Hines, Nickolas

Fogle, Rachel

Rachel holds a PhD in Cell and Molecular Physiology and leads the Land Application group at Material Matters, having joined the company in January. She has over 15 years of experience driving innovative solutions for environmental programs. Her leadership of the Environmental Science and Sustainability undergraduate program while serving as Associate Professor of Biological Sciences at Harrisburg University, combined with her applied research in circular nutrient recycling, has built a robust foundation in nutrient management and systems thinking.

Titles from this speaker

Analysis of Existing and Emerging Biosolids Beneficial Use Regulations

Abstract

Background
Biosolids management in the United States is shaped by evolving federal and state regulations, which influence wastewater solids processing technologies, marketing, distribution, and overall management costs. Recent regulatory revisions have been driven by environmental stressors such as climate change and Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs), particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS compounds have become a primary focus local, state, and federal regulatory agencies, reshaping biosolids beneficial use and disposal practices nationwide.

A Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS in Biosolids has been conducted by the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA), with draft results having been released in January, 2025. The Risk Assessment process is a scientific, multi-stage process to evaluate the need for regulatory guidance on these compounds in biosolids. This analysis examines the recently released draft results, their implications, and their influence on new state regulations.

In anticipation of formal USEPA guidance, key states such as Michigan, California, Maine, and New York have adopted significant policy changes that have had far-reaching impacts. These state-level regulatory frameworks have influenced regional policies and created unique opportunities and challenges for utilities as they develop long-term strategies for managing wastewater solids. As regulations evolve, the landscape for biosolids beneficial use and disposal will continue to shift.

Objective
This analysis focuses on the USEPA Risk Assessment process and recent state regulatory changes, with the following objectives:

USEPA Risk Assessment
1. Review the standard Risk Assessment process used to develop Part 503 biosolids guidance.
2. Analyze the draft results for PFOA and PFOS, highlighting the risk ratios and their implications.
3. Outline next steps in the Risk Assessment process.

State Regulations
1. Identify states implementing PFAS reduction strategies, including sampling and limits for PFAS in biosolids.
2. Evaluate PFAS reduction efforts in Maine, Michigan, California, and New York.
3. Compare USEPA draft results to existing state standards and practices.

Methodology
Research for this analysis included:
1. A detailed review of the USEPA Risk Assessment process to provide historical context and its application for PFAS in biosolids.
2. An in-depth review of the draft Risk Assessment results released by the USEPA in January, 2025.
3. Analysis of state biosolid regulations, validated through surveys with state regulators to assess recent updates and their impacts.

Findings and Current Status
USEPA Risk Assessment
1. Traditional Risk Assessment processes include a Risk Management analysis to weigh cost-benefit impacts before releasing draft results. The process utilized by USEPA for the Biosolids Risk Assessment did not follow the standard process, releasing draft results ahead of completing the Risk Management process. This approach results in limited context provided for results and may lead to reactionary legislation at the state level.
2. The USEPA's assessment of PFOA and PFOS present in biosolids, the USEPA used a deterministic approach, producing a single worst-case risk value focused on farm family exposure. This approach does not reflect typical conditions and resulted higher risks for lower concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids.
3. Draft results will provide a starting point for determining regulatory limits for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, with revisions to Part 503 unlikely in the next year. The Risk Assessment results will be reviewed internally by the USEPA and externally by third parties to verify accuracy and approach. This process may lead to further delays in regulatory changes due to USEPA's initial approach for conducting the Assessment.

State Regulations
1. California emphasizes source control, requiring PFAS monitoring to track reductions in biosolids. Results will be compared to USEPA draft numbers.
2. Michigan's 'Michigan Model' set a precedent for PFAS monitoring and limits, influencing neighboring states and earning USEPA recognition.
3. Maine and New York implemented unique strategies for biosolids management, showcasing varied regulatory approaches.

Comparative analysis reveals diverse strategies among states, driven by unique regulatory frameworks. These efforts provide a roadmap for adapting to USEPA guidance while addressing region-specific challenges.

