States Take Action to Regulate and Limit PFAS in Industrial Effluent Despite Federal Inaction

On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule seeking to set effluent limitation guidelines for certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) was withdrawn from Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review following President Trump’s Executive Order implementing a regulatory freeze. Federal action may be halted, but states are beginning to enact legislation that seeks to address PFAS contained in industrial effluent. These laws are currently sparse, with Maryland being the most recent state to establish a robust framework that requires industrial sources to limit PFAS in effluent. A handful of other states have laws establishing monitoring and reporting protocols for PFAS in industrial effluent, and other states have similar frameworks planned for future implementation. While these efforts are not yet widespread, heightened scrutiny of PFAS use suggests that more and more states will seek to monitor and limit PFAS in industrial effluent.

Maryland’s Framework

In May 2024, the Maryland legislature enacted the Protecting State Waters from PFAS Pollution Act. The Act charges the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDOE) with setting PFAS action levels and monitoring and testing protocols. MDOE appears behind schedule for rulemaking to promulgate these requirements, but a regulatory program is on the horizon. Once rulemaking is complete, certain industrial discharges of PFAS will be subject to a range of requirements seeking to monitor and reduce PFAS in effluent.

The Act only implicates discharges of PFAS from Significant Industrial Users (SIU), which MDOE was tasked with identifying by October 1, 2024. An SIU is defined under the Act as an industrial user that is:

• subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 403.6;
• discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW); and
• contributes a certain percentage of processed wastewater at a POTW; or
• is designated an SIU based on potential harm its discharges may cause or due to past violations.

The new monitoring and testing requirements apply only to SIUs “currently and intentionally using PFAS chemicals” that operate under a pretreatment permit.

Once the program is fully established, SIUs regulated under the program will be required to track and reduce the amount of PFAS contained in discharge. SIUs will be tasked with both initial and ongoing monitoring to determine the level of PFAS discharged to POTW and will need to report those monitoring results to MDOE. SIUs will also need to create plans to address PFAS in their effluent through identifying ways to reduce, move away from, and safely dispose of PFAS.

Limitation of PFAS in Industrial Effluent in Other States

Maryland is not the only state looking to limit discharges containing PFAS from industrial sources. New York and Massachusetts, for example, are pursuing monitoring and disclosure requirements for SIU. The New York legislature is currently considering S.B. 4574, which seeks to enact the “PFAS Discharge Disclosure Act” to create a monitoring protocol for “certain industrial dischargers” and for POTWs. The bill includes language requiring that monitoring results under this protocol be made public.

States such as Michigan have enacted compliance procedures to address PFAS discharged from industrial facilities to surface water or to POTWs. Under this guidance, both new and existing industrial facilities are evaluated to determine their potential to discharge PFAS. Facilities determined to have a reasonable potential to discharge PFAS are required to follow monitoring and sampling protocols. Facilities discharging PFAS above certain levels will be asked to enter into a compliance order to address and reduce the PFAS levels.

Other states, such as Colorado and Kansas, are in the beginning stages of studying the impact of discharges containing PFAS from industrial facilities to POTWs with the intention of limiting PFAS in industrial discharges in the future. Kansas has identified PFAS as an area of concern within industrial discharges and is conducting preliminary sampling at certain industrial facilities to learn more about PFAS contamination in the state.

Most of the effluent limitations and pretreatment requirements relate to state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs, but some upcoming rules regarding SIUs and PFAS discharges may stem from other state and federal requirements. Virginia, for instance, plans to require facilities causing or contributing to exceedances of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) levels for PFAS at Public Water Systems to pretreat and address effluent causing impacts to drinking water. Maryland contemplates adding requirements and limitations for SIUs under its groundwater and stormwater programs, as well.

Commentary

As Maryland and other states bring their programs online, additional states are likely to follow suit. This is especially likely if there is a perception of federal government inaction in this sphere, which is probable. Given that more and more states may take similar action as PFAS continues to be a hot topic, companies intentionally using or manufacturing products with PFAS should consider the implications of compliance moving forward. Reducing or eliminating use of PFAS and substances containing PFAS, when possible, may be a good policy decision as increasing disclosure requirements make the public aware of PFAS usage. Companies unable to move away from PFAS use should closely monitor the status of PFAS regulation in states where they manufacture and process materials and should prepare to address concern that may arise from public disclosure of their PFAS use.