EPA National Biosolids
Meeting Summary
December 8-10, 2020
Photo courtesy of Ashley Mihle, LOOP Garden
-------
Table of Contents
Day 1: Tuesday, December 8, 12:30-4:30 PM Eastern 3
Welcome and Opening Remarks 3
EPA Biosolids Program Efforts 3
EPA Biosolids Website 4
Research Snapshots 5
EPA's Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Biosolids Risk Assessment 9
State Biosolids Program Experience Spotlights 12
Day 2: Wednesday, December 9, 1:00-4:00 PM Eastern 14
Breakout 1: Chemical and Microbial Methods for Meeting Part 503 Requirements 14
Breakout 2: Considerations for Resource Recovery 14
Breakout 3: Experiences in Risk Communications 15
Breakout 4: Thermal Technologies: Incineration, Pyrolysis and Gasification 15
Breakout 5: Surface Disposal and Storage Approaches, Planning and Challenges 15
Breakout 6: Continuity and Institutional Knowledge Transfer within Biosolids Programs 15
Breakout 7: (Non-PFAS) Current Challenges for State and Tribal Biosolids Programs 16
Day 3: Thursday, December 10, 12:30-4:30 PM Eastern 16
Reflections and Insights from Experienced Biosolids Practitioners 16
Areas and Actions for EPA Support: Report Outs from Breakout Sessions 18
Conclusions 21
Appendix A: Meeting Registrants 23
Appendix B: Presentations 30
2
-------
Day 1: Tuesday, December 8, 12:30-4:30 PM Eastern
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Elizabeth Resek, EPA Biosolids Lead, welcomed participants to the virtual EPA National Biosolids Meeting
2020 and introduced Elizabeth Behl, Director of the Health and Ecological Criteria Division who provided
a few opening remarks. The Health and Ecological Criteria Division, within EPA's Office of Water, Office
of Science and Technology, is responsible for work under both the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Biosolids Program is located in HECD.
Deborah Nagle, Director of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) set the stage for the meeting.
She highlighted that the National Biosolids Meeting was a chance to bring together EPA, state and tribal
co-regulators, utilities, academia and biosolids stakeholders for the first time in almost 10 years to
discuss technical and programmatic challenges and needs with the goal of hearing how EPA can best
support biosolids management efforts. OST reinvested in the Biosolids Program with two full-time staff
(Elizabeth Resek and Elyssa Arnold), two ORISE Fellows (Tess Richman and Lauren Questell), and a
dedicated portion of time given to the Biosolids Team from HECD scientists with human health,
ecological and nutrient expertise.
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to review sewage sludge regulations every two years to identify any
additional pollutants that may occur in biosolids and then set regulations for those pollutants if
sufficient scientific evidence shows they may harm human health or the environment. Ms. Nagle stated
that assessing pollutants in biosolids is the Biosolids Team's top priority and significant progress has
been made. She noted that the Biosolids Team collaborates across the agency for a holistic approach
and provided various examples. The Biosolids Team:
Coordinates with EPA's Office of Research and Development on research efforts, including the
recently announced National Priorities: Assessment of Pollutants in Biosolids funding
opportunity that totals almost $6 Million.
Participates on the Agency-wide perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
workgroup.
Participated on the Agency-wide workgroup to develop the National Defense Authorization Act
interim guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials.
Coordinates with OST's Engineering and Analysis Division on biosolids methods.
Coordinates with Office of Wastewater Management on technology, pre-treatment and
permitting efforts.
Works with EPA's Office of General Counsel on resource recovery and regulatory issues.
Coordinates with EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention on Biosolids Program
risk assessment efforts.
Coordinates with EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management on issues related to risk
assessment modeling.
Collaborates with the EPA Regions who are instrumental in assisting state and tribal biosolids
programs.
EPA Biosolids Program Efforts
Ms. Resek gave an overview of EPA's Biosolids Program, which works to meet requirements under
Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act. She reiterated that the program's top priority is to assess
pollutants found in biosolids for potential risk to human health and the environment. As part of that
3
-------
work, every two years EPA conducts biennial reviews by collecting and reviewing publicly available data
on the occurrence, fate and transport in the environment, human health and ecological effects, and
other relevant information for toxic pollutants that may occur in U.S. biosolids. Data from the biennial
reviews may be used to conduct risk assessment screens and refined risk assessments for pollutants
found in biosolids. The anticipated release of the next Biosolids Biennial Report (reporting period 2018-
2019) is early 2021.
Information was presented also on the Biosolids List in EPA's publicly available CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard. The Biosolids List was curated from past biennial reviews and sewage sludge surveys and
represents the Agency's understanding of chemicals found in biosolids. A link to the CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard primer videos can be found here. Over 500 pollutants have been found to occur in biosolids
(in at least one instance) since EPA began tracking their occurrence in 1993 when 40 CFR Part 503 was
promulgated. Not all of the approximate 500 pollutants that have been found in biosolids will be present
in every wastewater treatment facility. Pollutants found in biosolids will vary depending upon inputs to
individual facilities over time. The presence of a pollutant in biosolids alone does not mean that the
biosolids pose harm to human health and the environment.
Information was provided on the Biosolids Program's stakeholder engagement efforts that were
initiated in 2019, including a webinar series and an overhaul of the biosolids website. Additional
activities carried out by the Biosolids Team were discussed and include participation on the Agency-wide
workgroup, led by EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management, that developed interim guidance
on the destruction and disposal of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA). Materials containing PFAS listed in the NDAA include biosolids and soils;
aqueous film-forming foam; textiles, other than consumer goods, treated with PFAS; spent filters,
membranes, resins, granular carbon, and other waste from water treatment; landfill leachate containing
PFAS; and solid, liquid, or gas waste streams containing PFAS from facilities manufacturing or using
PFAS. There were early discussions by the workgroup that the land application of biosolids is not
considered disposal and therefore it did not fall within the scope of the guidance. The final report was
completed in December 2020 and can be found here.
The Biosolids Team is working also to develop a consistent process for evaluating products derived from
sewage sludge that are intended for land application. 40 CFR Part 503 does not consider current or
anticipate future innovative resource recovery technologies and products. Lastly, Ms. Resek shared an
EPA statement from spring 2020 relating to COVID-19, which advises that land application can be
continued if all requirements under 40 CFR part 503 are met.
EPA Biosolids Website
Tess Richman, Biosolids Team ORISE Fellow, walked participants through the EPA Biosolids Website that
was overhauled in July 2020 to better show how Biosolids Program efforts are inter-related and work to
meet statutory requirements under the CWA. Examples of new information found on the website
include risk assessment of pollutants found in biosolids, research and a new resource library.
The website is organized into banners (what's new) and sections (long standing topics). The banners
include:
Biosolids Research, which contains links to the EPA Science Inventory and the most recent
biosolids-specific funding opportunity National Priorities: Evaluation of Pollutants in Biosolids;
4
-------
PFAS, which includes links to EPA's Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids and EPA's
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan;
EPA Biosolids Webinar Series, which has hosted eight webinars since 2019 and allows signups
for future webinars; and,
Biosolids Annual Reporting, which includes a link to Biosolids compliance and annual reporting.
Ms. Richman noted that the section Basic Information about Biosolids is intended for the general public
but links to more detailed information. Content in this section is based on the most recent and frequent
inquiries received by EPA (e.g., a breakdown of how biosolids are used and disposed based on 2019
annual biosolids reporting).
The subsection on Assessing Pollutants Found in Biosolids includes links to the following: Process for
Regulating Pollutants in Biosolids, EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, and Regulatory
Determinations for Pollutants in Biosolids.
The Biosolids Laws and Regulations Biosolids section contains information on How Biosolids are
Regulated and links to biosolids biennial reports, sewage sludge surveys, risk assessment, compliance,
and how the Biosolids Program relates to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The section on Technical Resources for Biosolids Managers is geared toward biosolids managers. This
section contains Pathogen Equivalency Committee information, a page on Biosolids Analytical Methods
and Sampling Procedures that provides methods for meeting chemical and microbial requirements
under Part 503, as well as information on Wastewater Treatment Train Technologies and Use and
Disposal Management Practices. Ms. Richman noted that in the technical resources section, the content
of the pages has not changed, but is organized to be more user friendly. The new Biosolids Library
contains all EPA biosolids documents in a searchable format.
Lastly, Ms. Richman shared that the website contains a list of EPA Regional and State Contacts for
Biosolids. The Biosolids Team strives to keep this list updated and asked participants to please notify the
team of any changes that should be made.
Research Snapshots
Rob Willis (facilitator, Ross Associates) introduced the research snapshots, which consisted of four fast-
paced 10-minute presentations from the following organizations:
EPA Office of Research and Development (Christopher Impellitteri)
Water Research Foundation (Ashwin Dhanasekar and Lola Olabode)
North East Biosolids and Residuals Association (Janine Burke-Wells)
W4170 (Maria Lucia Silveira, University of Florida and Nicholas Basta, Ohio State University)
Christopher Impel!itteri, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Dr. Impellitteri highlighted the biosolids research projects underway in ORD which include:
Providing technical support for pathogens and vector attraction reduction. ORD is working to
update to the Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector
Attraction in Sewage Sludge report, which was last updated in 2003.
5
-------
Evaluating types and prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance
genes (ARGs) in biosolids to inform management strategies. ORD hopes to build on ongoing
COVID sewage surveillance work.
Looking at application of non-targeted analysis to municipal wastewater and residuals, including
method development and evaluation of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) in
wastewater and biosolids.
Developing analytical methods for PFAS. This has been a collaborative effort between the
Department of Defense and EPA. A method is being validated that includes biosolids as one of
the matrices. This method will be validated under Clean Water Act protocols and includes 40
PFAS (https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/cwa-analvtical-methods-and-polvfluorinated-alkyl-
substances-pfas). Single laboratory validation data collection is complete and under review. A
multi-laboratory validation will take place in 2021.
Researching the occurrence, fate, and transport of PFAS in wastewater treatment plants and
biosolids. The goal is to identify sources and evaluate pretreatment strategies.
Researching treatment strategies for biosolids, including incineration and pyrolysis.
Providing research results to assist the Biosolids Program in development of chemical risk
assessments. This includes evaluating chemicals in biosolids to prioritize different CECs and
PFAS.
Characterizing contaminants in land-applied biosolids and application of newer leaching test
methods.
Characterizing soils by evaluating contaminants (PFAS, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, metals)
as a function of loading and soil depth.
Dr. Impellitteri also shared information about biosolids-related research grants, including:
National Priorities: Evaluation of Pollutants in Biosolids. which assists states, municipalities, and
utilities in determining potential risks from pollutants found in biosolids and optimize
management of biosolids.
Awarded Grants: Practical Methods to Analyze and Treat Emerging Contaminants (PFAS) in Solid
Waste. Landfills. Wastewater/Leachates, Soils, and Groundwater to Protect Human Health and
the Environment. This Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grant includes research on minimizing
release of PFAS from land applied biosolids and destruction of PFAS in sewage sludges using
electron beam technology.
Awarded National Priorities Grants: Research on PFAS Impacts in Rural Communities and
Agricultural Operations. This National Priorities Grant includes research on small wastewater
treatment systems and management of PFAS in effluents and biosolids.
Lastly, Dr. Impellitteri highlighted the following gaps in biosolids research:
Based on future occurrence evaluations, assess the fate and transport of emerging
contaminants (including PFAS) in land-applied biosolids.
Examine the destruction of emerging contaminants in alternative biosolids management
processes (e.g., thermal treatment).
Develop frameworks for emerging contaminant risk management in agriculture (e.g., reducing
plant uptake).
Characterize biochar derived from the pyrolysis of biosolids and develop frameworks for
beneficial use.
6
-------
Compare/contrast pyrolysis and alternative technologies (e.g., E-Beam) with existing
management strategies using lifecycle assessment approaches.
Assess microbial contamination of surface and groundwater after land application of biosolids.
Ashwin Dhanasekar, Water Research Foundation (WRF)
Mr. Dhanasekar began his presentation with an overview of the Water Research Foundation (WRF), a
non-profit research organization to advance the science of all things water. WRF's One Water
organization conducts research in all areas of the water sector including drinking water, wastewater,
stormwater and water reuse. Current priorities include PFAS, lead, copper, nutrients, and harmful algal
blooms (HABs). This organization also acts as a pass-through entity for federal and state grants.
Mr. Dhanasekar shared a table with a breakdown of how funds are distributed across WEF's research
programs. Sixty percent of the annual research budget is dedicated to the Research Priority Program, a
strategic research program broadly relevant to the water sector chaired by a Research Advisory Council
to prioritize based on priority research needs in the industry. Twenty percent of the budget is dedicated
to the Tailored Collaboration Program, a matching program designed to support utility-specific/regional
issues. Ten percent is allocated to the Emerging Opportunities Program, a program to address emerging
and time-critical issues. The remaining budget is dedicated to the Unsolicited Research Program, a
program focused on novel/transformative research which opens every alternate year (next in 2022).
Mr. Dhanasekar noted that since the WRF 2003 Biosolids Research Summit there have many new
advances in the world of biosolids. While WRF continued to support limited biosolids research, it held
another biosolids research summit in 2020. The goals of the summit were to:
Develop a long term 5-year research plan,
Prioritize research needs and develop project concepts,
Identify research partners to provide in-kind support and/or funding,
Identify volunteers to serve on the WRF Research Advisory Committee, and
Conclude with clear next steps.
The summit had 45 attendees that encompassed a wide variety of backgrounds and resulted in eleven
project concepts: one for microplastics and ten projects that will be funded over time. Key takeaways
from the summit included sharing knowledge, localizing research, and addressing CECs.
Janine Burke-Wells, North East Biosolids and Residuals Association (NEBRA)
Ms. Burke-Wells shared an overview of the North East Biosolids and Residuals Association (NEBRA), a
small nonprofit created in 1997 with the mission to cooperatively promote the environmentally sound
recycling or beneficial use of water, wastewater, and other residuals in the northeastern United States
and eastern Canada. She highlighted that NEBRA collaborates with other regional
associations/organizations, including the Northwest Biosolids Association, Mid-Atlantic Biosolids
Association (MABA), Virginia Biosolids Council, and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies
(CASA). She also noted that the Northwest Biosolids Association has one of the best research
committees. Ms. Burke-Wells shared that NEBRA is a small association, which gives it the advantage of
being nimble and the ability to get things done quickly.
The National Biosolids Data Project, an update to the 2007 National Biosolids Regulation, Quality, End
Use and Disposal Survey, was highlighted. The project will help inform future research, the quantity of
biosolids generated and how they are managed. The team for the data project includes NEBRA, CASA,
7
-------
Northwest Biosolids, BioCycle, and MABA. The project was initiated through EPA Region 4 funding and
the literature review and methods have been completed. The survey work is currently underway with
funding from diverse organizations nationwide. There are two surveys: one for State Coordinators and
one for water resource recovery facilities (WRRF). The final report is expected in March 2021 with a
peer-reviewed publication to follow. Please contact NEBRA or other members of the project team if you
have questions.
In addition to the data project, NEBRA reported on the Cost Analysis of the Impacts on Municipal
Utilities and Biosolids Management to Address PFAS Contamination. The research found that the
average biosolids management costs increased by approximately 37% in response to PFAS concerns, and
that beneficial reuse programs experience the most significant cost impacts due to PFAS. Ms. Burke-
Wells noted that the sample size was small (29 entities surveyed), and that more funding is needed for
further research. The report also includes a chapter on emerging technology for the removal of biosolids
contaminants.
Maria Lucia Silveira, W1470
Ms. Silveira spoke about the W4170 "Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and Protect
Public, and Ecosystem Health", a multi-state research group focused on beneficial use of treated
wastewater effluent and residuals (such as biosolids) to improve soil health and protect public and
ecosystem health. This multi-state research project traditionally focused on agriculture, but land-grant
institutions now address many academic fields (aquatic, urban, space, and sustainable energy research).
Research focuses on specific and important problems of concern to more than one state. There is a
collaborative team effort in which the scientists from multiple disciplines are mutually responsible for
designing and conducting the research and accomplishing the objectives. Ms. Silveira shared a timeline
for W4170's regional contribution to biosolids research.
Early 1970's: a biosolids project started in the North Central Region (NC-118 "Utilization and
disposal of municipal, industrial and agricultural processing wastes) to evaluate the agronomic
impacts of land applying biosolids.
1972: Western Region Project W-124 "Soil as a waste treatment system" focused on similar
objectives.
1977: the NC-118 and W-124 projects reorganized as W-124 "Optimum utilization of sewage
sludge on land."
1985: the project was renewed as W-170 "Chemistry and bioavailability of waste constituents in
soils."
