MidAtlantic Biosolids Association

Research Update from Sally Brown, University of Washington

Biochar from Biosolids

Happy spring to all, hopefully, a shot in the arm both literally and figuratively. 

BioforceA year ago, the library was all about SARS-CoV-2 and covid 19.  This year we are back to a more mundane and annoying topic -- pyrolyzed biosolids or biosolids-based biochar.  I was asked to review an analysis of this treatment option recently and declined, but the request did show that the interest in this option is still out there.  I’ve also been told by a highly reliable source (Andrew Carpenter) that there is a biosolids pyrolysis plant in operation in California.  So however much I want this to go away, my wishes have not yet been granted.  Proponents of this stabilization technology argue that the finished material can be used as a soil amendment.  I checked to see if there was any literature on the topic.  There is, but not that much.  Here is what I found.

The first paper in the library (Biochar from Biosolids Pyrolysis: A Review) has Jorge Paz-Ferreiroas a first author.  He is from Australia and is faculty in the school of engineering.  He is a co-author of a number of papers on this topic.  This one is a general review.  You can skip much of the first part. It is a general review of the basics of biosolids with a focus on hazards.  The focus goes to pyrolysis, starting with section 2.3.  You can (in my opinion) see that he comes to this with a clear bias, stating early on that pyrolysis is a lower carbon footprint option.  Obviously, he hasn’t looked at our BEAM model.  However, the review provides a good summary of the process, factors that can impact the output, and characteristics of the final product.  Some key points: higher burn temperatures increase P and K content of the material (good), but decrease N (bad).  Higher temperatures also decrease salts (good) but increase heavy metals (bad).  There is also a table of growth studies.  Here a basic take-home message is that biosolids char does not work as well as biosolids for plant growth.  Reduced total and available N is generally to blame.  Phosphorus in biosolids chars seems to be plant available with total concentration not reduced by the cooking process.  There is also a discussion of the impact of pyrolysis on organic contaminants in biosolids with studies showing the removal of antimicrobials and some PAHs.  This discussion implies that this process might alter PFAS, but that implication is in my brain rather than in the paper.  The authors point out that some heavy metals of historical (mercury and arsenic) volatilize during the process, becoming the atmosphere’s problem.  While other metals concentrate, metals in the biochar matrix typically have low availability.   He talks about using this material as a component of compost mixtures to reduce N loss.  Also, he mentions a study that tested biosolids char as a replacement for a portion of the peat used in horticultural applications.  The world is the oyster here.
The second paper (Physicochemical Properties of Biochars Produced from Biosolids in Victoria, Australia) includes the same author, but instead of a review of the literature, the authors present original data.  They took biosolids from several plants near Melbourne, Australia, and analyzed them as is and post pyrolysis at 500°C and 700°C.   The paper has a few tables of data that show you what happens.  Here are the results in an easy-to-read form.

For the third paper, we will leave Jorge Paz-Ferreiro for some other authors.  Most authors of paper #3 (Pyrolysis methods impact biosolids-derived biochar composition, maize growth, and nutrition) come from Brazil, with some help from Nick Comerford from the University of Florida.  Nick is a former president of the Soils Society, so I am hoping this work is well done.  The authors here tested two types of methods to make char and examined the effect of the two materials on corn germination and growth. In both cases, biosolids were used as the feedstock.  The first batch was made in a kiln, representative of small-scale operations, and the second batch was made in a muffle furnace, as would be done on a treatment plant scale.  The authors then tested each product for seed germination and plant response.  Application rates for each material were 0, 5, 10, 20, and 60 Mg/ha.  All treatments got supplemental fertilizer.  You read that right. With biosolids biochar, the authors added extra fertilizer.  The bottom line on the growth trial here was that yields were all the same, with one exception.  The small-scale biosolids biochar added at the highest rate grew smaller corn than all of the other treatments.  The large-scale char did the same as the control across all application rates.  In other words, making char from biosolids takes away the biosolids magic that farmers have come to appreciate. 

The 4th paper (Direct and residual effect of biochar derived from biosolids on soil phosphorus pools: A four-year field assessment) marks the 3rd and final appearance of Paz-Ferreiro with a continuation of the Brazilian influence.  Here the authors focus on P availability in tropical soils amended with biosolids biochar.  Tropical soils have extremely high concentrations of iron that impart their red color.  The same way that adding Fe to wastewater treatment removes P from solution, having so much Fe makes the soil good at binding P.  Before the study even started, the authors added P and K to the whole field twice.  This is a very different scenario from fields on less weathered soils where excess P is a concern.  Their two biochars were cooked at 300° and 500°C.  At 300°C there was no loss of N, with only a slight loss observed at 500°C.  So, the biochar in this study is a much better source of fertility than in the 2nd study in the library.  The authors found big increases in soil P because of the char application in comparison to the fertilizer.  The corn wasn’t so sure. 

