SSB 5033
SignedSenate
Biosolids/PFAS chemicals
Concerning sampling or testing of biosolids for PFAS chemicals.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the Washington Department of Ecology to test biosolids for PFAS chemicals and develop rules to manage PFAS contamination, including a timeline for sampling, analysis, and reporting. It also updates the state’s biosolids management program to include new stakeholder input and fee structures to support implementation.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to establish PFAS chemical sampling or testing requirements for biosolids by July 1, 2027.
- Mandates a state-level analysis of PFAS levels in biosolids produced in Washington, with a report due to the legislature and public by December 1, 2028.
- Establishes a new advisory committee (including farmers, toxicologists, and industry experts) to consult with the Department of Ecology before adopting PFAS-related rules.
- Updates definitions to clarify that PFAS chemicals are regulated under this chapter and confirms that septic tank sludge (septage) is included in the definition of biosolids for permitting purposes—but excluded from PFAS testing requirements.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to collect fees from biosolids permittees to cover permitting, inspection, sampling, and administration costs, with fees tied to number of residential equivalents served.
Who is affected
- Municipal wastewater utilities — Municipal wastewater treatment facilities and utilities that generate and manage biosolids will need to comply with new PFAS testing requirements and may face updated permitting and fee structures.
- Farmers and agricultural producers — Farmers and agricultural users who apply biosolids as fertilizer or soil amendments may be affected by new PFAS testing standards and potential restrictions on biosolids use.
- Local governments — Local governments that operate biosolids management programs or rely on state-delegated permitting authority will need to adapt to new rules, reporting requirements, and fee structures.
- Washington residents — Residents and ratepayers may be impacted by potential increases in wastewater treatment fees and changes in how biosolids are managed or used in their communities.
- Stakeholders and advisory committee members — Environmental and public health advocates, researchers, and industry stakeholders will have opportunities to provide input through the new advisory committee process.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandated PFAS testing and public reporting by December 2028 will provide critical data to identify contamination hotspots and inform protective actions—directly benefiting communities near land application sites, wastewater outfalls, or industrial dischargers where PFAS exposure risks are highest.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(b), (c); Sec. 6The advisory committee requirement—including farmers, toxicologists, and public health advocates—ensures stakeholder input before PFAS rules are finalized, increasing transparency and reducing the risk of rules that ignore real-world impacts on agricultural and residential communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(d); Sec. 6By requiring PFAS testing of biosolids and establishing a dedicated fee-funded account for administration, the bill creates a self-sustaining regulatory framework that reduces reliance on general fund appropriations and ensures long-term monitoring capacity—benefiting ecosystems and drinking water sources across the state.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(a); Sec. 5(1), (3), (4)Farmers applying biosolids as fertilizer will benefit from standardized, science-based PFAS thresholds that prevent future liability or land-use restrictions—while avoiding the risk of unknowingly contaminating crops or soil with toxic chemicals.
agriculturePeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(a); Sec. 5(2)The bill’s focus on municipal systems may indirectly benefit residents in unincorporated areas by prompting future legislative action to close the septic sludge gap—though the current exclusion weakens immediate protections for those outside municipal service areas.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(e) (exclusion of septage from PFAS testing); Sec. 6 (advisory committee scope)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill imposes new PFAS testing and reporting obligations on municipal wastewater utilities and local governments, with costs recovered through annual fees tied to residential equivalents—potentially increasing utility rates for households, especially in smaller or lower-income communities with limited economies of scale.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(a), (b), (c); Sec. 5(1), (2)While PFAS testing aims to protect public health, the exclusion of septic tank sludge (used by ~20% of Washington households, often in rural or lower-income areas) from testing requirements creates a regulatory gap that may leave some residents—particularly those not connected to municipal systems—exposed to unmonitored PFAS contamination in soil and groundwater.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(a), (d); Sec. 6The fee structure based on “residential equivalents” may disproportionately burden small wastewater utilities and rural districts with lower population density per system, potentially forcing consolidation or service reductions that reduce local employment and access to wastewater services.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(2), (5); Sec. 4(5)(a)Excluding septic tank sludge from PFAS testing and regulation perpetuates environmental injustice, as rural and low-income households relying on on-site septic systems are left out of state-level protections—despite PFAS leaching from septic systems into groundwater, which many rural communities rely on for drinking water.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)(e) (exclusion of septage from PFAS testing); Sec. 6 (advisory committee excludes septage)Local governments operating biosolids programs will face increased administrative burdens and compliance costs, with no state funding to offset implementation—potentially diverting resources from other essential services like road maintenance or public health initiatives.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2), (3); Sec. 4(5)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Municipal wastewater utilities will face new testing costs and fee obligations, but gain regulatory clarity and a dedicated funding mechanism for compliance. Smaller utilities may struggle with fee burdens, while larger ones can absorb costs more easily.
Farmers using biosolids will benefit from standardized PFAS testing that prevents future liability and supports sustainable land use, but may face restrictions if PFAS thresholds are set low—potentially limiting access to low-cost fertilizer.
Local governments with delegated permitting authority will face added administrative costs with no state reimbursement, but gain authority to enforce stricter local standards if needed.
Residents in households connected to municipal systems benefit from improved water quality and transparency, but those on septic systems are excluded from protections—creating a two-tiered system of environmental safety.
Environmental and public health advocates gain formal input rights via the advisory committee, but the exclusion of septage limits the scope of protections for vulnerable rural communities.