From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 00:07:04 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:07:04 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec compost plant - takes sludge - 'smells like death' Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is a compost plant owned by GSI Ltd that takes Toronto sewage sludge. People still don't know why Toronto'sludge carries such an extraordinary stench. What they do know is that be it landfills, farm land application, compost facilities, no neighbors can tolerate the odours of these outdoor sludge managment methods. No neighbor should have to tolerate it. ........................................................................................................ Compost plant stinks out neighbours L'Ange-Gardien seeks injunction to put a stop to 'fish processing plant, but worse' Jean-Fran??ois Bertrand, Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, August 14, 2008 OTTAWA - A composting plant in L'Ange-Gardien, near Buckingham, is emitting odours so foul that the municipality has asked for an injunction in Quebec Superior Court to get the company to either comply with regulations or stop its activities. Les Composts du Qu??bec, Inc. has been operating an indoor composting plant since 1996. Even when it just received waste products from pulp and paper mills, L'Ange-Gardien had to take them to court over odours, said Mayor Armand Renaud. "We won that cause, they made modifications and improved the situation. But in the last two years, the odours came back. They're extremely difficult to tolerate," explained the mayor. He believes that what gets trucked into the plant has changed - new products such as sludge - and that has led to the new odour problem noticed by the 20-odd close neighbours of the plant, located five kilometres north of Petrie Island. Mr. Renaud hopes the injunction will force the company to either fix the problem or "close shop." Raymond C??t??, who lives downwind and across the street, says the smell is "like a fish processing plant, but worse." He and his wife, Aline, have lived on their 23 acres for 25 years. Mr. C??t??, who has been trying to sleep with open windows for weeks, cannot wait for a part to arrive so his air conditioning unit can be fixed. Mario Legault's house is two doors down from the plant, on the same side of the street. A Hydro-Quebec crew was recently installing a new line in his field and they asked how he could live there. "It smells like death," Mr. Legault recalls them saying. Lynne Lagac??e, communications director for the plant's parent company, GSI Environnement, declined to comment. "It's not human," said Mr. Legault, who owns 40 acres that since the return of the noxious odours he now can't walk through. He's worried about how he could sell his house, with an unusable wraparound porch and upper balcony. He's also afraid to talk about the problems he has with the company. "It's dangerous, I could get sued for what I say." That kind of action is called SLAPP, for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A Cantley resident and his wife are facing a $1.25-million suit for slander over comments the resident made against the Cantley dry materials dump, where Ministry of the Environment field investigators also found bad odours. Like all the neighbours, Mrs. C??t?? fills out a sheet every day, for the ministry's benefit. While Thursday's odours were faint under a bright sun, earlier in the week "it was overcast and the smell was uncomfortable." The situation in L'Ange-Gardien does not bode well for worried residents of South Gloucester, where Orgaworld Canada plans to build an organic compost processing facility near Hawthorne and Rideau Roads. The City of Ottawa has a contract with the company to process the contents of 80 garbage trucks a day of compost from the upcoming green-box program, to be launched in late 2009. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=181c560f-e969-45b5-abd5-bf6e82333979 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 00:10:40 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:10:40 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Hamilton Sludge Incinerator Will be World Showcase Message-ID: Liberty vows incinerator will be world 'showcase' By Richard Leitner News Aug 29, 2008 California-based Liberty Energy Inc. has moved a big step closer to building a giant sewage-sludge incinerator in Hamilton with the posting of the plant's proposed licences on the province's environmental registry. The public has until Sept. 20 to comment on draft licences governing air, sewage and waste emissions, but cannot appeal any conditions because the project has already received the necessary environmental approvals. Liberty spokesperson Trevor Pettit said his company hopes to begin construction next spring on the first phase of the $120-million plant and show naysayers that sludge incineration is "the wave of the future." The Strathearne Avenue North incinerator will generate enough electricity to power 8,000 homes by burning up to 400,000 tonnes per year -- nearly eight times the amount generated by the city, which presently hires a contractor to spread its sludge on area farmland. "Without question we want this to be a showcase for energy-from-waste for the world," Mr. Pettit said. "I don't think you expect everybody to embrace it, but I think we can illustrate the success stories throughout the world and we intend to surpass those success stories," he said. "This is proven technology and we've gone the extra lengths to accommodate virtually every study they wanted, anything that anyone has wanted in terms of tests that we'll do." Lynda Lukasik, executive director for Environment Hamilton, said her group remains opposed to the incinerator, but welcomes Liberty Energy's willingness to listen to concerns about monitoring. Although not reflected in the current draft licence on air emissions, she said company officials have verbally agreed to her request that they continue to test for emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons beyond the first year -- a commitment she wants reflected in the final version. Ms. Lukasik said although allowing the public to comment on the licences is better than not doing so, she would have preferred having the right of appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights. "We still haven't been convinced that this is the best way to deal with sewage sludge," she said, arguing the province needs to come up with a long-term strategy that includes clamping down on sewer toxins, a key concern for its use as fertilizer. "Having said that, the reality is that this facility has been approved. We're certainly going to take steps to ensure that there is rigorous monitoring and there are strong requirements in those (licences) to ensure there aren't any negative impacts." The licences are available for viewing on-line at www.ebr.gov.on.ca. http://www.stoneycreeknews.com/news/article/141165 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 00:15:11 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:15:11 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Chlorination May Induce Virulence Staphylococcus Aureus Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This research suggests that chlorination may promote the production of virulence factors in Staph aureus. This may help explain the Staph aureus infections in people who live near sewage sludge disposal sites (research by Dr David Lewis, former EPA scientist). see: http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/2002-August/002574.html .......................................................... Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (21), 7570 -7575, 2007. 10.1021/es070929k S0013-936X(07)00929-7 Web Release Date: October 5, 2007 Copyright 2007 American Chemical Society Toxicogenomic Response to Chlorination Includes Induction of Major Virulence Genes in Staphylococcus aureus Matthew Wook Chang, Freshteh Toghrol,* and William E. Bentley School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637459, Center for Biosystems Research, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, Maryland 20742, and Microarray Research Laboratory, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755 Received for review April 19, 2007 Revised manuscript received August 28, 2007 Accepted September 4, 2007 Abstract: Despite the widespread use of chlorination for microbial control in aqueous environments, cellular response mechanisms of human pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus, against chlorination remain unknown. In this work, genome-wide transcriptional analysis was performed to elucidate cellular response of S. aureus to hypochlorous acid, an active antimicrobial product of chlorination in aqueous solution. Our results suggest that hypochlorous acid repressed transcription of genes involved in cell wall synthesis, membrane transport, protein synthesis, and primary metabolism, while amino acid synthesis genes were induced. Furthermore, hypochlorous acid induced transcription of genes encoding major virulence factors of S. aureus, such as exotoxins, hemolysins, leukocidins, coagulases, and surface adhesion proteins, which all play essential roles in staphylococcal virulence. This work implies that chlorination may stimulate production of virulence factors, which provides new insight into host-pathogen interactions and effects of chlorine application for microbial control. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 00:31:42 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:31:42 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Alabama - Grand Bay residents get nasal sores, staph aureus, headaches Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Here we have more reports of sludge related illnesses. Is the EPA investigating? No Is the Water Environment Federation (WEF) investigating? No Is the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) investigating? No These agencies like to say there are no documented cases of illness, so they refuse to investigate and document these reports of sludge-related illness. ...................................................... Grand Bay residents upset that farmland is fertilized with processed sewage Sunday, August 31, 2008 By Ben Raines Staff Reporter Grand Bay has become Mobile's toilet. At least that's what some residents around the rural area of west Mobile County are saying. For two decades, things flushed down toilets in Mobile have ended up in the Grand Bay area. But Mobile's sewage isn't sent there for treatment. Instead, the solid matter from hundreds of thousands of daily flushes in Mobile is processed and collected each day and carted to Grand Bay via 18-wheeler. There, the sludge is spread onto farm fields as a fertilizer made of human waste. Last year, 78 million pounds' worth of sludge was spread onto fields in Grand Bay, according to records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Just thinking about the process sickens some people. Try living next to one of the fields, say Grand Bay residents. The sludge smells unmistakably like sewage, according to both residents and sewer system officials. "It smells so bad outside my door, you can't go outside," said Stacy Thornton, describing the smell of sun-baked human waste. "It smells like something dead and decaying. People come over to visit and say, 'Oh, my gosh! What is that horrible smell?' My property value is gone. Who would buy it? " But Thornton and other residents are also worried about their health. With 3,000 acres all located around Grand Bay approved to receive daily shipments of treated sewage solids from the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System, some families believe that sores in their nasal passages, chronic staph infections, headaches and sinus troubles are all the result of exposure to pathogens in Mobile's sewage sludge. MAWSS: Carefully regulated Officials with MAWSS and the EPA say the sludge fertilizer program is legal and carefully regulated, though it appears there is little state or federal oversight of the actual application practices in the fields of Mobile County. For instance, EPA officials last inspected the spraying operations four years ago. Alabama Department of Environmental Management officials referred questions about the program to the EPA. Most of the waste is spread on land owned by coffee magnate Leroy Hill, according to MAWSS records. Officials with MAWSS estimated that Hill had saved the people of Mobile $10 million to $15 million over the past 15 years by allowing the waste to be spread on his cattle ranch. "If Mr. Hill didn't let us use his land, we would have to haul our waste to Mississippi," said Malcolm Steeves, head of the sewer system. "I understand what the people are complaining about. But the reality is, we were here first. We were already spraying out there when most of these people bought their land and built their houses." Merrell Brothers, an Indiana-based company, handles the waste for MAWSS, delivering the sludge to fields in tanker trucks. Those trucks are equipped to spread the material onto the fields as well. Deliveries are made as often as seven days a week, according to company records. 'Class B' and 'Class A' All of the MAWSS material spread in the fields is considered "Class B" biosolids, which means it has not been treated enough to eliminate various pathogens typically present in raw sewage. Many communities spend extra money to treat their sludge until it qualifies as "Class A," meaning it has "no detectable pathogens," according to scientific literature. The EPA manual "Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewer Sludge" lists dozens of "principal pathogens" in such wastes, including salmonella, cholera, hepatitis, Norwalk virus, cryptosporidium and giardia. The EPA lists inhaling microbes blown by "strong winds" among the possible ways people could become infected from the sludge. The manual also says the microbes could be spread by birds or pets that come into contact with the material. About 60 cattle egrets descended onto 6,000 gallons of freshly sprayed sewage sludge last week, following behind the spray truck as Press-Register reporters watched. Dozens of homes are at the edges of fields where the material is spread. In many cases, homeowners said they were unaware that sewage material was being sprayed in the fields. "All they told me was it was fertilizer. You're talking about human waste? That's what they're spraying over there? That's just disgusting. People have kids on this street that play out there," said Bea Talbott, whose yard abuts one of the fields. "The flies are so bad when they spray. It just draws flies like you wouldn't believe." Talbott, like many of the residents interviewed by the newspaper, said she had no idea when she bought her property three years ago that it was next to "a hazardous waste dump." "They don't put up signs or warnings on the fields or anything. You know when you hear those 18-wheelers, and you smell it," Talbott said. "Too many people out here are sick. To me, this is not coincidental. Isn't it strange that all these families that live at the end of the same dirt road all have sores in their noses, staph infections, sinus problems, headaches? We are all suffering from the same thing," said Dee Dee Spann, one of a handful of residents who have appealed to MAWSS to either upgrade to spreading Class A biosolids or end the program. "There are lawsuits all over the country about biosolids," said Steeves with MAWSS. "We're not going to address any particular person's complaint about a rash or anything. We are going to trust EPA that what we are doing is not harmful to the environment or anyone's health." Controversy remains There remains, however, a great deal of controversy over the practice, legalized by the EPA in 1993. A 2004 paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a respected scientific journal, states that bacteria and chemicals blowing from sewage-treated fields "may cause nearby residents to be more susceptible to infections." The same paper states that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concluded "Class B biosolids likely contain infectious levels" of bacteria and viruses. Steeves said he knew the water system's days of spraying "Class B" sludge onto fields were already numbered and added that many sewer systems spread only the more thoroughly disinfected "Class A" sludge to appease community concerns. EPA documents suggest that about half of the sewage in the nation is applied to land in this fashion. It would cost about $3 million to upgrade the treatment system to produce "Class A" sludge, and it would cost $1 million a year to run the system, MAWSS officials estimated. Steeves said there are treatment methods available that render Class A sludge nearly odorless. "If you don't have the rural property available, there is nothing else you can do but switch to Class A," Steeves said. "As the county population becomes more dense, we'll have to make the switch. We could afford to do that by raising the rates some." Health issues raised Dr. Bert Eichold, Mobile County's health officer, said spreading materials with live pathogens near residential areas "raises a whole set of issues" that are worth investigating. "I would encourage all sewage to be thoroughly treated before being released from the treatment plant. That would have to be better for the environment and the people," Eichold said. "I would like it to be treated to such an extent that you could drink it." Eichold also said that he has been unable to find any laws in Alabama that prohibit odors from such operations affecting residential areas. "That's the bottom line for a lot of these folks. They want to have a barbecue in their yard on the weekend, and they can't go outside because it smells revolting," Eichold said. "ADEM could address that. They would just have to write a rule." http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/122017426793080.xml&coll=3 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 13:36:39 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:36:39 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Irish farmer holds nine dumper trucks captive in sludge row Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This elderly Irish farmer held 9 sludge trucks at bay ... after sludge instead of topsoil was delivered. He even blocked the gate against the sludge dump trucks, holding them hostage. The second story explains that the dumper agreed to remove the sludge and to compensate the farmer. Then there is the part where the inspector sank into sludge up to his waist.... ......................................... Sat Aug 30 08 Independent.ie Farmer holds nine dumper trucks captive in sludge row Brian McDonald AN elderly farmer yesterday brought work on the second-biggest road construction project in the country to a standstill. Padraig Clarke of Ballinasloe, Co Galway saw red after the construction company heading up the ???475m road project ignored his complaints about dumping on his land. The irate farmer erected a blockade, and fenced in nine large dump trucks and a digging machine. Mr Clarke, who is in his 70s and uses a walking stick, has already seen his land holding cut in two, by way of a compulsory purchase order, to facilitate the new carriageway linking Galway to the capital. As part of the arrangement with the construction company N6 (Concession) Ltd, he had agreed that sub-soil and topsoil could be deposited on his land, which runs alongside the route of the new 57km- roadway. But vast amounts of a peaty sludge have instead been dumped by a haulage company contracted by the construction firm on Mr Clarke's land. He sought meetings with the company to halt the practice. "They were never supposed to put in this stuff. I am sure you would need a licence to dump it, the stuff is so bad, but they never came to meet me," he told the Irish Independent. "They kept putting me off." Finally, the construction company dispatched its liaison officer to meet Mr Clarke at his property last Monday. Mr Clarke said when he took the officer to the site of the dumped material, he walked over to examine it and sank up to his waist. "The digger driver, who was close by, had to drive as close as he could to him and reach in and pull him out with his hand. It was very dangerous. "I brought the poor man back to my house and we took off his boots and trousers, and I had to give him a pair of jeans to wear home," according to Mr Clarke. On Thursday, the farmer halted a convoy of 10 dump trucks heading to his land to deposit more "sludge". Mr Clarke warned them not to dump any more material on his property, but as soon as he returned to his home, the trucks went into his field. "I had warned them that if they went down, they wouldn't get out, but they paid no attention. I blocked the entrance with my jeep and they threatened to drive over my jeep, but I stood my ground." Mr Clarke and his family remained at the scene through the night as the construction and haulage company erected floodlights. The gardai arrived to observe the escalating situation. Yesterday, there was a brief skirmish after one of the dump trucks managed to make its way past Mr Clarke's blockade. Gardai intervened, but there were no arrests. The construction company said yesterday that it was keen to have the matter resolved peacefully and the company's production manager was travelling to the scene to enter talks with Mr Clarke to resolve the issue. Mr Clarke was supported in his action by Michael Hyde, chairman of the IFA Landowners Group in Ballinasloe. Mr Hyde said: "This situation should have come to a head a long time ago. There is no foreman on the ground here and there is no-one who can even speak English -- they are all Spanish." Late yesterday, Mr Clarke insisted that he would continue with his blockade until he was fully compensated for the damage to his property arising from the "unacceptable" dumping. - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/farmer-holds-nine-dumper-trucks-captive-in-sludge-row-1466004.html?service=Print ............................... Sludge fight farmer 'just glad' road row is resolved Farmer holds nine dumper trucks captive in sludge row Monday September 01 2008 John Fallon Work on a major motorway resumed over the weekend, after a dumping row ended. The farmer who brought work on the ???475m project to a standstill said: "I am just glad it is all over with." Padraig Clarke (68), from Ballinasloe, Co Galway, erected a blockade in dispute with the company building the N6 Galway-Ballinasloe road, after he accused the firm of dumping sludge on his land. The 68-year-old said the land leased to the firm was only for top soil, and not sludge. The matter was resolved on Friday night after discussions with the construction firm, and the sludge will now be transported to another site. "I am very grateful for all the help I received. It should never have come to this, but I hope it's the end of the matter," said Mr Greaney. He spent last Thursday night in his jeep, preventing workers from driving their dumpers off his land, and he erected a fence around them on Friday. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sludge-fight-farmer-just-glad-road-row-is-resolved-1466716.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 13:56:03 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:56:03 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia - sludge a chemical soup Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: We have confirmed again that the N-Viro sludge from Halifax has not completed a successful review by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) - the agency that enforces the Fertilizer Act. Nope. The CFIA says they have not issued any letters of 'no objection' for Halifax N-Viro. In other words, the Halifax N-Viro sludge stuff is not approved for sale as a fertilizer product in Canada. The N-Viro sludge 'fertilizer' from the Walker Brothers site in Niagara Ontario also has not obtained a 'letter of no objection' from the CFIA. This means that this sludge 'fertilizer' may not be legal for sale in Canada. ...................................................................... How safe are biosolids? by Wendy Elliott/The Advertiser August 30th 2008 How safe are biosolids? This summer, due to water shortages and rising fertilizer costs around the globe, 49 million acres of cropland are being treated with human sewage. In Japan, when you visit a household, that???s why you take off your shoes at the door. After the horrible meat debacle at the Maple Leaf plant in Ontario, can we trust either politicians or gigantic corporations to look after our health? Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly couldn???t wait to swim in the newly clean Northwest Arm, but 24 hours later human sewage made that an unsafe prospect. I understand that sewage sludge from HRM is being dumped in old mine sites in Cape Breton. How safe is that? Back in 2004, independent testing of biosolids at Inglewood Farm near Truro found high levels of flame retardants and other contaminants. The farm had spread sewage material from HRM mixed with cement kiln dust, which the Nova Scotia Environmental Network researchers determined included 21 heavy metals. Network board member Fred Blois calls these HRM biosolids a chemical soup composed of everything flushed down toilets and drains, such as household cleaners, pharmaceuticals and waste from hospitals. He said the land application of biosolids poses a threat to our agricultural land and farm animals. It has already happened in the U.S. Remember the banned tomatoes and banned lettuce from California? Recently, in Georgia, two farmers sued the city of Augusta because its sewage sludge fertilizer killed hundreds of their cows and contaminated their milk supplies. Farmers Andy McElmurray and Bill Boyce were awarded compensation. In the March decision, data showed that the sludge contained levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) two to 2,500 times federal health standards. Will become a larger issue In a recent policy paper, the Dairy Farmers of Nova Scotia acknowledged, "biosolids will become a larger issue as more sewage treatment plants come on line.??? Neither the Federation of Agriculture nor organic producers encourage the use of non-livestock generated waste as a soil amendment on agricultural land. Eight years ago Coldbrook resident Belinda Manning had a gut feeling that trucking in 5,000 tons of sewage sludge a year, mixing it with sand and selling it as topsoil was not a healthy idea for Baltzer???s Bog. She started a letter-writing campaign that finally convinced provincial officials to take action. Recently, NDP environment critic Graham Steele said changes to the Environmental Assessment Regulations announced by the provincial government are a backward step. "As a result of these changes, fewer projects will undergo an environmental assessment, and some major projects that would have undergone a full-scale assessment will now be speeded through the process," he said. "This backwards step more than outweighs the process improvements emphasized in the government news release and by the minister." While the regulatory changes include some process improvements supported by the NDP, Steele believes they are largely a prime example of the Tory two-step on the environment: one step forward, one step back. "Instead, the regulatory changes are announced as a done deal and we're left to wonder which specific projects will be subject to the looser requirements. That's not the right way to protect the environment." More change is called for: Manning Reviewing the changes, Manning says that after many years, and many processes, including the Provincial Ombudsman Office, she is pleased to see the department finally has included the term ???peat???. ???It has brought the terminology into line with the science.??? However, more change is called for, in her opinion. While the timelines are better, she notes, the assessment process is hampered because non-profit groups don???t have the funds to conduct analysis or can???t access expertise. ???It sure took them a long time to make the changes and with such time lapses,??? she said, ???it means that new information has become available now so the changes may not be complete in today's world??? of listeriosis, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Walkerton water. Who can forget that BSE was transmitted to healthy cows that came in contact with the tainted tissue of others with the disease in their feed? Back in February, the Canadian Press reported that Nova Scotia Auditor General Jacques Lapointe found the province's environmental monitoring and compliance division needed to tighten up its approval processes and improve follow-up on public complaints. Hopefully it has since the auditor general concluded that inspection processes are not adequate to ensure compliance with the Environment Act. Lapointe also said the province has to do a better job of following up on his recommendations. He pointed out that his office made 272 recommendations in 2004 and 2005 and only 39 per cent were implemented while 55 per cent were described as a work in progress. It sure is a scary dance, this one step forward and one step back. http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-244778-How-safe-are-biosolids.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 1 13:57:04 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:57:04 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia - sludge a chemical soup Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: We have confirmed again that the N-Viro sludge from Halifax has not completed a successful review by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) - the agency that enforces the Fertilizer Act. Nope. The CFIA says they have not issued any letters of 'no objection' for Halifax N-Viro. In other words, the Halifax N-Viro sludge stuff has not has a success review for sale as a fertilizer product in Canada. The N-Viro sludge 'fertilizer' from the Walker Brothers site in Niagara Ontario also has not obtained a 'letter of no objection' from the CFIA. This means that this sludge 'fertilizer' may not be legal for sale in Canada. ...................................................................... How safe are biosolids? by Wendy Elliott/The Advertiser August 30th 2008 How safe are biosolids? This summer, due to water shortages and rising fertilizer costs around the globe, 49 million acres of cropland are being treated with human sewage. In Japan, when you visit a household, that???s why you take off your shoes at the door. After the horrible meat debacle at the Maple Leaf plant in Ontario, can we trust either politicians or gigantic corporations to look after our health? Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly couldn???t wait to swim in the newly clean Northwest Arm, but 24 hours later human sewage made that an unsafe prospect. I understand that sewage sludge from HRM is being dumped in old mine sites in Cape Breton. How safe is that? Back in 2004, independent testing of biosolids at Inglewood Farm near Truro found high levels of flame retardants and other contaminants. The farm had spread sewage material from HRM mixed with cement kiln dust, which the Nova Scotia Environmental Network researchers determined included 21 heavy metals. Network board member Fred Blois calls these HRM biosolids a chemical soup composed of everything flushed down toilets and drains, such as household cleaners, pharmaceuticals and waste from hospitals. He said the land application of biosolids poses a threat to our agricultural land and farm animals. It has already happened in the U.S. Remember the banned tomatoes and banned lettuce from California? Recently, in Georgia, two farmers sued the city of Augusta because its sewage sludge fertilizer killed hundreds of their cows and contaminated their milk supplies. Farmers Andy McElmurray and Bill Boyce were awarded compensation. In the March decision, data showed that the sludge contained levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) two to 2,500 times federal health standards. Will become a larger issue In a recent policy paper, the Dairy Farmers of Nova Scotia acknowledged, "biosolids will become a larger issue as more sewage treatment plants come on line.??? Neither the Federation of Agriculture nor organic producers encourage the use of non-livestock generated waste as a soil amendment on agricultural land. Eight years ago Coldbrook resident Belinda Manning had a gut feeling that trucking in 5,000 tons of sewage sludge a year, mixing it with sand and selling it as topsoil was not a healthy idea for Baltzer???s Bog. She started a letter-writing campaign that finally convinced provincial officials to take action. Recently, NDP environment critic Graham Steele said changes to the Environmental Assessment Regulations announced by the provincial government are a backward step. "As a result of these changes, fewer projects will undergo an environmental assessment, and some major projects that would have undergone a full-scale assessment will now be speeded through the process," he said. "This backwards step more than outweighs the process improvements emphasized in the government news release and by the minister." While the regulatory changes include some process improvements supported by the NDP, Steele believes they are largely a prime example of the Tory two-step on the environment: one step forward, one step back. "Instead, the regulatory changes are announced as a done deal and we're left to wonder which specific projects will be subject to the looser requirements. That's not the right way to protect the environment." More change is called for: Manning Reviewing the changes, Manning says that after many years, and many processes, including the Provincial Ombudsman Office, she is pleased to see the department finally has included the term ???peat???. ???It has brought the terminology into line with the science.??? However, more change is called for, in her opinion. While the timelines are better, she notes, the assessment process is hampered because non-profit groups don???t have the funds to conduct analysis or can???t access expertise. ???It sure took them a long time to make the changes and with such time lapses,??? she said, ???it means that new information has become available now so the changes may not be complete in today's world??? of listeriosis, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Walkerton water. Who can forget that BSE was transmitted to healthy cows that came in contact with the tainted tissue of others with the disease in their feed? Back in February, the Canadian Press reported that Nova Scotia Auditor General Jacques Lapointe found the province's environmental monitoring and compliance division needed to tighten up its approval processes and improve follow-up on public complaints. Hopefully it has since the auditor general concluded that inspection processes are not adequate to ensure compliance with the Environment Act. Lapointe also said the province has to do a better job of following up on his recommendations. He pointed out that his office made 272 recommendations in 2004 and 2005 and only 39 per cent were implemented while 55 per cent were described as a work in progress. It sure is a scary dance, this one step forward and one step back. http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-244778-How-safe-are-biosolids.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 2 13:34:03 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:34:03 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Audit of Honolulu Synagro Contract - cost overruns, health issues Message-ID: Highlights: - significant project cost overruns, numerous change orders, delays - outstanding compliance issues related to the 1995 consent decree. - Contract to Synagro is $7,009,673.84 above the original contract price ...................................... Audit of the City???s Synagro Contract By Leslie Tanaka, 9/2/2008 This is an August 2008 report of our Audit of the City???s Synagro Contract. The audit was conducted pursuant to the authority of the Office of the City Auditor to self-initiate audits. The city auditor determined that this audit is warranted due to ongoing concerns expressed by the Honolulu City Council and the public relating to biosolids reuse, the benefits of the city???s contract with Synagro-WWT, Inc. (Synagro) for an In-Vessel Bioconversion Facility (also referred to herein as the biosolids facility), significant project cost overruns, numerous change orders, delays, and outstanding compliance issues related to the 1995 consent decree. Background The Department of Environmental Services plans, directs, operates and administers the city???s wastewater programs. The department is also responsible for the oversight of the biosolids facility at the city???s largest plant, Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, and to ensure that contractual obligations with Synagro to design, construct, operate and maintain the facility are met. The use of biosolids is monitored and must be in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and other federal and state regulatory requirements. The federal biosolids rule established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is contained in 40 CFR Part 503 entitled, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, and applied in state Department of Health water pollution and wastewater systems regulations. In addition, environmental compliance with the 1995 consent decree sets forth biosolids reuse requirements to be met by the city. The department is responsible for coordinating and managing activities relating to federal and state environmental requirements. Our review focused on the beneficial sludge reuse requirements stated in the 1995 consent decree, the design-build-operate contracts awarded to Synagro in May 2002, and project costs for the biosolids facility at the Sand Island wastewater treatment plant. The timeframe for this audit was from December 31, 2005 to October 1, 2007, which corresponds to the deadline in the 1995 consent decree pertaining to the beneficial sludge reuse project and recent operational performance of the Synagro biosolids facility at Sand Island. Summary of Findings Finding 1: The in-vessel bioconversion facility project at the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant experienced construction delays and costly change orders. ??? Delays in construction included relocation of the facility, refurbishing/retrofitting the existing solids handling building, additional equipment, unanticipated delays in obtaining necessary permits, and operational changes for proper operations of the digester and heat drying system. The June 2007 fire also delayed testing of the sludge to pellets processes and acceptance of the biosolids facility. ??? Twelve change orders increased the cost of the biosolids facility by over $6.4 million since the original Synagro contract was executed in May 2002 for $33,755,000. ??? As of September 30, 2007, the facility is fully operational and processing all gravity-settled sludge from the Sand Island wastewater treatment plant, and has the capacity to process at least 10,000 dry tons per year of sewage sludge. The total cost for the in-vessel bioconversion facility is approximately $40.9 million with project closeout expected in 2008. However, the facility???s total cost cannot be determined until the final change order, Number 12 is finalized. ??? The annual cost for the operation and maintenance of the facility by Synagro is approximately $3,818,812 over the 15-year term of the contract. Synagro is also responsible for marketing, sales and beneficial reuse of the biosolid pellets. In addition, annual adjustments can be made for the agreed-upon disbursements. For sales to third parties, Synagro will rebate the city 60 percent of the net revenues collected over the base rate of $20 per ton. Synagro will provide up to 2,000 tons per year of Class A fertilizer pellets to the city at no charge. Finding 2: The city???s ability to achieve sludge reuse compliance with the consent decree appears close, but potential penalties could cost the city millions more. ??? Compliance with the 1995 consent decree requires the city to beneficially reuse sewage sludge as demonstrated through actual customer usage of the biosolid pellets as a soil amendment or plant fertilizer. This is essentially the last requirement to fulfill compliance with the consent decree???s sludge reuse requirements. ??? The state health department has confirmed that the biosolid pellets meet all federal and state biosolid regulations for land application, and thus, the city???s compliance with the beneficial sludge reuse requirement appears close. ??? Delays in completing the consent decree???s sludge reuse requirements could cost the city millions in penalties. As part of the 1995 consent decree, the city agreed to stipulated penalties for failure to meet reuse conditions and deadlines for each day the consent decree???s deadlines are not met by the city. We note that the EPA calculated accrued penalties relating to sludge reuse requirements at $5,510,000 in 2003. Finding 3: The city???s in-vessel bioconversion facility is anticipated to have some favorable outcomes, but challenges remain. ??? With the completion of construction and having state approval that the pellets meet Class A biosolid requirements, the environmental services department is poised to move forward with improved processes and treatment operations. The long term operation of the facility is anticipated to have benefits including the reduction of dewatered sludge disposed in the landfill and energy-efficient operations such as the use of biogas captured from the anaerobic digestion system to fuel the dryer operations and the digester???s boiler. ??? Challenges remain in completing the consent decree???s biosolid reuse requirements, including approvals for the distribution of pellets from the state health department and ongoing public concerns about the use of biosolid pellets on Hawai???i soils, even though biosolid fertilizer and compost products have been widely used across the country and in Hawai???i for many years, and despite state health department regulatory oversight. ??? Implementation of test marketing, promotion and sales of the biosolid pellets and efforts to develop a local market of potential users are underway. However, public acceptance of the beneficial use of the pellets is questionable. Recommendations and Response The director of the Department of Environmental Services should: a. finalize Change Order Number 12, under the construction contract; b. ensure that Synagro fulfills its obligations to the city under the construction contract and then expedite closeout of the construction contract; c. ensure completion of the beneficial sludge reuse project including final submission of the written Notification of Supplemental Environmental Project Completion to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding completion of the beneficial sludge reuse supplemental environmental project as required in the 1995 consent decree; d. provide the city council with written annual status reports on the city's biosolids facility including total project cost for the Sand Island biosolids facility and closeout date of the Synagro construction contract, update on Synagro's revenue and non-revenue customers, revenue due to the city from biosolid pellets sales, tonnage landfilled, reused and sold, status of compliance with the consent decree requirement for completion of the beneficial sludge reuse supplemental environmental project including determination of issues, concerns, or penalties from EPA related to delays in meeting the consent decree's deadlines, and progress of the city's biosolids reuse program; e. ensure that Synagro fulfills its contractual responsibilities for the marketing, sales and reuse of pellets as soil amendment or plant fertilizer to more users; and f. pursue other initiatives and opportunities to minimize disposal of biosolid pellets in the landfill. In its response to our draft report, the director thanked the city auditor for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. The department disagreed with our description of the project???s delays and public concerns about biosolid pellets. The department noted that the project ???experienced one significant delay and resulting increase in cost due to City Council???s desire to have further testing and research of pellets safety completed.??? However, our discussion about delays is intended to provide readers with background information about the project which was almost two years behind the deadline date of December 31, 2005 for compliance with the 1995 consent decree. We have incorporated the department???s suggestion that the project experienced delays. The department also asserted that it is unaware of ongoing public concern about the use of biosolids; however we note that this information is based in part on discussions with those with direct knowledge of the biosolid marketing plans and explanation of the challenge to introduce biosolid fertilizer pellets to potential users unfamiliar with the product. In addition, our report noted that biosolid compost and fertilizer products have been widely used for many years across the country and in Hawai???i. The department also provided additional information on the cost of one change order not made available to us by the end of our fieldwork. The department noted that another change order, Number 13 will add an additional $600,000 to the total cost of the project, thus ???the final contract price for Contract #F92642, Synagro-WWT, Inc. will be $40,764,673.84, or $7,009,673.84 above the original contract price.??? While this information is noteworthy, our report???s information on the project???s costs, including change orders, was accurate as of the end of our fieldwork. The department further disagreed with the description of change orders as costly and provided explanations about the project???s change orders. While this additional information might help to provide a description and purpose for the various change orders, our audit objective was to assess the total project cost including all change orders. We note that environmental services??? response also provides current information after completion of our fieldwork regarding its efforts to secure a state Department of Health waiver on molybdenum necessary for distributing biosolid pellets, as well as clarification on state regulations, HAR Section 11-11-8, relating to sewage and food crops. Since this information was beyond the scope of our audit we offer no comment. The department did not comment on their plans or timetable for completing the remaining requirements of this project and the audit recommendations. In light of the possible penalties accruing each day, we maintain that it is in the city???s fiduciary best interest to expedite efforts to formally complete the biosolid reuse requirements of the 1995 consent decree. Despite the assertions made in its response, the department???s comments to us about the draft report did not change the substance of our findings. Finally, we appreciate the clarifying information and comments provided by the department, and changes, where appropriate, were made to the final report. Leslie Tanaka is the city auditor for the City & County of Honolulu From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 2 14:33:55 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:33:55 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec: a town litigates against nauseating odours from compost company Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Here are stories of more litigation against sewage sludge compost facilities in Quebec. Since Ontario won't allow sludge composts to be land applied without a waste permit..there are no sludge compost facilities in Ontario. But several Ontario cities truck their sludge 6 or 7 hours away (each way) into Quebec facilities. These facilities are under pressure from their host communities to stop the terrible off site odours, and several are already closed. News reports are citing the death of stinky compost facilities in favor of biogas production. .............................................................................. Le jeudi 14 ao??t 2008 LITIGE ENTRE L'ANGE-GARDIEN ET LES COMPOSTS DU QU??BEC Une autre saga judiciaire qui ne sent pas bon R??gis Bouchard Le Droit Autre saga judiciaire qui semble vouloir na??tre entre une municipalit?? et une entreprise que l'on accuse de nuire, par ses activit??s, ?? la qualit?? de vie des citoyens. Le litige entre la municipalit?? de L'Ange-Gardien et la compagnie Les Composts du Qu??bec pr??sente en effet des similitudes avec d'autres dossiers (d??potoir Cantley notamment) o?? l'on r??clame aussi la cessation des activit??s. Dans une proc??dure inscrite devant la Cour sup??rieure, la municipalit?? requiert du tribunal l'??mission d'une injonction interlocutoire et aussi permanente exigeant que la compagnie Les Composts du Qu??bec cesse d'??mettre des odeurs naus??abondes en provenance de l'usine de compostage qu'elle op??re au 728, chemin Filion. Au cas o?? la d??fenderesse ne serait pas en mesure de cesser les ??manations, L'Ange-Gardien soumet que Les Composts du Qu??bec devrait tout simplement cesser les op??rations de l'usine du chemin Filion. Les dirigeants de la municipalit?? soutiennent que la nature des mati??res compostables recueillies par l'usine a chang??, amenant des odeurs naus??abondes (charogne, ammoniac, animaux morts, souffre et autres) qui ??manent maintenant du site, portant ainsi atteinte ?? la qualit?? de l'environnement des r??sidants du secteur. "La description la plus pr??cise des odeurs est l'??quivalent de renifler l'int??rieur d'un camion de vidanges par une chaude journ??e estivale", peut-on lire dans la requ??te. Les odeurs d??sagr??ables ??manant du site sont ?? ce point envahissantes, ??crit-on, que des r??sidants ne peuvent plus jouir de leur terrasse ext??rieure et m??me de leur propri??t??, ??tant contraints ?? s'enfermer ?? l'int??rieur, les fen??tres ferm??es. Les dirigeants de L'Ange-Gardien rappellent qu'en septembre 1996, un juge de la Cour sup??rieure avait ordonn?? ?? la compagnie de cesser l'??mission d'odeurs naus??abondes. Dans les mois suivants, la compagnie avait apport?? certains correctifs avec le r??sultat que le tribunal avait par la suite autoris?? la reprise des activit??s ?? condition qu'il n'y ait plus d'odeurs. Les odeurs naus??abondes ??tant de retour, la municipalit?? revient donc ?? la charge soulignant au passage dans sa requ??te que les inspecteurs du minist??re du D??veloppement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Qu??bec ont ??t?? ?? m??me de constater la v??racit?? des all??gu??s des r??sidants et de la municipalit??. Selon le directeur g??n??ral de la municipalit??, Alain Descarreaux, la nature des r??sidus trait??s ?? l'usine a chang?? avec les ann??es sans que les modifications n??cessaires aient ??t?? apport??es aux permis requis. L'usine accepterait maintenant diverses mati??res fermentescibles, biosolides et autres entrant dans le proc??d?? de compostage. M. Descarreaux a rappel?? que de nombreuses r??sidences ont ??t?? construites ?? proximit?? de l'usine alors que les r??sidants du secteur doivent en plus conjuguer avec la pr??sence voisine d'une carri??re avec laquelle la municipalit?? est aussi en brouille. rbouchard at ledroit.com http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080814/CPACTUALITES/808140440/6790/CPDROIT ....................................................... Composts du Qu??bec contre L'Ange-Gardien: une saga comme ?? Cantley? par Marie Pier L??cuyer Voir tous les articles de Marie Pier L??cuyer Article mis en ligne le 23 ao??t 2008 ?? 8:00 Soyez le premier ?? commenter cet article Serge Galipeau et sa femme Christine Landry devant la commission parlementaire sur les poursuites b??illons. Composts du Qu??bec contre L'Ange-Gardien: une saga comme ?? Cantley? ??a ne sent pas bon ?? L'Ange-Gardien. C'est en fait ce que soutient la municipalit?? qui accuse la compagnie Les Composts du Qu??bec d'??mettre des odeurs naus??abondes qui importuneraient les r??sidents. Le litige ressemble en certains points ?? celui ayant oppos?? la municipalit?? de Cantley au d??p??t de mat??riaux secs de Cantley. ??Quand j'ai su ce qui se passait ?? L'Ange-Gardien, j'??tais tr??s inquiet. ??a nous touche ma femme et moi. Les odeurs ressemblent probablement aux n??tres??, lance Serge Galipeau, porte-parole du Comit?? D??potoir Cantley. Ce dernier remarque de nombreuses similitudes entre les deux litiges. Tout d'abord, en 1996, un juge de la Cour sup??rieure avait ordonn?? ?? l'entreprise Les Composts du Qu??bec de cesser d'??mettre des odeurs naus??abondes. Dans les mois suivant cet ordre de la Cour, la compagnie avait apport?? des correctifs et le tribunal avait autoris?? la reprise des activit??s ?? condition que les odeurs ne reviennent pas. Pour sa part, le d??p??t de mat??riaux secs de Cantley avait vu son permis temporairement r??voqu?? en 1995. Le r??sident de Cantley, qui est poursuivi en diffamation pour 1 250 000$ par l'entreprise DMS Cantley, se dit inquiet pour les r??sidents qui doivent endurer les odeurs ??manant de l'entreprise situ??e au 728, chemin Fillion. ??Je sais ce que les gens vivent, ??a sent s??rement entre autres la charogne. Ce n'est pas int??ressant d'??tre ?? la maison, les fen??tres ferm??es par une chaude journ??e. Souvent, l'odeur rentre quand m??me??, raconte M. Galipeau, faisant r??f??rence aux odeurs qu'il a d?? sentir ?? Cantley. Le porte-parole du Comit?? D??potoir Cantley esp??re que la saga ne prendra pas l'ampleur de celle du d??potoir de Cantley, qui perdure depuis de nombreuses ann??es. ??Je pense quand m??me que ??a va prendre quelques ann??es avant que ??a se r??gle??, croit-il. La proc??dure entreprise par la municipalit?? de L'Ange-Gardien demande au tribunal une injonction interlocutoire et permanente pour que la compagnie Les Composts du Qu??bec cesse d'??mettre ces odeurs. Selon le maire de la municipalit??, Armand Renaud, le but n'est pas n??cessairement que la compagnie ferme ses portes, mais bien qu'elle cesse d'??mettre des odeurs. ??On ne demande pas n??cessairement la fermeture. Il y a des employ??s qui sont des gens de la r??gion et on a besoin d'un endroit pour composter, mais on ne veut pas les odeurs??, souligne le maire. Selon ce dernier, la municipalit?? a fait plusieurs d??marches aupr??s de la compagnie durant les derni??res ann??es. ??Les odeurs sont revenues depuis quelques ann??es. On a rencontr?? la compagnie ?? quelques reprises, mais ils n'ont rien fait encore??, souligne Armand Renaud. Les odeurs qui se d??gagent du site du 728, chemin Fillion, affectent surtout les r??sidents de ce chemin. ??Ce sont des odeurs pas endurables, les citoyens sont r??ellement affect??s, c'est d??gueulasse??, lance celui qui soutient que les r??sidents se plaignent continuellement. Armand Renaud esp??re qu'une injonction de la cour viendra ?? l'automne. La compagnie Les Composts du Qu??bec n'a pas retourn?? nos appels. http://www.info07.com/article-242120-Composts-du-Quebec-contre-LAngeGardien-une-saga-comme-a-Cantley.html .......................................... This story is about another failing Quebec composting company...that my become bankrupt, just like Fertival near Sherbrooke. Compostage Mauricie: faillite de pr??s de 2 millions $ 19 ao??t 2008 - 06h00 Le Nouvelliste Louise Plante Saint-Luc-de-Vincennes La faillite de Compostage Mauricie s'??l??ve ?? pr??s de 2 millions $ et affecte 130 cr??anciers dont la caisse populaire Desjardins du Haut Shawinigan, cr??anci??re de premier rang. Cliquez pour en savoir plus : Lois et r??glements | Renseignements sur les entreprises | Faillites | Finances (g??n??ral) | Jacques Roy | Marcel Binette Jacques Roy, syndic en charge du dossier chez Roy, M??tivier et Roberge, a fait savoir qu'un avis a ??t?? post?? vendredi dernier ?? tous les cr??anciers, garantis ou non, les avisant qu'une assembl??e de cr??anciers est pr??vue le 4 septembre, au bureau de ce syndic, sur la rue des Forges, ?? Trois-Rivi??res. Les cr??ances non garantis s'??l??vent ?? 775 000 $ tandis que les cr??ances garanties totalisent 1 078 696 $. M. Roy avoue que ce n'est pas banal de liquider ce type d'entreprise dont plusieurs sont en faillite au Qu??bec en ce moment ou en s??rieuses difficult??s. ??Compte tenu de la r??glementation, je ne pense pas que le centre de compostage vaille grand-chose. D'ailleurs, notre bureau s'est occup?? du dossier de Fertival, fabricant de compost de la Beauce et de Sherbrooke, qui a aussi fait faillite.?? Ironie du sort, M. Roy note que Compostage Mauricie devait recevoir un montant de Conporec. Or, on sait que cette entreprise vient elle aussi de se placer sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les cr??anciers des compagnies et de mettre fin ?? certaines de ses activit??s, dont le traitement d'eaux us??es dans le secteur de Sorel-Tracy. M. Roy pr??cise par ailleurs que son intention est de se d??sister rapidement dans ce dossier et qu'il n'est pas question d'op??rer le site de Saint-Luc-de-Vincennes. ??On ne veut surtout pas avoir une responsabilit?? environnementale dans ce dossier??, explique-t-il. Il reviendra aux cr??anciers garantis (Robert, fer et m??taux et la caisse populaire Desjardins du Haut Shawinigan) de prendre des mesures pour se faire payer. ??Mais c'est tr??s possible que le minist??re soit oblig?? de liquider ??a et de prendre les mesures n??cessaires, comme il l'a fait pour les autres sites, pr??dit le syndic. Il n'aura pas le choix.?? On surveille Du c??t?? du minist??re du D??veloppement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, Marcel Binette, directeur adjoint par int??rim, a fait savoir que maintenant que la faillite de Compostage Mauricie est officielle, il rel??ve du syndic de s'assurer qu'il n'y a pas d'??missions de contaminants. Cela dit, il ajoute que le minist??re continue de faire ses inspections journali??res pour v??rifier qu'il n'y ait pas de mauvaises odeurs ou que les bassins de r??tention ne soient pas pr??s de d??border. ??Le syndic se doit de mettre en place ce qu'on appelle des mesures conservatoires, mais il n'a pas ?? g??rer ou ?? faire du compost. Il doit simplement prendre les moyens pour ??viter l'??mission de contaminants et pour ??a, on est pr??t ?? donner une assistance au syndic comme on l'a d??j?? fait pour d'autres.?? M. Binette ajoute qu'il est difficile pour le minist??re de s'immiscer dans ce dossier tant que le syndic n'a pas termin?? ses travaux, puisqu'un acqu??reur pourrait se pr??senter. Pour l'instant, les services juridiques du minist??re sont en communication avec le syndic pour lui faire savoir ce qu'il attend de lui. ??Pour nous, c'est le bien-??tre de la population qui passe en premier. On ne veut pas qu'il y ait ??mission de contaminants??, insiste le repr??sentant du minist??re. ??On ne peut laisser ??a sur place?? S??bastien Proulx estime qu???on ne peut envisager de tout simplement laisser sur place l???amas de Compostage Mauricie et que le minist??re de l???Environnement devra prendre une d??cision rapide ?? ce sujet. ??Je sais pour avoir parl?? au pr??sident de la R??gie de gestion des mati??res r??siduelles de la Mauricie, Pierre-A. Dupont, qu???ils sont en discussion avec le minist??re (du D??veloppement durable, de l???Environnement et des Parcs) pour traiter les mati??res sur le site, a confi?? le d??put?? de Trois-Rivi??res. Je sais aussi que le grand probl??me, c???est le transport de ces mati??res qui peut co??ter plusieurs dizaines de millions de dollars. Mais on ne peut laisser ??a sur place.?? Le d??put?? a dit souhaiter que le minist??re de l???Environnement fasse savoir rapidement ?? quelle enseigne il loge. ??Est-ce qu???il va laisser pourrir ??a sur le site? Je ne pense pas que ce soit la solution. Est-ce qu???il va le d??placer vers un site de traitement ou est-ce qu???on va faire en sorte, par des investissements ou des aides quelconques, que nos installations de mati??res r??siduelles soient capables de le traiter? Je ne sais pas. Mais on est dans ces discussions-l?? actuellement.?? M. Proulx estime que lorsque le minist??re accorde un permis, il devrait aussi s???assurer que le site est viable afin qu???il ne devienne pas ??une plaie d?????gypte??. Pas encore de discussions Le pr??sident de la R??gie de gestion des mati??res r??siduelles de la Mauricie, Pierre-A. Dupont, met toutefois un petit b??mol aux propos du d??put??. Les discussions en question n???ont pas encore eu lieu avec le minist??re de l???Environnement. ??C???est pr??matur??. Mais si la r??gion de la Mauricie r??ussit ?? faire une usine de m??thanisation, le minist??re pourrait peut-??tre nous aider ?? investir dans des ??quipements qui feraient en sorte qu???on pourrait tout y passer, y compris l???amas de Compostage Mauricie. On pourrait aussi, par la m??me occasion, d??barrasser le secteur de Pointe-du-Lac d???un ancien site qui recevait les boues de p??tes et papier.?? Mais une chose est certaine, dans l?????tat actuel des choses, la RGMRM ne peut recevoir l???amas de Saint-Luc-de-Vincennes et n???a pas vraiment l???intention de se lancer dans le compostage. Son avenir, rappelle M. Dupont, ce sont les biogaz.??? http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080819/CPNOUVELLISTE/808190677/5291/CPNOUVELLISTE From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 2 15:00:15 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:00:15 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ecuador - giving nature legal rights -caring for enviornment is spiritual duty Message-ID: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-nature2-2008sep02,0,7811640.story >From the Los Angeles Times Editorial Putting nature in Ecuador's constitution In an experiment worth watching, Ecuador will ask voters to decide whether nature has rights. September 2, 2008 This month, Ecuador will hold the world's first constitutional referendum in which voters will decide, among many other reforms, whether to endow nature with certain unalienable rights. Not only would the new constitution give nature the right to "exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution," but if it is approved, communities, elected officials and even individuals would have legal standing to defend the rights of nature. It sounds like a stunt by the San Francisco City Council. But Ecuador is engaged in nothing less than an effort to redefine the relationship between human beings and the natural world. And as crazy as it may seem, the movement to give nature legal rights didn't start in Ecuador's Amazon forest or its Galapagos Islands -- it started years ago in the United States, in cities and towns seeking to fight off coal mines, incinerators and factory farms. Aided by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Pennsylvania, about a dozen municipalities have abandoned the old-fashioned way of halting development -- through the appeals process -- and are placing outright bans on environmentally disruptive activities. For example, in Pennsylvania, Southampton prohibits corporate ownership of farms, and Wayne passed an ordinance that gives the town the power to keep out corporations with criminal histories. The Defense Fund gets much of the credit (or the blame) for these decidedly anti-business, grass-roots efforts. It even offers ready-made ordinances to protect ecosystems. Ecuadorean officials called the group when they were crafting the new constitution, and now it's fielding calls from Australia, Italy, South Africa and Nepal, which is writing its first constitution. No other country has gone as far as Ecuador in proposing to give trees their day in court, but it certainly is not alone in its recalibration of natural rights. Religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Constantinople, have declared that caring for the environment is a spiritual duty. And earlier this year, the Catholic Church updated its list of deadly sins to include polluting the environment. Ecuador is codifying this shift in sensibility. In some ways, this makes sense for a country whose cultural identity is almost indistinguishable from its regional geography -- the Galapagos, the Amazon, the Sierra. How this new area of constitutional law will work, however, is another question. We aren't ready to endorse such a step at home, or even abroad. But it's intriguing. We'll be watching Ecuador's example. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 2 16:54:05 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:54:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> ECOJUSTICE - Ontario is allowing billions of litres of sewage dumped in lakes Message-ID: To read the whole report: Green Cities Great Lakes http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/the-green-infrastructure-report/attachment ......................................................... Group urges cities to adopt green infrastructure By Emma Reilly, THE CANADIAN PRESS TORONTO - An environmental group says municipalities across the province are allowing billions of litres of raw sewage to be dumped into the Great Lakes every year through outdated sewer systems - a problem they say could be prevented with green infrastructure. In a report released Monday, Ecojustice Canada says that 89 Ontario municipalities are operating with antiquated infrastructure that allows sludge to overflow into the province's waterways. The culprit is combined sewers, which carry untreated sewage and rainwater in a single pipe, said Liat Podolsky, a science researcher at Ecojustice and co-author of the report. During wet weather, the volume of flow often exceeds the sewers' capacity, causing the untreated sewage and storm water to overflow into local waterways. "The problem is increasing now because the populations in these cities are increasing with time, so there's more strain on the system itself just from greater amounts of sewage, and from greater amounts of storm water as a result of climate change," Podolsky said. Most of these sewers were built in the early 20th century and aren't able to meet today's demands, Podlosky said. The best way to prevent the problem is to implement green infrastructure - such as green roofs - that will absorb the rainwater rather than sending it through the sewage system. "The conventional practices will treat the storm water and the sewage once it's already in the system, while green infrastructure treats it at the source," Podolsky said. "So it acts to minimize and limit the amount of storm water and sewage that's going into the system and therefore needs to be treated." Though green roofs are the most popular and well-known solution, downspout disconnection - removing a roof drainage system from the sewer connection and directing rainwater towards gardens or lawns - can also reduce the amount of storm water collected in sewers. Even increasing the amount of trees in a city can help absorb the first half-inch of rainfall during a storm, the report reads. Ecojustice also outlines which cities are adopting solutions to help ease the strain on combined sewers. Toronto is the obvious leader, Podlosky said, due to its mandatory downspout disconnection program and green roof initiative. Windsor, London, and St. Catharines, and Kingston are among the cities moving towards implementing green infrastructure. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2008/09/01/6631801-cp.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 3 13:30:44 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:30:44 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario- C. difficile infections kill at least 460 in last 2 years Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Hundreds of people in Ontario hospitals have died in the past two years in an outbreak of Clostridium difficile. The secrecy about the outbreak will end as Ontario has passed legislation requiring hospitals to disclose death rates. ........................................................ Infection rates will go online Sept. 26 2008 Posted By CAROL MULLIGAN, THE SUDBURY STAR Starting Sept. 26, the secrecy surrounding rates of Clostridium or C. difficile infection at Sudbury Regional Hospital -- and 156 other hospitals in Ontario -- will end. Hospital rates of infection for the month of August will be posted on websites for both the Sudbury Regional Hospital and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care at that time. Dr. Michael Baker, executive lead for patient safety for the ministry, said making the information public will give health-care workers more information to "get on" C. difficile outbreaks and activate infection control. Public reporting will also help restore Ontarians' confidence in the hospital system, said Baker, physician-in-chief at the University Health Network in Toronto. C. difficile is one of eight patient safety indicators hospitals will be required to make public by April 30, 2009. Every month, statistics for the previous month will be posted on hospital and ministry websites -- "a very fast turnaround," Baker told reporters in Sudbury this week. C. difficile is an organism present in the bodies of about five per cent of Ontarians, said Baker. When those individuals are treated with antibiotics or undergo chemotherapy, C. difficile bacteria can multiply and spread. The key is preventing cases of the infection from becoming a full-blown outbreak. Good hygiene, such as frequent hand-washing, is one of the best ways of preventing outbreaks. So is thorough and frequent cleaning of patient rooms. But the onus for curbing C. difficile outbreaks doesn't just lie in cleanliness, Baker pointed out. The judicious use of antibiotics is also required. It's called Antibiotic Stewardship and it encourages doctors not to over-prescribe drugs. Continued After Advertisement Below Advertisement "We'll be teaching doctors to use antibiotics when they need them," when they are lifesaving, said Baker. "But from time to time, they can be overzealous" and bacterium such as C. difficile become antibiotic-resistant. The ministry and hospitals will post the number of C. difficile associated diseases per 1,000 patient days in hospital every month. In Sudbury, C. difficile rates will be posted for each of Sudbury Regional's four sites -- Laurentian, Memorial, St. Joseph's Health Centre and Kirkwood, the former Northeast Mental Health Centre. Any outbreak of C. difficile in hospital must be reported to public health authorities such as the Sudbury and District Health Unit. Baker said it is creating "a ton of work" for hospital infection control employees to "meet the standards of persnicketiness" required to identify and publish rates of C. difficile. David McNeil said Sudbury Regional Hospital employees are working to meet the deadlines for posting other patient safety indicators, but won't be making that information public sooner than required because of the amount of work involved. It is important that information posted be consistent and reliable, said McNeil, the hospital's vice-president of clinical programs and chief nursing officer. Visit Sudbury Regional Hospital's website at www.hrsrh.on.caand the Ministry of Health's website at www.health.gov. on.ca. http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1179799 ........................................... C. diff-related death at St. Joe's September 03, 2008 John Burman The Hamilton Spectator (Sep 3, 2008) St. Joseph's Healthcare has recorded its first C. difficile-related death in an infection outbreak declared last week. A patient described as being of "upper middle age" died yesterday. Dr. David Higgins, St. Joseph's chief of staff, said the patient was already in isolation being treated as a suspected C. diff case. "This was a person with multiple medical problems who was admitted (in the first place) with significant other issues," Higgins said. C. difficile "certainly was a factor in the person's death," he said, but was not the primary cause. St. Joseph's also reported one new case was diagnosed yesterday, bringing the number of patients with the superbug in an outbreak declared Friday to 13. "We had two more patients on the weekend and, regretfully, we have one more patient (yesterday) a new diagnosis," Higgins said. "We are monitoring patients with diarrhea all the time and testing continuously and one of the patients we had isolated as a suspected cases and treated as such, the tests came back (yesterday) positive, a confirmed diagnosis." The hospital shut down medical units on the fourth floor Monday to visitors and new admissions. Clostridium difficile, also called C. difficile , is one of the most common infections found in hospitals and long-term care facilities. The bug can cause severe diarrhea, nausea, cramping, bloating and serious intestinal conditions such as colitis. Higgins said St. Joseph's is pleased to have had no new cases outside its "control zone" in the hospital and "continues to monitor the situation." A new hyper-virulent superstrain of the infection has tormented Ontario hospitals for the past few years. Experts say infections and deaths from this form of C. diff are rising in this province and that the epidemic has not yet peaked. A tally by The Spectator shows at least 460 patients infected with C. diff have died at just 22 of Ontario's 157 hospitals since 2006. C. difficile has been associated with the deaths of 17 patients at St. Joseph's Hospital since January 2006, three of them since March of this year. jburman at thespec.com ............................. And here is a story on Staph aureus outbreaks resulting in the closure of a neonatal unit in Ottawa. Staph outbreak shuts Ottawa Hospital unit for high-risk babies Last Updated: Wednesday, February 6, 2008 | 4:49 PM ET CBC News The Ottawa Hospital's general campus has closed the unit where it treats high-risk newborn babies after an outbreak of skin and eye infections caused by the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, or "staph." In the last several weeks, the neonatal intensive care unit has seen two babies with staph in their blood and a few others with the infection in their lungs. In order to control the infection, the hospital will close the high-risk neonatal unit to new patients for one to two weeks, said Dr. Brigitte Lemyre, the hospital's acting chief. Babies already in the unit will be allowed to remain. Lemyre said staph is a common bacterium that doesn't usually cause infections. However, premature and critically ill babies are more susceptible and any infection has the potential to kill. "This one is treated with common antibiotics," she said. "It's usually something that we can get under control." However, control has been difficult due to overcrowding, she added. "We've been running over capacity the last few weeks, so keeping the babies separate has not always been possible," she added. Babies that would normally be treated in the unit are now being referred to the hospital's civic campus or the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, but a longer closure could result in some being sent as far away as London, Kingston or Toronto, she said. "I feel very bad because it's creating a great deal of stress for parents who are already stressed by having a baby in the unit," she said. But she added that the decision was necessary for patient safety. Hospital officials said part of the problem is that there are only 400 neonatal intensive care beds in the province and that is not enough. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 4 12:37:19 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:37:19 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario Hospitals- Public Posting of Resistant Infection Rates Message-ID: http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/national/story.html?id=84d7b02a-7e25-4cce-9f58-789c3d8a8daf Canadian hospitals lax on infection control: watchdog Pauline Tam and Cassandra Drudi Canwest News Service Thursday, September 04, 2008 OTTAWA - The widespread use of antibiotics has made hospitals "less vigorous" about infection control, says the Toronto physician charged with spurring Ontario hospitals to report outbreaks of the potentially fatal C. difficile superbug. As part of a government-ordered push for improvements in patient safety, hospitals across the province will soon start publicly tracking rates of three deadly infections, starting with C. difficile. Hospitals also will have to report to public health officials any time they see three or more cases of the illnesses at once. The alert would trigger a process designed to better monitor and prevent an outbreak. The moves are an effort to help patients better understand the risks when they enter hospitals and make hospitals more accountable for controlling infections, said Dr. Michael Baker, chief physician at Toronto's University Health Network and Ontario's patient-safety watchdog. "It's reassuring our patients and our public that we are on this," Baker said Wednesday. A string of publicized deaths from C. difficile, a bacterium that attacks the intestines causing severe diarrhea and even death in elderly patients, has been an issue in some Ontario hospitals for years. Concern also mounted after Quebec hospitals experienced an outbreak of a particularly virulent strain of the superbug. By the end of September, hospitals are expected to start posting their rates of the illness on a public website. By year's end, hospitals also will have to report on two more potentially deadly infections: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE). Baker said he already has seen progress made by hospitals to improve their infection-control practices. "I will say, having been around the province this past week, hospitals are on it." The Ottawa Hospital is one of the few to have started publicly reporting its C. difficile rate ahead of the provincial directive. The most recent data show that among nearly 12,000 patients, the hospital had 39 reported cases in the first three months of this year, resulting in an infection rate of 0.34 per cent. The figure has remained relatively constant since the hospital started keeping quarterly numbers last year. Likewise, the number of the hospital's reported cases of MRSA continues to hover at 37, or 0.33 per cent, while the quarterly number of VRE cases has dropped to four in the first three months of this year, from 10 last spring From rcollis at syd.eastlink.ca Tue Sep 2 21:45:29 2008 From: rcollis at syd.eastlink.ca (Richard) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:45:29 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Fw: Message-ID: <0A49FE1228B84EC5A4E6299CDC254104@conniseu76jjf5> > > Today, 09/02/08, citizens of Sydney Mines are complaining about > the stench blanketing the town. > > This strong, sickening smell is coming from the Princess Mine > reclamation site off Pitt St. > > Some people were sickened by the smell to the point of vomiting > and experiancing respitory problems. > > I understand that the so called top soil supplement may be a > mixture of sludge from the cooling ponds at the Tar Ponds clean > up ,( the agency says no way), compost from Eyking Farms which > may or may not contain poultry which die in the egg laying > process of the farm, or compost from Antigonish, or even worse, > sewage sludge from Halifax Sewage treatment plants . > > The towns of Cape Breton Island, where DEVCO and SYSCO plan to > remeadiate the former coal and steel making sites, should be > very cautious, aware and informed as to what is being disposed > of on these sites. > > Cape Breton has been in the past and will continue to be the > Toilet of NS so long as the citizens continue to elect > Councillors, MLAs and MPs that make decisions like allowing sewage > sludge from Halifax to be spread on farmers fields and MINE > RECLAMATION ( as per HRM Council minutes Apr.04), sites through-out > Cape Breton Island. > > > Richard Collis > Boularderie Island > 902-674-2829 > > > > > From afscme207 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 4 21:52:07 2008 From: afscme207 at sbcglobal.net (AFSCME lOCAL 20 Public Utility Emplo) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Open Statement to Mayor Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. & the City Council Message-ID: <419694.56407.qm@web80408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> LOCAL 207 ORGANIZER Official Newsletter of AFSCME Local 207, Issue #98, September 4, 2008 Phone: 313-965-1601 Fax: 313-965-1603 Pager: 313-769-3379 Email: afscme207 at sbcglobal.net website: myspace.com/afscme207 An Open Statement to Mayor Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. & the City Council Kilpatrick has resigned after pleading guilty to 3 felonies. Federal charges may be pending. Contrary to what many bigwigs are saying on TV, this is not a ?sad day for Detroit.? It is a good day for Detroit, an excellent day to stand for our city, and the best day to fight to win. Local 207 is proud of our role in leading the charge for Kilpatrick?s resignation. What follows is an open statement to Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. and the City Council urging them to make a u-turn away from Kilpatrick?s program of selling the city to the highest bidder, and toward a brave and forthright stand for the people of Detroit. It can be a new day for Detroit and the whole country. Obama?s candidacy and Kilpatrick?s downfall offer us unprecedented chances to replace the cynicism of ?it?ll never change ? so why expect better leadership? with the hope and expectations to go with the rise of a new grass-roots fight for real justice and real change. The people of Detroit are watching every move now. The new Mayor and the City Council have a challenge and an opportunity to chart a new course. Those who will stand boldly for Detroiters can take their place as heroes, those who shirk their duty will not be in office long. Here is an initial list of tasks for Detroit?s Elected Officials, and the goals for a new movement: ? HIRE DETROIT YOUTH INTO CITY JOBS. Restore all city services that Kilpatrick cut, including bulk pickup. Return the laid off workers and withdraw the recent threats of layoffs. Return to 2001 staffing levels. ? STOP PRIVATIZATION OF CITY JOBS, starting with contracts granted to Bobby Ferguson. Replace the private, poorly-paid ?Clean Detroit? workers with City workers. Enforce the Privatization Ordinance ? stop obstructing the people?s will. ? RESCIND THE SYNAGRO CONTRACT which was approved by bribery and influence peddling. ? STOP THE WAR ON CITY UNIONS. Negotiate fair contracts for City workers, with restitution for concessions imposed by Kilpatrick. Respect the Grievance Procedure and settle outstanding cases. ? PURGE THE CITY OF CORRUPTION AND NEPOTISM. Immediately fire all Kilpatrick appointees. Publish all the text messages. Expose the rich backers of Kilpatrick?s corrupt regime. Conduct a forensic audit of City finances. ? FIGHT FOR EQUAL, QUALITY, INTEGRATED EDUCATION. Demand that the State forgive the hundreds of millions in debt that was imposed on the Detroit Schools under the racist takeover school board. Demand a single democratically-controlled metro-wide school district, with equitable funding for all schools. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Statement.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 6 11:37:57 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:37:57 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> New Jersey- yet more Synagro sewage sludge compost Message-ID: Wed, Sep 3, 2008 Deal inked for handling of county sewage sludge MOUNT HOLLY- Burlington County freeholders have awarded a 10-year contract for operating its co-composting facility that is predicted to save the county $7.4 million over the contract period. Located at the county's Resource Recovery Complex in Mansfield, the facility processes dewatered sewage sludge with wood chips creating marketable compost which is sold to landscapers and soil manufacturers in New Jersey and surrounding states. The county plant is the largest continually operating composting facility in the nation. The contract was awarded to WeCare Organics of Jordan, New York, which offered the best price for operation as well as the lowest capital cost proposal for improvements. Advertisement WeCare will assume operations after the contract with the current operator, Synagro, expires in September. WeCare's president, Jeff LeBlanc, was formerly employed by the company that designed and constructed the county cocomposting facility and he was instrumental in preparing for its start-up in 1998. Freeholder Bill Haines Jr. noted that WeCare operates similar facilities in other states and has a good track record with respect to compliance with operating contracts and environmental permits. It also has experience in performing work to upgrade and improve existing co-composting plants. The county plans a temporary shut down of the facility this month for the capital improvements and the transition between owners. WeCare's contract includes a $1 million base operating fee for the first year with the county receiving a 20 percent share of composting revenue. Capital improvements are projected to be $3.8 million. http://www.medfordcentralrecord.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Weekly;!-1764336015?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_wk_article&r21.pgpath=%2FMED%2FHome&r21.content=%2FMED%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_2431560 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 6 11:43:13 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:43:13 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Calif: Sanitation worker falls into sewage sludge pit Message-ID: Costa Mesa firefighters pull man out of sludge Thursday, September 4, 2008 When a 51-year-old Orange County Sanitation Department worker dropped nearly 20 feet into a hole filled with muck and filth, local emergency personnel turned to Costa Mesa Fire Department rescuers to help get him out. ?He was on the radio talking about how he was hurt but they couldn?t find him for whatever reason,? Costa Mesa Battalion Chief Scott Broussard said. The man, whom officials did not identify, was working at a county water sanitation plant in Fountain Valley at about 5 a.m. when he fell 19 feet into a hole filled with all of the remnants of purified water, or sludge. He broke his leg, and possibly his shoulder, and was transferred to Western Medical Center in Santa Ana. Because of the depth and surroundings, pulling the man out of the hole was more complicated than the Fountain Valley Fire Department could handle with its equipment. The Costa Mesa Fire Department is one of the county and state?s Urban Search and Rescue units, which carry the equipment and have the training to make technically difficult rescues. Outside of being stuck in a tarry, gooey mess, officials said, the rescue was seamless. Four firefighters descended into the hole and put the man into a Stokes Basket and lifted him up using pulleys. Huntington Beach firefighters assisted in the rescue. ? Joseph Serna http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2008/09/04/publicsafety/dpt-rescueassist090508.txt From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 8 12:09:16 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:09:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Proposed buffers for sludge in Virginia - comment period open Message-ID: What's New in Virginia Pollution Abatement? 9/4/08: Draft Guidance on Biosolids Buffers: DEQ is accepting written public comment on this draft guidance regarding buffers at biosolids land application sites. Read the proposed guidance: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vpa/pdf/DRAFT_Guidance-Biosolids_Buffers.pdf Contact Christina Wood at cmwood at deq.virginia.gov or P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218. The comment period ends October 7, 2008. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 8 13:46:45 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:46:45 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> LA Legal Bills on Kern Sludge Case Excessive- Judge Shocked Message-ID: Legal bill tossed as excessive By Kerry Cavanaugh 09/06/2008 A federal judge has found that two law firms inflated their bills to the city by $900,000, renewing concerns that City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has spent too much money and provided too little oversight on outside counsel. But Delgadillo's office defended the firms, saying his staff approved each bill before payment. They credited the lawyers' work with helping win a major lawsuit and save the city tens of millions of dollars. The city is supposed to receive partial reimbursement for the bills from Kern County, which lost a lawsuit filed by L.A. over transportation of sludge. The judge's finding that bills submitted in the case were "grossly excessive" followed concerns expressed earlier this year by other city officials about the cost and oversight of outside counsel, which cost Los Angeles $29 million last year. "This is exactly why on two different occasions I have attempted to look at various aspects of the city attorney's use of outside legal counsel," said City Controller Laura Chick, who has battled Delgadillo over whether she can audit his use of outside counsel. "I would thank the court very much for catching this." The excessive charges came to light last week when U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess slashed attorneys fees owed to firms that represented Los Angeles in a lawsuit challenging Kern County's ban on importation of L.A.'s sewage sludge. Los Angeles won the case and can continue trucking treated human waste to farmland in Kern County, which saves the city an estimated $21 million a year. As part of the judgement, Kern is required to pay the attorneys' fees. Bingham McCutchen and Beveridge & Diamond, submitted to the court bills totaling nearly $2 million. But after Kern County officials analyzed the bills and objected to the high fees, Feess cut the reimbursement down to $1.1 million. He noted the firms - who were earning between $380 and $395 an hour - allegedly spent 738 hours preparing a 29-page complaint that rehashed issues L.A. has already fought in court during the previous lawsuits. "The total amount of time allegedly billed to this task is shockingly excessive and must be reduced," Feess wrote. Jimmy Slaughter with Beveridge & Diamond said the fees were legitimate. "It was much more than just preparing the complaint," Slaughter said. "That also reflected time writing the complaint, visiting the farm, interviewing witnesses and learning the facts of the case." Delgadillo's office is continuing to review total billings on the sewage sludge case, which is being appealed. So far, L.A. has paid the firms $2.1 million. However, the City Attorney's Office was not concerned with the judge's finding. "We recouped almost $1.1 million in legal fees, which is almost unheard of," said Frank Mateljan, spokesman for Delgadillo. "We believe that this successful litigation has saved tens of millions (of dollars) for the city." William "Mike" Hensely, an expert on attorney fee issues, said it's common for judges to award less money for attorneys fees than requested. But he was also struck by high fees sought by the two firms. "When you see someone billing 700 hours for a complaint, that's fairly shocking," said Hensely, a Santa Ana-based lawyer who writes the California Attorney's Fees blog. "I would think that Los Angeles is going to use this opinion to get a reduction or get some compromise," on the legal bill. City Councilman Dennis Zine, who has questioned the high cost of hiring outside counsel, said he would ask Delgadillo's office to explain the billing. "I'm glad they won the cause, but it's not supposed to be a situation where the taxpayers end up paying more than they need to," Zine said. "When a judge, a neutral party, looks at it and gasps at the dollar value, there's something wrong with this situation." kerry.cavanaugh at dailynews.com http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10402056 .................................................................................... Kern ordered to pay $1 million in sludge lawsuit fees BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer jburger at bakersfield.com | Thursday, Sep 4 2008 12:27 PM Last Updated: Thursday, Sep 4 2008 3:56 PM The federal judge who ruled against Kern County in its legal duel with Los Angeles and Orange County over treated sewage sludge has dealt Kern another $1 million blow. Our readers recommend: Charred body found in Rosedale trunk You paid how much? See what buyers are spending on homes Police swarm park once beset by vandals, boozers More troubles for City in the Hills developer Motorcyclist killed in crash on 58 PDF: Read the court order regarding attorneys' fees for yourself. Related Stories: Kern pulls ahead in fight over fees Judge rejects sludge lawsuit fee for Kern County L.A. wants Kern to pay $1.9 million in sludge fight legal fees Supervisors agree to appeal L.A. ruling L.A. court paves way for sludge Judge overturns Kern sludge ban L.A. judge again rules against Kern in dispute Kern delivered defeat in sludge fight U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess has ruled Kern owes $1.08 million to lawyers for the private hauling and spreading firms that partnered with Los Angeles and Orange in the lawsuit. One year ago today, Feess ruled Kern County???s ban on the land application of the southland???s treated sewage sludge, also referred to as ???biosolids,??? is trumped by state waste recycling rules and violates interstate commerce law. He declared Measure E ???null and void.??? Feess also ruled that the lawyers who won the case were entitled to fees from Kern County. Those lawyers originally asked for $1.9 million, but in an earlier ruling Feess demanded detailed documentation justifying those fees. He got it and, on Wednesday, awarded the attorneys for the five businesses that work with Los Angeles and Orange County a little more than half their request. Kern County Assistant County Counsel Steve Schuett said he was glad Feess closely reviewed the lawyers??? bills. ???We???re just glad the judge was able to weed through the pile of bills and reduce the fees from the excessive amount they asked for,??? he said. Feess chastised the winning attorneys, stating ???the hours spent by Individual Plaintiffs??? counsel in prosecuting this action were grossly excessive.??? He itemized $898,487 in questionable or excessive billing claimed by the Beveridge & Diamond and Bingham McCutchen law firms. In one example, the Bingham and Beveridge firms documented 738.6 hours spent preparing the 29-page initial complaint launching the lawsuit. Feess contrasted that to the 764.2 hours Kern County???s private attorney Michael Hogan spent ???in total defending this case.??? Attorney James Slaughter of Beveridge & Diamond said his clients had no comment on the ruling. A call to the office of Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo seeking comment was not immediately returned. Los Angeles and Orange County are not entitled to money from this award. Kern County is appealing Feess??? initial ruling, which overturned Measure E, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. ???We can't rely on a hometown judge making a decision on behalf of hometown lawyers,??? said Kern County Supervisor Don Maben. Schuett said the basis for the award was the hauling company lawyers??? win on the interstate commerce issue. ???If they don???t prevail on that in the 9th Circuit, then we don???t pay the attorney fees,??? Schuett said. However, the county may need to appeal Feess??? Wednesday award of attorney fees in order to avoid paying an immediate bill of $1.08 million. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 8 19:32:26 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:32:26 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario Residents seek damages from sludge farm contamination Message-ID: Activist to take sludge fight to court Posted By Brian Schuette Sept 8 2008 Warkworth ??? The fight against sludge being spread on local farms is about to head into a new direction. Taking on the provincial government from the perspective of health concerns has proved fruitless so opponents of the practice will now argue they are owed substantial financial compensation because their properties have been devalued as a result of biosolids being applied on nearby fields. Leading the way is Wendy Deavitt. She believes the sludge that has been spread on fields near her home west of Warkworth has poisoned her land, her family, and her farm animals, and made it impossible for her to sell her property. Deavitt said last week she plans to file a lawsuit against the municipalities of Trent Hills and Cobourg (where the treated sewage originates), the Ministry of the Environment, the company that hauls the sludge and the farmer who makes use of it. Deavitt announced her intentions at a meeting she held at her home Sept. 3 for the newly formed citizens??? group opposed to the use of sludge, tentatively named Concerned Citizens of Northumberland County. Deavitt said she has been told in conversations with an Ottawa-area lawyer, Donald Good, that it would take just one biosolids-related case in Ontario to set a precedent for similar lawsuits in future. ???Whether we sue for property damages, or stress, or pain and suffering, I???m looking at all angles,??? Deavitt said. She recently took her property off the real estate market after having it listed for a year-and-a-half and dropping the price by $40,000 and still getting no takers. Her Campbellford real estate agent told her he believes the presence of biosolids on land next to her home scares off prospective buyers. Courts in Georgia have already tackled the controversial subject. There they agreed with two dairy farmers that hundreds of their cattle had died as a result of poisoning from fields that had had biosolids applied. In one ruling last March, the judge presiding over the case said senior Environmental Protection Agency officials "took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent, and any questioning of EPA's biosolids program." Deavitt has run into similar stonewalling in her inquiries to the MOE and the public health department about the spreading of sludge around her home. They have continued to tell her that the practice is safe. Test results presented in that Georgia case showed that some of the same contaminants found in the sludge showed up in milk produced by a neighbouring dairy farmer. They indicated that the level of a type of rat poison found in the milk was more than 100 times the concentration allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency. That contamination and the recent ruling raise new doubts on both sides of the border about the 30-year practice of using treated sewage as a fertilizer on fields where crops are grown. Real estate agent Diane Kloosterman of Bowes and Cocks??? Norwood office attended the meeting to find out more information about the practice. She was unaware of the issue until reading a recent report on a standoff between a couple in Campbellford and a neighbouring company earlier this summer. ???This is terrible,??? Kloosterman said of recent developments. ???It???s right on the edge of Campbellford. What???s going on???? She admitted she is becoming concerned about the issue, if only from a purely business standpoint. ???I don???t want to sell something that has something like this next door because there???s a day it will come back and bite you,??? Kloosterman said. ???I just want to do my job and not get burned. We just need one person to stand up and there will be a lawsuit.??? To date, she hasn???t been asking her property vendors if they have sludge on or around their properties. ???I will now,??? she said. Two other well-known local opponents to biosolids are Linda and Roger Donaldson, who formerly lived on Norham Road. When they disclosed to their real estate agent that sludge was used on fields near their home, they said they had to drop their asking price by $20,000 in order to sell. Another couple, Greg and Nikki Newton, recently bought 50 acres by Deavitt???s farm. After they had taken possession, they were informed by a neighbour about the sludge that had been spread around them. ???We would???ve probably not purchased the property,??? Greg said. He, too, is thinking of now taking legal action against the vendor and the real estate agent for failing to disclose the contamination. He said the couple bought their new home in Trent Hills because it seemed like ???God???s country??? to them, and they found it ???beautiful.??? He has a different view now. ???You find out really it???s a sludge pit,??? he said, and commented to Deavitt: ???The value of your house affects mine.??? Deavitt said she believes the MOE and the province count on people to keep their mouths shut and not to stand up for their rights. ???Do we just let them keep shoving it down our throats???? she asked. ???If we???re concerned about our property value, we all need to speak out.??? To that end, the newly formed group will be posting signs on their properties that read ???Sludge Free Farms.??? http://www.communitypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1190422 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 9 13:32:01 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:32:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> SHARE YOUR SLUDGE STORY WITH SENATE at Sludge Briefing Message-ID: Group seeks community input for national sludge fight BY STACEY SHEPARD, Californian staff writer sshepard at bakersfield.com Tuesday, Sep 9 2008 A group calling for a federal moratorium on land applying sewage sludge is collecting stories from people affected by sludge in their community. SHARE YOUR SLUDGE STORY Tell federal lawmakers how you???ve been impacted by sludge by completing a form or faxing your story to 617-522-0690 The stories will be submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, during an oversight briefing on sludge Thursday. ???We want the committee to hear stories directly from people who are being adversely impacted by land application,??? said Laura Orlando, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health and executive director of the ReSource Institute for Low Entropy Systems, a nonprofit organization that works on sanitation and water quality issues. ???We want to get the story out there that people around the country are suffering from this practice of disposing sewage sludge on land.??? Orlando???s group wants Congress to declare an immediate moratorium on the land application of sludge while there???s more scientific study of it. They say new science shows spreading sludge on farmland is not the safe practice federal regulators say it is. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has promoted the land application of sludge since ocean dumping was outlawed in 1987. When that happened, Kern County became the destination for thousands of tons of sludge from around the state, including almost all of the sludge from the city of Los Angeles. Southland sanitation officials insist the practice doesn???t do harm. For years, Kern County leaders and residents have battled with Los Angeles and other Southland agencies over the sludge. The county imposed stricter treatment standards and, in 2006, voters banned its spreading on farmland by overwhelmingly approving Measure E. But a Los Angeles judge overturned the ban in 2007; Kern is appealing. After several national news stories about the safety of sludge broke earlier this year, Boxer called for the Senate committee hearing by the end of summer. Committee officials said Monday that Boxer and other committee members had decided in recent days to hold a scaled-down briefing instead of a hearing, though they declined to say why. The briefing will feature testimony from an EPA whistleblower, a Georgia farmer whose land was polluted and animals died from sludge spread on his land, a retired Cornell University scientist and a sewer district manager from Utah. EPA officials declined to testify, committee officials said. http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/546645.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 9 19:40:28 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:40:28 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sludge to Charcoal Message-ID: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp#newsitem Sewage sludge makes a good charcoal! Read more about how HNEI's Flash Carbonization? process was most recently used to convert sewage sludge from the Ewa treatment plant into a biocarbon material (charcoal) - see the photograph for a view of what the resultant charcoal looks like. See the News Item for details and contact Dr. Michael J. Antal, Jr. for more information Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: alternative - Hawaii - sludge to charcoal ? http://www.hawaiireporter.com:80/story.aspx?8445b52c-43cb-427a-859c-a62dda573ef2 Carbonization of Waste is a University of Hawaii-based Trash Management Option By Panos Prevedouros, PhD, 9/9/2008 9:32:58 AM Technology developed by University of Hawaii researcher Michael J. Antal Jr. to produce charcoal from green waste can reduce the burden on the Waimanalo Gulch landfill. Dr. Antal's flash carbonization process uses heat and pressure to turn scrap tires, corn cobs, macadamia nut shells and green waste into a high-quality, clean alternative to wood or coal. Flash Carbonization? of raw sewage sludge produced in Honolulu's Ewa treatment plant was converted into charcoal. Charcoal yields of about 30% (dry basis) were produced from the sewage sludge. Charcoal is the sustainable fuel replacement for coal. Coal combustion is the most important contributor to climate change. On the other hand, the combustion of charcoal - sustainably produced from renewable biomass - adds no CO2 to the atmosphere! Thus, the replacement of coal by charcoal is among the most important steps we can take to ameliorate climate change. Combustion of charcoal does not add to the CO2 burden of the atmosphere because charcoal is produced from renewable biomass that would otherwise decompose (i.e. rot) in a landfill or in the ground and become CO2. Thus the combustion of charcoal is a small part of nature's carbon cycle upon which life depends. We burn coal to generate a good portion of the electrical power in Hawaii. Oahu has a 180 MW coal fired power plant. The highest priority for knowledgeable people who care about the environment is the replacement of coal by cleaner, renewable fuels. The Sand Island sewage treatment plant converts its sewage sludge to dry pellets which can be used to enrich the soil. However, the other sewage plants continue to send their sludge to the landfill. Installing a carbon diversion system at all the other plants could not only reduce the burden on our landfill but cut down on the import and use of coal to generate electricity. The replacement of coal by charcoal has other benefits. Coal is laden with mercury and sulfur. Mercury is a deadly toxin. Coal is also laden with sulfur and the combustion of coal leads to the release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. Sulfur oxides are a principal cause of acid rain. In contrast, charcoal contains no mercury and virtually no sulfur. In fact, our drug stores sell charcoal tablets to eat as an aid for digestion! Moreover, on a pound per pound basis, charcoal contains much more energy than most coals. Just this year, in July and August, thousands of discarded old tires were found in Kapolei. At least two recycling companies apparently have had problems with old tires. They can serve as feedstock for a carbon diversion system and produce tons of charcoal in the process. My personal preference, however, is to use old, used and discarded tires in the asphalt pavement mix, which offers a cheaper re-use path and an improved final product, i.e., more durable asphalt pavements. Oahu has thousands of acres devoted to growing seed corn for the mainland. The system can process corn cobs into miniature charcoal corn cobs which could probably be sold at a premium. It takes only a half acre to install a carbon diversion system which can process up to four tons of waste material per hour. For more information see: http://www.carbondiversion.com Panos Prevedouros, PhD. is a candidate for mayor. Please visit http://www.panosforprogress.com to learn more. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 10 10:24:39 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:24:39 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> San Antonio - methane from sludge - sewage effluent for irrigation Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The gases that come out of a sludge digester can be burned as a fuel or they are flared off to protect the environment. The gases need to be cleaned if they are to be used to power buses and taxi's. While these big 'digester eggs' that have sprung up around the USA are supposed to optimize methane collection, in some places the expense was wasted. In Baltimore, for instance, the process of cleaning the gases was a failure and the gas from the digesters is just flared off. Switzerland and Sweden are two places where the sludge digester gases are refined and utilized to power buses and taxis. It makes sense to utilize the gases ... because they can be cleaned. It does not make sense to recycle the sewage sludge or the sewage effluent - since these contain harmful toxins and pathogens making them unsuitable and dangerous for recycling. Here is Stephen Salter's excellent website on sludge as a resource: http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/PDF/Treating-Waste-as-a-Resource-0611.pdf ....................................... Recycling Gas Produces Environmental Gains - Cuts Processing Costs Tuesday, 9 September 2008 San Antonio Water System's Board of Trustees approved a truly innovative contract today that will make the utility the first in the nation to capture and sell methane generated while treating the city's sewage. The gas is generated by biosolids during the sewage treatment process. Eighty percent of biosolids - the solids remaining after liquid waste is removed - are used to generate compost. With the new contract, sewage treated at Dos Rios Water Recycling Center will now be used to generate environmentally friendly products, such as recycled water - which improves river quality and is used in place of potable water by industry and manufacturers - and compost, which is used to improve soil quality and now energy. "The citizens of San Antonio produce about 140,000 tons of biosolids each year," said SAWS Chief Operating Officer Steve Clouse. "Treating these biosolids generates an average of 1.5 million cubic feet of gas a day - that's enough gas to fill seven commercial blimps or 1,250 tanker trucks each day." "Most of that gas is currently burned off using flares. We have been working hard over the last few years to develop a process to improve the consistent quality and quantity of gas produced. Now we're very pleased that we can capture and sell it, which is good for San Antonio's air quality and puts this renewable energy resource to work for San Antonio." This industry-leading project includes a 20-year lease and operating agreement between SAWS and Ameresco. Ameresco will construct the gas conditioning and distribution facility and the pipelines necessary to transfer the gas to commercial gas pipelines. They will also be in charge of selling the gas on the open market. In return, SAWS will receive a 12 percent royalty on the sale of the gas - which helps reduce the cost of SAWS operations and in turn, for our ratepayers. "Due to the increases we are experiencing in the price of energy, this project is now a very smart investment for the environment and regional community," said Clouse. "Early estimates put the revenue at about $200,000 to $250,000 a year. SAWS will be the only large wastewater utility actively selling biogas in the United States." Since 1992, San Antonio Water System, a municipally owned utility, has provided leadership in managing and developing water resources in the San Antonio region. Water and wastewater services are provided to more than 1 million consumers in the San Antonio area. Source: Business Wire http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1549400/recycling_gas_produces_environmental_gains__cuts_processing_costs/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Texas city plans to convert human waste to energy Tue Sep 9, 2008 SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - San Antonio unveiled a deal on Tuesday that will make it the first U.S. city to harvest methane gas from human waste on a commercial scale and turn it into clean-burning fuel. San Antonio residents produce about 140,000 tons a year of a substance gently referred to as "biosolids," which can be reprocessed into natural gas, said Steve Clouse, chief operating officer of the city's water system. "You may call it something else," Clouse said, but for area utilities, the main byproduct of human waste - methane gas - will soon be converted into natural gas to burn in their power plants. The city approved a deal where Massachusetts-based Ameresco Inc will convert the city's biosolids into natural gas, which could generate about 1.5 million cubic feet per day, he said. Methane gas, which is a byproduct of human and organic waste, is a principal component of the natural gas used to fuel furnaces, power plants, and other combustion-based generators. "The private vendor will come onto the facility, construct some gas cleaning systems, remove the moisture, remove the carbon dioxide content, and then sell that gas on the open market," Clouse said. The gas will be sold to power generators, he said. Some communities are using methane gas harvested from solid waste to power smaller facilities like sewage treatment plants, but San Antonio is the first to see large-scale conversion of methane gas from sewage into fuel for power generation, he said. Following the agreement, more than 90 percent of materials flushed down the toilets and sinks of San Antonio will be recycled, he said. Liquid is now used for irrigation, many of the solids are made into compost, and now the methane gas will be recycled for power generation. (Reporting by Jim Forsyth, Editing by Chris Baltimore and Lisa Shumaker) http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0937395520080909 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 10 10:26:06 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:26:06 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> EPA holds meeting on "Total Coliform Rule" Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: To learn more about the total coliform rule: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/index.html EPA to Hold Public Meeting of the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee. EPA announced in the September 3 Federal Register that it is holding a public meeting of the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC) on September 18. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) revision and information about distribution systems issues that may impact water quality. The TCRDSAC advises and makes recommendations to the Agency onrevisions to the TCR, and on what information should be collected, research conducted, and/or risk management strategies evaluated to better inform distribution system contaminant occurrence and associated public health risks. During this meeting the TCRDSAC will discuss the Committee's revisions to the draft Agreement in Principle (AIP), which includes recommended revisions to the TCR and recommendations for research and information collection to better understand and address possible public health impacts from potential degradation of drinking water quality in the distribution system. The public meeting will be held on Thursday, September 18, 2008 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)). The Agency expects to conclude discussions on the AIP on September 18; however, if discussions are not completed on September 18, the TCRDSAC will also meet on Friday, September 19, beginning at 9 a.m. (ET) to finalize discussions. Attendees should register for the meeting by calling Kate Zimmer at (202) 965-6387 or by e-mail to kzimmer at resolv.org no later than September 12, 2008. The meeting will be held at The Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20009. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 14:20:27 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:20:27 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Plasma Gasification of Sludge Message-ID: Thanks Helane.. ................................ http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/1849.html Clean Energy Solution - What is Plasma Gasification? Plasma Gasification Process (PGP) is a thermal process that involves the application of intense heat to waste materials in a completely closed, controlled, and oxygen-starved environment. This process converts waste materials into a clean synthetic gas and heat that can be used to generate electricity. Is the Plasma Gasification Process (PGP) just another form of incineration? No. The PGP system is a thermal process that takes place in an oxygen-starved environment. Because minimal oxygen is present, no burning occurs. By applying intense heat to waste material in the presence of small and controlled amounts of oxygen, the waste is broken down into its simplest molecules and then recombined into an energy rich synthetic gas. This process is far superior to incineration because no emissions are released into the atmosphere and the syngas produced is rich in energy and is an efficient fuel for creating electricity with gas engines or gas turbines How clean is the Plasma Gasification Process (PGP)? The Plasma Gasification Process is beyond compliance with the strictest Canadian or European environmental guidelines. The waste conversion process produces no air emissions, nothing is released into the ground, and all the products of the process are completely reusable. Electricity generation using the synthetic gas product is as clean as electricity generation using natural gas-the gold standard in clean energy. What types of waste can be processed? The PGP system can process any waste stream such as: MSW (Municipal Solid Waste), biomedical waste and spent potliner, a granular waste from aluminum smelting, biomass, oil shale, automobile fluff, lead contaminated soils, municipal sewage sludge, paint sludge, drum reconditioning sludge, organic petrochemical sludge, illicit drugs, high metal content waste, coal and MSW incinerator ashes, paper mill reject waste, fluorescent light ballasts, asbestos containing material, explosives industry waste, rubber tires and industrial hazardous wastes including PCBs and concentrated insecticides. What are the products of PGP? There are three products produced by PGP. The main product of the process is a synthetic gas produced when the volatile elements in the waste material are reduced to their base molecules. This gas is used to generate electricity by feeding it into the same type of gas engine used in the production of electricity from natural gas. The second product of the process is heat which produces steam. The steam is collected and fed into the electricity generation process to improve its efficiency. The third and final product of the process is a glass-like reusable solid (otherwise known as slag) that is produced when the non-volatile elements of the waste material decompose. As hard and clean as glass, this solid has a variety of uses such as a road or building material additive. The solid does not react with other elements and leaches less than the glass from a common soda bottle. Is there a limit to the amount of waste which can be processed? There is virtually no limit to the amount of waste which can be processed. The PGP system is particularly adaptable to designing total systems around a multiple processing string approach. The string size for waste streams such as MSW can be up to 200 metric tons per day with multiple plasma arc generator heating systems per string. The optimum string size for other types of waste is dictated by the characteristics of the waste itself. To learn more about Zero Waste projects that currently use or plan to use plasma gasification process as part of waste management strategy, go to http://zerowasteottawa.com. Article Source: John Lahey From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 14:26:18 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:26:18 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> North Carolina - Desperation - Farms need to be protected from sludge Message-ID: Tim Keim: Chatham's farms a resource to be protected Aug 31, 2008 In my last column you'd have read that I believe farmers are the most important people in the world. Never will I back off that statement. I also mentioned that, for the sake of food security, protection of Chatham County farmlands should be our number one priority. In my first column I spoke about the dead zones growing in Chatham's rivers and lakes because of fertilizer run off and under-treated sewage. This is a continuing enumeration of the serious threats to our local life support system. Chatham County farmers, like farmers across the nation, are desperate for some way to maintain productivity and profitability. Out of that desperation they have become the unwitting victims of the Synagro Corporation's plan to sell them sewage sludge that is supposed to nourish their soil for healthier crops. Corporate producers call it "bio-solids." But it's better known as sludge. The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Environmental Science describes sewage sludge as "A viscous, semisolid mixture of bacteria and virus-laden organic matter, toxic metals, synthetic organic chemicals, and settled solids removed from domestic and industrial waste water at sewage treatment plants." Among the substances found in sludge are antibiotics, hormones like steroids and Viagra, metals like lead, cadmium and arsenic, concentrations of deadly e. coli, fire retardant, and the ubiquitous disinfectant, triclosan which can be found in anti-bacterial soaps, cosmetics and products for your baby. Triclosan when exposed to sunlight becomes dioxin. Then there's the problem of what happens when thousands of other undetected compounds and disease causing bacteria are concentrated together in sludge. The synergistic affects of that mixture may well be leading to antibiotic strains of deadly e. coli. Remember last fall? E. coli bacterial contamination of spinach and lettuce killed people, and prompted a nationwide recall of those products. Those fields were irrigated with water discharged from sewage treatment plants. Also, food crops take up heavy metals and concentrate them. Livestock fed silage contaminated by sewage sludge can pass this toxic burden on to humans as we dine on the flesh of these animals. Fish populations in our area are already contaminated by fertilizer runoff, and several chemicals in sludge have an estrogen-like affect on fish, causing males to exhibit female sexual characteristics. There are approximately 52 farmland sludge dumping sites in the Rocky River watershed in Chatham County above Siler City and Sanford. Sludge applied to these sites is very likely running off into the creeks and Rocky River. Set backs from water courses are supposed to be observed, but there is no monitoring to ensure compliance. Furthermore, little to no testing of the Rocky River has been done below these sites to check for contaminants. In 2006, more five million gallons of sludge were spread on farmlands in Chatham County (Ed Hardee, Aquifer Protection Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2008). Cities that have permits to land apply sewage sludge in Chatham County include public utilities in Siler City, Burlington, Sanford, Cary, Apex, OWASA, Holly Springs, and Pittsboro (Ed Hardee, 4/17/08). According to maps provided by Synagro, a number of fields receiving sludge are located extremely close to bodies of water These maps state that 1-inch equals 660 ft. If these maps are to scale, the majority of these permitted fields do not meet the regulatory requirement of a minimum distance of 100 ft. to surface water (Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund). A study conducted by Eastern Washington University and the USGS concluded that a range of compounds are "incompletely removed during wastewater treatment and sequestered in biosolids [a.k.a., sewage sludge] that are subsequently land applied." The potential concerns surrounding the presence of these compounds in the environment include adverse psychological effects, increased cancer, reproductive impairment in humans and other animals, and antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria. This ever mounting evidence bolsters an opinion I've held for years: some of the greatest crimes are perfectly legal. Intentionally spreading pollution may be legal, but it's a crime against nature and humanity. Chatham County is being used like a Third World toxic waste dump. But there may be a glimmer of hope shining in this story. Senator Barbara Boxer has called for Senate hearings to investigate the risks of pharmaceuticals in drinking water and the risks to water, food and health from sewage sludge used for fertilizer on farmlands. As comforting as that might sound, I wouldn't house all my hope in that prospect. Calling for hearings is one thing, actually defending our local farmlands is another. Any politician, national or local is going to need a lot of help to get the job done. Chemical companies and sludge traffickers like Synagro are not going to roll over and play dead. They have well-paid mercenaries of their own, in and out of government. If Chatham County is going to grow a living, local economy free of legal, corporate pollution then I recommend that we engage our farmers directly and share our concerns with them. If farmers understand the risks of alienating their markets, they'll have to think twice about hosting toxic sludge on their lands. Tim Keim, a Pittsboro resident, is a writer and the recipient of many awards for his radio news and documentary work. His column appears in this space every other Saturday. Readers can contact Keim at chh at heraldsun.com or c/o The Chapel Hill Herald, 106 Mallette St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 15:09:04 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:09:04 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> California and Water - the Silence of Collapse Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is an important look at California water resources and how they are distributed and squandered. Does it make sense to irrigate leafy greens with sewage effluent? What about farm contamination of surface water with agricultural runoff - high in fertilizer and pesticides? California farms now have to report the quality and contamintion in the run off water. And if the fields are sludged - the tail water is that much more contaminated. California Irrigated Lands Program: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/irrigated_lands/long_term_program_development/index.shtml .................................................................................................................... The Silence of Collapse by Rachel Olivieri / September 4th, 2008 There is no landmass on Earth quite like California. Here one finds the world???s most ancient trees, bristlecone pines, more than 4,700 years old, in the White Mountains; the tallest and largest trees, the coast redwood and giant sequoia, respectively; the highest point in the lower 48 states, Mount Whitney; the lowest and hottest place in the Western Hemisphere, Death Valley; the largest western hemisphere estuary, the Bay Delta; an 800-mile coastline; the most irrigated acres; the most endangered species in the U.S.; the most diverse geology and biodiversity in the U.S.; and the greatest, most ecologically destructive water projects on Earth. California has spared no expense to either taxpayers or natural ecosystems to attain its status as the most hydrologically altered landmass on the planet. It would surprise few that California was built on gold, greed, extraction, depletion, extinction, dubiously acquired large-landed semi-desert agricultural empires, well-gifted railroad land grants fueling speculative growth, and highly subsidized stolen water???all comprising a tunnel vision for overextended populations and infinite growth in a world utterly finite. The incomprehensible vulnerability of California???s over-reaching population centers (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose), the projected urban expansion of the Central Valley, and the weight of climate-warming models leaves one haunted by civilization???s lack of respect for a river???s entitlement to its water and the food systems that it naturally perpetuates. There???s only so much natural wealth covering the 158,302 square miles of California???s ten hydrologic regions. When a region overextends its local resources, it must take from another. More than water is diverted; it drains the very wealth of the food chains these waters support in aquatic, terrestrial, and ocean basins. With 200 million acre-feet (MAF) of average precipitation spreading over 100 million acres containing 450 known groundwater basins and draining on average 71 MAF of runoff through 20,000 miles of rivers and streams, California has only 1,900 river miles legally protected from dams and diversions. All but one major river remains dam-free, the Smith River on the upper north coast. About 42 MAF of the state???s runoff is captured and diverted through six major systems of reservoirs and aqueducts. This massive infrastructure artificially waters the coastal region from the North Bay to San Diego, and the Sacramento Valley through the San Joaquin Valley into the Tulare Basin, the Mojave Desert, and the southernmost Imperial and Coachella valleys. Before the Spanish arrived in 1769, there were only twelve large natural lakes in California???Lake Tahoe, Lower Klamath, Goose, Tule, Honey, Eagle, Clear, Mono, Owens, Kern, Buena Vista, and Tulare Lake. Today the latter four are devoid of original wildlife, having been dewatered for agriculture. Tulare Lake, a once-thriving ecosystem in the lower San Joaquin Valley, was four times the area of Lake Tahoe. Today, 1,200 non-federal dams and 181 large federal dams with their reservoirs temporarily dominate a contrived oasis that is doomed by sediment, evaporation, the force of time, the laws of nature, and global warming. These numerous artificial lakes defy the balance between natural surface water stores and underground stores. In nature, 70% of the fresh water circulating in the hydrologic cycle is stored underground and a combined total of .017% for lakes, rivers, and land-locked seas. Underground storage is free from evaporation, siltation, and storage cost (both economically and environmentally). Before European contact, underground glacial water stores were estimated at 1.3 billion acre-feet???the entire California landmass under thirteen feet of water. This now has been overdrafted to 850 MAF. Like oil, the remaining supply will be extinguished in less than a hundred years. One out of four Californians rely totally on groundwater, and nearly three-quarters of a billion acre-feet of that groundwater once lay under the Central Valley. Continual overdrafts in the region have caused the landmass to subside as much as thirty feet, yet the aquifer remains a major water source for agricultural production. Five million acres of Central Valley wetlands???nature???s food bank, filtration system, and flood control mechanism???once brimmed with life including half a million Tule elk and sixty million ducks and geese. Reclaimed for agriculture, this area has been reduced to 350,000 artificially managed wetland acres. Nine out of every ten acres of riparian woodlands are gone, along with ten thousand grizzly bears that once roamed the valleys and foothills. The loss of mega and micro flora and fauna is beyond counting. Ninety percent of the coastal salt marshes between Morro Bay and San Diego are gone. The 200,000 acres of vibrant salt marshes that once surrounded the San Francisco Bay have been reduced to 35,000 acres by landfill for urban development. The Bay Delta, the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, drains 40% of the state???s total runoff. It is the main pumping station for the massive State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. It serves two-thirds of California???s population and irrigates millions of San Joaquin and Tulare Basin acres. Eighty percent of all developed water is consumed by agriculture. The Delta is not on the verge of collapse; it is collapsing. Once supporting 345,000 acres of salt marshes and a major fishery for salmon and smelt, it has been reduced to 8,000 marsh acres, with Delta pumps decimating the fisheries. With valuable marshes reclaimed as islands below sea level, they are protected by a series of poorly maintained and aging levee systems vulnerable to earthquakes, storms, and climate change. Historic flows from the Delta to the Bay have been reduced by half, increasing saltwater intrusion into the freshwater system. (Normally freshwater flows from the Sierra snowpack create a hydraulic barrier holding back intruding salt water.) California???s unceasing march towards 50 million people by 2015 will increase demands and destabilization. A one-meter rise in sea level will inundate about 200 square miles of Delta land. Long-term climate patterns anticipate a sea level rise of six meters. Loss of the Delta will have a catastrophic effect on southern populations and agriculture. Today???s water consciousness, especially in the Bay Delta, is motivated less by the loss of fisheries and ecosystems and more by the loss of water supply and its curbing impact on agriculture, growth, and development. Salmon are the keystone species, the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Untold millions, perhaps ten-plus million salmon, once migrated between Monterey Bay and the Oregon coast through 582 coastal streams???while steelhead migrated along most of California???s 800-mile coastline. During the winter of 1883-84, more than 700,000 salmon were caught and processed in the Bay Delta alone. By the early 1900s, cannery operations had become commercially unviable. Perhaps 80% of that protein source has been depleted now, with only 10% of the suitable spawning sites remaining. Think about what the salmon represent in total natural energy distribution and conversion???as an energy component, their nourishing value to the sea, the land, the aquatic and terrestrial food chains, and human life. Once 400 million strong throughout North America, beavers once populated all the tributaries of California???s great rivers. Building temporary small dams from nearby willows, alder, poplar, birch, maple and aspen, they trapped nutrients from twigs, leaves, branches, and logs, which mixed with silt behind the dam, creating a clear, cool, deep-water fishery. Bacteria break down the cellulose, which feeds protozoa, which feeds cyclops, daphnia, fresh-water shrimp, mosquitoes, dragonflies, caddis worms, tadpoles, and water spiders. These in turn feed young trout, salmon, and frogs, which feed egrets, ospreys, golden and bald eagles, kingfishers, turkeys and owls. Downed trees fill with insects and feed woodpeckers and sapsuckers. The increased wet area around the beaver pond absorbs flood waves and slowly infiltrates water into the groundwater table. When the building materials deplete, the beavers move on to another location. The dam, filled high with rich, black organic muck, breaks down, causing the water to change course and meander around. As the area dries it becomes a rich pasture of grasses, feeding herbivores which feed predators. The meadow, recolonized by the seeds of the trees that initiated the process, begins anew. Multiply this lifecycle by 13,000 years and you have the continual development of fertile valley bottomlands and a regenerative model for human developments. Without considering global warming, a century from now all man-made reservoirs that are not full of silt will nonetheless have lost their operational capacities to support agriculture, prevent floods, and serve human population centers. The moment they were filled, the concrete???s limited lifespan began its 50-100 year process of degeneration. Where???s the future? This narrative represents a very short list of human events upon the landscape. The visible consequence of California???s altered watersheds and landscapes translate into today???s deepening water scarcity. The beaver negotiated its survival within nature, paid for the space it occupies by creating a pool of regenerative life, borrowing energy and converting it to produce a sum of energy far greater than it borrowed from nature???this is the model of regeneration. In stark contrast, civilization consumes nature, converting its energy in a way that exhausts its supply, and then we return the waste with a toxic aspect that further devalues the natural systems???leading to air, soil, and water pollution, depleted fisheries, constipated rivers, ocean dead zones, deforestation, erosion, salinated valleys, overgrazing, wildlife extinction, toxic dumps, nuclear waste, and yes, global warming. One can readily see that California as well as the planet is exhaustible. Our unique faculties allow us to shape and modify the land that provides for our survival. That faculty, that capacity, that survivability, comes at a great price, a great responsibility. That price is regenerative stewardship over the land. The Waters of Change As a consequence of natural evolution, the Earth???s surface has adapted to the sun???s radiant heat through a renewable hydrologic cycle. How a warming climate relates to the hydrologic cycle is the subject of the following discussion. There is a high degree of scientific agreement that our planetary energy use relates directly to climbing temperatures. Current climate models are constantly readapting to temperature changes that are occurring much more rapidly than expected due to the climate feedback systems and non-linear movements. The climate system is the hydrologic cycle, and to the extent that model changes, so change rainfall and snow patterns across the state. Today cold, moisture-laden westerly storms roll off the Pacific Basin from the Gulf of Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands primarily between December and April. They lift over the low-rising Coast Ranges, releasing a taste of their precious load before falling into the arid rain shadow of the 450-mile-long Central Valley. Having warmed during its descent across the lower valley floor, the stingy jet stream yields little moisture to today???s artificially contrived breadbasket of California. The storms??? real contender is the west-tilting, 400-mile granite spine of the Sierra Nevada. Representing one fifth of California???s landmass, much of the range exceeds 8,000 feet in elevation. Mount Whitney reigns supreme at 14,494 feet. As the air rises, cools, and condenses, the contest between landmass and planetary water cycle is resolved. Moisture molecules transform and surrender as snow. On the eastern or rain-shadow side of the Sierra is a long narrow trench known as the Great Basin. Any moisture that escapes the wringing of the western Sierra then faces the western front of the 14,000-foot White/Inyo Mountain range, which creates the watersheds of now dewatered Owens Lake and endangered Mono Lake. Seventy-five percent of California???s precipitation falls north of Sacramento. The critical Sierra snowpack provides roughly 60% of California???s water demands and represents the state???s Achilles heel (along with the Bay Delta) in the wake of a warming planet. The Sierra range contains 24 major watersheds and the headwaters of California???s American, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Upper Sacramento, Feather, Merced, Tuolumne, Mokelumne, Cosumnes, Calaveras, Kings, Kaweah, Tule, Kern, Caliente, and Yuba rivers. All these major rivers are constipated by numerous dams and their diversions. This 20th-century hydrologic model laid the foundation for the infrastructure of 1,400 dams and reservoir systems providing water storage and flood protection for California. The 21st century will provide an altogether different climate model, and water management policies and structures will have to change dramatically if the state???s population is to survive that challenge. The greatest challenge for water managers in today???s weather system is timing the flows from the Sierra snowmelt. A dicey business without climate change considerations, we???re talking about 15 million acre-feet (MAF) of runoff before it hits the first series of dams, and 20 or more MAF at or near the confluence of the Delta. The 20th-century model could anticipate gradual runoff in late spring and early summer to meet the greatest demand between summer and fall. These reservoirs have to be relatively empty in the winter for flood protection. Managers have to decide when to fill the reservoir to meet the greater demands of the dry season. Fill them too early and you risk floods; fill them too late and you risk insufficient supplies and drought conditions. Climate models show the Sierra snowline climbing upward. As the landmass heats, it requires a greater volume of water to resolve the heat, and a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, producing more intense rainfall and resulting in less snow, earlier and greater mass movements of flows, and erosion. Snowfall that would normally inundate the Sierra throughout the winter and gradually melt between late spring and early summer will come as intense wet storms, generating massive flows and torrential flooding throughout the lower watersheds. This will alter rivers, creeks, and stream channel profiles significantly and cripple the Bay Delta as a freshwater supply for the southland as water is lost to massive runoff and not stored and released slowly as snow. Incidence of landslides will greatly increase the sediment budget, and some landslides will create slidedams and cause a river or creek to change course, incising fresh sediment loads from alluvial plains. The large recipient of these massive, sediment-laden flows will be the mega-million acre-feet reservoirs of the State Water and Central Valley projects. Inundating the already limited-lifespan reservoirs, the increased sediment budget will reduce their functionality. These large events will also decrease the ability of the land to slow and infiltrate water into the groundwater system, and the higher temperatures will increase evaporation. Droughts and higher temperatures will increase the incidence of forest and grassland fires. Reduced reservoir water storage will increase groundwater pumping and land subsidence in the already overdrafted, oversubsided Central Valley. The Eel River runs through some of the most erodable landmass in California, a situation exacerbated by massive lumber operations, gravel extraction, cattle ranching, and narrow-vision land management strategies. The Eel River owns the record for the highest peak flood discharge of 753,000 cubic feet per second during the 1964 flood, enough energy to send a fleet of battleships to Japan. With Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam choking its headwaters and depleting its fisheries, nearly 90% of Eel???s summer flow is diverted into the Russian River, altering that river???s natural profile and enabling unsustainable human developments in population centers and the wine industry to the south. Outlet Creek, a Willits tributary of the Eel, has six dams with the seventh being built, all within a sixty-square-mile area. The ecology of Little Lake Valley and the former Little Lake, food basin for juvenile salmon, has been destroyed by straightening and channeling the six feeder creeks. With Snow, Hull, and Rice mountains forming the main headwaters, climate change will impact this region???s snowpack and flow dynamics, as well as the larger Sierra range. All of California???s rivers, like the dams that drain the natural wealth from these regions, are ill-prepared for the upcoming changes in climate dynamics. Natural river systems are among the most efficient systems on the planet. The great sculptress shapes and transports with exacting tools of erosion and deposit. Water is the great conveyor between landmass and ocean???eroding and depositing material pushed up from the constant collision of tectonic plates. Dams incarcerate the river???s main element, water, leaving her artistry a slave to human infrastructural bondage and rendering all dependent life forms immensely vulnerable to even slight changes. Where do we go from here? California???s water infrastructure is overdeveloped, overused, oversold, under-maintained, and impermanent. California???s 1,400 dams share a common destiny???silt-up and become a dysfunction waterfall. One would think the profundity of this incontrovertible geophysical fact might dissuade one from building or continuing to build dense population centers supported by impermanence and develop marginal agricultural lands to feed these ultimately doomed arid population centers. Civilization has deferred this reality from one generation to the next. Not in my lifetime eventually claims the living???were so dammed close. California???s water infrastructure is aging and degenerating. The older it gets, the more problems it has. The massively altered watersheds, accumulating the burdens of dams and diversions, have lost the stability of equilibrium. This impetus drives the collision between the environment, economy, and a population that continues to increase 600,000 per year. The recent federal court decision to reduce water withdrawals from the irreplaceable Delta by 37% in an attempt to save its failing hydrology and fisheries has staggered farm production, cities, and the Silicon Valley. As well, less agricultural water sends a shockwave through soaring food prices and produces major losses in farm labor that is severely impacting an already deficit-ridden state budget; health care, education and transportation. Governor Schwarzenegger???s proposed 9 billion dollar Delta bailout (1982 Peripheral Canal revival) seeks to pour vast energy into the sprawl of canals, aqueducts, levees, pipesheds, and off-stream reservoirs. Cloaked as a restoration project, should the central delta be bypassed diverting the Sacramento directly to canals and off-stream storage reservoirs, the central valley and southland water boosters will be well positioned for an ultimate water grab to fuel economic determinism and contrived population growth projections down to the last drop. The big question remains. Will a canal bypass save the Delta? Answer: No. As mentioned earlier, what the Delta needs most is increased mountain runoff water to create the hydrologic barrier to hold back saltwater intrusion from the Bay and the fisheries need inundated wetlands and sloughs. The Peripheral Canal simply adds an ever increasing layer of complexity and energy flows to a system that cannot be saved by the same strategies that produced the problem in the first place. California history can be understood from the earliest need to transport water from a distant watershed to an overextended watershed (1913 LA Aqueduct). Each solution along that predictable path requires still more complexity and energy inputs. Yesterday???s solution becomes today???s problem like a mad layer cake. Each new solution bears exponential energy costs often greater than all the energy consumed by all previous water projects. And, the emergent spectre of the unintended consequence, watershed and infrastructure degeneration leaves one pondering this question: Is this advancing towards a higher or better state? California???s water, population, and economy are up against Stephen J. Gould???s right wall of limitations. The insane complexity, economic and ecological, is beyond comprehension and the exponential energy cost to run the infrastructure alone denies a positive return: A Dead End. Since our economic system cannot consider limitations because our American way of life is non-negotiable, narrow-visioned, economic growth focused policy makers will commit our remaining economic might and push this unsustainable model against the right wall of limitations unwittingly. In this context, it is difficult to envision a divergent path that recognizes the need to reduce population, consumption, and charts a path towards watershed restoration statewide. Californians will, as they have throughout California???s water history, approve any measure for one simple reason, fear. The final analysis strongly suggests that the geophysical forces of climate change dynamics, watershed-wide ecological degradation, oversold and over-mined watersheds, overextended economy and overpopulation coupled with the limited lifespan of 1,400 dams will likely, eventually, resolve the issue of overextended coastal populations and ill-conceived floodplain developments once and for all. The real solution, backing off the right wall, reducing and relocating vulnerable population centers, reducing consumer demand, developing local water sustainability, and restoring watersheds is simply unthinkable???and the unthinkable is the only solution???and real solutions are not found when one cannot even define the problem. Rachel Olivieri is an independent researcher/writer from Northern California. Read other articles by Rachel. This article was posted on Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 7:02 am and is filed under Environment, Oceans/Seas, Water. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/the-silence-of-collapse/ From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 15:12:50 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:12:50 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Forbes: Senate Cancels Boxer Hearing on Sludge Findings Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is an incredible feat of backroom politics by the guys who dump sludge on farmland and their corporate allies, agents, and lobbyists. They know that sludge on the food chain is too toxic to continue, if people only knew the truth. They seek to silence the truth. The story isn't over. Stayed tune for the truth about what really happened, and how the Senate Sludge Hearings on Sludge were derailed by industry. .......................... Associated Press Senate cancels hearing on Georgia sludge findings By BEN EVANS Sept 12, 1008 WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats abruptly canceled a hearing on using sewage sludge as farm fertilizer after learning that two witnesses from Georgia had cited their upcoming testimony at the hearing in trying to win a settlement in a lawsuit. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had been scheduled on Thursday to hear testimony from an Augusta-area farmer and a former federal scientist who have fought the Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Georgia over the safety of using sludge on farm fields. The farmer, Andy McElmurray, and the scientist, David Lewis, are suing the University of Georgia Research Foundation and others, alleging that UGA research was part of a scheme by the EPA to justify a federal policy allowing the continued use of sludge as fertilizer. A spokeswoman for the committee said the hearing was canceled out of concern that the private litigation would distract from the main issue of sludge safety. She said Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., plans to reschedule the session. In a letter to university lawyers dated Sept. 3, an attorney for the pair warned that they would be testifying at the hearing and said a settlement would allow them to "praise UGA for its handling of this matter." "In preparation for the hearing we have realized that it will be a significant event that will bring the issues in this lawsuit to the national level and elevate our clients' claims," said the letter from attorney Edwin Hallman of Atlanta. "We see a unique opportunity for the Research Foundation and the individual UGA defendants to settle this matter prior to the Senate hearing on the 11th of September." The letter - first reported by the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily - proposes a settlement in which Lewis, a former EPA scientist, would get a temporary job as a senior research associate in UGA's department of marine sciences. McElmurray and a second east Georgia farmer involved in the lawsuit, Bill Boyce, would get $100,000 apiece. Finally, a UGA scientist would be required to acknowledge that the sludge research in question was faulty. In an interview Thursday afternoon, Hallman said he was not using the hearing as leverage. He said he was simply giving UGA an opportunity to acknowledge mistakes and settle the case before it was aired in a congressional venue. "I'm an alumnus of the university and we were interested in preserving the integrity of that institution," he said. "There's nothing improper with attempting to give the University of Georgia an opportunity before the issues become public to own up to the fact that a professor published false data." Wastewater treatment plants across the nation produce about 7 million tons of sludge each year as a byproduct, and slightly more than half of it is used as fertilizer. The rest is incinerated or buried in landfills. Giving it away to farmers is cheaper than burning or burying it, and the government encourages using it as fertilizer, insisting it is safe as long as it's used properly. But McElmurray and Boyce say sludge from the city of Augusta's sewage treatment plant has poisoned their land and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of cattle. In February, McElmurray won a major court ruling when U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo ordered the Agriculture Department to compensate him for contamination. In his ruling, Alaimo said research about heavy metals in sludge that was endorsed by Agriculture and EPA officials and produced in part by University of Georgia scientists was "unreliable, incomplete, and in some cases, fudged." McElmurray and Boyce, who already have won compensation from the city of Augusta, are now joining with Lewis in seeking judgments from EPA and UGA scientists, as well as the university's research foundation. EPA and UGA have stood by the research. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/12/ap5417024.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 16:48:35 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:48:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Report: Water Fountains Hard to Find on Canadian Campuses Message-ID: http://www.wwn-online.com/articles/67373 Report: Water Fountains Hard to Find on Canadian Campuses September 12, 2008 Water fountains are becoming an endangered species on university campuses across Canada. That's one of the findings of a national on-line survey, Corporate Initiatives on Campus -- a 2008 Snapshot, designed to document the commercial and corporate presence on Canadian campuses, according to a Sept. 2 press release. Responses to the survey, which was developed by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Polaris Institute, paints a picture of rapidly decaying water fountains and a lack of access in educational institutions across the country to clean, potable tap water. Thirty three percent of respondents noted a reduction in the number of drinking water fountains on campus. A further 43 percent of respondents cited delays in repairing existing water fountains. Others said that new buildings are being built without water fountains, that existing water fountains and cold water taps in washrooms are being removed, and that vending machines are blocking access to water fountains. One response from Brock University in St. Catharine's explained "there are no water fountains" in new buildings on campus, "only Pepsi machines." The survey covers: the general commercial or corporate presence on campus; contracting-out; exclusive beverage marketing; access to drinking fountains/tap water, and campus action in response to these trends. Among its findings: 79 percent of respondents indicated there are fast-food suppliers on campus; 79 percent cite corporate sponsorship of activities like Welcome Week or Spirit Week; 54 percent of respondents said their campus had an exclusive arrangement with Coke and 40 percent an exclusive arrangement with Pepsi. To access a summary of the survey results, visit http://www.policyalternatives.ca. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 13 10:27:40 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:27:40 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Norampac Trenton - Charged for Toxic Sludge Seepage into Trent River Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Industries these days often try to characterize their wastes as some kind of 'product' - often to evade responsible disposal practices. Just like sewage sludge is called 'biosolids fertilizer' and sprayed or spread on farmland. The company below - Norampac - was partnership between Domtar and Cascades. It is an old mill in Trenton Ontario that makes cardboard liner. They take recycled cardboard and chipped trees and cook them together to get the pulp for their process. Cooking the carboard and woodchips results in a viscous, toxic black liquid called 'spent pulping liquor' or 'black liquor'. This high phenol, dioxin-containing, terpine liquid was then named 'Dombind-Road Binder' and sprayed on rural gravel roads as a 'dust suppressant' in southern Ontario. You may recall that PCB-laden used oil used to be used this way, too. After a long campaign - working with World Wildlife Fund, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Sierra Legal Defense and countless charitable funders, we got the practice of putting this 'black liquor' on rural roads stopped. We had long heard rumors that the Trenton mill was draining their storage pond into the Trent River at night. We also heard that the mill was shipping the black liquor into northern US states possibly to be spread on farm land. The mill said they were going to treat the sludge in a 'pulse-enhanced steam reformer' that they bought second hand somewhere in the US. The mill manager was so angry at not being able to spray this toxic material on the roads that we suspected he would claim to manage the waste with a technology that was unlikely to function. see: http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/2007-January/002159.html The campaign against Dombind Road Binder started in 1996. Years later Ministry of Environment officials could not say just where the black liquor was going and how it was being managed. Here is a report on the Dombind problem from 2001: http://eloerg.tripod.com/waupoos/id4.html It is with dismay that we read that this serial polluter has apparently continued to defy the Ontario government's efforts to protect the environment from their filthy practices. Last year the Ministry caught them putting their sludge on farmland near the mill. Angry neighbors called Sludge Watch to report the events: http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/2007-July/000120.html We will follow the court case with interest. ..................................................................... Saturday, September 13, 2008 Plant faces environmental charges For toxic sludge seepage into Trent Posted By JEREMY ASHLEY, THE INTELLIGENCER A major Trenton cardboard manufacturing and recycling plant and its manager face a slew of environmental charges that the plant allowed toxic sludge to seep into the Trent River on at least four differ-e nt occasions. Norampac Inc. and companies that have since purchased the plant on Marmora Street in Trenton, namely Cascades Canada Inc., face a total of 11 environmental charges in relation to incidents in late December, 2006, and February, 2007, that workers with the company's Trenton division allowed a discharge of a substance known as black liquor into the river. Along with the companies, the manager of the Trenton site, Douglas Beemer, is also named on the provincial offences. The charges, which were laid under the Environmental Protection Act, also state company officials failed "to do everything to prevent" any adverse affect the incidents may have on the environment and also didn't notify the Ministry of Environment when the alleged occurrences took place. Black liquor is a byproduct of cardboard manufacturing and is toxic. According to court doc-u ments obtained by The Intelligencer, most of the incidents occurred during a week span after Dec. 23, 2006. In another ordeal in February last year, ministry investigators say the company allowed a discharge of "black particulate into the natural environment that caused an adverse effect" and the firm failed to prevent the incident or "restore the natural environment" afterward. In court Friday, company lawyers asked the matter be put over until Nov. 21. Below is a list of the actual charges laid against the company: * Count 1 -(Norampac Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 23, 2006 to on or about Dec. 28, 2006, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of a material, namely black liquor into a watercourse which impaired the quality of the water, namely the Trent River, contrary to section 30 (1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). * Count 2 -(Norampac Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 23, 2006 to on or about Dec. 28, 2006, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of any material, namely black liquor, into any waters that may impair the quality of water, namely the Trent River and did fail to notify the ministry of the discharge, contrary to section 30 (2) of the OWRA. * Count 3 -(Norampac Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 28, 2006, did commit the offence of being the owner of a pollutant, namely black liquor that was spilled and was likely to cause an adverse effect and did fail to do everything to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment, contrary to section 93 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). * Count 4 -(6671225 Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 28, 2006 to on or about Dec. 29, 2006, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of a material, namely black liquor, into a watercourse which may impair the quality of the water namely the Trent River, contrary to section 30 (1) of the OWRA. * Count 5 -(6671225 Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 28, 2006 to on or about Dec. 29, 2006, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of material, namely black liquor into waters that may impair the quality of water, namely the Trent River and did fail to notify the ministry of the discharge, contrary to section 30 (2) of the OWRA. * Count 6 -(6671225 Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 28, 2006 to on or about Dec. 29, 2006, did commit the offence of being the owner and the person having control of a pollutant, namely black liquor, that was spilled and that may cause an adverse effect and did fail to do everything to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment, contrary to section 93 (1) of the EPA. * Count 7 -(Cascades Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 29, 2006 to on or about Jan. 5, 2007, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of a material, namely black liquor, into a watercourse which may impair the quality of the water, namely the Trent River, contrary to section 30 (1) of the OWRA. * Count 8 -(Cascades Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 29, 2006 to on or about Jan. 5, 2007, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of a material, namely black liquor, into a watercourse which may impair the quality of water, namely the Trent River and did fail to forthwith notify the ministry of the discharge, contrary to section 30(2) of the OWRA. * Count 9 -(Cascades Canada Inc. and Douglas R. Beemer) -on or about Dec. 29, 2006 to on or about Jan. 5, 2007, did commit the offence of being the owner and having control of a pollutant, namely black liquor, that was spilled and caused or was likely to cause an adverse effect and did fail to do everything to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment contrary to section 93 (1) of the EPA. Second incident * Count 1 -(Cascades Canada Inc.) -on or about February 6, 2007 to on or about Feb. 7, 2007, did commit the offence of discharging or causing or permitting the discharge of a contaminant, namely black particulate, into the natural environment that caused an adverse effect, contrary to section 14 (1) of the EPA. * Count 2 -(Cascades Canada Inc.) -on or about Feb. 6, 2007 to on or about Feb. 28, 2007, did commit the offence of having control of a pollutant, namely black particulate, that was spilled causing an adverse effect and did fail to do everything practicable to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment, contrary to section 93 (1) of the EPA. - - - -- MINISTRY : FIRM FAILED TO "RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT." http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1197971 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 13 10:35:35 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:35:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Center for Food Safety Sues EPA over Sewage Sludge Message-ID: Group to sue EPA over sewage sludge Fri Sep 12, 2008 By Jasmin Melvin WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Center for Food Safety, a private advocacy group, said on Thursday it plans to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its refusal to put a moratorium on dumping sewage sludge on farmland. The use of sludge, the byproduct of waste water treatment, on farmland is legal under EPA regulations. Six dozen food and consumer groups want to halt the practice. The groups petitioned the EPA in October 2003 to stop sewage sludge disposal on farms. The EPA denied the petition for a moratorium. EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said the agency "does not comment on lawsuits we have not seen or have not been filed." Sewage sludge can contain nutrients and organic matter, which some say make it a useful fertilizer. Proponents view its disposal on farms as a cheap source of fertilizer that keeps wastes from piling up in landfills or being dumped in the ocean. Research shows sludge also contains a harmful mix of heavy metals, pathogens and toxic chemicals that have killed farm animals, devastated crop yields and inflicted serious illness and health disorders on people who live and work near dump sites, Center for Food Safety Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said. "We're pretty sure the court will declare that EPA acted illegally in denying our petition," Kimbrell said. The EPA determined there was not enough scientific evidence to support claims of harm to farm animals, crops and people in its decision to reject the petition. Since then, the data used to make this conclusion has come under question. In a lawsuit filed by Georgia farmer Andy McElmurray, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Alaimo found that "senior EPA officials took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent and any questioning of EPA's biosolids program." The judge ruled in February that McElmurray was entitled to Agriculture Department "prevented planting" subsidies because of contamination of his farm by sewage sludge. Alaimo called data used to support EPA's Part 503(b) sludge regulations "fudged," "fabricated" and "fraudulent." Kimbrell said, "Now we have a judicial decision behind us so we can go, fairly confident, to the court and say this denial was based on bad science." "You rarely have a court decision bolstering your position," he added. "We look forward to a positive ruling on our petition, which calls for a full moratorium on this until they've done a full assessment of the food safety, human health, and environmental impacts." (Editing by David Gregorio) ?? Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests. http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1129244020080912 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 12 15:05:58 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:05:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sludge Sprayed on Grand Bend Fields Contains Pollutants Message-ID: http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/122121096453570.xml&coll=3 Sludge sprayed on Grand Bay fields contains pollutants Friday, September 12, 2008 By BEN RAINES Staff Reporter The treated sewage sludge that's regularly sprayed on dozens of fields in Grand Bay contains heavy metals and other chemical pollutants, according to records provided by the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System. Each of the 3,000 acres in the sludge-spraying program is permitted to receive a total of 267 pounds of lead, 15 pounds of mercury and 1,338 pounds of copper, among other contaminants, before they can no longer have sludge applied to them, according to MAWSS and Merrell Brothers Inc., the company in charge of spreading the sludge. Mercury levels in some of the sludge-receiving fields in Grand Bay are already higher than would naturally be found in soil, according to testing data MAWSS was required to collect for its 2007 annual report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. For instance, a field owned by Leroy Hill was found to contain mercury in the soil at .52 parts per million. That's about 10 times higher than the level expected to be found in uncontaminated soil. At present, the mercury concentration seen in the fields is far below government-established levels of concern for humans exposed to mercury-contaminated soil. That field, which has so far received about a half pound of mercury, according to the Merrell Brothers report, is allowed to receive another 14.4 pounds before it can no longer receive sewage sludge. It's unclear how high the mercury level in the soil would be at that time. The application of sewage sludge to the fields can raise the concentration of other metals, including lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and zinc. In a recent federal court case, it was concluded that farm soil receiving sludge for about 10 years built up levels of various metals and chemicals that made hay grown there toxic to cows. Molybdenum levels in some of the Mobile County sludge fields are above 3 parts per million, according to MAWSS data. Scientific studies have shown that in some cases hay grown in fields with molybdenum levels above 2 parts per million can be toxic to cows and sheep. Merrell Brothers testing data indicates that heavy metal concentrations in the MAWSS sludge are well below the EPA's maximum limits. Ryan Zeck, with Merrell Brothers, said the contaminant levels in soil are kept in check somewhat because plants grown in the fields absorb trace amounts of mercury and the other metals from the soil. "Things get absorbed, and then the hay gets baled and removed," Zeck said. "Mercury, molybdenum, all those things get taken up by plants, that then get harvested. I've put this on alfalfa. I've even put it on beans." The EPA performed an assessment before approving the national sludge program in 1993 and concluded that the health risks of consuming food grown in such fields were minimal. A paper published by scientists at Cornell, however, concluded that the EPA underestimated the potential for harmful exposure to metals from sludge-grown crops. Zeck said his company has received permits to put sludge on Mobile County fields where beans and corn are grown but has not done so yet. Numerous other compounds not tested for by MAWSS or EPA build up in soil as well, such as flame retardants, PCBs, furans (which are byproducts of some chemical manufacturing processes and have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals),industrial wastes and various solvents, according to scientific literature. Many of those compounds persist in soil for decades and can accumulate in people. "It is a soup of pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, whatever goes down the drain," said Laura Orlando, an adjunct professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has been researching sludge application since the 1990s and runs a nonprofit group fighting for a moratorium on the use of sludge as fertilizer. "You go to the EPA's Web page, and they call it organic, but there is a reason the National Organic Standards don't include sludge as an organic fertilizer." The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Web site states that crops labeled as organic, "cannot be produced using excluded methods, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation." Zeck said he would not be surprised if the EPA began to require testing for pharmaceuticals in sludge sent to fields. A lawsuit heard in federal court in February centered on a herd of hundreds of cattle in Georgia that died after being poisoned by thallium contained in hay that was grown in sludge fields. MAWSS is not required to test for thallium. The judge's ruling in the Georgia case, which awarded millions of dollars to the cow farmer, took the EPA to task, stating that its "senior officials took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent and any questioning of EPA's biosolids program." Contaminated milk from those cows was sold to the public, according to an Associated Press report. "The sludge contained levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals and PCBs two to 2,500 times federal health standards," according to the AP article. That, according to critics, is a perfect example of the hazards associated with spreading wastes bearing unknown compounds onto agricultural fields. MAWSS officials said they detected high lead levels in several loads of sludge a few years back. After tracing the lead to its source within the sewer system, officials said, it was discovered that a real estate agent trying to sell an old warehouse was pouring buckets of chemicals into the sewer system. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 13 14:17:53 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:17:53 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ohio City says - What fields? Whose fields will you spread with sludge? Message-ID: Sept 12 2008 North Ridgeville sued by rejected sludge bidder The Chronicle-Telegram Staff ELYRIA ??? A Norwalk construction firm is suing the city of North Ridgeville for awarding a $1.4 million project to a rival bidder. According to papers filed Friday in county Common Pleas Court, Mark Haynes Construction wants a very dirty job ??? sludge relief and site restoration at the French Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The company said in the suit that it was the lowest bidder, but North Ridgeville gave the job instead to Martin Construction, which bid about $100,000 more for the project. North Ridgeville Mayor Dave Gillock said his city has been composting sludge at the treatment plant for years, but the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has recently changed its rules. Now the sludge has to be either hauled to a landfill or spread over farm fields. He said Mark Haynes Construction said in its bid that it would spread the sludge over fields, but it didn???t specify which ones. ???We are responsible to know where it???s going. We wanted to know what fields it was going on, who the farmers were and how specifically it would be put there,??? Gillock said. He said he was comfortable rejecting the bid and believes the city did what was in the best interest of taxpayers. The lawsuit asks a judge to void North Ridgeville???s contract with Martin Construction and force the city to give the job to Mark Haynes Construction. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 14 09:54:18 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:54:18 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Barbados - Labour Ministry Probe into 8 Dead Sewage Plant Workers Message-ID: Sick for years Published on: 9/7/08. Shane Joseph (second from right) describing some of the troubles his family has faced with the sewerage plant. From left are Jillia Mascoll, Dawayne Lowe and Ivor Lowe. by CARLOS ATWELL ON THURSDAY, general secretary of the Barbados Workers' Union, Sir Roy Trotman, raised questions surrounding the deaths of eight Barbados Water Authority workers over the course of 18 months. While he could not identify the exact cause, he did say they all suffered similar symptoms and at least one of them had worked at the Bridgetown Wastewater Treatment Plant in Emmerton, St Michael. The SUNDAY SUN yesterday revisited the Emmerton/Chapman Lane/Farnums Land area, where residents have been complaining about the strong stench from the plant, which they have been subjected to for years. The team also visited Barbarees Hill, St Michael, to get the views of residents who were recently relocated from Emmerton. Many of them complained of itching skin, respiratory problems and runny noses. "If we get sick, then we are not sure if it is the sewage plant, but we know we feel sick when it smells bad," said Deborah Blackman, a Farnums Land resident for over 40 years. She said she felt that sulphur was used in the treatment process, recalling a time when people's gold jewellery turned black, but said no one had believed anything was wrong since the Government had denied it. Blackman also recalled the death of 56-year-old Patricia Harris who lived nearby. Blackman said Harris used to get really sick when the odours from the plant became worse. She died in January. Blackman said a man also died two weeks later. Making us wonder "Now we are hearing about the workers dying; so it is making us wonder," she said. Another resident, Lolita Callender, remembers her brother's cattle starting to die mysteriously after grazing in the pasture behind the plant. "We were keeping them there for four years before we were told to move them last year after we started to complain about the plant. Then about a month after that three died," she said. The Farnums Land resident of more than 40 years said workmen from the plant used to dump waste in the field which she thought affected the cows. As for herself, she said she has already gone to the Ladymeade Polyclinic for attention to symptoms caused by exposure to fumes from the plant. A young resident, who declined to give his name, painted a grim picture. He said an inspector had informed him that the chemicals from the plant could weaken the immune system and might cause sterility if inhaled. Vulnerable Children are even more vulnerable to illness than adults and the ones who live in the area are not faring well, residents say. Jillia Mascoll said she had to miss work to take her children to the hospital. She and her family recalled multiple instances of sickness. "All these children have been sick. My grandmother had a chest infection; this is very bad," she said. Shane Joseph recalled a time his cousin was eating food outside and ended up having to go to a doctor. He was diagnosed with an infection. Problem with it However, not everyone living around the plant has a problem with it. Gratton Cummins, a 22-year resident, said he was fine with it. "Those chemicals can't do nobody anything, or else we all would be dead already. You know how long that plant has been there? It sometimes has a stench for a few seconds, but I have no problems with it," he said. *carlosatwell at nationnews.com http://www.nationnews.com/story/292568749118525.php ................................................................... Facts exposed Published on: 9/14/08. by CHRIS GOLLOP ONLY ONE of the eight Barbados Water Authority (BWA) employees who died in service during the last 18 months, was working at the Bridgetown Sewage Treatment Plant. And that employee was a watchman who worked inside a security station and would not necessarily have been exposed to any health risk that might be associated with the waste-water plant. This documented information contained in a report addressed to the Ministry of Health from the BWA, and exclusively obtained by the SUNDAY SUN, also shows that of the seven others, aged between 47 and 63 years old, the cause of death included heart failure, renal failure, diabetes and cancer, among others. Barbados Workers' Union (BWU) General Secretary Sir Roy Trotman has been pushing for an investigation into the deaths of the eight BWA workers between January 1, 2007, and August 11, 2008. Same symptoms At a Press conference last week, Sir Roy said while the union could not identify the cause of the deaths of the BWA employees, he could say some of the deceased workers at the treatment plant in Emmerton, suffered the same symptoms, were hospitalised and later died. According to him, the Chief Labour Officer had been informed that among the symptoms of the illness were stomach aches, alleged swelling of the belly and alleged kidney and liver concerns. Forty-eight hours after Sir Roy raised the issue, Chief Medical Officer Dr Joy St John and BWA chairman Dr Atlee Brathwaite challenged the BWU boss to present the evidence that would have given rise to his concern. The trade union leader, however, dismissed those challenges. Minister of Labour Arni Walters then announced that an investigation would be carried out into the deaths. Information obtained by the SUNDAY SUN shows that the BWU first raised the issue at a meeting with the Chief Labour Officer on May 21. Two Labour Department officers subsequently visited the treatment plant on two occasions to conduct investigations and are due to submit a report on their findings. The document obtained by the SUNDAY SUN however shows that of the eight deaths referred to by the BWU boss, only 49-year-old watchman Neville Forde was stationed at the plant, and that he had no "direct contact with sewage or sodium hypochloride disinfectant used in the treatment of such [sewage]". The cause of his death on January 11, 2007, was cardiac failure. Of the others, five worked at BWA headquarters in The Pine, St Michael, while two, both watchmen, worked at the Belle Pumping Station and other sites. Those who died were plumbers, drivers and inspectors who died from varying causes. However, according to the document, the only risk watchman Forde was exposed to concerned "physical danger from intruders". "He [Forde] would only be exposed to foul odours if the plant became upset, while he was on duty," the document stated. * christophergollop at nationnews.com ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Sunday Sep 14 2008 Probe under way Wed Sep 10 2008 The Ministry of Labour is looking into the allegations made recently that the deaths of some staff members of the Barbados Water Authoritys Sewage Treatment Plant were linked to their working environment. Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Civil Service, Senator Arni Walters, made this disclosure to members of the media yesterday morning during an interview following the start of a one-day seminar for Safety and Health Committees at the Warrens Office Complex. Senator Walters said that he did not have any evidence to suggest that the allegations are true, but due to the seriousness of the claims, he has called on officers within his Ministry to investigate the matter. Meanwhile, speaking to the issue of accidents in the workplace, he lamented that there are still workers who do not report accidents they have witnessed and he noted that sometimes the only way they can recognise that an accident has occurred is through information gleaned from the National Insurance System. Walters added that the new health-related illnesses associated with stress are also a cause for concern. ... There are psychological effects coming out of work that we really have not spent a lot of time on and are causing some difficulties. If you look at some of the judgements coming out of the UK and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, people are getting tonnes of money coming out of work-related stress, he said. He pointed out that in some cases, employees who have been injured on the job have received settlements in the region of $200 000 to $500 000. Nevertheless, the Senator noted that once the Safety and Health at Work Act is enforced, there are areas where both workers and employers are likely to suffer prosecution from the authorities. For example, he said, employees who refuse to wear personal protective equipment can be fined $500 and/or spend a month in jail and, with respect to employers, if an accident occurs and results in the death of an employee and they are found to be negligent, it is possible that they could be charged with manslaughter. He highlighted that recourse can be on two levels that of civil and criminal action being taken against the employer. Penalties and fines for employers and directors of companies are quite high and failure to comply will mean you will suffer the consequences, but we prefer moral suasion, he said. (JR) http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=36756 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 14 10:04:17 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:04:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tour The Sewage Treatment Plant - 4, 000 tour San Jose plant Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: You should tour your sewage treatment plant. Find out about the quality of the effluent - where does it go? Where do the sludge solids go? ..................................................... Herhold: Columnist takes tour of San Jose sewage plant By Scott Herhold Mercury News 09/10/2008 Once things are flushed down the toilet in my household, I rarely ponder their destination. In a word, it's icky. So I was astounded to learn how many people care. I'm talking about one of the sleeper hits of the year, the tour of San Jose's sewage plant. Once a week, a total of 150 people go through the plant ? 4,000 this year. Sign up now and you won't get a spot until February or March. That makes it the equivalent of an enduring Broadway hit. And so far, concierges haven't cracked the code of the waiting list. "We were totally shocked," said John Stufflebean, San Jose's director of environmental services. "Our goal was to put through 2,000 in a year, and we thought that was a stretch.'' Any columnist worth his salt had to see this in action. So last Saturday, after a 10-week wait, I took the tour. I give it at least three stars. It began at the suitably early hour of 9 a.m., when a group of roughly 75 of us crowded into a conference room in the administration building of the formally named the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. (Sewage treatment has an infinite number of euphemisms, some unintentionally funny). Before us was proof of what the treatment plant does: a half-dozen jars of fluid that traced the evolution from raw sewage to 99 percent clean effluent, clear to the naked eye. "We're all about separating solids from water,'' explained Stufflebean, a lanky man who has pushed the plant in new environmental directions. "In a nutshell, that's what we do.'' Begun in 1956, and expanded considerably since on land near Alviso, the plant can treat 167 million gallons of water a day, although peak flows can be much higher. (And yes, the biggest flow of the year occurs about 10 to 12 hours after Super Bowl halftime.) To tour this work, we climbed into air-conditioned buses that masked the faint odor of the place. The guide on our bus was Bill Buffington, a brawny and genial 28-year veteran who supervises mechanical repairs to the plant. Our first stop was the Headworks ? another of the funny euphemisms ? which separates out the grit and rags that cannot be treated. Buffington explained that baby wipes just won't break down. >From there we followed the path of the sewage to the primary treatment tanks, where the water is slowed to let the solids fall to the bottom "You'll get a blanket of about two to three feet at the bottom,'' explained Buffington. Next was secondary treatment, where the water is aerated and bacteria are encouraged to eat the remaining solids. The buses pulled slowly past huge machines that supply air, the biggest demand for power. Finally were the filters that make the effluent clean enough for recycling or release. The plant uses chlorine but removes it chemically before water goes into the bay. We didn't see everything. Underground is a maze of tunnels that allow mechanics access to repair equipment. (Buffington explained that these were serviced using motorized vehicles known as chariots until a couple of less-than-careful employees suffered a nasty accident.) And no, the San Jose sewage plant doesn't compare with the Paris sewers, which you can visit on boats that take you through a cross section of the storied city's past. You can make the case, however, that the San Jose sewage plant tour, which was discontinued for five years after 9/11, serves a vital public relations interest. Because much of the equipment is 30 or 40 years old, the city is embarked on an aggressive program to upgrade it. After a long period of no growth, sewage rates are rising significantly. (This year, they will go up by 15 percent to roughly $27 month per residence.) Is it worth the money? Well, take the "Wonders of Our Water Works'' tour (e-mail: planttours at sanjoseca.gov) and you'll have a better idea. All cost aside, I know I'll never think of baby wipes the same way again. http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10429025 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 14 14:48:59 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:48:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Arsenic in the U.S. Water Supply Linked to Diabetes, Study Says Message-ID: Arsenic in the U.S. Water Supply Linked to Diabetes, Study Says By Michelle Fay Cortez Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Arsenic, a toxic chemical often found at low levels in U.S. public drinking water, may increase the risk of developing diabetes, researchers said. In the first study of its kind, scientists found Americans with high levels of arsenic in their urine were almost four times more likely to have diabetes than those with trace levels. The risk was apparent at levels generally considered harmless and grew with increasing exposure, according to the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings follow recent studies on contaminants, including hormones and antibiotics, making their way into U.S. public tap water. While previous research showed chronic exposure to high levels of arsenic could lead to diabetes, the new report is the first to show that even levels that meet U.S. regulations may be dangerous. ``Since we already have a safety standard for arsenic levels in drinking water and we know drinking water is the main source of exposure, it's important to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water where it exists,'' said lead researcher Ana Navas-Acien from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. ``This reinforces that arsenic is a potentially harmful environmental contaminant and it's important to have drinking water with low levels.'' The researchers analyzed data from the 2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationwide health study that for the first time collected and tested arsenic levels in urine from nearly 800 volunteers. Participants with type 2 diabetes had a 26 percent higher level of arsenic overall. Cancer, Heart Damage Arsenic affects nearly all the organs in the body, causing ailments including lung, skin and kidney cancer, internal bleeding and heart damage, kidney and liver failure, and birth defects. More research is needed to determine whether the arsenic exposure occurred first and then triggered the diabetes, said Navas-Acien, assistant professor of environmental health science at Johns Hopkins, in a telephone interview. It's also possible that diabetics were less able to filter out the poison, the researchers said. Arsenic, once known as a potent rat poison, comes from mineral deposits in rocks and soil. Water contaminated with arsenic is often found in the West, Midwest and Northeast. As much as 8 percent of the U.S. public water supply, affecting 13 million Americans, may have levels that exceed government guidelines, according to reports from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey. Millions more are exposed worldwide. Previous studies showed arsenic raises blood sugar and insulin levels, while chronic exposure to the highest levels in places like Taiwan, Bangladesh and Mexico raised the risk of diabetes. About 24 million Americans and 171 million people worldwide have diabetes, mainly type 2, when insulin doesn't properly convert blood sugar into energy. Diabetes Pandemic ``Stemming the pandemic of type 2 diabetes is a public health priority and will require a multi-faceted approach,'' wrote Molly Kile and David Christiani, from Harvard University School of Public Health, in an editorial accompanying the study. ``It is prudent to minimize arsenic exposure while its effect on metabolic diseases continues to be researched.'' Tap water is already the cheapest and safest source of drinking water and costs less than 10 cents a gallon compared with as much as $8 for bottled water, said Jennifer Sass, senior scientist in the Natural Resources Defense Council's health program. The organization recommends consumers rely on tap water, which is regulated, and use a filter to improve purity. ``We think the government should be doing more to test and to regulate contaminants,'' Sass said in a telephone interview. ``We'd like the government to do more to keep them out in the first place.'' To contact the reporter on this story: Michelle Fay Cortez in Minneapolis at mcortez at bloomberg.net http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=atpvvu8kanZ8&refer=home From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 14 18:34:43 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:34:43 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> AP: Tons of Drugs Down the Toilet Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Here is just one more reason to stop land application of sludge. Ontario has pharmacies that offer a 'take back' program for expired and unused prescriptions. It should happen everywhere. ................................................... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-pharmawater-flush-i,1,530458.story AP IMPACT: Health care industry sends tons of drugs into nation's wastewater system By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writers September 14, 2008 U.S. hospitals and long-term care facilities annually flush millions of pounds of unused pharmaceuticals down the drain, pumping contaminants into America's drinking water, according to an ongoing Associated Press investigation. These discarded medications are expired, spoiled, over-prescribed or unneeded. Some are simply unused because patients refuse to take them, can't tolerate them or die with nearly full 90-day supplies of multiple prescriptions on their nightstands. Few of the country's 5,700 hospitals and 45,000 long-term care homes keep data on the pharmaceutical waste they generate. Based on a small sample, though, the AP was able to project an annual national estimate of at least 250 million pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging, with no way to separate out the drug volume. One thing is clear: The massive amount of pharmaceuticals being flushed by the health services industry is aggravating an emerging problem documented by a series of AP investigative stories ??? the commonplace presence of minute concentrations of pharmaceuticals in the nation's drinking water supplies, affecting at least 46 million Americans. Researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild. Also, researchers report that human cells fail to grow normally in the laboratory when exposed to trace concentrations of certain drugs. The original AP series in March prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in more than two dozen additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water. And while most pharmaceutical waste is unmetabolized medicine that is flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion, the AP examined institutional drug disposal and its dangers because unused drugs add another substantial dimension to the problem. "Obviously, we're flushing them ??? which is not ideal," acknowledges Mary Ludlow at White Oak Pharmacy, a Spartanburg, S.C., firm that serves 15 nursing homes and assisted-living residences in the Carolinas. Such facilities, along with hospitals and hospices, pose distinct challenges because they handle large quantities of powerful and toxic drugs ??? often more powerful and more toxic than the medications people use at home. Tests of sewage from several hospitals in Paris and Oslo uncovered hormones, antibiotics, heart and skin medicines and pain relievers. Hospital waste is particularly laden with both germs and antibiotics, says microbiologist Thomas Schwartz at Karlsruhe Research Center in Germany. The mix is a scary one. In tests of wastewater retrieved near other European hospitals and one in Davis County, Utah, scientists were able to link drug dumping to virulent antibiotic-resistant germs and genetic mutations that may promote cancers, according to scientific studies reviewed by the AP. Researchers have focused on cell-poisoning anticancer drugs and fluoroquinolone class antibiotics, like anthrax fighter ciprofloxacin. At the University of Rouen Medical Center in France, 31 of 38 wastewater samples showed the ability to mutate genes. A Swiss study of hospital wastewater suggested that fluoroquinolone antibiotics also can disfigure bacterial DNA, raising the question of whether such drug concoctions can heighten the risk of cancer in humans. Pharmacist Boris Jolibois, one of the French researchers at Compiegne Medical Center, believes hospitals should act quickly, even before the effects are well understood. "Something should be done now," he said. "It's just common sense." ___ Some contaminated packaging and drug waste are incinerated; more is sent to landfills. But it is believed that most unused pharmaceuticals from health care facilities are dumped down sinks or toilets, usually without violating state or federal regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency told assembled water experts last year that it believes nursing homes and other long-term care facilities use sewer systems to dispose of most of their unused drugs. A water utility surveyed 45 long-term care facilities in 2006 and calculated that two-thirds of their unused drugs were scrapped this way, according to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. An internal EPA memo last year included pharmaceuticals on a list of "major pollutants of concern" at health care businesses. Still, few medical centers keep comprehensive records of drugs they cast down toilets or into landfills. When data are kept, drugs and tainted packaging are combined in the same totals. In an attempt to quantify the problem, the AP examined records in Minnesota, where state regulators have pushed hospital administrators to keep closer track than elsewhere. Fourteen facilities were surveyed, in a range of settings from rural to urban. The AP projected those annual totals onto the national patient population for hospitals and adjusted for the relatively lower pharmaceutical use of Minnesotans. Since long-term care facilities generate more drug waste than hospitals, the AP conservatively doubled the number. That calculation produced an estimate of at least 250 million pounds of annual drug waste from hospitals and long-term care centers, further complicated by the fact experts say drugs might account for only up to half of pharmaceutical waste, while the rest is packaging. The AP estimate excludes many other sources of health industry drug waste, from doctors' to veterinary offices. Smaller medical offices typically dispose of expired samples and unwanted drugs like ordinary consumers ??? with little forethought. Alan Davidner, president of Vestara of Irvine, Calif., which sells systems to manage drug waste, says his limited sampling suggests the health care industry's contribution could even be higher. Plus, untold amounts of pills and tablets are being thrown away each year at federal and state correctional institutions. At a state prison in Oak Park Heights, Minn., nurse Linda Peterson says the hospital unit serving inmates statewide has been throwing away up to 12,000 pills a year. She says some heart medicines and antibiotics are simply chucked into the trash. Tightly regulated narcotics susceptible to abuse go down the toilet. "We flush it and flush it and flush it ??? until we can't see any more pills," she says. She notes the presence of nursing homes, a hospital and another prison in the same area. "So what are all these facilities doing, if we're throwing away about 700 to 1,000 pills a month?" ___ The EPA is considering whether to impose the first national standard for how much drug waste may be released into waterways by the medical services industry, but Ben Grumbles, the EPA's top water administrator, says a decision won't be made until next year, at the earliest. So far, regulators have done little more than politely ask the medical care industry to stop pouring drugs into the wastewater system. "Treating the toilet as a trash can isn't a good option," says Grumbles. Some think it's time to do more than ask. "It's strange that we have rules about the oil from your car; you're not allowed to simply flush it down the sewer," says U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. "So why do we let these drugs, without any kind of regulation, continue to be flushed away in the water supply?" Landfills are one alternative. At least they don't empty directly, and immediately, into waterways like some sewage. Marjorie E. Powell, a lawyer for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, says landfills are "more environmentally friendly," while EPA spokeswoman Roxanne Smith contends that landfilling of hazardous pharmaceutical waste "poses little threat to the public." Still, Grumbles acknowledges that landfills, while safer, are not a permanent solution. That's because pharmaceuticals can eventually reach waterways from landfills through leaks or intentional releases of treated seepage known as leachate. An agency staffer wrote in a memo last year: "EPA recognizes that residuals in the leachate could contaminate groundwater supplies and ultimately reach water treatment plants, but disposal into the trash is currently considered a BMP" ??? or best management practice. Already, researchers have detected trace concentrations of drugs ??? including the pain reliever ibuprofen and seizure medicine carbamazepine ??? in seepage or groundwater near landfills. Environmental professionals outside government are reaching a consensus that incinerators are the best disposal method. "That's the best practice for today because we don't really know what the hell to do with the stuff," says industrial engineer Laura Brannen, an executive at Waste Management Healthcare Solutions, of Houston. She says burning destroys more drug waste than all other methods, though some contaminants may escape in smoke and ash. On a recent day at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, Mary Kuch was getting ready to squirt leftovers from a syringe of hydromorphone, a powerful morphine derivative, into a sink. When she started out in nursing 18 years ago, "I took it for granted, because I was a young nurse, and that's what other nurses did," she says. "But I did find it strange." These days, only four gallons ??? drugs with high potential for abuse ??? go down the hospital's drains each year. Nearly all leftover medicine and contaminated packaging are instead tossed into black bins and rolled to a hospital storage room crammed with scores of 55-gallon drums. There, waste-company employee Bryant Sears ??? dressed in a Teflon suit, rubber gloves and goggles ??? conducts a sorting operation. Pills, blister packs and liquid medicines collected in vials, along with syringes and IV bags, are separated out according to differing disposal standards and methods. Occasionally, he glances at a wall-sized placard with details on which drug goes where ??? hazardous waste in one barrel, nonhazardous in another. A roll of "hazardous waste" stickers hangs from a pole on the wall. Sears points to some epinephrine, a heart drug, saying, "Now that it's past its expiration date, it's waste." These leftovers and discards ultimately will be incinerated. EPA's Smith says even municipal burners unapproved for hazardous waste "will destroy all but a minute fraction" of organic compounds ??? the kind found in pharmaceuticals. But Stephen DiZio, a manager with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, says not so fast. "I don't think we're encouraging incineration of anything. The public outcry would be so great." The push for incineration hides an irony. Several decades ago, drug waste was routinely chucked into the trash and burned in hospital or city incinerators. Then came a national campaign against air pollution. Most hospitals shut down their burners, and city incinerator managers became pickier about what they'd accept. With options restricted, hospitals began shipping more drug waste to landfills ??? and dumping more into toilets and sinks. ___ A few choices are expanding. Some states have passed laws to make it easier to contribute unused drugs to charity pharmacies that supply low-income patients. Also, a small share of unused drugs is shipped back to manufacturers for credit ??? and incineration, waste consultants say. But the drugs are supposed to be sent back in original packaging ??? sometimes impractical because the packaging is discarded or damaged. Several long-term care residences want to deploy automatic drug-dispensing machines that suppliers would refill often to reduce waste. While not yet practical, there are several experimental technologies, such as destroying trace drugs with an electrical arc, microwaves, or caustic chemicals. Increasingly, some bureaucrats and health professionals are suggesting that drug makers help pay costs of managing drug waste. But the pharmaceutical industry says there's insufficient evidence of environmental harm to warrant the expense. But impatience is mounting. Even the EPA has begun to take such suggestions seriously. Grumbles says drug makers "should do more for product stewardship and meds retrieval now." He says it would be unwise to wait for all the proof. For now, many health facilities, especially small ones, are put off by the cost of proper handling. Drugs deemed hazardous by the EPA ??? about 5 percent of the market ??? might cost up to $2 a pound to incinerate in a certified hazardous waste incinerator, says Vestara's Davidner. A pound might cost 35 cents to burn in a regular trash incinerator. Tom Clark, an executive at the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, wonders: "When you can flush it down the toilet for free, why would you want to pay ??? unless there's some significant penalties?" ___ The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 14 18:42:34 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:42:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Book Review: Rose George - "The Big Necessity" Message-ID: A book to review in the loo: ................................................................ Review: The Big Necessity by Rose George Last Updated: 12:01am BST 13/09/2008 Sukhdev Sandhu enjoys adventures in the world of human waste The subject of s--t, like the word itself, is thought banal, puerile, inappropriate for discussion in polite company. The title of Rose George's book is an example of the euphemisms to which we resort in order to talk about a human function so basic we spend on average of three years of our lives on the lavatory. But, as she argues, ordure - where it goes, how it gets there, who handles it - is one of the most important and most ignored issues facing the planet. More than 2.6 billion people across the world lack sanitation, a statistic whose consequences George lays out with chilling clarity: diarrhoea is a greater killer than Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, and creates more victims than armed conflict. advertisement In parts of Asia and Africa, so many boys and girls are laid low by stomach upsets that they never go to school. Forget laptops or internet access: the gulf between the rich and the poor countries of the world cannot be tackled without first tackling sanitation. This book presents a roll-call of mavericks and visionaries who have sought to do exactly that. In South Africa, a geologist christened Trevor Mulaudzi, but better known as Dr S--t, drives around townships so poor that their school lavatories are made out of car chassis; he takes photographs of dirty latrines to shame headmasters into attending to their upkeep. In India, Dr Bindeshwar Pathak is revered for setting up a charity, employing 50,000 staff, that has built half a million public lavatories. Most people who work with waste are less famous. George draws attention to India's manual scavengers, of whom there are anywhere between 400,000 and 1.2 million, and who, decades after Gandhi's exhortations, are still regarded by many of their countrymen as so untouchable that even their shadows are thought to pollute. It's not uncommon for these scavengers to be asphyxiated while clambering down sewers on ropes. Meanwhile, in New York, George hears of the sewer workers who fought extreme midsummer temperatures to rescue a broomstick hurled into a river by some police officers, who were eager to hide the instrument they had used to sodomise a Haitian immigrant. There are many instances of excrement being deployed as a weapon - the Viet Cong smeared with faeces thousands of sharpened wooden stakes that punctured boots; in the United States, a retired Navy commander has patented a faecal stink bomb designed for use in riot control - but it's important, at both a philosophical and an environmental level, to remember that it isn't always just waste. In 1996, the authorities in the French town of Lille began to convert the city's bus fleet to run on bio-methane, a fuel far cheaper and healthier than petrol. In China, human excrement is not only used to fertilise fields, but, via biogas digesters, to heat stoves and cook food. George cites the case of Shi Chuanxiang, a prodigious night-soil collector, who, during Mao's "Seas of S--t, Mountains of Fertiliser" campaign in the Fifties, gathered so much excrement that colleagues affectionately called him "Stinky S--t Egg". Excrement is also political in present-day China. The government, eager to present itself as gleamingly modern to international visitors, ordered the renovation or construction of around 5,000 lavatories in time for the Beijing Olympics. Flushing units were installed in place of holes in the ground, and attendants were employed to keep premises clean. George spends time at the WTO, otherwise known as the World Toilet Organisation, whose delegates promote the study of sanitation. She explains the challenges faced by astronauts who need to dispose of their excrement and discusses "flying toilets" in east Africa - actually, Kenyans call them "helicopter toilets" - where a lack of latrines forces locals clutching plastic bags to use "defecate, wrap and throw" techniques. She also draws attention to how Americans, reared on high lavatories that consume excessive amounts of water, are among the most euphemistic people in the world, not only using phrases such as "john" or "restroom", but dubbing the toxic sludge poured over crops by knowingly irresponsible factories "black gold", "bioslurp" and "powergro". Lavatories, as George points out, aren't solely for defecation. People use them to smoke, scrawl graffiti, snort cocaine, have furtive sex, or, in the case of Polish migrant workers in her borough, as night shelters. They also use them to read books that will entertain and edify them. The Big Necessity, a revealing global study that's thoroughly researched and written with both wit and moral seriousness, is so good that no lav should be without a copy. