The State of Biosolids Regulations in the U.S. and Florida: Can You Have Your Cake and Dispose of It Too? Nicole Cohen and Jody Barksdale

The State of Biosolids Regulations in the U.S. and Florida: Can You Have Your Cake and Dispose of It Too?

Nicole Cohen and Jody Barksdale

Our understanding and handling (i.e., treatment and disposal) of biosolids are constantly evolving, as are the regulations that seek to safeguard public health and environmental well-being against potential risks posed by the nutrient content and other constituents found in biosolids.

This article offers an in-depth review and explanation of recent biosolids developments by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as recent and upcoming biosolids laws and regulations specific to the state of Florida.

Environmental Protection Agency Biosolids Developments

As defined by EPA, biosolids are “nutrientrich organic materials resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility. . .that can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth.” Amendments to EPA’s 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) set the precedent for biosolids regulations, which were subsequently formalized and adopted in 1993 by the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 (503 Rule), Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge.

Last updated in 2015, the 503 Rule federally regulates biosolids disposal and land application by establishing standards for general treatment, handling, and disposal requirements; pollutant limits; management practices; and operational standards. The regulation also sets forth requirements to reduce pathogen and vector attraction in biosolids that are land-applied or placed on a surface disposal site. Although Florida is not delegated under the 503 Rule, any regulatory changes at the federal level must also be met to be in compliance with the 503 Rule.

In June 2017, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the effectiveness of the 503 Rule, which falls under the domain of EPA’s Office of Water (OW), in protecting human health and the environment, given the nation’s current biosolids treatment and disposal activities. Published on Nov. 15, 2018, the OIG’s report, “EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in LandApplied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment,” contained 13 recommendations to improve and further enforce the OW’s rules.

The OW and the OIG resolved many of the report’s recommendations; however, five remained outstanding for some time, primarily because, as the OIG noted, “the EPA’s controls over the land application of sewage sludge (biosolids) were incomplete or had weaknesses and may not fully protect human health and the environment,” and “[EPA] lacked the data or risk assessment tools needed to make a determination on the safety of 352 pollutants found in biosolids.”

As such, the report ultimately recommended that the OW declare the following: S EPA cannot determine the safety of biosolids. S Current statements on EPA’s website that imply a level of safety must be revised until this determination can be made.

On May 30, 2019, the OW sent a memorandum to the OIG with revisions and final resolutions for the remaining recommendations, which the OW accepted, but nevertheless made a point to indicate that the OIG’s report is “biased and raises alarm due to the use of narrowly selected studies and examples, and information that is taken out of context or that is not relevant.” On July 25, 2019, the OIG sent a second memorandum to the OW confirming that all recommendations were now resolved and that the resulting corrective actions would be tracked. The latest completion date for the recommendations is Dec. 31, 2022.

Table 1 briefly describes all 13 of the OIG’s recommendations, along with their estimated completion dates.

Following the publication of the OIG report, many organizations voiced their support for the OW’s biosolids program. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies issued a statement on Aug. 14, 2019, announcing that it was “pleased to see the Office of Water’s strong response letter defending the program.” Subsequently, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) organized a national biosolids meeting in November 2019 to bring a variety of stakeholders together to discuss biosolids and urge EPA to reinvest in its biosolids program, while increasing regulatory oversight and compliance activities with respect to the Part 503 rule.

Finally, on July 23, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture Research Committee W4170 rebutted the OIG’s stance regarding EPA’s data and risk assessment tools, stating that, “Overall, sufficient data and research are available to conclude biosolids regulations are protective of human health and the environment.”

Table 1. Office of Inspector General Recommendations and Target Completion Dates

Biosolids Land Application in Florida

Over the past 20 years, public concern for the potential health and environmental consequences of land-applied biosolids has encouraged an increasing number of Florida counties to implement more-stringent restrictions and requirements.