W170 provided research data and risk assessment support to develop risk-based guidelines for
EPA's Part 503 biosolids regulation.
1985-1999: W-170 "Chemistry and bioavailability of waste constituents in soils"; Renamed in
2004 (W-1170 "Chemistry, bioavailability, and toxicity of constituents in residuals and residual-
treated soils."
2009: W-2170 "Soil-based use of residuals, wastewater and reclaimed water."
2014: W-3170 "Beneficial reuse of residuals and reclaimed water: Impact on soil ecosystem and
human health."
2019: W-4170 "Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and Protect Public, and
Ecosystem Health."
8
-------
Today, the W4170 consists of 50+ scientists from 30 states and is internationally recognized for its
research contributions. Research and extension activities are provided to the scientific community;
federal, state, regional, and local agencies; communities; and stakeholders. The W4170's research focus
has the following objectives:
Evaluate the short- and long-term chemistry and bioavailability of emerging contaminants
(PFAS, microplastics, etc.), pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), persistent
organic contaminants, and pathogens in residuals, reclaimed water, and amended soils in order
to assess the environmental and human health risk-based effects of their application at a
watershed scale.
Evaluate the uses and associated environmental benefits for residuals and wastewaters in
various ecosystems (e.g., agricultural, urban, recreational, forest, rangeland, mine-impacted,
disturbed, degraded) with respect to changes in soil physical, chemical, biological, nutrient, and
trace/heavy metals with respect to soil quality and health.
Most recently, the W4170 provided a science-based response to the EPA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) 2018 biosolids report focusing on the unregulated chemicals highlighted in the report.
EPA's Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Biosolids Risk Assessment
Elyssa Arnold, EPA Biosolids Team Risk Assessment Lead, provided a risk assessment overview and a
summary of EPA's perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perflurorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) biosolids risk
assessment.
Risk Assessment Overview
Ms. Arnold began her presentation by defining Risk Assessment. EPA's definition of risk is the chance of
harmful effects to human health or to ecological systems resulting from exposure to an environmental
stressor. A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
Stressors may adversely affect specific natural resources or entire ecosystems, including plants and
animals, as well as the environment with which they interact. Risk assessment is a scientific process used
to characterize the nature and magnitude of health risks to humans and ecological receptors from
chemical contaminants and other stressors that may be present in the environment. At EPA, risk
assessment typically falls into one of two areas: human health risk assessment and ecological risk
assessment. The CWA is a risk-based statute and Part 503 covers both human health and ecological risk.
Risk depends on three primary factors:
How much of a chemical is present in an environmental medium (e.g., biosolids, soil, water, air).
How much contact a person or ecological receptor (e.g., fish, bird) has with the contaminated
environmental medium.
The inherent toxicity of the chemical (hazard).
Ms. Arnold stressed that hazard (i.e., toxicity) of a stressor does not equate to risk. For risk to be
present, there must be exposure to the hazard at a sufficient level to cause a problem. This is a basic
tenet of toxicology: the dose makes the poison (Paracelsus). Variability and uncertainty both play
important roles in the effort to define hazard and exposure. She defined deterministic and probabilistic
risk assessment. Deterministic risk assessment is a technique that uses point values and simple models
to produce a point estimate of exposure (either high-end or typical exposure). Deterministic
9
-------
assessments are simple to carry out, often use readily available data, and produce results that are
straightforward to interpret. Probabilistic risk assessment is a technique that utilizes the entire range of
input data to develop a probability distribution of exposure or risk rather than a single point value. The
input data can be measured values and/or estimated distributions. The risk assessment process follows
a framework with the following steps:
Problem formulation/scoping: gather information and plan how to do the assessment.
Exposure: calculate expected exposure in different environmental media to your receptor(s).
Effects/toxicity: calculate toxicity endpoints of concern.
Risk characterization: compare expected exposure to toxicity and consider other information
available to help characterize the possible risk.
Risk management and communication: critical step that asks what the numbers mean and how
the scientific assessment translates to the management of the risk.
The CWA Section 405 requires EPA to establish numeric limits and management practices that protect
public health and the environment from the effects of chemical and microbial pollutants during the use
or disposal of sewage sludge. It also requires EPA to review the biosolids regulations every two years to
identify additional toxic pollutants that occur in biosolids and set regulations for those pollutants if
sufficient scientific evidence shows that they may harm human health or the environment. The biosolids
rule (40 CFR Part 503) was published in 1993 to protect human health and the environment from
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of pollutants that may be present in biosolids that are used or
disposed. Pollutant concentration limits in the rule were based on the results of risk assessments that
were conducted to identify risks associated with the use or disposal of biosolids (land application,
surface disposal or incineration). These risk assessments analyzed risks to human, animals, plants, and
soil organisms from exposure to pollutants in biosolids through 14 different exposure pathways.
EPA's PFOA and PFOS Biosolids Risk Assessment
The scoping, or problem formulation, stage of EPA's PFOA and PFOS biosolids risk assessment is included
in EPA's PFAS Action Plan.
The scoping, or problem formulation, stage of EPA's PFOA and PFOS biosolids risk assessment is included
in EPA's PFAS Action Plan. Problem formulation is the part of risk assessment that articulates the
purpose for the assessment, defines the problem, determines the conceptual models (sources and
routes of exposure), and describes the analysis plan, including the models and tools that will be used in
the analysis. Problem formulation also includes engagement with states and tribes, risk managers,
scientists, and members of the biosolids community to discuss foreseeable science and implementation
issues. Meetings for this purpose were held in November 2020.
PFOA and PFOS are part of a larger group of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
PFAS are highly fluorinated aliphatic molecules that have been released to the environment through
industrial manufacturing and through use and disposal of PFAS-containing products. While many PFAS
chemicals have been found in biosolids, PFOA and PFOS are among the most abundant and have the
largest datasets to support risk assessment. PFOA and PFOS do not readily degrade via aerobic or
anaerobic processes. The only dissipation mechanisms in water are dispersion, advection, and sorption
to particulate matter such as biosolids in the wastewater stream. While PFOA and PFOS have largely
been phased out of production in the United States, their resistance to environmental degradation
causes a lingering concern for exposure. They can also be formed from precursors in the environment.
10
-------
PFOA and PFOS are both highly persistent in the environment and highly mobile. Both chemicals tend
to bioaccumulate in humans, terrestrial organisms, and aquatic organisms, although PFOS has shown to
have higher bioaccumulation potential than PFOA.
Ms. Arnold shared a chart with measured concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids from published
literature. PFOA and PFOS were not measured by EPA in their national sewage sludge surveys. Sampling
for the most recent survey was completed in 2006 and at that time there were not sufficient analytical
methods for biosolids to include them in the survey. EPA will use the measurements from published
studies such as these (including one that measures PFOA and PFOS in stored samples from the 2006
targeted national sewage sludge survey) to determine the biosolids concentration for the risk
assessment. Toxicity endpoints for the risk assessment will be consistent with those determined for
human health and ecological receptors by other parts of EPA's Office of Water.
Biosolids use and disposal pathways include land application, surface disposal, and incineration. These
are mapped out in conceptual models based on expected major pathways and modeling capabilities.
The conceptual models apply to any chemical in biosolids (not specific to PFOA/PFOS), so there is a
consistent approach to chemical risk assessment. Ms. Arnold reviewed the conceptual model for
agricultural land application on human exposure. There were 14 exposure pathways in 1993 and there
have been many advances and changes since, and the dashed lines show what has been added since
1993. The exposure scenario is based on the reasonable maximum exposure, which is defined as a farm
family (adult and child) who lives on a farm and consumes farm-raised foods where land-applied
biosolids are used. This family would be more highly exposed to biosolids than the general population
because the goal is to be protective. This is consistent with recommendations in the 2002 National
Research Council report on land-applied biosolids. There are five conceptual models in total:
Agricultural Land Application Scenario: Human Exposures
Agricultural Land Application Scenario: Ecological Exposures
Biosolids Surface Disposal: Human Exposures
Biosolids Incineration: Human Exposures
Biosolids Incineration: Ecological Exposures
EPA's modeling approach is currently under development for presentation to the EPA Science Advisory
Board in 2021. Modeling for biosolids will be based on publicly available, previously peer-reviewed
models for leaching, runoff, erosion, air dispersal, and plant uptake to the greatest extent possible. The
approach for PFAS will be consistent, to the extent appropriate, with all other chemical risk assessment
for biosolids.
Ms. Arnold gave a summary of the PFOA and PFOS Problem Formulation meetings that took place in
November 2020. Two meetings were held (same presentation and discussion questions were used), one
with states and tribes and one with other stakeholders in the biosolids community. The meetings were
designed to engage and gather input from stakeholders. Major themes of the discussions included cost
and availability of analytical methods for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, explanation of the conceptual
models, the need to consider occupational exposure, and the complications presented by precursors.
Stakeholders stressed the importance of keeping in mind the impacts of the risk assessment results on
biosolids management, the role of pretreatment/source reduction, and the magnitude of risks from
biosolids relative to other exposure sources.
11
-------
The problem formulation meetings are complete, and a draft document is expected to be available in
2021. The Science Advisory Board will review the modeling approach in 2021. The estimated completion
of the risk assessment for internal review is in 2022, followed by a public comment period. Ms. Arnold
noted that there are a lot of pieces still coming together as EPA builds their risk assessment model,
validates the approach, and gathers toxicity data for PFOA and PFOS. If EPA determines that PFOA or
PFOS in biosolids may adversely affect public health or the environment, risk managers will consider
options for numerical limitations and best management practices for these compounds. If regulatory
limits are advised, they will go through a standard regulatory process including inter-Agency and Office
of Management and Budget review, as well as public comment.
State Biosolids Program Experience Spotlights
Michigan PFAS and Biosolids Update: State Perspective (Mike Person, Michigan Biosolids
Program)
Mr. Person shared an update on PFAS and biosolids in the State of Michigan, noting that Michigan is
recognized for its leadership in addressing contamination from PFAS. Mr. Person highlighted that this
success is due in part to the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART), which is a unique multi-
agency team that leads coordination and cooperation among all levels of government. MPART organizes
and directs PFAS activities of key state departments responsible for environmental and natural
resources protection, agriculture, public health, military installations, airports, and fire departments.
The MPART structure includes multiple technical workgroups that address a wide variety of PFAS issues.
The Water Resource Division (WRD) within the Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy
(EGLE) is the lead agency for the Biosolids Workgroup. Mr. Person noted that states are feeling
pressured to take action to address PFAS and guidance from EPA is needed regarding land application of
biosolids in the context of PFAS. This is a very complicated issue involving variabilities in wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) processes, soil types, application rates, fate and transport to surface water and
groundwater, as well as crop uptake and food safety concerns. Through its PFAS efforts Michigan is
working to better understand the issue to ensure that land application is protective of public health and
the environment. The intent of the state's aggressive source reduction effort is so that biosolids land
application can continue in the future.
In February 2018, EGLE initiated the Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) PFAS Initiative which
required Publicly Operated Treatment Works (POTWs) with IPP programs to look for sources of PFAS in
their systems. Ninety-five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have IPP programs and initially
participated in the program. If potential sources were identified, effluent/influent samples were
collected, and the results were compared to WRD's Surface Water Quality Standard for PFOS. If elevated
sources were found POTWS were required to go through a process of elimination and reporting. Overall,
the IPP PFAS Initiative has been a success with significant reductions in PFOS noted for discharge from
WWTPs.
To expand upon the IPP initiative, EGLE conducted a statewide Biosolids Study that selected and
sampled effluent, influent and biosolids from 42 WWTPs, conducted site investigations of biosolids land
application sites, and evaluated various fate and transport modeling techniques. Mr. Person presented
graphs of PFOS concentrations in biosolids at WWTPs. He noted that in Michigan, most biosolids are
land applied as a slurry which is about 3-6% solids, so researchers tried to focus on that type of sludge if
it was stored in the plant. Researchers sampled what was available and collected samples from different
locations within some plants. The data collected so far will likely lead to conducting a more intensive
12
-------
study at some WWTPs in their attempt to understand PFOS in biosolids. The threshold level of 150 ppb
is being used at the point at which biosolids is considered industrially impacted. Mr. Person noted how
the industrially impacted number was developed and stressed that this is not a risk-based number. A
detailed summary report is expected to be released in late 2020. The current study results and strategy
will be presented at the next stakeholders meeting and will then need to go through MPART review.
WRD has begun working with non-IPP WWTPs that accept landfill leachate, septage, or other types of
high strength waste to conduct a short-term waste characterization study and analyze the WWTP
effluent and waste stream for PFAS, metals, and compatible pollutants. WRD developed a compliance
strategy to handle industrial direct discharges and industrial stormwater discharges that exceed the
water quality standards for PFOS. WRD is starting the process to develop a permitting strategy for
municipal groundwater discharges similar to what is done for municipal NPDES facilities.
Mr. Person noted that EGLE is currently in the process of developing a biosolids strategy. The focus of
the strategy is to continue using surface water quality standards to drive the implementation of PFAS
source controls at POTWs with IPP requirements in their NPDES permits. Through this approach,
wastewater treatment plants have experienced significant reduction in PFOS concentrations in both
effluent and biosolids. Further improvements are anticipated as control programs continue to be
implemented and refined. EGLE is also committed to ensuring that industrially impacted biosolids are
not land applied and to evaluate historical land application scenarios that may present unacceptable
risks to public health. Until a fully vetted risk-based evaluation is completed for PFOS (PFAS) in biosolids,
EGLE is implementing the strategy to guide WWTPs and inform landowners/farmers regarding biosolids
land application with detectable concentrations of PFAS.
Impact of Past Biosolids Land Application on One Maine Farming Community (Carla Hopkins,
Maine Department of Environmental Protection)
Ms. Hopkins began her presentation by discussing a farm in southern Maine who saw elevated PFOS
levels in milk in December 2016. Class B biosolids and paper mill residuals were applied to the farmland
from the 1980s to the early 2000s. PFOS in the soil leached to groundwater affecting the dairy cows. In
2018, Maine adopted screening concentrations for residuals, including biosolids, for three PFAS
compounds: PFBS: 1,900 ng/g, PFOA: 2.5 ng/g, and PFOS: 5.2 ng/g. This was based on leaching to
groundwater modeling with 200 ng/L as an endpoint. In March 2019, the state began requiring facilities
that land-apply biosolids and biosolids-derived products to test for PFBS, PFOA and PFOS in Class B
programs, Class A pellet programs, and Class A composters (this includes WWTP sludge and dewatered
septage). Ongoing testing was required beginning in February 2020.
In March 2019, the governor of Maine formed the Maine PFAS Task Force to study the threats of PFAS
contamination to public health and the environment. The task force consisted of public health experts,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of
Agriculture Conservation and Forestry (DACF), and Maine Emergency Management Agency, industry
experts, drinking water sector, environmental groups, and the final report was issued January 2020. The
report laid out two key recommendations relating to biosolids:
Prioritize locations for sampling where biosolids were spread on fields that produce crops for
human consumption or feed, and
Greatly expand testing of agricultural produce and products grown and/or raised in soils where
biosolids have been agronomically utilized.
13
-------
The DACF started conducting an off-the-shelf milk testing program in 2019 and 2020. Samples over the
detection limit prompted further testing at contributing farms. Results from a farm in central Maine
were very high (>10,000 ppt in milk). The farm had accepted Class B biosolids in approximately 1980-
2003 (WWTP with significant contribution from industry) and Class A sludge-derived liming product in
approximately 2006-2015 and spread the farm's manure. Samples were taken from all media from the
farm and homes adjacent to the farm site. Ms. Hopkins showed a series of graphs with the
concentrations found in milk (all >10,000 ng/L; milk tank = 32,200 ng/L), beef (20.9 ng/g), beef manure
(113 ng/g), dairy manure (35.1 ng/g), and barn water from public water supply (4.52 ng/L). Feed sources
had the highest levels in grass samples from fields. Corn results are still being reviewed, but it appears
corn uptake is lower than grass. Samples of purchased grain from offsite are non-detectable. The soil
and associated grass saw some significant levels.
Next steps following this study will be to coordinate treatment systems for those impacted above the
EPA Health Advisory; continue expanding private drinking water well testing based on results; if
necessary, review information from other sites that received Class B biosolids from the same generator
that provided biosolids to the sites discussed earlier and sample as appropriate; and expand testing to
sites that received other Class B biosolids.
Day 2: Wednesday, December 9, 1:00-4:00 PM Eastern
The second day of the meeting consisted of breakout sessions. The purpose of these breakout sessions
was to brainstorm specific areas and actions for EPA to work alongside the biosolids community. It was
important to help EPA understand what successes and challenges are being experienced by the biosolids
community. There were seven concurrent breakout sessions, and each was run three times.
