From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 1 09:07:49 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:07:49 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sludge toxins: Alabama Public Meeting Will Hear Perfluorochemical Test Results Message-ID: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2009/2009-05-31-091.asp Alabama Public Meeting Will Hear Perfluorochemical Test Results DECATUR, Alabama, May 31, 2009 (ENS) - High levels of toxic perfluorochemicals found in agricultural soils near Decatur have led federal government scientists to investigate whether the chemicals have entered the human food chain and contaminated meat and milk. They already have been found in several private drinking water wells. The chemicals entered the soil as biosolids from the Decatur Utilities wastewater treatment plant that were applied as a soil amendment on about 5,000 acres of privately owned agricultural fields in three counties near Decatur. Testing is still ongoing, but to date, the chemicals have been found in six local drinking water wells but not in public water supply systems. On Tuesday, June 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will host a public meeting at the recreation center in Moulton, Alabama, 18 miles southwest of Decatur, to inform residents about the status of the investigation of perfluorochemical contamination. Representatives from the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Alabama Departments of Environmental Management, Agriculture and Industries, and Public Health, and Decatur Utilities will participate in the meeting. A public availability session will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 pm to answer residents? questions individually. The public meeting will be held from 7:00 to 8:00 pm, and there will be an opportunity for additional questions and answers at the conclusion of the meeting. Perfluorochemicals are used as fire-fighting foams, personal care and cleaning products; and stain, grease and water repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather and paper. Several Decatur area industries manufacture PFCs or use the chemicals in their manufacturing processes and the Decatur Utilities plant receives wastewater from some of these facilities. In 2007, one of the manufacturers notified the EPA that it had unknowingly discharged perfluorochemicals to the Decatur Utilities wastewater treatment plant. This action led EPA to begin an investigation to determine if the biosolids were contaminated and if the land application of the biosolids had resulted in a potential discharge of the chemicals into the environment. An Alabama field. Sewage sludge can be spread on fields as a fertilizer. (Photo credit unknown) Clean Water Act rules allow biosolids to be land applied as a soil amendment and fertilizer as long as monitoring for regulated chemicals is performed. But perfluorochemicals are a class of manufactured chemicals that, in most cases, are not regulated by the EPA and therefore the testing of biosolids for these chemicals is typically not required. In this case, the EPA is still investigating. From November 2008 through February 2009, the agency collected and analyzed samples of public drinking water, private wells and ponds, and soil near the fields with the highest levels of biosolids application to better understand human and environmental exposures. The EPA has established drinking water Provisional Health Advisories for two of the perfluorochemicals - perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA also known as C8, and perfluorooctyl sulfonate, PFOS. These Provisional Health Advisory levels were set at 0.4 parts per billion for PFOA, and 0.2 ppb for PFOS. Four of six private drinking water wells tested exceeded the Provisional Health Advisory for PFOA, and the residents were provided with bottled water and then connected to the public water supply system. Regarding soil contamination, in October 2008, results from the EPA Office of Research and Development on soil and sludge samples collected from two of the biosolids application sites and from the Decatur Utilities facility indicated relatively high levels of perfluorochemicals. Decatur Utilities decided to stop land application of biosolids in November 2008 after learning of these levels. In March, 30 soil samples were taken near high biosolids fields. Test results are expected in June. In the Decatur area, several companies now manufacture or have manufactured perfluorochemicals. According to a 2007 article in the American Chemical Society journal "Environmental Science and Technology, 3M produced PFOA at its Decatur plant from 1999 to 2000, and PFOA was used by Dyneon LLC, a wholly owned 3M subsidiary, until 2004. In 2004, several Decatur residents who lived near the 3M plant filed suit against 3M alleging that environmental tests revealed high levels of perfluorinated chemicals in their soil. Also in 2004, EPA officials signed an agreement with 3M and Dyneon in which the companies agreed to monitor soils on their property and other potential sources of the perfluorochemicals. In 2007, a 3M spokesman told Environmental Science and Technology that that the company managed its own industrial wastes, and process wastewater did not enter the public system. But, Daikin America, the other major Decatur perfluorochemical manufacturer, discharged process wastewater to the municipal waste treatment plant in the past, Daikin spokesperson Marilyn Irving-VanOrden told the journal. In January 2008, Daikin Industries head office in Osaka, Japan announced that by the end of 2012 Daikin and its subsidiaries intend to stop manufacturing, using and selling water and oil repellent products made using perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA is a toxicant and carcinogen in animals, persistent in the environment, and is detected in the blood of Americans in the low parts per billion range, where it has been linked to infertility. In people with higher exposures, PFOA is linked to birth defects, increased cancer rates, and changes to lipid levels and the immune system. PFOA has been detected in industrial waste and consumer products including stain resistant carpets, microwave popcorn bags, and food packaging. PFOA is also found in food and water. The 3M Company also is the largest worldwide producer of PFOS chemicals. 3M stopped manufacturing PFOS chemicals in December 2000 because of concerns about their persistence in the environment and long-term health and environmental effects. PFOS does not biodegrade in the environment and the occcurrence of perfluorooctane sulfonate in the tissues of humans and wildlife is well documented. At present, there are no federal guidance values for perfluorochemicals for livestock watering, meat or milk consumption, surface waters or soils. The drinking water guidance values do not represent values that may pose a risk to livestock or to human consumption of meat, milk or exposure to soils. Currently, the USDA and FDA are conducting an investigation of the potential impact of the perfluorochemical contamingation on livestock and food products in the Decatur area. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 1 14:12:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:12:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> 5 Ways to Turn Poop Into Power Message-ID: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=7687292&page=1 5 Ways to Turn Poop Into Power Gasification System in Florida is Latest Project to Convert Waste Into Energy By KI MAE HEUSSNER May 27, 2009? Could poop power your home some day? Well, Sanford, Fla., and MaxWest Environmental Systems Inc. of Texas have teamed up to convert the city's stream of wastewater sludge into renewable energy. The goal is to take everything the good people of Sanford send down their toilets and sinks and turn it into energy, instead of sending it to landfills. The city dries 30 tons of sludge daily with a natural gas-powered dryer and then hauls the biosolids off-site for disposal. But under a new $3.5 million gasification system, the sludge will be converted into thermal energy, which will replace the natural gas to power the dryer. The new system is not only greener, it could also save the city $9 to $14 million for the life of the 20-year contract, according to MaxWest. "There are a variety of disposal systems. The traditional ones have been to dump it ... or put it in a landfill," said Bill Baker, vice president of marketing for Houston-based MaxWest. "We don't know of any other gasification system in North America operating on sludge." Energy From Waste Could Power 1,500 Homes In two years, the company hopes the same technology used in a different part of the state will create enough power to supply the needs for 1,500 homes. "The primary driver is to get rid of a tremendous amount of horse muck -- manure, straw and wood chips -- used in the thoroughbred industry," Baker said of the project in Florida's Ocala County. Using the same gasification system, the company intends to produce about 10 megawatts of power, which will be sold to the local power grid. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist with the New York City-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said that although there have been attempts to gasify waste and convert it to energy, they've generally been smaller-scale research and development projects. "We don't have a lot of experience with the gasification of biosolids for energy recovery," he said. Although he was not familiar with the details of the Sanford project, he said it seems to be an innovative approach as long as toxic prevention controls are also in place. Projects Across the World Experiment With Poop Power A range of pollutants, such as copper, cadmium and chromium, could result from the gasification process, he said. But with proper controls and oversight, they could be contained. MaxWest's Baker said the gasification facility uses industry-standard clean technology to capture toxins released during the process. He also said the system is engineered to mitigate the polluting emissions and that many chemicals are destroyed by the sustained time at high temperatures. "This is a technology that is needed," scientist Hershkowitz said. "They do have some energy value and if we could recover energy from it and also reduce the mobilization of pollutants, that might be associated that would be a good thing." Although MaxWest's gasification system is new to the United States, many others around the country, and around the world, are experimenting with poop-to-power projects. Here are four examples. Anaerobic Digesters Turn Waste Into Energy Phil Zahreddine, a branch chief with the Environmental Protection Agency, said that although gasification is not common in the United States, it could prove to be one more way to cut back on fossil fuel. "There's a big tendency in the United States and Europe and the rest of the world to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy," he said. One of the more common methods of harvesting energy from waste is using anaerobic digesters. This process uses organisms to break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen to produce biogas. That biogas is then used to power electric-generation equipment, like fuel cells or micro turbines. Of about 16,000 public wastewater plants in the country, Zahreddine said 544 use anaerobic digesters. Of those, 106 use the biogas for heating processes or electricity. "What is interesting is that as more projects are coming online and the technology is becoming more efficient, these options are becoming more attractive to facilities," he said. Waste 'Electrifies' City of Los Angeles Los Angeles was recognized last month for its own project to turn biosolids into clean energy. Named as a semi-finalist for the 2009 Award for Innovations in American Government by the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the Terminal Island Renewable Energy (or TIRE) project involves injecting sludge into a mile-deep well. At that depth, Earth's high temperature biodegrades the organic compounds to create methane gas. The process also traps greenhouse gases and prevents them from damaging the atmosphere. By 2012, the project is expected to produce about 3,500 kilowatts of renewable power, which could power thousands of homes. "This renewable energy project is absolutely electrifying," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said to the Los Angeles Times. "It will save money and make money." California Dairy Runs Trucks on Manure Earlier this year, Hilarides Dairy in California said it converted a pair of 18-wheelers to run on cow manure. The dairy uses manure produced by 10,000 cows to generate 226,000 cubic feet of biomethane. Methane is a natural byproduct of the process that breaks down sewage. "For us, it made sense to invest in this technology. Now we can utilize the dairy's potential to power our trucks, in addition to generating electricity for our operations," Rob Hilarides, owner of the dairy, told The Christian Science Monitor. "This will significantly reduce our energy costs and give us some protection from volatile energy prices." To produce the fuel, the manure and other waste from the cows' stalls are flushed into a lagoon where bacteria breaks it down. Methane is then pumped out of the lagoon to a refinery that removes carbon dioxide, hydrogen and other impurities. The purified methane is pressurized and then pumped into the converted trucks. The cow manure-produced bio-methane not only produces less pollution than conventional fuel, the production of it also reduces the amount of methane released into the atmosphere by the manure itself. Norway Plans to Run City Buses on Human Waste In January, the city council in Oslo, Norway, said that as part of its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and become a carbon neutral city by 2050, it would convert city buses to run on a byproduct of treated sewage: biomethane. Starting in September, the gas released by microbes that break down the raw sewage will be captured and converted into biomethane to run 80 public buses. If the plan is successful, the city will convert all 400 city buses to run on a biogas created from a mixture of biomethane and biogas from the incineration of kitchen waste from the city's restaurants and kitchens. "The city of Oslo has great visions for Oslo as a green capital," project leader Ole Jakob Johansen told the U.K.'s Guardian. "Oslo aims to be one of the most environmentally sustainable capitals of the world. Using biomethane makes sense. Not only would the biomethane otherwise be wasted, but the reduction in emissions per bus will go a long way to achieving our carbon-neutral target." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 2 10:20:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:20:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Seabrook NH wins court battle with PMC BioTec sludge operation Message-ID: Town wins court battle with PMC Company tries to stop the town from dumping sludge process By nancy rineman hamptonunion at seacoastonline.com June 02, 2009 SEABROOK ? In April, selectmen voted unanimously to terminate the contract with PMC BioTec for a sludge reduction process in place at the town wastewater treatment plant. The plant began the process of changing back to the old sludge removal process on the morning of Wednesday, April 29. However, unbeknownst to Seabrook officials at the time, PMC had filed an injunction in Rockingham County Superior Court on April 30, seeking a restraining order against Seabrook's termination of the sludge reduction contract. The petition was denied by Judge Kenneth R. McHugh, but PMC BioTec attorneys went back to court on May 1 asking for a reconsideration and at that time were granted a temporary restraining order. "The town learned of this on Friday, May 1," said Seabrook Town Manager Barry Brenner. That created a time crunch for the town since a hearing on the restraining order had been scheduled for May 5. With the weekend looming, there were concerns the town could be seen as violating the court order by continuing to reinstate the old process at the plant. Thanks to a motion prepared by town attorney Doreen Zankowski, in time for the court hearing, the temporary restraining order was overturned, Brenner said. Neither Brenner nor Rodgers would comment on whether future action would be taken. Town crews reported the reactor at the wastewater treatment plant was almost empty of the material that resulted from PMC BioTec's sludge reduction operation on Wednesday, May 27, That means the facility will be returning to the former method of sludge removal shortly. Area residents are hoping the change will mean the odor problems that have plagued their neighborhoods will also be resolved. The effort to reduce the cost of sludge removal for Seabrook resulted in going to PMC BioTec's AFC Process. However, that decision has created problems ever since the process went online in May, 2008. Almost immediately residents began claiming a foul odor was coming from the treatment plant, and issues of health risks for workers and neighbors were raised. http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090602-NEWS-906020307 The topic was discussed, analyzed and debated in a number of forums. The Board of Selectmen ultimately decided the cost savings were not worth the potential problems the new system created. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 2 14:15:50 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:15:50 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> CALIF: Muzzling the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment -Pollution Watchdog Message-ID: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-oe-solomon2-2009jun02,0,2529654.story Muzzling the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, a California pollution watchdog The state's financial crisis is cited for plans to shut the small state office that gets big results -- perhaps too big. By Gina M. Solomon LA TIMES June 2, 2009 Under the cloak of the budget crisis, the Schwarzenegger administration is proposing to eliminate an office that has effectively taken on some of California's most insidious polluters, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA. This small, independent office of health scientists contained in the state's Environmental Protection Agency is a strange target if the goal is truly to save money. The total taxpayer bill for the scientists is only a few million dollars, which could easily be funded by tapping a small portion of unspent reserves from existing environmental fees. So why, then, the proposal to eliminate the office? Here's my guess. The scientists at the OEHHA are charged with protecting, as their website puts it, "public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances." In the past, that mission has pitted the OEHHA against a variety of powerful interests, including tobacco and chemical companies. In other words, the office has some powerful enemies. Take Big Tobacco. The OEHHA was the first agency in the world to declare secondhand smoke to be a breast carcinogen, paving the way for stricter controls on secondhand smoke. The diesel industry has its own reasons for being unhappy with the agency, which declared diesel exhaust to be a toxic air contaminant, forcing emission control measures that have cleared California's air. Dow Chemical probably isn't too happy with the OEHHA either. The office is likely to propose listing bisphenol A, or BPA, as a chemical "known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm." Such a listing would mean that products containing BPA, which has been used widely in such things as baby bottles and food cans, would have to be labeled. And then there is the issue of hexavalent chromium, or hex chrome, a potent human carcinogen. Last fall, the OEHHA finalized a proposal to set a lower safe drinking water level for hex chrome, but the new standard has been held up for months in the governor's office. Hex chrome gained wide public attention in the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich." The true story on which the film was based occurred in Hinkley, Calif., a town in the Mojave Desert with the highest U.S. levels of hex chrome in drinking water. The chemical fouling Hinkley's water came from a Pacific Gas & Electric facility that had contaminated the local groundwater. Brockovich's famous investigation of the high rates of cancer and other diseases in the town -- and the multimillion-dollar legal settlement it spawned -- have not resolved everything. The contaminated plume of groundwater is still there, and it's spreading. It would be expensive for PG&E to clean up this site to a more stringent standard. And because hex chrome is a national issue, polluters across the country would hate to see California adopt stringent regulations that could point the way for other states to take action. Not all of the OEHHA's foes are external. Even other boards and departments at Cal/EPA might have a motive to see the agency's wings clipped. OEHHA scientists refused to sign off on the Department of Pesticide Regulation assessment of the notoriously toxic fumigant methyl bromide. When the pesticide regulators attempted to circumvent the OEHHA and set standards that wouldn't protect the health of residents living near agricultural fields, the state Court of Appeal ruled in July 2008 that the Department of Pesticide Regulation must consult with the OEHHA before making decisions. So you get the idea. This is a feisty little office of scientists who conscientiously strive to do their job of scientifically assessing health risks in our air, water, food, soil and consumer products. Sometimes the little guy wins in these David-versus-Goliath fights. But more often he loses, and if the OEHHA gets eliminated, we all lose. Fortunately, the fight's not over. The Legislature can fix the problem by preserving the OEHHA as an independent office inside Cal/EPA and strengthen it by consolidating other risk assessment functions there. The OEHHA should be funded by its fair share of fees. Polluters must pay, and science must prevail. Gina M. Solomon is a physician and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. She is also an associate clinical professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and director of its occupational and environmental medicine residency program. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 2 14:36:56 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:36:56 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Florida city first in the US to use wastewater-sludge-to-energy gasifier Message-ID: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2746 Florida city first in the US to use wastewater-sludge-to-energy gasifier By Lisa Gibson Biomass Magazine Posted June 2, 2009, Sanford, Fla., will be the first municipality in the country to convert wastewater sludge to energy using MaxWest Environmental Systems Inc. gasification technology. The resulting syngas will be used to power the city?s sludge dryer at the South Water Resources Center. The city is leasing the equipment over the next 20 years from MaxWest, which will operate the system, and expects to save about $9 million on natural gas alone during that time. ?That?s the beauty of this project,? said Charlie Turner, Sanford utility plant manager. ?We didn?t buy this. It?s going to be a lot easier for us.? The payments are about the same as the cost of purchasing natural gas, he added. Savings could amount to much more, as the city plans to look into using other feedstocks for the gasifier in the future, and possibly to produce electricity. ?That would be very exciting,? Turner said. ?Who knows how much we could save.? Turner hopes the gasifier will be up and running in the next week. ?We are just completing construction,? he said. ?We haven?t actually run the unit except to test.? The gasifier will consume about 30 to 40 cubic yards of biosolids?the end product of a sewer plant?per day to start with, working toward more. The facility will run 24 hours a day, producing 7 million British thermal units of renewable thermal energy per hour, according to MaxWest. Turner hopes other cities in the region eventually will contribute their wastewater sludge and other waste materials once the project expands. MaxWest?s gasification technology takes biosolids and feeds it into an enclosed primary gasifier to produce syngas. In a continuous integrating process, the syngas is oxidized in an enclosed thermal oxidizer to produce renewable thermal energy. Besides saving the city money, the technology will be beneficial in disposing of dried residuals, which has been met with opposition from the public. Community members seem to be embracing the new process, Turner said. While Sanford is the first to commit to the gasifier, MaxWest is in discussions with other municipalities and industries in the U.S. and Canada, according to the company. The Sanford site will be a showcase for the technology, demonstrating is effectiveness, MaxWest says. ?We?ve got big hopes,? Turner said. ?We want it to be successful.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 3 11:24:29 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:24:29 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> ENPAR - can treat wastewater with high ammonia Message-ID: Ammonia enters water from municipal waste water treatment facilities, fertilizer runoff, leaching septic tanks, land application of biosolids and raw sewage, and numerous industrial processes. This ammonia water can be detrimental to fish and lead to eutrophication of water bodies. It can be inexpensively treated with this technology. ................................................................. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2347616/ ENPAR successfully completes on-site testing of its pilot ammonia treatment plant Wed. May 27, 2009; Posted: 04:48 PM Are you looking to increase your ETF knowledge? TORONTO, May 27, 2009 Dr. Gene Shelp, President and CEO of ENPAR Technologies Inc. (TSX:ENP), ("ENPAR") is pleased to report that ENPAR has completed the testing of the pilot scale ammonia treatment plant at a mine site in northern Ontario. The testing program clearly demonstrated that the Company's patented AmmEL-LC Water Treatment System effectively removes ammonia from mining waste water to below the discharge requirement of 10 mg/L at a low operating cost of approximately $0.10 per m(3) water treated. Furthermore, the efficiency of the technology is not affected by low water temperature. The latter point is very important because many mining sites occur in regions of the world where temperatures are below 5 oC for several months of the year. The Company is currently utilizing the pilot scale test data to complete the engineering design and assessment of related costs with the intent of submitting a cost proposal to the mining company for a full-scale treatment plant. As previously reported, ENPAR anticipates a commercial contract for the construction and installation of the plant as part of the planned development at the mining site. The mining industry represents an attractive market opportunity since commercial blasting agents containing from 70-94% (by weight) ammonium nitrate are extensively used. Leaching of the undetonated portions of the blasting agents often result in elevated levels of ammonia and nitrate levels in mine effluents. Mining companies continue to seek innovative approaches to assist in managing ammonia in waste water. Ammonia also enters water from municipal waste water treatment facilities, fertilizer runoff, leaching septic tanks, land application of biosolids and raw sewage, and numerous industrial processes. This ammonia water can be detrimental to fish and lead to eutrophication of water bodies. Thus, the AmmEL technology represents a promising avenue to profitability and maximizing shareholder value. ENPAR is a "Technology Company" applying its patented and proprietary "Electrochemical Technologies" to the treatment of water used in the mining, metal processing, chemical, agricultural, municipal and waste management sectors. The Company's common shares trade on Tier ll of the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol "ENP". This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbour" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause ENPAR Technologies Inc. results to differ materially from expectations. These include risks relating to market fluctuations, property performance and other risks. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. SOURCE: Enpar Technologies Inc. Dr. Gene Shelp, President and CEO... Tel: (519) 836-6155, Fax: (519) 836-5683, E-mail: gshelp at enpar-tech.com, Web Site: www.enpar-tech.