KGET "Dumping Ground" Transcript
AUDIOTAPED TRANSCRIPTION OF
CHANNEL 17 IN-DEPTH:
DUMPING GROUND
Moderated by: Jim Scott
Transcribed by: Candi Stumbaugh
1 (RECORDING OF JIM SCOTT): 17 In-Depth:
2 Dumping Ground. Treated human waste, sewage, sludge,
3 biosolids -- by any name, it's a nutrient-rich,
4 chemically laden residue, the by-product of the sewage
5 treatment process; and it has to go somewhere.
6 (RECORDING OF MALE SPEAKER): It would be
7 great if this material weren't here; however, it's
8 here.
9 (RECORDING OF JIM SCOTT): Not so long ago,
10 major cities just dumped their sludge into the ocean
11 or the river, but that's against the law now making
12 land application of biosolids one of the few
13 economically viable options remaining.
14 In composting, sewage sludge is mixed with
15 green waste to make a fertilizer for gardens and golf
16 courses. It's provided free of charge in bulk
17 quantities to farmers who spread it to fertilize
18 nonfood crops commonly fed to livestock.
19 Cities in Kern County take care of their own
20 sludge, in the aggregate about 13,000 wet tons a year
21 spread on sewer farms; but more than one million wet
22 tons of sewage sludge are trucked into Kern County
23 each year from cities outside the County, and that's
24 where the battle lines are drawn.
25 (RECORDING OF SENATOR FLOREZ): The message
2
1 is very clear to the generators and to the people who
2 want to bring the sludge here to Kern County: Get
3 out. Stay out.
4 (RECORDING OF MALE SPEAKER): Don't make Kern
5 County the cesspool of California.
6 (RECORDING OF JIM SCOTT): Kern County has
7 become one of the leading importers of sewage sludge
8 in California.
9 Nearly 10 years ago, the county banned the
10 import of all Class A biosolids for land
11 application -- Class A the most highly treated form of
12 municipal waste.
13 Southland sanitation districts are still
14 challenging the biosolid ban in court. Those same
15 sewage districts, however, dumped more than 450,000
16 wet tons of sludge on Kern County farmland every year.
17 Now there's a campaign to move sludge farms
18 off the valley floor for fear that toxins and
19 pathogens contained in the sludge could trickle down
20 to our drinking water supplies underground.
21 (RECORDING OF MALE SPEAKER): And we want to
22 protect our groundwater from getting polluted; that's
23 the main message.
24 And I don't like my neighbor's dog crapping
25 in my yard, and I sure as heck don't like Orange
3
1 County and L.A. coming and crapping in my yard.
2 (RECORDING OF JIM SCOTT): "Not in my
3 backyard" is a common response among many citizens.
4 And soon lawmakers in Sacramento will be asked to
5 consider a law that would ban the export of biosolids
6 from one county to another.
7 (RECORDING OF SENATOR FLOREZ): That means
8 every county takes care of its own stuff.
9 (RECORDING OF JIM SCOTT): So why the fuss?
10 Scientists working for the federal government say
11 public fears over biosolids are unwarranted, that the
12 controversy far exceeds the real threat.
13 But skeptical citizens' groups say the
14 science is murky at best and land application of
15 sludge should be outlawed at least. And the debate
16 rages on over whether we're putting our groundwater
17 and ag economy at risk.
18 Tonight 17 In-depth digs deeper. Policy
19 makers, leading scientists, and local growers from
20 both sides of the field debate the merits of today's
21 sludge disposal practices in Kern County.
22 JIM SCOTT: And good evening. I'm Jim Scott
23 your moderator for tonight's round-table discussion.
24 Our ultimate goal tonight, of course, is to
25 enlighten and inform you about the practices and the
4
1 policies associated with land-applied biosolids here
2 in Kern County. The controversy over land-applied
3 biosolids is something that we've been covering here
4 at 17 News for the better part of a decade. But as I
5 mentioned, the debate rages on.
6 We have assembled a distinguished panel of
7 guests tonight. Let's meet them now, if you will.
8 On my far left is Paul Giboney. He's a
9 member of Kern Food Growers Against Sewage Sludge.
10 Next to him is Dr. Caroline Snyder, president
11 of Citizens for Sludge-Free Land, a
12 New Hampshire-based citizens organization.
13 Dr. Snyder holds a Harvard doctorate. She is
14 professor emeritus at the Rochester Institute of
15 Technology, where she has taught environmental
16 science. She has been researching the science and
17 politics of sludge spreading for the past seven years.
18 And I might mention here, Dr. Snyder is here in
19 Bakersfield tonight on our dime.
20 We wanted to bring in a fresh perspective on
21 the issue of biosolids and -- from someone outside
22 Kern County, and we couldn't have gotten somebody from
23 as far away -- as possibly as New Hampshire, but we
24 got one tonight.
25 So thank you very much for being here,
5
1 Dr. Snyder.
2 DR. SNYDER: Thank you.
3 JIM SCOTT: David Price is here. He is the
4 director of Kern County's Resource Management Agency,
5 which administers what local regulations there are
6 pertaining to land applications of biosolids here in
7 the county.
8 Many of you know our next guest. Ray Watson
9 is County Supervisor for the 4th District.
10 Next to him another familiar face,
11 Dean Florez, Senator from Shafter, who has jumped
12 right into the middle of the sludge controversy of
13 late with recent legislation dealing with biosolids
14 exports, as we've mentioned.
15 Jim Beck is the general manager of the Kern
16 County Water Agency, which would like to see
17 applicators of sludge move off the valley floor.
18 We'll get into that a little bit later.
19 And we are very pleased to have with us
20 tonight one of the people who helped write federal
21 regulations for land-applied biosolids,
22 Dr. Rufus Chaney, an agronomist with the U.S.
23 Department of Agriculture. Here on -- he is here
24 courtesy, I should say, of the California Association
25 of Sanitation Agencies, which paid his airfare out
6
1 here. I understand you're out here on other business,
2 as well. Good to have you, Doctor.
3 And Diane Gilbert is the biosolids regulatory
4 liaison for the Bureau of Sanitation in the city of
5 Los Angeles, which, by the way, is one of the largest
6 exporters of biosolids to Kern County.
7 And off in the wings, we have
8 F. Edwin Hallman. He is an attorney from Atlanta,
9 Georgia, who specializes in environmental law. And he
10 is also in the Southland on business. He was kind
11 enough to drive up here tonight for our round-table
12 discussion, and he will be joining us shortly.
13 I just want to thank you all very much for
14 agreeing to being here, and I look forward to an
15 enlightened and informative discussion.
16 First question: Fact or fiction? Biosolids,
17 land-applied biosolids is safe for humans, for
18 animals, and the environment.
19 Who wants to take it first?
20 DR. SNYDER: I'll take it.
21 JIM SCOTT: Feel free to jump in any time.
22 Dr. Snyder.
23 DR. SNYDER: I would like to take that. It
24 is neither safe nor is it sustainable, nor is the
25 practice based on sound science.
7
1 It is -- sludge is not just treated human
2 waste. That's one of the myths that's being
3 disseminated by EPA and the industry and the lobbying
4 groups. Sludge contains industrial waste.
5 Every industry in the country is allowed to
6 pour their industrial acidous wastewater into a
7 publicly owned treatment plant. That fact is never
8 told to the public. I think that's a very important
9 fact to know.
