The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rescinded a 2022 guidance document that gave state permitting authorities standard language to limit, reduce and monitor per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in wastewater through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, according to a report published 19 September 2026 in Waste Dive.
- EPA pulled the 2022 PFAS-in-NPDES memo as part of a five-document rescission, the agency said (Waste Dive).
- The three-page memo was issued on 11 August and signed by Office of Water Assistant Administrator Jessica Kramer (Waste Dive).
- PFAS chemicals are not currently classified as toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act, so federal limits are typically set case-by-case through individual facility permits (Waste Dive).
- EPA still issues NPDES permits in Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and military bases, where the change could reduce PFAS permit conditions (Waste Dive).
- The agency is preparing a new Effluent Limitation Guidelines rule for PFAS and proposed PFAS-specific ELGs for chromium electroplating in February on its regulatory agenda (Waste Dive).
What happened
The rescinded 2022 document was nonbinding but gave state agencies reassurance that they could begin to tackle PFAS contamination from industrial sites upstream of drinking water sources — including landfills, pulp and paper plants and other manufacturing facilities — through NPDES permits, according to Waste Dive. The agency announced the change in August as part of a broader rescission of five documents, including memoranda addressing climate change and environmental justice considerations for water permits, the report said.
EPA said the 2022 guidance was part of a systematic review of guidance documents, informed in part by recommendations made to the Office of Management and Budget's deregulation initiative, the three-page memo reported by Waste Dive showed. The agency told Waste Dive the change would reduce confusion as it prepares to propose new Effluent Limitation Guidelines for industrial sources, writing: "EPA's review of existing guidance related to PFAS and NPDES permits found that the Biden Administration put the cart before the horse when it leveraged the nation's foundational wastewater discharge compliance program – NPDES permitting – to address PFAS without first setting wastewater discharge standards for specific PFAS and specific sectors under the Effluent Limitation Guidelines provision of the Clean Water Act."
What it means at the state level
Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said the rescission would do the opposite of its stated effect, telling Waste Dive it would create confusion about the role states should play in addressing PFAS in wastewater. "State governments have shown again and again and again that they're leading the fight against PFAS, and this removes one critical tool for state regulators to make us more safe," Benesh said. She warned that some states may be more reticent to incorporate the now-rescinded guidance, noting it could run contrary to new guidance the EPA releases, or open up state permitting authorities to legal challenges.
New York lawmakers passed a state bill this year that would require PFAS monitoring through water permits for certain facilities, and that law is awaiting action from Gov. Kathy Hochul, Waste Dive reported. The 2022 guidance had been published as a step along the EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap set under President Joe Biden, which laid out plans to leverage NPDES permits to gather data for future regulation, including Effluent Limitation Guidelines, the report said.
Specification read
The sources do not name a specific plant capacity in megalitres per day or a population equivalent, so a single project-scale figure cannot be quoted. As an order-of-magnitude class reference for a municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant of the size typically covered by an NPDES PFAS permit conversation, small industrial flows run from roughly 0.5 m³/day to 50 m³/day and mid-size plants from 50 m³/day to 5,000 m³/day, with large municipal works above 5,000 m³/day (general industry range, not from the sources). The treatment train a plant of this class needs is screening and grit removal, primary clarification, a biological stage such as A2O, MBR, MBBR, SBR or UASB, and tertiary or advanced treatment such as DAF, granular activated carbon or ion exchange for PFAS removal, followed by disinfection. This event bears on the permitting and monitoring wrapper around that train, not on a specific process unit, and it directly affects any plant that discharges to a surface water that is a source of drinking water for a downstream community. The recognition point is straightforward: if your plant is a landfill leachate works, a pulp and paper effluent plant, a chemical manufacturer or a metal finisher with chromium electroplating operations and a flow in the low thousands of m³/day with influent BOD or COD in the typical industrial range of a few hundred to a few thousand mg/L and a regulator signalling future PFAS action, expect greater uncertainty in permit limits and a stronger case for granular activated carbon or ion-exchange polishing on the tertiary stage. Paper sector plants and Water Purification process plants that currently rely on state NPDES PFAS provisions should plan for permit re-negotiation. For context on biological stage choices that often sit upstream of such tertiary work, see this Effluent Treatment Plant in Newcastle: 2026 Engineering Buyer's Guide and this comparison of MBR vs Conventional Activated Sludge for Mining Wastewater in Bettles, US (2026 Guide).
FAQ
What did EPA actually change in September 2026?
EPA rescinded a 2022 nonbinding guidance document that gave state permitting authorities sample language to limit, reduce and monitor PFAS in wastewater NPDES permits, according to Waste Dive. The move was part of a five-document rescission announced in August.
Does this mean PFAS can no longer be limited in discharge permits?
No. PFAS chemicals are not currently classified as toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act, so federal restrictions are typically set through individual facility permits, and state agencies retain discretion to set limits they consider appropriate, Waste Dive reported.
How might a buyer budget for PFAS polishing on an existing plant?
Granular activated carbon and ion exchange are the common tertiary polishing steps for PFAS removal, sized against flow in m³/day and target influent concentration in ng/L; installed tertiary polishing typically adds a low- to mid-single-digit percentage of total plant capex for mid-size flows of roughly 1,000 to 5,000 m³/day (general industry range, not from the sources). Lead time for engineered carbon contactors or ion-exchange skids is commonly 12 to 24 weeks once a specification is issued (general industry range, not from the sources).
Which suppliers or technology choices are most exposed to this change?
Operators in landfill leachate, pulp and paper, chemical manufacturing and chromium electroplating were specifically named in the 2022 guidance as upstream PFAS source categories, Waste Dive reported, so tertiary carbon or resin suppliers selling to those segments should expect permit-driven demand to shift from federal to individual state schedules.
