Adams County hears Tetra Tech briefing on PFAS in leachate; committee approves separating DNR fee from gate rate

Adams County Solid Waste & Recycling Committee members heard a presentation from engineers with Tetra Tech on emerging PFAS risks in landfill leachate and a possible Clean Water Fund application, and the committee voted to separate the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fee from the landfill gate rate effective immediately.

Tetra Tech site engineer Jalen Thomas told the committee leachate is “stormwater that comes in contact with waste” and said new regulatory and permit monitoring requirements are pushing wastewater treatment plants to identify and reduce industrial PFAS sources. Thomas said wastewater plants now must sample for PFOA and PFOS during initial permit cycles and, when discharge limits are exceeded, execute minimization plans that prioritize reducing industrial sources.

The presentation outlined numerical thresholds referenced in the rule Thomas cited as “WY 23 19” and noted sample results from Wisconsin landfills that, in his words, are “far exceeding these… discharge limits.” Thomas described the Clean Water Fund — a state revolving loan program with an emerging contaminants carve-out — as one financing route for treatment projects and said Adams County could potentially qualify for up to $5,600,000 in principal forgiveness under current criteria: roughly $2,100,000 from the general fund (capped at about 15% of project value) and $3,500,000 from the emerging contaminant fund.

Thomas told the committee the DNR has new authority after a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision (identified in the presentation as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. WDNR) to regulate PFAS as a hazardous substance, making PFAS regulation an immediate operational issue rather than a future concern. He recommended the county consider an intent-to-apply to reserve a place in the Clean Water Fund cycle; his slide deck showed an intent-to-apply step, draft facility-plan submission the following March, and final application the next September under the timetable he outlined.

Committee members asked technical and operational questions. Supervisor Pease asked whether the county would be “building our own treatment plant here,” and Thomas replied that on-site options such as reverse osmosis (RO) or combinations of granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion-exchange are among viable approaches, while noting economics and hauling distances affect the best choice. Thomas said RO can produce treated water that meets or exceeds drinking-water standards and that concentrates or spent media are typically a small-volume waste stream that can be managed; he added that, in several sites, reintroducing concentrated waste or spent media to a landfill has not shown “significant breakthrough” of PFAS in monitoring records.

Ruben, the site staff member who later delivered the site report, said staff had contacted roughly 35 wastewater treatment facilities within a 45-mile radius and found most will not accept the landfill’s leachate; he said only the City of Adams and Plover still accept the County’s leachate, with Plover reducing volumes. Ruben reported annual leachate generation for 2023 was “just shy on, under 3,100,000 gallons.”

Thomas cautioned that waiting risks higher long-term costs: he cited examples where wastewater plants have closed their intake to leachate or begun charging premium rates as they respond to PFAS monitoring and limits. He said principal forgiveness in the Clean Water Fund can cover a significant portion of project costs for eligible PFAS-treatment projects and that the fund’s emerging contaminant pool has a smaller remaining balance in the near term, making the current funding cycle more certain than later years.

The committee did not take a formal vote on pursuing a Clean Water Fund application at the meeting; Tetra Tech recommended an initial intent-to-apply step that is noncommittal but reserves a place in the funding cycle. Committee discussion did include clarifying the application steps, potential procurement requirements for engineering and construction, and the possibility of partnering with a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) in the region to combine applications.

Separately, the committee voted to separate the DNR fee from the landfill gate rate and to apply the surcharge to haulers and noncontracted customers. Committee discussion clarified that municipalities with transfer-site contracts would not be charged the separate DNR fee under the county’s proposed approach and that how door-to-door collection customers are treated depends on existing contract language.

The committee set its next meeting for Sept. 9 and later convened a closed session under Wisconsin Stat. 19.85(1)(e) to deliberate a purchase or negotiation regarding an agreement with the Town of Strongs Prairie.

What’s next: County staff and consultants said they will continue to assemble data, run project economics, and, if directed, file an intent-to-apply with the DNR to reserve funding consideration in the upcoming Clean Water Fund cycle. The committee did not adopt a final project plan at this meeting.