10 I -- most of the nation's hazardous waste is
11 in the hazardous wastewater that comes from the
12 industries, and it includes many carcinogens,
13 cancer-causing agents. It includes often radioactive
14 waste. It includes almost -- well, it includes
15 thousands of -- of chemical compounds that we can't
16 even test. It would be too expensive to test for
17 those -- for those.
18 It is not a sustainable practice as the
19 industry and EPA claim.
20 JIM SCOTT: What do you mean by that? It is
21 not "sustainable."
22 DR. SNYDER: "Sustainable" means that you can
23 continue to sludge land, agricultural land, forever
24 and ever and ever.
25 The U.S. policy is that once yields are
8
1 reduced to 50 percent, you stop. Well, I don't think
2 that's a tolerable way of dealing with agricultural
3 land.
4 In Europe they have a much more protective
5 policy. They -- they would like -- in European
6 countries they like to maintain their soil forever --
7 I mean, for future generations. And it's not safe
8 because we have hundreds of people who have reported
9 very serious illnesses. And we have -- and they're
10 not just transitory illness; they are serious. They
11 had to be rushed to hospitals.
12 We have deaths that have been linked to the
13 practice. This has not -- this is not only
14 anecdotal -- we have huge piles of anecdotal
15 evidence -- but it's also been documented and been
16 peer-reviewed in medical and scientific literature
17 that, indeed, there is a link between sludge and
18 illnesses.
19 And it's not based on sound science, and you
20 don't need to take my word for that. The National
21 Academy of Sciences in 2002 basically said that the
22 rules, the 503 Rules, which Dr. Chaney helped write,
23 are not based on good science, on resent science, nor
24 is the risk assessment.
25 JIM SCOTT: Let's get a rebuttal from
9
1 Dr. Chaney here, then.
2 DR. CHANEY: I would -- I would disagree,
3 essentially, totally with how she described the safety
4 of biosolid use. The 503 Rule, Congress made a law.
5 EPA was -- developed a regulation to comply with the
6 federal law to protect human -- humans in the
7 environment when biosolids are used on land. They
8 examined the count, the metals in the organic
9 compounds that were believed to comprise the highest
10 risks and -- and developed regulations so that you can
11 apply at least a thousand tons per foot -- either farm
12 it for hundreds of years; and the implication, based
13 on all the science, is we can farm it forever. We say
14 unequivocally it's a sustainable practice because we
15 have achieved industrial-free treatment.
16 Her concern about all these compounds going
17 down the sewer -- remember the consumer products are
18 some of these compounds that some people make the big
19 deal about: Personal cosmetics and other things.
20 Human exposure is every day.
21 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
22 DR. CHANEY: Well, the -- the -- the -- the
23 safety -- that is, the long-term safety, I think is
24 overwhelmingly shown by the long-term experiments that
25 have been conducted.
10
1 It's -- it's frustrating to hear people make
2 some of those claims, in particular, the ones that --
3 about people have been harmed.
4 I would agree that people have been harmed
5 whose outside cooking was interfered with by malodor,
6 by poorly managed biosolids. But the EPA has a
7 specific response to the -- what was it? -- the
8 consumer -- I can't remember the name of the -- the --
9 they filed a petition against --
10 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
11 DR. CHANEY: -- EPA based on -- on some
12 particular consumer rule, and EPA responded, in
13 detail, every claim of a person supposed to have died
14 from biosolids and showed that if you go to the state
15 health department, the state in question, and ask,
16 they made a very thorough study and could find no
17 relationship with biosolids.
18 DR. SNYDER: But that --
19 JIM SCOTT: Hasn't the argument been made,
20 though, that the EPA does not know how people will
21 react to these substances because no tests have been
22 done to many of the substances that aren't tested for
23 in sewage sludge and that there is no empirical data
24 on the thousands of different chemicals that are
25 contained in sludge -- pretreated or otherwise?
11
1 DR. CHANEY: I don't know -- I don't know how
2 much of that I can -- can respond to. It's clear that
3 the -- the -- the Toxins Substances Control Act --
4 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh --
5 DR. CHANEY: -- any -- any new chemicals for
6 the last 15 to 20 years have to have had testing to
7 make sure that they're not going to be harmful to the
8 workers. Remember that the people that use these
9 chemicals are much more highly exposed, and very few
10 of them actually enter into plants.
11 JIM SCOTT: Now, I -- I believe you wanted to
12 respond.
13 DR. SNYDER: I -- I really do need to because
14 Dr. Chaney made one statement that simply is not true.
15 He claims that EPA has thoroughly investigated the
16 reported health incidents and claim that they did not
17 exist. This is absolutely not true, and I want to
18 give an example. The Tony Behun case, the young boy
19 that -- that biked through a -- a sludge field. There
20 were no fences, no signs. They thought it was mud.
21 He got a very, very serious infection, high fever,
22 died a week later. The mother had no idea what it
23 was. Later found out it probably was sludge. She
24 tried to get answers --
25 JIM SCOTT: You say -- you say "publicly" --
12
1 "probably."
2 What did the autopsy show?
3 DR. SNYDER: I don't think there was an
4 autopsy in this case because it was after the fact
5 that she realized that there were other cases, deaths
6 and serious illnesses, from sludge.
7 The Department -- the Pennsylvania Department
8 of the EPA completely covered up that incident, denied
9 sludge was on the field; claimed the boy was killed by
10 a bee sting; claimed that there was a thorough
11 investigation of the health department. All of those
12 claims were totally false.
13 And yet when the EPA invest- -- when the
14 National Academy of Sciences investigated that case,
15 Bob Bastion from EPA testified in front of that panel
16 saying there was a thorough investigation of that
17 death, and the health department decided there was no
18 link between sludge and the boy's illness. That is
19 one mis- -- piece of misinformation that's passed from
20 the Department of Environmental Protection of
21 Pennsylvania to the National Academy of Sciences.
22 The EPA and industry have worked closely
23 together for the last 10 years to cover up all the
24 problems that have emerged, whether it's cattle
25 deaths, whether it's human illnesses, whether it's
13
1 groundwater pollution. They have the data. They will
2 not release it. We, through a forward request,
3 asked --
4 JIM SCOTT: Let me -- let's just stop you
5 there.
6 DR. SNYDER: Yes.
7 JIM SCOTT: -- because you did accuse the EPA
8 of coverup here.
9 DR. SNYDER: Yes.
10 JIM SCOTT: Are -- are you including the USDA
11 as -- in part of that conspiracy to cover up these
12 facts?
13 DR. SNYDER: Dr. Chaney's Department of
14 Agricultural -- Dr. Chaney was one of the authors of
15 the 503 Rules --
16 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
17 DR. SNYDER: -- I obviously don't know how
18 much he, himself, is involved in that. But I'm
19 talking --
20 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
21 DR. SNYDER: -- mostly about the EPA managers
22 -- Al Ruben, Walker --
23 JIM SCOTT: Okay. Dr. --
24 DR. SNYDER: -- and also --
25 JIM SCOTT: Now, Dr. Chaney, you work closely
14
1 with the EPA.
2 What do you -- how -- what is your response
3 to the accusation or the allegation that there's been
4 a coverup here?
5 DR. CHANEY: When the head of the EPA has his
6 legal staff work with the state health department in
7 Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and several of the
8 other places where -- where local issues arose and
9 they issue a formal statement from the head of EPA,
10 I -- I have -- I don't have any data that conflict
11 with what they say.
