United States Office of Wastewater EPA 832-D-00-002 Environmental Protection Management December 2000 Agency (4204M)

Summary of State Biosolids Programs

Draft Report

Request for Review We request that each contributing state coordinator and Biosolids Program Implementation Team Member carefully review this draft report for completeness and accuracy. We realize that some of the information that you provided may have been an educated estimate. Please review carefully to determine if we appropriately reported such things as percentages of biosolids generating facilities and the biosolids themselves meeting various quality criteria in our detailed report as well as in our summary report. For example, did we catch and reasonably report percentages of all facilities or just facilities that land apply? Did we accurately reflect the number of persons working on biosolids issues? Can you improve data on the extent of compliance assistance and enforcement actions taken?

iv

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the information provided for this report by numerous individuals from the states. Particular gratitude is expressed to Mr. Greg Kester of the Wisconsin Department on Natural Resources (DNR) who has worked closely with states to gain their cooperation and input. Gratitude is also expressed to Robert Bastian, Ed Gross, and other members of EPA’s Biosolids Program Implementation Team who provided guidance and review as this report was developed. The authors are Shannon Garland, formerly an Intern in the Municipal Technology Branch (MTB), EPA, Office of Wastewater Management and currently, Associate Engineer, Parsons Engineering Sciences; Greg Kester, Wisconsin DNR; and John Walker, MTB, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management.

v

Table of Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................................1 Summary....................................................................................................................................................1 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................................1 Agronomic Application Rate ......................................................................................................................2 Staffing Of Biosolids Programs..................................................................................................................3 Beneficial Use Permits...............................................................................................................................4 Biosolids Production And Quality...............................................................................................................4 Cumulative Metal Tracking Of Table 3 Biosolids.......................................................................................8 Septage....................................................................................................................................................10 Compliance Tracking And Enforcement ..................................................................................................10 Training ....................................................................................................................................................13 Public Acceptance .............................................................................................................................................. 14

APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................................16

Table 1a - Basis For Agronomic Application Rate ..................................................................17 Table 2a - Land Application Permit Type, Site Approval Requirements & Current Site Data 18 Table 3a - Biosolids Quality Data............................................................................................19 Table 4a - Cumulative Metal Tracking And Part 503 Table 1 Data ........................................20 Table 5a - Septage Management Data...................................................................................21 Table 6a - State Use Of Electronic Databases .......................................................................22 Table 7a - Comparison Of State Regulations To Part 503 .....................................................23 Table 8a - Status Of Part 503 Delegation ...............................................................................24

1

Overview

On March 20, 2000, the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) published an audit report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Biosolids Management and Enforcement program. The report was critical of EPA for having limited resources dedicated to the oversight of biosolids management. Not covered by the audit was a review of state biosolids programs. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the characteristics of state biosolids programs and to determine how well Federal and state biosolids programs work together to provide oversight of biosolids management and enforcement. The data gathered in this study are important to states and EPA as they seek to ensure environmentally sound and community-friendly biosolids management practices that as a minimum follow applicable state and Federal rules. Tools being employed by EPA, states and other stakeholders include broadening the use of the Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS) and compatible systems and supporting the National Biosolids Partnership’s (NBP’s) development and implementation of an Environmental Management Systems (EMS) for biosolids. All information was provided by state biosolids coordinators through Greg Kester of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and member of the EPA Biosolids Program Implementation Team. The report is composed of two volumes. Volume One summarizes the individual state information contained in Volume Two. Summary At the time this report was generated (December 10, 2000), 44 states had responded to Kester’s request for information on their state biosolids management programs in the following areas:

• Basis of state’s agronomic rate for land application of biosolids • Number of staff dedicated to biosolids programs • Permitting requirements for biosolids production and beneficial use • Quality and quantity of biosolids produced • Biosolids use and disposal techniques used by treatment facilities • Septage management • Compliance and enforcement efforts • Status of 40 CFR Part 503 delegation • Biosolids training opportunities • Public acceptance issues

The study revealed several areas where data was unknown or unavailable. Further study is needed to investigate the reasons for this lack of information, as well as to analyze the available data using the BDMS. There was a considerable lack of valid data on biosolids quality. Biosolids quality data was consistently provided by only about one half of the 44 states that responded. Estimates for biosolids quality that were known to be based only on facilities that land apply biosolids were not considered relevant data. It is possible that this was unknowingly the case for some of the estimates that were used. Conclusions This report summarizes the information collected using figures, bar graphs and data tables provided within the report and in an attached appendix. A few conclusions drawn from the data provided by the 44 states that responded are listed below:

• Thirty-four states have at least one full-time employee that dedicates 100% of his or her time to the state biosolids program.

