DEP Residuals Rulemaking

1
DEP Residuals Rulemaking

• Maurice Barker
• Residuals Coordinator
• Domestic Wastewater Section
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS3540
• Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
• 850/245-8614
• maurice.barker_at_dep.state.fl.us

2
Residuals Regulations in Florida

• Title 40 CFR Part 503 (Federal/EPA)
• Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code
• County and Local Ordinances
• DOH regulates septage under Chapter 64E-6,
  F.A.C.
• DEP only enforces Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.

3
EPA Regulations

• Title 40 CFR Part 503
• Based on an extensive risk assessment and peer
  review (14 different exposure pathways)
• Technology based standards for pathogens
• Became effective in February 1993
• Chose not to regulate dioxins in October 2003
• Looking at 15 additional metals for potential
  regulation

4
EPA Regulations Background

• Clean Water Act
• Identify, based on available information,
  pollutants present in sufficient quantities which
  may affect public health and environment
• Specify acceptable management practices and
  numerical limitations
• Regulations must be adequate to protect human
  health and the environment from any reasonably
  anticipated adverse effect of each pollutant
• Not under RCRA

5
Florida Residuals Regulations

• Chapter 17-7, F.A.C.
• effective 1984
• Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.
• Originally Ch. 17-640, F.A.C.,
• effective 1991
• revised 1998, currently under revision
• Similar to Part 503, a few more stringent
  requirements, different reporting (not delegated
  Part 503)
• Evolving regulations
• core elements have remained similar
• main focus on regulating beneficial use
• land application has been the primary use of
  biosolids

6
Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.

• Similar to Title 40 CFR Part 503 - Treatment,
  pollutant standards, harvesting restrictions,
  etc., based on Part 503
• Includes some more stringent requirements than
  Part 503
• Specifically regulates domestic wastewater
  residuals and their beneficial use
• Rulemaking included a TAC, public workshops, and
  approval by the ERC

7
Current Controls for Beneficial Use

• Controls needed to protect public health and
  environment
• minimize or prevent contact with pathogens
• limit potential pollutant/metals impacts
• limit potential nutrient impacts

8
Floridas Regulatory Future?

• State regulations in effect since 1991, minor
  revisions in 1998
• Part 503 in effect since 1993
• Floridas population is growing and rural
  counties are becoming more populated
• Should the regulations be revised?

9
Florida Classes of Residuals

• About 18-20 facilities producing Class AA
• Larger facilities, various processes, bulk to
  farmers or fertilizer blenders
• Very little Class A (metals usually low)
• Primarily Class B
• predominant treatments include lime
  stabilization, aerobic digestion
• commonly surface applied year-round to bahiagrass
  or other pasture grass (cake or liquid)
• Contract haulers/appliers, multi-user sites common

10
Liquid Application
11
Class B Liquid
12
Class B Cake
13
DeSoto Co. Land Application Sites
14
SED Land Application Site
15
Why Rulemaking?

• Continuing and heightened public interest
• Continuing and heightened county interest
• Continuing national debate
• Review issues and regulations, and consider
  potential changes (rules continue to evolve)
• Public confidence in beneficial use
• Nutrient concerns

16
(No Transcript)
17
Public Concerns and Complaints

• Health concerns
• Nuisance concerns
• Odor, truck traffic, appearance
• Environmental concerns
• Property values, others

18
County Issues and Ordinances

• Counties are responding to their public
• Primarily rural counties where biosolids are
  imported
• County ordinances
• Numerous county ordinances in Florida, some very
  stringent
• Consideration for ordinances or revised
  ordinances in others (St. Lucie, Hernando, SRWMD)
• Clear demonstration of interest by counties
• 2003 farm legislation confirmed county authority
  in Florida to regulate residuals

19
Some Typical County Requirements

• Much more restrictive setbacks to surface water
  and to buildings/property
• Site permits, hauler permits, truck registration
  and fees
• Frequent reporting
• Control of truck traffic and spreading times
• Disclosure to buyers
• County ordinances may be zoning/land use type
  ordinances
• Sometimes the ordinances apply to septage,
  sometimes they dont

