Clean Water Current
May/June 2025 Regulatory Update
Regulatory Perspectives
Playing the Long Game of Biosolids Advocacy
The fate of biosolids management, particularly the land application of municipal biosolids, continues to be a top concern for the clean water community given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent substantial overhaul to how the Agency assesses pollutant risk in biosolids, and of course, the current regulatory focus on PFAS.
The Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS evaluates the health and ecological risk of these two emergent pollutants in municipal biosolids—not to the general public per se, but to a hypothetical “farm family” under various exposure scenarios (e.g., application to a farm raising dairy cows, beef cattle, or chickens). EPA’s revamped model demonstrated that there is a risk to the individual farm family under various modelling scenarios, where municipal biosolids exceeded 1 part per billion (1 ppb).
Where will the clean water community land with biosolids in the long run?
While EPA’s Draft Risk Assessment attempted to reign in what this 1 ppb number means—and more importantly doesn’t mean (e.g., it is not a regulation nor should be used as such) – they missed the mark. State regulatory agencies and legislatures grabbed the 1 ppb and are using it as a ceiling limit for biosolids land application even though EPA clearly stated that the Draft Risk Assessment is not regulatory in nature, is not a standard, and is not intended to be used as such. In practice, the Draft Risk Assessment is only one step in the process for regulating a pollutant in biosolids—EPA must next evaluate pollutant (PFAS) occurrence and risk management steps to finalize any regulation.
So here we are, a few weeks away from the comment period closing on EPA’s Draft Risk Assessment and many of the same concerns that NACWA has raised for years have percolated back up to the surface – and finally EPA is listening. Stretching back to when EPA proposed a new framework for addressing risk of chemicals in biosolids, along with a new screening tool to vet more than 700 pollutants known to be present in biosolids, NACWA has advocated that the framework is overly conservative and compounds risk by using non-realistic or practical assumptions and fails to consider one’s relative risk of exposure to PFAS from other sources. These are only a few of the concerns that NACWA has raised to EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), and many were heard.
Even though the SAB gave its approval for the framework, the final report to the Office of Water identified “potential pitfalls and limitations” in its draft risk assessment, including the “approach may be insufficiently nuanced to account for the unique characteristics of the biosolids matrix,” that the “assumptions made within the framework align with those expected for a Maximumly Exposed Individual rather than for the Reasonable Maximum Exposure” (e.g., compound conservatism), the “farm family exposures are outside the norm of present day family farms,” and the “vast majority of biosolids applications are made to lands that are not used for producing foods directly consumed by humans but rather to lands used for producing animal feed, fiber and/or fuel.”
And, perhaps most importantly, given the ubiquity of PFAS in the environment, the SAB stated consideration is needed for the Agency’s assumptions and how they reflect the current understanding of contamination and provided recommendations on how the Agency could support a more reasonable estimate of exposures. Unfortunately, the SAB’s concerns were not heard by the last Administration, but there is a possibility that this Administration is listening.
NACWA, along with stakeholders from the agricultural community, municipalities, and the states, have been invited to discuss concerns with EPA’s draft Risk Assessment with EPA Office of Water’s Senior Advisor to the Administrator, Jessica Kramer, EPA Office of Water Deputy Assistant Administrator Peggy Brown, and career staff. The Office has convened a series of listening sessions in June and July to discuss key elements, which are underway. Following these, EPA intends to hold additional in-depth discussions with stakeholder groups in addition to reviewing all the comments received by the August comment deadline.
The farming community is an important stakeholder in these conversations, raising serious concerns with the Draft Risk Assessment – in that the hypothetical farm family doesn’t exist, the assumptions made about biosolids application are erroneous, and the scenarios used for assessing exposure risk are not practical (e.g., it is not common farming practice to apply municipal biosolids to anything other than row crops used for producing animal feed or fuel).
Good regulatory policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it requires time and thought as well as interagency collaboration on issues as complex as PFAS. NACWA applauds the EPA’s intent to get it right and encourages, especially with biosolids management concerns, that EPA continue its dialogue with the agricultural community and clean water utilities and increase its collaboration and communication strategies with other federal agencies responsible for overseeing the nation’s food supply regulations and safety.
NACWA will be submitting its detailed comments on the Draft Risk Assessment in August, and we encourage all clean water utilities to weigh in on the matter. NACWA has a template comment letter drafted which are currently refining, and we are happy to share the draft with members.
Please contact Emily Remmel, NACWA’s Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs for more information.
Top Stories
EPA Seeks Additional Time in PFAS Court Cases
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is again asking for more time to consider its next steps in ongoing legal challenges to the Biden administration’s actions related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
In the litigation concerning the PFAS Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) finalized in April 2024, EPA is asking the court to pause the case for an additional 45 days.
According to the agency, the additional time is needed because “EPA is still evaluating the impact of its planned reconsideration and compliance extension proceedings on the issues presented in this case…. Additional time is necessary for EPA to fully evaluate these issues, develop a proposal for how to proceed in this matter, and confer with the other parties.”