12 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
13 DR. CHANEY: Even the -- it was supposedly,
14 in the end, believed that he had staph aureus, and
15 there's even been research on -- on staph aureus
16 distribution of biosolids. And after -- during
17 application -- even -- even a Class D treatment, there
18 was no longer any infectious doses of staph aureus in
19 biosolids. So --
20 JIM SCOTT: Which --
21 DR. CHANEY: So --
22 JIM SCOTT: Yeah, go ahead.
23 DR. CHANEY: So I don't -- lacking any
24 evidence --
25 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
15
1 DR. CHANEY: -- that it is happened -- really
2 happening, but we have people who are sure that the
3 kid died from this and no evidence to say -- to base
4 that claim upon other than their concern about
5 biosolids.
6 JIM SCOTT: We're going to get back into
7 the -- excuse me -- the science of all this. But I
8 just want -- want to just shift the discussion here.
9 Let's face it. This is a dirty business,
10 handling biosolids. The stuff has got to go
11 somewhere. The problem is nobody wants it in their
12 backyard. And the sludge generators have accused the
13 media, and I've been accused personally, 17 News in
14 general, and -- and the media in general, of -- of
15 hyping this opposition to sewage sludge and pitting
16 region against region in a -- in a rather
17 sensationalist fashion.
18 So we'll take the criticism, but I'm not sure
19 that it's fair because we report what the people here
20 in our community are saying.
21 Supervisor Watson, you've been in the
22 tug-o-war, and you've been in the trenches on this
23 thing for a number of years now.
24 Do you believe, in your opinion, that the
25 media has blown this controversy out of proportion?
16
1 SUPERVISOR WATSON: I'm not going to sit here
2 and criticize the media. I -- I do think that more
3 attention should be given to the details behind the
4 issue.
5 I don't think that the -- the problem is
6 simply identified, and I certainly don't believe that
7 the answers to the problem are simple. I think that
8 they have to be well thought out and they have to be
9 very comprehensive. And I don't think that can be
10 done even in an hour program.
11 I think there is a whole lot of information
12 out there, and a lot of things that need to be
13 considered in the process.
14 JIM SCOTT: What -- what specifically --
15 where are we missing the boat -- the media?
16 SUPERVISOR WATSON: I think it's lack of
17 attention to -- to time to it, and I would also say
18 that when the media takes on a story from one side,
19 they should, at the same time, give the same amount of
20 time and consideration and thought to the opposition
21 before they print or -- or publish a story, because I
22 think the public deserves to know both sides, rather
23 than having a sensationalist headline or sensational
24 video --
25 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
17
1 SUPERVISOR WATSON: -- that -- that gives an
2 inflection about something that may or may not be
3 true.
4 And to tell you the truth, I'm not a
5 scientist, and I'm not an attorney. I don't know
6 what's true and what's not. We have to rely on the
7 scientists and the legal profession to tell us what's
8 real and what's not.
9 JIM SCOTT: Senator Florez, you've been
10 accused of stirring the stew pot --
11 SENATOR FLOREZ: Well, I --
12 JIM SCOTT: -- if you will, and perhaps being
13 part of the -- of the hype.
14 Where do you come down on this?
15 SENATOR FLOREZ: Well, I think what
16 Supervisor Watson said is a very scary thing. And
17 we're not sure. We're not really clear. But we ought
18 not make decisions, then to the Board of Supervisors
19 until we get the science. I think -- you know, as
20 Dr. Chaney said, I mean, quite frankly, I don't think
21 we should wait for kids to get cancer, because we
22 think, in essence, that there might be things in this
23 sludge that might ultimately cause that.
24 The reality is that we're supposed to be
25 looking out for the taxpayers. We're supposed to be
18
1 looking out early for risk. And I think with lacking
2 the science has just been said you know, the best
3 thing to do is play on the side of safety. If we're
4 not clear what's in the sludge, if no one can tell us
5 in this panel tonight -- and I would really like the
6 question answered whether or not every pathogen is
7 taken out of this stuff, then I think we ought to
8 simply say that every county should take care of their
9 own stuff and not export their problem to another
10 county.
11 And, quite frankly, if it was so safe, why
12 are they exporting it to the next county? Why aren't
13 they land-applying it in their own area?
14 And, quite frankly, the debate came up
15 because of a very simple question, and that is
16 everyone out there needs to ask themselves: What
17 benefit does Kern County get for taking the sludge?
18 What are we getting --
19 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
20 SENATOR FLOREZ: -- for taking all of this
21 sludge from L.A. city, for example?
22 JIM SCOTT: Let me ask David Price, then.
23 Your agency -- under your agency, under the umbrella
24 of the Resource Management Agency is the Environmental
25 Health Agency their offices, I understand, are charged
19
1 with inspecting biosludge that's coming up here from
2 the Southland.
3 Tell me, tell our viewers. What is your
4 responsibility with respect to knowing what is in this
5 sludge when it arrives here?
6 MR. PRICE: Oh, with respect to the role of
7 the Agency, we're involved in the development of the
8 ordinance and the ongoing changes that might be
9 employed. In fact, the Board of Supervisors has on
10 four different occasions either enacted ordinances or
11 strengthened ordinances beyond what existed.
12 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
13 MR. PRICE: At one time we had what was
14 claimed to be over a million wet tons land-applied in
15 Kern County --
16 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
17 MR. PRICE: -- annually.
18 In 19- -- that amount has dropped to where in
19 19- -- in 2004, we had 450,000 tons land-applied.
20 JIM SCOTT: By last count we have about a
21 million wet tons coming in when you include the sludge
22 that's going to composting.
23 MR. PRICE: But a lot of that is exported, as
24 well. And, in fact, we have programs and efforts
25 underway to actually minimize land activity in the
20
1 future.
2 And we're really quite excited about the
3 direction that some of those are taking.
4 JIM SCOTT: Okay.
5 MR. PRICE: But -- but back to the other
6 point, we had 54,000 acres that were permitted by the
7 Regional Water Quality Control Boards -- both Mojave
8 and the Central Valley Boards -- for land-application
9 activities. Because of the stringent ordinances that
10 the Board of Supervisors has enacted and the
11 aggressive enforcement from our department, we now
12 have, in last year, a little over 8,000 acres that had
13 land-application activity take place.
14 JIM SCOTT: What do you mean by "aggressive
15 enforcement," though?
16 MR. PRICE: Because we have a monitoring
17 program and an inspection program that's in place and
18 has been since we enacted the original interim urgency
19 ordinance.
20 JIM SCOTT: How does that work?
21 MR. PRICE: Well, how it works is that
22 permittees are required to obtain an annual permit --
23 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
24 MR. PRICE: -- from the Department in order
25 to land-apply biosolids. That's a permit that can be
21
1 renewed each year.
2 We analyze the track record from the
3 applicators as well as the farmers to ensure that it
4 would be appropriate to renew that permit.
5 JIM SCOTT: And -- and in terms of complying
6 with the ordinance and making sure that the sludge is
7 safe and pathogen free and so forth, how do you arrive
8 at that conclusion that they are in compliance on an
9 independent basis?
10 MR. PRICE: One of the amendments that we
11 placed in the last ordinance go-round, if you will,
12 was a requirement that independent third parties not
13 associated with the generators be the individuals
14 charged with performing the sampling --
15 JIM SCOTT: And who is that? In terms of
16 Kern County, do we have an independent sampling? Do
17 we take samples ourselves? Does your department take
18 samples?
