3/10/22
Massachusetts Legislative Committee Approves Bill Putting a Moratorium on “PFAS-emitting” Structures

On February 18th, the Massachusetts General Court’s Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight unanimously approved a favorable report on S-2655, an Act Establishing a Moratorium on the Procurement of Structures or Activities Generating PFAS Emissions.  The bill is headed for a vote in the Senate next.  If S-2655 becomes law, it will be a major setback for very promising thermal technologies for dealing with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and biosolids [see EPA research brief], including the proposed biosolids gasification facility in Taunton.  The Massachusetts Water Environment Association (MAWEA) testified against the bill as did Springfield Water & Sewer Commission’s Executive Director Josh Schimmel. The North East Biosolids & Residuals Association (NEBRA), the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NWCWA), and others, submitted written testimony.    

S-2655 was proposed by Senator Marc Pacheco who represents the 1st District, including Taunton, where Aries Clean Technologies has proposed a 470 wet ton per day biosolids process facility employing gasification to reduce the biosolids to biochar and syngas (see NEBRA news article from 5/21/21 and Lunch & Learn webinar on September 24, 2021).  NEBRA’s testimony to the Joint Committee focused on the need for innovation and study, not a moratorium on proven and promising technologies for biosolids management, especially in light of PFAS.  As written, S-2655 is of major concern for NEBRA members with sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) approaching their useful life.  These facilities -- such as Upper Blackstone Clean Water, which also submitted written testimony -- are looking at gasification and pyrolysis as potential technologies for replacing their SSIs. 

MAWEA Executive Director, Mickey Nowak, testified that “There are approximately 180,000 dry U.S. tons of biosolids that must be disposed of annually in Massachusetts. Of this, 43% is sent to incinerators in Massachusetts and out of State to incinerators in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Out of State disposal is also common for land application and landfilling.  Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York also take Massachusetts biosolids. The bottom line here is that most of Massachusetts [biosolids] are disposed of out of State.”  From looking at the State reports at www.biosolidsdata.org, it’s clear why Massachusetts would need out-of-state outlets for the biosolids produced by its 6.9 million citizens.   

There were many more people testifying in favor of the bill with arguments based, mostly, on the precautionary principle.  All testifying agreed that source reduction was the key. Kirstie Pecci from the Conservation Law Foundation made some extreme statements during the hearing, such as saying that the biochar from gasification is “chocked full” of PFAS.  She also expressed sympathy for wastewater operators who “will not be allowed to put toxic material on the land anymore, the landfills are never a great choice, and also burning it is very, very dangerous.”  She cited the need for upstream solutions but had no proactive suggestions for how to manage these materials until they are phased out of the waste stream. 

Although proposed as a temporary moratorium, prohibiting the procurement of “PFAS-emitting structures or activities” for both new uses and modifications of existing uses, it would extended “indefinitely” until such time as PFAS emission standards have been promulgated by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection or the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, or the state agency responsible for such regulations. 

If and when gasification, pyrolysis, and other innovative technologies to address PFAS contamination are permitted in Massachusetts in the near future will be up to the legislature. In the interim, water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) in the state will feel the pinch this year with lots of planned downtime for SSIs in the region, including Cranston (RI), Naugatuck (CT), and Woonsocket (RI) this Spring. New Haven (CT) and Waterbury (CT) incinerators have planned maintenance outages likely in the Fall. Massachusetts WRRFs currently struggle to find back-up options when their primary management method is not available. Liquid sludge treatment options in the region are very limited. Combined with reduced landfill and land application capacity in the Northeast, biosolids management has become more complicated and costly than ever. New management options and technologies are needed and, unfortunately, S-2655 does not address the problem.