• Forty states require some type of permission from the state to beneficially use biosolids. • Septage is almost always managed at the county, rather than state, level. • Twenty-seven out of twenty-eight states reporting say 90-100% of the facilities in their state meet

Part 503 Table 1 requirements.

2

• Twenty out of twenty-four states reporting say 90-100% of the facilities in their state meet Part 503 Table 3 requirements.

• Thirty states are currently using or developing an electronic database to store and track biosolids report and inspection data; 8 of these states use the BDMS or a database that is compatible with BDMS.

• Most states favor compliance assistance, rather than a strict enforcement approach. Serious or continuous violators of state and federal biosolids regulations may face monetary penalties or permit restrictions.

• Forty-two states have biosolids regulations that are more restrictive than Part 503. • Four states have received Part 503 delegation and eighteen are currently in the process of

seeking delegation.

Agronomic Application Rate The agronomic application rate for land application of biosolids is typically based on nitrogen (N) alone, although some states have begun to take phosphorous (P) levels into account when calculating the agronomic rate (Figure 1). Of the 44 states reporting, 36 states base the agronomic rate on N alone, 6 states base the rate on N and P, and the remaining 2 states, Wyoming and Vermont, base the agronomic rate on whatever nutrient is most limiting in the soil. As is noted on Figure 1, Washington may also consider P and potassium (K), and West Virginia may consider P and soil pH in calculating the agronomic rate. Several states that currently base the agronomic rate on N alone stated that they might begin to include P in the rate calculation in the future.

Figure 1 - Basis for Agronomic Rate by State

36 states base agronomic rate on N only1

6 states base agronomic rate on N and P2 states base agronomic rate on the most limiting nutrient6 states did not provide relevant data

1WA may also consider P and K WV may also consider P and soil pH

3

Staffing of Biosolids Programs The number of full-time employees (FTE) dedicated to state biosolids programs varies from state to state depending on the recognized need for personnel and the resources available to support biosolids program activities (Figure 2 on next page). Of the 44 states reporting, 34 states have at least one biosolids coordinator that spends 100% of his or her time overseeing all biosolids activities within the state. States reporting their number of FTE as greater than one have additional full- or part-time employees dedicated to their biosolids program. Of the 10 reporting states that remain, 8 have biosolids coordinators that spend less than 100% of their time on biosolids activities. California and Missouri do not have established biosolids programs at the state level and therefore reported that there is no official number of FTE dedicated to biosolids activities.

Figure 2 - Number of FTE Dedicated to StateBiosolids Programs

4

1

40.25

01

1

1

1

1

1

0.25

2 30.3

0.25

0.2

4

15

6

1

0.67

0

10.25

4

9

4

0.5

1

2

3

131

11

15

1

3

4

4

3.9

3

16

DNR

DNR

DNR

DNR

DNR

DNR

DNR = State did not provide data

1

1The CA Water Pollution Control Board employs staff in several regions throughout the state to administer oversight of biosolids activities

4

Beneficial Use Permits The process of permitting biosolids-generating facilities for biosolids beneficial use and disposal activities is unique to each state biosolids program. Of the 44 states reporting, 40 require a generating facility or individual to obtain permission from the state to beneficially use biosolids (land application being the most common form of beneficial use). The requirements for obtaining state permission for beneficial use are also unique to each state. Site visits to new land application areas are required in 22 states before land application can begin in the area. The remaining states’ permit requirements range from requiring site visits most of the time to rarely or never requiring site visits prior to land application. 14 states issue beneficial use permits that are associated with the generating facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The “permit” is sometimes in the form of specific language that is written into the facility’s NPDES permit that addresses land application or composting of biosolids. Some states issue a state solid waste or waste disposal permit to facilities or individuals that want to land apply biosolids. Other permit types include letters or orders of approval to land apply, state sludge/biosolids utilization permits, state general permits or consent agreements. Alabama, Hawaii, Kansas and North Dakota do not issue state permits for beneficial use. Biosolids Production and Quality The estimated amount of biosolids produced in each state and the number of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and/or Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS) in each state are presented as follows in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1 – Biosolids Production Estimates by State

State Biosolids (dry tons/yr) State Biosolids (dry tons/yr)

Alabama 47,000 Montana -Alaska - Nebraska 20,000Arkansas - Nevada 150,000Arizona 66,5001 New Hampshire 18,000California 730,000 New Jersey 262,435Colorado 87,300 New Mexico -Connecticut 82,800 New York 360,000Delaware 21,000 North Carolina -Florida 270,000 North Dakota 4,810Georgia 150,000 Ohio 390,0004

