Report on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination from Biosolids and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

The application of biosolids, or treated sewage sludge, as agricultural fertilizer is causing widespread contamination of farmland across the United States with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These “forever chemicals” pose significant risks to environmental integrity and public health, creating direct challenges to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report details the scope of the contamination, the regulatory and legal responses, and the emerging technological solutions, analyzing them through the framework of the SDGs.

Threats to Health, Water, and Food Security: A Challenge to SDGs 2, 3, and 6

The contamination crisis directly undermines fundamental goals related to human and environmental well-being. The persistence of PFAS in the environment creates a cycle of contamination that affects water, soil, and the food chain.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The presence of PFAS in the environment is a direct threat to public health. These chemicals are linked to severe health effects in humans, compromising the core objective of SDG 3.

• High levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), a type of PFAS, were first detected in a public drinking-water monitoring well on a dairy farm in Arundel, Maine, in 2016.
• PFOS has been associated with adverse human health outcomes, including certain cancers and negative effects on the immune system, reproduction, and development.
• Contamination of the farm’s water and soil led to high levels of PFOS in the cows’ milk, rendering it unsafe for consumption and forcing the farm to cease dairy operations.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

Ensuring access to clean water is a cornerstone of SDG 6. PFAS from biosolids leaches into groundwater, contaminating drinking water sources for both humans and livestock and challenging the sustainable management of water and sanitation systems.

• The source of contamination on the Maine farm was identified as biosolids-based fertilizer spread on the land decades prior.
• PFAS from sewage sludge accumulates in soil and subsequently seeps into groundwater, contaminating aquifers.
• Wastewater treatment facilities, which produce biosolids, are a primary pathway for PFAS from industrial and consumer products to enter the environment.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The contamination of agricultural land threatens food safety, food security, and the livelihoods of farmers, directly conflicting with the aims of SDG 2.

• The incident in Maine led to the discovery of PFOS contamination in milk from two additional dairy farms in 2020.
• An estimated 5.8 million dry metric tons of biosolids were disposed of in the US in 2018, with 53% applied to land.
• This practice has potentially contaminated nearly 70 million acres of US farmland, jeopardizing food production and agricultural sustainability.
• A case in Texas reported devastating damage to livestock, including stillborn calves with extremely high levels of PFOS, highlighting the threat to food systems.

Institutional Frameworks and Justice: The Role of SDG 16

The response to the PFAS crisis highlights gaps in governance and the need for strong, accountable institutions as envisioned by SDG 16. The absence of federal regulation has led to a patchwork of state rules and legal action by affected citizens.

Federal Regulatory Gaps

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet set regulatory limits for any PFAS in biosolids applied to land.
• While the EPA has identified over 350 hazardous chemicals in biosolids, it only regulates nine metals.
• A draft risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, which concluded they pose a health risk, has been stalled by political efforts to cut funding.
• Advocacy groups argue the EPA should require industrial users to filter PFAS from discharges before they enter wastewater treatment plants.

State-Level Initiatives and Legal Recourse

• In the absence of federal action, states are implementing their own policies. Maine banned the land application of biosolids in 2022.
• Michigan has adopted a tiered approach, restricting or banning land application based on PFOS and PFOA concentration levels.
• Farmers and advocacy groups are turning to the courts. A lawsuit was filed against the EPA on behalf of Texas farmers, claiming the agency failed its duty to regulate toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
• A separate lawsuit against Synagro Technologies, a producer of biosolids-based fertilizer, seeks to hold the company liable for contamination, potentially setting a precedent for future litigation.

Innovation for Responsible Production: Aligning with SDGs 9 and 12

The crisis is driving innovation in waste management, pushing for a transition from unsustainable disposal methods to responsible production patterns and new infrastructure, in line with SDGs 9 and 12.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The land application of contaminated biosolids represents an unsustainable production pattern. Achieving SDG 12 requires the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes, including the destruction of persistent pollutants.

