DEP’s current permits setting requirements for the land application of biosolids-- PAG-07 (beneficial use of exceptional quality biosolids), PAG-08 (beneficial use of biosolids by land application) and PAG-09 (beneficial use of residential septage by land applications) were originally issued in 2009--17 years ago.
They were set to expire in 2014, but have been administratively extended since then.
DEP has been in the process of working with stakeholders to make update the permits since that time.
On January 14, 2026, Richard Wright, Municipal Facilities Division Manager in DEP’s Bureau of Clean Water, gave a briefing to the Water Resources Advisory Committee on the changes DEP is proposing.
PA Environment Digest is publishing this transcript of Mr. Wright’s briefing to provide the public with a better understanding of why the changes are being proposed, generally what those changes are and the expected results from making these changes
The text of Mr. Wright’s remarks follows. Click Here for his presentation slides.
I'm Richard Wright, Municipal Facilities Division Manager within the Bureau of Clean Water.
Today I'm going to discuss the work that we've been doing on the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.
I will be going through permit changes that we proposed to our stakeholder work group this past fall.
We had our third and final meeting in December. Now that we've met with them, we are considering how we incorporate their feedback.
Let's go through the agenda for today.
Biosolids Beneficial Use general permits have been administratively extended since 2014.
Since that time, technology has advanced opening new markets within the wastewater industry for which these permits currently aren't designed.
In addition, new emerging contaminants pose a threat to public health and the environment.
So it's time for these permits to be brought up to date.
I'll go through the key areas we were focusing on.
PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’
PFAS has been a hot topic with legislators, citizens, drinking water suppliers, wastewater treatment owners/operators, biosolids generators, land appliers, and farmers.
All these stakeholders have concerns about PFAS and it's affecting a lot of DEP programs.
As a first step of understanding the state of the science and research, DEP assembled a data gathering team in March of 2025.
Data gathering team was comprised DEP staff, academia, and consultants, and was assembled to identify information available on PFAS and biosolids, as well as information available on PFAS and biosolids across other states and the mid-Atlantic [region], and to find out what they have been doing in terms of monitoring and regulating PFAS and biosolids.
Basically, what are the current knowns and unknowns?
The purpose of the team was to identify the science and bring it forward to the next step in the process.
The goal of the data gathering team was not to set or establish policy, but to focus the team on gathering information to inform next steps to address PFAS and biosolids.
So that occurred in the spring.
Then as a second step, we assembled a biosolids stakeholder work group to focus on PFAS as well as other specific areas.
The work group focused on four key aspects of the Biosolids Beneficial Use permits, and we'll get into each one of those topics in a few minutes.
The stakeholder work group included well-rounded representation of the biosolids industry, agriculture, and non-governmental organizations.
The goal of the work group was to discuss proposed changes and solicit feedback on the general permits for beneficial use of biosolids.
Three meetings were held in October and December.
Ultimately, DEP hopes to incorporate changes into the Biosolids Beneficial Use permits, which will address concerns that we've been hearing from stakeholders.
Some of what you'll see today has been presented to this committee before.
How We Got Here
In March of 2021, DEP finalized pre-draft revisions to the biosolids general permits PAG-07, PAG-08, and PAG-09, addressing new regulatory needs, including PFAS monitoring, phosphorus index land application rates, updated storage requirements, and a prohibition on mixing waste without authorization.
Broadly speaking, meetings were held, work groups performed, and recommendations were made.
In addition, the House [of Representatives] passed resolution H.R. 149 directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to review the proposed draft permit revisions.
The LBFC published the report in June of 2023. [Read more here.]
Unknowns Are Now Known
So if we fast-forward to today, some of the "unknowns" that were identified in the report are now known.
For example, EPA has issued its draft risk assessment of PFAS and land application of biosolids. [Read more here.]
In addition, EPA now has a laboratory protocol for analyzing 40 targeted PFAS and environmental samples, including biosolids.
Since 2021, EPA has also established MCLs [maximum contaminant levels] for PFAS in drinking water.
And in April of 2024, EPA announced that it was designating two types of PFAS, PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA [federal Superfund] hazardous substances.
With all that's happened with PFAS since 2021, we now feel we have better information to help protect the public and environment from emerging contaminants such as PFAS and land applying biosolids.
So back to this fall in the stakeholder work group.
