Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

And we're recording. So Good to go?

Okay. I'd like

to call to order the infrastructure planning and sustainability committee meeting of 02/11/2026. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council member Diaz.

Here. Did you hear me? Here.

Yep. There you

are. Doctor. Jennifer Hines, absent. Vice chair Sedolgate?

Here.

And chair Walker? Here.

Alright. Moving on to public comment. Clerk, will you please read?

To request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in the front of the room if you have not done so already. If you are speaking virtually, please place pray press the raise hand button near the bottom of the Zoom window or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of your phone number will be called out when it is your turn to speak.

Great. Thank you, Anna. Has anyone signed up to speak?

I don't see anybody online. Nobody signed in in person. Yeah. Was. Oh, Come

on up to the table. Three minutes. So you know the drill, but I'll just read the thing. When you call, please state your name for the record. You have three minutes to make your remarks, and please be mindful of the time frame. And we'll put the timer up on the screen so

that you'll see that. But go ahead and hear it.

Yeah. My name is Kit Burns. I live at the city of Genoa. I I, you know, wanted to hear what you're talking about PFAS. I've been interested in this actually since probably, I think, about 2016. That's when I first heard about it. I was reading an article in the New York Times talking about PFAS. Well, disturbing article. About two years later, there was a movie, not a documentary, but a movie with Mark Ruffalo called dirty water. I don't know if you've seen that or not, but it's really quick, and it's well done. It explains I mean, again, it's a movie, but it explains some of the issues. And so I've been interested in that. And I followed PFAS. First, I thought I was just firefighting, so

I

thought it'd be a military basis. Then I find out it's just about everything, Gore Tex, but it's also a toilet paper, which kinda shocked me. So I'm kinda interested in that. Some years ago, I had a book. There's a great book called dirt, the erosion of civilizations by David Montgomery.

And he talks about, you know, putting toxic chemicals in. So I'm kinda curious about PFAS and Tegril, if that's an issue around people. I thought I'd come and join you today and see what the plans are. I also know that the city of Tacoma probably has some upgrades. We were listening to presentation that was done just, I think, this past week just on future spending when we're talking system development charges.

So they're talking about improvement on treatment plans. So I thought I would drop in on you. I've got a friend who works for the liquid water district and heat. He's also PFAS. So I'm anxious to find out what you know because I'm still working. So I'm just happy to be here.

Thank you, Kim. Anyone sent?

Alright. Thank you, Anna. We'll go ahead and close public comment and move on. We have one briefing item today. It is the PFAS pilot test and regulations, and we have Tiffany Ryan, our assistant division manager of environmental services here. Come on now.

Come on. Thank you for having me. Slides up. Again, my name is Tiffany Ryan. I'm the assistant division manager with science and engineering division in environmental services.

I've been responsible for the laboratory there. Our laboratory is a full service environmental lab. We do everything from pH, HANA, to PE, FOSS, and then also p p q, is responsible for compote presplung mortality syndrome. We're currently the only lab in Washington state to be accredited by the EPA analytical methods for both PFOS and six p p q. We perform over 45,000 analyses annually, and we do it all with a small staff of just 16 scientists. I'm here today to discuss PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals. I wanna apologize in advance. Some of this material is very technical, but I'll do my best to make it as accessible as possible for you. So What are they? Why do we care?

PFAS are per and polyfluoroalkyl substances and one of the many contaminants of emerging concern. These are manufactured, which means they're not found in nature. They're highly persistent compounds widely used in consumer and industrial products, and they've now have been linked to significant health risks, including cancer, reproductive issues, and immune system impacts. PFAS enter our wastewater treatment system through residences and industries that discharge wastewater into those systems. So treatment plants don't produce PFAS but are collection points for upstreams from upstream sources, which is how they would get into our biosolids products.