While the other parties in the case do not oppose the continuance, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, which are plaintiffs in the litigation, reserved the right to oppose further extensions and to lift the pause if necessary to protect their interests.
The court has not yet ruled on EPA’s continuation motion, nor is it clear how the parties will ultimately respond to EPA’s stated intention of only reconsidering some of the challenged portions of the final MCLs.
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA’s unopposed motion to pause through July 2 litigation over the designations of PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). NACWA previously filed an amicus brief in the case.
While EPA has not yet indicated whether the Agency intends to rescind or otherwise modify the designations, which became effective in July of last year, EPA has stated its intention to hold polluters accountable for PFAS pollution and provide certainty for passive receivers such as clean water and drinking water utilities.
Contact: Amanda Aspatore, 202-833-1450.
House Advances National Wipes Labeling Legislation
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Wastewater Infrastructure Pollution Prevention and Environmental Safety (WIPPES) Act (H.R. 2269). The bill, led by Reps. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) and Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), now awaits passage by the full U.S. Senate.
H.R. 2269 would require standardized, national “do not flush” labeling for non-flushable wipes. The bill closely mirrors legislation that has been enacted in several states and would bring nationwide consistency to the marketplace. The bill, which has been an important NACWA advocacy priority, is supported by a wide coalition of stakeholders including the clean water utility community, the wipes manufacturing sector and environmental and consumer advocate organizations.
In a statement, Reps. McClain and Mullin lauded the bill as “common-sense legislation” that will protect water infrastructure.
“This common-sense, practical legislation will prevent rate hikes and protect water infrastructure. I am proud to lead this legislation and call on the Senate to quickly pass it,” McClain said.
“Improper disposal of wet wipes damages wastewater infrastructure, costing California utilities and consumers tens of millions of dollars a year. That’s why water professionals nationwide strongly support the WIPPES Act, which mandates clear ‘Do Not Flush’ labeling,” Mullin said. “This common-sense legislation is a critical step in protecting our infrastructure and the environment. By providing consumers with clearer guidance, the WIPPES Act will help reduce strain on our wastewater systems and safeguard taxpayer resources. I am pleased to see this bipartisan, bicameral legislation move forward.”
In May, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved the Senate companion to H.R. 2269, S. 1092. There are slight differences between the House and Senate bills that Congress will need to reconcile. Both chambers will need to pass the same version so it can be signed into law. NACWA continues to work with Congress and other stakeholders toward this goal.
NACWA applauds recent member engagement to ensure the advancement of the bill. The Association has been advocating for state and national wipes labeling legislation and flushability standards for many years and is pleased to see this momentum around a federal bill. NACWA also thanks the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) for its partnership in working to advance the legislation.
Contact: Kaitlyn Montán, 202-533-1814 or Cynthia Finley, 202-533-1836.
Biosolids
NACWA Talks Biosolids with EPA
NACWA staff participated in the second in a series of informal discussions with the U.S. EPA on the risks of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids on June 25. EPA’s Office of Water invited a select number of Associations representing potentially impacted sectors, including clean water, agriculture, states, and municipalities for informal discussions to better understand stakeholder views and the practical application of the scenarios underpinning EPA’s Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS.
Much of the discussion centered on how municipal biosolids are used in the field, informed by agricultural producers who use biosolids in their operations. Participants detailed concerns about assumptions made in the Draft Risk Assessment that do not align with actual agronomical practices, as well as concerns regarding the difficulties communicating risk to their customers. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Emily Remmel, 202-533-1839.
EPA Announces FY25 SRF Allotments
The U.S. EPA announced the final Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 state and territory allotments through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The final allotments were released well into FY 2025 because Congress did not pass the final FY 2025 spending deal until mid-March.
This announcement includes state allocations from annual funding as well as from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s (BIL) FY 2025 infusions. FY 2025 is the fourth of five years that the states will receive BIL funds.
Because Congress could not pass final spending bills for FY 2025 and instead relied on a Continuing Resolution to avoid a federal government shutdown, the total SRF toplines this year are equal to the year prior— and do not fund any earmarks/Congressionally directed projects. This means that states are receiving greater allocations than initially anticipated, boding well for SRF project pipelines this year. However, this also means that any earmarks that clean water agencies were working to secure were not awarded this year. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Kristina Surfus, 202-833-4655.
EPA Seeks Partners to Expand Wastewater Access Gap Initiative
NACWA encourages members and partners to help amplify the U.S. EPA’s Closing America’s Wastewater Access Gap initiative, which provides no-cost technical assistance to small and rural communities with failing or nonexistent septic and decentralized wastewater systems.
As part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, EPA is offering support to connect communities to available federal funding and begin addressing long-standing wastewater infrastructure challenges. The program continues to have available capacity to take on additional communities and is particularly seeking referrals from states that have not yet submitted any requests for assistance. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Matt McKenna, or 202-533-1825.
