EPA has released a new Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Materials Containing Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, dated April 20, 2026, which is the third edition of this non-binding guidance document (originally issued in 2020 and revised in 2024). The associated April 23, 2026 news release may be reviewed here.

The guidance presents currently available information on best practices for destruction and disposal of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials that are not consumer products, recommending that “decision-makers prioritize the use of destruction and disposal technologies that have a lower potential for PFAS release to the environment over destruction and disposal technology options with a greater potential for environmental release of PFAS given similar costs or other considerations.” The three technologies that are discussed in detail in the guidance are underground injection, landfilling, and thermal destruction. Notably, EPA recommends that RCRA hazardous waste landfills be utilized when landfilling is selected as the disposal option, at least in instances where the levels of PFAS are relatively high. Moreover, EPA notes potential drawbacks to each of the three options, based on information developed since the 2024 guidance update:

• The limited number of injection wells receiving offsite PFAS and waste transportation logistics may limit the type and quantity of PFAS-containing fluids appropriate for underground injection;

• Landfilling could result in higher PFAS releases to the environment than previously thought, even at RCRA facilities; and

• Uncertainties remain regarding the efficacy of thermal destruction via hazardous waste combusters (such as commercial incinerators and cement kilns), with recent research noting the need for higher temperatures, well-mixed combustion environments, and longer residence times.

The guidance is non-binding, as destruction/disposal of PFAS-containing materials is not generally subject to federal regulation. Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with these destruction/disposal methods, parties deciding on which method to utilize will need to consider the full range of potential risks and benefits of each method.  For example, with respect to landfilling, parties will need to weigh the significant short-term additional cost of disposal at a RCRA hazardous waste landfill, versus the greater long-tail risk of liability for releases from less protective landfill facilities, particularly if their insurance excludes coverage for disposal site liability related to PFAS (which is common in pollution legal liability (PLL) policies). In addition, potentially applicable state and local regulations also need to be considered.