New EPA Draft Guidance on PFAS in Biosolids Downplays Risks but Indicates PFAS are Still at the Forefront of the EPA’s Regulatory Agenda

On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its memorandum Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids (Draft Guidance) (Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OW-2026-2509). The Draft Guidance aims to “provide voluntary recommendations that may be helpful to operators of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and related facilities, landowners and farmers, state and Tribal water agencies, and the public” for mitigating risks from PFAS involving land application of biosolids. While the recommendations in the Draft Guidance are general and voluntary, stakeholders should still evaluate their land application programs for compliance with the recommendations, in anticipation of state regulators incorporating them into binding standards.

EPA is soliciting public comments until September 4, 2026, and may use these comments to help inform future agency actions, including revisions to existing regulations or new regulations. EPA is also hosting virtual listen sessions on the Draft Guidance on August 12th and August 18th to allow stakeholders an opportunity to provide oral feedback on the guidance.

Background

According to EPA, this Draft Guidance was issued in response to uncertainty stemming from the January 2025 Draft Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS in Sewage Sludge (Draft Risk Assessment), which was largely conducted by the Biden Administration EPA. The Draft Risk Assessment was issued as part of EPA’s PFAS Action Plan; however, the EPA now feels that the Draft Risk Assessment “exhibited a number of serious flaws that have caused confusion among the public and the regulated community.” The EPA “departed from typical agency practice” in making the Draft Risk Assessment by: (1) failing to conduct a national survey to document occurrence of PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge; (2) only evaluating sewage sludge management practices with higher potential for human health risk; (3) saying that “sometimes risks of adverse health effects were possible” from the use or disposal of biosolids containing 1 part per billion (ppb) of PFOA or PFOS lead to an unintended interpretation that such a level was safe when, in reality, the 1 ppb concentration was intended to serve as a starting concentration for the evaluation of potential risks of PFAS in biosolids, not some ceiling “safe level” of PFOA or PFOS in biosolids; and (4) the Draft Risk Assessment created a misconception that “all biosolids and sewage sludge use and disposal practices will negatively affect the public.”

Guidance

Instead of adopting any set protocol for managing potential risks associated with PFAS, the Draft Guidance sets out general recommendations for bulk land appliers of biosolids and the general public.

Many of these recommendations overlap with existing federal or state regulatory requirements. For instance, EPA advises that land applicators could consider avoiding land applying “near” fishable waters, drinking water sources, and areas with “higher risks for potential groundwater impacts,” avoiding land application in areas where children under age five could have access, and limiting human exposure to crops grown on land-applied areas. EPA includes similar recommendations for members of the general public who use biosolids and biosolids products, including avoiding use where children may have access to the soil and in gardens intended to grow “higher risk food most likely to uptake PFOA and PFOS,” including “leafy greens and root vegetables,” or in areas where egg-laying hens have foraging access. For wastewater treatment plants specifically, EPA recommends source identification, pollution prevention and monitoring, adding composite liners to surface disposal units, and performance testing of incinerators to better understand potential releases from incomplete combustion.

The Draft Guidance also seeks to downplay the interpretation of widespread risk to the general public that the Draft Risk Assessment may have created. It claims that, because biosolids are applied to less than 1% of U.S. farmland and that many farms that apply biosolids grow crops not intended for human consumption, current data does not indicate that PFAS in biosolids have a widespread impact on the national food supply or that the general public is likely to be exposed to impacted foods. EPA also notes that FDA monitoring “very rarely” finds PFOA or PFOS in foods available in U.S. grocery stores, except for fish.

Takeaways

While the Draft Guidance neither quantifies the risks associated with PFAS nor endorses a particular method of risk management, it reaffirms EPA’s support for the land application of biosolids pending its consideration of revisions of the Draft Risk Assessment and its ultimate decision of whether to regulate PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. As such, the Draft Guidance likely does not represent any immediate change for stakeholders and their operations. However, once finalized, this Guidance could be the sole EPA authority on PFAS in biosolids for years pending EPA’s ultimate revision of the Draft Risk Assessment, so there are long-term implications for the contents and connotations of the final version of the Draft Guidance.

The Draft Guidance will likely influence state policies concerning the land application of biosolids, including permit expectations. Thus, stakeholders should not see this guidance as a sign to discount the compliance and litigation threat of PFAS. In the absence of federal regulations regarding PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, state regulators are still continuing to promulgate regulations, and private litigation remains a real concern for many. As evidenced by the inclusion of an overview of various state approaches to managing PFAS in biosolids in the Draft Guidance. These state regulatory regimes include source control programs, employed in Michigan, Virginia, and Maryland; monitoring policies and permits, used in Illinois , Florida, Washington, and Oregon; and restrictions or bans on land application, enforced in Connecticut and Maine.

Additionally, private lawsuits arising out of PFAS contamination of water systems, soil, and consumer products are on the rise, making regulatory compliance only management strategies potentially insufficient for many wastewater utilities, industrial dischargers, land appliers, and agricultural operations.

Again, while the Draft Guidance only provides general and voluntary recommendations, stakeholders should evaluate their current biosolids application programs for general compliance with the recommendations, in anticipation of potential state regulations. Stakeholders should also consider how the Draft Guidance could affect biosolids management regulations, land application practices, and source control programs in the states in which they operate.

These considerations would include whether their existing treatment and pretreatment systems adequately address potential PFAS contamination, identifying application sites that could pose higher risk of human or groundwater exposure, and looking into monitoring data, contracts, permits, and public communications related to biosolids use to assess where and how regulatory changes could affect their operations.

Additionally, stakeholders should monitor public statements from local regulators and advocacy groups and consider commenting to ensure the final guidance accurately reflects the realities of biosolids management and recommends a workable interim approach to managing risks from PFAS in biosolids.

For assistance with government relations or environmental matters, feel free to contact CMBG³ Law and our environmental team. Our team is ready to provide guidance on regulatory issues, policy changes, and compliance concerns.