Biosolids Bans Drive a Disposal Reckoning in the Wastewater Industry

As federal PFAS regulations face reexamination by the current administration, state governments are forging ahead with regulating the chemicals. Eight states have passed legislation related to PFAS in wastewater and biosolids. These laws range from requirements for influent and effluent testing to outright bans on land application of biosolids due to concerns of PFAS contamination in soil and water.

Wastewater treatment plants across the United States rely on their ability to land-apply biosolids as a cost-effective disposal method (which is also required by law in some states, like California). As state governments place wholesale bans on the land application of biosolids, and impose requirements for PFAS testing, these laws, and similar restrictions that may be imposed in other states, have the potential to upend legacy sludge disposal practices at a cost that many wastewater utilities have not anticipated. For example, Maine’s ban on biosolids land application in 2022 due to concerns over PFAS contamination a has significantly increased disposal costs for Maine wastewater plants as they ceased land application and switched to the more expensive (and less reliable) practices of landfilling and incinerating their biosolids.

As state governments scrutinize PFAS levels in biosolids and wastewater effluent, treatment plants across the country may find themselves in the same situation as those in Maine, restricted in how they can dispose of the sludge and having to pay more to do so.

Why biosolids regulations are gaining momentum

Biosolids are the byproduct of the wastewater treatment process. As a result, they often contain concentrated levels of the very pollutants that treatment plants are tasked with removing from wastewater, such as carbon, ammonia and nitrogen. For this same reason, PFAS tends to be found in higher levels in biosolids.

This reality has made biosolids a focus in the conversation on mitigating PFAS contamination. The potential for PFAS impacts from regularly land-applying biosolids concerns federal and state legislators, health officials and the public, prompting action.

To better understand the PFAS contamination potential of land applying biosolids, legislators are requiring municipal and industrial wastewater plants to test for PFAS chemicals in influent, effluent and sludge. These testing requirements not only introduce new compliance obligations and immediate laboratory costs, but can also foreshadow subsequent restrictions on biosolids management that could materially increase utilities’ disposal expenses.

Based on the results of this testing, some states have chosen to further regulate PFAS by requiring regular testing of biosolids and setting limits on how biosolids with PFAS can be land applied, distributed or disposed of in landfills. Connecticut followed Maine in implementing a full ban on land applying PFAScontaining biosolids — effective Oct. 1, 2024 — prohibiting their use as soil amendments or fertilizers. Beyond these outright bans, numerous additional states have enacted or proposed measures mandating PFAS testing or monitoring, or placing limits on the disposal of biosolids through land application, highlighting the widespread regulatory momentum around this issue.

The following states have taken significant action on PFAS in biosolids:

• Maine – Land-application of biosolids banned due to PFAS concerns (effective 2022).
• Connecticut – Ban on using, selling or land-applying biosolids/sludge containing PFAS, at any detectible level (effective October 2024).
• Rhode Island – Requires quarterly PFAS testing of biosolids prior to land application, with regulators empowered to deny application if levels are excessive.
• Virginia – New law (effective January 2027) mandates monthly PFAS sampling of sludge for land application, transitioning to quarterly testing after one year.
• Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin – All regulate PFAS in biosolids through testing, reporting requirements, tiered PFAS limits, or limitations on land application.
• Vermont – Requires annual PFAS monitoring in biosolids prior to land application.

What happens when land application is restricted?

For many systems, land application serves as a cost-effective biosolids disposal method that also benefits agricultural users through nutrient recycling. As states scrutinize the practice and place bans on it, this legacy relationship stands to be upended.

Some sewer utilities may be forced to shift to landfill disposal, which can be significantly more expensive than land application due to tipping fees and hauling costs. In some cases, transportation costs may rise due to greater distances of approved disposal sites. For smaller systems without the means to meet these new biosolids regulations, they might need to collaborate with regional partners or enter into new service agreements

In some instances, utilities have found on-site solutions, such as incineration, to be the most cost-effective solution to strict PFAS in biosolids laws, but these measures can require multi-million-dollar capital expenditures that require taking on debt and managing construction.

These potential shifts in biosolids disposal costs due to PFAS could strain existing budgets or require new funding mechanisms. Utilities and special districts will need to evaluate not just the logistical impacts, but also how to communicate changes to ratepayers and oversight boards.

The financial ripple effects for wastewater systems

Even though utilities are not the ones responsible for introducing contaminants into their drinking water supplies or waste streams, water and wastewater systems are often required to bear the costs of regulations aimed at addressing the contamination. This pattern has already emerged with PFAS regulation in drinking water at both the federal and state levels, and is now extending to clean water utilities.

As wastewater sludge disposal costs rise, budgets must meet them. This may require many utilities to conduct rate cases and raise rates in order to cover the increased operating costs as well as capital investments, such as sludge dewatering solutions. Plants that historically rely on selling biosolids as a side income could see this revenue stream disappear and be replaced by a recurring hauling bill.

These new rules may disrupt a facility’s annual budget, delaying other critical projects and creating uncertainty for long term planning.

Planning for long-term cost stability

As PFAS regulations impact land application and biosolids handling, the long-term cost implications for wastewater plants may become unpredictable, particularly for facilities that have long-term land application relationships and sourced income from the practice. New state and federal biosolids regulations may force utilities to absorb higher disposal and hauling costs and, in some cases, invest in new processing or disposal solutions to maintain compliance.

There are a few ways that wastewater utilities can anticipate budget instability in the face of state PFAS biosolids laws, such as,

• Evaluating contract flexibility with haulers and land application clients;
• Monitoring biosolids regulation developments in state governments; and
• Making considerations for disruptions to the current biosolids handling

While utilities remain responsible for managing PFAS within their systems, they can begin evaluating strategies to better protect against long-term financial risk and cost volatility. As biosolids regulations continue to evolve, utilities can begin assessing where PFAS-related costs may emerge and what options may be available to manage long-term financial exposure.

As PFAS-related compliance and disposal costs continue to rise, many utilities across the country have turned to water contamination litigation as a way to recover expenses from manufacturers while preserving their position as passive recipients of contamination. Understanding how these legal strategies fit into a broader compliance and financial planning approach can help utilities better navigate the evolving PFAS regulatory landscape.

About the authors

Ken Sansone is a senior partner at SL Environmental Law Group PC. Valentina Marastoni-Bieser is the vice-president of client engagement at SL Environmental Law Group PC. SL Environmental Law Group focuses on PFAS and water contamination litigation, advancing accountability, clean water and long-term protection for affected communities. The firm represents states, municipalities, utilities, airports and private entities in contamination lawsuits involving PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, perchlorate and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. Visit SLEnvironment.com to learn more.