20
(No Transcript)
21
County Ordinances

• Observations
• Stringent restrictions in one county tend to
  result in residuals going to another county
• Increase in volume of residuals from outside the
  county appears to lead to an increase in
  complaints
• County commissioners tend to respond to
  complaints by considering and/or adopting a
  restrictive ordinance

22
National Criticisms of Residuals/Biosolids

• NAS Report
• Recommended new risk assessment
• Recommended more health studies
• Issues in other states (California, Virginia,
  Pennsylvania, etc.)
• Kern County, California
• Virginia legislative bills
• Other
• Cornell Waste Management Institute
• NIOSH/CDC Guidance
• EPA Office of the Inspector General reports
• Other

23
Rule Workshops

• Three initial workshops held on Chapter 62-640,
  F.A.C., in 2002/2003
• Dominated by
• Utility representatives/residuals companies
• Supported current regulations
• Citizens and County representatives from areas
  with land application
• Wanted to ban biosolids, maybe allow Class AA

24
Residuals TAC/Update

• Currently 13 members
• Citizen, DEP District Offices, FL NRCS, IFAS,
  FWEA, FES, DOH, DACS, FORA, FL Assoc. of
  Counties, FL League of Cities, FWPCOA, FL
  Cattlemens Assoc.
• Four TAC meetings held to date
• 2nd TAC Working Draft available on Internet
• Fifth TAC meeting 2/21/07 SWFWMD Office in
  Brooksville, FL

25
Rule Issues

• Including, but not limited to
• Class B residuals, nuisance issues (odor, truck
  traffic), site management (site registration),
  reporting, floodplains, setbacks, monitoring,
  health concerns (bioaerosols, runoff), grazing,
  ground water, surface water, Class AA residuals
  (limited issues), industrial sludges, staffing,
  nutrient management plans, and phosphorus

26
Devising new regulations is like a box of
chocolates.For example, if we were to limit
application to one truck per acre, what would we
get?
27
One truck!
28
Specific Proposed Major Revisions

• February 2007

29
Biosolids

• Proposing to replace the term residuals with
  the term biosolids
• Generally accepted term nationally, in Websters
• solid organic matter recovered from a sewage
  treatment process and used especially as
  fertilizer usually used in plural
• Controversial?
• EPA uses both biosolids and sewage sludge (Part
  503)
• Critics say WEF and EPA made up term to fool the
  public?
• Should it only mean treated sewage sludge?
• Originated from a WEF contest winner explained
  the term as solids originating from the
  biological wastewater treatment process

30
Site Registration

• Currently, land application sites are approved
  through an AUP submitted as part of a wastewater
  facility permit application
• Site registration will provide a greater degree
  of separation between the facility and the site
• Will enhance the regulation and management of the
  sites
• Expected to reduce process (AUPs, annual
  summaries, etc)
• Facilities still share ultimate responsibility
  for biosolids
• Site registrant/Site manager
• Site logs, site reporting of site loadings
• Facility Biosolids Plan will identify sites to be
  used
• Public notice of proposed approval of application

31
Nutrient Management Plans

• Proposing requiring site NMPs replaces AUP
• To be prepared
• In accordance with NRCS Code 590
• By a person certified by NRCS in nutrient
  management planning
• Submitted with application for site registration
• Use the P-Index for each application zone (field)
• NMPs will be required for CAFO/AFO, intent is to
  be consistent between the two rules
• IFAS and NRCS represented on TAC

32
Ground Water Monitoring

• Current rule - no ground water monitoring is
  required unless DEP determines, because of site
  characteristics, it is needed to protect the use
  of a water body
• In addition to current provision, now proposing
  ground water monitoring in circumstances where
  potential ground water impacts are a concern
• Very high application rates (even if allowed by
  NMP)
• Sites with compliance problems/issues
• Monitor nitrogen, fecal coliforms, metals
• Monitor representative zone