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 01:25:59 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:25:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> What Your Mother Didn't Tell you About Biomass - Sierra Club Message-ID: What Your Mother Didn't Tell You About Biomass Sierra Club on Biomass: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/what_your_mothe.php (you might want to read this on line...since there are many live links in the text which are lost in this plain text posting) Following is the second TreeHugger guest post by Greg Haegele, Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. After the House of Representatives passed last week's landmark energy bill by a margin of 235 to 181, the Senate failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican-led filibuster on Friday. Today or tomorrow the Senate will vote on a different energy bill - one that does not include the renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring that we get 15 percent of our electricity from clean, renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass (keep reading to find out "Ten Things Your Mother Didn't Teach You About Biomass"). I find it particularly unfortunate that the RES was dropped from the energy bill, because it came largely as a result of an alliance between one dirty energy company willing to spend whatever it takes to stop it (the Southern Company) and one senator (Pete Domenici of New Mexico) who is willing to stop progress on this issue at all costs. Despite this setback, there is considerable momentum behind passing an RES as soon as possible. It's a policy that more than half the states have enacted, is extremely popular with the American public, and enjoys majority support in both houses of Congress. After three decades of inaction, we can at last celebrate the milestone of getting the 35 mile per gallon CAFE standard passed. A year ago many of us in the environmental community thought that standard would never make it through Congress and the powerful auto industry lobby. Now we're even seeing supportive statements on CAFE from the chairmen of both Ford and GM. Which brings us to biomass, a frequently cited renewable source of electricity. First - a definition. Biomass: Renewable organic matter such as agricultural crops and residue, wood and wood waste, animal waste, aquatic plants and organic components of municipal and industrial wastes. Simple enough, I suppose. I like lists, though, so I thought I'd put it all into a list of... 10 Things Your Mother Didn't Teach You About Biomass (which is pretty easy, since I'm guessing most of our moms didn't teach us anything about biomass, except that you shouldn't eat dirt.) 1. Biomass accounts for the majority of the renewable energy used in the United States. (47%, Energy Information Administration) 2. The most common method of obtaining energy from biomass is by burning it. 3. Biomass can be made into biofuels - including cellulosic ethanol, which is made of plant wastes such as corn stover (the leftover pieces in the field post-harvest) and sawdust. 4. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "agriculture and forestry residues, and in particular residues from paper mills, are the most common biomass resources used for generating electricity and power, including industrial process heat and steam, as well as for a variety of bio-based products." 5. Biomass can also be made into plastics, polymers, carpets, fabrics, detergents, fabrics, and lubricants. 6. The U.S. Department of Energy has a Biomass Program. 7. Biomass currently supplies about 3% of total U.S. energy consumption in the form of electricity, process heat, and transportation fuels. 8. Some municipal waste facilities get power from biomass by capturing the methane gas it releases as it rots. 9. In traditional power plants, biomass resources can be substituted for a portion of traditional fuels, usually coal, in a process called co-firing. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "biomass feedstock can substitute up to 20 percent of the coal used in a boiler." 10. The Southeast has huge potential for the production of renewable electricity from biomass sources and feedstocks, which include residues from forests, primary mills, and agriculture, as well as dedicated energy crops and urban wood wastes. Fourteen southeastern states represent nearly a third of the biomass feedstock potential in the entire country (SC, VA, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, KY, WV, AR, LA, MD, MO). See this USGS and also the ORNL sources we relied on for this information. Bonus knowledge - #11- The Sierra Club supports biomass energy projects if they are sustainable and if they do not use federal lands as a supply. (If you want to know more about our stance on biomass, click here for some background. ) Want to learn even more? Check out the great primer on biomass energy from our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists. For now, you've got some good basic information to wow your friends and family with at the dinner table this holiday season. Next week we'll give you even more holiday dinner discussion fodder! From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 01:00:52 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:00:52 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Lou Dobbs - irradiated food? FDA is delinquent re food safety Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: It looks like the FDA is throwing in the towel. Giving up on trying to stop poop and fecal pathogens in meat and fresh produce. They are allowing irradiated food at the grocery store in the USA. Or as some like to say...irradiated poop for sale. The fear is that Salinas Valley will never stop using sewage effluent for irrigating leafy greens, and that slaughterhouse standards of cleanliness will drop, because packers will figure that the atomic zap will cover up a multitude of sanitary deliquencies. Consumers should fight to take back the sanitation of their food. No sludge, no sewage effluent. More meat inspectors. More testing. Watch the Lou Dobbs video on the failures of the FDA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGxL0HbklY ........................................................................... BARFBLOG: Food irradiation videos 14.sep.08 barfblog Doug Powell http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2008/09/articles/food-safety-communication/food-irradiation-videos-highlight-uh-creativity/index.htm Whether you?re Lou Dobbs with your own cable show or Norman B- and his Deviations from the Norm, you too can have your own opinions about food irradiation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGxL0HbklY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT8VFu_Djis I have mine, and want individuals to have choice at the checkout counter. http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2008/08/articles/food-safety-communication/let-consumers-decide-about-food-irradiation/ ?Food irradiation of fresh produce is an additional tool that can help reduce the threat of foodborne illness ? but it is not a magic bullet. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published a final rule allowing the irradiation of fresh iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach, available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cfsup185.html\ ?Farmers still need to practice good agricultural practices, and the possibility of post-processing contamination still exists, Powell said, but added that irradiation is safe and should be made available at the retail level. "There's a lot of people already speaking on behalf of consumers and what they may or may not do," Powell said. "When it comes to food, consumers vote with their wallets at checkout, not on public opinion surveys. I'd really like to see someone step up and offer consumers the choice. There have been enough serious outbreaks of foodborne illness in fresh produce that the interest in irradiated spinach and lettuce should be strong." But check out these videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGxL0HbklY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT8VFu_Djis From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 01:24:55 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:24:55 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Dutch Biomass Plant to Use Chicken Manure to Power 90, 000 Homes Message-ID: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/dutch-biomass-plant-chicken-manure-netherlands.php Dutch Biomass Plant to Use Chicken Manure to Power 90,000 Homes by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada on 09. 8.08 Image: Paul de Lhama on flickr In the latest development of large-scale biomass energy production, the Netherlands is now home to the world?s largest biomass power plant running only on ? yep, you got it ? chicken manure. Though biomass energy schemes are hardly anything new, (see these "power to the people" projects in California, China, India and Uganda) it?s a matter of scale and the plant?s dual objective to provide an alternative source of energy, while tackling a serious problem: namely, the high environmental impact of an excess stream of chicken droppings. As Dutch agriculture minister Gerda Verburg announced during the plant?s opening last week, the plant will convert one third of the country?s total 1.2 million tons of poultry waste produced per year, or 440,000 tons. Located in Moerdijk, Zeeland and running at a capacity of 36.5 megawatts, the plant will generate more than 270 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year enough to power approximately 90,000 households. The Dutch multi-utility company Delta, which constructed and operates the 150 million euro plant, is calling it a carbon-neutral effort as it will preclude the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane from chicken waste, which is usually laid out as fertilizer over vast tracts of farmland. Previously, over 800,000 tons of Dutch poultry poop had to be processed abroad at a high cost. Now, the remaining ashes of the manure will be sold as a fertilizer rich in phosphorus and kalium. Furthermore, the Dutch cooperative "Duurzame Energieproductie Pluimveehouderij (DEP)" (Sustainable Energy Production in the Poultry Sector) gives its 629 poultry farming members a eco-friendly and profitable waste management option by allowing them to provide chicken waste to the power plant. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 13:39:48 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:39:48 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ohio has proposed new sludge regs - comment period open Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Ohio EPA took over the management of sewage sludge for Ohio a few years back. A state may take over the administration of sludge if they pass and enforce sludge regulations that are at least as strict as the Federal Part 503 requirements. States that have taken over the management of sludge at the state level are called 'delegated' states. Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin are delegated states. Unfortunately, OHIO failed to create requirements that were as strict as the Part 503s, and are deliquent as to record keeping requirements. Since Ohio does not require sewage sludge generators and processors to provide reports to the staff who respond to queries and complaints, the staff have no idea of the history of sludge application sites and therefore have no capacity to enforce the requirements. Ohio is now rewriting its sludge regulations, and has a draft out for public comment until October 1, 2008 Draft rules are found at: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/draft_sludge_july08.html ....................................................... Draft Rules http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/draft_sludge_july08.html Note: the documents on this page are in the Adobe Acrobat?, PDF format. Download a free Adobe Acrobat? reader for your operating system from Adobe. If you have problems downloading large PDF files click here. Sewage Sludge (OAC 3745-40) Comment deadline - 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2008 The draft rules are available below. Notice has been sent out for interested party review. After considering comments and making changes, if necessary, to the rules, a public hearing and another public comment period will be scheduled in late 2008 or early 2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background Sewage sludge is the solid, semi-solid or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage. Sewage sludge must be periodically wasted, or removed, from a treatment works so as to not cause a bottleneck in the system or result in a pass through of sewage sludge to rivers or other surface waters. There are many alternatives for the final disposition of sewage sludge including, but not limited to, incineration, disposal in a landfill, and application to the land for agronomic benefit. At this time the Agency is soliciting comments on the rules in Chapter 3745-40 of the Administrative Code, governing sewage sludge. The Agency is considering rescinding all seven rules in that chapter and replacing them with twelve new rules. The increase in the number of rules is being considered to provide the reader with shorter rules, making information easier to find. Overall the technical changes being considered include a balance of ?more stringent? and ?less stringent? requirements, all of which are designed to be protective of public health and the environment. See the fact sheet below for more information on the changes being considered. For additional information about Ohio EPA's sewage sludge (also referred to as biosolids) program, visit the Ohio EPA Biosolids Program Web page. For additional information or to submit comments Please submit any comments you have on the draft rules in one of the following manners. By e-mail: elizabeth.bailik at epa.state.oh.us By mail: Elizabeth Bailik Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 By fax: (614) 644-2745 If you would like further information about this rulemaking, please contact Jacob Howdyshell at jacob.howdyshell at epa.state.oh.us or by calling . From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 16 01:03:20 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:03:20 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Findings on how Ecoli O157 gets into lettuce and spinach Message-ID: CALIFORNIA: E. coli findings unveil origins, growth, risks 15.sep.08 The Packer John Chadwell http://thepacker.com/icms/_dtaa2/content/wrapper.asp?alink=2008-91125-782.asp&stype=topstory&fb= MONTEREY, Calif. -- Eighteen months after receiving funds from a $2 million dollar donation by Fresh Express LLC, Salinas, nine researchers from universities and government labs revealed what could end up being vital findings on E. coli O157:H7, including its possible origins, growth, survivability, risks and effect on the industry. At the conference, Jorge Gir?n, assistant professor in the department of immunobiology at the University of Arizona, revealed research on the interaction of E. coli with spinach. Gir?n?s team looked into how pathogens colonize on spinach plants and they made what many in the room considered a significant discovery. From their laboratory studies, Gir?n said he believes, though he cannot explain how, that E. coli has the ability to open a leaf?s stoma ? a small pore that allows air to enter the leaf to produce photosynthesis and respiration ? and then the pathogens can enter the leaf where they find a ?safe haven,? where no amount of washing can remove them. A team led by Michael Doyle, regents professor of food microbiology and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, found that the knives commonly used in Salinas fields to core lettuce could transfer E. coli from the soil into the lettuce. During the tests, the team would expose knives to E. coli in dirt and then without decontaminating them, they would core 10 heads of lettuce. ?Depending on the level of E. coli, all 10 heads were contaminated inside,? he said. He also said that washing the heads with plain water had no effect on the E. coli, and when chlorine was added, contamination remained. ?Chlorine didn?t have as great an impact as we hoped it would,? he said. Doyle said coring should be moved to the processing plants and discontinued in the fields because they are basically ?dirt floors.? The team led by Manan Sharma, research microbiologist for the Food Safety Laboratory in the U.S. Department of Agriculture?s Agricultural Research Service, investigated the internalization of E. coli in lettuce and spinach. Their discovery apparently shut the door on speculation that E. coli can enter a plant through the roots, said Jim Gorny, executive director of the Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center at the University of California-Davis. One study led by Jacqueline Fletcher, director of the National Institute for Microbial Forensics and Food and Agriculture Biosecurity in the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology at Oklahoma University of Oklahoma, made a revelation that still puzzles the team. The researchers went to Hollister, Calif., in an attempt to determine how insects move E. coli into fields of lettuce. She said the team discovered that flies were attracted in greater numbers to mature plants. ?In fields of baby lettuce we found a few dozen flies, but in more mature lettuce there were thousands and we don?t really know why,? she said. She theorized the flies, which spread E. coli, might have been attracted to the mature lettuce because of the presence of red aphids, which secrete honeydew that the flies consume. Bob Brackett, senior vice president and chief science and regulatory affairs officer for Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Food Products Association, said of the conference that it was a good example of how the industry has stepped up to the plate to promote safe food for a global community. An unlikely word of encouragement of the industry?s efforts came from Bill Marler, the Seattle-based attorney who has repeatedly filed lawsuits on behalf of clients against produce and meat companies following foodborne illness outbreaks. ?Now you need to integrate all this effort into messages to consumers so they understand what you?re doing,? he said. ?But you also need work with retailers who are working with you to get the message to consumers rather than just trying to get the lowest price out of you.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 09:37:52 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:37:52 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Virginia - Inspections up - safety concerns remain Message-ID: Inspections are up, but is sludge safe? Tests for 9 metals done before shipments The farm fertilizer contains traces of toxic chemicals, studies find. By PATRICK LYNCH | 247-4534 September 15, 2008 Virginia officials inspected more than 42 percent of all farm fields where sewage sludge was spread as fertilizer in the first half of 2008, the first year the Department of Environmental Quality was responsible for overseeing farms' use of sludge. That inspection percentage is a drastic change from a paltry state inspection record of the practice a few years ago. In 2004, sludge was applied more than 1,100 times, but state officials conducted only 19 inspections. Processed sludge, called "biosolids" by industry, is a sewage byproduct that companies put on fields and forest land to enrich the soil, similar to the age-old practice of amending soil with manure. But the comparison falls short. Scientific studies, including those by researchers at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, have found traces of toxic chemicals in sludge. The sludge used doesn't come only from household sewage, it includes industrial waste as well. Concerns in this region first flared when a group of Isle of Wight County farmers applied to put sludge on their fields. Local residents opposed to the practice and a Daily Press investigation highlighted the facts that the contents of each batch of sludge is not measured before being spread and that oversight of the process in Virginia was severely lacking. Legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2007 laid out a plan to make DEQ ? instead of the Department of Health ? responsible for inspecting sludge-spreading. That took effect in January. DEQ recently tallied its work with sludge in its first year of oversight. These statistics cover January through June. In that time: ? DEQ has inspected 42.5 percent of all Virginia fields and 74 percent of the farms where sludge was applied. ? Sludge was spread on 1,496 fields, and DEQ inspected 636. Four minor violations were found, all concerning how much sludge was spread in designated buffer zones. ? DEQ now has 15 full-time inspectors, whose positions are paid for by increased application fees. DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden said the most recent numbers aren't available, but that sludge was spread on about 56,000 acres in 2006. That's a slight increase from the previous few years, but a marked increase from the late 1990s. About 28,000 acres received sludge in 1998. Though much of the local interest in sludge was sparked by applications to spread it in Isle of Wight, farmers there have never put sludge down, said county planning official Kim Hummel. Three farmers received permits to do so in 2006. The new inspection record is something that "Virginia has not seen before," DEQ Director David K. Paylor said in a statement. "It means we are more certain now that appliers are following the regulations that are designed to protect people's health and the environment." Hayden said DEQ officials believe the new inspection and buffer zone policies are important because they ensure "that people in the vicinity are not affected by what remains in treated biosolids and that the environment is not affected by metals, nutrients or pathogens that may run off the application site." "We believe that when biosolids are applied in accordance with the regulations, they are no cause for concern for human health or the environment," Hayden said. "That is why DEQ conducts inspections. We need to make sure the amount of biosolids is appropriate for the acreage and crop type, and that appropriate buffers are in place to protect homes, drinking water wells, streams, etc." Rob Hale, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science whose research has discovered traces of toxic flame retardant in some batches of sludge, said the inspection ramp-up is a good sign that DEQ is doing what it can with the available tools. He remains concerned about chemicals and compounds that could be found in sludge. Hayden said the 2007 legislation did not expand on testing done for pathogens, nutrients and chemicals. That measurement process, performed before the sludge is shipped to farms, tests for nine priority heavy metals, Hales said: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc. But many scientists have raised concerns about what the modern industrial waste stream could introduce to farm fields. Hale found the flame retardant in sludge by "tripping over it," he said. "It is outside our ability to predict (what else could be in there and how different chemicals could react with each other)," Hale said. "The approach was basically to gloss over that. That's the 900 pound gorilla related to the question of, 'Is application safe?' " http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_biosolids_0915sep15,0,6370869.story From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 15 14:18:16 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:18:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ottawa pleads guilty in billion litre sewage spill Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Residents and watchers of Ottawa's sludge management have noted that a mountain of Ottawa sludge still sits mounded up and moldering at a bankrupt sludge compost site near Sherbrooke Quebec. Now Ottawa admits it has been running its sewage into the river. Is it any wonder that the incidence of antibiotic resistant diseases in Ottawa are so serious that many hospitals will no longer do certain abdominal operations, and send patients to other parts of the province for care? Sewage and sewage sludge contain antibiotic resistant bacteria, which put community health at severe risk. ......................................................................... City faces fines after guilty plea in sewage case Stiff penalties for delaying report of river discharge Tim Shufelt, Ottawa Citizen Published: Thursday, September 11, 2008 OTTAWA - The City of Ottawa pleaded guilty Thursday to dumping a massive amount of raw sewage into the Ottawa River two years ago and subsequently failing to report the discharge to the provincial government. The two charges under the Ontario Water Resources Act were laid against the city in July after a two-month investigation into the spill. "Today's pleas demonstrate the city's responsibility and ownership over the sewage discharge," said Stuart Huxley, a lawyer for the municipality. Penalties range from a minimum of $25,000 to a maximum of $6 million for each day of the spill. On Wednesday, two senior city managers were fired and two more were disciplined for their handling of the spill, which occurred when an overflow gate on the city's downtown sewer system got stuck open in August 2006. For 15 days, the malfunction went undetected and untreated sewage - almost one billion litres, or about 350 Olympic-sized swimming pools' worth - was pumped into the Ottawa River. The Ministry of Environment requires such spills to be reported when they occur. But it wasn't until May of the following year, after a city engineer noticed the incident mentioned in a report, that the province was notified. The spill did not then come to the public's attention until last May, when Orl?ans Councillor Bob Monette exposed the incident. After Thursday's plea, Mr. Huxley said the city is working with lawyers from the provincial environment ministry to finalize an agreed statement of facts and prepare submissions on sentencing. Several more spills have since come to light, a product of the design of the older downtown sewers, which combine sanitary and storm water pipes. Overflow gates are designed to open to relieve pressure on the system during heavy rainfalls. According to Mayor Larry O'Brien, separating the two systems would cost around $600 million. Last month, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced $77.2 million in new provincial infrastructure funding for Ottawa and encouraged the city to use the money to sort out the sewer mess. And last week, federal Environment Minister John Baird pledged $13 million to the cause, increasing the federal contribution to $33 million, funds that will be matched by the city, for a grand total of $100 million to fix the system. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=82613c85-f13c-40d9-800c-7a4c5dfb3e67 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 16 12:15:16 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Canadian Cities - some ending use/sale of bottled water in public facilities Message-ID: Waterloo considers acting against bottled water The Planning and Works Committee of the Region of Waterloo, Ontario has taken the first steps towards going bottled water free. The Committee voted unanimously on September 9, 2008, to recommend to council a motion that will see the end of single use bottled water sales in many public facilities. Environmentalists have been arguing that bottled water causes significant environmental damage. The containers are designed for single use. Making plastic water bottles requires considerable energy and resources, including water and oil, and the manufacturing process releases harmful air emissions and greenhouse gases. Transporting the heavy bottles uses fuel and many discarded bottles also end up in landfills. "A growing number of Canadians are recognizing the environmental impacts of bottled water and thinking twice before buying it," said Mike Layton, Project Coordinator for Environmental Defence. "Not only does it destroy the environment, but it takes a toll on our wallets. People don't need to buy expensive and unsustainable bottled water when there is an excellent source of clean water delivered directly to their kitchen sinks and water fountains." The cost of bottled water is often over 1,000 times more expensive than tap water, yet the cost to water bottlers who take the water in Ontario is insignificant. Many of the bottled water brands sell water from municipal water supplies or exhaust groundwater supplies at the expense of other users. Municipal water supplies are rigorously tested for chemical and biological contaminants, while the frequency and testing results for bottled water are concealed and not publicly available. The cities of London, Ontario, St. John's, Newfoundland and Nelson, British Columbia have all passed similar resolutions and the City of Toronto will be discussing options for curbing bottled water use at public facilities and events later this fall. The Region of Waterloo motion will soon be presented to Regional Council for consideration. HazMat Magazine From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 16 14:23:52 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:52 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Is the EPA afraid of sludge victims? Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Barbara Boxer Sludge Hearings have been put off until likely some time in January 2009. It seems that there is terrible pressure from the sewage sludge industry to silence these hearings. You still have time to upload your stories about sludge at www.sludgenews.org ................................................................. http://www.sludgenews.org/action/story.aspx?id=75 Is the EPA afraid of sludge victims? September 13, 2008 It is a criminal offense to lie before the Senate or House of Representatives during a hearing. Is that the reason the EPA and sludge industry refused to come to the 9/11/08 EPW Committee hearing? Are they afraid of sludge victims, of the truth? Or could it be that they have absolutely no defense and no scientific proof of the safety of the sewage sludge application program promoted by the US-EPA, USDA, municipalities and the powerful sludge industry? Can't they handle Truth to Power? Please read the statements below given by Dr. Alan Rubin, one of the EPA's authors of the 1993 scientific invalid and "sounds like science" sewage sludge land application program [40 CFR Part 503]. The statement below was made by Dr. Rubin at the January 21, 2001 Special Meeting on Biosolids before the Solano, California County Board of Supervisors. This is from the meeting minutes and transcript. "Dr. Rubin noted he would fully expect for the public to see in the April 2, 2003 proposed response to the NRC report, a proposed action plan. It is reasonable for the public, when they see this laid out for comment, to suggest to the EPA that in the interim perhaps the EPA should consider some sort of additional interim requirements. I do not know how the EPA will respond to that, but the public can bring that up and send comments into the EPA. The EPA will have to deal with that public comment. Dr. Rubin suggested getting some activity going as soon as possible for somebody, either EPA, CDC, state health agencies, or local health agencies getting out there and seriously beginning to document what is happening in communities. I believe that the reports we are getting are real, in that people feel sick out there. I read 4-5 reports everyday, and I have a stack that is almost 2 feet tall. The EPA is taking the NRC recommendations very seriously particularly in going back and looking and tracking incidents." Obviously, Dr. Rubin (now working for the sludge industry), was wrong. The EPA did not take the National Research Council's advice and investigate the health complaints, nor did the CDC step up to the plate to investigate public health hazards. The EPA has not conducted any health risk assessments on exposure to sewage sludge. If Rubin had a "almost 2 feet tall" stack of health complaints in August, 2001---how many thousand or tens of thousand health complaints are the EPA hiding now? What happened to Rubin's "4-5 reports everyday?" Who else was getting these complaints? Where did they go? I can tell you where our August 21, 2003 formal EPA complaint went---nowhere! Nobody at EPA would talk to us about our health problems either in Atlanta or in Washington. June, 2008, I received a call from EPA Region 4 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Department in Atlanta. The young lady wanted my permission to release our health complaint to an Associated Press reporter who had requested copies of health complaints received in the division. I gave my permission to release the document (which is a public document anyway), and asked her what had been done about the complaint. The answer was nothing. She promised to send our 2003 complaint to the EPA Office of Inspector General in Washington for them to contact us. So far nothing. The only conclusion a rational person can draw from the actions of our US-EPA is that they are afraid of exposure by sludge victim's testimony and exposure of the egregious lack of protection of human health and the environment. What has happened to all the formal health complaints filed with the EPA and where are they? In the trash? In a file somewhere? The EPA needs to remember that they are public servants and they are paid by our tax dollars to provide environmental protection that includes, humans, animals, water, air, and land--they are not partners with industry--and are not responsible for the corporate bottom line! The next question is who owns and controls the EPA? Nancy Holt, Mebane NC From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 16 23:59:13 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:59:13 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Arizona sues sewer Far West company for water, wastewater violations Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Far West? Sounds like 'the wild wild west'. No permits for wastewater treatment plants...sewage effluent on golf courses with no permits? ................................................................... Ariz. water, sewer company and developer sued for water, air quality violations PHOENIX, AZ, Sept. 10, 2008 -- Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Director Steve Owens and Attorney General Terry Goddard announced today that they have filed a lawsuit against Far West Water & Sewer Company, Inc. (Far West) and H & S Developers Inc. (H & S) seeking penalties of up to $25,000 per day for numerous, long-standing and repeated water and air quality violations in Yuma County. Far West is the company currently providing water and sewer service to the affected Yuma-area community. H & S originally developed this area of Yuma. Before April 1998, H & S and Far West operated as one company. About that time, H & S formed Far West as a separate corporation and transferred drinking water and wastewater facilities to Far West. The 49-page Complaint lists 50 counts against the companies. Thirty-eight of the counts are for violations at Far West's seven sewage treatment facilities and the other counts are against Far West and H & S for drinking-water violations that began before April 1998 before Far West became a separate company. "These were very serious violations that put the community potentially at risk," Director Owens said. "We have taken action against Far West and H & S in the past to make sure the company operates these facilities in a safe and lawful way. While the violations have been corrected, significant penalties are absolutely warranted because of the magnitude and number of these violations." "Arizonans must be able to trust that businesses providing their basic necessities will place public safety ahead of corporate profits," Attorney General Goddard said. "I will aggressively pursue Far West, H & S and any company that violates this trust and jeopardizes the security of our communities." The Complaint alleges numerous violations at Far West's wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) -- Del Oro, Villa Del Rey, Villa Royale, Section 14, Palm Shadows, Seasons, and Marwood -- including building or running WWTPs without existing or amended permits; releasing WWTP-reclaimed water for golf course irrigation without proper authorization; releasing odorous pollutants from insufficiently treated wastewater; failing to properly sample and monitor water for contaminants; exceeding permit limits for contaminants such as nitrate; and failing to notify ADEQ about violations in a timely manner. ADEQ took enforcement action against Far West for the violations, and in 2006, Far West agreed in a Consent Order with ADEQ to close three of its WWTPs, to expand one, and to upgrade and consolidate operations at the remaining WWTPs to correct all violations cited by ADEQ. "Those serious violations stemmed from Far West's attempt to operate beyond its ability to handle the volume of wastewater generated by the community," Director Owens said. The Complaint also alleges numerous safe drinking water violations over many years by Far West and H & S, with some going as far back as 1989. The alleged violations include failure to properly sample for the potential presence of a number of contaminants in the drinking water, such as coliform bacteria, radiochemicals, nitrates, trihalomethanes, disinfectant residuals, inorganic chemicals, volatile organic chemicals and synthetic organic chemicals; failure to report the result of any testing and sampling for these contaminants; failure to have a proper sampling plan; failure to have an emergency operations plan; failure to provide public notice of violations; and failure to have a certified water system operator. "While there fortunately were never any reported health problems associated with these violations," Director Owens said, "these testing, sampling and reporting requirements exist for a very fundamental, important reason: to protect the health and safety of the community. These violations are completely unacceptable." Far West currently is meeting all drinking water monitoring and reporting requirements. The penalties sought in the Complaint range from $500 per day per drinking-water violation to up to $25,000 per day per wastewater treatment violation. http://ww.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=41&ARTICLE_ID=339309 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 17 14:41:50 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:50 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Virginia is for Sludgers ..and gets some water cleanup grants Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The EPA has just decided to give $252 million dollars to improve water quality in Virginia. On the other hand, they allow Virginia to be a dumping ground for high contaminant sludges from the whole of North Eastern United States. see: http://www.wqpmag.com/Funds-for-Virginia-Water-Quality-Improvements-Total-252-Million--NewsPiece16637 If they really cared about protecting waterways and groundwater they would stop spreading sludge. ................................................................. Sludge permit may be sought By Justin Faulconer September 17, 2008 Amherst County could soon see its first application for the spread of biosolids???treated human waste used as a form of fertilizer that has drawn public criticism. County officials received a letter dated from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which now oversees the regulations of the material. It stated that DEQ has received an application from Synagro. ???The applicant proposes to manage the land application of biosolids to farmland in your county without a discharge to surface waters,??? the letter said. State law requires that DEQ notify localities when permits are sought. County Administrator Rodney Taylor said Monday that he has not yet received a copy of the application but understands from a voice message from a DEQ official that the applicant is Wesley Wright. Wright previously applied for a permit for a parcel off of Virginia 151 when the Virginia Department of Health handled applications, Taylor said in an e-mail. Wright and Fred DiLella, a DEQ water compliance and assessment manager who sent the letter, were not available for comment. County officials have adopted a biosolids ordinance, which Taylor said gives the ???maximum??? protection for county citizens afforded by the state. Recently, county supervisors also enacted regulations for the storage of biosolids. David Orvos, a professor of environmental science at Sweet Briar College, serves as biosolids monitor for the county. DEQ???s review process is expected to take six months, Taylor said, with the possibility that a future public hearing would be held. DEQ would solicit public comment, he said, before any final decision is made. http://www.neweraprogress.com/nep/news/local/article/sludge_permit_may_be_sought/8491/ From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 18 14:51:48 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:51:48 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nitrate contamination of groundwater increasing Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: American soil scientists are starting to talk about the increasing and persist increases in nitrogen in goundwater. Ammending fields with sewage sludge is a factor in nitrate contamination. See the study of how Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant sludge is contaminating goundwater. ............................................................... Nitrate concentrations of groundwater increasing in many areas of US Source: Soil Science Society of America Published Sep. 16, 2008 Nitrate is the most common chemical contaminant in the world?s ground water, including in aquifers used for drinking-water supply. Nitrate in drinking water of the United States is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) because of concerns related to infant health and possible cancer risks. Use of man-made synthetic fertilizers has steadily increased since World War II, raising the potential for increased nitrate contamination of the nation?s ground water, despite efforts in recent decades to improve land-management practices. Monitoring nitrate trends in ground water through time is important in determining how quickly ground-water systems respond to changes in chemical use and best management practices. One of the first nationwide studies of nitrate trends in ground water of the United States was recently completed by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as part of that agency?s federally-funded National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. In particular, monitoring data collected by NAWQA across the country in multiple aquifers were analyzed to characterize near-decadal trends in nitrate concentrations in ground water between 1988 and 2004. Results from the study were published in a companion supplement to the September-October issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality. Decadal-scale changes of nitrate concentrations were evaluated in ground water samples collected from 495 wells in 24 well networks across the United States in predominantly agricultural areas. A well network is a set of about 30 randomly-selected wells designed to examine ground-water quality in a particular region. Each well network was sampled once during 1988?1995 and resampled once during 2000?2004. Findings show statistically significant increases in concentrations of nitrate in 7 of the 24 well networks. Median nitrate concentrations of three of those seven well networks increased above the USEPA maximum contaminant level of 10 parts per million. Concentrations decreased in one network located in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. The study included estimates of the age of the ground water (that is, time since the water recharged to the aquifer); nitrate concentrations in ground water increased in response to the increased use of fertilizers since World War II. ?This study highlights the importance of maintaining long-term ground-water monitoring programs in the nation, because sustained monitoring provides critical information on changes of our nation?s ground-water quality, and whether pollution prevention programs are effective in protecting this nation?s ground water,? said Michael Rupert, a hydrologist with the USGS. The USGS implemented the NAWQA Program in 1991 to support national, regional, state, and local information needs and decisions related to water-quality management and policy (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). The NAWQA Program is designed to answer: What is the condition of our Nation?s streams and ground water, and how are conditions changing over time? In the second decade of the Program (2001?2012), a major focus is on regional assessments of water-quality conditions and trends at sites that have been consistently monitored for more than a decade. ............................................. Use of Sludge and Groundwater Contamination A study of the Neuse Wastewater Treatment Sludge Contamination of Groundwater A Study of Nitrate Movement to Ground Water at the Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant Special Report Series No. 20 January 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles W. Welby Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data were collected from September 1990 to March 1996 at two fields of approximately 12 ac each. The fields, on which a variety of crops are grown, were used by the City of Raleigh to dispose of the biosolids from its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). One field (Field 102) has been used since the beginning of the biosolids disposal on the agricultural fields, a period of more than 10 years. The other field (Field 602) first received biosolids after the baseline data were obtained in the fall of 1990. In addition, a short-term study was conducted at a third field (Field 61A) beginning in April 1993 on possible impacts on ground water of the use of commercial chemical fertilizers. The emphasis of the study has been on acquiring an understanding of how the nitrate in the biosolids affects the shallow ground water beneath the fields in a Piedmont Province geomorphologic setting. A corollary concern of the study was the possible impact that ground-water discharge from beneath the fields might have on the nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N) concentrations in surface water. At Field 102 more than ten years of biosolids and cropping have led to nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N) concentrations in the shallow ground water of over five times the national drinking water standard (MCL) of 10 mg/l extending to depths of over 50 ft below the ground surface and in a position, presumably, close to the granitic bedrock. During a two-year long experiment in which no biosolids or other soil amendments were applied on Field 102, the N03-N concentrations in the ground water continued to increase. Field 602 was used to examine the effects of biosolids application on ground water and to learn about the relationship between the timing of biosolids application and the appearance of N03-N in the shallow ground water. Evidence exists in part of the field indicating that the ground water was impacted in less than a year. In other parts of the field it has taken several years for evidence of biosolids application to be recognized in the ground water. Soil moisture studies and examination of the monitoring well hydrographs in conjunction with the time-series graphs of chloride (Cl) and nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N) concentrations indicate that once approximately 2000 lb/ac of biosolids have been applied N03-N moves to the ground water in a matter of a few weeks, depending upon the amount of precipitation occurring during any particular time interval. Studies at Field 602 have also demonstrated that N03-N is being contributed to surface water by ground-water discharge to baseflow. The N03-N content of soils at all three fields was examined. From this part of the investigation it became evident that fertilizer application can lead to a buildup of N03-N in the soil and vadose zone. This buildup performs as a reservoir which can supply N03-N to percolating water which in turn carries N03-N to the saturated zone. Preliminary calculations indicate that on the order of three percent of the N03-N in the total biosolids applied to Field 602 has reached the saturated zone since the completion of the first biosolids application in February 1991. At Field 61A the effects of commercial fertilizer application were detected about a year after the first fertilizer was applied. Due to the length of this report, the five appendices could not be included. These appendices cover soil descriptions, driller's logs, N03-N and chloride plots, stiff diagrams, and well hydrographs. If this information is needed, the reader can contact the Water Resources Research Institute to borrow a copy. http://www.ncsu.edu/wrri/reports/summaries/srs20.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 18 16:11:16 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:11:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Latest on Proposed Hinkley California Sludge Compost Project Message-ID: http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/bars_4327___article.html/letters_driving.html Sludge forum coming Things have been quiet on the Hinkley sludge dump front but things are ramping up again. The Board of Supervisors (for SanBernardino County) have started work on a new environmental impact report after a judge correctly threw out the old one. The two main points that were faulty in it was the fact that it did not address the water issue and whether or not it economically feasible to cover the site. This is actually good for us because it opens the door for us to appeal on the issues we lost and we have already started that process. In the not too distant future we will have another comment period so stayed tuned and get ready to write your comments to the board of supervisors. We also have another interesting opportunity in this election year. Candidates are having fundraisers, meet and greets and all sorts of activities. Why not attend a few of these, get to know the candidates ask them, nicely, about their position on the sludge dump? If enough us get the candidates talking about the issue the more allies we can get and we might get the representation we are lacking in San Bernardino. One of these candidate events will be run on Oct. 7. HelpHinkley will be holding a candidates forum at the Hinkley firehouse. We will be inviting everyone who is running and giving them a chance to speak and for you to ask questions. Steven Smith, Barstow From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 19 12:25:36 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:25:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Look at Bedford County - sludge permits go online Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Even though the Clean Water Act requires sewage sludge land application to have a written permit, the EPA said this was too much trouble and allows the permit requirement to fall by the wayside by calling the regulations 'self permitting'. This means that the sludge hauler/spreaders are supposed to behave 'as if' they have a permit. But where does this leave the neighbors who want to know what sludge, from where, how much, will be place where exactly? It leaves them in the dark. So this website is a step closer to disclosure, to transparency, to accountability, in a realm that was created to move sludge, no matter how toxic, onto farmlands at low cost, with little accountability and less oversight. No sludge should go on farmland. ......................................... http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/177375 Biosolids permits put online Bedford County's Web site has a database of permit holders who can use the debated sludge. By Courtney Cutright Some call it sludge. Others prefer the term biosolids. Regardless of its name, it's treated sewage sludge used in place of chemical fertilizers -- and if you live in Bedford County there is a new tool to find out if your neighboring farm is a state-permitted site to receive it. A database of about 130 permit holders was posted on the county's Web site Thursday. County spokesman Bill Hoy said residents provided the data and the county will update it as new permits are approved. However he cautioned that a permit does not mean the product actually has been spread at every location. Just because "they have been granted a permit ... they may never apply biosolids," Hoy said. Sludge was at the center of heated debates in Bedford County in summer 2007 when the board of supervisors adopted an ordinance to monitor the application and storage of the product in the county. Some residents who spoke against the application of sludge said they feared it could cause adverse health effects. But many farmers disagree. "I feel spreading biosolids is better than putting chemicals on our land," said Jeff Powers, chairman of the county's Agricultural Economic Development Advisory Board. He went on to say biosolids are "critical" for the county's farmers because the cost of chemical fertilizer has skyrocketed. What used to cost a couple of hundred dollars now exceeds $1,000, Powers said. According to the county's Web site, municipal wastewater treatment plants pay companies to dispose of biosolids. Those companies in turn give the product to farmers for free. Officials in Bedford County began to examine the issue last year after it gained the attention of the General Assembly in 2007. A Texas-based company that recycles organic waste made an agreement with state Sen. Steve Newman, R-Lynchburg, to close a sludge storage facility on Otterville Road in March 2007. The company, Synagro, also reportedly agreed not open a second storage facility on Laughon Road between Bedford and Moneta. Permits to spread sludge are issued by the state's Department of Environmental Quality, and localities have no power to regulate the spreading but can monitor storage. On the Net:www.co.bedford.va.us/biosolids From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 19 12:49:31 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:49:31 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Viriginia spin on sludge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Call it sludge, call it biosolids ... this stuff is NOT highly regulated. The regulations are 'self permitting' so accountability is difficult to establish. The sludge that is applied to the field is not tested, rather averages from previous tests are used, so there is no way to accurately know the nutrient or toxic qualities of the sludge. The fecal coliform tests performed on the sludge have little to no relationship to its virulence or pathogen content. But the fecal content isn't the main event. Sewage sludge also includes the industrial wastes from industries discharging into the public sewer system. So chemicals, metals, drugs, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, PCBs are all part of sewage sludge. .................................................................. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/09/18/high-energy-costs-prompt-farmers-to-eye-treated-sewage-for-fertilizer.html High Energy Costs Prompt Farmers to Eye Treated Sewage for Fertilizer Advocates insist it's safe (and often free), but others worry about health and environmental effects By Kent Garber Posted September 18, 2008 MINERAL, Va.?The impacts of high energy costs and a bad economy are being widely felt?and smelled?around here, as local farmers increasingly look to the creative, but controversial, use of treated human and industrial waste as fertilizer. >From the road, the smell isn't overwhelming, but it's certainly not pleasant, and the only visible signs of something unusual are the orange flags planted around the edge of someone's property. The flags might easily be overlooked by an outsider, but they provide an alert that's well understood by locals: This field has been fertilized with treated sewage. The stuff's technical name is "biosolids," and it's been used by golf courses, parks, and even some farms for decades. But partly because of rising energy costs, farmers here and elsewhere in the United States have been more aggressively eyeing the processed waste product as an alternative to pricey fertilizer. Farmers can get it for free in most places, and many are saving hundreds of dollars per acre as a result. But biosolids remain controversial, which isn't surprising given where they come from. Environmentalists, consumer advocates, and flummoxed neighbors have expressed fear and alarm over what they feel are the excessive health risks of applying biosolids to farmland. Many view it as a dangerous source of toxins and disease-causing bacteria, and in the past year there have been growing calls for the federal government to limit its use or, at the very least, further examine its impact. Countering them are government officials and some academics, who say that there's no real scientific evidence to back up those dire claims. Clearly the "sewage" component of biosolids is at the root of the controversy. Technically speaking, biosolids aren't the same thing as sewage sludge, which is the solid remnant that gets separated out of wastewater. Rather, they're a highly treated and modified form of sludge?sludge that's been processed to remove the various pathogens, metals, toxins, and other nasty things that get flushed down toilets or pushed out of industrial exhaust pipes. (ADMIN: "sewage sludge" is the accurate regulatory name for the material that is land applied. The sludge industry is spinning the linguistic palaver in this story) The sewage, of course, has to go somewhere. Oceans and rivers are off-limits for obvious environmental reasons. Landfills and incinerators are possibilities, but they're costly. So spreading it on land?primarily as fertilizer?has become an attractive option, both for waste water treatment plants and for farmers. Compared with chemical fertilizers, biosolids still have a much smaller following. In Virginia, which has about 8.5 million total acres of farmland, about 55,000 acres are treated with biosolids. That's a small percentage, but it's significant. Nationally, about 7 million tons of biosolids are produced annually, with more than half of it applied to land. In western Virginia now, there is a five-year waiting list for farmers wanting to get in on the practice, and the expectation there is that demand could grow. "I think there are a lot more farmers who would like to get it than can get it," says Virginia Biosolids Council chairman Mike McEvoy. Given the discomforting nature of their contents, biosolids are heavily regulated?a point that is touted by proponents as evidence of their safety. There are federal and state restrictions on what elements they can and cannot contain and when and where they can be applied. To prevent run-off into watersheds, minimum barriers or buffers have to be adopted. States, meanwhile, have inspectors to make sure guidelines are properly followed. These assurances do little to assuage critics, but they're not the only people who have questions. Even officials who monitor biosolids and support the practice have expressed some doubts. Right now, the most pressing one is: What's in this stuff? The Environmental Protection Agency, over the past few decades, has done ample scientific research to try to answer that question, but "there are those who question whether that research is complete," says Neil Zahradka, head of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's biosolids division. In particular, many staples of American life?pharmaceutical drugs, cosmetics, detergents?contain chemicals that seem to elude existing methods for filtering them out. In February of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study showing that earthworms living in fields treated with biosolids were consuming small (but significant) amounts of various disinfectants and antibiotics from the soil. Advocates insist it's safe (and often free), but others worry about health and environmental effects All these unknowns have made for a contentious and litigious fight. Lawsuits have broken out in several states between farmers and local and federal officials. In Georgia, for example, farmers have claimed that biosolids have killed their dairy cows. Biosolids proponents acknowledge that they have a PR problem. "People have this phobia because it's human waste," says Sam Hadeed of the National Biosolids Partnership. But they also say there are benefits that are usually overlooked. Run-off from chemical fertilizer has been responsible, in large part, for the growing aquatic wastelands that now sit off the cost of the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. Biosolids largely avoid that problem because they are organic and release their chemicals more slowly. Chemical fertilizer is also a huge natural-gas hog, whereas biosolids can actually be used as a biofuel for energy in addition to its use as fertilizer. How rapidly farmers choose to adopt biosolids will depend upon a number of things, among them fertilizer prices, new research findings, and political support, as well as the amount of biosolids produced by treatment plants. In Virginia, a committee is reviewing the state's policies and is expected to report its findings to the legislature in January. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 19 21:24:33 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:24:33 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> AZ - Drugs in the Effluent that is now approved into Lake Mead and Colorado R Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Sewage treatment plants generally used 1920's technology to try to clean up 21 Century water woes. They fail. Despite the fact that sewage 'treatment' plants turn out filthy effluent and filthier sludge, the government allows these tainted materials back into our food and water supply. For info on what drugs are found in Arizona effluents, see the US Geological Survey (3 pages long): http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V2_N6/feature1.pdf ....................................................................... Pipes OK?d for effluent to dump in Lake Mead Buster Johnson: Move damages water quality By Staff and Wire Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:19 PM MST The U.S. Interior Department is allowing construction through public lands of a treatment plant and pipeline that will dump effluent into Lake Mead and the Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service Final Environmental Impact Statement Clean Water Coalition Systems Conveyance and Operations Program record of decision was dated Sept. 3. It states the Bureau of Land Management will issue a right-of-way permit to the Clean Water Coalition to construct and operate the ?Boulder Islands North Alternative? on BLM land. The pipeline will replace the discharge of effluent through the Las Vegas Wash. The Clean Water Coalition is made up of the wastewater divisions of the City of Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, Nev., and the Clark County (Nev.) Water Reclamation District. According to the record of decision, the reason the Interior Department is allowing the use of public lands is ?to maintain water quality standards and National Park Service (NPS) recreational and resource values by operating a system that would allow for flexible management of wastewater flow from the Las Vegas Valley to Lake Mead.? But Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson, R-Dist. 3, said the move actually damages water quality. ?Hundred of millions of gallons of effluent being dumped into our drinking water at a time when we are trying to clean up the river and protect our drinking water in Mohave County shows the lack of concern for downriver users. I have tried to get other users of the river water to voice their concerns but the Phoenix mayor?s office and others have remained silent,? Johnson said in a press release. Lake Havasu is the collection point for the Central Arizona Project, the major drinking water supplier for Phoenix and Tucson. The lake is also the collection point for the Metropolitan Water District, which serves millions in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. Johnson is primarily concerned with the chemicals that remain in effluent even after treatment. ?Since I spoke against this project with respect to the amount and concentration of pharmaceuticals that will be forced down river on us, new information has been released that shows the risk to the public could be worse than originally thought,? he said. Recent testing revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies has shown that more Americans are affected by the problem than previously thought ? at least 46 million. That?s up from 41 million people reported in March as part of an investigation into the presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation?s waterways. The reports prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water. Positive tests were reported in 17 cases, including Reno, Nev., Savannah, Ga., Colorado Springs, Colo., and Huntsville, Ala. Results are pending in three others. The drug residues detected in water supplies are generally flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion. Many of the pharmaceuticals are known to slip through sewage and drinking water treatment plants. While the comprehensive risks are still unclear, researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild and impair the workings of human cells in the laboratory. And while the new survey expands the known extent of the problem, the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities have yet to test, including the single largest water provider in the country, New York City?s Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people. Another source is the disposal of unused prescription medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many waste experts now want to rewrite the rules so a broader range of professionals can handle leftover controlled drugs. ?And DEA ? truth be told ? has not been very cooperative and responsive in that regard,? says waste consultant Catherine Zimmer at the University of Minnesota. That could change. The DEA declined requests for an on-the-record interview, but in a statement, spokeswoman Rogene Waite said: ?DEA is currently developing regulations to allow for the safe and effective destruction of controlled substances.? Ben Grumbles, the Environmental Protection Agency?s water administrator, confirmed his agency has participated in these discussions. He would not provide details, but called the talks productive. http://www.havasunews.com/articles/2008/09/16/news/doc48d0852932571374542233.txt From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 19 21:49:10 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:49:10 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Warkworth Groups Protest Sludge Spreading at the Farm Gate Message-ID: http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1205255 Group protests spreading of biosolids on farmland Posted By Ted Amsden Updated Thurs Sept 18, 2008 The purpose of Wednesday?s protest by Concerned Citizens of Northumberland County was to make the public aware of the health and financial costs of depositing biosolids on farmland, president Wendy Deavitt said. Concerned Citizens of Northumberland County (CCNC) was formed July 25 and had about 76 members, about 10 of whom took part in yesterday?s protest on the Second Line east of County Road 45 at the edge of the Alderville Reserve. They were speaking out against the application of treated Cobourg sewage and biosolids on local farms. Biosolids are nitrogen- and phosphorous-rich by-products of municipal sewage treatment programs. They have been spread on farmers? fields as a fertilizer and organic supplement for the past 30 years. According to Terratec Environmental manager of Eastern Ontario operations Jeff Newman, who was directing operations yesterday near the protest scene, the protest is a local issue that doesn?t come up in the other jurisdictions he oversees. He covers from Durham Region eastward past Belleville, overseeing three application crews. Direct injection, the application method used yesterday, was safe, he said, and the possibility of negative ramifications on the soil, the surrounding lands and nearby waterways is ?not a concern.? Mr. Newman talked about the preliminary report that was necessary to met the certificate of approval for Ministry of Environment standards and stressed that he always worked with neighbours regarding setbacks whenever a concern with proximity was raised. Ms. Deavitt, standing on the Second Line, spoke primarily of the implications of products produced on lands that had been sprayed or injected with biosolids when mixed in with those products from farm where biosolids had not been employed. ?Everything is essentially contaminated? she said. A green brochure she and her group were handing out, on the last page, states, ?Sludge (biosolids) is in fact more toxic than manure or raw sewage! A variety of heavy metals, drugs/pharmaceuticals, organic compounds and disease causing organisms are found but not necessarily tested for.? Spreading biosolids can save a farmer approximately $500 per hectare in fertilizer costs as well as adding tons of organic matter to the topsoil, Mr. Newman said. Ms. Deavitt also raised her concerns about the proximity of this farm to the Alderville Reserve, where application of biosolids is not permitted, and speculated that some residents there might make a blockade although the trucks going to and coming from Cobourg do not take a direct line through Alderville from County Road 45. ` She says that the value of her Warkworth property has fallen by $40,000 due to the spreading of biosolids on property abutting her land. A person selling his or her home should have to tell prospective buyers about potential environmental hazards surrounding their property, she continued. Mr. Newman disagreed, saying that applying biosolids is not waste disposal and therefore it is not necessary to mention. (ADMIN - Mr Newman is wrong. In Ontario, spreading this sludge is managed by a waste permit - Certificate of Approval - from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment) Yesterday?s protest took place just down the laneway from the home of Stewart and Gabriela Surerus. Mr. Surerus, in whose family the farm has been for the last 25 years, was cutting hay several fields away and probably didn?t know about the protest. His wife, however, acknowledged the right of people to protest, but defended the application of the controversial product on their field. Some of the claims of ill health that arise from the application, she said, ?didn?t seem possible.? She repeated the word test three times and mentioned it again in the context of before and after applications, indicating that she felt assured there is adequate field work done. Regarding the concerns that what she is applying to her soil could have a deleterious effect on the prices of her neighbours? lands, Mrs. Surerus said she thinks the awareness of the health concerns being raised are a ?bit of a red herring.