This paper was presented at WEFTEC 2025, held September 27-October 1, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Presentation time

10:30:00

11:00:00

Session time

10:30:00

12:00:00

SessionRegulations, Communications and Costs of PFAS for Utility Leaders

Session locationMcCormick Place, Chicago, Illinois, USA

TopicBiosolids & Residuals

Author(s)

Hines, Nickolas

Author(s)N. Hines1

Author affiliation(s)Material Matters1

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2025

DOI10.2175/193864718825160149

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count10

Assessing the Impact of Federal and State Regulations on Biosolids Beneficial Use

Abstract

Background Biosolids management in the United States is driven by evolving federal and state regulations which shape, not only wastewater solids processing technologies, but also the marketing, distribution, and overall cost to manage the processed biosolids product. In recent years, the main impetus of revisions to state regulations has been environmental stressors such as climate change and the presence of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) in biosolids. While many state agencies have yet to undergo the process of revising their biosolids management programs, there are a number of key states which have adopted unique policy changes which set a precedent for state regulatory guidance of key issues and topics. This analysis will focus on recent changes to state regulations in California, New York, and Georgia and analyze current trends surrounding biosolids management in each state. The changes to regulations in each state have presented unique opportunities and challenges to utilities as they develop long-term strategies for the management of wastewater solids generated at their respective facilities. As utilities respond to changes in regulations, the landscape surrounding beneficial use and disposal of the end-product has and will continue to shift. Objective The correlation between state specific regulations and trends in biosolids management will be analyzed using Biosolids Regulatory and Market Assessments conducted in California, New York, and Georgia. The assessments worked to identify opportunities and challenges associated with state specific regulations, markets, and corresponding economics involved with the management of biosolids products resulting from various processing technologies. Comprehensively, Regulatory and Market Assessments serve as a guide for utilities to understand and evaluate biosolids products and compatible beneficial use and disposal outlets. Each Assessment seeks to achieve the following three objectives. 1. Identify future changes to state regulations and current permitting pathways associated with the management of various biosolids products; 2. Identify beneficial use and disposal outlets in the region compatible with biosolids products; and 3. Define market details including market capacity, storage requirements, potential revenues, and expenses associated with biosolids management. Methodology Biosolids Regulatory Assessments conducted for each project included a detailed review of existing Federal and state biosolids beneficial use and disposal regulations, as well as an exploration of potential changes to regulations. Market Assessments were completed by identifying market capacity, demand, and product physical characteristic preferences for various biosolids products. Information for both the Regulatory and Market Assessments conducted in each state was gathered through market research and direct surveys with state regulators, third-party contractors, and end-users. Collected data was used to identify the opportunities, challenges, and outside-the-gate expenses (those expenses associated with product management only) associated with each state market/product combination. The data from Assessment was further analyzed to identify current biosolids beneficial use and disposal trends in each state. Each individual project was tailored to the needs of the respective utilities focusing on processing technologies resulting in various biosolids products including Class A and Class B products. Specifically, products such as biosolids char, digested cake, alkaline stabilized cake, partially thermally dried product, and thermally dried granules were reviewed. Findings and Current Status Regulatory Assessments for each state reveal unique opportunities and challenges associated with beneficial use and disposal of biosolids products driven by historic, recent, and potential future state specific regulations. A summary of the key insights from each analyzed state follows. 