Residents urge Manchester to limit PFAS at wastewater plant and amend sewer ordinance

Several Manchester residents urged the Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Tuesday to use the city’s regulatory authority to limit the amount of PFAS — so-called "forever chemicals" — entering the Manchester Wastewater Treatment Plant and to stop sending PFAS-containing sludge to the city incinerator.

The matter drew multiple public commenters who said the state legislature has given municipalities the authority to regulate industrial dischargers to sewer systems and asked the board to amend the Sewer Use Ordinance to add PFAS limits.

Why it matters: PFAS compounds are persistent in the environment and have been associated with immune, reproductive and developmental harms, commenters said. At least two speakers told the board they believe incineration at the Manchester plant does not destroy PFAS and that airborne byproducts can travel miles. They said Manchester’s sludge incinerator is the only one in the state and urged action to prevent local and downstream contamination.

Lois Cody, a 75‑year Manchester resident, told the board that PFAS are used in many consumer products and "never break down in the environment," and quoted a published study saying incineration can emit PFAS or toxic byproducts rather than destroy them. Leslie Want, who said her son works near the wastewater plant, told the board she had been diagnosed with a brain tumor and urged the aldermen to use RSA authority to amend the Sewer Use Ordinance so upstream industrial sources face limits on PFAS discharges. Kathleen Carswell also raised concerns about PFAS traveling into the Merrimack River and possible legal and health implications.

Board response and next steps: Alderman Tony Sapienza asked city staff for information on PFAS sources and whether the city had monitoring data. Later in the meeting a city representative said staff had sought information in response to press reports and would consult the city solicitor about the best method to share it with the board.

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. The board did vote earlier in the session to "take all comments under advisement and further receive and file" the public comment record, a motion seconded by Alderman Long and approved by voice vote. Several speakers explicitly requested the board direct staff to return with data and a legal pathway to add PFAS limits to the Sewer Use Ordinance.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt new limits, nor did it set a timetable for ordinance language. Commenters and some aldermen said additional technical and legal review would be needed, and staff indicated they would consult the city solicitor before distributing detailed data publicly.

Ending: Aldermen asked staff to produce information and legal guidance for the board at a future meeting; staff said the city solicitor would be consulted before releasing certain details.