Biosolids at a crossroads: Managing risk in a changing disposal landscape
For many wastewater utilities, biosolids management has long been a predictable part of operations. Treatment processes were well established, disposal pathways were relatively stable, and decisions typically focused on optimizing cost and beneficial reuse within a known system.
That predictability is evolving.
Across the U.S., utilities are encountering a convergence of pressures that are making biosolids disposal more difficult to manage. Longstanding outlets such as land application, landfill disposal and incineration are increasingly constrained, more expensive and less reliable over the long term. What was once a routine operational decision is now becoming a strategic one.
A converging set of pressures
In many cases, the shift is not driven by a single issue, but by several trends unfolding at the same time.
Regulatory requirements are evolving, particularly around emerging contaminants such as PFAS. Disposal capacity is tightening in certain regions as landfill availability becomes more difficult, and some incineration facilities approach the end of their useful life. At the same time, hauling distances are increasing, fuel costs continue to fluctuate, and operational expenses tied to dewatering and drying add pressure to already constrained budgets.
Together, these forces are introducing variability into what was once a relatively predictable cost center. For some utilities, biosolids management now represents one of the largest and most uncertain components of annual operating expenses.
In regions where multiple constraints overlap, limited landfill access, restrictions on land application, and aging thermal assets, utilities are finding that viable disposal options are narrowing. In these situations, cost alone is no longer the primary driver. Reliability, access, and long-term viability are equally critical considerations.
Regulatory uncertainty is reshaping planning
One of the most significant changes facing utilities is the pace and variability of regulation related to biosolids handling.
At the federal level, guidance around contaminants such as PFAS continues to evolve. In the absence of a single national standard, many states have advanced their own requirements, ranging from expanded monitoring and sampling to restrictions or, in some cases, bans on land application. The regional use of biosolids and the availability of an agricultural land application disposal program create varying challenges for different operators.
This patchwork regulatory environment makes long‑term planning more complex. A disposal pathway that is acceptable today may face new limitations in the future, often with limited visibility in how or when requirements will change.
As a result, the challenge for utilities is less about complying with a clearly defined standard and more about planning in the presence of uncertainty. That uncertainty influences decisions across the system from capital investments and contract structures to treatment process selection and long-term solids strategies.
In planning efforts related to PFAS compliance, utilities have increasingly relied on scenario-based evaluation, assessing monitoring, treatment, and investment options under a range of potential regulatory outcomes rather than a single assumed standard. This same planning mindset is now being applied to biosolids management, particularly in regions where future land application or disposal requirements remain uncertain and regulatory timelines are difficult to predict.
Why traditional planning models are falling short
Historically, biosolids planning often followed a linear path: identify a preferred disposal method, evaluate cost, and build the program around that approach. The front end of the process and evaluation of the receiving streams must be considered now, as the industrial contribution potentially containing PFAS will directly impact the treatment and disposal options for treatment facilities.
That model is becoming harder to sustain. Relying on a single disposal pathway introduces risk in an environment where availability, regulatory acceptance, and cost structures can change over time. Increasingly, utilities are shifting toward planning approaches that evaluate multiple options and test their performance across a range of scenarios.
Rather than searching for a single “best” solution, many planning efforts now focus on understanding tradeoffs—how different strategies respond to regulatory changes, market volatility, or disruptions to a primary outlet—and identifying combinations of approaches that provide resilience.
This shift requires earlier coordination and broader system awareness. Biosolids decisions are no longer isolated to the end of the treatment process; they are closely tied to upstream treatment performance, site constraints, energy use, staffing, and long-term capital planning. When those connections are addressed early, utilities retain flexibility. When they are not, options can narrow quickly.
Integrating biosolids into systemwide decisions
One of the more notable changes in recent utility programs is how biosolids planning is being integrated into broader infrastructure decision‑making. Land application disposal is no longer a preferred option, and disposal to landfills has been increasingly challenged and can create logistical issues for many treatment facilities. Rather than treating solids management as a downstream consideration, utilities are bringing these discussions forward, aligning them with treatment upgrades, plant expansions, and long-range capital improvement programs. This allows teams to evaluate how decisions in one part of the system influence outcomes elsewhere.
In practice, this may involve assessing how digestion upgrades affect downstream dewatering or drying capacity, or how changes in solids handling influence hauling logistics, contract flexibility, and operating costs over time.