Hawaii - Oklahoma 75,000Idaho - Oregon 48,000Illinois 390,000 Pennsylvania 307,000Indiana 200,000 Rhode Island 28,000Iowa 50,000 South Carolina -Kansas 99,5002 South Dakota 20,000Kentucky - Tennessee 96,0002

Louisiana - Texas -Maine 24,500 Utah 31,3775

Maryland 746,7003 Vermont 8,650Massachusetts 58,000 Virginia 93,700Michigan 84,000 Washington 90,000Minnesota 265,000 West Virginia 21,000Mississippi - Wisconsin 150,0001

Missouri 342,681 Wyoming 28,000Total Biosolids Produced in 38 states that reported = 5,916,953 dry tons/year

1Land applied only 21996 estimate 3Wet tons/yr 41998 estimate 5Dry metric tons/yr

5

State POTWs/ Majors Land Landfill Incinerate Surface Produce Other

TWTDS (>1 MGD) Apply Disposal EQ

Alabama 268 109 44 64 5 0 3 15Alaska 500 12 8 58 2 5 3 -Arkansas 345 70 52 42 0 8 - 2471

Arizona - - - - - - - -California 470 238 78 58 0 10 100Colorado 220 53 153 5 0 1 25 0Connecticut 84 55 2 1 81 0 0 0Delaware 25 6 7 1 0 0 2 15Florida 700 248 Majority some 2 0 20 manyGeorgia 606 134 100 - - - - 10Hawaii 29 15 0 25 0 0 0 4Idaho 216 25 54 22 0 6 15 119Illinois 816 184 436 61 - 3 - 3401

Indiana 3002 50 300 - - - - -Iowa 950 76 250 - 2 - - -Kansas 875 45 150 23 1 0 1 7001

Kentucky Louisiana - - 30 - - - 3 -Maine 100 7 33 6-10 0 0 29 -Maryland 300 50 53 62 4 0 9 189Massachusetts 134 56 1 26 47 0 20 40Michigan 180 - 180 - - 0 - -Minnesota 563 54 240 1 3 0 2 -Mississippi 335 55 19 10 0 20 7 279Missouri 2229 - - - - - - -Montana Nebraska 350 30 348 0 0 0 2 0Nevada - 18 5 13 - - - -New Hampshire 85 15 18 - 1 - 5 -New Jersey 337 100 69 48 158 0 52 54New Mexico New York 583 291 30 246 14 82 36 0North Carolina North Dakota 290 26 2 1 Ohio 1500 190 353 86 11 24 23 730Oklahoma 1150 62 103 65 0 0 0 167Oregon 306 47 60-80 2-3 0 0 5-6 -Pennsylvania 790 268 115 84 15 1 12 563Rhode Island 19 18 0 4 16 0 2 -South Carolina South Dakota 285 21 15 3 0 2 1 0Tennessee 591 92 99 49 0 17 0 76Texas Utah 25 22 24 1 0 1 14 -Vermont 99 20 23 20 9 0 26 0Virginia 792 93 - - - - - -Washington 350 50 256 5 5 2 5 -West Virginia 195 41 91 45 1 3 44 -

Table 2 – Number of POTWs/TWTDS in Each State Employing Various Use and Disposal Methods

6

Wisconsin 485 88 477 6 2 0 - 2001

Wyoming 103 10 9 0 0 1 0 0

Biosolids that are used for beneficial land application must meet certain ceiling concentrations for pollutants under 40 CFR Part 503. All biosolids applied to the land must meet Part 503 Table 1 limits. Figures 3a and 3b present Table 1 biosolids quality data in two ways. Figure 3a shows the percent (out of 28 states) of facilities producing biosolids that meet Table 1 requirements, and Figure 3b shows the percent (out of 23 states) of total biosolids produced that meet Table 1.

Figure 3a - Biosolids-Generating FacilitiesMeeting Table 1

90-100% of facilities in 27 states meet Table 180-85% of facilities in 1 state meet Table 1

22 states did not provide relevant data

Figure 3b - Biosolids Meeting Table 1

���� 95% of biosolids produced in 23 states meet Table 1 27 states did not provide relevant data

1Lagoon storage 2Land application only 3Mechanical plants only

7

Biosolids that are marketed as exceptional quality (EQ), and are bagged and sold or given away to the public must meet Part 503 Table 3 requirements. Figure 4a shows the percent (out of 24 states) of facilities producing biosolids that meet Table 3, and Figure 4b shows the percent (out of 18 states) of total biosolids produced that meets Table 3. Figures 3a and 4a together show that 20 of 27 reporting states have facilities that meet both Table 1 and Table 3.