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 21 10:42:20 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:42:20 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Famous Asbestos Lawyer Takes on Sludge Case Message-ID: Sunday, September 21, 2008 www.baltimoreexaminer.com Is sewage sludge, Angelos???s next asbestos? By Mike Silvestri Examiner Staff Writer 9/14/08 Photo: Lin Eyer, of Havre de Grace, pets her horse, Jumping Jack Flash in April. She rode her horse through sewage sludge and became ill soon after. -Kristine Buls/Examiner With few local experts to consult and allegations piling up that sewage sludge spread as fertilizer causes illnesses, Peter Angelos is taking the lead. Angelos, the Baltimore Orioles owner who made his fortune on asbestos lawsuits, and Chris Nidel, an environmental attorney from Washington D.C., filed a lawsuit with the York, Pa., courts, seeking unspecified damages from local offices of the country???s largest sludge-hauling company, Synagro Technologies Inc., for 35 residents of Shrewbury, Pa., a town 26 miles north of Towson in Baltimore County. The residents in the lawsuit filed this summer allege that the sludge, human waste treated at a wastewater treatment plant and spread on a nearby farm, damaged their property and caused bloody noses, headaches, irritated eyes, fatigue and respiratory ailments. Edwin Hallman, an environmental attorney from Atlanta, who is considered one of the country???s top lawyers in sludge-related lawsuits, said, ???Mr. Angelos filing this suit is a clear sign that the toxic torts attorneys are finally realizing the effects of this stuff.??? Angelos, who could not be reached for comment, was one of the first attorneys in the country to file lawsuits against asbestos companies. He made hundreds of millions of dollars representing thousands of Baltimore residents who were sickened by asbestos, an insulating and fire-retardant material that can cause cancer but was once thought to be safe. The Baltimore City branch and Maryland State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had to take their search for counsel on sludge earlier this year all the way to Georgia. NAACP officials have been consulting for several months with Hallman about a Johns Hopkins University study involving a sludge compost that was spread around houses in Baltimore. Synagro could not be reached for comment on the Pennsylvania lawsuit, but its officials have repeatedly denied that sludge causes adverse health effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has supported spreading sludge as fertilizer, saying it has never been proven to cause an illness. Hallman???s most recent case ended in February, with a victory in U.S. District Court over the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He won the case for a Georgia dairy farmer, Andy McElmurray, whose fields and award-winning cattle were destroyed by sludge that contained hundreds of times more heavy metals than permitted. ???I???m really pleased to see somebody of his caliber signing on,??? Hallman said of Angelos. ???I think we???re going to see more and more attorneys like him, myself and others communicating.??? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 21 10:52:20 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:52:20 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Texas lab doing USDA funded research on endocrine disruptors on sludged land Message-ID: A dirty job but someone gets to do it: Grassland lab receives $400,000 grant to study biosolid fertilizer by Fred Afflerbach - Telegram Staff Writer Published September 17, 2008 Trent Cook empties treated waste into the Maximizer, the machine on the left that looks somewhat like a trash bin on wheels, that separates solid from liquid waste. The waste is then sprayed onto nearby hay fields as fertilizer. Mitch Green/Telegram Two members of a local research group aren???t afraid of getting their hands dirty. Or a little smelly. Scientists from the Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory in Temple are taking a close look at how the environment could be affected by using biosolids for fertilizer in agriculture. The research is possible because of a $400,000 grant recently awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The two scientists, Dr. Mari-Vaughn Johnson and Dr. Virginia L. Jin, will take back to their laboratory soil samples from two Central Texas locations where for years biosolids have been applied to hay fields. ???For thousands of years we???ve been using them (biosolids) to grow crops with. The point of this research is to better understand. So we can use it responsibly,??? Dr. Johnson said. ???It makes people a little squeamish and a little uncomfortable to talk about it, but it???s something - as our population continues to grow - we???re really going to have to figure out what to do with it.??? The scientists are focusing on a group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting compounds that are often found in human waste, and how they could affect plants, animals and humans after significant rainfall. In the lab, they will use adjustable showerheads to manipulate weather conditions. These chemicals begin innocently in human waste. ???Every time you take aspirin, your body uses what it can, and it expels the rest. Vitamins, birth control, all of it,??? said Dr. Johnson. ???You are getting rid of that and it is going into these biosolids and it???s being land applied and right now there???s not a management protocol for pharmaceuticals in waste.??? Working with a local rancher and the city of Austin, the researchers will extract soil samples from several different pastures. ???We???ll actually bring back cores, probably a foot in diameter. We???ll jam a PVC pipe into the ground and dig it out so that core of solid is undisturbed in the center. It???s intact. It???s much more realistic to do it that way,??? Dr. Jin said. The researchers plan to extract some of these samples from the Grandy Ranch, a sprawling patchwork of green fields in western Bell County near Nolanville. Over the course of three decades, Glen Grandy has slowly turned several hundred acres of hard scrabble into pastures thick with coastal bermuda. The grass keeps 150 cattle fed and provides income through hay sales. Grandy forgoes the popular commercial fertilizers that are sold by the ton and measured by their mineral composition. He applies biosolids from septic tanks and municipal waste plants. Grandy said he is happy to provide the researchers with access to his ranch. Although he already submits to mandatory state testing, he said this is a good idea. ???That???s not something that we test for, but we should be concerned about,??? Grandy said, regarding the possibility of pharmaceuticals leaching into the soil. ???And the USDA???s testing process is to find out is this something we should be concerned about. I???m very much interested in that too, because I want to be a good steward of the land. We???re not out here as a dump site, we???re a beneficial site.??? The researchers also are working in Austin at the Hornsby Bend Biosolids Management Plant. The plant basically applies the same methods as Grandy, but on a larger scale - 1,200 acres. The research will last about 2?? years. Depending on funding, it could continue longer. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 21 11:09:12 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:09:12 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Harlem Georgia Director Public Works- indicted for dumping sludge into creek Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Director of Public Works has been indicted for sending sewage sludge ponds into the creek and then lying about it. We saw the same situation in Tennessee. In the Tennessee instance, the aftermath included an astonishing outbreak of MRSA among the rafting guides on the river that was running with sludge. " 2 years ago copperbasin water treatment plant dumped over 430000 gallons of sewage sludge in the Ocoee river exposing all that use this river to MRSA. OVER 200 GUIDES INFECTED documents show plant pled guilty and was fined over $40,000 dallors with two emplayees being fined $1500 and $750 dollars if you use this river know your exposing yourself to MRSA" The story below takes pains to say that Harlem Georgia's drinking water supply was not impacted, but what about the health of the people who live downstream? The Harlem City Public Works director is accused of falsifying records. It seems that Georgia cities are getting a reputation for that. (see Augusta Georgia court cases) ...................................................... Sunday, September 21, 2008 Cason indicted in Clean Water Act case By Valerie Rowell Staff Writer A federal grand jury indicted Harlem's director of Public Works on Wednesday, alleging he violated the Clean Water Act. Daniel Webster Cason was indicted on 11 counts by the grand jury in Savannah, according to a news release from the Southern District of Georgia office of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The indictment charges Cason, who was then responsible for operation of the city's Wastewater Treatment Plant, in a January 2004 pumping of a pollutant from the oxidation pond at the plant into nearby Euchee Creek and falsifying records and statements about plant measurements of fecal coliform and biochemical demand. Cason is charged with one count of knowingly discharging a pollutant without a permit and 10 counts of making false statements. The indictment says Cason "knowingly discharged a pollutant from a point source, ... a hose connected to a portable pump which was placed in the oxidation pond at the City of Harlem, Georgia's Wastewater Treatment Plant" on North Louisville Street into Euchee Creek without a permit. A "pollutant" includes sewage, sewage sludge and biological materials. The indictment also alleges that between November 2003 and April 2005, Cason "knowingly made false material statements, representations, and certifications in reports and records required to be filed or maintained under the Clean Water Act." Those records are typically filed with the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The indictment is a result of an investigation conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI, according to the release. "This happened four years ago," Harlem Mayor Bobby Culpepper said. "Since then, the mayor and city council have spent $1 million on upgrading the sewer system. It is a model system now that the EPD sends people to Harlem to look at it and model theirs after ours. " Culpepper said since the investigation began, the city has cooperated with authorities and plans to continue. City officials said Cason has not had any responsibility for operations of the Wastewater Treatment Plant for several months. "When it became apparent that Daniel was the focus of the EPA probe, we removed him and relieved him from any responsibility there," Culpepper said. Augusta attorney Pete Theodocion confirmed that he has been hired by the city of Harlem to represent Cason. Theodocion said he advised Cason not to speak about the case and declined to comment other than to say he expects Cason's initial appearance and arraignment hearing to be held in the next few weeks. The city's drinking water was never affected by Cason's alleged activities but Culpepper wanted to stress the point. "This absolutely has nothing to do with drinking water," Culpepper said. "It never has. ..." Cason faces three years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the pumping charge and two years' confinement and a $250,000 fine on each of the false statement charges. No initial appearance or arraignment dates have been set. http://newstimes.augusta.com/stories/092108/new_476355.shtml From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 22 12:00:36 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Valleyfield Quebec Fabgroups - sewage waste into clean energy Message-ID: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/yourbusiness/story.html?id=4de24a92-e00a-460d-a89d-36d25834411c&p=2 The power of sludge Oxidation technology can turn sewage waste into clean energy STEPHANIE WHITTAKER, Freelance 22.09.2008 It's not every day that people get excited about watching sewage being treated. But there was plenty of excitement last week among a delegation invited to visit a Salaberry de Valleyfield plant, which is the first to use a process that oxidizes sewage, rendering it into an inert and environmentally benign, sand-like substance. Montreal-based Fabgroups, a company that specializes in custom metal fabrication, has added the technology, called "plasma-assisted sludge oxidation," to its original vocation of producing metal products for the petroleum industry. PASO not only eliminates the need to bury sewage sludge in landfill, but can also harness the heat created by the process to run electrical turbines or produce steam. And although the demo plant, built adjacent to Valleyfield's conventional sewage treatment plant, has been operating in test mode for only a few months, Fabgroups has already played host to potential customers from outside Canada who want to buy the technology. In fact, a delegation of engineers and municipal officials from Charleston, S.C. were among the visitors last week who watched sewage sludge being oxidized in a giant kiln in the Valleyfield plant. Paul Herrbach, the founder and owner of Fabgroups, says he decided to take his company into the sewage treatment business because "we were tired of fighting the competition of metal companies in Korea and India. We needed proprietary products that we would be able to manufacture and sell at a reasonable profit." Fabgroups was founded as a producer of metal equipment in the early '90s and gradually grew through acquisitions to encompass three plants: one in Valleyfield, one on Montreal's South Shore and another in Toronto. The company builds custom metal products. "We'd been looking at various other technologies," said Patricia Herrbach, the founder's daughter who is Fabgroups' human resources director. "Metal fabrication had become competitive in the global economy and we were feeling the pinch." The company learned about the PASO technology serendipitously through an employee five years ago. It had been developed by Hydro-Qu??bec's research and development arm; the utility owns the patent on the technology and has licensed Fabgroups to develop and market it. In the Valleyfield PASO prototype, raw sewage is fed into the system where the first step is the removal of 30 per cent of the water, rendering it into a clay-like sludge. "It's forwarded into a catalytic converter (a large kiln) and exposed to a beam of plasma gas," Paul Herrbach said. "The plasma passes through an electrical arc and it catalyzes the sludge to start a thermal reaction." Herrbach says the process causes a release of energy as electrons in the substance are knocked out of orbit, which renders them unstable. "They become unstable predators and they oxidize the organic material. As positively charged particles are looking for negatively charged particles, it creates a favourable condition for the carbon in the sludge to oxidize." The temperature in the kiln reaches between 600 and 700 degrees Celsius as the sludge burns. The process takes an hour and 20 minutes. Fabroups manufactures all the large metal equipment, including the kiln. While the city of Valleyfield produces 8,000 tons of sewage sludge per year, the facility is capable of treating four times that amount. Benoit Par??, Fabgroups' president and CEO, says what makes the PASO technology so environmentally attractive is that it leaves very little residue (about five per cent of the original sludge volume) and there is no need to bury organic sludge in landfill, where it produces greenhouse gas. "You'll see a trend in Quebec in years to come in which landfill sites are closed down," he said. "This process reduces waste at source." Moreover, he said, the heat produced by the process can be captured and used to heat buildings or drive turbines for electricity, although the company has not yet added that function to the Valleyfield demo plant. The technology also prevents the escape of any byproduct of the combustion. "It releases less CO2 than a backyard composter," Paul Herrbach said. New York businessman Paul Rodzianko was one of the visitors who travelled to Valleyfield to see the new technology in action with an eye to investing in the company. "I think this has significant potential," he said. "How significant? It's early days yet but this is like the early version of (Microsoft) Windows. It's clear that there will be several subsequent versions and it doesn't take much to visualize two or three steps beyond that. There's a huge market in Canada and the U.S. and this technology could be spread around the world." The Valleyfield prototype was developed and built for $6 million; $2 million of that sum was a subsidy from Natural Resources Canada and the remainder was self-financed by Fabgroups. Patricia Herrbach said the company took the concept to various water treatment industry trade shows. "And since then, people have been hounding us. They've been calling us to find out if we're ready to sell it yet," she said. Several visitors from the city of Charleston visited the facility to learn how the technology could be used in their municipality. Jake Earle, plant engineer in the environmental resources department of the Charleston water system, says his city currently trucks sewage sludge to a landfill site at a cost of $27 per ton. Annually, it costs $500,000. "By all accounts, this could reduce greenhouse gases from landfill and it would pay for itself over time," he said. He said it costs about $500,000 in energy costs to run Charleston's sewage treatment plant, which could be reduced through the capture of the heat energy that the PASO system produces. Par?? says the next step is to take the proposal to the financial community to get financing. "It's an attractive business proposition." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 24 09:59:44 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:59:44 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ozarks: research on sludge runoff Message-ID: MSU grant to test impact of Springfield???s sludge on water September 24, 2008 The Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute at Missouri State University has received an $81,096 grant from the City of Springfield to provide technical support, implement water quality monitoring and analysis activities, and implement soil testing activities for the Biosolids Runoff project. Biosolids are left over as sludge after the municipal treatment of wastewater by the City of Springfield and are currently being used to fertilize agricultural fields in southwestern Missouri, according to Dr. Bob Pavlowsky, professor of geography, geology and planning and director of the OEWRI. ???Testing in other regions indicates that this practice results in little risk to human health and aquatic life beyond that which occurs using traditional fertilizer,??? Pavlowski said. ???However, there are questions about the release of nutrients and metals from biosolids applications during rainfall-runoff events and the contamination of downstream receiving water bodies under soil and slope conditions occurring in the western Ozarks.??? Working with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service, OEWRI is working with the city to conduct a three-year study to compare the runoff loss of nutrients and metals from fields treated with biosolids with fields treated with traditional fertilizer. http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/BREAKING01/80924010/1007/NEWS01 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 24 10:05:32 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:05:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario Government Gives Approvals for Sludge Fuelled Power Plant Message-ID: Ministry OKs sludge-fuelled power plant The Hamilton Spectator (Sep 23, 2008) Liberty Energy finally has the Environment Ministry go-ahead to build a 10-megawatt, sludge-fuelled power plant on Strathearne Avenue North. Wilson Nolan, chief executive officer, announced late yesterday that the ministry had issued certificates of approval for waste management, air emissions and wastewater treatment after a 30-day public comment period that ended at midnight Saturday. He also revealed that construction cost of the Liberty Energy Centre is now estimated at $180 million -- $90 million for each of two incinerators that will burn a mix of sewage sludge and wood waste, producing enough renewable energy to supply 8,000 homes. The pricetag has more than doubled since California-based Liberty first proposed the plant four years ago. Nolan said the company can now go after municipal sludge-disposal contracts. It will only build when it has sufficient tonnage lined up. Capacity is said to be 340,000 tonnes of sludge and 130,000 tonnes of biomass a year. http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/439650 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 22 12:22:29 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:22:29 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Caution urged before adopting nanotechnology Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Nanoparticles in food production, nanoparticles in packaging, means nano particles in landfill leachate, nanoparticles in sludge and effluent. These technologies must be environmentally reviewed for their full life cycle implications before being adopted. It is still not clear, for instance, whether the US govt is going to enforce its requirement to make Samsung register its nanosilver washing machine as a pesticide. (see earlier Sludge Watch posts) ................................................. IRELAND: Safety authority urges research into nanotechnology's use in food sector 22.sep.08 Irish Times Olivia Kelly http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0922/1221998221917.html Research into the risks of using nanotechnology in food is "urgently" needed before products containing food manipulating particles hit the Irish market, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has said. Little is known about the effects on the human body or the environment of this emerging food science and regulation of the industry is "deficient" a new FSAI report has found. Food nanotechnology involves the use of tiny particles (nanoparticles) which can be 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair, to modify processed food. Nanoparticles can be used to change the taste and texture of food, extend its shelf-life, increase absorption of nutrients or kill harmful bacteria. No foods currently on the Irish market use nanotechnology, the FSAI said, but "policies should be devised now in advance of their arrival". The technology is used in some non-EU countries. In the US a nanoparticle product marketed as "OilFresh" is being used by restaurants to extend the life of deep frying oil, while giving crispier food. Nanotechnology can also be used in food containers creating "active packaging" which could kill bacteria or indicate when food has gone off or is under threat from contaminants. While nanoparticles are being used commercially, and it is anticipated the industry will be worth ???15 billion globally in less than two years' time, little is known about its effects on human and animal health or on the environment, the FSAI said. "Evidence is accumulating that engineered nanoparticles can cross natural barriers within the body, although the health implications of this, if any, are as yet unclear," the report said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 24 10:51:35 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:51:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Vulvar Abscesses Commonly Caused by MRSA Message-ID: Vulvar Abscesses Commonly Caused by MRSA By Will Boggs, MD NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Sept 18 - The organism most frequently isolated from vulvar abscesses is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), according to a report in the September issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. "We want ob-gyns to realize that vulvar abscesses, like other skin and soft tissue infections, have a high incidence of MRSA," Dr. Andrea Ries Thurman from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, told Reuters Health. "You cannot predict MRSA (versus other bacteria) by looking at the patient." Dr. Thurman and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of MRSA in a large cohort of women with vulvar abscesses who were treated with either inpatient or outpatient surgical incision and drainage, and to identify clinical factors associated with MRSA vulvar abscesses. MRSA was isolated from 64% of vulvar abscesses, the investigators report, and other non-MRSA organisms (mainly labeled "usual genital flora") were isolated from 36% of vulvar abscesses. Most MRSA isolates were sensitive to clindamycin (72%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (96%), or doxycycline (96%). No presenting signs, symptoms, or epidemiologic variables significantly predicted MRSA vulvar abscesses, the report indicates, and MRSA infection was not associated with inpatient treatment or the occurrence of any short-term complication. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, inpatient admission was independently associated with larger abscesses (5 cm or more) and with an initial blood glucose of 200 mg/dL or more. "Our study demonstrates that vulvar abscesses are a morbid condition, with 40% of women requiring inpatient treatment for an average of 3 days," the investigators say. "Our data suggest that if an oral antibiotic is prescribed, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be the first line of treatment, because this medication covered almost all of the MRSA and non-MRSA species recovered from vulvar abscesses," the authors conclude. "We plan to look at placebo versus Bactrim after incision and drainage of vulvar abscesses," Dr. Thurman commented. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:538-544. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/580747?src=mp&spon=3&uac=37242BG From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 24 19:50:09 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:50:09 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> NO SLUDGE ON FARMS - Ontario- All Northumberland/QuinteW Candidates Agree Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: There is a federal election coming in Canada...and at this all candidates meeting all the candidates - no matter what party they represent - are unanimous: no sludge should be put on farmland. ...................................................... Don't Spread Sewage Sludge on Farmlands All Northumberland/Quinte West Federal Canadidates Agree Valerie MacDonald 24.09.08 The four Northumberland-Quinte West candidates in the Oct. 14 federal election disagree on a variety of issues in this campaign, but on this they are unanimous: sewage sludge should not be spread on agricultural land. The candidates were reacting to a statement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who is calling for a moratorium on the practice of spreading sewage sludge on farmlands. ?Evidence is emerging that this practice may be harmful to human health and to our water, soil and to the food chain,? Ms. May states in her release. Local Green Party candidate Ralph Torrie of Cobourg is likewise against taking risks like this with the waste from municipal sewage systems. ?Once you spread this stuff on the ground, you can never get it back,? he said. Like the Greens, the NDP doesn?t support the practice, local NDP candidate Russ Christianson said. ?It?s the precautionary principle,? he said. ?We don?t know with all certainty it?s a safe thing to do?. We don?t know the long-term ? or short-term ? health effects.? Governments must look at the the whole issue and how municipalities will handle sewage sludge, Mr. Christianson said. Rural municipalities shouldn?t be a ?dumping ground? for what could be a ?toxic soup.? he said. ?We don?t need another Walkerton (tainted water tragedy).? A demonstration near Roseneath last week coincided with the spreading of sludge on area fields. Both incumbent Conservative MP Rick Norlock and Liberal riding candidate Paul Macklin say they aren?t aware of any position by their parties, but are personally against the practice. ?I?m not an advocate of putting it on agricultural land,? Mr. Macklin said. ?Farmers are stewards of the land; good stewards of the land.? There are heavy metals in sewage sludge and you?d can?t take them back once they are added to the land, he continued. ?That?s my concern.? Sewage sludge hasn?t been put on his family?s Hamilton Township farmlands in the past 20 years and there are other ways to dispose of the matter properly, Mr. Macklin said. ?Personally, I?m on a well. I live in the country?. I believe there is a more cost-effective way? to dispose of sewage sludge than spreading it on agricultural land, Mr. Norlock said. When Mr. Norlock attended a meeting sponsored by the Warkworth Service Club several years ago (he is a club member), he said, speakers from the local health unit, environment ministry and a scientist said there were no harmful effects to spreading sewage sludge on farm fields if all requirements are followed. Meeting participants were also told of the financial and nutritive value to farmers. But even after hearing all this information, Mr. Norlock says he believes in pursuing more environmentally friendly options such as drying and composting the sludge, and letting special worms turn it into rich fertilizer. (The worms, which absorb the heavy metals, are incinerated and treated as hazardous waste, Mr. Norlock said.) Another method is to incinerate sewage sludge in high-temperature plasma arc facilities like the one proposed for the Municipality of Port Hope, he added. The Green Party?s program states that it would identify the most appropriate technology being used around the world. On a ?needs basis,? financial assistance would be provided to municipalities to introduce the technology while ?technical assistance and funding? would be provided to First Nation reserves ?to identify and remedy deficiencies in sewage and water treatment facilities.? It would also use federal research capabilities to ?report on the consequences of applying municipal waste on agricultural lands and rural watersheds.? ........................................ Candidates respond to concerns over farming Posted By Bill Tremblay 24.09.08 By Bill Tremblay Campbellford ? Candidates vying to become the next member of Parliament for Northumberland-Quinte West gave their views Tuesday night on how to uproot the fiscal risks faced by farmers. Former MP Paul Macklin said a Liberal government would work with the provincial government ?to put a risk management program in place that makes sense. ?This program is something the current minister of agriculture decided he couldn?t do.? The Liberal candidate said a local farmer offered a way to attract new farmers who are hesitant to enter the industry because it isn?t profitable. ?He thinks there should be a fixed rate mortgage for new farmers so they don?t have to deal with fluctuations in the marketplace,? Macklin said. ?It sounds like a good idea.? Incumbent Conservative MP Rick Norlock said the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization program implemented under the previous Liberal government ?was totally ineffective and didn?t do the job.? The Conservatives ?solved the CAIS problem? by replacing it with ?a suite of programs.? because ?one size doesn?t fit all.? NDP candidate Russ Christianson farmers? woes could be alleviated by revamping trade agreements. ?We need an environment with fair trade, not free trade,? he said. ?Free trade only benefits the large corporation. Fair trade will benefit the family farmer.? Describing the family farmer as almost an ?extinct species,? Christianson said the government needs ?to make sure farmers are actually getting the value added in their own products rather than the big companies.? Green candidate Ralph Torrie said farmers are ?caught in the same centralized globalized system that is proving so difficult for many of our manufacturing establishments. Continued After Advertisement Below Advertisement ?Any society where the farmer is not making profit is in serious trouble,? Torrie said. ?Farmers seem to be the low man on the totem poll.? Torrie explained a sustainable approach to agriculture is needed so the industry is not vulnerable to international marketplaces. In order to have ?a healthy sustainable farming sector in this region, there is going to have to be a much higher level of self-sufficiency in local marketing and distribution,? Torrie said. Before and during the all-candidates meeting held at Campbellford District High School, Torrie express ed his opposition to the use of treated sewage as fertilizer. ?The warning signs are already there and still we continue to spread sludge,? Torrie said. ?Sure it?s cheap, but how cheap is it really in the long run if it turns out to be contaminating our ground water.? Torrie added more studies should be done before allowing municipal waste on farmland. ?If something might be dangerous, then you don?t do it until you find out for sure if it is dangerous,? Torrie said. ?I haven?t heard anyone say let?s stop doing this now.? The NDP also oppose the use of sludge as fertilizer. ?We should be using a precautionary principle,? Christianson said. ?We don?t know with certainty that it is safe practice and we are unsure of long-term health impacts.? Christianson said manure should be composted before it is applied to the land as it would reduce the amount of nitrogen going on the fields and reduce weed growth. ?You don?t have to be an organic farmer to compost you manure. It?s not a hard thing to do,? Christianson said. ?It should not just be a recommended practice but a required practice.? Macklin said the using sludge should not be allowed as it contains heavy metals that damage land. ?What we have learned as stewards of the land is once you put it on you can?t get it back out,? Macklin said. Norlock said there are alternative methods to disposing of the sewage, such as new technologies that can convert sewage into power. ?I have a well not too far from where this sludge is being spread,? Norlock said. ?And it worries me.? http://www.communitypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1215316 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 26 12:34:45 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:34:45 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Draft Human Health Risk Assessments Pathogens in Land Applied Sewage Sludges Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The EPA have released this document for public discussion. To download this 147 page document in PDF format go to this page: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=189644 To read the Federal Register on how to comment by November 3, 2008 or to read about how to join the free web conference on November 19, 2008 8:30 am to 5 pm go to this page: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-RESEARCH/2008/September/Day-19/r21959.pdf ..................................................................................................................... Federal Register Environmental Documents Draft Problem Formulation for Human Health Risk Assessments of Pathogens in Land-Applied Biosolids -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Draft Problem Formulation for Human Health Risk Assessments of Pathogens in Land-Applied Biosolids PDF Version (2 pp, 77K, About PDF) [Federal Register: September 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 183)] [Notices] [Page 54400-54401] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19se08-53] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8717-4; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0547] Draft Problem Formulation for Human Health Risk Assessments of Pathogens in Land-Applied Biosolids AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period and External Peer-Review Workshop. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA is announcing the release of a pre-dissemination, external review draft titled, ``Problem Formulation for Human Health Risk Assessments of Pathogens in Land-applied Biosolids'' (EPA/600/R- 08/035A), for both public comment and external peer review. The public comment period will span 45 days. Eastern Research Group (ERG), under contract with EPA, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer-review workshop to review the draft document. Both the U.S. EPA and ERG invite the public to register to attend this workshop. Additional information regarding both submissions and registration is provided in the remainder of the document. The public comment period and the external peer-review workshop are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. In addition to consideration by EPA, all public comments submitted in accordance with this notice will also be forwarded to the external peer-review panel for review prior to the workshop. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre- dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. DATES: The 45-day public comment period will begin September 19, 2008 and end November 3, 2008. Technical comments should be provided in writing and must be received by the U.S. EPA by November 3, 2008. Comments received after this date will only be considered if time permits and might not be included for discussion at the external peer- review workshop. The external peer-review workshop will be held on November 19, 2008, starting at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning by 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The external peer-review workshop will be held at U.S. EPA's Andrew W. Briedenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC), Rooms 120-126, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. ERG is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer-review workshop. Registration to attend the external review workshop must be completed prior to November 12, 2008, via one of the following methods: ??? Online via the Internet--https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/ conferences/peerreview/register-biosolids.htm ??? Telephone--781-674-7374 (registration line). ??? Sending an e-mail to meetings at erg.com, subject line ``Biosolid Peer Review.'' When making reservations to attend the external peer-review workshop, individuals must indicate whether they plan to provide brief oral comments to the external review panel. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first- served basis. Electronic copies of the external review draft document and the U.S. EPA Peer-Review Charge can be accessed at that National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)'s homepage under the ``Recent Additions'' and the ``Data and Publications'' menus at http:// www.epa.gov/ncea Copies are not available from ERG. Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/ courier. Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Questions about the public comment period can be directed to the OEI Docket Center (telephone--202-566- 1752; Fax: 202-566-1753; or e-mail--ORD.Docket at epa.gov). Questions about the external peer-review workshop can be directed to ERG, through Kate Schalk (telephone--781-674-7374, or e-mail-- Kate.Schalk at erg.com). Questions about the draft document can be directed to Michael Troyer, NCEA, U.S. EPA, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, Telephone--513-569-7399; or e-mail-- troyer.michael at epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Information About the Document In January 2004, the U.S. EPA released a final Action Plan for setting new priorities for the biosolids program, which included the Agency's response to the National Research Council's 2002 report entitled, Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practice. This current, external review draft document is an important step in the Agency's response because it aims to improve problem formulation and strengthen the analysis plans associated with the conduct of quantitative microbial risk assessments on land-applied biosolids. II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at www.regulations.gov Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2008- 0547, by one of the following methods: ??? E-mail--ORD.Docket at epa.gov; ??? Fax--202-566-1753; ??? Mail--Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or ??? Hand Delivery--The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The OEI Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 [[Page 54401]] a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding national holidays. The OEI Docket Center telephone number is 202... . Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD- 2008-0547. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center. Dated: September 11, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-21959 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P Notices For 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Last updated on Friday, September 19th, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-RESEARCH/2008/September/Day-19/r21959.htm /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Here is the Risk Assessments on Pathogens in Land Applied Sewage Sludges Best to read it in the PDF format, tEPA/600/R-08/035A February 2008 Problem Formulation for Human Health Risk Assessments of Pathogens in Land-applied Biosolids National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 NOTICE This report is an external draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote ii 2/11/08 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................viii AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS.........................................................ix 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2. STRESSOR CHARACTERIZATION..........................................................................3 2.1. SOURCE...........................................................................................................4 2.1.1. Spatial Extent of Source........................................................................5 2.1.2. Reproduction.........................................................................................5 2.1.3. Matrix.....................................................................................................6 2.1.4. Class B Treatment.................................................................................6 2.1.5. Site Restrictions.....................................................................................8 2.1.6. Vector Attraction Reduction...................................................................8 2.2. PATHOGENS..................................................................................................10 2.2.1. Bacteria...............................................................................................10 2.2.2. Viruses.................................................................................................16 2.2.3. Protozoa..............................................................................................19 2.2.4. Endotoxins...........................................................................................22 2.2.5. Emerging Pathogens...........................................................................23 2.2.6. Multiple Stressors................................................................................24 3. DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS, ENDPOINTS AND SCENARIOS............................................................................................................26 3.1. PREAPPLICATION PROCESSES...................................................................29 3.2. APPLICATION.................................................................................................30 3.2.1. Methods of Land Application of Biosolids............................................30 3.2.2. Rates of Land Application of Biosolids................................................33 3.2.3. Timing of Land Application of Biosolids...............................................34 3.2.4. Regional Application Issues.................................................................34 3.3. FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PATHOGENS...................................................35 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote iii 2/11/08 TABLE OF CONTENTS cont. Page 3.3.1. Pathogen Survival, Growth and Death................................................35 3.3.2. Pathogen Transport.............................................................................38 3.3.3. Vector Transport..................................................................................42 3.4. HUMAN ROUTES OF EXPOSURE.................................................................42 3.4.1. Inhalation.............................................................................................43 3.4.2. Ingestion..............................................................................................43 3.4.3. Dermal Exposure.................................................................................47 3.5. REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS.....................................................................48 3.6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT INFECTION AND DISEASE.................................48 3.6.1. Human Factors....................................................................................48 3.6.2. Additional Susceptibility Factors..........................................................52 3.6.4. Pathogen Factors................................................................................53 3.7. INFECTION AND DISEASE.............................................................................53 3.8. SCENARIOS....................................................................................................54 3.8.1. Scenario 1. Neighboring Residences and Schools.............................55 3.8.2. Scenario 2. Residents........................................................................55 3.8.3. Scenario 3. Pica Child........................................................................58 3.8.4. Scenario 4. Drinking Water Consumers of Groundwater....................59 3.8.5. Scenario 5. Drinking Water Consumers of Surface Water..................59 3.8.6. Regional Aspects of Scenarios............................................................62 4. SCREENING OUT ELEMENTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL..........................63 5. ANALYSIS PLAN.....................................................................................................66 5.1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................66 5.2. MANAGEMENT NEEDS..................................................................................67 5.2.1. Assessment Endpoints........................................................................68 5.2.2. Data and Data Quality.........................................................................69 5.3. PLAN FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE.......................................69 5.3.1. Measures of Exposure.........................................................................69 5.3.2. Detection of Pathogens.......................................................................70 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote iv 2/11/08 TABLE OF CONTENTS cont. Page 5.3.3. Use of Indicator Species......................................................................73 5.3.4. Background Levels of Pathogens........................................................75 5.3.5. Environmental Fate of Pathogens.......................................................77 5.3.6. Transport of Pathogens.......................................................................78 5.3.7. Contact with Crops..............................................................................84 5.3.8. Uptake and Dosage.............................................................................85 5.3.9. Exposure Factors................................................................................85 5.4. PLAN FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFECTS..........................................86 5.4.1. Measures of Effect...............................................................................86 5.4.2. Establishing Cause and Effect.............................................................87 5.4.3. Dose-Response Models for Infection...................................................88 5.4.4. Predicting Disease...............................................................................91 5.5. PLAN FOR RISK CHARACTERIZATION........................................................95 5.5.1. Screening Risk Assessment................................................................95 5.5.2. Weight of Evidence..............................................................................96 5.5.3. Uncertainty Analysis............................................................................97 6. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................98 APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................107 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote v 2/11/08 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Site Restrictions for Class B Biosolids..................................................................9 2 Example Pathogens of Potential Concern in Sewage Sludge and Biosolids......11 3 Estimated Biosolids Application Rates for Different Land Uses..........................33 4 Environmental Factors Positively or Negatively Affecting the Survival of Pathogenic Microbes..........................................................................................37 5 Pathways of Exposure and Applicable Use Restrictions for Class B Biosolids.............................................................................................................49 6 Minimum Time Interval between Application and Harvest, Grazing or Public Access to Lands Applied with Class B Biosolids......................................50 7 Suitability of Select Agents as Indicators of Post-Treatment Risk for Viruses in Biosolids, Modified from Smith et al. (2005b)..................................................76 8 Survival Times of Pathogens in Soil and on Plants Modified from Gerba and Smith (2005)................................................................................................78 9 Examples of Dose-Response Models for Microbial Agents................................90 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote vi 2/11/08 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1 General Conceptual Model.................................................................................28 2 Pathogen Fate Conceptual Model......................................................................36 3 Disease Factors Conceptual Model....................................................................51 4 Adjacent Property Conceptual Model.................................................................56 5 Resident Conceptual Model...............................................................................57 6 Pica Child Conceptual Model..............................................................................58 7 Groundwater Conceptual Model.........................................................................60 8 Surface Water Conceptual Model.......................................................................61 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote vii 2/11/08 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CFR Code of Federal Regulations HPC heterotrophic plate counts ICC-PCR integrated cell-culture PCR NRC National Research Council PCR polymerase chain reaction PSRP process to significantly reduce pathogens RT-PCR direct reverse transcriptase PCR U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote viii 2/11/08 AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS AUTHORS Rebecca Efroymson Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Anthony Armstrong Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37831 CONTRIBUTORS Glenn Suter II National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environment Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Michael Troyer National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environment Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 INTERNAL REVIEWERS Michael Broder Office of the Science Advisor Office of Research and Development U.S. Environment Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 James Smith National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environment Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote ix 2/11/08 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote x 2/11/08 AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS cont. Richard Stevens Health and Ecological Criteria Division Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environment Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 1. INTRODUCTION In January 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released a final action plan for setting new priorities for the biosolids program, which included the Agency???s response to the National Research Council (NRC) report entitled Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practice (NRC, 2002). This report is an important step in the Agency???s response because it addresses the development of a problem formulation and analysis plan relating to uncertainties associated with conducting quantitative microbial risk assessments on land-applied biosolids. This report summarizes the existing literature (Appendix A); defines critical pathogen stressors; develops conceptual models linking the most likely stressors, pathways and health responses of concern; evaluates the overall quality and utility of available risk assessment data, tools and methodologies; and develops an analysis plan which identifies the research and methods required for providing a scientifically defensible risk assessment relevant for U.S. EPA???s decision needs. ???Problem formulation is a systematic planning step that identifies the major factors to be considered in a particular assessment??? (U.S. EPA, 2003a). It was developed for ecological risk assessment and was subsequently adopted for cumulative human health risk assessments (U.S. EPA, 1998, 2003a). The principal products of problem formulation are a conceptual model and an analysis plan (U.S. EPA, 2003a). This generic problem formulation should serve two audiences. First, assessors who must assess risks to human health from land-applied biosolids can use this generic problem formulation as a basis for developing their own problem formulations. It can serve as a template, an information source and an introduction to the relevant literature. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 1 2/11/08 Second, the research needs identified in this report can be used by researchers and research planners to select and prioritize research projects related to pathogens in biosolids. It can also help researchers to understand how to design their studies so as to generate results that will be relevant to risk assessment. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 2 2/11/08 2. STRESSOR CHARACTERIZATION Stressors are chemical, physical or biological agents that may adversely affect human health or other assessment endpoints. The description of stressors is a necessary precursor to developing conceptual models, especially for risk assessments of a complex substance like biosolids. U.S. EPA (1998) describes several questions that a stressor characterization for an ecological risk assessment should answer. These points are modified for human health risk assessments for pathogens. 1. What is the source of the pathogens? 2. What is the spatial extent of the source? 3. What types of stressors are present: physical, chemical or biological? 4. What are the modes of action of the stressors? Essentially, sources and stressors must be characterized well enough to inform decisions about the conceptual models and exposure pathways within them that are needed to characterize all reasonable exposure scenarios. For example, pathogens in bioaerosols have different fates from those that remain in biosolids-amended soil particles, and the problem formulation should describe these differences. This report focuses on pathogens and endotoxins originating in biosolids. In addition to descriptions of microorganisms in biosolids, the assessor should include aspects of the biosolids matrix that affect pathogenicity and dimensions of the source that affect how exposure is modeled or monitored. Studies of untreated manures are beyond the scope of this report. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 3 2/11/08 This chapter describes the biosolids source, including the components of the mixture, the extent of the source, the matrix, the Class B treatment process, site restrictions and vector attraction reduction options. Following the description of the source is pertinent information about bacterial, viral, protozoan and helminth pathogens, as well as endotoxins that may be present in biosolids and may cause adverse effects to human health. 2.1. SOURCE Approximately 3.4 million tons of biosolids, dry weight, are land-applied annually to farms, forests, rangelands, mine lands and other land use types (Pepper et al., 2006; NRC, 2002). These soil amendments have nutrients for plant growth as well as components that improve physical properties of soils. The U.S. EPA did not use the term biosolids in the Part 503 rule, but U.S. EPA (1995) defines biosolids as ???the primarily organic solid product yielded by municipal wastewater treatment processes that can be beneficially recycled??? as soil amendments. The NRC???s definition of biosolids is ???sewage sludge treated to meet the land-application standards in the Part 503 rule or any other equivalent land application standards??? (NRC, 2002). Pathogen standards are technologically based requirements ???aimed at reducing the presence of pathogens and potential exposures to them by treatment or a combination of treatment and use restrictions??? (NRC, 2002). Biosolids are a complex mixture that contains organic and inorganic compounds and organisms from wastewaters of households, commercial and industrial facilities, as well as compounds added or formed during wastewater treatment processes (NRC, 2002). Inorganic and organic contaminants in biosolids are also described in NRC Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 4 2/11/08 (2002) and may include metals, trace elements, PCBs, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, surfactants and other contaminants. 2.1.1. Spatial Extent of Source Risk assessors need to characterize the areal extent of biosolids application or storage that is the subject of the risk assessment. Biosolids may be localized or more diffuse sources of infectious microbes. Pathogen transport models may be specific to the spatial extent of the source. Large piles of biosolids that serve as temporary storage before placement can represent continuous, localized sources of pathogen-containing bioaerosols (described below) (Dowd et al., 2000). Similarly, bioaerosols can be created during the transport of biosolids from one location to another at a site, during the ???front-end loading??? or ???shoveling??? of biosolids from one pile to another, or from the lifting of biosolids-amended soil particles by strong winds (Pillai, 2007). Areas of application may be large fields or more localized windrows. If the risk assessment is intended to estimate cumulative risk, then biosolids application in adjacent fields over time may be pertinent. At the extreme, a risk assessment may address the entire area treated with biosolids nationally or by state. 2.1.2. Reproduction In addition to providing physical reservoirs of pathogens, biosolids and biosolids-amended soils can serve as sources of additional pathogens as some of the organisms reproduce (Zaleski et al., 2005a). Evidence about reproduction or lack of reproduction of particular species is important information for the conceptual models. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 5 2/11/08 2.1.3. Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 16 17 18 19 20 21 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 8 Four principal biosolids-containing matrices are possible sources of pathogens: liquid biosolids, solid biosolids, biosolids-amended soil and bioaerosols created from biosolids. Bioaerosols are of particular interest in this problem formulation. 1. Liquid biosolids. Liquid biosolids are the texture of muddy water and usually contain 2-8% solids (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). They are expensive to transport. 2. Solid biosolids. Biosolids cake (usually 20-30% solids content) (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007) is dewatered biosolids with the texture of a wet sponge (Virginia Department of Health, 1999). 3. Biosolids-amended soil. Over repeated applications, biosolids-amended soil has different physical properties from soil alone. The altered physical properties of soil include increased water holding capacity, water infiltration and stability of soil aggregates (University of Washington, 2002). 4. Bioaerosols. Bioaerosols are aerosolized biological particles that vary from 0.02 to 100 ??m in diameter. They are formed when dewatered biosolids are loaded into application equipment or when liquid and dewatered biosolids are spread onto land (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). The following information comes from references in Pillai and Ricke (2002) and Pillai (2007). The size, composition and concentration of microbial populations comprising aerosols vary with biosolids source, method of application and meteorology and other environmental conditions at the biosolids application site. Bioaerosols generated from water sources (e.g., liquid biosolids) usually have a thin layer of moisture surrounding clusters of microorganisms. Bioaerosol particles have a net charge that depends on the source characteristics and can affect deposition rates. Factors that control bioaerosol transport include the size, density and shape of particles or droplets, as well as wind speed, relative humidity and temperature. When some aerosolized bacteria are exposed to high relative humidity, they sorb water, which protects the cells from inactivation by ultraviolet light (Peccia et al., 2001). 2.1.4. Class B Treatment A description of the sewage sludge treatment process provides risk assessors with information about the potential pathogen content of biosolids. Treatment methods Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 6 2/11/08 are intended to reduce the volume and organic content of biosolids and to reduce the number of pathogens, but to retain beneficial properties for fertilization and other soil amendment and land reclamation purposes (NRC, 2002). The Part 503 rule defines two categories of biosolids: Class A biosolids, which have no detectable concentrations of pathogens, and Class B biosolids, which have detectable concentrations of pathogens (U.S. EPA, 1993). This report focuses on Class B biosolids, which are defined by a combination of treatment requirements and site restrictions. The treatment of these biosolids must meet one of three criteria: fecal coliform count of less than 2 ?? 106/gram of dry solids at the time of disposal, treatment by a process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP), or treatment by a process equivalent to PSRPs. Five processes in the Part 503 Rule were determined to be PSRPs, based on their resulting fecal coliform concentrations less than 2 ?? 106/gram of dry solids and their ability to reduce Salmonella and enteric virus levels by a factor of 10 (U.S. EPA, 1999): 1. Aerobic digestion at specific combinations of time and temperature, 2. Air drying for three months, with average ambient daily temperatures above freezing for at least two months, 3. Anaerobic digestion for specific combinations of time and temperature, 4. Composting for specific combinations of time and temperature and 5. Lime stabilization to give a pH greater than 12 after 2 hours of contact. Fecal coliforms are enteric bacteria that are used as indicators of the likelihood of the presence of bacterial pathogens. Salmonella species are human pathogens. In this problem formulation, it is assumed that treatment requirements and site restrictions Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 7 2/11/08 meet standards. If sewage sludge is dewatered, thickening agents such as ferric chloride, lime or polymers are added (NRC, 2002). 2.1.5. Site Restrictions Site restrictions also provide information about the content of biosolids to which humans are exposed, because pathogens attenuate over time. Site restrictions are required to reduce contact with Class B biosolids until environmental exposures such as heat and desiccation have decreased concentrations of bacterial, viral and helminth pathogens to below detectable concentrations equivalent to those in Class A biosolids (NRC, 2002). Natural attenuation also incorporates biological factors such as competition, predation, hyperparasitism (growth of a secondary microorganism in or on the primary pathogen or parasite) and antibiosis (Smith et al., 2005a). Site restrictions to public access, grazing and harvesting are included (Table 1). 2.1.6. Vector Attraction Reduction The Part 503 rule requires that one of ten management options be used to control disease vectors. These are described in detail in the rule and in NRC (2002): volatile solids reduction, specific oxygen uptake rate, anaerobic bench-scale test, aerobic bench-scale test, aerobic process for compost, pH adjustment, drying without primary solids, drying with primary solids, injection and incorporation. The first eight options are process-based options, the first five of which are intended to contribute to long-term stabilization through the degradation of putrescible organics. Injection of Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 8 2/11/08 TABLE 1 Site Restrictions for Class B Biosolids (Copied from NRC (2002), Adapted from 40 CFR 503.32[b][5]) Food crops with harvested parts that touch the biosolids/soil mixture and are totally above the land surface shall not be harvested for 14 months after application of biosolids. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be harvested for 20 months after application of biosolids when the biosolids remain on the land surface for four months or longer prior to incorporation into the soil. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be harvested for 38 months after application of biosolids when the biosolids remain on the land surface for less than four months prior to incorporation into the soil. Food crops, feed crops and fiber crops shall not be harvested for 30 days after application of biosolids. Animals shall not be grazed on the land for 30 days after application of biosolids. Turf grown on land where biosolids is applied shall not be harvested for one year after application of the biosolids when the harvested turf is placed on either land with a high potential for public exposure or a lawn, unless otherwise specified by the permitting authority. Public access to land with a high potential for public exposure shall be restricted for one year after application of biosolids. Public access to land with a low potential for public exposure shall be restricted for 3 days after application of biosolids. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 9 2/11/08 biosolids and incorporation within 6 hours of application are considered physical barriers to vector attraction. 2.2. PATHOGENS A variety of bacterial, viral, protozoan and helminth pathogens may be present in Class B biosolids. Risk assessors should consider and list the range of possible pathogens in the problem formulation, though it may be necessary to focus on only a limited number. Many of these organisms and the diseases they cause are summarized in Table 2. Researchers who list principal pathogens of concern in sewage sludge and/or biosolids do not always list the same organisms (NRC, 2002; Gerba and Smith, 2005; Pepper et al., 2006; Epstein, 2006; Yanko, 2005). As biological stressors, pathogens can multiply, and many can reproduce outside of the host organism under favorable environmental conditions. The types and levels of pathogens in biosolids are determined by the incidence of infection within a community and the type of treatment process (Straub et al., 1993). The biosolids matrix (i.e., whether humans are exposed to biosolids, biosolids-amended soil, bioaerosols, or biosolids particles in water) may affect the fate of pathogens, and therefore determine exposure. 