Sludge Watch ==> Pennsylvania - Attorney General could Challenge Sludge Ordinance

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

What a regulatory mess.  The Federal gov't Part 503's are not devised to be 
protective of public health or agriculture.  The waiting periods, for 
instance, between sludging a field and harvesting crops has no mechanism of 
enforcement.  You see the farmer is not bound by the Federal legislation.  
And the National Academies of Science point out no risk assessment has been 
done on the spread of disease from sludge use.

So states and counties step up and try to protect their citizen's by passing 
regulations with more restrictions.  But then the sludge industry fights 
back...like Synagro in Pennsylvania, American Water Services (Terratec) in 
Ontario, and Los Angeles Sanitation v Kern in California.

The sludgers  want to be lightly regulated and fight the communities that 
seek to protect public health, and the air, soil, and water.

Is sludge a 'normal farm practice'?  Not in Nova Scotia. In Ontario there is 
a committee that is supposed to determine what is and is not a normal farm 
practice.  The Ontario Gov't bypassed the normal farm practice review 
committee (a committee the Province itself created) and afraid of the 
committee's decision decided by legislative decree that any organic waste 
disposal on farmfields was a normal farm practice.  Most farmers do not 
agree.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////




Attorney general could challenge sludge ordinance
BY SHAWN A. HESSINGER
TAMAQUA BUREAU CHIEF
shessinger at republicanherald.com

03/08/2007
MCKEANSBURG — The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office is threatening 
litigation against a rural Schuylkill County township if an ordinance 
restricting biosolids is not repealed.


An East Brunswick Township official, however, said the supervisors are 
seeking a meeting with state officials to discuss the issue further.

“There are a lot of issues along with this that haven’t been implemented 
properly,” said supervisors Vice Chairman Jeff Faust. He also said the 
supervisors hope to invite representatives from the attorney general’s 
office to attend a future supervisors meeting to discuss the issue.

A local tree farm owner filed a complaint last year over the ordinance with 
the attorney general, along with Texas waste-hauler Synagro.

“What they’re trying to do is against the law,” said Jeff Hill, owner of 
J.C. Hill Tree Farm, Orwigsburg.

Annette Etchberger, whose property borders the proposed site for that 
application near River Road in the township, said she questions the 2005 law 
that allows the application of the material critics claim contains both 
pathogens and other contaminants.

“I don’t think you’re going to find across the board that use of biosolids 
are a part of a normal agricultural operation,” said Etchberger.

But Hill said Tuesday the material assists in holding moisture in the ground 
during dry seasons, allows a slower, longer-lasting release of nutrients 
than man-made fertilizers and is a better economic solution for farmers 
faced with rising fertilizer costs.

In a letter to the township supervisors, Executive Deputy Attorney General 
Louis J. Rovelli warned the township that a review of a local ordinance 
banning corporate application of biosolids in the township may violate a 
state law against interfering with agriculture.

In the letter, Rovelli said the attorney general’s office was prepared to 
take legal action against the township to “invalidate or enjoin” the 
enforcement of its ordinance.

“Before doing so, however, we write to offer the township an opportunity to 
provide relevant information or materials and to meet with us to discuss the 
matter,” Rovelli added.

Faust said material already being brought in by Synagro, a Texas-based waste 
hauler, has not been properly monitored by the state.

Mark Carmon, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental 
Protection’s Wilkes-Barre office, said the department is investigating 
complaints on the issue but had not yet issued any citations.

Hill said current materials being applied to the land include pig and cow 
manure, but no biosolids.

State Rep. David G. Argall, R-124, who met with concerned citizens Friday on 
the issue, said a similar ordinance banning corporate biosolids application 
in the borough of Tamaqua will less likely face challenge because of the 
lack of agricultural land there.

However, Rush Township supervisors Chairman Stephen W. Simchak said that may 
not be the case in his largely rural township.

“No, but I guess it’s going to have to be revisited,” Simchak said. He added 
no local farmers had ever proposed use of the material.

“I believe the law is headed for the courts,” said Argall, who said he 
opposed the legislation often called the Agricultural, Communities and Rural 
Environment legislation because of its impact on local government control.

Though he would not comment on the office’s actions, Nils Frederiksen, 
deputy press secretary for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, said 
the law grants the attorney general authority to review ordinances subject 
to complaint from a farmer or farm operator.

Frederiksen said since the legislation’s passage, the office has received 28 
requests for review and has declined 11 and accepted eight. Of those, he 
said two are pending in Commonwealth Court and two are under appeal to the 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


http://www.republicanherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18053978&BRD=2626&PAG=461&dept_id=532624&rfi=6