Figure 4a - Biosolids-Generating FacilitiesMeeting Table 3

90-100% of facilities in 20 states meet Table 380-85% of facilities in 4 states meet Table 326 states did not provide relevant data

Figure 4b - Biosolids Meeting Table 3

90-100% of biosolids in 15 states meet Table 380-85% of biosolids in 3 states meet Table 332 states did not provide relevant data

8

Cumulative Metal Tracking of Table 3 Biosolids As is illustrated in Figure 5, 24 of the 44 states that reported require cumulative metal tracking for land-applied biosolids that meet Table 3. Land applied biosolids must also meet pathogen reduction requirements under Part 503. For biosolids to qualify as exceptional quality (EQ) they must meet Class A pathogen requirements. Figure 6a below

displays the percent (out of 27 states) of facilities that produce Class A biosolids. Over half of the 29 states reporting estimated that 5% or less of the facilities in their state produce Class A biosolids. The percent (out of 28 states) of total biosolids produced in each state that meet Class A follows a similar trend and is shown in Figure 6b.

Figure 5 - Cumulative Metal Tracking ofBiosolids Meeting Table 3

24 states require cumulative metal tracking20 states do not require cumulative metal tracking6 states did not provide relevant dataFigure 6b - Biosolids Meeting Class A

0-10% of biosolids in 17 states meet Class A11-25% of biosolids in 4 states meet Class A

22 states did not provide relevant data

26-45% of biosolids in 4 states meet Class A����50% of biosolids in 3 states meet Class A

Figure 6a - Biosolids-Generating FacilitiesMeeting Class A

0-5% of facilities in 20 states meet Class A10-15% of facilities in 6 states meet Class A

21 states did not provide relevant data����30% of facilities in 3 states meet Class A

9

Figures 7a and 7b show, respectively, the percent of biosolids-generating facilities and the percent of total biosolids produced in each state that meet Part 503 Class B requirements. Of the 32 states reporting, 21 states estimate that 80% or more of their facilities produce Class B biosolids (Figure 7a). A similar trend is seen in Figure 7b where the majority of states reporting (18 states out of 30) indicated that 80% or more of the total biosolids produced in their state meet Class B requirements.

Figure 7a - Biosolids-Generating FacilitiesMeeting Class B

>95% of facilities in 13 states meet Class B80-95% of facilities in 8 states meet Class B60-70% of facilities in 3 states meet Class B

18 states did not provide relevant data����50% of facilities in 8 states meet Class B

Figure 7b - Biosolids Meeting Class B

>95% of biosolids in 10 states meet Class B80-95% of biosolids in 8 states meet Class B50-60% of biosolids in 4 states meet Class B

20 did not provide relevant data

30-45% of biosolids in 5 states meet Class B<30% of biosolids in 3 states meet Class B

10

Septage Land application of septage is allowed in 37 of the 44 states that responded. The remaining 7 states may require septage to be hauled to POTWs or specialized septage treatment facilities for further treatment prior to land application, or may haul septage to a landfill for disposal. In most states, septage must be lime stabilized, processed to Class B standards, and/or must meet vector attraction reduction requirements prior to land application. The management and regulation of septage is generally handled at the County, rather than State level (with the exception of a few states such as New York and Pennsylvania). Estimates from some states indicate that anywhere from 0-75% of septage is land applied. In comparison, several states reported that 50-100% of their septage is hauled to wastewater treatment plants for further processing. Only 16 of 44 states supplied an estimate for the number of septage haulers operating in their state. Compliance Tracking and Enforcement Most states require annual reports from all biosolids-generating facilities, however the content of the reports varies among states. Annual reports typically include biosolids quantity and method of beneficial use or disposal. Facilities that land apply biosolids are usually required to include detailed data on biosolids quality, the amount of biosolids land applied, location of land application areas and dates of land application. In some states, facilities and individuals that land apply biosolids are required to submit some type of land application plan to the state. These plans include even more detailed data on land application sites such as buffer zone requirements, hydrogeologic surveys, latitude and longitude, soil background pollutant levels and type of crops grown on the sites. The frequency for which formal biosolids inspections are carried out varied widely among the 44 states that responded. The majority of the states inspect major biosolids-generating facilities annually, often combining biosolids inspections with annual NPDES inspections. It is also common for states to perform a compliance inspection on facilities that receive complaints (commonly on odor or noise) from the public. States that do not perform formal biosolids inspections on all generating facilities on an annual basis do so using a rotation schedule or random method of choosing which facilities to inspect. Many states are utilizing electronic databases to store and track the vast amount of data collected from biosolids reports and compliance inspections. Figure 8 details the use of electronic databases in state biosolids programs.