33
Soil Monitoring

• Current rule no soil monitoring
• Proposing two soil monitoring requirements
• Initial soil monitoring (metals, etc.) for
  initial site registration
• Review of site suitability
• Background metals levels
• Annual soil fertility monitoring
• NMP
• Agricultural operation, fertilizer
  recommendations are based on soil analysis

34
Surface Water Monitoring

• Current rule - no surface water monitoring is
  required unless DEP determines, because of site
  characteristics, it is needed to protect the use
  of a water body
• Proposing surface water monitoring if an
  application zone is within 1000 feet of a water
  body

35
Alkaline-Treated Biosolids

• Districts have indicated that the majority of
  complaints are related to alkaline-treated
  biosolids
• Concern over the odor potential of
  alkaline-treated biosolids appears in guidance
  documents, industry-related documents
• EPA staff are working on guidance for alkaline
  treatment of biosolids
• EPA staff indicate that alkaline treatment had
  traditionally been slurries, not dewatered
• Appears that many different factors can affect
  the characteristics of alkaline-treated biosolids
  and that they can cause or contribute to problems
  despite meeting current rule requirements (DC)
• Concern over potential over-liming of sites

36
Alkaline-Treated Biosolids Proposals

• Alkaline-treatment has advantages such as good
  pathogen treatment, low cost, immediate assurance
  that regulatory requirements are met, etc.
• Proposing a requirement to spread
  alkaline-treated biosolids within 24 hrs of
  leaving the treatment facility
• Proposing a requirement to inject or incorporate
  alkaline treated biosolids if within ¼ mile of a
  building occupied by the general public
• Proposing a requirement to test for calcium
  carbonate equivalency for alkaline-treated
  biosolids and take CCE into consideration in the
  NMPs

37
Storage, Stockpiling, and Staging

• Currently meet setbacks, no odors, no seepage,
  no runoff, no vector attraction, etc., and still
  have these
• Still meet setbacks but now a ¼ mile setback to
  buildings occupied by the public
• Must request permission for longer than 7 days
  (30 days in current rule) and store in
  constructed storage facilities
• Alkaline biosolids spread within 24 hours of
  leaving the treatment facility

38
Improved Signage

• Currently require appropriate advisiory signs
  identifying the nature of the project area
• Proposed revisions include
• Bilingual Example Sitio con Biosólidos
• Posted at all entrances
• Name and contact information of site manager
• Unfenced sites Public Access Prohibited
  posted at no more than 500 ft intervals.
• Letters 2 inches high

39
Class AA Requirements

• Concerns exist over potential misuse - current
  rules essentially allow unrestricted end use of
  Class AA
• Proposing a Class AA Biosolids Marketing and
  Distribution Plan
• Facility identifies intended users, storage,
  transportation, and uses of the Class AA
  biosolids
• Follow the plan and address any misuses
• Proposing a catch-all provision based on Part
  503
• Reserve the right to impose any of the land
  application requirements of the rule (i.e. Class
  B provisions) if needed to protect public health
  or the environment from reasonably anticipated
  adverse effects

40
Are all Class AA residuals created equal?
41
See any violations?
42
Class B Fecal Monitoring

• Concerns exist with the Class B, Alternative 1,
  fecal monitoring option
• Current EPA requirement is to meet a 2 million
  MPN/CFU limit (7 samples, geometric mean)
• Untreated sludges may meet or be close to meeting
  this limit
• Proposing that this option be met by meeting the
  2 million limit AND by monitoring the raw
  influent solids and demonstrating a 2-log
  reduction in fecal levels between the influent (a
  2-log reduction is the reduction necessary to
  demonstrate Class B equivalency of a process to
  the EPA Pathogen Equivalency Committee)

43
New/Increased Setback Distances

• Proposing a new, 75 foot setback to property
  lines for application of Class B biosolids
• no setback to property lines exist in current
  rule
• matches DOH septage rule
• Proposing increasing the setback from application
  areas to buildings occupied by the general public
  from 300 feet to 500 feet
• Proposing a new/increase setback from biosolids
  storage areas on a site to buildings occupied by
  the general public of 1320 feet (the current 300
  ft setback of application areas also applies to
  storage areas)

