HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24(2)/2001, 6 - BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL/RECLAMATION CONTRACT AWARD AND COUNTY BIOSOLIDS WORKING GROUP UPDATE. a
council. W,64-`ay - o
j acEnba Report .N. 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Wastewater Division Manager
SUBJECT: BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL/RECLAMATION CONTRACT
AWARD AND COUNTY BIOSOLIDS WORKING GROUP
UPDATE.
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve an agreement with USA Transport, Inc., in the amount of$26,17 per ton for
beneficial reuse of biosolids and authorize the mayor to execute the contract. The total
annual contract cost is not to exceed $120,000.
DISCUSSION
On November 9, 2000, the City Council approved the Request for Proposals (RFP) for
Management and Disposal/Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids, Spec No. 90179. At that time
Council also requested staff to return for formal Council approval of the contract award
and provide an update on the County Biosolids Task Force that is currently developing
recommendations for land application of biosolids in San Luis Obispo County.
Proposals
The proposals were received on December 20, 2000, from 5 companies. Proposals
ranged from $26.17 per ton to $37.99 per ton. Below is a table that briefly summarizes
the proposals.
Proposers Method of Beneficial Reuse Cost Per Ton
USA Transport Land Application $26.17
Slick Gardener Land Application $2750
Engel and Gray Composting $29.70
McCarthyFamily Farms Land Application $31.60
Synagro Technologies Land Application $37.99
All of the proposals were reviewed for adherence to the City's specifications. Some of
the major areas that were considered during the proposals evaluation were; related
experience, references, reliability, regulatory compliance, approach in completing the
work, and method of disposal/beneficial reuse. After thorough review, USA Transport is
the recommended contractor.
6-1
Council Agenda Report Biosolids Contract Award and Update
April 24, 2001
Page 2
USA transport meets all the requirements of the City's RFP, has a good compliance
record with the regulatory agencies, including Kern County, and is an experienced
biosolids company. USA Transport proposes to haul the City's biosolids to its Kern.
County facility, mix the biosolids with gypsum/lime, then land apply the material at
agronomic rates. Mixing gypsum/lime into the City's biosolids further reduces the
pathogens to make an "Exceptional Quality" (EQ) material that represents the highest
level of treatment, is easier to manage from a regulatory perspective and helps improve
the farm's soil structure.
To ensure that USA Transport's operation is following all applicable federal, state and
local regulations and requirements, the landowner has contracted Merriwood Corp..as an
independent third party that audits and monitors the facility's operations and
management. Kern County environmental health department staff confirmed that USA
Transport is in compliance with the conditions of the Kern County biosolids ordinance
and expressed that they feel the facility is managed correctly and compliantly. The City
has had its biosolids land applied at this permitted facility in the past by BioGro and
Synagro.
A contact with USA Transport will provide the City with a cost effective and
environmentally sound biosolids disposal/beneficial reuse and management service.
Biosofids Working Group
In September of 2000, Luis Obispo County Environmental Health assembled a biosolids
working group to provide a recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors regarding oversight, management and disposition of biosolids in San Luis
Obispo County. This working group was one of the recommendations the County Health
Commission made to the Board of Supervisors in February 2000. The Board directed the
working group to look at four options. The four options are:
1. Adopt an ordinance providing for local control, relying on federal and/or state
standards regarding the quality of biosolids.
2. Adopt an ordinance providing for the local control and establish County-specific
standards regarding the quality of biosolids.
I Adopt an ordinance providing for local control that limits the allowable land
application to (EQ)biosolids, as defined in federal regulations.
4. Adopt an ordinance providing for an interim ban on land application of biosolids
until a permanent ordinance is developed and adopted.
City staff is currently participating in the biosolids working group with San Luis Obispo
County Environmental Health and other interested parties to develop recommendations
6-2
Council Agenda Report---Biosolids Contract Award and Update
April 24, 2001
Page 3
for local oversight of land application of biosolids in San .Luis Obispo County. The
working group, which is composed of regulators, agencies, environmentalists, agriculture
and other interested parties has been meeting regularly since September. During this time
the group has heard from a number of speakers and experts on biosolids; these speakers
included scientists, regulators, agricultural representatives, and a land applier. The
biosolids working group should have a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
sometime this summer. City's staff goal is to have local oversight that is protective of the
environment and human health, is reasonable and allows the beneficial reuse of biosolids
and biosolids products such as compost.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2000-01 WRF budget has identified $75,000 for biosolids disposal. This funding
will be adequate for disposal/reclamation of the City's biosolids for the remaining portion
of the fiscal year. The proposed 2001-03 budget for the WRF has identified $120,000
for biosolids disposal. This funding will be adequate for the increased cost of
disposal/reclamation of the City's biosolids including additional biosolids generated from
digester cleaning.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Defer selecting a proposal. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the
Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) generates several tons of biosolids every day.
Currently there are 800 tons of biosolids that require removal within the next 60
days.
2. Select another proposal. Staff does not recommend this alternative. USA
Transport has provided an excellent proposal at a competitive price, is an
experienced company that has a good compliance record and possess the
necessary resources to provide reliable, compliant service.
3. Landfill the City's biosolids. This alternative is not recommended. Land filling
the City's biosolids would cost $88.00 per ton, take up valuable landfill space and
is not an appropriate use for this valuable material.
ATTACHMENTS
Agreement
Available in Council Office for review:
November 9t' 2000,biosolids Council Agenda Report and RFP.
USA Transport, Inc.,proposal.
6-3
i�
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this
day of by and between the CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and USA Transport, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2000, City invited requested proposals for management and
disposal/beneficial reuse of biosolids per Specification No. 90179.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City
for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, for a period of two years, with a possibility of two—one year extensions as
mutually agreed.
2` INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 90179 and
Contractor's proposal dated December 20, 2000, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this
Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City
will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor payments based upon actual quantities hauled and
disposed/beneficially reused as specified in this proposal.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do
everything required by this agreement and provide services as described in Exhibit[ ] attached hereto and
incorporated into this Agreement.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Administrative Officer,
or designee.
6-4
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings
specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties
hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically.
incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or
representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Utilities Director
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Contractor USA Transport,Inc:
12191 Violet Road
Adelanto,CA. 92301
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant
that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and
empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal
Corporation
By:
City Clerk Lee Price Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
v By:
C' me a rg on
6-5
MEETIN AGENDA,
DATE a� o r ITEM #
April 24, 2001
D'COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
EYCAO C FIN DIR
D'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
council memouanaum QrATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
O-CLERK/ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
13
TO: Mayor Settle AZEEADS 12REC DIR
2'GTIL DIR
Vice Mayor Ewan 0 H DIR
Council Member Marx
Council Member Schwartz
FROM: Mary Kopecky, Assistant City Clerk�_r�_
SUBJECT: Biosolids Disposal/Reclamation Contract Award and County Biosolids
Working Group Update Staff Report for Tonight's Meeting
I am forwarding the attached information to you. It was previously provided for Council
Member Mulholland. It pertains to Item No. 6 on tonight's-agenda.
O � rr' (7 � �
II =1 C D 'A
o y c m D W 'nr c c D co D
.. m -4r r C4 C)cD 3 �° 7 p r-
06 Av, xrmm (D 00000a C)
m z o C) C') 0
00000
c --- Z
cil mdn0C) 44 � AD
< m 0 � y 0
CD o �7
Tr ;o D
co
= O0CP0 b) boaCn iD a z
1
Cc D
3 ca O
0 0 0 N N V W � W AO
0000 c,� C)
co -n
.11
n CTt
0ONA � 00) 00 V V cn V
O W W
C O 0 0 ,V V W m O Cil O n
O C O N A W V W O v CGS
3
T
OD WC
Q 055 0 V W -4 0)
W p� Z
W
O = C
D
mV XT ANUi -PZOOZ � _
N Co V O V V V -� pODOp W0
j
0 0
W 0
O O
m 0ccn
O Cn OD O Cn V O 0
m O O Cb'
o p
m
C)
� Ca
onAiN CA) CA) Z m
0 0 0 0 N C n W
m
w
0Ln
0 oOAcnAwA D -'
'O 0 W V V 0 M MN
0
- o
0
Opp -' CA) o' Z co � � w
o00 ;Ihk. p0eD04 CD
OCT V N y V M W V 0 Cb
O O v
0 0 0 0 0 pp V 0 CO OD " O N
0 0 0 0101" o 0 " w En 3
CTpo Cl) cn—X001; 00 m m K 0 n
CO CD
cc N C� C� (� � � a, v; O cn7
ao a a 00cr (n
n $ w m W Q
d tj\
n A OD A O OD CO Oo 0 V A CT
r1 CI n W CD CT N CO CJ CO K)
0
F = CO CD
qr W O OCT. � CO co -t D � O —� W Ci
CO IV s CT A W A CO O� CO N
G
� n
0 V W OoOoANcO WOCAV C.
,S 0NN " CoNCAO O W W "
OCD CTN CD OD V —► O V OOV
S S s cr
Q OV A ACTACT V Cb0NCD
�[ Oj W W V V CT CTO UIOOCD
O N V
-0 V K) co COCO CTODA �
O
V N IV N CT
UI V N O O N CT CA Cb N CT
Z
O0 OWD V CTV CWT CWT CVD 0) ANW
cn
CD
O O
O N W O —`
O � � W COWO V NCOco
N
fQ
J (Tco M 00
O0 T --� A CDOCO00 A W CTO
A 00 -PL WOw0 CT CTO CD
i rtn9tnMulC.- < 0 < 00C- 2 �
a 0 - m 03 3 0.� Q7 m � cni� cni»' 0 E
.0 -00
a ) w < C) mncMD 0V0
w FS aw �0 � y w d w i � 0 0
0
w
0
ONW W V COCntnLnNO) OA0) AA000)
b000loobDoo :I : W -4— 00 m
m
CD
ANA ,AW WNWCA WODO NC)1 ro0 OD
y
�I N C O CA CD O G CD CD O C CD Oi CD O10
CD
_A A 00 Co) V W CA W A CID W CA CID N V V A'CD0
A O V CVJ1 W W O CW71 O COA) A O coOO CO Ul coV
co MCAD Ul CD CIO ca W CO CNA CAO � N CNA) 010 N 0OD CO 0 C7
W M.A. N i i N i N N O i N N N N i m =
CA i 6 C CA) V IV 61 IV V in b O i s W bD iD CG
O W -• Oco000 W OCA 000000 V
CAOONDOCO,iCflCDCTOCO V U7CNT WONOD0
1 1 i
OiW iAW N — ALnCb — W W W WOVZ
U7 W A A OD CA U1 CA i CID CA V CT 000 CA) 0 Ul
N (T0 Z, -4 VU1 U
Ln 1 0)N :3 0 C COD A UI CCOO O �
fV W AOCD V OCOfA) a0AO0Ahl0 �
i
CD CA V CT V Co UI CSI O_ V V CO CCCDDa CO V V V -�
A COMM COO V Ok8cn coOD UlN)N - OWD NOS
a) W Wwwtocaimcoa; WcoWwW07mW 'D
i V -V -0 -u -0 i
U) W Cl) fn cn CD Cn co cn fn Ch CD (D CD V/ cn 0
wwwwww wwwwwwwwww O
W i W W W W N W W W CO W W W W W
D
w
i V i i i i V v
EAPR
CEIVED MEETING – Fa AGENDA
av�-o I 4-20-01
to: San Luis Obispo City Council2 0 2001 DATE_` -94-01
—ITEM # �_
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street ITY CLERK 11
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
re: 4-24-01 Council meeting Business Agenda Item #6: Sewage Sludge Removal & Disposal
("Biosolids Disposal/Reclamation Contract Award & County Biosolids Working Group Update.")