Under EPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) enforces the state rules to comply with 503 Rule in Florida. The state’s first regulations related to biosolids were adopted in 1984 as part of a solid waste rule. Then, in the early 1990s, the state adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-640 (62-640, F.A.C.) to update the regulations to be more in line with the CWA amendments. Following the adoption of the 503 Rule, 62-640, F.A.C., it was revised in 1998 and once more in 2010.

The latter revision enhanced state regulations that address biosolids, focusing particularly on site accountability and nutrient management. More specifically, the revised 62-640, F.A.C., mandated any entity land-applying biosolids to complete the following tasks: S Obtain site permits specific to biosolids starting Jan. 1, 2013. S Obey new, more-stringent phosphorus limitations and site-management requirements.

Perhaps because of these stringent demands, from 2012 to 2013, the number of permitted land application sites in Florida dropped from 180 to 87 (FDEP, 2014). According to FDEP’s geographic information systems (GIS), this number increased to 119 as of July 21, 2020, which may be due to the fact that, in 2016, the land application of septage was banned under the Department of Health (DOH)-related statutes, and DOH facilities sought permitting under FDEP under the biosolids regulations.

Meanwhile, the quality of biosolids produced and land-applied is ever-scrutinized. In 2007, the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) passed a statute restricting the land application of biosolids in Florida’s Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie River, and Caloosahatchee River watersheds. By 2013, this legislation effectively stopped Class B biosolids from being land-applied in the northern Everglades watersheds unless an FDEP-approved nutrient balance could be produced.

In fact, the regulations and nutrient restrictions discussed in this section only apply to Class A and Class B biosolids and do not apply to Class AA biosolids, which are distributed and marketed as fertilizers that, when compared to their lesser counterparts, require a higher level of treatment to stabilize and reduce pathogens. Florida currently has 39 operating Class AA facilities.

Figure 1 shows Florida’s permitted land application sites and Class AA facility locations, in addition to the NEEPP boundary.

In 2018, blue-green cyanobacteria blooms, observed along with the red tide along Florida’s coast, resulted in detrimental environmental and economic consequences. Though the exact causes of the algal blooms are still unknown, their origins can be attributed to high nutrient loads. Since then, the state has become further interested in understanding the nutrient impacts that landapplied biosolids have on the environment.

To combat and remain ahead of algal blooms, Florida’s regulatory authorities developed different courses of action pertaining to the high nutrient potential of biosolids. More specifically, FDEP created a technical advisory committee (TAC) to evaluate biosolids management, while Florida’s governor enacted a Blue-Green Algae Task Force within FDEP.

Over the course of four meetings, from September 2018 to January 2019, FDEP’s TAC published a list of recommendations and, accordingly, FDEP issued a notice of rule development for proposed amendments to 62-640, F.A.C., on Oct. 29, 2019; however, on March 20, 2020, the amendments were withdrawn because, effective as of July 1, 2020, the recently approved House Bill 712 was passed and FDEP wanted to ensure that the biosolids provisions between 62640, F.A.C., and House Bill 712 were in agreement. Furthermore, House Bill 712 requires that “Rules [for biosolids management] adopted by [FEDP] pursuant to this section may not take effect until ratified by the Legislature.” In other words, FDEP is required to adopt new rules for biosolids management.

In Florida, it’s typical that the laws passed by the Legislature, known as “statutes,” which often outline general guidelines, be subsequently defined and enforced by the respective executive branch agencies (e.g., FDEP) with laws created by these agencies that are called “regulations.” Both statutes and regulations have the force of law. Thus, FDEP is required to propose regulatory changes to 62-640, F.A.C., that will include and provide specifics on the process and enforcement of items outlined in House Bill 712.

House Bill 712, also known as the Clean Waterways Act, first began with the Blue-Green Algae Task Force; its five members met six times to review nutrient runoff into waterbodies and find ways to reduce nutrient pollution that exacerbates algal blooms. On Oct. 11, 2019, the task force issued a list of recommendations, some of which were incorporated into House Bill 712.