Breakout 1: Chemical and Microbial Methods for Meeting Part 503 Requirements
40 CFR Part 503 identifies allowable methods to be used for pathogens and vectors, inorganic
pollutants, and some physical and aggregate biosolids properties. This session explored the use of
existing methods and the potential need for new methods. PFAS methods were not a focus of this
breakout session. The following questions were used to focus the discussions:
What methods are you currently using?
What methods work well and what methods are difficult to use or present problems?
What method would you like to be made available that isn't currently available or allowed under
Part 503?
Breakout 2: Considerations for Resource Recovery
EPA is aware of new approaches and products that are derived from sewage sludge. Part 503 may
create regulatory hurdles to the development of these products, something that EPA did not envision
when it promulgated the regulation in 1993. The following questions were used to focus the discussions:
What resource recovery efforts are you pursuing?
What hurdles or obstacles are you facing?
What would you like to be doing?
14
-------
Breakout 3: Experiences in Risk Communications
Communicating risk uncertainties from pollutants in biosolids is challenging. Concerns over biosolids
containing high levels of PFAS chemicals are presenting challenges for land application. This session
explored biosolids risk communication strategies, tools and messaging. The following questions were
used to focus the discussions:
What risk communication strategies, tools and/or messaging have you used? What worked well
and what did not?
What obstacles are you facing?
What strategies, tools, and messaging are needed?
Breakout 4: Thermal Technologies: Incineration, Pyrolysis and Gasification
This session explored the use of incineration, pyrolysis and gasification as options for biosolids
management. While EPA continues to support the land application of biosolids, additional management
options are needed, particularly for biosolids that are highly contaminated with PFAS. The following
questions were used to focus the discussions:
Are you currently employing incineration, pyrolysis or gasification? Why did you choose a
particular thermal technology?
What is working well? What challenges are you experiencing?
What obstacles exist for implementing thermal technologies? How can obstacles be addressed?
Breakout 5: Surface Disposal and Storage Approaches, Planning and Challenges
This session explored surface disposal and storage approaches, planning, and challenges. The following
questions were used to focus the discussion:
What surface disposal and storage planning have you done?
What issues are you facing when developing a plan?
What is working well and what challenges are you experiencing?
Breakout6: Continuity and Institutional Knowledge Transfer within Biosolids Programs
Biosolids co-regulators and management professionals experience turnover in personnel. This session
explored ways to create and maintain continuity and institutional knowledge transfer within and across
the biosolids community. The following questions were used to focus the discussions:
How is knowledge and information transferred currently?
What works and doesn't work well?
What obstacles exist for successful knowledge transfer? How could these obstacles be
addressed?
15
-------
Breakout 7: (Non-PFAS) Current Challenges for State and Tribal Biosolids Programs
While PFAS is a major issue for biosolids programs today, this session explores non-PFAS challenges that
state and tribal programs currently face and what possible solutions exist. The following questions were
used to focus the discussions:
What are some of the challenges your program currently faces?
What is working well and what isn't?
What obstacles are you experiencing to address biosolids issues? How could these obstacles be
addressed?
Day 3: Thursday, December 10, 12:30-4:30 PM Eastern
Reflections and Insights from Experienced Biosolids Practitioners
The purpose of this session was to provide meeting participants with reflections and insights from
biosolid practitioners with many years of experience. The seven speakers each shared how their work in
the biosolids community has evolved over the years, including what they've learned and can pass on to
newer biosolids managers.
Speakers:
Kyle Dorsey, Washington Department of Ecology
Lauren Fondahl, EPA Region 9
Greg Kester, California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Cynthia Sans, EPA Region 7
Frederick J. Hegeman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
John Dunn, EPA Region 7
Bob Bastian, Retired Senior Environmental Scientist, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management
In their ten-minute presentations, speakers were asked to answer the following questions:
What advice would you give your younger self?
In biosolids, what has been the most impactful development or achievement you have witnessed
or have been a part of and why was it so impactful?
Kyle Dorsey, Washington Department of Ecology
Mr. Dorsey focused on the importance of networking and the value of knowing what others are doing
and thinking. He offered the advice, "Do something you like, and do it with heart. Pay attention to good,
better, best - it drives a lot of what happens in the industry." Mr. Dorsey noted that social media
presents challenges to biosolids messaging and suggested that the biosolids community better
understand and improve how the industry is represented on social media. Mr. Dorsey believes that
biosolids managers need to go on the offensive to protect the quality of biosolids and to keep
contaminants out of treatment plants. Lastly, Mr. Dorsey stressed that the quality of biosolids should be
used as an indicator of success for protecting the environment.
Lauren Fondahl, EPA Region 9
Ms. Fondahl shared that she is often called to be the expert on things when she isn't an expert. The
advice she would give to her younger self would be to take a class on agronomic rate. She shared that
16
-------
she was successful in helping to develop a form for third-party contractors who take biosolids for
storage and use. Ms. Fondahl stressed the need to better understand what is occurring nationwide.
Greg Kester, California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Mr. Kester shared how he successfully evolved his career over the years. Each of the major career
accomplishments he highlighted had the same thread: listen to everyone in the room, even the
opposition. He stressed that together we can make better regulations and regulations must be based on
science.
Cynthia Sans, EPA Region 7
Ms. Sans advised participants that on days when you feel frustrated and you are not making progress,
take a step back and look at a longer period of time - look at your progress as a whole. Ms. Sans shared
that she wished she had realized how critical it is to take advantage of the experience of others in your
field; they have insights. She highlighted that fiscal year 2013 saw the creation of the Biosolids Center of
Excellence, located in EPA Region 7, which is responsible for Part 503 compliance and enforcement.
Biosolids e-reporting began in 2016 and in 2019, the Biosolids Center of Excellence developed expedited
settlement for sludge, which allows for faster enforcement and frees up resources for larger cases.
When asked Ms. Sans stated that overapplication or application that did not meet certain requirements
(e.g., pollutant ceiling limit exceeded, or vector attraction reduction was not sufficient); and the need to
test before application are two of the most common Part 503 violations.
Frederick J. Hegeman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Mr. Hegeman noted that these meetings are important, and networking is critical in this field - and in life
in general - stressing that teamwork is key. He advised participants to make sure to take time to relax
and enjoy life. Mr. Hegeman noted that he has seen a lot of evolution in the program, the work and
what is emphasized in the 12 years that he has been at Wl DNR. Some current issues include
maintaining compliance, especially with Class B biosolids, and finding places to distribute final Class A
product.
John Dunn, EPA Region 7
Mr. Dunn shared that regulators need to be an umpire, not an advocate. They should help people
comply in the easiest way possible - protect the environment and help people do the right thing. He
advised regulators to look at their specific role and adapt to changes that occur over time. Sometimes
your role is to sit back and observe, other times you act. As a regulator, you need to understand the
activities you regulate (e.g., how sewage treatment plants work). The source of a problem is usually
upstream, so you need to understand process and how to help WWTP workers. Mr. Dunn shared that
his major accomplishment was getting the use of agronomic rates into Part 503.
Bob Bastian, Retired Senior Environmental Scientist, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Mr. Bastian shared that support for technology and resource recovery is needed. Water supply and the
recycling of water has become the focus, and we need mechanisms to track and ensure performance.
When he started his career, sludge was viewed as hazardous waste because of what could be in it, but
by dealing with pathogens and chemical contaminants, biosolids can be managed as a resource. Mr.
Bastian noted that this evolution from hazardous waste to resource is one of the most important
changes that he has seen. Mr. Bastian's advice to lesser experienced biosolids managers is to, "Keep the
big picture in front of you. If you can't see where you are trying to get to, you need to take a step back."
17
-------
Areas and Actions for EPA Support: Report Outs from Breakout Sessions
There was a significant amount of energy and participation around the breakout session topics. Detailed
notes were taken during all Day 2 breakout sessions and they will be helpful to EPA in its efforts. Key
takeaways and themes are captured in this report (see the following bullets under each breakout
session).
Breakout 1: Chemical and Microbial Methods for Meeting Part 503 Requirements
Clarification is needed on what methods are acceptable under Part 503.
Several participants noted that it is difficult to meet holding times for fecal coliform and
salmonella when using existing methods. They requested guidance on how to address the issues
they are experiencing.
Odors remain an obstacle to biosolids acceptance (e.g., nuisance and/or perception that odor
indicates health risk). Additional methods for vector attraction reduction and stability are
needed.
A request was made for EPA to develop nutrient analysis methods for biosolids (wastewater
methods are currently being used and it varies by state). However, it was noted also that test
labs are calibrated with localized agronomic recommendations from land grant universities. If
EPA standardized nutrient test methods, the localized agronomic recommendations would have
to be considered.
Education is needed on methods selection and sampling. Contextual information and references
would be helpful in understanding the most desirable or appropriate approach needed under
certain circumstances.
Breakout 2: Considerations for Resource Recovery
There is a Part 503 regulatory hurdle to allowing innovative resource recovery products and
technologies.
An EPA determination on the land application of struvite under Part 503 is needed.
Cost considerations:
o Understanding lifecycle costs and benefits of the products/options is needed so a utility
can select the best option to meet the community's needs,
o It can be difficult to account for the reliability of a program in lifecycle costs,
o Sometimes market demand is not sufficient to cover costs of resource recovery (e.g.,
struvite).
Some facilities are looking for sludge incinerator ash reuse opportunities while others have
success stories that were shared.
Composting was discussed:
o In the pacific north west facilities who want to do composting are encountering issues
with air quality regulations,
o Regulation of compost varies across states.
o The American Carbon Registry, Water Environment Federation and others are
examining carbon credits for composting.
A coordinated effort that includes EPA is needed to obtain acceptance of biosolids use on
organic crops (e.g., EPA/US Department of Agriculture dialogue).
EPA needs to play a role in promoting Class A EQ biosolids use.
18
-------
Phosphorus accumulation in soils is jeopardizing land application of biosolids.
Messaging and emphasis are needed on the beneficial use of biosolids to counter the view that
biosolids land application is simply a disposal option.
Biosolids land application can be part of the climate change solution.
US Geological Survey/US Department of Agriculture/EPA coordination on soil conservation and
soil health efforts is needed.
US Forest Service/EPA coordination on reclamation of fire ravaged lands as a remediation tool is
needed.
EPA's promotion of the concept of circular economy relative to biosolids beneficial use is
needed. Note that EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Program can be leveraged for this
purpose.
More discussion on biochar relative to biosolids is needed.
There was discussion around interstate regulations and the need for standardization across the
nation.
Breakout 3: Experiences in Risk Communications
Examples of ongoing risk communication efforts were discussed:
o Public Interest Center that is trained to speak to the public,
o Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council and the Association of Clean Water
Administrators risk communication materials.
Potential Strategies:
o Farmers, health professionals and local conservation districts can help develop
messaging and act as messengers,
o Identify best news outlets to get messaging to the public.
o Identify experts and a mechanism to readily access them so that a response to the
public is timely,
o Ensure websites are current and user-friendly,
o Keep farmers updated regularly (e.g., newsletter).
Biosolids community should work together for consistent messaging and have communication
materials readily available.
Hold webinars on crisis communication (e.g., spills).
EPA should play a role in messaging, sometimes jointly with states and stakeholders.
Develop a template for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that can be used between
utilities and communities.
Document case studies that can be shared with the public.
Messaging:
o Needs to be concise, clear, timely, easy to understand and honest,
o Should show understanding and empathy.
Anticipate and eliminate triggers:
o Give people notice that you are land applying,
o Ensure haulers drive safely and are considerate of the community,
o Require signage at Class B and Class A (where appropriate) land application sites that
are visible from the road. Include pertinent information (e.g., permit #, operator #).
19
-------
Challenges:
o Public trust and misinformation.
o Lack of science.
Breakout 4: Thermal Technologies: Incineration, Pyrolysis and Gasification
Participants discussed advantages to incineration (e.g., limits on land application, location
constraints prevent adding digestors, efficiencies in operating system without added fuel and
fluctuations in sludge makeup).
Significant challenges exist when trying to meet water, air and waste regulations.
o Coordination between EPA programs is needed.
It is difficult for existing incineration units to comply with new Clean Air Act requirements which
leads to pressure on capacity of units, some units shutting down, some utilities moving away
from incineration, and concern around communities being able to meet requirements.
It can be difficult to get new thermal units permitted.
Moving to gasification can be a challenge because location of existing pipelines cannot always
be moved to accommodate the gasification unit.
Facilities are interested in pyrolysis and gasification but are very wary due to the lack of existing
full-scale operating facilities that prove that the technology is a safe investment.
It is difficult to find a market (e.g., sludge biochar) or beneficial use (e.g., ash).
Some successful examples of ash beneficial use were shared by participants.
Facilities are moving away from incineration as upgrades become more expensive.
o There is often public opposition to incineration.
o Knowledge transfer for running systems can be a challenge for facilities.
Breakout 5: Surface Disposal and Storage Approaches, Planning and Challenges
Surface disposal sites include landfills or monofills used only for sewage sludge, sewage sludge
surface impoundments, and some lagoons (excluding treatment and storage lagoons).
Beneficial use of biosolids via land application is distinct from surface disposal.
There was a lot of interest in the topic of surface disposal and participants in the breakout
sessions had robust discussions where they exchanged ongoing practices and challenges.
Based on the discussions, there is significant confusion on the differences between and
requirements for staging, storage and disposal.
o A request for guidance and training on the topic was made.
o Small communities in particular struggle due to limited financial resources and limited
expertise.
Knowledgeable and experienced participants stressed the need for early planning to ensure that
facilities are ready at the time the lagoon reaches capacity.
o Lack of planning is resulting in stockpiles.
Breakout 6: Continuity and Institutional Knowledge Transfer within Biosolids Programs
Participants shared knowledge transfer practices that work well such as: factsheets, regular
coordination meetings and calls, compliance plans, sampling plans, standard operating
20
-------
procedures, accessible historical files, electronic materials, and certain EPA documents (e.g.,
pathogen and vector attraction guidance).
Regular training and conferences are integral to knowledge transfer.
Publicly available technical assistance information is needed.
EPA needs to update guidance and technical documents. There is often a reluctance to rely on
existing EPA materials that were developed in the 1990's and early 2000's.
Field/site tours for both biosolids managers and regulators can be extremely beneficial.
Biosolids issues are often complex and nuanced (solutions are not "one size fits all"). There is a
need to ensure that the nuances of biosolids management are transferred.
There are often differences between state biosolids regulations which can create issues when
biosolids cross state lines.
Breakout 7: (NorvPFAS) Current Challenges for State and Tribal Biosolids Programs
EPA's re-engagement is welcomed (e.g., helpful new website, responsive to questions, and
improved communications).
Examples of successful collaboration were highlighted (e.g., partnerships with farmers;
coordination with Canada and USDA/extension services; and coordination between states and
tribes).
Gaps exist in current science and understanding (e.g., new technologies, chemicals of emerging
concern, phosphorus, microplastics).
More research is needed on the beneficial use of biosolids, as well as better communication of
research currently underway.
There are challenges with tracking interstate transfers of biosolids.
Working in and communicating with remote areas can present challenges.
Changing climate is influencing land application opportunities, timing, storage needs, etc.
There is a lack of clarity around regulatory jurisdiction (e.g., movement of biosolids across tribal
lands, states and federal facilities).
Navigating the beneficial use of biosolids with the potential risk of contaminants found in
biosolids.
Challenges exist with phosphorous and algae management associated with biosolids
applications.
There is a lack of funding and staff to administer biosolids programs.
Staff turnover is a constant challenge.
States receiving biosolids from outside their state can have difficulty tracking the treatment
processes used for those biosolids in order to ensure Part 503 and state compliance.
Better reporting is needed for sludge that is stored or going to landfills in EPA's annual biosolids
reporting.
Conclusions
Elizabeth Behl, Director of the Health and Ecological Criteria Division, shared some final remarks to close
out the meeting. She reflected on the robust discussions and networking that occurred. She expressed
her appreciation to the biosolids community for "stepping up" when EPA could not engage in biosolids
issues to the extent necessary in past years, and for continuing to meet the needs of communities across
21
-------
the country. Ms. Behl stated that the Biosolids Team will reflect on the lessons learned from the meeting
to inform program efforts and she committed to continuing communication and collaboration with co-
regulators and stakeholders.
The entire Biosolids Team would like to thank those in the biosolids community for providing input on
the meeting agenda, the presenters and the participants who made the EPA National Biosolids Meeting
2020 a success.