4 Areas Of Concern In Regulating Biosolids
There are four areas of concern that DEP and the biosolids stakeholder work group had focused--
-- Number one, managing biosolids with consideration of PFAS.
-- Number two, managing biosolids with consideration of phosphorus.
-- Number three, providing clarification on infield storage of biosolids to prevent pollution to the waters of the Commonwealth.
-- And number four, providing clarification on how a facility could process and land apply mixtures of sewage and residual waste such as high strength organic waste.
We'll now move through each of these four focus areas.
PFAS Monitoring
Let's start with PFAS.
We're recommending PFAS monitoring as a requirement under PAG-07 and PAG-08 coverage.
In terms of frequency of sampling, there has been discussion within the work group, as we have yet to determine how that will look in the draft permit.
Sampling rates typically depend on the amount of biosolids land applied or received by a person who prepares sewage sludge for land application.
If we look at sampling for metals, the existing permits reflect the requirement of once per year for a small system up to 12 times per year for a large system.
And a large system here is defined as a system that generates 16,500 dry tons per year or more.
Monitoring results will be provided with the submission of the record keeping and reporting form or at the request of the department.
Monitoring results must be obtained from a properly accredited lab using the most current version of EPA Method 1633.
Other states monitor PFAS and biosolids and have noticed that concentrations vary significantly from facility to facility. That's no surprise.
Wastewater treatment plants process a variety of waste, including industrial, commercial, and residential septage, as well as landfill leachate.
DEP is currently working with the Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association on a PFAS and biosolids facility sampling project where DEP sponsored the analytical cost and the MABA collected the results and is responsible for delivering a report.
We won't know the results until the report is generated by the University of Temple at some point this month.
The results of the analysis are sole property of MABA, so the results are anonymous.
Facilities were not willing to participate in the project without anonymity to DEP of the results.
We anticipate seeing similar results across the systems. Some systems will be high in PFAS and some are low in PFAS.
So it just makes sense to implement an interim strategy that says, "Hey, if you want to land apply biosolids and you're above typical residential septage concentrations, then you need to look for upstream sources of PFAS and reduce PFAS concentration at the source in order to land apply.
“This will mitigate risks to human health and the environment as well as provide generators, land appliers, farmers and landowners clearer, more actionable information about how to manage biosolids land application."
Following Michigan
Michigan has taken this approach and other states have followed suit.
What you see on this screen is the tiered approach that we are leaning towards. It's very similar to Michigan's tiered approach. [Presentation slides]
First, let's look at the extremes.
Tier 1. If both concentrations of PFOA and PFOS are less than 20 parts per billion, which is 20 micrograms per kilogram, and biosolids can be land applied, no additional requirements are needed other than communicate the results to the landowner.
At the other extreme is Tier 3. If either the concentration of PFOA or PFOS is greater than 100 parts per billion, no land application can occur.
The permitee will need to notify DEP and the landowner of the sample results, develop a source reduction program, and arrange for alternative treatment or disposal.
That leaves us with the middle chunk, Tier 2. We're considering a Tier 2A and a Tier 2B since the slide was prepared.
So Tier 2A would be if either the concentration of PFOA or PFOS is greater than or equal to 20 parts per billion, but less than 50, then the application rate gets reduced to a maximum of three dry tons per acre.
Tier 2B would be if either the concentration of PFOA or PFOS is greater than or equal to 50, but less than 100, then the application rate gets reduced to a maximum of one and a half dry tons per acre.
In either case, wastewater treatment facilities, effluent sampling, and a source reduction plan will be necessary to get below the 20 part per billion threshold.
So in general, an easy way to determine which tier applies is to look at the maximum concentration value between PFOA and PFOS and that value will tell you which tier you fall in.
Managing Phosphorus
One of the key goals on the revisions to the beneficial use permits is to ensure sustainable land application of biosolids for agriculture.
Managing phosphorus aligns with this goal.
When you look at the Chesapeake Bay watershed, significant investment in sewage treatment facilities has resulted in reduction in phosphorus from that sector.
Managing biosolids ensures that those reductions continue to be realized.
The ag sector is still working to meet the nutrient reduction goals for the [Chesapeake] Bay TMDL, so it is imperative that we continue to find ways to make nutrient reductions.
The P-Index [phosphorus] provides a way to manage the phosphorus to limit the risk of loss of phosphorus offsite and to waters of the Commonwealth.