1. California's focus on climate change mitigation impact state beneficial use regulations: The recent implementation of SB1383 requires organic waste (including biosolids) diversion from landfills. SB1383 works to limit disposal and incineration of biosolids while also incentivizing beneficial use and implementing processing technologies which maximize renewable natural gas potential for utilities. 2. New York focuses on PFOA and PFOS mitigation as policy changes are enacted: New York biosolids regulations have historically favored beneficial use of biosolids despite increased pollutant limits for recycling of any classification of biosolids product. However, the recently implemented DMM-7 policy enacts PFOA and PFOS sampling requirements, guidelines, and limits. The measure set forth by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation utilizes the Michigan model which has received formal support from the USEPA. However, the DMM-7 further limits the threshold for prohibition of any recycled biosolids product which contains levels greater than 50 ppb for PFOA and PFOS separately. 3. Georgia policy revisions disrupt historically cost-effective management of biosolids via landfill disposal: Revisions to Georgia's landfill disposal regulations limit wet waste acceptance, posing new challenges to utilities historically reliable landfill disposal management programs. Market Assessments for each state work to confirm biosolids management trends in response to changes in regulations as well as product/market acceptance, preferences in biosolids physical characteristics, market capacity, and public acceptance. A summary of the key insights from each analyzed state follows: 1. California's adoption of SB1383 drives beneficial use across the state: The diversion of organic high strength waste from landfills has incentivized utilities to implement co-digestion across the state. Furthermore, the diversion biosolids from landfills coupled with the increase in co-digestion has led to further exploration of beneficial use markets including land application, public distribution, soil blending, and fertilizer blending. SB1383 has also worked to limit the power of county ordinances which have historically banned or restricted land application of biosolids across several counties in the state. 2. New York's recent PFOA and PFOS policy adoption may shape the biosolids beneficial use landscape across the state: The adoption of PFOA and PFOS guidelines has only recently been implemented and the impacts to trends in biosolids beneficial use and disposal across the state are currently being observed. Additional insights will be provided as impacts are established. 3. Georgia policy revisions disrupt historically cost-effective management of biosolids via landfill disposal: Revisions to Georgia's landfill disposal regulations limit wet waste acceptance, posing new challenges to utilities historically reliable landfill disposal management programs. Surveyed landfills report substantial reductions in tipping fees for WWTP solids considered to be dry waste. A summary of key regulatory actions and resulting opportunities and considerations for each state is shown in Table 1. Baseline biosolids beneficial use and disposal trends in Georgia, California, and New York are shown in Figure 1 as reported by the National Biosolids Data Project. The Regulatory and Market Assessment findings show various ways that state regulations are shaping the management and end-use of biosolids across California, New York, and Georgia. Beneficial use of all biosolids products is on the rise in California and Georgia due to recent changes in state regulations which have severely restricted the ability to utilize landfill disposal. California has also invested in studies to further expand compatible market outlets and introduced additional legislation to further incentivize beneficial use throughout the state. Georgia has historically depended on landfill disposal for the majority of wastewater solids generated in the state, resulting in the need for further development of all beneficial use markets. Unlike California, landfills still have the ability to take biosolids. However, reduced capacity and strict physical characteristic requirements resulting from changes to regulations have resulted in higher instances of failure to accept material and increased tipping fees. The guidelines issued by NYDEC setting limits for PFOA and PFOS are likely to have several impacts on biosolids management trends in the state. However, additional research is required to fully understand the impacts as end-users and utilities respond over the next few months. The presentation will discuss new findings in New York, as well as provide an in-depth analysis of outside-the-gate cost comparisons, product, and market specific findings for each state.

