Committee weighs 1 ppb PFAS concentration limit in biosolids; DES to finish leaching model
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Lawmakers heard a proposed amendment to HB 1275 that would limit PFAS in biosolids to 1 part per billion for PFOA/PFOS, grant five years of civil immunity to users after DES sets health‑based leaching limits, and exclude lined landfill disposal; DES said its leaching‑based modeling to set protective soil levels should be complete by year‑end.
The committee took testimony and considered Representative Haskins’ draft amendment to HB 1275, which would prevent land application of sludge or biosolids exceeding a proposed concentration limit of 1 part per billion (ppb) for PFAS compounds PFOA and PFOS and would carve out certain disposal options (permitted lined landfills). The amendment replaces previously considered moratorium language with a civil‑immunity provision lasting five years for users who comply with the new concentration‑based limits once DES adopts health‑based levels.
Ren Beaudoin and Jeff Martz of New Hampshire DES explained that DES is modeling concentration‑to‑leaching relationships: work takes measured biosolids or soil concentrations, models what would leach into groundwater, and compares that to drinking‑water health‑based standards. DES said public comments on the EPA draft risk assessment informed their modeling; the EPA’s agricultural‑soil draft risk assessment identified a 1 ppb value as a possibly conservative, worst‑case scenario. DES expects its leaching‑based protective soil value to be available by the end of the year.
Committee members asked about food‑chain uptake, baseline soil concentrations, and existing practices. DES said USGS soil sampling shows a median PFOA/PFOS near 1 ppb in sampled New Hampshire soils. DES also reported that only a very small fraction (about 0.1%) of the state’s agricultural acreage currently receives biosolids (roughly 1,900 permitted acres out of an estimated 417,000 acres statewide; average ~300 acres permitted in practice). The committee emphasized the need for site testing and additive calculations (current soil baseline plus planned applications) before land application.
Members discussed associated policy tradeoffs: RMI reportedly uses Vermont class‑A thresholds (PFOS ~3 ppb; PFOA ~1.x ppb) as internal standards; committee members pressed for explicit testing rules and clarity on who is or is not covered by civil immunity. Several members indicated they would combine or align the Haskins amendment with other sponsor amendments and return draft language at the March 3 work session.
Next steps: DES will provide references to applicable groundwater standards in the 600 rules (Table 1) upon request; sponsors will circulate consolidated amendment language addressing concentration‑based limits, testing requirements, and procedural language for DES rulemaking.