• The current model recycles nutrients but also disperses hazardous “forever chemicals” into the environment.
• Growing awareness of the dangers is leading farmers to reject biosolids-based fertilizers, forcing wastewater treatment plants to seek alternative solutions.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

Addressing the PFAS challenge requires significant investment in innovation and the upgrading of wastewater infrastructure. Several companies are pioneering technologies to destroy PFAS in biosolids.

1. Gasification: Heartland’s HelioStorm system uses high-temperature plasma (3,000–10,000 °C) to break down PFAS in dried biosolids, producing usable synthesis gas (syngas) and a mineral char for building materials.
2. Pyrolysis: CHAR Technologies utilizes a high-temperature process (over 800 °C) in an oxygen-free environment to decompose PFAS, generating renewable natural gas or hydrogen and a biochar product.
3. Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO): General Atomics’ PERSES system treats a liquid slurry of biosolids at high pressure (4,000 psi) and temperature (650 °C), breaking down PFAS into carbon dioxide, water, and neutralized salts like sodium fluoride.

Protecting Life on Land: Addressing SDG 15

The widespread contamination of soil with PFAS degrades terrestrial ecosystems and threatens biodiversity, making remediation and prevention critical to achieving SDG 15.

Impact on Terrestrial Ecosystems

• PFAS accumulation degrades soil quality, impacting agricultural productivity and the health of the entire ecosystem.
• The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF) has identified 93 impacted agricultural sites where soil or water exceeds state PFAS limits.
• Harm to livestock serves as a clear indicator of broader ecological damage caused by these persistent chemicals.

Mitigation and Restoration Efforts

• States like Maine have established funds to test soil and water, helping to map the extent of the contamination.
• While contaminated water can be filtered, there is currently no viable, large-scale technology for remediating PFAS-contaminated soil.
• Farmers are forced to adapt by changing to crops that take up less PFAS, avoiding contaminated fields, or building raised beds with clean soil, underscoring the urgent need for solutions that protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on PFAS contamination from biosolids addresses several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by highlighting challenges in public health, water quality, waste management, land use, and institutional governance.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects to SDG 3 by discussing the significant health risks posed by PFAS chemicals. It states that PFOS, a type of PFAS, “has been linked to human health effects (PDF), including some cancers and adverse effects on the immune system, reproduction, and development.” The contamination of milk and livestock, leading to a farm ceasing its dairy operations, underscores the threat to food safety and human health.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This goal is central to the article. The contamination originates from sewage sludge (biosolids), a byproduct of wastewater treatment. The article notes that PFAS “seeps into groundwater,” contaminating public drinking water systems and wells. It mentions a case where “high levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) were detected on the property in a monitoring well for a public drinking-water system.” The entire discussion revolves around improving water quality by managing hazardous chemicals in the sanitation process.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article touches on SDG 11 through the lens of municipal waste management. Biosolids are a waste product from urban and community wastewater treatment plants. The article highlights the challenge of disposing of this waste, noting that “About 53% of biosolids in the US are applied to land,” while the rest are landfilled or incinerated. The mention that “Landfills in the state [Maine] that accept biosolids are quickly filling up” points to the broader challenge of sustainable waste management for communities.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  SDG 12 is addressed through the focus on the “environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle.” The article details the journey of PFAS from industrial and consumer use into the waste stream, wastewater treatment plants, biosolids, and finally into the environment. The call to “require companies to filter PFAS from industrial discharges before they enter wastewater treatment plants” and to “ban nonessential uses of PFAS in consumer products” directly relates to achieving sustainable production and consumption patterns.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The core issue of the article is the contamination and degradation of terrestrial ecosystems. The application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids as fertilizer directly impacts farmland. The article states that “nearly 70 million acres of farmland in the US could be contaminated with PFAS from biosolids-based fertilizers.” This pollution harms soil quality, affects livestock health (“stillborn calves with extremely high levels of PFOS in their livers”), and disrupts agricultural productivity, directly undermining the sustainable management of land.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The role of governance, regulation, and justice is a recurring theme. The article highlights institutional failures, noting that the “US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to regulate PFAS in biosolids.” In response, farmers and advocacy groups are “turning to the courts to pursue liability claims,” such as the lawsuit against the EPA for its failure “to identify and regulate toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.” This demonstrates a push for accountable institutions and access to justice for those affected by pollution.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

