Q&A: The impact of federal PFAS regulation changes on wastewater systems

Bob Crossen: How do changes to federal drinking water regulations translate into real impacts for wastewater utilities that are already managing PFAS in influent, effluent, and biosolids?

Sarah Alexander: Delays or rollbacks in federal PFAS regulations postpone the reckoning that is urgently needed to address our PFAS contamination problem. Wastewater utilities are already dealing with PFAS in influent, effluent and biosolids every day, so when federal action slows, utilities are left with greater uncertainty about future requirements and fewer resources to prepare for them.

The longer we delay meaningful action, the more contamination accumulates in our water, soil and waste streams, increasing the eventual cost of mitigation. Delayed regulations can also erode trust in our federal agencies, as it signals that the federal government is less likely to serve as an active partner in preventing contamination from reaching wastewater systems in the first place, or supporting responsible management of contaminated effluent and biosolids.

BC: From your perspective, how could weaker federal PFAS oversight affect the wastewater sector, even though utilities are not the original sources of these compounds? What role should states play in this process?

SA: Weaker federal oversight is likely to reduce both funding and attention devoted to PFAS contamination, even as wastewater utilities continue to bear much of the responsibility for managing its consequences. Utilities may find themselves facing increasing expectations without the financial support that typically accompanies federal action.

Public concern about PFAS remains high, and state governments are often more responsive to that pressure. Therefore, in the absence of strong federal leadership, states will inevitably step in.

While state action is important, it is also likely to create a patchwork of regulations that vary from one state or region to another. As a result, utilities could face increasingly stringent state requirements while lacking access to federal resources. Those costs do not disappear. They are ultimately borne by utilities and passed on to consumers, increasing financial strain throughout the system.

The link between PFAS and wastewater biosolids

BC: Your organization has been vocal about PFAS in sewage sludge applied to farmland. What should municipal biosolids managers and engineers understand about the connection between wastewater residuals and downstream contamination risks?

SA: Chemical companies have knowingly produced and profited from PFAS for decades. Corporations knew these “forever chemicals” persist indefinitely, and still allowed them into consumer products, manufacturing and waste streams. Wastewater systems became a dumping ground, and farmers were encouraged by government agencies to spread contaminated sludge — without being told it contained toxic chemicals. 

Municipal biosolids managers and engineers should recognize that wastewater residuals can serve as a pathway for PFAS contamination to move into the broader environment. When contaminated sludge is applied to land, it has the potential to affect both land and water resources and create long-term public health concerns including links to decreased immune function, thyroid disease, developmental delays in children, decreased fertility, and increased risk of certain cancers.

Communities are becoming increasingly aware of these risks, and as that awareness grows, public sentiment may shift against wastewater facilities that are viewed as contributing to contamination — even if those facilities did not create the underlying problem. It is important to understand that responsibility does not necessarily end when sludge leaves the treatment plant because decisions about residual management can have lasting consequences for surrounding communities and ecosystems.

BC: How does land application of biosolids factor into the broader PFAS contamination cycle, including impacts to soil, groundwater, and food systems?

SA: When PFAS are land applied, they’re able to quickly move through different parts of the environment in the form of sludge, entering through soil and migrating into groundwater and surface water. From there, PFAS can be taken up by plants, move through food systems and accumulate in wildlife before eventually reaching people.

This pathway illustrates why PFAS contamination should be viewed as a connected environmental challenge rather than a series of isolated issues. Once contaminants are introduced into the landscape, they can move through interconnected systems in ways that become increasingly difficult to control.

The burden of responsibility to address PFAS

BC: Many wastewater utilities emphasize they are “receivers” of PFAS rather than generators. How do you view responsibility should be shared among manufacturers, industrial dischargers, regulators, and municipal utilities?

SA: Manufacturers and industrial dischargers that introduced PFAS into the environment should bear primary financial responsibility for addressing the contamination they created. However, legal processes to secure those funds are likely to take years, and contamination continues while those cases work their way through the courts.

In the meantime, regulators and wastewater utilities need to work together to develop practical solutions and begin implementing them because the longer action is delayed, the more widespread and costly the contamination becomes. One of the highest priorities should be preventing industrial PFAS discharges from entering municipal wastewater systems in the first place.

Achieving that goal will require both regulatory pressure and active engagement from wastewater operators. Reducing contamination at its source remains the most effective way to reduce future costs and risks.

How data and technology can make a difference

BC: What types of monitoring or data collection do you believe would help better identify and manage PFAS contributors within their collection systems?

SA: Utilities need a clearer understanding of where PFAS is entering their systems and how they behave throughout the treatment process. That begins with tracking contamination at key points throughout the collection and treatment system and distinguishing between industrial and residential sources whenever possible.