22
-------
Appendix A: Meeting Registrants
Location
First Name
Last Name
Company
Alexandria, VA (AlexRenew)
Allison
Deines
Alexandria Renew Enterprises
Association of Clean Water
Jake
Adler
ACWA
Administrators (ACWA)
Sean
Rolland
ACWA
California Association of
Sarah
Deslauriers
CASA
Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
Greg
Kester
CASA
City of Tacoma
Dan
Thompson
City of Tacoma
City of Vancouver
Frank
Dick
City of Vancouver
Cleveland, OH (NEORSD)
Kathryn
Crestani
NEORSD
Green Bay, Wl (NEW Water)
Bruce
; Bartel
NEW Water Green Bay
Metropolitan Sewerage District
Kansas City, MO (KC Water)
Matt
Bond
KC Water
Kissimmee, FL (Toho Water
Authority)
Todd
Swingle
Toho Water Authority
Littleton, CO (Roxborough
Water & Sanitation District)
Barbara
| Biggs
Roxborough Water & Sanitation
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District (MSD)
Jay
| Hoskins
MSD
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
Albert
| Cox
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
Mid-Atlantic Biosolids
Association (MABA)
William
| Toffey
MABA
Mission, KS (Johnson County
Wastewater)
Jeanette
1 Klamm
Johnson County Wastewater
National Association of Clean
Water Agencies (NACWA)
Chris
Hornback
NACWA
New England Interstate
Jen
Lichtensteiger
NEIWPCC
Water Pollution Control
Commission (NEIWPCC)
Christina
I Stringer
NEIWPCC
North East Biosolids &
Residuals Association (NEBRA)
Janine
! Burke-Wells
NEBRA
Northwest Biosolids (NW
Erika
Kinno
NW Biosolids
Biosolids)
Maile
Lono-Batura
King County
Synagro
Layne
Baroldi
Synagro Technologies
Virginia Beach (HRSD)
Jamie
Heisig-Mitchell
HRSD
Virginia Biosolids Council
Robert
Crockett
Advantus Strategies
W4170
Nick
Basta
University of Florida
Maria
Silveira
Ohio State University
Washington, DC (DC Water)
Chris
Peot
DC Water
23
-------
| Water Environment
Federation (WEF)
1 Patrick
Steve
l Claudio
Dube
Dye
Ternieden
WEF
WEF
WEF
ฆ Water Research Foundation
| Ashwin
Dhanasekar
WRF
| (WRF)
| Lola
Oladobe
WRF
Alabama Department of
| Wayne
| Crockett
Environmental Management-Land
Division
Alabama Department of
| Alabama
| Cody
| Ennis
Environmental Management-Land
Division
Alabama Department of
| Rick
| Kelsey
Environmental Management-Land
Division
| Alaska
| Lori
| Aldrich
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
| Arizona
| Sondra
| Francis
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
| Scott
| Hatton
Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Fresno
| California
| Laleh
! Rastegarzadeh
State Water Resources Control
Board
! Brianna
St Pierre
California State Water Board
Heather
Williams
Cal Recycle
| Tim
| Larson
Colorado Department of Public
| Colorado
Health & Environment
| Nathan
| Moore
Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment
| Connecticut
| Craig
| Motasky
Connecticut Department of Energy |
and Environmental Protection
Delaware Department of Natural
| Delaware
| Brian
| Churchill
Resources and Environmental
Control
| Florida
| Maurice
! Barker
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
| Idaho
| Tressa
Nicholas
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
| Illinois
| Wei
Han
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
| Jaime
1 Rabins
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
24
-------
j Kate
| Garvey
Indiana Department of |
Environmental Management
| Indiana
| Thomas
| Kreke
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
| Brenda
! Stephanoff
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
| Iowa
1 Tom
Atkinson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
| Emy
Liu
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
| Kansas
| Shelly
1 Shores-Miller
Kansas Department of Health &
Environment
| Louisiana
| Ronda
| Burtch
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
| Todd
| Franklin
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
| Maine
j Carla
| Hopkins
State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
| Paul
| Secord
State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
| Massachusetts
| Jennifer
| Wood
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Michigan Department of
| Stephen
| Mahoney
Agriculture and Rural
Development
Michigan Department of
| Michigan
| Michael
| Person
Environment, Great Lakes and
Energy
Michigan Department of
| Cindy
| Sneller
Environment, Great Lakes and
Energy
| Lauren
| Bammert
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
| Minnesota
| Sherry
| Bock
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
| Cole
| Huggins
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
| Missouri
| Greg
| Caldwell
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
| Montana
| Fred
| Collins
Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
| Andrew
| Ulven
Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
25
-------
| Nebraska
| Reuel
| Anderson
! Nebraska Department of |
Environment and Energy
| New Hampshire
| Anthony
| Drouin
j New Hampshire Department of
| Environmental Services
| Wade
! Pelham
| New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
| New Jersey
| Anthony
Pilawski
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
| Patrick
Brown
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
| New Mexico
| Sarah
j Holcomb
New Mexico Environment
| Department
| Susan
| Lucas Kamat
| New Mexico Environment
| Department
| New York
| Molly
| Trembley
| New York State Department of
| Environmental Conservation
| Sally
| Rowland
| New York State Department of
| Environmental Conservation
j Todd
| Crawford
| North Carolina Department of
| Environmental Quality
| North Carolina
j Poonam
| Giri
| North Carolina Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Erick
| Saunders
| North Carolina Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Vivien
| Zhong
| North Carolina Department of
| Environmental Quality
| North Dakota
| Sarah
| Waldron Feld
| North Dakota Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Kennedy
| Gardner
| Ohio Environmental Protection
| Agency
| Ohio
j Dana
| Martin-Hayden
| Ohio Environmental Protection
| Agency
| Betsy
| Sheerin
| Ohio Environmental Protection
| Agency
| Erin
| Sherer
| Ohio Environmental Protection
| Agency
| Gregory
| Carr
| Oklahoma Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Oklahoma
| Toby
| Harden
| Oklahoma Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Myles
| Mungle
| Oklahoma Department of
| Environmental Quality
26
-------
| Oregon
| Pat
| Heins
| Oregon Department of |
| Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania
| Kevin
| McLeary
| Pennsylvania Department of
| Environmental Protection
i Rhode Island
| Alex
1 Pinto
| Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
| Byron
Amick
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
| South Carolina
1 Tyra
Foulks
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
| Brenda
1 Green
South Carolina Department of
| Health and Environmental Control
| Kellie
| Crouch
| Texas Commission on
| Environmental Quality
| Texas
| Brian
| Sierant
| Texas Commission on
| Environmental Quality
| Shelby
| Williams
| Texas Commission on
| Environmental Quality
Utah
| Daniel
Griffin
| Utah Division of Water Quality
| Vermont
| Joshua
| Burns
| Vermont Department of
| Environmental Conservation
| Eamon
| Twohig
| Vermont Department of
| Environmental Conservation
| Virgin Islands
| Austin
| Callwood
| Department of Planning and
| Natural Resources
| Bryan
| Cauthorn
| Virginia Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Virginia
| Christina
| Wood
| Virginia Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Neil
| Zahradka
| Virginia Department of
| Environmental Quality
| Amber
| Corfman
| Washington State Department of
| Ecology
| Washington
| Kyle
| Dorsey
| Washington State Department of
| Ecology
| Shawnte
| Greenway
| Washington State Department of
| Ecology
| Frederick
| Hegeman
| Wisconsin Department of Natural
| Resources
| Wisconsin
| Wade
| Strickland
| Wisconsin Department of Natural
| Resources
| Stephen
| Warmer
| Wisconsin Department of Natural
| Resources
27
-------
| National Tribal Water Council
Shaun
Livermore
! Poarch Creek Indians Utilities
Authority
Janice
Alers-Garcia
U.S. EPA
Elyssa
Arnold
U.S. EPA
Elizabeth
Behl
U.S. EPA
Christine
Bergeron
U.S. EPA
Cassandra
Kirk
U.S. EPA
| EPA Biosolids Program
Cara
Lalley
U.S. EPA
Deborah
Nagle
U.S. EPA
Lauren
Questell
U.S. EPA
Elizabeth
Resek
U.S. EPA
Tess
Richman
U.S. EPA
Barbara
Soares
U.S. EPA
EPA Office of General
| Counsel
Peter
Ford
1 U.S. EPA
| EPA Office of Enforcement
Carey
Johnston
U.S. EPA
| and Compliance Assurance
Courtney
Tuxbury
U.S. EPA
Carolyn
Acheson
U.S. EPA
Laura
Boczek
U.S. EPA
| EPA Office of Research and
Ron
Herrmann
U.S. EPA
| Development
Christopher
1 mpel litteri
U.S. EPA
Marc
Mills
U.S. EPA
Jorge
Santo Domingo
U.S. EPA
EPA Office of Science and
Adrian
Hanley
U.S EPA
I Technology - Engineering and
| Analysis Division
Lemuel
Walker
U.S EPA
| EPA Office of Wastewater
i Management
Rebecca
Christopher
U.S. EPA
Smiti
Nepal
U.S EPA
Jan
Pickrel
U.S. EPA
EPA Region 2
Alia
Roufaeal
U.S. EPA
EPA Region 3
Diana
Saintignon
U.S. EPA
Becky
Allenbach
U.S. EPA
i EPA Region 4
Ramanathan
Sampath
U.S. EPA
Donnell
Ward
U.S. EPA
| EPA Region 5
John
Colletti
U.S. EPA
Kenneth
Gunter
U.S. EPA
| EPA Region 6
William
Cooper
U.S. EPA
Seth
Draper
U.S. EPA
| EPA Region 7
John
Dunn
U.S. EPA
Alex
Owutaka
U.S. EPA
Cynthia
Sans
U.S. EPA
28
-------
i Paul Garrison U.S. EPA
EPA Region 8
Kristin Ratajczak U.S. EPA
EPA Region 9 Lauren Fondahl U.S. EPA
EPA Region 10 Michael Le U.S. EPA
-------
Appendix B: Presentations
30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biosolids Program
Elizabeth Resek, Biosolids Lead
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
resek.elizabeth@epa.gov
December 2020
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
11
-------
Meeting CWA Requirements
A
Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to:
Establish numeric limits and managemen
health and the environment from the
effects of chemical and microbial poll
of sewage sludge.
Review biosolids (sewage sludge) r
identify additional toxic pollutants tha
reviews) and set regulations for those
evidence shows they may harm human health or the environment.
December 2020
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
12
-------
Meeting CWA Requirements
A
r-<5
Biennial Reviews
> Review publicly available information on occurrence, fate and
transport in the environment, human health and ecological effects,
and other relevant information for pollutants found in biosolids.
>Data may be used to conduct risk screens and refined risk
assessments for pollutants found in biosolids.
https
December 2020
epa.gov/piosoiids/pienniai-revie
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
13
-------
Biosolids List in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard
>Biosolids List in EPA's publicly available CompTox Chemicals Dashboard
was curated from past biennial reviews and sewage sludge surveys
representing the Agency's understanding of chemicals found in biosolids.
https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical lists/BIOSOLIDS
>CompTox Chemicals Dashboard primer videos:
https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/comptox-chemicals-dashboard-
primer-videos
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
-------
Meeting CWA Requirements
ฃ CompTox Chemicals Dash boarc X +
4r G ft comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_Iists/BIOSOLIDS
United States
Environmental Protection Home Advanced Search Batch Search Lists v Predictions Downloads
kAgency
-OX
** ~ Q * 0 :
LIST: Chemicals in biosolids
rch BIOSOLIDS Chemicals
i
D Identifier substring search
Description: Biosolids are produced from wastewater treatment processes and can be beneficially used. The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 405(d)(2)(C) requires the EPA to review federal biosolids
standards every two years to identify additional toxic pollutants that occur in biosolids and set regulations for those pollutants if sufficient scientific evidence shows they may harm human health or the
environment. The biennial review process is intended to fulfil the CWA requirement to identify additional pollutants that occur in biosolids. This list of chemicals is assembled from multiple biennial review
documents containing peer-reviewed literature and the results of three national sewage sludge surveys. Regulatory limits for pollutants in biosolids are defined in 40 CFR Section 503.13. which contains
numerical limits, for nine metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead., mercury., molybdenum, nickel., selenium, and zinc). To view all the microbial pollutants found in biosolids see Table A-2. Microbial
Pollutants Identified in Biosolids in the 2016-2017 Biennial Review.
Number of Chemicals: 395
H
,NL .CM,
XXY
ych,
vK
-o
December 2020
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
15
-------
Biosolids Web mar Series
>Kicked-off in Fall 2019.
>Register for future webinars on EPA's biosolids website
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids
EPA Biosolids Website
>Completely overhauled and launched in July 2020.
EPA Commitment to Continued Engagement
Participation in stakeholder-led meetings and calls.
>Follow-up to December 2020 meeting.
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
-------
National Defense Authorization Act Interim Guidance on
Destruction and Disposal of PFAS and PFAS-Containing Materials
>EPA Biosolids Team participated on Agency-wide workgroup.
>Effort led by EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management.
>Due January 2021.
Resource Recovery
>A consistent process for evaluating products derived from sewage sludge
that are intended for land application is needed.
>40 CFR Part 503 does not consider or anticipate current and future
innovative resource recovery technologies and products.
>Work in this area is ongoing.
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
-------
EPA Statement on Biosolids Land Application (Spring 2020)
Existing requirements and guidance help ensure that biosolids are processed,
handled, and land-applied in a manner than minimizes the risk of exposure to
pathogens, including viruses. We have no evidence that biosolids contain
infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus when requirements under 40 CFR part 503 are met
for Class A biosolids. Generally, pathogens may exist when requirements are met
under 40 CFR part 503 for Class B biosolids, which is why EPA's site restrictions
that allow time for pathogen degredation should be followed for harvesting
crops and turf, for grazing of animals, and public contact. All requirements under
40 CFR part 503 should continue to be met. Additionally, per CDC's Guidance for
Controlling Potential Risks to Workers Exposed to Class B Biosolids, employers
should prevent work-related illness by providing proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) and supporting other health and safety practices for persons
hauling and land applying biosolids. While no additional COVlD-19-specific
protections are recommended for the land application of biosolids, consider
checking for advisories from your local health department.
December 2020
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
18
-------
Thank You!
Biosolids Team
Liz Resek, Lead resek.elizabeth(5)epa.gov
Elyssa Arnold arnold.elvssa@epa.Rov
Tess Richman, ORISE Fellow richman.tess@epa.gov
Lauren Questell, ORISE Fellow questell.lauren(5)epa.gov
December 2020
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
19
-------
EPA-OSTVirtual
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program
Biosolids Research Overview
Christopher A. Impellitteri, EPA-ORD
-------
ซปEPA^
^ Biosolids Research Projects
Pathogen
and Vector
Attraction
Reduction
Inform the update to the "Environmental Regulations and
Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in
Sewage Sludge"report (EPA/625/R-92/013).
ARBs
and ARGs
Evaluate types and prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria
(ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in biosolids to
inform management strategies.
Emerging
Contaminants
(CECs)
Application of non-targeted analysis to municipal
wastewater and residuals and method development and
evaluation of CECs in wastewater and biosolids.
24
-------
ซปEPA^
^ Biosolids Research Projects
PFAS
Analytical
Methods
Development and validation of a PFAS isotope dilution method
for biosolids.
* Collaboration with DoD
* 40 different PFAS
* Single validation data collection is complete
PFAS
Prevalence
and
Pretreatment
Research on the occurrence, fate, and transport of PFAS in
wastewater treatment plants and biosolids. Identify sources
and evaluate pretreatment strategies.
Treatment
Strategies
Treatment strategies for biosolids, including incineration
and pyrolysis.
25
-------
ซปEPA^
^ Biosolids Research Projects
Risk
Assessments
Provide OW-OST with information to support the development
of chemical risk assessments.
* Computational toxicology
* Evaluate chemicals in biosolids for risk assessment prioritization
Contaminants
and Land
Application
Characterize contaminants in land applied biosolids.
* Liquid and solid forms
* Metals and coliforms
* Emerging contaminants (alkylphenol ethoxylates, PFAS)
* Leaching test methods
Contaminants
and Soils
Characterization of soils by evaluating contaminants (PFAS, PAH,
metals) as a function of loading and soil depth.
26
-------
ซ>EPA
B osol ds-Related Research Grants
4 Open National Priorities RFA (Closes January 5, 2021): Evaluation of
Pollutants in Biosolids
4 Awarded Grants: Practical Methods to Analyze and Treat Emerging
Contaminants (PFAS) in Solid Waste. Landfills. Wastewater/Leachates,
Soils, and Groundwater to Protect Human Health and the Environment
4 Awarded National Priorities Grants: Research on PFAS Impacts in Rural
Communities and Agricultural Operations
-------
ซ>EPA
Research Gaps
4 Based on future occurrence evaluations, assess the fate and transport of emerging
contaminants (including PFAS) in land-applied biosolids.