Please find attached hereto a letter to the Council including recommendations regarding the City's
sewage sludge management options and obligations submitted for your consideration prior to
deliberations regarding Item #6 on the 4-24-01 Agenda. The City CAO recommends approval of the
cheapest contract to export "this valuable material" for land application in Kern County. The
attached letter advises alternatives to exporting and land applying the City's sewage sludge, and
additional requirements pertaining to the land application option. It is intended to accompany the
comparative report"Landfilling / Land Application" previously submitted to the.City.
1: Cease land application of the City's sewage sludge outside City boundaries.
Ceasing the export of this purportedly benign and beneficial resource would reverse the, City's
sewage sludge NIMBY-ism.
2: Dispose of the City's sewage sludge in landfills instead (an interim step).
Such a switch would eliminate, reduce and contain a number of ecological and health hazards,
and distribute economic and indirect risks more fairly.
3: If the City opts for land application, it should do so Responsibly & Honestly.
Responsibility / Fairness
The City should assume its fair share of responsibility for-legal and clean-up costs through
indemnification agreements with landowners who are otherwise excessively vulnerable to these
liabilities.
Honesty / Disclosure
• TEST & LABEL Sludge / INFORM Consumers
The consumer's right-to-know mandates that the City adequately test and label its sewage
sludge, and provide complete qualitative information to recipients.
• Give WARNING / Obtain CONSENT
The City should warn farmers of the potential adverse agricultural effects and obtain informed
consent prior to applying its sewage sludge to their land.
• PROTECT LAND Value, Credit &Insurance
The City should ensure that landowners are informed about, and protected against, potential
reduced property value, credit and insurance coverage.
RECORD Sludged Property / NOTIFY Buyers
The City should ensure that prospective landowners will be notified if property for sale has
received applications of the City's sewage sludge.
Eff"COUNCIL U CDD DIR
Thank You for your attentiveness to this important matter. 21OA0 E] FIN DIR
E rACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
David E. Broadwater ErATTORNE`f D PW DIR
CSI: Center for Sludae Information LERK/ORIO POLICE CHF
Advocacy through Acquisition,Analysis and Articulation of Ino4� -
Land Application of Sewage Sludge >�T UTIL DIFF6604 Portola Rd., Atascadero, Calif. 93422. ph: (805) 466-0352, fx: (805) 46i IR
CSI: Center for Sludge Information
Advocacy through Acquisition, Analysis and Articulation of Information re:
Land Application of Sewage Sludge
6604 Portola Rd., Atascadero, Calif. 93422. ph: (805) 466-0352, fx: (805) 462-0408, email: csi@thegrid.net
4-24-01
to: San Luis Obispo City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
re: Sewage Sludge Removal & Disposal Contract — Business Agenda Item # 6
Before you approve a contract for the removal and disposal of your City's sewage sludge, certain
environmental, economic, legal and inter-regional implications of your decision must be addressed.
Apparently, you continue to consider exporting your sewage sludge for application to land outside
your jurisdiction, and outside SLO County as well. As indicated in the 11-9-00 staff report, you
intend to select contractors based on a "preference to beneficial reuse proposals", a euphemism for
land application. CSI presents to the City Council some pertinent information supporting some
recommendations regarding any contract into which it enters for the provision of sewage sludge
services.
Recommendation #1
• Cease engaging in application of the City's sewage sludge to lands outside City
boundaries.
There is general agreement that, as responsible generators, we must assume responsibility for
waste disposal, as it is that doing so locally is the preferable.method. Proponents of sewage sludge
land application assert its economic and ecological benefits to municipalities, farmers and the
environment, and insignificance of any risks. It appears the City could incur considerable expense,
however, removing this valuable "beneficial, recyclable, organic, nutrient-rich, fertilizer, just-like-
compost" resource to areas outside its jurisdiction. As localities increasingly restrict land application
regionally, and the City continues failing federal & state pathogenic standards, site location and
distance are more problematic.
Equitable inter-regional risk-sharing, as well as urban costs, should be factors in sewage sludge
disposition matters, as the California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) exclaims in its 2001 Sewage
Sludge Disposal Policy:
"We cannot support the land application of any municipal or private waste solely on the
basis that it is the least costly means of disposal. Generators of sewage sludge should
maximize the use of their sewage sludge within their own cities and counties before seeking
other users." [*]
As the CFBF explains in its 2000 comments on the FEIR regarding state regulations, currently the
urban/rural risk balance is tipped to the detriment of farmers and rural communities. CFBF points
out, regarding state policy, that its "purpose is to increase the ability of the generators and
applicators to dispose of their largely urban-generated sewage sludge in sparsely populated rural
agricultural communities,". The CFBF summarizes this mal-distribution of risks:
"However, the generally urban `public at large' is not at any risk from the land application
of sewage sludge since the vast majority of sewage sludge, although generated by urban
communities, is shipped to and disposed in rural, agricultural communities. ... Unfortunately,
the acceptance of some health risk' by the USEPA, and by extension, the SWRCB, on behalf
of the general public comes almost exclusively at the expense of farmers and their
communities where the sewage sludge is applied." [179]
Clearly, ceasing this export would be an anti-NIMBY-ism.
1of14
Recommendation #2
• Direct the City's sewage sludge to landfills for disposal instead of to land application
sites (as an interim, immediate measure).
In its attached comparative report "Landfilling / Land Application", CSI demonstrates that, under
current conditions, the former is both environmentally and economically superior and preferable to
the latter. Using the SWRCB's ten "Impact Comparison" parameters and available data, this report
shows that the abandonment of land application, and a switch to landfilling, is the best and safest
choice. By making this switch, the City would:
• eliminate soil, water, land productivity & public health hazards,
• mitigate other public health, land use, biological, fish & cultural hazards,
• reduce traffic, air quality & noise impacts,
• avoid economic costs to landowners & farmers, and
• further a more equitable inter-regional diffusion of the risks
associated with land application.
The acute and chronic effects of introducing this complex mixture of heavy metals, synthetic
chemicals, pathogenic organisms and other contaminants into agricultural, public and wild
ecosystems; and the degree of protection from their toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic and infectious
potential under current state &federal regulations; both, continue to generate an intense
controversy regarding the safety of the practice in the scientific, agricultural, environmental,
governmental and public communities. This debate has, in turn, instigated a groundswell of local
control initiatives throughout rural / agricultural California, so that land-applying cities must look
elsewhere or produce less contaminated sewage sludge.
Perhaps the most explicit and recent manifestations of the breadth, depth and intensity of this
conflict occurred when a number of disparate and diverse organizations coalesced at the state level
against legislation antagonistic to local control, and against approval of state regulations and the
accompanying FEIR.
Opposing the legislation subversive to county ordinance formation (SB 1956 — Polanco, backed by
the Calif. Association of Sanitation Agencies, League of Calif. Cities, etc.), and supporting its rival (AB
2495), were the Sierra Club, Calif. Farm Bureau Federation, Association of Calif. Water Agencies,
Calif. Chamber of Commerce, Calif. State Association of Counties, the Counties of San Luis Obispo,
Kern, San Bernardino, Merced, Solano, Sutter, Tulare &Yolo, the Calif. Grape &Tree Fruit League,
Kern Food Growers Against Sewage Sludge, and the Center for Sludge Information. [**] This bill was
withdrawn on 4-24-00 in the face of this opposition.
Opposing the approval of the SWRCB's GWDRs for sewage sludge land application and
certification of the FEIR, were the Western Growers Association, Sierra Club Calif., Calif. Citrus
Mutual, Calif. Grape and Tree Fruit League, Kern Food Growers Against Sewage Sludge, Coalition for
Sludge Education, Center for Sludge Information, Desert Citizens Against Pollution, and California
Communities Against Toxics. Under a joint letterhead, these nine organizations petitioned numerous
State Senators and Assemblypeople to intervene against the SWRCB's 8-17-00 approval of the
GWDRs and certification of the FEIR. Among the eleven legislators who responded to this petition by
advocating the requested delay and review were: the Chairs of the Assembly Environmental Safety
and Toxic Materials Committee (Hannah-Beth Jackson), the Assembly Agriculture Committee (Dean
Florez) and the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee (Jim Costa), Assembly members
Ashburn, Briggs, Frusetta & House, and Senators Kelley, McPherson, Monteith & Poochigian.
The nine organizations wrote to the legislators:
"Intense controversy persists regarding this practice in the scientific, agricultural and
environmental communities and among governments, regulators and the public. The extent
of unknowns about the effects of this practice; the assumptions and policy decisions affecting
the development of the standards; comparisons with standards of other land application
practitioners; the omission of impacts from analysis and exemption of contaminants from
regulation; the lack of adequate regulatory oversight and enforcement authority; and
2of14
deficiencies in site-specificity for background assessment and monitoring are among the
primary elements of this unresolved debate. In fact, on March 20,2000, the office of the
Inspector General of the EPA stated that, 'EPA cannot assure the public that current land
application practices are protective of human health and the environment,' and that EPA
performs, 'virtually no inspections of land application sites:' Monitoring and enforcement are
no better at the state level. ...
Examination of the FEIR and proposed GWDRs reveals that the SWRCB has performed
inadequately in both. As a result, inter-regional tension will continue to build as the people of
the State and its largest industry pursue control through their local representatives to
compensate for federal and state deficiencies. A decision on August 17 to proceed as
proposed by SWRCB staff, to 'streamline' the permitting process, will prolong, and may
exacerbate, these dynamics. Approval of the currently proposed GWDR will result in a
significant risk to California's environment, the states annual $80 billion agricultural economy,
and the very health of our fellow citizens.
It is requested that Senators and Assembly members and the appropriate committee
chairs and members intervene in this process immediately by recommending to the SWRC
Board members and Governor that approval of the FEIR and GWDRs be withheld and
postponed until such time as Legislative investigations, hearings and recommendations are
conducted." [***]
On 8-17-00, the chairs of the Assembly committees wrote to the SWRCB & Governor Davis:
"We are requesting that you postpone the adoption of a final decision regarding the land
application of biosolids. We are especially concerned about the dissent voiced by a wide
range of interests, including representatives of agricultural groups, food processors, and the
environmental community who have raised serious reservations regarding the application of
biosolids based on public health, economic, and environmental considerations. ...