Overall, House Bill 712 enacted the following biosolids regulations:

S By July 1, 2020, all land application site permits shall: • Require permittees of biosolids land application sites to enroll in the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services best management practices. • Require a minimum unsaturated depth of 2 feet between the biosolids placements depth and the water table for Class A and Class B land application. • Prohibit the application of Class A and Class

B biosolids on soils that have seasonal high water tables of less than 6 inches from the soil surface or within 6 inches of the intended depth of biosolids placement, unless an NMP and water quality monitoring plan provide appropriate assurances that the application will not cause or contribute to water quality violations. S Local governments are allowed to maintain

Class A or Class B biosolids ordinances if adopted before Nov. 1, 2019. S The FDEP is required to enact rules for biosolids management that will not take effect until ratified by the Florida Legislature.

The statute is now in the process of being incorporated into regulation as amendments to 62-640, F.A.C. These proposed amendments were introduced by a Notice of Rule Development that FDEP issued on April 14, 2020. In addition to bolstering the Clean Waterways Act, these proposed amendments seek to revise monitoring and permitting criteria for land application and management of biosolids.

On Sept. 18, 2020, FDEP held a public workshop to discuss the draft amendments to Chapter 62-640, F.A.C. The following key revisions were proposed: S Establishment of a compliance period for existing facilities and land application sites. • New or renewed facility or biosolids land application site permits issued after July 1, 2020, shall meet the new requirements no later than within one year of the new rule’s effective date. • All permits for facilities and biosolids land application sites shall meet the new requirements within two years of the new rule’s effective date. S Consideration of biosolids permit applications as projects of heightened public interest. S Changes to existing definitions and capacity index: • “Percent water-extractable phosphorus (PWEP)” is now defined as the percentage of phosphorus that is water-extractable in a biosolids sample. • Addition of a capacity index as a measure of a disposal site’s ability to store phosphorous. S Modifications to NMP requirements: • Establish specific rates of biosolids application according to nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as procedures to land-apply biosolids. • Reduce the minimum frequency of soil fertility testing from every five years to annually. • Require rates of application to be set according to both nitrogen and phosphorus, i.e., application shall not exceed either rate. • Require the soil phosphorus storage “capacity index” and soil phosphorus results for each application zone. The final application rate for phosphorus depends on the combination of

PWEP and capacity index, which is based on

Mehlich 3 extractions for phosphorus, iron, and aluminum. S Modifications to land application and the addition of groundwater and surface water provisions: • Adopt House Bill 712. • Prohibit land application on soils with a seasonal high water table within 6 inches of the soil surface or depth of biosolids placement unless a department-approved NMP and water quality monitoring plan provide reasonable assurances that the landapplied biosolids at the site will not cause or contribute to a violation of the state’s surface water quality or groundwater standards. • Require a minimum unsaturated soil depth of 2 feet between the depth of Class A or Class B biosolids placement and water table level at the time biosolids are applied to the soil. • Updated the methodology used to determine the seasonal high water table. • Establish minor requirements regarding measures to prevent leaching of nutrients for storage longer than seven days at the land application site.

A statement of estimated regulatory costs (SERC) is required for the amended Chapter 62640, F.A.C., since it will have an adverse impact on small business, or is likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate in the state within one year after implementation. Furthermore, if the SERC shows that the adverse impact or regulatory cost exceeds $1 million in the aggregate within five years after implementation, the proposed rule must be submitted to the Florida Legislature for ratification.

According to the SERC developed by FDEP and published on Dec. 3, 2020, the proposed amendments will likely increase regulatory costs in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within five years after implementation of the rule. Because the revised rule may reduce land application rates by an estimated 75 percent, a larger portion of Class B biosolids is now anticipated to be disposed of in landfills or converted to Class AA biosolids. As stated in the Florida House of Representative’s staff analysis on March 15, 2021, the amended Chapter 62-640, F.A.C., “will have a negative fiscal impact on local governments and the private sector that provide wastewater and biosolids treatment, as well as locally and privately owned utilities.”

