ADEM hearing draws widespread concern over biosolids rules, calls for PFAS testing and stronger enforcement

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) held a public hearing in Montgomery to solicit comment on proposed revisions to ADEM Administrative Code Division 335-13, department staff said. The department’s stated changes would update definitions, registration requirements and operating criteria for beneficial use of byproduct materials, and add standards for food-processing residuals and related treatment impoundments.

ADEM hearing officer Mary Fran(k) Brown opened the hearing and asked speakers to register; Scott Story, chief of ADEM’s Solid Waste Branch, summarized the department’s rationale and the legal authority for the rulemaking. Story said the revisions are proposed under the Alabama Environmental Management Act (22-22A, Code of Alabama 1975 as amended) and the Administrative Procedures Act (section 41-22-4). "Revisions to the ADEM Administrative Code Division 335-13-16 are being proposed to amend existing regulations for the beneficial use of byproduct materials for the purpose of land application," Story said.

Why this matters: an extended public comment record and detailed testing requirements determine whether concentrated wastes applied to land will be tracked, monitored and restricted. Many speakers at the hearing said the draft rules do not go far enough to protect soil, water, air, livestock and human health from contaminants concentrated in biosolids and other industrial sludges.

Public commenters focused on several recurring concerns. Multiple speakers urged ADEM to require testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), to set screening concentrations, and to expand testing beyond the draft rule’s listed parameters. Jack West of Alabama Rivers Alliance told the department that "conventional wastewater treatment plants do not treat for or remove PFAS and these chemicals wind up in sewage sludge and can become more concentrated," and urged ADEM to adopt monitoring steps similar to other states.

Speakers described local impacts they attribute to land-applied sludges. Sherry Sanders said biosludge had been dumped within 35 yards of her house, that animals on her property have died, and that she has had persistent health problems since the dumping. Susan Pierce, who identified herself as a media personality and naturopathic life coach, described repeated infections among neighbors and raised concerns about "forever chemicals" and food contamination. Lawrence Reeves reported a long-running fungal ear infection he linked to nearby spray operations. Several speakers said they had witnessed or documented trucks unloading biosludge on private properties or near waterways.

Technical and procedural requests: speakers and group representatives pressed several specific changes to the draft rules:

- Mandatory PFAS testing and screening levels: Jack West cited Maine’s 2019 requirement that sludge licensees test for PFOA, PFOS and PFBS and called for ADEM to require testing and develop screening concentrations for prevalent PFAS compounds.

- Expanded constituent testing and recordkeeping: Nelson Brook of Black Warrior Riverkeeper and others said the draft rule’s testing (described at the hearing as limited to nine heavy metals and E. coli in some streams of the draft) is insufficient given that biosolids can contain hundreds of chemical compounds, including pharmaceuticals, hormones and industrial chemicals.

- Transparency and landowner notification: commenters said landowners need full disclosure of the origin and analytical results for materials spread on their property; several speakers said current notification requirements are too vague.

- Stronger enforcement and penalties: Susan Puckett asked that penalties at minimum cover remediation costs and administrative enforcement expenses and that permits be suspended or revoked in cases of repeated noncompliance.

- Local hearings and access to participate: Martha Hunter of Alabama Rivers Alliance asked ADEM to hold meetings in impacted communities so residents who cannot travel to Montgomery can be heard and so decisionmakers can experience local conditions firsthand.

Speakers also cited examples and numbers during testimony. The department said the public notice was published in four state newspapers on Jan. 16, 2022 and that notice was mailed to 2,643 individuals and organizations; the hearing record included exhibit references for those publications. The department reported that, to date at the hearing, four written comments had been received. Commenters at the hearing described alleged application rates and program practices drawn from nutrient management plans or industry filings: Julie Lay cited an example she found where a nutrient management plan stated "over 4,000,000 gallons of sludge from a poultry plant can be applied on 1 acre"; another speaker quoted 25,000 gallons per acre as an application figure drawn from nutrient management documents and compared that to typical commercial fertilizer application rates of 18–30 gallons per acre.

Groups emphasized alternatives or policy approaches taken by other states. Speakers noted that Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have moved toward routine PFAS monitoring or concentration limits for land-applied residuals; several asked ADEM to consider similar requirements or a moratorium on spreading until adequate testing and recordkeeping are in place.

What the department said it will do: Brown and department staff said all oral and written comments will be part of the hearing record, ADEM will respond to relevant comments and provide notice to those who request it, and the department will forward a final draft (with the hearing record and, where needed, a concise statement of principal reasons for and against adoption) to the Environmental Management Commission for its consideration. The hearing officer read a filing deadline: relevant comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, March 17, 2022 at the ADEM office in Montgomery.

Speakers requested additional procedural and substantive changes and cited ongoing local and statewide examples of alleged harm and regulatory gaps. The hearing record will include the transcript, submitted exhibits and written comments; ADEM said staff will consider technical comments before making a final determination on revisions and will respond to commenters who request notification of that decision.