From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 09:01:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:01:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario sludge victim: Abandons home after sludge exposure leaves family and animal sick Message-ID: http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1777057 Woman vows to continue fight against the spreading of biosolids on farmland Posted By JOYCE CASSIN Oct 1, 2009 The battle may be lost, but the war against the spreading of biosolids continues. Wendy Deavitt says she and her family purchased a hobby farm in Warkworth in November 2001 and life was fine until a neighbouring farmer opted to spread biosolids (human waste) from the Cobourg wastewater facility on the surrounding farmlands. They are now walking away from their farm and moving into a residential area in Campbellford where they believe they'll be safe from the direct effects of the practice of spreading sludge. Sludge was spread in 2006 and 2007, and by November 2007, Deavitt says, she consulted a toxicologist and it was discovered that her blood levels were "out of whack." She claims she suffered symptoms ranging from extreme fatigue to severe diarrhea, and even her horses and barn animals fell ill. After fruitless efforts to involve municipal, provincial and federal levels of government, Deavitt says, she just can't live there any more. "What's the point of having a hobby farm if you can't have animals?" Deavitt asked on Wednesday, just prior to packing up the truck and leaving the farm. Although she says her health has improved somewhat, she lives in fear that the farmer will resume spreading biosolids and her health would not be able to take it. "He can come back and spread sludge until 2010," Deavitt said. "And then, once his certificate of approval expires, it'll be a free-for-all, and there won't be a paper trail to find who's spreading what." Two years ago, Deavitt put her farm up for sale, but there haven't been any takers, even though the price has been dropped several times. "We haven't had anyone even show any real interest," said Deavitt. Asked if she could be the cause of her own downfall and the depreciation of her property, Deavitt said she didn't have a choice but to openly oppose the use of biosolids on the surrounding lands - she had become severely ill. She says her family has been current on their mortgage, and it wasn't until two months ago that they stopped making the payments on their $206,000 mortgage. "We had to pay first and last months' rent on our new place," Deavitt said. "We told the mortgage company then that if we couldn't sell, we were going to walk away." She says although the mortgage company asked them to remain on the property they were told that, for health reasons, the Deavitts had to move. "The real estate contract expired today," said Deavitt. "We're packing up and moving today and tomorrow. "No one should have to live through this crap," Deavitt said. She says the battle for her property may be lost, but she plans to continue to educate people as to what she says are the dangers of spreading human sludge on farmlands. "This is what they call NASM - Non Agricultural Source Material - and what are they doing? They're spreading it on agricultural lands," said Deavitt. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 09:38:22 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:38:22 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Iowa Dept of Natural Resources Issues Notices of Violation for sludge- Cedar Rapids and Dyersville Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Here are the copies of the Notices of Violation that went to Dyersville and to Cedar Rapids for stockpiling sludge on the property of John Wulfekuhl by his sludge hauling son, Lee Wulfekuhl. Wulfekuhl Injection was awarded a $1.6M contract by the City of Cedar Rapids to haul away their sludge when their incinerator was flooded by heavy rains earlier this year. However, while Dyserville must take the sludge out of the manure pit on this farm and bring it back to the plant for testing and alternative disposal, the Cedar Rapids sludge stockpiled without permission on the site may be land applied. But 192 acres of the 247 acre farm is in Conservation Reserve Program. They are not allowed to harvest the hay crop every year. Since there isn't a crop harvested annually there is very little nutrient allowed on such properties. I have been told that only 3 tons per acre may be applied on these CRP lands. But why would sludge be allowed annually when there is no annual crop removal? Sludge has already been spread on this farm this year. So where are the thousands of tons of Cedar Rapids sludge currently stockpiled on this site going to be spread? Just how much sludge have these fields received in the past 2 years? Here is the concern: Has the hauler been spreading his father's property over and over with sludge from two different cities? This farm needs an audit. These sludge contracts need an audit. ............................... http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/62705497.html D.N.R. Issues Violation for Human Waste By Katie Wiedemann, Reporter Sep 29, 2009 Holy Cross- In a T-V Nine follow up, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has issued a notice of violation to the Dyersville and Cedar Rapids Waste Treatment Plants. Last week we told you some neighbors of the Wulfekuhl farm near Holy Cross complained the smell of human waste was making them sick. The Wulfekuhl's use sewage sludge from the treatment plants as fertilizer. Mike Wade from the D.N.R says the Wulfekuhls did nothing wrong. Instead, it was the treatment plants that did not fill out the proper paper work to store the waste on the Wulfekuhl farm. The D.N.R asked the Dyersville Plant to remove the sludge before October First. .................... September 25, 2009 CERTIFIED MAIL Cedar Rapids Water Pollution Control Facilities 7525 Bertram Road S.E. Cedar Rapids, IA 52403-711 ATTENTION: Steve Hershner RE: Notice of Violations IAC 567 64.2(2) Site Approval IAC 567 67.4(8) Plan for additional storage NPDES# 57 During a recent complaint investigation regarding field storage of sewage sludge generated at your facility located on property owned by John Wulfekuhle located in Section 4 Concord Township, Dubuque County, Mike Wade noted a site that was being utilized for sewage sludge that was not approved by this department. In a letter dated January 2, 2009, that was sent to your facility you were required to obtain approval for all sites to be utilized to store sewage sludge generated at your facility. There are no records available to this office that permission had been granted for the use of the site observed on the Wulfekuhle property on 09/23/2009 and 09/24/2009. Before construction and utilization of a wastewater facility, including sludge storage facilities, site approval must be obtained from this department, per 567 IAC 64.2(2). The site for each new wastewater treatment plant or expansion or upgrading of existing facilities must be inspected and approved by the department prior to submission of plans and specifications. Applications must be submitted in accordance with 567?60.4(455B). This was made very clear in the Best Management Requirements that were attached to the letter dated January 2, 2009. This letter required that you include all elements contained in the letter dated January 2, 2009 to be included with your facility?s long-range program for land application of sewage sludge. Failure to follow your plan regarding obtaining approval for field storage sites for sewage sludge produced by your facility is a violation of 567 IAC 67.4(8). A plan to construct or obtain any additional sludge storage, handling or application facilities or equipment which are required by the land application program. As a reminder, on a case-by-case basis, this department may impose requirements for the land application of sewage sludge in addition to or more stringent than the requirements in this chapter when necessary to protect public health and the environment from any adverse effect of a pollutant in the sewage sludge. Per 567 IAC 67.1(1). Notice of Violation ? September 25. 2009 Page 2 of 2 As soon as possible, but no later than October 1, 2009 all stockpiled sewage sludge that originated from the Cedar Rapids wastewater facility must be removed from the site identified in this letter and relocated to the wastewater treatment plant, taken to an approved landfill or immediately land applied. In addition, we are requesting that MSDS data be provided to this office for all chemicals that are added to the sewage sludge that is land applied. Also, all record keeping information that was required for the field storage sites for your sewage sludge must be submitted to this office within 7 days of receipt of this letter. Until such time that the issues noted in this letter are resolved, this department will not approve any site for off-site storage of sewage sludge generated from your wastewater facility. If you have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Joe Sanfilippo Environmental Program Supervisor c: File - WW/Cedar Rapids Efile 57 ww cedar rapids nltr 092509 maw /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// September 25, 2009 CERTIFIED MAIL City of Dyersville 340 1st Avenue East Dyersville, IA 52040 ATTENTION: Honorable Mayor and Council RE: Notice of Violations IAC 567 64.2(1) & (2) Construction Permit & Site Approval IAC 567 67.4(8) Plan for additional storage During a recent complaint investigation at property owned by John Wulfekuhle located in Section 4 Concord Township, Dubuque County, Mike Wade noted a site where an uncovered formed concrete manure structure was being utilized to store sewage sludge generated at your wastewater facility. All sludge storage facilities must be permitted by this department and the storage site must be inspected and approved by this department. There are no records available to this office that indicate a construction permit was obtained for the storage structure located on John Wulfekuhle property or approval for the site being used for sewage sludge storage. These are violations of IAC 567 64.2(1) & (2), copies attached. In addition, we noted the fact that the manure storage structure identified in this letter is not included in your facility?s long-range program for land application of sewage sludge. Failure to follow your plan regarding obtaining approval for field storage sites for sewage sludge produced by your facility is a violation of 567 IAC 67.4(8). A plan to construct or obtain any additional sludge storage, handling or application facilities or equipment which are required by the land application program. As soon as possible, but no later than October 1, 2009 all sewage sludge that originated from the Dyersville wastewater facility must be removed from the manure storage structure and returned to the treatment plant. Before this material can be land applied as Class 2 sludge it must be shown that this material can meet the fecal bacteria criteria for pathogen reduction. In addition all other required monitoring for this sludge must be conducted to ensure that this material can qualify as Class 2 sludge for land application purposes. If you have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Joe Sanfilippo Environmental Program Supervisor c: File - WW/Dyersville Efile 31 ww dyersville nltr 092509 maw 567?64.2(455B) Permit to construct. 64.2(1) No person shall construct, install or modify any wastewater disposal system or part thereof or extension or addition thereto without, or contrary to any condition of, a construction permit issued by the director or by a local public works department authorized to issue such permits under 567?Chapter 9, nor shall any connection to a sewer extension in violation of any special limitation specified in a construction permit pursuant to 64.2(10) be allowed by any person subject to the conditions of the permit. 64.2(2) The site for each new wastewater treatment plant or expansion or upgrading of existing facilities must be inspected and approved by the department prior to submission of plans and specifications. Applications must be submitted in accordance with 567?60.4(455B). From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 10:00:09 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:00:09 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec lays charges against GSI compost company for Ottawa sewage sludge and for paper sludge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This story says that much of Ottawa's sewage sludge is now land applied on farm fields in Eastern Ontario. But winter is on its way and no sludge may be spread in the winter months. You can clearly see that these sludge composting programs are in trouble. The Fertival sludge compost site in Quebec went bankrupt a few years ago, after taking sludge from Ontario cities. Quebec has stockpiles on Ontario putrescible wastes left abandonned on these sites. For more on the crimes and corruption in Toronto's organic waste disposal program, look at today's story in the Toronto Star on problems in the food waste composting program: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/703661 .............................................................................. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Waste+firm+faces+odour+charges/2052462/story.html Waste firm faces odour charges Neighbour likens smell to ?fish-processing plant, but worse? By Dave Rogers, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 1, 2009 6:09 AMBe the first to post a comment OTTAWA-The Quebec Ministry of Environment has charged a waste management company with emitting foul odours while it was composting Ottawa sewage sludge and pulp mill waste at a plant in l?Ange-Gardien near Buckingham. Christian Perron, a spokesman for the Quebec Ministry of Environment, said the province is investigating odour complaints against GSI Environment Inc. under the Quebec Environmental Quality Act. Companies convicted of violating the act face fines of $6,000 to $250,000 for a first offence and up to $1 million for subsequent convictions. The municipality of L?Ange-Gardien had sought an injunction to get GSI to comply with provincial environmental regulations or stop its operations, but halted the proceedings when the company stopped accepting material in 2008. Raymond C?t?, who lives downwind and across the street from the plant, said the smell used to be ?like a fish-processing plant, but worse.? Since the firm?s closing the foul odours have diminished, said C?t?. GSI, which has its head office in Mississauga, has also been charged with five environmental violations in Lachute and 19 in Saint-Basile-le-Grand in Quebec?s Mont?r?gie region. Les Composts du Qu?bec, Inc., a subsidiary of GSI, began operating an indoor composting plant in l?Ange-Gardien in 1996. Calls to GSI were not returned. Nicole Desroches, director of the environmental group the Conseil r?gionale de l?environnement et du d?veloppement durable de l?Outaouais, said lagoons that were used to collect liquid leachate from the compost produced the foul odour. L?Ange-Gardien Mayor Armand Renaud said people complained about odours when the company mixed the material outdoors. ?If they didn?t mix it outside it would get so hot inside that it would catch fire,? Renaud said. ?People told me that they had tractor trailers filled with sewage sludge coming in from Ottawa and the United States. Neighbours used to complain a lot because the smell was right in their window. A lot of these compost plants are in trouble now because they have odour problems and they are having trouble getting raw material.? Renaud said GSI would need the permission of the Ministry of Environment and the town to reopen the plant. Michel Chevalier, Ottawa?s manager of waste water and drainage, said Ottawa had a five-year contract with GSI to dispose of 22,000 tonnes a year of sewage sludge in l?Ange-Gardien for $68 a tonne, but the company stopped the service in November 2008. ?They wanted more money and we negotiated with them, but at one point they pulled the plug and said they weren?t going to do it any more,? Chevalier said. ?GSI said odour was a problem and that was one of the reasons they weren?t going to l?Ange-Gardien. Chevalier says most of Ottawa?s sewage sludge is now spread on farm fields in Eastern Ontario. ?Some of it goes to landfills, some is composted at another GSI plant near Sherbrooke but most of it is land applied. They spread it on the fields and it has to be mixed immediately.? Gatineau councillor Alain Pilon said Gatineau had been sending some yard waste to the GSI site, but switched to another plant in Moose Creek, Ont., when the l?Ange-Gardien mayor said he didn?t want Gatineau?s waste. Gatineau has called tenders to compost the city?s table scraps and yard waste, possibly at a site on Hawthorne Road in Ottawa or in Moose Creek, Ont., starting in May 2010. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 09:10:11 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:10:11 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario woman vows to continue fight against biosolids on farmland Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Rural residents now do not know if and when sewage sludge will be dumped at dawn just over their fence line. Distance between sludge spreading and drinking water wells is as little as 15 meters. See this Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Brochure: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm/info/brochure.htm#9 Many City of Toronto residents were outraged that some of their public parks became storage sites for trash during the garbage strike this summer. Imagine how they would feel if there was sewage sludge just 25 meters from their home. ................................................................................... http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1777057 Woman vows to continue fight against the spreading of biosolids on farmland Posted By JOYCE CASSIN Oct 1 2009 Northumberland Today The battle may be lost, but the war against the spreading of biosolids continues. Wendy Deavitt says she and her family purchased a hobby farm in Warkworth in November 2001 and life was fine until a neighbouring farmer opted to spread biosolids (human waste) from the Cobourg wastewater facility on the surrounding farmlands. They are now walking away from their farm and moving into a residential area in Campbellford where they believe they'll be safe from the direct effects of the practice of spreading sludge. Sludge was spread in 2006 and 2007, and by November 2007, Deavitt says, she consulted a toxicologist and it was discovered that her blood levels were "out of whack." She claims she suffered symptoms ranging from extreme fatigue to severe diarrhea, and even her horses and barn animals fell ill. After fruitless efforts to involve municipal, provincial and federal levels of government, Deavitt says, she just can't live there any more. "What's the point of having a hobby farm if you can't have animals?" Deavitt asked on Wednesday, just prior to packing up the truck and leaving the farm. Although she says her health has improved somewhat, she lives in fear that the farmer will resume spreading biosolids and her health would not be able to take it. "He can come back and spread sludge until 2010," Deavitt said. "And then, once his certificate of approval expires, it'll be a free-for-all, and there won't be a paper trail to find who's spreading what." Two years ago, Deavitt put her farm up for sale, but there haven't been any takers, even though the price has been dropped several times. "We haven't had anyone even show any real interest," said Deavitt. Asked if she could be the cause of her own downfall and the depreciation of her property, Deavitt said she didn't have a choice but to openly oppose the use of biosolids on the surrounding lands - she had become severely ill. She says her family has been current on their mortgage, and it wasn't until two months ago that they stopped making the payments on their $206,000 mortgage. "We had to pay first and last months' rent on our new place," Deavitt said. "We told the mortgage company then that if we couldn't sell, we were going to walk away." She says although the mortgage company asked them to remain on the property they were told that, for health reasons, the Deavitts had to move. "The real estate contract expired today," said Deavitt. "We're packing up and moving today and tomorrow. "No one should have to live through this crap," Deavitt said. She says the battle for her property may be lost, but she plans to continue to educate people as to what she says are the dangers of spreading human sludge on farmlands. "This is what they call NASM - Non Agricultural Source Material - and what are they doing? They're spreading it on agricultural lands," said Deavitt. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 13:28:12 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:28:12 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Beware Distant Dust (and the pathogens in soil dust) Message-ID: http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/56026&id=56026 Beware distant dust By Brendan Borrell, the Scientist Dust and other disturbers of air quality are traveling vast distances to affect the health of people worldwide, says a new report [Published 30th September 2009 02:56 PM GMT] Dust storms in Africa, wild fires in Mexico, and ozone from Japanese factories can all have a negative impact on air quality and human health in other countries, including the United States and Europe, says a new report from the National Research Council. Smokestack from a WWII production plant Image: Wikipedia, via the Library of Congress Wind carries pollution great distances all the time, but scientists are best able to observe the phenomenon during major weather or pollution events, including dust storms or smoke plumes visible by satellite. Although scientists do not yet have the data to quantify the impact of these events, mathematical models and correlational studies help them identify some areas of concern. "The deadliest air pollutant that we are dealing with in this report are the fine particles," atmospheric chemist Charles Kolb, lead author and CEO of Aerodyne Research in Boston, told The Scientist. Currently, road dust is the second leading cause of particle emissions, following fires. Kolb said that the best estimate of the number of premature deaths attributable to exposure to particulates (some of which originate in other countries) comes from Europe, with about 348,000 deaths in 25 countries. "The heavy loads of fine particles we find in many large urban areas exacerbate heart problems and also cause deaths from lung cancer and emphysema." As industrialized nations tamp down on their own air quality problems, Kolb said, they will have to cope with trans-oceanic imports drifting in from developing nations. But while the report focuses on industrial and agricultural sources of pollution, such as mercury and pesticides, it also singles out dust storms as a natural factor that may double or triple its impact with climate change. However, it gives short shrift to the theory that airborne pathogens in this dust may be at the root of some of the deadly conditions. "There are pathogens associated with the dust that comes from Asia and Africa," Kolb said, "but the deaths are attributed to chronic conditions, not specific diseases. The added pollution pushes people over the edge." This interpretation does not sit well with Dale Griffin, microbiologist from the United States Geologic Survey in Tallahassee Florida, featured in last year's feature about the deadly toll of airborne microbes. "I think microorganisms cause disease," he said. "Every gram of topsoil or desert soil that goes airborne contains 1 billion bacteria per gram," he added. "Twenty to 30 percent of organisms are pathogenic to some type of organisms. The risk of microorganisms is there and that's an important issue." The Environmental Protection Agency requested the new report as part of its obligations related to a 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, signed by the United States, Canada, and countries in Europe, in the aftermath of the discovery of the causes of acid rain. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 2 07:49:46 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:49:46 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Toronto announces Biosolids Masterplan Message-ID: The City of Toronto has prepared a Biosolids Master Plan recommending strategies for the future management of biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater at the City's four wastewater treatment facilities. The Biosolids Master Plan is available for a 30-day public review period starting today October 1 and ending October 30, 2009. The document is available for your review on the project website at www.toronto.ca/biosolids_masterplan as well as at seven Public Libraries Nancy Martins Public Consultation Coordinator City of Toronto biosolids at toronto.ca '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Biosolids Master Plan Notice of Completion The City of Toronto has prepared a Biosolids Master Plan recommending strategies for the future management of biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater at the City?s four wastewater treatment facilities. The Biosolids Master Plan was carried out in accordance with the procedures defined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA). The Master Plan fulfills the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. Public Review The Biosolids Master Plan is available for a 30-day public review period starting October 1 and ending October 30, 2009. The Master Plan is available for review at: toronto.ca/biosolids_masterplan. It is also available for review at the following Toronto Public Library Branches (call library for hours of operation) Beaches 2161 Queen Street East 416-393-7703 Humber Bay 200 Park Lawn Road 416-394-5300 Jones 118 Jones Avenue 416-393-7715 Morningside 4279 Lawrence Ave East 416-396-8881 North York Central 5120 Yonge Street 416-395-5535 Northern District 40 Orchard View Blvd. 416-393-7610 Urban Affairs 55 John Street 416-397-7241 Please forward any comments on the Biosolids Master Plan by October 30, 2009 to: City of Toronto, Public Consultation Unit biosolids at toronto.ca 55 John Street, 19th floor, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Tel: 416-392-4390, TTY: 416-397-0831, Fax: 416-392-2974 The City's project team will work to resolve outstanding issues prior to the close of the 30-day public review period. Following the public review period, the Biosolids Master Plan will be brought the PublicWorks and Infrastructure Committee and Council for approval. The Committee may hear public speakers and consider communications when it considers the Biosolids Master Plan at a future meeting. To be notified when the Biosolids Master Plan is on the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee agenda, please send your name and e-mail or address to committee staff at pwic at toronto.ca or 416-392-4379. It may be noted that the Biosolids Master Plan is not eligible for a Part II Order request to the Minister of the Environment, since it was developed as a municipal master plan under the Class EA. The implementation of the Biosolids Master Plan recommendations involves a series of projects, which are pre-approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. Issue Date: October 1, 2009 Information will be collected in accordance with theMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 1 08:47:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:47:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario: sludge use drives Warkworth resident from property - two stories Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This story is repeating itself around North America as sludge victims have to move to protect their health, but cannot sell the property for its true value due to nearby sludge use. The Ontario Realty Corporation allowed a $5000 reduction in the appraised value of the home when Wendy Deavitt asked for a tax reassessment due to the devaluation of the property as a consequence of sludge use by an adjacent farmer. Why should sludge spreading by the town of Cobourg be allowed to devalue rural properties? Wendy and other residents took their medical records to the Dr Noseworthy, the local Medical Officer of Health, but she wrote back to say that her office didn't have the resources to investigate their health complaints. The Province of Ontario has allows sludge spreading - promotes sludge spreading - yet has no effective mechanisms to evaluate the health and environmental and financial consequences of sludge spreading. ......................................... To see photos: http://www.northumberlandnews.com/news/trenthills/article/136624 Sludge use drives Warkworth resident from property BILL TREMBLAY / THE INDEPENDENTBiosolids Warkworth family WARKWORTH -- Wendy Deavitt stands in front of the Warkworth farmhouse she's been trying to sell for two years, since her neighbour began spreading sewage sludge on the adjoining fields. \ Family claims biosolids spread caused health issues Sep 30, 2009 - 04:30 AM WARKWORTH - When the Deavitt family first moved to their eight-acre farm property in Warkworth eight years ago it was a ?dream come true,? but it?s since become a nightmare. ?We loved it here before, it was heaven,? Wendy Deavitt said of the property, which she believes became contaminated after biosolids were spread on neighbouring farmlands in 2006. ?Now it?s our prison, our nightmare.? The Deavitt?s have been trying to sell their farm for more than two years. During that time they?ve dropped the price to $229,000, below the house?s bank-appraised value of $245,000, calculated in 2007, and $60,000 less than the original asking price. Several scheduled showings have been cancelled after potential buyers were notified of the use of biosolids. ?We?d have to give it away,? Ms. Deavitt said of the property, which she plans to walk away from on Oct. 1, leaving her family nearly bankrupt, to rent a property further away from the biosolid affected area. ?I?m tired of living here in fear, every time the trucks go by I feel sick thinking they?re coming back to sludge the fields again,? Ms. Deavitt explained, listing a host of health concerns such as migraines, nausea, coughing and chronic fatigue that she links to the 2006 spreading. ?I don?t know what?s going to happen with this in the future and I just can?t live like this anymore.? That uncertain future Ms. Deavitt mentioned refers to new legislation passed by the McGuinty government on Sept. 18 that transfers approvals for the use of biosolids and other Non Agricultural Source Materials (NASM), such as paper sludge and yard waste, to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Under the new legislation, farmers would no longer need a certificate of approval from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to spread waste, although haulers and generators of the materials would. In addition, generators will be responsible for their own testing of the material in order to ensure it meets health and safety requirements. ?We?ve streamlined the process to eliminate some duplications,? said MOE spokeswoman Kate Jordan, of the new legislation. ?This change gives greater certainty about permissible practices and greater transparency about the process.? Farmers would be required to create a NASM plan subject to approval by OMAFRA in lieu of a certificate of approval. Other changes include the creation of three separate categories of NASM that dictate the approvals requirements, for example higher-quality material such as fruit and vegetable peels would not require approval. Odour and setback guidelines are also included in the new legislation. Although Ms. Jordan describes the recent changes as making the NASM process safer, opponents such as Ms. Deavitt fear the changes will result in a more lenient approach. ?OMAFRA was created to oversee food and rural areas, not health and the environment,? Ms. Deavitt explains, likening the use of biosolids to ?playing Russian roulette with our food chain. ?Everyone has a stake in this because everyone eats and drinks, this issue needs to be at the forefront. For us, we?ve lost our battle here, but I won?t give up the fight, I won?t stop trying to educate people.? ......................... http://www.communitypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1776375 Biosolids foe abandoning dream home Posted By Mark Hoult, Community Press Sept 30 2009 Trent Hills ? Wendy and William Deavitt are walking away from their dream property, a hobby farm outside Warkworth they purchased in 2001. The couple put their property up for sale two years ago, after living for more than a year with a variety of illnesses they maintain were caused by the application of biosolids on the fields around their home. Since putting the property on the market they have reduced the price by $60,000, with no success. Recently a family expressed strong interest, but when they learned that waste sludge had been applied nearby they backed out and refused to even come out and view the property, Deavitt said. ?They have horses and they won?t even come and look at the house, because they are too afraid of what it would do to the animals, and so they should be.? Deavitt said real estate agents can?t put a house on the market without disclosing any potential environmental concerns, including biosolids ? a byproduct of the human waste treatment process that's used as fertilizer. ?If you try to sell your property and you don?t disclose, you leave yourself open to a lawsuit,? she said, noting that many potential buyers of rural properties are also now very aware of the controversy surrounding the application of waste sludge on agricultural land across the province. So although the neighbouring farmer did not apply biosolids to his fields in 2008 or this year, Deavitt said her family can?t take the chance of being there if the tanker trucks appear again, a development she considers likely, especially since the provincial government is set to remove the requirement for certificates of approval to apply the sludge. ?We?re at the point now we feel we?ve lost our battle. It?s over. I can?t live like this any more. I can?t live in fear anymore. So we will hand the keys over to the mortgager and we will walk down that driveway and away from our dream. We love this property. Up until 2006 we enjoyed this property immensely, and then all hell broke loose, and it?s been a nightmare, a living hell ever since.? The nightmare began in 2006 when she and her husband began experiencing fatigue, respiratory distress, kidney dysfunction, urinary tract infections and diarrhea after biosolids were applied to the fields surrounding their six-acre property. Other couples, including Dianne and Wayne Cooke and Linda and Wayne Donaldson, also fell ill, as did Deavitt?s animals. At first every one of the animals in her barn developed coughs, runny noses and conjunctivitis. A two-month-old colt went into respiratory distress, and her mare began having irregular heat cycles. The mare also developed swollen lymph nodes. Deavitt said all the symptoms have disappeared since she moved the animals to another property. Blood tests taken by Toronto toxicologist Dr. Anne Mildon showed that Deavitt?s own blood had elevated levels of chromium, potassium and sodium. Chromium is a hard metal with a high melting point that is used as a green pigment in paints, ceramics and varnishes, and in the making of stainless steel and leather. It is one of the contaminants that Deavitt, Cooke and Donaldson said made them sick. All three couples were found to have high levels of various metals in their bodies, said Deavitt, who organized public meetings and became part of a committee formed to raise awareness of the biosolids issue. Deavitt said she will walk away from her dream home ?with her head held high? and continue the fight after her family moves to Campbellford. ?We need to get on with out lives. We can?t continue to have this stress anymore. I will fight this better without the stress.? Deavitt said she is disappointed that Trent Hills council did not at least provide moral support and call for a complete moratorium on the spreading of waste sludge on farm fields. Other municipalities, including Prince Edward County, have called for a moratorium until complete studies have been carried out, and Trent Hills should have done the same, she said. ?That?s not supporting your constituents as far as I?m concerned. That?s avoiding the issue.? But Mayor Hector Macmillan said he and other members of council ?are very concerned about biosolids? and have been to numerous meetings to learn more about the issue. But without a change in legislation there was no possible effective help the municipality could have given Deavitt and her family, he said. ?At the end of the day there are many unknowns, there is not doubt about that, but municipalities don?t control the legislative process. And, contrary to popular belief, a municipality does not have the authority to stop another municipality, through a contractor, from bringing in biosolids,? he said, noting that the biosolids being spread in the municipality come from Cobourg, not Trent Hills, where the waste is de-watered and put in a landfill. Deavitt and her family will leave their Warkworth-area home Oct. 1. And then, Deavitt said, she will continue fighting for a moratorium and a ?proper health study? she believes and hopes will bring the province to its senses and end the process of turning rural Ontario into ?a toxic waste dump.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 2 07:40:58 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:40:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Hong Kong Museum Exhibit - Hydrogen energy from wastewater Message-ID: Hong Kong Museum : Energy from Wastewater Exhibit Hong Kong -- Many energy experts predict that hydrogen will replace fossil fuel as the main source of energy supply in the near future as it is an ideal fuel that produces only water upon combustion. To enable the public to learn more about this technology, the Hong Kong Science Museum launches a new exhibition entitled "Bio-hydrogen production from wastewater" at its Science News Corner through January 17, 2010. The exhibition, with information provided by Professor Herbert H P Fang, Chair of Environmental Engineering of the Department of Civil Engineering at The University of Hong Kong, introduces the use of biological technology to produce hydrogen from wastewater. Hydrogen is an ideal and environmentally friendly energy source. It has very high fuel value and produces only water upon combustion. Many economists and scientists believe that the economy of the 21st century will be powered by hydrogen, just as petroleum did in the 20th century and coal in the 19th century. Although petroleum had been used since the early 20th century for motor vehicles and airplanes, it took about 50 years for petroleum to overtake coal as the main energy source for the world economy. Currently, using hydrogen is only at the embryonic stage. It is, however, believed that hydrogen will eventually replace petroleum as the main energy source for the world economy. Hydrogen can be used directly as fuel for internal combustion engines. Hydrogen cars and buses are already in use in Europe and America. It can also be used for airplanes as demonstrated by the Russians in the 1960s. Furthermore, converting hydrogen into energy is a mature technology in which hydrogen reacts with oxygen producing electricity at an ambient temperature. The full scale application of hydrogen as fuel is presently hampered by the lack of technologies for its safe storage and an infrastructure for its convenient supply to users. Today, hydrogen is mostly produced by gasification of fossil fuel or by electrolysis of water. Hydrogen can also be produced anaerobically by microorganisms under proper conditions. However, people can hardly detect hydrogen in the natural environment because the hydrogen produced is readily consumed by many hydrogen-consuming microorganisms which have developed the appetite. Researchers found that if engineers can control the anaerobic reactor condition to suppress the bioactivities of the hydrogen-consuming microorganisms, they should be able to harness hydrogen from wastewater. Energy and environmental protection are two of the most significant issues for sustainable development today. Hydrogen-producing treatment technology is still in its infancy. Environmental microbiologists are looking for new microorganisms with substantially higher energy recovery efficiency. Meanwhile, many research teams are developing various hybrid two-stage processes ? generating bio-hydrogen from wastewater at the first stage and using phototrophic bacteria for further hydrogen production or the well-established methanogenic process at the second stage. A lot of work remains to be done, which may take another 10 to 20 years, for bio-hydrogen production from wastewater to become a widely accepted treatment technology. Source: http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ i i This newsletter is sponsored by: i i USF Scientist study viruses in Reclaimed Water Tampa, FL -- It was the ?yuck factor? of reclaimed water that got Karyna Rosario thinking. As communities increasingly turn to reclaimed water as a source for irrigation ? and some communities consider using it for drinking water ? Rosario, a PhD student at USF?s College of Marine Science, became increasingly curious about exactly what viruses are present in reclaimed water. What intrigued her were not the viruses the labs at sewage treatment facilities would know to go look for, but the more obscure or exotic ones that aren?t identified in routine testing. So Rosario waded ? quite literally - into the question at water treatment plants in Pinellas and Manatee counties and began cataloging the viruses she found with a novel technique designed to identify a full-range of unknown viruses. Her analysis ? which found a full complement of animal, plant and human viruses in wastewater ? has been published recently in the journal Environmental Microbiology. The reassuring news, Rosario reports, is