Forever chemicals in sewage sludge: A growing contamination crisis

Mary Grace has lived in Durham for decades, but she is deeply concerned about an invisible threat in her community.

“People are hurting. People are getting cancer. People are dying because of this, and who's held accountable?” she asked, her voice heavy with emotion.

Grace, who lost multiple family members to cancer, believes that chemicals like PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are contaminating drinking water, soil, and food with potentially dangerous consequences. These so-called “forever chemicals” don’t break down in the environment and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disorders, and other serious health effects.

“They don’t just disappear. They’re in our food, our water, our land, our air,” she said. “We have to become activists, because corporations and the government are not addressing this.”

Her concern stems from a newly released EPA Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment, which found that PFAS chemicals, particularly PFOA and PFOS, are widespread in biosolids — treated sewage sludge that is applied as fertilizer on farmland. The report suggests that biosolids could be contaminating drinking water sources, livestock and the food supply at levels that exceed safety thresholds.

The science: How biosolids spread PFAS

Biosolids, often referred to as sewage sludge, are the nutrient-rich byproduct of wastewater treatment. They are applied to farmland to fertilize crops, but new research suggests that this practice is unintentionally spreading PFAS contamination.

According to NC State researcher Detlef Knappe, who has studied PFAS in North Carolina’s water supply, biosolids application has been linked to high levels of PFAS in surface water, private wells, and even drinking water sources like Cane Creek Reservoir, which supplies Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

“We measured almost 2,000 nanograms per liter of PFAS in one of the tributaries to Cane Creek Reservoir,” Knappe explained. “Another tributary was around 800 nanograms per liter. As we moved away from those fields, PFAS levels dropped to nearly undetectable levels.”

The fields that contributed to the contamination received biosolids from Burlington’s wastewater treatment plant, which historically had high industrial PFAS discharges. Even though land application stopped years ago, Knappe warns that the contamination will continue for decades.

“These fields are loaded with polymeric precursors—compounds that break down into PFAS over time,” he said. “Even though land application has stopped, the runoff will persist for decades or even centuries.”

Katie Hall, public information officer for Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), confirmed that Burlington’s past biosolid applications are directly affecting Chapel Hill and Carrboro’s water supply.

“All of the PFAS in our drinking water sources, specifically PFAS in Cane Creek Reservoir, is coming from legacy land application that stopped several years ago—presumably from the City of Burlington—on lands that OWASA does not own,” Hall said. “That is what is affecting our drinking water supply.”

A regulatory vacuum: Who’s responsible?

The crisis surrounding PFAS in biosolids is exacerbated by a lack of clear regulation. The EPA’s draft risk assessment confirms the health risks associated with PFAS-laden biosolids, but there are no federal restrictions on PFAS levels in biosolids used for land application.

A spokesperson with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) said the agency is reviewing the draft EPA assessment.

NCDEQ’s Division of Water Resources conducted an initial PFAS Source Identification study for biosolids in 2023 and 2024, which involved sampling sewage sludge applied to dedicated fields. DEQ plans to publish its findings later this year and will use state and EPA data to help guide next steps that protect human health.

Ken Sansone, an attorney specializing in environmental litigation, says regulators in some states are stepping in where federal agencies have failed.

“A couple of states have just flat out banned the land application of biosolids, regardless of the levels of PFAS,” he said. “I really think that state regulators are going to continue to do work in this area, well in advance of any federal action.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has halted previous plans to curb PFAS pollution at its source. This means that utilities, farmers, and local governments are left dealing with the problem—without financial support or clear disposal alternatives.

Utilities caught in the middle

Wastewater treatment plants weren’t designed to remove PFAS. The chemicals flow into the system from household products, industrial discharges and even drinking water supplies. Once inside the treatment process, PFAS become concentrated in biosolids, raising tough questions about what to do with them.

“We don’t generate PFAS,” said Ed Buchan, strategic planning manager at Raleigh Water. “It just passes through our system and becomes concentrated in biosolids.”

Buchan says utilities are now facing a national debate over what to do with biosolids, with few good options.

“If land application were no longer an option, all of it would have to go to landfills,” he said. “But can landfills safely manage this? And incineration is expensive and doesn’t fully break down PFAS.”

Without clear disposal solutions, utility costs could skyrocket, forcing ratepayers to foot the bill for PFAS cleanup. Lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers like 3M and DuPont have resulted in some settlements, but Buchan says it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed.

“This idea that we’ll just make the polluters pay is a false hope,” he said. “Even if DuPont lost and went out of business, the settlement wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of fixing this.”

Farmers weigh the risks

For decades, biosolids have been a cheap and nutrient-rich alternative to synthetic fertilizers for farmers. Stuart Beam, a North Carolina farmer, says he and many others have relied on them.

“There’s value in biosolids,” Beam said. “The farmer gets fertilizer, and depending on where the biosolids come from, there’s a real benefit.”

But as PFAS concerns mount, Beam acknowledges that farmers are growing wary.

“We started hearing about PFAS a couple of years ago,” he said. “Farmers need to know that if they accept biosolids, they need to know they’re safe.”

Some farmers may continue using biosolids, but others are reconsidering, especially if testing reveals high contamination levels.

“If land application stopped tomorrow, agriculture would be affected,” Beam said. “But what would change most is the cost to the general public — right now, land application is the most cost-effective, simplest way to dispose of biosolids.”

What happens next?

As the EPA accepts public comment on its risk assessment, communities like Chapel Hill, Durham and Burlington are left grappling with PFAS contamination without clear solutions.

Utilities are exploring treatment technologies, but they’re expensive and still in early stages of development. Farmers face difficult choices about whether to keep using biosolids. And residents like Mary Grace are left asking, who will be held accountable?

“We need reasonable regulations,” Grace said. “It’s the responsible civic thing to do.”

But for now, without federal action to curb PFAS at the source, it’s local communities that are left holding the bag — paying the price for decades of pollution with no clear way to clean it up.