BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNTY OF KERN
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON AIR QUALITY
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2004
MEETING TIME: 6:00 P.M.
MEETING PLACE: BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Reported By: Pamela J. Cardona, CSR No. 7739
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 Meeting Chairman: STATE SENATOR DEAN FLOREZ
4 AL WAGNER, Chief of Staff
5 STEVEN McCALLEY, Director
6 Kern County Environmental Health Department:
7 JIM BECK, Asst. General Manager
8 Kern County Water Agency:
9 PAUL GIBONEY, Ranch Soil Scientist, Agronomist
10 Kern Food Growers Against Sewage Sludge:
11 Riverside County: MICHELLE RANDALL, Member, Biosolids Advisory Committee
12 City of Los Angeles: DIANE GILBERT, Sanitation
13 Engineer, IV
14 Orange County Sanitation District: LAYNE BAROLDI, Biosolids Program Manager
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: LAUREN V. FONDAHL
16 Environmental Engineer, Clean Water Act Compliance Officer
17 DOUG PATTESON, Senior Engineer
18 Regional Water Quality Control Board,
19 Central Valley Region:
20 Public Comment: Gene Lundquist
Steve Stockton
21 Rupinder Jhaj
22
23
24
25
2
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
2 MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2004; 6:00 P.M.
3 BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let's go ahead and start.
6 It is 6:03. And we want to move through the agenda as
7 quickly as possible.
8 I would like to call this hearing of this of
9 the Senate Select Committee on Air Quality in the
10 Central Valley to order. This evening we are going to
11 focus in on the use of biosolids in the San Joaquin
12 Valley.
13 I would like to say that this hearing is on
14 the record. I probably don't have to tell you that.
15 And it will be transcribed and available on the Senate
16 website.
17 Pam, when do you think the transcript will be
18 completed?
19 THE COURT REPORTER: Approximately in two
20 weeks.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: So give us two weeks. So if
22 you're interested in the transcript of this particular
23 hearing, I would urge you to go on-line and pull that
24 transcript down.
25 I also say that so everyone can pick their
3
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 words carefully as you are giving us public input.
2 Before I begin, I definitly want to thank all
3 of the local representatives, the Agency
4 representatives, the business people, and, of course,
5 the residents for being here this evening to discuss
6 the land application of biosolids in the Central
7 Valley, and particularly a thank you to the City of
8 Bakersfield for allowing us to use these very highly
9 advanced City Council Chambers. Very, very nice.
10 Very good for slides. And we appreciate any
11 presentations you will be giving us tonight.
12 Obviously, we are dealing with an issue of
13 great interest to many groups, the issue of biosolids.
14 And, obviously, we have heard a lot of stories in
15 terms of land applicators doing their best to
16 basically run responsible operations in terms of the
17 reuse of biosolids. And we also have heard stories on
18 the other side in terms of potential contamination to
19 groundwater and soil.
20 My overall thought is there tends to be, at
21 least from our perspective, a lack of information
22 about what is in the sludge, or at least conflicting
23 information.
24 Tonight we are going to be asking three
25 questions related to those particular concerns: One,
4
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 are we threatening our groundwater supplies with the
2 current biosolids land application operations in
3 Kern County; two, do we have sufficient enforcement,
4 regulation, and laws to protect our natural resources,
5 particularly groundwater and public health from
6 biosolids reuse or disposal, and, if not, what more
7 needs to be done; and three, is Kern County being
8 unfairly burdened with other municipalities' wastes.
9 To answer these questions, we will hear from
10 representatives from local agencies, the U.S. EPA,
11 Central Valley Water Quality Control Board, as well as
12 farmers and community members.
13 I hope by the end of the night we will have a
14 better idea of how we should handle biosolids coming
15 into the Valley and its current and future sources.
16 With that being said, let's go ahead and get
17 started. And let's start with defining the problem.
18 We have Steve McCalley, Kern County
19 Environmental Health Department.
20 Steve, thank you for being with us.
21 MR. McCALLEY: Good evening, Senator. It's
22 my pleasure to be here this evening. And this is
23 about a topic that has long been in the mind of
24 Kern County residents, and certainly our governing
25 bodies, the Board of Supervisors.
5
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 I'd like to take a moment, if I might, and
2 share a few of the high points of our biosolids
3 ordinance that has been one, actually, that has
4 evolved over a number of years, since the concern was
5 expressed in the mid '90s with respect to biosolids.
6 It's fair to say that biosolids snuck up on
7 Kern County and, I think, snuck up on all of us in
8 California. We have also sought some leadership from
9 the State, probably, six, seven years ago, that was
10 not taken up by the folks at that time.
11 Kern County's biosolids ordinance is intended
12 to promote the general health, safety, and welfare as
13 those -- as there are unanswered questions on
14 biosolids.
15 The U.S. EPA defines AEQ biosolids as a
16 product. However, based upon broad concerns,
17 Kern County Board of Supervisors has taken a very
18 conservative view with land application of biosolids,
19 which must be done under permit with the County.
20 Our ordinance has evolved. And I mentioned
21 Class AEQ, and, actually, in Kern County we
22 characterize it as Kern County AEQ because we have
23 added two additional constituents -- dioxins and
24 PCBs -- that the Board has directed us to be concerned
25 about and have as part of our analytical data that's
6
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 presented.
2 Any biosolids land application must receive
3 prior approval with a permit and fee. The permit and
4 fee must be paid to the Environmental Health Services
5 Department. Soils in all fields must be sampled and
6 analyzed prior to application. Minimum sampling is
7 defined with the confirmation of AEQ, Kern County's
8 version thereof, at the staging area.
9 Samples are taken by an independent sampling
10 party and then an independent individual sent to
11 independent State-certified laboratories for
12 evaluation.
13 The permit may be revoked at any time for
14 cause. And the permits are on an annual basis.
15 There's a significant number of management practices
16 designed to prevent degradation of water, both surface
17 and subsurface, and to minimize nuisances such as
18 flies, dust, odors, et cetera.
19 The management plan must be submitted
20 annually to the Department identifying the fields to
21 be used, the process to assure that the biosolids meet
22 Kern County's definition of AEQ, and to mitigate
23 off-site flows of water such as flooding from rain,
24 et cetera.
25 There are a number of site restrictions that
7
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 specify the distance to roadways, water wells,
2 residents, and other sensitive receptors. And
3 monitoring and record keeping is done on a routine
4 basis.
5 The ordinance we have today is quite a bit
6 simpler than the ones that were earlier passed by the
7 Board. But as the quality of biosolids was raised to
8 AEQ, which is characterized as a product that can
9 be -- that is part of the components that may be
10 purchased at a garden store, we believe that the Board
11 has taken a very conservative approach and has
12 appropriate standards in place.
13 It's fair to say, though, that the Board has
14 directed County staff with the Water Resources
15 Committee to take additional looks with
16 representatives from the water industry, et cetera.
17 And as an outgrowth of that, the recent RFP by the
18 Kern County Water Agency is a part of that. And I
19 think there will be a speaker on that later.
20 So that's a real thumbnail overview of our
21 ordinance, Senator. And I would be happy to answer
22 any questions that you might have.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you. I do have a
24 couple of questions.
25 Now, you mentioned that the biosolids issue
8
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 kind of -- I will use your words -- "snuck up on us."
2 So how did it sneak up on us? That's a real --
3 MR. McCALLEY: Well, the standards were
4 established out of the Clean Water Act that prevented
5 or diverted the disposal of the sludge. And it was
6 thought initially, you know, the standards were
7 developed by the UPA, and there was some application
8 of biosolids in Kern County, really, before we became
9 aware of it because there was no protocol in place for
10 County ordinances, et cetera. It was handled through
11 the Regional Board and the EPA.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And is it fair to
13 say, then, that prior to the EPA, in essence,
14 categorizing this, that no farmers had any trouble
15 with this stuff being applied even before there was an
16 issue -- biosolids? It was just a common practice?
17 MR. McCALLEY: Well, actually, I think the --
18 as I understand, the practice of applying the
19 biosolids was a result of the effort to keep it out of
20 the oceans, out of the landfills, and to provide an
21 appropriate beneficial use which, in this case, was
22 thought to be an agricultural crop reduction.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And you also
24 mentioned, as a follow-up to that comment, that then,
25 at least at the state level, help wasn't taken up.
9
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 And I'm trying to get an understanding of what that
2 meant.
3 MR. McCALLEY: Well, many counties
4 individually, I think, beginning with Merced County in
5 the early '90s, developed local ordinances.
6 The challenge with county ordinances is the
7 fact that each county may be a bit different or a bit
8 more or less restrictive. And it creates sort of an
9 opportunity for movement to -- by the producers and
10 appliers, and that may not be under standard
11 conditions. That has been addressed in recent times
12 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
13 Water Quality Control Board.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So I'm trying to
15 understand it.
16 Are you arguing for the State being a
17 statewide standard that would apply equally to every
18 county in terms of biosolids.
19 MR. McCALLEY: I think initially, Senator,
20 that would have been an appropriate response. Today,
21 however, with what we know in Kern County and the
22 concerns that have been expressed, we believe that the
23 standards developed by the regional boards are not
24 stringent enough. And the Board, in that regulatory
25 vacuum, took action years ago to address this problem.
10
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And given the County
2 has a standard, have we looked at other counties in
3 terms of their standards, particularly Riverside
4 County, in terms of the way that they categorize their
5 various uses of the biosludge?
6 MR. McCALLEY: It's my understanding that
7 Riverside County had an ordinance years ago. And in
8 recent years it has been resurrected for further
9 review based upon development.
10 I think we, in Kern County, believe that
11 there's merit to look elsewhere. But our Board,
12 wanting to take a conservative approach in recognizing
13 the concerns of the local community, took that effort,
14 looked broadly at other ordinances, but developed the
15 one that we have in place today.
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: And I guess what I would
17 hear with the State, is it fair to say that the County
18 cannot ban sludge outright?
19 MR. McCALLEY: That's my understanding. Yes.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: But we can regulate it?
21 MR. McCALLEY: Yes.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And that regulation,
23 if we were to indeed regulate it, we have the ability
24 to do that through the enforcement of land
25 application? Is that how we do it?
11
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 When we say "regulate it," how are we
2 regulating it?
3 MR. McCALLEY: Well, we regulate and permit
4 the material that can be applied under the broad
5 powers of the Board for health safety.
6 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So we can't ban it,
7 but we can set a standard as in -- let's say in
8 Riverside's case, it would be so high that it would,
9 in essence, ban it?
10 MR. McCALLEY: I suppose that would be the
11 case. Yes.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And you also
13 mentioned that -- in your comments that we have taken
14 samples. And I am wondering when you say "taken
15 samples," what does that mean to the County?
16 When you take a sample, where? How close and
17 what does the sample mean?
18 MR. McCALLEY: The standards require that the
19 biosolids meet Class AEQ, exceptional quality, and
20 have the chemical standards consistent with that.
21 In looking at the sampling protocol, we
22 modeled it to a certain extent after drinking water
23 standards, that sampling protocol where those are
24 taken to an independent laboratory for testing, taken
25 out of the producers, if you will, out of their
12
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 laboratories, and added a little bit of strength to
2 that by requiring an independent sampler also take
3 that, that it not be an employee of that producer --
4 it could be an employee of the independent
5 State-certified laboratory -- to provide that
6 arms-length confidence that the sample that was taken
7 was an independent sample.
8 Going through the lab -- I'm sorry.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: Who set the parameter for
10 where the sample is taken?
11 MR. McCALLEY: It needs to be taken at the
12 staging area set in the ordinance, or prior to that,
13 if the material is produced and comes over to
14 Kern County in the AEQ standard.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: And how often is that
16 enforced?
17 MR. McCALLEY: Well, we receive quarterly
18 reports. And, likewise, we receive monthly reports on
19 the material. And we have the ability, at any time,
20 to certainly verify what's in that by taking
21 independent samples. We have not done so.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Right. I was going to ask
23 you how many times have you done that?
24 MR. McCALLEY: We have not done that. Based
25 upon the samples we have received, they're typically
13
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 well below the maximum standards. And I have quite a
2 bit of confidence in the independent laboratory.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And you mentioned,
4 also, that these can't be revoked for cause. Have we
5 ever had that opportunity to revoke?
6 MR. McCALLEY: We have temporarily suspended
7 permits for paperwork violations, things of that
8 nature. Typically those are readily rectified.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Has there been any
10 complaints at all in terms of the Green Acres
11 facility?
12 MR. McCALLEY: Well, I think it's reasonable
13 to say that there have been complaints on all the
14 biosolids application. Certainly, the Green Acres
15 facility is the one that we're most aware of in the
16 metropolitan Bakersfield area. And we've had
17 complaints over the years on flies and odors and
18 things of that nature. But, typically, upon
19 investigation, we have not been able to confirm them
20 as the responsible party for those.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And can you tell
22 us in terms of the monitoring that you mentioned
23 earlier -- you got the quarterly monitoring reports;
24 is that correct.
25 MR. McCALLEY: Yes.
14
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: And then you do inspections
2 as well?
3 MR. McCALLEY: Yes.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: But you said we haven't done
5 very many inspections?
6 MR. McCALLEY: Actually, we do very frequent
7 inspections and don't pull samples.
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: And those applications, you
9 are testing for nitrates?
10 MR. McCALLEY: We are testing for heavy
11 metals and other constituents to assure that they meet
12 the 503 regulations for AEQ. Nitrogen would be one of
13 those constituents.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: But it also includes heavy
15 metal?
16 MR. McCALLEY: Yes. That's the predominant
17 area it's in.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And I guess the
19 question I get constantly on this issue is: What is
20 the benefit that Kern County is receiving for taking
21 this from Los Angeles?
22 I mean, what -- you know, the average person
23 out there that's, you know -- I assume that we'll
24 sometimes send water to L.A., and they seem to be
25 sending us biosludge back.
15
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 So the question I have is: What are we
2 getting for that? What benefit are we --
3 MR. McCALLEY: Typically, the biosolids are
4 used for fertilization and crop reduction. And, I
5 think, as far as linkage to benefit to Kern County
6 would be that, as agricultural production may be
7 increased, we would have some income -- broad income
8 opportunities, a few jobs, and that sort of thing.
9 Likewise, there was some marginal land that
10 was utilized -- where biosolids was utilized to put it
11 back into production. And I think it's reasonable to
12 suggest when you can enhance --
13 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let me --
14 MR. McCALLEY: -- crop-productive land.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: And how long have we been
16 doing this?
17 MR. McCALLEY: It's been applied since '94.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Through '94. So we
19 are getting near, a little past 10 years.
20 MR. McCALLEY: Approaching 10 years.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: And how much marginal land
22 in that 10 years has been created? How much has been
23 made better?
24 MR. McCALLEY: I don't know.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: And how many jobs have we
16
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 created in those 10 years?
2 MR. McCALLEY: I don't know.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
4 MR. McCALLEY: I think it's reasonable to say
5 that the benefit is negligible.
6 SENATOR FLOREZ: So, again, what benefit are
7 we creating in Kern County?
8 What can I tell the average person that says,
9 "Sending water, getting this back, what benefit are we
10 getting in the County?"
11 MR. McCALLEY: I think it's -- has to be
12 viewed as a broader issue, a statewide issue,
13 certainly. And working together with other counties
14 to look at how we are handling waste in general --
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
16 MR. McCALLEY: -- where we can identify
17 beneficial uses.
18 As far as what you can say to the
19 community --
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: "We're helping L.A. out."
21 MR. McCALLEY: Effectively. And then we may
22 be helping them out by --
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: And we're getting no Dodger
24 tickets or anything for that; right?
25 MR. McCALLEY: Right.
17
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: The cost for a permit, let
2 me try to quantify this.
3 What is the cost for a permit?
4 MR. McCALLEY: It's $8,000 a year.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: And how was that amount
6 decided upon?
7 MR. McCALLEY: That amount was established by
8 the Board of Supervisors based upon staff time and
9 their consideration of the issue in general.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: When was the last time that
11 the fee was amended, either up or down?
12 MR. McCALLEY: I believe it was amended in
13 2002.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: Up or down?
15 MR. McCALLEY: I believe it went up a bit.
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And is it keeping up
17 with the inflationary costs, the additional staff and
18 the things that you just mentioned?
19 MR. McCALLEY: I think it covers our costs,
20 yes.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: So this does cover your
22 costs?
23 MR. McCALLEY: Yes.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: So is it fair to say that
25 what is coming in is covering exactly what it is your
18
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 department is doing in terms of this particular site?
2 MR. McCALLEY: Yes.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Does the department, your
4 particular department, feel that the regulations
5 currently are sufficient to protect groundwater?
6 MR. McCALLEY: That is an issue that
7 certainly has been under a great deal of scrutiny.
8 We believe that, based upon our experience
9 with the lower quality biosolids, the information we
10 had was it sufficiently utilized, were tied up by the
11 soil.
12 However, the Board, as I mentioned, in
13 pursuing that more conservative issue, has taken and
14 asked the Water Resources Committee to take a closer
15 look at that, which they have been doing. And I think
16 it's not unreasonable based upon the stringent
17 ordinance that we have, that the Board has expressed
18 concern for resources. And when that information --
19 tangible information that suggests that there is a
20 reasonable concern for groundwater, that we would take
21 the steps to protect it.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And in terms of that
23 water committee you just mentioned, looking -- are
24 they looking closer at the types of industrial wastes
25 that come in with biosolids and things one might call
19
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 pharmaceuticals -- these types of items?