that none of the viruses she found in treated reclaimed water locally are human pathogens, putting to rest the most serious of fears about humans using treated wastewater. But her study, nonetheless, provides an important starting point for future research on viruses which survive the human body and are discharged into reclaimed water and how they might impact the environment when treated wastewater is used, whether for irrigation or drinking water supplies. ?There is a yuck factor when we think of reclaimed water,? said Rosario, who conducted her study under the tutelage of USF Professor Mya Breitbart, whose laboratory has used a new technique for identifying previously unknown viruses based on their genetic material (DNA or RNA). ?But the reality is we need this alternative water supply and, thus, we need to know what is in the water, including viruses. You say the word ?virus? and people freak out, but not all viruses are dangerous to humans.? One of the biggest concerns about reclaimed water use is whether it carries and spreads pathogens, and until recently the microbiological content of reclaimed water was still largely unknown. Viruses are of particular concern because they include highly stable pathogens that can be resistant to standard wastewater treatment processes, Rosario explained, noting that for practical reasons, current quality control methods do not test the presence of pathogens directly and the spread of viral pathogens through reclaimed water remains a real possibility. In Tampa - where 55 million gallons of treated wastewater a day is discharged into Tampa Bay - the safety of reclaimed water also has become a large environmental concern. Rosario was already working on her study with scientists at the Genome Institute of Singapore when the focus on Tampa?s use of reclaimed water emerged this summer. But her study could provide some preliminary answers to the first question people ask when they consider reclaimed water: Just what is in there? ?This is a population survey,? Rosario explained in a recent interview. ?From this study you can look at the different pathogens that are found. For example, you can look at the plant pathogens and find out if this is going to be a problem for agriculture?? The study ? titled ?Metagenomic Analysis of Viruses in Reclaimed Water? ? describes the novel method for identifying previously unknown viruses that?s been developed by Breitbart?s lab. Samples containing a host of viruses are processed to extract the virus? DNA. The DNA is sequenced and then compared to existing databases of known DNA genomes to identify the viruses. The difficulty for scientists, though, is that with millions of types of viruses in existence, there are still many more viruses that have yet to be identified and mapped. The process used in Breitbart?s lab also helps to identify never-before-seen viruses. Rosario compared samples collected from effluent at a reclaimed water plant; reclaimed water coming from a public sprinkler; reclaimed water used at a plant nursery and drinking water from a plant nursery. She found reclaimed water contained 1,000-fold more virus-like particles than potable water and that reclaimed water may play a role in the dissemination of highly-stable viruses. The viral community was dominated by viruses that infect bacteria, but viruses related to animal, plant, and insect pathogens were also identified. And while many of those viruses are in themselves not human pathogens, she concluded that further studies are needed to evaluate the impacts of reclaimed water use on human and ecosystem health. The value, though, of knowing that viruses exist in treated wastewater is if some day there were to be a viral disease outbreak among people or in the agricultural sector and wastewater is a suspected source of the contamination, scientists now have a baseline list of what viruses are present there. Source: http://www.usf.edu/ i i VUEWorks 2009 for affordable Asset Management Columbus, OH -- VUEWorks, Inc. today announced VUEWorks? 2009, a greatly-expanded version of its web-based solution that enables municipalities, utilities and other organizations to track the condition, minimize failure risk, prioritize expenditures and service delivery of their physical assets. VUEWorks 2009, which now supports ESRI?s ARCServer 9.3.1, is a scalable suite of software modules for managing work processes, capturing citizen concerns, and executing preventive maintenance with a minimal investment of time and money. At its highest level, VUEWorks is a strategic asset management solution that incorporates condition assessment, risk analysis, valuation, budget forecasting, and project cost estimating for managing any asset through it?s lifetime. VUEWorks 2009 has been re-designed to allow organizations to retrieve key asset data, apply work-management practices, and develop strategic asset management programs for any infrastructure physical asset. A new Facilities Module provides flexible tracking of any asset that is typically not identified as part of the GIS data. Facilities (such as pump stations, treatment plants, and fire/police stations), vehicle fleets, and campuses can be hierarchically structured down to the individual asset level. Facilities can be linked to GIS assets for easy selection from the map. Individual assets such as pumps, motors, valves, switches, controls, etc. can include values for condition, valuation, and work history. VUEWorks 2009 also delivers features that make it easier than ever to connect with SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) and other systems through the enhanced ODBC compliant Data Link features. With the data in place you can use it to trigger Work Orders automatically from SCADA data. VUEWorks also enables roadway condition assessment and prioritization,, including recording the severity and extents of pavement distresses comparable to ASTM standards. Pavement condition can be color-coded and linked in real time to GIS data. Cost estimates for pavement repair projects can include all affected assets including sidewalks, curbs, guardrails, drainage, lights, signals, etc. Users can also create multi-year budget scenarios based on deterioration curves, and can automatically trigger different types of jobs (repair options) based on where the segment falls on the deterioration curve. ?This is the most powerful version of VUEWorks yet,? commented Rod Lovely, P.E., VUEWorks? Vice President of Product Management. ?The new Facilities Module and re-modularization truly extends VUEWorks capabilities and allows organizations to comprehensively manage their physical infrastructure, even on a tight budget.? ?VUEWorks 2009?s capabilities make it an ideal Asset and Maintenance Management solution for many of our clients that have made a commitment to develop GIS inventories of their Water, Sanitary, and Stormwater Sewer Systems.? -- Nathaniel Norton, GIS Director, Tighe & Bond Source: http://www.vueworks.com/ i i Blue Water : Cost-effective Mercury Removal Hayden, ID -- Mercury removal from wastewater is a difficult problem to solve cost-effectively. This is particularly true considering the mercury discharge concentration goal of the 1995 Great Lakes Initiative, 1.3 parts per trillion (ppt). Blue Water?s patented Blue PRO? reactive filtration process is able to lower mercury to very small concentrations for relatively little capital and operating cost by employing multiple removal mechanisms in a high flow system. Blue PRO is able to accomplish co-precipitation and adsorption, overcome diffusion limitations within the moving sand bed, and also filter particulates. The process has been shown to have efficacy for mercury removal in both treatability studies and pilot-scale wastewater treatment projects. Recently Blue Water has successfully piloted Blue PRO for mercury removal at both municipal and also industrial wastewater plants in Minnesota. Third-party laboratory results confirmed that the 1.3 ppt total mercury goal was achieved by Blue PRO. We look forward to helping wastewater plants, such as those in the Great Lakes region, meet their mercury discharge limits. For more information contact: Blue Water Technologies, Inc. 10450 N. Airport Drive Hayden, Idaho 83835-9742 Telephone: 1-888-710-2583 Fax: 208-209-0396 Web site: http://www.blueh2o.net/ i i The News Center : More headlines . Calgon Carbon supplies UV system to Boston Calgon Carbon selected to supply UV system to treat Boston drinking water by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Wastewater system "in a box" Missouri S&T researcher thinks "inside the box" to create self-contained wastewater system for soldiers, small towns. Larry T. Koehle elected President of APWA Larry T. Koehle, P.Eng., MPA, the Director of Public Works and Engineering for the Town of Caledon, ON, was elected President of APWA. Click here to visit the News Center... i i Water and Wastewater Blog Don Dunnington, Moderator 3 Tips for becoming an Energizing Team Member "It's not just the Energizer Bunny that needs to keep things going with its never-quit energy....." Make Your Nominations Here for Water and Waste Water's Engineering Rock Stars "Who Are Your Engineering Stars? Now it's your chance to nominate our own engineering rock stars...." Water-security: Should urban water use, like rural water use, be capped? "The so-called cap on surface water use in the Murray-Darling Basin is widely acclaimed as a success....." ..enter the Water and Wastewater Blog i i Featured Videos Share your videos with everyone - promote your plant, your product and your company. Get you video featured in our newsletter, free. Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Careers Aqwise - Clear and Simple Purdue powers WWTP with food scraps ...see your company video featured, here in our newsletter! Upload your company videos free....click here i i Help Forum : Hot Messages from the Help Forum People post their requests for help and offer their suggestions to others in our open forum. Mr. Lambrechts wants analyze anaerobic reactor vapor: I want to analyze the vapor from the water in an anaerobic reactor but my sensor cannot deal with H2S. How can I remove the H2S completely in either the water or remove it in the gas that comes from stripping the water? Because it is a small flow there are not a lot of restrictions with cost of the materials used or more extreme physical conditions, it is however important that compounds such as butyric acid are not removed. (Click here to post a reply) Thanks, Gijs Lambrechts gijs at wastewatersupervision.nl Help Forum: Share your expertise with others in our Help Forum. i i Water and Wastewater Plant Directory - Featured Plant Toyota Motor Samrong Wastewater Treatment Plant Samrong, Thailand The Wastewater Treatment Plant is based on chemical treatment, biological treatment, and filtration system. Maximum capacity is 1200 m3/day. Main sources.... (Click here for more) Click here to add your plant to our directory: Water and Wastewater Plants Directory i i >From the Job Fair: We have a number of job openings on the Job Fair, here are just a few of them we would like to share with you. If you know someone in need, please forward our newsletter to them, so they can check on a job that might suit them. Help Someone to Find a Job - Today! New Openings this week: Wastewater Estimator Needed - Dallas, TX Wastewater Consultant Wanted - Philippines Enzyme Treatment Sales - Johnson Diversey Inc. PE Consultant - Aqua Azul Corp. Senior Chemist Water Treatment Chemicals Wastewater Treatment Operator - Baltimore, MD Operations and Maintenance - CH2M HILLFor job more listings, and we have lots of them, visit our Job Fair. The Job Fair: A free service of Water and Wastewater.com. You can post job opening for managers, engineers, sales, reps or other talented people you need. ...Or one can post their resume for companies who are looking to add talented people to their staff. Do you have a position you need to fill? Visit the Job Fair. i i About Us : Water and Wastewater Newsletter ? 1999-2009 Water and Wastewater.com Home page: http://www.waterandwastewater.com Joseph Taylor, Editor Water and Wastewater Newsletter 3948 South Third Street, No. 121 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Phone: 904-280-4656 Fax: 904-273-1399 Email: jtaylor at waterandwastewater.com Water and Wastewater Newsletter is a 100% opt-in e-mail list of information for the water and wastewater treatment professional. Do you have company news, a new product, new service or other information you would like to share with our subscribers? Please submit articles via e-mail, only to: news at waterandwastewater.com :: Hong Kong Museum : Energy from Wastewater Exhibit :: USF Scientist study viruses in Reclaimed Water :: VUEWorks 2009 for affordable Asset Management :: Blue Water : Cost-effective Mercury Removal :: The News Center : More headlines :: The Water and Wastewater Blog :: Video Center :: Help Forum :: Water and Wastewater Plant Directory : Featured Plant :: The Job Fair :: Top Picks at Amazon.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 5 15:11:35 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:11:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec - bylaw against sludge upheld in Elgin Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Town of Elgin Quebec (population less than 500 persons) has just won a victory against sludge. Their anti sludge bylaw was challenged in court by 'Evasion Farm'. 'Evasion' wanted to strike down the bylaw that bans the use of 'residuals' and tried a few arguments, saying the bylaw was vague, and that there was no scientific proof that the sludge harmed the environment. This past week came the conclusion. The By-Law against sludge use has been upheld. Here is the ruling..in French. J'espere que vous avez etudier le francais a l'ecole. Call if you want some help understanding it. ................................................. COUR SUP?RIEURE CANADA PROVINCE DE QU?BEC DISTRICT DE BEAUHARNOIS N? : 760-17-001371-064 DATE : Le 1er octobre 2009 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PR?SIDENCE DE : L?HONORABLE STEVE J. REIMNITZ, J.C.S. ______________________________________________________________________ FERME L'?VASION INC. DEMANDERESSE C. MUNICIPALIT? DU CANTON DE ELGIN D?FENDERESSE ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Mise en situation [1] La demanderesse Ferme l'?vasion inc. (ci-apr?s l'?vasion), est une entreprise oeuvrant dans le domaine agricole, exploitant de grandes cultures de ma?s, de soya et de bl?, dans la municipalit? du canton de Elgin (ci-apr?s Elgin). [2] Au cours de ses op?rations, l'?vasion constate des probl?mes au niveau de la qualit? de son sol. On l'informe qu'il existe un moyen efficace et moins co?teux de r?gler ce probl?me, soit l'utilisation de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes ?MRF?. [3] S?duite par cette possibilit?, l'?vasion entreprend des d?marches pour pouvoir utiliser de telles MRF sur sa ferme. Elle se heurte ? un refus de la ville qui l'informe JR 1452 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 2 qu'un r?glement interdisant l'utilisation de MRF est sur le point d'?tre adopt?, ce qui fut fait. [4] L'utilisation des MRF ?tant interdite, l'?vasion demande l'annulation de ce r?glement. Les faits [5] La demanderesse est propri?taire de terres d'une superficie d'environ 81 hectares, situ?es dans la municipalit? du Canton de Elgin. [6] La d?fenderesse Elgin, est une presqu'?le. Elle est entour?e du ruisseau Oak et de la rivi?re Trout1. La rivi?re Ch?teauguay est situ?e ? environ un kilom?tre de la ferme l'?vasion. La municipalit? compte 459 citoyens et la production agricole constitue la principale activit? ?conomique des citoyens. [7] Les terres agricoles de l'?vasion sont entour?es de foss?s dans une proportion d'environ 40 % ? 50 %. En p?riode de forte pluie, les surplus d'eau coulent dans ces foss?s pour ensuite se jeter dans la rivi?re. [8] Selon une analyse de ses sols, l'?vasion ne dispose pas de quantit?s suffisantes de fumier d'animaux pour l'?pandage. Des analyses ont conclu que ses terres souffrent d'une d?ficience en phosphore et autres ?l?ments essentiels. [9] Vu le r?sultat des analyses, Jean-Pierre Duguay (ci-apr?s Duguay)2 le propri?taire de la ferme l'?vasion, s'int?resse aux MRF. Il a des discussions avec diverses personnes, dont un agronome qui lui mentionne que l'utilisation de ces substances constituerait une fa?on peu dispendieuse de nourrir ses sols et corriger les probl?mes constat?s. [10] La compagnie GSI, sp?cialiste dans les services de consultation g?n?rale en mati?re agricole, faisait affaires avec un club agro environnemental dont l'?vasion ?tait membre. Elle recommanda ? l'?vasion l'utilisation de MRF. [11] Au d?part, l'?vasion ?prouvait certaines craintes ? envisager l'utilisation des MRF. Elle fut inform?e que le Minist?re de l'Environnement (ci-apr?s ME) acceptait cette fa?on de proc?der et qu'il lui ?tait possible d'obtenir de celui-ci les approbations concernant l'utilisation de ces substances. [12] Si l'?vasion acceptait d'utiliser telles MRF, elle devait fournir la main-d'oeuvre n?cessaire ? l'?pandage et GSI, les tracteurs n?cessaires. 1 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce D-4. 2 L'utilisation des patronymes ou pr?noms dans le jugement vise ? all?ger le texte et non faire preuve de familiarit? ou de manque de respect. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 3 [13] GSI avait comme projet de valoriser l'utilisation des MRF aupr?s de ses clients agriculteurs. Pour ce faire, elle devait obtenir les autorisations n?cessaires aupr?s de la municipalit? d'Ottawa qui elle, voulait promouvoir l'utilisation de ces boues us?es. [14] Des premi?res tentatives furent entreprises en novembre 2005 qui se sont sold?es en un ?chec en raison d'un probl?me d'approvisionnement de MRF. [15] GSI est revenue ? la charge en 2006. L'?vasion avait toujours l'intention de faire les d?marches n?cessaires pour obtenir l'autorisation de faire l'?pandage de MRF sur ses terres. [16] Le 8 ao?t 2006, Julie Couture (ci-apr?s Couture), agronome, repr?sentante technique chez GSI ?crit ? Jos?e Taillefer (ci-apr?s Taillefer), secr?taire-tr?sori?re de la ville, lui demandant une ?Attestation de conformit? ? la r?glementation municipale pour les projets de valorisation de MRF?3. Il est utile de reproduire le contenu de cette lettre : ?Par la pr?sente, nous vous sollicitons une Attestation de conformit? ? la r?glementation municipale pour les projets de valorisation de MRF pour l'entreposage et l'?pandage de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes (MRF) que vous trouverez ci-joint, pour la Ferme l'?vasion inc. L'utilisation de MRF est une fa?on environnementale d'amender, de fertiliser et/ou de chauler les sols en rempla?ant une partie des intrants conventionnels. Ce projet s'inscrit dans une optique de d?veloppement durable et d'agriculture environnementale. Pour la r?alisation de ce projet, GSI Environnement doit se conformer au Guide sur la valorisation des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes du minist?re de l'Environnement du Qu?bec (2004) de m?me qu'au R?glement sur les exploitations agricoles et au R?glement sur le captage des eaux souterraines. L'attestation de conformit? ? la r?glementation municipale pour les projets de valorisation de MRF est essentielle afin de poursuivre cette activit? de valorisation agricole sur votre territoire et elle concerne uniquement ce qui touche ? la r?glementation municipale puisque le respect de la r?glementation provinciale est implicite. N'h?sitez pas ? communiquer avec nous si vous n?cessitez de plus amples renseignements. Afin de minimiser les d?lais, nous vous saurions gr? de bien vouloir nous acheminer le document par t?l?copieur au (450) 929-1659 et de faire suivre l'original avec le sceau de votre municipalit? par la poste ? notre bureau de Varennes, ? l'attention de la soussign?e. [17] Par la suite, Taillefer lui ?crivait que le sujet relatif ? la valorisation des mati?res r?siduelles figurait ? l'ordre du jour de la prochaine r?union de l'assembl?e municipale pr?vue pour le 14 ao?t 20064. 3 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-2. 4 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-3. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 4 [18] Dans cette lettre, elle l'informait que le conseiller Jamie Quinn (ci-apr?s Quinn) avait donn? ?un avis de motion ? l'effet qu'un r?glement sur l'entreposage et l'?pandage des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes? qui serait propos? au conseil dans les trois mois suivants, et que dans ces circonstances, elle ne pouvait donner suite ? la demande. [19] Le 6 novembre 2006, Elgin adopte le R?glement num?ro 296 portant sur l'importation et l'?pandage de boues municipales et de r?sidus de d?sencrage5. [20] Le 8 novembre 2006, ledit R?glement entre en vigueur et indique plus sp?cifiquement : ?EN CONS?QUENCE il est r?solu que la municipalit? de Elgin interdise sur son territoire l'importation, l'entreposage et l'?pandage des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes comme les boues d'usine d'?puration d'eaux us?es, les boues d'usine de d?sencrage et tout autre produit similaire qui pourraient potentiellement menacer la sant? et le bien-?tre des r?sidants de Elgin?. LE MINIST?RE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET LES MATI?RES R?SIDUELLES FERTILISANTES. [21] Monsieur Marc H?bert (ci-apr?s H?bert) est agronome. Il a obtenu entre autres une ma?trise en sol et fertilisation. Il oeuvre au Minist?re du D?veloppement durable de l'environnement et des parcs (ci-apr?s MDDEP) depuis 1990 et plus sp?cifiquement dans le cadre de la politique de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles, mise de l'avant par le minist?re en 19986. [22] Cette politique est partie d'un constat qu'il y avait beaucoup trop de sites d'enfouissement qui pouvaient, ? long terme, avoir des effets n?gatifs dans l'environnement et cr?er des gaz ? effet de serre, mais qu'il ?tait possible d'utiliser certaines de ces mati?res r?siduelles comme fertilisant. [23] Cette politique qui s'adresse aux villes et aux industries vise ? prot?ger l'eau. Il doit y avoir des distances ? respecter pour ?viter toute contamination de l'eau par les contaminants tels l'azote et le phosphore. [24] Selon H?bert, la plupart des mati?res r?siduelles peuvent ?tre recycl?es d'une fa?on ou d'une autre et peuvent servir de fertilisant. Les boues provenant des usines d'?puration des municipalit?s ou les r?sidus des usines de p?tes et papiers constituent de telles mati?res r?siduelles. [25] Le pr?sent dossier porte principalement sur les boues municipales. Elles proviennent de r?sidus des stations d'?puration des eaux us?es des municipalit?s. La station d'?puration sert ? retirer la partie solide des eaux, pour en retirer une eau 5 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-4. 6 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-5. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 5 ?pur?e. Le r?sidu ne sera qualifi? de boue d'?puration, que s'il rencontre les crit?res de qualit? pr?vus par la politique qu?b?coise afin de servir comme mati?re fertilisante. [26] Afin de s'assurer que ces boues d'?puration poss?dent les qualit?s n?cessaires, le minist?re a mis en place le Guide sur la valorisation des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes, f?vrier 20047 (ci-apr?s le Guide). [27] Le t?moin H?bert a particip? ? la r?daction de ce Guide qui sert ? d?terminer si le produit a un potentiel fertilisant. Dans l'affirmative, il faudra d?terminer ce qui doit ?tre fait pour que l'?pandage soit s?curitaire. [28] Il peut arriver que le minist?re requi?re des informations suppl?mentaires avant d'?mettre un certificat d'autorisation. Le Guide se veut donc un outil important qu'il utilise pour le guider dans l'?mission des certificats d'autorisation. [29] Le R?glement relatif ? l'application de la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement8, explique quand le certificat d'autorisation est requis. L'autorisation doit ?tre demand?e si l'utilisation de mati?res fertilisantes est susceptible de modifier la qualit? de l'environnement. Ledit certificat d'autorisation doit viser un lieu sp?cifique et ?tre demand? aupr?s du d?partement r?gional du MDDEP. La demande peut ?tre faite par l'entreprise agricole elle-m?me ou par un consultant comme GSI qui a fait la demande dans le pr?sent dossier. Un tel certificat est ?mis pour une dur?e d'un an. [30] Ce qui est analys? ?mane du bassin de la ville d'o? provient le produit. Ces analyses sont faites p?riodiquement sur une p?riode de 12 mois. [31] Les crit?res concernant les composts, la boue municipale et les r?sidus de d?sencrage contenus dans le Guide ont ?t? d?velopp?s par le Bureau de normalisation du Qu?bec. [32] H?bert attire l'attention sur les dioxines et furannes qui sont des contaminants chimiques importants. Deux cotes ont ?t? pr?vues en regard de la qualit? : C1 ?tant une qualit? excellente et C2 repr?sentant la qualit? minimale. [33] Le MDDEP a une pr?occupation importante pour l'eau souterraine et de surface. ? une ?poque o? les rivi?res ?taient aux prises avec un taux ?lev? de pollution au Qu?bec, la mise en place des stations d'?puration a permis d'am?liorer la situation. La politique situe dans la continuit? de cette volont? de r?duire la pollution de l'eau. [34] H?bert affirme que le ME a des pr?occupations sp?cifiques pour les inondations des champs au printemps, car il y a un risque de contamination li? ? ces ph?nom?nes. Le Guide pr?voit des aires d'entreposage des MRF, loin des rivi?res ou des lieux sujets ? ?tre inond?s. 7 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-6. 8 Q-2, r.1.001. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 6 [35] Interrog? sur la p?riode d'application de la politique, H?bert reconna?t que la p?riode pr?vue est de 1998 ? 2008. LA MUNICIPALIT? [36] La municipalit? est situ?e en milieu agricole, avec quatre industries et un terrain de golf. Au niveau agricole, on y retrouve des grandes cultures, des producteurs de bovins, d'agneaux, de canards et des producteurs laitiers. Deux fermes biologiques sont aussi situ?es dans les limites de la municipalit?. [37] La municipalit? est une presqu'?le, entour?e de ruisseaux et de rivi?res. Un plan de la MRC du Haut St Laurent9 permet de bien visualiser les limites et les ruisseaux et rivi?res qui l'entourent. [38] Fait important, la municipalit? ne poss?de aucune infrastructure au niveau de ses ?gouts. Les r?sidants fonctionnent avec des fosses septiques et champs d'?puration install?s sur leurs propri?t?s. [39] Les champs agricoles situ?s dans la municipalit? servant ? la culture se drainent par un r?seau de drainage complexe qui fut construit, modifi? et adapt? au fil des ans. [40] Un plan produit sous la cote D-8, portant sur l'ensemble du territoire de la MRC du Haut St Laurent indique par un trac? rouge, les zones inondables. L'?vasion est en partie situ?e dans une zone inondable. [41] Presque ? tous les printemps, une partie des terres de la municipalit? est inond?e dont le chemin de la 4e concession qui est totalement submerg?. [42] Ces inondations peuvent se produire jusqu'? trois fois par ann?e. [43] Le budget annuel de la municipalit? est de 600 000 $. La municipalit? compte quelque 58 kilom?tres de routes et chemins pav?s ? entretenir. La municipalit? emploie une directrice g?n?rale et une adjointe ? la directrice. Il n'y a pas d'employ? de la voirie ? temps plein. Quelques r?sidants sont engag?s ? temps partiel. [44] Le Conseil de la municipalit? est compos? du maire et de six conseillers. Ces derniers touchent 1 400 $ par ann?e et le maire, quant ? lui, 4 200 $. [45] La municipalit? ?met 228 comptes de taxes par ann?e. [46] La vie d?mocratique est active et mouvement?e ? Elgin. Il y a quelques ann?es, des batailles juridiques eurent lieu dans le dossier des porcheries. Comme dans le dossier de l'utilisation des MRF, certains r?sidants ?taient oppos?s ? l'?mission de permis n?cessaires ? l'exploitation de porcheries dans les limites de la municipalit?. 9 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce D-5. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 7 [47] Le maire actuel, Jean-Pierre Proulx (ci-apr?s Proulx) oeuvrant dans un groupe de coalition oppos? ? l'exploitation d'une porcherie s'est fait solliciter pour se pr?senter ? la mairie de la municipalit?. Il a accept? et fait la campagne de 2005. Le principal enjeu portait sur les dossiers environnementaux. [48] En d?but de campagne, Proulx prend connaissance d'un avis ?manant de GSI qui informe les r?sidants qu'un producteur agricole a comme projet d'?pandre des biosolides sur ses terres de cultures et de fa?on g?n?rale, ce que repr?sente l'utilisation de MRF dans le domaine agricole10. Ces mati?res devaient provenir des eaux us?es trait?es par le Centre Environnement Robert O. Pickard de la Ville d'Ottawa. [49] Cette question de l'utilisation des MRF ? Elgin a amplement ?t? discut?e et a constitu? un enjeu important lors de la campagne ?lectorale de 2005. [50] L'avis de motion pour l'adoption d'un r?glement interdisant l'utilisation de MRF a ?t? ent?rin? en janvier 2006. [51] Certains conseillers qui ont t?moign? ? l'audience ont fait ?tat de recherches sur le sujet. Ils ont entre autres visionn? un documentaire intitul? ?Tabou? qui traite de l'utilisation des MRF. Tous, incluant le maire, ?taient conscients que ce documentaire ne repr?sentait qu'un c?t? de la m?daille, mais il permettait d'aborder un probl?me qui se pr?sentait dans la municipalit?. [52] Dans le bulletin municipal du 6 janvier 200611, il est fait ?tat de l'avis de motion relatif ? l'?pandage des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes. Le texte indique : ?5- Avis de motion pour l'?pandage de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes : Ces mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes sont en fait les d?chets d'usine d'?puration des eaux des grandes villes. Nous avons commenc? ? ?tudier la question et sommes tr?s inquiets de telle pratique. ? titre d'exemple, il est fortement d?conseill?, voire interdit de circuler ? pied dans une for?t qui a re?u ce type de mati?res, et ce, pour une p?riode de un an. Cet avis de motion n'affecte en rien les pratiques agricoles courantes. Les fermiers pourront continuer d'utiliser le fumier de leurs animaux pour fertiliser leurs champs. Mais l'importation et l'?pandage des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes, ? Elgin, sont interdits jusqu'? nouvel ordre.? [53] Ce bulletin est distribu? ? toutes les portes et pour ceux qui n'habitent pas en permanence dans la municipalit?, le bulletin leur est post?. [54] Dans les semaines qui suivirent, le R?glement devient la principale source de discussion au Conseil. On cherchait des assises ? l'adoption de ce R?glement. C'est le conseiller Quinn qui s'occupait principalement de faire ces recherches. 10 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce P-7. 11 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce D-3. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 8 [55] Le maire et certains conseillers avaient la conviction profonde qu'il ?tait essentiel de tout faire pour prot?ger la nappe phr?atique. [56] La compr?hension du maire ?tait que le MDDEP a pour mission de sauver les cours d'eau et ? cet effet, a forc? depuis des ann?es, la purification de l'eau par l'installation d'usines de filtration. Cependant, en r?glant ce probl?me, le minist?re a particip? ? en cr?er un autre en permettant l'utilisation de mati?res r?siduelles en provenance de ces usines, sur les terres agricoles. Cela avait pour effet de cr?er un risque potentiel de contamination de l'eau. [57] Selon le maire ?C'est le bon sens que de craindre la contamination potentielle de la nappe phr?atique par l'utilisation des MRF.? [58] Suite ? ses recherches, Quinn affirme avoir trouv? l'assise juridique n?cessaire pour l'adoption du R?glement. Selon lui, la municipalit? se devait d'?tre proactive en mati?re de protection de la sant? de ses citoyens. Il r?f?re aux propos des juges de la Cour Supr?me dans l'affaire Spraytech (Soci?t? d'arrosage) c. Hudson12. Un extrait de cette d?cision est d'ailleurs cit? dans le R?glement 296. [59] Le maire t?moigne que la municipalit? n'a pas consult? de juristes ou de sp?cialistes en environnement avant l'adoption dudit R?glement. [60] Le d?lai entre le 14 ao?t et le 6 novembre a ?t? caus? par le fait que le maire et les conseillers ont d? s'informer avec les moyens qu'ils avaient, des cons?quences que pouvait avoir l'?pandage de MRF. Les r?unions du conseil se tenaient ? raison d'une par mois. Le maire dira ?On voulait bien faire les choses.? [61] Constatant par la suite que le R?glement ?tait contest? devant les tribunaux, sur les conseils de l'avocat de la municipalit?, cette derni?re a d?cid? d'engager l'expert Daniel Green qui est venu t?moigner au proc?s. [62] Dans son t?moignage, le maire a pr?cis? que le but recherch? par ce R?glement ?tait de prot?ger la nappe phr?atique et la sant? des citoyens de Elgin. DANIEL GREEN, EXPERT DE LA MUNICIPALIT? [63] Daniel Green (ci-apr?s Green) est copr?sident de la Soci?t? pour vaincre la pollution, et ce, depuis 1982. Green n'a pas compl?t? son baccalaur?at et a entrepris une ma?trise non termin?e. Il a publi? plusieurs rapports. Il affirme que toute sa vie professionnelle a ?t? consacr?e ? ?valuer les risques pour l'environnement par rapport ? diverses sources potentielles de contamination. 12 Spraytech (Soci?t? d'arrosage) c. Hudson, [2001] 2 R.C.S.241. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 9 [64] Ses activit?s visent ? faire l'analyse afin d'?valuer la contamination et d?terminer les sources et les impacts de cette contamination. Il ?value aussi les risques environnementaux des ?missions de substances toxiques. [65] Il donne quelques exemples du type de travail qu'il a fait : ? L'expertise du sol suite ? l'installation d'un incin?rateur dans une municipalit? de la r?gion de Qu?bec ; ? Son implication dans le dossier de la Ville de Shannon en banlieue de Qu?bec, o? il devait ?valuer le risque pour l'environnement. Il proc?da ? des pr?l?vements d'eau afin de d?terminer les concentrations de coliformes pouvant repr?senter un risque pour l'environnement et la population. ? Il a ?t? mandat? par le gouvernement du Qu?bec pour faire partie d'un comit? en vue d'?valuer le programme mis en place pour l'assainissement des eaux. Il a eu ? travailler dans diff?rentes stations d'?puration des eaux. [66] Green d?pose son curriculum vitae13 et une courte pr?sentation en est faite. [67] Aux fins des sujets discut?s dans son rapport d'expertise, le Tribunal reconna?t Daniel Green comme expert sur des questions environnementales. [68] Suite ? une demande au printemps 2007, Green a obtenu le mandat de la municipalit? d'Elgin d'?tudier les cons?quences potentielles sur l'environnement de l'?pandage de MRF sur les terres agricoles. Il a principalement examin? les cons?quences de l'?pandage sur la qualit? de l'eau de la r?gion et le risque sur la population autour de ces sols. [69] Depuis les ann?es 1960, les autorit?s gouvernementales prennent des mesures pour arr?ter le rejet des polluants dans l'environnement. On a mis en place une technique qui permet de capter les polluants dans les usines d'?puration des eaux us?es. Ce syst?me a pour effet de r?cup?rer le liquide apr?s en avoir extrait les polluants. Apr?s avoir ?t? capt?s ou retir?s, ceux-ci ne disparaissent pas, ils se transforment en boue. [70] Le succ?s des syst?mes d'?puration mis en place au Qu?bec g?n?rent de grandes quantit?s de boue. [71] Au niveau industriel et municipal, ces boues contiennent plus de mati?res toxiques, elles contiennent des dioxines et furannes, deux contaminants importants sur lesquels Green s'est plus sp?cifiquement pench?. 13 Voir ? ce sujet la pi?ce D-9. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 10 [72] Constatant les variations dans les valeurs r?elles provenant de l'analyse des boues us?es, le MDDEP d?cide d'?tablir comme taux de concentration le crit?re le plus ?lev? dans l'?tablissement de sa politique. En fait, pour ?valuer si les mati?res r?siduelles sont dangereuses, le MDDEP a consid?r? devoir prendre le crit?re extr?me ou le sc?nario de la pire des situations. [73] Pour ?valuer les risques, Green propose de faire une ?valuation sur une application de 100 ans, selon l'?pandage d?fini par la politique qu?b?coise. Il a pris en consid?ration les concentrations du minist?re et leur prescription d'?pandage. Au Tableau 1 en annexe de son rapport, il attire l'attention sur les dioxines et furannes. Il reconna?t qu'il y a un d?bat entourant les crit?res pour des sols contamin?s, A), B) ou C). A) ?tant consid?r?s comme des endroits non pollu?s pour usage r?sidentiel (1.5), B) pour utilisation commerciale et C) pour utilisation industrielle. [74] Par la suite, l'expert explique que l'analyse tient compte de ce que le gouvernement consid?re comme bruit de fond, soit les concentrations naturelles provenant des retomb?es atmosph?riques et autres types de pollution naturelle. Il n'y a aucun endroit dans le monde exempt de pollution naturelle. Le bruit de fond est le r?sultat de cette contamination naturelle. Il se situe autour du crit?re A) soit ? 1.5. [75] Au Tableau 2, l'expert part de la concentration dans les mati?res fertilisantes et fait un calcul avec la quantit? par acre de mati?res contaminantes ?pandues sur le sol agricole. Il consid?re 4,4 tonnes de mati?res fertilisantes par hectare, ce qui donne le nombre de kilogrammes de mati?res d?pos?es par hectare. La norme d'?pandage lui permet de consid?rer une charge annuelle d'accumulation de contaminants contenus dans les MRF. Avec les ann?es, on additionne l'accumulation de contaminants. [76] Il tient compte qu'avec les ann?es, se produit naturellement une perte de contaminants d?coulant de ph?nom?nes telles l'?rosion, la volatilisation et la d?gradation, sauf pour le cadmium qui ne se d?grade pas. [77] L'?valuation est r?partie sur 100 ans, des charges totales de ces concentrations qui demeureront dans le sol. Il propose un sc?nario de la concentration qui reste, et l'effet sur la vie d'un individu. Il ?value la transmission ? l'humain du cadmium, des dioxines et des furannes. Green s'interroge ? savoir si cette accumulation peut atteindre un seuil pouvant causer des probl?mes de sant?. [78] Au Tableau 7 de son rapport, il estime le total des pertes de cadmium et de dioxines et furannes sur 100 ans dans les cours d'eau d'Elgin, entre autres sur la rivi?re Oak qui est le cours d'eau qui draine la ferme ?vasion. [79] Pour son calcul, il utilise une donn?e importante, contest?e par l'expert de la partie adverse : 50 % des terres agricoles du secteur vont recevoir des MRF. Pour le cadmium, 0,48 kg par hectare et pour les dioxines et furannes, 0,62 mg par hectare. La superficie totale consid?r?e est de 5,386 ha. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 11 [80] On comprendra que si le pourcentage retenu est de 1 % comme celui de l'expert de la partie adverse, les r?sultats seront passablement diff?rents. Green justifie le 50 % par le fait que l'utilisation des MRF en est ? ses d?buts, qu'il est de l'intention du MDDEP d'augmenter cette utilisation et aussi parce que l'?tude porte sur l'avenir. Il soutient qu'actuellement dans certains ?tats des ?tats-Unis, le pourcentage d'utilisation des MRF est aux alentours de 50 %. [81] Au Tableau 9, il ?value les pertes annuelles de cadmium et de dioxines et furannes aux cours d'eau d'Elgin suite ? l'?rosion des sols ayant re?u des MRF. En moyenne, pour le cadmium, le r?sultat varie entre 16,25 et 38,44 kg annuellement et, pour les dioxines et furannes, les r?sultats varient de 17,91 ? 42,36 annuellement. [82] Au Tableau 10, Green ?tablit ce qu'il qualifie de charge totale et additionnelle. Il tient compte de la d?position atmosph?rique aux cours d'eau, plus la charge actuelle au bassin du ruisseau Oak (section New York et du Qu?bec, plus la charge additionnelle au bassin du ruisseau Oak dans la section d'Elgin par l'application des MRF, pour un total de 272 mg par ann?e. [83] Au Tableau 11, par l'application d'un logiciel de mod?lisation, Green estime la concentration de dioxines et furannes dans l'eau du ruisseau Oak suite ? l'apport additionnel de contaminants par l'?pandage de MRF. [84] Constatant que la concentration limite est de 1,30E-08, il ne peut conclure que l'apport des MRF va contaminer l'eau du ruisseau Oak assez pour d?passer la concentration limite. Mais, cela d?passe de 69,5 fois le bruit de fond pour les dioxines et furannes. [85] Green n'a pas r?ussi ? ?tablir les concentrations r?siduelles de cadmium pour les eaux de surface. [86] Il tient compte des inondations. Comme on l'a vu, Elgin est situ?e dans une zone inondable et dans les faits, des inondations importantes se produisent au printemps. [87] Quant ? l'utilisation de la mod?lisation et du choix de son mod?le, il donne peu d'explications. [88] Son calcul tient compte du fait qu'il consid?re des individus vivant sur une ferme et les g?n?rations futures. La m?re est expos?e par la nourriture et l'eau et le sc?nario envisag? tient compte de l'exposition aux polluants dans la parcelle de terre o? ils vivent. Il tient pour acquis que la personne se nourrit de produits qui proviennent de sa terre. [89] C'est au Tableau 12 que l'on retrouve les charges de cadmium apport?es par les MRF pendant 100 ans de fertilisation et concentration dans le sol. Il consid?re les crit?res C2 moyen et C2 extr?me. Pour le C2 moyen, les concentrations moyennes dans 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 12 le sol en consid?rant les pertes sont de 0,32 mg/kg pour les 25 premi?res ann?es et de 1,44 mg/kg pour les 75 derni?res ann?es. Pour le C2 extr?me, on passe ? 