According to the EPA, the updated guidance reflects the “latest, best available science to provide information that managers of PFAS wastes can use to evaluate the most appropriate destruction, disposal, or storage method among those currently available.” Notably, the interim guidance does not establish specific legal requirements for handling PFAS materials. Rather, it is intended to help decision-makers who need to identify the most effective means for destroying or disposing of PFAS-containing materials and wastes.
PFAS Destruction and Disposal
The EPA’s updated guidance is part of the agency’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which includes numerous initiatives addressing PFAS contamination. As discussed in greater detail here, the EPA recently finalized its landmark National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), which establishes national drinking water standards for six PFAS.
In 2020, the EPA published the first edition of its guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20 NDAA). The FY20 NDAA directed the EPA to address the destruction and disposal of PFAS and specific PFAS-containing materials, including aqueous film-forming foam, contaminated media, textiles (other than consumer goods), and various wastes from water treatment. The NDAA also requires the EPA to review and update the guidance as appropriate, but no less frequently than every three years.
2024 Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of PFAS
In its 2024 Interim Guidance, the EPA recommends that managers of PFAS wastes consider the nature of the waste, location, potential for environmental release, and other factors to determine the most appropriate destruction, disposal, or storage method. As a general approach, EPA recommends that decision-makers prioritize the use of destruction and disposal technologies that have a lower potential for PFAS release to the environment.
As set forth in the guidance,the EPA has determined that the following technologies have a lower potential for environmental release of PFAS compared to other technologies in the same category and are viewed as the more protective technologies:
Underground Injection: The EPA advises that permitted Class I non-hazardous industrial or hazardous waste injection wellsare the waste management approach with a lower potential for environmental release when compared to other destruction and disposal options. These wells may help ensure that injected fluids are confined and can’t enter underground sources of drinking water. However, the limited number of wells currently receiving off-site PFAS and waste transportation logistics may significantly limit the type and quantity of PFAS-containing fluids appropriate for underground injection.
Landfills: The guidance states thatpermitted hazardous waste landfillshave the most protective landfill engineering controls and practices for the containment of PFAS waste and would be more effective at minimizing PFAS release into the environment than other landfill types. EPA recommends Subtitle C landfills when PFAS levels of the waste are relatively high and landfill disposal is the selected option. However, for all landfill types, new information demonstrates landfilling could have higher PFAS releases to the environment than previously thought in 2020.
Thermal Treatment: The guidance concludes thatpermitted hazardous waste combustorssuch as commercial incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns and granular activated carbon (GAC) reactivation units with thermal oxidizers may operate under conditions more conducive to destroying PFAS and controlling related products of incomplete combustion. Research suggests that the use of higher temperatures, well mixed combustion environments, and longer residence times may be more conducive to destroying PFAS and controlling related products of incomplete combustion. Although limited data have been obtained since the 2020 version of the interim guidance (including data suggestive of adequate temperature ranges to break down PFAS), uncertainties remain about the effectiveness of thermal treatment. EPA encourages additional testing with EPA-approved or EPA- evaluated methods by waste managers of thermal treatment operations, including for products of incomplete combustion and the presence of PFAS in all associated waste streams, to evaluate whether thermal treatment technologies are minimizing potential environmental releases. According to the EPA, its new analytical method, OTM-50, will allow better characterization of products of incomplete combustion (PICs) that will help to address some of these uncertainties when additional data are collected as recommended in its guidance
The EPA has also established a technology evaluation framework to assist PFAS material managers with evaluating whether an emerging destruction (or disposal) technology is suitable for a particular PFAS-containing material. Additionally, the new guidance identifies key data gaps and uncertainties that ongoing research is working to address to achieve efficient destruction of PFAS and minimization of environmental PFAS release and calls for increased research in these areas.
Next Steps
The EPA will accept comments on the interim guidance for 180 days following publication in the Federal Register. Comments can be submitted to the public docket at Regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0527.
Entities involved in the destruction or disposal of PFAS-containing materials and wastes should review the EPA’s updated guidance and consult with experienced counsel regarding any PFAS compliance concerns.
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