The concerns raised by the various interested communities encompass a broad range of
issues, including:
• The social and economic consequences of this practice;
• The premises supporting the development of standards;
• The comparisons with standards for other land application practices;
• The unknown aspects for exempting certain contaminants from regulation;
• The adequacy of regulatory oversight and enforcement authority; and,
• The site-specificity for monitoring and assessing impacts.
... we believe that a request to delay the decision may be warranted in light of the
complexity of issues that require an intensive review in order to provide the required sound
scientific basis. We are deeply concerned that the approval 'of the currently proposed GWDR
may result in a significant risk to California's environment, the state's annual $80 billion
agricultural economy, and the health of our communities.
We recommend that the approval of the FEIR and GWDRs be withheld and postponed until
such time as Cal EPA can conduct a fuller assessment of potential risks to the public and
California's environment." [****]
On 8-15-00, the other nine Assembly members and Senators wrote to the SWRCB:
"We respectfully request that the State Water Resources Control Board postpone its
adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Report covering the General Waste Discharge
Requirements for the land application of sewage sludge in California. We... feel that deferring
this action, until additional review of the FEIR can be conducted, will ensure the safety of all
California residents.
As intense controversy continues to persist within agriculture and environmental
communities and local governments, we feel it would be prudent to delay any immediate
action on the FEIR until the National Academy of Sciences can conduct an independent review
of the existing science related to the land application of sewage sludge.
As you know, the land application of sewage sludge in California has become a very
3of14
controversial and contentious issue over the past several years. The concern related to the
accuracy of the scientific data is just one of the many issues that must be considered when
discussing this practice. Generator and landowner liability, solid waste disposal goals, and
local control must also be addressed.
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee has agreed to hold a hearing during the fall
to properly investigate the most appropriate management of sewer sludge. We feel it would
be prudent for the SWRCB to delay its adoption of the FEIR until the National. Academy of
Sciences completes its review and the legislature can conclude hearings on the subject."
The SWRCB declined to delay its decision and voted to approve the GWDRs and certify the FIER
as adequate. Subsequently, Kern County and the Central Delta Water Agency filed a CEQA suit
challenging that decision. Thus, it is readily apparent that political, economic and environmental
influences generate a flux of forces in an evolving regulatory environment, wherein alterations in the
prevailing climate are unlikely to be abated in the foreseeable future.
As a generator of the most pathogenic (Class B) and least tested (PSRP) grade of sewage sludge
permissible, the City's lack of investment in quality enhancement reduces its disposal options while
increasing its costs, and exacerbates its susceptibility to the vagaries of policy permutations. Since
1993, the federal land application rule (40CFR503) has placed incentives upon POTWs to "generate
less contaminated sewage sludge", so that, by producing a so-called "EQ" grade, the City could avoid
the additional expense and regulatory controls associated with low quality sludges. The City's
chronic failure to reduce sewage sludge pollution is not in conformity with the "Fundamental
Regulatory Principles" of land application regulation (pollution prevention & reduction) as cited in
40CFR503: {emohasis = CSI}
"Fundamental Regulatory Principles
• Control Sewage Sludge Quality
Preventing the contamination of sewage sludge before it is used or disposed of is more
equitable than requiring others to contain the contaminated sewage sludge or to deal with the
consequences. ...
By setting limits on sewage sludge quality, this regulation creates incentives for treatment
works to generate less contaminated sewage sludge. Treatment works with sewage sludge
that does not meet the sludge quality conditions under the standards for a use and disposal
practice must clean up the influent (e.g., strengthen the pretreatment programs), improve
the treatment of sewage sludge. (e.g., reduce the densities of pathogenic organisms), or
select another use or disposal method." [1551
Clearly, the City must adapt and evolve economically and technologically in this changing
environmental and regulatory context. Maintaining the status quo means escalating costs and
diminishing options. Until such time its sewage sludge meets higher current and emerging land
application quality standards, the City should dispose of it in landfills.
Recommendation #3
• If the City elects to engage in sewage sludge land application, it should do so
Responsibly & Honestly.
Specific steps must be taken to ensure that the risks associated with sewage sludge land
application are shared equitably, and that recipients are fully apprised of them. The City should not
pursue land application unless it ensures that it is doing so in a responsible and honest manner.
• RESPONSIBILITY / FAIRNESS
The legal risks are such that, "fear of liability" is "a major deterrent to the widespread land
application of sewage sludge." [154 . To comPensate for the risk imbalance, making landowners
excessively vulnerable to liability, a "direct link of responsibility between"generator and recipient is
repeatedly recommended by those in academia, government and agriculture. The City should
assume its fair share of responsibility by entering into indemnification/hold harmless agreements
with the landowner/farmer recipients, as well as the shipper/applicator contractors. An agreement to
4of14
provide defense and funds in the event litigation &/or remediation costs are incurred should be
included. The City should incorporate these agreements into the contract under consideration for
sewage sludge management services. By assuming its fair share of the liability burden,the.City may
credibly claim to act responsibly.
• the Problem
The environmental and health hazards associated with sewage sludge land application are
accompanied by significant legal hazards, especially for farmers, landowners, food processors and
banks. Substantial scientific evidence indicates that significant damage may occur even when the
rules are followed. The absence of a direct contractual link between the producer and the consumer
makes the latter particularly vulnerable in the event that harm occurs, is alleged, or is discovered.
The importance of this disequilibrium, the discomfort with its implications, and the need to
reformulate liability relationships are illustrated by commentary from the National Research Council,
Calif. Farm Bureau Fed., Boston College Law School and Cornell University:
"Farmers and the food industry have expressed their concerns that such practices -
especially the agricultural use of sludge... may carry potential... liability risks." [38)
"... the farmer on whose land the sewage sludge is spread remains ultimately responsible
for problems that may arise. —contractual relationships between treatment facilities and
applicators may purport to limit the ability of an injured farmer to seek restitution from the
responsible treatment facility.... ... There are problems with such an arrangement. ... Finally,
why should the farmer be forced into this third party arrangement.in the first place?" [26. b]
"The POTWs typically do not sign contracts with the landowners... they hire a land applier
to remove the sewage sludge and locate farmers willing to take it. ...
The land applier usually signs a contract with the landowner; thus there is no direct link
between the landowner and the POTW. ... Thus, permit compliance is left entirely in the
hands of contract sewage sludge haulers with little regulatory stake in the management of the
sewage sludge they apply." [164)
"Unfortunately, in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding sewage sludge application,
it is unclear whether land application under the Part 503 Regulations is adverse to public
health and safety." [164]
"It is at least arguable that a court might consider sewage sludge application to be an
abnormally dangerous activity. The risk of negatively influencing the property values of
neighboring landowners is high. Moreover, although government agencies are recommending
the land application of sewage sludge in compliance with Part 503, a substantial body of
credible scientific opinion has warned that the. Part 503 regulations are insufficiently strict to
protect public health. [352) If these authorities are correct, the resulting harm from land
application of sewage sludge may indeed be grave. [353) In addition, if the Part 503
regulations are too weak, compliance with them — which would constitute `reasonable care' —
would still not eliminate the risk. (354)...
"352. This body of scientific opinion alone may be enough to render land application of
sewage sludge an abnormally dangerous activity, because the cause of action for abnormally
dangerous activity does not require a risk to public health from a `toxic' pollutant. ...
"354. Compliance with a permit is not a defense to a common law action for pollution
damages." [164)
"But as time passes and scientific knowledge increases, it is possible that even beneficial
reuse projects performed in conformance with applicable regulations may result in
contamination, thus subjecting them to federal statutory liability under CERCLA and RCRA."
[164)
"Significant exposure to liability will probably continue under state cleanup statutes and
common law causes of action.
This is an area of public policy pervaded by scientific uncertainty, and where there exists a
substantial disjunction between governmental goals and public outrage. Among the scientific
community, there is a principled and meaningful disagreement about whether current
governmental regulation of land application will be effective in protecting public health and
welfare." [164)
5of14
"The legal aspect is also of paramount importance. ... Are the proponents of sludge use on
land willing to sign on the dotted line as to their willingness to be held responsible for possible
hazards whether real or fabricated which may result in litigation? More likely, they will be
unavailable for comment:" (3]
"One conclusion was certain - under current.law, landowners, farm operators, and lenders
are all potentially liable for risks arising from application of sewage sludge, unless one of
them assumes such risks from the others through a clear, legally enforceable mechanism."
[164]
• the Solution
As the instigators and financial beneficiaries of sewage sludge land application, municipalities
should guarantee, through indemnification contracts, that recipients will be compensated for any &
all expenses &/or losses resulting from any problems arising from its sewage sludge, and be
defended in the event that litigation occurs. Specific measures to ensure the equitable distribution of
liability exposure have been proposed by various governmental, academic and agricultural
authorities.
"... one way for a project sponsor to overcome such reluctance is to offer to indemnify
such participants for any liabilities they incur or damages they suffer themselves, as a result
of their participation.
"The project sponsor is ordinarily in the best position to assess the risks of the project.
Thus, if it can satisfy itself that the risks are outweighed by the benefits, it can provide
reassurance to other participants by voluntarily assuming those risks. The indemnity
agreement should explicitly state if the sponsor is assuming liability for even those harms
resulting from the negligence of other project participants, since such indemnity may be
demanded as a condition of participation." [31]
"Farmers should protect themselves from risks be securing an indemnification and hold
harmless agreement with sludge generator and others associated with the application,
underwritten by an appropriate private or public insurer. All contracts should be signed by
the titled landowner and any affected lessees.
All liability for pollution caused by sludge, that was otherwise legally applied, shall be
borne by the sludge generator. (Rev. 2001)" [176]
"Finally, CFBF recommends that all treatment facilities supplying sewage sludge for land
application on agricultural properties be required to provide, in writing, a formal
Indemnification/Hold Harmless' requirement. ... Clearly, a direct link of responsibility
between the treatment facility and farmer would resolve many of these concerns as well as
simplifying the legal process in the event a farmer is injured and requires restitution. An
indemnification requirement also would benefit state and local agencies." (26. b]
"Farm Bureau believes that generators, as the only entities truly able to control and verify
the quality of the municipal sewage sludge they produce should be held directly responsible
for associated problems arising from the use of municipal sewage sludge.
