Sludge Watch ==> Denver Firm Accused of Dumping Toxic Waste into Sewers

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin

This is a story about a plating company in Colorado discharging high levels 
of metals into the sewers.
It is followed by a story on sewer use by-laws in Ontario.  Note that the 
allowed levels of metals discharged into the sewer is much much higher in 
the US than in Toronto.

For instance Toronto allow discharge of 2 ppm copper , 2 ppm zinc
In this story the discharge limit in Denver is 6.1 copper, and 15.6 zinc

But then again, with a concentration-based limit, there is no limit to the 
actual amount of metal or other contaminant discharged..just the dilution of 
the contaminant.  Toronto has very high levels of metals in its sludge. The 
copper level is 1,100 ppm, and has remained more or less the same despite 
the sewer use bylaw.  Some of the levels of heavy metals in Toronto sludge 
have decreased.  However, the levels of cobalt, mercury, and selenium are 
higher in 2005 than they were before the sewer use bylaw was enacted in 
1996...the year land application began.



.........................................................................................

Rocky Mountain News
Denver, CO

August 7, 2006



Denver firm accused of dumping toxic waste

Ivan Moreno, Rocky Mountain News


Environmental regulators are cracking down on a Denver company accused of 
dumping excessive amounts of toxic metals into the sewage system.
The alleged pollution, spanning two years, potentially could contaminate 
material used as fertilizer as well as water released into the South Platte 
River.

In one case, the amount of toxins released by the company, Alert Polishing 
and Plating Works Inc., was 33 times the legal limit, according to a search 
warrant affidavit filed last month by an investigator with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
A Metro Wastewater Reclamation District official called the case one of the 
worst he's seen in the state.

"I've been at Metro for 15 years, and to the best of my knowledge, this is 
only the third time that we've accompanied the EPA on a sealed search 
warrant visit," said Steve Frank, Metro spokesman.
The other two cases resulted in jail time for some of the companies' 
employees, Frank said.
Alert Polishing and Plating Works, 345 Santa Fe Drive, does custom polishing 
and plating of antique motorized vehicle parts.

Chris Willbanks, supervisor for the company, called any excessive discharges 
"definitely accidental."
But a Metro official said the company's behavior indicates a deliberate and 
willful attempt to save money by not disposing of its waste properly.

"Apparently, we still have industries that are looking at ways to cut 
corners," said Eugene Jamsac, supervisor of the Metro pre-treatment unit.
While experts say the discharges don't pose an immediate danger to public 
health, if they continue, they could pol-lute the South Platte River and 
contaminate wastewater that is treated and turned into biosolids to be used 
as fertilizer.

The EPA began investigating Alert in September 2004 after Metro received an 
anonymous complaint. The tipster alleged that Alert was discharging muriatic 
acid into the sanitary sewer system, according to the affidavit filed in 
Denver District Court by Jennifer Youngberg, an EPA criminal investigator.

After Metro inspected the company's facilities, they installed a sampler in 
the sewer system to monitor the dis-charge downstream.

Alert's permit, issued by Metro and Denver, allows the company to discharge 
copper, chromium, cyanide, lead, nickel and zinc, provided the discharge 
levels don't exceed the legal limit.
However, according to the affidavit:

* The levels measured in October 2004, then again a year later, were higher 
than those allowed for every chemical on the list.
* The amounts ranged from five times to 33 times the limit.
* Copper exceeded the legal limits the most, reaching levels in October 2004 
of 200 parts per million. The limit is 6.1 ppm.
* Zinc was present at 20 times the limit with readings of 300 ppm. The law 
allows 15.6 ppm.
"That basically indicates to me that they're not only exceeding the limit, 
they're blowing the lid off the limit," Jam-sac said.
But Willbanks, 47, said any discharges that exceeded the legal limit were 
unintentional.
"We definitely don't blatantly dump stuff down the drain," he said.
Asked whether the investigation caught him by surprise, he said: "Of course 
it did. We've been in business 37 years. We've had minor, minor violations."
The company's attorney, John Tatum, said his clients have hired an 
independent environmental consulting firm to look into their waste disposal 
procedures.
"We take these things very seriously and want to make sure that they're in 
compliance as soon as possible, if they're not at the present time," Tatum 
said.
In general, companies such as Alert use rinse tanks to reduce the 
concentration of toxic metals before discharging them into the sewage 
system, Frank said.
A company that doesn't do that or take the waste to a licensed disposal 
facility can save significant amounts of money, Jamsac said.
But the pollution has costs.
Some of the metals are known to kill micro-organisms that help during the 
wastewater treatment process.


