Ted J. Rulseh | Published on 2/20/2026
Biosolids management has never been easy in New England.
The states are small, the populations dense and vast rural acreage suitable for land application are not nearly as available as elsewhere.
PFAS has made the problem worse. Maine and Connecticut have banned land application of biosolids containing these persistent compounds. Massachusetts might be the next to do so. And the other two management options — landfilling and incineration — are shrinking.
Although residents’ exposure to PFAS in biosolids is vanishingly small next to what they experience in their own homes, state governments have responded to public concerns with restrictions that make biosolids management more challenging than ever.
Helping clean-water utilities deal with the political, regulatory and social pressures is the Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Association, a nonprofit that advocates for environmentally sound and publicly supported beneficial use practices.
Members from New England and eastern Canada include environmental professionals and organizations that produce, treat, test, consult on and manage most of the region’s recyclable organic residuals. Janine Burke-Wells, executive director, talked about the PFAS issue in an interview with Treatment Plant Operator.
TPO: What is happening in the region on the legislative front?
Burke-Wells: Three proposed bills in Massachusetts would in some way affect outlets for biosolids end uses. The one we are most concerned about is called “An Act to Protect Massachusetts Public Health from PFAS,” or the PFAS omnibus bill for short. It has some good provisions aimed at PFAS source reduction, but it also directs the DEP to phase out land application, and it seems to prohibit landfilling as well. Vermont has perennial proposals to ban land application. Last year, Connecticut banned land application of biosolids as a soil amendment and this year as a fertilizer.
TPO: Did anything specific happen to lend momentum to the Massachusetts bill?
Burke-Wells: Massachusetts legislators went to Maine to discuss that state’s program. They visited only with farmers and legislators. They didn’t go to the landfill that’s filling up fast, and they didn’t talk to any wastewater operators. At least three and maybe four Maine state government reports tell them not to ban land application, yet they look at Maine and say, “That’s a great program; we’re going to do that in Massachusetts.” But Maine hasn’t solved the problem, and it’s concerning that other legislators think they have.
TPO: What does the landfill picture look like in Maine?
Burke-Wells: At the same time they passed the land application ban, they also banned the importing of bulky waste materials from out of state, and that accelerated safety concerns at the landfill. You need to mix wet wastes with dry material to ensure landfill stability. So they passed an emergency bill to allow bulky waste to come in for two more years; then they extended it again. They’ve just kicked the problem down the road. They still don’t know ultimately what’s going to happen.
TPO: How are Maine’s clean-water utilities dealing with the problems?
Burke-Wells: Biosolids are being sent farther and farther away. Some are going to Canada to be incinerated. They’re probably paying $200 per wet ton at least. Sanford still makes compost as a way to stabilize their biosolids, but now they’re sending it to landfill. Somehow, utilities are managing it. They’re actively looking for solutions. I don’t know how long they can hold off increasing their rates. At some point, rates are going to increase quite dramatically,
TPO: What would be the consequences if the Massachusetts bills were to become law?
Burke-Wells: The basic question is: Where are biosolids going to go? The Massachusetts DEP master plan projects the amount of biosolids going to different outlets in 2028 against a baseline year of 2023. It shows that by 2028, there will be 11,000 dry tons with no known outlet. And I think it’s probably going to happen before that.
TPO: Why do you believe the crisis will come sooner?
Burke-Wells: For one thing, the Hawk Ridge composting facility in Unity, Maine, has closed, and 10,000 dry tons from Massachusetts was going there every year. They stopped taking biosolids in August. The facility had existed since the 1980s. It needed major capital improvements, and there were permitting issues. The owners decided it wasn’t worth the effort or expense.
TPO: Are other states considering bans on land-applying biosolids that contain PFAS?
Burke-Wells: Yes. In Texas last year the utilities defeated a ban; that proposal is going to come back. Other states where bans are being considered include New York, Oklahoma, Colorado and Maryland. Environmental groups are clearly providing some of the language for these bills. They don’t like landfilling, they don’t like incineration and they hate land application. So, what are their suggestions? We need to sit down with them and have a discussion.
TPO: Where does a regional organization like NEBRA fit into this picture?
Burke-Wells: There is a lot of parochialism here, each state on its own, often doing the wrong things and inadvertently hurting other states. These issues need to be dealt with at a regional level.
TPO: What is NEBRA doing to counteract these issues in the Northeast?
Burke-Wells: We’re supporting our members any way we can. I believe we’re having success promoting state-level biosolids master plans. The states had lost touch with what happens to biosolids. It’s not in their solid waste plans; they didn’t have any plans for it.
TPO: Which states have done master plans, and how are they helpful?
Burke-Wells: The master plans are helping states focus on the problem. Massachusetts has done the best one so far. Maine has done one, and Vermont is doing one. Massachusetts did a comprehensive survey of the treatment plants, landfill operators and biosolids managers in the region. They were able to quantify what is being generated and where it’s going in the state. The authors created great graphical ways to show the problem. It’s being shared with legislators, but it’s an education endeavor to get them to understand.
TPO: Is anything with promise happening on the technology front?
Burke-Wells: NEBRA is involved with the Wastewater Residuals Biohub, led by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Its goal is to connect innovative technologies with people who want to help pilot them and scale them up. So far, pyrolysis and gasification have risen to the top. They yield a residual biochar and some biogas. The jury is definitely still out on those methods. They’re not going to get here in time to save this region. I’m afraid it will take some huge rate increases or a big solids violation spewing into a water body before people understand why we need to move these materials.
TPO: Do you see any favorable outlook for land application of biosolids in your region?
Burke-Wells: Yes. The Maine Water Environment Association feels they have enough information and reports to go back to the legislature and ask them to reverse or partially reverse the ban, in cases where the benefits outweigh the risks. They’re patiently developing their case.
TPO: How are farmers who have used or want to use biosolids taking all this?
Burke-Wells: The risk for farmers is individual. Some look at the numbers and say, “[PFAS] doesn’t bother me.” Others say, “I sell this kind of product; I absolutely can’t take biosolids with PFAS.” Farmers are still asking for biosolids. The slow-release nitrogen is very valuable to them.
TPO: How would you advise NEBRA members to approach these issues?
Burke-Wells: We’ve been helping them with letters to their elected officials to give them a heads up. We have to keep talking about it. There are only three management options, and Maine is down to one, which is landfilling. That’s going to run out in 2028 unless they expand the landfill. We need state regulators to focus on this and help with solutions. The situation is pretty bad right now, but I believe it would be worse if NEBRA wasn’t here.