Recent legislation requires PFAS monitoring of biosolids, and additionally, the central treatment plant's new NPDS permit, which is the National Pollution Discharge Information System permit, was issued in February 2025 and requires quarterly PFAS testing on the CTP. Through Tacoma's environmental services department's proactive efforts to address PFAS concerns, the city is well positioned to meet regulatory requirements and advance PFAS science nationally. Some of these key actions include proactive testing, TIGR Biosolids was first analyzed in 2019. We invested in the purchase of an LC Triple Hwag in my laboratory in 2020 to perform in house PFAS testing. Innovative leadership in 2024, we partnered with UW Tacoma and industry leaders on an EPA funded pilot project demonstrating greater than 99% destruction using bone fractionation and hydrothermal alkaline treatment.

It was the first study of its kind in wastewater treatment plan. These efforts position the city as a leader in PFAS science, ensuring compliance with current and future regulations while advancing treatment technologies for broader municipal applications. So PFAS are one of many contaminants of emerging concern and our understanding of their environmental fate and transport plant uptake and human health impacts is still evolving as more research is conducted. They encompass a class of over 12,000 compounds that feature a carbon chain with a chlorine replacing hydrogen bonds. So that CF bond is extremely difficult to break, making these compounds very durable, which is why they become novice forever chemicals.

Their durability is also what has made them popular. Their unique chemistry makes PFAS useful for water increased resistance and stability in extreme temperatures. They've been widely used as firefighting foam, food packaging, personal care products, nonstick cookware, semiconductors, stain resistant carpet and clothing, and water resistant fabrics. They've been in use since the nineteen forties, but in 2006, EPA were classified PFOA as a likely human carcinogen. Further studies have linked PFAS to reproductive effects such as decreased fertility and increased high blood pressure in pregnant women, developmental effects in children, including low birth weights, accelerated puberty, bone variations, and behavioral changes, increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancer, decreased immune system function, and increased cholesterol levels of risk complexity.

It's important to note that due to the persistent nature of these chemicals, they do bioaccumulate in the body, and it is the chronic exposure that leads to human health effects. In 2025, the EPA published a draft sewage sludge risk assessment for for PFOA and PFOS. While this draft risk assessment is not a regulation or EPA guidance, it will likely inform EPA's future regulatory actions. In 2,024, PFOA and PFOS were designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA Act, which is also known as the Superfund law. Ecology also concluded that PFAS fall under MACA, the Model Toxics control act, and biocells are regulated federally under the EPA's Clean Water Act.

Ecology also regulates biocells generated, managed, and land applied in Washington state. Senate bill fifty thirty three became law in January and requires sampling analysis and reporting for PFAS in biosolids, which would be our tag growth beginning in January 2027 through June 2020. It also establishes a 2029 deadline for ecology to deliver PFAS biosolids analysis for future steps. The newest oh, and I know on my slide, I have house bill two two seven nine. It's currently proposed.

It died just this week, so I'm not gonna talk about that. But it would have directed Washington Department of Agriculture to evaluate PFAS in pesticides and fertilizers, but it didn't make it out of committee. The newest NPTS permit for the central treatment plant includes a new quarterly monitoring requirement for PFAS on the infills, as well as evaluation of potential industrial sources of PFAS that may enter in the CTP system for future local determinations. Environmental Services pretreatment compliance group who work with our industrial discharge partners are slated to complete their initial inventory of potential PFAS dischargers in the next two months, and they've also planned their 2027 outreach strategy to our industrial partners and the initial sampling plan. Source reduction and control remain the most effective approach to reduce PFAS exposure levels.

Additionally, six other states have implemented PFAS limits on biosolids for for used for land application as interim strategies. ES efforts. So prior to PFAS recommendations or regulatory action, environmental services identified opportunities to proactively address the concerns about PFAS in our biosolids and TYGR products as well as opportunities to advance the science and understanding of PFAS. TYGR was first analyzed for PVOS in 2019, and at that time, the detected levels of PVOS were well below the national average using the most comprehensive data at that time. In January 2023, my laboratory invested in the purchase of an LC triple quad instrument, which is a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry instrument.

You're welcome to come to work anytime. And so we can analyze PFAS in house, and we gained full Washington State Ecology accreditation by the EPA published method in 2025. The laboratory has been regularly analyzing the digester sludge, which is essentially TIGRO cake before it's mixed with sand and bark. For PFAS, it's 2,024, which exceeds the requirements of Senate Bill 5,033 already. All of our testing has shown that PFOA and PFOS levels are well below the biosolids thresholds of the most stringent state interim strategies for unrestricted biosolids application.