19 MR. PRICE: Our -- we -- the -- it's a
20 two-prong process. The generators are required by law
21 to do a certain amount of sampling and provide those
22 reports to us.
23 In addition to that, we require that there be
24 independent people not associated with the generators
25 that also sample and then take those to certified
22
1 laboratories.
2 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
3 MR. PRICE: Those results come to us, we
4 analyze those results, and then we also do on-site
5 field inspections, as well.
6 JIM SCOTT: Okay. How many times in the
7 last -- how many times a year do your -- does your
8 department do on-site inspections? How many times in
9 2004 did your inspectors go to, say, Green Acres or
10 Honey Bucket Farms?
11 MR. PRICE: Typically, they would go out at
12 least on a quarterly basis, and sometimes there may be
13 complaints from the adjoining area. There may be a
14 misunderstanding as to whether or not there was a
15 nuisance provided from some source --
16 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
17 MR. PRICE: -- whether it's a farmer's
18 compost pile, or whether it's a biosolids
19 land-application facility.
20 We had a complaint from a school not too long
21 ago claiming --
22 JIM SCOTT: So these are nuisance complaints,
23 basically --
24 MR. PRICE: -- that it was from biosolids.
25 It was from their own compost --
23
1 JIM SCOTT: These are nuisance complaints --
2 MR. PRICE: It was right at their own school.
3 JIM SCOTT: -- nuisance complaints, as it
4 were.
5 MR. PRICE: And then we would investigate
6 those, as well. So actually we could be out on sites
7 much more frequently than just quarterly.
8 JIM SCOTT: Does the County take actual
9 physical samples of sludge coming into the
10 land-application areas?
11 MR. PRICE: We have that authority to do it.
12 JIM SCOTT: Do you do it?
13 MR. PRICE: Typically, we don't.
14 JIM SCOTT: And why is that?
15 MR. PRICE: We have a high degree of
16 confidence in the reports that are filed through U.S.
17 EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards --
18 JIM SCOTT: Okay.
19 MR. PRICE: -- that come to us.
20 And then, of course, we get the certified
21 results from the laboratories.
22 JIM SCOTT: And -- and who pays --
23 MR. PRICE: We use that as an -- as an
24 enforcement mechanism and have that authority to do
25 it.
24
1 JIM SCOTT: Who -- who pays the laboratories,
2 the third-party or the independent laboratories, for
3 doing the testing? Does the Sanitation District pay,
4 or does the County pay, or who pays them?
5 MR. PRICE: Typically, through the permit
6 fee, we get on $8,000 annual permit fee from the
7 permittees. And our experience has been that that
8 amount has been adequate to cover our costs.
9 Now, as we look prospectively for additional
10 testing, that may come down the pike; as additional
11 concerns become element -- evident, we may well be
12 looking at increasing that permit fee, then, to cover
13 any additional costs.
14 JIM SCOTT: So the cost of the testing is
15 covered by the permit fee? Did I understand you
16 correctly?
17 MR. PRICE: Yes. The testing that we require
18 and that we do. Other tests are provided, of course,
19 by the generators themselves because --
20 JIM SCOTT: Let me ask --
21 MR. PRICE: -- the EPA and the others require
22 testing as well, and those are performed by the
23 generators.
24 JIM SCOTT: Diane Gilbert, who does your
25 testing?
25
1 MS. GILBERT: We have a certified laboratory
2 where we have a biologist and chemist that does our
3 test on-site.
4 JIM SCOTT: An independent laboratory?
5 MS. GILBERT: No. It's -- it's the City of
6 L.A.
7 JIM SCOTT: Okay. It's your laboratory, and
8 you do tests as the shipments leave re- --
9 MS. GILBERT: We do tests throughout the
10 whole process.
11 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
12 MS. GILBERT: In the -- in the treatment
13 process, itself, we do testing before it leaves the
14 plant; we do testing as it leaves in the truck; and
15 then we do testing along with the County when they do
16 their independent sampling. We do a split sample, as
17 well.
18 JIM SCOTT: The old -- the old hacknied
19 analogy: The fox watching the chicken coop comes --
20 MS. GILBERT: Uh-huh.
21 JIM SCOTT: -- to mind here.
22 What do you say to skeptics who say, "How --"
23 "How are those results to be trusted when you're
24 actually paying and there's a pressing need to move
25 this stuff each and every day?" It's not like it goes
26
1 away after one day. It's a day in and day out, 24/7
2 kind of thing.
3 MS. GILBERT: We have a certified lab that's
4 certified by the State; so we have a certification for
5 our laboratory personnel to do that. So it's not like
6 it's a City of Los Angeles person to do this. These
7 are actually chemists and biologists that are
8 certified per the State in order to perform these
9 tests. And also in the requirements, there's also a
10 penalty of perjury that if you're doing anything to
11 doctor the results or if you're messing with any of
12 the test results, that you can go to jail for that.
13 So we take that very seriously in analyzing our
14 results. And no one handles laboratory results
15 analysis but our laboratory personnel.
16 JIM SCOTT: Have you ever had an incidence in
17 your -- in your experience where the lab results came
18 in and you had a batch of sludge that didn't meet
19 requirements, that you had to send back to the
20 treatment process?
21 MS. GILBERT: Not specifically with
22 biosolids. Sometimes we have a process upset that we
23 would catch, because we monitor the daily process
24 daily and we're doing testing to make sure that we're
25 meeting certain requirements.
27
1 So within the process, itself, we may do
2 different things because we see numbers may be high or
3 low.
4 JIM SCOTT: Okay.
5 MS. GILBERT: But not sending it out of the
6 door, no.
7 JIM SCOTT: While I have you here, is there a
8 message you want our viewers to hear tonight, because
9 you have a PR problem up here in Kern County, and the
10 media isn't helping you any.
11 What would you like our viewers to hear
12 tonight?
13 MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all, I would
14 like to say that the City of Los Angeles has been
15 land-applying biosolids for the last 10 years in Kern
16 County.
17 We have worked through a lot of issues with
18 the County. We are available to the local citizens in
19 the area; have addressed a lot of their concerns by
20 moving to a higher quality of biosolids. We work with
21 the County and the ordinance process, and we are
22 available to the County through our hot line.
23 We have a 24-hour hot line that's available,
24 and also we have a website. And our local residents
25 that's adjacent to our property, know -- know that
28
1 we're there and they have availability of contacting
2 us.
3 Also, we would like you to know that we are
4 not dumping biosolids. You know, the key word is
5 "dumping." And dumping to me is where you have a pile
6 of biosolids and it sits there and nothing is done
7 with it. And that's not the practice that the City
8 currently does. We receive the biosolids on the site,
9 and we incorporate it into the soil within six days of
10 being there.
11 So you'll never go into Green Acres and see
12 piles of biosolids on the site, that it actually is
13 being applied as a fertilizer that we're using
14 constantly, daily to produce crops.
15 JIM SCOTT: Okay. Very good.
16 Now, the opposition to sludge here in Kern
17 County is really rooted in agriculture, and
18 Paul Giboney, Kern Food Growers Against Sewage Sludge,
19 why don't you want this stuff here, if it's as safe as
20 they say it is?
21 MR. GIBONEY: It's not as safe as they say it
22 is. It's estimated that there is over 100,000
23 different industrial chemicals in sludge. Toxics
24 Release Inventory requires the reporting of the
25 disposable -- disposal of over 650 different chemicals
29
1 that go into Southern California treatment plants.
