The Environmental Business Council of New England hosted a 3-hour webinar on October 11th on “The Fluid Nature of Handling PFAS in Biosolids”.  Most of the panel was made up of NEBRA members or collaborators with presentations on challenges and opportunities related to managing PFAS in biosolids. About 75 people were in attendance.

Kicking off the webinar were Tim Wade, President of the Maine Water Environment Association, and Emily Cole-Prescott, Chair of MEWEA’s Government Affairs Committee. Cole-Prescott’s tenure included the time period when the Maine legislature was acting to ban recycling biosolids in a state that has a long history of promoting beneficial reuse. The pair of speakers from MEWEA reviewed some basics on biosolids and talked of landfill challenges and other unintended consequences of Maine’s ban on biosolids recycling. Cole-Prescott expressed frustration that Maine water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) were treated as polluters during the 2022 legislation discussions. She presented cost data, showing increases in solids handling expense across Maine WRRFs.

Next up was Scott Kyser, an Engineer with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA), who reviewed that state’s approach to PFAS in biosolids. MNPCA conducted a study of technologies and costs for addressing PFAS in wastewater and biosolids. The Minnesota study Groundbreaking study shows unaffordable costs of PFAS cleanup from wastewater | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (state.mn.us) shows just how unaffordable end-of-pipe PFAS removal will be in that state.  The MNPCA report says that engineered solutions for removing and destroying PFAS from water and biosolids leaving Minnesota’s wastewater treatment facilities could cost between $12 billion and $25 billion over 20 years. Minnesota found that PFAS removal from biosolids is technologically feasible, looking at Super Critical Water Oxidation (SCWO), pyrolysis and gasification. Kyser concluded that regionalization of biosolids processing makes the most sense from an engineering perspective but there are complex politics, permitting and public financing challenges with regional projects.  

Paul Rodriguez of ECT2 (which stands for Emerging Compounds Treatment Technology), a technology solutions provider and NEBRA member from Maine, reviewed various promising treatment technologies for liquid and wastewater solids, including SCWO for PFAS destruction.  Todd Williams from Jacobs presented on the status of EPA and state rule makings which impact biosolids management. He also presented data for PFAS concentrations in WRRF effluent, dried and composted biosolids, biochar and various media. He concluded that digestion may change precursors, but total PFAS levels don’t change much. Thermal drying changes PFAS concentrations depending on precursors and drying technologies. Concentrations in compost depend on bulking agents and sludge inputs. Pyrolysis and similar processes can eliminate PFAS in the char.

Last up was NEBRA member Casella’s Jeff McBurnie. Jeff reminding attendees about why we recycle biosolids, why it was still worth it for his company to recycle this valuable organic material. He also spoke about the PFAS removal pilot Casella was running on its landfill leachate in Coventry, Vermont. 

The webinar included a breakout discussion room with NEBRA’s Executive Director chatting with environmental attorneys and a regulator about PFAS in biosolids issues. The webinar concluded with a panel discussion hosted by Weston & Sampson’s Steven Larosa where there was additional discussion about the challenges of managing wastewater sludges in light of PFAS. Attendees were introduced to some pivotal case law that could impact how PFAS clean up will be litigated and regulated. Those included cases from the early 1900s like Madison v. Ducktown Sulfur [Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube] and Georgia v. Tennessee Copper [Bing Videos].