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference, June 18-21, 2024.

SpeakerHines, Nickolas

Presentation time

08:30:00

09:00:00

Session time

08:30:00

11:15:00

SessionProgram Drivers: Economics, Regulatory, and Market Considerations

Session number24

Session locationOklahoma City Convention Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

TopicBiosolids Management Planning, Market Development, Regulatory Requirements

Author(s)

Hines, Nickolas

Author(s)N. Hines1

Author affiliation(s)Material Matters 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Jun 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159446

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids Conference

Word count13

Description: Evaluating Biochar Blending During Curing of THP Class A Biosolids: Impacts on...

Evaluating Biochar Blending During Curing of THP Class A Biosolids: Impacts on Product Quality, Odor, Handleability, and PFAS Concentrations

Abstract

Evaluating Biochar Blending During Curing of THP Class A Biosolids: Impacts on Product Quality, Odor, Handleability, and PFAS Concentrations Background The Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) Atlantic Treatment Plant produces Class A/EQ biosolids using thermal hydrolysis followed by mesophilic anaerobic digestion. The resulting thermal hydrolysis process (THP) cake is nutrient-rich but can present challenges related to odor generation, moisture content, and product handleability during curing, storage, and distribution. HRSD has implemented a windrow 'curing' process to dry the product, reduce ammonia compounds, and improve odor and stabilization of the cured product. However, site odors associated with the curing process have been observed. To address both site and product odor challenges and improve the physical and chemical properties of Class A biosolids - including odor, moisture content, and availability of metals and organic compounds - HRSD, in collaboration with Material Matters (MM), conducted a pilot-scale blending trial incorporating wood-based biochar into the THP cake prior to curing. Biochar, a carbon-rich product made from the pyrolysis of biomass, is known for its adsorptive capacity, moisture retention characteristics, and potential to mitigate odors while stabilizing nutrients and pollutants. This pilot-scale blending trial aimed to determine whether varying biochar addition rates could improve overall product quality and reduce potential challenges associated with product storage and beneficial use. It was hypothesized that increasing the proportion of biochar added to THP cake, combined with the established curing process, would result in lower moisture and ammonia concentrations, and improve site and product odor, nutrient and pollutant concentrations, and handling characteristics. Objectives The research objectives are described below: 1. Determine the ideal range of biochar addition ratios relative to fresh cake biosolids on a dry weight basis to achieve odor and pollutant reduction; 2. Assess physical, chemical, and biological characteristics present in cured biosolids end-products; and 3. Provide recommendations for optimal biochar amendment ratio based on trial findings. Methodology A pilot-scale blending and curing trial was conducted using five biosolids piles (approximately 6 wet tons each): one unamended control (0% biochar) and four amended piles with biochar addition rates of 2%, 5%, 8%, and 10% on a dry weight basis (Figure 1). Initial blending ensured even distribution of biochar. All piles were managed under HRSD's standard six-week curing protocol (windrows turned three times per week, located on a paved, covered storage pad). Environmental exposure and management conditions were consistent across all piles to minimize variability unrelated to amendment rate. Composite solids sampling was performed immediately after blending (week 0), mid-curing (week 3), and at the end of curing (week 6). Analytical parameters included nutrients, metals, moisture content, soluble salts, maturity indicators, product odor characterization, handleability metrics, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Following the six-week curing period, each product was moved to individual storage piles for up to ten months. Solids Sampling and General Analytical Parameters - At each sampling event, composite solids samples were collected from each pile using stainless steel scoops. Samples were obtained from seven evenly distributed locations within each pile, with four scoops collected per location (i.e., 28 scoops total per pile). The scoops from each pile were thoroughly homogenized prior to sub-sampling for laboratory analysis. Subsamples were submitted to accredited laboratories for analysis of nutrients, metals, moisture content, soluble