COVID-19 Updates

Dr. Jordon Peccia’s team at Yale, who have studied biosolids some in the past, jumped quickly last spring into wastewater based epidemiology (WBE) - looking for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater as a way of identifying and tracking the virus’s spread in a local community. Their research was just published in Nature. Detections in wastewater were found to precede by several days or a week the reporting of positive test results from individual people. According to the published abstract: “In communities facing a delay between specimen collection and the reporting of test results, immediate wastewater results can provide considerable advance notice of infection dynamics."

On a related topic, the CDC has released guidance for implementing WBE disease surveillance and promises to continually update the guidance as this is “a rapidly developing science”. See: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/wastewater-surveillance/wastewater-workplaces.html.

Good Reporting on a Tough Subject

On October 19th, the industry periodical WasteDive, published a series of articles about the impacts of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that really dove into the PFAS issue, reporting on the subject from many angles. This excellent, well-rounded coverage included articles on the many challenges for landfills, the debates around incineration of biosolids, and the impacts on the organics recycling industry. WasteDive reporter E.V. Crunden did his research and spoke to a lot of different people about the PFAS issues. You will probably recognize some of the people he interviewed for the article. To read it, go here.

EPA’s Recent Efforts on PFAS Research and Problem Formulation

In mid-October, EPA published a Request for Applications for biosolids research! EPA announced this new funding opportunity to identify, characterize and manage risks of known and emerging chemical pollutants found in biosolids, with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at the top of the list. EPA will be making nearly $6 million available to private nonprofit institutions and public and private universities and colleges within the U.S. doing this kind of research. The deadline to apply is January 5, 2021. For more information, got to: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/national-priorities-evaluation-pollutants-biosolids.

EPA held a free Webinar on October 29th on "Biosolids PFAS Research at the EPA". Presenters included Dr. Marc Mills and Mr. Ronald Herrmann of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. The presentation covered the current state of the science related to PFAS in biosolids, discussed research needs and a biosolids land application field study. On November 12th, EPA will be hosting a webinar titled “Biosolids PFOA and PFOS Problem Formulation Meeting for Stakeholders”. NEBRA and many of its members plan to attend. For more information and to register, go here.

Lastly, EPA has updated its “PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances”, now up to 9,252 chemicals. Check it out at https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_lists/PFASMASTER?s=09.

NEWEA Webinar on Addressing CECs with Innovation

On September 24th, the New England Water Environment Association’s Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC)/Innovation webinar series continued with a session called “Addressing CECs with innovation”. The Innovation Council took the lead in organizing this one and the CEC of interest was PFAS. The webinar highlighted four technologies at various stages of development that are in some way addressing PFAS contamination of water, wastewater and biosolids. The Here are the companies highlighted in this session and their innovations for addressing PFAS.

BioForceTech has developed a bio-drying and pyrolysis process that has several existing installations. BioForceTech’s process destroys PFAS in the biosolids which reducing the volume 90%, generating a Class A material and biochar. It is scalable and total operations costs are estimated to be about $20 per wet ton of sludge. 374 Water presented its PFAS destruction technology process based on Supercritical Water Oxidation. 374 Water has some pilot operations established and is currently focused on removing PFAS from landfill leachate, AFFF “rinsate”, and spent GAC. Estimated costs range from $52 per wet ton to $10 per wet ton at economies of scale. To address how CEO Kobe Nagar sees in the water space where :”everyone wants to be first to be second“, 374 Water established a Collaboration Fund to help with the costs of piloting their technology.

The last two technologies highlighted were primarily designed to remove PFAS in drinking water. Aclarity has developed a electrochemical oxidation process that is also in the pilot testing stages. Aclarity is also making it easy for pilot testing through partnerships with low initial testing costs. Estimated operating costs are $0.1 per gallon of water treated and looks to be a good option for industrial pretreatment applications. Lastly, OnVector has developed a PFAS/CEC removal process which it calls its Plasma Vortex system. It uses ionized gas designed for destruction or oxidation of specific CECs. OnVector is currently pilot testing its process at groundwater remediation projects. Regarding the “designer” or targeted nature of this technology, CEO and Founder Daniel Cho said “the periodic table is our app store.”

All the technologies had some promise. If you are interested, a video recording of this webinar is available through NEWEA, go to https://www.newea.org/webinar-download/ for instructions and information. Some of the participants in this webinar are involved in EPA’s Innovative Ways to Destroy PFAS Challenge. For more information and this challenge, go to EPA’s website.

MassDEP Begin Stakeholders Process for PFAS in Residuals/Biosolids

On September 29th, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection held the first of three planned stakeholder meetings regarding limits for per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in residuals. At the beginning of the virtual meeting, Stephanie Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, Policy & Planning, introduced the stakeholders process and the agenda for the next two meetings will which “delve into the status of alternative approaches to establish screening values” for PFAS in residuals/biosolids. More information will be coming from MassDEP. They will be looking for input on “relevant information not discussed on target PFAS screening levels” and approaches such as leaching versus percentage over background versus other approaches.

Deputy Director Cooper recognized this is a very complex issue and said MassDEP will consider the market for biosolids/sludge. Jennifer Wood, Statewide Residuals Coordinator, reviewed MassDEP’s analysis of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine’s sampling data. She said they are not seeing patterns but there is definitely an issue with PFOS concentrations. C. Mark Smith, Director of the Office of Research & Standards, reviewed current thinking on models for determining limits in residuals for land application. He said MassDEP is leaning towards using Maine’s overall approach or what he called “Approach A” which is screening levels. He acknowledged that was not a risk-based approach and that there were concerns about the impact on the 38% of biosolids/residuals which are land applied in Massachusetts.

In closing the meeting, Deputy Commissioner Cooper said in the end they were probably looking at interim limits for PFAS in residuals/biosolids. NEBRA is encouraging any Approval of Suitability (AOS) permit holders, not directly involved in the stakeholders process, to contact NEBRA with your concerns. NEBRA wants to advocate for all its members through the process.

The next meeting is scheduled for the afternoon of December 15th. For more information about MassDEP’s efforts to establish PFAS limits for residuals, go to: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/pfas-in-residuals.