2 And in the year 2000, there were over 13
3 million pounds of toxics, which is just the tip of the
4 iceberg, that were disposed of in the POTWs; and a lot
5 of that ended up here in Kern County over our
6 groundwater and on our farmland.
7 In fact, the State of California -- the State
8 Water Resources Control Board in their EIR had
9 remarked, had written in there that, quote, "There was
10 a willingness to accept some health risks to support
11 the reuse of the treated sewage sludge." So here you
12 have the very regulatory agency that is supposed to be
13 protecting us acknowledging that there is some degree
14 of risk associated with it.
15 And, in fact, in Chicago there was a -- a
16 Water Environment Federation, which is the
17 organization that a lot of these sanitation districts
18 belong to, stated, quote, "We have over 300 platers in
19 Chicago, electroplaters, that discharge lead, cadmium,
20 cyanide. We have plastic manufacturers that discharge
21 lots of phenols. We don't have any limits on phenols
22 in our sewers.
23 In the state of California, in the -- the
24 Board said no test results for SOCs are available in
25 the CASA survey because the 503 Regulations do not
30
1 require testing or regulation of SOCs.
2 So when you look at all these different
3 chemicals that are in sludge and then consider the
4 breakdown products, the metabolites, the interactions
5 along with pathogens, the heavy metals, we're really
6 dealing with a witch's brew here, which is not at all
7 what we want to see here in Kern County.
8 JIM SCOTT: But it's not applied to food
9 crops. It's not -- it's not applied to food crops
10 that are consumed by humans. It's -- they're applied
11 to feedstock crops.
12 MR. GIBONEY: It is -- this is true.
13 However, there are plant-backed restrictions, and it
14 could -- you know, I don't recall if it's three or
15 five years. Dr. Chaney can specify that, but many of
16 these -- these products will remain in the soil for --
17 for years and years, perhaps hundreds of years.
18 And at the same time, they're at risk to
19 being leached into the groundwater because it's part
20 of the disposal operation, which is going on at the
21 Green Acres. And disposal operation is what it is
22 when you're applying 30- to 50-tons per acre of
23 anything and you're applying water to it, there is the
24 very real potential of carrying those pollutants,
25 those contaminants into the groundwater below.
31
1 And in regards to your -- your concern about
2 food crops, yes, this is feed that's being grown, and
3 then you're turning around and feeding it to animals.
4 And many of the products -- one of the -- many of the
5 things that we're concerned about in sludge, some of
6 the synthetic organic chemicals are bioaccumulated.
7 And as a matter of fact, recently there's
8 been work that has determined that some of the
9 constituents of fire retardants are ending -- ending
10 up in food supply and in human tissues.
11 And it is -- scientists are stating that they
12 believe that the cause of this is from -- origin- --
13 originating from sludge.
14 And many of these synthetic organic chemicals
15 have been detected in sludge; and, furthermore,
16 there's been several groundwater sites across the U.S.
17 that the U.S. Geological survey has detected many of
18 the organic waste contaminants in that groundwater.
19 So, in addition, what we have here is --
20 what's coming out of Southern California is not a
21 fert- -- wasn't designed as a fertilizer. It's a
22 disposal vehicle that incidentally happens to have a
23 little bit of nitrogen, a little bit of nutrients, but
24 the rest of it are products that we don't have any
25 control or any understanding of the prevent- --
32
1 present a very valid risk to our economy.
2 JIM SCOTT: All right. Now, let me ask you
3 Jim Beck. Because you would like to see the
4 applicators moved off the Valley floor and away from
5 the groundwater. Your fear is that this sludge could
6 eventual trickle down into our drinking water supply.
7 Do you share the same concerns? I know you have
8 scientific background by education. Why the reasoning
9 here? Is this just to err on the side of caution?
10 What?
11 MR. BECK: Well, as -- as your viewers got to
12 see today, there's quite a difference of opinion in
13 the scientific community regarding the safety of
14 biosolids. And my background is water quality. Have
15 responsibility for overseeing the treatment plant that
16 serves much of the city of Bakersfield population.
17 We're very concerned about water quality
18 impacts related to biosolids and how it may impact
19 groundwater resources in Kern County. And when we see
20 such a disparate view on this issue among the
21 scientific community, where you have good science on
22 both sides preparing -- presenting very good
23 arguments, we believe that the prudent measure is to
24 be safe.
25 We are looking at options that provide us
33
1 ways to provide opportunities for the generators to
2 have their needs met, while not impacting our way of
3 life or putting our -- our groundwater resources in
4 jeopardy.
5 Groundwater is a life blood of Kern County.
6 If it's impacted, it means our way of life in Kern
7 County's going to be very different. There is going
8 to be a significant cost to the way our drinking water
9 supply is managed; it would be different. Our ag and
10 industrial users will also see significant impacts if
11 our groundwater base is impacted.
12 JIM SCOTT: Now, I -- I would like you to
13 release the news tonight that you brokered a deal to
14 relocate the land applicators, you know, for the sake
15 of our show. But I guess you probably don't have that
16 news release ready yet, do you?
17 MR. BECK: No, we don't. And it was with
18 that concern that we -- we sought to find a solution
19 to this problem. And through the direction of our
20 board of directors, agency staff working with some of
21 the County staff, working with some of our local
22 growers also partnering with areas that had banked
23 water in Kern County, like Metropolitan Water
24 District, we were looking at solutions that would make
25 sense -- a good business sense for the generators
34
1 while moving the current generators --
2 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
3 MR. BECK: -- outside the groundwater basin.
4 We sought proposals from landowners or companies that
5 would be able to relocate the three existing
6 generating sites or biosolid application sites in Kern
7 County to outside the groundwater basin.
8 JIM SCOTT: Where are we today?
9 MR. BECK: Where we're at today is we
10 received response -- six responses to those propose --
11 proposals. Three of those proposals we view as very
12 viable and worth additional study and consideration.
13 We formed a technical review committee that
14 consisted of members of some of our ag districts. We
15 had the Ag Commissioner on that committee, as well, to
16 look at the pluses and minuses of the three viable
17 proposals.
18 We also briefed the Board of Supervisors
19 technical committee, or ad hoc committee on that, to
20 give them an update on those proposals. And now we're
21 in the process of scheduling meetings with the
22 generators, and we -- we hope to sit down and work out
23 a business deal that will get them outside the
24 groundwater basin into areas where -- more appropriate
25 for that.
35
1 Fortunately, the proposals that we have
2 received also have the additional benefit of moving
3 those application sites outside of Kern County, which
4 is even better for -- for us in Kern County.
5 JIM SCOTT: Thank you, Jim Beck, for that
6 update.
7 At the same time, Dean Florez, you have this
8 bill to ban the exporting of biosolids from county --
9 one county to another.
10 What is the rationale behind this bill? Some
11 people, even local people here who haven't complained
12 to you officially, say this is not a reasonable bill.
13 What is your rationale behind this?
14 SENATOR FLOREZ: Well, I would probably tell
15 you -- them and I would tell your viewers out there
16 that the goal of it is just a very simple concept.
17 Every county ought to take its fair share of
18 the thing that it itself creates; and if we do it with
19 hazardous waste, we ought to do it with biosolids, a
20 very simple principle in the state of California. And
21 we ought not move a problem from one county to the
22 other.
23 And I can tell you right now that the issue
24 in the legislature will be whether or not we want to
25 make a policy decision on that. I would much rather
36
1 the Board of Supervisors make that local decision
2 here. I think they have the ability to. Our leg
3 counsel tells us they can.
