The July 6th Federal Register [2026-13615.pdf ] contained awaited guidance by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue of reducing the risks from two of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids. It starts the 60-day clock on the period for submitting comments which ends on September 4th.  EPA has scheduled two informal listening sessions for August 12th and August 18th. You can learn more and sign up for the listening sessions here: Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk from Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) in Biosolids | US EPA.

NEBRA and other biosolids stakeholders were invited by the Trump EPA Office of Water to a virtual meeting on July 1st prior to the publication of the information to the press and published on EPA’s website. In that meeting, EPA staff commented that one of the drivers for the guidance was the now year-and-a-half old Draft Risk Assessment for PFOA/PFOS in Biosolids. With about 40 people in the meeting, EPA’s Caitlin McHale, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Strategic Initiatives in the Office of Water, explained that the Biden EPA risk assessment was flawed.

As detailed in the Federal Register notice, the Trump EPA extended the comment period for the draft risk assessment several times in order to get more comments. After reviewing all the comments, EPA acknowledges that the Draft Risk Assessment:

  • “Exhibited a number of serious flaws that have caused confusion among the public and regulated community.”

  • “Departed from typical agency practice by failing to conduct a national survey to document occurrence of PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge…that are actually in biosolids and therefore the range of potential risks they pose."

  • “Evaluated sewage sludge management practices with higher potential for human health risk in hypothetical scenarios that do not reflect the majority of land application in the U.S." and “did not estimate how often these higher-risk scenarios occur in the U.S. Nor did the agency assess risks to the public, as the public often has a diversity of sources for their food and do not live on or near an impacted property.”

  • “Misconception has risen that all biosolids and sewage sludge use and disposal practices will negatively impact the public."

The Trump EPA has dismissed the 1 part per billion number that came out of the Draft Risk Assessment, saying it has been misinterpreted. The Draft Guidance offers recommendations for land appliers of biosolids, general public, and wastewater treatment plants but no limits.

For bulk land appliers, EPA suggest the following practices:

  • Avoiding land application of sewage sludge near fishable waters, lakes or reservoirs that are used as a source of drinking water, or areas that may have higher risks for potential groundwater impacts.

  • Avoiding applying sewage sludge in areas where children under the age of 5 have access or may have access in the future. Landowners should also be aware that there are other potential sources of PFAS that could impact or be present on their land. 

  • Conducting land application on farms with lower risk crops for human exposure, like farms growing grain, fiber crops, or corn for ethanol production.

  • Avoiding land application for agricultural practices that have higher risks for human exposures.

For the general public, EPA recommends: 

  • Researching the supplier of the sewage sludge.

  • Avoiding application of sewage sludge in locations where children may have access to the soil, like playgrounds, schools, parks, or around residential homes.

  • Avoiding application to garden beds intended for growing higher risk foods most likely to uptake PFOA and PFOS, such as leafy greens and root vegetables, and where egg-laying hens have foraging access. 

Recommendations for wastewater treatment facilities and other sludge generators were to focus on source identification, pollution prevention and monitoring. EPA suggests some improvements for surface disposal and asks for owners of sewage sludge incinerators to “consider performance testing of incinerators to gain information about potential releases of PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS that could be generated through incomplete combustion.”

These are only recommendations, the guidance is voluntary.

EPA is also looking for more data and wants to hear from researchers and the regulated community about what the next steps should be. Specifically, EPA is asking the following questions:

  1. Are the recommendations for farmers and bulk land appliers of biosolids sufficient to provide clarity? What other information should the agency consider?

  2. Are the recommendations related to surface disposal and incineration of sewage sludge sufficient to provide clarity to stakeholders? What other information should the agency consider?

  3. Are the recommendations related to the protection of public health and pollution prevention sufficient to provide clarity to states, Tribes, and utilities about how to reduce concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge and biosolids? What other information should the agency consider?

  4. Several states have taken an approach to reducing PFAS concentrations in sewage sludge that is not risk-based but instead focuses on achieving practical reductions of PFOA and PFOS by addressing discharges from industrial facilities through the implementation of source identification and targeted source reduction. The EPA is seeking feedback and data demonstrating whether and how these approaches can reduce concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids and sewage sludge, and feedback and data on the effectiveness of these reductions in mitigating risks to public health.

  5. The EPA is seeking feedback on practices not included in the draft guidance that can reduce risk when land applying biosolids. Please provide any conditions, controls, monitoring, best management practices, or permitting practices and any examples of implementation from State, Tribal, or local programs.

  6. The EPA is seeking feedback on practices not included in the draft guidance that can reduce risk when surface disposing or incinerating sewage sludge contaminated with PFOA and PFOS. Please provide any conditions, controls, monitoring, best management practices, or permitting practices and any examples of implementation from State, Tribal, or local programs that the EPA should consider.

  7. What next steps should the EPA take regarding the Draft Risk Assessment, and how would this help provide clarity about potential risks from use and disposal of biosolids and sewage sludge? Should the agency also reevaluate the underlying framework for the Draft Risk Assessment, and if so, how? What specific data or other information is available that may help inform the agency's potential next steps on the Draft Risk Assessment and other potential future actions related to PFAS in biosolids and sewage sludge?

  8. Given that risks can depend on land use decisions (e.g., risks are different for growing textile crops than produce), should the EPA evaluate policy options that would consider current and future land use practices (e.g., different land use or planted crops after a change in ownership)? What strategies should the EPA consider for protecting public health, future land uses, landowners, and property values?

During the July 1st stakeholder meeting, EPA’s Lauren Lauman encouraged “unique” comments and perspectives to inform the regulatory process. EPA has continued to reiterate, in writing, its support for the recycling of biosolids to land. They are now seeking information to use in its next steps towards possibly amending the Part 503 regulations to address PFAS in biosolids.