Figure 8 - State Use of Electronic Databases

8 states use BDMS or database compatible with BDMS1

14 states use an electronic database not compatible with BDMS2

14 states do not use an electronic database

6 states did not provide relevant data8 states are currently developing and electronic database

1Region 8 enters ND data2Region 1 enters CT data

11

Of those that reported, 8 states enter biosolids data either into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS) or into a database that is compatible with the BDMS. Fourteen states enter data into an electronic database that is not compatible with BDMS and 8 states are currently developing some type of electronic database. The remaining 14 states that reported are neither utilizing an electronic database nor have indicated that they are currently developing one. In states where an electronic database is used, the state biosolids coordinator or another employee of the regulating entity enters the data. North Dakota and Connecticut reported that employees of EPA Region 8 and Region 1 enter their data into a database, respectively. When violations occur or in order to prevent violations from occurring, almost all of the states that reported provide the non-compliant facility or individual with some type of compliance assistance before performing an enforcement action. Figure 9 shows the amount of time spent on compliance assistance within each state biosolids program. For example, in the case where 25% of the time is spent on compliance assistance in states with 4.0 FTE and 0.4 FTE, respectively dedicated to the biosolids program, 1.0 FTE and 0.1 FTE, respectively are spent working on compliance assistance.

Figure 9 - Time Spent on Compliance AssistanceWithin Biosolids Program

4 states spend 5% of their time on compliance assistance7 states spend 10% of their time on compliance assistance7 states spend 15% of their time on compliance assistance

22 states did not provide relevant data

1WA spends 36% on technical assistance FL spends 40% on technical assistance

4 states spend 20% of their time on compliance assistance6 states spend ����30% of their time on compliance assistance1

Many states have adopted biosolids regulations that are more stringent that Part 503. Part of the data in Figure 10 has been adopted from BioCycle, Journal of Composting and Recycling. Many of the more stringent state conditions relate to management practices or monitoring requirements. Figure 10 illustrates those states with biosolids regulations that are the same as (marked “N”) or more restrictive than (marked “Y”) the Federal Part 503 rule.

1Data and footnotes taken from BioCycle Journal of Composting and Recycling, Vol. 40, No. 12, December 1999 and other sources. Forty-two states have regulations that are more restrictive than Part 503. 2Uses a lb/acre cumulative loading rate therefore more restrictive on some metals 3No state biosolids regulations – EPA is only regulatory authority in Montana 4Pathogen reduction/VAR for septage more stringent

Figure 10 - Comparison of State Regulations toPart 5031

N

Y

YY

YY

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y2 YN

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NY

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y4

YY

YN

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N3

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

12

13

Typical methods of compliance assistance include: technical support provided by phone or site visit, explanation of Part 503 regulations, scheduled meetings between state staff and wastewater treatment plant operators, letters of non-compliance from the state with suggestions for getting back in compliance, and assistance in completing annual reports. Serious or continuous violators of state and federal biosolids regulations may face monetary penalties or permit restrictions. Most of the states that reported rarely administer severe enforcement actions or encounter violations that go on to higher legal action. Many states reported that, because they are not delegated under Part 503, they leave all enforcement actions to EPA. Figure 11 shows those states that are delegated under Part 503 and those states that are currently seeking Part 503 delegation. States seeking Part 503 delegation reported being at various stages of the delegation process.

Training Biosolids management training for both state and wastewater treatment plant employees is usually available on at least an annual basis. Most states rely on national training opportunities, such as workshops, meetings and continuing education courses, provided by EPA or the Water Environment Federation (WEF). Local and regional biosolids and water quality associations like the New Jersey Water Environment Association (NJWEA) also offer training seminars and workshops. Over half the of the state agencies that responded offer some type of annual biosolids training opportunity for their staff and for any interested wastewater treatment plant employees. A few states (e.g. Minnesota and Pennsylvania) require wastewater treatment plant operators to complete land application certification training provided by the state.

Figure 11 - Delegation of Part 503

18 states are seeking Part 503 delegation22 states are not seeking Part 503 delegation4 states have received Part 503 delegation6 states did not provide relevant data

14

Public Acceptance Public opposition to biosolids use ranges from strong opposition in states like Virginia and New Jersey, to almost non-existent in states like Iowa and Wyoming. States that reported little to no public opposition credited large rural areas between the public and land application sites as the primary reason for the widespread acceptance. However, almost all states reported one or more public acceptance issues faced on a regular basis. Figure 12 shows several public concerns about biosolids and the number of states that listed the concern as a common public acceptance issue in their state.

The graph suggests that the most prevalent public acceptance issue faced by the states today is odor complaints. Concerns about the quality of land-applied biosolids and the potential health impacts of biosolids pathogen levels are also common. Other public acceptance issues cited include: the impact of land application on site runoff, groundwater and property value, the equating of septage to raw sewage, the air quality near biosolids incinerators, truck noise, and negative biosolids information on the internet.

OdorsBiosolids QualityPathogens Levels/Health ImpactsRunoff from Land ApplicationGroundwater QualityDecrease in Property ValueOtherNone

5

9

3

66

1213

34

Nature of Public Concern

0

10

20

30

40

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

Figure 12 - Common Public AcceptanceIssues Reported by States1

144 states provided data

15

Appendix A

Table 1a - Basis for Agronomic Application Rate Table 2a - Land Application Permit Type, Site Approval Requirements and Current Site

Data Table 3a - Biosolids Quality Data Table 4a - Cumulative Metal Tracking and Part 503 Table 1 Data Table 5a - Septage Management Data Table 6a - State Use of Electronic Databases Table 7a - Comparison of State Regulations to Part 503 Table 8a - Status of Part 503 Delegation

16

Table 1a – Basis for Agronomic Application Rate State Nutrient(s) State Nutrient(s)

Alabama N Montana - Alaska N Nebraska N Arkansas N Nevada N

Arizona N New Hampshire N

California N New Jersey N Colorado N,P New Mexico - Connecticut N,P New York N

Delaware N North Carolina -

Florida N,P North Dakota N,P Georgia N Ohio N Hawaii N Oklahoma N Idaho N,P Oregon N Illinois N Pennsylvania N Indiana N Rhode Island N Iowa N South Carolina - Kansas N South Dakota N Kentucky - Tennessee N Louisiana N Texas - Maine N,P Utah N Maryland N Vermont Most limiting Massachusetts N Virginia N Michigan N Washington N,P,K Minnesota N West Virginia N,P,pH Mississippi N Wisconsin N Missouri N Wyoming Most limiting

17

Table 2a – Land Application Permit Type, Site Approval Requirements and Current Site Data

State Land Application Required for New Sites: Land Application New Site Permit Type Site Visit (%) Review Only (%) Sites Requests/yr

Alabama None 100 0 44 5Alaska State Solid Waste 10 90 8 1-2Arkansas State No-Discharge Permit 100 0 - -Arizona Site Registration 98 2 155 ('99) 30-40California Waste Discharge Permit most rare - 3-10Colorado Notice of Authorization 1 99 1380 100Connecticut Consent Agreement 5 95 0 0Delaware State Sludge Permit 100 0 4 0Florida NPDES 100 0 >400 -Georgia NPDES 100 0 - 5-10Hawaii None - - 0 0Idaho State Approval 100 0 - 25Illinois State Operating Permit 5 95 - -Indiana 327 IAC 6.1 5 95 6070 20Iowa NPDES 0 100 1000 100Kansas None 0 0 - 3-6Kentucky - Louisiana Beneficial Use Permit 100 0 - -Maine State Solid Waste 100 0 230 farms -Maryland Sewage Sludge Util. Permit 100 0 630 45Massachusetts State Beneficial Use Permit 20 80 2 0Michigan NPDES or General Permit most few - -Minnesota Site Approval Letter 0.5 99.5 >4000 300Mississippi Solid Waste 100 0 19 10Missouri NPDES 0 0 - -Montana - - - - -Nebraska NPDES 0 100 1500 100Nevada State Groundwater Permit 100 0 10 3-4New Hampshire State Biosolids Permit 100 0 60-70 variesNew Jersey NJPDES 100 0 10 1-2New Mexico - - - - -New York Solid Waste 50 50 30 permits 1-2 permitsNorth Carolina - - - - -North Dakota None - - -- -Ohio Site Authorization Letter 100 0 - -Oklahoma OPDES 15 85 500 25Oregon NPDES 100 0 ~2500 30-70Pennsylvania Gen. Permit/Notice to LA 100 0 670 permits 90Rhode Island Order of Approval 20 80 0 0South Carolina - - - - -South Dakota Sludge Only Permit 0 100 - -Tennessee NPDES 100 0 - -Texas - - - - -Utah NPDES 100 0 24 1-2Vermont State Solid Waste 95 5 161 <5Virginia BUR or VPDES 100 0 3,000 3-4