Such problems could include health-related problems suffered by farm families, workers,
livestock, pets, neighbors and others who might come into contact with misclassified or
improperly treated municipal sewage sludge, including legal costs and damages associated
with resulting lawsuits, cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater and associated
diminution in property values." [93]
"Recommendations
In addition, the utility should be prepared to indemnify farmers against potential liabilities
when farmers' financing by banks or other lenders may hinge on this assurance." [38]
"It may be useful to obtain indemnification from the municipality generating the sludge
and any vendor involved in its processing or delivery. Vendors should certify that any sludge
delivered will meet certain standards and agree to defend the farmer if a law suit is
presented." [1, 1. a]
6of14
"Indemnification can also include a commitment to provide legal defense on behalf of the
farmer should a lawsuit be brought." [9]
"The most readily available risk-sharing mechanism in the field of solid waste
management is the indemnification contract. ... (1) POTWs generating sewage sludge should
indemnify processors and others down the disposal chain against the risk that sewage sludge
does not conform to the applicable Part 503 standards; (2) processors and handlers should
indemnify farmers/landowners against the same risk, as long as the sewage is properly
applied by the farmers; and lastly, that (3) farmers/landowners applying sewage sludge
themselves should indemnify processors, handlers, and generators against harm suffered as a
result of farmers' negligence or failure to follow Part 503 regulations." [164]
• HONESTY / DISCLOSURE
Because sewage sludge is such an extremely complex mixture of waste materials and its
application to land entails such a vast array of ramifications, it is imperative that recipients receive
sufficient information with which to judge the validity of their decision-making. It is incumbent upon
generators of land-applied sewage sludge to ensure that present and future recipients receive full
disclosure of what it is they're getting, and what they're getting into. There are four parameters
through which generators are obligated to divulge information to recipients. The City should
incorporate all four into any contract for sewage sludge management services. By doing so, the City
may credibly claim to be acting honestly. Briefly, these four are:
1. Sludge TESTING & LABELING / Consumer INFORMATION
Consumers must receive comprehensive and credible information about the contents of the
sewage sludge they may receive, to accurately judge its relative quality and potential toxicity.
2. Risk WARNING / Recipient CONSENT
Farmers must receive warnings about the possible adverse effects on land, crops, marketing and
viability, and informed consent should be obtained prior to application of sewage sludge to their land.
3. LAND Value, Credit & Insurance PROTECTION
Landowners' potential loss of land value, credit & insurance, and their (&their banks') legal &
financial hazardous material liabilities must be assessed as to the level of protection available.
4. Property RECORDING / Buyer NOTIFICATION
Future landowners must be informed if property for sale has received sewage sludge, due to the
long-term persistence of possible health, farming, appraised value and liability implications.
Sludge TESTING & LABELING / Consumer INFORMATION
Recipients of sewage sludge have a right to, and need for, comprehensive, detailed and credible
information documenting contaminant concentrations and the identity of the generator. To facilitate
accurate material analysis and comparison, testing for an array of pollutants wider than the minimal
legal requirement is necessary. Tests should be conducted on the particular batch of sewage sludge
to be applied, by entities independent of project proponents. Concentrations of heavy metals,
synthetic chemicals, pathogens and radionuclides should be tabulated and presented to recipients in
the form of a report or as a label on any container. Recipients are advised not to accept shipment
unless sufficient data is provided and analyzed.
The City should mandate the incorporation of these principles and procedures into any contract
for sewage sludge management services. A sketch of such a testing & reporting regime may be
discerned from the academic, governmental and agricultural commentary included below.
CSI additionally recommends that the City require its POTW/WWTP to provide potential recipients
with complete copies of its annual Biosolids Reports and annual Pretreatment Reports produced in
the latest three years. CSI also recommends that the City include within documents presented to
recipients a notification, as required by Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act), warning that its sewage sludge may contain chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity, including a list of those which have been detected in its sewage sludge which
are on the State's Prop 65 list.
"There has been a great deal of criticism regarding the lack of information given to
consumers about sewage sludge product quality. [416] However, what is now merely criticism
7of14
could in the future from the basis of a lawsuit. The common law actions against fertilizer
manufacturers described above suggest that sewage sludge product manufacturers relying on
Part 503 compliance may also be open to common law property damage, personal injury, and
failure to warn claims based on product liability. [417]" [164]
"People have a right to know about the products they use and consumers should have the
opportunity to obtain the highest quality product. ... Sludge products (and many other
products as well) should be labeled with information about the source of the materials and
their quality (the concentration of contaminants and nutrients) as well as guidance about
proper use. ... In order to compare among sludges and sludge products, users need
information on the product quality." [9]
"Consider implementation of labeling requirements for sludges and sludge products that
include information on the source of the materials, the content of contaminants and on
required and recommended management practices." [9]
"Require the supplier to provide information on the content of contaminants. Consumers,
including farmers, should compare various products to determine the one with the lowest
contaminant levels and optimal nutrient content." [1, 1. a]
"Growers using sewage sludges should obtain analytical information from the supplier on
the metal and synthetic organic chemicals in the particular sludge or sludge product they are
applying to their land." [1, 1. a]
"Ideally the tests would pertain to the specific load of sludge or product being used (not a
report from several years ago). When this is not possible, reports from several different
sampling times should be compared to ensure that levels are relatively constant. Select only
products with consistently low levels of contaminants." [9]
"Sludge quality should be assessed in two ways. First, it is important to know something
of the historic composition of the sludge. ... Second, a composite sample should be taken
from the particular batch of sludge actually applied to a given site." [31]
"... monitoring for a number of currently unregulated contaminants should be required and
test results provided to potential users to enable them to compare among different sludges."
[9l
"Testing sludges for a wider range of priority pollutants and for dioxins and furans would
not include all of the thousands of chemicals that might be present, but would be a step
towards knowing what is being spread on land." [9]
"In addition to the regulated contaminants, request information about synthetic organic
chemicals (including PCBs and dioxins and furans)" [1, 1. a]
"Tests for organic chemicals... are expensive but are recommended..., [1, 1. a]
"It is strongly advised that if growers choose to apply sludge to pasture or forage, they
require suppliers to provide information on these chemicals prior to application." [1, 1. a]
"While most sludges do not have high levels of non - regulated contaminants, without
testing a user has no way of knowing what unregulated sludge contaminants are present." [9]
"Analyses for antimony, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc as well as nutrients are
recommended. ... If the land will be used for grazing or growing forage, also request analyses
for fluoride, iron,... and consider dietary metal ratios." [1, 1. a]
"In addition, the NAS report discussed other concerns not addressed in the WDRs, such as
the potential problem with radioactive constituents.... Potential users should be informed if
radioactive constituents are present in the sewage sludge to be applied to their properties...."
[26. b]
"Review existing data on use and disposal of radionuclides and assess potential exposures
and require monitoring of sludges for radioactivity." [9]
8of14
"Those utilizing sewage sludge should follow prudent management practices, including
requiring the producer/seller to fund independent testing to ensure conformance to standards
of composition.... The testing should occur on a regular basis." [*]
"What does it take to ameliorate our concerns?
1. Independent monitoring and testing to ensure sludge quality. For example, are the
metals and pathogen levels correct and moreover, consistent over time?" [20. f]
"I cannot encourage you enough to have a reasonable number of samples tested by an
independent laboratory. Please do not rely solely on the municipality providing the biosolids
for your microbiological testing." [is]
"Take delivery of sludge only after analytical reports have been examined, application
plans have been understood and agreed to, and best management practices have been
established." [i, 9]
Risk WARNING / Recipient CONSENT
Recipients of sewage sludge have a right, and need, to know about the potentially adverse effects
resulting from land application, although it appears they are infrequently so informed. To
compensate for this customary negligence, formal Informed Consent must be obtained, so that
recipients are fully apprised of the risks. Among the risks which should be included in this written
notification are: permanent land degradation; reduction in land productivity & classification; crop
variation restrictions; and domestic& export market boycotts of, and barriers to, sludge-grown
products. It appears that generators of sewage sludge may have a legal obligation to warn
recipients of foreseeable hazards, even when discovered post-land application.
The City should incorporate such warnings and consent documents into its contracts for sewage
sludge management services so that recipients are completely informed about the implications of the
relationship. Commentary from various agricultural, governmental, academic and food processor
interests demonstrating these obligations is presented below.
"It is CFBF's experience that potential users rarely are informed of the possible negative
consequences of the use of sewage sludge when receiving the sales pitch to accept sewage
sludge." [26. b]
"... the farmer on whose land the sewage sludge is spread remains ultimately responsible
for problems that may arise. Yet, as discussed previously, farmers are often not apprised of
all the potential adverse consequences of using sewage sludge." [26. b]
"Potential users should be... told that the sewage sludge contains hundreds or thousands
of other unregulated chemicals, including organic chemicals that may be regulated at some
future time." [26. b]
"For these reasons, CFBF recommends that WDRs for sewage sludge incorporate a
requirement for an official Informed Consent document to be signed by all land
owners/operators/lessees prior to issuing a permit for the land application of sewage sludge.
An Informed Consent document would discuss possible ramifications connected with sewage
sludge use and fully inform the potential user of concerns with the use of sewage sludge
before the user signs a deal with an applicator." [26. b]
"Impact: Changes in Trace Elements and Heavy Metal Plant Toxicity in Soils and Resulting
Effects on Productivity.
Because it is difficult to effectively remove heavy metals from soil, permanent land
degradation could result." [160]
"Land Productivity
• Impact: Changes in Farmland Classification
Conversely, heavy metals buildup in soils as a result of biosolids application could reduce
a site's productivity and classification if it approaches phytotoxic levels." [160]
"Heavy Metals will be present. ... Future cropping... could be restricted." [160]
"Farmers and ranchers utilizing sewage sludge should be sensitive to the implications of
marketing products grown with sludge." [*]
9of14
"Finally, from a farmer's perspective, the potential problems associated with sludge and
wastewater could quickly outweigh the benefits. These factors will limit any cost savings that
could be passed on to food processors as an incentive to purchase from farms that apply
wastewater and sludge." [381
"It has come to our attention that growers are experiencing increased pressure from local
municipalities to•permit the application of sewage sludge, sometimes referred to as 'biosolids',
on their lands. This memo is a reminder that it is Del Monte's policy not to accept any raw
product grown on sludge treated lands. Paragraph 11 of the fruit and tomato contracts state;
'Seller warrants that no municipal sludge, sewage, or waste water has been applied to lands
on which fruit delivered or tendered for delivery has been grown.' Application of such
products will void your contract.