2 MR. McCALLEY: Those have been the topics
3 that have been looked at. Although the committee has
4 been in a bit of a hiatus, awaiting the activities
5 that I mentioned briefly with respect to the
6 Kern County Water Agency.
7 SENATOR FLOREZ: So they are waiting for the
8 RFP to be completed?
9 MR. McCALLEY: Perhaps to see if that is
10 successful.
11 Certainly, all those other issues are on the
12 table. And many of the -- candidly, many of the
13 issues that you might find in biosolids are of equal
14 concern with sewage upflow, as well.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let me just go through this
16 a little slower while I have you here, because the
17 next speakers will come and I won't get you back up
18 here again.
19 The Water Committee is made up of who? When
20 you say the "Water Committee" --
21 MR. McCALLEY: It's made up of
22 representatives. It's a committee of Board
23 appointees -- Board of Supervisors' appointees from
24 various water districts, appointments at large by the
25 Board of Supervisors' community members, and those
20
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 that are responsible for their various water districts
2 in the county.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: And when is the last time
4 that group met?
5 MR. McCALLEY: I believe it was about a year
6 ago, maybe a bit more or less.
7 As the water agency started to pursue the
8 RFP, it seemed reasonable to allow them to -- an open
9 playing field to try to move that forward.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: Did this group get to
11 discuss the RFP at all?
12 MR. McCALLEY: No.
13 SENATOR FLOREZ: Is it fair to say that the
14 groups who are pushing the RFP are probably members of
15 this committee here and there, maybe not formal
16 members, but they all participate?
17 MR. McCALLEY: I think they have a role as a
18 member, not -- I wouldn't say they are functions of
19 the majority of that group.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: What do you think of the
21 RFP?
22 MR. McCALLEY: I think it's a reasonable
23 further cautionary step that might be taken.
24 Certainly many of the programs that our department and
25 other state and county agencies enforce -- underground
21
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 tanks, landfills, and et cetera -- are all designed to
2 protect the very valuable commodity which is our
3 groundwater. We all need it. And it certainly
4 supports our growth and our agriculture.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: And given that in the
6 10 years that we have been dealing with the biosolids
7 issue, has there been any substantial amendment to
8 reflect these newer concerns in terms of what we are
9 doing? Or are we waiting for the RFP process to be
10 concluded?
11 MR. McCALLEY: Well, I think in terms of
12 progressively more restrictive ordinances that the
13 Board has passed, we certainly went from a
14 no-regulation environment to a regulated
15 environment -- to one that was allowing Class B to now
16 class AEQ, Kern County's version. The acreage has
17 decreased substantially, from application on as many
18 as 24,000 acres that were permitted down to under
19 8,000.
20 So I think that the actions taken by the
21 Board have reduced the potential threat if one is
22 determined to exist.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: And do you think from a --
24 and maybe the technical folks are here or not -- but
25 from a ranking point of view, I know there was debate
22
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 at the County Board. A few years ago we went to a
2 two-tier A/B type system.
3 Is that fair to characterize it that way in
4 terms of this sludge, or does the analysis go further
5 than those types of systems?
6 MR. McCALLEY: Well, effectively there were A
7 and B. And we've chosen the more restrictive or the
8 more conservative one, the higher quality, if you
9 will, being AEQ, Exceptional Quality, with a couple of
10 slight modifications, as I have mentioned.
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: And B would be what to you?
12 MR. McCALLEY: B has some higher metal, it
13 has some -- it doesn't have quite the conservative
14 approach with respect to pathogens.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: And B is effectively banned
16 here at the County?
17 MR. McCALLEY: That's correct.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: Is there room within that
19 "go, no go" scenario for various other types of
20 classifications beyond A, or is A going to be the
21 highest quality?
22 MR. McCALLEY: Kern County AEQ --
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Is there a higher bar?
24 MR. McCALLEY: No.
25 Kern County AEQ is as high as its
23
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 classification under -- my understanding under the
2 503 regulations.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Just two more questions.
4 In terms of the -- you mentioned the EPA had
5 kind of weighed in on this. The EPA is now where on
6 this biosolid issue from your vantage point, 10 years
7 hence?
8 MR. McCALLEY: There was -- there had been
9 controversy at the EPA over some of the science that
10 established the standards.
11 The National Academy of Science, I believe,
12 took another look at it. There is still a bit of
13 concern around the country. And I believe, at this
14 point, that study is ongoing addressing some of the
15 issues that you raised with respect to
16 pharmaceuticals.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: Is it fair to say that the
18 EPA has changed its stance from supporting land
19 applications to, in essence, taking a neutral
20 positions, neither/nor, not saying land application is
21 a bad thing, and they are not saying it's a good thing
22 either?
23 MR. McCALLEY: I believe the regulations
24 stand in providing that opportunity. So I think
25 there -- although there may be ongoing further study,
24
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 the fact that the regulations stand providing a
2 vehicle for land application even up to and including
3 that on food crops, I don't believe the EPA has made a
4 substantial change at this point.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you believe there is
6 better alternatives than land application?
7 MR. McCALLEY: Well, certainly the -- there
8 should be some that are explored. Land application
9 has some merit under certain circumstances.
10 I think the concern where you have another
11 resource that may be impacted by that is certainly
12 worthy of consideration, such as groundwater.
13 Certainly incineration has been considered.
14 Further production into certain fertilizers has been
15 considered and has been done.
16 So I think part of it is growing the markets
17 and growing the science and growing the opportunities
18 for a steady opportunity for disposal on those large
19 producers.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. If we do
21 incineration, we'd better run out to the Convention
22 Center and have the next hearing; right?
23 MR. McCALLEY: Yeah. I think certainly the
24 air quality issues are one. Although that has been
25 discussed, and there are some entrepreneurial folks
25
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 that suggest that to be a good alternative.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Steve, thank you very much.
3 MR. McCALLEY: My pleasure.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: Very helpful. I appreciate
5 the testimony.
6 Let's have Jim Beck, Kern County Water
7 Agency.
8 Jim, thank you for joining us. I appreciate
9 it.
10 Again, we are defining the problem. I think
11 Steve did a real good job. And if we can kind of
12 continue on that vein, that would be very helpful.
13 MR. BECK: Senator Flores, I appreciate the
14 opportunity to speak to you today on the issue of
15 biosolid use in Kern County.
16 This is an issue of significant interest by
17 our Board of Directors and one that we've spent
18 considerable time, energy, and resources in trying to
19 resolve this issue in an equitable fashion.
20 To begin with, I want to say that I
21 appreciate all the interaction we have had with both
22 the regulator Steve McCalley; the Kern County Board of
23 Supervisors have been very helpful in working through
24 this; the generators have been, as a group, a very
25 excellent partner in this in helping us come to
26
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 understand their needs and issues, and appreciate
2 their openness in discussing their operations in
3 dialoging with us. It's been very helpful in trying
4 to come up with a solution that works for all of us.
5 To begin with, I wanted to give a background
6 on why this is such an important issue to the
7 Kern County Water Agency. And to do so, give a quick
8 background of some of the issues related to biosolids
9 that impact Kern County.
10 First of all, most of you are very familiar
11 with the importance of water in Kern County. On this
12 particular PowerPoint slide, you can see that in the
13 blue area here is an outline of the general usable
14 groundwater basin within our area. That's an
15 important asset to the County. And it's an
16 agricultural community.
17 We have about 860,000 acres of irrigated
18 land. And we typically rank third or fourth in the
19 state's production in agriculture.
20 This next slide shows you the importance of
21 crop per acreage. We have 54 percent of our crops
22 that are edible. And of that percentage, fruits,
23 nuts, and vegetables made up 43 percent in 2002. And
24 I don't think we've seen significant differentiation
25 of that since 2002.
27
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Water is an important resource for us. It's
2 one of the life blood that keeps Kern County what it
3 is, and it has made it the economic powerhouse that it
4 is. The Kern County Water Agency is the largest
5 agricultural contractor in the state project. We have
6 an entitlement for about one million acre feet, and we
7 contract for about 25 percent of the project. And
8 maintaining the ability to use that water is an
9 important part of our ongoing efforts at the water
10 agency.
11 This next slide begins to dial in on why we
12 are particularly concerned about biosolid use. Our
13 gross water needs in the San Joaquin portion of the
14 County total about 3.2 million acre feet per year.
15 And that's split between the various surface water
16 supplies that you see there. The Kern River State
17 Water Project and the Central Valley Project Surface
18 Water Supplies all play an important role of water
19 management and water development in Kern County.
20 But really one of the driving assets that
21 makes Kern County what it is is our valuable
22 groundwater supply, which makes up about 43 percent of
23 the water needs in Kern County. It means much of the
24 urban demand within our areas met through groundwater
25 use.
28
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 So with that valuable asset at hand in the
2 1960s, we begin to see that overdraft was about
3 800,000 acre feet. We were beginning to tax our water
4 resources. And, again, we began to implement some
5 measures to deal with drought situations like that
6 that occurred in the early 1990s where we saw
7 Kern County receive no water from the State Water
8 Project in 1991 and suffer some pretty significant
9 impacts which led to $850 million in loss in 1991
10 alone. 11,000 jobs were lost in 1991.
11 Those efforts led us to begin to take
12 considerable investment at the local level. We had
13 been working at the State and Federal levels to try
14 and gain additional water supplies and reliability
15 through our participations in those projects, that we
16 realized that in order for Kern County to continue to
17 grow and be the vibrant, economic area that it is, we
18 needed to take matters into our own hands.
19 So we began to develop local groundwater
20 banking programs. And as you can those programs on
21 the slide ticked off and the highlighting on the map.
22 From 1987 through current, we had a whole slew of
23 groundwater banking projects developed over the basin.
24 In order to avoid future shortages, we needed
25 to rely on our local asset, our real valuable
29
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 resource, the groundwater basin, where we could bring
2 water in in extremely wet years, store it in the
3 underground aquifer, and recover it in dry years,
4 therefore stabilizing our water supply.
5 Those programs were highly successful and are
6 the envy of not just the State of California but the
7 entire nation. We have areas throughout the country
8 that come to Kern County in order to be educated on
9 how to develop appropriate groundwater banking
10 programs.
11 In addition to providing an opportunity for
12 us to meet our local water supply needs, those banking
13 programs have provided us an opportunity to partner
14 with other urban interests like Metropolitan Water
15 District, whose partnerships are depicted in this
16 slide in the gold or dark brown areas, where we had
17 Metropolitan investing heavily with their local
18 partners -- Kern Delta Water District, Arvin-Edison,
19 North Kern, and Semitropic Water Storage District --
20 where they were able to finance infrastructure within
21 those water districts and exchange for the ability to
22 regulate their water within those areas. It provided
23 facilities and opportunities for our local districts
24 while providing a service to Metropolitan Water
25 District, which is a real win-win partnership.
30
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 In order for those types of programs to
2 continue and to be able to be operational, it depends
3 on groundwater quality. This graph depicts on how
4 groundwater banking works and what years you recharge
5 water in basins which are located in portions that are
6 previously agricultural areas. We recharge the
7 underground aquifer. And then in the dry year we have
8 a number of wells that will deliver that groundwater
9 to surface water conveyance facilities like the Cross
10 Water Canal for agricultural and urban water needs.
11 And in order to maintain those programs, we
12 need to be able to guarantee the quality of water that
13 we produce in those groundwater banking areas meets
14 the requirements of the downstream users.
15 Multiple sources are the key for us to be
16 able to provide the dynamic water supply management
17 opportunities we have in Kern County. This graphic
18 shows the shortage of the water supply that we have
19 here -- the Kern River, the Friant-Kern, and the State
20 Water Project.
21 We are able to take advantage of water supply
22 opportunities that occur on either of -- any of these
23 three systems and recharge areas that are located
24 along the Kern River fan, which is our concern fan
25 groundwater banking project areas. The Green Acres
31
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Facility is located immediately south of that at the
2 end of this arrow. And then we also have areas of
3 Semitropic Water Storage District and areas that are
4 also adjacent to the Friant which rely on the ability
5 to deliver high quality groundwater back to the
6 surface water conveyance facilities.
7 If the groundwater quality does deteriorate,
8 it will impact our ability to manage waters through
9 this program. So we feel that it's incumbent upon our
10 local water management directors to continue to
11 provide that high quality water.
12 Our water that is recovered is delivered back
13 to those surface water facilities like the
14 State Aqueduct and the California Aqueduct on the west
15 side of Kern County. And that quality of water
16 ultimately can be received by downstream users like
17 Metropolitan Water District which receives water
18 coming through A.S. Edison Pumping Plant. And that
19 same water supply can also be delivered to the urban
20 Bakersfield area.
21 Metropolitan Bakersfield receives about
22 one-third of its drinking water supply from the
23 surface water plants that are located at the end of
24 the Cross Valley Canal and operated by the Kern County
25 Water Agency and the City of Bakersfield.
32
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 So when we are operating as recovery
2 programs, we do want to make sure that the quality is
3 adequate to meet those uses.
4 This map depicts the downstream areas that
5 could receive water from Kern County. And you can see
6 that primarily is the service district of the
7 Metropolitan Water District.
8 We have a large urban population that will be
9 impacted by any water quality issues that may arise in
10 Kern County. So they are concerned about that water
11 quality. And the Department of Water Resources has
12 developed a very stringent set of guidelines that
13 dictate the types of programs that can be operated and
14 how they are coordinated with overall use of the
15 California Aqueduct.
16 When we are in a mode of delivering water to
17 the Aqueduct, we have to do testing each and every
18 day, or we do molding each and every day of test
19 results that we do on a regular basis to make sure
20 that we operating guidelines of the State project.
21 The downstream recipients are very sensitive
22 to any variations in water quality. We want to make
23 sure that the water that they treat is suitable for
24 their end use.
25 And like I said, urban Bakersfield is just as
33
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 concerned about that type of water quality issue as
2 the downstream Southern California areas.
3 Our large-scale banking projects must be able
4 to produce high quality groundwater. The impacts of
5 the drought have reduced our reliability on our State
6 and Federal projects to a degree that they are a
7 backbone of our water management system.
8 The Metropolitan Water District spent
9 $2 billion on Diamond Valley Reservoir. For us to
10 construct a similar facility would cost over $13
11 billion if it were the same size as our groundwater
12 banking facility.
13 In addition, we banked enough water in there
14 that's over several billion dollars. So we've got a
15 multi-billion-dollar asset that we've invested in to
16 ensure that our way of life in Kern County continues
17 and that water management continues to be able to be
18 done in a reasonable fashion.
19 Kern and its downstream partners rely on
20 these facilities to be able to do our job. We feel
21 that, in looking at the biosolids issue, our primary
22 concern is to make sure that the operation of those
23 facilities do not impact our groundwater quality and
24 surface water management opportunities. And we
25 believe that there are viable options to prevent
34
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 future problems.
2 Our solution, recommended solution, was to go
3 to a request for a proposal we sought to relocate the
4 currently existing biosolid users from outside the
5 generally accepted area of usable groundwater to
6 portions of Kern County outside that generally
7 accepted area where you have lower quality water and
8 less ability to impact the large-scale operations of
9 the groundwater basin.
10 Our preference was to see them leave
11 Kern County altogether. But we realized that this was
12 an intermediate step for existing applicators. It may
13 make sense for them. And we are willing to pursue
14 opportunities and would afford them that opportunity.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you know what senate
16 district that green portion is?
17 MR. BECK: Yes, I understand very well whose
18 senate district that is. And we are --
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: I just wondered.
20 MR. BECK: When we get into RFP, I will
21 explain the process that we are going through to make
22 sure they're viable.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
24 MR. BECK: We currently have three
25 permittees, and I think they are all represented here
35
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 in the audience. And I want to say that our
2 perspective of their operations is not one of pointing
3 a finger. We feel that they have been very
4 responsible in following the regulations that are in
5 place. We haven't detected any impacts to our basin
6 from the monitoring we have seen.
7 And this issue for our Board isn't about a
8 current problem but of a future threat. And we are
9 looking at avoiding future problems for our county.
10 Those sites impart about 368,000 wet tons of
11 biosolids each year. And to put things in
12 perspective, our local production of biosolids ranges
13 from 20- to 30,000 wet tons for our county; so it's
14 quite a large portion relative to what we produce
15 within Kern County.
16 As you heard Steve say, the current ordinance
17 allows AEQ to be used anywhere within the county.
18 This map depicts the current application
19 areas. The Green Acres site is the largest. And it's
20 immediately south to some of the current banking
21 projects.
22 We have got, also, the city of Oxnard's
23 facility located in this portion of the county. And
24 the Orange County site is located right on our county
25 line.
36
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 The relocation area was a generalized line
2 that identified potential areas that would be
3 considered for potentially viable projects to relocate
4 those.
5 This is a quick timeline of how we got to
6 where we were. We met with Supervisors McQuiston and
7 Watson in December of last year to brief them on our
8 proposed approach to try and address the biosolid
9 issue.
10 We then had a follow-up meeting that was
11 hosted by Ron Gestellum, the CEO of Metropolitan Water
12 District in Los Angeles. Ron has been an active
13 participant in biosolid management throughout his
14 career and was very valuable in pulling us all
15 together.
16 We met in that meeting to discuss the issue
17 of the generators. Many of the slides that you have
18 seen today were presented to them so they had a feel
19 for where we were at. And, again, it wasn't about
20 indicting them for their current operations but rather
21 to avoid future problems.
22 We developed the idea that we'd go out with a
23 concept of an RFP that would request proposals from
24 landowners or other entities that had options for
25 removing biosolids outside the groundwater basin.