0,45 mg/kg pour les 25 premi?res ann?es et 2,06 mg/kg pour les 75 derni?res. [90] L'exposition est continuelle et la concentration augmente avec les ann?es avec des pertes minimes de 8 % par ann?e. L'expert admet qu'il est impossible de calculer pr?cis?ment le risque. Par cet exercice, il essaie de faire une approximation ou moyenne de ce qui doit ?tre consid?r?. [91] Aux Tableaux 13 et 14, il traite des doses de cadmium estim?es, re?ues par un individu suite ? l'utilisation des MRF dans son milieu de vie. Le Tableau 13 repr?sente le C2 moyen et le Tableau 14, C2 extr?me. [92] Dans l'approche de Green, il faut ?valuer la consommation des individus. Il admet ne pas avoir interrog? les r?sidants pour conna?tre la consommation r?elle des produits qui proviennent de leurs terres. Lors de son interrogatoire en chef, il ne se rappelait pas du pourcentage de consommation par rapport ? ce qu'ils ach?tent. Il reconna?t que pour cet intrant, il a utilis? le ?pire sc?nario?. [93] Le Tableau 13 compare la dose par tranches d'?ges en fonction de diff?rents types d'ingestion. Il conclut entre autres que pour un enfant entre 7 mois et 4 ans, le r?sultat de 878 est l?g?rement sup?rieur ? la dose du bruit de fond. [94] Au Tableau 14, pour la m?me tranche d'?ge, il obtient un r?sultat nettement sup?rieur ? la dose de bruit de fond. [95] Au Tableau 15, le m?me exercice a ?t? fait pour les dioxines et furannes. [96] Au Tableau 16, il conclut que la dose associ?e ? un risque d'exc?s de cancers est d?pass?e et l'?valuation du risque d'exc?s de cancer d? aux MRF est de 724 cas de cancers exc?dentaires par million de personnes. [97] Il conclut donc que le risque d'utilisation des MRF pour le cadmium et les dioxines et furannes est inacceptable pour la tranche d'?ge de 7 mois ? 4 ans. Toujours selon lui, l'utilisation de MRF conduit irr?m?diablement ? la contamination des sols. EXPERT RAYMOND VAN COILLIE [98] Raymond Van Coillie (ci-apr?s Van Coillie) a d?pos? son curriculum vitae en d?but de t?moignage. Le Tribunal note que celui-ci est impressionnant. Il reconna?t le docteur Raymond Van Coollie expert en toxicologie de l'environnement. [99] Dans ce dossier, son travail a consist? ? examiner et analyser le rapport de l'expert Green. Il ne d?bordera pas du cadre de ce rapport. Dans son rapport, Green a cibl? l'aspect des cons?quences sur la sant? en ajoutant un aspect en rapport avec l'analyse du risque environnemental. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 13 [100] La conclusion finale de Van Collie est ? savoir qu'il n'y a pas de risque ?cotoxicologique comme cons?quence de l'utilisation des MRF. [101] L'expert pr?cise que la particularit? de ce dossier est qu'il n'y a pas eu d'?pandage de MRF, il est donc impossible de faire des pr?l?vements qui auraient permis d'obtenir des r?sultats r?els de contamination. [102] Van Coillie note que le qualificatif ?toxique? souvent utilis? dans le rapport de Green est exag?r?. Les contaminants ne sont pas tous toxiques, seule la dose entra?ne la toxicit?. Il sugg?re donc que le vocable ?contaminant? est plus appropri? que ?toxique? dans le cadre du pr?sent dossier. [103] Van Coillie note qu'au Qu?bec, la valorisation agricole des MRF est faible. Il affirme que 90 % des biosolides municipaux g?n?r?s par l'?puration des eaux municipales ne sont pas valoris?s. Ils sont incin?r?s ou achemin?s dans des sites d'enfouissement. [104] Le peu d'utilisation des MRF est d? ? plusieurs facteurs, dont : ? L'aversion des gens pour les d?chets organiques qui proviennent du traitement des eaux us?es ; ? Les restrictions d'?pandage impos?es par le MDDEP en fonction de crit?res sp?cifiques ; et ? Les faibles quantit?s produites de MRF. [105] Il souligne que le d?veloppement durable comprend plusieurs avenues, dont la r?cup?ration de ces boues us?es. [106] Van Coillie identifie des lacunes dans l'opinion de Green concernant les crit?res des MRF pour l'?pandage. En plus du crit?re C2 discut? par l'expert Green dans son rapport, le MDDEP a aussi promulgu? des crit?res C1 plus s?v?res qui autorisent un ?pandage sans limite pour les MRF de premi?re qualit?. Il identifie trois autres cat?gories de crit?res qui auraient pu ?tre consid?r?es par Green. [107] Il soutient que le certificat d'autorisation d'?pandage est assujetti ? plusieurs crit?res et non pas seulement au crit?re C2. [108] En outre, Van Coillie consid?re que le Tableau 2 du rapport Green et particuli?rement concernant les crit?res A) et B) ne sont pas bien d?crits ou ne repr?sentent pas les valeurs d?crites. [109] De toute fa?on, comparer des crit?res de contaminants de MRF ? des crit?res de contaminants de sols est ?inopportun?, entre autres parce que les MRF ?pandues ne peuvent ?tre consid?r?es comme des sols, elles sont plut?t des apports aux sols. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 14 [110] Aussi, il est incorrect d'affirmer qu'il n'y a pas de processus r?gulier de la qualit? des MRF au Qu?bec. Au contraire, des analyses sont faites par les producteurs, ils doivent r?aliser des ?chantillonnages et analyses par une firme ind?pendante. Selon Van Coillie, le contr?le ind?pendant du MDDEP sur la qualit? des MRF ?pandues est r?gulier. [111] D'autre part, les apports de Cd et DF provenant des MRF sont surestim?s par Green. Les MRF ont des teneurs variables en contaminants. Pour appuyer ses dires, Van Coillie compare et donne six exemples aux pages 13 et 14 de son rapport. [112] En plus de sur?valuer les apports de Cd et DF, Green sous-estime les pertes de ces substances durant la p?riode retenue de 100 ans. Les pertes ?tant dues ? l'?rosion ?olienne, la lixiviation, la bio-accumulation v?g?tale ? partir des sols. Il propose un calcul r?vis? des nouvelles valeurs calcul?es en fonction des ajustements faits. Les conclusions sur ?l'enrichissement toxique? de Green ne seraient plus valables. [113] Des r?serves doivent aussi ?tre ?mises relativement ? l'enrichissement toxique de DF ? partir des MRF, puisque les donn?es datent de la d?cennie 1990 et la teneur en DF ?tait plus ?lev?e qu'actuellement, la fr?quence et le nombre d'?pandages n'?tant pas pr?cis?s, cela pourrait causer une interpr?tation fauss?e. [114] Van Coillie reproche ? Green de consid?rer que 50 % des sols re?oivent des MRF. Cette hypoth?se est exag?r?e. Il r?it?re que la proportion des terres agricoles sur lesquelles des MRF sont ?pandues se limit? ? 1 %. Tenant compte de cette pr?cision et des pertes par ?rosion hydrique lors des 75 derni?res ann?es, il propose que les valeurs finales du Tableau 9 doivent ?tre r?duites de 99,3 % pour le Cd et de 99,7 % pour les DF sur une base moyenne de 75 ans. [115] Van Coillie aborde la portion du rapport de Green sur les estimations des charges et des concentrations r?sultant des Cd et DF au ruisseau Oak. Il souligne que le calcul est fait ? partir d'une mod?lisation d'USEPA (2002) publi?e sous forme non officielle de ?draft?. [116] L'expert Van Coillie questionne vivement le fait qu'un ?draft? ait pu ?tre utilis? dans le cadre d'une mod?lisation. [117] Il faut pr?ciser que dans un calcul fait de cette fa?on, le r?sultat de la mod?lisation d?pend de ce qu'on donne comme information. Si les donn?es de d?part sont fausses ou exag?r?es, le r?sultat est fauss?. [118] Le calcul des apports d'?rosion des DF et MRF qui seraient ?pandues dans le bassin versant du ruisseau Oak a ?t? fait par Green en supposant que 100 % de ce bassin recevrait des MRF et que la concentration de DF apr?s 100 ans d'?pandage serait de 2,51 ng/kg sol p.s. Or encore une fois, la valeur de 100 % est discutable et pourrait m?me ?tre abaiss?e ? 1 % dans les faits, puisque ce dernier taux repr?sente la superficie des terres agricoles recevant des MRF en Mont?r?gie. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 15 [119] Aussi, la concentration de 2,51 ng DF/kg sol p.s., peut selon lui ?tre abaiss?e ? 0,32 ng DF?kg sol p.s. [120] Si dans le mod?le on utilise toujours le sc?nario du pire, le r?sultat sera ? l'avenant, mais ne repr?sentera pas la r?alit?. [121] Cons?quemment, ces corrections de Van Coillie pourraient faire descendre de 272 mg DF/an ? 168 mg DF/an, ce qui entra?ne une baisse de la concentration mod?lis?e de 209 fg DF/1, ? 129 fg DF/1. [122] Qui plus est, Van Coillie ne partage pas le point de vue de Green sur l'exposition aux MRF. L'individu fortement expos? (IFE) aux substances des MRF est d?fini dans le rapport de Van Coillie : ?L'IFE est un agriculteur qui est dans une ferme situ?e dans une r?gion en d?ficit d'engrais de ferme ; les MRF (biosolides et ACM) y sont utilis?s dans les parcelles de l'exploitation et dans le jardin familial, lequel donne une production non n?gligeable des l?gumes consomm?s. Cet IFE a ?t? allait? pendant un (1) an par sa m?re, laquelle s'est nourrie depuis sa naissance d'une proportion importante de l?gumes de son jardin ou de sa r?gion et de produits d'animaux ?lev?s localement. Les produits animaux consomm?s par l'IFE et sa famille proviennent d'animaux nourris par du fourrage ou des grains cultiv?s sur des sols amend?s par des MRF et(ou) d'animaux qui p?turaient sur des prairies ?galement fertilis?es par des MRF. Une partie des l?gumes consomm?s ont eux aussi ?t? produits sur des sols fertilis?s par les MRF. Parmi les donn?es alimentaires non produites ? la ferme, une certaine proportion a ?galement ?t? cultiv?e avec des MRF. La maison est sous les vents dominants par rapport aux terres cultiv?es. L'eau bue par l'IFE est une eau de surface provenant de la rivi?re la plus proche ou une eau souterraine, lesquelles sont potentiellement contamin?es par l'utilisation des MRF sur les sols agricoles de la r?gion. L'IFE ?pand lui-m?me les MRF et s'occupe de la machinerie. L'IFE et sa m?re sont donc expos?s par ingestion d'eau potable, par ingestion de produits animaux et v?g?taux qui ont eu contact avec le sol contamin?, par inhalation d'air contamin? par des vapeurs et(ou) des poussi?res et par contact cutan? avec des contaminants apport?s dans les sols agricoles. L'IFE est expos? durant 75 ans et sa m?re a ?t? expos?e pendant 25 ann?es ant?rieures (INSPQ, 2001 b).? [123] La possibilit? qu'un tel individu existe est fort th?orique et Van Coillie en fait la d?monstration ? la page 24 de son rapport. Le calcul pr?cise que si on prend chacune des ?tapes de la d?finition de ?l'individu fortement expos?? cela repr?sente 0,006 individu pour 7 372 000 personnes, soit un individu pour 1 229 000 personnes. Ce qui est donc extr?mement rare et tr?s th?orique comme approche. [124] Par la suite, Van Coillie aborde les Tableaux 12 13 et 14 de l'expertise de Green. Selon cette expertise, il y aurait un risque pour les enfants de 7 mois ? 4 ans expos?s. Il propose que les doses totales d'exposition au cadmium avec des MRF doivent ?tre abaiss?es, il sugg?re une baisse de 95% au Tableau 14. Dans de telles conditions 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 16 modifi?es, il n'y a pas de d?passement des doses d'exposition de r?f?rence soit 840 ng Cd/kg p.c./j pour les jeunes de 7 mois ? 4 ans. [125] Concernant l'?valuation des risques ? la sant? associ?s aux DF, Van Coillie consid?re que les calculs ont ?t? faits sur la base de charges surestim?es. Il y a aussi confusion entre les calculs de risques non canc?rig?nes et ceux canc?rig?nes. Il n'existe pas de risque non canc?rig?ne, ni canc?rig?ne lorsqu'il est question de DF provenant des MRF. Selon lui, les sc?narios de Green n'occasionnent pas de risques canc?rig?nes formels. [126] En conclusion, Van Coillie conclut qu'il n'y a pas de risques formels pour la sant? et l'environnement ? partir des deux contaminants (cadmium et dioxines et furannes) provenant des MRF qui pourraient ?tre ?pandues dans les environs d'Elgin. [127] Son opinion est surtout bas?e sur une surestimation des charges de Cd et DF en 100 ans d'?pandage et une sous-estimation des pertes de ces charges en 100 ans. Position de la demanderesse [128] La demanderesse reproche ? la d?fenderesse d'avoir utilis? son pouvoir r?glementaire de fa?on extr?mement ?tendue et impr?cise notamment en indiquant dans son r?glement : ?[?] et tout autre produit similaire qui pourrait potentiellement menacer la sant? et le bien-?tre des r?sidants de Elgin.? [129] La demanderesse reproche ? la d?fenderesse le fait d'avoir adopt? le R?glement non pas en vertu des pouvoirs qu'aurait pu lui conf?rer la Loi sur l'am?nagement et l'urbanisme, mais bien en vertu de qu'elle ?crit dans le premier ATTENDU de son R?glement ? savoir : ?ATTENDU que la Cour supr?me du Canada dans son jugement du 28 juin 2001, (Municipalit? de Hudson vs 114957) statut que les municipalit?s sont dans l'obligation d'?tre proactive en mati?re de protection de la sant? de leurs citoyens. Le Tr?s Honorable juge L'Heureux-Dub? dans son jugement dit : ?principe de pr?caution du droit international, qui est d?fini ainsi au par. 7 de la D?claration minist?rielle de Bergen sur le d?veloppement durable (1990) : Un d?veloppement durable implique des politiques fond?es sur le principe de pr?caution. Les mesures adopt?es doivent anticiper, pr?venir et combattre les causes de la d?t?rioration de l'environnement. Lorsque des dommages graves ou irr?versibles risquent d'?tre inflig?s, l'absence d'une totale certitude scientifique ne devrait pas servir de pr?texte pour ajourner l'adoption de 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 17 mesures destin?es ? pr?venir la d?t?rioration de l'environnement.? (sic) [130] Elle pr?tend n'avoir jamais re?u le bulletin municipal de janvier 2006 traitant du R?glement ? adopter. [131] La d?cision d'adopter ledit R?glement est une cons?quence de recherches sommaires ou subjectives sur le sujet des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes. [132] Aucune expertise n'a ?t? obtenue avant l'adoption du R?glement.. [133] Il est faux de pr?tendre que l'utilisation de MRF repr?sente un danger pour l'environnement et les citoyens. [134] La municipalit? ?tait mal fond?e d'exercer sa discr?tion politique comme elle l'a fait. Position de la d?fenderesse [135] D?s janvier 2006, la d?fenderesse transmettait un bulletin municipal par lequel elle informait les citoyens qu'un avis de motion avait ?t? donn? quant ? l'adoption d'un R?glement sur les mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes. Elle ?valuait que la dangerosit? dans l'utilisation de ces mati?res fertilisantes justifiait l'adoption d'un tel R?glement. Son adoption a d'ailleurs suscit? de nombreuses discussions de la part des citoyens et des repr?sentants d'organismes agricoles. [136] La d?fenderesse est bien fond?e d'exercer sa discr?tion politique en adoptant le R?glement qui vise la protection de l'environnement, la sant? et le bien-?tre de ses citoyens, le tout consid?rant les dangers li?s ? la toxicit? des produits vis?s par le R?glement. [137] Apr?s avoir consid?r? tous les dangers li?s ? la toxicit? des produits vis?s, la d?fenderesse se dit bien fond?e d'exercer sa discr?tion politique en adoptant tel R?glement qui vise la protection de l'environnement, la sant? et le bien-?tre de ses citoyens. [138] La Loi sur les comp?tences municipales14 conf?re aux municipalit?s le pouvoir de r?glementer en mati?re d'environnement. [139] Le R?glement adopt? est suffisamment pr?cis puisqu'il vise nomm?ment les boues municipales et les boues d'usine de d?sencrage. 14 L.R.Q., c. C-47.1. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 18 Cadre l?gislatif [140] Avant de proc?der ? l'analyse des lois applicables, il convient de reproduire les principaux textes ? consid?rer. [141] Le 8 novembre 2006, entrait en vigueur le R?glement num?ro 296 concernant l?importation et l??pandage de boues municipales et de r?sidus de d?sencrage (ci-apr?s le ?R?glement ?) de la d?fenderesse qui pr?voit notamment que : ? (?) EN CONS?QUENCE, il est r?solu que la municipalit? de Elgin interdise sur son territoire l?importation, l?entreposage et l??pandage des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes comme les boues d'usines d??puration d?eaux us?es, les boues d?usine de d?sencrage et tout autre produit similaire qui pourrait potentiellement menacer la sant? et le bien-?tre des r?sidents de Elgin ? [142] Les boues municipales et les boues de papeti?res (dont les r?sidus de d?sencrage) peuvent ?tre utilis?es comme MRF. [143] Les MRF font l?objet du cadre l?gislatif et r?glementaire suivant : - Loi sur les comp?tences municipales (ci-apr?s ? L.C.M. ?), L.R.Q. c. C- 47.1, articles 3, 4 (40), 6, 19 et 52; - Loi sur la qualit? de l?environnement (ci-apr?s ? L.Q.E. ?), L.R.Q. c. Q-2, articles 20, 22 (30) (40), 53.1 ? 53.5,124; - R?glement relatif ? l?application de la Loi sur la qualit? de l?environnement (ci-apr?s ? R.R.A.L.Q.E. ?), L.R.Q, c. Q-2, r. 1.001, articles 2 (120) b), 7 et 8; - R?glement sur le captage des eaux souterraines (ci-apr?s ? R.C.E.S. ?), L.R.Q. c. Q-2, r. 1.3, articles 26, 27 et 30; - R?glement sur les exploitations agricoles (ci-apr?s ? R.E.A. ?), L.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, articles 2, 3, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29.1 (? noter que l?article 29.1 a ?t? modifi? par le D. 1006-2007, (2007) G.O. II 4849, lequel est entr? en vigueur le 13 d?cembre 2007), 30, 31; [144] Les MRF sont ?galement vis?es par une politique avec statut juridique, puisqu?elle a ?t? adopt?e en vertu de l?article 53.4 L.Q.E. (disposition habilitante expresse) : - Politique qu?b?coise de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles 1998-2008 (ciapr?s la ? Politique ?, pi?ce P-5), (2000) 132 G.O. I, sections 3, 4, 5.1, 5.6.8.; - PIETTE, Jean, D?veloppements r?cents en droit de l?environnement (2007), Service de formation continue du Barreau du Qu?bec, 2007, pp. 7 et 15; 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 19 - Les Composts du Qu?bec inc. et al. c. Beauchamp*, (C.S.) 2007 QCCS 3927, par. 6, 24 et 83 (en appel); [145] Conform?ment ? l?article 53 de la Loi modifiant la Loi sur la qualit? de l?environnement15, cette politique demeure en vigueur jusqu?? ce qu?elle soit modifi?e ou remplac?e. Apr?s v?rification ? la Gazette officielle, cette politique ne fut pas modifi?e ou remplac?e depuis le 30 septembre 2000, date de sa publication. [146] Enfin, la valorisation des MRF est balis?e par un guide environnemental sans statut juridique, pr?voyant des crit?res de r?f?rences et identifiant les normes r?glementaires : - Guide sur la valorisation des mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes (ci-apr?s le ? Guide ?, pi?ce P-6), f?vrier 2004, avec Addenda No. 1 et No. 2 (MDDEP), sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.3., 3.2, 3.6, 4, 5.4 et 8.2; - PIETTE, Jean, pr?cit?, pp. 9 et 15; (ONGLET 23) [147] Ce guide est particuli?rement d?int?r?t eu ?gard ? l?identification des activit?s de valorisation n?cessitant un certificat d?autorisation ?manant du MDDEP et aux crit?res propos?s et con?us pour prot?ger la qualit? de l?environnement. [148] Il est utile de voir les pouvoirs accord?s par la Loi aux municipalit?s : ?2. Les dispositions de la pr?sente loi accordent aux municipalit?s des pouvoirs leur permettant de r?pondre aux besoins municipaux, divers et ?volutifs, dans l'int?r?t de leur population. Elles ne doivent pas s'interpr?ter de fa?on litt?rale ou restrictive. 4. En outre des comp?tences qui lui sont conf?r?es par d'autres lois, toute municipalit? locale a comp?tence dans les domaines suivants : 1? la culture, les loisirs, les activit?s communaut aires et les parcs ; 2? le d?veloppement ?conomique local, dans la mesur e pr?vue au chapitre III ; 3? la production d'?nergie et les syst?mes communau taires de t?l?communication ; 4? l'environnement ; 5? la salubrit? ; 6? les nuisances ; 7? la s?curit? ; 8? le transport. 15 L.Q. 1999, c. 75. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 20 D?l?gation. Elle peut adopter toute mesure non r?glementaire dans les domaines pr?vus au premier alin?a ainsi qu'en mati?re de services de garde ? l'enfance. N?anmoins, une municipalit? locale ne peut d?l?guer un pouvoir dans ces domaines que dans la mesure pr?vue par la loi. 19. Toute municipalit? locale peut adopter des r?glements en mati?re d'environnement. 52. Toute municipalit? locale peut, par r?glement, prohiber l'?pandage de d?jections animales, de boues ou de r?sidus provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papier pendant les jours, jusqu'? concurrence de 12, dont elle pr?cise les dates parmi celles qui sont post?rieures au 31 mai et ant?rieures au 1er octobre, de fa?on que la prohibition ne s'applique pas pendant plus de trois jours cons?cutifs. Publication du r?glement. Pour que la prohibition s'applique au cours d'une ann?e, le r?glement qui la pr?voit doit ?tre adopt? et publi? au plus tard le dernier jour, respectivement, des mois de f?vrier et de mars de cette ann?e. Autorisation d'?pandage interdit. Le greffier ou le secr?taire-tr?sorier selon le cas peut, par ?crit et sur demande, autoriser une personne ? effectuer un ?pandage interdit par le r?glement. Dans le cas o? il y a eu de la pluie pendant trois jours cons?cutifs, il doit accorder l'autorisation. Nombre de jours sup?rieurs ? ceux pr?vus. Le r?glement peut pr?voir des nombres maximaux de jours sup?rieurs ? ceux pr?vus au premier alin?a si une entente en ce sens a pr?alablement ?t? conclue entre la municipalit? et la f?d?ration r?gionale qui est affili?e ? l'association accr?dit?e conform?ment ? l'article 8 de la Loi sur les producteurs agricoles (chapitre P-28) et dont le territoire recoupe la plus grande partie de celui de la municipalit?. Entente avec un syndicat. Si la majorit? des agriculteurs du territoire de la municipalit? sont membres d'un syndicat, tel que d?fini au paragraphe e) de l'article 1 de la Loi sur les producteurs agricoles, affili? ? la f?d?ration r?gionale vis?e au quatri?me alin?a, l'entente peut ?tre prise avec ce syndicat.? Analyse ULTRA VIRES (D?FAUT D'HABILITATION) [149] La demanderesse pr?tend que le R?glement ne doit pas ?tre incompatible avec la l?gislation provinciale ou f?d?rale. Et la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales pr?voit ? son article 3 qu'un r?glement municipal adopt? en vertu de cette Loi ne doit pas ?tre inconciliable avec la l?gislation provinciale. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 21 [150] Elle ajoute que le R?glement 296 est ultra vires parce qu'il n'est pas habilit? en vertu de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales. L'article 19 pr?voit : ?19. Toute municipalit? locale peut adopter des r?glements en mati?re d'environnement.? [151] L'article 19 conf?re un pouvoir g?n?ral de r?glementation ? une municipalit? en mati?re d'environnement. [152] La pr?tention de la demanderesse est que l'article 52 de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales restreint de fa?on consid?rable la possibilit? pour une municipalit? locale d'adopter des r?glements en mati?re de prohibition de l'?pandage de d?jections animales, de boues ou de r?sidus provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers, en pr?voyant que telle prohibition ne peut ?tre d?cr?t?e que quelques jours par ann?e. [153] La d?fenderesse pr?tend que l'article 52 de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales ne peut restreindre le pouvoir d?clar? ? son article 19. ? l'article 52, il est question de boues ou de r?sidus provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers, alors que le r?glement 296 traite de boue municipale et de d?sencrage, ce qui est diff?rent. [154] Selon la demanderesse, cet article est r?dig? en termes non sp?cifiques et, contrairement ? ce que plaide l'avocat de la municipalit?, cet article ne vise pas seulement les boues ou r?sidus d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers, mais aussi les boues provenant des municipalit?s. [155] Toujours selon la demanderesse, le premier alin?a de l'article 52 de la Loi pr?voit que le pouvoir r?glementaire d?l?gu? ? la municipalit? en mati?re de ?d?jections et autres r?sidus? permet ? cette derni?re de prohiber l'?pandage de d?jections animales, de boues ou de r?sidus provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers, et ce, durant un certain nombre de jours par ann?e. La municipalit? peut d?terminer un nombre de jours sup?rieurs ? ceux pr?vus. Elle doit cependant respecter les prescriptions des alin?as 4 et 5 dudit article. [156] La demanderesse, affirme que l'utilisation du mot ?boues? au premier alin?a de cet article vise tous types de boues, incluant les boues municipales. [157] L'utilisation de la conjonction disjonctive ?ou? et l'utilisation du d?nominateur ?de? devant chacun des ?l?ments de l'?num?ration militent en faveur de cette interpr?tation Il eut ?t? facile de viser uniquement les boues provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers en utilisant l'expression ?de boues ou r?sidus provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers?, plut?t que celle pr?conis?e dans le texte. [158] De plus, la demanderesse plaide que l'interpr?tation qui ne se limiterait qu'aux boues provenant d'une fabrique de p?tes et papiers et qui exclurait tous les autres types de boues nous appara?t difficilement conciliable avec la reconnaissance par le 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 22 l?gislateur de l'?pandage de boues provenant d'ouvrages municipaux d'assainissement des eaux (boues municipales) dont il est fait ?tat ? l'article 26 du R?glement sur le captage des eaux souterraines et ? l'article 29.1 du R?glement sur les exploitations agricoles. [159] L'article 26 du R?glement sur le captage des eaux souterraines16 stipule : ?26. L'?pandage de d?jections animales, de compost de ferme, d'engrais min?raux et de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes est interdit ? moins de 30 m de tout ouvrage de captage d'eau souterraine destin?e ? la consommation humaine. Cette distance est toutefois port?e ? 100 m lorsqu'il s'agit de boues provenant d'ouvrages municipaux d'assainissement des eaux us?es ou de tout autre syst?me de traitement ou d'accumulation d'eaux us?es sanitaires, ou de mati?res contenant de telles boues, et que ces boues ou mati?res ne sont pas certifi?es conformes ? la norme CAN/BNQ 0413-200 ou CAN/BNQ 0413-400. L'?pandage de d?jections animales, de compost de ferme ou de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes, sauf les mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes certifi?es conformes ? la norme CAN/BNQ 0413-200, CAN/BNQ 0413-400 ou BNQ 0419- 090, est interdit dans l'aire de protection bact?riologique d'un lieu de captage d'eau souterraine lorsque celle-ci est r?put?e vuln?rable ou lorsque l'indice DRASTIC de vuln?rabilit? est ?gal ou sup?rieur ? 100 sur une quelconque portion de cette aire. L'?pandage de boues provenant d'ouvrages municipaux d'assainissement des eaux us?es ou de tout autre syst?me de traitement ou d'accumulation d'eaux us?es sanitaires, ou de mati?res contenant de telles boues est interdit dans l'aire de protection virologique d'un lieu de captage d'eau souterraine lorsque celle-ci est r?put?e vuln?rable ou lorsque l'indice DRASTIC de vuln?rabilit? est ?gal ou sup?rieur ? 100 sur une quelconque portion de cette aire. Cette interdiction d'?pandage n'est toutefois pas applicable aux boues ou mati?res en contenant qui sont certifi?es conformes ? la norme CAN/BNQ 0413-200 ou CAN/BNQ 0413-400. L'?pandage de d?jections animales, de compost de ferme, de mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes, sauf les mati?res r?siduelles fertilisantes certifi?es conformes ? la norme CAN/BNQ 0413-200, CAN/BNQ 0413-400 ou BNQ 0419- 090 en p?riph?rie des zones d'interdiction prescrites par le pr?sent article doit ?tre r?alis? de mani?re ? en pr?venir le ruissellement dans ces m?mes zones.? [160] Si le l?gislateur a utilis? l'expression ?boues provenant d'ouvrages municipaux d'assainissement des eaux us?es? ? l'article 26 du R?glement sur le captage des eaux souterraines et ? l'article 29.1 du R?glement sur les exploitations agricoles17, il connaissait cette r?alit? et pouvait aussi la d?crire ? l'article 52 de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales18. 16 R.R.Q. c. Q-2, r.1.3. 17 R.R.Q. c. Q-2, r.11.1. 18 Voir note 14 pr?cit?e. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 23 [161] Le l?gislateur ne parle pas pour rien dire. Mais lorsqu'il ne dit rien, il faut en faire le constat et le reconna?tre. ? l'article 52, il n'est nullement question des boues municipales qui sont de toute ?vidence importantes et connues du l?gislateur qu?b?cois. ULTRA VIRES (DISPOSITIONS G?N?RALES : PAIX, ORDRE ET BON GOUVERNEMENT) ET ?TUDE DE L'ARR?T SPRAYTECH, (SOCI?T? D'ARROSAGE) C. HUDSON [162] Selon la demanderesse, en l'absence d'une disposition qui autorise la municipalit? ? prohiber l'?pandage de MRF, une municipalit? telle la d?fenderesse ne peut se pr?valoir de l'article 85 de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales qui pr?voit : ?85. En outre des pouvoirs r?glementaires pr?vus ? la pr?sente loi, toute municipalit? locale peut adopter tout r?glement pour assurer la paix, l'ordre, le bon gouvernement et le bien-?tre g?n?ral de sa population.? [163] Sous ce titre, il convient de faire un bref r?sum? de la d?cision importante de la Cour Supr?me du Canada dans Spraytech, (Soci?t? d'arrosage) c. Hudson19. [164] Cette d?cision qui a ?t? cit?e et reprise par les deux parties de fa?on diff?rente permet en partie de r?gler des aspects importants du litige. [165] Le Tribunal consid?re opportun d'?tudier en d?tail, l'enseignement contenu dans cette d?cision du plus haut tribunal du pays en faisant le lien avec le dossier sous ?tude. [166] Les appelantes dans cette affaire sont des entreprises d'am?nagement paysager. Dans le cadre de leur travail, elles utilisent des pesticides conformes ? la Loi sur les produits antiparasitaires20 du gouvernement f?d?ral et d?tiennent des permis en vertu de la Loi sur les pesticides21 du Qu?bec. [167] En 1991, la ville intim?e adopte le R?glement 270 qui limite l'utilisation des pesticides ? des fins pr?cises. En vertu du paragraphe 410(1) de la Loi sur les cit?s et villes22, le Conseil de la municipalit? peut faire des r?glements pour : ?Pour assurer la paix, l'ordre, le bon gouvernement, la salubrit? et le bien-?tre g?n?ral sur le territoire de la municipalit?, pourvu que ces r?glements ne soient pas contraires aux lois du Canada ou du Qu?bec, ni incompatibles avec quelque disposition de la pr?sente loi ou de la Chartre.? 19 Spraytech, (Soci?t? d'arrosage) c. Hudson, voir note 12 pr?cit?e. 20 L.R.C. 1985, c. P-9. 21 L.R.Q. c. P-9.3. 22 L.R.Q. c. C-19, art. 410 [mod. 1982, c. 64, art. 5 ; mod. 1996, c. 2, art. 150], 412 (32) [mod. 1984, c. 47, art. 213; mod 1986, c. 31, art. 5 ; mod 1996, c. 2, art. 151], 463.1 [aj. 1998, c. 31, art. 15. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 24 [168] En 1992, les appelantes sont accus?es d'avoir utilis? des pesticides ? des fins autres que celles pr?vues au R?glement 270. Elles pr?sentent une requ?te en jugement d?claratoire pour faire d?clarer inop?rant le R?glement 270 et demandent de le d?clarer ultra vires des pouvoirs de la ville. La Cour sup?rieure a rejet? la requ?te, cette d?cision a ?t? confirm?e par la Cour d'appel et la Cour Supr?me a maintenu la d?cision de la Cour d'appel. CERTAINS PRINCIPES G?N?RAUX DANS L'INTERPR?TATION DE R?GLEMENT [169] Comme le rappelait la Cour d'appel dans la d?cision sous ?tude, les r?glements sont pr?sum?s valides et l?gaux. Il existe une pr?somption que le l?gislateur agit de bonne foi et dans l'int?r?t public (para. 13). [170] Il incombe ? la partie qui conteste la validit? d'un r?glement, de prouver qu'il est ulta vires (para. 22). [171] Devant un probl?me d'interpr?tation d'un r?glement, la disposition devrait s'interpr?ter en fonction de l'objectif de la municipalit? (para. 26). L'honorable Claire L'Heureux-Dub? rappelait ce principe en citant un extrait de l'arr?t Produits Shell Canada Lt?e c. Vancouver (Ville)23 : ?Dans l?arr?t Shell, pr?cit?, p. 276-277, le juge Sopinka, au nom de la majorit?, cite avec approbation l?extrait suivant tir? de l?ouvrage de Rogers, op. cit., ? 64.1 : [TRADUCTION] Devant un probl?me d?interpr?tation d?une r?solution ou d?un r?glement adopt? par une municipalit?, les tribunaux doivent s?efforcer en premier lieu de donner une interpr?tation qui harmonise les pouvoirs que l?on cherche ? exercer avec les objectifs de la municipalit?. La disposition en cause devrait s?interpr?ter en fonction de l?objectif de la municipalit? : fournir des services ? un groupe de personnes, dans une localit?, en vue d?en am?liorer la sant?, le bien-?tre, la s?curit? et le bon gouvernement; [?] M?me si elles b?n?ficient de l?interpr?tation large mentionn?e dans Nanaimo, pr?cit?, les dispositions tel le par. 410(1) L.C.V. doivent ?tre raisonnablement li?es aux objectifs municipaux permis. [?]? [172] Les dispositions telles 410 (1) doivent ?tre raisonnablement li?es aux objectifs municipaux permis. Les tribunaux doivent veiller ? ce que les municipalit?s n'empi?tent pas sur les droits civils ou de common law en adoptant des r?glements ultra vires (para. 26). 23 Produits Shell Canada Lt?e c. Vancouver (Ville), [1994] 1 R.C.S. 231. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 25 PR?OCCUPATIONS EN MATI?RE D'ENVIRONNEMENT [173] Il est utile de reproduire int?gralement les premi?res phrases ?crites par l'honorable L'Heureux-Dub? : ?LE JUGE L?HEUREUX-DUB? ? Le contexte de ce pourvoi nous invite ? constater que notre avenir ? tous, celui de chaque collectivit? canadienne, d?pend d?un environnement sain. Comme l?a affirm? le juge de la Cour sup?rieure : [TRADUCTION] ? Il y a vingt ans, on se pr?occupait peu de l?effet des produits chimiques, tels les pesticides, sur la population. Aujourd?hui, nous sommes plus sensibles au genre d?environnement dans lequel nous d?sirons vivre et ? la qualit? de vie que nous voulons procurer ? nos enfants ? ((1993), 19 M.P.L.R. (2d) 224, p. 230). Notre Cour a reconnu que ? [n]ous savons tous que, individuellement et collectivement, nous sommes responsables de la pr?servation de l?environnement naturel [. . .] la protection de l?environnement est [. . .] devenue une valeur fondamentale au sein de la soci?t? canadienne ? : Ontario c. Canadien Pacifique Lt?e, [1995] 2 R.C.S. 1031, par. 55. Voir ?galement Friends of the Oldman River Society c. Canada (Ministre des Transports), [1992] 1 R.C.S. 3, p. 16-17. [?] Cette instance surgit ? une ?poque o? les questions de gestion des affaires publiques sont souvent examin?es selon le principe de la subsidiarit?. Ce principe veut que le niveau de gouvernement le mieux plac? pour adopter et mettre en oeuvre des l?gislations soit celui qui est le plus apte ? le faire, non seulement sur le plan de l?efficacit?, mais ?galement parce qu?il est le plus proche des citoyens touch?s et, par cons?quent, le plus sensible ? leurs besoins, aux particularit?s locales et ? la diversit? de la population. S?exprimant au nom de la majorit? dans R. c. Hydro-Qu?bec, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 213, par. 127, le juge La Forest ?crit que ? la protection de l?environnement est un d?fi majeur de notre ?poque. C?est un probl?me international qui exige une action des gouvernements de tous les niveaux ? (je souligne). Dans ses motifs, il cite avec approbation un extrait de Notre avenir ? tous, rapport publi? en 1988 par la Commission mondiale sur l?environnement et le d?veloppement (? Commission Brundtland ?), cr??e par les Nations Unies. Cette commission a recommand? que ? les autorit?s locales [soient] habilit?es ? renforcer, mais non pas ? lib?raliser, les normes nationales ? (p. 262).? [174] Ce rappel de la Cour supr?me est d'autant plus important que lors de l'adoption du R?glement contest? dans le pr?sent dossier, le maire de la municipalit? t?moigne que c'est ? partir de la lecture de cette d?cision que la municipalit? a d?cid? d'adopter le R?glement 296. [175] La Cour Supr?me rappelait l'importance pour les municipalit?s d'?tre proactives en mati?re de protection de la sant? de leurs citoyens. Le plus haut tribunal du pays prenait la peine de pr?ciser qu'un d?veloppement durable implique des politiques fond?es sur le principe de pr?caution. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 26 [176] La cour Supr?me rappelait que si des dommages irr?versibles risquent d'?tre inflig?s, l'absence d'une totale certitude scientifique ne devrait pas servir de pr?texte pour ajourner l'adoption de mesures destin?es ? pr?venir la d?t?rioration de l'environnement. [177] C'est ? la lumi?re de cet enseignement de la Cour Supr?me que le Tribunal analyse les deux expertises produites. Il ne croit pas n?cessaire de choisir entre les deux expertises. M?me si le t?moignage et l'expertise de Green ont ?t? s?rieusement attaqu?s par Van Coillie, comme le mentionne la Cour Supr?me, l'absence d'une totale certitude scientifique ne devrait pas servir de pr?texte pour proc?der ? l'adoption de mesures destin?es ? pr?venir la d?t?rioration de l'environnement. C'est exactement ce que la municipalit? d'Elgin a fait. [178] Elle l'a fait en tenant compte des particularit?s g?ographiques de la municipalit? qui est entour?e d'eau et qui ne jouit pas de la pr?sence d'un service d'?gout. La protection de la nappe phr?atique est primordiale dans le pr?sent dossier. [179] ? la page 29 de ladite d?cision, la Cour Supr?me ?crit : ?Le juge Kennedy a conclu ? bon droit (aux p. 230-231) que, [TRADUCTION] ? devant une situation o? la sant? et l?environnement sont en jeu ?, le conseil municipal ? voyait ? un besoin de sa collectivit? ?. Ainsi, la municipalit? tente d?exercer son r?le, qualifi? par la Cour d?appel de l?Ontario de [TRADUCTION] ? fiduciaire de l?environnement ? (Scarborough c. R.E.F. Homes Ltd. (1979), 9 M.P.L.R. 255, p. 257).? [180] Plus loin, au paragraphe 27 de la d?cision, la Cour supr?me mentionne que selon la distinction entre l'usage essentiel et l'usage non essentiel des pesticides, il est raisonnable de conclure que le R?glement de la ville a pour objet de minimiser l'utilisation de pesticides qui seraient nocifs, afin de prot?ger la sant? des citoyens. [181] Dans le dossier sous ?tude il est aussi plausible de supposer qu'en adoptant le R?glement 296, la municipalit? tentait de prot?ger la sant? de ses citoyens et d'?liminer un risque pour leur sant?, le tout tel que stipul? dans les cinq derniers ?ATTENDUS? du R?glement 296 : ?ATTENDU que tous les citoyens de Elgin puisent leur eau potable de sources souterraines ; ATTENDU que les boues de ces deux industries contiennent des taux ?lev?s de m?taux lourds et plusieurs autres substances toxiques en quantit? suffisante pour affecter la sant? humaine, ? long terme ; ATTENDU que les agriculteurs de Elgin d?pendent d'une eau de grande qualit? pour abreuver leurs troupeaux, la pr?sence de m?taux lourds et autres substances toxiques contenus dans ces boues pourrait contaminer la nappe phr?atique et ainsi mettre en p?ril leur moyen de subsistance ; 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 27 ATTENDU que Elgin est bord?e ? l'ouest par la rivi?re ? la Truite, ? l'est par la rivi?re Ch?teauguay et travers? par le ruisseau Oak et que ces cours d'eau sortent r?guli?rement de leur lit ; ATTENDU que l'?quilibre ?cologique des cours d'eau ci-dessus mentionn?s est tr?s pr?caire et le risque environnemental associ? ? ce type de mati?res r?siduelles aurait un effet d?vastateur sur ses populations de poissons, et autres esp?ces fauniques et sur sa flore ;? [182] L'honorable L'Heureux-Dub? a jug? n?cessaire de souligner l'affaire Baker c. Canada (ministre de la Citoyennet? et de l'Immigration)24 : ?La l?gislature est pr?sum?e respecter les valeurs et les principes contenus dans le droit international, coutumier et conventionnel. Ces principes font partie du cadre juridique au sein duquel une loi est adopt?e et interpr?t?e. Par cons?quent, dans la mesure du possible, il est pr?f?rable d'adopter des interpr?tations qui correspondent ? ces valeurs et ? ces principes.? [183] L'interpr?tation que faisait la Cour supr?me du R?glement 270 respecte le principe de pr?caution du droit international d?fini au paragraphe 7 de la D?claration minist?rielle de Bergen sur le d?veloppement durable (1990) qui indiquait : ?Un d?veloppement durable implique des politiques fond?es sur le principe de pr?caution. Les mesures adopt?es doivent anticiper, pr?venir et combattre les causes de la d?t?rioration de l'environnement. Lorsque des dommages graves ou irr?versibles risquent d'?tre inflig?s, l'absence d'une totale certitude scientifique ne devrait pas servir de pr?texte pour ajourner l'adoption de mesures destin?es ? pr?venir la d?t?rioration de l'environnement.? [184] Le R?glement sous ?tude respecte ce m?me principe. LES MUNICIPALIT?S PEUVENT EXERCER LES POUVOIRS EXPLICIT?S CONF?R?S PAR LA LOI, ET LES POUVOIRS INDISPENSABLES QUI SONT ESSENTIELS POUR R?ALISER LES FINS DE L'ORGANISME [185] Cette affirmation prend comme appui la d?cision de la Cour Supr?me dans R. c. Sharma25. La Cour prend soin de pr?ciser que les pouvoirs en mati?re de ?bien-?tre g?n?ral? conf?r?s par la loi provinciale habilitante, sur laquelle la municipalit? peut se fonder sont inclus dans cette cat?gorie. La l?gislature ne peut pr?voir tous les pouvoirs de r?glementation n?cessaires. L'inclusion de dispositions en mati?re de ?bien-?tre g?n?ral? vise ? contourner l'effet ?th?orie de l'exc?s de pouvoir?, qui oblige les municipalit?s ? devoir invoquer une attribution expresse pour justifier chaque r?glement adopt?. [186] Comme le pr?cise l'honorable l'Heureux-Dub? au paragraphe 19 de son opinion : 24 Baker c. Canada (Ministre de la citoyennet? et de l'immigration), [1999] 2 R.C.S 817. 25 R. c. Sharma, [1993] 1 R.C.S. 650. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 28 ?19. [?] Les dispositions moins limitatives ou ?omnibus? tel l'art. 410, permettent aux municipalit?s de relever rapidement les nouveaux d?fis auxquels font face les collectivit?s locales sans qu'il soit n?cessaire de modifier la loi provinciale habilitante.? RESPECT DES TRIBUNAUX ? L'?GARD DES RESPONSABILIT?S QU'ONT LES CONSEILS MUNICIPAUX ET DE PRENDRE GARDE ? SUBSTITUER LEUR OPINION. SAUF EXC?S DE POUVOIR [187] Citant avec approbation deux d?cisions de la Cour Supr?me dans Nanaimo (Ville) c. Rascal Trucking Ltd.26 et Produits Shell Canada Lt?e c. Vancouver (Ville)27, l'honorable L'heureux Dub? reproduit un passage de ce dernier arr?t : ?23. [?] Il ressort d?un commentaire r?cent que l?on commence ? s?accorder pour dire que les tribunaux doivent respecter la responsabilit? qu?ont les conseils municipaux ?lus de servir leurs ?lecteurs et de prendre garde de substituer ? l?opinion de ces conseils leur propre avis quant ? ce qui est dans le meilleur int?r?t des citoyens. ? moins qu?il ne soit clairement d?montr? qu?une municipalit? a exc?d? ses pouvoirs en prenant une d?cision donn?e, les tribunaux ne devraient pas conclure qu?il en est ainsi. Dans les cas o? il n?y a pas d?attribution expresse de pouvoirs, mais o? ceux-ci peuvent ?tre implicites, les tribunaux doivent se montrer pr?ts ? adopter l?interpr?tation ?bienveillante? ?voqu?e par notre Cour dans l?arr?t Greenbaum et ? conf?rer les pouvoirs par d?duction raisonnable. Quelles que soient les r?gles d?interpr?tation appliqu?es, elles ne doivent pas servir ? usurper le r?le l?gitime de repr?sentants de la collectivit? que jouent les conseils municipaux. [Je souligne.]