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 3 12:15:19 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:15:19 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Orange County NC : County won't do sludge study - farmers fear test results Message-ID: http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/50262.html Jun 03, 2009 County won't do sludge study Officials had allotted $10,000 to study sludge-treated soil MARK SCHULTZ, Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL - Orange County will drop plans for a sewage sludge study because it can't find any land to test, the county's environmental health director said Monday "It's a regrettable outcome," Tom Konsler said. "I think everyone was looking for something to happen with this." The Orange County Board of Commissioners had approved $10,000 for the pilot study in response to some rural residents' concerns that sludge, also known as biosolids, was making them sick. The study was to be done with Mark Sobsey, a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at UNC, and an associate now at N.C. State University. It was intended to be a pilot study leading to a more thorough assessment of air, soil and stream quality before and after application of sludge. Farmers use sludge, the byproduct of the sewage treatment process, as free fertilizer because it is high in nitrogen and phosphorus. Sludge is also spread on fields where its nutrient content turns grass an emerald green. "We had two really good sites," Konsler said. But in both cases the farmers changed their minds. "The farmers were not willing, as they put it, to risk the family farm on what someone might do with the results," he said. A farmer in northern Orange County offered land for testing, but it did not have suitable topography to test both upstream and downstream of the sludge application field. The county also approached the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and Durham, which both apply biosolids in the county. OWASA's sludge is classified class A, too highly treated for the purposes of this study, Konsler said, while Durham spreads a dry cake application, also not suited for the pilot program. Meanwhile, two groups concerned about biosolids -- The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and the Center for Health, and Environment and Justice --will host a community forum from 7 to 9 p.m. Thursday at Cane Creek Baptist Church Activity Center, 6901 Orange Grove Road in Hillsborough. The scheduled speakers are ? Stephen Lester, science director for the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, a national nonprofit organization led by Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs assisting communities to prevent, reduce and eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals; ? Elaine Chiosso, Haw Riverkeeper and executive director of the Haw River Assembly, a nonprofit organization founded in 1982 to restore the Haw River and to protect Jordan Lake; ? Ed Hallman, lead attorney with Decker, Hallman, Barber & Briggs, who represented two families in separate lawsuits filed against the City of Augusta, Ga., claiming deaths of dairy cattle and loss of productive farmland as a result of sewage sludge containing hazardous waste spread on their dairy farms; ? Myra Dotson, chairwoman of the newly formed Sewage Sludge Action Network, an Orange County group dedicated to increasing public awareness of the potential risks of sewage sludge on farmlands. The forum is co-sponsored by the Haw River Assembly, the Sewage Sludge Action Network, and the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. mark.schultz at nando.com or 932-2003 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 4 15:46:55 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:46:55 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> American Chemical Society: Perfluorochemicals in Biosolids Message-ID: CLEAN WATER ACTION - http://www.cleanwateraction.org/node/469 PFC Contamination in eight States Nationwide Waters in seven states nationwide are contaminated by PFCs. - ALABAMA MINNESOTA NEW YORK NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA OHIO http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901417h Environmental News Are perfluorochemicals widespread in biosolids? Rebecca Renner Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/es901417h Publication Date (Web): June 3, 2009 American Chemical Society Academic and government scientists are scrambling to get a handle on the levels of perfluorochemicals in treated municipal sewage sludge as further details emerge about the unexpected discovery of these compounds in fields near Decatur, Ala. In October 2008, U.S. EPA scientists found near Decatur some of the highest concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), other carboxylic acids, and fluorotelomer alcohols in U.S. soils and traced the source back to treated municipal sewage sludge, or biosolids. In April 2009, EPA tested wells and ponds in the areas where the biosolids were spread. Out of 51 samples, 25% exceeded the agency?s recently developed short-term provisional health advisory limit of 0.4 micrograms per liter for PFOA. All concentrations of PFOS were below the 0.2 micrograms-per-liter public-health advisory limit. Five other carboxylic acids were measured in more than half of the water samples. ?The findings here have generated [EPA] Office of Water interest,? according to Gail Mitchell, EPA Region 4?s deputy director of water management. ?They are evaluating what it means to the biosolids program and trying to decide what the next step should be,? she adds. There are still many unknowns, says Suzanne Rudzinski at the Office of Water. ?Right now, we don?t have representative data on perfluorochemicals in biosolids. We need more science and more data.? EPA is still looking for sources of the perfluorochemicals. The agency requested information from 14 local industries including manufacturers and major users, according to Mitchell. Two perfluorochemical manufacturers, 3M and Daikin America, Inc., and one user, Toray Fluorofibers America, Inc., have submitted monitoring data indicating they might be possible sources. Toray Fluorofibers America spokesman Arthur Nelson says, ?Any emissions we have would be as a result of our use of polytetrafluoroethylene dispersions, which are compliant with the EPA PFOA Stewardship program.? Previously, 3M told ES&T that it treats all process wastewater in-house but sends the wastewater from bathrooms, hand-washing, and similar uses to the municipal system. Daikin told ES&T previously that process wastewater had been discharged to the municipal system in the past. The other companies, mainly metal platers, did not have any monitoring data, Mitchell says. Another possible source is landfill leachate, which is also sent to the wastewater treatment plant. In general, scientists have collected little data about the concentrations of perfluorinated chemicals in sludge and almost none about concentrations in soil, according to Christopher Higgins of the Colorado School of Mines. Perfluorochemical contamination has been found in seven eastern states, according to data compiled by Clean Water Action, an environmental advocacy group. During a 2008 EPA workshop on perfluorinated chemicals, Minnesota health and environmental scientists presented data from a survey of influent, effluent, and sludge at the state?s wastewater treatment plants. Elevated levels of several perfluorochemicals were found at some plants, particularly those in urban areas. In some cases, that contamination could be linked to a local source, but in many cases, a specific source is not apparent, according to Marvin Hora of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. ?We are finding that, for perfluorochemicals, they are showing up where we didn?t expect them to be. The levels vary, but these seem to be universal chemicals that are showing up everywhere,? Hora adds. Finding perfluorochemicals in municipal sludge is not surprising given the large number of potential precursors that are used commercially, says Univerity of Toronto chemist Scott Mabury. ?We have found diPAPs, polyfluoroalkyl phosphoric acid diesters that are used as food contact paper chemicals, in municipal sludge at levels over 100 times higher than corresponding perfluorocarboxylic acids. Since they are readily metabolized to perfluorocarboxylic acids, it is likely they will contribute significantly to the environmental burden of these chemicals,? he says. EPA recently completed a survey of organic contaminants in sludge but did not measure perfluorochemicals. ?When the study started, we didn?t have a method,? says Rudzinki. ?We won?t be able to analyze those samples now because they are stored in Teflon containers,? she adds. PFOS was recently added to the list of internationally banned or restricted persistent organic pollutants targeted by the Stockholm Convention. However, exemptions include its use in coatings for semiconductors, firefighting foam, aviation hydraulic fluids, metal plating, and medical devices, and countries can ask for specific exemptions for some other commercial uses. Biosolids are rich in plant nutrients, but they may also be a source of perfluorochemicals. DANA W. KOLPIN, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ************************************************************************************************************************ http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/minnesota-project-study-pfcs-peoples-bodies Minnesota Project to Study PFCs in Peoples' Bodies The Minnesota Department of Health's Biomonitoring Project will study 200 adults from Lake Elmo, Oakdale and Cottage Grove who where exposed to PFCs in their drinking water and have lived in the community before 2005. The results found: Moderate levels of PFOA affects thyroid function High PFOA levels weaken the immune system High PFOA levels also contribute to high cholesterol in children and may damage the liver ***************************************************************** CLEAN WATER ACTION - http://www.cleanwateraction.org/node/469 PFC Contamination in Seven States Nationwide (actually, it is at least 8 . . . ) Waters in seven states nationwide are contaminated by PFCs. - ALABAMA MINNESOTA NEW YORK NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA OHIO http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/human-health-effects-pfcs PFOA Toxicological studies found PFOA causes liver cancer and testicular cancer and may cause other types of cancer such as breast cancer. In 2006, the U.S. EPA Scientific Advisory Panel recommended PFOA be classified a likely human carcinogen. (See Testimony of Samuel Yamin, MCEA (pdf) for source citations) PFOA & PFOS Toxicological studies have shown these two chemicals cause: birth defects, weakened immune system and Altered Hormone System Function, also known as endocrine disruption. (See Testimony of Samuel Yamin, MCEA (pdf) for source citations) icon-html.gif es-2009-01417h_0001.gif From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 4 17:16:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:16:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Wildlife Habitat Enhanced Best by Avoiding Use of Sludge Compost Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The US sludge moghuls Keep spending public funds to make sludge into sludge compost...but no one much wants the compost which tends to have very high heavy metals, and other toxic ingredients. So the latest scheme is to try to get the public taxpayer to buy sludge compost to put on fire ravaged lands..in places like California. They say it will improve habitat. Environmentalists argue that fires are natural phenomenon and fire ravaged lands need to undergo the natural cycle of plant growth and habitat succession. This study undertaken by the US Geological Survey shows that the environmentalists are right. Lands spread with sludge make worse habitat than lands left without sludge. More on the study: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/resshow/perry/compost.htm ENHANCEMENT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT WITH THE USE OF COMPOST SOIL AMENDMENTS MATTHEW C. PERRY, PETER C. OSENTON, EDWARD J. R. LOHNES Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 11410 American Holly Drive Laurel, MD 20708, USA 301-497-5622 (Tel) 301-497-5624 (Fax) Matt_Perry at USGS.gov Conclusion: Numerous areas in the United States have been degraded by human activities and possibly could benefit initially from soil enhancement with compost amendments. Results from this study, however, indicate that plants and invertebrates did not benefit from compost, and only small mammals appeared to respond positively to the soil amendments. Larger quantities of compost may be necessary to show more significant changes in the flora and fauna of these habitats. Partners on this study include the Environmental Protection Agency, Quail Unlimited, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Patuxent Research Refuge (USFWS). .................................................................. More about COMPRO - sewage sludge based compost from Maryland http://www.biosolids.org/docs/source/MontCoMD.pdf. Page 1 Montgomery County, Maryland State-of-the-Art Biosolids Composting Facility Editors Note: The Montgomery County, MD, Biosolids Composting Facility was closed on May 1, 1999.The pressure to commercially develop the strategically located County property where the project wassited combined with odor complaints from a community undergoing significant demographic changesappeared to be the cause of the closure. The Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant is located on the banks of the PotomacRiver adjacent to Washington, D.C. It is one of the largest tertiary treatment systems inthe world (Figure 1). Blue Plains serves Washington, D.C. and parts of Arlington andFairfax counties in Viriginia, and Montgomery and Prince Georges counties in Maryland.Under an Inter-Municipal Agreement (IMA) governing this waste treatment plant, eachcounty and municipality using Blue Plains is required to handle its share of thesludge/biosolids produced. There are few industrial dischargers to the Blue Plainsplant. The biosolids easily meet standards for heavy metals and are safe foragricultural and consumer applications (Table 1). To meet its responsibilities forprocessing its share of Blue Plains biosolids, Montgomery County, Maryland, just northof Washington, D.C., chose composting to produce a value-added product that wouldbe saleable in multiple markets. County officials were responding to an environmentallyconscious electorate in selecting an alternative for their county?s biosolids that would dothe most for organics recycling and beneficial reuse. The county settled onBiosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 52composting as an ?add-on? treatment for biosolids. Composting is primarily theaceleration of natural biodegradation, and may be accelerated by forced aeration. Theelevated temperatures of the controlled aeration, which is produced by the microbialaction, significantly reduces pathogens and breaks down the composting mass until astabilized product is produced. The stabilization process takes between 30 and 60days, depending on the end market use (Table 2). A comparison of trace metalconcentrations at Blue Plains and MCRCF with EPA pollutant concentrations is shownin Table 3. Table 1. Blue Plains (DC) WWTP biosolids easily meet heavy metal standards.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 53Table 2. MCRCF Compost Analysis.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 54Table 3. Blue Plains and MCRCF metals concentration are much lower than EPA concentration limits for biosolids.Biosolids composting requires the addition of a bulking agent to provide air space andto make the mixture permeable. Typical bulking agents include wood chips, shreddedbark, sawdust, shredded paper, shredded tires, and other materials. The bulking agentcan also serve as a moisture absorbent and can supply carbon to bring thecarbon/nitrogen ratio into a range that will prevent drawing nitrogen from plants whenused as a soil conditioner. Biosolids composting also demands a controlled andproperly distributed air flow to promote biological action, to serve as a coolant to keepbiological action optimal, and to act as a carrier of the moisture being removed. Dewatered biosolids, which generally have the consistency of wet modeling clay, aremixed with the bulking agent, placed in piles, and force-aerated. The natural biologicalaction creates a temperature rise, which is normally controlled at around 130 F (54 C). The off-gases of biosolids composting consist primarily of carbon dioxide and watervapor.The FacilityDuring the early 1980s, Montgomery County officials worked with the nearby USDAAgricultural Research Service Laboratory in Beltsville, MD, to adapt the federalagency?s advanced Beltsville Method of static aerated pile composting to the needs ofBiosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 55the county and its customers. The Montgomery County Regional Composting Facility(MCRCF) is designed to process up to a nominal rate of 400 wet tons/day, although itoperated at half-capacity until odor issues were resolved. The plant was designedusing the design criteria from USEPA/USDA?s pilot work. The MCRCF covers fiveacres and has several enclosed metal buildings where the mixing, composting, andbagging operations are carried out. It includes drainage systems and a ?pond? to catchrunoff, eliminating chances of non-point source pollution from the plant (Figure 2). Montgomery County benefited from the Federal and State grants that were available forwastewater treatment facilities in the l970s and early 1980s, receiving $28 million ingrants for construction and equipment -- almost half the $58 million cost for the entirefacility.To create compost from Blue Plains biosolids, incoming biosolids and recycled woodchips are unloaded into receiving bins and moved by belt conveyors to an enclosedstationary mixing system (Figure 3). The compost mixture is transported to acomposting building and stacked into an extended pile on a base of fresh wood chipsand aerated under negative pressure for 21 days. Composting process air is collectedand treated using a three-stage scrubbing technology patented by WSSC. After thecomposting phase, the piles are broken down by a front-end loader and taken to thescreening building where the compost is separated from the wood chips. The woodchips are then returned to the mixing process, and the compost is cured by aeratingunder positive pressure for 30 days in a separate curing building. Following curing, theproduct is either sold in bulk or bagged and distributed to various users. The woodchips are screened out of the final product and reused in processing other incomingbatches of biosolids. Figure 4 illustrates the MCRCF composting process.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 6 56Figure 2. The Montgomery County Composting Facility was selected by Marylandofficials to maximize recycling and beneficial use.Many composting methods use perforated plastic pipes under the compost piles to blowair into the piles, accelerating microbiological activity and the breakdown of wastes intocompost. The Montgomery County/Beltsville method reversed the air flow, sucking airthrough the pile into the perforated pipes and expelling it into an air treatment system orscrubber.Soon after the composting facility began operations, Montgomery County officials wereconfronted with numerous citizen complaints concerning odor. All biosolids processingplants produce odors. The question is whether the odors are strong enough and closeenough to neighbors to be objectionable. The MCRCF is located in Silver Spring,Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 7 57Figure 3. The MCRCF mixing system for composted biosolids.Maryland, in an industrial park that was on the outskirts of development when it openedin 1982, but is now surrounded by housing and retail establishments. When complaintsfrom neighbors forced a reevaluation of the facility?s air treatment system, staffengineers designed a three-stage misting scrubber to reduce emissions. The modifiedscrubber consisted of ammonia removal, oxidation, and final wash. The design was soinnovative and effective it was patented. Several other facilities around the UnitedStates have paid for the rights to use the MCRCF scrubber technology at their sites.At air flow rates above 708 m3/min, efficiency of the modified scrubber equipment wasreduced. At those higher flows, sulfur removal was limited and odors were detected bythe facility?s neighbors. The airflow limitations prevented MCRCF from receiving morethan 200 wet tons/day of biosolids, which reduced the cost effectiveness of theoperation. The reduced capacity along with air-scrubbing improvements nearly doubledthe original $28 million capital cost of the plant. Nevertheless, WSSC opted toconstruct a new air scrubber incorporating the knowledge gained from theBiosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 8 58experimentation and operational experience with the first three-stage misting scrubber. The new scrubber design is based on the same chemistry as was the old scrubber butis built to handle a much greater air flow (Figure 5). The new scrubber was put intoservice on October 12, 1993, and has been in operation ever since. Performance datahas shown improved efficiency in oxidation and removal of organic sulfides, improvedremoval efficiencies for non-sulfur-containing organic compounds, and improvedperformance at higher air flow rates. These improved performance characteristics willpermit the processing of the larger airflows which will accompany the scale-up of theMCRCF to about 400 wet tons/day.Marketing the ProductMaking a high quality organic material from biosolids is a design and operationchallenge that has been dealt with effectively by Montgomery County. Finding a marketfor the product was the initial stumbling block. To address marketing, MontgomeryCounty created a unique organization -- Maryland Environmental Services (MES).Established in the early 1970's, MES is a not-for-profit organization spun off from theMaryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage wastewater treatmentand drinking water plants. The idea was to separate enforcement - the DNR?s job - fromthe operation of such facilities. When the MCRCF came on line, MES took overmarketing the compost products.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 9 59Figure 4. The MCRCF biosolids is sold under the brand name ComPro.MES focused first on the bulk market -- landscape contractors, turf managers, top soilblenders. Since Blue Plains uses lime in the last stages of the process, the resultingcompost product, marketed under the name ?Compro,? has relatively high alkalinity.This gives Compro an added plus since liming of lawns is common in the relativelyacidic soils of the area. This also expands the active marketing period into the fall whenlime typically is applied to lawns. Landscapers and turf managers realized that withCompro they are getting not only pH balancing, but also organic matter that helps soilquality and slow-release and organically bound nutrients that will help plants grow.Although all the Compro product was initially bought by bulk marketers, MES alsostarted to bag the product for sale to consumers through retail outlets like Home Depotand garden centers. The reason was economic -- bulk distributors payed only about$10 per ton, whereas MES could command $1.55 for a 40 lb (18 kg) bag of Comprothat would be resold to home gardeners for $2.88 to $3.00 (or $144 to $150 per ton).MES began bagging in spring of 1995 and doubled its bag sales each year.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 10 60Figure 5. MCRCF uses a patented scrubber design to minimize odors.Millions of people have appreciated the landscaping benefits of the Compro productwithout even realizing it. Compro is used on some of the most high-profile lawns andgardens in the country; including, the White House, Mount Vernon, the Governor?sMansion in Annapolis, Maryland and the celebrated Orioles Park at Camden Yards inBaltimore. When Tiger Woods and the rest of the 1997 U.S. Open Tour strode thefairways at Congressional Country Club in Potomac, MD, they were walking on grassfed with Compro.Biosolids Success StoriesCopyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Jun 5 13:46:54 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:46:54 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Measure to Ban Burning of Sewage Sludge in Banning Qualifies for Ballot Message-ID: http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3256443 Measure to Ban Burning of Sewage Sludge in Banning Qualifies for Ballot Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:58 PM (Source: The Press-Enterprise)By Erin Waldner, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif. Jun. 3--The Riverside County registrar of voters office has certified that enough signatures have been collected to get a measure on the ballot that, if approved by Banning voters, would make the burning of sewage sludge unlawful in the city. The ball is now in the Banning City Council's court. The council can adopt the measure outright and make it law, or call for a local election and let voters decide. The measure is being pushed by a group of opponents of a plant proposed for southeast Banning that would burn sewage sludge to generate electricity. The group submitted 4,293 signatures in support of the measure to the county registrar of voters office for verification. Marsha Stokes, a deputy in the office, certified May 28 that based on a random count, it was projected that 3,772 of the signatures were valid. That's almost twice the 1,978 signatures required to qualify the petition. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Jun 7 11:20:01 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:20:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Harvey Ambrose Courtice ON- new partners - Peterborough waste site with no waste permit Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Harvey Ambrose has a waste empire in Southern Ontario. He is known for aggressive practices in sludge hauling - particularly papermill sludge. He tends to handle wastes outside the regulations and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has to investigate and try to manage the problems after the fact. THis has happened again in Ambrose Peterborough waste facility "Part Terrace Development Corp" which was operating without a waste permit, and has now being acquired by Global 8 Technology Global 8 Environmental Technologies has also signed a deal with Ontario First Nations near Orangeville. See: http://www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11126 Since Aboriginal Lands are not subject to the provincial waste management provisions - there is opportunity for some projects that would not be permitted elsewhere in the Province of Ontario. The risk is that the latitude provided for First Nations self government will be abused in very aggressive waste schemes. In the past Southern Ontario has seen uncontrolled waste schemes mounted on Indian lands as the provincial and federal officials bumble and clash as they finger each other as the responsible regulatory party. Skip Ambrose' new partner is: GLOBAL 8 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 620 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: 949-718-4425 Fax: 1-949-721-6602 Vox: 1-877-419-0430 info at g8et.com .............................................. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1598792 Recycling-facility OK likely: official Posted By BRENDAN WEDLEY/ Peterborough Examiner Municipal Writer Posted June 5, 2009 A planned recycling facility at the former National Grocers property on Technology Dr. will likely get a Ministry of the Environment approval certificate, a government official says. The ministry is waiting for information from the company that applied for the certificate to run the facility, said Chris Johnston, a Ministry of the Environment senior environmental officer for the Peterborough region. ?It?s not just the ministry holding it back,? he said. ?It?s information related to the operation of the site ? Sometimes these processes can drag on for a little while.? Lakes Terminals and Warehousing Ltd. applied in May 2007 for the certificate of approval to operate the planned recycling facility at 810 Technology Dr. Park Terrace Development Corp. would own and operate the facility. The Ministry of the Environment halted shipments of recyclables to the facility from Toronto in February 2007 when officials learned the facility had been operating without a certificate of approval. Earlier this week, California-based Global 8 Environmental Technologies announced it had signed a letter of intent to acquire a majority stake in Park Terrace. The Peterborough facility could begin operating between July and September, Global 8 states in a release. Park Terrace has several contracts in place for the facility, including a contract with the City of Toronto to collect and process all of its blue-box waste, which is about 30,000 tonnes per year, Global 8 states. The 10,828-square-metre (120,316-square-foot) facility will be able to process at least 100,000 tonnes of recyclable materials ? paper, fibre, plastic, cardboard and aluminum ? per year when it reaches full capacity, the company states. Ashburnham Ward Coun. Len Vass expressed concern about the storage of waste on the property because of its prominent location along Highway 7/115. Continued After Advertisement Below Advertisement ?If there is an industrial operation that is ongoing in that location, we want to make sure that there are no negative impacts on the community,? he said. ?One major negative impact will be the issue of storage of materials on site. ?It?s a pretty high exposure location within the city limits on a major bypass route between Toronto and Ottawa.? The city could attempt to block the operation of the facility. In a letter to the ministry, planning and development services director Malcolm Hunt and utility services director Wayne Jackson state the property isn?t zoned for use as a waste processing facility. The zoning for the property specifically prohibits its use for a salvage yard, they state. The county government is concerned about leftover garbage from the facility being dumped at the county-city landfill, county public works director Chris Bradley states in a letter to the ministry. ?Peterborough would request a guarantee that the ministry ensure that any certificate of approval issued to the applicant would include direction that no residual garbage would be taken to the Peterborough County/City Waste Management Facility,? he states. A certificate of approval, and any stipulations listed in the document, would be public information once it?s issued, Johnston said. bwedley at peterboroughexaminer.com ................................. http://www.portstanleynews.com/details/headline.aspx?menu=1024_News_Regional Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. By Francie Dennison Global 8 to Acquire Ontario Recycling Facility Newport Beach, Calif: Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc., a company committed to preserving our planet through environmental consciousness, technology and education, announced June 2, 2009 that it has signed a letter of intent to acquire a majority stake in Park Terrace Development Corporation, which operates a cutting-edge recycling facility in Peterborough, Ontario. Due diligence on the facility has been completed by both parties, and the transaction is expected to close by June 15, 2009. The value of the property, located at 796 & 810 Technology Drive, Peterborough, Ontario was recently appraised at $5.8 million. Park Terrace Development Corporation is one of several wholly owned subsidiaries of Courtice Industries, Inc. Courtice Industries' principal is Harvey Ambrose, a highly-respected entrepreneur and pioneer in Ontario's waste management, transportation and agricultural industries. In addition to the Peterborough recycling facility, Mr. Ambrose owns a fully-operational waste transfer station in Oshawa with a contract for processing food waste; a large municipal and paper sludge processing plant in Niagara Falls; a 40-acre, $45 million organic recycling plant in Hamilton; and a lakeshore property in Gatineau, Quebec that contains a landfill, a quarry with more than 200,000 tonnes of high-quality granite, and 640 acres of land that can be utilized to showcase green technologies including geothermal energy, wind power, wastewater treatment and solar power. "Global 8 has the right team and the right vision," said Mr. Ambrose. "Anyone who spends time with the company's executives or watches their corporate video will see how committed they are to solving today's environmental crisis, and protecting our planet for future generations, at all costs." The 120,316 sq ft. recycling facility in Peterborough is expected to commence operations in the third quarter of 2009 and will be capable of processing at least 100,000 tonnes of Blue Box recyclable materials (paper, fiber, plastic, cardboard, and aluminum) per year, upon reaching full capacity. Projected annual revenue from the sales of recyclable materials processed at the facility, at average market prices, is $14.5 million, with $9 million generated in EBITDA. Park Terrace Development Corp. already has several contracts in place to generate millions of dollars in revenue from recyclable products processed at the Peterborough facility including: * a contract with the city of Toronto to collect and process all of its Blue Box waste (approximately 30,000 tonnes per year); * supply agreements with local paper mills where all fiber produced at the facility will be purchased at, or above, the current market prices; and * an agreement with Trans Canada Recyclers, Inc. to sell 10,000 containerized metric tonnes of Grade 8 or better newsprint per month, processed at the Peterborough facility, in the People's Republic of China and South East Asia. The company has also entered into discussions with Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., an Ontario-based company with 25 manufacturing and distribution facilities and more than 2,000 employees, to provide them with recyclable materials processed at the Peterborough facility. Courtice Industries has a nearly 20-year relationship with Atlantic Packaging Products, Inc. "We have a long-standing relationship with Harvey Ambrose and his group of companies," said Julio Ferreira, Chief Executive Officer of Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. "This facility is the first of many joint ventures that we are pursuing with Courtice Industries." Conveniently located in central Ontario within 500 miles from 60% of Canada's population, the cutting-edge recycling facility in Peterborough has a rail spur line adjacent to its operations, allowing for the direct loading of commodities into box cars for shipment to the West Coast, and ultimately the Asia-Pacific region. Future milestones for the facility include the adoption of renewable energy, including geothermal and solar, and transforming the MRF into a self-sufficient, profitable Environmental Technology Center. Converting the facility into an Environmental Technology Center will provide significant cost-savings and positively impact our bottom-line. "Wealthy countries like the United States and Canada spend nearly $120 billion a year on disposing of their municipal waste, and another $150 billion on industrial waste," said Mr. Ferreira. "This project will not only be a profitable revenue stream for the Global 8 family companies, but also a footprint for our Environmental Technology Centers, which offer communities around the world a profitable, sustainable model to improve their quality of life and preserve our planet." About Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. works with world-class partners and consultants to provide solutions for the health and recovery of our environment. The company has the vision, the people, the know-how, the technologies, the financing and the contracts. It applies all these resources to create a clean and healthy global community for the next generation in a way that provides environmental and financial benefits to all our stakeholders. For more information, visit: http://www.g8et.com. Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements: Certain statements contained herein, including, without limitation, statements containing the words "believes", "intends", and other words of similar import, constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 7A of Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements include, but are not limited to, that we are in the process of furthering several of the key milestones we achieved last year and creating new growth opportunities for Global 8 and its subsidiaries, and that we will continue to locate new projects and strategic partnerships in 2009. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Given these uncertainties, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. disclaims any obligation to update or to announce publicly the results of any revision of the forward-looking statements contained or incorporated by reference herein to reflect future events or developments. [Editor's Note: They don't say if they have or are developing a process for making the paper sludge non-toxic. Presumably, the disclaimer means they can promise the moon in their sales pitch but not be bound to deliver on any of their promises, rather like election campaigns.] From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Jun 7 13:58:17 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:58:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sludge Industry, too: DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT - industry fighting gov regulation Message-ID: Sludgewatch admin: We see this with sludge...the wastewater industry doesn't do the research to demonstrate sludge is safe...don't investigate public health complaints...then they say the government should not pass stricter regulations until they are certain of the environmental damage. Instead of proof that a practice is safe - the public standard and precautionary principal - industry demands that they be allowed to continue high risk practices until some damage is proven. However, industry fails to do the research and they settle the death and damage cases out of court with non disclosure agreements. ....................................................... http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm Title: DOUBT Is Their Product , By: Michaels, David, Scientific American, 00368733, Jun2005, Vol. 292, Issue 6 Database: Academic Search Premier DOUBT Is Their Product Industry groups are fighting government regulation by formenting scientific uncertainty Few scientific challenges are more complex than understanding the health risks of a chemical or drug. Investigators cannot feed toxic compounds to people to see what doses cause cancer. Instead laboratory researchers rely on animal tests, and epidemiologists examine the human exposures that have already happened in the field. Both types of studies have many uncertainties, and scientists must extrapolate from the evidence to make causal inferences and recommend protective measures. Because absolute certainty is rarely an option, regulatory programs would not be effective if such proof were required. Government officials have to use the best available evidence to set limits for harmful chemicals and determine the safety of pharmaceuticals. Uncertainty is an inherent problem of science, but manufactured uncertainty is another matter entirely. Over the past three decades, industry groups have frequently become involved in the investigative process when their interests are threatened. If, for example, studies show that a company is exposing its workers to dangerous levels of a certain chemical, the business typically responds by hiring its'. own researchers to cast doubt on the studies. Or if a pharmaceutical firm faces questions about the safety of one of its drugs, its executives trumpet company sponsored trials that show no significant health risks while ignoring or hiding other studies that are much less reassuring. The vilification of threatening research as "junk science" and the corresponding sanctification of industry-commissioned research as "sound science" has become nothing less than standard operating procedure in some parts of corporate America. in 1969 an executive at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker now owned by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, unwisely committed to paper the perfect slogan for his industry's disinformation campaign: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public." In recent years, many other industries have eagerly adopted this strategy. Corporations have mounted campaigns to question studies documenting the adverse health effects of exposure to beryllium, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, chromium, benzene, benzidine, nickel, and a long list of other toxic chemicals and medications. What is more, Congress and the administration of President George W. Bush have encouraged such tactics by making it easier for private groups to challenge government-funded research. Although in some cases, companies may be raising legitimate arguments, the overall result is disturbing: many corporations have successfully avoided expense and inconvenience by blocking and stalling much needed protections for public health. The Taxicab Standard A GOOD EXAMPLE of the current battles between industry and science is the controversy over beryllium. This lightweight metal is vital to the production of nuclear warheads because it increases the yield of the explosions; throughout the cold war, the U.S. nuclear weapons complex was the nation's largest consumer of the substance. Beryllium and its alloys are now used to make electronics equipment and even golf clubs. But the metal is also extremely toxic--breathing in tiny amounts can cause chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a debilitating ailment that scars the lungs. Victims have included not just the machinists who worked directly with the metal but others simply in the vicinity of the milling and grinding processes, often for very short periods. One accountant developed CBD after working for a few weeks each year in an office near where beryllium was being processed. CBD has also been diagnosed in people living near beryllium factories. As assistant secretary of energy for environment, safety and health from 1998 to 2001, I was the chief safety officer for the nuclear weapons complex, responsible for protecting the health of workers at production and research facilities as well as for safeguarding the surrounding communities and environment. When President Bill Clinton appointed me, the Department of Energy's exposure standard for beryllium had not changed since 1949, some years after the substance's health dangers had become clear. In response to a crisis involving many sick workers and community residents, two scientists working with the Atomic Energy Commission estimated what they thought to be a safe level--two micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air--while they were riding in a taxicab on their way to a meeting. The commission, the predecessor of the DOE, then implemented the so-called taxicab standard. When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971 to protect the health of workers in the private sector, it, too, adopted the taxicab standard for beryllium. Over the following decades, however, it became clear that workers exposed to beryllium levels well below the standard were falling sick. In the 1990s' the DOE and OSHA began the time-consuming legal process of changing their exposure limits for beryllium. Brush Wellman, the nation's leading producer of the metal, hired Exponent, a Menlo Park, Calif., consulting firm specializing in product defense. Sharing authorship with Brush Wellman's scientists, these consultants wrote a series of papers suggesting it was possible that the size, surface area and number of beryllium particles may be more important than previously thought in the development of CBD. They also raised the hypothesis that skin exposure could play a larger role in disease risk. The consultants concluded that the current standard for beryllium might not be protective but that more research was required before changing it. After reviewing all the studies and taking testimony from industry and independent scientists, the DOE leadership in the later years of the Clinton administration decided that although more research is always desirable, the department had more than enough information to warrant immediate implementation of a stricter standard for beryllium. We issued a new rule, reducing the acceptable workplace exposure level by a factor of 10. Although we could not prove that the lower limit would eliminate the health risks, we chose a level that we believed would prevent most cases of CBD and that was also technologically feasible. This new standard, however, applies only to DOE workers; workers in the private sector, who fall under OSHA's umbrella, do not enjoy the same protection. In 1998 OSHA declared its intention to follow DOE's lead, but three years later the agency dropped that initiative. In November 2002 the agency implicitly accepted the industry's arguments by issuing a call for additional data on the relation of beryllium disease to, among other things, the size, surface area and number of particles and the extent of skin contact. That is where matters stand today. As it happens, most scientists believe that beryllium also increases the risk of lung cancer; several studies conducted by epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention support this conclusion. ]in 2002, however, statisticians from another product-defense firm, Roth Associates in Rockville, Md., and the University of Illinois published a reanalysis of a 10-year-old CDC study. By changing some key parameters, the authors raised the estimates for the background rate of lung cancer so that the elevation caused by beryllium was no longer statistically significant. (This procedure is rather easily accomplished, whereas the opposite--turning insignificance into significance--is extremely difficult.) Brush Weilman and NGK Metals, a producer of beryllium alloys, had funded the research. The new analysis was published in Inhalation Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal--not one primarily focused on epidemiology but peer-reviewed nonetheless--and the industry now touts its study as evidence that everyone else is wrong. This pattern is not unique to the beryllium industry. Many other companies that produce hazardous chemicals have hired researchers to dispute and reanalyze data showing adverse health effects. Their conclusions are almost always the same: the evidence is ambiguous, so regulatory action is unwarranted. Out of the almost 3,000 chemicals produced in large quantities (more than one million pounds annually), OSHA enforces exposure limits for fewer than 500. In the past 10 years the agency has issued new standards for a grand total of two chemicals; the vast majority of the others are still "regulated" by voluntary standards set before 1971, when the newly created agency adopted them uncritically and unchanged. New science has had no impact on them. I conclude that successive OSHA administrators have simply recognized that establishing new standards is so time- and labor-intensive, and will inevitably call forth such orchestrated opposition from industry, that it is not worth expending the agency's limited resources on the effort. Emphasizing uncertainty on behalf of big business has become a big business in itself. The product-defense firms have become experienced and successful consultants in epidemiology, biostatistics and toxicology. In fact, it is now unusual for the science behind any proposed public health or environmental regulation not to be challenged, no matter how powerful the evidence. Currently representatives of indoor tanning salons are hard at work disparaging the designation of ultraviolet radiation as a cause of skin cancer. Furthermore, the denial of scientific evidence and the insistence on an impossible certainty are not limited to business interests. For instance, some zealous environmentalists remain adamantly opposed to food irradiation--the use of gamma rays, x-rays or electron beams to kill microbes in meats and produce--even though the benefits of the practice greatly outweigh the risks. PPA and Vioxx THE POWER OF COMPANIES to influence and distort research is also strong in the pharmaceutical industry. Consider the Food and Drug Administration's belated clampdown on phenylpropanolamine (PPA), the over-the-counter drug that was widely used as a decongestant and appetite suppressant for decades. Reports of hemorrhagic strokes in young women who had taken a PPA-containing drug began circulating in the 1970s. Over the next 20 years, the FDA raised questions about PPA's safety, but the trade association representing the drug's manufacturers--including Bayer, Sandoz (now part of Novartis), Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline--rejected the agency's concerns, employing scientists and lobbyists to keep PPA on the market. Eventually a compromise was reached that allowed the companies to select an investigator and fund an epidemiological study whose design would be approved by both the manufacturers and the FDA. They chose the Yale University School of Medicine; in 1999 the study confirmed that PPA causes hemorrhagic stroke. Did the manufacturers withdraw the drug, which by then had annual sales of more than $500 million? No. Instead they turned to the Weinberg Group, a product-defense consulting firm based in Washington, D.C., to attack the study and had their attorneys put the researchers through grueling legal depositions. David A. Kessler, former head of the FDA and now dean of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, said, "With the amount of hassle and harassment that [the Yale scientists] had to endure, I'm sure the next time they're asked to undertake something like this, they'll wonder if it's worth the cost." The FDA finally advised manufacturers to stop marketing PPA in November 2000. The agency estimates that the chemical caused between 200 and 500 strokes a year among 18- to 49-year-old people. Or consider rofecoxib, more commonly known as Vioxx, the once popular pain reliever made by Merck. Even before the FDA approved Vioxx in May 1999, the agency had reviewed data suggesting that the drug could increase the risk of heart disease. Several independent scientists (that is, ones not on Merck's payroll) also raised red flags, but for the most part the FDA ignored them. Then, in early 2000, the results of a clinical trial showed that participants who took Vioxx for an average of nine months had five times the risk of heart attack as those taking the comparison painkiller, naproxen (sold under the brand name Aleve). Merck's scientists faced a 'dilemma. They could interpret this finding to mean either that Vioxx increased heart attack risk by 400 percent or that naproxen reduced the risk by an astounding 80 percent, making it about three times as effective as aspirin in protecting the cardiovascular system. Unsurprisingly, the :company's researchers chose the latter interpretation. But Merck abruptly turned ablaut and took Vioxx off the market last September when another trial found that: participants taking the drug for more than 18 months suffered twice as many heart attacks and strokes as those taking a placebo. One FDA analyst estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks--30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal--in the five years the drug was on the market. Although the Wall Street Journal has reported that certain documents suggest that Merck executives were aware of the increased risk of heart attacks, it is hard to imagine that the company's scientists were deliberately promoting a drug they knew was unsafe. At the same time, it is hard to imagine they honestly thought naproxen reduced the risk of heart attack by 80 percent. If they did, they should have urged the government to pour it straight into the water supply. It seems more likely that their allegiances were so tightly linked with the products they worked on, as well as the financial health of their employers, that their judgment became fatally impaired. And the FDA? That agency has neither the legal authority nor the resources to effectively identify the adverse outcomes caused by drugs already on the market. As a result, civil lawsuits have become the primary means for protecting the public from unsafe drugs and chemicals. Recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, have made it harder for plaintiffs to introduce scientific testimony to support their cases. Under the precedents set by Daubert v. Mertell Dow Pharmaceuticals and two related rulings, federal trial judges are now required to determine whether the testimony is reliable and relevant. What began as a well-intentioned effort to improve the quality of scientific evidence has had troubling consequences: according to an analysis published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, federal judges have barred respected researchers from testifying in drug lawsuits because their evidence--such as medical case reports and toxicological studies on animals-did not meet the strict new standards. Corporate defendants have become increasingly emboldened to challenge any expert testimony on the grounds that it is based on "junk science." INDUSTRY GROUPS have tried to manipulate science no matter which political party controls the government, but the efforts have grown more brazen since George W. Bush became president. I believe it is fair to say that never in our history have corporate interests been as successful as they are today in shaping science policies to their desires. In 2002, for example, the Bush administration remade a committee that advises the CDC on the issue of childhood lead poisoning. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson replaced prominent researchers with individuals more likely to side with the lead industry. (One new member had testified on behalf of the lead paint industry in a suit brought by the state of Rhode Islatid to recover the costs of treating children with lead poisoning and cleaning contaminated homes.) Since then, the CDC has not moved to strengthen the federal standards for lead poisoning despite research showing that even very low levels of lead in the blood can sharply reduce a child's IQ. What is more, this administration has tried to facilitate and institutionalize the corporate strategy of manufacturing uncertainty. Its most significant tool is the Data Quality Act (DQA), a midnight rider attached to a 2001 appropriations bill and approved by Congress without hearings or debate. The DQA authorized the development of guidelines for "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information." This sounds harmless, even beneficial; who wouldn't want to ensure the quality of government-disseminated information? In practice, however, industry groups use the DQA to slow or stop attempts at regulation by undercutting scientific reports. The law gives corporations an established procedure for killing or altering government documents with which they do not agree. It has been used by groups bankrolled by the oil industry to discredit the National Assessment on Climate Change, a federal report on global warming; by food industry interests to attack the World Health Organization's dietary guidelines, which recommend lower sugar intake to prevent obesity; and by the Salt Institute to challenge the advice of the National Institutes of Health that Americans should reduce their salt consumption. Even better for industry would be a way to control information before it becomes part of an official government document. To accomplish this tantalizing goal, in August 2003 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rolled out a new proposal entitled "Peer Review and Information Quality." Under the plan, all covered information would undergo some form of peer review before being issued by a government agency, and any information that might affect major regulations or that could have a "substantial impact" on public policies or private-sector decisions would be put through a cumbersome system in which the information was reviewed by experts independent of the agency. Because the proposed peer-review process would exclude all scientists receiving grants or contracts from the agency, it seemed designed to maximize the ability of corporate interests to manufacture and magnify scientific uncertainty. Enough was enough. In November 2003 the usually quiescent science community finally rose up in protest at a meeting sponsored, at the OMB's request, by the National Academy of Sciences. In the face of this opposition--dozens of organizations fired off scathing letters to the White House--the OMB retreated and implemented a less onerous program that did not exclude the most qualified scientists from the peer-review process. A new regulatory paradigm is clearly needed, but the Bush administration is heading in the wrong direction. Instead of encouraging industry groups to revise the reports of government scientists, agencies should be focusing more scrutiny on the data and analyses provided by corporate scientists and product-defense firms. And instead of allowing uncertainty to be an excuse for inaction, regulators should return to first principles: use the best science available but do not demand certainty where it does not exist. A good example of such an approach is the program to provide compensation for weapons workers sickened after exposure to radiation or chemicals at DOE sites. (I helped to design the initiative, which was enacted by Congress in 2000.) Because it is impossible to definitively determine whether a particular cancer has been caused by radiation exposure, the program estimates probabilities based on the cancer rates among survivors of the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The model is not perfect, but the estimates are as accurate as the available data and methods allow. In that case, we did the right thing. Now it is time for industry to do the right thing. We need a better balance between health and money. MORE TO EXPLORE Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner. University of California Press, 2002. Science for Judges I-III. Edited by Margaret Berger. Journal of Low on Policy, Vols. 12-13; 2003-2005. Available online at www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/jlp.php More information about the use of scientific evidence in public policy is available at www.DefendingScience.org PHOTO (COLOR): DRUG COMPANIES fund most of the research on the health risks of their products. All too often the firms highlight studies showing that the drugs are safe and downplay less reassuring results. PHOTO (COLOR): CORPORATE HURDLES are impeding the regulation of unsafe chemicals and drugs. PHOTO (COLOR): GOVERNMENT AGENCEIS have been slow to act even in cases where the evidence for stricter regulation is overwhelming. ~~~~~~~~ By David Michaels Photographs by Mindy Jones DAVID MICHAELS is an epiclemiogist who served as the U.S. Department of Energy's assistant secretary for environment, safety and health from 1998 to 2001. He is currently professor and associate chairman in the department of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Jun 7 14:00:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:00:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Contamination of surface, ground, and drinking water from pharmaceutical production Message-ID: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Abstract | PDF (326K) Contamination of surface, ground, and drinking water from pharmaceutical production Jerker Fick1,?, Hanna S?derstr?m1, Richard H. Lindberg1, Chau Phan1, Mats Tysklind2, and D. G. Joakim Larsson3 1 Ume? University 2 University of Umea 3 The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg Low levels of pharmaceuticals are detected in surface, ground, and drinking water worldwide. Usage and incorrect disposal have been considered the major environmental sources of these micro-contaminants. Recent publications, however, suggest that wastewater from drug production can potentially be a source of much higher concentrations in certain locations. We investigated the environmental fate of active pharmaceutical ingredients in a major production area for the global bulk-drug market. Water samples were taken from a common effluent treatment plant near Hyderabad, India, which receives process water from about 90 bulk drug manufacturers. Surface water was analyzed from the recipient stream and from two lakes that are not contaminated by the treatment plant. Water samples were also taken from wells in six nearby villages. The samples were analyzed for the presence of twelve pharmaceuticals with LC-MS/MS. All wells were determined to be contaminated with drugs . Ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, cetirizine, terbinafine and citalopram were detected at>1?g l-1 in several wells. Very high concentrations of ciprofloxacin (up to 14 mg L-1) and other pharmaceuticals (up to 2 mg L-1) were found in the effluent of the treatment plant and in the two lakes (up to 6.5 mg L-1). Thus, insufficient wastewater treatment in one of the world's largest centers for bulk drug production leads to unprecedented drug contamination of surface, ground, and drinking water. This raises serious concerns regarding the development of antibiotic resistance, and it creates a major challenge for producers and regulatory agencies to improve the situation. Keywords: Industrial pollution,; Fluoroquinolones; Antibiotic resistance; India Received: February 18, 2009; Accepted: April 29, 2009; Published Online: May 18, 2009 DOI: 10.1897/09-073.1 - From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 8 10:39:27 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:39:27 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> New Zealand - Worm Wastewater Treatment Promising for Coastal Community Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: With our friends the worms munching on the sewage, people will have to be careful what they put down the drain or down the toilet. Three cheers for Project Pipi //////////////////////////////////// Worm wastewater system way to go at Huia Monday, 8 June 2009, Press Release: Waitakere City Media Release Worm wastewater system way to go at Huia The thought might make many people squirm but one rural Waitakere community reckons it?s on to a winner with its new worm-operated onsite wastewater system. When faced with replacing the system that served Huia Hall and the adjacent Settlers Museum, the Huia-Cornwallis Local Water Agenda Group (LWAG) recognised the no smell, no power and no discharge system had potential. Enter Project Pipi ? an initiative by the Local Water Agenda Group which includes representatives of the Huia-Cornwallis Residents and Ratepayers Association. The community began operating the worm-operated system at the hall at the weekend (June 6) and plan to eventually link up the Settlers? Museum. They believe the system has potential for anyone in rural communities. ?We are pretty typical of many rural coastal communities facing the dilemma of how best to deal with the problem of wastewater,? says Huia-Cornwallis Local Water Agenda Group (LWAG) chairperson, Denise Yates. Many rural residents will have experienced the side-effects of on-site wastewater systems such as unpleasant odours, boggy lawns, blocked pipes and expensive maintenance. Ms Yates says the group has worked closely with Waitakere City Council?s EcoWater team to get the project off the ground. ?They have been really supportive and enthusiastic, as was the Auckland Regional Council in the later stages of the project. This is a great example of council and community working together.? The worm-based system is the invention of Coll Bell from the Matakana-based company, Simple Wastewater Solutions Ltd. So how does it work? ? Toilet waste is directed into the ?wormerator? - a two-metre long chamber in which tiger worms digest the solid matter, increasing or decreasing their population naturally to match the average incoming flow. ? The liquid waste then joins the house grey water from the laundry and shower, or in the case of the Huia Hall, from the kitchen, before entering the second stage of treatment, the plant filters. ? These boxed plants filter the treated effluent which then moves into the evaporator, a passive device using natural air flow to literally evaporate the treated outflow. The system can be used for individual properties, groups of houses and public facilities such as the Huia Hall, which regularly houses events of around 100 people. The other benefits of the system are that no excavation is required as the modules are all above ground and it only takes a few weeks to build and install. Project Pipi was funded by The Trusts Charitable Foundation and Waitakere City Council, which covered the cost of consents and provided technical and project management resources. ENDS From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 8 11:15:38 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:15:38 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> PA Oil exploration - pumping chemically treated water into shale - kills part of Cross Creek Lake tributary Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Gas drilling companies are being allowed to do untold damage to drinking water aquifers and fresh surfacewater as they pump fluids underground trying to make oil easier to pump. ...................................... Posted on Fri, Jun. 5, 2009 Gas well's wastewater kills fish in SW Pa. stream The Associated Press WASHINGTON, Pa. - State regulators are weighing penalties against a gas-drilling company after a leaking wastewater pipe killed fish and other aquatic life in a southwestern Pennsylvania stream. State environmental regulators said Fort Worth, Texas-based Range Resources Corp. told them the pipe leaked last week into an unnamed tributary of Cross Creek Lake in Washington County's Cross Creek Park. The wastewater leaked from a coupling on a 6-inch pipe running between a recently drilled Marcellus Shale well to a waste water impoundment. Fish, salamanders, crayfish and insects were killed along three-quarters of a mile of the stream. Exploration companies blast millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the shale to fracture the rock and encourage gas to flow upward. Some of the wastewater remains underground, while the rest returns to the surface. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 9 13:31:17 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:31:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> PFOA (Teflon) - Scientists recommend limits 10 times lower than EPA advisory Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: EPA Health Advisory on PFOA: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/pha-PFOA_PFOS.pdf ............................................................. http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=760&articleID=972610 Treatment plants don't remove nonstick chemical Source: ScienceNews May 20, 2009 PUBLIC WORKS News Service ? A new study finds evidence that people may be exposed through drinking water to a persistent chemical ? one used to make nonstick products ? at levels approaching concentrations that trigger adverse effects in laboratory animals. The fluorine-based chemical, PFOA or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been in production for more than 50 years. One primary use has been the production of chemicals that long served as the basis of DuPont's Teflon line of nonstick products. Ironically, earlier studies have shown that the PFOA itself sticks around a very, very long time ? potentially forever. The chemical appeared in roughly two-thirds of some 30 public water systems sampled by New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection between 2006 and 2008, researchers report online and in an upcoming issue of Environmental Science & Technology. In five of the New Jersey water systems sampled, PFOA concentrations exceeded a safety limit developed by the researchers ? sometimes by a factor of two or three. In each of those instances, says toxicologist Keith Cooper of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, the affected water came from groundwater or from well water. However, he adds, where contaminated water entered a water-treatment plant, "[PFOA] concentrations in the intake water and the output water were basically the same." So it looks like the treatment plants didn't remove the pollutant. How PFOA gets into water remains largely unknown, although the chemical has been used in everything from carpeting and frying pans to popcorn bags. So, Cooper says, "I think the values we saw in New Jersey water probably are representative of [water supplies] around the country." Human data have shown that blood concentrations of PFOA tend to be 100 times higher than the values in drinking water. To gauge whether the concentrations of PFOA found in the state's aquifers, wells and surface waters were likely to pose health risks, the researchers used blood concentrations of PFOA associated with toxicity in animals. The scientists then calculated how low water concentrations of PFOA would need to be to fall below the adverse-effects level. For added safety, they cut this value to a 10th of the starting value ? a common practice when toxicologists need to extrapolate between animals or human life stages. As a result of this analysis, the researchers propose a drinking water limit of 0.04 micrograms per liter. On January 8, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a "provisional health advisory" for PFOA that was 10 times higher. At the time, EPA explained it was issuing the advisory "in response to an urgent or rapidly developing situation" involving unregulated pollution. One explanation for the difference: EPA's value was set to deal with short-term emergencies such as a spill, Cooper says, whereas "ours was designed to deal with chronic exposure over a lifetime." Abby D. Benninghoff, a PFOA toxicologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, finds the proposed New Jersey safety limit for PFOA pretty convincing. "I looked through the math pretty carefully and I am familiar with most of the studies that they based it on. So it [the proposed limit] strikes me as reasonable." But the implications are a bit unsettling. She's been studying PFOA activity in trout, a surprisingly good model for testing the chemical's human cancer risk (SN Online: 5/21/08), and in human cells. These data show that the 8-carbon PFOA molecule and its 9- and 10-carbon analogs ? which also show up in the environment ? all bind to and activate the estrogen receptor. In trout, this estrogen action promotes the development of liver cancer. Concentrations of any of these chemicals needed to turn on this hormone mimicry in human cells are fairly low, she reported at a toxicology conferencelast November. Indeed, she now notes, such levels are in the same ballpark as what would likely develop in the blood of people drinking water from the more contaminated sites described by Cooper's team. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 11 20:53:44 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:53:44 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Polk County Florida - fined over high levels molybdenum in sludge - no sludge monitoring Message-ID: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/southwest/orl-bk-polk-county-fined-for-cwa-violations-061109,0,4764374.story Polk County fined $12,000 for CWA violations Elo?sa Ruano Gonz?lez | Sentinel Staff Writer June 11, 2009 The Polk County Board of Commissioners was fined $12,150 for not properly disposing sewage sludge at its wastewater treatment plant in Bartow, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today. EPA officials found the plant's sewer sludge contained excessive levels of molybdenum, an element that can be found in agricultural soils, from 2002 to 2004, violating the Clean Water Act. The county also was cited for failing to monitor sewage sludge during the second quarter of 2006. The EPA penalized nine others throughout the southeast part of the country, including the Port of Pensacola and the Aqua Utilities Inc. in Florida, for violating the CWA, which was put in place in 1972 to protect the nation's lakes, rivers, stream and wetlands from pollution. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 11 20:54:16 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:54:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ostara : phosphorus from waste to make fertilizer pellets Message-ID: Metro utility turns sludge into a profitable product The system, first of its kind in the U.S., pulls phosphorus from waste to make fertilizer pellets Wednesday, June 10, 2009 BY JUSTIN CARINCI A Washington County sewer utility found a way to get rid of some of its most troublesome pollutants: sell them to gardeners. Clean Water Services installed a system at its Durham treatment plant that pulls phosphorus and ammonia from sewage waste and processes them into fertilizer pellets that are then sold to nurseries. The system, which began operating last month, is the first of its kind in the United States, and it?s drawing some big-name attention. Gov. Ted Kulongoski is speaking at the plant today, joined by environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Not coincidentally, Kennedy is a major backer and board member of Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies, the Canadian company that markets the fertilizer, called Crystal Green. Stettler Supply Co. of Salem, the contractor for the project, has built plenty of piping systems in its 61-year history ? but nothing like this, said General Manager Trevor Spires. ?There are just pipes and valves everywhere,? he said. ?It?s amazing. ?It looks like one of those Rube Goldberg things and then there?s fertilizer coming out the other end.? The project cost $2.5 million, including approximately $1 million for construction. Boring-based fabricator Marks Brothers built the stainless steel tanks and Stettler remodeled the existing facility to accommodate the new system. Ostara will market the fertilizer and split the profits with Clean Water Services, which expects to recoup the project cost in five years. The problem Excessive phosphorus reaching waterways creates algal blooms, runaway growths of scum that can suffocate aquatic species and create toxins. Water that Clean Water Services returns to the Tualatin River must contain less than 0.1 milligrams per liter of phosphorus. Used as a fertilizer, however, phosphorus creates other blooms. The element helps promote flowering in plants and also helps spur root development. That, in turn is one source of the problem ? runoff from overused fertilizers gets into watersheds. At sewage treatment plants, phosphorus becomes concentrated as it is separated from water and, according to Clean Water Services documents, gums up pipes and other equipment, requiring frequent maintenance. The solution At the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility, phosphorus and other elements are processed in three funnel-shaped reactor vessels. A chemical is pumped in that causes phosphorus to crystallize and form pellets. Those pellets are dried on site, bagged and sent to fertilizer distributors. But is it safe to put this fertilizer on food crops? ?Absolutely,? said Phillip Abrary, president and CEO of Ostara. Extensive tests have found no bacterial or other contaminants. ?The fertilizer is highly pure,? he said. ?It?s purer or cleaner in terms of heavy metal (content) than traditional fertilizer.? The crystallized phosphorus pellets break down over six to eight months, Abrary said. That reduces the problems with traditional water-soluble fertilizers. ?The plant can only take up so much, and the rest washes away? ? into streams and rivers. Slow-release fertilizers give plants an opportunity to take up more of the fertilizer, meaning less runs off. ?It?s a more efficient way,? Abrary said. Clean Water Services estimates it will produce 500 tons of fertilizer per year. Despite that seemingly huge amount, Abrary said Ostara won?t have a problem selling all of it. ?The demand for phosphorus fertilizer is obviously tremendous,? he said, pegging the amount used at 35 million tons per year. ?We?ve barely scratched the surface here.? Ostara has other facilities in the works, although the company keeps their locations secret. Abrary said that about 200 treatment plants in North America could support such a system. That could be good news for Stettler, which now has the distinction of being the only contractor this side of Edmonton, Alberta, with experience building a commercial-scale phosphorus recovery facility. ?We?ve got a head start on everybody,? Spires said. http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2009/06/10/Metro-utility-turns-sludge-into-a-profitable-product-The-system-first-of-its-kind-in-the-US-pulls-ph From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 11 21:01:30 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:01:30 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tritium guideline in Ontario Drinking Water - 20 Bq/L Message-ID: Sludgewatch admin: ODWAC recommends tritium guideline for drinking water of 20 Bq/L. Remember, too that sewage sludge - for instance the sewage sludge from Port Hope Ontario - will contain trititum. It is clear that sludge contaminants end up in ground water and surface water near sludge spreading sites...so tritium risks in groundwater and rural drinking wells can be at risk. The relevant documents regarding tritium levels in Ontario are at this site: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTA2NzA3&statusId=MTYwMDk1&language=en ........................... From: "Barrett, Scott (ENE)" Public Release of the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council's Report on the Tritium Drinking Water Standard Jim Merritt, the Chair of the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council is pleased to provide you with the ?Report and Advice on the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard for Tritium? and would like to thank you for your input into the public consultation held last spring. The Council has taken considerable effort to review all of the health and risk aspects of tritium exposure to the public from drinking water, and your feedback was most useful in this process. The Council's report, prepared for the Ontario Minister of the Environment, has been attached to this e-mail, for your convenience, and can also be downloaded at: www.odwac.gov.on.ca/reports/052109_ODWAC_Tritium_Report.pdf Please note that if the Ministry of the Environment proposes any changes to the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard for tritium, there is an obligation, under the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1993, to publicly consult through the Environmental Registry. This consultation process is an important part of ensuring that stakeholders and the general public can participate in provincial decisions that affect the environment, as all comments submitted are considered before any changes are made to legislation, regulations, or policies. Scott Barrett, Executive Assistant Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council www.odwac.gov.on.ca 40 St. Clair Avenue West, 3rd Floor Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V 1M2 Tel: 416-212-7596 Cel: 416-994-7238 Fax: 416-212-7595 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Jun 13 09:31:27 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:31:27 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Detroit Synagro Sludge Scandal - Jackson takes a plea deal Message-ID: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/090612_jackson_plea Synagro Sludge Plea for Rayford Jackson Published : Friday, 12 Jun 2009 Andrea Isom DETROIT - A major player at the center of the Synagro scandal breaks his silence as he prepared to head to federal court. He tells The Detroit News that he is taking a plea deal. 44-year-old Rayford Jackson is a well-known housing developer who helped secure the controversial Synagro deal. The feds say that deal involved paying bribes to city officials. It is alleged Jackson was hired by the company as a consultant to help institute a pay to play policy with the goal of convincing the Detroit City Council to approve his project. The FBI has been all over it, trying to take down all the wrongdoers, and now it appears Jackson may be headed to federal prison. In an interview with The Detroit News, Jackson says he will plead guilty in federal court on Monday. The charges? Conspiring to bribe elected officials in connection to the Synagro sludge deal. "Rayford Jackson is known in Detroit. He was hired by Synagro because he's got Detroit connections, and as far as we know, he had the connections to the elected officials," said FOX 2 Legal Analyst Langton said. In the Detroit News article, Jackson says, "Rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through a trial... and I didn't know who all they would charge that will say Rayford did this... I decided that this was the best thing to alleviate this whole situation for me. This puts all of this behind me. I figure I can go in, do this time and start with a fresh, clean slate." However, it appears Jackson is no rat. He is taking his lumps, but he is not taking anyone else down with him. "Who are these elected officials? And what we don't know is will he cooperate with the feds? Will he actually tell everyone what we all want to know, who are these elected officials? And you know what? He doesn't have to," said Langton. Jackson also tells the Detroit News, "... whether you do it or not, knowing or unknowing, intentional or unintentional, (discussing bribes is wrong) and I'm guilty of that. But for Synagro not to be charged or not to be fined, I think is a travesty. "Here's the problem with bribery. Bribery is usually between two people. So, either I squeal or you squeal. If neither one of us squeals, that's it," Langton said. So, what about all the rest of the questionable characters in this scandal? When will their identities be revealed? "You've got to have a witness or evidence to convict someone. If nobody comes forward and there's no evidence, we will never even get an arrest of an elected official let alone a conviction," said Langton. Langton says the story could end here and this case could be closed, leaving lots of people wondering. FOX 2 has attempted to call Jackson on his cell phone, but he did not answer and his voice mail was full. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Jun 13 10:17:34 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:17:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Rialto Calif: Start up of sludge as cement kiln fuel Message-ID: Sludgewatch admin: It is good to see sewage sludge NOT put on farmland . However, there are several issues with the Rialto scenario: -the use of sewage sludge and animal meal (rendering plant materials) in cement kilns can pose a problem for the quality of the cement. Making cement normally meant cofiring limestone and coal to get a specific chemical reaction. When a material high in phosphoric acid - like sludge - is cofired there can be problems with the resulting product - slow set up time, and reduction in tensile strength. Lafarge Cement already had a successful huge class action law suit against them in an Ottawa Ontario suburb for crumbling homes in a subdivision for corrupted building material. - The other issue is that cement kilns have no emissions capture equipment - so all the mercury in the sewage is vented to the atmosphere. Not good. If sludge is to be used as fuel - then the very best scrubbers are needed to capture mercury and other contaminants. If it is to be used as fuel, it should be used only in facilities specifically engineered to address mercury and other sludge contaminants. ....................................... http://www.reuters.com/article/deborahCohen/idUSTRE55B3UU20090612?sp=true Atlanta startup turns human waste into fuel Fri Jun 12, 2009 By Nichola Groom RIALTO, California (Reuters) - Fifty miles east of Los Angeles, a small and inconspicuous facility is using something most of us would rather not think about -- household sewage -- to create a resource we can't live without -- fuel. EnerTech Environmental, an Atlanta startup, on Thursday unveiled the United States' first commercial biosolids-to-energy facility in California's Inland Empire. "Biosolids" is the nice term for processed sewage sludge. The sludge is 80 percent water when it arrives at EnerTech's plant, where it is turned into fuel simply by removing most of that liquid. The product customers buy is 95 percent solid and interchangeable with coal, according to Chief Executive Kevin Bolin, whose grandfather invented the company's patented "SlurryCarb" technology. Enertech's "E-fuel" is already being used as a replacement for coal at two Southern California cement kilns, though it currently accounts for only about 10 percent of their needs. "With respect to the cement industry, we can't make enough," Bolin said at the plant's ceremonial opening. Biosolids are a renewable resource and do not add any net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Bolin said. "The CO2 is already in the cycle," he said. The pungent smell that permeates the area comes from a nearby wastewater treatment plant, Bolin said. EnerTech's plant started production earlier this year and is operating at about 60 percent capacity. At full capacity, it will be able to take in 700 tons of biosolids to produce 170 tons of fuel a day. That puts the facility on par with a roughly 7-megawatt power plant, Bolin said. Cement kilns are ideal customers for EnerTech's product because not only does it provide a renewable replacement for coal, the non-combustible portion of E-fuel is mixed into the cement itself, Bolin said. EnerTech receives sewage sludge from five Southern California municipalities, including Orange County, Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Because it provides a recycling service, EnerTech is paid by the cities and sanitation districts for managing their sewage sludge. As a result, EnerTech's final product is cheaper to its customers than buying coal, Bolin said. "It's able to be cheaper than coal because the primary focus is the management of biosolids," Bolin said. EnerTech, which counts Citigroup (C.N) private equity unit Metalmark Capital and the Masdar Clean Tech Fund among its investors, expects to turn a profit next year, Bolin said. It is expanding. The company has partnered with Mitsubishi Kakoki Kaisha Ltd (6331.T) on a demonstration plant in Japan, and EnerTech is looking at other opportunities in the United States and the UK, Bolin said. EnerTech plans to expand the Rialto plant to make fuel for Rentech Inc (RTK.A), a Los Angeles-based synthetic fuels maker that plans to use the biosolids to make transportation fuels. It is also hopes to develop a plant in the New York City area. EnerTech's SlurryCarb process isn't limited to human sewage. It can also treat animal manure, lumber and paper wastes and agricultural wastes. (Reporting by Nichola Groom, editing by Leslie Gevirtz.) From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Jun 13 10:33:31 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:33:31 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Goochland Virginia - battle over local sludge ordinance Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state...and it is therefore said that no local ordinances can be more restrictive than the state regulation. BUT - federal Part 503 regulations - according to Al Rubin who helped write them - couldn't come up with a formula to address public health issues therefore they allowed the local governments to enact ordinances more restrictive than the Federal Rule. So not only are local ordinances allowed to be more stringent - it is the responsibility of the local levels of government to enact such ordinances as they may require to protect public health and property in the issue of sludge management. ................................ Goochland's biosolids battle Greg Dorazio Lane Ramsey stopped short of calling it an investigation. But the interim Goochland County administrator is reviewing the county's biosolids rules in the wake of a controversial application of sludge in the James River floodplain during last week's heavy rains. "I'm extremely concerned about the issues that have been raised about how we're monitoring [biosolids]," Ramsey said. On Friday afternoon, several citizens gathered on the steps of the county administration building, seeking an injunction that would stop not only the spread of biosolids on fields near the intersection of Rts. 6 and 603, but also throughout the county. Kathy Crockett, one of the concerned citizens, said that the county needs to put the brakes on sludge applications until the issue is more clearly defined and citizens can be fully protected under local ordinances. Ramsey denied the request. "To seek an injunction, we need to be convinced that there is imminent danger, or imminent threat," Ramsey said. "Certainly, their issues need to be addressed, and we will do that, but I'm not sure that an injunction at this time is appropriate." Linda Hosay, another concerned citizen, disagreed. "Part of the issue is the health of the river," Hosay said. "People fish in that river." "We have to protect our waterways," added resident Wendie Roumillat. But according to Hugh Hardwicke, the county's bisolids monitor, the river was not in danger from potential run-off or flooding. "It's in a 100-year floodplain," he explained, adding that he hadn't seen that land under water "for many moons." "As far as a problem with the rains...the river's got a long ways to go before it's gong to get that high." In addition to the rain and proximity to the James River, citizens questioned the size of the notification sign, a lack of advance notice, the flagging of the fields to be spread, and the alleged tracking of biosolids onto local roads. After meeting with staff on Monday, Ramsey responded, saying that one flag had been knocked down, but was still intact and that the material on the road was analyzed and found not to contain biosolids. Mark Mongold, a DEQ biosolids specialist who performed an on-site inspection, said that he found no violations of state regulations. Hardwicke noted that Mongold was on-site within an hour of receiving a complaint. Ramsey added that with Hardwicke as a montior and DEQ's responsiveness, that he believes the state regulations can be enforced. That's not enough for Crockett. "I don't feel like we're being protected," she said. The citizens' group even sought the help of the Goochland County Sheriff's Office, as the local ordinance establishes violations as Class 1 misdemeanors. "We have determined that it's not our investigation," Goochland County Sheriff's Office Lt. James Mann said on Monday. "It is an investigation for the county officials who are responsible for monitoring these biosolids applications." Exactly who is in charge of making and enforcing biosolids rules has emerged as the crucial issue in this debate and the county administrator's review of the ordinance. "It appears to me that we've got an ordinance in the county that requires us to do things we don't have the authority to do," Ramsey said on Monday, after meeting with staffers to discuss how the county handles the use of biosolids. On Tuesday, staffers met with the county attorney to determine what legal issues needed to be resolved and how the county should proceed with reconciling the differences between its more restrictive ordinance and state regulations. "Is our ordinance a paper tiger?" Hosay asked Ramsey on Friday. The answer, according to Anita Tuttle, biosolids specialist at DEQ, is, "Yes." "As a result of the [Blanton v. Amelia] ruling, the interpretation has been that the state is responsible for monitoring biosolids, and because Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, a county cannot enact ordinances more restrictive than state regulations," Tuttle said in an interview on Monday. Don Charles, director of the community development department which oversees the biosolids monitoring program, agreed. "Goochland doesn't have the hammer," Charles said. "We have the monitoring role." But C.W. Williams, of the Biosolids Information Group, said that Tuttle-and county officials-are flat out wrong in their assessment. "In Blanton versus Amelia, the consensus of the justices was that counties have a say-so in this and can pass an ordinance," Williams said on Tuesday. "And it can be more restrictive-they just can't ban [biosolids application." According to its ordinance, originally adopted in 2003, Goochland supervisors codified that the spreading of biosolids "without appropriate regulation and notice to the county and its residents may create a public nuisance, may result in hazards to the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the county, and may present a danger of pollution of the waters and soils of the county." Some of the differences between the state regulatiuons and the local ordinances are small. For example, while the DEQ requires posted notice signs to be at least four sqaure feet in size, Goochland's ordinance requires signs to be at least eight square feet. But the issues of notifying locals about imminent applications can be a major factor in mitigating harm. "Citizens aren't getting appropriate notice to change their daily activities," Crockett said, adding that biosolids can create significant medical problems for citizens suffering from asthma, COPD, cancer, or immune deficiencies. Ramsey's adminsitration is expected to complete its review this week. Changes to the ordinance will require public hearing. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 15 12:25:35 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:25:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> EPA tests find elevated PFOA in water wells near sludge spreading : 2 - 6 ppb PFOA Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Near Decatur Alabama: The levels of PFOA found in rural wells near sludge spreading sites show highly elevated levels of PFOA ie...2 ppb and 6 ppb from tests they undertook in February and March 2009. So why is the reporter told that there is no evidence of elevated PFOA in local drinking water? False information - saying no elevated PFOA has been found and that test results are not yet in - running in stories like this one: Published June 09, 2009 12:04 pm - Dalton Utilities hasn't seen PFOA test results, confident water OK Charles Oliver http://www.northwestgeorgia.com/local/local_story_159194136.html ................................................................................. Here is the EPA fact sheet: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FACT SHEET Perfluorochemical (PFC) Contamination of Biosolids Near Decatur, Alabama May 2009 Introduction: The Region 4 Office of the United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is distributing this fact sheet to provide information to the public regarding the levels of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) found in treated sewage sludge (biosolids) from the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant (Decatur Utilities) in Decatur, Alabama. For approximately the past 12 years, these biosolids from the Decatur Utilities were used as a soil amendment on about 5000 acres of privately owned agricultural fields in Lawrence, Morgan and Limestone Counties. EPA is coordinating with the State of Alabama, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Decatur Utilities and local industries to investigate the potential for PFC contamination to the environment associated with the application of the biosolids at these sites. Community Involvement: A public informational meeting will be held: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Moulton Recreation Center 13550 Court Street Moulton, Alabama 35650 Citizens are encouraged to attend the public meeting to learn what actions the Federal, State and Local Agencies have taken and are planning as well as to ask questions regarding the information provided by the representatives from these Agencies. Background: EPA regulations under the Clean Water Act allow biosolids to be land applied as a soil amendment and fertilizer as long as certain monitoring for regulated chemicals is performed and standard operating regulations are followed. PFCs are a class of man-made chemicals that, in most cases, are not regulated by EPA, and therefore, the testing of biosolids for these chemicals is typically not required. EPA recently developed drinking water provisional health advisory levels for two of the PFCs, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). The provisional health advisory level for PFOA is 0.4 ppb and the provisional advisory level for PFOS is 0.2 ppb. PFCs are used in a variety of industrial and consumer applications and products, including fire-fighting foams; personal care and cleaning products; and oil, stain, grease, and water repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather, and paper. Several industries in the Decatur area manufacture or use PFCs as part of their manufacturing processes. The Decatur Utilities plant receives wastewater from municipal (residential) as well as industrial sources, including PFC manufacturing and use facilities in the area. In 2007, one of the PFC manufacturers in Decatur notified EPA that it had unknowingly discharged PFCs into the Decatur Utilities wastewater treatment plant. This action led EPA to initiate an investigation to determine if the biosolids were contaminated and if the land application of the biosolids had resulted in a potential discharge of PFCs to the environment. In October 2008, EPA received analytical results from its Office of Research and Development (ORD) for a limited set of screening study soil and sludge samples collected from two of the biosolids agricultural application sites and from the Decatur Utilities facility. The analytical results indicated relatively high levels, when compared with other environmental sampling results from industrial and non-industrial (e.g., residential) sites, of perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and other PFCs in the biosolids and in the soil that received the biosolids. These limited screening data on the two soil sampling sites showed PFOS ranging from 589 to1296 parts per billion (ppb) and PFOA ranging from 55 to 2531 ppb in the nine soil samples analyzed by ORD. Decatur Utilities made the decision to cease land application of biosolids in November 2008, after learning of these levels of PFCs in its biosolids. After receiving the screening study results, EPA planned and conducted a series of targeted monitoring studies (November 2008 ? February 2009). Two studies were conducted to determine if there had been any potential PFC contamination to the Decatur-area drinking water, ground water, and /or surface water supplies. An additional study was conducted to better characterize the potential PFC contamination to the application area soils. The samples were forwarded to the ORD laboratories for analyses and data reporting. Recent Activities: EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) collected and analyzed samples from the public water supply systems in Morgan and Lawrence County in November 2008. There were no quantifiable levels of PFCs in two of the three public water systems (Moulton and Decatur). Levels of PFCs detected in the East Lawrence/West Morgan system were at levels below EPA?s provisional health advisory levels of 0.4 ppb for PFOA and 0.2 ppb for PFOS in drinking water. In January 2009, EPA and ADEM conducted a screening survey to locate private ground water wells in and adjacent to the land application areas. During February and March, EPA collected a total of 51 water samples from the identified ground water wells, ponds, and a stream in or near the fields that received the highest applications of biosolids. The final report indicated the following results: ? Two of the six private drinking water wells sampled had PFOA levels above EPA?s provisional health advisory level and none had levels above the PFOS provisional health advisory levels. These two wells had PFOA levels of 2.2 ppb and 0.6 ppb respectively. Both of these residences with elevated PFOA levels were quickly provided with bottled water and then connected to the public water supply system by Decatur Utilities and a group of local industries in the area. ? Additionally, over an abundance of caution, Decatur Utilities and the group of local industries offered to connect the owners of the remaining four residences, in or adjacent to the land application area and who were using private drinking water wells, to the public water system. Of these four residences, two chose to connect to the public water supply and two chose to continue using their existing drinking water wells. ? The final ground water sampling results from the 13 other water wells for PFOA ranged from no detectable levels to 6.410 ppb and for PFOS ranged from no detectable levels to 0.151 ppb. ? The final surface water sampling results from 32 ponds and one stream for PFOA ranged from no detectable levels to 11.000 ppb and for PFOS ranged from no detectable levels to 0.0839 ppb. In March 2009, 30 soil samples in or near the fields with the highest applications of biosolids were collected and forwarded to ORD for analyses. The final results of these analyses may be available in June 2009. Currently, there are no federal guidance values for PFCs (including PFOA and PFOS) for livestock watering, meat or milk consumption, surface waters, or soils. The drinking water guidance values are specifically developed for protection of human health from the consumption of drinking water only, and are not representative of values that may pose a risk to livestock or to humans from the consumption of meat, milk, or exposure to soils. The USDA and FDA are conducting an investigation of the potential impact of the environmental PFC contamination on livestock and food products (such as beef and milk) in the Decatur area. Next Steps: EPA and ADEM are working with the Decatur Utilities and a group of local industries to further investigate and identify any additional private drinking water wells near the biosolids application sites that may be contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS at levels above the EPA?s provisional health advisory levels. The federal and state agencies, including EPA, USDA, FDA, ADEM, and the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (A&I) are working diligently and expeditiously to collect and analyze the information to advise the community based on sound science and information. Industries in the Decatur area have made significant progress over the last few years to reduce and prevent the release of PFCs. For example, the industries have stopped manufacturing PFOS and are phasing out PFOA. EPA and ADEM have initiated an investigation to identify industrial and domestic sources of PFCs to the wastewater treatment plant and to eliminate or reduce the intake and output of these contaminants to levels that will not interfere with the appropriate land application of biosolids. Additional Information: ? Information on PFOA and other PFCs is available at EPA?s website: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/index.html ? Information on EPA?s biosolids regulations and other associated publications: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/index.htm#guidance Contact Information: Connie Roberts, Special Assistant to the Director Water Protection Division EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone: 404-562-9406 roberts.connie at epa.gov ....................................................... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 15 13:29:41 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:29:41 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Charging Document - Detroit Synagro Message-ID: Read Charges: http://www.freep.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/06/0615_jackson.pdf .................................................. http://www.freep.com/article/20090615/NEWS01/90615020/Developer+to+plead+guilty+in+bribing++of+council+member Developer to plead guilty in bribing of council member Synagro consultant part of City Hall probe BY BEN SCHMITT and JIM SCHAEFER ? FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER ? June 15, 2009 Detroit developer Rayford Jackson will plead guilty today to one felony charge of conspiracy to commit bribery for buying a City Council member's vote in favor of a $1.2-billion waste disposal contract for Synagro Technologies, court documents show. The U.S. District Court document unsealed today identifies the City Council member only as Council Member A. The document described four bribe payments Jackson gave to the unnamed council member by using a courier. The last two were for $3,000 each, and the amount of the first two is not described. ? PDF: See the charging document unsealed today Synagro, a Houston-based company, hired Jackson in 2007 as a consultant to help soothe community opposition to the Synagro contract in southwest Detroit. The City Council approved the deal in November 2007 by a 5-4 vote over the objections of neighborhood residents. ?The payment was made to council member A in exchange for council member A?s vote in favor of the Synagro contract,? the document states. The payments were made Oct. 4, 2007, in a parking lot of a Detroit restaurant called ?Mr. Fish,? on Nov. 20, 2007, at the Butzel Family Center in Detroit and Dec. 4, 2007, in a Detroit McDonald?s parking lot. Another payment was made at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center in the fall of 2007. Federal agents are conducting a wide-ranging investigation involving several other people beyond Jackson. Agents have asked questions about City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, her former aide and political consultant Sam Riddle, Bernard Kilpatrick, father of disgraced former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and others. The Detroit probe centers on bribery allegations on contracts at Cobo Center, the Synagro sludge-processing deal and the failed Asian Village restaurant venture. Agents also are looking into Detroit's two public pension funds. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Bullotta and Mark Chuktow are prosecuting the case. Jackson is expected to appear in court this afternoon in front of U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 15 16:20:15 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:20:15 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Something stinks about Hamilton Poo Power Project Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Power from sludge? Good idea. Stop putting sludge on farmland? Good idea. But something is not adding up in the $30M Hamilton poop as car fuel project. First of all, Hamilton just finished spending $4.4M to stop flaring off the digester gas and is instead using the 1.6 MW generated from the digester gas to offset the annual 8 MW requirement of the sewage treatment plant. That means the City is still buying energy: 6.4 MW every year to run the Woodward sewage plant. But instead of leaving it at that, the City proposes to take $30M from taxpayers to polish up that little bit of energy to pump into into the cars and vans run by the Public Works department. But 1. when they take away the 1.6 MW from the plant and put it in cars - they will just have to turn around and buy it back to run the sewer plant. - They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. 2. When you clean the digester gas to make it clean enough to use in cars - you lose about 30% of the energy...so there is a net loss of power. 3. Hamilton's water and wastewater fleet isn't engineered to run on natural gas - so it will cost another $6,ooo for each car to retrofit them with natural gas tanks. 4. Running on natural gas isn't all that clean - that is why the City of Hamilton isn't buying anymore natural gas buses - they have moved onto a cleaner choice - the HYBRID. 5. It costs about $6,000 more to buy a hybrid than to buy a regular car. So if Hamilton wants to spend and extra $6000 per car they should buy a truly better environmental choice- and spend the money on a hybrid. Hamilton sludge pooh power project mimics a good idea - But it is really just syphoning $30M down the drain. The city would do better to spend the money fixing potholes. JIm Harnum, head of wastewater for Hamilton - still hasn't provided the documents that were the basis of this decision. He said its too hard to read. ............................................ http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/583606 Poop power's no potty joke June 15, 2009 Lee Prokaska The Hamilton Spectator (Jun 15, 2009) It's the ultimate recycling -- toilet waste to power. It doesn't matter whether you call it poop power or biofuel. If you need to crack potty jokes or make farty noises with your armpit, that's OK too. Being the butt of a joke doesn't detract at all from the City of Hamilton's innovative plan to put our potty waste to good use. The bottom line is that the city's plan to turn human waste into biofuel for its fleet is worth applauding, particularly given the rising cost of fuel and the increased pressure on the residential tax dollar. The plan got a boost when the federal and provincial governments bought into it with infrastructure grants of $10 million each. The $30-million project will make Hamilton the first Canadian municipality to make every flush of the toilet help fuel municipal vehicles. The technology has been used in several European countries for decades, and it means the city can harvest methane gas from sludge instead of wasting the waste. Once it's processed, the fuel will power 110 municipal vehicles. It will take an initial investment of about $6,000 each to retrofit the vehicles, but the city expects about $1 million in annual fuel savings. This is a good deal, even before the city taps into the long-term revenue-generating potential of the plan. The city's cogeneration facility at Woodward Avenue already generates energy from waste, producing about 13.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity, which is enough to meet the electrical needs of about 1,600 households. The city's commitment to renewable energy and a reduced carbon footprint has already been evident in its Green Fleet Plan, which replaced 60 older sedans and pickup trucks with hybrid electric vehicles. Renewable fuels for the city's diesel fleet were introduced in 2007. And an anti-idling policy for city vehicles aims to reduce unnecessary idling from 30 per cent of operating time to virtually zero. Clearly there are huge advantages to generating biofuels as opposed to continuing to consume expensive nonrenewable fossil fuels, the prices of which are so market- and supply-dependent. It makes more sense to use the waste products of the food we eat after it's processed by our bodies, rather than taking over food- producing land to grow high-yield crops to make fuel, which pushes up the cost of some foods and feed for animals that provide the meat we eat. And although sewage sludge has been used as fertilizer for farmers' fields for decades, some have growing concerns over the safety of that use of what's left of our solid waste after treatment. Capturing the methane gas from human waste to produce fuel also means there will be less potentially damaging methane released into the atmosphere. This project will also contribute to Hamilton's reputation as a city of innovation. A willingness to embrace new ways of doing things, while improving our carbon footprint, enhances our broader appeal. That not only encourages people to live here and raise families; it also encourages innovative thinkers to look at Hamilton as a place to excel. Not bad for all that stuff we flush out of our lives. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 16 10:30:15 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:30:15 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Trojan Technologies wins Stockholm Industry Water Award Message-ID: Instead of chlorinating wastewater effluent, UV disinfection can be used. This avoids the toxic byproducts of chlorination of effluent. ............................................ Canadian Pioneer Of Ultraviolet Disinfection Technologies Wins 2009 Stockholm Industry Water Award June 11, 2009 Trojan Technologies, a Canadian developer and proponent of large-scale ultraviolet (UV) water disinfection systems used worldwide, has been named the winner of the 2009 Stockholm Industry Water Award. Based in London, Ontario, Trojan Technologies produces open channel and pressurized UV disinfection systems for industrial applications, municipal water and wastewater treatment, commercial integration, residential use, and elimination of environmental contaminants from wells and other sources of drinking water, including reused water. The company's innovations in low-energy lamp design and optimized reactor performance have established benchmarks for the field that have fostered global adoption of UV technology. With installed systems at more than 5800 facilities in more than 80 countries, Trojan has led the worldwide drive for commercial, engineering, and regulatory acceptance of the technology as an environmentally sound alternative to traditional chlorine-based water treatment. "Trojan's success has contributed to a viable competitive industry in the area of ultraviolet technologies, leading to the development of a full range of industrial technologies in both specialised and general applications," noted the Stockholm Industry Water Award nominating committee in its citation. "Their work with other members of the UV industry has advanced world-wide regulatory acceptance, overcome many limitations of existing technologies, and provided a new means of protecting public health and developing new sources of water supply." Executives from Trojan Technologies will formally receive the Stockholm Industry Water Award at a ceremony during World Water Week in Stockholm this coming August. A better solution to a global problem By demonstrating and communicating the benefits of UV-based water treatment solutions to government regulators and industry bodies, and using education to alleviate public concerns over treatment and re-use of wastewater, Trojan Technologies has led adoption of the technology around the world. With water supplies at risk from overuse and contamination in both the developing and industrial regions of the planet, decision makers now increasingly select UV technology to ensure the safety of drinking water. Ultraviolet light purifies water by destroying the ability of microorganisms to function and reproduce. In water treatment applications such as those pioneered by Trojan Technologies, specialized lamps project intense UV light into the water, effectively neutralizing the organic contaminants it contains. UV water treatment systems are especially effective at eliminating disease causing agents in wastewater. They destroy bacteria such as E. coli, viruses such as those causing hepatitis and polio, and virtually all water-borne pathogens, including chlorine-resistant types such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. They also eliminate many micro-pollutants from herbicides and pesticides, a significant issue in agricultural regions. UV technology also works more than 20 times faster than traditional chlorine based systems, with no environmental impacts from chemical leaks or any known disinfection byproducts that could be harmful to health. By virtue of these combined advantages, UV treatment presents an especially effective solution to the interrelated challenges of water quality and sufficient supply in arid regions. Its proven performance in eliminating all contaminants has led to public acceptance and confidence in sophisticated new applications for wastewater re-use. In its citation, the Stockholm Industry Water Award nominating committee highlighted several recent installations of Trojan systems that illustrate the potential of UV treatment for wastewater re-use applications. The most notable of these are large-scale projects in Orange County, California and South East Queensland, Australia. About Trojan Technologies Trojan Technologies is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danaher Corporation of Washington, D.C. Trojan designs, manufactures and sells UV systems for municipal wastewater and drinking water facilities, as well as for the industrial, commercial and residential markets. The company also provides UV treatment for the removal of certain chemicals from water. With over 5800 municipal facilities in more than 80 countries using its technology, Trojan has the largest installed base of UV systems in the world. Headquartered in London, Ontario, Canada, the company also has offices in the U.K., Germany, China, France, Italy, Spain, and the U.S. For more information visit www.trojanuv.com About the Stockholm Industry Water Award The Stockholm Industry Water Award honours contributions by business and industry that improve the global water situation. It recognises and encourages innovation and leadership in sustainable development of the water sector. Established in 2000 in collaboration with the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the award will celebrate its 10th anniversary during the 2009 World Water Week. The Award is administered by the Stockholm International Water Institute. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 16 20:24:08 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:24:08 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - Pharmaceutical Take Back Program - precedent for environmental responsiblily Message-ID: http://www.ndmac.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.dspFile&FileID=150 Medications Return Program: Setting a precedent for environmental responsibility Issue: Consumers are growing concerned about small amounts of potentially dangerous substances being released into the environment through various routes and have called on governments to put in place risk management strategies to address these concerns. The concerns include the presence of medications in waterways. NDMAC stepped up to the plate in the mid-1990s by working with other stakeholders to develop programs designed to divert unused and expired consumer health products away from landfills and waterways. Since 1997, NDMAC members have been funding British Columbia's Medications Return Program and contributing to Alberta's EnviRx Program. Both of these programs collect and dispose of unused and expired medications that have been returned to pharmacies by consumers. Between 1997 and 2008, the B.C. Medications Return Program, in collaboration with other brand-owners of medications, has collected and disposed of over 189,000 tonnes of expired and unused medications. A number of other provinces are considering implementing programs to deal with "household special waste." To avoid having a mishmash of different programs operating in different provinces, NDMAC will universally be advocating the implementation of the Medications Return Program. Ontario will be the next province to set up a program. At the moment, medications are being lumped in with other waste products. NDMAC is adamant that a program for medication/pharmaceutical waste should be separate from other waste disposal programs, be modeled on the successful Medications Return Program, and be managed by the Post Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship Association (PCPSA). Other provinces are watching Ontario's initiative closely and can be expected to follow suit in the future so it is important to ensure that Ontario implements the Medications Return Program. What's New: Under the Waste Diversion Act, Ontario is developing a Municipal and Household Special Waste (MHSW) recycling initiative, which is being implemented in phases. Phase I of the initiative began in July 2008 and includes paints, solvents, oil filters, antifreeze, pesticides, and fertilizers. Phase II will begin in 2010 and will add more categories of waste including medications, which have been categorized as "pharmaceuticals" by government. The MHSW Program requires that brand owners and first importers of the designated materials become fully responsible by addressing all associated costs. Associated operational costs include: collection; storage; handling; transporting; processing; marketing; disposal; R&D/capital costs; promotion, education and public awareness of the program. The government has placed high emphasis on consumer accessibility and convenience regarding collection options, including residential collection and retail take-back. By July 31, 2009, the responsible agency - Waste Diversion Ontario - must submit a program plan to the Minister of the Environment that addresses the requirements. The Minister has identified Stewardship Ontario as the industry funding organization responsible for managing program plans for each of the MHSW materials. NDMAC in Action: NDMAC is advocating that any program for medication/pharmaceutical waste should be separate from other waste disposal programs. NDMAC would also like the program to be modeled on the Medications Return Program, and be managed by the Post Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship Association (PCPSA). NDMAC and PCPSA advocate using pharmacies as collection points and have received support from the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores and the Ontario Pharmacists Association. The consensus view is that expired and unused medications should not be sent to municipal hazardous waste depots, but should be returned to community pharmacies for collection and disposal in an environmentally responsible manner. Over the past few months, NDMAC's Robert White and Ginette Vanasse, Executive Director of the PCPSA, have been meeting on a regular basis with officials from the Ministry of the Environment, the Minister's Office, Waste Diversion Ontario, Stewardship Ontario, and other stewardship organizations regarding definitions and program plan elements. They have emphasized that PCPSA could quite rapidly roll out an effective system for collecting and disposing of expired and unused medications. This effort will also require further meetings with supporters, Stewardship Ontario's newly established plan development team, and the ministry. In addition, the federal government has developed a set of best practices for pharmaceutical disposal programs. NDMAC submitted detailed comments that have resulted in a document that notes the challenges of changing consumer behaviour to increase the amount of unused and expired medications returned for disposal. What You Can Do: NDMAC is seeking your support in ensuring the Medications Return Program is permitted to operate in Ontario with PCPSA acting as the industry funding organization. PCPSA has a draft program plan that addresses the requirements of the Ministry for municipal special waste, and has as its members the brand-owners that will fund the program as well as support from pharmacy organizations to act as the collection points for expired and unused medications. We ask you to write to Ontario's Minister of the Environment and recommend that he recognize PCPSA as the industry funding organization for the "pharmaceutical" category and approve the program plan. In doing so, Ontarians will be able to dispose of their unused and expired medications and have them managed in an environmentally responsible manner. Write to: The Honourable John Gerretsen Minister of the Environment 12th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 Background: How does the Medications Return Program work? The Medications Return Program, which has been operating in British Columbia since 1997, allows consumers to return their unwanted medications to any participating pharmacy throughout the province. Prescription drugs (brand name and generic) and consumer health products including nonprescription medicines and natural health products are accepted. There are no user fees directed to the consumer at time of purchase or at the point of collection. Medicines returned from each pharmacy are tracked by weight, pickup date, and location, and are stored in a secure location until a shipment is accumulated for safe destruction through a licensed incineration facility. Program costs, such as management, communications, collection, transportation, storage, disposal and promotional activities, are covered by NDMAC members and other brand-owners. Background: What is PCPSA? The Post Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship Association (PCPSA) is a Canadian not-for-profit organization that administers medications return programs and serves as an interface with federal and provincial stakeholders to develop an efficient process for disposing of medications. Background: What is Waste Diversion Ontario? The Waste Diversion Act, 2002, created Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), a permanent, non-government corporation, which is run by a Board of Directors comprised of industry, municipal and non-governmental representatives. The Act empowers the Minister to designate a material for which a waste diversion program is to be established. Once the Minister has designated a material through a regulation under the Waste Diversion Act, the Minister asks Waste Diversion Ontario, working co-operatively with stewards, to develop a diversion program. The Minister of the Environment has designated Blue Box Waste, Used Tires, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste under the WDA. The Blue Box Program Plan was approved by the Minister on December 22, 2003 and commenced on February 1, 2004. The first phase of the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program Plan was approved by the Minister on February 19, 2008 and commenced on July 1, 2008. The first phase of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Program Plan was approved by the Minister on July 10, 2008 and will commence on April 1, 2009. Background: What is Stewardship Ontario? Stewardship Ontario is Ontario's first Industry Funding Organization (IFO). It was created in 2002, in response to Sections 23 and 24 of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 under which the Minister of the Environment is authorized to require Waste Diversion Ontario to develop a waste diversion program for a "designated waste" in conjunction with an Industry Funding Organization (IFO). From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 17 19:55:00 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:55:00 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Michelle Obama - White House Vegetable Garden is lead contaminated - 93 ppm lead - medium risk Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin Three cheers for Michelle Obama and the White house vegetable garden. However..the South Lawn has a sludge history that may be impacting food eaten by the First Family. Michelle Obama took a wonderful step and created a community project that took a patch of the South Lawn of the White House and made a vegetable garden that is not certified but is called 'organic'. But what isn't featured in the news clips of the First Lady harvesting her kale and other leafy greens is the fact that the South Lawn was several times targetted for spreading with sewage sludge compost. Ironically, the White House garden is threatened with exactly the same sludge that was placed on the tiny urban lawns of 10 poor black families in Baltimore. The Baltimore sludge up with ORGRO (also called 'Compro') - created a furor. Black families were not told that their yards were spread with sludge compost eight inches deep. I wonder if the First Family was told that their lawn - now the site of their vegetable garden- was spread with sludge compost several times. Some of the Orgro spread on lawns in Baltimore tested at 273 ppm lead. According to ATSR soils with levels of lead over 50 ppm are considered 'lead contaminated'..but there is no remediation action triggered. Normal soil lead levels for uncontaminated soil are about 10 ppm. Some of the Orgro sludge compost spread on poor folks lawns in Baltimore tested as high as 237 ppm lead. I don't know the lead level on the sludges spread on the White House South Lawn, but I would love to find out. The Obama veggie garden soil tests at 93 ppm lead according to the National Parks Service. ATSR considers that level to be contaminated but its just an advisory standard. The White House gardeners might want to test for lead and cadmium uptake into spinach and kale in the vegetables picked from the garden. What are the US standards for lead levels?: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/pb_standards2.html /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// See: NYTimes : For urban gardener lead is a problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/garden/14lead.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1 White House Garden - Its not certified but its organic http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/gardening/2009/06/white_house_kitchen_garden_2.html Sludge Spread on White House Lawn: Mother Jones: Sludge Happens http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/sludge-happens Before gardening - test your soil for lead http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/OPINION/905260306/1022/LIVING02 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 18 13:41:21 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:41:21 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Mother Jones: Did Sewage Sludge Lace the White House Veggie Garden With Lead? Message-ID: .............................................. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/06/did-sludge-lace-obamas-veggie-garden-lead Mother Jones Did Sewage Sludge Lace the White House Veggie Garden With Lead? ? By Josh Harkinson | Wed June 17, 2009 In March, Michelle Obama delighted locavores when she planted an "organic" vegetable garden on the White House's South Lawn. For years, Alice Waters, Michael Pollan, and other sustainable food activists had been pushing the idea as a way to reseed interest in do-it-yourself agriculture. Less than two months later, the National Park Service disclosed that the garden's soil was contaminated with toxic lead, and the plot's educational value took on a new flavor as the New York Times and other papers discussed how to make urban backyards that are laced with old lead-based paint safe for growing kale and cauliflower. But those stories might have fingered the wrong culprit. Starting in the late 1980s and continuing for at least a decade, the South Lawn was fertilized by ComPRO, a compost made from a nearby wastewater plant's solid effluent, a.ka. sewage sludge. Sludge is controversial because it can contain almost anything that gets poured down the drain, from Prozac flushed down toilets to lead hosed off factory floors. Spreading sludge at the White House was a way for the EPA to reassure the public that using it as a fertilizer for crops and yards (instead of dumping it in the ocean, as had been common practice) would be safe. "The Clintons are walking around on poo," the EPA's sludge chief quipped in 1998, "but it's very clean poo." Perhaps not as clean as we thought. The same ComPRO fertilizer, now renamed Orgro, was used in a controversial, 2005 lead abatement study conducted in predominately African-American neighborhood in Baltimore. Scientists wanted to know if lead in the soil of inner-city backyards could be immobilized by mixing it with sludge. Though the study found "significant reductions in the lead level in the treated yards," the initial levels of lead in the soil had been astronomical. Even before being applied to the yards, the sludge was already contaminated with lead at up to 237 parts per million, which is about 23 times normal soil levels. Given that the White House vegetable garden isn't close to buildings that would shed lead-based paint, sludge is more likely to blame for its lead problem. Sludge can legally contain up to 300 parts per million of lead, which is well above the 93 parts per million found in the White House garden. That level probably isn't going to cause any health problems--the EPA doesn't suggest worrying about anything below 400 parts per million--but does it mean that something is out of the ordinary. The Clintons' "very clean poo" might have been too good to be true. ///////////////////////////////// comments: Its great that the First Lady is growing a community garden. But did the National Park Service director for the White House tell Michelle Obama that her 'organic' garden soil has been historically repeatedly spread with sewage sludge compost ? According to Al Rubin - retired EPA Biosolids Coordinator - sludge compost from Blue Plains and for Back River Baltimore sewage treatment plants was spread on the South Lawn of the White House "about 5 times". Sludge compost from Baltimore was tested as high as 237 ppm lead...so certainly sludge spreading could elevate toxic metals in White House soil. This would explain the elevated level of lead in the new White House garden. So what about the other toxic metals? What is the level of cadmium, nickel, mercury in that garden? Cadmium is pulled up into green leafy plants - especially the spinach and kale favoured by Michelle. Are these toxic metals putting White House meals at risk? At 93 ppm lead, the carrots and potatoes need to be peeled before they are eaten. Children need to be cautioned against eating any dirt or licking dirty fingers. Did the National Parks Service horticulturist - who allowed and even promoted sludge spreading on the White House lawn - mislead the First Lady as to the soil quality? Surely she should have been informed about the history of sludge use on the South Lawn before she put in her lovely garden. There is much to learn here: 1. Don't put sludge products on your lawn ... yesterday's lawn is tomorrows 'organic' garden. 2. Test your garden soil for metals before you plant. 3. Tell the government to forbid calling sewage sludge fertilizers 'organic'...because this is misleading the public into thinking these fertilizers meet the clean organic standards for food production. 4. Tell the National Park Service to forbid the use of sewage sludge materials on public parks ...INCLUDING the White House. Maureen Reilly From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 18 15:21:19 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:21:19 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Did Sewage Sludge Lace the White House Veggie Garden With Lead? Mother Jones Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: I'll bet the National Park Service failed to tell Michelle Obama about the history of sludge spreading on the South Lawn - site of the First Lady's community vegetable garden. ................................................................ http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/06/did-sludge-lace-obamas-veggie-garden-lead Did Sewage Sludge Lace the White House Veggie Garden With Lead? ? By Josh Harkinson | Wed June 17, 2009 In March, Michelle Obama delighted locavores when she planted an "organic" vegetable garden on the White House's South Lawn. For years, Alice Waters, Michael Pollan, and other sustainable food activists had been pushing the idea as a way to reseed interest in do-it-yourself agriculture. Less than two months later, the National Park Service disclosed that the garden's soil was contaminated with toxic lead, and the plot's educational value took on a new flavor as the New York Times and other papers discussed how to make urban backyards that are laced with old lead-based paint safe for growing kale and cauliflower. But those stories might have fingered the wrong culprit. Starting in the late 1980s and continuing for at least a decade, the South Lawn was fertilized by ComPRO, a compost made from a nearby wastewater plant's solid effluent, a.ka. sewage sludge. Sludge is controversial because it can contain traces of almost anything that gets poured down the drain, from Prozac flushed down toilets to lead hosed off factory floors. Spreading sludge at the White House was a way for the EPA to reassure the public that using it as a fertilizer for crops and yards (instead of dumping it in the ocean, as had been common practice) would be safe. "The Clintons are walking around on poo," the EPA's sludge chief quipped in 1998, "but it's very clean poo." Perhaps not as clean as we thought. The same ComPRO fertilizer, now renamed Orgro, was used in a controversial, 2005 lead abatement study conducted in predominately African-American neighborhood in Baltimore. Scientists wanted to know if lead in the soil of inner-city backyards could be immobilized by mixing it with sludge. Though the study found "significant reductions in the lead level in the treated yards," the initial levels of lead in the soil had been astronomical. Even before being applied to the yards, the sludge was already contaminated with lead at up to 237 parts per million, which is about 23 times normal soil levels. Given that the White House vegetable garden isn't close to buildings that would shed lead-based paint, sludge is more likely to blame for its lead problem. Sludge can legally contain up to 300 parts per million of lead, which is well above the 93 parts per million found in the White House garden. That level probably isn't going to cause any health problems--the EPA doesn't suggest worrying about anything below 400 parts per million--but does it mean that something is out of the ordinary. The Clintons' "very clean poo" might have been too good to be true. ................. White House lawn spread with sludge June 18, 2009 Its great that the First Lady is growing a community garden. But did the National Park Service director for the White House tell Michelle Obama that her 'organic' garden soil has been historically repeatedly spread with sewage sludge compost ? According to Al Rubin - retired EPA Biosolids Coordinator - sludge compost from Blue Plains and for Back River Baltimore sewage treatment plants was spread on the South Lawn of the White House "about 5 times". Sludge compost from Baltimore was tested as high as 237 ppm lead...so certainly sludge spreading could elevate toxic metals in White House soil. This would explain the elevated level of lead in the new White House garden. So what about the other toxic metals? What is the level of cadmium, nickel, mercury in that garden? Cadmium is pulled up into green leafy plants - especially the spinach and kale favoured by Michelle. Are these toxic metals putting White House meals at risk? At 93 ppm lead, the carrots and potatoes need to be peeled before they are eaten. Children need to be cautioned against eating any dirt or licking dirty fingers. Did the National Parks Service horticulturist - who allowed and even promoted sludge spreading on the White House lawn - mislead the First Lady as to the soil quality? Surely she should have been informed about the history of sludge use on the South Lawn before she put in her lovely garden. There is much to learn here: 1. Don't put sludge products on your lawn ... yesterday's lawn is tomorrows 'organic' garden. 2. Test your garden soil for metals before you plant. 3. Tell the government to forbid calling sewage sludge fertilizers 'organic'...because this is misleading the public into thinking these fertilizers meet the clean organic standards for food production. 4. the National Park Service should forbid the use of sewage sludge materials on public parks ...INCLUDING the White House. It should be forbidden on farmland and gardens altogether. Maureen Reilly Sludge Watch From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Jun 17 12:34:28 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:34:28 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Halifax - spent $54M on inoperable sewage treatment plant- now $400K study Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: North America is in a financial crisis. Unemployment, market crisis, belt tightening. But the wastewater industry still gorges itself at the public trough - sucking up multimillions in taxpayer's money. Toronto pays out on a Veolia sewage sludge pelletizer that didn't work at a cost of $23M...it burns down, so Toronto spends a second $32M to rebuild it...and the thing still doesn't work. It will not perform from one day to the next..and they cannot deliver on the obligatory 25,000 dry tonnes of sludge pellets. Taxpayers are out about $55M. Hamilton wants to take $30M to put sludge digester gas into their car fleet. But $30M is enough money to pay for all the fuel for the fleet for 71 years! For $30M they could all drive around in a hundred hybrids! Look at Toronto again...paying $350 per dry tonne to ship some of its sewage sludge to N-Viro. Ill conceived expensive wastewater/sludge projects are fleecing the public with these expensive,incompetent, shoddy, hair brained schemes. Now Halifax - aside from the misery of their sludge spreading, also can't build and run a sewage treatment plant...and now the public must pay almost a half million dollars for a report on why. The public needs to put the wastewater infrastructure and wastewater industry under scrutiny. The public is being robbed. .............................................. $400,000 for sewage report coming from sludge fund By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter Wed. Jun 17 - 4:46 AM Halifax city hall is dishing out $400,000 for a consultant?s report on the municipality?s inoperable sewage treatment plant. But where is that money coming from? And who authorized the expense? Taxpayers upset with the unsatisfactory sewage situation want to know. They also want to know why they can?t see the findings of a preliminary report from the consultant?s forensic audit of the broken plant. The report has been in the hands of officials at Halifax Water, the municipality?s water utility, for several days now. Regional council authorized the $400,000 study, a couple of councillors told The Chronicle Herald recently. The cash is to be withdrawn from a contingency fund that?s part of the $333-million Harbour Solutions project. According to a municipal staff report presented to council in March, the contingency budget is about $18.2 million. It says more repair-related costs could be on the way. Halifax?s $54-million sewage plant malfunctioned five months ago and the building flooded. "The financial impact of the flooding event and resulting temporary shutdown at the Halifax (site) is still unknown," says the report, submitted to council by Brad Anguish, the manager in charge of Harbour Solutions. "Although the plant has extensive insurance coverage, HRM may incur the initial recovery costs up front and therefore may have to draw on the contingency balance until insurance details have been agreed upon," it says. "It should also be noted that there remain numerous potential project risks that may require funding from the contingency balance, such as insurance deductibles and design changes due to changes in (the) building code," the staff report says. It adds that "the contingency budget . . . is largely set aside for addressing inflation beyond budget levels. The contingency is also being used to fund small items that have arisen through . . . contract amendments." James Campbell, spokesman for Halifax Water, said the Halifax Regional Water Commission issued a request for proposals for the forensic audit in February. He said the tender was awarded in April to consultants CH2M Hill. The company was a member of a consortium that lost out to Halifax Regional Environmental Partnership in the public-private partnership process that originally awarded a contract to design, build and operate the plant. Halifax Regional Municipality has signed agreements with private contractors who?ve designed and constructed the Halifax plant, and sister facilities in Dartmouth and Herring Cove. These firms could be part of a court dispute over the deficient plant, situated near Halifax?s downtown, and that?s why city hall officials won?t release the consultant?s preliminary report. Results of the forensic probe, which is ongoing, might be the subject of a legal battle (or an out-of-court settlement), and the municipality has said it doesn?t want to tip its hand in public. One reader of this newspaper?s website was not too happy with the high consultant cost. "$400,000? These government people toss around these high sums of money like they?re buying a pack of gum," the reader said in an online comment Monday. "Let?s get to the bottom line ? who?s responsible?" The Halifax sewage plant malfunctioned in mid-January and flooded with dirty water; it?s supposed to be fixed by spring 2010. Meanwhile, untreated human waste is once again fouling Halifax Harbour. An update from Halifax Water in a newsletter sent to metro householders says part of the reason for the long lead time for repair work is due to the slow replacement of key components. "The equipment / systems exposed to wastewater will need to be repaired and / or replaced. Some of this equipment has a delivery time of six months, so every effort is being made to determine which pieces of equipment have been impacted and will require replacement," the newsletter says. ( mlightstone at herald.ca) From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Jun 19 08:46:17 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:46:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Maple Leaf Listeria Inquiry Needed - just like Walkerton, Tainted Blood, SARS Message-ID: CANADA: Report calls for listeria inquiry 19.jun.09 TheStar.com Robert Cribb http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/653396 Canadians need a full public inquiry into the death of 22 Canadians from last summer's listeria outbreak and increased inspection oversight in meat plants, a parliamentary investigation has concluded. After two months of hearings, the parliamentary food safety report also found health authorities lost precious time warning the public because they were immersed in confusion and "turf wars." Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who quickly dismissed calls for a public inquiry yesterday, did not respond to an interview request. Critics agreed with the parliamentary food safety subcommittee that a public inquiry is needed. "There have always been inquiries when there have been serious crises in public health," said Amir Attaran, professor in the faculty of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa. "We've had it for tainted blood. We had it for Walkerton. We had it for SARS. We're obviously going to need it for listeriosis. But Parliament so far has not managed to push the Conservatives to do that." In a dissenting report yesterday, Conservatives on the subcommittee issued their own set of recommendations, none of which mention a public inquiry. Instead of a public inquiry, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced last fall an independent investigation led by Sheila Weatherill. Her report is to be completed by next month. Critics dismiss the $2.7 million investigation for being conducted behind closed doors without the authority to compel testimony or documents. Although Toronto public health officials first noticed a spike in cases in mid-July of last year, Canadians weren't warned about the risk until mid-August as people began dying. "The (various health) agencies did not have a consistent approach to public notification," said Toronto medical officer of health Dr. David McKeown. "It wasn't clear that people were being guided by the plans that had been made." While the report doesn't speculate how much earlier Canadians should have been warned, it suggests health authorities increased the risk to consumers by pointing fingers rather than blowing whistles. Officials with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Ontario Ministry of Health said they were reviewing the report and its recommendations. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Jun 20 12:35:49 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:35:49 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> San Jose Calif: Sludge and Food Waste Biogas Project - Energy and Land Application Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This proposal is to mix sewage sludge (dirty organic waste) with food waste (clean organic waste) - put it in a digester - take the digester gas off and use for fuel - and use the leftover solids for land application/ fertilizer. But why mix the dirty and the clean waste streams? Why contaminate the food waste - which can be made into very clean soil conditioners - with the sewage sludge ? This proposal will mean that organic farms and those who want a clean organic garden - will never be able to use the 'fertilizer' produced by San Jose. If we want clean food and sustainable gardening and agriculture - we need to stop putting toxic industrial wastes on our food lands and on our gardens. ............................................. San Jose closer to being first U.S. city with biogas plant By Tracy Seipel Mercury News Posted: 06/19/2009 05:39:49 PM PDT Updated: 06/20/2009 06:02:47 AM PDT Related Sections Green Energy: All about alternative energy Green Living: Consumer-oriented news you can use for a greener lifestyle San Jose this week moved closer to becoming the first U.S. city with a biogas plant that would turn organic waste into methane gas and high-quality fertilizer. Not only would the project reduce the city's energy bill, officials say, it would also help San Jose reach its Green Vision goal of obtaining 100 percent of its electricity by 2022 from clean, renewable sources and diverting 100 percent of the city's waste from the landfill. "We're pretty excited," said Nancy Klein, the city's director of corporate outreach. "San Jose will be the first in the nation to deploy this technology." The idea of turning waste into fuel isn't new; San Jose and other cities around the country already use a process that turns wet waste such as sewage sludge into energy. It's the dry fermentation technology behind this project that makes it unique, said Michele Young, organics manager for San Jose's Environmental Services Department. "We're going to decompose food and yard waste in the absence of oxygen," Young said. "That produces methane gas, which can be converted into electricity." That power would be used by the proposed sewage treatment plant, or would be sold back to the grid, she said. Young said the project could reduce the plant's power bill by up to 25 percent. The new facility will be built and operated by Zero Waste Energy Development Company on 40 acres of land jointly owned by San Jose and the city of Santa Clara on the north side of Los Esteros Road. The location is between two solid waste recovery and recycling facilities owned and operated by the private Zanker Road Resource Management, one of two companies, including GreenWaste Recovery, that are part of Zero Waste Energy. On Tuesday, the City Council gave the go-ahead for San Jose's Office of Economic Development to negotiate a long-term land lease with Zero Waste Energy. The land where the plant would be built is currently being appraised, but Klein said a comparably-sized piece of land would lease for about $300,000 to $400,000 a year. She said the plant would cost from $15 million to $18 million to build. It could employ 30 to 40 people during development and construction and is expected to create and retain 50 to 60 direct and supporting jobs when fully operational by 2013. By that time, the facility could take in up to 150,000 tons of organic waste that otherwise would be destined for a landfill, and process it to produce energy. Industry observers seemed impressed, but not surprised, by San Jose's proposal. "They have a history of being one of the front-runners in recycling, not only with their staff but with their partners in the private sector companies," said Scott Smithline, director of legal and regulatory affairs of Californians Against Waste. The Sacramento-based nonprofit is dedicated to protecting the state's environment through the development of better waste reduction and recycling policies and programs. "It looks like they've done a good job of identifying what their priorities are and selecting a technology that will work well within their existing infrastructure." Contact Tracy Seipel at tseipel at mercurynews.com or 408-920-5343. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Jun 21 10:58:53 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:58:53 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sewage Sludge Demo on the White House lawn - Lead in White House Garden Soil Message-ID: Sewery Goodness: Report suggests EPA?s sewer sludge demo in 80s put lead into White House soil Posted 9:54 AM on 19 Jun 2009 by Tom Laskawy First Lady Michelle Obama hosts the Bancroft Elementary School for the garden harvest of the White House in Washington on June 16, 2009Offical White House Photographer Samantha AppletonHere?s a bit of not-so-delicious irony for you. Back when First Lady Michelle Obama planted her garden, the soil tested for slightly elevated lead levels?not necessarily dangerous, but quite a bit higher than the amount considered the ?normal? background soil lead level of 10 parts per million. Lead contamination is a fact of life that for urban gardeners, as the NYT reported in May?a hangover from the past, widespread industrial use of the toxic metal in everything from paint to gasoline to pesticides. The White House soil test results were thus shrugged off at the time as an inevitability of urban gardening. Well, Mother Jones? Blue Marble blog speculates that there is a particular guilty party, lead-wise, for the White House lawn?s issues. And it?s that fertilizer you love to hate?sewer sludge. Grist published a series of articles recently on the dangers of using sewer sludge on agricultural lands. Sludge tends to be full of heavy metals like lead, along with an encyclopedia?s worth of industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals. But back in the 1980s, the EPA was trying to convince everyone how wonderfully safe and useful all the leftover poo product was. So they spread some ?clean? sludge on the White House South Lawn to prove it (and reportedly continued to do so for years). Only now we discover the sludge wasn?t quite so clean. It?s entirely possible that the EPA was aware of the lead levels, but since the South Lawn grew only ornamental and not edible plants, it wasn?t considered an issue?that kind of distinction is often made with sewer sludge. Except, as we?ve learned, garden plans change. Kinda makes you wish the EPA had paid attention to the science on the dangers of sewer sludge and didn?t fire the scientist who authored a study indicating the human health risks associated with the use of sewer sludge as fertilzier?risks which, to this day, the EPA still effectively denies. I bet the First Lady wishes the same thing. Tom is a media and technology professional who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet. http://www.grist.org/article/report-suggests-epas-sewer-sludge-demo-in-80s-contaminated-white-house-soil/ From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 22 12:11:24 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:11:24 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Texas: Green toilet wins city approval Message-ID: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/2009/06/18/0618humanure.html Green toilet wins city approval Composting commode is first to gain official stamp. By Asher Price AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, June 18, 2009 It took more than four years of negotiations and construction, but this month an Austin Water Utility inspector gave final clearance to a glorified outhouse that is on the vanguard of down-and-dirty environmentalism. Known as a composting toilet, the East Austin commode relies on the alchemy wrought by bacteria to transform human waste into a rich trove of soil. Specialists in so-called humanure have hailed the approval of the toilet as a watershed moment for common-sense environmentalism. Users flush not with water but with a scoop of sawdust from a nearby bucket, saving the drinking-water-quality water used by conventional toilets, not to mention the energy and money required to pump and clean the wastewater. "It's the ecologically sound thing to do," said David Bailey, 32, an itinerant carpenter and puppeteer who spearheaded the project. "Rather than using purified drinking water for a waste stream, we're using naturally occurring, ambient bacteria to create soil, one of Earth's least renewable resources. You have more water to drink and bathe in, and you end up with topsoil that's every gardener's dream." The technology, simple as it is, is unlikely to become widespread. City code bars any property within 100 feet of a sewer line from having a composting toilet. There's also the "ick" factor. And despite issuing its first such permit, the city does not sound especially keen on composting commodes. Austin Water Utility spokesman Kevin Buchman said the composting toilet is "not something we're endorsing or even recommend. It's an option for people building homes and trying to do what they believe to be environmentally sound." The state delegates regulatory power for on-site sewage facilities, which include composting toilets, to local authorities, said Terry Clawson, a spokesman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The permitted outhouse sits about 4 feet off the ground on a 9.8-acre former landfill in the Montopolis neighborhood that belongs to the Rhizome Collective, a group that puts in practice off-the-grid sustainability, or living in ways that require little in the way of nonrenewable sources of energy. There is no water hookup to the screened-in, cottage-like outhouse, which cost about $3,000 to build and has a small porch in front and a stall with two commodes inside. Only one functions at a time, for about a year; once the vault beneath it, which is matted with straw, is full, the vault and commode will be sealed for a year. Then the contents are usable as compost, Bailey said. While one commode is sealed, the other will be used. Mismanaged sewage and bad sanitation have been blamed for outbreaks of a variety of diseases, among them cholera. But heat created by bacteria in the vault destroys pathogens and coliforms, Bailey says, making the soil "totally benign, environmentally speaking." The airy outhouse sports views of a pasture of cacti and smells mostly of sawdust. A small fan, powered by a solar panel affixed to the outhouse, keeps fumes moving through a PVC exhaust chimney. A hand-sanitizer dispenser sits beside the screen door. In keeping with the sympathies and orientation of the Rhizome Collective, the toilet-side books include "Malcom X Speaks," the Marxist sociological text "Society of the Spectacle" and the prison novel "Iron City." The permitting and final approval for the outhouse took four years, but "it's a testament to the openness of the city to allow us to build it," said Bailey, who says he has built more than a dozen composting toilets in Texas, the Northeast and overseas. At least a handful of composting toilets exist in Austin covertly, but Bailey said the Rhizome Collective wanted to win city recognition for the project to persuade officials to broaden the ways residents can cut their water use. On average, toilets use as much as 3 gallons per flush, Buchman said. As part of the permit application, members of the Rhizome Collective included material from two of the seminal toilet-construction texts, "Lifting the Lid" and the "Humanure Handbook." "I know of no other cities that officially recognize humanure toilets," said Joseph Jenkins, author of the "Humanure Handbook." "It is little understood by regulatory personnel, and it falls into a gray area ? somewhere between what people typically consider 'sanitation' or 'waste treatment' and 'composting.' " Benefits include the production of a valuable fertilizer, savings in water use, and the prevention of treated effluent, possibly laden with chemicals, from being discharged into waterways, said Lauren Ross, a civil engineer who worked on the project. "In our current culture, it's not a technology for most people," she said. "But there is a significant part of Austin's community ready to take some radical steps for environmental protection. Composting toilets are no crazier than a lifestyle based on living somewhere in suburbia and commuting 15 miles for a downtown job. That's also not for everyone, but it gets planned for and is accepted as a normal, ordinary way of life." Flush toilets also contribute to the enormous amounts of energy required to pull water out of the Colorado River, treat it to a drinkable standard, flush it through the sewage system, and treat it again before it can be discharged back into the river. Austin Water Utility uses as much electricity as all other city departments combined, not including Austin Energy, said David Greene, energy and resources engineer with the water utility. "It's a major energy issue," Greene said. asherprice at statesman.com; 445-3643 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 22 12:19:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:19:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Queen follows Michelle Obama example -start organic garden at Buckingham Palace Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: It is important for all of us to remember that what is one day a lawn is another day a vegetable garden. And all families...from the First Family in the White House and the Royal Family in the Palace....want to eat organic food. They DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOOD GROWN IN SLUDGED SOIL. That is why the organic production in North America is gaining marketshare at a rate of 10% per year! People are voting with their fork. They are voting with their garden hoe. They are voting against sludge in favor of organic. ......................................................... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article6494252.ece Michelle Obama's Organic Garden | 06/18/2009 10:45 am Queen Elizabeth Takes Michelle Obama's Cue With Organic Veggie Garden (Video) Veggies to be grown at Buckingham Palace for first time since WWII; Michelle Obama, kids harvest White House garden, which still has its critics. By The Staff at wowOwow.com Michelle Obama?s organic green thumb is rubbing off on a very important lady in England ? Queen Elizabeth. The two women met in April and have kept in touch since then. They hit it off with two of their common interests ? fashion and gardening. And after Michelle Obama planted an organic garden at the White House with her own two hands, the queen is following suit ? although we?re not quite sure Her Majesty had her own hands in the dirt! For the first time since World War II, ornamental plants and vegetables will grow at the palace, but this time, they will be organic. Veggies like runner beans, leeks, beetroot and an endangered variety of climbing French beans called Blue Queen will grow in the back of a 40-acre plot at the London palace, says the BBC. While her husband may be pushing health-care reform, these are just some of the ways the First Lady is touting healthy eating and giving business to local organic farms. Obama this week invited 36 kids from a local Washington school to help her harvest ? and eat! ? lettuce and snap peas in her summer vegetable garden. White House chefs were on hand to help teach the kids how to cook healthier options. But we?re talking about Washington, and nothing is without its critics ? even an organic garden. Politico reports on how conventional agriculture is fighting back against Michelle?s message of herbicide ? and chemical-free foods and cooking. Fertilizer and pesticide companies have written letters to the White House touting the necessity of their products. And since the number of people planting their own veggie gardens has spiked in the past two years, particularly after the First Lady vocalized her support of it, the stakes are even higher. "There?s a lot of pushback we?re hearing, a lot of whining out of that community about the First Lady doing her garden," Larry Mitchell of the American Corn Growers Association, which represents both organic and conventional farmers, told Slate. "They?re getting awful squeamish on this thing." We guess everyone and everything is going to have its critics. But what do you think? Is Michelle Obama?s organic garden a good idea? And should others try to follow suit? Here?s video of Michelle Obama talking to the kids helping her harvest her organic garden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1vUBYr0-LE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewowowow%2Ecom%2Fpolitics%2Fqueen%2Delizabeth%2Dtakes%2Dmichelle%2Dobama%2Dorganic%2Dveggie%2Dgarden%2Dharvest%2Dpesticide%2Dchemicals%2Dindustry%2D&feature=player_embedded From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 25 10:58:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:58:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia - Biosolids: From Toilet to Kitchen Table Message-ID: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1128989.html#recommends Biosolids: from the toilet to your kitchen table By FRED F. BLOIS Thu. Jun 25 2009 Every day hospital waste, feces, urine, household cleaners, vomit, blood, personal care products, prescription drugs, a vast array of chemicals, heavy metals and industrial waste are flushed into our sewer systems. The result, wastewater products, is a mixture of everything that we and industry flush down the drain. This cocktail is piped from our homes, businesses and industries to sewage plants across the province. The water is filtered and discharged. Most of the solid waste, called sewage sludge, that remains is treated and turned into biosolids, which are promoted as a beneficial alternative to chemical fertilizers. These biosolids are then applied to the land that grows the food we eat. Government officials and proponents insist the biosolids are not only tested, but also meet or exceed all the regulations surrounding the treatment and disposal of wastewater products. They also insist that biosolids are safe for application to agricultural land. There is, however, good reason to question the soundness of that opinion. The regulations governing the treatment and disposal of wastewater products in Nova Scotia are based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency?s rules promulgated in 1993. Unfortunately, the risk assessment on which current rules are based is outdated and unreliable, as it fails to include many newly recognized chemicals of potential concern, including flame retardants, pharmaceuticals and personal care products such as shampoos and soaps. Over the past 16 years, a tremendous amount of new knowledge about chemicals, heavy metals and pathogens has been developed. Many findings show increased environmental and health risks that were not included as part of the risk assessment that the EPA used as the basis for the standards proclaimed in 1993. These new findings support the need to revise the present Nova Scotian regulations. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a substance isn?t tested for, it won?t show up as a hazard. This does not mean there is no risk involved in the practice of land application, but that there is not enough evidence to deem it a safe practice. Comprehensive independent testing of wastewater products must be implemented and the scope of materials tested must be expanded, which the generators of wastewater products oppose. Without such testing, land application of these products makes no ecological or economic sense, except, of course, for the proponents who require a home for their sludge and for the corporations that profit from treating this potentialy poisonous, complex and unpredictable mixture. Land application is not "recycling;" it is pollution transfer. Agricultural soils are a unique and valuable resource. Therefore, does it really make sense to spend millions of dollars to build a sewage treatment plant that removes pollutants from sewage, only to spread these same pollutant byproducts on the land where they can adversely affect humans, animals and groundwater, and degrade farmland? Protecting agricultural soils requires anticipating and avoiding potential harms. Once contaminated, stopping the application of pollutants, such as metals and many organic chemicals that are in sewage biosolids, will not correct the problem. The contamination will remain for decades or even centuries. It is thus critical to prevent this essentially permanent degradation. Nova Scotia wastewater management policy must be sustainable. Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert, one of Sweden?s foremost cancer scientists and initiator of the sustainability movement the Natural Step, uses the Precautionary Principle as a fundamental component in achieving social and ecological sustainability. This principle states that when an activity poses threats to human health and the environment, precautionary measures must be taken, even if a cause-and-effect relationship has not yet been fully established. This principle should be paramount in all decision-making. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, must provide scientific evidence that their proposed activity is harmless and will pose no adverse personal health or environmental effects, before they begin the activity. Members of the Nova Scotia NDP unanimously endorsed the Precationary Principle as the basis for the party?s environmental policy at their annual general meeting held in March. Current practices in Nova Scotia do not include comprehensive third-party testing of wastewater products prior to their application on agricultural land. This contradicts the Precautionary Principle. If the new NDP government wants to demonstrate that it is charting a course different from its Tory and Liberal predecessors, it will update the regulations, expand the substances tested for, and ensure that the testing is done independently. In the meantime, the Precautionary Principle requires a moratorium on the land application of wastewater products to avoid serious threats to the agricultural industry, as well as potentially devastating health consequences for all Nova Scotians. Fred F. Blois is a member of the Nova Scotia NDP Environmental Committee and a board member of the Nova Scotia Environmental Network. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Jun 25 11:37:47 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:37:47 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Canada's Information Commissioner- Resigns - 'Sham-ocracy' Message-ID: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/25/newsmakers-of-the-week-june-25/ Too much information On Monday, Canada?s Information Commissioner Robert Marleau resigned unexpectedly, only two years into an ostensible seven-year tenure. He was in the process of reforming the country?s access to information laws, which have come to be routinely subverted by secretive government officials. Only one day earlier, Marleau was quoted in a Toronto Star article decrying the whole system. When the Access to Information Act was introduced in 1983, he told the reporter, ?we were amongst the leaders in the world.? Since then, he said, ?It?s been the same song and dance, no effort by any government to have this legislation or these processes keep pace with time, change and technology.? The reasons for his hasty departure only 24 hours later, he told media, are ?entirely personal and private.? /////////////////////////////// http://www.thestar.com/article/654249 Sham-ocracy, part 2 of 6: Signs of decline TheStar.com | Canada | Turned-off Canadians tuning out Turned-off Canadians tuning out CHRISTOPHER PIKE FOR THE TORONTO STAR Federal information commissioner Robert Marleau, in his Ottawa office: "We do not do a good job in Canada about teaching and learning about our basic institutions." Print Choose text size Report error or complaint License this article Travers: Tiny cuts making democracy a sham Travers: The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy Sham-ocracy series: Part 1: MPs' spending secrets Part 2: Canadians turned off Part 3: Young people tuned out Part 4: The media's role Part 5: Do Tories want watchdog or lapdog? Q&A: Elizabeth May on crisis in Canada Q&A:Garth Turner on digital democracy British MPs expenses online Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency Jun 21, 2009 04:30 AM Comments on this story (82) Bruce Campion-Smith OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF OTTAWA ? At the time it was hailed as groundbreaking. Fill out a one-page form, pay a $5 fee and Canadians had the right to ask for any federal government record. The introduction of the Access to Information Act in 1983 put Canada on the cutting edge. "We were amongst the leaders in the world," says Robert Marleau, the federal information commissioner. But the leader has become the laggard after 26 years of "static decline," Marleau says. "Since then it's been the same song and dance, no effort by any government to have this legislation or these processes keep pace with time, change and technology," he said in an interview. Today, the access to information system is collapsing from a combination of neglect and bureaucrats foiling citizens' right to know through foot-dragging and fees. The tale of what's happened to the Access to Information Act is just as easily the story of Canadian democracy in recent decades as benign neglect, calculated power grabs and public apathy erode principles and institutions. Power is being concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. MPs, for years mere props in the production, are now more useful to their leaders as partisan attack dogs. They preach accountability but hide their expenses. Cabinet ministers are also becoming increasingly sidelined and more government business than ever is being done in the dark, far from the prying eyes of Canadian voters. Canadians who are fighting to stay engaged in the process increasingly feel their elected officials no longer represent their interests. More importantly, more and more Canadians are tuning out. That lack of outrage merely allows elected officials to avoid the transparency that the system was supposed to demand. "Our national political and administrative institutions are not in good shape," political scientist Donald Savoie says. "We got there by being complacent, by not focusing on the real important things. We're focusing on the message of the day ... not on the real fundamental functioning of our institutions. "I'm not optimistic. I think we've thrown fundamental policy debates out the window.'' For a nation that has had three general elections in less than five years ? and teetered on the brink of yet another last week ? the idea that democracy is on the decline may seem odd. But even elections drive home the concern. Voter turnout in federal elections, especially among the young, is dropping, from 75 per cent in 1979 to 58 per cent in last October's election. "Young people are disturbed by the diminishing role of the member of Parliament. Party discipline ... has eliminated the freedom of the member of Parliament to express his or her views or to represent the constituency as it ought to be represented," former Prime Minister John Turner told a session during the Liberals' spring convention. Fixing the problem will require a prime minister who seeks less power, not more, and more assertive MPs willing to stand up for their constituents, rather than their parties. And citizens must reclaim their voices in the political process. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN overnight. Instead, this trend has been in the works over decades with both Progressive Conservatives and Liberals in government, though many observers agree that the worrisome trends have accelerated since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006. University of Toronto political science professor Lorraine Weinrib charges that Harper has an "extended track record" of showing disdain for the principles and practices at the heart of Canada's constitutional system. "While Harper touts the democratic principle as his ideal, his actions align with another principle ? an all-powerful executive authority that makes his own rules," she writes in an essay for a book titled Parliament Democracy in Crisis. She notes how the Conservatives cancelled the court challenges program, which provided funding for court challenges by rights advocates. Harper himself has challenged the non-partisan officers of Parliament, such as the head of Elections Canada and the ethics commissioner. Savoie, a long-time observer of parliamentary traditions in both Canada and Britain, bemoans the shift of power away from MPs and cabinet members to non-elected advisers around the PM. "We now know that cabinet has been disempowered," said Savoie, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at the Universit? de Moncton. "Power and influence in Ottawa is centred around court government, around the Prime Minister, around lobbyists, around spin doctors and our democracy has been bastardized, if you like, by lobbyists who only have one interest ? their self-interest," he says. Liberal MP Bob Rae has the perspective of someone who served in Parliament from 1978 to 1982, left for provincial politics and now has returned to Ottawa. He says debates at committees and in the Commons these days are "ritualistic," as if MPs are merely going through the paces. "This is the least populist, the most centralized, the most disciplined approach to government that I've seen in a long time," Rae said. In his mind, reversing that trend will require MPs to flex their collective muscle and return power back to Parliament, though he's not confident that will happen. "I'm not sure we've got the willingness right now on the part of enough people who are in Parliament to really address it," Rae said. "It's almost as if you need a prime minister who is prepared to say 'I actually want less power.' A prime minister who said, 'We need to restore how Parliament is supposed to work,' " Rae said. Add to that mix a batch of rookie MPs ? 205 have been there less than five years ? with little institutional memory of Ottawa, little respect for their political rivals, and reluctant to flex their political muscle against their party leaders. "That is a problem. They come in and think that all this yelling and hollering is the way it should work," Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray said. WHILE OTTAWA is seen as ground zero, the roots of the problem are found across the country among everyday citizens. In short, look in the mirror. Marleau complains Canadians know too little about the institutions that govern them. He points to last fall's parliamentary showdown as proof when the notion of the Liberal-NDP coalition was dismissed as "unconstitutional." The coalition may have been politically unpalatable. But it was perfectly legal under Canada's parliamentary system. And yet complaints about the coalition as a "coup" found a ready audience among Canadians, something Marleau finds worrisome. "We do not do a good job in Canada about teaching and learning about our basic institutions." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 29 13:40:08 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:40:08 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ottawa - Disfunctional Sewage Plant - no backup Message-ID: City engineers still cling to old wastewater management thinking ...big pipes to centralized treatment and "dilution as the solution to pollution" RCOC Report - April, 2008 Calgary and Edmonton both treat their wastewater to tertiary level. That means it is treated to a level that allows swimming to take place. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) allows Ottawa's centralized sewage treatment plant, the Robert O. Pickard Environment Centre, (ROPEC), formerly known as the Greens Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, to process sewage only to the level of secondary treatment, (shown in aerial photo, at right). What makes matters even worse, is that ROPEC receives tanker truck loads of toxic leachate from the Trail Road landfill site and from outside cities such as Belleville. The city also pipes leachate into ROPEC from the Carp Road dump. Transporting toxic leachate by pipeline is technically "illegal" because the toxic excedences do not conform to the city's Sewer Use By-Law. -Photo by Dan Brunton Upstream view of ROPEC's secondary treatment sewage discharge plume into the Ottawa River. However, the MOE is quite obliging in that regard. It simply allows the city to pay the MOE an ongoing fine, to remain "legally non-compliant". (Or is that "illegally compliant"?) Landfill leachate is a rather pernicious substance to send to a secondary treatment plant, designed for sewage, because the plant is not equipped to treat the leachate. Other than to achieve removal of a few of the particulates, most of the toxic chemicals in the leachate pass right through the ROPEC facility to be dumped, UNTREATED, into the Ottawa River. Everyone lives downstream... Last year's exercise regarding the DNA typing of E. coli samples showing up on the Petrie Island waterfront seemed rather inane. There was already little doubt in most minds, before any testing, that the E. coli was of human origin: i.e.: from ROPEC. Ottawa's medical officer of health, Dr. David Salisbury is doing the right thing, by demanding that the worsening problem of Ottawa River pollution be properly addressed. (See The Ottawa Citizen article: City to study cost of cutting Ottawa River pollution.) Correcting Ottawa's dirty pollution practices can only mean one thing. It means that Ottawa --which isn't even heavily industrialized-- has to get up to speed with cities like Calgary and Edmonton, and conduct tertiary treatment of its sewage. At the Rural Summit II meeting (April 5th, 2008), a director of the Rural Council of Ottawa-Carleton asked the Ottawa Director of Water and Wastewater Services, Dixon Weir, P.Eng., why Ottawa is so far behind cities like Calgary and Edmonton. Mr. Weir said that Calgary, for example, is forced to produce tertiary quality wastewater effluent, "because its receiver, the Bow River, is too small to allow secondary-treated effluent to be put into it". He added that, "the Ottawa River is a large enough receiver that the MOE 'allows' the city to discharge secondary-treated wastewater into it". It is no small wonder that, year-after-year, Ottawa holds the unenviable reputation of being the second or third worst polluter of waterways, in Ontario! Hopefully, the public shift of consciousness toward 'good environmental stewardship' will soon preclude the city's lazy, sub-standard and unethical practice of using "dilution as the solution to pollution". Since "everyone lives downstream", it is downright un-neighbourly for Ottawa to dump raw-to-partially-treated sewage into the source water of downstream communities. Many 'third world' countries are developing better water stewardship and hygiene than this! Given the additional fact that the advanced sewage treatment and conveyance technologies available today are often less costly to build and to operate than the antiquated methods currently in vogue with so many city engineers and their 'independent' consultants, it seems high time for the MOE to regulate that all WW treatment processes, in the province, produce tertiary quality effluent. Period. World Bank report: Sanitation and disease: health aspects of excreta and waste management. (excerpt) ?Those whose job is to select and design appropriate systems for the collection and treatment of sewage ? must bear in mind that European and North American practices do not represent the zenith of scientific achievement, nor are they the product of a logical and rational process. Rather, [they] are the product of history, a history that started about 100 years ago when a little was known about the fundamental physics and chemistry of the subject and when practically no applicable microbiology had been discovered? These practices are not especially clever, nor logical, nor completely effective ? and it is not necessarily what would be done today if these same countries had a chance to start again.? http://www.ruralcouncil.ca/old-tech.htm City plans to magnify ROPEC's sewage-dysfunction: centrally. The City of Kingston is considerably smaller than Ottawa, yet it has three wastewater treatment plants and it would like more, the logic being, to treat sewage as locally as possible. Ottawa tries to treat all of its sewage centrally. That worked to a point, when sewage was only brought in from communities within the Greenbelt. Ottawa is markedly different from all other cities in that it's broad arc of undeveloped land around the urban core, the Greenbelt, imposes a wide separation between the water and wastewater services for the city-core, WITHIN the Greenbelt, and services for all of the rapidly growing suburban communities and scattered rural villages OUTSIDE the Greenbelt. As rural-village communities further outside the Greenbelt become more polluted, with their high-density well and septic systems, the city should be forward-thinking enough to adopt modern local (communal) water and wastewater support to replace the outmoded systems and to accommodate growth. Villages such as Metcalfe, Osgoode, North Gower, Manotick Kars and others should all have updated communal systems, or be moving in that direction. Munster is an extreme demonstration of Ottawa-engineering foolhardiness. Munster, as a separate community, was already receiving communal water and wastewater servicing, but needed a wastewater service upgrade, in the form of a new communal treatment plant. That was available at a fixed price bid of $3.8-Million. Instead of implementing the obvious on-site upgrade, city engineers installed a forcemain that presently directs raw sewage --under pressure-- through the shallow source drinking water of another community (Richmond), creating an unnecessary, built-in, contamination risk to 1100 private shallow wells and placing 5,000 residents in constant harm's way. They have produced a virtual 'ticking time bomb' waiting to explode. Eventual cost? Over $30-Million! Please explain the logic of that one, Mr. Weir! (Reference: http://www.ruralcouncil.ca/SewergateScandal-LandownerMag-02-08.htm) Manotick If the city gets its way, engineering folly and history will soon be repeated in the Village of Manotick. A communal wastewater treatment system with small bore piping could immediately handle all of the present requirements of Hillside Gardens, Main Street commercial and other institutional needs, without invasive trench digging, and without the sort of trauma to local businesses caused by a 'Bank Street-style upheaval' for installation of the big pipe. Also, the fully scalable and expandable features of a communal system would very adequately enable it to manage all of the future expansion plans of Minto and other builders in a phased, orderly and cost-effective build-out fashion. Conversely, the 'big pipe' option requires immediate and full build-out to take place, if it is to avoid the type of failure experienced by the $38-Million, turned $55-Million, debacle known as the South Ottawa Collector. (Ref: fiascos_and_boondoggles) Ottawa Citizen, columnist, Randall Denley, has more information on problems with the use of old pipeline technology, and its higher cost, in his April 5th, 2008 column: 27M down the drain... A long-time Manotick resident's "Letter to the Editor", (The Ottawa Citizen - April 13th, 2008), expresses the common sense view of a great many of the residents: Manotick 'Big pipe' a foolish venture How bloated can the white elephant become ...before it explodes? The concept of having a single centralized failure-prone monstrosity for a sewage treatment plant is really quite primitive. The hydro blackout on August 14, 2003 caused four straight days of full City of Ottawa raw sewage discharge into the Ottawa River, followed by at least another three weeks of raw-with-partially-treated sewage being discharged while the ROPEC facility gradually worked its way back on line. All of the outlying communities that should be served with communal systems, in the future, could easily switch over to small generator back-up power, in such cases, and would carry on without event --while ROPEC will continue to have its 'meltdowns'. City engineers have repeatedly tried to discredit advanced or innovative wastewater treatment technologies that are working well in this province and around the world. (See: Pilloried by city) The most commonly used slur, is that these technologies are "experimental" and therefore cannot be relied upon. Interestingly, a 1975 Report to the US Congress pointed to significant performance and cost advantages of the Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) technology over the Activated Sludge system. It is worth noting that RBC technology is an integral part of the process used at Manotick's Village Walk, while the less-efficient Activated Sludge process is the treatment method used at Ottawa's ROPEC, (Ref: http://www.ottawasewergatefiasco.com/granton.htm). While advanced technologies, around the globe, are reliably and efficiently producing tertiary quality effluent, at a reduced cost, the largest and most reckless 'EXPERIMENT' of all ...is ROPEC, itself. The City of Ottawa is concentrating all of it wastewater treatment into a single dysfunctional facility --without back-up safety-- and is producing lower-quality effluent with each costly addition. THAT'S EXPERIMENTAL! The city is currently seeking $60-Million in funding for a containment/digester tank to theoretically reduce the current volumes of raw sewage bypasses into the Ottawa River during periods of heavy rainfall. The expansion is additionally intended to be a dumping area for toxic waste material, (hydrated aluminum oxide slurries with entrained metallic and inorganic forms), from the Britannia and Lemieux Island water filtration plants. Over six months ago, the MOE ordered the city to cease dumping this toxic waste directly into the Ottawa River because it was causing a broadening fish-kill zone, downstream. The city has been constantly out of compliance all of this time, and will continue to be so well into the future. The $60-Million plant is designed to turn the slurry portion of the toxic material into "bio-solids" -- for farm-field application. The remaining liquid phase will simply pass through ROPEC, untreated, to be re-introduced into the Ottawa River. Is there not something fundamentally dishonest with the strategy of keeping a portion of that specific toxin out of the Ottawa River ...by putting it into our food chain, then returning the remainder to the Ottawa River, and pretending it isn't there? The Regional Official Plan used to contain good environmental concepts, i.e.: of treating waste close to where it is created, avoiding watershed transfers of ground water, encouraging the use modern and innovative technologies and promoting communal water and wastewater treatment systems for outlying communities. Most of that wisdom has been removed from the city's latest, dumbed-down, Official Plan. The city is tied to archaic wastewater management models of a different era. Unfortunately, we will continue to experience serious degradation in the quality of our waterways, the health of our environment and the quality of life of Ottawa citizens, as long as our city engineers continue with failing to implement the modern technological wastewater management advances of their profession. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Jun 29 14:10:27 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:10:27 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Compost companies in violation of provincial environmental laws Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: While people who live in Toronto other big urban centers pat themselves on the back for recycling their food waste..the reality of foodwaste composting in Ontario is in this news story..one of many about violations and charges and court cases against composting companies that violate provincial laws. Ontario composting court cases and complaints also include the Newmarket facility, odour complaints against All Treat Farms, problems with Courtice Auto Wreckers/Ontario Disposal sites, and violations in Peterborough. The facilty in Guelph that ran very well...is now shut down, since no one was prepared to fix the roof, which was eaten out by the ammoniac fumes generated inside the facility. If we - as a society - intend to compost our food waste into soil ammendments - we should encourage people do it in their own backyards, and have small local operations - not these big industrial horrors. ................................................................. .hmmessage P {margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} Here is a Spectator story about Waterdown Gardens: http://www.thespec.com/article/588410 Print version: http://www.thespec.com/printArticle/588410 Flamborough company investigated for spills TheSpec.com - Local - Flamborough company investigated for spills Eric McGuinness The Hamilton Spectator (Jun 24, 2009) A smelly Flamborough compost company fined $50,000 for 10 environmental violations in April 2008 is under investigation for two wastewater spills. One spill threatened drinking water plants on the Grand River, another flooded neighbouring property. Waterdown Garden Supplies Ltd., on Highway 5 West near Troy, has also been ordered to stop accepting food waste by June 30 and not to resume until it changes its process to reduce odours that have plagued neighbours for years. The Ministry of the Environment says its Investigation and Enforcement Branch is close to wrapping up its probe of an Oct. 5, 2008, spill resulting from a hole in a berm around a wastewater lagoon. That spill may have sent dirty water into Barlow Creek, prompting warnings to the Grand River Conservation Authority, Six Nations, area health units and water treatment plants. The ministry ordered the firm to conduct an engineering study on the berm's stability. On April 8 this year, the ministry was alerted to wastewater escaping another berm, a spill the ministry says Waterdown Gardens failed to report as required. It says the company has also failed to submit a report on a study of that berm breach. Both alleged violations were referred to the investigation branch. Hamilton Councillor Robert Pasuta, who represents the area, complained last summer that Waterdown Gardens was still stinking out its neighbours despite being fined. The ministry subsequently rejected an application to increase capacity at the site and ordered an odour assessment. That assessment led to a March 31 order to obtain a certificate of approval for a process that would control odour. The company proposes to compost on concrete pads with walls and channels through which air can circulate. It is under order to stop taking food waste until new technology is approved and in place. The president of Waterdown Garden Supplies Ltd. is Bill (legal name Wim) Van Ravenswaay, 53, of Smithville, who is due in Cayuga court today, with son Trevor, 31, a Dunnville resident, on charges they ran a Haldimand County company that shipped stolen vehicles and parts out of Canada. They face a total of 38 charges over the exports, altered vehicle identification numbers, forgery and possession of a prohibited weapon. The charges stem from Project Heist, a five-month OPP investigation focusing on W.G. Equipment on Highway 56, Canfield, owned by Bill Van Ravenswaay. emcguinness at thespec.com 905-526-4650 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 30 11:14:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:14:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Kawartha Lakes Ontario - Terratec will spread Omeemee sludge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Terratec has been selected to spread sewage sludge from the Omeemee lagoons. (yes, there really is a town called Omeemee) It isn't true that this material can't go into landfill. It needs to be dewatered - and many companies including Terratec have mobile dewatering units - and it could be landfilled like Toronto sludge. Terratec is descibed as 'extremely reputable'. But Terratec has more than 40 convictions for violations of Ontario regulations: MoE levies $300,000 fine against Terratec http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2008/120402.pdf Terratec pleads guilty: $2,000 fine http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/2005-August/000787.html Terratec fined $100,000 Dec 2008 http://www.thestar.com/article/553296 In 2004, Terratec was fined $26,000 plus a 25 per cent victim surcharge ($7,500) for spreading partially-digested, smelly vegetable waste on farm fields near Wellandport and failing to remove it. In 2005, a justice of the peace in Hamilton fined the company $2,000 for failing to have a tanker and trailer marked with the appropriate certificate of approval number and failing to carry a copy of the certificate in the vehicle, as required.http://www.betterfarming.com/2007/october/cover.html There are more than 43 such convictions. That is Terratec's reputation. ............................................ http://www.thepost.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1635203 Sewage deals awarded Posted By PEGGY ARMSTRONG, LINDSAY POST REPORTER June 30, 2009 OMEMEE-Contracts have been awarded in the city's attempt to deal with the Omemee sewage problem. City council approved the contract to remove sludge from its two lagoons during its meeting on June 24. Terratec Environmental Ltd. of Hamilton was the lowest bidder at a little more than $195,000 to excavate and remove the sludge. It will dispose of it by spreading it on agricultural fields. Ward 4 Coun. Glenn Campbell opposed awarding the contract, arguing that spreading it on fields could lead to a build-up of toxic metals in the ground. No other solution was available, public works director Ken Becking explained. Incineration facilities are at full capacity and don't accept biosolids. The material is also unsuitable to go into landfills. His report to council noted that Terratec has a farming network within the city and neighbouring areas that want to receive the biosolids. Becking told council that gave Terratec a competitive advantage and explained why its bid was $5,551 for excavation and removal. The next bid was $540,000 and the third bid was more than $1.2 million. He said staff checked the firm out and found it is "extremely reputable." The city also awarded the contract to do a hydrogeological impact assessment for the sewage lagoons to Cambium Environmental Inc. of Peterborough. The contracts are part of the city's action plan to find a permanent solution to the sewage system. It has exceeded its capacity since 20004, causing the Ministry of the Environment to get involved. Becking said a peer review of the consultant's assessment of the system will be to council soon. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 30 11:44:16 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:44:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario:No waste permits for sludge spreading-Only 30 days to comment Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is a horrible proposal...posted as usual in the middle of summer vacation - and for a shockingly short period of 30 days. Even though sludge spreading companies like Terratec have racked up over $600,000 in fines and over 43 convictions...the province proposes to say that sewage sludge, paper sludge, and similar wastes will no longer require a Ministry of Environment waste approval Certificate of Approval. It will be managed like a nutrient...like manure. This change in regulations - if adopted - will strip away the enforceability, public accountability, transparency, and environmental safety provisions that are currently required by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Oddly...if a sludge truck takes sludge to a landfill or an energy plant or an incinerator ... it needs a waste permit hauler, licenced waste hauler, must have permits to haul and to dispose....if the same sludge heads to a farmfield..none of these are required. Contact the Premier...Dalton McGuinty: premier at leg.gov.on.ca contact Michelle Whitbread : michael.whitbread at ontario.ca Ask for a 6 month consultation period. Tell the Ministry that they need to maintain the requirement for a Certificate of Approval for spreading sewage sludge and paper sludge.... ////////////////////////////// http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTA2NDQ4&statusId=MTU5NjQ0&language=en or go to EBR and search: 010-6515 Proposed Framework for the Management of Non-agricultural Source Material Ministry of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 3rd Floor 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 Minist?re de l?Environnement 135 Avenue St. Clair Ouest Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Minist?re de l?Agriculture, de l?Alimentation et des Affaires rurales 33 ?tage 1 Stone Road Ouest Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 June 29, 2009 Dear Sir or Madam, The purpose of this letter is to advise you about the posting of proposed amendments to the General Nutrient Management Regulation (O. Reg. 267/03), under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, (NMA) for the management of non-agricultural source materials (NASM), milking centre washwater and anaerobic digestion on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR #: 010-6515) on June 29, 2009. NASM includes sewage biosolids, food processing residuals and other materials not generated by an agricultural operation that can be used as a nutrient on agricultural lands. As you may be aware the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) are working to complete the second stage of a two stage initiative to improve the regulatory framework governing the application of NASM on agricultural land. This initiative proposes to manage NASM as a nutrient instead of as a waste when used to enhance the productivity of agricultural land. The ministries have developed a framework that would strengthen Ontario?s already strict land application standards for these materials. The proposed framework supports MOE?s waste diversion goals, as it encourages the proper beneficial use of organic materials through land application that will enhance the productivity of soils, rather than sending these materials for disposal. The proposed regulatory framework would: manage non-agricultural source material on agricultural land as a beneficial nutrient; establish and revise existing standards and approval requirements for NASM, under O Reg. 267/03, to focus on the quality of the materials; streamline the regulatory process by removing overlapping approvals; provide notification to the local district office of the MOE prior to the land application of NASM; ensure environmental protection by extending the existing framework to include all agricultural land where NASM is applied in Ontario, as opposed to just those farms that are already required to have a nutrient management strategy; require approval under the NMA for the land application on agricultural land of materials with higher metal or pathogen concentrations, that are still within acceptable levels (e.g. sewage biosolids and pulp and paper biosolids); and amend requirements for anaerobic digestion facilities to allow for the inclusion of a wider variety of off-farm biomass sources and revise storage requirements. The standards in the proposed regulatory framework focus on the quality of the NASM being land applied. A companion regulatory exemption would be added to Regulation 347 under the EPA, which would exempt the application of NASM on agricultural land that meets certain quality standards criteria, from the requirements of Regulation 347 and Part V of the EPA. Responsibility for the proposed framework will be shared by OMAFRA and MOE. OMAFRA will administer and approve nutrient management strategies and plans. MOE will continue to be responsible for providing compliance and enforcement activities under the NMA, EPA and the Ontario Water Resources Act. Further details of this proposal and the proposed regulatory amendments can be found on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry which is posted for public comment until July 29, 2009. You may view the proposal at http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/ (EBR Registry # 010-6515). Comments must be submitted in writing with reference to the EBR 010-6515 and received prior to July 30, 2009. In addition to the posting MOE and OMAFRA and are hosting a series of sessions to review the proposed regulatory framework, provide an opportunity for discussion, and receive your feedback. The meetings will be held at the following locations and dates: ? Kemptville ? July 8, 2009 Newcastle ? July 9, 2009 London ? July 13, 2009 Barrie ? July 14, 2009 If you would like to attend one of the meetings, please RSVP at least 24 hours prior to the meeting with your preferred meeting by contacting the Agriculture Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300 or email ag.info.omafra at ontario.ca. The address and time will be provided upon registration. Please note that these consultation sessions will not discuss milking centre washwater or anaerobic digestion. Please contact Sharon Johnston (OMAFRA) at (519) 826-3118 or Michelle Whitbread (MOE) at (416) 314-9398 for further information on these topics. Your involvement and input is appreciated as we continue working towards the government?s commitment to the protection of public health and the environment without placing undue burden on businesses and municipalities. We look forward to receiving your comments. Sincerely, Original signed by John Vidan Director of Waste Management Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment and Peter Meerveld Director (Acting) of Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Regulation Proposal Notice: EBR Registry Number: 010-6515 Title: A Regulatory Framework for the Management of Non-Agricultural Source Materials and Regulatory Amendments Concerning Milking Centre Washwater and Anaerobic Digestion Ministry: Ministry of the Environment Date Proposal loaded to the Registry: June 29, 2009 Keyword(s): Agriculture | Drinking Water | Ground Water | Land | Nutrient Management | Waste Diversion | Wells | Waste | Wastewater | Sewage Related Act(s): Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990 | Nutrient Management Act, 2002 Comment Period: 30 days: submissions may be made between June 29, 2009 and July 29, 2009. Description of Regulation: The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) are working to complete the second stage of a two stage initiative to improve the regulatory framework governing the application of non-agricultural source materials (NASM) on agricultural land. NASM includes materials like leaf and yard waste, fruit and vegetable peels, food processing waste, pulp and paper biosolids, sewage biosolids and any other material that is not from an agricultural source that is intended to be applied to agricultural land as a nutrient. Spreading nutrients on agricultural land is considered beneficial to crop production. MOE has been approving the land application of biosolids and other NASM for over 30 years with no objective evidence of health or environmental impacts when requirements were followed The ministries have developed a framework that would strengthen Ontario?s already strict land application standards for these materials. The proposed framework supports MOE?s waste diversion goals, as it encourages the proper beneficial use of materials through land application that will enhance the productivity of soils, rather than sending these materials for disposal in a landfill site. The proposed NASM framework would: manage non-agricultural source material on agricultural land as a beneficial nutrient; establish and revise existing standards and approval requirements for NASM, under O Reg. 267/03, to focus on the quality of the materials; streamline the regulatory process by removing overlapping approvals; provide notification to the local district office of the MOE prior to the land application of NASM; ensure environmental protection by extending the existing framework to include all agricultural land where NASM is applied in Ontario, as opposed to just those farms that are already required to have a nutrient management strategy; and require approval under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA) for the application on agricultural land of materials with higher metal or pathogen concentrations, that are still within acceptable levels (e.g. sewage biosolids and pulp and paper biosolids). The proposed regulatory framework is not a ?one-size fits all? approach to managing NASM. Materials destined for land application would have to follow strict rules and standards set out in the regulation. Materials that do not meet the beneficial quality standards for use as a nutrient would be prohibited from being land applied as a nutrient on agricultural land. MOE will continue providing compliance and enforcement activities under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), NMA and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), such as responding to off-site environmental impacts that result or may result in an adverse effect or environmental impairment. The proposed regulatory framework also includes regulatory amendments concerning milking centre washwater and anaerobic digestion. Previous Consultation The first stage, which was completed in 2006, extended phase-in dates for compliance with the General Nutrient Management Regulation for some NASM generators. This stage was completed with the filing of an amending regulation (O. Reg. 474/06) in October 2006, and the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR) decision posting (EBR Registry number: RC06E0001) on November 6, 2006. Stage two is a proposal to revise the existing regulatory framework for the management of NASM. A plain language summary of the proposed NASM Framework was posted on the Environmental Registry for a 120-day comment period and closed January 5, 2008 (EBR Registry number: 010-1436). The plain language summary proposed standards for pathogens, metals, odour, approvals, beneficial quality, application rate, sampling and analysis, storage and setbacks. Eighty-one comments on the plain language summary were received and have been considered in the development of the proposed regulations. In order to complete the development of the second stage of the framework, MOE and OMAFRA filed a second amending regulation (O. Reg. 392/08) to extend phase-in dates for some NASM generators and posted the decision (EBR Registry number: 010-3404)on the Environmental Registry on November 16, 2008. The phase-in dates for these generators have been extended to December 31, 2009. Summary of Proposed Changes Currently, NASM is a waste under Part V of the EPA. There are approval requirements under the NMA and the EPA related to the management, transportation and land application of NASM. Specifically, transportation and land application of NASM may require both Certificates of Approval and licences under the EPA and NMA in certain circumstances. This initiative proposes to manage NASM as a nutrient instead of as a waste when used to enhance the productivity of agricultural land. To accomplish this proposed change, regulatory amendments are needed to O. Reg. 267/03 under the NMA and Regulation 347 under the EPA. The standards in the proposed regulatory framework focus on the quality of the NASM being land applied. A companion regulatory exemption would be added to Regulation 347 under the EPA, which would exempt the application of NASM on agricultural land that meets certain quality standards criteria, outlined in the proposed O. Reg. 267/03 amendments, from the requirements of Regulation 347 and Part V of the EPA. Although land applied NASM would no longer be treated as a waste and would not require a Certificate of Approval, those NASMs that are higher in pathogens and metals, such as sewage biosolids or pulp and paper biosolids, would require an approval of a NASM plan under the proposed regulatory framework. It is important to note that the proposed regulation only applies to the application of NASM to agricultural lands. Application of these materials to other types of lands, such as public parks, mine tailing reclamation sites etc., is not part of the proposed amendments. Ultimately, the proposed nutrient management framework will begin at the farm gate; prior to arrival at the farm gate, Certificates of Approval issued under Part V of the EPA will be required where applicable. The proposed amendments would take effect in two stages. Stage One consists of general amendments that need to occur upon filing of the regulation and to allow Stage Two requirements (e.g. NASM plans, removal of nutrient management strategy requirements for off-farm generators) to be described and understood before they take effect. Stage Two requirements would apply one year after the proposed amendments take effect. The regulation also allows for a transition period where all existing approvals under the EPA for the application of NASM on agricultural land would continue to be valid for up to five years after the requirements for a NASM plan take effect, unless EPA approvals expire or are revoked. Nutrient management plans approved under the NMA would continue to be valid until they expire or are revoked. Nutrient management strategies for generators that no longer require strategies would be continued until stage two, at which time they would no longer be required and would cease to be in force. Generators In the proposed regulatory framework, NASM generators would no longer be required to prepare a nutrient management strategy, but would continue to be subject to approval requirements under the EPA or OWRA where those requirements apply. Likewise, sewage biosolids generators would no longer require 240 days of biosolids storage; although this would continue to be encouraged as a best management practice. The plain language summary, posted on the EBR for comment in 2007, proposed that all NASM generators would be required to prepare a nutrient management strategy. Comments received during the plain language consultation period indicated that the requirement for generators to prepare nutrient management strategies was an unnecessary financial burden and duplication in approvals. Haulers/Brokers The revised framework proposes that brokers/haulers would continue to require waste management system Certificates of Approval under Part V of the EPA; however, the requirement to obtain a broker?s certificate would be removed. The plain language summary, posted in 2007, proposed that haulers would not be required to obtain a Certificate of Approval to transport NASM for land application but would instead require a certificate issued under the NMA. The current proposal reflects the comments received, during the initial consultation period, in which some individuals did not support the removal of the Certificate of Approval but felt that the requirement for two approvals was not necessary. NASM Plan and Land Application The proposed regulatory framework introduces the requirement for a NASM plan to be developed when land applying certain NASM. NASM Plans would be prepared by a certified person and would provide detailed information on how NASM is to be efficiently applied on a single plot of agricultural land to optimize the nutrient benefit and minimize adverse environmental impact. The proposed regulatory framework includes an exemption for farm operations from the requirement for an organic soil conditioning site Certificate of Approval under the EPA or a general nutrient management plan to land apply NASM unless the farm is otherwise phased-in. NASM plans would identify fields where NASM would be applied as well as associated on-farm storages and would provide details on how the NASM is to be applied to optimize the agronomic benefit and minimize adverse environmental impacts. In many cases, NASM plans would have to be approved by OMAFRA. Requirements for those applying NASM with an approved NASM plan would be required to notify the local district office of the MOE prior to the land application. The requirements for registration or approval of a NASM plan would be based on the quality of the material to be applied. The regulatory amendment would require a NASM plan prepared by a certified individual and approved by OMAFRA in order to land apply sewage and pulp and paper biosolids. Farms applying agricultural source material would continue to follow their current nutrient management plan requirements. NASM that exceeds certain pathogen and metal levels in the proposed regulation would require a Certificate of Approval under the EPA. The plain language summary, posted in 2007, proposed that all farms applying NASM would require a field specific NASM plan. The current proposed amendments reflect the comments received during the initial consultation period, in which many comments focused on the additional costs and work associated with preparing plans. The preparation of a NASM plan was also felt to be unnecessary for materials that are considered a very low risk, e.g. vegetable peels. NASM Categories The ministries propose to simplify the initial six categories of NASM proposed in the plain language version, to three categories based on metal and pathogen content. Each category would be based on specific quality criteria and set out requirements for NASM plan approvals and sampling and analysis. In addition to the three categories, NASM would be further sub-categorized based on the concentration of metals, pathogens and odour for land application and storage. This proposed amendment reflects comments to simplify the original proposal in the plain language summary which was posted in 2007 on the EBR for comment. Sampling and Analysis Currently O. Reg. 267/03 places the responsibility on the farmer, or the person who is required to have a nutrient management plan, to test both the NASM and the soil where the material is to be applied. The proposed framework would make farmers responsible for soil testing of the land where the material is to be applied. In the case of NASM, the generator of the material would be responsible for sampling and analysis in order to determine the NASM quality. That information would then be provided to the farmer for the development of the NASM plan and appropriate agronomic application rates. The amendment reflects the concerns raised on the original proposal in the plain language summary that the regulatory responsibility should be shared and not fall solely on the farmer. Milking Centre Washwater The proposed regulatory changes also include requirements for the management, treatment, testing, storage and land application of milking centre washwater. Anaerobic Digestion Proposed amendments to the NMA and EPA, regarding anaerobic digestion, would streamline the use of off-farm materials as a co-substrate in an on-farm mixed anaerobic digestion facility. The amendments would reduce the need for farms accepting certain off-farm materials, such as grease trap waste from restaurants for treatment in a mixed anaerobic digester and output from the processing of 25%-50% off-farm material in an on-farm mixed anaerobic digester, from requiring Certificates of Approval. Protocols and Guide The proposed regulatory framework will incorporate the following protocols to assist in meeting the requirements of the regulation: Sampling and Analysis Protocol; and Nutrient Management Protocol. In addition we have developed an Odour Guide to facilitate the application of odour categories set out in the regulation. Purpose of Regulation: Revise O. Reg. 267/03 under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, to: manage non-agricultural source material on agricultural land as a beneficial nutrient; establish and revise existing standards and approval requirements for NASM, under the NMA, to focus on the quality of the materials; streamline the regulatory process by removing overlapping approvals; provide notification to the local district office of the MOE prior to the land application of NASM; ensure environmental protection by extending the existing framework to include all agricultural land where NASM is applied in Ontario, as opposed to just those farms that are already required to have a nutrient management strategy; require approval under the NMA for the application on agricultural land of those materials with higher metal or pathogen concentrations, that are still within acceptable levels (e.g. sewage biosolids and pulp and paper biosolids); establish requirements for management, treatment, testing, storage and land application of milking centre washwater; and amend requirements for anaerobic digestion facilities to allow for the inclusion of a wider variety of off-farm biomass sources and revise standards for the storage of digestate. This is the second stage of a two stage initiative to improve the regulatory framework governing the application of non-agricultural source materials (NASM) on agricultural land. Upon completion of this stage a final regulatory decision notice will be posted. Other Information: Attached are the proposed amendments to O. Reg. 267/03, under the NMA, for non-agricultural source material and the proposed amendments to Regulation 347, under the EPA as well as the appropriate protocols and guidance materials. The draft regulations, protocols and guidance materials are provided to facilitate public consultation. Should the decision be made to proceed with this proposal, the comments received during consultation will be considered during the final preparation of the regulation. The content, structure and form of the draft regulations, protocols and guidance materials therefore are subject to change as a result of the consultation process. Public Consultation: This proposal has been posted for a 30 day public review and comment period starting June 29, 2009. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by July 29, 2009 to the individual listed under "Contact". Additionally, you may submit your comments on-line.All comments received prior to July 29, 2009 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of the Environment if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 010-6515.Please Note: All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. You will not receive a formal response to your comment, however, relevant comments received as part of the public participation process for this proposal will be considered by the decision maker for this proposal. Other Public Consultation Opportunities: MOE and OMAFRA will be conducting additional stakeholder consultation sessions in the following locations: Kemptville July 8, 2009 Newcastle July 9, 2009 London July 13, 2009 Barrie July 14, 2009 If you would like to attend one of the meetings, please RSVP at least 72 hours prior to the meeting with your preferred meeting location by contacting the Agriculture Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300 or email ag.info.omafra at ontario.ca . The address and time will be provided upon registration. Please note that these consultation sessions will not discuss milking centre washwater or anaerobic digestion. Please contact Sharon Johnston (OMAFRA) at (519) 826-3118 or Michelle Whitbread (MOE) at (416) 314-9398 for further information on these topics. Regulatory Impact Statement: The anticipated environmental consequences of the proposal are positive or neutral. This proposal will manage non-agricultural source material as a beneficial nutrient to help divert material from landfills while modernizing Ontario?s existing standards for non-agricultural source material under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, to focus on the quality of the material. The anticipated social consequences are positive to neutral. This proposal will allow for the beneficial use of non-agricultural materials as a nutrient, as opposed to sending them to a landfill, while ensuring protection of public health and the environment. The anticipated economic consequences of this proposal are positive to neutral. This proposal will streamline the regulatory approval process by removing overlapping approval requirements. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Jun 30 12:24:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:24:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Missouri- good video of sludge spreading Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Stockton Missouri: Population 2,016. There is a little video you can watch at the webpage below that shows the sludge. It is easy to understand the neighbor's concerns as the sludge would wash down through swales in proximity to drinking water wells. ................................................... http://www.ky3.com/news/local/49043556.html Sludge from Stockton lagoons causes concern by Linda Russell, KY3 News Stockton Missouri By James Holmes Story Published: Jun 24, 2009 STOCKTON, Mo.-- The City of Stockton just started using its brand new wastewater treatment plant this month, so it no longer needs the old lagoons. The city hired contractors to empty them out but where the sludge is being spread has some citizens concerned. Some folks are happy to have the sludge applied to their land but others are concerned about the city spreading the waste on land near their homes. "You can get out early every morning, and you do smell it," said Leland Bugg. Bugg and his neighbors say it stinks, and looks bad. The City of Stockton is removing the sludge from its old lagoon system and put some of it on the city airport property, just behind Leland's house. "It concerns everybody through here and on the other side of airport road," Bugg said. "I realize it looks bad because, when it's land-applied, it is black and it gives that appearance of 'Oh, my gosh!' And when it goes down, it doesn't have the best odor in the world. But, with the heat and everything, it dries up within a couple of days," said Stockton Mayor Peggy Thompson. But, though the look and smell are unattractive, their main worry is water. "The ones I've talked to were going to get their wells tested," said Bugg. Department of Natural Resource guidelines say the sludge must not be applied any closer than 300 feet from a well. Bugg hasn't measured the distance from his well but he's concerned about the ditch where water runs after a rain, off city property and right next to his well. "The sewage, being as this is so rocky, won't soak in. It's going to run off," said Bugg. Thompson says the sludge is not raw sewage, and folks shouldn't worry. "Mostly, it's just because people don't really understand the process and what it contains," said Thompson. She says City Hall is getting calls from some who actually want the sludge on their land. "It's a good fertilizer," the mayor said. Bugg is afraid it will end up on his land via runoff, and maybe in his water, and he doesn't have a choice. Concerned residents contacted DNR, and a state crew was in the Stockton area checking things out on Wednesday. They say everything at the lagoon site was up to regulation and, at the sites where the sludge was spread, they did find one spot where it was only 35 feet within the property line, instead of the required 50 feet.