Provided by the Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA

WEF Brief Supports Biosolids Land Application
On June 2, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Kern County, California biosolids litigation that has attracted national attention (City of Los Angeles et al v. Kern County, 509 F. Supp. 2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and supports the position of three southern California public agencies that operate land application programs in Kern County and that are asking the Appeals Court to maintain a district court Judge’s ruling that allows these programs to continue.

The WEF brief documents the scientific, technical, and regulatory foundation for the safety of land application. It was prepared with the assistance of a diverse work group of WEF members that included a range of academic disciplines and professional experience related to wastewater treatment, biosolids management, and protection of public health and the environment. Led by Dr. Richard D. Kuchenrither, a past president of WEF and past chair of the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Committee, the work group utilized a consensus process similar to the one utilized for the production of WEF Technical Practice Updates.

WEF has a long-standing position in support of biosolids recycling, including support for land application as one of several management options available to public agencies under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Part 503 regulation. WEF’s Position Statement, Guidance for Regulatory Officials on Biosolids Recycling, adopted in 1996, supports beneficial use programs and state primacy in permitting local biosolids programs based on EPA or more stringent state standards. Preparation of the brief was approved by the WEF Board of Trustees following recommendations from both the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Committee and the Board of Directors of the California Water Environment Association.

The outcome of the Kern County case has the potential to have a significant impact on biosolids programs in every state, not just the Ninth Circuit, because this will be the first appellate decision on whether biosolids bans are legal under the federal Constitution. WEF has members who are responsible for managing biosolids programs across the country and prepared the amicus brief to provide a review of the current science and state of practice regarding land application.

Kern County Amicus Brief in Response to Measure E

Click here for additional background information.

For media inquiries, please contact Lori Harrison at lharrison@wef.org or 703-216-8565.

Bush Administration Orders First Federal Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
After resisting the regulation of greenhouse gases since he took office in 2001, President Bush on May 14 signed an Executive Order directing four federal agencies to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new mobile sources. The President directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture to work together "to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth," the Executive Order states. The President's new policy is based on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court April 2 in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Bush administration failed to follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Bush has directed EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, "using my 20-in-10 plan as a starting point." The president announced his "20-in-10 plan" in January during his State of the Union address, which aims to cut America's gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. (SJH)

Witnesses Call for Research & Education on Green Infrastructure to Reduce Runoff
At a House Subcommittee meeting on May 10, witnesses said federal agencies should be conducting research on and educating regulators about "green" materials and methods that can be used to reduce the water runoff caused by roads and parking lots. Hal Kassoff, senior vice president and highway market leader for Parsons Brinckerhoff consultancy, told the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Science and Technology that the key barrier to a broader use of these materials and methods is a lack of awareness and of data to demonstrate that they help communities comply with the Clean Water Act. The Subcommittee hearing, "Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and Implementation," opened the floor for witnesses to discuss programs designed to alleviate water pollution caused by runoff from streets and parking lots. The materials and methods addressed during the hearing included the use of porous concrete to filter and slow runoff for residential roads and commercial parking lots and setting planters below the level of sidewalks to receive stormwater through grated curb cuts.

Subcommittee Chairman David Wu (D-OR) stated, "Our challenge today is not the development of new technologies. It is to get people to start using the technologies we've got." Wu commented on the impediments of state and federal regulations and said that, "on paper, these technologies look like no-brainers, so why don't we see them used more often?" Sam Adams, commissioner-in-charge of transportation and environmental services in Portland, OR, told the subcommittee that his city was not supported by the EPA or the state Department of Environmental Quality when the city tried to implement a comprehensive green infrastructure plan. In his written testimony, Adams stated, "both agencies favored traditional engineering solutions that assured regulatory compliance within a tightly constrained timetable. Neither agency was willing to provide additional time for Portland to pursue more sustainable, cost-effective and affordable strategies that also promoted comprehensive watershed health." Testimony given at the hearing is available at http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=1809. (MB)

EPA Oversight of NPDES Permit Compliance Needs Improvement, Inspector General Says
In a report released May 15, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) said that the agency is not providing effective oversight of compliance with clean water permits at major facilities. The report claimed EPA and state agencies failed to keep complete and accurate records of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance and enforcement actions, which the OIG said reflects a "management control weakness." The report, Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major Facilities with Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term Significant Noncompliance Report, stated the Agency did not provide meaningful direction to EPA regional offices and states on what constitutes "appropriateness of actions" to facilities in significant noncompliance with the terms of their NPDES permits. The OIG also added that EPA does not consistently apply guidance defining timely formal enforcement actions taken by the Agency and the states. The OIG suggested that EPA specify and implement guidance regarding facilities in significant noncompliance, implement a quality assurance program, and establish controls allowing the Agency to identify significant noncompliance by violators. The OIG reviewed 56 facilities in EPA regions 4, 5, and 6. For 21 of those facilities, EPA and states did not take appropriate formal enforcement actions to address all instances of significant noncompliance. Senior counsel for the Environmental Integrity Project, Michele Merkel, commented that the inspector general's report has "broader implications" for the enforcement method EPA employs. "If these categories of polluters that include concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater permit holders are not filing discharge monitoring reports and the systems are incomplete, then there is no way for the public to know who is in violation," Merkel said. To view the report, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070514-2007-P-00023.pdf. (MB)