A lagoon is seen at Fire Mountain Farms in Onalaska on July 23. 2015.
Fire Mountain Farms, a company that receives, stores and applies biosolids, has faced challenges in the past when it comes to its operations.
In the past year, the company owned by Bob Thode has been hit with orders from the Washington State Department of Ecology involving material he received from Emerald Kalama Chemical.
The practice of Fire Mountain accepting industrial wastewater, which isn’t a biosolid, from Emerald had apparently been going on for years.
Both Fire Mountain and Emerald have appealed orders from Ecology.
A case on the matter is currently being dealt with by the Pollution Control Hearings Board.
This is the first in a series of stories focusing on the company’s operations.
Local Official, Neighbor to Biosolids Site Seek Local Oversight
Currently biosolid operations are overseen by Ecology. Some people want that to change.
Before this case was brought to the board, some government officials and a neighbor to one of Fire Mountain Farms’ sites have been seeking local oversight when it comes to biosolids from wastewater treatment plants.
Lewis County filed documents in a case supporting Wahkiakum County’s court case with Ecology.
In 2011, Wahkiakum County commissioners passed an ordinance banning the most common class of biosolids, class B, which are treated to eliminate 99 percent of pathogens, within the county, according to court documents.
Ecology filed for action, saying the ordinance conflicted with state law and was unconstitutional. The superior court sided with the county, declaring the ordinance constitutional. Ecology appealed, and the court of appeals ruled in favor of Ecology, according to the published opinion filed in November 2014.
If Wahkiakum County had won the case, Lewis County Commissioner Bill Schulte said, Lewis County would have sought a similar ordinance banning all but class A biosolids, which are treated to reduce pathogens below detectable levels.
Without the court’s favor, Schulte has been working to get state lawmakers to allow for local oversight of biosolid operations.
However, Schulte said it’s difficult to put up much of a fight when you’re a small rural county.
Bob Guenther, a neighbor to a Fire Mountain site, said he testified to legislators about the issue during the last session.
“I feel that the county should have a say on what is being hauled into our county and dumped all over our fields in Lewis County,” Guenther said.
For the last nine months, Ecology has had two full-time employees monitoring biosolid sites in Ecology’s Southwest region, made up of 12 counties. Previously, the department had one employee doing the monitoring work.
“These inspectors can’t cover this. That’s why it has to have local jurisdiction,” Guenther said.
He said he’s not against biosolids for beneficial use, but he’s against overuse at the same sites on a regular basis.
Schulte said they were unable to gain traction for local public health departments to participate in overseeing the operations due to other big issues this session.
He plans to continue to work on getting a bill introduced at the next session.
“I hope they do take it to the Legislature,” Thode said. “So the Legislature can decide whether they want us to dump it in the rivers, put it in the landfills, burn it or recycle it. ... It is a valuable resource.”
Peter Lyon, southwest region manager for Ecology’s Waste 2 Resources program, said federal and state law right now don’t allow for local oversight or management of biosolids.
“But we work closely with Lewis County Health Department,” Lyon said. In the southwest region, Lewis County is a top county for biosolid land application.
Bill Teitzel, supervisor for public health and environmental services for Lewis County, said the county does work with Ecology to a degree to monitor the biosolids sites.
He said the county has considered a delegation with Ecology, which would give it more official input, but the county wouldn’t have any say in enforcement.
However, he said there is a sort of unofficial agreement at this point; Ecology keeps the county aware of what is going on in its jurisdiction.
“It also is just good information for us to know, really, what they’re dealing with,” Teitzel said. “… they’ve been keeping us fully involved in some of the discussions they’re having with different sites around the area.”
He said occasionally he will go with Ecology to a site, if a specific complaint arises. Typically complaints are about odors from sites.
Teitzel said there have been two specific occasions in the past two years where Guenther has raised concerns that material from biosolids sites has been tracked on to state Route 508.