37
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Our preference was, again, to move them
2 outside of Kern County. But we felt that it was
3 appropriate to consider proposals that would put them
4 at a relocation zone and were viable. And by viable,
5 part of our concern with viability dealt with a whole
6 variety of the issues -- economic viability, water
7 supply, outfit with the local land use areas and
8 residential areas were certainly things that we would
9 consider in determining whether or not a project was
10 viable.
11 We released the RFP into the public on
12 September 23rd and allowed two, three months for
13 comments. Again, that was some of the summaries of
14 what we were doing with our proposal.
15 And go to the next timeline. We released it
16 on September 23rd. Proposals were due last Wednesday
17 where we received five responses. They were varying
18 natures of detail. And, currently, we have begun the
19 local review of those proposals to determine which
20 ones are viable.
21 At this point they're very preliminary
22 analyses. We haven't begun any detail on those. And
23 our intent is to meet with other local agencies and
24 review those proposals with their staff late in this
25 year or early in January.
38
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 As we committed to in our meetings with the
2 generators, our plan was to forward any proposals that
3 we felt were viable to the proponents and to begin to
4 work with them on a plan for implementation of any
5 viable programs.
6 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let me ask a question on the
7 last slide, if we can go to it real quick.
8 You mentioned five responses received at the
9 December 15th --
10 MR. BECK: Yes.
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: When you say "received," the
12 RFP parameters for responses were what? So who gets
13 to respond back?
14 MR. BECK: We didn't limit the type of entity
15 that could respond. Most of the responses or all the
16 responses were private parties or private
17 corporations, some were agricultural.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Are they within
19 smaller cities, or are they within unincorporated
20 areas of the county?
21 MR. BECK: We didn't get any responses that
22 were within the urban area of any of the smaller
23 cities. They were all outside those.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: Are they three miles from a
25 city, or are they on the boarder of a city?
39
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 The reason I say that is that you know there
2 has been a lot of issues regarding dairies and
3 counties placing things within three or two miles near
4 a quote "smaller city" without the smaller city in
5 essence having the opportunity to input. And I am
6 just kind of wondering, of the applications that
7 you're looking at --
8 MR. BECK: Senator Florez, I don't recall the
9 specific locations of those. If you'd like, I could
10 have Lloyd Friar of our staff join me, and he could
11 answer that. And I know that that is a very sensitive
12 issue. And we are looking for projects that --
13 SENATOR FLOREZ: I am just trying to save you
14 some trouble because I think talking early is always
15 better. Sometimes a little -- a mile or a half or
16 whatever -- makes a big difference.
17 MR. BECK: And I can say that when we issued
18 the RFP, we did have a number of comments from areas
19 that were concerned about potential location of
20 biosolids. So we will incorporate all of our comments
21 that we receive during the RFP process in considering
22 what will be viable.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. BECK: And in 2005, we hope to meet with
25 the generators to come up with some viable options
40
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 with them, to discuss the implementations plan with
2 them. It's a pretty aggressive schedule.
3 And, again, I appreciate the interest that
4 we've seen from the County and State officials. The
5 County Board of Supervisors have been very supportive
6 and helpful working through this process. And the
7 generators have been very open minded to some of the
8 approaches we have taken, although we recognize they
9 have some specific concerns that they would like to
10 see addressed in anything that we come up with.
11 I think that's the end of my selection.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let's pick up right where
13 you left off if I could.
14 You mentioned some of the concerns of the
15 generators. How would you characterize those
16 concerns?
17 MR. BECK: I think, from a business practice,
18 they have looked at the amount of money that they have
19 invested in their facilities and the costs that they
20 already got sunk into either the land or the contracts
21 that they have with the various operators. And I know
22 that their concern is that any option not provide a
23 significant financial hardship and that as best can be
24 accomplished by a revenue-neutral operation.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And that would
41
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 include -- obviously, the transportation is critical
2 or they wouldn't be coming to this county -- right? --
3 they would just be going straight to Kings County?
4 MR. BECK: Yes. I think that certainly
5 transportation and location of facilities that are
6 proximate to freeway access is something they had been
7 after. And we hope that by working with them, we can
8 provide some certainty to the future operation that
9 would be attractive to them.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: And in the dissemination of
11 the RFP, were any sent to, like, the desert, the east
12 side of the county?
13 MR. BECK: I don't believe we did send any to
14 the desert.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
16 MR. BECK: I double-checked with Lloyd Friar
17 and he says that no, that we did not send any.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: And why not?
19 MR. BECK: We targeted landowners that had
20 property within the potential relocation area. And we
21 also were contacted secondhand through other
22 out-of-state and out-of-county areas. So we did not
23 do mass mailing. The only mass mailing we did was to
24 landowners within the relocation area.
25 We felt that was appropriate from a two-part
42
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 perspective: One, to let landowners in that area know
2 of our intention; and, two, to solicit entrepreneurial
3 people in those areas to make proposals.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: The only reason I ask, I
5 know that part of the process for you in doing this
6 is to -- and I'm sure we'll hear from other generators
7 and others later -- but, you know, that particular
8 west side issue of whether the water is usable or not
9 I think ultimately drove a good portion of the
10 decision.
11 And this, of course, we are just a
12 representative of the people. You know, the average
13 person on the website says, "What's wrong with the
14 desert?" "What's wrong with the desert?"
15 And so the question that I would pose to you
16 as the average person is, "What's wrong with the
17 desert?"
18 MR. BECK: We'd certainly be willing to
19 consider the desert. And that may be the follow-up
20 that we do after we review the viable options, that we
21 locate ways that we can expand the targeted
22 opportunities for relocating biosolids.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: It's more of a question, I
24 think, of the generators' preference.
25 I understand the constraints. You have a
43
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 whole host of economic issues for them to make it
2 attractive. And I appreciate your efforts to, in
3 essence, move, if you could, this away from any
4 potential water basin that could be jeopardized. And
5 I assume that after my discussions with Ron Gestellum,
6 as well, and Al Wagner and I both met with him, that
7 the MWD feels somewhat -- feels very optimistic about
8 your particular endeavor.
9 But as a representative of the west side of
10 Kern County, of course, you know, we always want to
11 make sure that when RFPs are sent out, they are sent
12 out as broadly. And, of course, I would, you know,
13 encourage anything else in, you know, as broadly as
14 possible to be from a generator's point of view to be
15 considered, particularly the east side. That's not to
16 say I want to send it to the east side, because, of
17 course, that's a whole other can of worms.
18 But I think, from a fairness RFP perspective,
19 it would seem to me that, you know, if there was
20 somebody in the east who wanted to make a bid, if you
21 will, and to give the generators some sort of economic
22 incentive that might make it transportation-wise
23 workable, would that be something that you would
24 consider?
25 MR. BECK: Certainly. Our goal in addressing
44
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 this issue is to come up with a workable solution from
2 the residents of Kern County.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Yes. I understand.
4 MR. BECK: And we understand that's for all
5 of Kern County. And if there's other areas that are
6 viable and that we should consider, we are certainly
7 open to -- we really see a desire. Our mission at the
8 water agency is to come up with a solution that
9 protects our groundwater resource.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: Boron is a long way away,
11 huh?
12 MR. BECK: Boron is a good hauling distance
13 from Los Angeles.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let's go through some of the
15 science, if we could. Because that's really what I'm
16 interested in terms of the problem.
17 Let's talk about the Green Acres facility in
18 general. Is it fair to say that the water -- the
19 Kern County Water Agency is looking out for the future
20 in terms of not having found a problem; is that
21 correct? So in other words --
22 MR. BECK: That's correct.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: -- you haven't found any
24 contamination? There is no thought that -- well,
25 what's leading this? I mean, you've actually taken a
45
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 big step in terms of let's actually actively figure
2 out how to move this away from the potential --
3 MR. BECK: Yes. That's certainly our message
4 to the generators and to the public at large as far as
5 water quality issues. We are to address any future
6 potential problems.
7 We've seen significant advances in the
8 ability to measure and monitor water quality
9 parameters over my career. My background is one of a
10 very technical one. By trade I'm a chemist. So I
11 understand the importance of detection limits and what
12 that does.
13 I also have a public health background. So I
14 understand the potential impacts that even low levels
15 of some of the constituents can cause and health
16 effects and also drinking water problems.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: And the Department of Water
18 Resources has a very high criteria; is that correct?
19 MR. BECK: Yes. Their criteria for delivery
20 of water to the Aqueduct is that it does not increase
21 above the ambient conditions in the Aqueduct.
22 So for example, if you raise the water
23 quality in the Aqueduct, your water has one part per
24 billion higher than what the current arsenic standard
25 is. That causes some additional difficulty in being
46
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 for well water.
2 Our concern on water quality is a future one.
3 We are looking at heavy metals, some of the endocrine
4 disrupters. The pharmaceuticals that we are seeing in
5 greater and greater quantity is a result of increasing
6 technological advances that allow us to measure lower
7 levels, but nonetheless do raise concern about
8 long-term health effects associated with those and
9 have driven the regulatory environment to a place
10 where those become significant impediments in being
11 able to manage water.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: Are you part of the water
13 committee that was mentioned earlier?
14 MR. BECK: I am not but our staff is. And we
15 have Stuart Pyle, our former general manager, is on
16 that committee.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you know when Green Acres
18 was, in essence, bought out of bankruptcy and moved in
19 that direction? Was the water committee consulted on
20 that? I mean, were there some discussions on the
21 various concerns that you mentioned now?
22 MR. BECK: I am not aware of any discussions
23 that may have occurred. They may have, Senator,
24 before and I am not aware of them.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: I guess the reason I ask is
47
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 I know that when the County was debating this, I know
2 that there were some farming operations that were very
3 concerned, extremely concerned. And they were, you
4 know, obviously, from some of the marketability issues
5 of biosludge, were well to be concerned about it.
6 But on the water front, would you say that we
7 are -- I guess how do I put it? -- were you a part of
8 that push, or was this kind of led by some of the
9 other entities?
10 MR. BECK: The Kern County Water Agency
11 wasn't involved in any coordinated effort to deal with
12 the water issues on the Green Acres site. But I know
13 that certainly we were privy to some of the general
14 discussion. But again, I am not aware of any.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: And again, why now, then?
16 MR. BECK: Why now? I think that's a fair
17 question and one that the generators have asked us.
18 Why now? We have watched the growing debate
19 on this issue. I think Steve McCalley alluded to that
20 the state addressed the question he had about the EPA
21 issue.
22 And as we weighed into this and listened to
23 the discussion that some of our agricultural interests
24 have brought to us, and again, some of our groundwater
25 banking interests have brought to us, we waded through
48
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 the volumes of scientific evidence that has been
2 developed on this and the scientific studies.
3 And our assessment and, again, from a
4 technical background, was that I think there's a good
5 body of evidence on both sides of this issue. There
6 is good science that's been done on behalf of the
7 generators. There's good science on the other side.
8 We feel that as that body of evidence is
9 increased, that the future concern or the concern for
10 future contaminants has really grown and been made --
11 we have become much more aware of the liability
12 associated with that. And as we look at that, we feel
13 that when you have such a balance of evidence on both
14 sides, that the prudent action of Kern County is to be
15 very conservative with such a valuable resource.
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: Right. And I applaud you
17 for standing and trying to move, if you will,
18 potential, because I think it's something that we are
19 really concerned with.
20 Just two other questions, if I could. No. 1,
21 in terms of the west side, to go back to the west
22 side, sufficient water resources, from your vantage
23 point, bear and touch the biosolid issue or not?
24 MR. BECK: I think it's one of the largest
25 impediments to move it to the west side as much of the
49
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 areas that are -- actually would be appropriate areas
2 for relocating biosolids have some very expensive
3 water costs associated with them.
4 But we feel, though, that we'll look at
5 those, look at the opportunities that are present.
6 And it may be that water costs associated with that,
7 or other options, merit the movement of the facilities
8 to areas in the west side.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: So you still have a lot of
10 analysis to do once you look at that.
11 MR. BECK: We are very early. And that water
12 supply, as we understand, is an important part of that
13 analysis.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: And your slide reflected
15 that. I wanted to make sure. You said 2005 working,
16 and you were going to be working through that process.
17 MR. BECK: Yes.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: In terms of the alternative,
19 I asked Steve earlier, are there alternatives that you
20 see out there in terms of appropriate movement out
21 there beyond what we are discussing tonight?
22 MR. BECK: Well, we believe that there are
23 portions of the San Joaquin Valley that would be
24 appropriate for land application. They would be
25 located over less usable groundwater, no groundwater
50
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 areas. And there are portions -- areas, Kings and
2 Tulare County, where biosolids are being used where we
3 feel are appropriate areas.
4 I think the issue that we look at, and
5 frankly I know the generators' issues, is the costs.
6 It's all about money. And there's expenses associated
7 with going to any other option for the generators.
8 And we're sensitive to that.
9 We think there are viable options and
10 locations. Part of the decision to go to biosolids
11 was driven by economics and their opportunities in
12 Southern California being increasingly more expensive,
13 look for their next lowest cost option, which happened
14 to be Kern County. That's not an indictment of the
15 generators. That, in our mind, was a good business
16 decision. We are not sure we like that good business
17 decision to continue.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: We bought an island in
19 Kern County, and here we are.
20 MR. BECK: Again, I don't fault the
21 generators for doing that.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: No. It's a business
23 decision; right?
24 MR. BECK: It has an impact on how we manage
25 our water.
51
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: The City of Bakersfield, as
2 we're sitting here, they are sending effluent to
3 Green Acres now; is that correct?
4 MR. BECK: That's correct.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you have concerns with
6 that?
7 MR. BECK: Sure. We've -- and, again, I have
8 had the opportunity to speak several times on this.
9 But we understand that Kern County, the City of
10 Bakersfield, and all our valley towns, are all going
11 to face a similar issue.
12 What do we do with the effluent from
13 increasing the urbanized area?
14 We haven't had to face this problem before in
15 the San Joaquin Valley, particularly in Kern County.
16 Where the City of Bakersfield will go with
17 this sewage effluent is an issue of concern. But
18 it's -- in the magnitude of issues, we feel it's a
19 smaller issue when we've got 380,000 tons coming in
20 from the heavily urbanized area. Let's do that one
21 first. And then we'll move to our local issues and
22 use our local resources to deal with our local
23 problems.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: So maybe to paraphrase your
25 slide, that's 20,000 versus 360,000 --
52
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 MR. BECK: Yes.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: -- plus. So 15 times more
3 created outside our area than we are creating
4 ourselves?
5 MR. BECK: That's correct.
6 And we feel -- again, we're not -- we
7 understand we need to get our own house in order. And
8 that certainly is our intention. But we feel we need
9 to, you know, tackle the larger issues first.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: And as a follow-up to that,
11 for the City of Bakersfield, if Green Acres is moved,
12 then what does the City of Bakersfield do?
13 MR. BECK: You know, the long-term use of
14 sewage effluent there could be studied. There could
15 be programs that would actually move that sewage
16 effluent to other more suitable areas. And it may be
17 more costly. But we have to look at the long-term
18 cost benefit of significant capital investment now to
19 relocate some of the sewage effluents versus potential
20 costs associated with long-term cleanup of a
21 contaminated aquifer, which there are some significant
22 costs associated with that.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. My last question, and
24 I'm going to add a little commentary in it, I asked
25 Steve earlier, and it's a question I am probably going
53
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 to ask every single person tonight because it's a
2 question that people are asking Kern County, and that
3 is: What's the benefit to Kern County? And maybe you
4 can answer it. But what I've heard so far is that in
5 10 years we don't know how many jobs we've created
6 from this, we really don't know how much land has
7 actually been improved by this, and we know it's an
8 inexpensive fertilizer, but yet we are not quite sure
9 how to quantify that.
10 I know that we bank a lot -- what's the value
11 of the water that we bank for MWD?
12 MR. BECK: I don't have the number offhand.
13 But we have banked about $2 billion worth of
14 groundwater from --
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Well, I know the value we
16 are giving L.A. So the question is: What is the
17 value we are getting back?
18 MR. BECK: Senator Florez, we haven't done
19 that study. Our value would be the same that Steve
20 said, that there's some economic value and some
21 agricultural value to those that are using the lower
22 cost fertilizer; there are some business opportunities
23 that you may have some opportunity for the public
24 comment to hear from the specific applicators. They
25 can explain that.
54
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 But we haven't really gotten into that in any
2 detail and would be unable to really detail any real
3 long-term, economic value. That's one of the reasons
4 we are very concerned. It is an intangible. And we
5 are only trying to look at it from not, maybe, the
6 specific enterprises, but a broad-base benefit for the
7 County.
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: I'm just keeping a little
9 score card here. So I can put you in the "Not Much"
10 category; right?
11 MR. BECK: I think that's a fair comment.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: I have got "A Lot" and "Not
13 Much." And I think I'll put Steve in "Not Much." But
14 I'm just trying to -- with all of us working on it,
15 I'm just saying I'm trying to keep a little tab on it.
16 MR. BECK: And I think you may have some
17 folks that can give you more detailed answer on that
18 question.
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: Yes. Thank you so much for
20 your presentation. You were very, very helpful, and
21 we appreciate it.
22 Okay. Let's go on to Part B of this -- of
23 defining this problem.
24 We have Paul Giboney, Kern County Growers
25 Against Sewage Sludge. And after that we'll have
55
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Michelle Randall, member of the Biosolids Advisory
2 Committee in Riverside County.
3 Paul, thank you for joining us.
4 MR. GIBONEY: Good evening, Senator.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: If I could just jump into
6 some questions, what prompted the formation of this
7 particular group?
8 MR. GIBONEY: What precipitated it was we
9 became aware of the ordinance-building process as it
10 was occurring in '98. And I attended one of those
11 meetings. And a number of the growers became
12 concerned, and so we formed our own group in order to
13 encourage the County to develop an ordinance that
14 would be more protective of our resources and our
15 reputation.
