Anne Arundel DPW outlines plan for in‑house biosolids thermal drying/gasification plant; 6 staff requested

Anne Arundel County’s Department of Public Works described on May 22 a multi‑phase plan to move biosolids management from current land-application contracting toward construction and in‑house operation of a thermal drying/gasification facility intended to reduce volume, destroy PFAS and generate a reusable product.

Karen Henry, director of the Department of Public Works, told the County Council the county currently contracts biosolids handling to a sole‑source vendor and pays about $10.3 million annually for land application. Henry said DPW has been studying alternatives for five years and proposes a county-operated thermal drying/gasification plant that would be energy neutral, reduce 71,000 wet tons and produce a biochar-like product for reuse or sale. “This gasification process will destroy the PFAS,” Henry said.

Why it matters: the county’s current contract exposes the utility to increasing disposal costs and regulatory risk as state and market constraints make land application harder to sustain. DPW said an in‑house facility could reduce annual contractor expense and give the county direct control over biosolids end‑products, but will require large up‑front capital and new operating staff.

Key details - Staffing: Henry said DPW requests six new wastewater technician positions to operate the planned facility. Those six are intended to staff three shifts (two operators per shift) because the facility will run 24 hours per day, five days a week. - Costs and savings: Henry said the county now pays about $10.3 million annually to Synagro (the current contractor). DPW presented a 10–20 year projected return on investment for building and operating its own facility and said in‑house operations could save roughly $2.09 million annually compared with contracting for a similar facility in other jurisdictions. - Project staging and scale: Chris Murphy, DPW utility engineering, said the program proposes a demonstration facility ($20.6 million in the FY27 program) followed by a larger full-scale buildout (programmed near FY31 and later). Murphy said the total program-level estimate is in the tens of millions (DPW cited a program figure of about $112 million for full buildout in discussion). The demonstration phase is sized to validate technology and operations before committing to full scale. - Operations and environmental performance: DPW said the gasification approach reduces biosolids quantity and produces a stabilized char product; Perry‑style treatment will be designed to meet environmental controls and destroy PFAS compounds that many jurisdictions are trying to contain.

Council discussion and next steps Council members asked about the ROI timeframe, hiring and operating costs for the proposed in‑house model versus continuing a contract. DPW staff said modeling includes capital and operating scenarios and that more refined financial detail will be provided as design moves forward. No council action was taken on May 22; DPW presented the proposal as part of its FY26 capital and operating budget review and will return with further design, cost modeling and staffing justifications.