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.
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers
Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
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!
