We Need to Talk: How Wastewater Utilities Can Lead the Biosolids Conversation

“For decades, farmers across America have been encouraged by the federal government to spread municipal sewage on millions of acres of farmland…”

If you were a typical person outside the clean-water industry, would that scare you? Millions of people likely read those words in a Sunday New York Times article published Aug. 31.

The article raises the specter that biosolids contain the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. It repeatedly refers to biosolids as “sewage fertilizer” and cites anecdotal, thinly verified cases of land contamination, health issues in livestock and health threats to people.

Leaders of biosolids management organizations responded strongly to the article for greatly exaggerating PFAS risks and for striking a “low blow” against clean-water utilities and the people who treat wastewater.

“If we did not have the people at the end of the pipe, our society would not run,” says Maile Lono-Batura, director of sustainable biosolids programs with the Water Environment Federation. “It’s a network of people who often are not seen or heard. Operators have one of the most important jobs out there. It’s important for us to connect with people and make sure they understand what happens when they flush — that it’s going someplace where what happens helps and does not hurt the environment.”

Evoking fear

To Lono-Batura and Janine Burke-Wells, executive director of the Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Association, the Times article used inflammatory language and cherry-picked anecdotes and sources, leading to an exaggerated picture of the risks posed by PFAS in biosolids. Here are a few of the explosive passages:

• “In some cases the chemicals are suspected of sickening or killing livestock and are turning up in produce. Farmers are beginning to fear for their own health.”
• Biosolids “can contain heavy concentrations of chemicals thought to increase the risk of certain types of cancer and to cause birth defects and developmental delays in children.”
• “In Texas, several ranchers blamed the chemicals for the deaths of cattle, horses and catfish on their properties…”
• “The smell of death…Mountains of sludge”
• “The (U.S. EPA) now says there is no safe level of PFAS for humans.”

In perspective

In reality, humans’ risk of PFAS exposure through biosolids is trivial compared to exposure in the household to many consumer products that contain the substances, according to Sally Brown, a research professor at the University of Washington College of the Environment.

In an article for BioCycle magazine, she observed, “PFAS are in everyone’s blood because they are in everything.” For example, while biosolids generated in California contain on average 27,000 parts per trillion PFAS, household dust contains 523,000 parts per trillion, lipstick 216,000 to 1,560,000 parts per trillion, and take-out food packaging: 7,000,000 to 876,000,000 parts per trillion.

Brown notes that industrial pretreatment has worked for removing metals from biosolids and is also working for PFAS: “The PFAS in (biosolids) are representative of what is in our homes and what is in our poop. By using the biosolids instead of fertilizers…farmers…likely get higher yields, better water quality, healthier soils and reduced carbon emissions, as has been reported for multiple farms, forests, and gardens across the country.

“The answer here is not to target the municipal water treatment agencies but the companies that make these chemicals. Stopping use of PFAS or at least limiting use at the source is the answer. Yet again the NYT, once the gold standard for news across the U.S., has shown that its current emphasis is on sensationalist and unbalanced reporting. They seem unwilling or unable to identify who the bad guys actually are.”

Reverberating impacts

Overreaction to PFAS in biosolids can lead to policies that create serious practical problems, Burke-Wells observes. Maine, for example, dealt with the issue by banning land application in 2022, forcing clean-water utilities to send the material to a landfill or to Canada.

That means additional cost to the utilities and ultimately to ratepayers, but it also means more serious issues in the longer term. “The next few years are going to be really bad in Maine and in the Northeast in general,” Burke-Wells says. “We have no new outlets (for biosolids), and we’re losing outlets pretty much every year. There’s not enough capacity. In three or four years, there are going to be orphan biosolids that have no place to go.”

Meanwhile, she notes, the disconnect in members of the public between biosolids programs and what happens when they flush is increasing, “because we’re trucking the material farther and farther away instead of managing it closer to the source.”

Lono-Batura observes that the Times article neglected to mention the decades of research around biosolids and the transparency involving the material’s use. “The 503 regulations were based on extensive research, and 5,500 pages of public comments were reviewed and addressed,” she says. “And then there are biennial reviews.

“All this information is publicly available. People can find out how much is produced in a community. They can find out how much is land-applied or landfilled, and where it goes. You can find out anything about biosolids. Tell me another fertilizer that does that.”

Once-trusted source

Lono-Batura expressed disappointment in the Times. “They have had a pretty balanced approach in their history. To have something like this come out from them is really unfortunate. Clearly this reporter had an idea what they wanted to convey. It’s such an unbalanced representation of what all of these hard-working utilities do, and it’s really unfortunate.

“These forever compounds are everywhere. They’re even in the Arctic. They fill consumer demands, such as for stain guard or rain-proofing. I live in the Northwest, and I love my rain-proof jacket. I don’t care what it has in it. As long as it keeps me dry on my bike, I’m good.

“Really, we’re the ones asking for these products, but then we have the after-effects and we don’t want to take responsibility. That’s very short-sighted and it’s not very product-stewardship-focused. Blaming utilities is a low blow to our sector and to the people who do the hard work.”

What’s to be done?

In the aftermath of the Times article, national and regional industry associations have focused on equipping clean-water agencies with materials they can use in case members of the public or news reporters contact them about the PFAS issue.

“They should be talking to their customers before they read about this in articles in the New York Times, of all places,” Burke-Wells says. “We’ve developed bill stuffers and a web page and other materials they can use.

“NEBRA and the other biosolids associations can help them with communications planning, at least in starting discussions with their customers or their local papers. And their legislators and local elected officials need to understand these issues. We need to talk to them about it.”

Lono-Batura suggests that utility leaders and operators focus less on going down into the weeds on PFAS issues and more on talking up the essential work they do every day. “What is left out of articles like this is the operators working 24/7/365 to make sure we have clean, regenerative water and nutrient-rich organic matter that our soils need.

“We also have renewable energy that can be tapped. We have these incredible resource recovery facilities in every community. We have 16,000 plants across the nation that make sure we have clean water and resources. That is a success story, but it rarely gets conveyed in these articles.”

Her advice to operators is to be proud about their important jobs. “Modern society could not operate without utilities and utility workers. Invite people to come into your facility. Show them the hard work and all the steps that it takes to make these resources happen.”