4 And ultimately if that is the case, then I
5 think the legislation would have served its purpose.
6 And that is to bring this debate to the forefront.
7 And quite frankly, all of the cities that continue to
8 bring sludge to Kern County -- and you can call it all
9 the pretty names you want -- Green Acres, Honey
10 Bucket, you name it. The people of Kern County are
11 smarter than that. They know that when you get
12 something for free, they know that when you send it to
13 pretty places like Honey Bucket in Green Acres and, in
14 essence, taking all you can, there is something wrong
15 with it.
16 And quite frankly, I think -- let me just add
17 one point that -- Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned that L.A.
18 city has a credibility problem, a PR problem in Kern
19 County for a reason. She just told you a moment ago
20 that they support having the highest quality sludge
21 here in Kern County. Yet, on the other hand, they're
22 suing us --
23 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: -- they're suing Kern County
25 to take the worst of sludge, Class B.
37
1 JIM SCOTT: And I assume that -- Diane
2 Gilbert, you are working on opposition --
3 SENATOR FLOREZ: How -- how do you -- how do
4 you say both? I mean, I don't know how you do that.
5 JIM SCOTT: I assume you're working -- in
6 fact, I read in your newsletter, I think, that you are
7 charged with channeling opposition to this bill? Can
8 you confirm that?
9 MS. GILBERT: No. I'm not charged with
10 channeling opposition to this bill. That would be a
11 decision made by our mayor on this bill. We are not
12 --
13 JIM SCOTT: What do you think of this bill?
14 MS. GILBERT: Well, first of all, I think
15 that the bill would limit the ability for the whole
16 state of California in -- in putting a ban on export
17 and import into counties.
18 We all depend upon each other as a -- as a
19 state. We import and export various different things.
20 We manage a lot of waste that's generated in Kern
21 County and L.A. County
22 SENATOR FLOREZ: How much does L.A. import?
23 JIM SCOTT: How much -- how much biosolids --
24 SENATOR FLOREZ: Since we are all sharing,
25 how much does L.A. import?
38
1 JIM SCOTT: Do you import any biosludge?
2 MS. GILBERT: In -- in our own county, we use
3 about 6 percent of our biosolids in our county.
4 JIM SCOTT: You do?
5 SENATOR FLOREZ: How much do they import?
6 MALE SPEAKER: They import heat-dried
7 biosolids from other jurisdictions that are commercial
8 products.
9 JIM SCOTT: In com- -- in the form of compost
10 you're saying?
11 MS. GILBERT: Yes.
12 MALE SPEAKER: Yes. Also heat-dried
13 fertilizer.
14 MS. GILBERT: Compost, also pellets.
15 And we feel that what this would say is that
16 now State legislation could come up for all --
17 importing and exporting of all types of different
18 wastes.
19 And we don't consider biosolids a waste; we
20 consider biosolids a natural resource, that it would
21 just help the environment do what it normally would
22 do. So we don't consider biosolids in the category of
23 waste and managing your own waste in your county.
24 We also think that this bill could go far
25 reaching -- beyond that because now you're dealing
39
1 with -- now there's -- another legislation came up
2 that says that you can't do hazardous, that you have
3 to treat all your medical waste, that you have treat
4 all your oil sludges.
5 So we feel that this bill does not really
6 address the issue when you talk about import/export of
7 a reasonable product.
8 JIM SCOTT: And -- and, Supervisor Watson, it
9 sounds like the Senator would like you to do the heavy
10 lifting on this one.
11 Where do you come down on this bill?
12 SUPERVISOR WATSON: Well, we've been told
13 many, many times, in spite of what this legislative
14 counsel says, that it's against the -- the United
15 States Constitution Commerce clause for us to prohibit
16 the importation of biosolids or to prohibit the
17 spreading of biosolids unless we eliminate all of our
18 own, as well.
19 And, you know, maybe we need to get the two
20 lawyers together to determine what the real answer is,
21 but I've asked that question many times, and I've been
22 told that we do not have the legal authority to do
23 that. That's why I've been working with Mr. Beck and
24 people at the Kern County Water Agency for 18 months
25 encouraging the process of a negotiated settlement
40
1 with Los Angeles. Los Angeles has been very
2 cooperative in it.
3 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
4 SUPERVISOR WATSON: And they've told -- told
5 us that they want to be good citizens. Now, we'll
6 find out pretty soon, when they evaluate those
7 proposals, whether or not they want to be good
8 citizens.
9 But I think we can get the problem solved
10 much faster by negotiating this and getting it done
11 quickly.
12 If we were to try to legislate or put an
13 ordinance in prohibiting the spreading of biosolids or
14 the importation of bisol- -- biosolids, I'm confident
15 that they would get an immediate injunction. We would
16 be in court for years. We would be in appeals for
17 years, and I'm told that we would probably lose. And
18 that gets us nowhere.
19 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
20 SUPERVISOR WATSON: I think we get somewhere
21 by sitting down with people and working out solutions
22 in a logical manner --
23 JIM SCOTT: Let me say -- Supervisor, let
24 me -- let me move over. I see Dr. Snyder over here
25 chomping at the bit.
41
1 DR. SNYDER: No. No. It's just so tragic
2 that you need to worry about being -- about lawsuits
3 and being sued when this material is not a resource.
4 It is a contaminated, complex, unpredictable waste
5 material.
6 It is so complex that the National Academy of
7 Sciences has said that we can -- even if we knew what
8 was in there, and we don't because there is so much --
9 even if we knew every one of those contaminants, we
10 still could not do a risk assessment.
11 If something -- how can you call something
12 like that beneficial? How can you call it recycling
13 when you are transferring industrial chemicals from
14 large cities to rural countrysides, in some places
15 very poor neighborhoods where farmers cannot fight
16 back. They don't have the legal clout. Rural areas
17 don't have the political clout --
18 JIM SCOTT: Obviously, you don't like this
19 stuff.
20 DR. SNYDER: -- so the only -- no -- the real
21 problem --
22 JIM SCOTT: I am curious. What is your
23 solution?
24 DR. SNYDER: -- the real problem is a total
25 overhaul of the 503s. The EPA has deceived people,
42
1 has worked closely together in the last 10 years with
2 the very agency they're -- with the industry they're
3 supposed to regulate. The regulator has worked with
4 the regulator -- the industry that's supposed to
5 control instead of distancing themselves from the
6 first problems occurred. After the 503s were put into
7 place, EPA became closer and closer with the waste
8 industry.
9 JIM SCOTT: Okay.
10 DR. SNYDER: And that is simply unacceptable,
11 and it needs to be changed from the top so that these
12 debates that have to happen in -- in -- in counties
13 like Kern don't even become --
14 JIM SCOTT: Okay. I've gone way past my
15 break.
16 Dr. Chaney, we're going to get to you.
17 DR. CHANEY: I just -- I want to say that --
18 JIM SCOTT: Okay. Go ahead.
19 DR. CHANEY: -- the report that she just
20 quoted, in its summary, has a statement, an
21 overarching finding, that no matter what she said, we
22 don't have any evidence of an adverse effect of
23 biosolids used under the -- the 503 Rule. They don't
24 have adverse effects. Now, it's easy to point out all
25 these things. But showing leaching, it just hasn't
43
1 happened. I'm sorry.
2 JIM SCOTT: Okay. All right. We're going
3 to -- I've got to take a break.