"While we recognize that biosolids may offer benefits when applied under the proper
conditions, we have fundamental safety concerns that still must be addressed. First, too little
is known about the health risks - disagreement continues within the scientific community over
the safety of exposed workers and consumers. Second, the risks are difficult to control —
insufficient federal, state, local, or Del Monte resources are available to enforce EPA standards
on every acre potentially exposed." [701
"Please be advised that the Heinz Company feels the risk of utilizing municipal sludge,
which is known to be high in heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, is not a health risk
which we need to take. Root crops such as potatoes, carrots, and other vegetables which are
grown under the,ground can take up unacceptable high levels of heavy metals and while they
do not pose any imminent health risk, can be detrimental over a life time of exposure. Since
we are in the business of producing infant food we do not feel that this is a risk our customers
need to be subjected to. I can assure you that our stand on this is not a publicity statement
since it is rigorously enforced and we have at times dropped suppliers who have used the
municipal sludge on their crop land. It should be noted that once.the lead levels are present
in the soil they stay there for an indefinite period of time." [74]
"If fresh market restrictions and processor prohibitions aren't enough, the use of municipal
sewage sludge can affect the exports of agricultural commodities. Many Pacific Rim countries,
including Japan, have more restrictive standards for pathogens and heavy metals and simply
will not accept commodities grown on land treated with municipal sewage sludge." [931
"Restrictions on cadmium content of grains in some European countries... may affect the.
potential to export when cadmium levels are increased in crops." [1]
"Due to the fact that fertilizers and other chemical products for crop care can often be
toxic to human beings and some plants, the common law has typically dictated that the
manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller of crop care products has a duty to warn users of the
product's foreseeable dangers that cannot reasonably be expected to be within the knowledge
of users. [4081 ... the duty to warn arises only where the risk of harm is foreseeable to
defendant. [4091 A risk of harm is foreseeable when a defendant has actual knowledge of the
dangerous propensities of the product." [164]
"Thus, in design or warning defect cases, the issue is the reasonableness of the
manufacturer in marketing a product and in warning, or failing to warn, of the dangers
associated with the use/misuse of that product. [3881" [1641
"`Although a manufacturer may not have had actual or constructive knowledge of a danger
so as to impose a duty to warn, subsequently acquired knowledge, both actual and
constructive, may obligate the manufacturer to take reasonable steps to notify purchasers
and consumers of the newly-discovered danger.' [412]" [1641
LAND Value, Credit & Insurance PROTECTION
The accumulation of sewage sludge contaminants on land can reduce its productivity and value,
and convert it into a hazardous waste site, requiring those responsible to pay for remediation. It
may be difficult, or impossible, for recipients of sewage sludge to get loans, insurance or a decent
sales price on their property.
Banks which extend credit based on agricultural viability and the quality and value of the land
10 of 14
have serious reservations about potential damage resulting from applied sewage sludge. Lenders
are also directly financially and legally vulnerable, as parties responsible for clean up and as
respondents to lawsuits. Credit institutions have recommended that farmers applying for mortgage
loans acquire hazardous waste indemnification from the POTW supplying the sewage sludge to
protect the bank from the economic risk (see "Responsibility / Fairness", above).
Environmental liability insurance may provide farmers and their lenders with some protection
from damages, but insurance companies' pollution exclusion clauses, including those specific to
sewage sludge, may render their policies' coverage inadequate, or non-existent.
POTWs and sewage sludge appliers can be required to post bonds for injury claims, damage
compensation and contamination remediation.
The City should ensure that recipients of its sewage sludge are advised of the necessity to
examine the policies of their banks and insurance companies, and the possibility of any collateral or
equity devaluation. The City should acquire assurances from recipients as to the their status and
consent in these regards. The City should post a performance bond to cover any injury, damage or
clean up contingencies, and require that its contractor do likewise. The City should indemnify
recipients of its sewage sludge from hazardous waste liability. The City should incorporate all of
these provisions into its contracts for sewage sludge management services. Commentary from
various agricultural, academic and governmental organizations demonstrating these obligations is
presented below.
"Banks and insurance companies are concerned about sewage sludge use because of
potential environmental pollution and long-term effects on property values." [20. f]
"The issue has generated concern with lenders as well. Since the land itself is collateral
against the loan, anything that may affect the property value is concern to the lender. As a
result, some lending institutions have policies which prohibit the spreading of sludge without
the prior written consent of the lender." [93]
"Check with... your farm credit organization... to determine any restrictions." [1, 9]
"It will also affect farmers financially if bank loans cannot be obtained or if such treated
land is eventually subdivided for building lots and then cannot be sold or only at reduced
values. Such reduced assessed valuation will eventually translate into lower taxes collected
by the communities involved." [3]
"It is therefore, not surprising that Farm Credit Institutions, consisting of major farm
lenders in the United States, have also raised concerns over the potential damage to farmer
livelihood should properties be subjected to the potential liabilities discussed above. [449]
Naturally, lenders do not wish to be subject to joint and several liability, and wish to preserve
land productivity and value. Under CERCLA, ownership alone triggers liability, even though
the owner has not actually participated in generating or disposing of the substance. (450]
Lenders have been found liable for clean ups even if they did not acquire the property, but
had the capacity to affect hazardous waste disposal decisions. [451] ... If, however, a lender
becomes an owner by foreclosing and taking title to the property, or by conducting
management activities at the site, he is potentially liable. [453]" [154]
"Lenders are also wary of the other possible legal actions, discussed above, that may be
brought against them or other parties involved." [154]
"In addition, several banks that finance farmers in the northeast have been concerned
about whether repeated applications of sludge containing toxic substances (such as cadmium
and lead), even at levels set by EPA's Part 503 Sludge Rule, could potentially put a farm at
risk of becoming a hazardous waste site and create cleanup liabilities. These lenders have an
interest in protecting the value of the farmland that secures their loans, and are concerned
about whether they would be designated as 'responsible parties' liable for cleanup costs.
After studying the issue, the Farm Credit Institutions of the Northeast (an organization of
farm credit banks) determined that assurances may be needed to cover the economic risk.
They proposed that farmers seeking their loans through mortgage financing should make sure
that the POTW that provides them with sludge will indemnify them in the event of hazardous
waste liabilities that result from application of the sludge." [38]
"Sewage sludge is not listed as a hazardous waste under the.Resource Conservation and
11 of 14
Recovery Act (RCRA) unless it exhibits characteristics that make it a hazardous waste and
prevent its beneficial use (EPA, 1993). This last issue has been of concern to farm bank
lenders who have a financial interest in the value of the land. These concerns... will have to
be addressed before growers will even consider whether using wastewater or sludge is
profitable or not." [383
"Other methods used to reassure the local communities include posting of performance
bonds, purchasing of liability insurance...." [313
"B. Insurance
For companies engaged in potentially risky activities, such as sewage sludge land
application, insurance can be a necessary protection against a variety of claims. Any or all of
the following parties could obtain insurance coverage: the. POTW, the sewage sludge-derived
product manufacturer, other transporters, the sewage sludge contractor responsible for
applying the sludge to land (sludger), and the farmer-landowner. However, the
environmental liability and associated risks faced by these actors will rarely, if ever, be fully
covered by insurance. [4573 ...
The liability insurance policy that offers the broadest protections against third party suits
is the `comprehensive general liability policy' (CGL). [4601 ... However, these policies also
contain a standard pollution exclusion, which is the most significant issue affecting coverage
for suits involving sewage sludge application. [4613 ...
The problems regarding what environmental and liability risks are to be covered by
policies, what mechanisms trigger claims against policies, and what evidentiary burdens a
claimant must meet, are yet to be resolved. [472] In all likelihood, insurance companies will
add to existing pollution exclusion language specific limitations or other provisions unique to
sewage sludge management. [4733" [164]
"Public Perception and Liability
Although insurance coverage and indemnification contracts for the farmer are useful
means of self-regulation and protection against certain kinds of economic harm, it is unlikely
that they will be sufficient to satisfy all concerns of the farmer, food processors, general
public, and the affected community." [383
"The posting of bonds could adequately cover certain clearly defined expenses, such as
those associated with monitoring and management costs. 14553 ...
455. POTWs would have to post a general bond in favor of anyone injured or damaged,
the state for clean up costs, and possible even the federal government if CERCLA liability
attaches. A secondary bond may be posted by 'sludgers' and may be required under contract
in case sludgers violate 503 standards." [1643
Property RECORDING / Buyer NOTIFICATION
Potential property purchasers have a right, and need, to know if the land has been subjected to
sewage sludge application, due to human health &environmental; crop viability, variability &
marketing; organic farming; and land use, value &sales considerations. Subsequent landowners
may be held responsible for environmental contamination caused by prior property owners.
Municipal records (title, grant deed, legal description) of property previously so amended should
indicate that the activity occurred, and provide access to records of the permitting agency(ies),
POTW source(s), permitted discharges, monitoring records, and application history.
The City should require that the owner of any recipient property certify, in a legally enforceable
instrument, that any prospective land consumers and property appraisers will be informed of these
facts, and that, due to this history, certain uses of the land may be restricted. The City should
incorporate all of these provisions into its contracts for sewage sludge management services.
"Third party impacts include landowners who may be unaware that sewage sludge has
been applied by a leaseholder; ... subsequent property owners who may purchase land to
which unbeknownst to them at the time of purchase, sludge of any kind has been applied."
[933
12 of 14
. i
"A means for tracking sewage sludge applications so that future owners/operators can find
out whether sewage sludge previously were used on the property must be implemented.
Future owners/operators may want to avoid property that has received sewage sludge
applications, whether because of existing or future crop restrictions, effects on land values,
organic farming requirements or health concerns and a current owner may be unwilling to
disclose that sewage sludge were used on the property if the sale could be jeopardized.
Hence , a system to track sewage sludge. applications and a way of informing future
owners/operators about this 'system' should be created now, and not left for future
resolution." [26. b]
"Past experience with other products purported to be beneficial for agricultural use have
demonstrated that only after wide-spread use has begun and sufficient time has elapsed have
problems become apparent, e.g., the introduction and later ban of DDT, etc." [26. b]
"Furthermore, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity is not limited to neighboring
property owners, as the liability for harms caused by abnormally dangerous activity does not
cease with the transfer of the property. ... Landlords, under certain conditions, can also be
held liable. Subsequent tenants, under the common law, have a cause of action for strict
liability against the landlord for a prior tenant's environmental contamination of the property,
even though the landlord did not himself pollute the site (especially if he actively administered
the leasehold). Thus, the nature of farmland assessment as we know it may drastically
change." [164]
Prepared by David E. Broadwater, CSI, 4-18-01
Attachment:
"LANDFILLING / LAND APPLICATION of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids - a Quantitative & Qualitative
Analysis & Comparison", CSI, 4-6-01.
References:
* "Farm Bureau Policies 2001, Natural Resources, No. 107 Sewage Sludge Disposal", CFBF
(California Farm Bureau Federation) Ag Alert; 12-27-00; vol. 27, # 46.
** SB 1956 &AB 2495: Text, Status, History, Analysis, Votes. From: www.leginfo.ca.gov
*** Joint Legislative Intervention Letter: Western Growers Association, Sierra Club California,
California Citrus Mutual, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, Kern Food Growers Against
Sewage Sludge, Coalition for Sludge Education, Center for Sludge Information, Desert Citizens
Against Pollution, and California Communities Against Toxics. 8-4-00.
**** Legislator letters on file with author, CSI.
1. "Land Application of Sewage Sludges", 1998 CU Recommends, 1998 Cornell Recommends for
Integrated Field Crop management; A Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication, C.U.N.Y.
1. a. "Land Application of Sewage Sludges", 2001 Cornell Guide for Integrated Field Crop
Management, A Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication.
3. "The Issue of Sewage Sludge Application to Land" Dr. D.J.Lisk, Toxic Chemicals Lab, NYS College
of Agriculture & Life Sciences, C.U.N.Y. 7-10-93.
9. "The Case For Caution: Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludges & an Appraisal
of the US EPA's Part 503 Sludge Rules" E.Z. Harrison: Cornell Waste Management Inst., M.B.