So now for the fun part. To advance the science of PFAS removal and destruction, because forever chemicals might not be forever after all. In 2024, the ES lab scientists in staff with the asset management and engineering teams partnered with UW Tacoma, the Cuaga based out of Tacoma, and ECT two who are based out of Portland, Maine on an EPA and ecology grant funded project to study the efficacy of PFAS destruction on-site and central treatment plant. This project is the first site to demonstrate these emerging technologies on a municipal wastewater matrix. The initial phases included identifying where in the treatment process these technologies would be deployed.

In the wastewater treatment plant, there are two main processes that separate solids from liquids. The last step squeezes the water portion from the biosolids cake, and then that water is routed back to the headrest to

go through the plants again.

That BioCell's dewatering pressing return stream was selected for its higher PFAS concentrations as well as its feasibility for equipment staging. Bench scale testing, which is essentially taking small samples and sending them to a laboratory to determine if the technology will be effective. It was conducted in 2004, and it was successful. So after that successful bench scale testing, we planned for the pilot project, essentially putting the technology through a full scale test. And in January 2025, bone and Halt equipment were delivered to the CTP site for a one month pilot project.

Environmental services provided access, power, water, operations, and engineering and lab support staff and some lab testing. University of Washington Tacoma provided project coordination, funding administration, equipment purchases, and ECT two provided foam fractionation equipment and personnel on-site. Aquagra provided the HALTS, which is the hydrothermal alkaline treatment unit on-site with personnel as well. So here's a schematic of the layout at CTP. The dewatering press aperture building is on the left, and then you can see where we staged the equipment from ECT two in Aquagga.

So effluent was processed through ECT two's foam fractionation equipment to remove PFAS from the effluent stream and concentrate it in the foam. PFAS compounds are essentially bubbled through the effluent using polymer, which attracts the PFAS into the foam fraction part portion of that. This step is necessary because our insulin and effluent have really low concentrations of PFAS, and PFAS destruction technology requires more concentrated liquid. The concentrated foam was then fed through a clockwise HALLS system, which breaks down PFAS compounds into benign end products, primarily inorganic fluoride items ions such as sodium chloride, using high pressure and high pH, which is the alkaline part of the pulse. The length of the pilot allowed researchers to test various foam and health conditions to optimize both PFOS removal as well as operating conditions directly tied to cost.

The final report will be released later this year, but results are promising. So this figure shows total PFAS concentrations before and after HAL treatment and various operating conditions of the for the concentrate. Results from the study indicate that the foam fraction fractionation portion, long chain PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA, which are the regulated two, were completely removed. And under the best performing condition, total PFAS were removed by 78%. Halt achieved greater than 99% total PFAS degradation under the best performing conditions.

Complete removal of all PFAS with individual maximum contaminant levels to nondetect values occurred under all conditions tested. It wasn't all smooth sailing. Some of the limiting factors we noted with the large were the large power usage, chemical usage to achieve opulent conditions. Well, this pilot was conducted at a flow about five gallons per minute to implement full scale would be well over a 150 gallons per minute at current growth that rate would increase. There were also clogging issues that we noted, in the pilot project that weren't noted in bench scale, tests.

We had to mitigate that by bringing in a tanker tank on-site for filtration. Additionally, as very promising as the technology is, it does treat just one parameter. We have many to manage. So we had a lot of wins with this pilot as well as identifying considerations for future research and optimization projects. The environmental services department recognized PFAS concerns early.

We took action on testing TAGRO and investing in in house testing capabilities and accreditation to best serve the needs of our community in a fiscally responsible way. We're enthusiastic partners in advancing PFAS science and maximize the benefit to Tacoma's residents by participating in a PFAS pilot primarily funded by outside agencies. We continue to partner with other municipalities and on PFAS advisory groups. These actions are also in alignment with Tacoma 2035 strategic plans goals to advance a vision of safe, housed, working, sustainable, and thriving city, particularly with regard to safe, sustainable, and thriving populations. I hope that when your constituents come to you with concerns about PFAS, you may be to point to the work that environmental services has done and continues to do.