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: Now, this is in '98. So
17 this started happening in '94. So, as has been
18 mentioned, was there a lag or you just decided that it
19 was getting to a level that Kern County couldn't
20 sustain this biosludge coming in, or what was the
21 deal?
22 MR. GIBONEY: Some of us may have been
23 vaguely aware of the practice going on. But what
24 really brought it to our attention was the ordinance
25 process that had begun. And I think one of the things
56
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 that had precipitated that was an event that had
2 happened in the Mojave area where an individual by the
3 name of Slick Gardner had been applying a lot of
4 sludge. And there were floodwaters that -- and he was
5 not applying according to EPA guidelines. It was not
6 cultivated on a crop or anything. And floodwaters
7 actually carried that into people's homes and their
8 yards. And that was in Supervisor Steve Perez'
9 district.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: I guess my concern is: Who
11 would approve an application with the word "Slick" on
12 it? I mean, that would be my first red flag, I guess.
13 "Slick Gardner."
14 In terms of the concerns, if you could
15 just -- you've heard where we've been going with some
16 of the testimony.
17 We have two categories tonight. And it's a
18 real simple question: How does Kern benefit? Either
19 a lot or not much. And where would you put yourself,
20 in what category, and why? And you can maybe outline,
21 if you could, some of the benefits or the non
22 benefits.
23 MR. GIBONEY: As far as the Kern growers are
24 concerned, the food growers, we don't really see any
25 benefits at all that warrants the kind of risks that
57
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 we're putting ourselves under.
2 There's the perception risk, that people may
3 think that food crops are being treated with this
4 material. There is the very real risk to introducing
5 pathogens into wildlife populations. Organisms,
6 diseases, heavy metals, and organic chemicals could
7 find their way into animal feed and end up with cattle
8 herds and so forth. That is a potential problem.
9 Groundwater contamination is a problem. Human health
10 risks. It's easy to move pathogens around by wildlife
11 workers, to take these -- to take pathogens home to
12 their families.
13 So, for a lot of different reasons, we don't
14 think it's a very good idea at all.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: In terms of the -- let's
16 talk about the EPA for a moment.
17 You know, we have been talking tonight about
18 whether or not there has been any detections,
19 pharmaceuticals, metals?
20 Are you comfortable that the tests that they
21 are actually doing are actually looking and finding
22 that, or do we need to go to a more extensive system?
23 MR. GIBONEY: No, I am not comfortable at all
24 with the testing procedures as they are.
25 And, two, I don't know that we ever could be
58
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 comfortable with an adequate testing procedure.
2 First, there's the problem of detection and
3 appropriate methods of detecting, for instance, the
4 wastewater contaminants. And then what is the
5 threshold -- what is an allowable threshold for these
6 materials where they would not present a risk? There
7 has been no studies.
8 For instance, the Toxics Release Inventory
9 mandates that over 650 chemicals be reported to the
10 EPA as to their disposal. And I don't think that all
11 650 of those chemicals are currently being tested for
12 in the sludge, not to mention all the others that are
13 not on the list.
14 As a matter of fact, the United States
15 Geological Service recently stated that, "Biosolids
16 and products derived from biosolids are a potential
17 source of pharmaceutical and other emerging
18 contaminants. Thus, biosolids may be an important and
19 a widespread source of emerging contaminants to
20 surface and groundwater."
21 And to substantiate that even further, some
22 work has recently been done, work that even five years
23 ago had not been done, where -- there was one paper
24 that had begun to address the issue a few years ago
25 that stated:
59
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 "A large number of organic compounds may
2 intrude the wastewater system and subsequently
3 have potential to enter the food supply via
4 sewage sludge for many compounds. Physical
5 chemical data sets may be at best limited or
6 worst not available."
7 Simply put, we don't know how these chemicals
8 will behave in the environment or what kind of risk
9 they present, either singly or in combination with
10 other chemicals.
11 And to carry that a little bit further, in
12 substantiating some of those concerns, again, the
13 U.S. Geological Survey, the National Water Quality
14 Laboratory stated that:
15 "The presence of organic wastewater compounds
16 in sludge has not been evaluated as a source of
17 contamination to surface or groundwater. And
18 there are more than 35 organic waste
19 contaminants that were found in sludge. They
20 include pharmaceuticals, fragrances, sterols, and
21 other industrial chemicals."
22 And there was a survey that was conducted in
23 2000 where organic wastewater compounds were found in
24 90 percent of 47 groundwater sites across 18 states in
25 a well-sampling survey.
60
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Forty-six different organic waste compounds
2 were found. The depth of these wells ranged from 6 to
3 1,000 feet.
4 Now, the source of this particular study --
5 or the source of contamination may not have been
6 determined at the time. But it does demonstrate that
7 these chemicals do move through the soil profile to
8 contaminate groundwater.
9 So when you look at combinations of materials
10 and how they are going to behave, detection-type
11 technologies, we just don't see that the benefit to
12 Kern County or society in general is worth the risk of
13 applying any kind of sludge, regardless of
14 classification, over groundwater.
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: What, ultimately, would you
16 say your group is looking for in two categories --
17 three: Outright ban? simple regulation? course of
18 movement of this from one part of the county to the
19 other?
20 MR. GIBONEY: Ideally, we'd like to see an
21 outright ban. Realistically, they need -- regardless
22 of what happens, these guys need to move from over the
23 groundwater -- from over any groundwater. Like I
24 said, the risk is too great.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: When you say
61
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 "realistically," why do you use the word
2 "realistically"?
3 Does that mean that three out of the five
4 members of the Board would have to vote a different
5 way? Is that realistically?
6 What does "realistically" mean?
7 MR. GIBONEY: Realistically refers to how
8 well we are able to come to agreement, or how well an
9 ordinance would be able to stand up in court.
10 Kern County has been challenged relentlessly
11 in court. There has been several lawsuits challenging
12 our ordinance as it was formulated even though it
13 still allowed these guys to come in and apply an EQ.
14 They still wanted us to lower the standards and
15 protect our citizens even less.
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you believe it's worth
17 the fight?
18 MR. GIBONEY: What we have achieved so far
19 has been a step forward, but certainly it has not been
20 what we need to do.
21 Even the issue of pathogen reduction is still
22 of concern with the EQ due to inadequate testing
23 procedures. Again, USGS has seen that a lot of these
24 micro-organisms are nondetectible but viable. And
25 when they are out in the environment again, they are
62
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 able to come back to life, so to speak, and are
2 capable of increasing and contaminating groundwater.
3 And this has actually occurred in Arizona.
4 So even EQ is not a good answer in terms of
5 protecting population or the groundwater from
6 pathogens, let alone heavy metals and the other
7 contaminants.
8 And I'll talk about that for a moment if you
9 don't mind.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: Yeah.
11 MR. GIBONEY: One of the problems, one of the
12 gaping holes that we have is the agronomic rate.
13 Definition: It is very dangerous because
14 this is what determines the amount of sludge to be
15 applied which is based on the amount of nitrogen they
16 had assumed the crop would use.
17 However, in EQ, there's very little vicogen.
18 So a lot more sludge is being applied.
19 EQ has the heavy metals and the organic
20 wastewater contaminants. So in order to meet the
21 nitrogen needs, we are piling on a whole lot more of
22 these other contaminants which are being irrigated.
23 And one could see how these would easily be leached
24 into the groundwater.
25 And this is an extremely serious loophole
63
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 that really needs to be dealt with.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: How about composting of
3 sewage sludge? Where is your group on that?
4 MR. GIBONEY: It lessens the risk from a
5 pathogen standpoint temporarily. But, again, they are
6 only looking at one or two indicator organisms which
7 may not be reflective of the other pathogens that are
8 present and present a risk. So composting is really
9 not an adequate answer.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: Paul, is there anything else
11 that you would like to add that I did or may not have
12 asked you?
13 MR. GIBONEY: Yes, a couple of points.
14 One, EPA has no mechanism for reporting and
15 tracking sludge-related complaints. So people of the
16 pro sludge parties will say there has never been a
17 problem. That's because no one is out there tracking
18 them.
19 I have a concern and a question regarding
20 CERCLA. I have a document:
21 "Los Angeles and Orange County sanitation
22 districts had been among those accepting
23 Superfund site wastes among POTWs contracted for
24 for information. L.A. County, in addition, had
25 sought indemnification against filing of
64
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 potential citizens' suits under CERCLA."
2 This is all according to a Colorado Open
3 Records Act, a letter that was obtained by
4 Adrienne Anderson from Metro Wastewater Reclamation
5 District in Colorado.
6 There was a letter from 1987 written by
7 Unocal Corporation and their chemical division. And
8 they were looking for POTWs that would accept CERCLA
9 wastes.
10 And it stated, quote:
11 "In general, CERCLA wastes are being accepted
12 by other POTWS, and that the criteria for organic
13 influent limitations varies widely."
14 And so the question is: Are the POTWs still
15 accepting CERCLA or Superfund wastes, as is the case
16 in Colorado with the Lowry Landfill incident, where
17 CERCLA wastes are going to the POTWS there. I think
18 this is another issue that we need to be concerned
19 about.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you, Paul, very much.
21 I appreciate it.
22 Let me check in with the most important
23 person here tonight.
24 Pam, are you doing okay? Do you want to take
25 a break?
65
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 THE COURT REPORTER: Sure.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Why don't we take just a
3 two-minute break.
4 Well, how many minutes do you need, Pam?
5 THE COURT REPORTER: Two minutes is good.
6 SENATOR FLOREZ: We will just take a
7 two-minute break, and we'll start again.
8 (Recess taken from 7:19 to 7:25.)
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: We are continuing on
10 defining the problems.
11 Michelle Randall, who has traveled here from
12 Riverside, has joined us here today.
13 Thank you so much for joining us. It's very
14 much appreciated. Thank you for your time. And if
15 you can pull that mike just a little closer to you so
16 we can hear you for the record.
17 Let me start by asking you some questions, if
18 I could, or do you have a statement?
19 MS. RANDALL: No. That's fine. I'd rather
20 answer your questions.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: Great. Okay. And anything
22 that I don't ask you, maybe you can catch up with me.
23 First of all, how have you been involved with
24 the biosludge issue in Riverside County?
25 MS. RANDALL: I began by being involved in
66
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 composting issues. I established a limited degree of
2 credibility with the County. And when the land
3 application issues came up, our director of public
4 health asked me if I would sit on the Bioslids
5 Advisory Committee for Class B sludge.
6 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. In terms of the
7 Biosludge Advisory Committee, can you give us a little
8 background on why and how this committee was formed.
9 MS. RANDALL: Riverside County is a lot
10 different from Kern County. And we are becoming -- we
11 are filling up with people, for better or for worse.
12 And the farmlands are having more and more
13 subdivisions come in on the edges of them. And as
14 they come in, people have begun to complain about the
15 sludge application on the farmlands.
16 And, finally, the Department of Health
17 decided that they should revisit the existing
18 ordinances
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: And who directed the
20 Department of Health to do that? Was it the Board?
21 MS. RANDALL: Probably the Board of
22 Supervisors.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: And in terms of the
24 recommendations that that particular committee made to
25 the Board of Supervisors, can you kind of outline some
67
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 of those?
2 MS. RANDALL: The first recommendation that
3 was made was that Class B sludge be banned. And we
4 banned Class B sludge and then went back and revisited
5 Class AEQ sludge and found a lot of loopholes in the
6 original ordinance that were permitting problems.
7 We had an open system where sludge could be
8 land applied for every crop. And that left it open to
9 plant a crop, sludge the field; plant a crop, disk the
10 crop, sludge the field, plant a crop, disk the crop --
11 all in one year.
12 And so, clearly, that needed to be -- that
13 loophole needed to be closed.
14 There were also a lot of anecdotal problems
15 associated with odor. And some of the farmers felt
16 that they had the right to farm and would pass so
17 close that they would sludge people's patios. So
18 distance from houses needed to be addressed.
19 We ended up doing a four-tier system with the
20 new ordinance. And I really like it because it -- it
21 allows people to choose.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Meaning it allows people to
23 choose in what way?
24 MS. RANDALL: Well, there are various methods
25 of making EQ sludge class A sludge. And some of them
68
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 are -- you know, some of them are horrific. And so
2 the producers can choose what process they want to
3 follow as far as producing the Class A if they want to
4 land-apply in Riverside County.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: So there's a choice there.
6 But given that four-tier program, has there been any
7 application for class A sludge in Riverside County?
8 MS. RANDALL: No, there hasn't. It just went
9 into effect a couple of months ago. And we just had
10 the first meeting of the Product Review Committee,
11 which essentially was ironing out details of how we
12 were going to look at material.
13 But the other thing the ordinance does is it
14 puts the -- it takes the onus off -- proving nuisance
15 off of the neighbors and puts it onto the producers.
16 So the first tier for material that is
17 totally inoffensive, you can put it down right to
18 people's houses and right to the roadway.
19 The second tier, you have to move back 500
20 feet from the houses and 50 feet from the roadways.
21 The third tier goes back 1,000 feet.
22 And the fourth tier is way out in the desert,
23 if anywhere.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: And the effect of that has
25 been?
69
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 MS. RANDALL: The effect of it has been that
2 we're waiting for the producers to get their test
3 spots together. And then the Product Review Committee
4 will review it.
5 But the effect temporarily has been that
6 sludge application in Riverside County has virtually
7 stopped.
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: And we have heard some
9 discussion earlier about the ability of a county
10 to ban -- you used the word "ban," I will use your
11 word -- ban sludge.
12 Now, is that the technical way you look at
13 it, or is it through the application of this four-tier
14 process that it effectively led to that, or was it
15 just an outright ban?
16 MS. RANDALL: It wasn't an outright ban.
17 Outright bans, you get into things like interfering
18 with Interstate Commerce. It becomes this huge,
19 massive lawsuit that probably couldn't be won.
20 But, really, there is no ban in Riverside
21 County. They just have to comply with the ordinance.
22 And we're fine with it. They have to -- "Farmers and
23 producers have to be good neighbors," is pretty much
24 what the ordinance says.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do you have any thoughts in
70
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 terms of the way you've seen other counties do this,
2 or is this just you've been focused in on Riverside
3 County?
4 MS. RANDALL: I've been pretty much focused
5 on Riverside County.
6 When the EPA, in its infinite wisdom, decided
7 that sewage sludge was not hazardous waste because we
8 were now going to put it on the land, it has taken
9 about 20 years for people to develop control of this
10 industry. And I've been making my own efforts in
11 Riverside County.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: Just a last question. I'd
13 ask you to add anything more that you have.
14 Just from your perspective, do you believe
15 that these local ordinances as we are doing them
16 throughout the state is the way to go, or do you think
17 the State ought to have an equalized standard, county
18 by county, that would, in essence, deal with this
19 biosludge issue?
20 MS. RANDALL: The State of California doesn't
21 have the resources to deal with each locality.
22 As far as being in general for water quality
23 and in general for air quality, that's fine. But each
24 locality understands its own groundwater, its own
25 fractured granite; how many people you have or how
71
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 many people you don't have.
2 These are all things that have to be done
3 county by county. Absolutely. And, also, the county
4 can put much more stringent regulations on this issue
5 than the State and the Federal government.
6 One of the big problems we've had in
7 Riverside County is the idea of control. We have the
8 "Oops" theory.
9 Now, what if we dumped 500 wet tons more on
10 that five acres than was supposed to be there? "Oops,
11 must have been the trucker." "Oops, must have been
12 the generator." "Oops, we don't know."
13 Well, you know what? That's a misdemeanor.
14 The State of California says that if the County
15 prosecutes them to the best of its ability, they can
16 collect $100 for the first "Oops," and $200 the second
17 "Oops." So this has been a big problem.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: I think Skip Burrow
19 mentioned that we have laws on the books, but whether
20 or not we enforce them --
21 MS. RANDALL: Well, it's not caused --
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Right.
23 MS. RANDALL: -- to enforce them. And the
24 people who understand the system can just run circles
25 around it.
72
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you very much. Is
2 there anything else you would like to add?
3 MS. RANDALL: No, sir. Thank you.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you very much.
5 Appreciate it.
SENATOR DEAN FLOREZ: Let's get to the disposers in Kern County. We have Diane Gilbert, Sanitation Engineer for the city of Los Angeles. Thank you for joining us.
DIANE GILBERT: Good evening. My name is Diane Gilbert. I'm the biosolids regulatory liaison for the city of Los Angeles. And I thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening to talk to you about the city of Los Angeles biosolids management program.
What are biosolids? Biosolids are the nutrient-rich organic material that's produced at the wastewater treatment plants that comes from the primary and secondary processes. This material can be beneficially used on farmland as a soil amendment; it can be used to make compost material, or other recyclable products.
The city of Los Angeles produces approximately 257,690 wet tons of Exceptional Quality Biosolids per year. That's about 706 wet tons per day, which equates to about 23 to 25 truckloads of biosolids per day.
What are Exceptional Quality Biosolids? And I will give you the definition of the EPA, but Kern County has a different definition for exceptional quality. They are more restrictive than the EPA.
Exceptional Quality Biosolids is Class A biosolids and the destruction of pathogens. Most of the pathogens have been destroyed in Class A biosolids. Also, the metal concentration, it meets or exceeds the most stringent limits for the U.S. EPA 503s.
The city of Los Angeles current biosolids reuse options are land application, and we currently apply, in Kern County and also in Arizona. And we have a small composting facility in Griffith Park that uses about .6 percent of what we produce.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Can you go back to that last slide? I'm sorry. Thank you.