McBride & D.R. Bouldin: Dep't of Soil, Crop &Atmospheric Sciences, C.U. N.Y. Working Paper
8-97.
15. R. Atwill, D.V.M., M.P.V.M., PhD., Epidemiologist, UC Coop. Ext.: Veterinary Medicine Ext.,
Tulare, Calif., 4-6-98 letter to Kern Co. Planning Dep't.
20. f. "Why the Calif. Farm Bureau Federation Remains Cautious About the Use of Sewage Sludge on
Agricultural Properties", R. Liebert, Assoc. Counsel, CFBF. Panel Presentation at 1998 Calif.
Plant & Soil Conference: "Agricultural Challenges in an Urbanizing State" 1-21/22-98.
Sponsored by Calif. Chapter of Amer. Society of Agronomy, & Calif. Fertilizer Assoc.
26. b. Calif. Farm Bureau Federation Comments, 5-29-98, Draft General Waste Discharge
Requirements for the Discharge of Biosolids to Land for Use in Agricultural, Silvicultural,
Horticultural, & Land Reclamation Activities: Calif. State Water Resources Control Board.
13 of 14
31. "Institutional Constraints & Public Acceptance.Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wastewater &
Sludge for Land Reclamation & Biomass Production", U.S. EPA Office of Water Program
Operations, Municipal Construction Division. EPA 430/9-81-013. 7-81.
38. "Use of Reclaimed Water & Sludge in Food Crop Production National Research Council, National
Academy Press, 1996.
70. Del Monte Foods 'To: Del Monte Fruit Growers; Subject: Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge or
Waste Water on Del Monte Crop'" 5-24-95.
74. Heinz U.S.A. to J. Shumaker, Mayport; Pa. 11-19-92.
93. "Is Sludge Viable for Farming?", J. Ennenga, Exec. Mgr., Stanislaus County Farm Bureau,
Stanislaus FarmNews part 2, 10-4-96.
156. US EPA 40 CFR Parts 257, 403 & 503: Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge:
Final Rule. Federal Register 2-.19-93, 9248 - 9415.
160. Draft EIR: State Water Resources Control Board, General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Biosolids Land Application, 6-28-99.
164. "Unsafe Sewage Sludge or Beneficial Biosolids?: Liability, Planning, and Management Issues
Regarding the Land Application of Sewage Treatment Residuals", W. Goldfarb, U. Krogmann, C..
Hopkins. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 26, Summer #4, 1999.
176. CFBF: "Sewage Sludge Disposal", Natural Resources Policy # 107, Farm Bureau Policies 2001,
California Farm Bureau Federation; Ag Alert, vol. 27, # 46, 12-27-00.
179. Comments on the SWRCB Statewide PFEIR for GWDRs for Biosolids Land Application.
California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), 7-27-00.
14 of 14
MEETING AGENDA 4-18-01
�I to: San Luis Obispo City Council DATE `f'a__ITEM # '�..
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
re: 4-24-01 Council meeting Business Agenda Item #6: Sewage Sludge Removal & Disposal
("Biosolids Disposal/Reclamation Contract Award & County Biosolids Working Group Update.")
Please find attached hereto an informational report submitted for your consideration prior to your
deliberations regarding Item #6 on the 4-24-01 Agenda:
"Landfilling / Land Application of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids"
This report presents a comparison between landfilling and land application of sewage sludge
regarding their relative environmental and economic impacts, and concludes that landfilling is
preferable to land application on both grounds. It is demonstrated that an abandonment.of land
application and a switch to landfilling would result in the elimination, reduction and containment of
ecological and health hazards, and a more equitable diffusion of economic and indirect risks and
burdens.
The evidence presented shows that such a switch would produce the:
• elimination of hazards to soils, hydrology &water quality, land productivity, and public;
• mitigation of impacts to public health, land use & aesthetics, biological resources, fish and
cultural resources;
• reduction of traffic, air quality and noise impacts;
• minimization &/or elimination of economic risks and costs to landowners and farmers; and
• mitigation of the inter-regional mal-distribution of risks between urban and rural communities.
Drawing primarily from information presented by the State Water Resources Control Board, the
California Integrated Waste Management Board and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies,
this report presents some preliminary quantitative information, a qualitative comparison using the
SWRCB's impact-comparison parameters; and some economic information.
Report outline:
Quantitative Analysis [Gr-�?-
UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
Qualitative Comparison O ❑ FIN DIR
Hazards Eliminated RECEIVED A0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Hazards Reduced ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
Landfill Capacity APR 19 2001 RK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Transportation PT HEADS ❑ REC DIR
SLO CITY CLERK "Z - I2-UTIL DIR
Economic Factors ' ❑ HR DIR
Conclusion
Decisions regarding sewage sludge management must incorporate all the information available
about the environmental and economic consequences, and about the ramifications among all those
communities potentially impacted.
Thank You for your attentiveness to this important matter.
David E. Broadwater
CSI:_ Center for Sludoe Information
Advocacy through Acquisition, Analysis and Articulation of Information re:
Land Application of Sewage Sludge
6604 Portola Rd., Atascadero, Calif. 93422. ph: (805) 466-0352, fx: (805) 462-0408, email:csi@thegrid.net
• �� ID
LANDFILLING / LAND APPLICATION
of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids
a Quantitative &Qualitative Analysis & Comparison
Over the past decade, an enormous shift in sewage sludge disposal has occurred - from landfilling
to land application. Of the sewage sludge generated in California from 1988 to 1998, that being
landfilled decreased from roughly 3/5 to 1/10, and that being land applied increased from roughly
1/8 to 2/3; or alternately, while landfilling shrunk by a factor of 6.6, land application expanded by a
factor of 5.3. As the SWRCB 6-99 DEIR (from which come the prior data) emphatically put it, "a
huge increase in land application" has occurred.
Various economic, legislative and regulatory factors have contributed to, and are effected by, this
reversal in the disposition of sewage sludge. Among these are the 1988 federal Ocean Dumping
Ban, and the 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act, designed to divert recyclable
wastes from landfills. The CIWMB-imposed fines for diversion failure, and the expense relative to
land application discourage landfilling; while the EPA, through the NBP (National Biosolids
Partnership) and its liberal 1993 contaminant limits(& the SWRCB through identical limits), actively
promotes land application.
Whether these incentives and inhibitions, & other factors, influencing this shift have resulted in
the selection of the environmentally superior disposal option &/or management technique is
examined herein. Drawing primarily from information presented by the State Water Resources
Control Board, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies, this report presents a comparison between landfilling and land application
regarding their relative environmental impacts. Following some preliminary quantitative information,
the qualitative analysis will focus primarily on the ten parameters employed by the SWRCB in
comparing these two alternatives.
It is concluded that landfilling is environmentally superior to land application, contrary to the
conclusion of the SWRCB; and it is demonstrated that the SWRCB's data and analysis are faulty and
flawed; as is presented the evidence to substantiate the validity of both those assertions. It is also
demonstrated that landfilling may be economically superior to land application, when non- &/or
extra-CEQA directly ecological impact parameters, i.e., those of a secondary &/or economic nature,
are considered.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Less than 1/1,000 of the material landfilled in 1990 in California was sewage sludge. The 1989
CIWMA required the CIWMB to measure and categorize the tonnage of waste material disposed of in
landfills, as a baseline to measure municipalities' success in reaching the AB939 25% (1995) & 50%
(2000) diversionary goals. CIWMB 1990 data reveal that only 38,650 of the 39,810,328 tons
(<0.1%) of material landfilled was sewage sludge. By 1999, CIWMB data showed that sewage
sludge amounted to 0.0% of the 37.5 million tons of material landfilled.
Est. Average 1990 Waste Stream Composition Not Including Diversion of Excluded Waste Types
CIWMB Interim Database Pro'ect r1721
Waste Categories Tons Disposal Com- Tons Diversion Com- Tons
&Types Disposed Rate position Diverted Rate position Generated
(%) Disposal (%) Diversion
Total 39,810,328 88.5 100.0 5 193 197 11.8 100.0 45,003,525
Sewage Sludge J 38f 650 60.0 0.1 25,735 40.0 0.5 64,385
Table 3: Statewide Overall Disposed Waste Composition
1999 California Statewide Waste Disposal Characterization Stud **
Material Type Estimated % + / - Estimated Tons
Special Waste 3.1% 1,171,770
Sewage Solids 0.0% 0.0% 0
Totals - Sample count: 1,682 100.0% 37,500,000
1 of 9
In 1998, CIWMB data show that 35.5 million tons of material was landfilled. The SWRCB DEIR
showed (from CASA data) that 672,330 tons of sewage sludge were generated in 1998 (equivalent to
1.89% of the material landfilled), and that 9.1% of that (61,182 tons) was landfilled (equivalent to
0.17% of the.material landfilled). Of sewage sludge generated; in 1998, 76.9% (517,022 tons) was
either landfilled or land applied; and, in 1988 & 1991, 72.9% & 62%, respectively, were so disposed.
Thus, if all so-disposed sewage sludge had been landfilled in 1998, while the amount would have
increased by a factor of 8.5, the sewage sludge fraction of material landfilled would have risen to
<1.46%. If all the so-disposed sewage sludge had been landfilled in 1998 at the 1988 or 1991
rates, the amounts would have increased by factors of 8 & 6, respectively, bringing the sewage
sludge fraction of material landfilled to <1.4% & <1.2%, respectively.
It is evident that, although the amounts and fractions vary, had the huge shift from landfilling not
occurred, or were it to be reversed to the point of eliminating land application, the net effects on
landfill usage, the environment and recycling would result from a portion of the total material
ranging from non-existent & negligible (0.0% - 0.1%) to minimal at the most (<1.5%). Any
assertion that the diversion of sewage sludge from landfills is a significant factor in reaching the
objectives of AB 939, or has any measurable ecological advantage, must be scrutinized within this
context.
Such assertions are made, however, by those (CASA) with an economic interest in avoiding the
cost of landfilling (averaging $36.50/ton since 1998 [*]), by a State Senator who proposed CASA-
sponsored legislation (SB 1956) in 2000 to curtail county ordinance formation [***], and by the
SWRCB's EIR (funded by CASA & written by a.CASA Associate Member). CASA's 1999 report and the
text of SB 1956 reveal that the CIWMA is used as a rationale for land application. (The SWRCB's
assertions in this regard are examined further below.)
"As stated in the 1991 Report, 'AB 1820 requires the Integrated Waste Management Board
(IWMB) to conduct a study to determine if wastewater sludge should count toward required
recycling goals.' In an on-going effort to provide accurate biosolids management information
to the state regarding CASA's recycling efforts, CASA continues to update the report initiated
in 1988." [1701
"Major Findings of the 1998 Survey
• Land application has replaced landfilling as the most widely used biosolids management
method. This may be due, in part, to the 'reduce and reuse' stipulations of AB 939 (The
Integrated Waste Management Act)." [1701
"(d) This state declared in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989... its
policy to maximize the recycling of materials that might otherwise be disposed of in landfills.