So thank you very much for your attention. Do you have any questions?

Thank you so much for all this information. I have lots

of questions. It's a lot. Know. Sorry.

No. This is great. As I was saying before we started, I'm very glad we have a team of 16 scientists who know what they're doing to get this work done. Vice chair, you wanna kick us off, or do you want me to

I don't think I would.

Councilmember Diaz, would you like to be put on the spot up there? I

don't have any questions. Alright. You're back on.

Thank you. First of all, when I did the tour, I don't even know how long it was anymore last year, the year before, I was actually really impressed that we had a lab down there at the Center for Urban Waters. And I had no idea that we're you said we're the only lab accredited by the EPA in Washington State. That's amazing.

And that's for the EPA methods for six week day and PFAS.

Okay. There another one, or I don't know.

Like So there are some labs that are credited for the EPA method for PFAS. There are some labs that are credited for EPA for 60 p q, and there are some labs that are credited for their own standard operating procedure for PFAS. We're the only one accredited for EP methods for both.

Got it. That that is pretty impressive. Yep. And quite frankly, this map helped because I did that. Absolutely. Chairwalker asked me, did you do the the tour? I'm like, yes. I did. I actually remember this building. I did. I'm trying to recall

I think there was a

presentation with Tacoma Water Mhmm. On the difficulty in in in detecting PFAS, that that's a real thing. Right?

Like Absolutely.

And what what are some issues with that? Like like, why is it so hard?

So we're talking detection levels at that point. So when we talk about our wastewater, we are talking about levels and parts per billion. So let me count. One two three four five six seven eight. There's eight people in this room. There are roughly 8,000,000,000 people on the planet. So the eight people in this room represent one part per billion. Those are the levels we're talking about for wastewater, you know, or or biosolids. The limit grams

per per liter. Wow. Yeah.

Yeah. So the limits are 20 PPV, the most stringent limits for biosolids in any state has. The limits for drinking water are in. So now imagine these eight people in 20 250 earths worth of people. That's the limit for PFOA PFOS in drinking water, four hertz per trillion.

So we're asking our instrumentation look at incredibly low levels, and that's why some there are some challenges with getting those detection limits. But there's different strategies we can utilize in laboratories where we can extract a larger volume of water and concentrate it down to a very small volume and then inject that on the LC triple quad. Wow. That

is very minuscule minuscule, and I appreciate you contextualizing it the way you did. Couple of questions I had. So the experiment we did was a pilot program. Obviously, it doesn't seem like it's ready for, like, prime time because we were kinda just learning

Right.

How to how to add that. But it's great that we at least did that. Because one of my questions had been, like, are there capital expenditures, projects to put that in? So that seems to be a little too early. Yeah. The last question I really have is, are we partnering with TPU? Is TPU doing their own thing around PFAS? Is that a completely different, like, animal because it's wastewater versus drinking water?

Yes. So the short answer is yes. It's a completely different animal. However, their testing have shown that the Green River Watershed has virtually no detectable PFAS in it. I think there's just few wells that they were even detecting some low level PFAS in, so we will and we don't perform drinking water analysis in the environmental services.

But we are still partnering with them on a bigger stage for regional PFAS working groups and advisory groups. To go back to your comment about whether this is practical to implement at CTB, Currently, no. But science is an iterative process. And so this was a very necessary step to get that ball rolling and to learn what we did from it, including the challenges that we faced. Where I can see this being very useful, if not in treatment plants in the future, is at industrial dischargers.

If they have PFAS in their streams, this could be technology based on, you know, flow capacity that they potentially implement there. So because, again, to limit the PFAS for even getting to the treatment plan in the first place, it is the best method to control the.

Got it. And you're saying that that one was, like, five gallons.

Five gallons per day. Yeah. So that's

that's not much more than a household of making. Right? Okay.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. Nice chair. Did you say what the total cost of the pilot was? I understand that it was outside funding sources, but did you say that?

I did not say that. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I will find out and get back to you. Okay. Yeah.