? [188] Les r?glements adopt?s ne doivent pas avoir pour objet d'exercer une influence ? l'ext?rieur de la municipalit? et doivent comporter un b?n?fice pr?cis pour les citoyens. INCOMPATIBILIT? DU R?GLEMENT AVEC LES LOIS PROVINCIALES [189] Selon la demanderesse, le R?glement 296 serait plus prohibitif que ce que la r?glementation provinciale permet en semblable mati?re. Lorsqu'un r?glement municipal porte sur le m?me objet que les r?glements provinciaux, ces derniers devraient alors avoir pr?s?ance, et ce, en vertu de l'article 124 de la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement28 qui stipule : ?124. Le ministre publie ? la Gazette officielle du Qu?bec tout projet de r?glement ?labor? en vertu de la pr?sente loi, avec un avis indiquant qu'il pourra ?tre adopt? avec ou sans modification par le gouvernement, ? l'expiration d'un d?lai de 60 jours ? compter de cette publication. 26 Nanaimo (Ville) c. Rascal Trucking Ltd., [2000] 1 R.C.S 342. 27 Voir note 23 pr?cit?e, par. 23. 28 L.R.Q., chapitre Q-2. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 29 Objection. Le ministre doit entendre toute objection ?crite qui lui est adress?e avant l'expiration du d?lai de 60 jours. Entr?e en vigueur. Un r?glement adopt? par le gouvernement en vertu de la pr?sente loi entre en vigueur lors de sa publication ? la Gazette officielle du Qu?bec ou ? une date ult?rieure indiqu?e dans le r?glement ou sur d?cret du gouvernement. Supr?matie. Ces r?glements, de m?me que les normes fix?es en application du deuxi?me alin?a de l'article 31.5, pr?valent sur tout r?glement municipal portant sur le m?me objet, ? moins que le r?glement municipal ne soit approuv? par le ministre auquel cas ce dernier pr?vaut dans la mesure que d?termine le ministre. Avis de cette approbation est publi? sans d?lai ? la Gazette officielle du Qu?bec. Le pr?sent alin?a s'applique malgr? l'article 3 de la Loi sur les comp?tences municipales (chapitre C-47.1). Modification ou r?vocation d'une approbation. Le ministre peut modifier ou r?voquer une approbation d?livr?e en vertu du quatri?me alin?a dans le cas o? le gouvernement adopte un nouveau r?glement relativement ? une mati?re vis?e dans un r?glement municipal d?j? approuv?. Avis de cette d?cision du ministre est publi? sans d?lai ? la Gazette officielle du Qu?bec.? [190] Selon la demanderesse, si le champ de comp?tences est utilis? par la l?gislation provinciale, le r?glement municipal devient de ce fait inop?rant en vertu de l'article 124 L.Q.E. Voir ? ce sujet Municipalit? de St-Michel Archange c. 2419-6388 Qu?bec inc.29 et Michel Yergeau, sur la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement30. [191] Il ne s'agirait pas d'appliquer le test de la compatibilit? entre les r?glements adopt?s de l'arr?t Hudson, mais de la supr?matie de la r?glementation provinciale. Longueuil (Ville) c. ?lectro Peintres du Qu?bec inc31. [192] Il est vrai qu'il existe au Qu?bec une politique de gestion des MRF, Politique qu?b?coise de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles32. [193] La Loi modifiant la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement33 et d'autres dispositions l?gislatives concernant la gestion des mati?res r?siduelles ? son article 53 indique : 29 Municipalit? de St-Michel Archange c. 2419-6388 Qu?bec inc., [1992] R.J.Q 875 (C.A.). 30 Michel YERGEAU, la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement, texte annot?, Publications SOQUIJ, 1988. 31 Longueuil (Ville) c. ?lectro Peintres du Qu?bec inc., EYB-2004-80886, pp. 13, 14 (C.S.). 32 Politique qu?b?coise de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles, 1998-2008, (2000) 132 G.O. I, sections 3, 4, 5.1, 5.6.8. 33 L.Q. 1999, c. 75. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 30 ?Le Plan de gestion qu?b?cois sur la gestion des mati?res r?siduelles 1998- 2008, rendue public en 1998 par le ministre de l'Environnement, et modifi? le cas ?ch?ant pour ?tre mis en conformit? avec les dispositions de la pr?sente loi, constitue aux fins de l'article 53.4 de la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement ?dict? par l'article 13, la politique du gouvernement sur la gestion des mati?res r?siduelles. Une fois publi?e ? la Gazette officielle du Qu?bec, cette politique est r?put?e satisfaire aux exigences de l'article 53.4 pr?cit? et demeure en vigueur jusqu'? ce qu'elle soit modifi?e ou remplac?e conform?ment aux dispositions de cet article.? [194] L'article 53.4 de la Loi sur la qualit? de l'environnement34 pr?voit : ?53.4 Afin de favoriser la r?alisation des objets mentionn?s ? l'article 53.3, le ministre propose au gouvernement une politique en mati?re de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles. Outre l'?nonc? des principes qui lui sert de fondement, cette politique peut ?galement ?tablir les objectifs de r?cup?ration, de valorisation et de r?duction de l'?limination des mati?res r?siduelles ? court, moyen et long termes ainsi que les strat?gies et mesures propres ? faciliter l'atteinte de ces objectifs dans les d?lais indiqu?s.? [195] L'article 53.9 de cette m?me loi d?taille ce que le plan de gestion doit comprendre. Le paragraphe suivant le sous-titre ?Limitation ou interdiction de mati?res r?siduelles? se lit ainsi : ?53.9 Dans le cas o? une municipalit? r?gionale entend limiter ou interdire la mise en d?charge ou l'incin?ration sur son territoire de mati?res r?siduelles provenant de l'ext?rieur de son territoire, elle doit faire ?tat de son intention dans le plan et indiquer, s'il s'agit d'une limitation, la quantit? de mati?res r?siduelles vis?es.? [196] Dans le pr?sent dossier, aucune preuve de l'existence de ce plan n'a ?t? faite, ni des objectifs r?gionaux. [197] La politique vise entre autres la saine gestion des mati?res r?siduelles. Cette politique oblige par exemple les municipalit?s ? se doter de plans de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles, au plus tard deux ans apr?s l'entr?e en vigueur des mesures l?gislatives habilitantes. Lorsque ce plan entre en vigueur, il lie les municipalit?s et le gouvernement. [198] Ce plan de gestion est mis ? jour tous les cinq ans et peut ?tre modifi? en tout temps. La politique d?crit les neuf items qui doivent ?tre compris dans ce plan. [199] La politique traite entre autres de la participation des citoyens pour favoriser l'?laboration du plan de gestion et de son suivi. ? cette fin, on y pr?voit une assembl?e et consultation publique. On propose aussi des sessions d'?ducation relatives ? 34 Voir note 28 pr?cit?e. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 31 l'environnement et sur les fa?ons nouvelles de participer ? la gestion durable des mati?res r?siduelles. [200] La seule disposition de la politique qui traite des boues municipales et industrielles est l'article 5.6.8. o? on y indique : ?5.6.8 La valorisation des boues municipales et industrielles La connaissance des propri?t?s des diff?rentes boues g?n?r?es, selon leur origine, est essentielle pour en ?valuer le potentiel de valorisation. Pour cette raison, des plans directeurs de gestion des boues municipales et industrielles devront ?tre confectionn?s par les municipalit?s r?gionales. Ces plans feront partie int?grante des plans de gestion de mati?res r?siduelles. Ils permettront d'identifier la provenance, la quantit? et la qualit? des boues g?n?r?es sur le territoire et de d?terminer, dans la mesure o? cela est avantageux du point de vue environnemental, si leur valorisation peut ?tre privil?gi?e. ?ventuellement, aucune boue de devrait ?tre enfouie sans d?monstration qu'il n'est pas ?conomiquement viable de la valoriser.? [201] On pr?cise donc que la connaissance des propri?t?s des diff?rentes boues g?n?r?es est n?cessaire pour ?valuer leur potentiel de valorisation. ? cette fin, les plans directeurs de gestion devront ?tre confectionn?s par les municipalit?s r?gionales. [202] Ils permettront d'identifier la provenance, la quantit? et la qualit? des boues g?n?r?es sur le territoire et de d?terminer si leur valorisation peut ?tre privil?gi?e. Il est pr?vu qu'aucune boue ne devrait ?tre enfouie sans d?monstration qu'il n'est pas ?conomiquement viable de la valoriser. [203] On peut comprendre que cette politique privil?gie l'adaptation de la situation et le potentiel de valorisation en fonction du secteur concern?. [204] Il convient de souligner la conclusion de cette politique : ?La pr?sente politique de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles 1998-2008 convie donc tous les intervenants municipaux, industriels et environnementaux ainsi que l'ensemble des Qu?b?cois et des Qu?b?coises ? unir leurs efforts ? ceux du gouvernement en vue d'assurer une gestion des mati?res r?siduelles plus respectueuse de l'environnement et de la sant? des personnes.? [205] Il est utile ici de r?f?rer ? l'opinion de la Cour d'appel sur cette politique dans Trois-Rivi?res (Ville de) c. Fr?chette35 : ?3. Nous sommes d'avis que la Politique qu?b?coise de gestion des mati?res r?siduelles n'est pas d'application imm?diate en soi. Elle constitue un document d'orientation et d'intention qui requiert divers moyens ult?rieurs pour sa mise en oeuvre. Plusieurs arguments militent en faveur de cette interpr?tation : a) la 35 Trois-Rivi?res (Ville de) c. Fr?chette, REJB 2003-40023 (C.A.). 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 32 publication dans la partie I de la G.O.Q., b) les termes utilis?s dans la Politique et c) l'existence dans la Loi et dans la Politique de dispositions qui assujettissent l'application de la Politique ? l'existence d'une r?glementation (art. 53.28 et 53.30 de la Loi) et d'un plan de gestion (art. 53.7 ? 53.27 de la Loi).? [206] Qui plus est, il est important de se rappeler ce que l'honorable l'Heureux-Dub? ?crivait sur la question de l'incompatibilit? dans l'arr?t Hudson pr?cit?. ?33. Notre Cour a dit dans Hydro-Qu?bec, pr?cit?, par. 112, que l?arr?t Oldman River, pr?cit?, ? a pr?cis? [. . .] que l?environnement n?est pas, comme tel, un domaine de comp?tence l?gislative en vertu de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. Comme il y est affirm?, ?la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 n?a pas conf?r? le domaine de ?l?environnement? comme tel aux provinces ou au Parlement? (p. 63). Il s?agit plut?t d?un sujet diffus qui touche plusieurs domaines diff?rents de responsabilit? constitutionnelle, dont certains sont f?d?raux et d?autres provinciaux (pp. 63 et 64). ? ?tant donn? qu?il existe une responsabilit? bijuridictionnelle en mati?re de r?glementation de pesticides, les appelantes all?guent que le r?glement 270 entre en conflit tant avec la l?gislation f?d?rale qu?avec la l?gislation provinciale. Je discuterai de ces pr?tentions ? tour de r?le.? [207] Le Tribunal consid?re que ni l'article 124 L.Q.E ni la politique ?nonc?s plus haut, ne constituent une disposition l?gislative incompatible avec le R?glement 296. Pour qu'il y ait incompatibilit?, il doit y avoir impossibilit? de pouvoir se conformer aux deux textes, ce qui n'est pas le cas ici. [208] Il est tout ? fait possible de respecter le R?glement 296, tout en ne contrevenant pas et en respectant l'article 124, m?me s'il fallait consid?rer la politique comme autre chose qu'un texte d'orientation et d'intention. [209] Le passage suivant de l'arr?t Hudson semble suffisant pour disposer du moyen li? ? l'incompatibilit? : ?37 L?un des crit?res oppos?s ? celui de l?arr?t Multiple Acesss qui ont ?t? propos?s dans le pr?sent litige est fond? sur l?arr?t Attorney General for Ontario c. City of Mississauga (1981), 15 M.P.L.R. 212 (C.A. Ont.). Dans cette d?cision rendue avant l?arr?t Multiple Access, le juge Morden de la Cour d?appel de l?Ontario ne voit [TRADUCTION] ? aucun probl?me ? introduire dans ce domaine les principes d?accommodement pertinents qui ont ?t? ?labor?s dans les affaires portant sur des pr?sum?s domaines de conflit entre les textes f?d?raux et les textes provinciaux. Dans les deux domaines, on fait, et il faut faire, bien attention avant de d?clarer inop?rante une disposition qui a ?t? autrement valablement adopt?e ? (p. 232). Il ajoute, ? la p. 233, un point important, qui est qu? [TRADUCTION] ? un r?glement n?est pas nul ou sans effet simplement parce qu?il ?rehausse? le r?gime l?gislatif de r?glementation en imposant des normes de contr?le plus s?v?res que celles pr?vues dans la loi connexe. Cela n?est pas un conflit ou une incompatibilit? en soi ? (citation de Township of Uxbridge c. Timber Bros. Sand & Gravel Ltd. (1975), 7 O.R. (2d) 484 (C.A.)). Voir ?galement 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 33 P.-A. C?t?, Interpr?tation des lois (3e ?d. 1999), p. 446-447 (? Dans certaines affaires, on a jug? que l?adoption de la loi provinciale ne devait pas s?interpr?ter comme une abrogation compl?te du pouvoir municipal : celui-ci pouvait continuer ? s?exercer ? la condition toutefois de ne pas contredire la r?glementation provinciale, c?est-?-dire que la municipalit? pouvait ?tre plus exigeante, mais non moins exigeante que la province ?)? 38 Certains tribunaux ont d?j? recouru au crit?re de l?arr?t Multiple Access pour examiner les pr?sum?s conflits entre des textes provinciaux et des textes municipaux. Par exemple, dans British Columbia Lottery Corp. c. Vancouver (City) (1999), 169 D.L.R. (4th) 141, p. 147-148, la Cour d?appel de la Colombie- Britannique d?clare que les d?cisions rendues avant l?arr?t Multiple Access, notamment la d?cision de la Cour d?appel de l?Ontario dans Mississauga, pr?cit?, [TRADUCTION] ? doivent ?tre interpr?t?es selon [cette] d?cision ?. [TRADUCTION] On ne r?sout plus ce genre de probl?me en examinant un r?gime complet, en examinant l?autre r?gime complet et en d?cidant quel r?gime occupe tout le domaine ? l?exclusion de l?autre. Il faut plut?t examiner les dispositions pr?cises et la mani?re dont elles s?appliquent dans le cas particulier et se demander si elles peuvent s?appliquer de fa?on harmonieuse dans ce cas pr?cis? Dans l?affirmative, il faut permettre leur coexistence et elles doivent chacune r?glementer en parall?le une facette, ou deux facettes diff?rentes, de la m?me activit?. [Je souligne.] La cour a r?sum? ainsi la norme applicable : [TRADUCTION] ? On peut dire qu?il y a un conflit r?el et direct seulement lorsqu?un texte impose ce que l?autre interdit. ? Voir ?galement Law Society of Upper Canada c. Barrie (City) (2000), 46 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.S.J.), p. 629-630 : [TRADUCTION] ? La conformit? ? la loi provinciale ne requiert pas l?inobservation du r?glement municipal; il est certainement possible de se conformer aux deux textes); Huot c. St-J?r?me (Ville de), J.E. 93-1052 (C.S.), p. 19 : ? En effet, pour qu?un r?glement municipal soit incompatible avec une loi provinciale (ou une loi provinciale avec une loi f?d?rale), il faut d?abord que les deux touchent des sujets similaires et, ensuite, qu?un citoyen, pour ob?ir ? l?une doive enfreindre l?autre. ? 39. De fa?on g?n?rale, la simple existence d?une loi provinciale (ou f?d?rale) dans un domaine donn? n??carte pas le pouvoir des municipalit?s de r?glementer cette mati?re. Comme le dit la Cour d?appel du Qu?bec dans un arr?t instructif en mati?re d?environnement, St-Michel-Archange (Municipalit? de) c. 2419-6388 Qu?bec Inc. [1992] R.J.Q. 875 (C.A.), p. 888- 891 : Pour les tenants de la th?se unitaire, le l?gislateur provincial, sans le dire d?une fa?on claire, a n?anmoins instaur? un syst?me provincial de gestion des sites de r?ception des d?chets. Il s?est donc r?serv? l?exclusivit? des comp?tences en la mati?re et a enlev? aux municipalit?s le droit de faire des r?glements sur la gestion locale des d?chets. La Loi sur la qualit? de l?environnement aurait donc eu pour effet de retirer ces pouvoirs aux autorit?s municipales. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 34 Pour les tenants de la th?se pluraliste, le l?gislateur provincial n?a pas, bien au contraire, entendu abolir le pouvoir municipal de r?glementation, mais simplement l?encadrer davantage dans une perspective de compl?mentarit? de gestion avec les autorit?s municipales. . La th?se pluraliste admet donc qu?il y a intention de donner priorit? aux dispositions l?gislatives et r?glementaires provinciales. Elle ne croit cependant pas que l?on puisse en d?duire qu?automatiquement toute disposition municipale compl?mentaire en mati?re d?urbanisme et d?am?nagement et qui touche la qualit? de l?environnement soit nulle. Une analyse approfondie des textes pr?cit?s et l?examen de l?ensemble de la politique environnementale que semble avoir voulue le l?gislateur m?nent ? la conclusion que c?est bien la th?se pluraliste, ou du moins une certaine th?se pluraliste, que celui-ci semble avoir pris comme base de l?ensemble l?gislatif.? [210] Le R?glement 296 est compl?mentaire et rehausse ce que le l?gislateur qu?b?cois a pr?vu ? l'article 124 et dans sa politique. [211] Comme on l'a vu, le pouvoir d'une municipalit? est pr?vu aux articles 4 et 19 de la L.C.M, le Tribunal consid?re qu'il n'y pas de loi provinciale incompatible qui traite de fa?on contradictoire de l'?pandage des MRF discut? dans le R?glement 296. [212] Dans le pr?sent cas, on a plus que ce que la municipalit? avait dans Hudson. Elle b?n?ficie d'un pouvoir sp?cifique. Par l'adoption de son R?glement, elle a voulu favoriser la protection de l'environnement et le bien-?tre de ses citoyens. C'est ce que reconnaissait L'honorable Jean-Yves Lalonde dans une d?cision r?cente, Chalets St- Adolphe inc. c. St-Aldophe d'Howard (Municipalit? de)36. Le 20 f?vrier 2009, le jugement a ?t? port? en appel, dans le dossier 500-09-019411-099. ?45. Il est utile de rappeler que le r?glement 535-2 fut adopt? (avril 2006) apr?s l'entr?e en vigueur de la L.c.m (1er janvier 2006). Or, cette loi accorde sp?cifiquement ? toute municipalit? locale une comp?tence r?glementaire dans le domaine de l'environnement. 48. Il faut en conclure qu'il existe une responsabilit? bijuridictionnelle en mati?re de protection de l'environnement. En fait, il s'agit d'un domaine qui requiert l'engagement tentaculaire de tous, y compris celui des municipalit?s. La protection de l'environnement est une affaire d'harmonie et de compl?mentarit? entre tous les paliers l?gislatifs. Au contraire, ce qui est ? craindre et non souhaitable, c'est le vide juridique. 49. La compl?mentarit? f?d?rale-provinciale-municipale en mati?re de protection de l'environnement n'est pas inconstitutionnelle, elle est essentielle. 36 Chalets St-Adolphe inc. c. St-Aldophe d'Howard (Municipalit? de), 2009 QCCS 182. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 35 50. Somme toute, le Tribunal est d'avis que le r?glement 535-2 est intra vires. Saint-Adolphe, comme toute autre municipalit? vis?e par la L.c.m d?tient le pouvoir d?l?gu? n?cessaire ? adopter un r?glement dont l'objectif r?el et le caract?re v?ritable est celui de prot?ger les plans d'eau de son territoire contre toute contamination.? L'INOPPOSABILIT? [213] Se basant sur l'arr?t City of Ottawa et al. c. Boyd Builders Ltd37, la demanderesse adresse plusieurs reproches ? la d?fenderesse. D'une part, elle pr?tend que la d?fenderesse n'avait pas exprim? son intention de modifier le R?glement alors en vigueur. Le premier avis de motion du 6 janvier 2006 ne constituait pas une d?nonciation d'une intention de la d?fenderesse. [214] Cet avis est trop g?n?ral quant ? l'intention d'adopter un r?glement qui vise ? interdire l'?pandage de MRF. [215] La directive d'interdire l'?pandage de MRF annonc?e dans le bulletin municipal n'exprime pas l'intention expresse de la d?fenderesse ? ce que sera le contenu du R?glement. [216] En cons?quence, selon la demanderesse, la d?fenderesse n'avait pas manifest? son intention claire et expresse d'interdire l'?pandage de MRF avant le 10 ao?t 2006. [217] La demanderesse sugg?re que dans les faits, les d?marches de la d?fenderesse ont ?t? effectu?es suite aux d?marches de GSI Environnement pour faire accepter ses activit?s de valorisation. [218] Les all?gations de mauvaise foi sont non fond?es. Comme on l'a vu pr?c?demment, la d?fenderesse a agi avec les moyens qu'elle avait, dans le but tr?s clair de prot?ger l'environnement et le bien-?tre de ses citoyens. [219] Il n'y a rien dans la m?thode utilis?e pour l'adoption du R?glement qui d?montre la mauvaise foi de la d?fenderesse. [220] Le Tribunal ne croit pas que dans l'avis de motion, le R?glement devait ?tre expliqu? en long et en large. On comprend la pr?occupation ? la lecture de cet avis. [221] Le bulletin municipal D-3 traite ?galement de ce sujet et explique un peu plus en d?tail ce que l'avis de motion indiquait. L'intention du Conseil ?tait claire. Durant la campagne ?lectorale, il y a eu une participation importante de la population, soit 88 % . [222] Reprenons ici le tableau synoptique des ?v?nements : 37 City of Ottawa et al. c. Boyd Builders Ltd., 1965 Can LII 1 (S.C.C.). 