While there is “no doubt” that the material came from a site where biosolids are stored, whether it was biosolids, he doesn’t know.
“But I do know that it got cleaned up eventually,” he said.
Guenther said Ecology told him the samples weren’t biosolids, and he added biosolids have been tracked onto state Route 508 many times from the Newaukum Prairie site.
Thode said the riskiest thing Fire Mountain does is put trucks on the road and the closer work can be done to the biosolids’ source, the better because it’s less risky to the environment and public health.
Nitrate Levels Lead to Regulatory Orders
Guenther also claimed the biosolids at the site that are applied are washed into the Newaukum River by the rain.
“I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you’ll find derivatives of biosolids in the sediment even before it hits the Newaukum River,” Guenther said.
He last tested his well for nitrates about one year ago, and it was OK, but he is upgradient from the site.
Thode said failed septic systems and pre-1975 constructed wells in the area could lead to high nitrate levels.
“And some of what we’re seeing in nitrates could be 50 years (old),” Thode said, noting that groundwater typically travels 1 to 50 feet annually. In tight clay soil like that surrounding Fire Mountain’s Newaukum Prairie site, it doesn’t move very quickly.
The county reviews yearly reports from Ecology’s monitoring wells, which Teitzel said have at times shown high nitrate levels. Safe drinking water standard is 10 parts per million.
Lyon said while high nitrate levels have been recorded, Ecology doesn’t have any data showing groundwater nitrate issues as a result of Fire Mountain at properties surrounding the site.
While Fire Mountain might not be contaminating neighboring wells, it is under two orders from Ecology, both issued in January 2014 to address high nitrate levels in soil and groundwater at its Burnt Ridge, Homestead and Newaukum Prairie land application sites.
“He is under an order from Ecology that prohibits him from receiving or land applying any biosolids — any further biosolids,” Lyon said.
Thode said different things, such as his cattle operation near the Burnt Ridge site, could cause nitrates levels to bounce and that Ecology needs to look at trends.
Complex Situation Leads to Public Hearing on General Permits
Every five years, Ecology issues general permits for biosolid operations. Everybody wanting coverage must apply, Lyon said.
Fire Mountain Farms sent a notice of intent last winter, indicating it wanted to be covered by the general permit.
The permit will be issued in September, Lyon said.
After the issuance, Fire Mountain has to get certain information to Ecology, including application, proof of public notice and State Environmental Policy Act work.
That information will be reviewed by Ecology.
Lyon said he has already determined that a public hearing will be held for the three particular sites — Newaukum Prairie, Burnt Ridge and Homestead.
While public notice is always required, a public hearing isn’t always held.
“The Fire Mountain Farms situation has been sort of ongoing for a while and it’s sufficiently complex enough that I decided that a hearing would be a good idea,” Lyon said, adding that Guenther has contacted Ecology about Fire Mountain multiple times over the years about the Newaukum Prairie site.
Fire Mountain Farms has seven permitted sites in Lewis County, Lyon said.
Lyon is determining whether hearings should be held for each site or all of the sites.
“Most people are mostly concerned about the site nearest to them,” Lyon said.
However, that’s more time-consuming and Lyon doesn’t think he’s received public input on all seven sites.
“Our main goal is giving the community an opportunity to express their concerns,” Lyon said.
While each site is viewed separately, the operation as a whole is also considered during the permitting process, Lyon said.
After gathering all of the information, including public input, Ecology will determine whether to move forward with the permits.
While looking at the nitrate issue, Ecology then discovered that Emerald had been providing industrial waste, or sludge, to Fire Mountain, Lyon said.
The case involving Emerald, depending on the ruling by the Pollution Control Hearings Board, may impact whether Ecology moves forward with the general permits.
“Ecology has a decision in front of them in terms of whether they will reissue coverage to Fire Mountain Farms in the next permit … and the outcome of the court case may have bearing on that decision,” Lyon said.