4 Examine the destruction of emerging contaminants in alternative biosolids management
processes (e.g., thermal treatment).
4 Develop frameworks for emerging contaminant risk management in agriculture (e.g., reducing
plant uptake).
4 Characterize biochar derived from the pyrolysis of biosolids and develop frameworks for
beneficial use.
4 Compare/contrast pyrolysis and alternative technologies (e.g., E-Beam) with existing
management strategies using lifecycle assessment approaches.
4 Assess microbial contamination of surface and groundwater after land application of biosolids.
-------
Contact
Chris Impellitteri, Ph. D.
Associate National Program Director
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program
US EPA Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
8mpellitteri.christopher@epa.gov
(513) 487-2872
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the US EPA.
-------
THE
Water
Research
FOUNDATION
Biosolids: Upcoming Research Snapshot
Ashwin Dhanasekar
advancing the science of waterฎ
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.
-------
MISSION
Advancing the science of water to improve the quality
of life
VISION
To create the definitive research organization to advance
the science of all things water to better meet the evolving
needs of subscribers and the water sector
VALUES
Integrity Leadership Respect
Innovation Collaboration
-#-0
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 31
-------
One Water
WRFs research benefits all
areas of the water sector, as
well as agriculture, energy,
watershed management, and
other commercial industries.
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
-------
WRF AT A GLANCE
44111144411*444444444 4 444 4 4 4 4 4AA4A44
VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA
VAVAWX'AWAW/^X'X'^XV^!
V.VAVAVAVAVAVAV.V.VAVAVAVA
VปVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVป*AVAVA
yปyซyปyซyปyปyAyปVAVปvปVt AV/iYAV
VAViVAvlw/X'!'!'!'^
:^>X'Xwa^a^
444444444444444444444444444444444444444
AAA14A1111I444444444444444AAA444444444
a"a"a"a"a"mV4"4"4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4V*I4II14
444444444444444444444444444444444444444
39 MANUFACTURERS
1034 UTILITIES 89consultants
The Water Research Foundation operates
and affects change on 6 continents
to
C
DO
to
n
30
DO
m
30
to
il
*
PROGRAMS
Research Priority
Tailored Collaboration
Emerging Opportunities
Unsolicited Research
Grants/Awards
Facilitated Research
Paul L. Busch Award
RESEARCH PRIORITIES
PFAS & Constituents of
Emerging Concern
Lead & Copper
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
Resiliency
Infrastructure
Integrated Water
Management
Energy Efficiency
Nutrients
FUNDED RESEARCH
$132 Million^
Contractually Funded
Research
RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
1
Federal
Contracts
4
Federal/
State
A
Active Projects
172
Co-funders
IN
f 291
Co-funded
projects
i
Grants
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL P
Water
Research
FOUNDATION*
-------
WRF Research Programs
At-a-Glance: Distinguishing Features of WRF Research Programs
Research Program & Description
% Annual
Research
Budget
Project Approval
Anticipated
Schedule
Research Priority
60
WRF Board-appointed
April/March
A strategic research program broadly relevant to the
water sector
Research Advisory
Council (RAC)
Tailored Collaboration
20
WRF Board-appointed
Pre-proposal &
A matching program designed to support utility-
specific/regional issues
Tailored Collaboration
Review Committee
proposal period
starts 2 QTR
project
selection 3 QTR
Emerging Opportunities
10
WRF Board Executive
Rolling
A program to address emerging and time critical
Committee
issues; additionally, supports partnering
opportunities and add-ons to current projects
Unsolicited Research
10t
WRF Board-appointed
Opening in
A program that focuses on novel, transformative
RAC
2020
research
Facilitated Research
0
WRF CEO and leadership
Rolling
A program that is fully funded by the project team
team
twhile research budget is allocated to this program annually, research-project funds are released every other year, starting in 2020.
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 34
-------
Background
The last Biosolids Research Summit was in 2003.
There are tons of new advances in the world of Biosolids since then.
EPA submitted a report in 2019 claiming a need for risk assessment
on 352 constituents.
This is/was impacting utilities and how they can use their biosolids.
WRF has had bits and pieces of research covering Biosolids.
WRF stepped up to hold a focused research summit to identify key
research needs.
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 35
-------
Goals of the Summit
Develop a long term 5-year research plan
^P
^ Prioritize research needs and develop project concepts
^1 ^P
Identify research partners to provide in-kind support and/or funding
^1 ^P
ฃ<1 Identify volunteers to serve on the WRF Research Advisory Committee
1H ^P
n/ Conclude with clear next steps
#-- -+o
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 36
-------
WRF Biosolids Research Summit
45 Attendees
Academics, Utility Representatives, Social
Scientists, Non-Profits, Consultants
Co-Sponsored by WEF & NYCDEP
Support from SFPUC & DC Water
11 Project Concepts
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 37
-------
Research Needs
Contaminants
Benefits
Utility Needs
Presence
Crop yield
Product Development
Fate and Transport
Water holding capacity
Communication
Risk Assessments
Fire ravaged lands
Pathways
Brown fields
Relative concentrations
Mine reclamation
Plant uptake
Soil remediation
Nutrient run-off
Carbon sequestration
Microplastics
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 38
-------
Key Takeaways from Research Summit
Share the Knowledge
Better pooling of research to
combat misinformation
Share, condense and disseminate
Keep the conversation going
Localize Research
Local research, outreach and
support local gatekeepers
Buy-in and encourage staff pride
for Biosolids products
Address CECs as a whole
Develop protocols/tools to address
emerging contaminants as a whole
H#- ~90
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 39
-------
Objectives
A
To improve the economic value and sustainability of products that
represent 95% of our mass and a third of our cost for our community's
water and wastewater services.
A
4
Summarize known benefits and long-term successful reuse enterprises as
case studies.
Quantify factors of interest that are currently lacking data (soil health, risk
assessment of contaminants, customer demands/expectations).
"<>
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 40
-------
Next Steps
The AC will keep prepping the Research Area for a 2021 launch.
The project concepts will get ranked and prioritized based on current
developments.
Till the RAC approves the AC, staff will be pursuing other
opportunities, if any, to continue research.
>-- -+0
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 41
-------
Advisory Committee
John Willis Brown & Caldwell (RAC Liaison)
Karri Ving SFPUC
Nick Basta OSU
Patrick Dube WEF
Matt Seib MMSD
Joshua Cheng CUNY
Greg Kester CAS A
Erica McKenzie Temple U
Maile Lono-Batura NWBiosolids
WRF Staff
Stephanie Fevig; Research Program Manager
Ashwin Dhanasekar, Research Program Manager
ฉ 2020 The Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 42
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustains toiiity.
Research Snapshots
North East Biosolids &
Small non-profit created in 1997 with mission to cooperatively promote the
environmentally sound recycling or beneficial use of water, wastewater, and other
residuals in the Northeast, New England and eastern Canada
71 Other regional associations/collaborators include Northwest Biosolids Association,
Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association, Virginia Biosolids Council and the newest South
East Biosolids Association; California Association of Sanitation Agencies
71 Research Committees - NWBA's is the best! https://nwbiosolids.org/whats-
happeninq/resource-librarv
71 NEBRA can be nimble! https://www.nebiosolids.org/whv-biosolids-oraanizations-are-
needed
iosoiids.org
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustainability.
The National Biosolids Data Project 2018 data
?***
DATA End Use & Disposal Survey
PROJECT L 2013 a ma
Nat'l Biosolids Data Project
Compiling 2018 Data for the U. S. Biosolids Profession
Tha Project
Complete the 2nd National Biosolids Regulation, Quality End Use, and Disposal
Survey, compiling 2018 data The methods and survey tools are ready, out team
has Been preparing them for the past year. Data collection began In September.
The report Is expected by end of March 2021. Data and analysis will also be peer
reviewed and published, and the project team will disseminate the findings
through professional publications and conferences.
Project Team
Ned Beecher, lanlne Burke-Weils, and Juliana Beecher, North East Biosolids and
Residuals Association (NEBRA); Maile Lono-Batura, Northwest Biosolids (NW
Biosolids); Greg Kostcr, California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), Bill
Toffey, Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association (MABA); and Nora Goldstein, BioCyde.
In-kind advice by Tim Seipie, Pacific NW Natloe-al Laboratory (PNNI). Project
administrative & financial management by NEBRA.
Mora details: Read the Prospectus.
See the fir at national biosolids data from 2004 (bottom of this page).
This is one of the most important
database pieces for resource
| recovery tracking,*
Tanja Rauch- Williams, Carollo
Engineers, lead author of WEF
resource recovery baseline
NATIONAL
BIOSOLIDS
DATA
PROJECT
"We as a profession are 1*
without data about what we do.*
Greg X ester, CASA
The 2nd compilation of biosolids nationwide & by states; first compilation
published in 2007 reporting 2004 data
TP Team includes NEBRA, CASA, NW Biosolids, BioCycle, MABA
Literature review & methods completed in spring, thanks to a cooperative
agreement with EPA Region 4
Funding for current project from diverse organizations nationwide
Final report planned for end of March 2021; peer-review publication to follow
2 separate surveys: State Coordinators & WRRFs
The State Survey is here: https://www.survevmonkev.eom/r/NBDPStateSurvev7Oct202Q
The NBDP Webpage: https://www.nebiosolids.org/national-biosolids-survev-2018-
data
nebiosolids.org
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustainsbility.
We need
state
coordinators
help to
provide
whatever info
you have!
NATIONAL
BIOSOLIDS
DATA
PROJECT
The National Biosolids Data Project 2018 data
PROGRESS:
71
71
71
71
14 state coordinators have started survey... Well done!
DE, IN, MO, NJ, OR, and TX have completed their spreadsheet & survey and had
phone interviews with us. Superb! Thank you.
''It was kind of fun,..." we heard one say.
The separate survey of WRRFs ("WWTP Survey") is going out very soon. We are
hoping for thousands of responses. Please spread the word - and the email
invitation.
Please start your state's survey ASAP.
We are here to help with questions, filling in the survey, talking through it on
the phone - whatever you need!
We know this is a big request; thank you for your time and effort.
nebiosolids.org
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustainability.
Support from biosolids leaders nationwide
NACWAA)
Water Environment
Federation
the water quality people*
liter,*,., SYNAGRO
W Council
Denali Hazen
RENDA CDM w
inrnwmiu SlTlltll
WATER SOLUTIONS
NATIONAL
BIOSOLIDS
DATA
PROJECT
SOMMVUASI
Son France
Water -v.
ฉ
Milorganite
wTnootw fCTmats
UERRELL
BROS
91
Mrmo tMCTTwarw*
*fCLAMซnoซ Ofsrmcr
d
nebiosolids.org
dc4
CHARLOTTE
WATER
water is
iปr iv ill
; Biosolids
Jacobs ฉ
NEFCO
Brown uc !
Caldwell i
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustainability.
PFAS Cost Impacts on
Utilities and Biosolids Management
Cost Analysis of the Impacts on Municipal
Utilities and Biosolids Management to
Address PFAS Contamination
NACWA 4,
yknebra
AWater Environment
Federation
~ Ihe was* quality people"
October 2020
cdni L
smith
Average biosolids management cost increased by
37%
Beneficial reuse programs experience the most
significant cost impacts due to PFAS
29 entities surveyed; 9 detailed case studies
Chapter on emerging technologies
* Available on WEF, NACWA, and NEBRA websites
https://www.nebiosolids.org/pfas-biosolids
nebiosolids.org
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools for sustainability.
Cost Study
Qualitative Results on PFAS Challenges
C> regional C ซ a,
^ p ro b lem %ซts
regulations
^ plant C M
receiver m
discharge^ COSt treatment
ซ"e".a? issue . j V re'
y* ^crbiosolids %
ฐ g Z? r: concern pub,ic%
^cfr management \
r* communication *&>
modifications fOTeVer on
regional
quality
plant
challenges
limits ^
c<* ฆ
TP
reduce
o sludge
^ 3
real
Ar\ O
lie ^s>
11: I I I %
communication *&>
-------
nebra Recycled organi
Tools for sustains toilitu
Member Research Interests
and Other Initiatives
PFAS fate & transport modeling for
Maine soils (Stone Environmental)
Webinars on innovative solids handling
solutions for PFAS
TP NW Biosolids: GHG Calculator
https://bggc.nwbiosolids.org/
CASA: restoring fire-ravaged land with
biosolids
https://casaweb.org/renewable-
resources/biosolids/
Carbon sequestration in soils with
biosolids
Research Topic of Most Interest to NEBRA Members
10/29/20 survey
Energy
production/resource
recovery from
wastewater solids
Reducing greenhouse
gas emissions/
_ improving carbon
sequestration using
biosolids
nebiosolids.org
-------
nebra Recycled organics: Tools foi
ThankYou for your
Attention!
Questions?
Contact:
ianine@nebiosolids.org
(603) 323-7654
http://www.nebiosolids.org
nebiosolids.org
l_j sts i ns b i I ity.
-------
USDA NIFAMultistate Research Project
W4170- Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and Protect Public, and
Ecosystem Health
EPA Virtual Biosolids Meeting
December 8, 2020
Maria Silveira -Professor of Soil and Water Science, Univ. of Florida
Nicholas Basta - Professor of Soil and Environmental Science, Ohio State Univ.
-------
Multistate Research Project
The Land-Grant universities were established with passage of the Morrill Act in 1862
Research focus on agricultural and mechanical research but land-grant institutions now
address many academic fields (aquatic, urban, space, and sustainable energy research)
The Hatch Act of 1887 - Multistate Research Fund - provided the framework for funding
agricultural research at land-grant institutions. Led to establishment of State Agricultural
Experiment Stations (SAES) associated with 1862 Institutions
Research focuses on a specific and important problem of concern to more than
one state
ฆ Collaborative team effort in which the scientists are mutually responsible for
designing and conducting the research, and accomplishing the objectives
ฆ Multiple disciplines participate in the research
-------
W170 Regional Project Contribution to Biosolids Research
Timeline:
- Early 1970's: a biosolids project started in the North Central Region (NC-118 "Utilization
and disposal of municipal, industrial and agricultural processing wastes) to evaluate the
agronomic impacts of land applying biosolids
1972: Western Region Project W-124 "Soil as a waste treatment system" focused on similar
objectives
- 1977: the NC-118 and W-124 projects reorganized as W-124 "Optimum utilization of sewage
sludge on land"
- 1985: the project it was renewed as W-170 "Chemistry and bioavailability of waste *
constituents in soils"
ฆ A key study by this group was the regional experiment with Chicago biosolids that was
replicated at several locations in the U.S.
ฆ W170 provided research data and risk assessment support to develop risk based
guidelines (Tables 2, 3, 4) in Part 503 1993 rule
-------
W-170 Peer Review of the 503 Risk Assessment
and Draft Rules
A group of EPA, W-170 scientists, and other specialists engaged in
revision of the technical basis for the 503 rule
The focus of the review was the data sets and mathematical models
used to evaluate exposure pathways, most exposed individuals, and
health and environmental effects
The revised numbers were then submitted to the rule writers for their
consideration
The final rule was published on February 19, 1993
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
COOPERATIVE STATE
RESEARCH SERVICE
PEER REVIEW
Standards for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge
U.S. EPA Proposed Rule 40 CFR Parts-257 and 503
(February 6, 1989 Federal Register pp. 5746-5902)
Organized by
Cooperative State Research Service Technical Committee W-170
-------
W170 Regional Project Contribution to Biosolids Resea
Timeline:
- 1985-1999: W-170 "Chemistry and bioavailability of waste constituents in soils'
Renamed in 2004 (W-1170 "Chemistry, bioavailability, and toxicity of constituents i
residuals and residual-treated soils"
- 2009: W-2170 "Soil-based use of residuals, wastewater and reclaimed water"
- 2014: W-3170 "Beneficial reuse of residuals and reclaimed water: Impact on soil
ecosystem and human health"
- 2019: W-4170 "Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and Protect
Public, and Ecosystem Health"
-------
W4170 Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and
Protect Public, and Ecosystem Health
ฆ 50+ scientists from 30 states with extensive history on biosolids research
ฆ USEPA Office of Water, Office of Research and Development
ฆ USDA, ARS
ฆ Biosolids Regional Groups (NW, NEBRA, CASA, MWRD, Mid Atlantic)
ฆ Other biosolids stakeholders, industry representatives
ฆ Research and extension activities to scientific community, federal, state, regional, and
local agencies, community and stakeholders
Diverse expertise with national and international recognition
-------
W4170 Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and
Protect Public, and Ecosystem Health
^ W4170: Beneficial Use of Residu X +
C? A riimss.org/projects/18624
Apps ^ Marston Science Li... Pet Microchip for D... *9 Basecamp-Horne PHENOCAM Q Silveira_Budget Files - Dropbox
WebOfScience ^ Dropbox - GatorClo... it https://phe
ซ Dashboard
~ Projects
~ Project Proposals
m Participants
m Meetings/Reports
~ Impact Statements
ฉ Reviews
0 Directory
O Account
a
~ a * <
ป Other boolJ
mlas@ufl.edu Account Log <
W4170: Beneficial Use of Residuals to Improve Soil Health and Protect Public, and Ecosystem Health
Outline
Participants
Q
Meetings
Status: Active
10/01/2019 -09/30/2024
0
#
o
Advisors:
Reports
Impact Statement
Reviews
NIFA Rep:
Project History
Previous ID
W3170: Beneficial Reuse of Residuals and Reclaimed Water: Impact on Soil Ecosystem and Human Health (formerly W2170)
Next ID
There are no future versions of this project documented
Regional System
Administrator:
Project Editors
Date last edited or
status changed:
Eugene Kelly
Megan O'Rourke
Bret Hess
Gregory Evanylo
James Ippolito
Maria L Silveira
Hui Li
07/29/2019
https: / / www. nimss.org/projects /18624
Contact AAs and Editors
NIFA Letters
Project Approval
-------
Participant
Instituition
Participant
Instituition
Badgley, Brian D
Basta, Nicholas T,
Batjiiaka, Ryan
Borch, Thomas
Brose, Dominic
Brown, Sally
D'Angela, Elisa M
Daniels, W. Lee
Dunbar, James
Efliottt, Herschel
Evanylo, Gregory
Gan, Jay
Gentry, Terry
Virginia Tech Univ,
Ohio State Univ
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Colorado State University
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
University of Washington
University of Kentucky
Virginia Tech Univ,
Lystek International Limited USA Operations
Pennsylvania State Univ,
Virginia Tech Univ.