So, 99.4 percent is Kern County and in Arizona?
MS. GILBERT: Yes.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And .6 percent is in within your borders?
MS. GILBERT: Correct.
SENATOR FLOREZ: That's on a daily basis?
MS. GILBERT: Well, no. Because at the compost facility they only get, like, one truckload per week.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So minusing composting, the 25 trucks that are produced in L.A., every day, where is it going?
MS. GILBERT: To Kern County and/or to Arizona. We have the option to go to Arizona, as well. So we can divert sometimes to Arizona.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And then you say, you have the option. How many times has it gone to Arizona?
MS. GILBERT: For this year, three times.
SENATOR FLOREZ: How many trucks?
MS. GILBERT: I think probably two trucks on each of those days.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So two trucks, two days, for the entire year?
MS. GILBERT: Yes.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Thanks.
MS. GILBERT: Before there was a….this was only Class-A biosolids that's currently going to Kern County. Before we had the option of doing Class A and Class B.
I'm going to give you a little history of the Green Acres Farm that we currently apply on.
Since 1988, reclaimed water has been used on the site.
Since 1989, a private farmer began farming on the site.
Since 1990, we have collected groundwater data at the site.
Since 1994, biosolids have been applied at the site.
In 2000, the city purchased the site.
And in 2003, we started producing and applying Exceptional Quality Biosolids.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And where did the city purchase this site from?
MS. GILBERT: From a local farmer in the area.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
MS. GILBERT: This is just a map location of the Green Acres site, which is bordered by Highway 119 and the I-5.
Since the city has been applying biosolids and started its program back in 1989, we have been in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations. And most of those regulations, we have exceeded beyond what the requirement is.
These are the particular agencies that we currently have permits with: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; the Air Quality Management District; the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and Kern County.
We also have a permit with the state of Arizona. Because that's on our contingency plan, it's not listed for the state.
Currently these agencies monitor groundwater and biosolids: The City of Bakersfield; the Kern Delta Water District; the Kern County Water Agency; the California Department of Water Resources….they all monitor groundwater at this site….the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board does biosolids; the Kern County Environmental Health Services—biosolids; the U.S. EPA Region IX-biosolids; and also, the city of Los Angeles.
What types of things do we monitor for that are part of either the requirements, or a permit condition? For the biosolids we monitor metals, pathogens, which include fecal coliform and salmonella, for the Kern County Ordinance, and also, dioxins and PCBs for the Kern County Ordinance.
Groundwater parameters—we monitor the electrical conductivity, nitrates and nitrogen, chloride, and then depth to groundwater.
We currently do a lot of site management practices on our facility that go beyond regulations or requirements that we actually do on our site in order to follow best management practices for applying biosolids.
We have public access restrictions which allows us to control who comes on the site; who has access to the site. We have locked gates that are locked in the after hours. And, also, anyone that enters the site has to have permission to be on the site.
We have setbacks to surface waters and wells. And what this is, is there are requirements that we have generated for our site specifically concerning the wells and how far we apply to those wells, and, also, existing surface waters.
There's also requirements for setbacks to homes and schools that we will not apply up to or close to locations of the homes and schools.
We also have daily incorporation requirements that we do. Currently the current ordinance allows you 24 hours before you have to incorporate the biosolids. But, the city of Los Angeles has a practice of incorporating the biosolids within six hours after it enters a site.
We also have an extensive odor and dust control program, where we're constantly monitoring for odors and making sure that we're incorporating the biosolids to prevent any odors. And also, we have dust control measures where we're constantly watering our roads. And, we've also paved roads at the sites to deal with dust control.
There's also some groundwater monitoring requirements that we do per the Regional Board requirements. And we also do daily truck inspections at our site to make sure that we aren't having any biosolids on our trucks leaving the site. We do have washing stations at the site, so each truck is washed before it leaves the site.
These are some general conclusions about our existing site.
The groundwater is monitored yearly. And based upon that data, we feel that the general depth to groundwater starts at 66 feet and goes as far as 133 feet.
Based upon regulatory requirements, we're well within those parameters. Some of the regulatory requirements concerning the EPA is that you have to be within three to six feet. The California Department of Health Services, their requirement is 10 feet.
Currently, in the Class A EQ ordinance, Kern County does not have a requirement, nor does the Central Valley Regional Board have a requirement for depth to groundwater.
None of the existing groundwater samples, since we've been monitoring the site since 1999, exceeds the primary or secondary maximum contaminant drinking water standards. We are well below those standards.
Also, there is no indication of groundwater quality degradation due to any of the onsite activities. Since applying biosolids, we haven't seen that there's been any impact to groundwater. And, actually, since applying in 1994, we've seen that the groundwater quality has improved.
Also, the city meets or exceeds all federal, state, and local regulations regarding biosolids land applications. Since we started our program in 1989, we have met or exceeded all those requirements.
Also, since we've been doing EQ, since 2003, all the metal and pathogen levels are well below the regulatory limits. We exceed the requirements by the EPA and also by Kern County.
And also, there's routine inspections at the site. The city of Los Angeles does weekly inspections. And the Kern County Environmental Health Services does inspections, as well.
Because the city of Los Angeles owns the site, we have done various improvements at the site. And we're doing these improvements for two reasons: One is to make sure that we have a viable farm there, and to make sure that it looks like a farming operation. And also, to make sure that we are following best management practices.
We've hired an onsite farm manager, so now there's someone always at our site during the day for people to have access to, or to ask questions to And that's a local Bakersfield resident that we've hired.
Also, we've hired a local farmer. We have a local farmer who is actually doing our farming at our site. And we have a three-year contract with that farmer. And he's actually a Bakersfield farmer.
We recently opened a conference center, and we opened this conference center for public relations efforts. And also, so that when people come out to tour our facility, which we provide tours on a regular basis, that people would have a place to sit down and talk about the facility, ask questions. And also, because if you're being on a farm and you're touring the farm all day, you know, you may have dust in your hair or whatever. So we wanted to have a facility. Especially for me, because I know women, we like to not get back in our cars from being dusty all day.
Also, the city took a concerted effort because of some of the South San Joaquin Air Quality rules and some of the requirements. We know that you guys have rules for air quality regulations in the area that we've paved roads. We've spent over $250,000 in paving roads—the ingress and egress at our facility, and we're currently paving more roads at the facility. And this was to help with dust control in our facility, especially during the summer months when it's very dry and hot.
And this is a program that the city is actually very proud of. This is a voluntary program. It's a nationally certified biosolids environmental management system. We were the second agency in the country to actually participate in this voluntary program. We spent over $350,000 to develop this program.
And what this program does, is that it provides information about your biosolids management system that is available to the public. We created a website to help us with making sure that all our information concerning our biosolids management program was available. It also allows that any changes you make, or any program goals, or anything that you're doing concerning your biosolids program, that the citizens will be made aware of that and that they will be able to provide input.
We've identified, in Kern County, some interested parties. And the way we did that was that people that worked with us in the ordinance process, we identified them as interested parties. Also, any of our neighbors within a one-mile radius of the farm site has been identified as an interested party.
And, anyone can actually be an interested party. If you would go to the website, or either call our hotline and just request information. And what being an interested party entails is that whenever we make program changes or whenever we're going to do anything that affects the biosolids management program, whether it's at our treatment plant, or in Kern Country, that we would allow you to be involved in the process. That you could be able to help us set goals for the program and come up with new strategies of how we would manage the biosolids, or any major changes that we're making to the system.
Also, what it does is that we provide periodic updates to our interested parties and to the public. We do that via the email, through websites, and personal mailings.
And what happened was, was that our program was audited by an independent auditor. They came in, in 2003. They audited our program. It was an eight-day process. They went through every inch of our program—records, documents….came to the Green Acres site and certified that we were following best management practices in our program.
And that concludes my presentation.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you. Okay. Thank you for coming. And I appreciate it.
Just a couple of questions.
First and foremost, I just wanted to kind of key in on some of the things that you said. And I was just writing notes paraphrasing you, and you said, One, it actually looks like a farming operation, was one thing you said. And the other was, There's actually a farmer that does this. And I was wondering, is it a farm to you or not?
MS. GILBERT: It is a farm.
SENATOR FLOREZ: It is. And what does it farm?
MS. GILBERT: An agricultural area and/or…
SENATOR FLOREZ: I know. But what product….what agricultural….a farm normally produces something.
MS. GILBERT: Yes. Uh-huh.
SENATOR FOREZ: What does it produce?
MS. GILBERT: We produce corn, wheat. We grow sedan grass. We have milo grass—different types of feedstock.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And the question I've asked, I think, every witness fairly tonight is: What benefit does Kern County gain by this particular site? Can you outline….I know you outlined….we have a farmer, we have a conference room, and we have paved entrances. Beyond that, what else do we have?
MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all….not first of all, but, we have a facility there that provides a benefit to the local dairies in the areas of being able to use the crops for feed livestock. It's adjacent to some of the dairies, so that saves in the transportation and, also, air quality, and having to be able to come just directly next door to receive the product.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So the air quality of trucks coming into the valley, 25 or so a day, is improved, versus the east/west traffic of farmers transporting their own goods?
MS. GILBERT: No, it's not improved. What I'm saying is it helps to keep down the air quality issues if you can have a local dairy that has access to a product that's directly next door to them than having to travel distances to get the crop.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And then what else would be the other benefit?
MS. GILBERT: The other benefits is that we have the local residents in the area do work for our trucking company. Some of them do work for the trucking company that we hire to transport the biosolids.
We have hired a local farmer there, and it's an actual family that lives in Bakersfield. And they have X employees on their staff that are working on the site. And also, our workers on the site are from the Bakersfield area.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. How much does the city of L.A. save by sending your sludge here?
MS. GILBERT: I'm not sure what you mean, how much we save.
SENATOR FLOREZ: If you were to dispose of it yourself, versus bringing it to Kern County, what's the economic benefit?
MS. GILBERT: Well, we wouldn't dispose of it. We have a policy that we would not dispose of it.
If we had to take it to a landfill, it would be double our cost. If we would have to go to composting, it would be about three times our cost. And so it just depends on what the management option would be.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And you say you had to….you can't do that because you have….and what is the….why can't you? What…
MS. GILBERT: We have a policy that we would not landfill any biosolids because of the economic benefits, and also the environmental benefits of biosolids. And, also, it would go against ABA 939 criteria that we have, that we would reuse all recycled products.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And you mentioned….just to focus in on the second point—the environmental concerns. That L.A. wouldn't let you do it because of environmental concerns. What would be different from the environmental concerns in L.A. that we would have an equally severe air basin which is Kern County? I get that, you know, we've got…
MS. GILBERT: I don't know if I said environmental concerns. I think I said environmental benefits.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Is the city of L.A. doing this because there are environmental impediments from disposing of this yourselves?
MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all…
SENATOR FLOREZ: AQMD allow you to do this?
MS. GILBERT: AQMD would allow us to land apply?
SENATOR FLOREZ: Yes.
MS. GILBERT: There are no regulations from AQMD concerning land appllying.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Air Board doesn't have any concerns with this at all, your particular air board that you're under?
MS. GILBERT: No.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Not AQMD, but the air board, the local air board?
MS. GILBERT: No, not land application. They have regulations for composting.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And so, there is no environmental concerns? The only reason you're bringing it here is?
MS. GILBERT: I'm not sure of your question.
SENATOR FLOREZ: The only reason you're bringing 25 trucks, 99.9 percent of your waste to Kern County is?
MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all, it's an environmental benefit for the farmers here. They don't have to use chemical fertilizers. And also, it's an economic benefit for us in managing our biosolids. It allows us to be able to reuse a product in an area that needs it. You know, they wouldn't be able to farm on these areas if they did not use biosolids. And that was shown in the past before we started applying in 1994, that lands did not allow them to be able to grow crops that were productive. And so now what's happened, is that now we have usable agricultural land that's being used because of the benefits of the biosolids.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So the biosolids are creating, if you will, a much better….and I think you heard the earlier testimony: In 10 years we really can't quantify that. Would you disagree with that?
MS. GILBERT: Well, yes, I would because…
SENATOR FLOREZ: Land improvement?
MS. GILBERT: Yes, because before we started applying on that site, the farmer was not able to get anything to grow there. He could not get a productive crop. And in the other areas, as well, that I know of, that the other generators are applying on, as well. So that land would probably be still in a state that it would be no crops growing there, or it would still be like the area adjacent from our farm now.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Yes. Are you paying the farmer to grow the crop?
MS. GILBERT: We have a contract with the farmer. He grows the crop. You know, we get crop revenue from that, as well.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So he's obligated to grow a crop?
MS. GILBERT: Yes. That's a requirement, that he has to grow a crop.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So therefore, there is a crop?
MS. GILBERT: Yes, there is a crop.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
MS. GILBERT: Come to our site in April, and the whole facility will be green with all types of crops.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Uh-huh. In terms of the land application rates, just so I'm clear, how do those work, in terms of what you're actually applying? I mean, we had some folks earlier talking about some of the agronomics of this. I mean, how do you deal with that from your perspective?
MS. GILBERT: Well, _agronomic rate______ is that you have to apply the biosolids based on agronomic rates of how much nitrogen that the crop would need? What we would do is, depending on what field we would plant in, we have a farm management plan for the whole site, and we determine what crops will be planted. And based upon where that field is, we would take a soil analysis. We would determine how much nitrogen is needed. We would determine….we already know what crop is going to be planted there. And based upon the content of the biosolids, we would calculate how much biosolids would be applied. And that's done per crop per field.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And in terms of the….you mentioned some of the benefits. Also, you said you spent about $250,000 for…
MS. GILBERT: Paving the roads.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Paving the roads to the facility?
MS. GILBERT: Yes, to the facilities. All of our roads that enter into our facility are paved.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And you pay the county $8,000 a year for your permit; is that right?
MS. GILBERT: Yes, for the biosolids permit. But we also had to pay for the permit to get the roads there, as well. And then we did, of course, we pay property taxes.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So the entire cost that the county is, in essence, charging you is about $8,000 for this particular permit, though; is that correct?
MS. GILBERT: Yes. For the biosolids permit, correct.
SENATOR FLOREZ: And is there any thought of….is that the least you're willing to pay? Look, 25 trucks over the same mile is the equivalent of 600 cars over that same mile. We have a lot of road issues in terms of our highways. And I'm just kind of wondering, do you think that's a fair payment given….I understand you paving the entrance to your road, but how about the travel from the Tejon Ranch sign all the way down to your facility? I mean, is there any thought of giving county additional dollars for roads, or even….I mean, how do you make up for the mitigation, if you will, of the additional wear and tear of 25 trucks per day?
MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all, we went through the process with the county and that was the, you know, number that the county came up with. And I'm pretty sure had the number been, you know, $10,000 for a permit, we would have looked at that and said, you know, if that's was sufficient for the permit, as well. So we're paying based upon what the county says concerning that fee.
SENATOR FLOREZ: How much are you willing to pay for your….to bring sludge here?
MS. GILBERT: I don't have an answer to that question.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Uh-huh. No, I'm just wondering, because….what would L.A. do with it if indeed we said no?
MS. GILBERT: Well, that's a good question. And we're looking at options all the time concerning our biosolids production. And we have looked at various different options. We've had requests for proposals that go out. And we could take our biosolids to Arizona. But of course, we're still getting into the costs for doing that. We have looked at composting, but the viable options in the south coast region is very costly for us to do that, as well.
So we are constantly looking to diversify our program.
SENATOR FLOREZ: So if we were to make our permit process, given the wear and tear of the mitigation issues, the things that….the air quality issue, the things that the county really has to pay for in some way or another, if we were to make that, in essence, to equalize our costs and it was high enough for you to look at other places, you would have to make that calculation; is that correct?
MS. GILBERT: Well, if it's based on a regulation. Of course, we will look at the regulation if we wanted to comply with that, you know, in a particular county, then we would do that. Yes.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And in terms of the, if you will, the measures in terms of contamination, if the groundwater is contaminated, for whatever reason, does the city of L.A. take liability for that, or is it the county of Kern?
MS. GILBERT: I knew he was going to ask me that question.
First of all, the city is doing everything within its power in trying to make sure that we're not impacting the groundwater. We have a lot of management practices in place. We're looking at the data from the city of Bakersfield that they take constantly, and all the other monitoring data that we have. And based upon that data, we see that the potential of that is very low in our eyes.
We are very concerned with the issue with Kern County. We're not looking, you know, at that issue as if there was a moot point. And if there was found, based upon all the evidence and the research, that biosolids was the cause of it, of course the city would do everything they could in order to address the issue.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So you would take liability for that?
MS. GILBERT: We would….based upon if the regulatory agencies deemed that it was the city that was responsible, we would do everything to mitigate that and to follow up, cleanup, whatever the requirements are, the violations would be that we have to mitigate.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And you know how much agriculture costs, or how much value it creates in the valley? And if the water, we can't, in essence, participate in the California….in some of the water projects and other things because of contamination, you would understand the damage that would incur?
MS. GILBERT: Of course. The city of Los Angeles is part of the Metropolitan Water District Agency, so we an interest in that, as well.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. What do you think of the RFP thus far in terms of the potential to, in essence, move you east or west? Is that something you're seriously considering? Does the economics have to work out for you? Is there a number in your mind that would make it work?
MS. GILBERT: We've looked at the RFP, and we've told the Kern County Water Agency that we're willing to work with them on the issue. That we have never said that we would not move. That we know what all the issues are. We fully understand what their concerns are. And that we would have to look at the issues and the proposals that came through. And that we would work with them through the matter.
We have met with them on several occasions. We've provided them with all the investments and all of the things that we have done on our site, and what things we would be looking for in order to move. Because it's not just managing the biosolids; there's a lot of issues involved, such as the city of Bakersfield water, and also the improvements that we've done to the facility.
So we are willing to work with the Kern Water Agency, and have provided that information to them.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. I'm no sure, I think I sent you a letter today prior to the hearing on a draft report dealing with emission profiles. Did you get that fax?
MS. GILBERT: Actually, I was on my way here. Maria called me on my cell phone. And I'm aware that you did request that. I was not able to get a copy of that report for you. But I told her that we'll look for that report and get it to you after this hearing is over.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Could you tell us what that report was about so everyone is on the same page here?
MS. GILBERT: The South Coast Air Quality District was coming up with some compostable material regulations concerning PM-10s and emissions in the area. So they were looking at providing some regulations for controlling compostable materials which included compost facilities that used all types of amendments.
And so, the Southern California Alliance of POTWs was involved in a research project and looked at the emissions from various compost facilities. And that's what that program was about. To find out if there were actual emissions coming from those facilities, and how much it was, and what type of regulations they would have to control emissions from those facilities.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Let me just ask you just one question I've asked everyone: You see the….maybe from my vantage point only….but, you know, I kind of look at, we are sitting on a lot of…billions of dollars worth of water for L.A. and MWD, particularly, and that's about probably the biggest investment for your city as it is, you know, for us. And, yet, we have our water agency on the cautious side saying, Let's figure out a way to work with you and move your facility east or west. And so that there is no potential for, in essence, contamination, even though you may say that there's a slight possibility….no possibility to do that. And MWD, when Ron Gestellum was still….I'm not sure if he's gone yet or not…
MS. GILBERT: No, he's gone.
SENATOR FLOREZ: When he was there, was very concerned, as well. How do we work this out? I mean, how do we….how are we able to, in essence, meet the mutual goal of protecting the valley's most precious resource, and I think for the future of Los Angeles, the water supply, how do we do that in a way but for this little acreage farm that is somewhat moveable….I'll use your words, right? It's a consideration. I mean, how do we work that out? How do we approach that? Is the RFP the best method to do that, or is it….you know, how do we do that?
MS. GILBERT: Well, we worked with the county and they talked about the Water Resources Committee. And we were part of that committee and provided information. And we actually sent them some recommendations of some additional things that we would be willing to do as part of the ordinance process. We talked about some additional testing; we talked about additional monitoring; doing some additional hydrology at the facility. And so, we are engaged in the process of trying to come up with recommendations, as well.
And as I stated before, with the Kern County Water Agency RFP, we are willing to work with them. If they can find an area and, you know, if all the ingredients work together and all the issues are addressed, then we will be willing to move.
So the city has never said that, We're going to stay here just because we own that facility" that we are willing to work with all the agencies in making sure that we are addressing their concerns as well as our concerns.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Let's leave on the high note. So I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MS. GILBERT: Thank you.
SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you for coming down, as well.
22 Okay. Let's get to Orange County Sanitation
23 District. We have Layne Baroldi.
24 Thank you for joining us.
25 MR. BAROLDI: Very good. Thank you. Thank
100
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 you, Senator. And thank you for the opportunity to
2 speak today.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: You got it.
4 MR. BAROLDI: Diane has done a great job.
5 And I know the hour is getting somewhat late; so I am
6 not going to define biosolids again, monitoring
7 requirements, or the regulatory agencies and the
8 oversight of the monitoring requirements.
9 I want to also share in some of the pride
10 that Diane shared, that we have gone what we consider
11 the extra mile and been certified by the National
12 Biosolids Partnership which includes the Environmental
13 Protection Agency on the Environmental Management
14 System on biosolids.
15 The Kern County Water Agency map shows
16 acreage on the very northern portion of Kern County as
17 being Orange County's facility, because you're looking
18 at 2,700 acres outside the area and also 1,100 acres
19 within the area. That happens to be a farmer that we
20 do -- a farmer owns it that we do business with. So I
21 just wanted to make sure that was clear first. That
22 doesn't change any of the things that I'm going to say
23 today.
24 I know we treat it as if it's -- Orange
25 County has its own land. We manage our biosolids
101
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 there.
2 Orange County, like L.A. County, produces
3 quite a bit of biosolids. We produce about 650 wet
4 tons per day of biosolids on a seven-day-a-week basis.
5 We've got a program of diversification of
6 biosolids management. We don't have everything going
7 to the same location -- not that that isn't a prudent
8 way to do things. You know, if you have a great
9 option, you should do that.
10 Approximately half of our material is going
11 to Kern County right now being management at Tully
12 Ranch. We also have 30 percent of our material being
13 land-applied as Class E biosolids in Arizona and in
14 both Yuma County and Maricopa County; composting
15 10 percent of our material in LaPaz County, Arizona;
16 and 10 percent of our material to Ms. Randall in
17 Riverside County -- I apologize for that.
18 But we try to diversify it. And we are
19 trying to find options within our own area to manage
20 our biosolids in Orange County.
21 It is extremely different to do it with the
22 types of crops. I think there's a postage-stamp sized
23 area that still grows oranges in Orange County; so
24 there's not much agriculture going on right now.
25 We are in the process of reviewing proposals
102
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 to a recent Request for Proposals for biosolids
2 management which included higher technologies,
3 specifically pelletization, composting, production of
4 energy, and drying the soil, retorted soils from the
5 cleanup site, where they heat the soil to high
6 temperatures and mix the biosolids with it.
7 And the reuse policy that we have is somewhat
8 similar to L.A. City's policy of beneficial reuse.
9 Our Board of Directors, which consists 25 elected
10 officials within the County of Orange, pretty much
11 within the north and central part of the county, have
12 a beneficial reuse policy that our agency follows
13 right now.
14 In our RFP process, our Request for Proposal
15 process, it is not a bid process; so we don't have to
16 go to the lowest bidder. We go to what we consider
17 the lowest -- the sustainable and most responsible
18 proposer is not based solely on price. I just wanted
19 to clarify that.
20 And I am here, obviously, to answer any of
21 the additional questions. Your office submitted
22 16 questions to me. And I hope those questions were
23 answered to your satisfaction. I would like to
24 expound on any of those if you do have any questions.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: Great. Thank you very much.
103
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 The very first question, obviously, is: Why
2 don't you dispose of the biosolids in Orange County?
3 MR. BAROLDI: We're looking at that right
4 now. And we, frankly, have a proposal in to the
5 Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department
6 to develop a composting facility to shape the landfill
7 in the San Clemente/Capistrano area.
8 We are working closely with the South Orange
9 County Clean Water Agencies. The facility would be
10 in excess of 100 wet tons per day of biosolids for
11 the purpose of aerated static pile composting in
12 Orange County.
13 SENATOR FLOREZ: Maybe just from a numbers
14 point of view, we saw that L.A. has 99 point --
15 whatever it is, maybe 100 percent in some years, two
16 trucks two days a year went to Arizona.
17 But what's the percentage of stuff coming
18 from your county here?
19 MR. BAROLDI: It's roughly 50 percent.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: 50 percent. And that's
21 growing every year? Is that population based?
22 MR. BAROLDI: We anticipate that the trucking
23 will decrease come 2008 through 2010 just due to the
24 efficiencies in drying the biosolids. Because I know
25 one of your concerns is emissions from trucks.
104
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: Right.
2 MR. BAROLDI: So our best attempt is to dry
3 the biosolids out more in order to make less emissions
4 from the truck traffic.
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: And in terms of the issues
6 of moving sites -- obviously we are talking about
7 Los Angeles -- but is there a consideration that you
8 would be willing to move your site, as well?
9 MR. BAROLDI: Absolutely. We have instructed
10 our farmer to work closely with the Kern County Water
11 Agency in their effort to address the concerns about
12 the use of biosolids over usable groundwater.
13 One of the five proposals, and maybe I'm
14 talking about school, was from our farmer,
15 specifically requesting the County of Kern Water
16 Agency's assistance to move the portion of his land
17 that's objectionable to them into an area that's
18 acceptable.
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: Orange County obviously has
20 a coast; is that right?
21 MR. BAROLDI: That's correct.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: No consideration about
23 dumping any of that stuff into the ocean, though;
24 right?
25 MR. BAROLDI: Unfortunately, that's illegal.
105
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 We had a Ph.D. in science at our facility that said
2 we're starving the fish. But I guess that was his
3 opinion.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: It's illegal out there, but
5 it's okay here?
6 MR. BAROLDI: Well, with the additional
7 regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency --
8 and it may be a good segway into Lauren Fondahl --
9 they have determined that through risk assessment,
10 that this is a safe --
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: Land application; right?
12 MR. BAROLDI: Absolutely.
13 -- along with the State Water Resources
14 Control Board which, in their recent environmental
15 impact report, considers land application the most
16 sensitive and an environmental alternative.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: How often do you see the
18 State Water Resource Board? What would you say in
19 terms of their particular enforcement?
20 MR. BAROLDI: Well, since they've delegated
21 this type of activity to the Regional Board, that's --
22 the Regional Board would be who we interface with more
23 frequently.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: How often do you see them?
25 MR. BAROLDI: Our Regional Board in the
106
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Santa Ana region I see at least quarterly, and a
2 regulatory update that we have with the executive
3 officer from the Santa Ana River region.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: Now, you say you see them.
5 And you are not here, though. You see them in
6 Orange County?
7 MR. BAROLDI: That's in Orange County,
8 that Regional Board. I have contact with
9 Jared Ramsey Lewis and Mr. Patteson here on occasion.
10 Infrequent I'd say.
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: And when was the last time
12 you saw them here?
13 MR. BAROLDI: Probably in August.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: In August? And when was the
15 last time you saw them before that?
16 MR. BAROLDI: It's hard to say. I'd have to
17 look back at my Date Planner. But it is an infrequent
18 occurrence.
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: Once a quarter?
20 MR. BAROLDI: I would say not.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: Once a year?
22 MR. BAROLDI: Probably.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: So the enforcers once a
24 year?
25 MR. BAROLDI: Yeah. The actual land
107
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 application is carried out by the farmer. And any
2 inspection, being that I am in -- out in the valley,
3 would be done with our agents, the farmer, the
4 inspection by the Regional Board.
5 But if they give me an opportunity, I would
6 gladly meet them at the site if I got enough notice on
7 a surprise inspection.
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: Notice on a surprise
9 inspection?
10 MR. BAROLDI: That's why I don't see them.
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: That's probably why you
12 dont' see them.
13 So no hesitation in terms of the moving of
14 the operation. And in terms of the actual, if you
15 will, farmer who's in charge, that is a resident, or
16 is that somebody who lives here?
17 MR. BAROLDI: He lives in a county north of
18 here. I don't know exactly where. I think it's up
19 in -- north of Fresno where he lives. His business is
20 in both Kings and Kern County.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: So he manages -- he's the
22 farm manager?
23 MR. BAROLDI: Absolutely.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
25 MR. BAROLDI: Well, he's the owner of the
108
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 farm. He has staff that lives in Wasco/Pond area that
2 is the farm manager.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: What are your thoughts in
4 terms of what you have heard tonight thus far in terms
5 of potential water contamination for this area?
6 MR. BAROLDI: Oh, I can absolutely understand
7 why there is the conservative nature. I mean, you
8 would think that -- you could look back at, perhaps, a
9 U.S. Geological Survey Study in '92 through '95 which
10 showed there was some, you know, farming operations
11 within the Central Valley that had had impacts on
12 groundwater.
13 But I think you've heard quite frequently
14 from the books here about the agronomic rate and the
15 risk assessment and the regulations and the rules on
16 this agricultural fertilizing product, that there is
17 not only federal, but state and local scrutiny put on
18 it to make sure that it's being done properly to
19 protect the groundwater resources.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: If Riverside's particular
21 ordinance were in effect in Kern County, would that
22 impact you?
23 MR. BAROLDI: Probably not. And I think
24 Ms. Randall hit it on the head. What they have is a
25 four-tiered system based on nuisance potential.
109
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 And one of the key factors when Orange County
2 Sanitation picked the facility it went to was out of
3 concern to impacting citizens of your county here.
4 And I can honestly say that there probably isn't a
5 resident within 10 miles of the facility. It's very
6 remote. And when we picked it, it was kind of an
7 anecdotal story. It's the only area within my AT&T
8 cell plan between the 99 and the 5 that didn't have
9 the service area. So that was a pretty good sign.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: So you can't put a tower on
11 that land?
12 MR. BAROLDI: I'd love to. Might be the only
13 valuable use after this.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: All right. Thank you very
15 much. I appreciate it.
16 MR. BAROLDI: My pleasure.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you.
18 Let's go to our last two witnesses and then
19 we will go to our public comment. We have
20 Lauren Fondahl, U.S. EPA. And then after that,
21 Doug Patteson, senior engineer, Regional Water Quality
22 Control Board.
23 Thank you for joining us.
24 MS. FONDAHL: Thanks. I had some nice person
25 put "Dr." in front of my name, but I can't state that
110
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 I am. But any way, it's just Lauren.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. Thanks for joining
3 us.
4 MS. FONDAHL: I was given several questions
5 by Marie to answer. And see -- I can go through
6 these.
7 The first one was: "How does Part 503 aim to
8 protect groundwater and air quality?"
9 And regarding groundwater, they're based --
10 the standards are based on conservative exposure
11 consumptions for chemicals. The exposure models the
12 EPA used assumes a minimal depth of 3.3 feet between
13 the sewage sludge and the soil mixture and the top of
14 the aquifer from which water is to be withdrawn. It
15 assumes a worst-case soil, which is sandy lome, for
16 transmission of pollutants to the aquifer. And this
17 is like a worst-case scenario.
18 Most soils have far more retentive
19 capabilities. And the biosolids, themselves, in many
20 cases, improve the water retention capability of the
21 soil. And so EPA, to date, has felt that the -- these
22 conditions adequately protect groundwater.
23 The groundwater had not been a limiting
24 pathway for the -- when doing the risk assessments for
25 any of the pollutants that we looked at so for.
111
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 The primary pollutant of concern, of course,
2 is nitrate. And we do have an agronomic weight
3 requirement. This applies to Class B sewage sludge,
4 and it doesn't automatically apply to Class A. And
5 this was because, originally, the Class B sewage
6 sludge has about 5 to 6 percent nitrogen, whereas the
7 traditional Class A products had 1 to 2 percent, like
8 composting and so on.
9 Now, the city of L.A., and a few other
10 agencies, have Class A that do have 5 to 6 percent
11 nitrogen. And we have put in permits, and, also, the
12 Regional Water Quality Control Board and the counties,
13 including Kern County, have put in agronomic weight
14 requirements for these.
15 The California -- State Water Resource
16 Control Board, in their general order, also requires
17 pre and post application groundwater monitoring to
18 verify if the agronomic weight is being calculated
19 correctly. And they have the option, and the Regional
20 Board is going to impose additional requirements.
21 With respect to air quality, in performing
22 the risk assessment for the first round of the 503
23 standards, those which came out in '93, EPA evaluated
24 two air pathways for exposure to pollutants:
25 Inhalation of particulate matter over a lifetime by a
112
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 tractor driver tilling a field, and the human lifetime
2 installation of pollutants that volitize to air.
3 These pathways were not the limiting pathways for the
4 pollutants analyzed.
5 In rounds 2 and 3, EPA used a new
6 probabilistic risk assessment to assess the potential
7 air pathways of concern. And, to date, the air
8 pathways have not been found to be the limiting
9 pathways for any of the pollutants looked at so far.
10 EPA is now beginning to develop a microbial
11 exposure and hazard assessment methodology and will
12 develop a pathogen risk assessment to further define
13 and characterize the risks from airborne pathogens
14 exposure to residents adjacent to sewage sludge
15 application sites.
16 In response to the recommendations of the
17 National Research Council to develop further data on
18 potential impacts of airborne pathogens, EPA has
19 committed to several additional studies: Development
20 of a human health incident reporting, tracking, and
21 follow-up response system to investigate human claims
22 of human health impacts.
23 In cooperation with other stakeholders, EPA
24 is going to plan and execute a series of field studies
25 to measure model emissions from land-applied sewage
113
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 sludge at sites in proximity to residential areas.
2 EPA will conduct an exposure measurement
3 workshop to develop methods for quantifying exposure
4 to pollutants at land-applied sewage sludge to nearby
5 residents.
6 Let's see, the second question was: "Does
7 the National Biosolids Partnership require groundwater
8 monitoring and pathogen reduction?"
9 The partnership, of course, isn't a
10 regulatory agency. It does encourage its members to
11 develop environmental management systems such as the
12 City of L.A. and Orange County Sanitation District
13 described.
14 The third question was: "How does EPA
15 respond to ongoing concerns about public health and
16 quality of life concerns?"
17 In December 2003, we published the results of
18 our review. We are required to do this every two
19 years. And we hadn't done this since '93, but we
20 published another evaluation.
21 We did an assessment for dioxins and the
22 dibenzofurans and coplanar PCBs. And, then, the next
23 round we published a proposal in 2003. As part of
24 this round, we commissioned the National Research
25 Counsel to independently review the technical basis
114
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 and come up with recommendations, which it did in
2 2002.
3 As a part of this review, we started a number
4 of additional measures such as additional work in
5 developing means for pollutants that we now have
6 detection limits for that we didn't five years ago,
7 and developing risk assessments based on that.
8 We are working on developing a national
9 incidence tracking system to determine health effects.
10 We're working on better characterizing the odors
11 involved in chemicals and bio aerosols that may be
12 emitted from land-application sites and evaluation of
13 the effectiveness of current sewage sludge practices.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: Let me interrupt you.