In recent wastewater capital programs, early coordination between treatment upgrades, operational needs, and long-range capital planning has allowed utilities to evaluate downstream impacts before designs are finalized. Applying this same integrated approach to biosolids planning, rather than treating solids management as a downstream afterthought, has helped preserve flexibility and reduce the risk of late‑stage constraints that often drive cost escalation.
Strategies to manage cost and risk
In the near term, many utilities are focusing on steps that reduce exposure to rising costs and constrained disposal markets.
Improvements to digestion, dewatering, and drying processes can significantly reduce the volume of material requiring transport and disposal. Even incremental reductions in volume can yield meaningful savings over time, particularly in regions with high hauling distances or tipping fees.
These process improvements also introduce flexibility. Higher quality biosolids may expand reuse options, while lower volumes make it easier to adjust when disposal availability fluctuates.
In recent wastewater system upgrades, utilities have prioritized process optimization, improvements to treatment performance, operational efficiency, and system resilience before committing to higher capital solutions. In biosolids planning, this phased approach is increasingly used to manage near‑term risk while preserving the ability to adapt as regulatory and market conditions evolve. At the same time, utilities are taking a closer look at existing disposal contracts and contingency plans. Arrangements once viewed as stable are increasingly evaluated through a risk lens—especially where reliance on a single outlet or market could expose the system to disruption.
Long term alternatives and emerging technologies
Beyond short-term adjustments, utilities are exploring technologies that could address longer-term biosolids challenges. With uncertainty driving planning decisions, many utilities are focusing on volume reduction as a practical way to prepare for future treatment regulations and disposal requirements.
Thermal processes — including thermal drying, pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrothermal treatment — are receiving increased attention. These approaches can reduce biosolids volume, destroy certain contaminants, and in some cases recover energy or generate usable byproducts.
Their appeal lies in addressing multiple pressures at once: reducing dependence on traditional disposal outlets while responding to evolving regulatory concerns.
At the same time, these technologies introduce tradeoffs. Capital investment can be substantial; operational complexity is higher than conventional processes, and integration with existing facilities requires careful planning. For most utilities, the question is not simply whether to adopt advanced technology, but how it fits within broader system goals and long‑term investment strategies.
As a result, adoption often occurs in phases—beginning with process optimization and capacity improvements and evaluating advanced technologies as part of a longer‑range roadmap.
Planning for an uncertain future
What is increasingly clear is that biosolids management is no longer a steady-state state problem. Whereas in the past capital and operations budgets could be set against five to 25-year windows, they must now adapt to an uncertainty of changing regulations that require annual evaluation of strategies for biosolids disposal. Utilities are operating in an environment where regulatory expectations, disposal capacity, and cost structures are all subject to change. Planning approaches built on fixed assumptions are difficult to sustain over the life of a program.
In response, more utilities are adopting scenario-based planning methods—evaluating options under different regulatory, operational, and market conditions, and designing systems that can adapt over time.
Scenario‑based evaluation—already common in broader water and wastewater planning efforts—is now playing a larger role in biosolids strategy. By stress‑testing options against a range of possible futures, utilities are better positioned to make investment decisions that remain viable even as conditions change.
These efforts often require closer coordination across disciplines, from engineering and operations to regulatory planning and stakeholder engagement. They also reflect a shift in mindset: recognizing that uncertainty is not something to eliminate, but something to plan for.
A more strategic role for biosolids management
As these trends continue, biosolids management is taking on a more central role in how utilities think about long‑term system performance.
It is no longer just a question of managing a byproduct. It is a question of balancing cost, regulatory compliance, operational reliability, and flexibility over time—while maintaining public trust and environmental responsibility. Utilities must weigh their strategies against the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental factors.
Utilities that are adapting successfully are those that bring biosolids considerations into the broader planning conversation early, evaluate tradeoffs across the system, and prepare for a range of possible futures.
There may never be a single solution that fits every utility or region. But the direction is clear: biosolids management is becoming more complex, more visible, and more integral to how wastewater systems are planned and operated. For many utilities, navigating that complexity is now one of the most important strategic challenges ahead.
About the Author
John Bannen
John Bannen, Water/Wastewater Senior Engineering Operations Manager, STV
With over three decades working in plant operations and utility management in both the water and wastewater field, Bannen has held key leadership roles in both the public and private sectors with extensive experience managing wastewater treatment facilities as well as water distribution and wastewater collection systems. Bannen is a National Biosolids Partnership certified program auditor and at STV, Bannen serves as a senior technical advisor and operations manager, directly supporting communities in implementing sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure solutions as well as creating and implementing utility management programs.