Kumar, Kuldip
Kuo-Dahab, Camilla
Lee, Linda
Li, Hui
McLain, Jean
McPhillips, Lauren
MWRD-Chicago
University of Massachusetts
Indiana - Purdue University
Michigan State University
Univ. of Arizona
Pennsylvania State Univ.
Meregillano, Tom Orange County Sanitation District
University of California, Riverside
Texas AgriLife Research
Black & Veatch Inc.
Michigan State University
University of Wyoming
University of Arizona
Preisendanz, Heather Pennsylvania State Univ.
Moss, Lynne
Murphy, Cheryl
Norton, Urszula
Pepper, Ian
Raj, Cibin
Pennsylvania State Univ.
Gerba, Chuck
Arizona - University of Arizona
Rock, Channah
University of Arizona
Gray, Andrew
California -Riverside : University of California, Riverside
Roseberg, Richard
Oregon State University
Hawkins, Shawn
University of Tennessee
Rosen, Carl
University of Minnesota
Hettiarachchi, Gang Kansas State University
Seyfferth, Angeiia L
University of Delaware
Huang, Qingguo
University of Georgia
Shannon, Robert
Pennsylvania State Univ.
Hue, N.V.
University of Hawaii
Silveira, Maria L
Univ. of Florida
Ippolito, James
Colorado State University
Watson, John E
Pennsylvania State Univ.
Iqbal, Javed
Univ. of Nebraska
Xia, Kang
Virginia Tech Univ.
Judy, Jonathan
Univ. of Florida
Xing, baoshan
University of Massachusetts
Kaiser, Michael Univ. of Nebraska
Kester, Greg
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Ylng, Sam a nth a C
Zhang, Hailin
University of California, Riverside
Oklahoma State University
-------
W4170 Research Focus
Objective 1. Evaluate the short- and long-term chemistry and bioavailability of emerging
contaminants (PFAS, microplastics, etc), pharmaceuticals and personal care products
(PPCPs), persistent organic contaminants, and pathogens in residuals, reclaimed water,
and amended soils in order to assess the environmental and human health risk-based
effects of their application at a watershed scale.
ฆ Chemistry, bioavailability, fate, and transport of CECs/PPCPs: carbamazepine,
estrogens, sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin and
azithromycin, caffeine, etc
ฆ Antibiotic resistant microorganisms
ฆ Perfluorochemicals (PFAS)
ฆ Engineered nano-particles (ENP)
Research for this objective was conducted by members from PA, WA, IN, MA, FL, VA,
GA, Ml, and KY
-------
W4170 Research Focus
Objective 2. Evaluate the uses and associated environmental benefits for residuals and
wastewaters in various ecosystems (e.g., agricultural, urban, recreational, forest,
rangeland, mine-impacted, disturbed, degraded) with respect to changes in soil physical,
chemical, biological, nutrient, and trace/heavy metals with respect to soil quality/soil
health
ฆ Assessment of benefits in agriculture and urban: food production, soil health,
etc
ฆ Greenhouse gas balance, soil carbon
ฆ Impacts on water quality
ฆ Mined and disturbed lands mitigation
Research on this topic was conducted by members from PA, HA, CO, OH, WA, FL, MN,
VA, GA, NE and KS
-------
Recent Accomplishment
W4170 Multistate Research Committee
Response to USEPA OIG Report No. 19-P-00021
Prepared by
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Research Committee W4170
June 2020
*EPA unable to assess the impact of unregulated pollutants in land-applied biosolids on human
health and the environment
On November 15, 2018 the USEPA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) published "EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of
Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human
Health and the Environment," Report No, 19-P-0002 (USEPA,
2018). The OIG report alleged that "...[ERA] lacked the data or
risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the
safety of 352 pollutants found in biosolids...[including] 61
designated as acutely hazardous, hazardous or priority pollutants
in other programs."
Authors
Nicholas Basta, Professor of Soil and Environmental Science
School of Environmental Science & Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Ian Pepper, Professor of Environmental Microbiology
Director of the Water and Environmental Technology Center (WEST), University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Linda S. Lee, Professor of Environmental Chemistry
Purdue University, Department of Agronomy, West Lafayette, IN
Greg Kester, Director of Renewable Resource Programs
CA Association of Sanitation Agencies, Sacramento, CA
Alyssa Zearley, Research Associate
School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
https://www.nimss.org/system/ProjectAttachment/files/000/000/502/or
iginal/W4170%20Response%20to%200IG%20Report%20July%2023%202020%2
Ofinal.pdf
-------
Response to OIG Report
The response from USEPA Office of Water, which has regulatory oversight of the national
biosolids program, in Appendix D stated "We are concerned about how the science is
presented in the OIG report. It is biased and raises alarm...and is taken out of context"
Concern from USEPA Office of Water and widespread concern from practitioners led to the
creation of this review and response
The objective was to provide a science-based review of chemicals of concern highlighted in
the OIG report
ฆ Document shows that the OIG report did not consider the concentration of chemicals found
in the biosolids. Often, the bulk of human exposure to these chemicals is from domestic
use of consumer goods and only trace amounts are found in biosolids 1
ฆ "Sufficient data and research are available to conclude that current biosolids
regulations are protective of human health and the environment. Of course, as with any
regulation intended to protect public health and the environment, they must always be
dynamic and evolve with updated science. That fact does not imply that they are not
protective while research is ongoing."
-------
THANK YOU!
Maria Silveira
Email: mlas@ufl.edu
-------
HPA's PFOA & PFOS Biosolids
Risk Assessment
EPA National Biosolids Meeting 2020
Elyssa Arnold
Biosolids Program
U.S. EPA Office of Water
United States
Environmental Protection 65
M % Agency
-------
Outline
What is Risk Assessment?
Why do we do Risk Assessment for Biosolids?
EPA's PFOA & PFOS Biosolids Risk Assessment
Summary of the November Problem Formulation Meetings
Next Steps
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
66
-------
ฉ
o <ฆ
WHAT IS RISK ASSESSMENT?
C c
c
o
c ^
C o Q
-------
What is Risk?
EPA Definition: Risk is the chance of harmful effects to human health or to
ecological systems resulting from exposure to an environmental stressor.
A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an
adverse response. Stressors may adversely affect specific natural resources
or entire ecosystems, including plants and animals, as well as the
environment with which they interact.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
68
-------
What is Risk Assessment?
Risk Assessment is a scientific process.
EPA uses risk assessment to characterize the nature and magnitude of
health risks to humans and ecological receptors from chemical contaminants
and other stressors that may be present in the environment.
At EPA, risk assessment typically falls into one of two areas:
Human health risk assessment
Ecological risk assessment
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
69
-------
What is Risk Assessment?
Risk depends on the following 3 primary factors:
How much of a chemical is present in an environmental medium
biosolids, soil, water, air).
How much contact a person or ecological receptor fish, bird) has
with the contaminated environmental medium.
The inherent toxicity of the chemical (hazard).
Risk = Exposure * Toxicity
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
70
-------
Risk Assessment Terminology
Risk
The chance of harmful
effects to human health or
to ecological systems.
Variability
The range of toxic response
or exposure.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
Uncertainty
Our inability to know for
sure, often due to
incomplete data.
-------
Types of Risk Assessment
Deterministic risk assessment
A technique that uses point values and simple models to produce a point
estimate of exposure (either high-end or typical exposure). Deterministic
assessments are simple to carry out, often use readily available data, and
produce results that are straightforward to interpret.
Probabilistic risk assessment
A technique that utilizes the entire range of input data to develop a probability
distribution of exposure or risk rather than a single point value. The input data
can be measured values and/or estimated distributions.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
72
-------
Risk Assessment Framework
Problem Formulation / Scoping
Exposure
Effects / Toxicity
Risk Characterization
Risk Management and Communication
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
73
-------
Risk Assessment Framework
Planning
(Risk
Assessor/
Risk
Manager
Dialogue]
Ecological Risk Assessment
A
N
A
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Characterization of | Chanacterization of
Exposure | Ecological Effects
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Communicate Results to
Risk Manager
1
Risk Management
3
9 >
M
I
CD
O
O 1:0
SS
3 if
O O
3 A
ป C
^ ft
a
ซ a
C
ฃ
r
Human Health Risk Assessment
Planning <ฃ Scoping
Problem Formulation
Conceptual Analysis
Model Plan
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection 74
Agency
-------
o
ฉ
WHY WE DO RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
C c
BIOSO IDS
c
c
O
o
c ฐ
-------
Why do Risk Assessment for Biosolids?
Clean Water Act, Section 405 requires EPA:
> To establish numeric limits and management practices that protect public
health and the environment from the effects of chemical and microbial
pollutants during the use or disposal of sewage sludge.
> To review biosolids (sewage sludge) regulations every two years to identify
additional toxic pollutants that occur in sewage sludge and set regulations for
those pollutants if sufficient scientific evidence shows that they may harm
human health or the environment.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
76
-------
The Biosolids Rule: 40 CFR Part 503
Rule published in 1993 to protect human health and the environment from
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of pollutants that may be present in
biosolids that are used or disposed.
Based on the results of risk assessments that were conducted to identify
risks associated with the use or disposal of biosolids (land application,
surface disposal or incineration).
Informed by National Academy of Sciences 1983 procedures for risk
assessment in the federal government.
Analyzed risks to human, animals, plants, and soil organisms from exposure
to pollutants in biosolids through 14 different exposure pathways.
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection 77
Agency
-------
40 CFR Part 503
General Requirements
Reporting
Pollutant
Operational Standards
X
Total Pathogen and
Hydrocarbons or Vector Attraction
Carbon Monoxide Reduction (Land
(Incineration Application and
Only) Surface Disposal)
Recordkeeping
Frequency of Management
Monitoring Practices
Pollutant limits in
40 CFR part 503 are
supported by risk
assessment
United States
If ฆ LX Environmental Protection
* m Agency
78
-------
o
EPA'S PFOA & PFOS BIOSOLIDS RISK
ป ASSESSMENT .
O
o
c ฐ
-------
Biosolids Risk Assessment in the PFAS Action Plan
Activity: Scoping biosolids risk assessment for PFOA/PFOS
Purpose: EPA is in the early scoping stages of risk assessment
for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids to better understand the
implications of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids to determine if
there are any potential risks.
Timeframe: 2020
https://www.epa.aov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
80
-------
Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation is the part of the risk assessment that:
Articulates the purpose for the assessment
Defines the problem
Chemical sources and occurrence
Fate and transport in the environment
Toxicity endpoints
Determines the conceptual models (sources and routes of exposure) for assessing adverse
effects to human health and ecological receptors {e.g., birds, fish)
Describes the analysis plan, documenting the approach for acquiring reliable data and the
models and tools to be used in the analysis
Includes engagement with states and tribes, risk managers, scientists, and
members of the biosolids community to discuss foreseeable science and
implementation issues.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
81
-------
PFOS and PFOA
Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS)
C8HF1703S
CASRN: 1763-23-1
F
HO
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
c8hf15o2
CASRN: 335-67-1
82
-------
PFOS and PFOA Sources and Environmental Fate
PFOS and PFOA are part of a larger group of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).
PFAS are highly fluorinated aliphatic molecules that have been released to the environment
through industrial manufacturing and through use and disposal of PFAS-containing products.
While many PFASs have been found in biosolids, PFOS and PFOA are among the most
abundant and have the largest data sets to support risk assessment.
PFOS and PFOA do not readily degrade via aerobic or anaerobic processes.
While PFOS and PFOA have largely been phased out of production in the United States, their
resistance to environmental degradation causes a lingering concern for exposure. They can
also be formed from precursors in the environment.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
83
-------
Concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids
Year Sampled
PFOA (ng/g dry wt)
PFOS (ng/g dry wt)
Reference
2001
12 - 70
308 - 618
Venkatesan, 2013
2004-2007
8-68
80 - 219
Sepulvado, 2011
2005
8.3 - 219
8.2 - 110
Loganathan 2007
2005
18 - 241
<10-65
Sinclair, 2006
2006
81 - 160
Schultz, 2006
2006-2007
18 - 69
31 - 702
Yu, 2009
2007
20 -128
32 - 418
Yoo, 2009
2011
1 - 14
4 - 84
Navarro, 2016
2014
10 - 60
30 - 102
Mills, Dasu (in prep)
2018
1-11
2-1,100
EGLE, 2020
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
84
-------
Toxicity Endpoints
Human Health - Reference Dose (RfD) and Cancer Slope Factor (CSF)
Human health effects data support both ambient water criteria for human health and Safe
Drinking Water Act regulatory determinations.
Health Effects Support Documents (HESDs) for PFOA and PFOS Health Advisories were
published in 201b.
Ongoing work to evaluate newer published literature.
Ecological - survival, growth, and reproduction
Relevant toxicity studies from peer-reviewed literature were identified through ECOTOX
searches (https://cfpub.epa.qov/ecotoxH and reviewed for data quality.
Aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife effects data support ambient water criteria for
aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife
Toxicity endpoints for non-aquatic dependent birds, mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, and
terrestrial pfants are currently being evaluated by the Biosolids Program
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
85
-------
Biosolids Use and Disposal Pathways
1. Land Application
2. Surface Disposal
3. Incineration
40 CFR Part 503.1: "(a) Purpose. (1) This part establishes standards, which consist of general
requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, and operational standards, for the final use
or disposal of sewage sludge generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment
works. Standards are included in this part for sewage sludge applied to the land, placed on a
surface disposal site, or fired in a sewage sludge incinerator.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
86
-------
Conceptual Model for the Agricultural Land Application Scenario: Human Exposures
Source
Release Mechanism
Agricultural
Field
Windblown
particles
Runoff and
erosion
Leaching/
infiltration
Media
Soil/biosolids
(ag field)
Exposure Scenarios
Forage
Beef & dairy
cattle
Exposure Routes Receptors Pathway Number
4 & 5
Ingestion of beef
& milk
Adult farmer
Farm child
T
Protected & root
crops
Exposed crops
J i!-
Soil (buffer)
Surface water
(index res)
Surface water
(farm pond)
Groundwater
K -
Drinking water
K- J
Drinking water
Ingestion of
produce
Volatilization
^ฆ1
Air (vapors &
Inhalation of
ฆ
ฆ
particulates)
ambient air
Ingestion of soil
Ingestion of
drinking water
Ingestion offish
Ingestion of
drinking water
Adult farmer
Farm child
Adult farmer
Farm child
Adult farmer
Farm child
Adult farmer
Farm child
Adult farmer
Farm child
Adult farmer
Farm child
1 & 2
11 & 13
12
12
14
-
Inhalation of
shower vapor
h-H
Adult farmer
15
Dashed arrows and box outlines indicate a pathway or route that has been added since 1993.