Great. And I guess following on to vice chair Sidalgo's comments about implementation at a larger scale, is there I understand that that's not possible, but is there another step that goes a little bit bigger before we get to a large scale, or is there another pilot? Or when you say iterative, how many steps are in the middle of that, or

do do we know? We don't know. So with all science, we, you know, make our best guess. We go test it out, and we take the data that we learn from that and then use it to to determine next steps and next projects. I know Aquagga does pilot projects on-site at remediation sites where firefighting foam has been used so they treat groundwater on-site there.

This project, we partnered with not only Aquagua, but also ECT two to combine those technologies of bone fractionation and HALTs to look at in situ destruction. So that was a major step to look at those combined technologies and also what the feasibility of even treating wastewater looks like. Are these technologies viable for doing that? And we got resounding yes with the caveat that more data are needed. And so we can partner with, you know, these companies or other companies in the future, but we don't have all the technology to concentrate or destroy PFAS in house.

But that's kind of our part to play as environmental services is to provide the sites, to provide, you know, access to the wastewater facility so that we can, as a community, move the science world.

Well, thank you. I know and thank you too for asking and for talking about the difference between TPU and environmental services and the work we're doing. I'm glad we're at similar tables so we can learn from each other, but I didn't think through the the difference until this point. So that was great. I guess my last question or comment is just I feel like we need to get this whole pilot out there in the world. I think people wanna know about it. So is there once we get the final results because I know you said they're not final. Can we do, like, a big splash? And Absolutely.

Yeah. We also did host a meeting today during the pilot projects Cool. Down at the Central Treatment Plant. We had some folks from the local KNXP, KML, and other journals as well.

Awesome. That's great to hear. I think we get asked about this all the time Yeah. Because the general comment in the media is it's everywhere, and it's bad. Right? So it must be everywhere in Tacoma. Right? Which it is as Yeah. You know, you have described, but

also we got the reports from GPU that it's not Yeah.

Right? Like Yeah. So having some data and some technical answers that we could have that conversation with our constituents and then celebrate the pilot, that would be really helpful. Absolutely. Yeah.

I'm a database decision girl myself. And in the Pacific Northwest, we're pretty lucky that we don't have any major producers of PFAS like other areas in the country. But you're right. It is everywhere. They have found PFAS in Antarctica. You know? And it comes down in rain, so it's everybody's problem even though, you know, we were the ones who were. But most of our in Tacoma sources of PFAS come from household sources. Mhmm. Dental floss, toilet paper, clothing coming out from the washing machine. We don't have a significant amount of PFAS from industrial distributors. So that's that's gonna be our next step to 2027.

Yep. Great. Council Mordents, do

you have anything you wanna ask?

To that point, thank you. We don't have a large industrial

Well, thank you so much for this. This is Thank you. So much good information. Alright. We have a couple items before we close out our meeting.

Our topics for upcoming meetings with our committee liaison. Thank you. Nope. You got it. Thank you.

Alright. A couple of notes in your email. You have a couple documents. We received a follow-up we've received follow-up information from Mike Carey regarding the green resilience opportunity core program and a letter from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group, VP tag, on the Tacoma Dome Access Improvement. So both of those are in your inbox, and those documents will be available to the public on the LEGISTR after this meeting.

Does anybody have any comments or questions about either of those letters? Alright. Since our last meeting, has anyone visited one of our CBCs, our committees, boards, or commissions? I know you did. Yes.

I visited the planning commission. It was the second time back, I think, since I was appointed, since I started on the planning commission years ago. I actually wanted to save the whole thing because I realized we were reviewing oh my god. I'm seeing it in my head. Don't forget. Yes. What's the question? No. It was the capital, like, capital projects. So transportation capital projects. What's it called? I Yes. TIP? Yes.

Well, you'll see it in March anyway. So I

was able to talk to or address the the the commission, thank them for their work, and really looking forward to going back sometime later this year and and interact with them.

And I think I have mentioned this to everybody, but I did transmit the letter and the community engagement report to the planning commission on the tree code so that they have that from us. Anybody else? Any other meetings? Okay. Great. Any other items of interest? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn. Second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. The motion is declared adopted. We see

in the adjourn. You guys were