2.2.1. Bacteria 2.2.1.1. Salmonella All serotypes of this genus are pathogenic to humans and cause symptoms ranging from mild gastroenteritis to severe disease and death. In the U.S., salmonellosis is mainly due to foodborne transmission because the bacteria found in Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 10 2/11/08 TABLE 2 Example Pathogens of Potential Concern in Sewage Sludge and Biosolids Class Organism Disease or Symptoms Listeria monocytogenes Meningitis, encephalitis, septicemia, intrauterine or cervical infections with abortion Helicobacter pylori Stomach ulcers, gastritis, increased risk of stomach cancer Campylobacter jejuni Gastroenteritis Pathogenic Escherichia coli Gastroenteritis, hemolytic uremic syndrome Shigella spp. Bacillary dysentery Salmonella spp. Salmonellosis (food poisoning), typhoid/paratyphoid fever Yersinia spp Yersiniosis (gastroenteritis) Bacteria Legionella spp. Severe respiratory illness, mild flulike illness Astroviruses Gastroenteritis Rotaviruses Gastroenteritis Caliciviruses Gastroenteritis Adenoviruses Respiratory diseases, gastroenteritis Viruses Hepatitis virus A-E Infectious hepatitis, liver inflammation, hepatic cancer Taenia spp. Nervousness, enteric distress, abdominal pain, anorexia, insomnia Helminth Parasites Ascaris lumbricoides Digestive disturbances, abdominal pain, transitory liver and lung disease Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 11 2/11/08 Table 2 (cont.) Class Organism Disease or Symptoms Trichuris spp. Gastrointestinal distress, anemia Helminth Parasites (cont.) Toxicocara canis Fever, abdominal discomfort, neurological symptoms Cryptosporidium parvum Diarrhea Giardia lamblia Fever, diarrhea Cyclospora Diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal cramps Microsporidia Diarrhea Entamoeba histolytica Dysentary, colitis Protozoan Parasites Balantidium coli Diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain Sources: Gerba and Smith (2005), Epstein (2006), NRC (2002), Pepper et al. (2006) and Bowman and Fayer (2005). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 12 2/11/08 beef and poultry are able to grow in foods (Pepper et al., 2006). As of 1998, there was no known association of biosolids with foodborne outbreaks of Salmonella (Yanko, 2005). However, Salmonella can apparently grow in biosolids under some conditions (Zaleski et al., 2005a). Because of this potential for growth, Pepper et al. (2006) argue that Salmonella are the bacteria of greatest concern in Class B biosolids. They are the 40 CFR 503 bacterial pathogen indicators for biosolids quality, 2.2.1.2. Escherichia coli O157:H7 Escherichia coli is found in the intestinal tract of humans and most warm-blooded animals, and most strains are not pathogenic. However, several strains can cause gastroenteritis. The greatest concern in the U.S. is enterohemorrhagic E. coli of the serotype O157:H7 (Pepper et al., 2006). The organism has been spread in contaminated drinking water, through recreational water exposure and food (Yanko, 2005; Pepper et al., 2006). Cattle are the most significant source of exposure, but the organism has been detected in biosolids (Lytle et al., 1999; Pepper et al., 2006). 2.2.1.3. Campylobacter jejuni This pathogen is the principal cause of bacterial diarrheal illness in the U.S. Food is the major source of infection. Little research has been conducted to investigate the occurrence of Campylobacter in sewage sludges, biosolids, or the environment (Yanko, 2005), though a few studies of raw and treated sludge are reviewed in Pepper et al. (2006). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 13 2/11/08 2.2.1.4. Shigella Spp. Bacteria of this genus are closely related to E. coli. The bacteria are frequently found in water contaminated with human sewage and are transmitted by the fecal-oral route. Salads, raw vegetables, milk and dairy products and poultry sometimes are polluted with Shigella (Pepper et al., 2006). The pathogen has a low infectious dose. Shigella does not survive well in the environment or after treatment of biosolids. Therefore, they are unlikely to be a significant problem (Pepper et al., 2006). 2.2.1.5. Yersinia Spp. These bacteria cause gastroenteritis with diarrhea or vomiting, fever and abdominal pain. Yersinia enterocolitica has been detected in environmental sources such as ponds and lakes, though the major source of infection in the U.S. is pork products (Pepper et al., 2006). Waterborne outbreaks have also occurred. In Japan infections of Y. pseudotuberculosis from contaminated water and foods have been reported. The bacterium has been detected in raw, digested and dewatered biosolids (Straub et al., 1993), but little information is available about background levels or survival in soils or waters (Pepper et al., 2006). 2.2.1.6. Listeria montocytogenes This bacterium causes foodborne diseases, primarily in immunocompromised people such as pregnant women. It can cause encephalitis, meningitis and intrauterine or cervical infections (Epstein, 2006). L. montocytogenes has been detected in activated and anaerobically digested biosolids (Watkins and Sleath, 1981; DeLuca et al., 1998). The bacterium is widespread in the environment (Yanko, 2005). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 14 2/11/08 2.2.1.7. Helicobacter pylori This bacterium is the principal cause of stomach ulcers and is associated with increased risk of stomach cancer. H. pylori may be the most common cause of bacterial infection in humans (up to 90% of some populations are infected, Epstein 2005), though rates of infection are decreasing (Yanko, 2005). The source of many infections is vegetables irrigated with untreated wastewater (Brown, 2000). The digestive tract of humans is apparently the main reservoir of H. pylori (Yanko, 2005). Whether H. pylori is present in Class B biosolids is unknown (Pepper et al., 2006). 2.2.1.8. Legionella Infections with Legionella can result in a life-threatening respiratory illness, Legionnaires??? Disease, especially in immunocompromised people or the elderly, or a mild illness called Pontiac Fever. Outbreaks of Legionella usually occur through airborne transmission of bacteria from hot water in building cooling towers or other aerosolizing devices (Yanko, 2005). High concentrations have been measured in biosolids at a food industry sewage treatment plant where workers contracted Pontiac Fever (Gregersen et al., 1999; Yanko, 2005). Moreover, Yanko (2005) speculates that the bacteria should grow well in ???warm, self-composting organic masses.??? However, there is no known case of Legionnaires??? Disease associated with the production or land application of biosolids. 2.2.1.9. Screening Bacterial Pathogens Some bacteria may be excluded from consideration in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids. Experts believe that Staphylococcus aureus ???are not a likely Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 15 2/11/08 source of???human exposure or infection??? (Pepper et al., 2006). In a study of 23 biosolids samples (16 Class B samples) from 15 U.S. sites, none contained S. aureus (Rusin et al., 2003a). Similarly, analyses of 37 air samples were also negative for the bacterium (Rusin et al., 2003a). Although there is little information on the fate of Vibrio cholera in biosolids treatment or land application, Yanko (2005) recommends that the low incidence of this disease in the U.S. (0-5 cases per year) is a good justification for focusing research on other pathogens. 2.2.1.10. Ranking Bacterial Pathogens Risk assessors may prioritize bacterial pathogens for inclusion in their risk assessments of land application of biosolids. A workgroup of biosolids experts developed methods for evaluating 20 potential pathogens in biosolids (Chapter 4 in [Smith et al., 2005]). They considered their public health significance (number of infections or severity of disease), prevalence in biosolids and sewage sludge, survival during wastewater treatment and the availability of appropriate analytical methods. Similar criteria might be used by risk assessors in the problem formulation. 2.2.2. Viruses Over 140 types of enteric viruses are excreted by humans and may be present in municipal wastewater and possibly biosolids (Gerba et al., 2002). 2.2.2.1. Enteroviruses The enteric viruses most often detected in polluted waters are the enteroviruses, though this may be an artifact of the ease of detection in animal cell culture (Pepper et Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 16 2/11/08 al., 2006). These include poliovirus, Coxsackie virus, echovirus and enteroviruses 69-91. Both fecal-oral and respiratory routes of infection are common. Enteroviruses are commonly isolated from untreated biosolids. Generally, they are reduced by 90% or more during Class B processes such as aerobic and anaerobic sludge digestion (Pepper et al., 2006). 2.2.2.2. Rotaviruses These are the only double-stranded RNA viruses transmitted through water to humans (NRC, 2002). Along with caliciviruses, rotaviruses are the leading cause of gastroenteritis in the U.S. (Monroe et al., 2000) and a major cause of hospitalization of children in the U.S. (Gerba et al., 1996). These viruses cause waterborne and foodborne outbreaks in the U.S. They have been detected in wastewater, but little information is available regarding their occurrence in biosolids (NRC, 2002). 2.2.2.3. Caliciviruses Caliciviruses may be the leading cause of water and foodborne illness in the world and are a leading cause of viral gastroenteritis (Monroe et al., 2000). The two genera are the Norwalk viruses and the Sapporo viruses (NRC, 2002). Little is known about their environmental occurrence and fate because caliciviruses have not yet been grown in cell culture (Gerba et al., 2002; NRC, 2002). 2.2.2.4. Adenoviruses These common and persistent viruses in wastewater (NRC, 2002) are the second most common cause of childhood viral diarrhea (Gerba et al., 1996). The Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 17 2/11/08 mortality of immunocompromised people (e.g., organ transplant, cancer chemotherapy patients) ranges from 53%-69% (Gerba et al., 1996). NRC (2002) provides references indicating that recreational and drinking waters are pathways of exposure for adenoviruses. Adenoviruses are present in untreated sewage sludge (Gerba et al., 2002). Enteric adenoviruses have been detected in Class B biosolids (Sabalos, 1998; NRC, 2002), and adenovirus type 40 has been detected in anaerobically digested biosolids (NRC, 2002). Along with hepatitis A virus, adenovirus is the most thermally resistant virus (Gerba et al., 2002). Little more is known about removal by Class B treatment processes (Gerba et al., 2002). 2.2.2.5. Astroviruses These viruses are a cause of gastroenteritis, primarily in children. Foodborne and waterborne outbreaks have occurred in the past. They have been found in biosolids (Chapron et al., 2000), though still little is known about their removal by Class B treatment processes (Gerba et al., 2002). 2.2.2.6. Hepatitis A This picornavirus is responsible for infectious hepatitis, is transmitted by food and water and primarily infects the liver. The highest infection rate is among children 5 to 14 years old (CDC, 1999). Along with adenoviruses, Hepatitis A is the most thermally resistant virus (Gerba et al., 2002). No information is available on the prevalence of Hepatitis A in biosolids. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 18 2/11/08 2.2.2.7. Hepatitis E This picornavirus, transmitted by the fecal-oral route, has been responsible for major waterborne disease outbreaks in developing countries but has also been reported in frequent travelers to those regions. It is the major cause of acute viral hepatitis in developing countries (Gerba, 2005). Symptoms include jaundice, fatigue, abdominal pain and nausea. Hepatitis E is a more serious infection than Hepatitis A, with case fatalities of 2 to 3% in the general population and 20 to 30% in pregnant women (Haas et al., 1999). No information is available on the prevalence of Hepatitis E in biosolids. 2.2.2.8. Screening Viral Pathogens from Consideration Some viruses may be excluded from consideration by risk assessors of pathogens in biosolids. A workgroup on viruses in biosolids concluded that blood-borne viruses such as HIV would be likely to be inactivated during wastewater or biosolids treatment (Smith et al., 2005b). This workgroup also concluded that lipid-containing viruses have low viability in water and may not survive wastewater or biosolids treatment. However, they recommended that lipid-containing viruses such as rhinoviruses, influenza viruses and herpes viruses not be excluded from consideration until it is known whether any survive treatment (Smith et al., 2005b). 2.2.3. Protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia are the predominant protozoan parasites transmitted through food and water in the U.S. that cause diarrhea. These parasites of the small intestine have environmentally resistant stages called cysts or oocysts. Pepper et al. (2006) review studies in which Cryptosporidium and Giardia have been Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 19 2/11/08 detected in sewage sludge and biosolids. Oocysts do not survive under low moisture or high heat conditions, and therefore would be expected to be inactivated during treatment and land application. This expectation has been confirmed by Bowman et al. (2000), who found that these protozoa died within days of Class B biosolids treatment. However Pepper et al. (2006) suggest that new cell culture methods are needed to assess protozoan oocyst viability and confirm that these organisms do not present a hazard in biosolids. Additional protozoa could be present in sewage sludge and/or biosolids (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). Cyclospora causes diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal cramps. Toxoplasma gondii causes neurologic flu-like symptoms, retinitis and severe disfunction in fetuses if mothers are infected for the first time while pregnant. Microsporidia cause diarrhea. Entamoeba histolytica causes severe dysentery and extra-intestinal abscesses. Balantidium coli causes diarrhea and constipation, but Bowman and Fayer (2005) suggest that their presence is less likely in biosolids than that of other protozoa. Life histories of all of these species, as well as potential effects of biosolids treatment, are summarized in Bowman and Fayer (2005). Bowman and Fayer (2005) consider the potential hazards of various protozoa by summarizing information on settling rates in wastewater and considering potential resistance to disinfection. ???Soft-shelled??? protozoa (Balantidium, Entamoeba and Giardia) will probably persist in effluents but not in biosolids. The Apicomplexan protozoa (Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Toxoplasma) probably react similarly (but sometimes uncertainly) to the effects of different disinfection methods but settle at Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 20 2/11/08 different rates. Microsporidia have not been studied much in the context of biosolids treatment (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). 2.2.3.1. Helminths Several helminth species potentially occur in biosolids. Eggs of many helminth species probably settle in wastewater, are resistant to sewage treatment methods, and end up in biosolids (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). 2.2.3.2. Trichuris trichuria Trichuris (whipworm) is a genus of nematode that is parasitic in the cecum and large intestine of mammals. It causes diarrhea. Human infections result from ingestion of infected eggs. Eggs in wastewater would be expected to settle rapidly and be found in sewage sludge wherever infected people are present in the community (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). Eggs are not likely to be damaged by usual quantities of ultraviolet, ozone, or chlorination disinfection methods. 2.2.3.3. Ascaris lumbricoides Ascaris is a genus of nematode that is parasitic in the small intestine. Adult worms may develop within the small intestine and cause digestive disturbances. Transitory liver and lung disease is caused by larval migration (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). Human infections with Ascaris lumbricoides result from ingestion of infected eggs. The eggs of Ascaris were chosen as an indicator organism in biosolids because of their resistance to most treatment processes and representativeness of helminth egg viability. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 21 2/11/08 2.2.3.4. Taeniid Tapeworm Eggs The life histories of taeniid tapeworms require a carnivore final host in which the small intestine is infected (Bowman and Fayer, 2005). For Taenia solium and Taenia saginata, the final host is a human or pig, and the intermediate host is a pig or cow, respectively. The adults cause little effect in humans, but eggs can cause enteric distress. Although Taenia species are usually acquired from ingestion of beef, the eggs of this pathogen have been detected in some biosolids (Barbier et al., 1990). 2.2.4. Endotoxins Endotoxins are nonspecific lipopolysaccharide-protein complexes created from the cell walls of gram-negative bacteria (DeLuzio and Friedman, 1973). They consist of polysaccharide chains connected by a core oligosaccharide to a lipid portion, consisting of a series of long-chain fatty acids, connected by amide and ester linkages to a phosphorolated diglucosamine structure (Epstein, 2006). They may become airborne when dried, pulverized to micron and submicron size particles, and agitated (Smith et al., 2005a). In the bloodstream these toxins may cause a broad range of physiological effects, including fever, coughing, breathlessness, flu-like symptoms, inflammation and shock (Yanko, 2005; Pepper et al., 2006; Epstein and Moss, 2006). Endotoxins are relatively heat stable (Epstein, 2006). Endotoxins have been measured in air at composting plants, though there was no evidence of residential impact because levels decreased to background concentrations beyond site boundaries (Clark et al., 1983; Pepper et al., 2006). Ambient levels of dust-associated endotoxin are high (Smith et al., 2005a; Pepper et al., 2006). Endotoxin levels in Class B biosolids are similar to concentrations in animal Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 22 2/11/08 manures and composts (Brooks et al., 2006). Farming activities, such as driving a tractor across a field, result in comparable levels of aerosolized endotoxins as those from land application of biosolids (Brooks et al., 2004). Low concentrations of endotoxins were present in groundwater at two sites where wastewater was applied to land (Yanko, 2005). 2.2.5. Emerging Pathogens The lists of pathogens covered in this document should not be considered exhaustive. New pathogens are continually being identified or found in new areas for several reasons: changes in the way foods are produced, the global transportation of food and people, advances in molecular biology that permit the identification of new pathogens and their sources, the evolution of pathogens, aging demographics and the use of microbial risk assessment to quantify risks from environmentally transmitted pathogens (Gerba and Smith, 2005). Emerging pathogens are novel pathogens that have not previously been characterized or established pathogens that have only recently been considered stressors of concern in particular media. Gerba et al. (2002) designated E. coli O157:H7, H. pylori and L. montogenes as newly emerging bacterial pathogens of potential concern in biosolids. Yanko (2005) points out that many of these emerging bacterial pathogens do not fit the classic fecal-oral transmission pattern. The NRC listed Mycobacterium, E. coli O157:H7, Legionella, Listeria and Microsporidia as emerging bacterial pathogens likely to be present in biosolids and Adenovirus, Norwalk virus, Astrovirus, Hepatitis A, Rotavirus and Hepatitis E as emerging viral pathogens likely to be present (NRC, 2002). Gerba (2005) listed several emerging viruses without Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 23 2/11/08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 speculating which are likely to be in biosolids: picobirnaviruses, picotrinaviruses, coronaviruses and toroviruses. NRC (2002) identified criteria for selecting emerging pathogens for which additional information on occurrence, persistence, and risk is justified, and for which additional regulations may be needed. These criteria, suggested by C. Gerba of the University of Arizona, are useful for selecting pathogens on which to focus the stressor characterization in a risk assessment. ??? Reliable viability assay ??? Wastewater-related disease-causing agents ??? Extent of existing data on probability of surviving biosolids treatments (organisms surviving at high pH above 11-12 and heat resistance are of greatest concern) ??? Extent of survival in the environment Based on these criteria, NRC (2002) recommended E. coli O157:H7, adenovirus 40, astrovirus, hepatitis A virus and rotavirus in biosolids as priorities for analysis. The committee would have selected caliciviruses as a priority, but methods of assessing viability are not available (NRC, 2002). Similarly, Legionella merits investigation, but current detection methods are inefficient, difficult to use and expensive (NRC, 2002). 2.2.6. Multiple Stressors It may be reasonable to assume that microbial pathogens act independently of each other and that the probability of an adverse effect from one pathogen is independent of the probability of an adverse effect from another. However, assessors Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 24 2/11/08 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 25 2/11/08 1 2 3 4 5 6 of cumulative risks should consider exposures to offsite pathogens in biosolids or other sources that are not the direct subject of a biosolids risk assessment. There is no evidence to suggest that pathogens and chemicals such as metals in biosolids have interactive effects in humans. However, Lewis et al. (2002) speculated that chemical contaminants in biosolids might irritate the skin and mucous membranes and thus increase pathogen host susceptibility. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS, ENDPOINTS AND SCENARIOS A conceptual model for a risk assessment is a representation of the assumed relationships between sources and effects (Suter, 1999) or between stressors and assessment endpoints (U.S. EPA, 1998). Multiple models may be developed for multiple scenarios. The written descriptions of the risk hypotheses, accompanied by diagrams (termed conceptual models) that illustrate the key relationships, are among the primary products of the problem formulation (U.S. EPA, 1998). Conceptual models ???provide a framework for prediction and are the template for generating more risk hypotheses.??? They form the basis for developing quantitative exposure and effects models for the risk assessment. The models tend to emphasize exposure pathways, including indirect exposures, over mechanisms of effects. Conceptual models are much more common in ecological risk assessment than in human health risk assessment, and conceptual models for human health risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids that include detailed source descriptions, transport pathways and routes of exposure have not been developed previously. In this report we develop conceptual models illustrating the potentially important human exposure pathways for pathogens in biosolids that have been applied to land. These models are developed in response to NRC???s assertion that ???EPA should develop a conceptual site model to identify the major and minor exposure pathways (including secondary transmission) by which humans might come into contact with pathogens in biosolids??? (NRC, 2002). The models are applicable to biosolids amendments to cropland, pasture land, forests, mineland (for reclamation), or other uses. The conceptual models presented here are limited to primary transmission, i.e., exposure of Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 26 2/11/08 humans to pathogens from biosolids without an intermediate human host. Secondary transmission is infection by pathogens that were shed by infected people. This problem formulation does not provide advice concerning estimates of secondary infection because the process is not unique to pathogens in biosolids. This does not mean that secondary transmission of pathogens in this context is assumed to be unimportant. Some of the primary differences between conceptual models for pathogen risk assessments and conceptual models for chemical risk assessments are that: (a) some microorganisms can reproduce in the environment, (b) host factors such as individual immunity and genetic factors influence disease and (c) infection may occur via person-to-person transmission (Soller et al., 2006), though that transmission pathway is not treated here. The conceptual models presented in this report are not meant to imply that the risk assessor must assume that adverse health effects are caused by exposure to pathogens in biosolids. A causal association between exposures to biosolids and adverse effects on human health has not been documented. In this chapter we first present a general conceptual model for risks from pathogens in land-applied biosolids (Figure 1), as well as a narrative description of the model. The model is a cascade of processes and states (Suter, 1999) that indicates the mechanisms by which the pathogen stressors potentially contact human hosts to produce infection and disease. We describe the source (methods and rates of land application), environmental fate and transport processes, routes of exposure, host susceptibility factors, infection and disease. Then we describe five exposure scenarios, along with related generic conceptual models, that are of interest Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 27 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 1, titled ???General Conceptual Model,??? is a multi-directional flow chart that identifies the various ways in which exposure to Class B Biosolid pathogens can occur. The starting point for model sewage and their potential distribution pathways after treatment. primary source processes include storage, transport, application, loading. end routes, are inhalation, ingestion, dermal, lead human infection, and, ultimately, disease. End Pathogens insewage sludge Treatment Aerosolization Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Storage Transport Loading,unloading Application ???Spreading or Spraying Application ???Injection Pathogens inbioaerosols Pathogens in surface applied biosolids Pathogens in biosolidsbelow surface Incorporationin soil Pathogens on crops Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Deposition Pathogens ingroundwater Pathogens onfood Irrigation Ingestion Human Infection Disease DermalExposure Inhalation WindErosion Vectortransport Leaching Surface runoff and erosion Pathogens insurface water Water flow FIGURE 1 General Conceptual Model for assessing risks from the land application of biosolids. The generic conceptual models presented here may be modified as more knowledge is available on a case-by-case basis. The model contains routes of exposure that are considered to be potentially significant in many instances. However, some additional routes may be considered when there is a particular concern. For example, indirect routes involving human consumption of livestock, dairy products, wildlife, fish or shell fish that are exposed to pathogens from biosolids were not included as too indirect and hypothetical. However, such routes should be considered if they are an important issue for stakeholders at a site. Site-specific conceptual models that make use of these generic models would be needed for site-specific risk assessments. Site-specific conceptual models can be generated from these generic models by eliminating routes that are impossible or highly improbable at the site, adding routes that are peculiar to the site and adding details. In the next chapter, we screen out pathways that usually contribute negligible human exposures to biosolids-derived pathogens. 3.1. PREAPPLICATION PROCESSES Various treatment processes are not separate boxes in the conceptual model because all treatment technologies are assumed to be operating as intended, generating Class B biosolids (Figure 1). Additional human processes in the conceptual model include storage, transport within a site, loading and unloading and land application (Figure 1). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 29 2/11/08 Biosolids storage, transport within a site and loading and unloading processes are included in the general conceptual model because these processes have been observed to generate bioaerosols ([Pillai, 2007; Paez-Rubio et al., 2007], Figure 1). Biosolids are stored during winter, inclement weather, periods of equipment breakdown, or crop growth periods (Evanylo, 1999). Regulations may specify the type of storage facility for long-term storage, and this problem formulation assumes that a barrier is present to prevent erosion of biosolids or surface runoff or leaching of pathogens. Thus, there is no arrow between storage and surface runoff and erosion or leaching in Figure 1. However, if risk assessors determine that leaks of biosolids or pathogens from storage facilities are feasible, then additional pathways from the storage facility must be included in the conceptual model. Dewatered biosolids are stockpiled, and liquid biosolids may be stored in digesters, tanks, lagoons or drying beds (Evanylo, 1999). 3.2. APPLICATION 3.2.1. Methods of Land Application of Biosolids The three major methods of biosolids application are injection, surface application without incorporation into soil, and surface application with incorporation into soil. Methods depend on the water content of biosolids, land use, site topography, quantity of debris, presence of obstructions such as trees, presence of waterways, climate and the availability of application equipment (NRC, 2002; University of Washington, 2002), and state or local regulations (e.g., Solano County, California requires incorporation of biosolids into soil). The application method is an important Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 30 2/11/08 determinant of bioaerosol generation, chemical odor and ultraviolet inactivation of pathogens (NRC, 2002). Subsurface injection of liquid biosolids involves small-diameter injection tubes to minimize soil disturbance or disking if soil turnover is desired in farm management practices (NRC, 2002). Injection is typically at a depth of 6 to 9 inches (15-23 cm) and usually occurs before planting or after harvest (NRC, 2002). Injection reduces odor and risk of runoff to surface water (NRC, 2002) as well as preventing aerosolization of biosolids (Figure 1). As would be expected, Gerba et al. (2002) found that injected biosolids presented a much lower risk of infection from ingestion than surface-applied biosolids without incorporation. Hence, injection is treated separately from surface application in the conceptual model (Figure 1). Injection can be used on slopes up to 15 percent (Evanylo, 1999), dependent on state or local laws. This application method serves as a physical barrier that satisfies vector-control requirements (NRC, 2002). Injection or soil incorporation is rarely used for pasture or hay crops. Application under any circumstance is prohibited for any land use when the ground is frozen (NRC, 2002; U.S. EPA, 1993). Surface application involves the application of liquid biosolids or cake solids to the soil surface. Liquid biosolids are typically pumped and sprayed through a cannon or spray nozzle. Solid biosolids are flung from a manure-type spreader or dumped from a truck. Where application is to a forest, a portion of the sprayed biosolids may coat tree surfaces prior to washing down to soil surfaces. In some climates and at high depths of biosolids, drying of the material may require a complete summer period. Drying can be promoted by seeding with a grass such as annual rye or wheat that can germinate and Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 31 2/11/08 survive in fairly anaerobic conditions (University of Washington, 2002). In contrast to injection, surface application is commonly used for hay crops and winter applications. Stabilization of biosolids to meet vector-control requirements must occur through treatment prior to surface application. Surface application permits ultraviolet inactivation of viruses (NRC, 2002). Spreading of dewatered biosolids may sometimes produce higher bioaerosol emission rates than spraying of liquid biosolids (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). Incorporation of cake biosolids into soil through plowing or disking at a depth of 6 to 9 inches (15 to 23 cm) may follow surface application (NRC, 2002) and partial drying (Evanylo, 1999). The method is usually used before planting or after harvest (NRC, 2002). Surface application with incorporation is generally limited to soils with less than a 7 percent slope (Evanylo, 1999), additional state and local laws notwithstanding. Incorporation serves as a physical barrier that satisfies vector-control requirements (NRC, 2002). Application methods vary with region and type of biosolids. In the arid and semiarid southwest, liquid anaerobic-digested biosolids are typically injected into the soil subsurface (NRC, 2002). On pasture land, the material tends to be applied to the soil surface, as incorporation is more difficult than on crop land (NRC, 2002). Similarly, incorporation is not common in forests. In many agricultural lands, biosolids cakes are disked into soil (NRC, 2002). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 32 2/11/08 3.2.2. Rates of Land Application of Biosolids Biosolids are applied at a rate equal to or less than the agronomic rate (nitrogen needed by crops, trees, or other vegetation). Rates of application are generally calculated on a dry weight basis. Information on application rates from the 1980s is summarized in Table 3. Notably, the rate of application at reclamation sites is usually much higher than that at farm sites (NRC, 2002). However, agricultural sites are more likely to involve multiple applications (NRC, 2002). U.S. EPA has predicted that cumulative pollutant loading limits for the application rates in Table 3 will be reached after 100 years for agriculture, 55 years for forest, 32 years for public contact, and 13 years for reclamation, assuming annual applications (NRC, 2002; U.S. EPA, 1992). Applications are assumed to cease when cumulative loading limits are reached. TABLE 3 Estimated Biosolids Application Rates for Different Land Uses Land Use No. Observations Mean Application Rate (metric tons/ha/yr of dry wt) Standard Deviation 75th Percentile (metric tons/ha/yr of dry wt) Agriculture 87 6.8 105 16 Forest 2 26 26 34 Public contact 11 19 122 125 Reclamation 7 74 148 101 Sources: NRC (2002) and U.S. EPA (1992). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 33 2/11/08 3.2.3. Timing of Land Application of Biosolids The timing of land application of biosolids is another factor that determines exposure. In agricultural operations, application is scheduled around tillage, planting and harvesting and is also influenced by properties of crops, climate and soil factors (Evanylo, 1999). Most applications are performed when plants are ready to use the nitrogen in biosolids so as to minimize leaching to groundwater (Evanylo, 1999). The State of Virginia recommends that biosolids applied to land between fall and spring have a vegetation cover to minimize runoff of pathogens and nutrients and erosion of sediment-bound biosolids (Evanylo, 1999). However, spray irrigation is not recommended for applying biosolids to forage, row crops, or young tree stands during the growing season, because adherence to leaves can reduce photosynthesis (Evanylo, 1999; McFarland, 2000). Workers who apply biosolids avoid periods of rain, because vehicles may compact or create ruts in soils that reduce crop yields (Evanylo, 1999). Although rain is avoided during application of biosolids, we have found no evidence that heavy winds are similarly avoided. Meteorology should be considered in the modeling of transport of biosolids. 3.2.4. Regional Application Issues Exposure factors that vary by region include methods of biosolids application, climate, soils and land available for application in relation to human populations. A few regional differences in application methods and timing are described above. Climatic differences contribute to differences in fate and transport of pathogens in biosolids and biosolids-amended soil. Pathogen survival tends to be highest in cool, moist soils, such Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 34 2/11/08 as those in the northeastern U.S. Hot, dry soils as in the southwestern U.S. contribute to pathogen mortality (see section below on fate and transport of pathogens). Differences in rainfall are counteracted by irrigation in drier climates. Groundwater contamination by pathogens from biosolids is most likely in coarse-textured, sandy soil or land underlain by high permeability karst (NRC, 2002). The number of people potentially affected by pathogens in biosolids also varies regionally. Potential exposure increases as the density of people increases because (1) greater sewage sludge output leads to a greater need to find land application sites and to apply biosolids at higher rates and (2) the greater density of people means more residents and children potentially exposed near their homes and schools. In the arid southwestern U.S., farms are often located far from cities, so fewer residents would be expected to be exposed to pathogens in biosolids (NRC, 2002). 3.3. FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PATHOGENS 3.3.1. Pathogen Survival, Growth and Death As stated in the stressor characterization chapter, unlike chemical stressors, biological stressors have the potential to reproduce or to die. Thus, conceptual models need to consider factors affecting survival and growth in biosolids, biosolids-amended soils and bioaerosols (Figure 2). The environmental factors affecting survival of viruses, bacteria and protozoa are presented in Table 4 (Bujoczek et al., 2001; Gerba et al., 2002; Pepper et al., 2006; NRC, 2002). Most enteric pathogenic bacteria are non-spore-formers and relatively sensitive to environmental factors such temperature, desiccation and ultraviolet exposure. Although Salmonella, E. coli and fecal coliforms are capable of regrowth in moist conditions following treatment, regrowth is typically Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 35 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 2, titled ???Pathogen Fate Conceptual Model,??? is a flow chart describing the transition pathogens in environment from biosolids, to bioaerosols, site media. Factors like pH, moisture, ultra-violet radiation, temperature, and particle size can contribute pathogen???s ability move through environment. End Pathogen abundance inapplied/incorporatedbiosolids Pathogenabundance in bioaerosols Pathogenabundance in site media pH,Moisture,Ultraviolet light, Temperature (e.g., freezing, heating),Particle size (e.g., clay content),Indigenous microflora,Desiccation Aerosolization Survival andreproduction Survival andreproduction FIGURE 2 Pathogen Fate Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 36 2/11/08 TABLE 4 Environmental Factors Positively or Negatively Affecting the Survival of Pathogenic Microbes Survival time Parameter Virus Bacteria Protozoa Temperature increasing ??? ??? ??? Soil moisture decreasing ??? ??? ??? Rate of dessication increasing ??? ??? ??? Clay content increasing + + Not known pH range of 6-8 + + + Sources: NRC (2002) Pepper et al. (2006). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 37 2/11/08 limited to Class A biosolids where biological competition is low compared to Class B biosolids (Pepper et al., 2006). Pathogen survival and reproduction are depicted in Figure 2. Temperature and moisture are the primary variables affecting survival of enteric viruses in soil (Gerba et al., 2002). In addition to the mechanisms in Table 4, ultraviolet light has the potential to attenuate pathogens, especially those that have been aerosolized (Paez-Rubio and Peccia, 2005; Pepper et al., 2006). Viruses vary considerably in their ability to survive outside a host organism. Ascaris eggs may survive several years in soils that are not very wet or very dry (NRC, 2002). Little is known about the viability of protozoa following land application of biosolids (NRC, 2002). Even less is known about the survival and reproduction of pathogens in bioaerosols than about their survival in biosolids or biosolids-amended soil. 3.3.2. Pathogen Transport Pathogens may be transported from biosolids to various media. In addition to the application process, storage, site-to-site transportation and loading and unloading are human processes that could mobilize pathogens for transport (Figure 1). Several mechanisms of transport are possible: aerosolization followed by aerial transport and deposition, erosion, surface runoff and leaching to groundwater (Figure 1). 3.3.2.1. Aerial Transport Land application of biosolids can generate bioaerosols either through agitation during application or following a series of weathering events of deposited biosolids in association with specific climatic conditions (see stressor characterization). Biosolids Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 38 2/11/08 left on the soil surface or lightly incorporated may be subjected to conditions that lead to drying of the material, rendering it friable. Particulates generated from the friable material are capable of becoming airborne along with the associated pathogens. Bioaerosol droplets or particles are generated at the site of biosolids application, storage, site-to-site transport and loading and unloading processes, including shoveling biosolids from pile to pile (Straub et al., 1993; Pillai, 2007, Figure 1). Bioaerosols are potentially transported to downwind locations. Wind can resuspend biosolids that have been previously applied to the soil surface through the wind erosion process in Figure 1. Injection is a barrier to aerosolization of biosolids (Smith et al., 2005a, Figure 1). The disking process, marked as ???incorporation in soil??? on Figure 1, can be a ???substantial source of biosolids-derived aerosols??? (Paez-Rubio et al., 2006). The emission rate of pathogens during disking of biosolids may be greater than rates during spreading of dewatered biosolids by side slinger or spraying of liquid biosolids (Paez-Rubio et al., 2006). Aerosol emission rates from dewatered biosolids may be higher than those for liquid biosolids (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). In one study, loading and unloading operations were responsible for the highest predicted annual risks of infection by coxsackievirus A21 at a distance of 30.5 m (Brooks et al., 2005b). The launch patterns of bioaerosols from localized sources of biosolids have a conical dispersion form, whereas bioaerosols originating from more spatially extensive fields have a particulate-wave type of dispersion (NRC, 2002). Both the application and incorporation processes, as well as site-to-site transport provide moving sources of aerosols. In addition to the source, the physical properties of aerosols and environmental settings affect the dispersal and settling of bioaerosols. Physical Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 39 2/11/08 properties include the size, density and shape of droplets or particles. Precipitation, relative humidity, temperature and air currents can affect dispersal and deposition of aerosolized biosolids (Pillai, 2007). Evidence from Tanner et al. (2005) suggests that under some conditions, aerosolized viruses may be transported farther than aerosolized gram-negative bacteria. 3.3.2.2. Runoff to Surface Water Water-borne exposure to pathogens from biosolids is driven by precipitation sufficient to move the organisms from the site of application to surface water as runoff (NRC, 2002). The movement of pathogens associated with applied biosolids to surface water depends on the numerous environmental properties of the area where the biosolids were applied as well as those of adjacent lands. Runoff of pathogens to surface water is expected to be higher where the biosolids are left on the surface (e.g., in forests) compared with incorporation into cropped soils. The NRC noted that U.S. EPA did not adequately consider the potential for contamination of neighboring properties or surface water by runoff in the Part 503 rule (NRC, 2002). Smith et al. (2005b) identified the monitoring of pathogens in runoff from land application of biosolids to be a research priority, because little is known about this transport pathway. 3.3.2.3. Erosion to Surface Water Where biosolids are applied to the soil surface, runoff may transport particles to surface waters down-gradient (Straub et al., 1993), at least ???in principle??? (NRC, 2002). Disking operations also break up and mix the biosolids with soil, which increases the Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 40 2/11/08 potential for erosion and runoff but buries the amendment and dilutes the initial numbers of pathogens. However, we have found no studies of microbial contamination of surface water where biosolids have been applied. 3.3.2.4. Leaching to Groundwater Following precipitation, microorganisms may infiltrate soil to contaminate groundwater (Straub et al., 1993). The NRC noted that U.S. EPA did not adequately consider the potential for contamination of groundwater by runoff in the Part 503 rule (NRC, 2002). The transport of microorganisms through soils is affected by both abiotic and biotic factors, including adhesion processes, filtration effects, physiological state of the cells, soil characteristics, water flow rates, predation, intrinsic cell mobility and presence of biosolids (NRC, 2002). Viruses have a greater potential to be transported to groundwater than other pathogens, though sorption to colloids and biosolids particles limits this potential (NRC, 2002). Transport of larger organisms (bacteria, protozoa, helminths) is less likely but possible if preferential flow occurs through cracks and macropores (NRC, 2002). Transport of pathogens to groundwater is most likely where soils are sandy and coarse-textured or where karst topography is present (NRC, 2002). However, we have found no studies of microbial contamination of groundwater where biosolids have been applied. 3.3.2.5. Sorption to Crops Pathogens from biosolids could become sorbed to root crops with particles from the biosolids-soil mixture (Figure 1). Although crops are generally washed before eating, a fraction of biosolids-amended soil will remain sorbed to the crop (estimated at Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 41 2/11/08 10% by Gale [2005b]). This pathway is likely the dominant route to crops. Additional pathogens might become sorbed to root crops following runoff from biosolids-amended fields to neighboring fields. Leaf crops might become contaminated with pathogens deposited from bioaerosols or rainsplash (Figure 1). Leaf or root crops could become contaminated with pathogens via irrigation with contaminated surface water or groundwater (Figure 1). 3.3.3. Vector Transport Vector transport of pathogens from biosolids is possible. For example, flies might become contaminated, leaving trace pathogens on food that is ingested by humans. This potential pathway is included in the general conceptual model (Figure 1). No information is available on the extent to which land application of biosolids attracts flies or other potential vectors, such as mosquitoes or birds (NRC, 2002). Pets are a potential vector, resulting in dermal, oral (hand to mouth) or respiratory exposures. It is unclear whether procedures in the Part 503 rule that are intended to discourage vectors are effective (NRC, 2002). Similarly, it is unclear whether vectors are involved in the transmission of pathogens to humans from biosolids (NRC, 2002). 3.4. HUMAN ROUTES OF EXPOSURE Potential routes of exposure to pathogens originating in biosolids include ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure (Figure 1). Whereas all of these routes are feasible, none has been implicated in disease. Risk assessors should consider all of these potential routes, unless fewer routes are specified in a scenario of interest. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 42 2/11/08 3.4.1. Inhalation The route of exposure of humans to aerosolized pathogens is uncertain, involving a combination of inhalation and ingestion (Pillai, 2007, Figure 1). Large aerosolized particles (between 5 and 20 ??m) can deposit in the upper respiratory tract. Clearance of these particles results in oral exposures. Smaller particles penetrate deep into the lungs, with many retained by the alveoli (Pillai, 2007). Thus, inhalation is the most probable route of exposure to smaller particles. In one study that investigated bioaerosols emitted during the spreading of dewatered Class B biosolids onto farm land, the diameters of most emitted particles were of inhalable and possibly respirable size (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). Because of the high volume of air that is inhaled daily, Pillai and Ricke (2002) assert that inhalation is the predominant route of exposure to aerosolized pathogens that may result in adverse health effects. The NRC (2002) determined that the inhalation pathway was among the routes of exposure that was not adequately assessed by U.S. EPA in the development of the Part 503 rule. They noted that inhalation of dust was presumed by U.S. EPA to occur only on-site and that controlling site access was thought to prevent that route of exposure (NRC, 2002). We did not locate studies of inhalation of biosolids-derived aerosols or pathogens by off-site residents. Thus, inhalation of pathogens by off-site residents needs more consideration. 3.4.2. Ingestion Ingestion of biosolids-related pathogens may occur via several exposure scenarios including; direct and incidental ingestion of surface or groundwater containing Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 43 2/11/08 pathogens that originated in biosolids; ingestion of pathogens which are sorbed to crops and food items after application of biosolids in agricultural fields; incidental ingestion pathogens associated with surface-applied biosolids and biosolids mixed with soil, and ingestion of bioaerosols containing pathogens (Figure 1). Ingestion of biosolids in soil occurs through the transfer of pathogens to the mouth from contaminated hands or crops and or though inhalation followed by swallowing (Gerba et al., 2002, Figure 1). Larger particles in contact with the respiratory tract can be cleared from the tract and swallowed. Researchers vary in their estimation of the percentage of inhaled organisms that are ingested (Pillai, 2007). Ingestion of groundwater or surface water is a potential route of exposure to biosolids-derived pathogens (see scenario descriptions below). Untreated surface water contaminated with pathogens from biosolids might be ingested while swimming, potentially allowing for greater consumption of pathogens than domestic consumption from a tap. Food consumption is a potential direct route of exposure to pathogens, especially involving ingestion of foods not subjected to cooking or washing. Biosolids are applied to agricultural soil to improve its fertility and to enhance crop yields. The application of biosolids to soil along with consumption of food grown on amended fields provides an avenue of exposure to pathogens through the food chain. Reasonable exposure scenarios involve the adherence of the pathogens to the plant (i.e., roots, leaves), particularly the edible portion of the plant, and consumption by individuals. Three exposure scenarios may result in ingestion of pathogens associated with biosolids when applied in crop settings. The exposure scenarios differ with respect to Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 44 2/11/08 the portion of the plant that is intended for consumption. The first scenario involves the deposition of aerosolized material on the surface of the aboveground portions of the plant (Figure 1). This exposure may arise during biosolids application. In this scenario, biosolids may be applied by spreading or spraying the material onto the soil with the resulting generation of airborne pathogens from the biosolids (Figure 1). Pathogens and biosolids material subsequently land on and adhere to the aboveground portion of the plant that is intended for consumption. Compliance with current regulations makes pathogen ingestion on crops an unlikely exposure pathway for farm residents (see section on regulatory restrictions, below). Part 503 regulations provide for time restrictions between application to the field and harvesting of plants. However, harvesting of plants in nearby fields where pathogen deposition from the air or runoff may have occurred is not restricted. Additionally, the placement of microorganisms on the aboveground portion of the plant subjects the pathogens to environmental stressors such as UV radiation and desiccation, both of which diminish the viability of the pathogens. Moreover, the types of foods that may be affected by deposition of aerosolized material are grains and some vegetables which normally undergo preparation to reduce pathogen viability prior to consumption. Although this scenario might constitute a minor pathway, it should be considered in the problem formulation. A second exposure scenario addresses plant consumption in which the palatable portion is aboveground but is expected to come in contact with the soil. This scenario includes some fruits and vegetables such as melons, cucumbers and tomatoes. This scenario allows for extended contact with soil while the plant develops with the Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 45 2/11/08 possibility of infection of the plant through a lesion or by adherence to the plant surface. Many of the crops that fall into this category include vegetables that are consumed without prior food preparation other than normal washing, which may not apply to all households. However, as the area of contact is with the soil surface, it is anticipated that the pathogens would be exposed to higher levels of environmental stressors which would reduce the viability of pathogens. A third scenario applies to crops that have the palatable portion below the soil surface. An example is tubers; crops for which the roots serve as the consumable portion of the plant, such as potatoes, carrots and yams. This scenario poses a concern for several reasons. First, this exposure scenario involves direct contact to pathogens with the greatest potential for long-term survival, i.e., those that are found below the soil surface. Furthermore, because the food portion of the plant develops in close contact with the soil, it has the greatest potential for retaining the pathogens on the plant surface. Finally, some tubers may be ingested with little or no preparation that would remove or inactivate pathogens on the edible plant surface. For example, carrots are usually eaten raw. They may be washed or skinned prior to eating, but the amount of preparation varies considerably. Part 503 regulations address these exposure scenarios for Class B biosolids through appropriate grazing, harvesting and public access restrictions. Existing regulations establish temporal restrictions on the planting, harvesting and consumption of food grown on land receiving Class B biosolids. Nonetheless the potential remains for consuming food harvested from amended plots. As presented in the section on regulatory restrictions (below), Part 503 regulations require a waiting time of either 20 or Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 46 2/11/08 38 months for crops whose harvested portion is below ground; shorter periods for crops where the above-ground portion is harvested. Pathogens capable of surviving over this period of time can adhere to the surface of the harvested portion of the plant, and with inadequate food preparation steps, can be consumed. 3.4.3. Dermal Exposure Dermal contact constitutes a direct method of transfer of pathogens in biosolids to receptors (Figure 1). Dermal exposure to pathogens would occur primarily through skin abrasions, either through contact with contaminated soil or surface water. Dermal contact may occur during occupational exposure or during unintended contact with biosolids that have moved from the site of application (e.g., through aerial dispersion or runoff). Workers will most likely come in contact with biosolids during processing, loading and application which can lead to penetration of the pathogens through skin or existing cuts or abrasions. However, this problem formulation is concerned with residents and other community receptors rather than workers (Figure 1). A possible exposure scenario may occur as the result of recreation during the summer months. For example, swimming in surface waters would permit dermal contact with pathogens, as well as ingestion or inhalation. To assess dermal exposures, the risk assessor would need information on the amount of material adhering to skin and dose-response values for the pathogens of interest as well as data on the distribution and numbers of pathogens in biosolids and their potential for regrowth. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 47 2/11/08 3.5. REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS Many site restrictions related to land application of biosolids are intended to reduce exposure to pathogens and chemicals in the material (Table 5). These restrictions affect the credibility of exposure pathways in the conceptual model. Time intervals required prior to site access are summarized in Table 6. Particular states may have regulatory criteria for distances to surface waters or wetlands, slope restrictions, depths to groundwater and bedrock, soil permeability rates, distances to residences, schools, health care facilities or recreation areas, and distances to private or public water-supply wells (NRC, 2002). 3.6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT INFECTION AND DISEASE Several host and pathogen characteristics affect the probability or intensity of disease (Figure 3). 3.6.1. Human Factors The three host factors that are discussed in NRC (2002) are concomitant exposures, genetic factors and acquired immunity. Age is an additional determinant of susceptibility. 3.6.1.1. Concomitant Exposures Various stressors such as pathogens, noninfectious organisms, cellular components, irritants and odors may influence individual immunity, other aspects of susceptibility, or the nature or intensity of disease (Figure 3). Synergistic effects might Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 48 2/11/08 TABLE 5 Pathways of Exposure and Applicable Use Restrictions for Class B Biosolids Pathways Part 503 Required Use Restriction Handling soil from fields where biosolids have been applied No public accessa to application until at least 1 year after Class B biosolids application Handling soil or food from home gardens where biosolids have been applied Class B biosolids may not be applied on home gardens Inhaling dustb No public access to application sites until at least 1 year after Class B biosolids application Walking through fields where biosolids have been appliedb No public access to fields until at least 1 year after Class B biosolids application Consuming crops from fields on which biosolids have been applied Site restrictions that prevent the harvesting of crops until environmental attenuation has taken place Consuming milk or animal products from animals grazing on fields where biosolids have been applied No animal grazing for 30 days after Class B biosolids have been applied Ingesting surface water contaminated by runoff from fields where biosolids have been applied Class B biosolids may not be applied within 10 meters of any waters to prevent runoff from biosolids-amended land Ingesting inadequately cooked fish from water contaminated by runoff from fields where biosolids have been applied, affecting the surface water Class B biosolids may not be applied with 10 meters of any waters prevent runoff from biosolids-amended land Contact with vectors that have been in contact with biosolids All land-applied biosolids must meet one of the vector-attraction-reduction options aPublic-access restrictions do not apply to farm workers. If there is low probability of public exposure to an application site, the public-access restrictions apply for only 30 days. However, application sites that are likely to be accessed by the public, such as ballfields, are subject to 1-year public-access restrictions. bAgricultural land is private property and not considered to have a high potential for public access. Nonetheless, public-access restrictions are applied. Taken from NRC (2002), which adapted the table from U.S. EPA (1999). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 49 2/11/08 TABLE 6 Minimum Time Interval between Application and Harvest, Grazing or Public Access to Lands Applied with Class B Biosolids Criteria Injection Surface Application Surface with Incorporation Food crops whose harvested parts may contact biosolids-amended soil 14 months 14 months 14 months Food crops whose harvested parts grow in soil 38 months 20 or 38 months* 38 months Harvest Food, feed and fiber crops 30 days 30 days 30 days Grazing Animal grazing 30 days 30 days 30 days High potential for exposure 1 year 1 year 1 year Public Access Low potential for exposure 30 days 30 days 30 days *The 20-month interval prior to harvesting applies if the biosolids stay on the surface for 4 months or longer prior to incorporation. The 30-month interval applies if the biosolids stay on the surface for less than 4 months prior to incorporation. Modified from: NRC (2002) and 40 CFR Part 503. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 50 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 3, titled ???Disease Factors Conceptual Model,??? is a multi-directional flow chart that describes several factors associated with disease susceptibility. Infectivity, virulence, and human genetic susceptibility all influence pathogen???s ability to cause in humans. End Human Infection Disease Pathogens,non infectious organisms,endotoxins,irritants,odors Geneticfactors Geneticor AcquiredImmunity Susceptibilityto pathogens Infectivity Virulence FIGURE 3 Disease Factors Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 51 2/11/08 result from combined exposures to these stressors (NRC, 2002, Figure 3). For example, endotoxins may combine with particles and allergenic components to promote the development of respiratory diseases and systemic effects (NRC, 2002). 3.6.1.2. Genetic Factors Genetic factors influence individual immunity as well as other aspects of disease susceptibility (Figure 3). Genetic factors such as a predisposition to asthma attacks can be a factor in determining whether infection proceeds to disease. No information is available on the role of genetic factors in contributing to health effects due to bioaerosols from land-applied biosolids (NRC, 2002). 3.6.1.3. Acquired Immunity Acquired immunity is the result of previous exposure to pathogens and is part of the immunity box in Figure 3. Acquired immunity can reduce the fraction of illness in a population exposed to pathogens (NRC, 2002). Genetic factors also contribute to the immune status of an individual. The dynamics of immunity are not well understood for most pathogens. Loss of immunity to pathogens is also a possible result of exposure to other pathogens or biological or chemical stressors (Figure 3). 3.6.2. Additional Susceptibility Factors For public health risk assessment purposes, exposed populations are evaluated based on age (children, adults, geriatrics). In addition, sensitive subpopulations may be evaluated based on gender, ethnicity, baseline health status (immunocompromised, Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 52 2/11/08 hereditary diseases, etc.) or any other site-specific health characteristic of the potentially exposed population that warrants special consideration. 3.6.4. Pathogen Factors Infectivity and virulence are two pathogen factors that can also influence infection and disease (Figure 3). Infectivity is the relationship between the quantity of pathogens ingested or inhaled or in contact with skin and the probability of infection. There is probably no minimal infectious dose for enteric pathogens (Haas et al., 1999, also see Analysis Plan chapter). Virulence is a measure of the severity of the disease that the pathogen is capable of causing. 3.7. INFECTION AND DISEASE Two primary, broad endpoints of risk assessments for pathogens in land-applied biosolids are human infection and disease (Figure 1). Infection is the process by which a microorganism multiplies or grows in or on the host. Clinical diseases are evidenced by signs or symptoms. A variety of diseases may arise from exposure to enteric viruses (i.e., enterovirus, rotavirus, adenovirus) such as gasteroenteritis, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and central nervous system disorders. Likewise, the enteric bacteria associated with biosolids such as Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, E. coli and Listeria have been identified as causative agents of illness in exposed humans. Infections of enteric bacteria have resulted in gastrointestinal illness, dysentery, arthritis, Reiter and Guillain-Barre syndrome, and neuromuscular paralysis. The protozoans of concern Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Entamoeba, produce cysts and oocysts which Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 53 2/11/08 have been shown to be environmentally stable and somewhat resistant to disinfectants. Thus, they are recognized as significant human pathogens with the potential to cause gastrointestinal illness exhibited by diarrhea, dehydration and weight loss. Potential effects of particular pathogens in biosolids are described in the stressor characterization chapter. Public health endpoints may include,the prevalence (total number of cases in a population) or incidence (number of new cases in a population during a specific time interval) of disease (morbidity). Mortality is an additional, potential endpoint. Severity (e.g., number of days lost to illness) may be another property of disease that is of interest to the risk assessor. 3.8. SCENARIOS Risk assessors may describe scenarios that do not include all of the pathways in Figure 1. We consider five example exposure scenarios that represent common public concerns, and we present conceptual models for each. These do not include occupational scenarios, which are under the purview of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The scenarios considered here include: 1. Neighboring residences and schools adjacent to a site applied with biosolids; 2. Residents of a site where biosolids are applied (e.g., farm families); 3. Pica child playing on a site recently applied with biosolids; 4. Drinking water consumers of groundwater aquifer supplies underlying sites applied with biosolids (i.e., particularly those with highly permeable soils or shallow water tables); and Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 54 2/11/08 5. Drinking water consumers of surface waters downstream from sites where 1 2 biosolids are applied. 3.8.1. Scenario 1. Neighboring Residences and Schools Individuals potentially exposed to biosolids-derived pathogens may reside on lands adjacent to farms, forests, reclaimed minelands, or other lands where biosolids are applied. Similarly, schoolchildren may be exposed to eroded soils or bioaerosols from land-applied biosolids. The generic conceptual model for this scenario (Figure 4) adapts most of the pathways from the general conceptual model (Figure 1). The primary source processes that do not appear in this scenario are storage, transport and loading and unloading activities (Figure 4). For this example it is assumed that the biosolids were stored, loaded and unloaded in an enclosed facility, so exposure from these activities need not be addressed. 3.8.2. Scenario 2. Residents Individuals potentially exposed to biosolids-derived pathogens may reside on farms where biosolids are applied. The generic conceptual model for this scenario (Figure 5) adapts all of the potential pathways from the general conceptual model (Figure 1). However, a specific model for farm families might include pathways by which biosolids-amended soil is tracked into the residence (e.g., contaminated boots, work clothes or equipment that is returned to the barn). Recreational hikers in forests where biosolids have been applied might also bring pathogens home on their clothing. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 55 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 4, titled ???Adjacent Property Conceptual Model,??? is a multi-directional flow chart that identifies the various ways in which exposure to Class B biosolid pathogens can occur when humans live close proximity areas where biosolids are applied, like farms. This similar 1, except starting point no longer assumed be sewage treatment and only includes one primary source process: application; storage, transport, loading, unloading not present this model. The end routes, inhalation, ingestion, dermal, lead human infection, and, ultimately, disease. End Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Aerosolization Pathogens inbioaerosols Pathogens in surface applied biosolids Pathogens in biosolidsbelow surface Incorporationin soil Pathogens on crops Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Deposition Pathogens ingroundwater Pathogens onfood Irrigation Ingestion Human Infection Disease DermalExposure Inhalation WindErosion Vectortransport Leaching Surface runoffand erosion Pathogens insurface water Water flow Application ???Spreading or Spraying Application ???Injection FIGURE 4 Adjacent Property Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 56 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 5, titled ???Resident Conceptual Model,??? is a multi-directional flow chart that identifies the various ways in which exposure to Class B biosolid pathogens can occur when humans live on areas where biosolids are used, such as farms. This similar 1, except starting point no longer assumed be sewage treatment. Rather, begins by identifying primary source processes, include storage, transport, application, and loading. The end routes, inhalation, ingestion, dermal, lead human infection, and, ultimately, disease. End Aerosolization Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Storage Transport Loading,unloading Application ???Spreading or Spraying Application ???Injection Pathogens inbioaerosols Pathogens in surface applied biosolids Pathogens in biosolidsbelow surface Incorporationin soil Pathogens on crops Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Deposition Pathogens ingroundwater Pathogens onfood Irrigation Ingestion Human Infection Disease DermalExposure Inhalation WindErosion Vectortransport Leaching Surface runoff and erosion Pathogens insurface water Water flow FIGURE 5 Resident Conceptual Model 3.8.3. Scenario 3. Pica Child Soil ingestion is the consumption of soil as the result of various behaviors such as visiting treated fields and forests and consuming soil directly and indirect exposure from contacting dirty hands or contaminated crops. Moreover, soil-pica, the scenario considered here, is the recurrent ingestion of unusually high amounts of soil (i.e., on the order of 1 to 5 grams per day). Groups at risk of soil-pica behavior are generally children aged 6 years and younger. Noting that soil ingestion is a normal behavior among children, evaluation of all types of soil ingestion is included in the soil-pica scenario (Figure 6). Beginning of figure description. Figure 6, titled ???Pica Child Conceptual Model,??? is a unidirectional flowchart that isolates potential pathway for ingestion-based exposure to Class B biosolid pathogens in pica children. Ingestion surface-applied biosolids and biosolid-soil mixtures can lead infection and, ultimately, disease humans. End Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Pathogens in surface applied biosolids Incorporationin soil Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Human Infection Disease Ingestion FIGURE 6 Pica Child Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 58 2/11/08 3.8.4. Scenario 4. Drinking Water Consumers of Groundwater Leaching to groundwater is of potential concern following injection of biosolids in the subsurface or following surface application to porous soils overlying an aquifer or well. Most drinking water aquifers contain geologic water but may be recharged following significant precipitation. Soils that are uniformly porous throughout the profile permit movement of water to aquifers or wells. Studies conducted on porous soils have demonstrated that pathogens in water can move with the liquid through soil horizons. Aquifers serve as the sole source of water in many communities and therefore may be used for both farming and domestic purposes. As such, the water may be consumed, used in food preparation (either during washing or cooking, the latter would account for significant reduction or elimination of most pathogens), bathing and other household activities. This scenario emphasizes groundwater consumption (Figure 7). 3.8.5. Scenario 5. Drinking Water Consumers of Surface Water The use of downgradient surface waters as a source of potable water may result in exposure to biosolids-related pathogens (Figure 8). The major pathways of potential exposure to pathogens would be erosion of biosolids particles and surface runoff from treatment sites (Figure 8). Additionally, pathogens might be carried to surface water in groundwater, and small quantities of pathogens might deposit to surface waters following aerial transport. Treatment of water before consumption greatly reduces the potential for exposure. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 59 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 7, titled ???Groundwater Conceptual Model,??? is a unidirectional flowchart that isolates potential pathway for ingestion-based exposure to Class B biosolid pathogens through groundwater. Application biosolids spreading, spraying, and injection can contaminate groundwater, and, in turn, contribute human disease infection from ingestion contaminated End Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Application ???Spreading or Spraying Application ???Injection Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Pathogens ingroundwater Ingestion Human Infection Disease Leaching Pathogens in biosolidsbelow surface Incorporationin soil FIGURE 7 Groundwater Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 60 2/11/08 Beginning of figure description. Figure 8, titled ???Surface water Conceptual Model,??? is a multi-directional flowchart that isolates potential pathway for ingestion-based exposure to Class B biosolid pathogens through surface water. Application biosolids spreading, spraying, and injection can contaminate water, and, in turn, contribute human disease ingestion contaminated End Aerosolization Pathogens in Class B Biosolids Application ???Spreading or Spraying Application ???Injection Pathogens inbioaerosols Pathogens in surface applied biosolids Pathogens in biosolidsbelow surface Incorporationin soil Pathogens inbiosolids-soil mixture Deposition Pathogens ingroundwater Irrigation Ingestion Human Infection Disease WindErosion Leaching Surface runoffand erosion Pathogens insurface water Water flow FIGURE 8 Surface Water Conceptual Model Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 61 2/11/08 3.8.6. Regional Aspects of Scenarios These scenarios and others may occur in various regions. Surface water drinking scenarios would be less applicable to arid regions. Scenarios involving aerosolization of pathogens in biosolids would be more applicable to windy regions. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 62 2/11/08 4. SCREENING OUT ELEMENTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL In this chapter we examine the general conceptual model (Figure 1) to determine if sufficient information is available to screen out unlikely stressors, scenarios, routes of exposure, or endpoints from consideration in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids. This effort should not be confused with the screening-level risk assessment process that is site-specific and part of the analysis phase rather than the problem formulation. Very little information is available that would allow us to compare directly the relative importance of different exposure pathways. Academic studies tend to emphasize a single exposure pathway rather than a comparison of multiple pathways. However, our reading of the literature (see literature review, Appendix A) suggests that certain pathogens and exposure pathways may tend to be unimportant. However, insufficient evidence exists to support broad generalizations about negligible elements at this time. Will this caveat in mind, risk assessors may find it easier to screen out some of the following stressors in site-specific risk assessments: ??? Endotoxin. Brooks et al. (2007) found that biosolids-amended soil did not have higher levels of endotoxin than unamended soil. Levels of endotoxin in aerosolized soil were sometimes above those associated with aerosolized, biosolids-amended soil, calling into question whether biosolids were the primary source of the endotoxin (Brooks et al., 2006). ??? Staphylococcus aureus. A broad study of 15 sites across the U.S. found that S. aureus was detected in raw sewage samples but not in biosolids (Rusin et al., 2003a). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 63 2/11/08 ??? Certain protozoa. Gerba et al. (2002) determined that microsporidia and 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 4 Cyclospora would not be likely to survive under high temperatures of anaerobic digestion or under conditions of low moisture in Class B biosolids treatment. ??? Certain bacterial or viral pathogens in bioaerosols. Pathogens and indicator bacteria were only rarely found in aerosolized samples in a study of land application of biosolids in Tucson, AZ. These included coliforms and coliphages, which were present at high densities in biosolids. The authors suggested that only microorganisms in the aqueous phase of biosolids were able to aerosolize; others remained sorbed to the solid phase (Brooks et al., 2004). Furthermore, Tanner et al. (2005) determined bioaerosol emission rates and plume characteristics during spray application of liquid Class B biosolids. They did not detect coliphages or coliform bacteria just downwind of the biosolids application, though pathogens sprayed in inoculated groundwater were detected. The researchers concluded that the presence of biosolids reduces aerosolization of microorganisms relative to application of inoculated groundwater. The duration of exposure to any pathogens (below detection limits) downwind of biosolids application is brief (Tanner et al., 2005). Brooks et al. (2005b) undertook a study to estimate risks of microbial infection of residents near biosolids application sites. At 10 sites (five in Arizona, five elsewhere in the U.S.) amended with either liquid or solid Class B biosolids, they measured heterotrophic plate counts (HPC) bacteria, total coliform bacteria, E. coli, Clostridium perfringens, coliphage, enteroviruses, hepatitis A virus and norovirus in aerosol samples downwind from application sites. The study distinguished between loading, unloading, land application and background operations. In general, risks of infection were determined to be low, with the greatest risks, that of infection by coxsackievirus A21 from loading operations having a 4 ?? 10-4 chance of infection. Based on this work, Pepper et al. (2006) concluded that the overall community risk of infection from bioaerosols during land application was relatively negligible. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 64 2/11/08 Some evidence (below) might support a decision to screen out certain exposure pathways (Figure 1) from general or regional consideration in the future. However, more evidence is needed to support such a judgment. 1 2 3 4 21 22 23 24 25 ??? Groundwater pathway. Because of the large size of bacteria, soil (especially fine-textured soil) can act as a filter to limit bacterial transport (NRC, 2002). Soil would also be expected to limit the transport of larger protozoa and helminths (NRC, 2002). A review of the literature has concluded that few pathogens (even viruses) from biosolids leach to groundwater (Pepper et al., 2006). Although Gerba (2005) acknowledges that of the pathogens in biosolids, viruses have the greatest potential for contamination of groundwater, Pepper et al. (2006) concluded that ???groundwater contamination from land-applied biosolids does not appear to be likely.??? Sandy soils with low cation exchange capacity deserve more study. ??? Root crop ingestion pathway. A United Kingdom study of infection from consumption of root crops grown on biosolids-amended soils found that risks to humans was low. Seven pathogens were included in the study: salmonellas, Listeria monocytogenes, campylobacters, Escherichi coli O157, Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia and enteroviruses (Gale, 2005b). United Kingdom biosolids may not be comparable to Class B biosolids in the U.S. Regulations might also allow a risk assessor to screen out potential pathways of exposure in the general case. For example, if biosolids must be stored in enclosed facilities, the generation of bioaerosols from that source (and exposure to neighboring residents) would not be likely. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 65 2/11/08 5. ANALYSIS PLAN 5.1. INTRODUCTION The analysis plan is the final stage of problem formulation. It summarizes the measures, methods and data needs for conducting the analysis phase of the risk assessment, i.e., the characterization of exposure and the characterization of effects. Methods are described to characterize the source, pathways, environmental media and human endpoints. The emphasis is on variables to which the risk assessment is sensitive, if known. A rigorous analysis plan is especially necessary if there is no established protocol for conducting a particular type of risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998), as with human health risk assessment of biosolids-derived pathogens. The analysis plan evaluates risk hypotheses to determine how they will be assessed (U.S. EPA, 1998, 2003a). The rationale for selecting or eliminating risk hypotheses is set forth (U.S. EPA, 1998). An analysis plan for a risk assessment of pathogens in biosolids must be designed to eliminate negligible pathways in the conceptual model. Available data are described, as well as new data that should be collected to conduct the risk assessment and the feasibility of their collection. The analysis plan describes both measurements and models. The plan also describes where parameters of interest may be extrapolated from existing data. Extrapolation allows the use of data collected from other locations or for other microbial pathogens where similar problems exist. This chapter is structured as an analysis plan might be structured for a risk assessment on land-applied biosolids. Following the introduction, we discuss management needs, including parameters requiring estimation and data quality Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 66 2/11/08 objectives. Then we discuss the plan for the characterization of exposure, including the selection of measures of exposure, the detection of microbes, the issue of background levels of pathogens and the estimation of fate, transport, uptake and dosage. The plan for the characterization of effects follows, including the selection of measures of effect, establishing cause and effect and dose-response models for infection. Methods for predicting disease, including the existence of thresholds and the role of immunity and epidemiological methods are also discussed. Finally, the plan for risk characterization is set forth, including the issue of standards, the possibility of tiered analysis, the weight-of-evidence approach, probabilistic assessment and uncertainty analysis. The emphasis in this chapter is on aspects of analysis plans that are unique to risk assessments for biosolids-derived pathogens rather than risk assessments for pathogens in general. Therefore, some of the dose-response and epidemiological information is deemphasized. Furthermore, because of the numerous research gaps, we identify research, observational studies and methods development that should be performed to complete a defensible risk assessment to support regulatory actions. Finally, because this is a generic framework for an analysis plan, it does not contain the level of detail that would be expected in an analysis plan for a specific site or a particular regulatory action. This report does not provide site-specific advice on how to prioritize data needs, models or assessment endpoints. 5.2. MANAGEMENT NEEDS Risk mangers have two fundamental requirements of risk assessors. The assessment process must estimate risks to endpoints that are important to the decision, and the results must have sufficient quality to be reliable. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 67 2/11/08 5.2.1. Assessment Endpoints In any risk assessment, the assessment endpoint is an explicit expression of the value that should be protected. In health assessments, the endpoint is a property of human health. Many risk assessments for pathogens in biosolids will be conducted by U.S. EPA???s Office of Water, and therefore, risk managers from this office will determine the appropriate assessment endpoints. These may include population-level endpoints or individual-level endpoints. It may be desirable to estimate the probability of infection (individual endpoint), number of infections during a period of time (population endpoint), number of infections during an outbreak (population endpoint), disease incidence (population endpoint), or related endpoints. The endpoint may be cumulative (estimating risk from pathogens of all sources) or may focus on only those infections or illnesses that are estimated to result from pathogens in biosolids. The risk manager may also specify levels of infection or disease that are acceptable or that require regulatory action. If applicable, these levels, as well as other properties of the assessment endpoint, should be described in the analysis plan. A purpose of the analysis plan is to set forth methods for estimating the assessment endpoint. The assessment endpoints will allow U.S. EPA to determine the level of public health and environmental protection from pathogens in biosolids afforded by 40 CFR 503, determine protective buffer distances, or validate the current operational standards and management practices. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 68 2/11/08 5.2.2. Data and Data Quality U.S. EPA (1998) recommends that risk assessors ask several general questions related to the selection of data for the assessment: ??? How relevant will the results be to the assessment endpoint(s) and conceptual model(s)? ??? Are there sufficient data of high quality to conduct the analyses with confidence? ??? How will the analyses help establish cause-and-effect relationships? ??? How will results be presented to address managers??? questions? ??? Where uncertainties are likely to become a problem? The analysis plan also specifies data quality objectives for the risk assessment. The Superfund program provides a good model for specifying the type of information that is needed to ensure data quality, specifying necessary and optimal levels of data quality, and identifying the means of obtaining this information from risk managers (U.S. EPA, 1994). These steps are described in Text Box 1. 5.3. PLAN FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE 5.3.1. Measures of Exposure The first step to planning the characterization of exposure is selecting the measures of exposure. Measures of exposure are measures of stressor existence and movement in the environment and their contact or co-occurrence with the assessment endpoint entity. More specifically, in a human health risk assessment these are measurable characteristics of pathogens that are used to quantify exposure of humans Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 69 2/11/08 or contact with particular organ systems. Measures of exposure include concentrations of particular pathogens in environmental media or components of these media (biosolids, biosolids-amended soil, air, water, clay, aerosols). Measures of exposure to microbial pathogens may also include inputs to models of fate, transport, or exposure (e.g., doses to humans), as described below. Text Box 1. Recommended Steps for Specifying Data Quality Objectives (modified from U.S. EPA, 1994). 1. State the Problem. Clearly specify the question that relates to pathogens in biosolids. Is the concern a generic national problem? Or is it a site-specific one? Has an infection or disease been observed where the cause is unknown? Or is the risk manager concerned with future prediction? 2. Identify the Decision. Identify the decision that must be made to solve the problem. For example, are new regulations required to prevent unacceptable risk to human health? 3. Identify Inputs to the Decision. Identify the information needed to make the decision and measurements, simulations, and other analyses that must be undertaken to provide that information. These are the major components of the analysis plan. 4. Define the Assessment Boundaries. Specify the conditions to be assessed, including the spatial area, the time period and the exposure scenarios to which the decision will apply and for which inputs must be generated. 5. Develop Decision Rules. Define conditions under which an action, such as the promulgation of new regulations, will be taken. 6. Specify Acceptable Limits of Decision Error. Define error rates that are acceptable to the risk manager. 7. Optimize the Design. Design a study in which new data are collected and design the use of existing data in exposure or effects models, such that the expected variance in parameters results in an acceptable limit in decision error. 5.3.2. Detection of Pathogens Following the selection of measures of exposure, the detection of pathogens is the first type of analysis required in the analysis plan. As stated in the literature review (Appendix A), one of the major data gaps related to pathogens in biosolids is a recent national survey regarding levels of particular pathogens in sewage sludge and biosolids. Appropriate analytical methods are also needed for detecting and quantifying particular pathogens in sewage sludge and biosolids. This information is needed to support Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 70 2/11/08 national-scale human health risk assessments of biosolids. In site-specific risk assessments, it is possible to analyze the biosolids, amended soil, water, air or bioaerosol of concern to estimate pathogen levels, though these methods have high levels of uncertainty. The only current option for national scale risk assessments is to conduct analysis of pathogens in biosolids at several application sites that are thought to be representative of such sites across the country. 5.3.2.1. Bacteria Smith et al. (2005b, Chapter 4) describe detection and enumeration capabilities for bacterial pathogens that involve general or selective enrichment combined with selective culturing or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and molecular identification techniques. However, these experts acknowledge that the use of these methods to detect all potential pathogens in a sample might be too costly or require too much effort to be practical. Thus, the use of indicator organisms is recommended if adequate indicators and appropriate analytical methodology are available (Smith et al., 2005b, Chapter 4) (see section on Use of Indicator Species below). Recent research on species-specific biosensors may also produce useful products for detecting pathogens in biosolids (e.g., Guntupalli et al., 2007). Organic matter and high bacterial counts reduce recovery fraction for pathogens in biosolids or amended soils (Rusin et al., 2003b). The analysis plan should indicate the recovery rates for the detection technologies that will be used. For example, recovery percentages of bacterial pathogens in aerosols that are reported in the literature are currently about 10% (Lubick, 2007). Rusin et al. (2003a) had a recovery Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 71 2/11/08 efficiency of 8.7% for Staphylococcus aureus in Class B biosolids. U.S. EPA has new standardized analytical methods for fecal coliforms and Salmonella (FR 57 14219). 5.3.2.2. Viruses Sampling and detection of viruses that are present at high levels in biosolids is much easier than demonstrating conclusively that viral agents are not present (NRC, 2002). The primary determinant of the ease of detection of viruses is whether they can be cell-cultured. Of the viral pathogens listed in the stressor characterization chapter, astroviruses, rotaviruses, hepatitis A and E and adenoviruses can be cell-cultured, whereas human caliciviruses cannot (NRC, 2002). Methods used to recover viruses from sewage sludge have been optimized for the enteroviruses rather than for other enteric viruses (Goyal et al., 1984; Gerba and Smith, 2005). Therefore, risk assessors need to be aware that there is high uncertainty regarding concentrations of non-enteroviruses in raw sewage sludge and treated biosolids (Smith et al., 2005b, Chapter 8). And risk assessors should indicate in the analysis plan that risks from caliciviruses cannot be determined at this time. Disadvantages of cell culture methods include the high cost, long time required for positive results (up to one month) and the presence of potentially toxic organic compounds and inorganic elements in sewage sludge. PCR is an alternative family of methods for identifying viruses. These analyses are quick, relatively inexpensive and sensitive. Direct reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) detects nucleic acid sequences from active and inactive viral particles, and thus may overestimate exposure. Integrated cell-culture PCR (ICC-PCR) amplifies viruses in cell culture and amplifies viral RNA through enzymatic PCR. ICC-PCR is the recommended method for viral risk assessment because of the potential for cell culture Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 72 2/11/08 alone to underestimate human exposure and for RT-PCR to overestimate exposure (NRC, 2002). 5.3.2.3. Helminths Various assays for helminth eggs in biosolids are available, but no standard assay exists, mainly because quality-assurance and quality-control studies have not been published for many study protocols (NRC, 2002). Candidate methods are referenced in NRC (2002), each with different recovery percentages for Ascaris eggs. Many do not adequately consider sample preservation and pretreatment. Some of these are not very accurate. The Tulane assay is discussed with recovery percentages, but this assay may not be valid for detecting helminths such as Trichuris trichiura that have eggs of different densities from Ascaris (NRC, 2002). 5.3.2.4. Protozoa Methods for detecting helminths may be applicable to protozoa if final sieve size is adjusted to the smaller size of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Viability and infectivity assays for protozoa that are available for the analysis plan include vital dye staining, animal infectivity, cell culture or PCR. Recoveries from biosolids are low, e.g., 10% for the sedimentation technique, less than 3% for the flotation technique, 3.2-16.3% for Cryptosporidium oocysts and 2.4-41.7% for Giardia cysts (NRC, 2002). 5.3.3. Use of Indicator Species Because of the wide range of pathogens found in human feces, domestic wastewater and biosolids, direct monitoring and quantification of all of the pathogens in Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 73 2/11/08 biosolids may not be practical for a site-specific risk assessment (Nappier et al., 2006). Indicator species are abundant and typically non-pathogenic microorganisms that may be used to indicate the presence of a suite of pathogens. For example, fecal coliform density and Salmonella are used as indicators of wastewater treatment efficiency (40 CFR 136). Tests for indicator microorganisms should be relatively simple and routine (NRC, 2002). However, most indicators have been chosen to indicate treatment effectiveness rather than measures of pathogens that are quantitative and are more closely related to public health (Smith et al., 2005b, Chapter 4). Tanner et al. (2005) cite research in their laboratory and other literature to show that (a) there is approximately one human pathogenic bacterium per 1000 coliform bacteria in biosolids and (b) one human enteric virus in Class B biosolids per 1000 coliphage. However, this estimate is not helpful for pathogen-specific risk assessments, because the identity of the pathogen is an important determinant of risk. Bacteria and helminths. Indicators of a range of pathogens in biosolids are needed. It may not be feasible for individual risk assessors to develop these indicators in the analysis plans for individual risk assessments. Given the resistance of spore-forming bacteria to desiccation, indicators of these bacterial pathogens would need to behave similarly. The NRC (2002) discusses Clostridium perfringens as a potential indicator of the efficiency of disinfection. In particular, they provide references suggesting that its spores might be a surrogate for eggs of Ascaris suum because of its resistance to similar chemical and physical disinfection agents. Furthermore, Dowd et al. (1997) recommend thermotolerant clostridia as indicators of fecal contamination in bioaerosols. Pillai et al. (1996) found that clostridia and H2S producers were detected Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 74 2/11/08 on glass impingers at locations near biosolids-amended sites where traditional bacterial indicators (fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci) were not. Thus Clostridium perfringens may be a useful surrogate for a range of pathogens in the analysis plan. Risk assessors may consider indicators of anaerobic pathogens, but genera such as Bifidobacterium and Bacterioides cannot be reliably detected and therefore cannot be routinely monitored (NRC, 2002). Viruses. Smith et al. (2005b, Chapter 5) summarize the suitability of selected agents as indicators of treatment performance and post-treatment risk for viruses. Only the latter is relevant here and is presented in Table 7. Bacteriophages are the only potential indicator viruses mentioned in NRC (2002) because of their presence in sewage. Because somatic coliphage infects strains of E. coli, it can be detected using simple, inexpensive methods (NRC, 2002). Lime is also included as a potential indicator of post-treatment risk for viruses in Smith et al. (2005b), presumably because enteric viruses should be eliminated with extended alkaline treatment. At this time, these indicators are qualitative. Risk assessors would need to do substantial testing to quantify relationships between these indicators and pathogens of potential concern. 5.3.4. Background Levels of Pathogens The analysis plan should assess background levels of pathogens through measurement or extrapolation from regional values if available. Background levels of pathogens are levels in environmental media (soil, water or air) not amended with or contaminated by biosolids. Background levels are due to colonization of media at the regional scale. For example, endospore-forming bacteria such as Clostridium Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 75 2/11/08 TABLE 7 Suitability of Select Agents as Indicators of Post-Treatment Risk for Viruses in Biosolids, Modified from Smith et al. (2005b) Agent Suitability Adenoviruses ? Ascaris yes Coliphages yes Clostridium perfringens spores yes Enterococci no Enteroviruses yes E. coli no Fecal coliforms no Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 76 2/11/08 perfringens are very common in soil. The risk assessment is only concerned with the incremental risk from pathogens in biosolids or the cumulative risk from pathogens in biosolids-amended soil, rather than the risk from pathogens in soil alone. Background levels of pathogens may be significant contributors to risk. For example, in a study of aerosolized endotoxin concentrations downwind from a biosolids-amended site, Brooks et al. (2006) found that levels of endotoxin in aerosolized soil were sometimes above those associated with biosolids amended-soil, calling into question whether biosolids were the primary source of the endotoxin. 5.3.5. Environmental Fate of Pathogens The survival or regrowth of pathogens should be estimated if the risk assessment is prospective (i.e., concerned with forecasting), and environmental media cannot be sampled at the time of interest. Regulations that limit contact with biosolids do not prevent environmental processes in the conceptual model such as aerosolization or erosion (Figure 1) and the death or multiplication of pathogens (Figure 2). Therefore, the analysis plan may include a plan for estimating pathogen fate. Most models of the fate of pathogens in sewage sludge are concerned with predicting the reduction or inactivation of pathogens by treatment processes (e.g., Epstein, 2006). Straub et al. (1993) reviewed available studies of survival of pathogens in soil and sewage sludge that are pertinent to this analysis plan discussion. Gerba and Smith (2005) provide survival times of pathogens on soil and plants (Table 8). Risk assessors should not use survivorship data from enteric organisms such as E. coli and Salmonella to estimate the much longer survival rates of bacterial pathogens that form spores or are encapsulated (such as Mycobacterium spp.). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 77 2/11/08 TABLE 8 Survival Times of Pathogens in Soil and on Plants Modified from Gerba and Smith (2005) Soil Plants Pathogen Absolute Maximum Typical Maximum Absolute Maximum Typical Maximum Bacteria 1 year 2 months 6 months 1 month Viruses 6 month 3 months 2 months 1 month Protozoa 10 days 2 days 5 days 2 days Helminths 7 years 2 years 5 months 1 month 5.3.6. Transport of Pathogens The conceptual model in Figure 1 describes several transport processes, including wind erosion, surface runoff and water erosion, aerial dispersal of bioaerosols, deposition on crops, leaching to groundwater and vector transport. The analysis plan needs to provide a plan for answering the questions of how far and in what concentrations pathogens will travel. Models are available for most transport processes, though they have some limitations. 5.3.6.1. Water Erosion Water erosion is typically modeled using the universal soil loss equation or its modifications. Average annual soil erosion is the product of a rainfall erosivity index, soil erodibility factor, topographic factor, cropping factor and conservation practice factor Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 78 2/11/08 (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). The soil erodibility factor estimates the cohesive nature of a soil type and resistance to transport from raindrop impact and surface flow. While this factor is available for various soil types, to our knowledge it has not been measured for biosolids or biosolids-amended soils. The crop management factor is specific to agricultural systems and can include tillage but could be adapted to forest, greenway, mineland, or other biosolids application sites. Significant soil disturbance resulting from tracked vehicles could be incorporated in the soil erodibility or crop management factors. A limitation is that this equation is not applicable to a specific storm or year. If erosion is expected to be a significant transport process, these analyses would need to be part of the analysis plan. 5.3.6.2. Surface Runoff and Aqueous Transport Methods for estimating surface runoff should be described separately from erosion models in the analysis plan. For example, Montemagno et al. (2004) describe a modeling strategy for estimating surface water contamination by pathogens from agricultural sources, using the specific example of oocysts of Cryptosporidium. Both surface runoff and water erosion are simulated. For site-specific assessments, it may be desirable to use a spatially explicit model to simulate transport from land to streams and through a watershed to recreational areas or water intakes. BASINS (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/) provides an integrated system for such assessments. Alternatively, simple models of dilution and transport in a generic stream can be used. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 79 2/11/08 5.3.6.3. Wind Erosion Wind erosion should be considered in areas where wind speeds are often above the 19.3 km/h required to initiate soil movement (Brady, 1974). Wind erosion is controlled by 11 primary variables: soil erodibility, knoll erodibility, surface crust stability, soil ridge roughness, wind velocity, surface soil moisture, distance across field, sheltered distance, quantity of vegetative cover, kind of vegetative cover and orientation of vegetative cover (Woodruff and Siddoway, 1965). The Wind Erosion Equation, developed by Woodruff and Siddoway (1965) groups many of these variables and is a function of the erodibility factor (which increases with percentage of soil particles greater than 0.84 mm diameter), a ridge roughness factor, a climatic factor, a field length factor and a vegetative cover factor. Clearly, the erodibility factor would be specific to biosolids, but the climatic factor, which incorporates soil moisture, would also be affected by biosolids added to the surface of soil or incorporated in soil. Again, this equation is not applicable to a specific year or wind event. Also, the Wind Erosion Equation provides a measure of dislodged soil; the equation provides no estimates of the travel distance of the soil (Batie, 1983). 5.3.6.4. Aerial Transport of Bioaerosols To estimate bioaerosol transport, a risk assessor must understand the release rates of the different microbes, the dispersion of the bioaerosols and the deposition of the microorganisms (Pillai, 2007). These quantities depend on whether pathogens are aerosolized during particular types of biosolids application or following application. Pathogens in bioaerosols and their transport may be measured or modeled. The Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 80 2/11/08 analysis plan may include measurement of pathogens in air as a source term for a dispersion model or near the human receptors of interest. The sampling of bioaerosols involves the removal and concentration of biological particles from the air (Pillai and Ricke, 2002). Sampling bioaerosols poses a particular challenge, compared to sampling of biosolids. Impaction, impingement, gravity settling, filtration and electrostatic precipitation are options for concentrating microorganisms from bioaerosols, but efficiencies of collection can be low or uncertain (NRC, 2002; Pillai and Ricke, 2002). Where molecular assays are feasible, collection methods do not have to preserve the viability of microbes, as they did when culture methods were required for identification (Pillai and Ricke, 2002). Although there is a standard method for assessing occupational exposures to bioaerosols in indoor environments, no comparable standard exists for outdoor environments, and some of the indoor samplers that rely on external vacuum and power sources cannot be carried to remote sites (NRC, 2002). Insufficient testing of available methods has occurred to recommend a particular sampling method for bacteria in bioaerosols, but we recommend that assessors describe methods for testing sampling efficiencies of their equipment in the analysis plan. Risk assessors should also be aware that during transport, deposition and sampling, bacteria can be desiccated or inactivated, resulting in failure to culture and an underestimation of the number of viable cells. The analysis plan should specify how sampled pathogens will be handled. Furthermore, determining an appropriate spatial distribution of samples is a challenge for sampling bioaerosols. If tens of acres are amended with biosolids, substantial micrometeorological differences may result from differing topography, Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 81 2/11/08 vegetation and mechanical agitation (NRC, 2002). Wind direction and speed may vary during the sampling time. The orifices of bioaerosol samplers downwind may be too small to obtain detectable levels of bacteria, even if they are present in bioaerosols. Thus, appropriate statistical analysis (Spicer and Gangloff, 2000) and appropriate numbers of replicates are uncertain. These issues should be addressed in the analysis plan. Models are available to estimate transport of pathogens in bioaerosols (Dowd et al., 2000; Brooks et al., 2005a). ???Point-source??? transport models are appropriate for localized sources of biosolids, such as a storage pile, and ???area-source??? models are more appropriate for predicting concentrations of pathogens downwind from a large biosolids-amended field in which including the length and width of the field more accurately estimates aerosol loading rates (Dowd et al., 2000). Dowd et al. (2000) modified a standard point-source transport model to incorporate the expected reduction in microbial concentration with increased distance from the source. Variables included the inactivation rate of the microorganism, mean wind speed, diffusion constants, downwind distance from source and height of sample. Typically, the risk assessor needs to back-calculate the rates of release of microorganisms from the source using sampling data, because measurement is extremely difficult (Dowd et al., 2000). An empirical model is another option for estimating aerosolized pathogen concentrations with distance from the source. Brooks et al. (2005a) derived a linear regression model that estimated coliphage concentrations at various distances from the spray application location, normalized for initial microbial concentration and wind speed. The researchers conducted field tests with coliphage MS-2 added to water and sprayed Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 82 2/11/08 with a biosolids spray application truck. Temperature was also observed to influence aerosol concentration (Brooks et al., 2005a). The relationship these researchers derived may not be applicable to other biosolids, application methods or regions, but the development of similar empirical models may be an objective of the analysis plan. Correlations have been developed between microbial levels in biosolids and their concentrations emitted during disking (Paez-Rubio et al., 2006) and spreading with a slinger side-spreader (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). These types of reconstructions permit risk assessors to avoid difficulties of detecting pathogens in aerosols. Indicator species may be used to estimate transport of related pathogens. For example, the ratio between the concentration of indicator virus in aerosols and the concentration in biosolids was used to estimate a value for airborne enteric virus (Coxsackievirus) in Dowd et al. (2000). Even allowing for sampling limitations and recovery efficiency issues, measurement is probably superior to models (which are validated using measurements in any case). Many of the physicochemical interactions between pathogens and biosolids and between pathogens and other components of bioaerosols are difficult to model. For example, viruses have been observed to sorb strongly to biosolids particles but to aerosolize more easily if present in the liquid fraction of biosolids (Brooks et al., 2004). The transport of large dust particles is not usually modeled. Moreover, during application, the aerosol plume at each location is detectable for only a short period of time (e.g., less than one minute per pass of a spray applicator in Tanner et al. [2005]). Complicating factors include variation in terrain, topography, vegetation, micrometeorological conditions, biosolid composition and biosolids land application Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 83 2/11/08 processes (Pillai, 2007). Also, the bioaerosol transport reconstruction in Paez-Rubio et al. (2006) tended to result in a lower concentration than what was measured. Thus, risk assessors should justify the use of particular models in the analysis plan. 5.3.7. Contact with Crops Pathogen residues on root and leaf crops can be measured. Biosolids and associated pathogens can deposit to crop leaves following erosion, aerial transport or rainsplash, and these processes can be modeled. Because of the ease of measurement and uncertainty of modeling, we recommend that pathogens on select crops be measured. If measurement is not possible, risk assessors can estimate the biosolids residues on root and leaf crops based on standard crop exposure assumptions (U.S. EPA, 1997), though these assumptions do not account for aerosolized pathogens depositing directly on leaves. Gale (2005b) offers assumptions that 10% of root crops were consumed unwashed or that 90% of soil was removed by washing prior to consumption. Gale (2005a,b) describes ramifications of using the arithmetic mean root crop concentration as an input to dose-response models. This statistic often overestimates the number of people who are exposed to pathogens, because where pathogens are spatially clustered, many individuals are not exposed. Thus, the analysis plan should indicate that the arithmetic mean exposure concentration (if used) may give a conservative estimate of the number of people exposed. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 84 2/11/08 5.3.8. Uptake and Dosage The analysis plan should include methods for estimating inhalation, ingestion and dermal exposure when consideration of those routes of exposure is appropriate (see conceptual model discussion). For example, the dose of aerosolized pathogens to a person during a period of time may be estimated by measuring or modeling concentrations of microbes at a specific distance from the source and the inhalation rate over a period of time. 5.3.9. Exposure Factors U.S. EPA does not have standard exposure factors for use in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids. However, many of the exposure factors and assumptions described in the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997), which was designed for use in human exposure assessments for chemical contaminants, are pertinent. These include general exposure factors (e.g., drinking water intake rates, soil ingestion rates including for the pica child scenario, inhalation rates, body weight, body surface area), food ingestion factors (e.g., fruit and vegetable intake rates and water contents) and activity factors (e.g., time spent outdoors). This and other risk assessment guidance is available from the Risk Assessment Information System (U.S. DOE, 2006). Some of the exposure factors in U.S. EPA (1997) may not be pertinent to risk assessments for pathogens in biosolids. For example, activity factors that estimate time spent outdoors may not be as relevant for a risk assessment of bioaerosols generated during biosolids application as the duration of the application process. The percentage of inhaled particles that would be ingested should be specific to biosolids-generated Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 85 2/11/08 aerosols. Pepper et al. (2006) describe studies that use a factor of 10%, and Brooks et al. (2005b) uses 50%. Haas et al. (1999) recommend exposure factors that are relevant to risk assessments for pathogens. While many of these factors are analogous to those in U.S. EPA (1997), others are more pertinent to risk assessments for pathogens (e.g., proportion of pathogens that are transferred to and from hands). 5.4. PLAN FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFECTS 5.4.1. Measures of Effect A measure of effect is a measurable quantity that is used to estimate the effects of exposure (to biosolids-derived pathogens) on the assessment endpoint. In this problem formulation, assessment endpoints include aspects of human health estimated at the individual level or population level. The analysis plan describes the measures of effect for the risk assessment. Suter et al. (2000) summarized considerations in selecting measures of effect for ecological risk assessments of chemical contaminants. These considerations are adapted here for pathogens in biosolids. ??? Corresponds to an assessment endpoint ??? Relates to the human health endpoint in a quantifiable manner ??? Makes use of existing data ??? Is readily measured ??? Is of appropriate temporal and spatial scale ??? Is appropriate to the exposure pathway ??? Is appropriate to the mode of action ??? Is diagnostic of particular pathogens ??? Shows low variability, increasing the likelihood of detecting an effect ??? Is broadly applicable to different locations ??? Is a standard test or measurement method The first two considerations are necessary to meet the definition of a measure of effect. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 86 2/11/08 Measures of effect are derived from laboratory studies (e.g., rat or mouse ingestion or bioaerosol inhalation studies) or epidemiological studies designed around biosolids application or disease outbreaks (controlled human clinical studies involving ingestion or inhalation are likely rare or nonexistent). Studies of disease outbreaks are often used to validate measures derived from animal models. The most applicable data would come from studies with biosolids, but other studies of pathogens can provide relevant data, especially in the absence of studies of biosolids. Measures of effect in this problem formulation for biosolids-derived pathogens may include probability of infection (individual measure), number of infections during a period of time (population measure), number of infections during an outbreak (population measure), disease incidence (population measure) or related measures. 5.4.2. Establishing Cause and Effect As noted in the literature review (Appendix A), a causal association between exposures to pathogens in biosolids and adverse effects on human health has not been documented. Risk assessors should examine relevant data (and perhaps conduct epidemiological studies) supporting or refuting a cause-and-effect relationship. This is most important in locations where biosolids are being implicated for disease symptoms. Principles for establishing causality are described in Hill (1965). These include strength of association, consistency of association (e.g., observation of the symptoms near multiple biosolids application sites), specificity of association, relationships between timing of application and onset of symptoms, biological gradient (dose-response relationship), plausibility of the causative relationship, coherence of evidence, Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 87 2/11/08 observation in experiments and analogy to known associations (e.g., occupational exposures to pathogens in biosolids). Hill???s principles may be used to determine whether land application of biosolids causes particular diseases. The analysis plan for site-specific risk assessments where disease has been observed might include methods that are not pertinent to national-scale assessments. For example, DNA fingerprinting methods can be used to determine whether pathogens isolated from sick individuals have originated from land-applied biosolids (Dowd and Pillai, 1999; NRC, 2002). Santo Domingo et al. (2007) provide methods to track sources of fecal pollution. Epidemiological studies are discussed below. Risk assessors for site-specific human health assessments might also benefit from guidance for identifying stressors to specific aquatic ecosystems in the Stressor Identification Guidance Document (U.S. EPA, 2000) and CADDIS (http://www.epa.gov/caddis/). 5.4.3. Dose-Response Models for Infection Empirical effects models quantify the relationship between the dose of a microbial agent and frequency of a particular adverse outcome, such as infection, disease, or mortality. These models may assume a minimum infective dose greater than one organism (which for microbial pathogens is supported by little evidence, see below) or a no-threshold continuous dose-response function. These empirical models allow risk assessors to estimate risk at low doses of pathogens. The equations are derived from exposure of humans or animal models to various concentrations of pathogens. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 88 2/11/08 Microbial dose-response models mathematically represent the measure of the dose that yields the probability of a given adverse effect. For microbes, the models are required to be biologically plausible and should consider that a population of humans exposed to infectious microbes will receive a distribution of actual doses (Haas et al., 1999). Also, infectious microbes have the ability to propagate within a susceptible host at an appropriate location within the body (Haas et al., 1999). Several dose-response models have been used to assess human health risk from microbial agents. These models include exponential dose-response, beta-Poisson dose-response and simple and variable threshold models. These models have been used to assess risk from waterborne and food-borne exposures to microbial agents and recently in risk assessments of pathogens in dewatered, land-applied biosolids (Dowd et al., 2000; Brooks et al., 2005b; Eisenberg et al., 2004). Table 9 provides examples of dose-response models for microbial agents that may be associated with biosolids. Almost all of these examples pertain to the endpoint of infection rather than disease. Further reading and examples of critically analyzed dose-response curves for microbial agents that may be associated with biosolids are presented in Chapter 9 of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (Haas et al., 1999). Infective doses reported for various bacteria, viruses, and protozoan and helminth parasites are tabulated in Epstein (2006) and Gutierrez (2005). However, Haas et al. (1999) argue that most evidence supports the independent action (or single-organism) hypothesis that even a single organism can initiate an infection. Risk assessors might view reported infective doses as doses where infection becomes likely rather than actual thresholds. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 89 2/11/08 TABLE 9 Examples of Dose-Response Models for Microbial Agents Organism Measure of Exposure Model Endpoint Reference Rotavirus Dose Exponential Beta-Poisson Log-probit Human Infection Ward et al. (1986), Haas et al. (1999) Cryptosporidium parvum Dose Exponential Human Infection Dupont et al. (1995) Cryptosporidium parvum Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection Englehardt and Swartout (2004) Cryptosporidium parvum Dose Beta-Poisson Gastroenteric illness Englehardt and Swartout (2006) Enteric virus Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection Gerba et al. (2002) Salmonella serovar Anatum Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection McCullough and Eisele (1951), Haas et al. (1999) Coxsackievirus B3 Dose Exponential Human Infection Dowd et al. (2000) Salmonella serovar Typhi Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection Dowd et al. (2000) E.coli (0111) Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection Ferguson and June (1952), Haas et al. (1999) E. coli (055) Dose Beta-Poisson Human Infection June et al. (1953), Haas et al. (1999) Endotoxin Concentration in air Threshold Decreased lung efficiency, Organic Toxic Dust Syndrome Baker et al. (1986) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 90 2/11/08 Dose-response models represent major information gaps for risk assessments related to pathogens in biosolids. Most dose-response models have been developed from human or animal feeding studies or from investigations of outbreaks caused by contaminated food without apparent biosolids involvement (Haas et al., 1999). Dose-response relationships are not available for all of the pathogens potentially found in biosolids (see stressor characterization chapter). Dose-response relationships are not available for inhaled microorganisms (NRC, 2002). As stated in the literature review (Appendix A), the percentage of inhaled pathogens that are ingested is unknown. Dose-response models are also not available for dermal exposure. Furthermore, few dose-response models are available for disease. 5.4.4. Predicting Disease Existing risk assessment studies for pathogens in biosolids estimate risk of human infection rather than risk of disease (see literature review in Appendix A). If limited by existing data, risk assessments for diseases caused by pathogens in biosolids would be highly uncertain. Disease is a function of a ???triad,??? the interaction of pathogen, host and environment. All three factors figure into assessing the incidence of disease in individuals, and the problem formulation should include a plan for analysis of all three aspects. The pathogen is the causative agent of the disease. Whereas chemicals are generally assumed to elicit comparable responses in appropriate animal models as do humans, pathogens are more host-specific. Pathogens can elicit adverse responses Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 91 2/11/08 either through their own biological activity within the host or through the production of toxic byproducts. The second aspect of disease is the host condition. The disease manifestation can vary considerably among infected individuals based on nutritional and health status, and immune profile. Individuals in good health with a history of prior exposure to similar strains of pathogens are less likely to exhibit pronounced symptoms than individuals in poor health or without prior exposure. Immunity is one of the most important parameters influencing the risk from pathogens in biosolids, based on Eisenberg et al.???s (2004) model. The analysis plan should specify whether groups of individuals of particular immune status are assessment endpoint entities in the risk assessment. However, validated protocols are not available to incorporate immune status or other pathogen susceptibility factors (pregnancy, age) into risk assessments (NRC, 2002). The environment aspect of the triad refers to conditions which promote or retard the ability of the organism to survive in various media and which contribute or limit the spread of the organisms to a receptor. For the most part, the environment is addressed in the exposure components of the conceptual model and is pertinent to infection rather than disease. An assessment of disease incidence cannot proceed without an understanding of these factors and how they influence individual components of the model. 5.4.4.1. Risk Assessment Model Eisenberg et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) developed a methodology to assess risks to human health from pathogens in biosolids-amended soil. While many of the processes in the model are those described in this chapter (fate, transport, uptake), others may not Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 92 2/11/08 be needed. For example, Eisenberg et al. modeled the attenuation of organisms in sewage sludge, but it is just as easy to measure concentrations in biosolids as in sewage sludge. Thus, that component of their model is unnecessary. Eisenberg et al. also modeled secondary transmission, which is important for estimating the total burden of disease. However, secondary transmission of pathogens is not unique to the biosolids context, and it is not discussed in this problem formulation, which is concerned with risks of primary infection. 5.4.4.2. Role of Epidemiology Epidemiological assessments of land-applied biosolids would provide much needed information concerning the potential for adverse impact to human health following land application of biosolids. Presently, few data exist to provide insight as to whether a causative association exists between applied biosolids and adverse health effects. Temporal and spatial relationships between time of application and onset of symptoms or other indicators would identify key routes of exposure to assess the validity of the conceptual models presented here and to prioritize exposure scenarios. Epidemiological assessments would focus on studies or disease reports (clustering of illness cases) that can draw a link between those individuals living in close proximity to sites of application and members of farm families and workers who apply biosolids to determine if those individuals have a higher incidence of disease over time. Risk assessments which use epidemiological studies of sites on or near places of biosolids application would be based on the collection of several key data. First, the data should indicate whether individuals living on or near lands receiving biosolids have a higher incidence of infection compared with cohorts at more distant locations. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 93 2/11/08 Second, data should identify temporal relationships between time and duration of application and onset of symptoms. Such relationships could indicate potential route of exposure???rapid onset may suggest aerosol exposure, whereas delayed disease may indicate an alternate exposure route. Third, data should establish a concordance of symptoms which could also help to determine the route of exposure and whether a single or multiple pathogens are responsible for the effects. Collectively, this information will help to determine if there is a significant microbial risk associated with the use of Class B biosolids and, if so, to help to refine conceptual models and to identify the primary data and methods needed for the risk assessment. Additionally, epidemiological information for biosolids amendments should focus on plausible exposure scenarios and the characterization of potentially exposed cohorts. First, identifying the exposure settings provides a link between biosolids application and environmental transport of pathogens and exposure points for human contact. Second, data on potentially exposed populations should be identified using information on proximity to the site of biosolids application, climatic conditions and temporal relationships between posited exposures and the onset of infection or clinical symptoms. The selection of appropriate cohorts is important along with the availability of supporting medical information, such as isolates of pathogens and/or serology demonstrating infection within a time frame that corresponds with a plausible exposure scenario (e.g., time of application, environmental transport, exposure point, exposure route, infection, etc.). Risk assessors should be aware of the difficulties in conducting an epidemiological study of biosolids exposure. In theory, it is unlikely that land application Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 94 2/11/08 of properly treated Class B biosolids would result in adverse health impacts. Few people who are exposed are expected to become infected, and even fewer to manifest symptoms of disease. Also, various symptoms may be associated with one pathogen, and various pathogens can cause similar symptoms (Simmonds, 2005). However, a recent conference abstract indicates that an epidemiological study of biosolids exposure is underway (Heaney et al., 2007). 5.5. PLAN FOR RISK CHARACTERIZATION The analysis plan should include a plan for conducting the risk characterization, which is the phase of risk assessment that integrates the characterization of exposure and the exposure-response relationships to estimate the likelihood of health effects endpoints. 5.5.1. Screening Risk Assessment The analysis plan must describe whether the risk assessment will include a screening-level risk characterization to eliminate pathways, pathogens, or scenarios that are clearly not of concern. A screening analysis typically makes use of effects standards or benchmarks, but pathogen levels in biosolids that would result in a very low and acceptable dosage of pathogens are not available. Screening analysis can also eliminate pathways using qualitative information (e.g., obvious lack of contact between pathogens and residents in an area devoid of residences). A risk assessor with sufficient resources could develop critical distances for potential risk associated with the bioaerosol transport pathway, and thus eliminate scenarios where there are no people within the critical distance. Screening analysis is usually conducted for Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 95 2/11/08 information-rich risk assessment topics, which risk assessments for pathogens in biosolids are not expected to be. 5.5.2. Weight of Evidence If multiple lines of evidence are expected, the analysis plan should explain how these results will be weighed. For example, an unvalidated animal model might predict a certain infection rate, but epidemiological evidence might show that the only disease outbreak was probably associated with a local crop to which biosolids was not applied. In this case, the latter evidence might be given a higher weight. Each line of evidence links an exposure estimate with an effects estimate, and qualitative or quantitative weights may be given to the combined risk estimate. Evidence from measures of pathogen levels in aerosols might be weighted more than evidence from modeled estimates based on measures of biosolids-amended soils. Evidence from well designed epidemiological studies might be weighted more than evidence from rodent studies that have not been corroborated with epidemiological evidence. Suter et al. (2000) provide criteria for weighing evidence: relevance to the assessment endpoint, demonstrated relationship between exposure and response, temporal scope of evidence compared to temporal variance, spatial scope of evidence compared to spatial area of interest, data quality, number of observations and uncertainty of evidence. Given the paucity of exposure and effects data for risk assessments of land-applied biosolids, weight-of-evidence procedures may be infrequent. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 96 2/11/08 5.5.3. Uncertainty Analysis Uncertainty analysis is the component of the risk characterization that reveals the uncertainties of the exposure or risk estimate in quantitative or qualitative terms. The management goal of uncertainty analysis may be simply to describe uncertainties, to rank uncertainties or to calculate a probabilistic endpoint. In the case of pathogens in biosolids, probabilistic endpoints might be generated from variability and uncertainty in measurements of pathogens in biosolids, outputs of transport models or outputs of dose-response models. Haas et al. (1999) divided uncertainty into parameter uncertainty, which is related to measurement, and model uncertainty, which is related to the structure of the equations (e.g., whether an important factor was missing from the model). The uncertainties associated with the sampling and modeling methods are described above in the relevant sections. When new data are needed and cannot be obtained, risk pathways that cannot be assessed are a source of uncertainty and should be described in the analysis plan. Risk assessors need to distinguish between pathways that are unquantifiable and pathways that are deemed negligible based on evidence. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 97 2/11/08 6. REFERENCES Baker, J., S. Curtis, O. Hogsett et al. 1986. Safety in swine production systems. In: Pork Industry Handbook. PIH-104 Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (as cited in Smith et al., 2005a). Barbier, D., D. Perrine, C. Duhamel, R. Doublet and P. Georges. 1990. Parasitic hazard with sewage sludge applied to land. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56:1420-1422. Batie, S.S. 1983. Soil Erosion: Crisis in America's Croplands? The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. Bowman, D.D. and R. Fayer. 2005. Concerns related to protozoan and helminth parasites in biosolids and animal wastes. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 127-162 Compost Science and Utilization. Bowman, D.D., R.S. Riemers, M.D. Little, M.B. Jenkins, W.S. Bankston and M.M. Atique. 2000. Assessment and comparison of Ascaris egg and Cryptosporidium oocyst inactivation with respect to biosolids processing. In: 14th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Water Environment Federation, Alexandra, VA. Brady, N.C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Macmillan Publishing, Co., New York, NY. Brooks, J.P., B.D. Tanner, K.L. Josephson, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2004. Bioaerosols from the land application of biosolids in the desert southwest USA. Water Sci. Technol. 50:7-12. Brooks, J.P., B.D. Tanner, C.P. Gerba, C.N. Haas and I.L. Pepper. 2005a. Estimation of bioaerosol risk of infection to residents adjacent to a land applied biosolids site using an empirically derived transport model. J. Appl. Microbiol. 98:397-405. Brooks, J.P., B.D. Tanner, K.L. Josephson, C.P. Gerba, C.N. Haas and I.L. Pepper. 2005b. A national study on the residential impact of biological aerosols from the land application of biosolids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 99:310-322. Brooks, J.P., B.D. Tanner, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2006. The measurement of aerosolized endotoxin from land application of Class B biosolids in Southeast Arizona. Can. J. Microbiol. 52:150-156 (as cited in Pepper et al., 2006). Brooks, J.P., S.L. Maxwell, C. Rensing, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2007. Occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and endotoxin associated with the land application of biosolids. Can. J. Microbiol. 53:616-622. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 98 2/11/08 Brown, L.M. 2000. Helicobacter pylori: Epidemiology and routes of transmission. Epidemiol. Rev. 22:283-297. Bujoczek, G., R.S. Reiners and J.A. Olaszkiewicz. 2001. Abiotic factors affecting inactivation of pathogens in sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 44:79-84. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1999. Prevention of hepatitis A through active or passive immunization: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm. Rep. 48(RR-12):1-37. Chapron, C.D., N.A. Ballester and A.B. Margolin. 2000. The detection of astrovirus in sludge biosolids using an integrated cell culture nested PCR technique. J. Appl. Microbiol. 89:11-15. Chetochine, A.S., M.L. Brusseau, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2006. Leaching of phage from Class B biosolids and potential transport through soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:665-671. Clark, C.S., R. Rylander and L. Larsson. 1983. Levels of gram-negative bacteria, Aspergillus fumigatus, dust and endotoxin at compost plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:665-671. Dahab, M.F. and R.Y. Surampalli. 2002. Effects of aerobic and anaerobic digestion systems on pathogen and pathogen indicator reduction in municipal sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 46:181-187. DeLuca, G., F. Zanetti, P. Fateh-Moghadm and S. Stampi. 1998. Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in sewage sludge. Zentralbl Hyg Umweeltmed. 201:269-277 (as cited in Pepper et al., 2006). DeLuzio, N.R. and T.J. Friedman. 1973. Bacterial endotoxins in the environment. Nature. 224:49-51. Dorn, C.R., C.S. Reddy, D.N. Lamphere, J.V. Gaeuman and R. Lanese. 1985. Municipal sewage sludge application on Ohio farms: Health effects. Environ. Res. 38:332-359. Dowd, S.E. and S.D. Pillai. 1999. Identifying the sources of biosolid derived pathogen indicator organisms in aerosols by ribosomal DNA fingerprinting. J. Environ. Sci. Health A. 34:1061-1074. Dowd, S.E., K.W. Widmer and S.D. Pillai. 1997. Thermotolerant Clostridia as an airborne pathogen indicator during land application of biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 26:194-199. Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, I.L. Pepper and S.D. Pillai. 2000. Bioaerosol transport modeling and risk assessment in relation to biosolid placement. J. Environ. Qual. 29:343-348. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 99 2/11/08 Dupont, H., C. Chappell, C. Sterling, P. Okhuysen, J. Rose and W. Jakubowski. 1995. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum in healthy volunteers. N. Engl. J. Med. 332:855-859. Eisenberg, J.N.S., J.Q. Soller, J. Scott, D.M. Eisenberg and J.M. Colford, Jr. 2004. A dynamic model to assess microbial health risks associated with beneficial uses of biosolids. Risk Anal. 24:221-236. Eisenberg, J.N.S., J.A. Soller, J. Scott, D.M. Eisenberg and J.M. Colford, Jr. 2005. A dynamic model to assess microbial health risks associated with beneficial uses of biosolids. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 177-194. Eisenberg, J.N.S., K. Moore, J.M. Colford, Jr., J.A. Soller and D.M. Eisenberg. 2006. Application of a Dynamic Model to Assess Microbial Health Risks Associated with Beneficial Uses of Biosolids. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. 98-REM-1a. Englehardt, J. and J. Swartout. 2004. Predictive population dose-response assessment for Cryptosporidium parvum: Infection endpoint. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 67:651-666. Englehardt, J.D. and J. Swartout. 