Biosolids are a significant waste stream that, in the past, generally have been disposed of in
landfills. Recently, since the adoption of standards to assure the safety of the practice,
biosolids have been increasingly recycled via application to agricultural land. Continuation of
this recycling will preserve space in landfills for wastes that cannot be recycled, and is
important to the people of the state." [***I
QUALITATIVE COMPARISON
The SWRCB employed ten parameters in comparing the environmental impacts of landfilling to
those of land application, in the context of examining a ban on the latter. These included: Soils,
Hydrology & Water Quality; Land Productivity; Public Health; Land Use &Aesthetics; Biological
Resources; Fish; Traffic; Air Quality; Noise; and Cultural Resources. Using the SWRCB's "impact
comparison" method and considering available information, it is demonstrable that landfilling is
environmentally superior to land application.
Hazards Eliminated
Impacts reduced to zero by a land application ban include those to Soils, Hydrology & Water
Quality; Land Productivity; and Public Health; i.e., a shift from land application to landfilling would
eliminate the hazards to surface & groundwater quality, plant &soil productivity, and public health.
The-SWRCB reports that, by prohibiting land application, sewage sludge "... would not have an effect
on surface water or groundwater quality", that "... adverse crop and soil productivity impacts... would
not occur", that "... public concerns over crop contamination from biosolids application would not
2 of 9
r
occur", and that "... there.would be no risk of human or animal disease". In an FEIR comment
response, the SWRCB reports that "groundwater contamination from landfills... is prohibited".
"The commenter states that there is continuing concern about groundwater contamination
from landfills, particularly in this local area. ... Biosolids disposal can occur only in landfills that
have leachate collection and removal systems that are in accordance with State of California
regulations. Landfills are highly regulated; impacts on groundwater from landfills is
prohibited." [171]
"Chapter 14. Alternatives Analysis - Land Application Ban Alternative
Impact Comparison
Soils, Hydrology, and Water Quality
Under the Land Application Ban Alternative, biosolids reuse would not have an effect on
surface water or groundwater quality. Biosolids currently being applied to the land would
eventually be diverted to disposal operations. Additional land application sites would not be
developed. With these materials going to landfills, monofills, or incinerators, the potential for
water quality effects would be reduced. Landfills and monofills are strictly regulated for
contamination of surface water and groundwater. Most of these facilities have natural or
manufactured liners that catch leachate, or they have extensive leachate collection systems
that minimize percolation of contaminants to groundwater. Newly developed landfills or
monofills would be expected to include state-of-the-art leachate control systems. ...
Land Productivity
Under the Land Application Ban Alternative, adverse crop and soil productivity impacts
associated with changes in soil nutrient levels and changes in heavy metal plant toxicity
resulting from the application of biosolids would not occur. Additionally, public concerns over
crop contamination from biosolids application would not occur under this alternative. ...
Public Health...
Under this alternative, there would be no risk of human or animal disease from the land
application of biosolids in agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, or land reclamation settings.
Land application would be discouraged and the pathogens and other contaminants in biosolids
would not be placed in settings with a significant risk of public exposure. Most biosolids
generated in the state would be transported to and disposed of in landfills, monofills, or
incinerators. These types of facilities generally have stricter control on public access, so the
potential for direct human contact would be substantially reduced." [160]
The SWRCB concludes, however, that continued land application is environmentally and
economically preferable to a shift to landfilling, and that such a shift would be unreasonable and
outside the objectives of the GWDRs. (As specified in Finding #1 of the GWDRs, "This General Order
assists in streamlining the regulatory process for such discharges....".) Among the "Alternatives
Considered but Rejected" are "Engineered Monofills" and "Landfilling". The SWRCB's "Impact
Comparison" reports that, under a land application ban:.
"Regulation of land application for agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, or land
reclamation purposes would be sufficiently restrictive to make the activity economically .
uncompetitive. Biosolids generators would be encouraged to pursue other options, such as
use of landfills, incineration, and development of dedicated disposal sites (monofills). ... This
alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative to the GO because it is
not within the reasonable range of alternatives and it does not meet the project objectives."
[160]
Hazards Reduced
The SWRCB employs two factors in reaching its conclusions that greater negative impacts would
accrue through eight of the parameters addressed, i.e., to "Public Health", "Land Use &Aesthetics",
"Biological Resources", "Fish", "Cultural Resources", "Traffic", "Air Quality" &"Noise", if land
application were to be abandoned. It is demonstrable, however, that neither of these.factors will
have the negative impacts predicted.
3 of 9
Landfill Capacity
One factor is the asserted need for more landfill space, requiring expansion of existing, and
construction of new, landfills. That this assertion is contrary to the facts has been shown by the
evidence presented in the "Quantitative Analysis"section above. Sewage sludge accounts for an
insignificant amount of material impacting the capacity of landfills. The negative consequences
claimed for five of these eight parameters would, therefore, be either non-existent or negligible.
Although the SWRCB presents no evidence to support its conclusions, its "Impact Comparison"
reports that the "need" &"demand"for additional landfill capacity would cause adverse impacts to
"Public Health", "Land Use &Aesthetics", "Biological Resources", "Fish" and "Cultural Resources".
"Land Application Ban Alternative
... the need for landfill space, new dedicated landfills (monofills)... are expected to
increase."
"Public Health
... there would be additional demand for landfill or monofill space.... potentially productive
land could be eliminated by construction of facilities...."
"Land Use &Aesthetics
... the need for increased Class II and Class III landfill space.... This increased need for
facilities has the potential to create greater land use and aesthetic impacts"
"Biological Resources
... similar but much less extensive impacts... because the potential to expand existing
landfill... impacts would be potentially significant... in the expansion areas...."
"Fish
... impacts similar... because the potential need to expand existing landfill areas... would be
considered potentially significant... in the expansion areas:..."
"Cultural Resources
... impacts similar... construction of additional landfill, monofill.... ... Significant cultural
resource impacts could occur as new disposal facilities are constructed...."
Transportation
The other factor is the asserted increased driving distance required to transport sewage sludge to
landfills instead of land application sites. That this assertion is false is shown by Table 1 in CASA's
1999 report. The average distance in the nine RWQCB Regions from POTWs to landfills is 18 miles,
and to land application sites is 71 miles, i.e., the distance to landfills is 1/4 the distance to land
application sites. In five of the six regions reporting reliable data, the distance to landfills is shorter
than to land application sites.
Table-1. 1998 Average Distance in Miles From Treatment Facility
Agency Landfill Land Application
North Coast 1 10 13'
San Francisco Ba 2 22 55
Central Coast_(3) 9 98
Los Angeles 4 24 128
Central Valle 5 52 30
Lahontan 6 5 ND
Colorado 7 ND 57
Santa Ana 8 3* 116
San Diego 9 14 98
Landfill Land Application
Average Distance 181 71
* Only one facility responded to this portion of the survey, creating results that are
anomalous. Many WWTPs located within the Santa Ana region must travel further
than three miles to a Landfill. 1170
It is evident that impacts directly related to transportation could be reduced by 75% by a switch
4 of 9
from land application to landfilling. Although the SWRCB introduces some additional speculative
factors in its discussion, it neglects this factor in reaching its conclusion that overall adverse impacts
would accrue through the three parameters of"Traffic", "Air Quality" &"Noise". Consideration of two
significant factors (water content & landfill covering) adds weight to the conclusion that"expected"
impacts are "likely" to be the reverse of what the SWRCB claims.
With the elimination of the GWDRs mandate that land applied sewage sludge be greater than
50% water, a huge reduction in the weight and volume of material transported, and number of
trucks required, would result (not to mention a reduction in pathogenic potential from a dryer
medium). Although the SWRCB agrees that this would occur, it reveals (in an FEIR comment
response) that it was not factored into its "Impact Comparison".
"Reducing the water content of the biosolids being hauled by trucks was not considered as
a mitigation measure in the EIR. It is agreed that a reduction in water content would reduce
the number of trucks traveling the state's roads to move biosolids to land application sites."
[in]
With the substitution of sewage sludge for"clean fill" as daily &final covers at landfills, truck
transportation of dirt for that purpose would be eliminated. As the California Farm Bureau
Federation commented on the Draft & Final EIRs, although this substitution would constitute a viable
use of sewage sludge, conserve the value of good earth, and not effect AB 939 objectives, the
SWRCB has neither analyzed this, nor included it in the GWDRs. The SWRCB reveals (in its FEIR
response) that, without any significantly increased environmental impact, much larger quantities of
sewage sludge could be disposed of in this manner, and that productive soil would not be converted
from a resource to waste.
"In addition, although the DEIR notes that the use of sewage sludge as final cover for
landfills is a 'use,' not a disposal method, the DEIR fails to mention or analyze whether the
use of sewage sludge as daily cover for landfills is a viable alternative to land applications.
Using sewage sludge as daily cover would minimize the use of clean fill for that purpose and
not effect landfill diversion goals." [18o]
"Finally, although the FEIR agrees both that the use of sewage sludge as daily and final
cover for landfills is a viable use and that the use of sewage sludge as daily cover would
reduce the need for clean fill at landfills, the GWDR does not reflect this additional beneficial
use. The GWDR, therefore, should be revised to recommend the use of sewage sludge for
daily cover to reduce the need for use of clean cover (whose 'clean' value is completely lost
when placed in a landfill) to the maximum extent possible." [1791
"The environmental effects of using biosolids as a daily cover at landfills would not be
substantially different from the effects of its use as final cover, except that a much greater
volume of the material could be directed to landfills as daily cover. ... This alternative is
considered a viable one in the EIR. It is agreed that use of biosolids as daily cover would
reduce the need for clean fill at landfills." [171]
In positing that increased adverse impacts are "likely" or"expected" to accrue through the three
parameters of"Traffic", "Air Quality" &"Noise", the SWRCB's "Impact Comparison" speculates about
increased fertilizer and inter-state sewage sludge transportation. It presents no evidence to support
its conclusions, neglects to factor into any analysis the complete elimination of dirt hauling and
reduction in water transportation, and (in an FEIR comment response) claims that distances to
landfills are greater than to land application sites.
"Traffic
... Instead, this material would be transported to landfills, monofills, or incinerators for
disposal. The truck traffic associated with moving this material to disposal sites rather than
resuse sites may be greater or lesser than under the proposed G0, depending on the relative
distances between these sites and the degree of dewatering that would take place before
transport. However, with the effective ban on land application, those lands currently
5 of 9
receiving biosolids would require other sources of nutrients and soil conditioners. Some level
of truck traffic would be associated with supply of this replacement material. Consequently, it
is likely that traffic related to switching from land application to disposal of biosolids would be
greater than under the proposed GO.
Air Quality
This alternative would result in greater air quality impacts than the proposed GO. ... The
transportation of fertilizers to existing agricultural operations and the delivery of biosolids
materials to landfill areas would also result in elevated levels of transportation-related NOx
and PM10 emissions. Consequently, because of the increase in both incineration and
transportation-related emissions and the potential to exceed local air district significance
thresholds under the Land Application. Ban Alternative, air quality impacts are expected to be
greater under this alternative. Also, a land application ban would not stop generators from
using highways to transport biosolids out of the state." [1601
"The commenter feels that additional restrictions on the land application of biosolids by
counties or RWQCBs could lead to an increased distance for the transportation of biosolids.
