Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bio Solids Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wastewater utilities warn bio solids restrictions would raise costs; urge source control and phased approach
Summary
WSSC, DC Water and Baltimore City told lawmakers that restricting land application of bio solids or requiring immediate high‑temperature destruction would sharply increase costs to utilities and ratepayers, while urging stronger source control, pre‑treatment authority and research on targeted treatment technologies.
Wastewater agencies and municipal utilities briefed lawmakers that PFAS in bio solids present technical and financial tradeoffs that require careful policy design — and they urged lawmakers to prioritize source‑control measures and phased mitigation rather than immediate statewide bans on land application.
WSSC Water, DC Water and Baltimore City officials said most PFAS mass in municipal systems reflects residential background levels, that utilities are investing in monitoring and research, and that removing or destroying bio solids at scale is capital‑intensive. “Once PFAS enters the sewer system, removal becomes far more expensive,” Laura O’Donnell, WSSC’s PFAS program manager, said, adding that WSSC collected more than 400 samples in 2025 and invested $1.5 million in an advanced PFAS laboratory.
Why it matters: Utilities emphasized that restricting land application or building large destruction facilities would shift very large costs to ratepayers. Baltimore estimated landfill disposal for its bio solids at about $50 million and full thermal treatment for two major plants could approach roughly $950 million; DC Water said certain technologies could cost hundreds of millions to build and run.
Key utility points: - Monitoring and lab capacity: WSSC reported 400+ samples in 2025 and a new regional PFAS lab to analyze drinking water, wastewater and bio solids. - Source tracking and pre‑treatment: Utilities said the most cost‑effective approach is to identify and control upstream industrial dischargers and to use Clean Water Act pre‑treatment/local limits where statutory authority allows. - Technology and costs: DC Water described thermal hydrolysis and digestion used to make Class A bio solids for sale; Baltimore and others said mature large‑scale thermal destruction (incineration/pyrolysis) would require very large capital investments and face permitting and environmental justice issues. - Affordability: Municipal associations warned that any restrictions that eliminate land application would cause large recurring and capital costs that fall on customers.
What advocates said in response: Riverkeepers and public‑health witnesses at the same briefing pressed for greater transparency around bio solids composition, more farmer and downstream business protections, and stronger state standards to enable enforcement; they urged funds to assist impacted private well owners and farmers.
Follow-up and data requests: Committee members asked utilities and MDE to provide spreadsheets of bio solids sampling results and for more detail on demonstrated treatment technologies and pilot programs. Utilities said they would share available data and noted several ongoing research partnerships totaling millions in grant‑funded projects.