It accounts for the phosphorus availability in biosolids. However, there is concern from generators and land appliers on whether the P-Index is the best approach.
The main question is, does the P-Index sufficiently account for the bioavailability of phosphorus in the biosolids?
The P-Index does account for P availability through the P Source Coefficient, but the concern is that that's not sufficient.
The reason for this concern is that some biosolids are produced at facilities that chemically remove phosphorus with coagulants like alum or metal salt through precipitation.
Those biosolids have phosphorus that are less available to crops in the environment, so the land appliers and generators of biosolids have concerns that the P-Index is too restrictive.
We're open to other ways of managing phosphorus and those discussions are ongoing at this point.
Wet Weather - Field Storage
The third focus area is to address wet weather issues with biosolids that are field stored and have not yet been land applied.
One of the issues that our field staff encounter at land application sites is the liquefaction of stored biosolids that have been exposed to a major rain event, a series of smaller rain events, or a combination of both.
The picture on the left depicts biosolids stored in an open concrete tank or drying bed that have been liquefied. [Presentation slides]
Pictures in the middle and on the right show onsite liquefaction of biosolids as well.
The picture on the right depicts lime stabilized biosolids that have generated an orange odorous leachate without containment.
These scenarios increase the potential for pollution, nuisance conditions, and concerns from adjacent landowners.
They also require significant time for DEP staff to monitor these sites.
Here are some more pictures to illustrate local liquefaction of biosolids from precipitation events, and again, more pictures showing the issue.
In the picture on the left, you can see the potential for significant runoff from land application sites.
Biosolids and manure are similar types of materials. They're used as soil amendments and fertilizers.
Aligning the biosolids infield storage requirements more closely with manure stacking requirements would help to alleviate the challenges we've had with long-term infield storage of biosolids.
The changes would borrow management storage or stacking requirements from guidance developed to manage land application and storage of manure.
We understand the need for ag operations to have the material near the fields, so when the conditions are right for land application, material is there to apply.
However, managing run-on and run-off are critical best management practices to ensure sustainable land application.
Basically, store what you need for the next growing season, stack it to shed water, observe isolation distances, and manage run-on and run-off.
Biosolids should be stored away from dwellings on relatively flat surfaces with up-slip water being diverted away from storage.
Run-off should also be directed to a vegetated buffer area and evenly dispersed, reducing the chance of biosolids finding the waste to the waters of the Commonwealth.
Management At Treatment Facilities
The final focus area is mixtures of biosolids and residual waste at sewage treatment facilities.
As mentioned before, technology has advanced since these permits were last updated, opening new markets within the wastewater industry for which these permits currently aren't designed.
One example was hauling in food processing residuals, which are added to an anaerobic digester at a wastewater treatment facility. Methane generated can be used locally for heating.
It can also be cleaned and introduced to a natural gas pipeline, or it can be burned in a gas turbine to create electricity.
Currently, PAG-07 and PAG-08 only allow for residual waste to enter the headworks of a plant to create the biosolids that can be beneficially used.
The ability to permit adding residual waste much deeper in the process is necessary to capture the energy benefits.
However, there is a nuance to this and it's driven by how the regulations are written.
Beneficial use of biosolids is governed by Chapter 271, Subchapter J of the Waste Regulations, while blending or mixing of the residual waste is covered by Subchapter I. Each subchapter has its own requirements.
The permits will need to be carefully drafted to meet the requirements of both subchapters to provide more clarity around blending at a point other than at the head of the plan.
Next Steps
Okay, next steps. First, we need to finish the pre-draft permits.
We anticipate draft permits will be published for public comment sometime in the second quarter of 2026.
As I stated at the beginning of the presentation, the permit changes discussed today were proposed to our stakeholder work group.
We finished up our meetings in December. And now that we've met with them, we're considering how to incorporate their feedback.
That concludes the presentation. Thank you.
Click Here for Wright’s presentation slides.
Visit DEP’s Biosolids Program webpage to learn more about this program.
Click Here to download a general presentation on the Biosolids Program.
Resource Links:
-- Now On Demand: Penn State Extension Webinar On PFAS 'Forever Chemicals' In Land-Applied Biosolids - Research Update
[Posted: March 11, 2026] PA Environment Digest
No comments :
Post a Comment