salts, and compost maturity indicators, consistent with standard biosolids and compost characterization protocols. PFAS Sampling - PFAS analysis was conducted on solids collected from the 0% (control) and both 5% and 10% biochar-amended piles to evaluate potential effects of biochar addition on PFAS concentrations during curing. Odor Sampling - Odor sampling was conducted during three curing events to evaluate the effect of biochar amendment rate on biosolids odor potential. Odor samples were collected using a composite headspace sampling approach designed to minimize spatial variability within each pile. For each sampling event, composite solids from each pile were prepared as described above and placed into individual 25-L glass wide-mouth bubblers. Each bubbler contained homogenized material representing all pile locations. Following removal of solids subsamples for chemical and physical analysis, the remaining material in each bubbler was sealed with a Teflon transfer lid equipped with dedicated flux and sample tubing. Bagged gas samples were collected by fluxing the bubbler headspace with nitrogen gas at a rate of 5 L/min (e.g., fluxing rate) while simultaneously drawing sample air at 2.5 L/min (e.g., sampling flow rate) into 10-L sampling bags using SKC pumps. Samples were collected via a vacuum chamber system to prevent contamination and maintain consistent flow rates. Each bag was pre-conditioned through multiple fill-and-purge cycles prior to final sample collection to minimize background odors. Handleability - Handleability of each cured product was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively at week 0 (immediately after blending), week 3 (mid-curing), and at week 6 (end of curing). Observations were recorded by operations staff using standardized evaluation criteria (rating on a scale of 1 to 4; with 4 indicating the most favorable score for that factor) to allow comparison across amendment rates. Findings and Current Status: Product Quality - Biochar-amended piles exhibited higher ammonium-N fractions and elevated solute salt concentrations relative to the control, consistent with biochar's adsorptive properties and its potential to retain ammonium during the curing process. These changes may influence nitrogen availability following land application, depending on crop demand, soil conditions, and application rate. Increased ammonium-N may be advantageous for beneficial use scenarios requiring readily plant-available nitrogen, while potentially limiting suitability for end uses the prioritize controlled nitrogen release or have low tolerance for elevated soluble salts and ammonium-related phytotoxicity. Other measured constituents, including nutrients and regulated metals, generally reflected dilution effects associated with biochar addition (Figure 2). Product Odor - Product odor improved substantially across all piles as a result of aerobic curing, indicating that curing was the primary driver of odor reduction, supported by both odor detection thresholds (Figure 3) and selected-ion flow-tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) results (Figure 4). While biochar-amended piles exhibited odor profiles comparable to or slightly improved relative to the control at certain time points, overall results provided limited evidence that biochar addition at rates up to 10% produced measurable odor reductions beyond those achieved through curing alone. Product Handleability - Handleability improved moderately with curing across all piles. Improvements included reduced smear and increased friability as moisture content declined. PFAS Concentrations - PFAS results showed substantial variability over time, with evidence suggesting precursor transformation during aerobic curing. While biochar-amended piles generally exhibited lower PFAS concentrations than the control, reductions were likely reflective of dilution or sampling variability. Additional Research - HRSD staff are currently conducting additional research to understand the impact of medium to long-term product storage on the cured piles with respect to physical and chemical changes in the end-product with potential to impact market outlet acceptance. Conclusion Trial findings provide practical insights for utilities considering biochar as a biosolids amendment within existing curing operations. The preliminary findings of the trial suggest biochar addition (up to 10% by dry weight) to fresh THP cake biosolids does not drastically improve odor or physical product characteristics beyond the benefits of curing alone. Findings highlight the need for further research evaluating long-term storage after curing, higher amendment rates, potential impacts on PFAS mobility and leaching behavior, and assessing the replicability of these initial observations.