15 Let's, No. 1, submit your answers for the record. Let
16 me ask you about four questions.
17 MS. FONDAHL: Okay.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: Maybe that will get through
19 part of it.
20 MS. FONDAHL: Yes.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: And I appreciate your
22 responses. And I think you and your staff have been
23 very diligent in offering that.
24 So, Transcriber, we'll submit that, and maybe
25 you can include it as part of the record. Okay.
115
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Let me ask you a couple of questions
2 specifically.
3 I guess what I'm hearing is we are going to,
4 and I guess what I am interested in right now is,
5 given the current standards and what you have heard
6 tonight, what is it that we can do know in terms of
7 some of the issues, particularly the agronomic and
8 some of the, if you will, land application issues that
9 seem to be years behind where we should be today.
10 So I hear we are waiting for 2005. I hear
11 that we -- at least the samples you've mentioned were
12 nitrate very strongly. And I forgot, I didn't hear
13 you say anything about pathogens or heavy metals.
14 What are we doing about that today?
15 What can we do about that today?
16 That's the reason we are here. It's the
17 groundwater; so I am kind of wondering what we can do
18 about that today.
19 MS. FONDAHL: I think the practices in
20 Kern County do have a number of safety factors in
21 place. Our standards were based on worst-case
22 scenarios where you're going to be growing food crops
23 in the near future, or you are, in fact, growing food
24 crops. And you have much lower setbacks. And what
25 exists in Kern County today is there are substantial
116
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 setbacks from population areas and so on.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
3 MS. FONDAHL: I think with respect to the
4 groundwater, you know, it's something that needs to be
5 looked at as we look at new chemicals, at the
6 biosolids that are applied and incorporated within six
7 to eight inches of the soil --
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
9 MS. FONDAHL: -- with the possibility that
10 others would percolate down is -- at this point, it
11 doesn't appear to be a real problem. It's something
12 that needs to continue to be looked at. But the
13 monitoring is in place now.
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: And I think the issue -- the
15 reason I ask you that is I think just about every
16 single person tonight is referencing you as, if you
17 will, the standard. "The EPA only says we have to do
18 this." "The EPA only tells us this is allowable."
19 And I guess I am wondering, I think you heard
20 me mention earlier that the EPA seems to have reversed
21 its position from promoting, if you will, the
22 beneficial uses of biosolids.
23 When did that change occur, and why did it
24 occur?
25 MS. FONDAHL: I think it depends on who you
117
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 talk to as to whether we do or don't promote.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Where are you on it? You
3 are the EPA tonight.
4 MS. FONDAHL: I think -- I wouldn't promote
5 it. I think it's a good option in some areas. In
6 other areas it's -- you have to look at the overall
7 situation: What's the distance that you're going to
8 have to truck it, and how much impact are you going to
9 have from that and --
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: And are you offering us any
11 guidance in that regard?
12 MS. FONDAHL: I think it -- you know, it is
13 up to the County to make the calls from a
14 quality-of-life stance as to just how much they want
15 to go above and beyond --
16 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. So you're just the
17 minimum?
18 MS. FONDAHL: We're the minimum, yeah.
19 And like Riverside County, you know,
20 certainly did make the quality-of-life call on just
21 how to protect itself from nuisances.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: Had to stop it; right?
23 MS. FONDAHL: Uh-huh.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: So the quality-of-life bar
25 is nebulous and important, but yet provides some sort
118
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 of, if you will, not a ban but a way to regulate and a
2 way that kind of avoids --
3 MS. FONDAHL: So they can make the call,
4 "this isn't too much of a nuisance."
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: Gotcha. Right. And they
6 make that call.
7 In terms of the EPA research, you mentioned
8 that you are going to be doing quite a bit; is that
9 correct?
10 MS. FONDAHL: Yeah.
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: When does it all conclude?
12 What years?
13 I know that you've mentioned a couple of
14 different things. But at what point can we expect
15 some guidance from the EPA?
16 MS. FONDAHL: I think, like any EPA program,
17 it never concludes. Or, you know, as our detection
18 limits improve, we find that there are new chemicals
19 and then -- that can be detected and then in
20 analyzing, are they a risk?
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: When is the next round?
22 MS. FONDAHL: The next -- the current round,
23 there were 15 pollutants proposed in 2003. They were
24 going to have them evaluated in the next couple of
25 years. After that there will be another round of
119
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 pollutants and so on. And this is the same with
2 drinking water or anything else. There's, you know,
3 new pollutants being analyzed continuously.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: You mentioned or I may have
5 heard another witness talk about this National
6 Certification Program. Is that EPA'S program?
7 MS. FONDAHL: I think that's the
8 Environmental Management System.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: Is that a voluntary program?
10 MS. FONDAHL: Yeah, that's a voluntary
11 program.
12 SENATOR FLOREZ: And are you a part of that
13 process at all?
14 MS. FONDAHL: Not really.
15 When the entities develop their program, then
16 the EPA is one of the agencies that may comment on it.
17 But it's just one of many agencies that may comment on
18 it.
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: And has the EPA ever thought
20 about making this a kind of a mandatory process in
21 terms of this type of certification?
22 MS. FONDAHL: I don't think EPA has. I --
23 some of the state agencies have looked at, you know,
24 should they take the conditions and actually put them
25 into a permit to improve the performance of the
120
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 facilities.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: I see. Thank you very much.
3 And thank you for your written testimony. We will
4 submit it for the record.
5 Okay. Doug.
6 It's Central Valley Regional Water Control
7 Board; correct?
8 MR. PATTESON: Correct.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: And let me just start where
10 we left off.
11 It is a thought, particularly in this county,
12 that we don't see you as frequently, not you per se
13 but your agency, as much as we should.
14 Why is that, particularly as enforcer?
15 MR. PATTESON: Well, we have several hundred
16 sites in the area. And I have five people who come to
17 those sites. So we don't -- we try to get it at least
18 once a year.
19 SENATOR FLOREZ: So once a year is about,
20 kind of, when we could except?
21 MR. PATTESON: Yeah. We review submittals,
22 though, throughout the year.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: You do?
24 MR. PATTESON: And monitor them.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: And that means you are
121
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 actually -- when you say "submittals," take me through
2 what it is you do.
3 MR. PATTESON: They have -- biosolids
4 applicators submit a preapplication report saying
5 where the proposed field that they are going to apply
6 biosolids is and what the previous loadings have been,
7 what the capacity left is. And then following
8 application, they submit a post application report
9 that summarizes what took place and....
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: And what type of monitoring
11 does the Board do in relation to the Green Acres site?
12 MR. PATTESON: We require independent samples
13 taken by the applicator of biosolids as well as -- I
14 think relative to the City of Bakersfield's disposal
15 of effluent groundwater monitoring. The groundwater
16 monitoring I don't think is required for the biosolids
17 permit.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: And given that, there were
19 reports created?
20 MR. PATTESON: Correct.
21 SENATOR FLOREZ: How regular are those
22 reports?
23 MR. PATTESON: It varies depending on how
24 often they go to a particular field. But monthly. We
25 give reports every month.
122
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: Every month.
2 And you say we have maybe one visit per year?
3 MR. PATTESON: Right. Site inspection.
4 SENATOR FLOREZ: So that one report every
5 year per site?
6 MR. PATTESON: Well, the Regional Board
7 generates.
8 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay. And in terms of the
9 agronomic rates that we were talking about, any
10 violations that you have found in terms of that
11 particular standard?
12 MR. PATTESON: No, not really. It's -- it is
13 totally clear; so I think there is room for
14 improvement in the reporting that we require, not
15 necessarily what the applicators do but what the
16 permit requires.
17 SENATOR FLOREZ: And in terms of the action
18 if, indeed, there is a violation found, what actions
19 does your Board, you, take? I mean, do you send a
20 letter and then that's it, or what specific actions --
21 MR. PATTESON: Typically we would send a
22 Notice of Violation which states the problem, requires
23 a solution, a fix, by a certain date. If that's not
24 done, then we will escalate enforcement.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: Have you ever escalated
123
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 enforcement on one of these facilities?
2 MR. PATTESON: No.
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: Do we ever require any
4 testing when we find a violation?
5 MR. PATTESON: Actually, there are -- the
6 main violations that we have noted are monitoring
7 deficiencies. And, typically, those are corrected
8 right away.
9 SENATOR FLOREZ: And I mentioned the
10 agronomic rates. And how do we, in essence, regulate
11 those particular rates. And how does your agency deal
12 with that?
13 MR. PATTESON: Well, we look at the acreage
14 of the area being applied to, what crop's grown, what
15 its nitrogen requirement is. And then based on
16 analytical samples of the biosolids, the nitrogen
17 content, calculate an allowable loading.
18 SENATOR FLOREZ: And when was the last time
19 you were at Green Acres?
20 MR. PATTESON: It was this year, early this
21 year, the spring.
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: And prior to that when was
23 the last time you were here?
24 MR. PATTESON: I couldn't tell you. I have a
25 staff person who comes down here. I think -- I would
124
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 say it was within a year of that.
2 SENATOR FLOREZ: Those are all the questions
3 I have. Thank you very much.
4 Okay. This will be the time for public
5 comment. And if anyone has any public comment, please
6 feel free to come on up. And if you could just
7 identify yourself for the record, that would be great.
8 MR. LUNDQUIST: Senator Florez, I am
9 Gene Lundquist. I am the director of the Kern County
10 Water Agency, Board of Directors, and I am serving
11 this year as president of the Board.
12 You have heard earlier from Jim Beck, our
13 general manager elect. And he explained some of the
14 agency's concerns with the current situation of about
15 368,000 tons of sewage sludge being imported into the
16 county each year and deposited over the groundwater
17 basin.
18 I just want to emphasize that the agency's
19 staff is pursuing this issue with the full and
20 complete support of the Agency Board of Directors.
21 We recognize that the generators and the
22 entities that they have operating and hauling sewage
23 sludge to their designated properties are operating
24 within the legal and regulatory parameters.
25 However, operating within legal parameters
125
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 does not guarantee that groundwater will not be
2 polluted sometime in the future.
3 Witness the fact that 50 years ago, state
4 regulators thought that they knew how to manage
5 perchlorate, which is a component of rocket fuel, in a
6 safe manner.
7 Today, however, there are numerous news
8 stories of perchlorate showing up not only in
9 groundwater but also in drinking water, in milk, and
10 even lettuce. This isn't on the lettuce, it's in the
11 lettuce, from Imperial Valley; Yuma, Arizona; and
12 Texas.
13 People just didn't know the dangers of
14 perchlorate contamination in groundwater. I think
15 some of that leaked into the Colorado River 150, 200
16 miles upstream from Imperial Valley, and eventually
17 made its way to those areas, including Yuma.
18 Add to the fact that today we are discovering
19 things in biosolids in greater quantity --
20 pharmaceuticals, organic compounds.
21 I think Mr. Giboney made the point several
22 times that, in essence, biosolids today are kind of a
23 bad suit. And these compounds can come together in
24 new combinations that we didn't expect.
25 As has been pointed out, the Kern County
126
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 water banking facilities are literally a multi-
2 billion dollar resource which is really growing more
3 valuable every day. And, obviously, we are very
4 concerned with protecting this resource from
5 contamination from any source.
6 Kern County's underground water basin
7 contains about 40 million acre feet of high quality
8 water. We are unique in that we have this aquifer
9 here in our county and that we have soil conditions
10 that enable us to bank water in it in wet times and
11 extract it in dry times.
12 We are the envy of the state in terms of
13 being able to manage our water resources. And as has
14 been pointed out already, both Kern County citizens
15 and citizens of Southern California depend on our
16 aquifer. Metropolitan Water Agency has water stored
17 in the Kern water bank. So maintaining the purity of
18 our water is important to many people.
19 This is probably the most important point
20 that I am going to try to make: We believe that it
21 makes no sense to risk what can be considered one of
22 the most precious, if not the most precious, resource
23 that we have to even the possibility of contamination
24 by continuing to operate these sites over the
25 groundwater basin, especially when there is an
127
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 alternative. And I think the agency's trying to be
2 very reasonable in moving these off the groundwater.
3 I know that the generators, and Ms. Gilbert
4 has said this, believe that they're doing everything
5 that they can possibly do, that what they're doing is
6 completely safe, that there's no possibility that
7 biosolids can reach the groundwater aquifer.
8 And what I say, though -- and I use the
9 personal pronoun deliberately -- is that no one can
10 know that contaminants from biosolids will not reach
11 the basin.
12 Even though the generators are following the
13 law, they are not providing us with assurances or
14 guarantees that future contamination from sewage
15 sludge will not occur.
16 I believe that we must be more diligent in
17 protecting our resources, not only this year or for
18 five years or fifty years, or a thousand years from
19 now, but from now on. We owe this to all of the
20 generations that will come after us.
21 I believe that those of us who are leaders at
22 the local level of government need to be in the
23 forefront of issues like this one. And that doesn't
24 mean that we're radical environmentalists. It just
25 means that we're using common sense and that we have
128
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 an obligation to present-day citizens as well as to
2 our children and our children's children.
3 Beyond the safety question, I would ask the
4 same question that you've been asking all evening, and
5 that is:
6 What benefit is County of Kern getting for
7 allowing sewage sludge to be deposited over the
8 groundwater aquifer as compared to the risk of
9 allowing human waste into the county?
10 We do not see a benefit that is that large,
11 but rather we see a big risk, a risk that we simply do
12 not have to take.
13 We have looked at the websites for the
14 various generators. Orange County contracted for a
15 comprehensive biosolids management study, which must
16 have cost a bunch because it was about that thick.
17 And that study was by CH2 M Hill, a respected
18 engineering company. That study identified several
19 biosolids management options that could occur off the
20 aquifer such as composting and energy production.
21 And, incidentally, I want to segway right
22 there.
23 Contained in that study was the statement --
24 and I'm paraphrasing now; I don't have this on my
25 paper here -- but it references back to an earlier
129
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 comment.
2 Their study indicated that it cost $35 a wet
3 ton. And in order to change their current practices,
4 the cost would have to go to $50 to $75 a ton, wet
5 ton, in order to change their practices. To me, that
6 just means that it's going to keep coming here for the
7 foreseeable future.
8 The Los Angeles City Hiperion Plant
9 discontinued using biosolids for on-site energy
10 production, I believe, in around 1996. This is where
11 they were at that time disposing of some of their
12 sewage sludge.
13 Their own studies did not show that moving
14 biosolids to Kern County was more sustainable than
15 their current practice or safer; rather, it was not
16 mentioned at all. What it did show was that
17 depositing sewage sludge in Kern County was cheaper.
18 As you know, the Agency has just completed a
19 Request for Proposals to move Orange County, Oxnard,
20 and the City of Los Angeles deposit sites off of the
21 groundwater to places where there is no risk of
22 contamination. We are examining these now and we will
23 be meeting with the generators after we find out if we
24 have valid proposals. And I think that we do.
25 We are asking that the generators consider
130
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 these proposals and voluntarily, though, not only to
2 help Kern County's groundwater but, also, to limit
3 their own liability.
4 Further, we are not trying to shove what we
5 consider a problem to some other county's groundwater
6 basin.
7 Wherever this sewage sludge goes, and it
8 certainly has to go somewhere, it most certainly
9 should not be placed over another valuable aquifer.
10 I want to segway once more from my prepared
11 statement here, referring back to some things that
12 were said earlier.
13 Groundwater monitoring. And I will just
14 reference the Green Acres farm. You can set, in my
15 opinion, monitors out there. But in questioning the
16 Agency's hydrologist, an expert in that field, No. 1,
17 if it is detected, it's going to be too late; No. 2,
18 those soils out there and, virtually, anyplace, are
19 not just monolithic.
20 If you put water or biosolids on one spot,
21 it's not going, necessarily, to go straight down. The
22 soils are variable. The sand conditions might start
23 here and go sideways and end up four to six miles away
24 from the site. As I said, our hydrologist had
25 indicated that it's certainly possible for
131
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 contamination to reach the aquifer eventually.
2 When the City of Los Angeles Sanitation
3 Department had their open house at their hospitality
4 center, a number of us in this room attended. I was
5 one of them. And I asked the farmer who was in charge
6 of growing the crops what the soil conditions were
7 like. He said they vary. There are spots where it is
8 absolutely sandy and totally permeable. There are
9 other spots where it is kind of a medium texture, more
10 difficult to percolate. And there's spots where it is
11 extremely tight and would be difficult to go down.
12 But the point is there. It is not a
13 monolith.
14 So, Senator Florez, we appreciate you delving
15 into this important issue. I think your highlighting
16 it is extremely valuable. And we are asking for your
17 assistance in stopping the placement of sewage sludge
18 over our groundwater basin.
19 Thank you very much.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: Very well put.
21 Any other comments?
22 Yes, come on down.
23 MR. STOCKTON: I will try to be as specific
24 as I can.
25 SENATOR FLOREZ: Okay.
132
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 MR. STOCKTON: My name is Steve Stockton. I
2 am vice president of Responsible Biosolids Management.
3 We are the contractors that apply the biosolids at the
4 Green Acres farm.
5 I'm just paying attention so I can answer a
6 couple of questions. One of them is, first off: The
7 wear and tear. We don't use County roads. We come in
8 on the state highways and interstate highways. And we
9 made special cutouts so that we don't have to use
10 County roads and take the beating that they do.
11 Those roads are coming apart, as anybody
12 knows, and -- because of the dairies and everything
13 else that gets hauled around there.
14 Secondly, you want to know how the County
15 benefits. Between our employees, which are mostly
16 farm employees, the employees that are involved in the
17 trucking contractor, which is a local contractor with
18 drivers and so on, the farmer that's local, you are
19 probably, at any given time, have somewhere between 70
20 and 100 people that are working.
