Public concern over “forever chemicals” has been building for years. With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalizing the first national drinking water standards for PFAS and several states moving toward bans in packaging, attention is now shifting to another major source: industrial wastewater discharges.
One case is putting this issue firmly in the spotlight — litigation involving Perdue Farms and alleged PFAS contamination from wastewater operations in Maryland. The case is a wake-up call for food producers, municipal water systems, and contract laboratories, signaling that wastewater is fast becoming one of the most scrutinized PFAS pathways.
The Perdue PFAS Allegations
Residents near a Perdue-affiliated operation in Salisbury, Maryland, have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that wastewater from the facility contained PFAS and was improperly discharged into local waterways. The claims include contamination of a tributary, improper management of wastewater lagoons, and potential leaching into groundwater.
While the outcome of the case remains to be seen, its visibility has national implications. It highlights that PFAS concerns are no longer confined to manufacturing, packaging, or firefighting foam — they now extend into agricultural processing and food production wastewater. This expansion means a wider range of industries could face regulatory scrutiny, public attention, and potential liability.
Regulatory Context — A Tightening Framework
PFAS oversight is intensifying at federal and state levels, driven by three major developments:
1. Drinking Water Standards with Enforceable Limits
In April 2024, the EPA set enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) and introduced standards for other PFAS compounds. Public water systems must meet these requirements by 2029, but the ripple effects are immediate. Industrial facilities that discharge to municipal systems are now under more pressure to limit PFAS inputs, as these can affect downstream compliance.
2. Effluent Guidelines for Industrial Sectors
The EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program has been evaluating PFAS discharges across industries, including the meat and poultry products sector. Updates to wastewater discharge limits are already under discussion for nutrients and bacteria, and PFAS controls are being considered for future inclusion. This suggests that facilities may soon face direct PFAS limits in their wastewater permits.
3. State-Level PFAS Bans in Packaging and Products
Multiple states — including Colorado, California, New York, and Oregon — have enacted or proposed bans on intentionally added PFAS in food packaging and consumer products. Although these laws primarily target product inputs, they indirectly influence wastewater composition by prompting supply chain changes and encouraging alternative chemistries.
When combined with the EPA’s recent designation of certain PFAS as hazardous substances under federal Superfund law, the landscape for potential liability becomes even more complex.
Why Wastewater Is the PFAS Flashpoint
PFAS are remarkably persistent, mobile, and resistant to conventional wastewater treatment. They can enter a plant’s wastewater system through:
- Incoming water already containing low PFAS concentrations
- Cleaning agents, lubricants, and processing chemicals
- Coatings or surface treatments on equipment and infrastructure
- Residual contamination in tanks, pipelines, or lagoons
Conventional biological treatment systems are ineffective at removing PFAS. As a result, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) can inadvertently pass PFAS downstream, while biosolids from treatment can spread contamination to soil through land application.
Even trace concentrations in wastewater can be significant from a regulatory and public health perspective. This makes it critical for facilities to identify potential sources, conduct regular testing, and implement control measures before enforcement actions or litigation arise.
Testing Realities — Methods, Matrices, and Standards
An effective PFAS monitoring program requires careful planning:
- Sampling Scope: Include influent, process water, effluent, and any biosolids. For environmental risk assessment, add surface water and groundwater near the facility.
- Analytical Methods: For wastewater and solids, EPA Method 1633 is emerging as the standard. For drinking water, EPA Methods 533 and 537.1 remain the primary options.
- Target Compounds and Limits: Align your testing targets with applicable MCLs, state action levels, or anticipated permit conditions.
- Quality Control: PFAS are prone to cross-contamination during sampling, so field blanks, trip blanks, and PFAS-free sampling materials are essential.
Control Strategies — From Source to Treatment
Once baseline data are collected, facilities can pursue control strategies along four main paths:
1. Source Identification and Substitution
Audit chemicals and materials used in operations to identify PFAS-containing products. Request supplier declarations and substitute non-PFAS alternatives where possible.
2. Segregation of High-PFAS Streams
Separate wastewater streams with higher PFAS concentrations, such as certain cleaning or maintenance flows, and treat them separately. This can lower overall treatment costs.
3. Treatment and Polishing Options
Granular activated carbon (GAC) and anion-exchange resins are the most common PFAS removal technologies, with high-pressure membranes (nanofiltration or reverse osmosis) as another option. Each has performance trade-offs, particularly for short-chain PFAS.
4. Operational Adjustments
Implement water reuse systems, dry-clean-in-place methods, and stormwater separation to reduce the total PFAS load entering the treatment system.
Lessons from the Perdue Case
The Perdue litigation underscores several important takeaways:
- Test Early, Test Often: Routine monitoring can prevent surprises from community-driven testing or investigative reports.
- Don’t Overlook Solids: Lagoons and biosolids are increasingly part of enforcement and litigation.
- Transparency Matters: Delays in communicating findings can create reputational damage regardless of the technical situation.
- Permits May Not Cover Everything: Compliance with current permit parameters doesn’t guarantee protection from PFAS-related actions.
- Collaborate Across the Chain: Work with suppliers, contractors, and wastewater utilities to address PFAS collectively.
Action Steps for the Next 90 Days
For Food & Beverage Processors and Agricultural Facilities:
- Establish a PFAS baseline for wastewater and solids.
- Audit suppliers for PFAS-containing materials and request substitutions.
- Pilot treatment solutions on targeted streams.
- Document decision-making for sampling and controls.
For Municipalities and POTWs:
- Update pretreatment programs to address PFAS.
- Monitor biosolids for PFAS concentrations and track disposal destinations.
- Collaborate regionally to align PFAS management strategies.
How CMDC Labs Can Help
At CMDC Labs, we provide comprehensive PFAS testing and consulting services, including:
- Custom Sampling Plans: Designed for compliance, litigation defense, or risk assessment.
- Multi-Matrix Testing: Wastewater, solids, surface water, and groundwater analyzed with industry-leading methods.
- Data Interpretation: Turning lab results into actionable insights for operational changes.
- Regulatory Guidance: Translating complex policy developments into practical compliance steps.
By acting early, producers and municipalities can reduce PFAS risks, improve regulatory compliance, and demonstrate environmental stewardship — avoiding the costly and public challenges faced in high-profile cases like Perdue.
Sources
- Guardian coverage of Perdue PFAS allegations and wastewater issues – August 2025
- Federal complaint filed in U.S. District Court – July 2025
- U.S. EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFAS – April 2024
- EPA Effluent Guidelines Program Updates – 2025
- State PFAS legislation summaries – multiple sources, 2024–2025
- U.S. EPA designation of PFOA/PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA – 2024