Across all 4 growing seasons, corn yields were as good as the fertilizer for the 300°C char and almost as good for the 500°C char, better than the first corn study for sure.  Gold medal quality not quite, but in this case a good option. 

The final paper in the library (Impacts and interactions of biochar and biosolids on agricultural soil microbial communities during dry and wet-dry cycles) compares the impact of biosolids and char on soil microbial communities.  The char is from walnut shells and the biosolids that were tested was the tried-and-true commercial material from Wisconsin -- Milorganite.  This work was done at UC Davis and has Kate Scow as the last author.  You can trust this paper.  This is a little different from the other papers as the char isn’t from biosolids.  However, many have touted the benefits of char for the soil microbial community.  With increasing focus on soil health, it seemed good to add this in.  Here the authors looked at the impact that biosolids alone and biosolids + char had on the soil microbial community as it was subjected to different wet and dry cycles to mimic drought stress.  They used a PFLA (phospholipid–derived fatty acid analysis) to characterize the response to different groups of bugs. They found that the char alone only increased microbial biomass during one measurement interval.  Biosolids increased microbial biomass across all moisture regimes by 55% over the 12 weeks of the study.  The biosolids also helped to mitigate the impact of the wet/dry cycles.  They talk about biochar as a good combination with biosolids, but not so much as a tool on its own. 

The take-home here: biosolids-based biochar seems to fall into the “does not do much harm” category, but it is not clear that biosolids-based biochar does much good though.  Go this way if you have money to burn. But for me, I still like the cake. 

 

Dust to Dust

Dust is a big deal! Viruses have so commanded the front stage of our news media that you may have missed other big “dust” stories. China is having a BIG dust problem. The article “Apocalyptic skies as Beijing hit by worst sandstorm in a decade” (March 15, 2021) explains winds off Mongolia are carrying a dense cloud of dust to Beijing. This is not an issue with serious health and environmental implications (Characterization of the composition of dust fallout and identification of dust sources in arid and semiarid North China. The newspapers are happy to remind us that early Spring brings tree pollen, a phenomenon steeped in science  Pollen calendars and maps of allergenic pollen in North America.  Two weeks of dry weather in the mid-Atlantic, and wildfires are releasing unhealthy soot: “Wildland firefighter smoke exposure and risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality.” While the dangers of dust-borne lead in homes is well established (Children’s Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide Public Health Decision-Making), household dust contains many more compounds of concern, many of which we see also in our wastewater and biosolids, such as flame retardants and phthalates: Tracing the chemistry of household dust The sloughing skin that joins cloth fibers in the household dust. Worse yet, some of the dust may be radioactive (Health Implications of Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Testing through 1961). On a lighter note, we also learned in a January 2021 news article that amidst the load of anthropogenic dust, which has greatly accumulated in my house during the pandemic lockdown, is some very ancient dust (7 billion-year-old stardust is oldest material found on Earth), older than our solar system. Yes, dust is a big deal for scientists, inhabitants, and life in the world.

Dust is also important for us biosolids practitioners, too, but you would not know that from the paucity of professional news coverage and research on the topic.  The Water Environment Federation has brought into its website all papers and articles from several decades of conferences and publications.  These are found in Access Water. In this large database, 4,660 articles on biosolids are catalogued. While some 700 articles mention biosolids dust when dealing with treatment plant processes, to protect from fire, explosion and worker injury, only two papers treat dust as a key characteristic of biosolids products deserving consideration in the choice of treatment processes.  The first paper, from the 2017 WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference, is  Not All Dryer Products are Created Equal, and the second is from WEFTEC 2019,  Worthless Dust or Valuable Resource? Drying Thermally Hydrolyzed Solids the Right Way.