"What to us is waste, to (the micro-organisms) is a food source," Frank 
said.
If the micro-organisms die, "they're not going to be doing their job, and 
we'll be discharging polluted water into the South Platte River," Frank 
said.
Sewage water also can be used as a fertilizer after it's treated and 
transformed into biosolids.
"If the lead was in the biosolids at limits above what we can accept, then 
it can get into the soil and from there in can get absorbed into the 
plants," Frank said.
Although Metro officials don't think any metals from Alert have reached the 
South Platte River or gone into biosolids, Jamsac said the potential is 
there and the danger is high.
"We've been fortunate that nothing has happened," he said.


INFOBOX
Over the limit
A sampling of measured results of metals discharged into the sewage system 
by Alert Polishing and Plating Works Inc. All numbers are parts per million.
Pollutant Results measured Allowable maximum Date
* Copper 200 6.1 Oct. 5, 2004
* Cyanide 31 5 Oct. 5, 2004
* Nickel 99.8 5.6 Oct. 6, 2004
* Zinc 78.6 15.6 Oct. 5, 2004
* Copper 36.7 6.1 Oct. 25, 2005
* Lead 34.9 2.2 Oct. 25, 2005
* Nickel 32.6 5.6 Oct. 25, 2005
* Zinc 300 15.6 Oct. 25, 2005
Source: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District



/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.citizensenvironmentalliance.org/pdf/Regulating%20Water%20Pollution%20At%20the%20Municipal%20Level.pdf?


Format is much better if you go to the link above.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
Regulating Water Pollution in Ontario’s Municipalities –

Windsor’s Sewer Use By-law
Prepared by Derek Coronado

Under Ontario’s Municipal Act, municipalities have the power to pass sewer 
use by-laws. The by-laws allow municipalities to regulate discharge of 
pollutants into the sewersystem. Many urban centers in the province have 
enacted a sewer-use bylaw. However, there is significant variation in the 
requirements of each bylaw.1The limits placed on pollutants in the sewer use 
by-laws were largely based upon a model sewer use by-law provided by the 
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The most recent version of the 
model by-law was completed in 1998 and was produced to assist municipalities 
to develop local sewer use by-laws. Although the MOE committed to update its 
model, the ministry has not fulfilled its commitment. Municipalities have 
looked to each other’s by-laws as a means of updating sewer use by-laws. In 
1993, the City of Windsor adopted By-law 11446 – a sewer use by-law. At the 
time, the Citizens Environment Alliance noted several deficiencies in the 
by-law. Morethan ten years have passed including 2003, the United Nations 
Year of Freshwater, yet the by-law has not been revised. Below is a 
comparative analysis of the limits on pollutants, pollution prevention and 
enforcement and monitoring of sewer-use by-laws in the province.2This report 
is not a comprehensive study of Ontario’s regulatory requirements for 
protection of water quality.However, we hope that this analysis will assist 
in improving Windsor’s sewer use by-lawand ultimately reduce water pollution 
in the Detroit River basin. Pollutant LimitsConcentration limits are the 
core of municipal sewer use-bylaws. Both Toronto and Kingston have adopted 
stringent limits that exceed the recommendations in the MOE model by-law. 
Windsor’s by-law allows greater levels of many pollutants and does not set 
standards for several of the pollutants identified in the Kingston and 
Toronto by-laws. The table below lists the acceptable concentration of 
selected chemicals that the by-lawallows to be released legally into the 
sewer system. 1The provincial government does not require municipalities to 
implement sewer use by-laws. As of 2000, just over half of Ontario’s 
municipalities had sewer use by-laws. 2Much of the basis of this report and 
some of the details came from What’s in your Sewers? A Citizen’s 
Introduction to Municipal Sewer Use By-laws in Ontario, H2infO – The Water 
Information Network,August 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2Sewer Use By-law Discharge Limits* for a Select Group of Common 
Contaminants (figures in mg/L)Pollutant Toronto Kingston Windsor MOE
Arsenic 1 1 1 1
Benzene 0.01 0.01 No limit°0.01
Bis phthalate 0.012 0.012 No limit°No limit°
BOD 300 300 400 300
Cadmium 0.7 0.7 2 0.7
Chromium Total 4 4 5 5
Copper 2 2 5 3
Fluoride 10 10 10 10
Hexachlorobenzene0.0001 0.0001 No limit°No limit°
Lead 1 1 5 2 Mercury0.01 0.01 0.1 0.05 Nickel 2 2 5 3
Nonylphenol ethoxylates 0.02 0.01 No limit°No limit°
Oil/Grease – Organic 150 150 120 150
Phosphorus 10 10 30 10
Suspended Solids 350 350 500 350
Trichloroethylene 0.4 0.07 No limit°0.07
Zinc 2 2 5 3

* Limits for sanitary and combined sewers.
°Specific limit is not listed in the bylaw.

