Relates to the management of PFAS in biosolids

Showing the cosponsors who are on Agora, A to Z. The official record may list more.

• Democratic10
• Republican1

This bill has cosponsors from more than one party.

Shown in neutral colors by design; Agora is non-partisan.

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Pete Harckham says this is needed

NYS has already recognized the risk of PFAS and banned their use in outdoor apparel, food packaging, firefighting equipment, and firefight- ing foam. NYS' allowable limit for PFAS in drinking water is also 10 parts pertrillion, yet there is currently no regulatory or statutory limit for PFAS in biosolids spread on farmland (6 CRR-NY 361-3.0). In fact, in 2023, New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released a draft Solid Waste Management Plan, which states that the DEC would "continue to support local efforts to increase biosolids recycling as a means to provide nutrients and organic matter to soils..." to reduce landfilling of biosolids. While it is an honorable goal to reduce waste going to landfills, bioso- lids are far too toxic to continue spreading directly on farmland that produces our food. New York State has taken steps to limit PFAS in everyday products and drinking water, however comparable protections do not currently exist for farmland despite the significant threats these substances pose to human health and food safety. Biosolids, which are nutrient dense byproducts of wastewater treatment, are often spread on agricultural land as fertilizer and can contain a dangerous mixture of pollutants including PFAS, heavy metals, pathogens and pharmaceuticals. Studies have linked exposure to these chemicals with serious health effects such as cancers, developmental issues and immune system dysfunc- tion. Continued use of untreated biosolids threatens not only public health and the longevity of our farmlands. Several municipalities and counties in NYS have already banned the spreading of biosolids on farm- land and are urging the state to step up. It's important that we create a path forward that protects our farmers and our food and local munici- palities from the current system that prioritizes corporate profits that charge municipalities to take the biosolids and the sell it as compostto New Yorkers or farmland for fertilizer. Continuing the spreading of biosolids that are not treated to neutralize the known effects of contaminants like PFAS, other known toxic chemicals including PCBs, dioxins, and BPAs, and heavy metals will only contam- inate New York's land, food, and people, costing millions to mitigate and taking prime farmland offline for many decades. A more comprehensive approach to reducing and appropriately treating toxic sewage sludge needs to be taken before we further contaminate our fields with toxic waste. This bill would ban the spreading of biosolids, require testing of soils and in groundwater under land where they have been applied, require PFAS testing in wastewater treatment plants and establish a program to assist farmers whose land has been contaminated by biosolids spreading.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.