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals, Biosolids, and Treatment Technology Conference in Kansas City, MO, May 11-14, 2026.

SpeakerFogle, Rachel

Presentation time

10:30:00

11:00:00

Session time

10:30:00

12:00:00

SessionInnovations in Biosolids Odor Control

Session locationKansas City Convention Center

TopicOdor Control, Safety & Public Outreach

Author(s)

Hines, Nickolas, Fogle, Rachel

Author(s)N. Hines1, R. Fogle1, M. Maples2, A. Keisel2, K. Whedbee2, B. Ward2

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date May 2026

DOI10.2175/193864718825160258

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals, Biosolids and Treatment Technology Conference

Word count20

Description: Regulatory Update: An Analysis of Regulatory Changes and Trends at the Federal and...

Regulatory Update: An Analysis of Regulatory Changes and Trends at the Federal and State Level Surrounding PFAS in Biosolids

Abstract

Background Biosolids management in the United States is driven by evolving federal and state regulations which shape, not only wastewater solids processing technologies, but also the marketing, distribution, and overall cost to manage the processed biosolids product. In recent years, the impetus of revisions to federal and state regulations has been environmental stressors such as climate change and the presence of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) in biosolids. In particular, a group of CEC's known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), has been the primary focus of the USEPA and has already begun to shape the landscape surrounding biosolids beneficial use and disposal across the country. The USEPA is in the process of finalizing the Biosolids Risk Assessment for PFOS and PFOA in biosolids. The Risk Assessment is part of a multi-stage process to evaluate the need for regulatory guidance surrounding the compound's presence in biosolids. The USEPA is expected to provide draft results for the Assessment before the end of 2024, an unprecedented tactic that does not follow the formal Risk Assessment Process. This analysis will review the draft results, what they mean, and how they are impacting the formulation of new state regulations across the country. In anticipation of USEPA guidance on PFAS in biosolids, a few key states have adopted unique policy changes which have had tremendous impact across the country. This analysis will also review recent changes to state regulations in Michigan, California, Maine, and New York which have each implemented changes in the regulatory framework which guides beneficial use and disposal of biosolids in their respective states and influenced state policy across their regions. The changes to regulations in each state have presented unique opportunities and challenges to utilities as they develop long-term strategies for the management of wastewater solids generated at their respective facilities. As utilities respond to changes in regulations, the landscape surrounding beneficial use and disposal of the end product has and will continue to shift. Objective The USEPA Risk Assessment process will be analyzed to provide context for the draft results to be released ahead of the conference, with a focus on the following objectives: 1.Review the standard Risk Assessment process used by the USEPA to develop Part 503 guidance for the beneficial use of biosolids. 2.Analyze the draft results provided by the USEPA for PFOA and PFOS, adding context to the results by reviewing the risk ratio used to develop the results. 3.Provide a review of the next steps in the Risk Assessment process. Several states have enacted policy updates and changes ahead of USEPA's release of the biosolids Risk Assessment, this presentation will evaluate those changes and show trends on how biosolids management has been impacted focusing on the following objectives: 1.Review which states have implemented PFAS reduction strategies which require sampling and/or provide limits for PFAS in biosolids. 2.Review the process of implementing PFAS reduction strategies in key states such as Maine, Michigan, California, and New York. 3.Compare and analyze the initial draft results of the USEPA Risk Assessment with the existing state regulations surrounding PFAS in biosolids. Methodology In depth research was conducted on the USEPA Risk Assessment process to develop a Risk Assessment Factsheet for WEF. The research conducted will be used to show the historical use of the Risk Assessment process in the formulation of regulatory guidelines surrounding beneficial use of biosolids as well as the existing process used for the evaluation of PFAS in biosolids. Detailed reviews of state regulations surrounding the beneficial use and disposal of biosolids was conducted for key states across the country. Research was analyzed and confirmed by completing surveys with regulators across each state, providing updates to recent regulatory efforts and potential impacts for the beneficial use and disposal of biosolids. Findings and Current Status An analysis of the USEPA Risk Assessment process is used to compare and contract historical applications of the Assessment with the existing process being used to evaluate PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. A summary of key insights follows: 1.High-level review of the USEPA's Risk Assessment shows changes to the process of evaluating results and the need for regulatory changes. The traditional Risk Assessment Process utilizes a Risk Management analysis ahead of releasing draft results of the Risk Assessment. The Risk Management analysis is used to determine the cost-benefit of regulatory changes compared to the risk of exposure to the analyzed chemicals. 2.Reviewing how the draft results were developed based upon USEPA's approach to the Risk Assessment. The USEPA used a deterministic approach to evaluating the risk of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids, a process which produces a single risk value. The risk ratio used during the process focused on risk relative to the farm family. This ratio, paired with the deterministic approach used by the USEPA, will result in draft results showcasing a single value worst-case scenario which may not be representative of typical conditions. 3.Review of Draft Results and Next Steps. Draft results released by USEPA will be reviewed using the research provided in the earlier stages to add context to the results and what the next steps will be for determining the need for PFOA and PFOS limits in biosolids. Regulatory Assessments for each state reveal unique opportunities and challenges associated with beneficial use and disposal of biosolids products driven by historic, recent, and potential future state specific regulations. The guidelines issued by Maine, California, Michigan, and New York each represent unique ways of managing PFAS in biosolids ahead of direction from the USEPA. Each state's approach will be compared and contrasted to the draft results provided by the USEPA. California has focused on source control PFAS and mandated monitoring for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids to show the real-time reduction of PFAS compounds in biosolids as key regulatory efforts are implemented focused on source control. The average concentration of PFAS compounds in biosolids will be compared to the draft numbers provided by USEPA. Michigan set the precedent for PFAS monitoring and limits in the United States, developing the Michigan Model which has received praise from USEPA and influenced surrounding states. The process used to develop and implement the model will be reviewed and compared to other state regulatory efforts such as New York and Maine.

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals & Biosolids and Innovations in Treatment Technology Joint Conference, May 6-9, 2025.

SpeakerHines, Nickolas

Presentation time

14:10:00

14:30:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionNavigating Land Based Biosolids Management

Session number16

Session locationBaltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA