Webinar: Assessing the Risk of PFAS From Land Applied Biosolids Vs. Other Common Exposure Pathways

In response to reports of potential or reported PFAS contamination, many communities across the country quickly implicate land-applied biosolids as the cause, often calling for outright prohibition. Whereas banning land application of biosolids may make people feel safer, the reality is that this action will, in practically all instances, have minimal impact on exposure to PFAS. Long standing regulations prohibit land application of biosolids near drinking water wells and other environmentally sensitive areas.

To provide some context, a recent study comparing PFAS in biosolids to other commonly available products was completed. PFAS concentrations in biosolids (50-250 parts per billion (ppb) were found to be many thousands of times lower than in food packaging materials (867,000 ppb); hundreds of times lower than in products like ketchup (58,000 ppb), organic tomato sauce (21,000 ppb), and cosmetics (10,500 ppb); and more than two times lower than the levels measured in common household dust (525 ppb).

Banning land application of biosolids would require utilities across the country to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure. The farming community will also be deprived by the loss of an affordable, renewable fertilizer source. Costs that will inevitably be passed onto the rate payer and consumer. With the understanding that land application bans will do little to reduce our day-to-day exposure to PFAS, communities need to fully appreciate the costs vs. benefits of such actions.

This presentation, at noon ET, will examine these issues in more depth in an effort to inform people of the benefits of land applied biosolids vs. the consequences of ineffectual land application bans in the name of reducing PFAS exposure.

Details and registration.

Presented by the Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association (MABA) and the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association.