EPA PFAS CERCLA Ruling 2026: What PFOA And PFOS Hazardous Substance Designation Means For Companies

What the D.C. Circuit Decision Means for PFAS Liability, Waste Management, Recycling Facilities, Remediation and Environmental Compliance

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected industry challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The decision leaves EPA’s 2024 designation in place and represents an important development for companies managing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across manufacturing, waste management, recycling, remediation and environmental compliance activities.

The legal challenge raised concerns regarding EPA’s statutory authority, its evaluation of costs and benefits, and the potential liability consequences for facilities that receive PFAS-containing materials.

For companies, the decision reinforces the need to understand how PFAS-containing materials enter, move through and leave their operations.

Organizations should also consider how the CERCLA framework may affect environmental investigations, waste disposal, contaminated sites, supplier relationships, insurance, due diligence and potential cleanup liability.

Why the PFAS CERCLA Decision Matters

PFAS are a large group of chemicals used or historically used in applications where resistance to heat, water, oil and chemicals is valuable.

They have been associated with products and industrial activities involved:

• Nonstick applications
• Stain-resistant materials
• Water-resistant products
• Industrial processes
• Firefighting foams
• Textiles
• Electronics
• Manufacturing materials

The regulatory challenge surrounding PFAS has expanded significantly as federal and state authorities increase attention on environmental persistence, exposure and contamination.

The CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS is particularly significant because CERCLA provides a framework for responding to releases of hazardous substances and allocating cleanup responsibilities.

For businesses, the practical question is no longer simply whether PFAS are present.

Companies increasingly need to understand where PFAS may be present, how they are managed and what environmental liabilities could potentially arise.

What Are PFOA and PFOS?

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) are two well-known members of the PFAS chemical group.

Both substances have been subject to increasing regulatory attention because of their environmental persistence and potential health and environmental concerns.

Their designation as CERCLA hazardous substances means that releases meeting applicable statutory requirements can become subject to CERCLA response and liability provisions.

Companies should therefore assess whether historical or current activities could have involved:

• PFOA
• PFOS
• PFAS-containing materials
• PFAS-containing waste
• Firefighting foams
• Contaminated equipment
• Contaminated soil or groundwater

Understanding historical operations can be particularly important because PFAS may remain in environmental media long after the original activity has ended.

What Is CERCLA?

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as CERCLA or the Superfund law, provides federal authority for responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.

CERCLA can involve activities such as:

• Site investigation
• Environmental remediation
• Cleanup actions
• Cost recovery
• Liability allocation
• Government enforcement

The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances therefore adds important regulatory consideration for organizations that may have historical or current connections to PFAS contamination.

Companies should understand that CERCLA liability can involve complex factual and legal questions.

The presence of PFAS at or near a facility does not automatically establish liability in every situation. Applicability depends on the circumstances, statutory requirements and available defenses.

What Did the Industry Challenge?

Industry groups challenged EPA’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances.

The challenge raised questions concerning several aspects of EPA’s action, including:

• EPA’s Statutory Authority
• The agency’s cost-benefit analysis
• Potential economic impacts
• CERCLA liability exposure
• Implications for waste facilities
• Implications for recycling facilities
• PFAS-containing material management

The petitioners argued that the designation could create significant consequences for businesses that receive PFAS-containing materials without being responsible for the original release.

The court ultimately rejected the petitions challenging the designation.

For regulated organizations, this means the 2024 EPA designation remains an important part of the federal PFAS compliance landscape.

Why Waste and Recycling Facilities Are Paying Attention

One of the most significant concerns involves waste and recycling facilities that may receive PFAS-containing materials.

These facilities may not have manufactured PFAS or intentionally released chemicals.

However, they may receive materials containing PFAS as part of ordinary waste management or recycling operations.

Potentially relevant materials could include:

• Industrial waste
• Consumer products
• Manufacturing residues
• Contaminated materials
• Firefighting-related materials
• Recycled products
• Wastewater treatment residuals

This creates important questions regarding environmental responsibility and potential CERCLA exposure.

Facilities should therefore consider whether they have adequate procedures for identifying, characterizing and managing PFAS-containing materials.

The “Passive Receiver” Concern

The legal and policy debate has also highlighted concerns surrounding waste and recycling facilities sometimes described as “passive receivers” of PFAS.

These organizations may receive materials containing PFAS without being the original source of contamination.

The issue is particularly important because potential CERCLA liability can have significant financial implications.

Industry stakeholders have therefore supported efforts to establish clearer liability protections for qualifying waste and recycling facilities.

For companies operating in this area, the regulatory environment may continue to evolve through:

• EPA actions
• Congressional legislation
• Court decisions
• State PFAS regulations
• Environmental enforcement

Companies should monitor these developments rather than relying solely on existing interpretations.

Potential Business Implications

The court decision may increase the importance of PFAS risk management across multiple business functions.

Organizations should assess the implications based on their specific operations and potential PFAS exposure.

PFAS Waste Management Considerations

Companies managing PFAS-containing waste should establish appropriate procedures for understanding the materials they handle.