18

Washington Statewide General Permit 100 0 - -West Virginia NPDES/Contractor Permit 100 0 547 25-47Wisconsin NPDES 100 0 8,000(used) 2800Wyoming NPDES 0 100 - 3-4

Table 3a – Biosolids Quality Data

State Meet Table 1 Meet Table 3 Meet Class A Meet Class B facilities (%) amount (%) facilities (%) amount (%) facilities (%) amount (%) facilities (%) amount (%)

Alabama - 100 - 90 - 2 - 98Alaska 100 - 95 - 5 - 95 -Arkansas 100 100 100 100 - - majority majorityArizona 100 - 99 - 5 - 95 -California 99 100 95 98 3 15 97 85Colorado - - - - - 13 - 52Connecticut - - - - 4 9 0 0Delaware 10 60 90 40 33 60 66 40Florida - - - - - 9 - 65Georgia - - - - 4 1 1 961 99Hawaii 100 - 100 - - - - -Idaho 100 100 100 100 10 10 100 100Illinois 99 99 - - - - 100 100Indiana 84 - 84 - 1 - 91 -Iowa 100 100 90 90 5 5 95 95Kansas 97 97 50 50 5 0.7 95 99.3Kentucky - - - - - - - -Louisiana - - - - - - - -Maine - - 99 99 - - - -Maryland 99 99 80 90 3 12 60 87Massachusetts 12 - 12 - 12 - - -Michigan 98 99 85 80 1 2 99 98Minnesota 98 99.5 96 99 2 0.2 98 99.8Mississippi 100 100 30 20 30 20 70 80Missouri 100 100 100 - - - - -Montana - - - - - - - -Nebraska - - - - 1 1 99 80Nevada - - - - - - 100 -New Hampshire - - - - - - - -New Jersey 99 99 90 95 15 30 20 31New Mexico - - - - - - - -New York - - - - 15 41 12 10North Carolina - - - - - - - -North Dakota 100 - - - - - 100 -Ohio 99 99 97 97 2 28 27 30Oklahoma - 95 - 5 - 0 - 100Oregon 99 100 95 99 2 5 95 94Pennsylvania 95 - 80 - 11 - 89 -Rhode Island 11 8 11 8 11 8 11 8South Carolina - - - - - - - -South Dakota 100 - 80 - 0 0 100 100

19

Tennessee - - - - - - - -Texas - - - - - - - -Utah 100 100 100 100 60 50 40 50Vermont 100 100 95 95 4 45 40 40Virginia 100 100 100 100 1 5 99 95Washington 99 99 95 85 3 10 80 80West Virginia 100 100 99 84 1.5 7 47 55Wisconsin 99 99.8 100 100 2.5 60 97.5 40Wyoming 100 100 - - - - 100 100

Table 4a – Cumulative Metal Tracking and Part 503 Table 1 Data

State Require Tracking of Table 1 Exceedences Table 3 Biosolids in 19991

Alabama No 0 Alaska No 1 Arkansas Yes 0 Arizona Yes 0 California Yes - Colorado Yes 2 (As) Connecticut Yes - Delaware Yes 0 Florida No - Georgia Yes (Ni) Hawaii No 0 Idaho No 0 Illinois Yes - Indiana Yes 4 (Mb, As) Iowa No 3 (Mb) Kansas Yes 4 (Mb) Kentucky - - Louisiana No - Maine No 0 Maryland Yes - Massachusetts Yes - Michigan No - Minnesota Yes 5 (Mb, As) Mississippi Yes - Missouri No - Montana - - Nebraska No 0 Nevada Yes 0 New Hampshire Yes 0 New Jersey No 0 New Mexico - - New York Yes 0 North Carolina - - North Dakota Yes - Ohio No ~40

1Land applied only

20

Oklahoma Yes <5(Zn, Ni, Cu) Oregon Yes1 2 (Se) Pennsylvania Yes 3 (Mb) Rhode Island Yes 0 South Carolina - - South Dakota No 0 Tennessee No - Texas - - Utah No 0 Vermont Yes 0 Virginia Yes 0 Washington No 2 (Cu, Cd, As) West Virginia No 0 Wisconsin No 5 (Mb) Wyoming No 0

Table 5a – Septage Management Data State Allow Land Septage Septage Management Practice