The article’s content aligns with several specific targets under the identified SDGs:

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   The article’s entire premise is based on the health risks of PFAS. It explicitly mentions that these chemicals are linked to “cancers and adverse effects on the immune system, reproduction, and development.” The contamination of milk, water, and soil directly contributes to human exposure to these hazardous chemicals, making the reduction of such contamination a direct effort towards this target.

2. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals

   The article focuses on the release of hazardous chemicals (PFAS) into water systems via biosolids. The detection of PFOS in a “monitoring well for a public drinking-water system” and the contamination of groundwater are clear examples of water pollution. State actions to set limits on PFAS and the development of technologies to destroy PFAS in biosolids are direct measures aimed at achieving this target.

3. Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including waste management

   The disposal of sewage sludge is a critical waste management issue for municipalities. The article discusses the 5.8 million dry metric tons of biosolids disposed of in 2018 and the environmental consequences of the primary disposal method (land application). The search for new solutions like gasification and pyrolysis reflects an effort to reduce the adverse environmental impact of this municipal waste stream.

4. Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   This target is at the heart of the article. The discussion covers the entire life cycle of PFAS, from industrial discharge to its presence in biosolids and subsequent environmental contamination. The lack of federal regulation, the patchwork of state rules, and the lawsuits all point to the struggle to achieve “environmentally sound management” of these “forever chemicals.”

5. Target 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil

   The contamination of “nearly 70 million acres of farmland” with persistent chemicals is a form of land degradation. The article notes that “no viable option exists for farmers to remediate soil that is contaminated with PFAS.” The efforts by the Maine DACF to test soil at 150 agricultural sites and identify impacted areas are initial steps in understanding and eventually combating this chemical degradation of land.

6. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions

   The article critiques the EPA’s lack of action, stating it “has yet to regulate PFAS in biosolids” despite identifying over 350 hazardous chemicals. The lawsuits filed by groups like PEER on behalf of farmers are a direct challenge to this institutional inaction, demanding accountability and the fulfillment of regulatory duties under the Clean Water Act.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicators for Water and Soil Quality (Targets 3.9, 6.3, 15.3)

  • Concentration of PFAS in water: Maine’s interim drinking water standard of “20 parts per trillion for the sum of six PFAS.”
  • Concentration of PFAS in soil: Maine defines impacted soil as having levels “exceeding 6.4 ppb PFOS.”
  • Concentration of PFAS in biosolids: Michigan’s tiered policy uses specific concentration levels to regulate land application: “less than 20 ppb,” “20–99 ppb,” and “at or above 100 ppb.”
  • Concentration of PFAS in food products: The article mentions the testing of milk for PFOS and the setting of a limit for PFOS in milk sold in Maine.

• Indicators for Waste Management (Targets 11.6, 12.4)

  • Amount of biosolids generated: “5.8 million dry metric tons of biosolids disposed of in 2018 in the US.”
  • Proportion of waste treated by method: “53% of biosolids in the US are applied to land.” Progress could be measured by a decrease in this percentage in favor of safer disposal or destruction methods.
  • Area of land used for disposal: “28 million hectares licensed for land application of biosolids in 2018 in the US.”

• Indicators for Institutional Action and Regulation (Targets 12.4, 16.6)

  • Number of regulated substances: The EPA regulates “9” metals in biosolids but “0” PFAS, out of “350” hazardous chemicals identified. An increase in the number of regulated PFAS would be a key progress indicator.
  • Number of national/sub-national policies: The article notes that “Five states have enacted regulatory limits, and five have advisory levels.” Tracking the adoption of such policies across more states or at the federal level would measure progress.
  • Number of legal actions: The mention of class-action settlements and lawsuits against the EPA and corporations serves as an indicator of the push for accountability and justice.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cen.acs.org