The Biosolids Industry

The Mid-Atlantic Biosolids Association (MABA)
MABA’ mission: “Working to ensure biosolids are recognized everywhere as a valuable community resource.” The group was formed in 1997 and is funded by sludge industry sponsors and members. In 2024 it created the Biosolids Advocacy Fund, which allows it to put more money behind industry-friendly scientists and academics to counter the rising tide of public awareness and opposition to sludge.

The Virginia Biosolids Council
The council’s membership is a mix of wastewater treatment operators and sludge spreaders. They interpret existing research to promote biosolids and disseminate information through a variety of means including hosting an annual Biosolids Beauty Contest.

North East Biosolids & Residuals Association (NEBRA)
A regional, member-driven industry advocacy group. It describes itself as “a non-profit professional association advancing the environmentally sound and publicly supported recycling of biosolids and other organic residuals in New England and eastern Canada.”

Water Environment Federation
This is the national lobbying group for the sludge industry. They are the most skilled at of all the groups at reframing a message and pushing it out to the world in an effective way. They call the practices of using sludge as fertilizer and re-using reclaimed wastewater a “Circular Water Economy.” To promote their ideas, they hold events and conferences, issue training manuals and books for wastewater treatment operators, online education classes, podcasts, videos, white papers, and of course, lobbying. I mean, ahem, “issue advocacy.”

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) has a mission to improve the capability of state environmental agencies and their leaders to protect and improve human health and the environment of the United States of America. It sounds like an environmental group and it looks like an environmental group, but it promotes sludge by lumping it in with every kind of municipal recycling program imaginable. It is sophisticated at sowing confusion and operates as a multi-layered organization. For example, NEBRA uses information disseminated by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). In the footer of the ITRC website, is this statement: “ITRC is a program of the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ERIS). ERIS is a 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in the District of Columbia that supports the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS).” More on ECOS is in the “Industry-backed Science and Media” section below.

Synagro
Headquarted in Baltimore, the company has the slogan of “Your Partner for a Cleaner, Greener World.” Throughout the United States, its facilities include biosolids processing, pelletizing, and transport; municipal compost operations, wastewater treatment plants and bio-fuels production. In Albemarle County, it is frequently the company that spreads sludge, usually bringing it from Washington, DC’s Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility .

Recyc Systems
Based in Remington, Virginia, Recyc Systems is a small company focused on transporting and spreading sludge on farms in this region. Its Vice President, Susan Trumbo has served as an industry consultant when counties write biosolids ordinances.

Houff Corporation
Headquartered in the Shenandoah Valley, Houff is another smaller company that works throughout the state. In addition to sludge spreading, it offers other agricultural and logistics services to farmers.

Nonprofit industry organizations, funded by for-profit companies, maintain a constant flow of sludge-friendly public-relations material through various channels. Examples below are presented along with some analysis and commentary, because it is important to keep in mind that, while the information may be presented as factual, the goal undergirding it is to sell a lie to the public. That lie is: toxic sludge is good for you.*

One good example is the Virginia Biosolids blog, featuring feel-good stories about family farmers and articles that selectively interpret research to bolster the argument that sludge is good.

Another is the NEBRA Resources page, which contains industry responses to topics like Odors, Heavy Metals, Trace Chemicals, and Bioaerosols. For example, its entry on PFAS in Biosolids argues that there is nothing to worry about because a) PFAS are usually only in trace amounts in biosolids and b) PFAS are already everywhere, so what’s the point in worrying about biosolids? and c) anyone who has high levels of PFAS in their blood and claims it came from biosolids, probably actually got it from dust in their house. Then, seemingly oblivious to the contradiction, they argue that all industrial production of PFAS should be stopped because it is dangerous.

We can see this same a), b), c) argument repeated in communications across the industry, as in the examples below. As outsiders, it is impossible for us to say what the origin of these talking points are. But one possibility is this survey from ECOS, the Environmental Council of the States, published in 2021. While that name sounds like a leftist activist group, it is actually a right-leaning organization that supports the sludge industry. The “Risk Communication” section on p. 28 of this survey article outlines these talking points. At the top of its list: “Expeditiously provide public-facing information and talking points to help counter negative and alarmist press regarding PFAS.”

One academic researcher who is repeating these talking points and who has supported the industry for years is Sally Brown, a research professor at the University of Washington. She is a member of the editorial board of Biocycle, an online pro-industry publication that commingles and conflates composting and the production of biosolids. Ms. Brown penned a response to this NY Times article that repeats the exact same a), b), c) arguments found in the NEBRA article on PFAS, as described in the paragraph above. In this case, however, this tactic results in an unfortunate and unsympathetic implication that the farmers, whose livelihoods were ruined and whose children were made sick, were actually probably exposed to PFAS through dust in their house, which is simply untrue.

In December 2024, Phase One of a new, nationwide study is wrapping up. It is supposed to evaluate whether PFAS that leaches out of land-applied sludge is likely to contaminate groundwater. Dr. Ian Pepper, from the University of Arizona, is leading it. In 2021, he used this presentation to pitch his study idea to the sludge industry, saying that the study would have a “proactive stance [that] will pre-empt any attempt to ban land application nationally.” In other words, in the face of public awareness increasing regarding PFAS, he would put together a study that would deliver results favorable to the sludge industry. All the industry would have to do is fund it — which they did.

Sampling methods, testing protocols, and results reporting do seem designed to deliver for the industry. For example: results are presented in ppb (parts per billion), alongside the EPA drinking water standard, which is 4 ppt (parts per trillion). If you’re not paying attention, it looks like a 3ppb amount of PFAS is under the standard, when it’s actually 3000 times over it. Also, they only sampled places that had municipal (household) waste applied, even though the majority of sludge spread is a combination of household and industrial waste, which will have much higher PFAS contamination. MidAtlantic Biosolids Association (MABA) has been aggressive in promoting preliminary reports from the study to bolster the three talking points, as seen in this webinar for wastewater treatment operators.

When the final report is out, we will share it here. Phase two will look at crop uptake. Stay tuned.