21 Now, this job is a 365-day-a-year job.
22 This -- these guys work all the time. What they are
23 allowed to do, when they have a permanent job like
24 that, is do some things that normally a farm laborer
25 doesn't get to do such as, maybe, buy a new car or buy
133
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 a house. You know, our guys get to do that. They
2 also get paid a little bit more because of -- working
3 with the City of Los Angeles, it's one of the
4 requirements. They doubted us a little bit. They got
5 to get a living wage. All right?
6 So we probably -- this is just off the cuff;
7 I don't want to be held to this -- but we probably
8 bring somewhere between $8 and $9 million into the
9 County in net revenues. And I can't tell you about
10 the taxes.
11 Also, on my way over here, I drove right by a
12 rocket fuel testing facility. Somebody was just
13 telling me about perchlorate. Boom, there's a whole
14 new facility out there. And it was just roaring away
15 when I drove through.
16 I also drove right by a refinery that sits
17 right next to the river. You know, it seems to me
18 there's other things that need to be cleaned up pretty
19 quickly. And all of us that are in the farming
20 business know that anything that we apply to the soil,
21 it's possible, it's somehow possible that that can run
22 off, get into a canal, a river, a lake, percolate
23 through. That is possible somehow. Every farmer has
24 to look out for that. Every farmer is looking out for
25 pesticides. Every farmer is relying on the best
134
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 science. That's a mantra that we all chance. We rely
2 on the best science, and we think we have the best
3 science available right now.
4 Regarding the Regional Board. They don't
5 come around very often, and they don't tell us when
6 they're coming. I wish they'd give us a call, but
7 they don't. We find out they've been there, you know?
8 And, secondly -- again, I'm going to talk to
9 the farmers who are in this room, too. How many of
10 them think that you want to tangle with the Regional
11 Water Quality Control Board. You know, a cease and
12 desist is a pretty scary thing. And it doesn't take
13 very long and they can put you out of business real
14 quick.
15 And, also, I will I have to say, I do the
16 technical work for our company, and I am in contact
17 with an engineer at the Regional Board at least once a
18 week, usually twice a week, where we discuss loading
19 rates, what we're doing, what our plans are,
20 et cetera, et cetera.
21 And I'm going to let you off the hook with
22 that.
23 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you very much.
24 Any other comment from the public?
25 Come on up.
135
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 MR. JHAJ: Mr. Senator, my name is
2 Rupinder Jhaj. I own the store over there close to
3 Interstate 5 and 119, 43 and 119.
4 I bought that store four years ago. After
5 next year, they start dumping the sludge next door to
6 me. It is almost a lake. My sales dropped down more
7 than $8,000 a month.
8 They're talking about the fees for 8,000 a
9 year. My store's drop down more than $8,000 a month.
10 And when they dump, it smells so bad and so
11 many flies comes over there, you can't even believe
12 it. And the people going to the lake, they have the
13 same problem, too. They don't want to go to the lake
14 anymore. Their business dropped, too, because of the
15 odor and the flies.
16 I never thought that the County will allow to
17 dump their sewer next door to me. But I thought
18 because -- and they try with this. They can't do it
19 too much, you know, because the Los Angeles County has
20 with so many years to dump over there. Eventually
21 they will stop. I want to know when they will stop.
22 And I think they're making their money over
23 there. They're sending their sludge cheaper over
24 here. They're paying taxes over here, too. I think
25 we should end this. That's my response.
136
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 SENATOR FLOREZ: Thank you very much.
2 Any other public comment?
3 Okay. No. 1, we are just almost at three
4 hours.
5 And I do appreciate, No. 1, Pam. Thank you
6 for your work. Three hours of transcribing this
7 hearing is quite a bit of work. So I wanted to thank
8 you.
9 THE COURT REPORTER: You're welcome.
10 SENATOR FLOREZ: And I do want to thank
11 everyone who participated, particularly the panelists
12 who helped our staff tremendously in terms of the
13 information you provided.
14 I will say that we will make most of what you
15 didn't say part of the record and make sure that it's
16 incorporated within the record.
17 And as I mentioned, the transcript,
18 hopefully, should be available within two or three
19 weeks on-line. And we would encourage you to go back
20 and read it. And we would, of course, encourage you
21 to write back to the Committee if we missed anything
22 after reading the transcript.
23 I very much appreciate all of the hard work
24 that my staff did, as well: Marie Liu to my right who
25 is our consultant to the Senate Select Committee on
137
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Air Quality; and, of course, Al Wagner, who has been
2 at about every single hearing we have done. And there
3 have been many.
4 Let me also say that this is an issue, and I
5 meant it with all sincerity to the City of
6 Los Angeles, that we really need to work this out. We
7 really need to, rather than point fingers -- and it's
8 not that L.A. isn't welcomed in Kern County. I think
9 the issue is simply what it is that you bring, what
10 gifts you bear, and what we actually hold for you in
11 terms of the water that is so precious to all of us in
12 both regions.
13 And I think if we could continue along the
14 path that the Water Agency is on, I think it's a good
15 path, I think it's a start, I think it moves us in the
16 right direction. And, you know, I can only tell you
17 from my vantage point that we -- obviously, the
18 average person in Kern County, you know, as we
19 highlight these issues, we get lots of calls. And I
20 am always interested in kind of gauging what, if you
21 will, some people say. And I do appreciate the last
22 comment made by the operator.
23 But I can tell you that we really do have to
24 do the economic benefit. We really do have to figure
25 out whether or not the $8,000 per year is actually
138
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 high enough and whether or not, you know, this is
2 something we really want long-term in County of Kern.
3 That's just my opinion.
4 And I do want to thank Gene Lundquist. I
5 think he just about said everything I wanted to say in
6 my closing. So I will just paraphrase his closing.
7 I think there are some very, very important
8 issues that it's going to take cooperation, absolute
9 cooperation, to figure out how to make this work for
10 both parties.
11 Given that, thank you all for coming. And
12 more importantly, thank you for sticking around. I
13 know a three-hour hearing is a very long hearing. And
14 I do appreciate your comments.
15 Anything we may have missed, please submit
16 via e-mail or to our staff, and we'll make it part of
17 the record, as well.
18 So with that, I will adjourn this hearing of
19 the Senate Select Committee on Air Quality.
20
21 (INFORMATION PROVIDED BY LAUREN V. FONDAHL:
22 EPA Region 9 responses to Senator Florez's questions
23 on biosolids December 16, 2004.
24 1. How does Part 503 aim to protect groundwater? Air
25 quality?
139
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Regarding protection of groundwater from
2 pollutants, EPA's Part 503 Standards are based on
3 conservative exposure assumptions. The exposure model
4 that EPA uses to estimate the groundwater exposure
5 pathway assumes a minimal depth (3.3 feet) between the
6 sewage sludge soil mixture and the top of the aquifer
7 from which water may be withdrawn. The exposure model
8 also assumes a reasonable worst-case soil (sandy loam)
9 for transmission of pollutants into the aquifer. The
10 vast majority of sewage sludge land application sites
11 in the United States have characteristics with greater
12 distance to groundwater and more retentive soils than
13 the site characteristics assumed by EPA in its
14 exposure model. Because the standards are based on
15 these conservative, worst-case assumptions, they
16 adequately protect groundwater and drinking water from
17 the leaching of chemical pollutants from land-applied
18 sewage sludge. In many cases, biosolids have been
19 shown to increase water retention capabilities of
20 soils by addition of organic matter.
21 The primary pollutant of concern with respect
22 to groundwater is nitrate. Part 503 requires
23 application not to exceed an agronomic rate; i.e the
24 rate designed to provide only as much nitrogen as the
25 crop to be grown will take up. Land appliers applying
140
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 Class B biosolids are required to demonstrate to EPA
2 and State and local regulators that they are applying
3 at agronomic rates, and face penalties under the Clean
4 Water Act for over-application. Class B biosolids
5 typically have a nitrogen content of 5 to 6%.
6 Part 503 does not automatically require that
7 Class A "exceptional quality" biosolids be applied at
8 an agronomic rate. This is in part due to the fact
9 that traditional Class A treatment processes
10 (composting, alkali addition, drying) reduce nitrogen
11 levels to 1 to 2%, so that when applied they are
12 unlikely to leach in significant quantities to
13 groundwater. For Class A biosolids such as the
14 thermophilically digested biosolids produced by the
15 City of Los Angeles, which do have nitrogen contents
16 in the 5% range, EPA has put conditions in permits
17 requiring applications of Class A biosolids not to
18 exceed the agronomic rate (EPA issues NPDES permits in
19 conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control
20 Board to large Southern California ocean dischargers).
21 The State of California's General Order for
22 biosolids and Kern County also impose agronomic rate
23 requirements for both Class B biosolids and certain
24 types of Class A biosolids. The SWRCB defines
25 agronomic rate as "the nitrogen requirement of a plan
141
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 needed for optimal growth and production, as cited in
2 professional publications for California by the County
3 Agricultural Commissioner or recommended by a
4 Certified Agronomist or Certified Soil Scientist."
5 The Order requires pre and post-application
6 groundwater monitoring when depth to groundwater is
7 less than 25', or as specified by the Regional Board.
8 With respect to air quality, in performing
9 the risk-assessment for the first round of the 503
10 standards, EPA evaluated two air pathways for exposure
11 to pollutants: Inhalation of particulate matter over
12 a lifetime by a tractor driver tilling a field, and
13 human lifetime inhalation of pollutants that volatized
14 to air. These pathways were not limiting pathways for
15 the pollutants analyzed. In rounds 2 and 3, EPA used
16 a probabilistic risk assessment to assess potential
17 air pathways of concern for pollutants. To date, air
18 pathways have not been found to be limiting pathways.
19 EPA is developing microbial exposure and
20 hazard assessment methodologies, and will develop a
21 quantitative pathogen risk assessment to further
22 define and characterize the risks from airborne
23 pathogen exposure to residents adjacent to sewage
24 sludge land application sites.
25 In response to the recommendations of the
142
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 National Research Council to develop further data on
2 potential impacts of airborne pathogens to human
3 health, EPA has committed to several additional
4 studies:
5 1. The development of a human health
6 incident reporting, tracking, and
7 followup/response system for the investigation of
8 claims of human health impacts from the land
9 application of sewage sludge. EPA is
10 accomplishing this through its participation in a
11 multi-stakeholder Incident Tracking Workshop to
12 be convened and facilitated by the Water
13 Environment Research Foundation (WERF) in January
14 2005;
15 2. In cooperation with other stakeholders as
16 well as in self-initiated studies, the planning
17 and execution of a series of field studies to
18 measure and model the emissions from land-applied
19 sewage sludge at sites in close proximity to
20 residents;
21 3. Conducting a multi-stakeholder exposure
22 measurement workshop to develop methods of
23 quantifying exposure of pollutants in
24 land-applied sewage sludge to nearby site
25 residents;.
143
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 EPA is also following studies being conducted
2 by researchers in the academic and research community.
3 For example, researchers at the University of
4 Arizona's Water Quality Center have measured the
5 emissions of numerous pathogens from sewage
6 sludge-amended fields and have modeled ambient air
7 concentrations of these pathogens. The results to
8 date have indicated that nearby residents of these
9 fields, if they resided at these locations, would have
10 extremely low risks from pathogen exposures.
11
12 - Does the National Biosolids Partnership require
13 groundwater monitoring? Appropriate pathogens?
14 The National Biosolids Partnership is not a
15 regulatory agency. The Partnership is working with
16 its members to develop Environmental Management
17 Systems that go above and beyond the regulatory
18 requirements, including additional monitoring to
19 satisfy the public, and address quality of life issues
20 as well.
21
22 2. How is the EPA responding to the on-going concerns
23 about public health and quality of life concerns from
24 the land application of biosolids?
25 In December 2003, EPA published the results
144
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 of its review of regulations under the Clean Water Act
2 governing sewage sludge (68 FR 75531). The Clean
3 Water Act requires that EPA review the sewage sludge
4 regulations every two years for the purpose of
5 identifying additional toxic pollutants and
6 promulgating regulations for such pollutants
7 consistent with the requirements. As part of this
8 review, EPA commissioned the National Research Council
9 (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to
10 independently review the technical basis of the
11 chemical and microbial regulations applicable to
12 sewage sludge. The NRC in July 2002 published
13 "Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and
14 Practices" in response to this request.
15 EPA expects to complete or begin 14
16 activities identified in the December 2003 action plan
17 within the next 3 years. These projects will
18 strengthen the program by improving our ability to:
19 1. Develop means for measuring pollutants of
20 interest.
21 2. Determine risks posed by new contaminants
22 identified as potentially hazardous.
23 3. Bring various stakeholder groups together to
24 develop a national incidence tracking system to
25 ultimately determine health effects following land
145
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 application.
2 4. Better understand and characterize the odors,
3 volatile chemicals, and bioaerosols that may be
4 emitted from land application sites.
5 5. Better understand the effectiveness of sewage
6 sludge processes and management practices to control
7 pathogens.
8 6. Improve inspection and compliance initiatives
9 7. Improve stakeholders' involvement in EPA's
10 sewage sludge program.
11 EPA is working with the Center for Disease
12 Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a system for
13 collecting, tracking, and analyzing reports of human
14 health problems associated with the land application
15 of sewage sludge. At the Regional level, EPA
16 coordinates with the County Public Health officials to
17 track reports of health problems when complaints
18 arise.
19
20 3. Should we be using E. Coli as an indicator rather
21 than fecal coliform, as is done in drinking water
22 standards?
23 EPA is looking into use of E. Coli as an
24 indicator, but does not yet have a database to draw a
25 correlation between E. Coli and fecal coliform, or
146
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 between E. Coli and treatment processes in sludge.
2 The fecal coliform test is a conservative one, and E.
3 Coli are a sub-set of fecal coliform.
4
5 4. Are there best management practices for nutrient
6 loading and run-off established by the EPA?
7 EPA provides guidance on agronomic rate
8 calculations, and helps put land appliers in contact
9 with agricultural extension agents in order to
10 determine the agronomic rates most suitable for a
11 given geographic area.
12 EPA places conditions in those NPDES permits
13 which we issue, and gives recommended NPDES
14 boilerplate language to state agencies, that require
15 the installation of adequate facilities to divert
16 surface runoff from adjacent areas, protect site
17 boundaries from erosion, and prevent conditions that
18 would cause drainage to escape from the site.
19 The SWRCB General Order requires an
20 evaluation of, and erosion control plan for, slopes
21 greater than 10%. It requires structures to control
22 tail water, and additional setbacks from primary
23 agricultural drainage ways, underground aqueducts,
24 marshes, water supply wells, and other surface and
25 groundwater sources. Additional measures are required
147
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards through
2 Waste Discharge Requirements where deemed necessary.
3 5. Are we taking enough precautionary measures to
4 protect us from the unknown risks in biosolids?
5 The Clean Water Act requires EPA to review
6 existing sewage sludge regulations every other year to
7 identify additional pollutants that may need to be
8 regulated. EPA recently did such a review in 2003.
9 EPA first reviewed the most recent available
10 information on the occurrence of pollutants in sewage
11 sludge. This information includes sewage sludge
12 concentration data, environmental properties such as
13 mobility and persistence, available human health bench
14 marks, and available effects data on ecological
15 species. In this round, EPA identified 40 pollutants
16 for which adequate data exists to run valid exposure
17 and hazard assessments for human health and ecological
18 impacts. 15 pollutants were identified that needed
19 further evaluation to determine if numerical 503
20 standards should be proposed. EPA is now conducting a
21 similar process for Biennial Review 2005.
22 EPA will design and conduct a targeted
23 national survey of certain pollutants in sewage sludge
24 in 2005. The results of the survey of targeted
25 pollutants will provide pollutant concentration values
148
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 that EPA will then use in a more refined risk
2 assessment and risk characterization. Based on the
3 results of these refined analyses, EPA will proposed
4 as soon as practicable new regulations under CWA
5 Section 405(d) for any pollutants that are determined
6 to potentially be present in sewage sludge in
7 concentrations that may adversely affect public health
8 or the environment. The Agency believes that its
9 Action Plan projects (68 FR 75531), the regulatory and
10 non-regulatory components of the multi-year plan, can
11 help reduce the persistent uncertainty related to
12 exposure to sewage sludge and help strengthen the
13 sewage sludge program.
14 The current biosolids rules have provided a
15 useful benchmark for the development of rules for
16 other organic wastes. In 1995, the California
17 Integrated Waste Management Board incorporated the
18 pollutant standards in 503, and related monitoring
19 requirements, into its rules for other composts. This
20 has helped to identify pollutants of concern such as
21 high selenium in some manure composts, and high lead
22 levels in some greenwaste composts.
23 EPA published regulations and guidelines for
24 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in 2003 that
25 now require applications not to exceed agronomic
149
SYLVIA MENDEZ & ASSOCIATES - (661) 631-2904
1 rates, and give methods of calculation similar to
2 those used for biosolids. The Central Valley Regional
3 Board is now drafting a CAFO permit which will require
4 the development of nutrient management plans,
5 establishing agronomic rates. While neither EPA's
6 CAFO rule or the Central Valley permit address
7 pathogen reduction at this point (manure contains many
8 of the same pathogens as raw sludge, such as e-coli,
9 salmonellae, campilobacter jejuni, yersinia,
10 micobacterium, reoviruses, rotaviruses, adenoviruses,
11 giardia lamblia, cryptosporidium, and ascaris
12 lumbircoides, projects for anaerobic digestion of
13 manure are now under development.)
14