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
87
-------
Modeling Approach
Currently under development for presentation to the Science Advisory Board in 2021
Biosolids Screening Tool for deterministic, screening-level assessment
Probabilistic Risk Assessment framework for chemicals that fail at the screening level
Modeling for biosolids will be based on publicly available, previously peer-reviewed models for
leaching, runoff, erosion, air dispersal, and plant uptake to the greatest extent possible
Approach for PFAS will be consistent, to the extent appropriate, with all other chemical risk
assessment for biosolids
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
88
-------
November PF Meeting Input
Data sharing - thank you!
Methods - cost and availability
Conceptual models
Occupational exposure
Precursors
Big picture:
Impacts on biosolids management
Pre-treatment/source reduction
Risks from biosolids relative to other exposure sources {e.g., household)
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
89
-------
Next Steps
Problem Formulation
Meetings completed December 2020
Draft document Spring 2021
Science Advisory Board review of modeling approach - Spring 2021
Risk Assessment - estimated completion in 2022 for internal review, followed by public
comment
If EPA determines that PFOA or PFOS in biosolids may adversely affect public health or the
environment, risk managers will consider options for numerical limitations and best
management practices for these compounds (as there are with current Part 503 pollutant
limits).
If regulatory limits are advised, they will go through a standard regulatory process including
inter-Agency and OMB review as well as public comment.
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
90
-------
Thank you
Elyssa Arnold
Risk Assessment Lead, EPA Biosolids Program
arnold.elvssa@epa.gov
202-566-1189
United States
Environmental Protection
K % Agency
91
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY
Michigan PFAS & Biosolids Update
State Perspectives
Mike Person
Michigan Biosolids Program
personm(5)michigan.gov
989-297-0779
-------
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
(MPART)
tOMS'1
Unique multi-agency approach
Leads coordination and
cooperation among all levels of
government
Directs implementation of state's
action strategy
WRD -Member of Great Lakes
PFAS Task Force
-------
Biosolids
Plans to amend the
biosolids workgroup to
include other beneficial
use programs
MPART Biosolids Workgroup
EGLE WRD, RRD, MDARD, DHHS
Mission:
Expand knowledge of PFAS and biosolids
within wastewater collection and treatment
systems to develop guidance to municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs), land
application contractors, and
farmers/landowners regarding land
application of biosolids containing PFAS.
Establish a durable process to evaluate
biosolids land application sites.
In conjunction with Industrial Pretreatment
Program (IPP) Initiative efforts, reach
equilibrium in program status that allows the
majority of WWTPs to maintain the option to
safely land apply biosolids. This is contingent
on identifying and controlling sources within
wastewater collection systems and on ability
to develop guidance above.
-------
IPP PFAS Initiative
February 2018 - 95 WWTPs required to screen Industrial Users
Evaluate Industrial Users as potential sources of PFAS
- Sample effluent if sources above screening criteria (12 ppt PFOS)
- Sample biosolids if PFOS > 50 ppt in effluent
Source control/elimination of PFOS from sources
Ongoing monitoring of sources & POTW effluent
- Status reports submitted to EGLE
Additional information on IPP PFAS Initiative:
https://www.michigan.gOv/pfasresponse/0,9038,7-365-86510,00.html
-------
Substantial Reductions in PFOS
Concentrations at WWTPs
Municipal WWTP
PFOS,
PFOS Reduction in
Effluent (ppt,
Effluent (highest
Actions Taken to Reduce PFOS
most
to most recent)
recent**)
Lapeer
17*
99%
Treatment (GAC) at source (1)
Wixom
16*
99%
Treatment (GAC) at source (1)
Ionia
<8.49
98%
Treatment (GAC) at source (1)
Port Huron
18*
99%
Elimination of source PFOS (2)
Howell
5.2
96%
Treatment (GAC/resin) at source (1)
Bronson
10
96%
Treatment (GAC) at source (1)
Kalamazoo
3.09
92%
Treatment (GAC) at sources (2), change water supply
K 1 Sawyer
9.3
96%
Eliminate leakAFFF, some cleaning
GLWA (Detroit)
9.8
74%
Treatment (GAC) at sources (17)
Belding
9.4
32%
Restricted landfill leachate quantity accepted
*Greater than Water Quality Standards
**Data received as of November 27, 2020
-------
PFOS Reduction After IU Pretreatment
Lapeer WWTP Effluent Results
200
0
1500
GAC Installed at IU
Modified GAC Unit Installed at IU
IT
44.
-26-
20 10
-26 26 26 29-
TT
iA
^
(A (A iA
^ .ซ3? >3? P *8> *$> *$> >$>
JS" rfy rฃr jy rSr rฃr aO*
46.
-24-
sy j$> jy jS* j$> j$ป j$* j$ป
J? J? J? J? J? J? jrjt <$r jr jrjr j? j? jr jr j? j?
<$> <$> <$ฆ <$ # <> fe\v a\n 4? ^ $ฆ 4y
-------
PFOS Reduction After III Pretreatment
2500
2500
2000
1500
O 1000
500
A
cV
cnV
GAC Installed at
IU
Modified GAC Unit
Installed at IU
i I i
J?
& & J? 4? J? ^ 3? 3? J? ^ J? $? $? jr J? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? & 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4? 4?'4?' 4? 4?' 4? 4? 4? 4?
a\n %\v \\n tNn\\n ^ ^ a\n %\v <^Vn\^Vn \\n tNn\\n ^ ^ a\n %\v <^Vn\^Vn \\n tNn # ^ 4* fo\N a\n %\n o,\n
SAMPLE DATE
cS?
_c^
.c^
|PFOS Biosolids Results (ppb)
PFOS Effluent Results (ppt)
-------
Source Document
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM (IPP) PFAS INITIATIVE
Identified Industrial Sources of PFOS to
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
August 2020
EGLE, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
800-662-9278 | Michigan.gov/EGLE
Evaluation and Identification of
significant sources
WWTPS in Michigan.
www.Michigan.gov/PfasResponse
-------
Expanding upon the IPP initiative
Non-IPP WWTPs: Landfill Leachate/Septage/ High Strength
Waste
Compliance Strategy Developed:
Industrial Direct Discharges
Industrial Stormwater Discharges
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/pfasresponse/Compliance Strategy for Addressing PFAS PFOS-
PFOA from Industrial Direct Discharges and Industrial Storm Water Discharges 698878 7.pdf
Municipal Groundwater Discharges
-------
Statewide
Biosolids
Study
Selected /sampled Effluent, Influent, &
Biosolids from 42 WWTPs
20 Largest
Various treatment processes
Some with no industrial users
Conduct Site Investigations (soil, gw, sw)
of Biosolids Land Application Sites
Evaluate various fate and transport
modeling techniques
-------
Upper Peninsula
Legend
WWTP Sample Location
O WWTP + Biosolids Field Sample Location
Statewide
Biosolids
Study
Locations
Lower Peninsula
'0
~ Planned Sampling
-------
2018 Statewide Study
WWTP PFOA Influent and Effluent Data
Figure 5. PFOA Influent and Effluent Concentrations in WWTPs*
NOTE: The PFOA water quality value depicted in the chart is the most conservative value and only applies to surface waters used as a
drinking water source. The PFOA water quality value for surface water not used as a drinking water source is 12.000 ng/L
10,000
1,000
Q.
CL
100
cn
c
10
PFOA WQS (Drink) = 420 nซ/L
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 1} 14 li It 17 It 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 It 2S ป 11 12 11 14 ป ป ป ป ป ซD 41 U
PFOA Influent
PFOA Effluent
-------
2018 Statewide Study
WWTP PFOS Influent and Effluent Data
il
11
2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
PFOS Influent (ppt) PFOS Effluent (ppt) PFOS WQS (ppt)
-------
Statewide Study - Sludge/Biosolids PFOS Results
PFOS Concentrations in Biosolids/Sludge
iaooo (Excluding Industrially Impacted Results)
1,000
n
o.
CL
k_
o
WWTP
-------
Statewide Study - WWTP Stabilized Sludge/Biosolids PFOS Results
PFOS Concentrations in Biosolids/Sludge
10,000
1,000
-G
a
5* ioo
Average = 195 jig/Kg
I
Median = 13 |ig/Kg
10
111111
WWTP
Industrially
Impacted
-------
Statewide Study - WWTP Stabilized Sludge/Biosolids PFOS Results
IW
2,150
2000
1,680
1500
1,200
1,060
1000
983
500
387
160161
IDO.SH
02334556666777
9 9 9 11 11 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 ^^0 21 22 25 _ _ _ , g | | |
PFOS concentrations in PPB
150
Industrially
Impacted
-------
PFAS in Sludge /Biosolids - When is it considered industrially
impacted?
No Regulatory Limit - Looking to EPA to lead
Threshold level of 150 ppb is being used at the point at which biosolids is considered
industrially impacted.
Determination of "industrially impacted" is based on a number of factors including
- Review of literature and land application studies with high PFAS concentrations (Decatur,
Alabama)
- Results of Statewide Biosolids Study
- Results of soil /gw sampling of land application sites in Michigan
- Natural Break Point in results
**This is not a risk-based number. As more information about fate and transport of these
chemicals becomes available, including the field study results, this level will be reevaluated
as necessary
-------
I \
02n05e01-BC01
02n05e01-BC02
BC01-PEW3
*952.11 (45 | 246)
BC01-DU1
119.926 (0 | 18) I
BC01-SW
386.48 (11.7 | 49.7
BC01-DU2
123.5 (0 | 23.5)|j
BC02-MW1S
8.75 (0 | 0)
BC02-DU
3.69 (0 | 21
BC01-MW
0(0 | 0)
BC01-MV
187.56 (0
Statewide
Biosolids Study
Land Application Field Screening
22 Fields Screened from 8 WWTPS
- 3 WWTPs w/PFOS > 1000 ppb
- 5 WWTPs w/ PFOS < 100 ppb
Sampled: Soils, groundwater, tile drains, swales,
ponding/perched waters and surface waters
Developed field prioritization process to screen
"worst case scenarios" for each facility
Lapeer reports posted on MPART website
Reports pending for remaining fields
-------
Summary
Report
Document
jj(
Detailed
expected
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY
SUMMARY REPORT:
Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence
of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater
and Associated Residuals
(Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan
June 2020
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
800-CG2-9278 | Michigan.gov/EGLE
m
-------
Strategy -
Land
Application of
Biosolids
Containing
PFAS
Strategy to assist with biosolids management
decisions
- Draft Strategy Document expected
January with implement for spring
2021.
- Present Study results and strategy at
the next stakeholders meeting.
- Strategy will need to go through
MPART review
- Webinar for WWTPs/ Contractors upon
implementation
-------
Strategy
Components
- Land
Application
of Biosolids
Containing
PFAS
Source Reduction - Continue aggressively identifying
and reducing significant sources of PFAS in
wastewater and biosolids.
Research -Continuing efforts with evaluation and
study of PFAS in biosolids and land application sites.
- Continue supporting EPAs efforts to develop a
biosolids standard for PFAS
A
Prevention - While continuing to drive PFAS biosolids
concentrations lower through aggressive source
reduction efforts work to identify /prevent industrially
impacted biosolids from being land applied.
Sampling - Additional monitoring for PFAS of land
applied biosolids.
-------
Strategy
Components
- Land
Application
of Biosolids
Containing
PFAS
Communication / Transparency - Open
dialogue between WWTPS / Contractors and
landowners /farmers on PFAS in biosolids
Provide tools for disseminating information
/analytical on PFAS in biosolids.
MWEA BS Committee -
- The PFAS and Biosolids Quick Facts for
Landowners document
- Best Management Practices Document
-------
Visit the MPART Biosolids Workgroup
Michkjin. ; ;v uu aicwiwnMit ซ* umcii
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
IJlTlUJ.lfJJJJl.lJlJMll JJ.HI J!l.
broader Technical A6*Aary Workgroup. whปch helps to ensure coordination across the topical
established. Webpages are being created to share their mission, accomplishments, and activities
going forward.
Michigan y_ป>
MICHIGAM.GOV HOME | ASA | MICHIGAN NEWS I POUCIES
www.Michigan.gov/PfasResponse
or search
MPART Biosolids Workgroup
Air Quality
Workgroup
Airport
Workgroup
Animal Health
ft Food Safety
Workgroup
Drinking
Water
Workgroup
Fire Station
Workgroup
Human Health
Workgroup
Lab Standards
Workgroup
Land fiRs
Workgroup
Pollution
Prevention
Workgroup
Surface Water
Workgroup
MORE INFORMATION COMING SOON
Treatment
Technologies
Workgroup
Wastewater
Workgroup
Biosofefs Groundwater
Workgroup Workgroup
Military
Workgroup
Wildlife
Workgroup
-------
Michigan.gov
EGLE RECEIVE UPDATES FAQS Q SEARCH
Department of Envtronmcnt, Great Lakes, and Energy
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
| HEALTH | DRINKING WATER V INVESTIGATIONS v| TESTING "V FISH AND WILDLIFE PFAS FOAM
PFAS RESPONSE t MPART / TOPICAL WORKGROUPS
Biosolids Workgroup
MISSION:
Expand Knowledge of PFAS and biosolids within wastewater col ection
and treatment systems to develop guidance to municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants (VWVTPs). and appl cation contractors, a~d
farmers/landowners regarding and application of Piosolrds contain:ng
PFAS.
Establish a durable process to evaluate biosolids land application sites.
In conjunct o~ with Industrial Pretreatment Prog'am (IPP) Initial ve
efforts, reach equilibrium in prog'am status that allows the majority of
WWTPs to maintain the option to safely land apply biosolids. Tnis is
contingent on identifying and controlling sources w'th n wastewate'
collection systems and on abi'ity to develop guidance above.
This workgroup is ed by the Department of Environment, G'eat Lakes, and
Energy (EGLE) and consists of representatives from Michigan, Department of Agriculture and Rura Development (MDARD) and Micniga" Department of Health
and Human Services (f*"DHHS).
What are Biosolids?
Recent Accomplishments j Next Steps Research/Studies and Reports | Timeline of Accomplishments
Contact Information
WHAT ARE BIOSOLIDS?
Bioso ids are the nutrient-rich organic materia s resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (visit our FAQ).
Bioso ids contain essential plant nutrient and organ c matte'. When reated and processed biosolids can oe recyc ed and applied to crops as fertilizer to
improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. For more information on biosolids, go to EGLE s Wate' Resources Division (WRD) Biosolids
Program Web Page: Michigan.gov/Biosolids.
-------
Dc^annentaf Emrinmmeffi, Grut
t IJlllM. AH
ฆd Energy Michrgan PFAS Action Response Team
HEALTH | DRINUNO HTA71K
nntiHAiiOHt v | TtsiiNa v | pqh .
l
I
PfAifOiui
mmT
-1
Tw more information on PFAS Ifftcl raHBaids see MP ART'S Frequently Asked Questions docurr-enL
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
AfLer Lf>ti La pee: WWTP found Lu be S ^11ifica11L source of PFAS Lord animation to Llปซ Flint River, LesLS i eป"e.ฑ *e d Lhat Lapeei"*s sludge UWiAMMd higfi levels
Of PFOS. In response,. CGLC prohibited line sludge from being spread on land. MPART hired ACCOM Techi iii_al Ssrvicet Inc. Lo irivesijjgMti PFAS issues related
tu Lspeei'Si Diosulids in laLe 2017Veai ly 2Q1B.
ftepoaLS from Live Lapeer Diusuikls- PFAS Investigation weie finalised arid posted Oft tJ>e MPART websiLe in laLe 201 ฃ. Fo 11 lw i i ig this it rvesLigabon and LJje
Michigan IPF" PFAS Initiative, Lhe DiOSolidS Wuikgruup COrtduLLed a review Of available reseaiClt to belter urlderu^iปd how common F'FAS rriigl iL be in
tkOSOlidS.
Flowing are I iigh; gltls Of Lhe Ejosolids Workeroup etfOrLSOver '.lie pd^Lyedti :
Tlie Biusulids Workgroup expanded Lhe Lapeer Rfe>SMlidS PFAS lAvtiSl^lkHI Lo a SlaLewsJe
B*osolids and WlVTP PFAS SLudy LU further uui knowledge on the pi evaler I>e
investigate^!,, which Included SUBVeyinjg each faciliLy un LieaLnreni process and
seJeLLing sample locations.
ฆ Collected samples Of effluent*. iftfluei'vl, ji id btosOlidSi'sludge Iror'n Lhe high pr l: - ily
WWTPiduDS& lAkFugdil isivJ ^.i.lie!ed detailed wasLewaLer tfeafUttent process
irilumtaLiuii from 6dLh WWl F based Oft Ihfi win k plait*.
ฆ Develuped '.lie CGLC Qiaiol i!i Site SelecLion Pri-vedure lu pi iur iLise ruiLes ai id
identify .hose most in need uT rurllvsi mvesUgaLion.