The most-recent Chapter 62-640, F.A.C., amendments, of which the Notice of Proposed Rule was published on Dec. 3, 2020, was submitted to the Legislature for ratification on Jan. 29, 2021. On April 1, 2021, the proposed rule passed the Florida House and, on April 21, 2021, the Florida Senate passed it with amendments.

At the time of this article’s publication, the amendments have not yet been ratified into a bill; however, all signs point to it being signed by the governor and ratified, especially since FDEP scheduled a webinar on May 27, 2021, to present proposed changes to Chapter 62-640, F.A.C., to the public.

Conclusion

The world of biosolids regulations and effective management will continue to evolve. Federally, most of the OIG’s recommendations on EPA’s biosolids program have been addressed. The remaining recommendations will implement methods for conducting probabilistic risk assessments for land application scenarios and safety determinations for pollutants found in biosolids. The results from this work may further limit land application and/or result in changes to handling and processing requirements (e.g., pollutant limits).

On a state level, there is certain change coming to the land application of biosolids. It will require those who have historically been disposing Class B biosolids to seek out other management strategies and alternatives, such as landfill disposal or conversion of their systems to produce Class AA biosolids. Indirectly, those utilities and entities that have been producing Class AA biosolids might face more competition and a change in their market due to the likely increase in the availability of more Class AA biosolids.

There are other specific and current issues that this article does not discuss that will affect future regulations. Emerging contaminants, such as microplastics per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are seeing an increase in public concern, as well as additional research. It’s recommended that all interested biosolids stakeholders continue to monitor the regulatory agencies, as more change is likely to come.

Nicole Cohen is a project engineer with Carollo Engineers in Sarasota. Jody Barksdale, P.E., ENV SP, is a vice president with Carollo Engineers in Tampa. S

C FACTOR Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments: Are You Vulnerable?

Kenneth Enlow

President, FWPCOA

Greetings everyone. I hope your year is going well so far. Sometimes things don’t go as planned, like when your utility gets sited for a condition that triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment. Unfortunately, this situation does happen, and when it does, you have the requirement of trying to determine where things went wrong.

What are the Triggers for a Level 1 or Level 2 Assessment?

The triggers for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are defined by Florida Administrative Code FAC 62-550 for Public Water Systems (PWS). They originate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Revised Total Coliform Rule.

Level 1 Assessments

These are triggered by: S A PWS collecting less than 40 samples per month that have two or more total coliform (TC) positive routine/repeat samples in the same month. S A PWS collecting at least 40 samples per month that have greater than 5 percent

TC positive routine/repeat samples in the same month. S A PWS that fails to collect every repeat sample after a single TC positive sample.

A Level 1 assessment is performed by the owner or operator of a system and must be submitted within 30 days or by the time agreed to by the utility and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

Level 2 Assessments

These are triggered by: S A PWS that incurs an E. coli maximum contaminant level (MCL) violation. S A PWS that has a second Level 1 assessment within a rolling 12-month period. S A PWS on state-approved annual monitoring that has a Level 1 assessment in two consecutive years.

A Level 2 assessment is performed by the state or someone it designates. The PWS is responsible for making sure that the assessment is performed by the state and must be submitted within 30 days, or by the time agreed to by the utility and FDEP.

One method to conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment is by performing an AreaWide Optimization Program (AWOP).

What is an Area-Wide Optimization Program?

Initially developed for wastewater treatment plant compliance issues, the framework began in the 1970s with the comprehensive correction program (CCP). In the 1980s, the framework was applied for optimizing drinking water plant performance for microbial (turbidity) optimization to determine the cause of microbial issues at surface water systems.

The program continued to develop with the creation of protocols and the CCP handbook in the 1990s. Program developments eventually lead to the creation of AWOP for all drinking water systems. The program has expanded to include approaches to control disinfection byproducts and other contaminants, while maintaining distribution system water quality in surface and groundwater systems.