4 MALE SPEAKER: Now, see, Jim, that's the
5 problem we have from a regulatory perspective because
6 the U.S EPA --
7 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
8 MALE SPEAKER: -- has said that this is a
9 practice that does not create a hazard. The National
10 Institute of Health report has said that there's no
11 proof that it creates a hazard. The State of
12 California through the State Water Resources Control
13 Board, just last July, over the objections of Kern
14 County, which filed suit against their Environmental
15 Impact Report, recertified an Environmental Impact
16 Report that said counties throughout California can
17 land-apply Class B.
18 Kern County has a much more stringent
19 ordinance than the State of California now says is
20 safe to land-apply.
21 JIM SCOTT: Okay.
22 MALE SPEAKER: So we have to be concerned
23 about suits.
24 JIM SCOTT: And it's good that you got the
25 last word in before break because you're going to have
44
1 to give up your seat. We're going to bring in
2 Ed Hallman. All right? We'll be back. 17 In-Depth:
3 Dumping Ground continues right after this.
4 (Break taken.)
5 JIM SCOTT: And welcome back to 17 In-Depth:
6 Dumping Ground. Tonight we're discussing the policies
7 and practices of applying biosolids to land here in
8 Kern County.
9 Like to welcome to the panel now
10 F. Edwin Hallman. He's an attorney from Atlanta,
11 Georgia, who recently won a jury verdict on behalf of
12 a farming family in Augusta, Georgia, whose dairy
13 herd -- many cows died after eating feed grown with
14 biosolids; is that correct?
15 Can you tell us -- first of all, welcome,
16 Mr. Hallman. Thank you for being here.
17 What exactly happened in Augusta, Georgia?
18 I'm -- I'm short on time; so give us the thumbnail
19 sketch.
20 MR. HALLMAN: Before I say that, I do want to
21 say that Inspector General for the Environmental
22 Protection Agency has said that sewage sludge is not
23 proven to be safe.
24 The Assistant Administrator of the EPA, who's
25 higher than all these other people that say it's safe,
45
1 has said we cannot verify whether it's safe or not.
2 My experience in Augusta has national
3 implications because, basically, what we have here is
4 snake oil and nothing else.
5 We have an illusion of safety when it doesn't
6 exist. We had hazardous waste being put out on lands
7 in the form of sewage sludge, and it's called
8 biosolids in some sort of magic formula.
9 Augusta showed the following: Augusta -- in
10 Augusta the jury issued a general verdict which found
11 that hazardous waste went on these farmlands, that
12 that hazardous waste killed the dairy cows, that the
13 hazardous waste caused the damages to the farm, both
14 economically and physically to the lands and to the
15 dairy.
16 JIM SCOTT: The hazardous waste was contained
17 in the sludge.
18 MR. HALLMAN: It was contained in the sludge,
19 and that fact was hidden from the farmers for in
20 excess of 15 years.
21 We asked the EPA to assist us in the case,
22 and they never did. We spent in excess of $3 million
23 in time and hard cost donated by some of the most
24 prominent experts in the United States, one of whom, I
25 might add, was a student of Dr. Chaney.
46
1 And those experts made sworn findings, that
2 were never refuted by the EPA and are not refuted to
3 this day, that, in fact, hazardous waste was there.
4 We have proven that high levels of chlordane,
5 which was banned in 1978, is all over these lands,
6 high levels of mercury, high levels of PCBs, high
7 levels of selenium, cadmium levels that -- that just
8 boggle your mind.
9 JIM SCOTT: And the through the course of
10 discovery, what did you discover about the testing of
11 the sludge at the Augusta sewage treatment plants?
12 MR. HALLMAN: We discovered that every record
13 of the city of Augusta was false and fraudulent, never
14 refuted by EPA. In fact, EPA has concurred in that
15 finding. The state agency stated that the program
16 should be shut down. The Biosolids Incident Response
17 Team from EPA got that overturned and, I might add,
18 did so in a false and fraudulent manner that will be
19 developed in future litigation.
20 But the interesting thing about the case is
21 that it proves, in fact, that EPA -- and I said to EPA
22 if you -- if you take Augusta and show the nation an
23 improper program and how is should not work, then I
24 can believe in the biosolids. If you don't, it will
25 show me that the biosolids is a fraudulent, false,
47
1 evil program from A to Z, and that's what I believe
2 today.
3 JIM SCOTT: Has EPA -- has EPA capitulated?
4 MR. HALLMAN: EPA has capitulated with
5 certain people in the EPA, Inspector General,
6 omsbudman -- ombudsman and his investigator.
7 EPA is in a state of turmoil over the issue,
8 and to represent that EPA has a unified position
9 endorsing sewage sludge applications to agricultural
10 lands is an out light -- outright lie and falsehood.
11 JIM SCOTT: Is it --
12 MR. HALLMAN: It is not supported by
13 documentation.
14 JIM SCOTT: In fact, EPA has pulled back from
15 endorsing land-applied biosolids; is that right?
16 MR. HALLMAN: Exactly. And EPA has said that
17 to the citizens of Kern County and everybody in the
18 nation, we cannot verify the safety of sewer sludge.
19 That in itself is a reason never to allow it to go on
20 agricultural lands.
21 In Augusta, the city had many sets of
22 records; they cooked the books. They had, in some
23 cases, 14 versions of the same data. In one example
24 they had a field where 60 acres were covered with
25 sludge and the cadmium levels were horribly in
48
1 violation of 503, of the old applicable regulations,
2 and any law you wanted to apply to it. Six years
3 later, they created fictitious, fraudulent records
4 that showed 240 acres when that much acreage can't
5 even exist in the field in question.
6 EPA has done nothing about that. These --
7 these farmers have been left to their own devices, and
8 that's the message here. Years from now when a
9 property is sold and a house is built in a subdivision
10 and Mr. and Ms. Jones plant a tomato plant and
11 Mrs. Jones and her child drop dead from a contaminant,
12 nobody from Los Angeles is going to be there to
13 take -- to be accountable. Dr. Chaney's not going to
14 be there to be accountable. The EPA's not going to be
15 there to be accountable. And all of a sudden, you're
16 going to have a whole new era of EPA coming in and
17 saying, "Developer, landowner -- all these people in
18 Kern County have got to pay for costs associated with
19 the damage to these lands."
20 JIM SCOTT: And who's going to indemnify Kern
21 County and the Board of Supervisors?
22 MR. HALLMAN: Well, you know, that's the
23 question. Why don't L.A. County and why don't Orange
24 County indemnify Kern County? Why don't they
25 represent, certify that this sludge is free of
49
1 hazardous waste?
2 JIM SCOTT: Dr. Chaney?
3 DR. CHANEY: I've -- I've several responses
4 needed here. One is I heard in the discussions today
5 that the lawsuit that he described, upon appeal, was
6 overturned because the unfortunate, really tragic
7 situation on their farm was -- was a virus that occurs
8 within herds and that causes great loss.
9 JIM SCOTT: Is that true?
10 MR. HALLMAN: Absolutely false. The two
11 cases -- that case was not overturned. The city paid
12 the judgment. The judgment is final. The record is
13 conclusive that hazardous waste went out on that farm.
14 JIM SCOTT: The --
15 MR. HALLMAN: There's another companion case
16 where a summary judgment was granted and I argued
17 appeal before the Georgia Court of Appeals on
18 Wednesday, the 6th of April.
19 So that characterization is one of the false
20 statements that comes directly from the EPA, among
21 others.