44
Storage

• Current rule is confusing regarding storage of
  biosolids at a facility
• Many facilities have limited ability to store
  biosolids at the facility, sometimes biosolids
  application cant occur at a site at the same
  time biosolids are to be sent to the site
• Proposing that
• the permittee (i.e. facility) submit a biosolids
  storage plan
• the permittee ensure storage capacity is
  available to provide retention of biosolids under
  adverse weather conditions, harvesting
  conditions, or other conditions precluding land
  application

45
Future of Class B in Florida?
46
Key Factors in Floridas Biosolids Future?

• Population and development
• Agriculture
• markets, past experiences, stigma, certified
  organic
• County ordinances
• Nutrient concerns, TMDLs
• State regulations, legislation(?)
• Lawsuits (e.g. EarthJustice in DeSoto)
• SEPTAGE and ANIMAL WASTE
• National research

47
Orange County, CA

• Grand Jury findings (2004) - Does Anyone Want
  Orange County Sanitation Districts 230,000 Tons
  of Biosolids?
• Public opposition to land application of Class B
  biosolids is increasing, and long-term viability
  of the practice is tenuous.
• Public tolerance for Class A biosolids.
• ,the public continues to have concerns about the
  human health risks and nuisance issues.

48
More Orange County, CA

• Increasingly restrictive local ordinances and
  growing public resistance has virtually
  eliminated opportunities to initiate new Class B
  land application projects except in remote
  locations with no nearby neighbors.
• In recent years, OCSD has been frustrated by
  the passage of local ordinances and rules that
  have restricted use of sites, required costly
  treatment before application, or completely
  banned the use of biosolids. These restrictive
  local ordinances and mounting public opposition
  portend an eventual end to direct use of
  biosolids on farm lands.

49
Kern County, CA

• Ban on Class B
• LA Class A by digestion?
• OCSD Class A by alkaline?
• Restrictions on Class A
• Proposed state legislation to ban all in Kern
  County (abandoned)
• Ballot initiative in Kern County to ban all land
  application (including A EQ)
• LA and Orange Counties suing, just recently won a
  temporary injunction

50
EPA Manual, 1979

• For metropolitan areas, potential sludge
  disposal studies generally include land disposal
  in some form by export to low population open
  space. Even if these spaces are located in the
  same political jurisdiction, local opposition
  towards accepting the wastes of others is often
  intense. If the proposed export is to another
  political jurisdiction, the opposing forces are
  generally so great as to effectively preclude
  this option.
• It is often hoped that such opposition can be
  overcome by public participation and education.
  However, the social and political factors at work
  have been demonstrated to be remarkably immune to
  such efforts.

51
Risk and the Public (Beecher, et al 2004)

• Risk (perception) is more than numbers.
  Perception is rooted in our values, education,
  experiences, and stake in the outcome.
• Risk perception is influenced by outrage
  factors
• Risk Hazard Outrage (Sandman)
• High outrage - involuntary, industrial, unfair,
  no benefits
• Low outrage - voluntary, natural, fair, has
  benefits, etc
• Making a risk fairer, more familiar, and more
  voluntary does indeed make the risk smaller
  (Sandman)

52
Risk and the Public

• What are all the reasons why someone might view
  the Class B lime-treated cake or liquid being
  applied daily on the large acreage next to them
  differently than, say, a bag of a heat-dried
  pelletized product they bought in in the store?

53
Biosolids and the Public

• The public those living near sites
• The public drives county ordinances
• The public voices its concerns to its elected
  officials
• WERF and EPA are involving the public in research
• NBP EMS program involves the public
• Lawsuits are driven by the public
• USDA Certified Organic rule altered by public
• It has always been acknowledged that public
  acceptance is key for biosolids beneficial use

54
(No Transcript)
55
Questions
?