PFAS in waste: Key industrial compliance planning considerations for 2026

Over the past decade, federal and state attention on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has focused primarily on drinking water standards, site specific remediation, and health advisories. By contrast, regulatory frameworks governing industrial waste streams, residuals, and biosolids have continued to evolve incrementally, often through guidance, targeted data collection, and state level initiatives rather than through comprehensive federal programs.

As a result, industrial stakeholders across a wide range of sectors have operated within a complex and sometimes uneven regulatory landscape, where compliance obligations have been shaped largely by facility specific permits, state requirements, and operational context.

Looking ahead, federal initiatives scheduled for 2026 may suggest continued attention to PFAS across multiple environmental programs. These initiatives – spanning the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), and wastewater permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA) – do not establish new, uniform PFAS waste classifications. Rather, they reflect the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s ongoing efforts to improve information gathering, clarify existing statutory authorities, and support more consistent evaluation of PFAS where they may be present in industrial operations.

For regulated entities, these developments underscore the value of advance planning, internal coordination, and clarity regarding how PFAS considerations intersect with existing compliance programs. Implications will continue to depend heavily on site specific facts, applicable permits, state regulatory overlays, and operational practices.

In this alert, we provide practical considerations for industrial operations in light of EPA’s PFAS evaluation efforts.

Evolving federal context for PFAS containing waste

At present, no PFAS compounds are designated as “hazardous waste” under RCRA. However, in February 2024, EPA proposed two significant rules that together signal a potential structural reorientation of federal oversight for PFAS-containing waste. The first proposal would list nine PFAS compounds as hazardous constituents in 40 C.F.R. Part 261 Appendix VIII:

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
• Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
• Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA or GenX)
• Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
• Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
• Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
• Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)

Importantly, these proposals do not impose cradle to grave hazardous waste controls or independently create clean-up obligations. Instead, they are intended to provide a clearer framework for evaluating potential releases at facilities where corrective action authority already applies and could foreshadow future hazardous waste listings.

EPA’s second proposal clarifies that the statutory definition of “hazardous waste” applies in the corrective action context, authorizing regulators to evaluate substances that meet statutory hazard criteria even in the absence of formal hazardous waste listings. Taken together, these proposals would provide EPA with explicit authority to require treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to investigate and address releases of the listed PFAS compounds through corrective action.

If finalized, these rules would shift regulatory emphasis toward proactive source management, which carries implications for risk management and compliance planning. Facilities that generate PFAS-containing waste could face increased scrutiny of residuals in biosolids, leachate, and wastewater from regulators – linking RCRA corrective action authority to scientifically defined hazards instead of static chemical lists. Permitted TSDFs could also respond by imposing more stringent contractual requirements on customers, including expanded liability allocation provisions and pre disposal sampling obligations for PFAS containing waste.

EPA’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) identifies April 2026 as the target date for finalizing both the hazardous constituent listing and the corrective action clarification. This timeline aligns with broader federal data-collection and monitoring initiatives occurring or scheduled for 2026 under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), TSCA, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting programs, coordinating data generation, monitoring, and corrective authority across media.

Recent EPA actions illustrate this coordinated approach. For example, on February 23, 2026, EPA finalized a rule adding the PFAS compound sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the TRI, increasing the total number of PFAS compounds subject to TRI reporting to 206. The Unified Agenda also signals EPA’s intent to propose updates to certain NPDES permits to require PFAS monitoring and reporting where such requirements have not previously existed.

In addition, although not expressly identified in the Unified Agenda, EPA has demonstrated some interest in completing the PFOA and PFOS biosolids risk assessment, potentially with significant revisions. Concentrating these actions within a single year reflects coordinated momentum toward a more comprehensive, lifecycle-based regulatory framework for PFAS oversight.

Federal attention to PFAS waste management and disposal extends beyond EPA regulatory initiatives. In February 2026, the US Department of Defense (DoD) published an analysis identifying seven categories of commercially available PFAS destruction and disposal options, driven by the mandated phase-out of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) at military installations by October 2026.

While specific to military waste streams, this analysis underscores the scale and complexity of PFAS disposal challenges and potentially signals growing demand for permitted destruction and disposal capacity that could also affect industrial generators as federal oversight continues to expand.

Against this backdrop, waste characterization, corrective action preparedness, and cross-media compliance planning may become central to operational and strategic decision making in 2026, particularly for chemical and petrochemical manufacturing, textiles and coatings, electronics, petroleum refining, and waste management sectors.

Practical considerations for industrial operations

For many companies, the developments’ most immediate implications are operational rather than enforcement driven. Facilities may wish to consider whether existing environmental management systems adequately capture PFAS related information relevant to waste characterization, wastewater operations, and residuals management. In some cases, additional coordination across compliance programs could require more efficient engagement with regulators and downstream partners.

To successfully navigate this ever-changing space, companies may wish to consider the below strategic priorities.

• Operational awareness: Understanding where PFAS may be present in raw materials, products, or byproducts, consistent with existing compliance obligations
  
  
• Permitting and monitoring: Reviewing current permit conditions and monitoring practices to confirm alignment with evolving federal and state expectations
  
  
• Program coordination: Ensuring consistency across RCRA, TSCA, TRI, and NPDES reporting and recordkeeping where PFAS related data is generated
  
  
• Commercial alignment: Maintaining clear communication with disposal facilities and service providers regarding waste characterization practices and contractual expectations

These steps are not prescriptive and are not relevant for all facilities. Rather, they reflect key planning considerations as regulatory programs continue to mature.

Looking ahead

The convergence of RCRA, TSCA, TRI, NPDES, and biosolids oversight anticipated in 2026 marks a meaningful regulatory transition.

While 2026 may bring additional clarity in certain areas, regulatory outcomes will likely remain shaped by site specific conditions, program specific authorities, and state implementation choices.

Companies that monitor these developments, maintain internal coordination, and engage constructively with regulators and service providers may be best positioned to manage compliance efficiently as expectations continue to evolve.

For more information, please contact the authors.