It should bring some relief to the state and wastewater treatment facility operators across Maine that the biosolids facility planned for Norridgewock will help alleviate the immediate concern of biosolids disposal. However, to state that this “could be the answer to (the) state’s sludge disposal crisis,” as your Aug. 22 headline did, is a big leap.
Dewatered sludge from screw presses falls from a conveyor belt into a trailer in May at the Greater Augusta Utilities District’s wastewater treatment plant in Augusta. Waste Management Disposal Services is planning a $35 million biosolids processing facility at the Crossroads Landfill it operates in Norridgewock. The facility will accept sludge from municipalities across the state, including Augusta, but it will not eliminate PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” from the biosolids disposal cycle, Jeanee Dudley writes. Joe Phelan/Kennebec Journal, File
The biosolids disposal crisis is driven primarily by PFAS contamination – a complex health issue is now intertwined with what was formerly a straightforward and sustainable solution. Despite a pervasive perception that “sludge” spreading (for lack of a better term) is gross, there is so far no better or greener use for this nutrient-dense waste product – unless, of course, it contains compounds that pose risks to human and environmental health.
In short, we have a biosolids disposal crisis because we have a PFAS crisis. This new facility may buy us a little more time, but it does not solve either problem.
No matter how small we shrink biosolids through dehydration, they still contain PFAS. They will take up less space in a landfill and break down over time, and PFAS-laden leachate will make its way once again to a wastewater treatment facility. The water extracted from this treatment process will still contain PFAS. We can assume the wastewater from the facility’s processes will either be treated on site or be pumped once again to a wastewater treatment plant. The cycle continues: PFAS-contaminated wastewater enters the plant; PFAS-contaminated effluent and biosolids leave the plant; rinse and repeat.
A major piece of this conversation is missing. When will the state invest in technology to remove PFAS from the cycle?
We’ve long known PFAS as “forever chemicals,” resulting in an eternal public health crisis that cannot be resolved and that forces us to just keep shuffling from one ineffective mitigation solution to another. This is no longer the reality. Our politicians and community leaders need to drop the pessimist hot-potato act and fund solutions rather than mere stopgaps.
The technology exists to test for common PFAS compounds quickly during the wastewater treatment process. It’s also the case that small municipal plants cannot afford it. The technology exists to separate and sequester PFAS from the wastewater stream; small municipal plants cannot afford that, either. The technology exists to effectively destroy common PFAS compounds and use the waste product of that destruction process to capture more PFAS; small municipal plants cannot afford that. We need investments in these technologies to bring them into Maine, optimize them and make them more affordable and accessible to our communities.
While there is cost attached, Maine must pursue this unique chance to flip this crisis into opportunity and serve as a leader in innovative technologies for addressing PFAS. Work is already underway to ensure that liable parties foot the bill for cleanup activities in Maine, including litigation filed in March to collect damages from manufacturers that knowingly introduced contaminants into the environment and our waste cycles.
We can’t fix our PFAS problem by squirreling contaminants away in our landfills. We especially can’t fix our PFAS problem by making biosolids waste smaller and packing more waste into our landfills. We can’t fix our PFAS problem by cycling contaminants over and over through our wastewater treatment facilities. If we’re ever to see the end of this problem, funds must be leveraged toward eliminating PFAS from our water system, not toward creating ways to stash more unaddressed contaminants out of sight.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.