This is a voluntary multistate program in which states work together to develop and implement individual state methods to support PWS with the optimization of their treatment processes and distribution systems. The AWOP is designed to assist water systems with optimizing their physical and organizational infrastructures to enhance public health protectio, without encountering major improvement expenses.

The FDEP is a supporting member of the AWOP initiative.

How to Apply the Principles of Area-Wide Optimization Programs When Performing Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments

The principles of the AWOP process are to look at each individual segment of a system to determine if they are working properly as defined by the basis of design. The approach is to start at the source.

If you are a groundwater system, start with going back to the basics, like reviewing your wellhead protection program. S Have there been any changes in the topography around you well head? S Are there changes in elevation, for instance, due to settling of the well pad or buildup of soil from flooding? S Are there any access covers missing from the well that could allow contamination? S Is there a possibility of any influence of surface water getting in the well? S What is the condition of the well and when was it last cleaned? S Have there been an unusual number of events of bacteriological failures on a particular well, or one that is particularly stubborn to get clearance on when performing a bacteriological survey?

If your source water is from surface water, look at your raw water quality. S Have there been any changes in the source water, like increased turbidity? S Are there any changes in other raw water constituents, like phosphorus or algae?

The next step is to look at your treatment process. S Is your treatment process working properly? S If you are a conventional lime softening plant, or you have aerators on your storage tanks or forced draft scrubbers, is your aeration system working properly? S When were your aerators last cleaned? S If you have a treatment processes, like surface water coagulation/flocculation treatment, conventional lime softening, forced draft aeration, or membranes,

what is the condition of your effluent leaving the treatment process? S Has there been an increase in treated water turbidity? S Could carryover of floc be causing an unusual demand on disinfection? S Are you operating the treatment process within design parameters?

The next step is to look at your filtration process. S If using conventional filtration, check you filters for dead spots that can contribute to channeling. S Are you having periods of turbidity spikes on filters during the filter run? S What is the condition of your filter media? S When was the last time you checked your filter media for proper size and depth? S When was the last time you changed the filter media? S Are you getting proper bed expansion when backwashing the filter? S Is the filter loading rate within the design?

The next step is to examine how well your disinfection process is working. S Is your chlorination equipment working properly? S If you are using chloramination for disinfection, are your chlorine-toammonia ratios proper? S Are you seeing high levels of free ammonia in your system? S Are you getting adequate contact time for your disinfection? S Are you getting proper mixing in your contactors or storage tanks? S What is the condition of your disinfection contactors or finished water storage tanks? S When was the last time they were cleaned? S Are vent screens in place?

The next step is to look at your distribution system. S What is your total residence time in the distribution system? S Do you have areas with dead ends, or areas where it’s hard to maintain a disinfection residual? S Do you have a managed flushing program? S Is your cross connection control program in place? S When was the last time you reviewed your cross connection control program? S Have there been changes in an area, like new construction or new businesses? S Is there an area where you have more bacteriological positives than others?

In summary, these are all processes used when conducting an AWOP. By utilizing these methods, you are satisfying the intent of a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment. The main point is to complete a systematic examination of your system to determine where a problem may exist and then coming up with solutions for how the remedy them.

FWPCOA Training Update

The training office is in need of proctors for online courses in all regions. If you are available to be a proctor, please contact the training office at 321-383-9690.

In the meantime, and as always, our Online Training Institute is up and running. You can access our online training by going to the FWPCOA website at www. fwpcoa.org and selecting the “Online Institute” button at the upper right-hand area of the home page to open the login page. You then scroll down to the bottom of this screen and click on “View Catalog” to open the catalog of the many training programs offered. Select your preferred training program and register online to take the course.

For more information, contact the Online Institute program manager at OnlineTraining@fwpcoa.org or the FWPCOA training office at training@ fwpcoa.org.

That’s all I have for this C Factor. Everyone take care and, as usual, keep up the good work! S