may leave PFAS in treated effluent or transfer some compounds into biosolids.

During wastewater treatment, solids are separated from the liquid wastewater. Some PFAS compounds associate with these solids and can become concentrated in the resulting sludge and biosolids, while others remain in the treated wastewater.

Does conventional wastewater treatment remove PFAS?

As a result, wastewater treatment processes can transfer PFAS from one waste stream to another without destroying the chemicals.  

PFAS in Biosolids: Frequently Asked Questions

The following answers address common questions about PFAS biosolids regulations, testing, land application, liability and costs for wastewater utilities.

Which states regulate PFAS in biosolids?

Several states have adopted PFAS-specific requirements or restrictions affecting biosolids management, but their approaches differ. For example, Maine prohibits land application of sludge, while Michigan and Minnesota use PFAS testing and concentration-based requirements to determine whether biosolids can be land applied. Other states have adopted monitoring requirements or are developing additional restrictions.  

Utilities should consult the state-by-state regulatory map above for current and developing requirements relevant to their location.

Does EPA regulate PFAS in biosolids?

EPA regulates sewage sludge under 40 CFR Part 503, but it has not established enforceable federal PFAS concentration limits for biosolids. In July 2026, EPA released draft guidance providing voluntary recommendations for reducing potential risks from PFOA and PFOS in biosolids.  

States may impose additional requirements, including PFAS testing, concentration thresholds and land-application restrictions.

Are wastewater utilities required to test biosolids for PFAS?

Testing requirements depend on applicable state regulations and permit conditions. Although EPA recommends PFAS monitoring, there is no universal federal requirement for wastewater utilities to test biosolids specifically for PFAS under Part 503.

States such as Michigan and Minnesota, among others, require testing for facilities that land- apply biosolids. Utilities should verify applicable sampling frequencies, analytical methods, reporting obligations and concentration thresholds.  

Can biosolids containing PFAS still be land- applied?

In some states, yes. Whether land application is permitted depends on applicable state requirements, permit conditions and, where relevant, PFAS concentrations.

Some states allow land application below specified thresholds while requiring additional management measures at higher concentrations. Others, including Maine, have prohibited sludge land application. Detecting PFAS does not automatically prohibit land application nationwide.  

What happens when PFAS biosolids are restricted from land application?

Wastewater utilities may need to identify alternative management options, such as permitted landfill disposal, thermal treatment, or other available processing methods.

These alternatives may require new hauling arrangements, changes to existing contracts, additional storage capacity, or infrastructure investments. EPA's 2026 guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal discusses available technologies and their limitations.  

How can PFAS biosolids requirements affect disposal costs?

PFAS-related restrictions can increase expenses by limiting existing management options and requiring alternative disposal arrangements. Additional costs may include longer hauling distances, higher disposal fees, increased testing, storage and infrastructure investments.

The financial impact depends on a utility's existing practices, regional disposal capacity and applicable regulatory requirements. Utilities should evaluate these expenses alongside their long-term biosolids management plans.

Can wastewater treatment prevent PFAS from entering biosolids?

Conventional wastewater treatment generally does not destroy PFAS. Some compounds remain in treated effluent, while others accumulate in sludge and biosolids.

Identifying significant upstream PFAS sources and implementing appropriate industrial pretreatment or source-control measures may help reduce contamination. However, additional treatment or management measures may still be necessary.  

Who is responsible for PFAS found in municipal biosolids?

Wastewater utilities are generally receivers of PFAS, not the companies that manufactured the chemicals or introduced them into commerce. While utilities must manage PFAS-containing biosolids in accordance with applicable regulations, that obligation does not mean they should bear the financial responsibility for PFAS contamination. In fact, PFAS manufacturers should be the ones held accountable for the pollution caused.  

EPA's PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA similarly focuses federal enforcement on significant contributors to PFAS contamination, including PFAS manufacturers and companies that used PFAS in manufacturing. The policy also identifies water utilities among the entities EPA generally does not intend to pursue when equitable considerations do not support seeking cleanup actions or costs, although it does not provide blanket protection from third-party claims

Who pays for PFAS testing, treatment and disposal?

Wastewater utilities may initially incur PFAS-related costs through their operating and capital budgets. Some projects may qualify for federal or state financial assistance, but public funding does not necessarily cover ongoing testing, hauling, or disposal expenses.

For example, EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Emerging Contaminants program supports eligible capital projects and associated planning but generally excludes routine operations and maintenance.  

Can wastewater utilities recover PFAS-related costs?

Depending on their circumstances, wastewater utilities may have legal options to pursue recovery of PFAS-related costs and damages from manufacturers or other responsible parties.

Recoverable costs and damages may include expenses associated with PFAS testing, treatment, disposal, and infrastructure. The availability and scope of any recovery will depend on applicable law, the utility’s circumstances, and other case-specific factors.

‍