Not all Master Plans are the Same: Understanding Local Drivers to Develop a Unique and Dynamic Roadmap

As municipalities and utilities chart a sustainable wastewater future through the development of a master plan, they need to evaluate their current and future biosolids and energy management practices amid rising costs and changing regulations and available end use outlets. A detailed evaluation of their short- and longer-term strategies and drivers inform potential pathways forward, which can be a significant undertaking to create a master plan that answers the following questions: 1. What is a sustainable path forward? 2.What are the goals for the utility? How can we meet these goals? 3.What are the current regulatory drivers? What are potential regulatory changes? 4. What are current end use drivers? What are potential future end use drivers? 5. Will the path forward meet these goals and drivers, and does it have flexibility to deal with potential future changes in regulations and/or end use drivers? Regional, state, and local drivers are key considerations and will impact the outcome of a master plan. A solution for a utility in Maine is not the same for a utility in the Carolinas. Similarly, a solution in the Carolinas may not work in Florida. Each region has different drivers. There are regional differences in reaction to market disruptors such as the current concerns with PFAS and other contaminants of concern. Additionally, there is a backdrop of uncertainty across the country as there have been examples of sudden events that have had significant impact on biosolids practices in those regions. In 2022, Maine passed LD-1911 which bans land application or any use of biosolids. A recent lawsuit in Texas filed against one the nation's largest biosolids management companies has cast uncertainty for the future of land application in that state with long range implications unknown. The passage of LD-1911 in Maine had an immediate and lasting effect on biosolids management in Maine and New England. New England has historically had a precarious balance between capacity of biosolids outlets and the supply of biosolids with land application a significant end use for regional biosolids. With the ban on land application utilities are sending solids to a landfill or hauling greater distances to places outside of Maine such as Canada. Within the last four months, tip fees have significantly increased and sometimes, contracts are being cancelled. On the other side of the country, California has its own concerns. California has some of the most stringent air regulations and has enacted a food waste diversion law (SB-1383). Utilities especially those in major cities have significant footprint and truck traffic constraints. Many of these utilities have greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals. Additionally, the State has financial incentives for utilities to produce renewable energy. As there are biosolids outlet options, the long-term focus seems to be on achieving these other goals and looking beyond just producing a Class A or B product. Solids handling tends to be more about diversifying end use options. In the Southeast, like California there are outlets for biosolids. But the availability varies by state. In Florida, the Florida department of environmental protection (FDEP) made revisions to biosolids regulations in response to the passing of Senate Bill 712 (SB-712). This bill aimed to reduce the impacts to Florida's water resources caused by nutrient loading. This resulted in a reduction of Class B and A land application, driving biosolids to landfills, out of state, or production of Class AA biosolids. Historically, North Carolina landfilled biosolids, but now has moved to more beneficial reuse, while, South Carolina continues to have a significant portion of its biosolids going to landfill (National Biosolids Data Project 2018). However, with increasing landfill tip fees and other constraints, there is a driver for land application. This manuscript will review various regulatory and economic drivers that would affect a utility's master plan, strategies to address those drivers and maintain flexibility to reduce long term risk due to potential future market disruptors. It will also include specific examples from recently completed master plans including plans containing the following pictorially depicted roadmaps as shown in Figures 1 and 2.