The first paper, by Material Matter’s Lisa Challenger, makes the case for a eyes-wide-open approach to selecting technology for the desired end-use of the product. Challenger underscores the point that technologies identical in terms of Part 503 regulatory compliance (Pathogen Reduction PFRP Class A – Alternative 5 and Vector Attraction Reduction – Option 8) yield end products that are opposites in their suitability for distribution and marketing. The marketable heat-dried biosolids was a digested biosolids processed in a rotary kiln direct dryer and the non-marketable dried biosolids was an undigested biosolids dried in an indirect paddle-type dryer. In the second case, high dust, low density, and intense odors doomed the product’s use as a fertilizer, despite regulatory compliance with national standards.

The second paper, by HDR’s Stephanie Spalding and Sebastian Smoot, examines three attributes of biosolids product quality -- energy content, friability, and bulk density -- against various combinations of equipment and process trains and of user requirements. Too few case studies permitted the authors conclusive answers, but several themes were suggested by nine cases, and dustiness of the product was a key concern. High dustiness followed several process features: thermal hydrolysis of the entire solids flow, the use of iron as a coagulant, a drying process that agitated the solids, and post-treatment handling by truck and land application equipment. One or more of these features could yield dust that discouraged customer acceptance. 

Dust in biosolids products may be a problem for a variety of reasons, but human health effects are primary. If there were a “canary in the coal mine” for risks from biosolids dust exposure it would be treatment plant operators. I had not held much concern, ever since the Philadelphia Water Department was one of 4 compost facilities in a NIOSH health study. This lead to  “Respiratory Exposure Hazards in Composting” which determined: “Very high levels of dust, endotoxins, (1-3)-β -D-glucan and ammonia were measured in compost facilities depending on the location, activity and enclosure. Exposure appeared to be correlated with few respiratory health parameters, although no significant objective pulmonary function differences were detected between the study groups.” I drew from this the premature conclusion that community exposure to biosolids compost dust would be benign.

Since that workplace study of the late 1990s, new tools have become available for measuring and characterizing “dust.” Researchers have sharpened their understanding of the characteristics of airborne biological particles, especially with genomic tools for identifying microbes.  Dust of the kind from biosolids is more specifically defined as a bioaerosol:  “microbial fragments, constituents of cells and airborne biological particles that can consist of fungi, bacteria, pollen, fragments, constituents, particulate matter (PM10), and by-products of cells, that may be viable or nonviable.” 

Current research shows that organic waste treatment can be a significant source of bioaerosol exposures. The article Methods for Bioaerosol Characterization: Limits and Perspectives for Human Health Risk Assessment in Organic Waste Treatment describes “composting biomarkers” for identifying a “causality process between chronic bioaerosol exposure and disease onset, and finally, on defining common exposure limits.” Advances in microbiology expands the range of microbes exposures associated with wastewater treatment (Evaluation of Bioaerosol Bacterial Components of a Wastewater Treatment Plant Through an Integrate Approach and In Vivo Assessment): “next generation sequencing analysis was used also to identify the uncultivable species that were not detected by the culture dependent-method.” As new measurement tools are added, the range of potential risks seems to enlarge. In The size distribution of airborne bacteria and human pathogenic bacteria in a commercial composting plant “Seven out of eight HPB [human pathogenic bacteria] with a small geometric mean aerodynamic diameter had a high concentration in composting areas.”

Yet, while tools for measurement have improved, the attribution of risk levels has lagged. In Bioaerosol exposure from composting facilities and health outcomes in workers and in the community: A systematic review update the authors conclude “there is insufficient evidence to provide a quantitative comment on the risk to nearby residents from exposure to compost bioaerosols.” This kind of open issue is itself an issue, particularly from the viewpoint of environmental justice. The article Characterising populations living close to intensive farming and composting facilities in England observes that with regard to high exposures to bioaerosols from intensive farming “few people (0.01 %) live very close to these sites and tend to be older people. Close to composting facilities, populations are more likely to be urban and more deprived.” The key here is that science is in the early stages of exploring the human health risks of bioaerosols.

Low dust is a prized attribute of heat-dried biosolids pellets. In the WEF Conference paper Toronto’s Pelletizer Facility – A New Start, the “new start” included the aspiration that “dust production, resulting from friction during transport and handling, will be very low with the biosolids pellet product.”  To this attribute was also that of hardness: “pellet hardness is… slightly higher than that of chemical fertilizers… [such that] handling and spreading of the product is relatively easy and dust-free.”

While durability and dustiness are key attributes, no article in WEF Access Water discuss measurements of these attributes. Chemical fertilizer and wood pellet industries are keen to prevent pellets from turning to dust, a property they term durability. Hence, these industries deploy a “product durability index” and measure this with “product durability testers.” The PDI is “a standardized parameter for specifying the ability of the fuel pellets to resist degradation caused by shipping and handling.” For, under $4,000 you, too, can own a “Two Compartment Pellet Durability Tester.”  This tester subjects pellets to a tumbler that simulates conveyance and transport handling, and test results are reported as a percentage of pellet mass that degrades into dusty particles. This sounds as though this device ought to have a place in measuring durability and dryness of biosolids pellets, but it does not.

Though durability and dustiness seem to be secondary objectives in choice of treatment technologies, various pre-drying and post-drying options at the plant can modify these product attributes. Fine screening and digestion are treatment steps that reduce fibers and low-density organic matter, and subsequent dried product is denser than undigested biosolids. Post-drying screening is another step, and Challenger reports: “screenings are recycled back to the head of the dryer and blended with the cake product to avoid the “sticky” phase of the biosolids product typically returning and blending fine particles into the cake feeding the dryers, results in a denser product. “ 

What is more, the world stands ready to help with durability and dustiness. Many manufacturers provide granulators that could help us create a durable pellet, such as a Compost Pellet Machines and a Powder Granulator Machines; you can even buy on Amazon a Feed Pellet Machine. Though granulated products may still be dusty and odorous, you can add to it a coating.  Surface Chemists of Florida can customize a coating for dried biosolids; its SurPhase FLOW promises to “preserve your product’s integrity.” Similarly, ArrMaz can design a special DUSTROL® or GALORYL® dust control coating for biosolids.  Yet, these machines and coatings are an on-going expense to fix a situation that might have been otherwise avoided with better technology selection upfront.

The matter of control of biosolids dust is no light matter. Biosolids products that lack durability, that fail to withstand transport and land spreading and that consequently pose a risk of bioaerosol release are unlikely to be part of an economical, sustainable program. Each component of treatment, from screening, to digestion, to dewatering, to subsequent stabilization, warrants evaluation for its contribution to the “product’s integrity.” Just as the SARS-CoV-2 virus has raised global fears about invisible particles in the air we breathe, our industry cannot afford to be a source of invisible particles that raise public fears.  We ought to recalibrate our focus on technologies that minimize dust and bioaerosol releases in response to new health concerns and scientific capabilities, because Biosolids Dust is a Big Deal.   

 

SPOTLIGHT on Biosolids OPs (Old Professionals)

Two hundred years... that is approximately the combined years of experience of the biosolids practitioners of this month's SPOTLIGHT.  This past month we had a fabulous "meet and greet" organized by MABA Board member Carolyn Christy of YPs, those wonderfully talented and committed folks new to the biosolids profession whom we call "Young Professionals." We, who have decades of experience, who have seen the development of national standards, who were present for the launch of the new word "biosolids," are now cheering the brilliance of the YPs who have joined our niche in environmental stewardship. We will hear from a few of these YPs in April. But please join us in celebrating a few of the OPs, "the Old Professionals."

Robert (Bob) Adamski 

Bob AdamskiRobert (Bob) Adamski, retired NYCDEP and Gannett Fleming, ([email protected], (917) 836-2614). Bob’s environmental engineering career started with service in the US Army Corps of Engineers, including environmental assessments in the New York metropolitan area. Bob was at NYCDEP when New York got "out of the ocean" and helped set up the beneficial land-based alternatives. “I went on to become Deputy Commissioner and was involved nationally in WEF's and NACWA's Biosolids Committees with setting up the third-party verification of compliance.” He moved to the private sector, for ten years as VP with Gannett Fleming.  Since retiring, Bob continues to share information on biosolid issues, both nationally and internationally. He has been involved in water and sanitation projects in developing countries, serving on the Boards of Water For People and Hermandad and as Chair of NYWEA's Humanitarian Assistance Committee. He is a local director of the American Society of Military Engineers.

 

Robert (Bob) Pepperman

Bob PeppermanRobert (Bob) Pepperman, Synagro, ([email protected], 443-510-5695).  Bob has been employed in the biosolids management industry for 38 years. A holder of two degrees from Penn State (BS ERM, 76; MS Agronomy, 81), Bob began his career developing approaches for reclamation of disturbed lands, including the use of biosolids, for an engineering consultant in Pittsburgh.  Since moving to Baltimore in 1984, he has filled multiple roles in the industry, ranging from lead agronomist to managing biosolids-derived product distribution and to his current position in business development. Among his “favorite” projects was the assessment of subsequent development of a model for nitrogen transformation within the deep-row method of biosolids application for land reclamation.  He was a key member of the team that enabled New York to cease ocean disposal of biosolids. He and his colleagues established the program that ultimately shipped over 1,000,000 tons of NYC’s dewatered cake via rail to southeastern Colorado for beneficial use, the largest US biosolids project no one ever heard about.  In addition to his current development role, Bob also works with Synagro’s Legislative Affairs/Compliance team in addressing new regulatory initiatives. Growing up in Camp Hill (PA), Bob was a fan of all things Philadelphia (Flyers, Phillies, Eagles and, most importantly, cheesesteaks) but having married a Pittsburgh native he has, in the interest of domestic harmony, become a Steelers season ticket holder. 

Diane Garvey 

Diane HarveyDiane Garvey, Garvey Resources, Inc. (215-362-4444, [email protected]). Diane, principal of her residuals consultancy, was present at the very start of the modern biosolids era. Her career began as an entry-level engineer with the Philadelphia Water Department, witnessing the last barge load of ocean dispersed sludge, and leading its iconic research at Penn State on demonstrating the use of wastewater solids for reclaiming Pennsylvania’s surface mining. Diane served as state, regional, and national leader in this emerging professional practice, leading a new biosolids committee that helped guide Pennsylvania regulations after Part 503 was promulgated. She served as Program Chair for the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Committee in Kansas City. Diane became a certified nutrient management specialist in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and she participated in WERF research on biosolids cost accounting and on pathogen regrowth and odor. Diane married an agronomist colleague at PWD, raised two boys, and has all along kept an active life. She has been skiing in Switzerland, river cruising in Europe, horseback riding in the Wissahickon, and rescuing over 200 Weimaraners. Today, Diane also embraces her role as a grandparent to three with two more on the way, the next generation of environmentalists.  

 

A. Thomas Ferrero, Jr.

Tom FerreroA. Thomas (Tom) Ferrero, Jr., NAWC Environmental LLC ([email protected], (267) 250-4068).  Tom began as a septic tank pumper in a family-owned business that his father started in 1941. Tom never strayed too far from a septic tank! Tom has a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering and has been a certified Sewage Treatment Plant Operator and Sewage Enforcement Officer. From 1970 to 1998 he owned and managed a full-service septic system company, and developed, and continues to use daily (e.g., 35 MG in 2020), a process which pretreats septage prior to introduction of the liquid faction into a municipal sewage collection system and landfills or beneficially uses the dewatered solids. Tom has held positions in the septage industry Associations on a National, State, and local level, and his leadership includes being MABA’s first treasurer. He is a past President of the National Association of Wastewater Technicians (NAWT) and currently the Association’s Secretary. While no longer flying, Tom, a private pilot, could often be found flying around Pennsylvania and the surrounding states rallying support for the unification and training of septage haulers. Tom would prefer to be found miles out in the ocean hunting for elusive game fish and is looking forward to 2021 better than 2020 for fishing and traveling the United States with his wife of 53 years, Eileen, in their 5th wheel travel trailer.

Trudy Johnston

Trudy JohnstonTrudy Johnston, Managing Director, Material Matters, Inc. (717) 367-9697 x102, [email protected]). Trudy has been in the wastewater field and biosolids community for nearly 40 years. The specialty consulting firm she helped establish in 1997 offers a wide range of services for managing and recycling residuals, evaluating residuals programs, conducting market studies, and acquiring regulatory permits. This huge commitment to biosolids does not stop her from enjoying gardening and flowers, but you might guess that biosolids samples that come into the office abet her hobby and generally end up in her large garden or flower beds.  She eats the vegetables from her garden yet does not consider herself a “highly exposed individual,” and she is consistently proving that healthy biosolids-amended soils grow exceptional vegetables!  She and her husband (nicknamed poor Ray or Saint Ray) also have two large composters where they compost most yard waste (with a biosolids boost from time to time) and return it to the garden.  Trudy has a daughter and 2 grandsons that also occupy her time.  She runs, hikes, bikes, and lifts weights, which leaves no time for relaxing.  “After all,” she says. ” when I get old, I want to be able to transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet by myself.”

 
 

Biosolids News You Can Use

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Biosolids Biennial Report: February 2020 Report Issued
US EPA (3/10/21) - The EPA released its biennial report which reviews publicly available information on new and previously identified pollutants in biosolids. 

Destroying PFAS in Sludge
Water & Waste Digest (3/11/21) - This article shares the fate of PFAS in water treatment plants using various treatment technologies. 

The Big Poop Debate: Proposed Waste Plant Causes Outcry in Newark
Newark, NJ (3/3/21) - Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, and the Ironbound Community Corporation are both opposing plans to construct a biosolids gasification facility in the Ironbound community of Newark. Aries Energy has identified the site as an ideal location because of its proximity to so many sources of Class B biosolids. The company has answered questions and addressed concerns around the environmental impact of the facility, but people opposing the facility say more details still need to be shared. 

Cache County Community Fights Back Over Sewage Sludge
Cache County, UT (3/3/21) - Community members are opposing plans for the county to establish a city-owned composting facility near their properties. The facility, located one mile from the nearest home and two to three miles from about 30 more would accept 30 tons of biosolids daily. Zoning changes would need to be made in order for plans for the facility to move forward.
Planning Commissioners Don’t Favor Benson Rezone for Sewage Sludge
'Somebody's Backyard': Benson Residents Cry Foul as Logan Hopes to Build Biosolid Composting Facility

Biosolids: Never-Ending Problem or Increasing Opportunity?
Water World (3/3/21) - The Water Action Platform webinar on February 18th featured several presentations on technologies that are contributing to sustainable ways of achieving a regenerative, circular economy for biosolids management that eliminates waste and enhances the environment. Technologies presented during the webinar included Andion’s technology to enhance conventional sludge digestion using microwaves and hydrogen peroxide to disintegrate solids, increase biogas production, and decrease energy consumption. The second technology was Eliquo’s vacuum degassing technology known as EloVac-P. Utilities can reduce their carbon footprint by 25% and save up to 20% on sludge disposal costs by deploying the system.

KC Water Begins Construction on New Facility
Kansas City, MO (3/5/21) - KC Water announced the construction of a new resource recovery facility - The Blue River Biosolids Improvements Facility. Once construction is completed (expected 2024) the facility will produce biosolids for beneficial use. 

Jefferson County Neighbors Complain About Sludge Being Applied to Land Near Homes, River
Jefferson, AL (3/8/21) - Neighbors to a property receiving biosolids fertilizer complain of the smell. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management is looking into the odor complaints.

Redflow Supplying 2MWh of Battery Storage Systems to California Bioenergy Plant
San Bernardino, CA (3/11/21) - Australian energy storage company Redflow has signed its largest global battery sale with Anaergia to supply energy storage to a facility processing organic waste including biosolids. Once completed, the facility will convert 700 metric tons per day of organic waste and 300 metric tons per day of biosolids into renewable natural gas and Class A fertilizer. The 2 MWh system comprised of 192 10 kilowatt-hour zinc-bromine flow batteries will enable the facility to store and supply up to 2MWh of energy daily from 4-9 pm, during peak tariff period.

Maine Man Sues Paper Mill Over Levels of ‘Forever Chemicals’
Fairfield, ME (3/9/21) - Nathan Saunders of Fairfield is suing Sappi North America, the company running the papermill he believes to be the source of PFAS in biosolids in the county. The lawsuit makes the claim that the chemicals in water sources in Somerset County came from biosolids from the mill’s wastewater treatment plant.
Advocates Push for Statewide Testing for PFAS Contamination
Maine Homeowners Seek More Time to Sue over Chemical Contamination

Make Consistent Cake Solids
Middletown, OH (3/11/21) - The Water Reclamation Facility in Middletown, OH recently installed a decanter centrifuge replacing a belt press and centrifuge that was not performing well. Since the installation, they have had more consistent water content in their cakes and have needed to use less chemical treatment in their processing. 

Family Farm Owners Worry Proposed Fertilizer Storage Site Could Pollute the Air
Strathroy, ON, Canada (3/8/21) - Texas Longhorn Ranch has expressed concerns that a proposed biosolids storage facility will have negative effects on their family-owned ranch. LaSalle Agri Fertilizer, the company that applied to turn vacant land near the ranch into a storage facility was rejected by the Adelaide-Metcalfe town council. They appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

 

MABA Event Presentations

2020 November Phosphorus 101 Webinar

2020 Summer Webinar Series

2019 Summer Symposium

2018 Annual Meeting & Symposium

2018 Summer Symposium

2017 Annual Meeting & Symposium

2017 Summer Symposium

2017 NJWEA Workshop

2016 Annual Meeting & Symposium

2016 Summer Symposium

2016 NJWEA Workshop