General limit may apply as a result of provincial objectives/guidelines. 
Monitoring and Enforcement Municipal pollution control staffs are primarily 
responsible for monitoring and enforcingsewer use by-laws. Staff may visit 
facilities periodically to monitor pollutants beingreleased into the sewer 
system. If a facility fails to meet the limits for a specificpollutant, 
usually a municipality will advise implementation of voluntary abatement 
methods to bring the facility into compliance with the by-law. Most 
municipalities attempt to work together with the polluter to ensure that 
pollutant releases are within theprescribed limits within a given timeline. 
These arrangements are often referred to as“consent accords” or “compliance 
agreements”. However, municipalities in Ontario can levy fines for violating 
sewer use by-laws. Fines generally range from $5,000 to $100,000 per 
violation. Municipalities rarely resort to fines, preferring instead to rely 
on compliance agreements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3Chronic polluters and a municipality may make arrangements whereby the 
polluter pays aset fee or rate based upon the quantities of pollutants in 
excess of the limit. These “over-strength agreements” also exempt the 
polluter from being charged. If a municipality fails to sufficiently control 
what is discharged through the sewer system then it may be prosecuted. 
Wastewater treatment plants operate under Certificates of Approval (C of A) 
issued by the MOE. If the conditions of the C of A are violated then a 
prosecution could take place under the Ontario Water Resources Act.Pollution 
PreventionAmongst the hierarchy of environmental protection activities, 
pollution prevention is atthe top and other practices such as pollution 
control, remediation and disposal below. Pollution prevention is the most 
effective practice to avoid the creation of waste and pollution and its 
dispersal into the environment. The City of Toronto is the only municipality 
in the province that requires dischargers to prepare and submit pollution 
prevention plans. Other municipalities, at best, had arequirement for a 
waste survey and had some form of pollution prevention educational 
programming.

In Toronto each facility must submit to the City a complete list of 
pollutants that it releases and provide detailed plans for reducing the 
amount of pollutants it generates and discharges into the sewer system. 
Failure to submit a plan is an offence, but failure to comply with the plan 
is not. The plan is viewed as a powerful educational tool and as evidence of 
due diligence in meeting the enforceable discharge limits of the by-law. The 
importance of pollution prevention strategies has yet to be recognized by 
other municipalities. Indeed, the Ministry of the Environment’s model by-law 
does not refer to enforcing pollution prevention planning. Mercury is 
considered to be one of the most toxic pollutants discharged into the 
Canadian environment.

In the Great Lakes basin, mercury is considered a pollutant of significant 
concern. The Detroit River Area of Concern, designated through the 
Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, has been inundated 
by mercurycontamination over the years and mercury continues to be 
discharged into the river system from a variety of sources, including 
municipal sewer systems. In the United States, the Association of 
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies evaluated seven major municipal wastewater 
treatment plants to determine and quantify sources of mercury coming into 
these facilities. Dental uses were identified as “the greatest contributors 
to the mercury load”3and “the largest source by far when compared toaverage 
contributions from the other sources…”4, at all the plants. The dental uses 
3Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Mercury Source Control & 
Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation Final Report, (July 2002), p.26. 
4Ibid. p.27.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4accounted for almost 40% of the load, on average, more than three times the 
next largest source.5The City of Toronto’s by-law requires dentists to 
install amalgam separators in their sinks to capture amalgam for disposal at 
a hazardous waste facility instead of entering the city’s sewer system. The 
by-law also requires dentists to prepare and submit pollution prevention 
plans for reducing mercury waste. All dentists in Toronto must meet the 
strict discharge limit for mercury of 0.01 mg/L. Within the first eight 
months of Toronto’s sewer use by-law coming into effect, mercurylevels 
flowing in the city’s sewers fell between 40% and 68%. In Environment 
Canada’s 2002 National Pollutant Release Inventory Report (NPRI), the City 
of Windsor’s Lou Romano Plant reported that 10.5 kg of mercury (and its 
compounds) were discharged into the Detroit River.6The facility projected 
similarreleases for the next several years. Mercury once released into water 
bodies can be converted to a far more toxic form called methyl mercury, 
which bio-accumulates in fish that may ultimately be consumed by humans.

Few other Canadian municipalities have followed Toronto’s lead by requiring 
dentalamalgam separators through a sewer use by-law. Windsor does not 
require the use of dental amalgam separators and the Ministry of the 
Environment’s model bylaw does not require dental amalgam separators. 
Another pollutant of concern listed in the 2002 NPRI report of the Lou 
Romano and Little River plants was lead (and its compounds). The report 
shows that, combined, the facilities released more than 1,837 kg of lead. 
The facilities reported that large quantities of this persistent toxic 
substance would be released in future years. Lead is extremelypersistent in 
water and when humans are exposed to lead it can result in damage to the 
brain, nervous system and various internal organs such as kidneys. 
Significant quantities of arsenic and cadmium are also released from 
Windsor’s pollution control plants.