NACWA Asks EPA to Restrict Uses of Toxic Pesticide
NACWA asked the U.S. EPA to restrict uses and properly label isocycloseram, a toxic pesticide under consideration for approval by the Agency. In June 6 comments, NACWA explained that EPA control of the pesticide’s uses and labeling is essential, since clean water agencies cannot control domestic uses of pesticides, but they may pass through the treatment process and be discharged into the environment.
NACWA recommended that EPA model use of isocycloseram in drains and on indoor surfaces to evaluate the effects of the pesticide when it is discharged to the sewer system. NACWA also asked that use of the pesticide in drains that lead to sewers be removed from all proposed pesticide labels, and that the labels illustrate that the product should not be poured down the drain. EPA includes such labeling on pyrethroids, as recommended by NACWA and the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA). In addition, NACWA asked EPA to prohibit the use of isocycloseram on washable fabrics and textiles. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Cynthia Finley, 202-533-1836.
Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention
NACWA Meets with EPA on Meat and Poultry Effluent Guidelines
NACWA, alongside representatives from the meat and poultry products industry, participated in a meeting on May 12 with the Office of Water’s Acting Assistant Administrator, Peggy Browne and Tanya Hodge Mottley, the Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of Science and Technology, on EPA’s proposed Clean Water Act Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) for Meat and Poultry Products (MPP).
NACWA provided comments on EPA’s proposed March 2024 rule that would set pretreatment standards for MPP facilities, which currently do not have federal standards but are largely regulated by publicly owned treatment works through local limits.
During the meeting, NACWA reiterated concerns raised in its comments that the three options proposed in the rulemaking would set unnecessary federal pretreatment standards for a program that is already effective at the state and local level. The clean water utility community regulates the MPP industry to protect treatment processes and ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act — and imposes additional surcharges, as necessary, based on the content of their waste. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Cynthia Finley, 202-533-1836.
Regulatory Policy
Executive Order Requires Federal Agencies to Evaluate, Communicate Scientific Uncertainty
A May 23 executive order requires all federal agencies to review and change their scientific evaluation, disclosure, and conduct policies based on guidance from the Office of Science and Technology Policy set to come out within 30 days. The executive order, “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” includes requirements to evaluate and document uncertainties in scientific information, which could impact some aspects of clean water policy.
While it will take time for the full effects of the executive order to develop, the requirement to recognize and communicate uncertainty will likely have implications on the U.S. EPA’s work related to PFAS, since the science related to PFAS is still developing and published research can have a wide range of results. NACWA will follow developments related to the executive order and will incorporate provisions of it into advocacy as appropriate.
The executive order requires agencies to review all regulations, guidance, policies, and scientific evaluations taken during the Biden Administration, and to revise them consistent with the executive order. The stated goal is to restore public confidence in the scientific information published by federal agencies by acknowledging the uncertainties in scientific information. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Cynthia Finley, 202-533-1836.
Executive Order Targets Water Conservation Standards
President Trump issued an executive order last week targeting water conservation requirements for household fixtures and appliances that the Department of Energy promulgates through the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
Specifically, the executive order, Rescission of Useless Water Pressure Standards, directs the Secretary of Energy to rescind or revert to minimum standards required by statute the regulations affecting water usage and efficiency standards for dishwashers, faucets, showerheads, water closets, urinals, and residential and commercial washing machines. The Secretary of Energy is also directed to publish in the Federal Register a notice clarifying the scope of federal preemption of state regulations regarding water use or water efficiency of showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Matt McKenna, or 202-533-1825.
Water Sector Coordinating Council Discusses Security Issues with EPA, DHS
The Water Sector Coordinating Council (WSCC) met in late May to discuss issues related to the security and emergency preparedness of the water sector, particularly cybersecurity. The meeting also included discussions with the Water Government Coordinating Council (GCC).
NACWA’s WSCC representative is Carol Adams, Senior Systems Analyst at the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, who participated in the meeting along with NACWA staff.
The WSCC and GCC discussed the organizational changes to federal agencies under the Trump Administration, which will affect some interactions between the WSCC and GCC. However, cybersecurity and infrastructure security are expected to continue to be emphasized by all the federal agencies involved with water sector security. The WSCC and GCC discussions included the potential actions to improve cybersecurity for utilities. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Cynthia Finley, 202-533-1836.
NACWA Participates in Stormwater Data Summit
The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) convened a Stormwater Data Summit on June 24 with participation from NACWA, the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), and the U.S. EPA. The event focused on how stormwater data can better inform municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program evaluation, support regulatory compliance and drive water quality improvements.
Participants emphasized the value of data in assessing program effectiveness but noted that many local jurisdictions lack clear benchmarks or guidance on how to interpret results. Some states use monitoring data to refine strategies and demonstrate progress, while others struggle to link stormwater data to broader ecological outcomes. Read the full story in the Clean Water Current.
Contact: Matt McKenna, or 202-533-1825.