Maine was the first state to mandate a near-total ban on PFAS in products, and opted to regulate PFAS as an entire category to pass more comprehensive PFAS prevention legislation. To better manage PFAS contributors, states should look to Maine as a model for a more holistic approach to this issue.

Comprehensive testing of water effluent and biosolids is also essential for understanding how contamination moves through wastewater facilities. Additional research is also needed to understand how different treatment processes influence PFAS chemistry. Different treatment methods have been shown to encourage short chain PFAS to combine into longer-chain PFAS (like PFOS and PFOA) that have been shown to be more toxic at lower doses and take much longer to leave the body.

Expanding the available data on contamination sources, treatment impacts and environmental outcomes will help utilities make more informed decisions and target mitigation efforts more effectively.

BC: There’s growing interest in emerging PFAS treatment and destruction technologies. What is your stance on piloting and adopting these technologies that are still trying to prove their muster at scale?

SA: While emerging destruction technologies deserve careful evaluation, they should not distract from the more immediate priorities of preventing contamination, reducing PFAS production and ensuring that contaminated waste is managed in ways that do not spread pollution.

Much of the current investment in destruction technology is driven by the prospect of future profits, while efforts to reduce PFAS production and limit its spread have received comparatively less attention. Any technology that claims to solve the PFAS problem should be rigorously tested and proven effective at scale before it is widely adopted. We should also be mindful of creating a system where the entities responsible for the contamination are positioned to profit from both the creation of the problem and its eventual cleanup.

What engineers and utilities should know and communicate

BC: What would you say to municipal engineers who are being asked to plan capital investments for PFAS without clear or stable federal regulatory direction?

SA: The lack of federal leadership is troubling for both advocates and utilities, and planning major infrastructure investments is challenging when future regulatory requirements remain unclear.

At the same time, waiting for perfect clarity is not a viable option. State and local governments will continue to move forward, and utilities will remain on the front lines of managing contamination. Engineers and utility professionals possess critical expertise about how these systems operate and what solutions are practical, and by working closely with local stakeholders and regulators, they can help develop strong local models that address current challenges while providing a foundation for future action when federal leadership becomes more consistent.

BC: What do you think is the most important message utilities should communicate to their communities about PFAS risks, particularly when there is still uncertainty around standards and long-term impacts?

SA: Utilities should communicate that while scientific understanding continues to evolve, the health risks associated with PFAS exposure are already well established. Research has linked PFAS to cancer, endocrine disruption, impacts on fertility and adverse childhood health outcomes.

Communities should also understand that uncertainty about future regulations should not be confused with uncertainty about the need for action. Delaying solutions only allows contamination to spread further and makes future cleanup efforts more difficult and expensive. 

We already have good models for PFAS regulations in Maine, so the absence of strong federal leadership should not prevent communities from taking reasonable steps to protect public health.

Policy lessons from Maine and what the future could hold

BC: Maine has taken a more aggressive approach to PFAS. What elements of that approach could realistically serve as a model for other states or municipal wastewater utilities?

SA: One of the most important lessons is that as long as PFAS-contaminated sludge continues to be land applied, PFAS cannot be eliminated. Contaminated sludge transfers “forever chemicals” from a more concentrated location into agricultural soils, surface waters and drinking water sources across a much larger area. As contamination spreads, cleanup becomes substantially more difficult.

States and utilities should focus on reducing reliance on land application and investing in alternatives that better contain contamination. Sludge drying technologies can significantly reduce sludge volume, making transportation and disposal more manageable, and reduced volume also makes landfill disposal more practical. Over the long term, dedicated disposal facilities designed specifically for dried sludge could provide better control over leachate and reduce the risk of contamination spreading into the environment.

BC: What role should EPA play going forward in addressing PFAS contamination in wastewater and biosolids, separate from drinking water standards?

SA: The EPA should establish clear regulations for PFAS in biosolids and align those regulations with peer-reviewed scientific findings regarding contamination risks and the Clean Water Act. The agency should also ensure that wastewater management practices are not contributing to contamination of surface waters and drinking water sources.

Additionally, the EPA should require more comprehensive PFAS testing before treated wastewater is discharged into receiving waters. Addressing PFAS contamination effectively requires attention not only to drinking water standards but also to the wastewater and biosolids pathways through which contamination can continue to circulate.

BC: Where do you see the biggest gaps today in federal PFAS policy as it relates specifically to municipal wastewater utilities?

SA: The most significant gap is the lack of meaningful federal regulation addressing PFAS contamination in biosolids. Current policies continue to allow practices that can spread contamination while failing to adequately address the associated human health impacts.

There is also no comprehensive federal strategy to reduce PFAS loading into wastewater systems by diverting industrial contamination before it enters municipal treatment plants. Without stronger source-control measures, utilities remain responsible for managing contamination that originates elsewhere. Addressing biosolids management, industrial discharges and contamination prevention together would provide a far more effective framework for protecting public health and reducing long-term environmental risks.