Application Haulers Land Applied1(%) Hauled to POTW1 (%) Other2 (%) Alabama Yes - - - -Alaska Yes - 5 - -Arkansas Yes - - - -Arizona Yes 360 1-3 - -California Yes - - - -Colorado - - - - -Connecticut No 100 0 100 0Delaware Yes 100 10 90 0Florida Yes - - - -Georgia - - - - -Hawaii Yes - 0 100 0Idaho Yes - - - -Illinois Yes - - - -Indiana Yes - 35 65 0Iowa Yes - 85 15 -Kansas Yes - 75 25 0Kentucky - - - - -Louisiana - - - - -Maine Yes 130 33 33 33Maryland Yes - 264dry tons/yr - -Massachusetts Yes 200 0 100 0Michigan Yes - 50 50 0Minnesota Yes 600 207.5 MG 42,500 gal 0Mississippi Yes - - - -Missouri - - - - -Montana Nebraska Yes ~65 80 20 0Nevada Yes 50 10 75 15New Hampshire Yes - - - -New Jersey Yes - 0.1 99.9 0New Mexico - - - - -

1If known, pollutant(s) appear in () 2In some areas

21

New York Yes 300-400 - - -North Carolina - - - - -North Dakota Yes 120 70 20 10Ohio Yes - - - -Oklahoma Yes - - - -Oregon Yes 150 5-8 90-93 2Pennsylvania Yes 400 50 50 0Rhode Island No - 0 100 0South Carolina - - - - -South Dakota Yes - - - -Tennessee No - - - -Texas - - - - Utah Yes - 75 25 0Vermont Yes 43 30 50 20Virginia Yes - 5 95 0Washington Yes ~275 50 50 0West Virginia Yes 92 40 60 0Wisconsin Yes 481 44 56 -Wyoming Yes - - - -

Table 6a – State Use of Electronic Databases

State Electronic BDMS Under Database Compatible Development

Alabama Yes No No Alaska No No No Arkansas No No No Arizona No No Yes California No No No Colorado Yes Yes No Connecticut Yes1 No No Delaware No No No Florida No No Yes Georgia Yes No No Hawaii No No No Idaho No No No Illinois Yes No No Indiana Yes No No Iowa Yes No No Kansas No No No Kentucky Louisiana No No No Maine No No No Maryland Yes No No Massachusetts Yes No No Michigan No No Yes

1Percents used except where noted 2Examples: land filled, composted, and hauled to septage processing facility

22

Minnesota Yes No No Mississippi No No Yes Missouri No No No Montana Nebraska Yes No No Nevada No No No New Hampshire No No No New Jersey Yes No No New Mexico New York Yes No No North Carolina North Dakota Yes2 Yes2 No Ohio No No Yes Oklahoma Yes No No Oregon Yes Yes No Pennsylvania No No Yes Rhode Island No No No South Carolina South Dakota Yes Yes No Tennessee Yes No No Texas Utah Yes Yes No Vermont No No Yes Virginia No No Yes Washington Yes Yes No West Virginia No No No Wisconsin Yes Yes No Wyoming Yes Yes No

Table 7a – Comparison of State Regulations to Part 503

State Restrictions More Restrictive Than Part 503

Alabama No Alaska Yes Arkansas Yes Arizona Yes California Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes Delaware Yes Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Idaho Yes Illinois Yes2

Indiana Yes Iowa No Kansas Yes Kentucky Yes Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes

1EPA Region 1 enters data 2EPA Region 8 enters data

23

Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi Yes Missouri Yes Montana3 No Nebraska No Nevada Yes New Hampshire Yes New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota Yes Ohio Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon Yes4

Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island Yes South Carolina Yes South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Texas Yes Utah No Vermont Yes Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming Yes

1Data and footnotes taken from BioCycle Journal of Composting and Recycling, Vol. 40, No. 12, December 1999.and other sources 2Uses a lb/acre cumulative loading rate therefore more restrictive on some metals 3No state biosolids regulations – EPA is only regulatory authority in Montana 4Pathogen reduction/VAR for septage more stringent

24

Table 8a – Status of Part 503 Delegation

State Seeking Delegation State Seeking

Delegation Alabama No Montana - Alaska No Nebraska No Arkansas Yes Nevada No Arizona Yes New Hampshire No California No New Jersey Yes Colorado Yes New Mexico - Connecticut No New York Yes Delaware Yes North Carolina Florida No North Dakota No Georgia No Ohio Yes Hawaii Yes Oklahoma Delegated Idaho No Oregon Yes Illinois Yes Pennsylvania No Indiana Yes Rhode Island No Iowa Yes South Carolina - Kansas No South Dakota Yes Kentucky - Tennessee No Louisiana No Texas Delegated Maine - Utah Delegated Maryland No Vermont Yes Massachusetts No Virginia No Michigan Yes Washington Yes Minnesota No West Virginia Yes Mississippi No Wisconsin Delegated Missouri - Wyoming No