Key considerations may include:

• Waste identification
• Chemical characterization
• Supplier information
• Waste profiles
• Storage controls
• Transportation
• Disposal pathways
• Recycling processes
• Environmental monitoring
• Documentation

Companies should also understand applicable federal, state and local requirements because PFAS regulation extends beyond CERCLA.

A robust waste-management strategy should consider the entire waste stream:

Generation → Characterization → Storage → Transportation → Treatment → Recycling/Disposal → Final Destination

Historical Site Assessment

The decision is also relevant to companies with historical industrial operations.

Organizations should consider whether previous activities involved PFAS-containing materials or products.

Historical assessments may be reviewed:

• Former manufacturing processes
• Historical chemical inventories
• Firefighting activities
• Industrial wastewater
• Waste disposal practices
• Former waste sites
• Historical suppliers
• Environmental investigation records
• Previous remediation activities

This type of review can be particularly important during property transactions, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and facility closures.

PFAS and Environmental Due Diligence

Companies involved in mergers and acquisitions should increasingly consider PFAS as part of environmental due diligence.

Potential questions include:

1. Was PFAS used or stored at the facility?
2. Could historical operations have resulted in releases?
3. Were PFAS-containing waste generated?
4. We’re firefighting foams used?
5. Are PFAS present in soil or groundwater?
6. Are there environmental investigations existing?
7. Could the property have historical contamination?

Early identification of these issues can help organizations better understand potential environmental obligations before completing a transaction.

2026 PFAS CERCLA Compliance Readiness Checklist

Practical PFAS Risk Management Roadmap

A practical implementation approach can include:

1. Identify products, materials and processes that may involve PFAS.
2. Review current and historical chemical inventories.
3. Assess PFAS-containing waste streams.
4. Review waste disposal and recycling arrangements.
5. Evaluate historical facility activities.
6. Review environmental sampling and investigation data.
7. Assess potential CERCLA exposure.
8. Review supplier and contractor information.
9. Evaluate environmental due diligence procedures.
10. Assess remediation and monitoring requirements where applicable.
11. Review environmental insurance considerations.
12. Monitor federal and state PFAS developments.

The objective should be to establish a proactive, risk-based PFAS environmental management strategy rather than responding only after contamination or regulatory action occurs.

Common PFAS Compliance Challenges

Companies may face:

• Incomplete PFAS inventories
• Limited historical information
• Unknown PFAS sources
• Incomplete waste characterization
• Complex supplier networks
• Unclear disposal pathways
• Potential contamination
• Uncertain CERCLA exposure
• State and federal regulatory differences
• Increasing remediation costs
• Insufficient environmental documentation

Addressing these challenges early can help companies better understand their environmental risk and prepare for evolving regulatory expectations.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did the D.C. Circuit decide?

The court rejected industry petitions challenging EPA’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, leaving the 2024 designation in place.

2. Why is the decision important?

The decision reinforces the current federal regulatory status of PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA and may increase attention on potential environmental liability.

3. Does CERCLA automatically make every PFAS user liable?

No. CERCLA liability depends on applicable statutory requirements and the specific facts and circumstances. Companies should obtain appropriate legal and environmental assessments.

4. Why are waste facilities concerned?

Waste and recycling facilities may receive PFAS-containing materials without being the original source of contamination, creating concerns about potential liability exposure.

5. What are passive receivers?

The term generally refers to facilities that receive PFAS-containing materials as part of their operations without intentionally generating or releasing the contamination at issue.

6. Should companies review historical operations?

Yes. Historical chemical use, waste handling, firefighting activities and disposal practices may be relevant when evaluating potential PFAS environmental exposure.

7. Does PFAS compliance only involve CERCLA?

No. PFAS requirements can involve multiple federal, state and local environmental programs. Companies should evaluate the requirements applicable to their operations and locations.

8. Could the regulatory landscape change further?

Yes. EPA actions, congressional initiatives, state requirements and future litigation may continue to shape PFAS regulation.

Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s decision rejecting challenges to EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous-substance designation under CERCLA is an important development for organizations managing PFAS-related environmental risks.

With the 2024 designation remaining in place, companies should pay closer attention to PFAS-containing waste, historical operations, environmental contamination, remediation, recycling activities and potential CERCLA exposure.

The decision is particularly relevant to waste and recycling facilities that may receive PFAS-containing materials without being the original source of contamination.

Organizations should therefore evaluate their PFAS management practices across the entire lifecycle, from material sourcing and manufacturing through waste generation, transportation, recycling, disposal and environmental remediation.

A proactive approach can help companies identify potential risks earlier, strengthen environmental controls and prepare for further regulatory developments.

How Maven Regulatory Solutions Can Help

Maven Regulatory Solutions can support organizations with:

• PFAS regulatory assessments
• CERCLA compliance assessments
• PFAS waste-management reviews
• Environmental regulatory gap assessments
• PFAS inventory and risk assessments
• Historical site assessments
• Regulatory due diligence
• Waste-stream compliance reviews
• Supplier and material assessments
• PFAS regulatory intelligence
• Environmental compliance strategy
• Lifecycle regulatory management

Our approach helps organizations understand evolving PFAS requirements, identify potential compliance gaps and develop practical strategies for managing environmental and regulatory risk.