The suggested limits in the MOE guidelines, even when adhered to 
bymunicipalities, may not be sufficient to reduce inputs of harmful 
substances into waterways. For example, Windsor’s arsenic limit adheres to 
the MOE guideline, yet almost 600 kg were released from Windsor’s pollution 
control plants, according to the 2002 NPRI. 5Ibid. 6For mercury and many of 
the other persistent toxic compounds at both plants, the NPRI report listed 
significant quantities of these substances in sewage sludge residue. 
Contaminated sewage sludge that isapplied to land is also a water quality 
concern throughout Ontario and the Great Lakes basin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
5Provincial Role

Provincial governments have not enacted policies and requirements around 
sewer uses sufficient to protect Ontario’s streams, rives and lakes. The 
Ontario Municipal Act, while allowing municipalities to enact sewer use 
by-laws, does not require a consistent seweruse by-law amongst all 
municipalities. The result is a patchwork of rules across theprovince and 
many municipalities have no sewer use restrictions whatsoever. The 
provincial government has not implemented several policy commitments, 
includingthe Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) and the 
Canada Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). 
Both the MISA and COA directly address the volume and toxicity of pollutants 
discharged into receivingwaters through municipal treatment facilities. The 
MISA was originally announced in 1988. The MOE proposed that some 
municipalities would be required to implement and enforce a sewer use 
control program. The MOE also proposed a comprehensive sewer charge and 
over-strength surcharge system, the development of a mandatory certification 
program for municipal sewer use inspectors, and pollution prevention 
initiatives. Partly as a result of budget cutbacks, themunicipal component 
of MISA was not implemented.

In March 2002, after much delay, the provincial government signed a new 
five-year COA with the federal government. By this agreement, the Ontario 
government committed to anumber of actions, including: to provide 
municipalities with technical and/or financial help in pollution prevention 
and control planning in Areas of Concern; influence reduction in discharges 
from MISA sectors, and examine and implement new policies and regulations to 
manage industrial discharges not currently captured under MISA, and; develop 
best practice guidance documents to help municipalities identify and 
reducesources of harmful pollutants and other contaminants discharged into 
sewers. The MOE has also committed to implementing recommendation #32 from 
the Walkerton Inquiry Report, which states, “the provincial government 
should support major wastewater plant operators in collaborative studies 
aimed at identifying practical methods of reducing or removing heavy metals 
and priority organics (such as endocrine disruptors) that are not removed by 
conventional treatment.”7The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has noted 
these issues in his annual report and provided further details about sewer 
use by-laws in Ontario.87The Honourable Dennis R. O’Connor, Report of the 
Walkerton Inquiry, Part Two, (2002).8Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 
Choosing Our Legacy, 2003-2004 Annual Report, (2004), p.37, 39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
6Conclusion and Recommendations Regulating water pollution at the municipal 
level involves more than one level of government in Ontario. Yet few 
governments have taken the lead in controlling and reducing pollution from 
Ontario’s sewer systems.Municipal, provincial and federal governments have 
not abided by several commitments made to control and reduce water pollution 
in the Great Lakes basin. Among the fundamental commitments is one contained 
in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, specifically, to virtually 
eliminate the input of persistent toxic substances through a philosophy of 
zero discharge. The discharge of these substances continues and is 
widespread throughout the basin, as revealed, partially, in the 2002 NPRI 
report. Several actions need to be taken by governments in order to reduce 
and ultimatelyprevent harm to our streams, rives and lakes caused by the 
continual discharge of toxic pollutants through Ontario’s sewer systems, 
including:

1. The provincial government should enact the municipal component of the 
MISA program with an addition to include consistent standards for sewer use 
control in all municipalities in the province.

2. The provincial government should move to immediately implement 
recommendation #32 from the Walkerton Inquiry report.

3. The provincial and federal governments should move quickly to implement 
the provisions of the COA related to municipal pollution prevention and 
control planning. 4. The provincial government should implement a 
requirement for all sewagetreatment plants in the province of Ontario to 
virtually eliminate the discharge ofpersistent toxic substances as intended 
in Annex 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.5. The City of 
Windsor should revise its sewer use by-law to reflect current environmental 
standards (up-to-date research), including specific pollutant concentration 
limits for all toxic substances, and a requirement for industrial, 
commercial and institutional users to submit pollution prevention plans and 
abideby the plans, in accordance with the previous recommendations. 6. All 
current standards, requirements, objectives, guidelines and commitments 
(including those noted above) should be enacted and rigorously enforced by 
the appropriate government agencies, including municipalities, the MOE and 
Environment Canada. 7. Complete annual reports on standards fulfillment and 
enforcement action regarding municipal sewer uses should be readily 
available to the public through the Internet.