22 And let me just speak to something that we
23 just uncovered in the last three weeks. Dr. Chaney
24 refers to EPA issuing an opinion that nobody's been
25 harmed by biosolids or sewage sludge. The -- the
50
1 opinion about Augusta was issued by an Assistant
2 Administrator of the EPA based upon a report done by a
3 University of Georgia professor, Julia Gascon, in
4 concert with a PhD professor, Dr. Henry Miller. I'd
5 like to know what Dr. Chaney thinks about that report.
6 DR. CHANEY: The Gascon paper is -- is a
7 well-done study. It was reviewed and published in the
8 Peer-Review Journal. The data makes sense in relation
9 to the composition of biosolids that were there. I --
10 I agree that there were record-keeping errors in the
11 City of Augusta. And -- and, you know, that shouldn't
12 have happened. It should have been better
13 enforcement.
14 JIM SCOTT: Was Dr. Gascon's report based on
15 the data provided by Augusta, the City of Augusta?
16 DR. CHANEY: No. It's independently
17 collected data. And that's -- that's the power of it.
18 Actually, the reason that the EPA Incident
19 Team wasn't able to do more was because the lawyers in
20 the -- wouldn't allow them on the land to get samples.
21 They finally were able to get enough samples
22 of crops and soils to -- you know, to show how much
23 accumulation of metals had occurred because of the
24 application.
25 JIM SCOTT: Were you uncooperative,
51
1 Mr. Hallman?
2 MR. HALLMAN: Absolute -- absolute lie. We
3 said --
4 DR. CHANEY: Well, that was EPA.
5 MR. HALLMAN: I was there in January of 1999
6 and opened up the information to them. The
7 information was the records in the possession of the
8 City of Augusta.
9 JIM SCOTT: Which they have been --
10 MR. HALLMAN: It didn't take rocket science
11 to look at those records and say they were fraudulent.
12 In addition, this whole issue of Julia Gascon
13 is -- is very interesting because --
14 JIM SCOTT: I'm -- I'm running short on
15 time --
16 MR. HALLMAN: Okay.
17 JIM SCOTT: -- Mr. Hallman, let me -- let me
18 just stop you there.
19 But is this an isolated case, do you think?
20 MR. HALLMAN: No, I do not.
21 JIM SCOTT: And -- and what does this say
22 about the relationship between the EPA and the
23 sanitation districts in America? I mean, can you make
24 a broad-brush statement --
25 MR. HALLMAN: Yes.
52
1 JIM SCOTT: -- or accusation on this? Is it
2 possible?
3 MR. HALLMAN: Yeah.
4 JIM SCOTT: I don't think it would be fair.
5 But is everybody running their sanitation districts
6 this way? I don't think you can say that.
7 MR. HALLMAN: What you have is -- the
8 question is not what they report; the question is what
9 they don't report. And every sewage treatment plant
10 has industry depositing constituents into that sewage
11 treatment plant, and they don't test for those
12 constituents.
13 If I have an industrial client doing the same
14 thing and loading the same truck and they take that
15 truck and spread it without doing more -- by doing the
16 same thing that, say, L.A. County and Orange County
17 do, they would be put under the jail because there are
18 land disposal restrictions that are applicable.
19 So what the agency or what these propagators
20 of sewage sludge have done is they have tried to
21 create a hole through which a Mack truck can drive by
22 not requiring that this stuff be sampled. And you
23 sample it once a month, and you sample it once a
24 quarter, and the sludge is already out there.
25 I've had this discussion with them: What do
53
1 you do if that sludge is illegal even with the limited
2 sampling they are doing? Nothing.
3 JIM SCOTT: Okay. Let me -- we're running
4 short on time. Again, we have got about three minutes
5 left.
6 What would you say, Dr. Snyder, to lawmakers
7 here at the county level and at the state level with
8 regard to what course Kern County should take as we go
9 down the road in the future regarding biosolids?
10 DR. SNYDER: It's unrealistic to say, "Ban it
11 today" because the stuff is being produced every day.
12 But you need to realize this is not a benign
13 nutrient-rich fertilizer. It is a toxic, hazardous
14 waste product, and it needs to -- the less -- less you
15 put on, the better it is.
16 And if you can -- in a sense you're saying,
17 "All right. Let's ban it in Kern County"; then some
18 other county will get it that hasn't got maybe the
19 legal clout that you have, and that's really not fair.
20 What -- what needs to be done is -- it needs to be
21 addressed.
22 I don't think a county can do it. It needs
23 to be addressed from the top, from Congress.
24 JIM SCOTT: And, Mr. Hallman, what would you
25 say to our lawmakers who -- who are relying on this
54
1 science and are relying on the EPA to make sure that
2 sanitation districts are in compliance because they
3 have no other way to really verify this on a
4 day-to-day basis?
5 MR. HALLMAN: I think what they have to do is
6 go beyond the illusion of safety and look at what the
7 stuff really contains.
8 Ask Orange County, ask L.A. to give a total
9 list of all the industries that contribute to the --
10 to the sewage stream and tell what's in it and give
11 proof that they're requiring them to account as to
12 what's in it and give proof that they're accounting as
13 to what's actually going in the sludge and the volumes
14 that are being produced.
15 Ask them to certify in a conclusive fashion
16 so the citizens who are receiving it can depend upon
17 it. Certify the safety of that sludge.
18 There are other alternatives. There are
19 land-filling alternatives; there are incin-
20 incineration alternatives. The technology's there --
21 JIM SCOTT: I -- I got to give -- thank you
22 very much, Mr. Hallman.
23 Mr. Chaney -- Dr. Chaney, you've got the last
24 30 seconds, sir. I know there is a lot to --
25 DR. CHANEY: I think there has been a great
55
1 deal of research about util- -- beneficial utilization
2 of biosolids -- looking at flow of contaminants,
3 insisting on industrial pretreatment -- so that we
4 have biosolids that we can recommend that are safe for
5 use. I think knowing that most of the compounds that
6 were discussed are water soluble and either destroyed
7 during sewage treatment or in the up fluent, not that
8 much of them are ending up in the biosolids --
9 JIM SCOTT: Uh-huh.
10 DR. CHANEY: -- and they're not taken up into
11 plants. There needed -- you've been told a story -- I
12 can give you the references to say that's just plain
13 not the way the world is.
14 JIM SCOTT: Well, I'm not sure if we covered
15 any new ground here, but, certainly, we got some fresh
16 perspectives.
17 I want to specially thank our out-of-town
18 guests -- Diane Gilbert, Dr. Chaney, Mr. Hallman, and
19 Dr. Snyder -- for coming here and being part of our
20 discussion tonight.
21 DR. SNYDER: Thank you for inviting us here.
22 JIM SCOTT: And I want to thank all of you
23 for watching tonight.
24 This is a new program we've developed here at
25 17 News. We'll be back in a couple of months with
56
1 another installment of 17 In-Depth.
2 Until then, I'm Jim Scott for 17 News.
3 Thanks for watching.
57
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 COUNTY OF KERN ) ss.
7 I, Candi Stumbaugh, do hereby certify
8 that I transcribed the foregoing-entitled matter; and
9 I further certify that the foregoing is a full, true,
10 and correct transcription of such proceedings.
11 Dated this Friday, April 15, 2005, in
12 Bakersfield, California.
16
____________________
17 Candi Stumbaugh