Shenandoah Riverkeeper Comments on Sludge Regulatory Ammendments - Second Half
Continued from First Half of Comments...
4.The Proposed Regulations should require that adequate buffers are in place to protect the state waters from runoff contaminated by sewage sludge. The minimum buffer zone requirements set forth in Table 2 to section 9VAC25-32-560 provide for minimum setbacks from certain features to areas where sewage sludge may be applied; however, the distances set forth in Table 2 appear to have been arbitrarily chosen, and in any event, are inadequate.
The Proposed Regulations must require that the buffers be forested or vegetated, as only vegetated buffers provide adequate protection from contaminants in stormwater runoff. A scientific evaluation of the effects that vegetated buffers have on stormwater runoff found that a 15-foot vegetated buffer provided a five percent reduction in nitrogen from runoff and that a 170-foot vegetated buffer removed more than 95 percent of in nitrogen.[10] For phosphorous, that same study found that the 15-foot vegetated buffer removed 62 percent of the total phosphorous load, while the 170-foot buffer removed 90 percent. Additional peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached similar conclusions regarding the benefits of vegetated buffers.[11] The scientific evidence is clear: significant vegetated buffers are necessary to adequately protect the environment from contaminants in stormwater runoff. The setbacks proposed in Table 2, if not vegetated, provide a fraction of this protection. For that reason, the Proposed Regulations must require that any buffers be vegetated.
In addition, the buffers provided for in Table 2 must be expanded. As noted above, and documented in the scientific literature, the wider the vegetated buffer, the more protection afforded to the environment. At a minimum, the Proposed Regulation should a 170-foot vegetated buffer for streams and tributaries designated as a Public Water Supply under the Water Quality Standards, perennial streams and other surface waters, and intermittent streams and drainage ditches. Currently, the Proposed Regulations provide for differing buffers for each of these bodies of water; however, there is no logical basis for distinguishing between differing bodies of water. The most restrictive buffer must apply to all bodies of water, as many perennial streams, drainage ditches and intermittent streams eventually flow into streams and tributaries that are designated as Public Water Supplies under the Water Quality Standards. Therefore, any contaminants contained in perennial or intermittent streams will negatively impact the public water supply. As such, the same buffer requirements should apply.
Finally, the Proposed Regulations must make it clear that the buffer zones described in Table 2 pertaining to sludge application are minimum buffers applicable not only to the application, but to the storage and staging of sewage sludge as well. While we understand that the permitting process may impose buffers for facilities storing and staging sewage sludge, the Proposed Regulations need to establish a minimum buffer for such activities, as they do for the application of sludge. Only by clearly establishing such buffers can the Proposed Regulations ensure the protection of the environmental and state waters.
5.The Proposed Regulations must ensure that nutrient sources do not exceed crop needs. The Virginia Board of Health recognized the need to limit both phosphorous and nitrogen long ago by the when it adopted 9VAC25-32-600A, which restricted the application of sewage sludge to the amounts actually established to support crop growth, i.e., if the soil had sufficient level of nitrogen and phosphorous, then sewage sludge could not be applied to that land. The Proposed Regulations, however, would eliminate Section 600A. This not only would violate statutory requirements to protect the environment, but also would be counter to current efforts in the Commonwealth to reduce the adverse impact of phosphorous on the health of the Chesapeake Bay as mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Simply reinstating Section 600A, however, is not enough: Section 600A should be amended to make clear that the application of sewage sludge shall be restricted based on both the phosphorous and nitrogen requirements of the crop grown on the amended site, not just the nitrogen requirements of the crop. This is consistent with other sections of the Virginia Code, which provide that, “whenever possible, phosphorus applications from organic nutrient sources should not exceed crop needs based on a soil test over the duration of the crop rotation.”[13] As you know, increasing phosphorous concentrations in surface waters raises the growth of phosphate-dependent organisms, such as algae and duckweed. These organisms consume large amounts of oxygen and prevent sunlight from entering the water, which can make the waters uninhabitable for other organisms. Therefore, it is critical to the environment and state waters that the Proposed Regulations ensure that excess phosphorous is not permitted to enter state waters. The best way of doing so, in this context, is to prohibit the application of phosphorous-rich sewage sludge on soils where no phosphorous is needed to support crop growth. Therefore, 9VAC25-32-600A should be reinstated and amended as described herein.
Thank you again for your consideration of our comments. Riverkeeper, and our 2,500 members, are committed to protecting the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers, and we look forward to working with you, both on the Proposed Regulations and in the future. We sincerely appreciate the Board’s efforts to ensure that our environment and Virginia’s waterways are protected from the harmful components of sewage sludge, and we believe that, with the revisions discussed herein, the Proposed Regulations can do just that. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Kelble Ed Merrifeild
ShenandoahRiverkeeper PotomacRiverkeeper
[1] We would like to acknowledge that several members of Riverkeeper have provided formal and informal comments to the Proposed Regulations. In particular, we would like to express our support for the comments submitted to the Board by Riverkeeper member Henry J. Staudinger, which provide an extensive analysis of the impacts sewage sludge may have on human health. To the extent that Mr. Staudinger’s comments support and compliment Riverkeeper’s position as stated herein, we hereby incorporate those comments by reference. We also would like to express our support for the comments submitted to the Board by David Sligh, and o the extent that Mr. Sligh’s comments support and compliment Riverkeeper’s position as stated herein, we hereby incorporate those comments by reference.
[3]SeeVirginia Water Resources Research Center Pathogen Research Symposium Special Report: Pathways and Monitoring in Natural and Engineered Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2007. http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/pdfs/specialreports/sr322007.pdf
[5] While we recognize that the Proposed Regulations give the Department of Environmental Quality authorization to ban the storage of sewage sludge on karst topography, we believe the Proposed Regulations should ban the practice, as they do for the staging of sewage sludge.
[6]See Belo, Bradley. Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning for Karst Terrains in Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2003. See, also, Preliminary Assessment of the Hydrogeology and Groundwater Availability in the Metamorphic and Siliciclastic Fractured-Rock Aquifer Systems of Warren County, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5190, 2010 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5190/pdf/sir2010-5190.pdf); Ground-Water Hydrology and Quality in the Valley and Ridge and Clue Ridge Physiographic Provinces of Clarke County, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4134, 1990 (http://swhydrologic.com/reports/Clarke%20County%20report.pdf).
[7]See Ian Pepper et al., Sustainability of Land Application of Class B Biosolids, J. Envtl. Quality (In Press).
[9]Technical Support Document for Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Volume I, Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, November 1992.
[10] Lowrence, R. et al., Evaluation of coastal plain conservation buffers using the riparian ecosystem management model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(6), 1445-1455 (2001).
[11]See, e.g., Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, and D. E. Weller. 1993. Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality 22:467-473; see also: Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail, O. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374-377; Newbold, J. D., S. H. Herbert, B. W. Sweeney, P. Kiry, and S. J. Alberts. 2010. Water quality functions of a 15-year-old riparian forest buffer system. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46:299-310; Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475; Vidon, P. G. F. and A. R. Hill. 2004. Landscape controls on nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Water Resources Research 40.
