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