The Brunswick Town Council voted unanimously Monday night to oppose a plan to build a sewage processing facility on Brunswick Landing after hundreds of residents raised environmental concerns.

The project, which is yet to go through the town’s official development process, would expand a facility that already exists at 27 Bioenergy Way. Natural gas company Viridi Energy aims to produce renewable natural gas and electricity from biosolids, which are materials derived from sewage or wastewater facilities.

Many residents say the proposal comes in the wrong place at the wrong time, as those living in and around Brunswick Landing continue to grapple with contamination stemming from a disastrous toxic firefighting foam spill in August 2024 that spewed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — or PFAS — into the nearby environment.

Residents have pointed out that sludge trucked into the facility could be laden with PFAS and other contaminants, which have the potential to further contaminate Brunswick Landing, a part of town formerly owned by the Navy that is an active Superfund site.

Ahead of Monday’s meeting, roughly 300 residents signed a petition organized by the citizen group Brunswick United for a Safe Environment opposing the project based on risks to “health, safety, and quality of life.”

The facility could take in 85,000 tons of biosolids per year and reduce that amount to 10,000 tons of excess, which would be dried for disposal at Juniper Ridge in Old Town.

“We don’t need more PFAS material being brought on the base. It’s going to make matters more difficult for the ongoing remediation for the existing PFAS that’s there,” said David Page, a chemist who serves on Brunswick’s Restoration Advisory Board, the body that works alongside the Navy on its cleanup of Brunswick Landing.

The proposal would have to go through a contract zoning process, which allows the town to provide flexibility in zoning regulations to approve “desirable development,” even if the project does not meet all the requirements of zoning ordinance.

Residents and council members first spoke out against the project at a public forum in January. In addition to PFAS concerns, residents have said the digester could add unwanted odors and truck traffic to the area.

To address odors, Viridi engineer John Shortreed said the drafted application includes fully enclosed receiving and load-out areas and updated ventilation systems.

Following the January meeting, Viridi Executive Vice President Dana Husnay said staff added a PFAS removal mechanism to the drafted application for water discharged to the Brunswick Sewer District.

“In the last workshop, I think we had a better understanding of some of the concerns from the residents and the town on the project,” Husnay said at Monday’s meeting. “We still believe that the project itself is well-engineered and would be not a problem from an operations standpoint inside of our fence line. We understand that many of the concerns are things like truck traffic and PFAS material in there.”

Husnay also said that if the project goes forward, Viridi would contribute a $3 million clean-well-water fund to be managed by the town. This fund could be used to address existing PFAS contamination by installing residential filtration systems, testing and monitoring local wells.

Still, more than a dozen residents spoke in opposition to the project at Monday’s meeting, as well as many council members — pointing out that Brunswick Landing is now home to many residences, as well as businesses, recreation facilities and child care centers.

“I think the idea, the project is an excellent idea,” said Councilor-At-Large Kathy Wilson. “I think the location is the absolute worst location you could ever pick.”

Council Chairperson Sande Updegraph said the Viridi project issue is “the most engaged” she has seen residents.

Updegraph brought a motion before the council to “inform Viridi Energy that the Brunswick Town Council does not support the proposed biodigester expansion project and believes it is not a good fit for the town of Brunswick due to its potential environmental and nuisance impacts on Brunswick Landing and the surrounding area.” The council’s unanimous support of the motion was met with a round of applause at the end of the meeting.