2006. Predictive Bayesian microbial dose-response assessment based on suggested self-organization in primary illness response: Cryptosporidium parvum. Risk Anal. 26:543-554. Epstein, E. 2006. Pathogens and pathogenic substances in biosolids and manures. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 3:71-77. Epstein, E. and L.H. Moss. 2006. A comparison of characteristics of manures, biosolids, and mineral fertilizers. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 3:35-42. Evanylo, G.K. 1999. Agricultural land application of biosolids in Virginia: Managing biosolids for agricultural use. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Publication Number 452-303. Ferguson, W.W. and R.C. June. 1952. Experiments on feeding adult volunteers with Escherichia coli 111 B4: A coliform organism associated with infant diarrhea. Am. J. Hyg. 55:155-169. Gale, P. 2003. Using event trees to quantify pathogen levels on root crops from land application of treated sewage sludge. J. Appl. Microbiol. 94:35-47. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 100 2/11/08 Gale, P. 2005a. Pathogens in biosolids -- microbiological risk assessment. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 177-194. Gale, P. 2005b. Land application of treated sewage sludge: Quantifying pathogen risks from consumption of crops. J. Appl. Microbiol. 98:380???396. Gale, P. and G. Stanfield. 2001. Towards a quantitative risk assessment for BSE in sewage sludge. J. Appl. Microbiol. 91:563-569. Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose and C.N. Haas. 1996. Sensitive populations: Who is at greatest risk? Intl. J. Food Microbiol. 30:113-123. Gerba, C.P., I.L. Pepper and L.F. Whitehead, III. 2002. A risk assessment of emerging pathogens of concern in the land application of biosolids. Water Sci. Technol. 46:225-230. Gerba, C.P. 2005. Enteric viruses in biosolids. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Gerba, C.P. and V. Smith, Jr. 2005. Sources of pathogenic microorganisms and their fate during land application of wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 34:42-48. Goyal, S.M., S.A. Schaub, F.M. Wellings et al. 1984. Round robin investigation of methods for recovering human enteric viruses from sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48:531-538. Gregersen, P., K. Grunnet, S.A. Uldum, B.H. Andersen and H. Madsen. 1999. Pontiac fever at a sewage treatment plant in the food industry. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 26:291-295 (as cited in Pepper et al., 2006). Guntupalli, R., R.S. Lakshmanan, J. Hu et al. 2007. Rapid and sensitive magnetoelastic biosensors for the detection of Salmonella typhimurium in a mixed microbial population. J. Microbiol. Meth. 70:112-118. Gutierrez, S. 2005. Why a workshop on emerging infectious disease agents and issues associated with animal manures, biosolids, and other similar by-products? In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 25-31. Haas, C.N., J.B. Rose and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Quantitative microbial risk assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY (as cited in Brooks et al., 2005). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 101 2/11/08 Heaney, C., W. Steven and A. Lowman. 2007. Study design features of a longitudinal investigation of acute health effects and community-level class B biosolids exposure: Subject recruitment and exposure assessment. Epidemiology. 17(6)(Suppl. S):S443-S443. Hill, A.B. 1965. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58:295-300. ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute). 2000. Revised Framework for Microbial Risk Assessment. ILSI Risk Science Institute, Washington, DC. Available at http://rsi.ilsi.org/file/mrabook/pdf. Jacques Whitford Limited. 2004. Biosolids Pellet Review Study. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Submitted to Toronto Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Available at http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/abtp_presentation2.pdf. June, R.C., W.W. Ferguson and M.T. Worfel. 1953. Experiments in feeding adult volunteers with Escherichia coli 55 B5: A coliform organism associated with infant diarrhea. Am. J. Hyg. 57:222-236. Lang, N.L., S.R. Smith, D.M. Bellett-Travers, E.B. Pike and C.L. Rowlands. 2003. Decay of Escherichia coli in soil following the application of biosolids to agricultural land. Water Environ. Manage. J. 17:23-28. Lewis, D.L. and D.K. Gattie. 2002. Pathogen risks from applying sewage sludge to land. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:287a-293a. Lewis, D.L., D.K. Gattie, M.E. Novak, S. Sanchez and C. Pumphrey. 2002. Interactions of pathogens and irritant chemicals in land-applied sewage sludges (biosolids). BMC Pub. Health. 2:11. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/11. Lubick, N. 2007. Estimating aerosolized contaminants from class B biosolids. Environmental Science and Technology Online News. Available at http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/nl_biosolids.html (accessed April 4, 2007). Lytle, D.A., E.W. Rice, C.H. Johnson and K.R. Fox. 1999. Electrophoretic mobilities of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and wild-type Escherichia coli strains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:3222-3225. McCullough, N.B. and C.W. Eisele. 1951. Experimental human salmonellosis. I. Pathogenicity of strains of Salmonella meleagridis and Salmonella anatum obtained from spray dried whole egg. J. Infec. Dis. 88:278-289. McFarland, M.J. 2000. Biosolids Engineering. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 102 2/11/08 Monroe, S.S., T. Ando and R.I. Glass. 2000. Introduction: Human ecteric caliciviruses???an emerging pathogen whose time has come. J. Infect. Dis. 181(Suppl. 2):S249-S251. Montemagno, C.D., L.L. Yeghiazarian and P. Kalita. 2004. Field Calibration and Verification of a Pathogen Transport Model. Water Environment Research Foundation, Washington, DC. 00-WSM-3. Available at http://www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Preparing_a_Report&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=22. Nappier, S.P., M.D. Aitken and M.D. Sobsey. 2006. Male-specific coliphages as indicators of thermal inactivation of pathogens in biosolids. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:2471-2475. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Biosolids applied to land: Advancing standards and practices. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nwachuku, N. and C.P. Gerba. 2004. Microbial risk assessment: Don???t forget the children. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 7:206-209. Paez-Rubio, T. and J. Peccia. 2005. Estimating solar and nonsolar inactivation rates of airborne bacteria. J. Environ. Eng. 131:612-617. Paez-Rubio, T., X. Hua, J. Anderson and J. Peccia. 2006. Particulate matter composition and emission rates from the disk incorporation of class B biosolids into soil. Atmos. Environ. 40:7034-7045. Paez-Rubio, T., A. Ramarui, J. Sommer, H. Xin, J. Anderson and J. Peccia. 2007. Emission rates and characterization of aerosols produced during the spreading of dewatered Class B biosolids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:3537-3544. Peccia, J., H.M. Werth, S. Miller and M. Hernandez. 2001. Effects of relative humidity on the ultraviolet induced inactivation of airborne bacteria. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 35:728-740 (as cited in Pillai and Ricke, 2002). Pepper, I.L., J.P. Brooks and C.P. Gerba. 2006. Pathogens in biosolids. Adv. Agron. 90:1-41. Pillai, S.D. 2007. Bioaerosols from land applied biosolids: Issues and needs. Water Environ. Res. 79:270-278. Pillai, S.D. and S.C. Ricke. 2002. Bioaerosols from municipal and animal wastes: Background and contemporary issues. Can. J. Microbiol. 48:681-696. Pillai, S.D., K.W. Widmer, S.E. Dowd and S.C. Ricke. 1996. Occurrence of airborne bacteria and pathogen indicators during land application of sewage sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:296-299. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 103 2/11/08 Rusin, P.A., S.L. Maxwell, J.P. Brooks, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2003a. Evidence for the absence of Staphylococcus aureus in land applied biosolids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:4027-4030. Rusin, P.A., S.L. Maxwell, J.P. Brooks, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2003b. Response to comment on "Evidence for the absence of Staphylococcus aureus in land applied biosolids". Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:5836. Santo Domingo, J.W., D.G. Bambie, T.A. Edge and S. Wuertz. 2007. Quo vadis source tracking? Towards a strategic framework for environmental monitoring of fecal pollution. Water Res. 41:3539-3552. Simmonds, C. 2005. Pathogens in biosolids: Risks and regulations. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 231-238. Smith, J.E., P D. Millner and N. Goldstein. 2005a. Highlights, insights, and perspectives on infectious disease agents in sewage sludge and animal manure in the United States. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 3-23. Smith, J.E., Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk. 2005b. Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Soller, J.A., J.N.S. Eisenberg, D.M. Eisenberg and J. Colford. 2006. Research Digest: Use of Risk Assessment to Evaluate Human Health Risks Associated with Pathogens in Biosolids. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. 98-REM-1b. Spicer, R.C. and J.J. Gangloff. 2000. Limitations in application of Spearman???s rank correlation to bioaerosols sampling data. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 61:362-366. Stine, S.W., I. Song, C.Y. Choi and C.P. Gerba. 2005. Effect of relative humidity on preharvest survival of bacterial and viral pathogens on the surface of cantaloupe, lettuce, and bell peppers. J. Food Protect. 68:1352-1358. Straub, T.M., I.L. Pepper and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Hazards from pathogenic microorganisms in land-disposed sewage sludge. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 132:55-91. Suter, G.W., II. 1999. Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 5:375-396. Suter, G.W., II, R.A. Efroymson, B.E. Sample and D.S. Jones. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites. Lewis Publishers/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 104 2/11/08 Tanner, B.D. 2004. Aerosolization of microorganisms and risk of infection from reuse wastewater residuals. Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (as cited in Brooks et al., 2005a). Tanner, B.D., J.P. Brooks, C.N. Haas, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2005. Bioaerosol emission rate and plume characteristics during land application of liquid Class B biosolds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:1584-1590. U.S. DOE (Department of Energy). 2006. Risk Assessment Information System. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Technical Support Document for Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Vol. II. Appendices. Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA. EPA 822/R-93-001b. Prepared for Office of Water, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Final Rules. Federal Register, Washington, DC. EPA 822/Z-93-001. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Management Staff, Washington, DC. EPA QA/G-4. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. A Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. EPA 832/B-93-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/bio/503rule/index.htm. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Vol. 1. General Factors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002fa. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/front.pdf. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA 630/R-95-002f. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA 832/R-92-013. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttbnrml/625/R-92/013.htm (as cited in NRC, 2002). U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA 822/B-00-025. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 105 2/11/08 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-02/001F. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. In: Final Agency Response to the National Research Council Report on Biosolids Applied to Land and the Results of EPA???s Review of Existing Sewage Sludge Regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. University of Washington. 2002. Using biosolids for remediation and reclamation of disturbed soils. Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Virginia Department of Health. 1999. The biosolids lifecycle. Division of Wastewater Engineering. Ward, R.L., D.L. Bernstein, E.C. Young, J.R. Sherwood, D.R. Knowlton and G.M. Schiff. 1986. Human rotavirus studies in volunteers: Determination of infectious dose and seriological response to infection. J. Infec. Dis. 154:871-880. Watkins, J. and K.P. Sleath. 1981. Isolation and enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes from sewage, sewage sludge, and river water. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 50:1-9. Wischmeier, W.H. and D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning. In: USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook No. 537, Washington, DC. Woodruff, N.P. and F.H. Siddoway. 1965. A wind erosion equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:602-608. Yanko, W.A. 2005. Bacterial pathogens in biosolids???Emerging issues. In: Contemporary Perspectives on Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J.E. Smith, Jr., P. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk, Eds. Compost Science and Utilization/The J.G. Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. p. 35-49. Zaleski, K.J., K.L. Josephson, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2005a. Survival, growth, and regrowth of enteric indicator and pathogenic bacteria in biosolids, compost, soil, and land applied biosolids. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 2:49-63. Zaleski, K.J., K.L. Josephson, C.P. Gerba and I.L. Pepper. 2005b. Potential regrowth and recolonization of Salmonellae and indicators in biosolids and biosolid-amended soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:3701-3708. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 106 2/11/08 APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW This appendix presents a literature review that summarizes the available information on microbial risks to humans posed by land-applied biosolids. The review is organized in terms of summary points, research and data gaps, relevant aspects of the NRC (2002) recommendations on biosolids, and data and information available for phases of risk assessments (e.g., fate, transport, uptake, infectivity, risk assessment, causal analysis). Although some studies of pathogens in manures may be relevant to biosolids (e.g., models of pathogen transport), investigations of these untreated materials are beyond the scope of this report. This literature review was completed prior to the other chapters in this report. SUMMARY POINTS ??? The range of pathogens that may be present in biosolids is well understood, but the current national distribution of these pathogens, the variation with type of sewage sludge treatment, and analytical methods for detecting and quantifying pathogens are not well understood or developed. ??? Many analytical methods for detecting and quantifying pathogens focus on detecting DNA sequences rather than viable cultures. ??? The use of indicator organisms to represent pathogens of concern has the potential to introduce large uncertainties into estimates of exposure. ??? Risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids have been performed, but the emphasis has been on the use of particular transport models to quantify risks from a few pathogens to individuals at a distance from particular biosolids application sites rather than the process of planning and conducting a national-scale or other broad risk assessment. A formal problem formulation for pathogens in biosolids has not been undertaken. ??? Conceptual models for human health risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids that include detailed source descriptions, transport pathways and routes of exposure have not been developed previously. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 107 2/11/08 ??? A causal association between exposures to biosolids and adverse effects on 1 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 5 8 human health has not been documented. ??? Epidemiological studies of biosolids application sites are generally lacking and are problematic to conduct. ??? Although the U.S. EPA has standard exposure factors and effects levels relevant to chemicals, some standard exposure factors and effects levels needed for risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids are not available. ??? U.S. EPA does not have a standard quantitative microbial risk assessment framework for use in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids. ??? Dose-response relationships used in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids have been derived from non-biosolids studies, and it is unclear how applicable these relationships are to biosolids, particularly for the inhalation pathway. ??? Although the science of biosolids exposure analysis is still under development, studies of effects of pathogens in biosolids are limited. ??? Little information is available to support the elimination of exposure scenarios or pathways from consideration at all sites where biosolids have been applied. Information may support the screening of exposure pathways from consideration at particular sites. ??? Bioaerosol emissions from biosolids have been studied most rigorously in Arizona; few data exist for other regions. ??? Exposure assumptions vary in existing risk assessments for bioaerosols generated from biosolids. ??? Existing risk assessment studies of pathogens in biosolids at specific sites estimate risk of infection rather than risk of disease. Many of the research and monitoring gaps related to human health risk assessments of biosolids are described in key papers and are summarized in Table A-1. These include aspects of problem formulation, exposure assessment and effects assessment. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 108 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Modeling Needs Related to Risk Assessment for Land Application of Biosolids Need Reference Stressor Characterization New national survey of pathogens in sewage sludge NRC (2002) Research on incidence of prions in biosolids Pepper et al. (2006) Research to assess utility of additional indicator microoganisms such as Clostridium perfringens NRC (2002) Research to assess metabolic status of aerosolized pathogens and environmental and biological factors that influence this metabolic state Pillai and Ricke (2002) Research to assess potential for pathogen reproduction within bioaerosols Pillai and Ricke (2002) New indicators for viruses in biosolids (judged by cited workgroup to be a medium priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Measures of Exposure (quantifying pathogens) Improvement (e.g., analytical specificity, sensitivity, accuracy), standardization, validation of detection methods for bacteria, viruses, protozoan parasites, helminthic parasites in biosolids Smith et al. (2005a), NRC (2002), U.S. EPA (2003b) Standardized methods for measuring and characterizing pathogens in bioaerosols NRC (2002), Pillai (2002) Molecular, immunological, immuno-magnetic separation and culture (IMSC) techniques for detection of low numbers of pathogens Smith et al. (2005a) Standardization and validation of assays for detecting and enumerating waterborne protozoan parasites (Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Toxoplasma, Microsporidia, Balantidium, Giardia and Entamoeba), fecal coliforms, Salmonella spp., enteric viruses and helminth eggs in biosolids matrices Smith et al. (2005a) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 109 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 (cont.) Need Reference Measurement of occurrence, survival, fate and transport of cysts of protozoans and worms/nematodes, as well as viruses or surrogates with respect to different treatment and land application scenarios Smith et al. (2005a) Evaluation of the usefulness of surrogates and models to determine presence or survival of infectious agents before and after treatment and land application Smith et al. (2005a) Measurement of antibiotic resistance determinants in bacteria in biosolids Smith et al. (2005a) Measurements of post-treatment pathogen concentrations, confirmation that Class B treatment combined with use restrictions result in below-detection pathogen concentrations NRC (2002), Gerba (2005) Creation of matrix of virus concentrations in different types of biosolids, by source of sewage sludge and type of treatment (judged by cited workgroup to be a medium priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Measures of Exposure (fate and transport) Research on the fate and transport of bioaerosols from land application or spray irrigation Smith et al. (2005a), NRC (2002) Better bioaerosol dispersion and viability models Pillai and Ricke (2002) Improved bioaerosol samplers that are designed not only for bacterial collection, but also for virus and endotoxin collection Pillai (2007) Research to assess transport and fate of viruses in land applied biosolids (judged by cited workgroup to be a medium priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Monitoring of pathogens at various points in the environmental transport process from the biosolids source to the site of exposure Eisenberg et al. (2004) Relationships between pathogen survivorship and environmental factors Eisenberg et al. (2004) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 110 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 (cont.) Need Reference Development of site-specific atmospheric dispersion models (and research supporting parameter development) to identify appropriate bioaerosol sampling locations depending on micrometeorological conditions Pillai (2007) Research on effect of harvest and grazing restrictions on pathogen fate and transport NRC (2002) Monitoring to assess potential exposures from runoff from land application of biosolids (judged by cited workgroup to be a medium priority) Parasite workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Research to assess fate of viruses most resistant to temperature and high pH treatment processes, i.e., hepatitis A and adenoviruses Pepper et al. (2006) Monitoring to assess potential for regrowth of E. coli O157:H7 after treatment processes Pepper et al. (2006) Measurement of fate of Cryptosporidium oocysts during treatment and after soil amendment in a variety of environments Pepper et al. (2006) Relevance of correlations between indicator and endpoint microorganisms in biosolids to relationships in aerosols Brooks et al. (2005b) Measures of Exposure (biotic uptake) Research to assess adequacy of 30-day waiting period for grazing following land application of Class B biosolids (judged by cited workgroup to be a medium priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Measures of Exposure (human parameters) Research on exposure of workers and off-site residents to biosolids and biosolids components (bioaerosols, dust) Smith et al. (2005a) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Information on actual ingestion and inhalation rates, as well as duration of exposure (e.g., percent of inhaled bacteria that are swallowed) Gerba and Smith (2005), Brooks et al. (2005b) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 111 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 (cont.) Need Reference Determination of route of exposure of humans to aerosolized pathogens Pillai (2007) Information on household-level transmission of pathogens Eisenberg et al. (2004) Information on human transmission of pathogens (such as non-typhi Salmonella) by inhalation of bioaerosols and associated dose-response relationships Pepper et al. (2006) Dose-Response Relationships Development of relationships between ingested doses and severity and duration of effects, including species and subspecies differences in infectivity NRC (2002) Validation of animal-derived dose-response relationships for humans NRC (2002) Tests of models used to extrapolate dose-response relationships derived at high doses to low doses NRC (2002) Development of relationships between treatment process conditions (time, temperature, pH, chemical doses, holding times), pathogen indicator concentrations and maximum acceptable pathogen concentrations NRC (2002) Research on the role of chemical irritants in affecting pathogen-related risks Lewis et al. (2002) Research on infectivity of aerosolized microbial pathogens, especially enteric pathogens Pillai and Ricke (2002), Pillai (2007) Determination of infective doses for parasites Parasite workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Research on minimum infective doses (minimum number of infectious units required to cause an infection), especially for immunocompromised individuals Lewis and Gattie (2002) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 112 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 (cont.) Need Reference Research on how different pathogen strains interact in the development of immunity Eisenberg et al. (2004) Risk Assessment Quantitative microbial risk assessment methods NRC (2002) Sensitivity analyses to determine what critical information is needed to reduce uncertainty in microbial risk assessments NRC (2002) Risk assessment of Ascaris ova, which requires data on levels of viable ova in biosolids and survival under different environmental conditions (many limits for use of agricultural land after land application of Class B biosolids are determined by survival of Ascaris ova) Pepper et al. (2006) Risk assessment on Class B biosolids and vectors (e.g., flies) for virus transmission (judged by cited workgroup to be a high priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Risk assessment for exposure of public to Class B biosolids, including scenarios where food crops are grown or harvested (judged by cited workgroup to be a high priority) Virus workgroup in Smith et al. (2005b) Population-based risk model related to biosolids properties and properties of pathogens from biosolids Eisenberg et al. (2004) Research on management alternatives such as riparian buffers Smith et al. (2005a) Validation of health risk models using epidemiological studies Pillai and Ricke (2002), Pillai (2007) Causal Analysis Demonstration of causal association between biosolids exposures and adverse health outcomes NRC (2002) Framework for establishing causation in human health investigations, including (1) studies in response to unusual exposures and unusual occurrences of disease, (2) preplanned studies to characterize exposures of workers and communities and (3) epidemiological studies of biosolids use NRC (2002) Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 113 2/11/08 TABLE A-1 (cont.) Need Reference Epidemiological studies on exposed populations such as those who apply biosolids including farmers and communities near land application sites NRC (2002), Dowd et al. (2000) Rapid response investigations of reported health effects potentially resulting from land application of biosolids U.S. EPA (2003b) from WERF Biosolids Research Summit Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 114 2/11/08 NRC RECOMMENDATIONS The NRC was asked by U.S. EPA to evaluate ???technical methods and approaches used to establish the chemical and pathogen standards for biosolids, focusing specifically on human health protection and not ecological or agricultural issues??? (NRC, 2002). NRC recognized the need to reduce uncertainty about potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids (NRC, 2002). Many of the committee???s recommendations are pertinent to a problem formulation for risk assessment of land application of biosolids. The Committee on Toxicants and Pathogens in Biosolids Applied to Land was asked to perform the following pathogen-related tasks: ??? ???Review the current standards for pathogen elimination in biosolids and their adequacy for protecting public health. Consider (a) whether all appropriate pathogens were considered in establishing the standards; (b) whether enough information on infectious dose and environmental persistence exists to support current control approaches for pathogens; (c) risks from exposure to pathogens found in biosolids; and (d) new approaches for assessing risks to human health from pathogens in biosolids.??? ??? ???Explore whether approaches for conducting pathogen risk assessment can be integrated with those for chemical risk assessment. If appropriate, recommend approaches for integrating pathogen and chemical risk assessments.??? Biosolids management practices and recent risk assessment methods were reviewed. The committee reviewed evidence of human health responses to biosolids including anecdotal allegations of disease, reviewed risk assessments and technical data used to develop pathogen standards, and examined management practices of the Part 503 rule. Peer-reviewed literature and government reports on human health effects of biosolids and treated wastewater were reviewed and described in a table in Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 115 2/11/08 the NRC report, with no attempt to verify other allegations. The committee noted that a cause and effect relationship between biosolids and adverse health effects has not been documented (NRC, 2002) (Table A-1). Overarching recommendations included: (1) supplementing technological approaches with risk assessments to establish regulatory criteria for pathogens in biosolids; (2) conducting a new national survey of pathogens in sewage sludge; and (3) developing a framework for establishing causation in human health investigations, including (a) studies in response to unusual exposures and unusual occurrences of disease, (b) preplanned studies to characterize exposures of workers and communities and (c) epidemiological studies of biosolids use NRC (2002, Table A-1). Furthermore, the committee recommended that U.S. EPA assess the reliability of biosolids treatment processes, monitor compliance with pathogen standards, conduct environmental hazard surveillance, and study human exposure and health. More specific recommendations of the NRC committee included the use of new indicator organisms, such as Clostridium perfringens in regulation of land application of biosolids (Table A-1). Moreover, the committee recommended that site restrictions, buffer zones and holding periods for applications of Class B biosolids be specific to geographic and site-specific conditions that affect fate and transport of pathogens. The committee recommends verification of site restrictions to determine if they meet their intended pathogen levels (Table A-1). Regarding risk assessment, the committee recommended that a conceptual site model should be used to identify all potential routes of exposure (NRC, 2002). The committee found that it is not yet possible to integrate pathogen risk assessment with Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 116 2/11/08 chemical risk assessment, given the data gaps and paucity of risk assessment methods for complex mixtures. Furthermore, they noted that several exposure pathways were not adequately addressed in the 1993 Part 503 pathogen requirements, including the inhalation pathway, the potential for surface-water contamination by runoff, groundwater contamination and secondary transmission of disease (NRC, 2002). In particular, pathogen transport and survival in bioaerosols is highly uncertain (Table A-1). Many of these research, monitoring and assessment gaps are included in Table A-1. PATHOGENS Extensive information is available describing pathogens that may be present in Class B biosolids as well as their potential effects. Pathogens include bacteria, enteric viruses, protozoan pathogens, helminths and others. Articles that provide detailed information on these classes of pathogens include Epstein (2006), Epstein and Moss (2006), Pepper et al. (2006), NRC (2002), Straub et al. (1993) and chapters in Smith et al. (2005b). The list of potential pathogens is long, but little information is available to eliminate particular agents. However, researchers contributing to the Smith et al. (2005b) volume selected and provided criteria for selecting the most significant bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens. Many of the articles above provide information on indicators of pathogens in biosolids. Dowd et al. (1997) recommend thermotolerant clostridia as indicators of fecal contamination in bioaerosols. Pillai et al. (1996) found that clostridia and H2S (hydrogen sulfide) producers were better indicators of airborne biosolids-derived material than traditional bacterial indicators (fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 117 2/11/08 The primary information gap related to stressor characterization is recent national-scale data on the distributions of concentrations of pathogens in biosolids, with respect to method of treatment, acceptable analytical methods for detecting and quantifying pathogens and other variables (Table A-1). Epstein and Moss (2006) cite references regarding probable numbers of fecal coliforms and Salmonella spp. in Class B biosolids. Dahab and Surampalli (2002) found that existing treatment systems do achieve Class B requirements under the US 503 rule, while Class A may not be easily achieved. Biosolids experts distinguish between traditional and emerging pathogens, and Gerba et al. (2002) reviewed the latter. A committee of experts convened at the Workshop on Emerging Infectious Disease Agents and Issues associated with Sewage Sludge, Animal Manures and Other Organic By-Products in Cincinnati, OH, June 2001, concluded that emerging pathogens do not exhibit survival or other properties that are very different from those exhibited by traditional pathogens (Smith et al., 2005a). Pepper et al. (2006) reviewed studies of various traditional and emerging pathogens and summarized which have been detected in biosolids and which have not been detected in biosolids or not studied. One recent study found that biosolids were not a likely source of Staphylococcus aureus exposure or infection (Rusin et al., 2003a). Helminths are probably the most persistent of enteric pathogens (Pepper et al., 2006; Straub et al., 1993). Little research on the survival of protozoan parasites (e.g., Cryptosporidium species, Giardia) in biosolids-amended soil has been conducted. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 118 2/11/08 It is impossible to test biosolids for all possible pathogens (Smith et al., 2005a). Enteric viruses and helminth ova have been selected as indicators of treatment efficacy because they are resistant to treatment and can be quantified (Smith et al., 2005a). Chapter 4 in Smith et al. (2005b) provides detection/analytical capabilities and recommendations for bacterial pathogens in biosolids. MEASURES OF EXPOSURE Numerous factors determine human exposure to pathogens in biosolids. These include health status of contributors, method of treatment, percent solids, friability, exposure to heat and UV. We have not conducted an exhaustive search for articles on factors that influence the fate of pathogens. The review below presents a sampling of articles on the topic. Detection of Pathogens The detection of pathogens in environmental samples such as biosolids-amended soil is inefficient. For example, Rusin et al. (2003a) had a recovery efficiency of 8.7% for Staphylococcus aureus in Class B biosolids. Organic matter and high bacterial counts reduce recovery fraction for pathogens (Rusin et al., 2003b). Decay of Pathogens Lang et al. (2003) studied the decay of E. coli in biosolids-amended sandy loam soil and quantified indigenous E. coli in control soils in the United Kingdom. Stine et al. (2005) studied survival of bacterial and viral pathogens on the surface of fruit and Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 119 2/11/08 vegetable crops, but not in a biosolids matrix. Straub et al. (1993) reviews studies of survival of pathogens in soil and sewage sludge. Lewis and Gattie (2002) assert that models typically use data from experiments from enteric organisms such as E. coli and Salmonella to estimate bacterial survival rates. They point out that these microorganisms are short-lived compared to those that form spores or are encapsulated (such as Mycobacterium spp.). Gerba et al. (2002) investigated which emerging pathogens are likeliest to survive Class B biosolids treatments. Literature was reviewed (1) relating pathogen survival to temperature and environmental variables, (2) documenting pathogen occurrence in biosolids and (3) describing dose-response models for pathogens. The study concluded that adenoviruses and hepatitis A were heat resistant viruses and therefore likely to survive long periods in the environment. Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria montocytogenes are emerging bacterial pathogens that can survive anaerobic digestion and can sometimes regrow following land application of biosolids. In contrast, the protozoan parasites microsporidia and Cyclospora would not survive under high temperatures of anaerobic digestion or under conditions of low moisture. Reactivation and Regrowth of Pathogens Zaleski et al. (2005a) asked ???Does regrowth occur following reintroduction or recolonization of pathogens after land application or during storage under favorable conditions???? The authors note that regrowth of indicator bacteria and Salmonella in biosolids has been observed under certain moisture, temperature and substrate conditions, and when indigenous bacteria are low. Moreover, pathogens in biosolids Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 120 2/11/08 may be reduced if they are stored at certain moisture and temperature ranges. In biosolids-amended soils, increased moisture may lead to survival and regrowth of bacterial pathogens. In one study the use of concrete-lined beds for storage during desiccation allowed moisture from rainfall to accumulate in the beds, leading to growth of fecal coliforms and salmonellae added from external sources (Zaleski et al., 2005b). Furthermore, survival rates of bacteria are higher in soil of finer textures (Zaleski et al., 2005a). Aerial Transport of Pathogens Pathogens have rarely been measured in biosolid aerosols (Table A-1). Pillai and Ricke (2002) reviewed factors controlling bioaerosol transport, as well as bioaerosol sampling methods and culture-based approaches to the detection and characterization of specific components of bioaerosols. Brooks et al. (2004) measured bioaerosol emissions during land application of Class B biosolids in the region of Tucson, AZ. The objective was to develop empirical models of the fate and transport of bioaerosols. Pathogens and indicator bacteria were only rarely found in aerosolized samples. These included coliforms and coliphages, which were present at high densities in biosolids, and animal viruses, which were not detected in biosolids. Clostridum perfringens was detected only in a small fraction of aerosol samples, but these were present under various weather conditions. The authors suggest that only microorganisms in the aqueous phase of biosolids were able to aerosolize; others remained sorbed to the solid phase (Brooks et al., 2004). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 121 2/11/08 In another study, Brooks et al. (2006) measured aerosolized endotoxin concentrations downwind of a single biosolids-amended site. Levels were generally within limits previously proposed in occupational exposure studies, though peak concentrations occasionally exceeded these limits. Levels of endotoxin in aerosolized soil were sometimes above those associated with biosolids amended-soil, calling into question whether biosolids were the primary source of the endotoxin. Additional studies of bioaerosol transport that included a risk assessment component are described in the section on risk assessment. Tanner et al. (2005) determined bioaerosol emission rates and plume characteristics during spray application of liquid Class B biosolids. They did not detect coliphages or coliform bacteria just downwind of the biosolids application (approximately a 2-m distance away), though bacteria that had been added to groundwater and sprayed were detected. The researchers concluded that the presence of biosolids reduces aerosolization of microorganisms relative to application of inoculated groundwater. Even if bacteria had been present below detection limits, the duration of exposure to any pathogens just downwind of biosolids application would be expected to be brief because of the moving applicator (Tanner et al., 2005). Paez-Rubio et al. (2006) investigated the content of bioaerosols produced during the disking of biosolids on an application site in Central Arizona. Biosolids source emission factors (number of microorganisms or mass of biotoxins per area) and emission rates (number of microorganisms or mass of biotoxins per time) were measured for total bacteria, culturable heterotrophic bacteria (HPC), total coliforms, sulfite-reducing Clostridia, and endotoxin, as well as PM10. The authors presented a Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 122 2/11/08 correlation between microbial concentrations emitted during disking and their content in biosolids. Disking was determined to be a ???substantial source of biosolids-derived aerosols??? and might be of greater potential concern than other application methods. The emission rate during disking of biosolids was greater than rates that had been measured during spreading of dewatered biosolids by side slinger or spraying of liquid biosolids. For example, total coliform emissions during disking were about two times greater than emissions associated with spreading dewatered biosolids and at least two orders of magnitude greater than maximum emission rates reported by Tanner et al. (2005) during spraying of liquid biosolids (Paez-Rubio et al., 2006). The authors provide a framework for reconstructing aerosol concentrations and emission rates. In a related study, Paez-Rubio et al. (2007) measured bioaerosol emission rates from the spreading of Class B biosolids with a side-slinging applicator in Arizona. Concentrations of pathogens in bioaerosols were reconstructed from concentrations in bulk biosolids and PM10. Aerosol emission rates of several bacterial indicators were correlated with their concentrations in bulk biosolids. Aerosol emission rates of dewatered biosolids were one to two orders of magnitude higher than those reported for liquid biosolids. Diameters of emitted particles suggest that most were inhalable and possibly respirable. The authors assert that their work ???move[s] aerosol studies beyond indicator measurements by estimating specific toxic compound or pathogen aerosol concentrations based on more easily obtained PM10 measurements and bulk biosolids analysis???where detection limits are much lower due to the large sample size possible.??? J. Peccia, one of the authors, notes that rates of recovery of pathogens in aerosols that are reported in the literature are currently only about 10% (Lubick, 2007). The authors Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 123 2/11/08 acknowledge that the relationship between source emission rates and bulk biosolids concentration that they present is limited to the type of spreader they used (i.e., a ???ProTwin Slinger??? side discharge spreader, the most common spreader for biosolids of the 20%-30% solids content range). Leaching to Groundwater A review of the literature has concluded that few pathogens from biosolids leach to groundwater (Pepper et al., 2006). For example, Chetochine et al. (2006) measured the numbers and leaching potential of coliphage MS-2, specific to E. coli, from Class B biosolids. Much of the phage was sorbed to or associated with solid particles. Following serial extraction, less than 8% of the phage initially present in the biosolids leached from biosolids-amended soil. The phage was not appreciably retained in a column containing a sandy porous medium. Y. Jin, J. Sims and K. Kniel of the University of Delaware were awarded a USDA grant from 2006 to 2009 to study the fate and transport of viruses in biosolids and their potential to contaminate groundwater and foodcrops as a result of land application of biosolids. Erosion and Surface Runoff We did not find information on these mechanisms of transport of pathogens in biosolids. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 124 2/11/08 Pathogens on Crops Studies of pathogens on crops are described in the section on risk assessment. Also, the USDA grant described above that was awarded to Y. Jin, J. Sims and K. Kniel of the University of Delaware includes an investigation of the contamination of crops. RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Assessment Process Risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids have been performed by various investigators, but the emphasis has been on the use of particular transport models to quantify exposure and risk, rather than the process of planning and conducting a broad risk assessment. One recent risk assessment of biosolids application found that the science of assessing risk from environmental exposure to biological agents, as well as acceptable levels is ???under development at the present time??? (Jacques Whitford Limited, 2004). Therefore, the focus of that study was altered from the quantification of risk to the effectiveness of a pelletization process to destroy biological agents of potential concern. Soller et al. (2006) described general methods for conducting health risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids that were developed as part of a Water Environment Research Foundation project. The methods included characteristics of an infectious disease process, including the consideration of multiple transmission pathways and the presence of immunity. Soller et al.???s framework for evaluating human risks associated with microbes in biosolids included an exposure characterization component (quantifying pathogen levels in the environment) and a health effects Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 125 2/11/08 component. A schematic diagram displayed several Class A and Class B sludge treatment processes as well as environmental variables affecting exposure (time, temperature and moisture). They described the tradeoff between site-specific monitoring data and more general data on treatment effectiveness and fate and transport of pathogens from points earlier in the waste stream. A conceptual health effects model was also included in the report. This model, first published in Eisenberg et al. (2004), contained six epidemiological states: (1) susceptible state, (2) exposed state (asymptomatic and infectious), (3) carrier state 1 (asymptomatic but infectious, (4) diseased state, (5) carrier state 2 (previously symptomatic, now asymptomatic and infectious) and (6) protected state (postinfectious and noninfectious and some level of immunity). Soller et al. (2006) also included a table of data required to parameterize a basic health effects model. Although Soller et al. (2006) included information and diagrams useful for developing a problem formulation for pathogens in biosolids, they did not organize it as a problem formulation. These elements are found in the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998). The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) developed a framework for microbial risk assessment related to human exposures to waterborne pathogens (ILSI, 2000). The framework describes the stages of risk assessment, including problem formulation, but without providing or citing scientific advice regarding particular pathogens or exposure pathways. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 126 2/11/08 Bioaerosol Pathways One of the primary research needs identified by the NRC was human exposure to pathogens in bioaerosols (NRC, 2002). Researchers at the University of Arizona conducted a major study to help understand community and worker risk of infection from bioaerosols, as well as to develop methods for modeling transport of pathogens and human exposure (Brooks et al., 2004, 2005a,b, 2006). Prior to that study, the same group of researchers studied bioaerosols in West Texas (Dowd et al., 2000). Conclusions were that community risks were relatively negligible, with worker risks somewhat higher. Dowd et al. (2000) sampled bioaerosols emitted from anaerobically digested, dewatered biosolids applied in west Texas. The study generated bacterial and virus release rates from large biosolids piles where they were stored prior to application and fields where biosolids were sprayed. Levels of Salmonella and an indicator virus (coliphage) were measured. The ratio between the concentration of indicator virus in aerosols and the concentration in biosolids was used to estimate a value for airborne enteric virus (Coxsackievirus). Microbial transport models (a point source model and an aerial source model) were used to generate downwind concentrations. Dose-response models were used to estimate risk to workers on site and nearby residents at least 10 km away. The pathway was assumed to consist of inhalation and swallowing of the pathogen. The single hit exponential model [p = 1 ??? exp (-rN)] was used to describe the probability of infection by Coxsackievirus B3, and the Beta-distribution model (p = 1 ??? [1 + (N/??)(21/??-1)]-??) was used to describe the risk of infection by Salmonella serovar Typhi, where p = probability of infection, N = number of organisms inhaled, ?? is the ID50, and ?? Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 127 2/11/08 and r are parameters that describe the dose-response curve. Under one of the wind speeds in the study (2 m/s), the risk of bacterial and viral infection of workers exposed for one hour at a distance of 100 m is 2E-2 and 3E-2, respectively. Under these conditions, residents at 10 km from the biosolids source were found to be at no risk from aerosolized viruses and low risk of infection from bacteria (2E-4). Under some more moderate and high wind conditions, especially where exposures were for 8 hours or more at distances of 500 m or less from the source, risks of infection of workers (or others) from bioaerosols were close to 1.0. The authors indicated that several sources of conservatism must be considered when evaluating these risk estimates (e.g., the wind does not always come from the same direction, Dowd et al., 2000). Citing comments by Brooks et al. (2004) on the improved efficiency of modern wastewater treatment plants, Pepper et al. (2006) argue that a more realistic estimate of infectivity is five orders of magnitude lower than Dowd???s worst case estimates. Brooks et al. (2005b) undertook a study to estimate risks of microbial infection of residents near biosolids application sites. At 10 sites throughout the U.S. that were amended with either liquid or solid Class B biosolids (five sites in Arizona, two in Washington state, one in Virginia, one in Texas and one in Illinois), they measured HPC bacteria, total coliform bacteria, E. coli, Clostridium perfringens, coliphage, enteroviruses, hepatitis A virus and noravirus in aerosol samples downwind from application sites. The study distinguished between loading, unloading, land application and background operations. In general, risks of infection were determined to be low, with the greatest risk of infection, 4 ?? 10-4, from coxsackievirus A21 released during loading operations. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 128 2/11/08 Brooks et al. (2005b) cited a dissertation of Tanner (2004) in reporting that the risk of infection to a biosolids handler can reach as high as 34% annually from exposure to coxsackievirus A21 and 2% annually from exposure to Salmonella species. This study assumed exposure on a daily basis (250 days per year). Brooks et al. (2005a) developed an empirical transport model for viruses aerosolized during land application of liquid biosolids. Data were generated from collections of bioaerosols in field tests with coliphage MS-2 added to water and sprayed with a biosolids spray application truck. Risks of infection for residents adjacent to land application sites were also calculated at 10-7 (realistic) to 10-5. Conservative annual risks were calculated at no more than seven times that value. A second goal of the study was to develop a transport model for bacteria, but E. coli used in the study did not typically survive the aerosolization process. Based on Brooks??? studies, Pepper et al. (2006) concludes that overall community risk of infection from bioaerosols during land application was relatively negligible. Occupational risk during land application were higher than community risks but were still low (Brooks et al., 2004). Pillai (2007) cautions against extrapolating these results to different source materials, regions or even parts of a region. Pathogens in biosolids might be more desiccated or inactivated from exposure to ultraviolet light than in other parts of the country. In a study of bioaerosol emission rates from the spreading of Class B biosolids in Arizona, measured source endotoxin concentrations were greater than reported conservative thresholds for mucous membrane irritation, and most exceeded the threshold for acute bronchial constriction (Paez-Rubio et al., 2007). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 129 2/11/08 Groundwater Pathways Based on a review of the literature such as Chetochine et al. (2006, above), Pepper et al. (2006) conclude that groundwater contamination from land-applied biosolids is not likely, and therefore human health risks are likely negligible. By extension, pathways by which pathogens in groundwater may contaminate land or surface water via springs or other interactions are also unlikely to be significant for pathogens from biosolids. Ingestion of Soil Gerba et al. (2002) used a beta-Poisson model from Haas et al. (1999, P = 1 - [1 + N/??-??]) to assess the risk of infection and illness from enteric viruses following land application of Class B biosolids, assuming that exposure was from ingestion of biosolids-amended soil. They focused on rotavirus and echovirus 12. Gerba et al. (2002) determined that direct ingestion of biosolids, if they were spread across the surface of the soil, would result in an annual risk from a one time exposure exceeding 1 ?? 10-4. They assumed no natural attenuation of virus. Injection of biosolids into the soil results in a risk below this level. Consumption of Vegetation Most of the information on risks from the crop ingestion pathway is from the United Kingdom. Consumption of root crops is assumed to represent the worst case scenario because they contain higher proportions of soil than leafy crops and they are often consumed uncooked (Gale, 2005a). Gale (2003) estimated the exposure of root Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 130 2/11/08 crops to Cryptosporidium and Salmonella species from biosolids applied to agricultural land in accordance with the United Kingdom???s Safe Sludge Matrix. An approach using event trees combined with empirical data was used to estimate pathogen levels in raw sewage sludge, in treated sludge and biosolids mixed with topsoil and root crops. Expert opinion suggested that up to 2% of root crops by weight may be soil at the point of harvest. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to model variation in salmonella levels on root crops, assuming a Poisson-log-normal distribution of bacterial counts. Gale (2005b) conducted risk assessments to estimate the number of humans in the United Kingdom at risk from consumption of root crops obtained from areas where biosolids were applied according to the Safe Sludge Matrix regulations. (Gale [2005a] presents a subset of that study.) Seven classes of pathogens were the focus of the study: salmonellas, Listeria monocytogenes, campylobacters, Escherichia coli O157, Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia and enteroviruses. The study showed that if linear decay were assumed to occur and if the treatment process (mesophilic anaerobic digestion or MAD) were assumed to be 100% efficient, potential risks from the seven classes of pathogens were essentially eliminated. If pathogen decay in treated soil was assumed not to occur, then 50 Giardia infections were expected in the United Kingdom and less than one infection per year resulting from the other six pathogens. Also if the MAD process was 99% or lower, substantially more infections from Giardia and possibly E. coli O157 were predicted. Gale and Stanfield (2001) calculated risks to humans from consumption of vegetable crops contaminated with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 131 2/11/08 sewage sludge in the United Kingdom. Pepper et al. (2006) identified the incidence of prions in biosolids as a research priority in the U.S. (Table A-1). Proliferation of Antibiotic Resistance In addition to risks to human health from specific pathogens, another relevant indirect health issue is the possible proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The potential risk is that human pathogenic strains become resistant to overused antibiotics, which can no longer treat the pathogen. Pepper et al. (2006) ask the question ???Can antibiotic resistant genes be transferred from nonpathogenic bacteria to human pathogenic strains???? Brooks et al. (2004) and Brooks et al. (2007) concluded that Class B biosolids had an equal or lower incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria compared to unamended soil. The NRC (2002) did not ???believe that land-applied biosolids have any substantial potential to alter the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among pathogenic organisms.??? Infectivity Gerba and Smith (2005) describe broad risk assessment principles for land application of wastes based on a quick review of the literature, as well as their own experience and expertise. They note that information on infectivity of enteric pathogens is available from many human feeding or inhalation studies. Dose-response data suggest that a threshold infectious dose does not exist for enteric pathogens (Gerba and Smith, 2005). Infectivity of enteric viruses is greater than infectivity of enteric bacteria. Of known human enteric viruses, rotavirus is the most Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 132 2/11/08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 infectious, causing 10-15% of those ingesting the virus to become infected. Half of the people infected with an enteric pathogen become ill. Mortality is typically less than 1%, but greater for infants, young children, the elderly and immunocompromised people (Gerba and Smith, 2005). Nwachuku and Gerba (2004) address the susceptibility of children to pathogens, including increased sensitivity and increased exposure. Reasons that children are at greater potential risk from pathogens in biosolids are ??? immature immune system; ??? intestinal mucosa more permeable to water; ??? proportionally less extracellular fluid than adults; ??? physiological deficiency in IgA; ??? reduced stomach acid and pepsin secretion. For example, children appear to be the most sensitive population to enteroviruses. Studies have not been conducted to estimate relative infectivity of enteric pathogens for children and adults. However, reduced stomach acid and pepsin secretion could make children more likely to be infected than adults for a given dose. Disease Risk Empirical studies of biosolids do not estimate disease risk. However, risks of disease might be assumed to be 10% that of infectious risk, though this quantity varies with microorganism (Haas et al., 1999). Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 133 2/11/08 Dynamic Risk Model Eisenberg et al. (2004) developed a deterministic, dynamic model for estimating risks from pathogens in biosolids. In addition to infectivity, their model considered person-to-person transmission, immunity, asymptomatic infection and incubation period. The model contains six disease states: (1) susceptible state, (2) exposed state (asymptomatic and infectious), (3) carrier state 1 (asymptomatic but infectious), (4) diseased state, (5) carrier state 2 (previously symptomatic, now asymptomatic and infectious) and (6) protected state (postinfectious and noninfectious and some level of immunity). Processes that were not accounted for include climate, behavior and various environmental factors that are not well understood. Three types of risks were estimated: individual-level single event risk, individual-level annual risk and population level attributable risk (Eisenberg et al., 2006). The model was demonstrated in a case study involving the direct ingestion of enterovirus. Sensitivity analysis of simulations in the case study showed that the four most important factors in determining the risk attributable to biosolids were (1) the relative contribution of biosolids toward exposure, relative to other pathways; (2) the rate of pathogen shedding by infectious people; (3) the rate of person-to-person transmission and (4) immunity. Risk attributable to biosolids was ???low??? if the rate of pathogen shedding was relatively high or low or if person-to-person transmission was relatively ???high.??? These were not necessarily intuitive results. The simulations resulted in a decision tree for classifying risk associated with biosolids as high or low. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 134 2/11/08 EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS U.S. EPA does not have standard exposure factors for use in risk assessments of pathogens in biosolids. Risk assessment results described above are highly dependent on human exposure factors, and these vary from study to study. For example, because human transmission of aerosols containing Salmonella has not been demonstrated, researchers make different assumptions about the percentage of inhaled particles that would be ingested. Pepper et al. (2006) describe studies that use 10%, and Brooks et al. (2005b) uses 50%. Very little information is available that would allow us to compare the relative importance of different exposure pathways. Academic studies tend to emphasize a single exposure pathway rather than a comparison of multiple pathways. Many studies have found low risk. For example, a British study by Gale (2005b) concluded that risk to human health from consumption of vegetation crops contaminated with pathogens in biosolids is low. Moreover, a study of bioaerosols in Arizona found that risk of infection of residents from bioaerosols generated during land application of biosolids was rather negligible at 10 km, though if residents were assumed to reside closer, estimated risks would have been higher (Brooks et al., 2005b; Pepper et al., 2006). Based on a review of the literature, Pepper et al. (2006) conclude that ???groundwater contamination from land-applied biosolids does not appear to be likely.??? Moreover, it is argued that regrowth of pathogens in biosolids-amended soil may be ignored because of the biological competition in Class B biosolids (Pepper et al., 2006; Zaleski et al., 2005a,b). However, insufficient information is available to ignore particular exposure pathways at all sites. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 135 2/11/08 CAUSAL ANALYSIS ???Causal association between biosolids exposures and adverse health outcomes has not been documented??? (NRC, 2002). Lewis et al. (2002) recorded symptoms reported by 48 residents near 10 biosolids application sites in the U.S. and Canada. The wide range of symptoms included various combinations of coughing, burning eyes, sore throat, burning lungs, headache, congestion, difficulty breathing, flu-like symptoms, fever, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, sinusitis, staphylococcal infection, pneumonia, skin rash, nosebleed and fatigue. The researchers did not establish cause and effect between biosolids and reported adverse effects. They speculated that chemical contaminants in biosolids might irritate the skin and mucous membranes and thus increase pathogen host susceptibility (Lewis et al., 2002). Dorn et al. (1985) conducted a health effects study of 47 biosolids application sites (annual applications) and 46 control sites on farms in Ohio. Estimated risks of respiratory illness, digestive problems or other general symptoms did not differ between biosolids and non-biosolids farms. The authors cautioned readers when considering the results in the context of larger acreages, higher application rates or biosolids containing larger concentrations of pathogens. NRC (2002) summarized studies of sewer workers and others exposed to raw sewage to identify potential hazards from biosolids. The committee also summarized a survey study in which workers who loaded, unloaded and applied Class B biosolids had a history of gastrointestinal illness. However, it was later determined that the biosolids did not meet Class B requirements. Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 136 2/11/08 Draft: Do Not Cite or Quote 137 2/11/08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Simmonds et al. (2005) describe the difficulties of conducting an epidemiological study of biosolids exposure. Few people who are exposed are expected to become infected, and even fewer to manifest symptoms of disease. Also, various symptoms may be associated with one pathogen, and various pathogens can cause similar symptoms. A recent abstract indicates that a health effects study of biosolids exposure is underway (Heaney et al., 2007). From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 26 13:13:35 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:13:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> WERF looks for research to limit endocrine disruptors in wastewater Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Water Environment Research Foundation is issuing a request for proposals for research that will reduce of remove endocrine disrupting compounds from the wastewater treatment stream. Sludge Watch has some suggestions for free: 1. Ban the use of endocrine disrupting cleaner agents like Nonylphenol (NP) and NPE in detergents 2. Ban the disposal of drugs into the toilet (a common requirement at nursing homes and hospitals) 3. Develop alternative sanitation methods for new subdivisions that uses waterless toilets. ....................................... WERF Issues RFP for Trace Organics Research September 26, 2008 The Water Environment Research Foundation announced a request for proposals (RFP) for research that will reduce or remove trace organic compounds from the liquid wastewater treatment stream. The research will allow wastewater agencies to apply site-specific processes in their treatment facilities. Trace organic compounds (TOrC) generally encompass endocrine disruptors and other pharmaceuticals and personal care products. In this project, researchers will identify the suite of TOrC they will use as indicator compounds in their research. Researchers should justify their selection and demonstrate the ability to reliably analyze these compounds in wastewater. The research will inform the wastewater treatment and the regulatory communities on a number of fronts. First, it must identify missing empirical information on the fates of specific TOrC during conventional wastewater treatment. It must explain the functional relationships between process variables and TOrC fate in conventional treatment. Finally, the research must provide predictive models relating compound removal efficiency to process operational variables and compound-specific physical/chemical parameters. WERF expects that first-generation models will be basic. It will seek model refinement as the scientific community gains more understanding of the fates of additional TOrC during wastewater treatment. Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. (EDT), Nov. 11. Go to www.werf.org to access the complete request for proposals. WERF program manager Lola Olabode can provide more information, lolabode at werf.org. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 26 15:05:50 2008 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:05:50 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> West Virginia man charged with battery for farting at police Message-ID: Sludge Watch Admin: There may be hope for residents of West Virginia who are assaulted by stink and malodor from sludge spread farms or storage sites. In West Virigina this week a man has been charged with battery on a police officer for allegedly farting in the officer's direction. See the story below: ............................................. DUI suspect who farted at police officer charged with battery Associated Press Article Launched: 09/25/2008 11:27:55 AM PDT SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. ??? A West Virginia man who police said passed gas and fanned it toward a patrolman has been charged with battery on a police officer. Jose A. Cruz, 34, of Clarksburg, was pulled over early Tuesday for driving without headlights, police said. According to the criminal complaint, Cruz smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyzer test. As Patrolman T.E. Parsons prepared the machine, Cruz scooted his chair toward Parsons, lifted his leg and "passed gas loudly," the complaint said. Cruz, according to complaint, then fanned the gas toward the officer. "The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Patrolman Parsons," the complaint alleged. He was also charged with driving under the influence, driving without headlights and two counts of obstruction. Cruz acknowledged passing gas, but said he didn't move his chair toward the officer nor aim gas at the patrolman. He said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he first arrived at the station. "I couldn't hold it no more," he said. He also denied being drunk and uncooperative as the police complaint alleged. He added he was upset at being prepared for a breathalyzer test while having an asthma attack. The police statement said he later resisted being secured for a trip to a hospital that he requested for asthma treatment. Cruz said the officers thought the gas incident was funny when it happened and laughed about it with him. "This is ridiculous," he said. "I could be facing time." http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10556987?source=most_viewed