Organics company Synagro pushed back on claims from a lawsuit filed by Texas farmers last year that its biosolids contaminated farmland with harmful PFAS chemicals. The private equity-backed company released a new study Tuesday that it says absolves it of responsibility.
The release came days after Synagro filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by multiple families in Johnson County. The families allege their farms were contaminated by the spreading of Synagro's biosolids products on a neighboring farm, causing the deaths of dozens of cattle and putting the families’ health at risk.
"There’s been a lot of reports out there that said that PFAS killed their cows," said Pam Racey, chief commercial officer of Synagro. "To the best of the information that our experts have seen, there is no evidence of that."
Synagro hired outside firm Parsons Corp. and Linda Lee, a scientist at Purdue who has advised the U.S. EPA on its standards for biosolids, to look into the contamination. Researchers examined samples taken from soil, water, plants and fish on the Johnson County property where Synagro’s biosolids product was spread as fertilizer. The report concluded that the biosolids could not have caused harmful contamination first identified by a study conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Resopnsibility, or PEER.
The question of whether Synagro's biosolids could cause significant contamination from so-called forever chemicals when spread on farmland has caused a stir in Texas. Johnson County declared a state of emergency over PFAS contamination on Feb. 11, citing the ongoing case, in order to access state funds for remediation. A state legislator has introduced a bill that would set PFAS limits on biosolids, which would amount to a “de facto ban” on the land application of the material in Texas, according to Racey.
And last week, the city of Fort Worth, which Synagro contracts with to produce its Texas biosolids, sued the U.S. Department of Defense and multiple companies for $420 million over PFAS contamination in its water. Synagro’s detractors point to the city’s lawsuit as a sign that significant levels of PFAS are passing through the wastewater treatment system and into the company’s biosolids, sold as Granulite.
Johnson County Environmental Crimes Investigator Dana Ames was first alerted to the issue on Dec. 29, 2022. She said Synagro's latest report is unconvincing in the light of evidence unearthed by Texas officials. Ames' investigation into the source of PFAS contamination continues today.
"Even though Synagro would like to say that our findings are insignificant, they are not insignificant," Ames said. "There is no safe level of exposure, full stop, period."
Synagro declined to release the full report it commissioned looking into its biosolids. Jimmy Slaughter, a lawyer representing the company, said Synagro would submit it as evidence in discovery if the lawsuit filed by farmers against Synagro was not dismissed.
The researchers hired by Synagro tested several samples collected at the Grandview Farm where Synagro’s biosolids were applied in the winter of 2022 and 2023, according to a release. The samples were taken in May and June of 2024 and then tested for dozens of PFAS chemicals through a testing method approved by the EPA. Synagro has also tested its own biosolids for PFAS levels.
The report found that with one exception, all PFAS chemical concentrations were “within background concentrations for soils across the U.S.” or below limits set by the EPA for drinking water. The exception, PFPrA, is known as an “ultra-short-chain” PFAS chemical that can develop as more complex PFAS chemicals degrade. This has been documented around North Carolina’s Cape Fear River, where residents are dealing with contamination from the PFAS chemical GenX manufactured by Chemours in Fayetteville.
Synagro said that because there were not significant levels of GenX in its biosolids, the elevated levels of PFPrA detected could not have come from its products. But Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, disputes that.
PEER previously performed its own test of animals and water on the farms of families that claim they were affected by Synagro’s biosolids. The organization found high levels of PFAS chemicals in multiple samples, especially the chemical PFOS.
Bennett noted there are thousands of PFAS chemicals created and used today, but the EPA testing method can only measure roughly one hundred. She said it’s possible other long-chain PFAS present in the biosolids are breaking down into PFPrA.
“They’re constantly assuming that the absence of evidence means the evidence of absence. If we don’t have knowledge of something, that means it’s safe,” Bennett said. But “just because we don’t know exactly where this PFPrA is coming from… that doesn’t mean we can dismiss it,” she added.
Bennett also said there were other ways the biosolids could have caused PFAS contamination not addressed by the report. PFAS chemicals can biomagnify in plants and animals, meaning low levels of the chemicals at the lower end of the food chain could rise as they work their way up.
She also takes issue with Synagro’s assertion that the farm measurements are consistent with “background levels” of PFAS in soils around the country. While PFAS has been found to be present in everything from the human bloodstream to soil to rain, Bennett said the concentrations PEER identified while testing Johnson County farms exceed safe levels. Given the area where the contamination occurs, she still believes Synagro is responsible.
“There’s been no fracking, there’s no pesticide use, there’s no firefighter training facility. There’s nothing to suggest that this came from anything else,” Bennett said. “It seems to be the logical conclusion that it came from their biosolids.”
Legal processes
Synagro is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit filed against it in Texas.
Besides its claims that its biosolids did not cause harm, the company also notes Texas has a strong “right to farm” law which protects farmers that decide to use fertilizers, including biosolids, and the companies that produce such materials provided they otherwise comply with regulations. Synagro won a similar case in 2016 defending the use of its biosolids in Pennsylvania.
Other biosolids proceedings at the federal level remain ongoing.
PEER sued the EPA on behalf of farmers to compel it to set limits on PFAS contamination in biosolids last year. On Jan. 14, the agency released a draft risk assessment finding that such contamination can be harmful to farmers working in the area of where biosolids were spread. The report took a close look at PFOA and PFOS, two persistent PFAS chemicals that have been a central focus of emerging regulations, and found that concentrations greater than 1 part per billion could present an unacceptable risk to human health.
Bennett said the EPA should set that level as a PFAS contamination limit in biosolids nationwide. But Synagro disagrees, noting the agency has yet to complete a risk-benefit analysis of land application of biosolids or factor in exposure to PFAS from other sources when setting a limit.
Racey said the company would still be supportive of a national limit in order to standardize expectations nationwide, provided the agency conducts a thorough scientific review. The public comment period for EPA’s draft risk assessment was recently extended and now closes April 25.
