WASHINGTON — In the high-stakes arena of environmental regulation, information is often the primary currency. For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a comprehensive, nationwide survey of wastewater treatment plants was intended to be the key to unlocking the mystery of how "forever chemicals"—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—enter the nation’s water supply. However, that critical research project has hit a protracted bureaucratic wall at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), leaving public health advocates and former agency officials questioning the administration’s commitment to addressing the contamination at its source.
According to two former EPA officials intimately familiar with the project’s development, the survey has been stalled for nearly two years. The delay is not merely a matter of administrative backlog; it represents a significant hurdle in the effort to regulate industrial polluters who rely on municipal infrastructure to dispose of toxic waste.
The Mechanism of Contamination: Why Wastewater Matters
PFAS, a sprawling family of man-made chemicals characterized by their extreme durability and resistance to degradation, have become a ubiquitous public health crisis. Linked to a range of severe health outcomes—including increased cancer risks, developmental delays in children, and compromised vaccine efficacy—these chemicals are difficult to isolate and even harder to remove once they enter the environment.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants (POTWs) were never designed to treat PFAS. Consequently, when industrial facilities discharge these chemicals into sewer systems, the treatment plants are effectively conduits, releasing the contaminants into local rivers or trapping them in "biosolids"—the treated sludge often repurposed as fertilizer for agricultural lands.
By surveying hundreds of these plants, the EPA aimed to trace PFAS back to their industrial origins. "If we can determine the top one, the top two, the top three industries that dump PFAS," explains Robert Wood, the former director of the EPA’s engineering and analysis division, "then we can start work on the detailed studies and the regulation to get after nationwide limits for the predominant industrial dischargers." Without this data, the EPA is effectively flying blind, attempting to regulate a source that remains officially unidentified.
A Chronology of Bureaucratic Inertia
The timeline of the survey’s suppression highlights a deep-seated administrative friction:
- October 2024: The proposed survey is formally submitted to the OMB for approval. Under standard procedure, such reviews are expected to conclude within approximately 60 days.
- Late 2024–Early 2025: The project remains in limbo. As the change in administration takes place, the survey remains unapproved, despite the urgent nature of the public health data it promises to yield.
- Current Status: Nearly two years have elapsed since the initial submission. Former OMB staffer Stuart Shapiro notes that this duration is "sufficiently unusual" to warrant public scrutiny, suggesting that the delay may be a deliberate policy choice rather than a clerical error.
The irony of the current situation is underscored by the Trump administration’s own rhetoric. Officials have criticized previous EPA reports on the risks of PFAS in biosolids, specifically citing the lack of a "national occurrence study" as a primary flaw. Yet, the very study that would provide that exact data remains buried on an OMB desk, awaiting the approval necessary to begin.
The Paradox of Oversight and Industry Influence
The current administration has adopted a complex, often contradictory stance on chemical regulation. While the EPA has maintained certain Biden-era drinking water limits, it has simultaneously faced intense pressure from environmentalists and proponents of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement. Critics argue that the agency has become overly deferential to the chemical industry, citing the delay of drinking water standards and the reversal of efforts to limit PFAS discharge from chemical manufacturing plants.
Betsy Southerland, a veteran of the EPA’s Office of Water, views the delay as a tactical move to protect industrial interests. "It makes you wonder if they really want to stop PFAS—or if efforts to truly find out who is discharging is just too big a disruption for the chemical industry," Southerland said.
This sentiment is echoed by David Andrews of the Environmental Working Group. "The administration criticized the biosolids risk assessment for not including a national occurrence study, yet that exact survey has been sitting unapproved at OMB for nearly two years," he pointed out, characterizing the situation as a "logical paradox."
Perspectives from the Field: Is the Survey Necessary?
Not all stakeholders agree that a new, national survey is the most efficient path forward. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) has questioned the necessity of the study, arguing that the existing body of data is already sufficient to move toward regulation.
"We would rather EPA look at what data is available already because there is a wealth of PFAS discharge information out there now," said Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs at NACWA. From the perspective of the plants, the primary goal should be to expedite the development of national discharge standards rather than funding expensive, time-consuming sampling programs.
However, state-level successes suggest that granular data is exactly what is needed to compel industrial action. In Michigan, for example, the state bypassed federal inaction by requiring treatment plants to sample their industrial waste streams. By pinpointing the specific industries responsible, local regulators were able to force them to stop discharging PFAS or significantly reduce their output. This approach successfully mitigated the amount of contamination entering the state’s water supply and biosolids.
Implications for Public Health and Policy
The delay of the survey has profound implications for the nation’s environmental health policy. If the EPA cannot identify the industrial sources of PFAS, it cannot craft effective, science-based regulations. This leaves the public exposed to continuous contamination while the "chronic disease epidemic" associated with toxic chemical exposure continues to grow.
Kelly Ryerson, an activist with the "Make America Healthy Again" movement, insists that the government cannot simultaneously claim to be tough on pollution while obstructing the data-gathering efforts required to enforce that toughness. "This survey is urgently needed data to help decrease toxic exposures," Ryerson said. "We have no more time to waste in addressing these harmful exposures, especially on behalf of bureaucratic interests."
Moving Forward: A Lack of Clarity
When reached for comment, the EPA stated that its work on PFAS is part of a "comprehensive, lifecycle-based strategy" and emphasized its commitment to "gold standard science." However, the agency declined to clarify whether it still intends to authorize the survey or if it has abandoned the project entirely in favor of alternative regulatory pathways.
While the agency continues to solicit public input on the risks associated with biosolids and methods for reducing PFAS exposure, the absence of the national survey leaves a void in the agency’s knowledge base. For communities living near the rivers and farms that receive the byproduct of industrial PFAS use, the ongoing silence from the OMB represents more than just a regulatory delay—it represents a failure to protect the public from the long-term consequences of "forever chemicals."
As the clock ticks toward the next phase of the EPA’s regulatory cycle, the unanswered question remains: Will the agency prioritize the data-driven oversight needed to curb industrial pollution, or will the "forever" nature of these chemicals be matched by the "forever" wait for federal action? For now, the survey—and the information it holds—remains locked behind a door that only the administration can open.