ฆ ColfeLled samples uf -vail, surface wader, Lile drain waLer, dild .groundwater tram agrimkurcil rieldt. Lliat revived bki^ulids Tiuni high piiuiiLy
'dWrfTPi, wl'icn wei e WWTPf. known Lo liave uvduSLriaSy inip^Lted bioi&alidi wiLl i hig^i curiLeriLrdliocii ur PFAS.
ฆ CcilleLted i-u-il and ฃ.urTaLe wdLei t-dn>p4ei TiUin agriculLural lieldt. (tUH. were expecLed ta hMC a "XypMLOl" dniauriL ur PFAS in Llis biuiu'kl-^-
Tliese fields served as a coniq>arison grc^jip fur Lhe Flighty impacted biosolids at cither fields.
ฆ CalleLted Lr up saniples Tf uin Lhe Lapeer Held that iiecern-ed biutr^ fuls. irnpdLLed by PFAS.
ฆ Re sampled pernianent nx^i-*taring wells installed at the Lapeer fiekl the previous spring.
ฆ evaluated and ^eleLLed a PFAS fate and LrarvspOrt rrปo-Jel based on Midsgari data arid cundiLkป*e.. See Report - Review of Available Software
for PFAS Modeling Within the Va*dkiae Zmie.
ฆ ConduLLed Ll le mudelirig to evalu^le L* e puLenLial Tor PFOs/PFQA rriigraLkMa from MiLliigaoi tMOSUlidS land applKLaL>-jri sites. NuirieriLal
SAc:e fuSuwii lg activities:
* CornpleLed the Biostolids FAQ docurneivt.
^ COri^pteLed the Dia^ulids and Sludge PFAS Sampling Gtedtdirhoe. TTva guidance was developed by CGLC based On irifUirtiaL>orซ gained dur ing Lhe
SLaLewkle Oiosulitfv arid MuniLipal WWTP PFAS Study fSunimary Report!'.
ฆfr Reliiied pruLedureS and pruCeSฃes dev^luped under Llie Lapeer iriveittigaLiui-n and included leviOnS learned frOrri plarinirrg the SLatewide Ei'-'iOlidS
and Municipal WWTP PFAS SLudy.
* Developed parLiiers! ps between CGLC, MI>HHS, MDARD. and Lite agriculLural COcmriuMiLy LliaL allowed work Ort this issue tu cot^lirlue in a
sySLernaLiL and scientifically bailed way. Huvled Siakelviilder mpeeljrijfv aLLended by a li uSv iectio-r'r of Llttf a^rcculLui al and wastewater LreaLnsenL
cunwnunites involved in biosufcds land application.
& ImegraLed DiOSulids Wurkyruup effOTLS wiLv Lhose Of Lhe Wa^LewaLer, Surface Water, and Treatment TeChrwilogy Wurkyi uups w? ite LuriLrnuiny
involveirtei'rt with groups such ai Lire Mii-liigar, Wa*.er Dwii oiwnent AssociaLion Qio&oftkJs aiKJ PFAS CunisrniLLeev, h^gan Rural WaLer Association,
V-Chyan Was Lie arfd RecyCOu^g AsSOCia Lx>iX Farm Bureau, a?xJ the North Cast DbOSOlidS Ec Residuals AssULiaLiLPr-.
ConduLLed reStcieiiLial well Sarnpling a; ouivJ i^osulids land app- caLkxi sites in the Pa lo area in luriia Co-unLy afid held pLdป}kl meeLinjjS on Lf>e
siLuatiun.
PartJLipaLed iri discussions wiLfi UniLed StaLes CnvirocrrneriLai FtotecliOri AgerrCy fUSCPAJ StaTT arid various SLate or Vbchigari DepaiLnienL^ and
~ivisiui is abuuL iirปซi;SLigalirtg iioj'i biuso-ikl sludge applied lo land.
-------
Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
800-662-9278
www.Michigan.gov/EGLE
www.Michigan.gov/PfasResponse
Sign up for email updates
~ Subscribe to our YouTube Channel
Follow us on Twitter @MichiganEGLE
-------
mpact of Past Biosolids
Land Application on
One Maine Farming
Community
Carla Hopkins, ESIV
Residuals Management Unit
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Protecting Maine's Air, Land and Water
-------
Background - Farm in Southern
Maine
December 2016 elevated PFOS in milk from farm in southern
Maine
Farm had accepted Class B biosolids and paper mill residuals
from 1980s to early 2000s
PFOS in soil made its way into groundwater and then dairy
cows
^3
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Background - Rulemaking
In 2018, Maine adopted screening concentrations for
residuals, including biosolids, for three PFAS compounds:
- PFBS: 1,900 ng/g
- PFOA: 2.5 ng/g
- PFOS: 5.2 ng/g
Based on leaching to groundwater modeling with 200 ng/L as
endpoint
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Background - Testing Requirements
In March 2019, began requiring facilities that land-apply
biosolids and biosolids-derived products to test for PFBS,
PFOA and PFOS
- Class B programs
- Class A pellet programs
- Class A composters (includes WWTP sludge and dewatered
septage)
Ongoing testing required for these facilities February 2020
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Background - PFAS Task Force
In March 2019, Governor forms PFAS task force to study the
threats of PFAS contamination to public health and the
environment
Public health experts, DHHS, DEP, DACF, MEMA, industry
experts, drinking water sector, environmental groups
Final Report issued January 2020
Two key recommendations relating to biosolids:
- Prioritize locations for sampling where biosolids were spread on
fields that produce crops for human consumption or feed
- Greatly expand testing of agricultural produce and products
grown and/or raised in soils where biosolids have been
agronomically utilized
-------
Background - Central Maine Farm
Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
(DACF) off-the-shelf milk testing program in 2019 and 2020
Sample over the detection limit prompted further testing
June 2020 tested milk at contributing farms
Results of 12,700 ppt, 14,400 ppt, 14,900 ppt and 32,200 ppt
PFOS in milk
Farm had accepted Class B biosolids ~1980-2003 (WWTP with
significant contribution from industry) and Class A sludge-
derived liming product ~2006-2015 and spread own manure
DEP initiated an investigation in July 2020
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Sampling Activity
Matrices sampled June 2020 to present:
> Milk
> Dairy Cow Manure
> Beef Cow Manure
> Hog Manure
> Surface Water
> Soil
> Animal Drinking Water Source
> Beef
> Residential Drinking Water Wells
> Spring (used as drinking water)
> Eggs
> Hay
> Haylage
> Corn Silage
> Fish Byproduct (used as feed)
> "Green Chop"
> Grass
> Purchased Feed
> Class A Liming Product
> Produce (grown with farm
manure)
> Groundwater
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Farm Fields - Overview
Remote Fieldsi
Remote-FielSs -~Ridge
Home Farmj
Farm Fields Overview
Remot^FieKls - Riage"Vป*.
-tn J ฆฆ tl
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Milk and Beef Results
Milk
Sample ID
Sample
Date
PFOS Validation
(ng/L) Qual
PFOA
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
MilkTank
6/24/20
12,700
31.9
Milk Tank (re-test)
6/24/20
14,400
38.5
MilkTank (re-test)
6/24/20
14,900
52.9
J
MilkTank
7/13/2020 (
32,20o)
46.5
J
Beef
Sample ID
Sample PFOS Validation
Date (ng/g Dry) Qual
PFOA
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
COW-GROUND BEEF
7/13/2020 20.9
ND
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Manure Results
Manure
Sample ID
Sample
Date
PFOS
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
BEEF MANURE PAD
7/31/2020
ฉ
J
22.1
J
DAIRY MANURE PIT
7/31/2020
35.1
J
4.48
J
HOG MANURE STACK
7/31/2020
39.9
J
5.81
J
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Water and Other Results
Surface Water and Animal Drinking Water Source
Sample ID
Sample Date
PFOS
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
DAIRY BARN TROUGH
7/13/2020
2.44
SW-101 (by home fields)
7/28/2020
127.8
266.5
SW-103 (pond-201 fields)
7/31/2020
6.390
1,920
SW-104 (pond-201 fields)
7/31/2020 I
(^7,33(T)
i
3,340
Other
Sample ID
Sample Date
PFOS
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
Class A Liming
Product
7/9/2020
30.9
54.7
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Feed Results
Feed
Sample ID
Sample Date
PFOS
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/g Dry)
Validation
Qual
GRASS-201-5
7/31/2020
352.90
49.96
GREEN CHOP
7/8/2020
31.43
1.58
J
HAY SILOED 2019
7/8/2020
0.44
J
ND
HAY-1 (haybale)
7/8/2020
50.61
7.64
GRASS-RIDGE-1
7/31/2020
(^399-kT^
39.82
GRASS-RIDGE-3
7/31/2020
396.07
86.06
SILAGE-2019
7/8/2020
ND
ND
BYPRODUCT-1
7/13/2020
13.61
2.30
GRAIN-071320
7/13/2020
ND
ND
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
-------
Soil Results
Soil
Sample ID Sample Date PFOS (ng/g Dry) Validation Qual PFOA (ng/g Dry) Validation Qual
CS-BARN-l 7/24/2020 23.291.94 J
CS-BARN-2 7/24/2020 4.330.44 J
FIELD 1 7/28/2020 15.583.86
FIELD 2 7/28/2020 45.6248.75
NO SPREAD 1 7/28/2020 27.223.18
P2 7/28/2020 150.322.85
201-1 7/31/2020 294J 11.7
201-2 7/31/2020 47931.3
201-3 7/31/2020 28318.4
201-4 7/31/2020 54416.8
201-5 7/31/2020 42216.4
201-6 7/31/2020 57120.2
RIDGE-1 7/31/2020 57921.4
RIDGE-2 7/31/2020 79230.3
RIDGE-3 7/31/2020 98138.7
RIDGE-4 7/31/2020 (j,08(T)49.6
RIDGE-5 7/31/2020 1,010J 42.5
RIDGE-6 7/31/2020 55330.6
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Soil and Associated Grass Results
Soil and Associated Grass
PFOS Validation PFOA Validation
Sample ID Sample Date (ng/g Dry) Qual (ng/g Dry) Qual
201-5 Soil
7/31/2020
422
16.4
201-5 Grass
7/31/2020
352.90
49.96
RIDGE-1 Soil
7/31/2020
579
21.4
RIDGE-1 Grass
7/31/2020
399.10
39.82
RIDGE-3 Soil
7/31/2020
981
38.7
RIDGE-3 Grass
7/31/2020
396.07
86.06
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Sample Locations - Overview
^JHome Farm
,*9ป jRemote Fields - 201
SjL U$
ซ*. r.RemotgFields - Ridge
"Remote Fields - RidgeฎC
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Residential Drinking Water Results
Residential Drinking Water
PFOS
Validation PFOA
Validation
Sample ID
Sample Date
(ng/L)
Qual (ng/L)
Qual
1
11/03/2020
ND
ND
2
11/03/2020
ND
0.49
3
11/03/2020
0.734
j 0.222
J
4
11/03/2020
ND
11.4
5
11/03/2020
ND
0.818
J
6
10/29/2020
ND
5.25
7
8/28/2020
1.12
J 23.92
8
8/28/2020
60.36
50.02
9
9/18/2020
ND
1.08
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Residential Drinking Water Results
Residential Drinking Water
PFOS
Validation
PFOA
Validation
Sample ID
Sample Date
(ng/L)
Qual
(ng/L)
Qual
10
9/18/2020
2,680
898
11
9/18/2020
2,150
784
12
9/18/2020
170
394
13
11/03/2020
641
278
14
10/22/2020
ND
0.25
15
10/22/2020
5*4
1,910
16
9/18/2020
^12,000^
Q3,80(T)
17
10/22/2020
189
424
18
10/22/2020
ND
ND
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Residential Drinking Water Results
Residential Drinking Water
Sample ID
Sample Date
PFOS
(ng/L)
Validation Qual
PFOA
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
19
10/22/2020
ND
216
20
11/03/2020
26
96.1
21
10/22/2020
59.7
288
22
10/22/2020
3,170
3,520
23
10/22/2020
243
220
24
10/22/2020
511
1,400
24-1
10/22/2020
2,920
3,070
25
11/03/2020
3,190
3,140
26
11/04/2020
414
J
1,130
J
27
10/22/2020
25.4 108
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Sample Locations - Home Farm Detail
PFOS-ND
PFOA - ND
Home Farm Detail
PFOS - 0.734
PFOA -0,222
PFOS-ND
PFOA - 0.49
*AlI Results in ng/L (parts per trillion)
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Pr.MaMr.Ecl":
!rnmr7r'
"r3h kr>
Sง5^
Ihi
ฆWM
mm
lv
gemole.Fields - Ridge
ฆRemote Fields - Ridge
V ฆ Y.^,
. r
-------
Sample Locations - 201 Fields Detail
201 Fields Detail - Part 1
PFOS-2150
PFOA - 784
PFOS -170
PFOA - 394
PFOS - 2680
PFOA-898
PFOS - ND
PFOA- 1,08
^Remote Fields
/
ปFOS-60.36
PFOS-60.
PFOA-50.
* All Results in ng/L (parts per trillion)
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Sample Locations - 201 Fields Detail
PFOS -12000
PFOA - 3800
PFOS - 58.4
PFOA -1910
PFOS - 414
201
Fields Detail
Part
PFOS-ND
PFOA-0.25
PFOS-25.4
PFOA-108
PFOS - 641
PFOA - 278
PFOS-ND
PFOA - ND
PFOA -1130
PFOS - 3190
PFOA - 3140
PFOS -189
PFOA-424
24
24-1
PFOS-511
2920
PFOA-1400
3070
PFOS - 3170
PFOA - 3520
PFOS-
PFOA
59.7
288
PFOS-
PFOA-
26
96.1
PFOS - 243
PFOA - 220
PFOS-ND
PFOA - 216
*AII Results in ng/L (parts per trillion)
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Current Work
Expanding private drinking water well testing based on results
Reviewing data for soils that received only manure from farm
- no Class A or Class B biosolids
Reviewing data for soils that received only Class A sludge-
derived liming product - no Class B biosolids
Reviewing data from other sites that received the same Class
B biosolids during the same timeframe as this farm
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Additional Sites
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Additional Sites - Soil Results
Soil
Sample ID Sample Date PFOS (ng/g Dry) Validation Qual PFOA (ng/g Dry) Validation Qual
Site 1 (3)
10/29/2020
328
31
Site 1 (F2-1)
10/29/2020
60
58.4
Site 2 (P-l)
10/29/2020
83.9
7.21
Site 2 (5-1/5-2)
10/29/2020
220
12.3
Site 2A
No Data
No Data
No Data
Site 3 (Al)
10/29/2020
157
6.27
Site 3 (Bl)
10/29/2020
239
9.07
Site 4 (2A)
10/29/2020
298
13.3
Site 4 (2C)
10/29/2020
Q09 ^
11.4
Site 4A
No Data
No Data
No Data
Site 5
No Data
No Data
No Data
Site 6 (G4)
10/29/2020
403
26.1
Site 6 (G5)
10/29/2020
208
34.1
"J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
"ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Additional Sites - Water Results
Water
Sample ID
Sample Date
PFOS
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
S
te 1-1
10/29/2020
4.99
1.6
J
S
te 1-2
10/29/2020
4.54
16.8
S
te 1-3
10/29/2020
0.573
J
1.32
J
S
te 2 -1
10/29/2020
25.7
22.1
S
te 2 - 2
10/29/2020
3.26
15.4
S
te 2A
No Data
No Data
No Data
S
te 3
10/29/2020
No Data
No Data
S
te 4 -1
10/29/2020
9,360
2,720
S
te 4A
No Data
No Data
No Data
S
te 5
10/29/2020
No Data
No Data
S
te 6 -1
10/29/2020
37,400
18,200
S
te 6 - 2
10/29/2020
552
1,740
S
te 6 3
10/29/2020 (
^60,700^
> <
19,200*}
J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Additional Sites - Milk Results
Milk
Sample ID
Sample PFOS
Date (ng/L)
Validation
Qual
PFOA
(ng/L)
Validation
Qual
Site 2 (Milk Tank)
10/26/2020 ^863^
-
Site 2 (Milk Tank)
11/17/2020 620
4.07
J" indicates an estimated value. This is commonly applied to values that are either very low or very high compared to the calibration range of a test.
ND" indicates that compound not detected in the sample.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Next Steps
Coordinating treatment systems for those impacted above the
EPA Health Advisory
Continue expanding private drinking water well testing based
on results, if necessary
Review information for other sites that received Class B
biosolids from same generator as sites discussed earlier and
sample as appropriate
Expand testing to sites that received other Class B biosolids
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.maine.gov/dep
-------
Contact:
Carla J. Hopkins
(207)215-3314
Carla. J. Hopkins@maine.gov
www.maine. gov/deo
------- |