TL;DR: A first-of-its-kind EPA survey of PFAS in wastewater has waited for White House approval since October 2024, far beyond a typical 60-day review, according to two former officials involved in developing it.
WASHINGTON — The stalled survey would have asked hundreds of wastewater treatment plants about their practices and tested industrial waste flowing into them to pinpoint which industries send per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances into sewers, according to ABC News. Two former Environmental Protection Agency officials who helped develop the study say the Trump administration has held it up, and a public notice shows it was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for required clearance nearly two years ago during the Biden administration.
That timeline stands out because OMB reviews of such information collections often conclude in about two months, according to Stuart Shapiro, a former OMB staffer and dean at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University-New Brunswick in New Jersey. Shapiro questioned whether OMB was simply sitting on the package. The EPA and OMB did not respond to requests for comment, according to ABC News.
What the wastewater survey was designed to do
Many treatment plants take in waste already carrying PFAS. The proposed nationwide survey of hundreds of plants was intended to trace that contamination back to industrial sources and build a foundation for future limits, according to Robert Wood, director of the engineering and analysis division in the EPA's Office of Water before his retirement in 2024.
Wood said identifying the largest industrial sources would allow detailed follow-up studies and development of national limits for the leading industrial dischargers. The Biden-era EPA had said usable data on PFAS in industrial wastewater were typically inaccessible, incomplete or inconsistent, making new collection necessary.
Under the plan, EPA would have surveyed plant operations and sampled waste from industrial contributors. Betsy Southerland, a leader of the EPA's Office of Water until 2017, said quick approval would have already produced some results by now.
Why regulators say source data matters for PFAS control
Researchers have linked PFAS exposure to higher risk of certain cancers, developmental effects in children, resistance to vaccines and other health problems. The manufactured chemicals were once commonly used in products such as waterproof shoes and nonstick pans, persist in the environment and are difficult to remove.
Treatment plants generally lack equipment to separate PFAS from waste, so the chemicals can return to rivers and soil in discharges and residuals. That pathway is central to EPA's interest in influent data, because controls at the industrial source can reduce what passes through municipal plants.
The Trump administration has said it intends to combat PFAS. It retained strict Biden-era limits for two common PFAS types in drinking water and supports research on removal methods. At the same time, officials delayed the most significant drinking water limits and withdrew a Biden-era initiative aimed at PFAS in wastewater from certain chemical manufacturers, restarting that regulatory process, according to ABC News.
The administration has drawn criticism from environmentalists and the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-aligned "Make America Healthy Again" movement, who describe the agency's chemical approach as too favorable to industry.
Biosolids portion would have tested farm-fertilizer pathway
The survey would also have gathered information on PFAS in biosolids, the treated solids produced by water treatment plants in massive quantities. Those materials are often spread on farm fields as fertilizer, and EPA wanted to measure how widespread PFAS were in them.
Health questions around growing food where PFAS-containing biosolids were applied have only recently received detailed study, although concerns were raised years earlier. The Biden-era EPA issued a draft report identifying some concerns. Trump officials described that report as seriously flawed, and in their own draft document said one flaw was the absence of a national biosolids occurrence survey to clarify presence and related risks.
David Andrews, chief science officer at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, described that sequence as a logical paradox. He said the administration faulted the biosolids risk assessment for lacking an EPA-run national occurrence study while that same type of survey remained unapproved at OMB for nearly two years.
Southerland questioned whether officials genuinely intended to curb PFAS or viewed identifying dischargers as too disruptive for the chemical industry.
Wastewater utilities say existing data could be enough
Not all water-sector groups support a costly new sampling effort. Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, said substantial new PFAS wastewater data have already been collected in recent years. She said that material was sufficient to move toward regulation of industries that require attention without additional expensive sampling.
"We would rather EPA look at what data is available already because there is a wealth of PFAS discharge information out there now," Finley said.
Michigan offers an example of state-led work. The state collected its own data and, several years ago, restricted the amount of certain PFAS that wastewater treatment plants could release to rivers and lakes after plants began testing industrial waste they received.
Separate biosolids guidance debate underscores data fight
A parallel dispute over biosolids guidance highlights why occurrence data remain contested, according to Waste Dive. EPA released new draft guidance in July for managing PFAS contamination in biosolids and later extended the comment period by 30 days. The July document criticized a prior EPA assessment issued in the final days of the Biden administration, calling its findings on health risks to farmers exposed to biosolids disconnected from real-world conditions.
Industry groups including the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the U.S. Composting Council, the National Waste & Recycling Association, the Solid Waste Association of North America and regional wastewater and biosolids associations asked EPA for additional time to comment. EPA held a listening session on Aug. 12 that previewed early positions.
According to Waste Dive, the new guidance could affect practices at wastewater treatment plants that receive leachate potentially containing PFAS from landfills and other facilities. Related effects could reach compost facilities, landfills and other operations that accept sewage sludge if acceptable management routes change, particularly if limits on land application expand.
The draft summarizes state approaches to PFAS in biosolids without endorsing them. Those approaches include new monitoring duties for treatment-plant operators and, in some states, limited bans on land application when material exceeds a contamination threshold.
Utilities, farm groups and advocates split on next steps
During the August listening session, Emily Remmel, senior director of regulatory affairs at NACWA, thanked the agency for reaffirming support for land application of biosolids and for discussing what she called inherent flaws in the earlier draft risk assessment. She said public confusion remained widespread and the new draft helped clarify misconceptions created by the earlier assessment.
Remmel said NACWA, whose membership includes more than 360 publicly owned treatment works, was still gathering member comments. She nevertheless urged EPA to collect national data on PFOA and PFOS in biosolids to inform potential regulation.
Courtney Briggs, senior director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation, echoed the call for national data while calling the Biden-era report's methodology horribly flawed. She said the federal Food and Drug Administration has very rarely detected PFOA and PFOS in grocery-store foods, suggesting limits on land application might address a problem that testing has not confirmed at scale.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has filed lawsuits over PFAS in biosolids, urged a more direct regulatory approach reflecting the January 2025 draft risk assessment. Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the group, said the new guidance shifted responsibility to consumers and farmers themselves.
Bennett also described the Farm Bureau position as shortsighted, pointing to farm closures in Maine and Texas tied to contamination. Maine state Rep. Bill Pluecker has worked on legislation addressing PFAS from biosolids used as fertilizer. The state has faced difficulty finding disposal capacity since instituting a land-application ban, although a biosolids dryer at the WM-managed Crossroads Landfill was expected to begin operating this year.
Pluecker said dozens of Maine farms showed soil contamination after heavy biosolids use, based on state studies, and argued costs should fall on manufacturers rather than treatment plants and farms.
What remains undecided
EPA said in an emailed statement cited by ABC News that much of its PFAS work began during the first Trump administration and that it remained committed to protecting Americans through a comprehensive, lifecycle-based strategy following the law and gold-standard science. Officials did not say whether they still backed the wastewater survey, but said they were developing rules to cut PFAS in wastewater from certain manufacturers and seeking public input on PFAS in biosolids, exposure reduction and public safety.
For now, the October 2024 OMB submission remains the pivotal pending decision. Former officials say approval would let EPA move from fragmented industrial-discharge information to a standardized national dataset covering plant influent, industrial sources and biosolids prevalence.