The commenter is correct in that the ban on land application could result in air quality
impacts." [1711
"Noise
...Additionally, under this alternative a number of truck trips associated with the transport of
biosolids materials to out-of-state landfills and incineration sites would be generated,
resulting in additional transportation-related noise impacts on sensitive receptors located
along landfill access routes. Consequently, because of the increased noise levels caused by
the additional number of trucks generated by the Land Application Ban Alternative, noise
impacts are expected to be greater than for the proposed GO." [1601
ECONOMIC FACTORS
In addition to the direct and physical consequences of a choice between Landfilling and land
applying, indirect and economic impacts effect producers, handlers and recipients. In general, along
with the transfer of the ecological hazards from urban to rural settings, economic benefits accrue to
generators through reduced removal, transportation & disposal costs, while the economic risks
accrue to landowners (primarily farmers) through legal, financial & marketing factors. Along with the
minimal economic benefit to farmers and the shift of potential health costs to agricultural
communities, there are specific areas of property owner vulnerability which must be weighed to
determine a valid and complete cost/benefit ratio. In this context, landfilling appears to be
economically preferable to land application.
In the event of off-site contamination or nuisance complaints, landowners are particularly legally
and financially liable for litigation &clean-up related costs. The marketability of crops is restricted by
major food processor boycotts of products grown on land to which sewage sludge has been applied.
This can restrict farming practice flexibility, including crop variation and rotation. The appraised and
market value of land can be reduced, restricting the ability to obtain loans and to sell it. The ability
to obtain insurance coverage can be restricted by contract.exclusion clauses specifically exempting
sewage sludge application to the land.
The indirect and economic factors effecting farmers cited by the National Research Council in
1996, including the lack of grower & processor incentives, liability risks, crop & land devaluation, and
regulatory burdens, are such that the "business risks may outweigh any benefits that farmers gain".
"Economic, Legal, and Institutional Issues...
These potential barriers include lack of economic incentives for the farmer, lack of public
confidence in the adequacy of regulatory systems to ensure compliance, agribusiness
concerns with potential liability or economic losses due to decreases in both land value and
crop value, and public concerns over nuisance factors.
Economic Considerations
There are negligible economic incentives for food processors to accept crops produced
with reclaimed water or treated sludge. Benefits in terms of lower raw food costs are likely to
be minimal, potential risks could lead to liability, and the negative public perception of food
crops produced using these materials could have a detrimental impact on consumer demand.
6 of 9
. i
Even though the value of the water and nutrients represents only a small percentage of total
farm production costs, there are many cases of clear economic incentives for society as a
whole as well as for municipal wastewater treatment plants to pursue cropland reuse options.
... Limited economic incentives exist for farmers to use sludge because fertilizer is relatively
inexpensive and sludge use may entail additional management concerns." [387
"Chapter 8: Economic, Legal, and Institutional Issues...
Farm Economics of Treated Wastewater and Sludge Use...
Other economic considerations for the farmer include the cost of applying sludge and the
additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and management required be federal, state, and local
regulations.
Food Processor Perspectives...
Finally, from a farmer's perspective, the potential problems associated with sludge and
wastewater could quickly outweigh the benefits. These factors will limit any cost savings that
could be passed on to food processors as an incentive to purchase from farms that apply
wastewater and sludge....
Residual Risks...
The business risks may outweigh any benefits that farmers gain by using these materials.
Summary
Economic incentives play an important role in decisions to pursue beneficial land
application of reclaimed wastewater and treated sludge. ... With the exception of water-short
areas, there are only limited incentives for farmers to apply reclaimed wastewater and sludge,
due to the low cost of alternative sources of nutrients and water." [387
As risks are transferred from urban/industrial to rural/agricultural regions, so are any associated
potential health costs shifted to farmers and their communities. The inequity of this inter-regional
mal-distribution of costs is a "very real problem", as explained by the California Farm Bureau
Federation. The EPA's and SWRCB's negligence of those most directly and immediately effected by
this shift is a focus of CFBF's critical comments on the SWRCB's FEIR regarding its GWDRs.
"CFBF is concerned that the... SWRCB proposed... GWDR .and... FEIR, whose purpose is to
increase the ability of the generators and applicators to dispose of their largely urban-
generated sewage sludge in sparsely populated rural agricultural communities, fails to
properly address the very real problem that only the recipients of sewage sludge and their
rural communities will suffer should the metals and pathogen limits and other supposed
protective requirements set forth in the GWDR prove insufficient....
A. The relevant focus for protecting persons from health risks associated with the use of
sewage sludge must be the rural communities and environment where the sewage
sludge is applied, not the urban 'public at large,' which generates but largely does not
land apply sewage sludge.
The USEPA's Part 503 regulations and the GWDR standards are designed to protect the
'public at large' from the health risks and effects of the land application of sewage sludge.
However, the generally urban 'public at large' is not at any risk from the land application of
sewage sludge since the vast majority of sewage sludge, although generated by urban
communities, is shipped to and disposed in rural, agricultural communities. The USEPA and
the GWDR fail to address the impacts of concentrating the pollutants and toxic materials in
sewage sludge on farms and their potential effects on the persons living and working in those
rural, agricultural communities. Master Response 12 of the FEIR states that the Part 503
regulations are based in part on a 'willingness to accept some health risk to support the reuse
of sewage sludge.' Unfortunately, the acceptance of'some health risk' by the USEPA, and by
extension, the SWRCB, on behalf of the general public comes almost exclusively at the
expense of farmers and their communities where the sewage sludge is applied." 1179]
Generators benefit economically due to lower costs per ton charged by haulers to remove and
ship sewage sludge to land application sites, where no fee is paid to recipients. Haulers profit from
charging generators for their services and avoiding landfill tipping fees. California landfills have
7 of 9
_ J �
charged an average (median + average) of$36.50 per ton over the past three years. The table
below (a composite of CIWMB's) shows the range, median & averages of these fees. The cost to
generators for landfilling would include hauling expenses in addition to the tipping fees.
"1998 to 2000 Summaries of Special Waste Tipping Fee Surveys"
California_Inte rated Waste Mana ement Board
/Ton Fees 1998 1999 2000
Lowest (Except 0 5.00 $3.00 $5.00
Highest $110.00 $83.00 $83.00
Median $36.30 $33.00 $36.50
Average $40.2S $34.10 $36.68
As of this writing, the author has not acquired enough information regarding the charges of
companies which land apply sewage sludge, to compare the overall costs to California sewage plants
per ton for landfilling vs. land application. Individual POTWs, the Water Environment Federation and
the U.S. EPA assert that municipalities realize sizable savings by selecting land application over
landfilling. In promoting land application, a WEF & EPA booklet points out that land application can
"save local and state governments significant amounts of money through lower disposal costs". [162.
b] The San Luis Obispo City POTW reports that current contract proposals for hauling away its
sewage sludge range from $26 to $38 per ton. The inflation in SLO's sewage plant contract-services
budget will result in a 1% rate increase. Further information is necessary to precisely quantify the
cost differential between landfilling and land application locally and statewide.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion that landfilling is both environmentally and economically superior and preferable
to land application of sewage sludge is supported by the evidence of the:
• elimination of hazards to soils, hydrology & water quality, land productivity, and public health
by using landfill disposal;
• mitigation of impacts to public health, land use &aesthetics, biological resources, fish and
cultural resources due to the relatively negligible effects of sewage sludge on landfill capacity;
• reduction of traffic, air quality and noise impacts due to the relatively lessened distance,
weight and frequency transportation factors involved in landfill shipment; and
• minimization &/or elimination of economic risks and costs to landowners and farmers, and
mitigation of the inter-regional mal-distribution of risks between urban and rural communities
associated with land application.
Decisions and recommendations regarding the choice between landfilling and land application of
sewage sludge must incorporate all the information available about the environmental and economic
consequences, and about the ramifications among all those communities potentially impacted. This
analysis and comparison concludes that the elimination, reduction and containment of ecological and
health hazards, and the more equitable diffusion of the economic and indirect risks and burdens,
make the abandonment of land application, and a switch to landflling, the best and safest of these
two alternatives at this point in time.
References:
38. "Use of Reclaimed Water & Sludge in Food Crop Production", National Research Council, National
Academy Press, 1996.
160. Draft EIR: State Water Resources Control Board, General Waste Discharge.Requirements for
Biosolids Land Application, prepared for Calif. SWRCB by ]ones & Stokes, 6-28-99.
162. WMX 1998 Folder: "Biosolids Management Services", Wheelabrator Water Technologies,
Inc., Bio Gro Division, A WMX Technologies Company. Provided by: B. Mohr, Technical Services
Administrator, Dan Bigley, Technical Specialist, Linda Novick, Technical Services Coordinator,
Oakland, Calif.
b. "Biosolids: A Short Explanation and Discussion", WEF/U.S. EPA Biosolids Fact Sheet Project, 5-
26-98.
8 of 9
170. "Biosolids Management Practices Survey in the State of California" 1999 Update. CASA, Calif.
Assoc. of Sanitation Agencies, 12-20-99 prepared by Orange County Sanitation District.
171. Final Environmental Impact Report Covering General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sewage Sludge Land Application, prepared for Calif. SWRCB by Jones & Stokes. 6-30-00.
172. Estimated Average 1990 Waste.Stream Composition Not Including Diversion of Excluded Waste
Types. CIWMB Interim Database Project. Revised 20-Feb-97. Extrapolation by Population of
Information in Sampled Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Elements Submitted
by Jurisdictions.
179. Comments on the SWRCB Statewide PFEIR for GWDRs for Biosolids Land Application.
California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), 7-27-00.
180. Comments on the SWRCB Statewide Program Draft EIR for GWDRs for Biosolids Land
Application. California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), 9-10-99.
* California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Facility Tipping Fees, Tipping Fee
Averages: Special Waste, 1998 — 2000.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Landfills/TipFees/SumSW.htm
** 1999 California Statewide Waste Disposal Characterization Study, Overall Waste Stream
Composition Data, Table 3: Statewide Overall Disposed Waste Composition,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov//WasteChar/Studyl999/OverTabl.htm, California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB).
*** SB 1956 (Polanco): An act to add Article 9 (commencing with Section 53160) to Chapter 1 of
Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, relating to water. Withdrawn 4-24-00
after concerted opposition from agricultural, county governmental &environmental
organizations.
Prepared by David E. Broadwater [4-6-011
CSI: Center for Sludge Information
Advocacy through Acquisition, Analysis and Articulation of Information re:
Land Application of Sewage Sludge
6604 Portola Rd., Atascadero, Calif. 93422. ph: (805) 466-0352, fx: (805) 462-0408, email: csi@thegrid.net
9 of 9