A report released on 14 October 2026 by Environment America Research & Policy Center, U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group concludes that PFAS chemicals are contaminating waterways across the United States, putting fish, wildlife and drinking water at risk (YubaNet).
Key takeaways
- PFAS were detected at 83% of 1,602 water testing locations in 40 states between 2022 and 2024 (YubaNet).
- As many as 114 different PFAS compounds were detected at one or more water testing locations in the dataset (YubaNet).
- Pollution pathways named in the report include industrial and sewage plant discharges, sewage sludge spread on farmland, and firefighting foam (YubaNet).
- The report was authored by Environment America Research & Policy Center's clean water director John Rumpler and executive director Lisa Frank, with U.S. PIRG Education Fund toxics advocate Ezra Rich (YubaNet).
- Health risks cited in the report include decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, compromised immunity and some types of cancer (YubaNet).
What the report covers
The study, titled PFAS in America's Rivers and Lakes, draws primarily on data from the national Water Quality Portal and Waterkeeper Alliance to test surface water across the country (YubaNet). "America's waterways should be clean and free of toxic chemicals," said John Rumpler, Environment America Research & Policy Center's clean water director and an author of the report (YubaNet). "Yet PFAS contamination of our rivers and lakes is widespread. We shouldn't have to worry about tainted drinking water or catching and eating contaminated fish," Rumpler added (YubaNet).
The report catalogues the pathways by which PFAS — used in nonstick cookware, fast food packaging and waterproof clothing — reach rivers and lakes, including industrial and sewage plant discharges, sewage sludge spread on farmland, and firefighting foam (YubaNet). It records that as many as 114 different PFAS compounds were detected at one or more water testing locations (YubaNet). "The widespread contamination revealed in our report makes it clear that when we allow harmful chemicals into our environment without considering downstream effects, the problem can get out of hand quickly," said Lisa Frank, Environment America Research & Policy Center's executive director (YubaNet).
What the groups are asking for
The organisations behind the report are calling for measures to stop the persistent toxins from continuing to pollute rivers, lakes and streams (YubaNet). "Allowing the manufacture of nonstick pans, cosmetic products and clothing to poison our rivers and the fish we eat is unconscionable," said Ezra Rich, U.S. PIRG Education Fund's toxics advocate. "It's time to turn off the toxic tap," Rich added (YubaNet). The report does not state a federal compliance deadline or specify a treatment technology vendors should adopt.
Specification read
The reported scale is monitoring coverage, not plant capacity: 1,602 sampling locations across 40 states, with detection at 83% of those locations and up to 114 distinct PFAS compounds reported (YubaNet). No influent flow in m³/day, population equivalent, BOD or COD figure is given in the source, so the hydraulic and organic load against which a plant must be designed cannot be derived from the report. For a facility treating surface-water intake or industrial wastewater likely to carry PFAS, the relevant treatment train sits after the biological stage and at the polishing/discharge step: a robust biological stage such as A2O, MBR, MBBR, SBR or UASB, followed by tertiary treatment that pairs activated carbon or ion-exchange resin with a solids-separation step such as DAF, then a disinfection or concentrate-handling stage where ZLD is justified. The recognition point is simple: if your plant draws on a U.S. river or lake in a state now flagged by the report, or receives trade wastewater from sectors named in the pathways list (industrial and sewage plant discharges, sewage sludge, firefighting foam), the discharge consent your team will face next is a PFAS limit, and the equipment that limit bears on is the tertiary polishing train rather than the biological reactor. Buyers evaluating that scope can shortlist Chemical process packages, weigh Integrated Sewage Treatment plant configurations for mixed municipal-industrial flows, and use the Trusted Firms for PFAS Treatment Technology Evaluation: 2026 Buyer's Guide to frame their enquiry.
FAQ
What does the report actually measure? The report measures detection of PFAS compounds at surface-water sampling locations between 2022 and 2024, not plant effluent or influent (YubaNet). 1,602 sites in 40 states were tested, with detection at 83% of them (YubaNet).
Which pollution pathways does the report name? The report names industrial and sewage plant discharges, sewage sludge spread on farmland, and firefighting foam as pathways by which PFAS reach waterways (YubaNet).
Does the report set a PFAS discharge limit or a compliance deadline? The supplied source does not state a federal PFAS limit, a deadline, or a specific treatment technology vendors must adopt, so the regulatory trigger date for any procurement cannot be derived from this report.
How should a buyer scope a PFAS polishing upgrade from this report? Use the report as evidence of regulatory direction, not as a sizing input; pull your own influent PFAS profile, target effluent limit, and flow in m³/day before selecting activated carbon, ion-exchange resin, DAF or ZLD stages. Vendor selection criteria for the polishing train are covered in the Trusted Firms for PFAS Treatment Technology Evaluation: 2026 Buyer's Guide.