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 36 ? Le 6 janvier 2006, un avis de motion g?n?ral est d?pos? ; ? Le 10 ao?t 2006, une demande de certificat de conformit? est d?pos?e ; ? Le 14 ao?t 2006, un nouvel avis est d?pos? relativement ? l'intention de la d?fenderesse d'adopter un r?glement portant sur les MRF ? Le 6 novembre 2006, adoption et entr?e en vigueur du R?glement 296. [223] La demanderesse soumet que les droits de sa cliente se sont cristallis?s lors de la demande du certificat de conformit? et que par la suite, la municipalit? ne pouvait adopter le R?glement en cause, sauf en rencontrant les conditions de l'arr?t Boyd Builders Ltd. pr?cit?. Impr?cision [224] Un r?glement est impr?cis s'il y a absence de normes suffisantes et ne doit pas l'?tre au point de laisser un pouvoir discr?tionnaire trop large. [225] Le test ? appliquer est celui de la personne raisonnable qui, ? la lecture du R?glement, pourrait ?tre suffisamment inform?e sur l'?tendue de ses droits et obligations. Voir ? ce sujet Jean H?tu dans son ouvrage sur le Droit municipal, principes g?n?raux et contentieux38, et Patrice Garant dans son ouvrage sur le Droit administratif39. [226] ?videmment, ce n'est pas parce qu'un r?glement n?cessite une interpr?tation qu'il est impr?cis. [227] L'impr?cision reproch?e au R?glement 296, r?sulte des expressions ?pourrait potentiellement menacer? et/ou ?tout autre produit similaire?. [228] Ce n'est que lorsque le texte n'est plus susceptible d'interpr?tation qu'il pourra ?tre d?clar? invalide pour impr?cision, soit parce qu'il est inintelligible ou soit parce que sa port?e est excessive40. [229] ? la lecture du R?glement 296, il appara?t ?vident qu'une partie dudit r?glement est vague et impr?cise. Il s'agit de ?tout autre produit similaire?. ? la lecture de cette partie, une personne raisonnable ne peut ?tre bien inform?e sur l'?tendue de ses droits et obligations. 38 Jean H?TU Droit municipal, principes g?n?raux et contentieux, Publications CCH Lt?e, 2006, pp. 8205 et suiv. 39 Patrice GARANT, Droit administratif, 5e ?d., Cowansville, ?ditions Yvon Blais, 2004, pp. 343, et suiv. 40 Idem p. 346. 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 37 [230] Le Tribunal entend donc annuler cette partie du R?glement pour cause d'impr?cision. Conclusion [231] La d?fenderesse a agi dans la sph?re juridictionnelle qui lui ?tait attribu?e. Le Tribunal comprend les motivations de la demanderesse dans la pr?sentation de sa demande, elle croyait l?gitimement avoir le droit d'utiliser des MRF. [232] La preuve a permis d'?tablir que le risque associ? ? l'utilisation des MRF est loin de faire l'unanimit?. Les experts ont des opinions divergentes sur le sujet. [233] Cependant, la municipalit? n'avait pas le fardeau de faire une d?monstration scientifique des risques associ?s ? l'utilisation des MRF, tel que l'a bien indiqu? la Cour supr?me dans l'arr?t Spraytech, (Soci?t? d'arrosage) c. Hudson pr?cit?. [234] Apr?s ?tude du dossier et pour les raisons ?nonc?es pr?c?demment, la requ?te introductive d'instance en jugement d?claratoire amend?e doit ?tre partiellement rejet?e. Elle le sera cependant sans frais. POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [235] REJETTE partiellement la requ?te introductive d'instance en jugement d?claratoire amend?e ; [236] D?CLARE que le R?glement 296 de la municipalit? du Canton de Elgin est intra vires en regard de ses pouvoirs [237] ORDONNE que les mots ?et tout autre produit similaire? soient retranch?s du R?glement 296 pour cause d'impr?cision ; [238] CONFIRME pour le reste, la l?galit? du R?glement 296 ; [239] LE TOUT sans frais. __________________________________ STEVE J. REIMNITZ, J.C.S. Me Nancy Bonsaint Gravel, B?dard, Vaillancourt Pour la demanderesse 760-17-001371-064 PAGE : 38 Me Jocelyn Rancourt Rancourt, Legault& St-Onge Pour la d?fenderesseDates d?audience : Les 2, 3, 4 et 5 mars 2009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From theatoole at yahoo.com Sat Oct 3 21:16:26 2009 From: theatoole at yahoo.com (Thea J. Toole) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Town of Elgin, qc wins court battle! Message-ID: <154792.65486.qm@web56407.mail.re3.yahoo.com> The municipality of Elgin in South Western Quebec has received the judgment from the Superior court which supports their sludge ban by-law. The town had passed a ban on sludge spreading and was sued by a local farmer whose authorization certificate was refused because of this by law.? The case was in court for weeks and has waited months for judgment.? The by-law was completely supported, mainly on the basis of the precautionary principle.? This by-law was used as a model by 4 other municipalities in the area and so bolsters them.? Other towns that worried about getting sued over a similar by-law will now be able to pass it.? Although it is likely it will go to appeal, the community feels very encouraged. Citizens for the Responsible Management of Municipal and Industrial Sludge MRC du Haut Saint Laurent, QC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 5 17:47:24 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:47:24 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Austin Texas Concert in 'Dillo Dirt' wet muck - photo people covered in filth Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is ghastly. They spread sewage sludge 'compost', and put it on the sod, and then it rained and the grass disappeared and the concert goers tramped barefoot through a field of slippery brown reconstituted sewage sludge. The smell told the story. Here is the video: http://www.austin360.com/news/content/multimedia/players/brightcove.html?bcpid=1460868124&bclid=1463333939&bctid=43409952001 ................................................................. http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/sharedgen/blogs/austin/music/entries/2009/10/04/zilkers_great_lawn_to_be_close.html Zilker?s ?Great Lawn? to be closed until at least Oct. 16 By Michael Corcoran | Sunday, October 4, 2009, 02:57 PM Jay Janner AMERICAN-STATESMAN Zilker lawn conditions: Video | Photos Austin Parks & Recreation spokesman Victor Ovalle said the area of Zilker Park where ACL Fest is held was planned to be closed until at least Oct. 16 before the fields were turned to muck and that the area will be evaluated Monday to determine if it will take longer than that to restore Zilker. C3 Presents has always paid to repair any damage to the park and will do so again this year, he said. When the Great Lawn was resodded several months ago, a special, durable Tifway grass was used. Most of the mud that surfaced above the grass Saturday was so-called ?Dillo dirt,? a compost made by the City of Austin from yard trimmings collected curbside as well as some treated sewage sludge. That?s why Zilker smelled so bad Sunday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 6 10:37:29 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:37:29 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Kings County Nova Scotia - Biosolids Concern Council Message-ID: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1146137.html Biosolids concern council Kings County wants report on use of sludge as fertilizer By GORDON DELANEY Valley Bureau Tue. Oct 6 2009 KENTVILLE ? The possible spreading of biosolids as fertilizer on farmland has raised concerns among Kings County councillors and environmentalists. Council has asked staff to prepare a report on the issue following a request from the Nova Scotia Environmental Network to ban the practice. "We all have a certain concern," Warden Fred Whalen said in a recent interview. "One councillor has asked for an immediate moratorium on it." Representatives from the environmental group appeared at a special council meeting recently in Kentville to express their worries about the possible use of biosolids. The product comes from an N-Viro Systems Canada facility near the Halifax Stanfield International Airport. Sewage sludge from residential, hospital, industrial, street run-off and commercial sources are treated at the facility and bacteria are destroyed. Some farmers are using it as fertilizer on their fields, which is much cheaper than conventional nitrogen and potassium fertilizers. The environmental network believes the product is unsafe, containing contaminants in the sewer sludge that are not being eliminated in the treatment process. Fred Blois and Marilyn Cameron told council they are concerned about the safety of the product and its use in the production of locally grown food. They say N-Viro plans to distribute and spread 34,000 tonnes of the material on 4,800 hectares of land in the province each year. Mr. Blois and Ms. Cameron also proposed other solutions for sludge disposal. "What is deeply disturbing is that most Nova Scotians know little or nothing about what is going on," Ms. Cameron, chairwoman of the network?s biosolids and waste-water caucus, said in a news release. "In fact, thousands of tonnes of HRM?s treated sludges have already been transported and dispersed onto farmland in Kings County this year." Mr. Whalen said he was not aware of any biosolids being spread in the county. "I heard a rumour of this and one person actually complained about it. But I went to see the person he complained about and he denied it." He said the province, through the Environment Department, is in the process of preparing a policy on the use of biosolids, "and we didn?t really want to jump too far ahead of it." Brian Smith, the municipality?s chief administrative officer, has also been working on the issue through various committees, Mr. Whalen said. "In the meantime, opponents anxiously wait for the time when this risky practice is finally put to an end and can only hope that not too much of Nova Scotia?s precious farmland resource, the food it produces, and the water that drains from it, gets contaminated with sludge pollutants," Ms. Cameron said in the release. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 6 11:46:20 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:46:20 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Dillo Dirt: People ill after rolling in liquid sewage sludge compost Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Several people have already reported getting sick after wallowing in the liquid sewage sludge compost that covered the soccer field at this recent Austin Texas concert. Austin says that the sludge compost is 'virtually' pathogen free. ....'Virtually'. .................................................... >From Helane Shields: PICTURES OF PEOPLE ROLLING AROUND AND WALLOWING IN CLASS A SLUDGE DILLO DIRT http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/austin-shitty-limits/ my follow up comment on Texas, Austin, Class A Dillo Dirt http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/06/1006zilkersod.html#commentsanchor hshields wrote: I respectfully urge Austin not to renovate Zilker Park with the use of Class A sewage sludge "biosolids" Dillo Dirt. The US EPA and Environmental Working Group have documented that all sewage sludges, Class B AND Class A, contain thousands of toxic industrial and household chemicals, drugs, pharma, etc.which pose risks to humans, animals and aquatic biota, surface and groundwater and the environment. http://www.sludgevictims.com/toxic_in_sludge.html Class A sludge biosolids pathogen treatment does NOT inactivate infectious prions shed to sewers by human and animal sources of TSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies). (Think landfill leachate discharged to sewage plants, containing Chronic Wasting Disease, Scrapie and Mad Cow Disease from abattoirs; Alzheimer's victims shedding prions in their feces; labs, hospitals, taxidermy shops, etc.) http://www.sludgevictims.com/pathogens/prion.html No-one should physically contact this contaminated waste, and particularly children with their hand-to-mouth behavior, and family pets who walk through and roll in the sludge and track it into homes on their fur and feet. Many children and adults have been sickened by exposure to and contact with Class A sewage sludge "biosolids" . http://www.sludgevictims.com/Class-A-sludge.html One of your readers has already written in saying she has red marks on her legs where she was in contact with the Dillo Dirt sludge. "Kristin 13 hours ago I have red marks everywhere that "mud" was allowed to dry on my legs." Helane Shields, PO Box 1133, Alton, NH 03809 Sludge researcher since 1996 http://www.sludgevictims.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 6 13:35:53 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:35:53 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Severe Swine Flu - in individuals who lack key antibodies Message-ID: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5icleN_u1gqVocAlyuj48dD91QwKA Low levels of key antibodies may lead to severe disease, study suggests By Helen Branswell Medical Reporter (CP) ? Sep 16, 2009 Toronto Globe and Mail TORONTO ? Australian researchers may have uncovered a clue as to why some people who catch swine flu suffer life-threatening illness. And if they are right, there is an existing weapon in the treatment arsenal that could help reduce the pandemic death toll. The group found that pregnant women who became severely ill with the new H1N1 virus had low levels of a particular antibody that is known to fight off viruses and help the body respond to vaccine. Moderately ill women were much less likely to have significantly suppressed levels of the antibody, the researchers reported. "We all believe we may have stumbled onto something very interesting," said Dr. Lindsay Grayson, director of infectious disease at Austin Health, a network of three hospitals in Melbourne. "To our knowledge it's the first time that a correlation or an association is being noted between severe influenza of any sort and a subtle but potentially important immune deficiency." The team made the discovery when Grayson's colleague, Dr. Claire Gordon, ordered a test that looked at antibody levels - not just by class, but looking at individual subtypes within those classes. The call was made in the case of a very sick patient whose decline was particularly rapid, and the team was debating whether immune globulin - a blood product containing antibodies harvested from donated blood - might help. The testing showed the patient had low levels of an antibody called IgG2, which Grayson admitted came as a surprise. They started ordering tests on all their swine flu patients in ICU. "What we found was almost everyone, all the patients who needed ICU were IgG2 deficient," he said in an interview from San Francisco, where the data were presented at ICAAC, the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Severe cases had IgG2 levels that were about one-third of those detected in people who were moderately ill. While the work was only done in pregnant women, Grayson and others said it would be useful to look to see if this deficiency might explain why a small subset of swine flu cases become gravely ill while most people only suffer through a bout of the flu. It's known that between two and 20 per cent of people have some antibody deficiency, he said, though not all of those people would be IgG2 deficient. Three of four critically ill patients treated with immune globulin survived, defying predictions of those caring for them. Dr. Donald Low, chief microbiologist at Toronto's Mount Sinai, said the findings are exciting, if preliminary, and might explain why aboriginals seem to be at greater risk of developing severe disease if they contract swine flu. He suggested the hypothesis should be studied further. "It would be a fishing expedition, but obviously worthwhile." "I think the bottom line is that this is obviously something that has to be looked into. And it may have therapeutic implication. ... It could be a marker for women at higher risk if they get infected to get more severe disease." But Dr. Anand Kumar, an intensive care specialist from Winnipeg who treated a lot of severely ill swine flu patients in the spring and early summer, was not as optimistic. "The results are just what I'd expect in any group of critically ill," he said by email. Kumar, who is also an infectious diseases specialist, said it is not uncommon for all antibody levels to drop with critical illness and the more severe the sickness, the steeper the drop. But he does think the notion of treating pandemic flu patients with antibodies harvested from other people makes sense, though he believes the immune globulin should be from people who've recovered from swine flu and have antibodies specific to the virus. Grayson admitted they can't say at this point whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship at work here, meaning low IgG2 levels in the patients predisposed them to suffering from more severe disease once they caught the virus. But he doesn't believe the reverse is at play, that the infection caused the low IgG2 levels. "We don't think that influenza is causing this deficiency. We think that instead the influenza is picking out those people who have the deficiency," he said. The numbers are admittedly small and will require further study, likely in the Northern Hemisphere. Swine flu rates are dropping in Melbourne, Grayson said. Still, 16 of 19 severely ill patients had very low IgG2 levels, compared to three of 20 with moderate illness. The team looked at healthy pregnant women and found that about 60 per cent of them were mildly deficient in IgG2 levels, which leads them to believe this may be one of the immune system changes that occurs to allow a pregnant woman to carry a foreign body - a fetus - without rejecting it. But Grayson said the group needs to follow women after they deliver to see if their IgG2 levels rise to normal levels. Grayson said while the group's work hasn't proven their hypothesis, Northern Hemisphere doctors caring for the sickest of swine flu patients in the weeks and months to come should consider checking IgG2 levels and using immune globulin, which is often given to people seriously ill with some bacterial infections. "In many ways, this is applying a general principle that we apply to bacteria diseases to now say well, 'Gee, we've made this interesting observation. This might work for influenza,"' he said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 6 13:43:46 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:43:46 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Wrong Kind of "Organic" Farming: Biosolids - RealEstate agents must divulge sludge use Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Mortage lenders and real estate agents get caught in the lose-lose cycle of sludge. A property with sludge nearby needs to disclose the neighbor's use of sludge. The realtor must disclose it or risk getting sued. The propective buyers hear about the sludge use and don't want to even look at the house. The mortage lender and the home owner may get stuck with a property they cannot sell. /////////////////// http://www.homes101.net/news/n4785 The Wrong Kind of "Organic" Farming: Biosolids October 6, 2009 By PJ Wade When you buy real estate, you buy into your neighbours' lives, too. Although their dogs, barbeques and kids may drive you crazy in any location, neighbouring farmers who apply biosolids to their land can drive rural property owners out of their homes, according to Wendy Deavitt, a Southern Ontario hobby farm owner and avid horsewoman. On September 29, 2009, days before walking away from her unsold home, mortgage and property taxes included, Deavitt emailed: "We thought we had found our dream farm 8 years ago, until 2006 when the farmer adjacent to us started to use biosolids on his crops. Then the nightmare began!!!! We have suffered emotionally, financially and physically from the application of this product. After trying to sell our home for the last 2 years and reducing the price by C$60,000, we are still unable to sell the farm. The farm is now below bank appraised value and still does not sell. Real estate agents will not list the home without full disclosure of the use of biosolids on the adjacent properties, in fear of being sued, which we feel has resulted in no buyers. Would you buy it?" The ongoing stench aside, Deavitt sites serious health problems suffered by their horses and other animals as well as family illnesses as key reasons for feeling at risk as long as they stay in their renovated century farmhouse situated in a 7.8 acre picturesque rural setting. The litany of health woes, government ineffectiveness, non-responsive officials and truck loads of sludge dumped next door makes this landowner's story sound like a scary movie. Her family's experiences are echoed by other neighbours of the biosolid-laden farm. Property owners in other rural areas where biosolids are used as fertilizers have suffered similar dramatic reductions in property value and difficulty selling. Although details vary in different locations, the official story is a win-win-win cycle: Municipalities must get rid of the never-ending stream of sewage sludge that is produced by their wastewater treatment plants. Biosolid haulers are paid by municipalities to truck the accumulating sludge away from the plants. Farmers are offered sewage sludge as fertilizer for their crops at no charge from the Municipal source or the haulers who deliver the biosludge right to farm fields. But there's a parallel losing cycle, too, and real estate professionals are caught in the middle of this one: ? If they know about biosolid contamination or should have known, they risk liability when the new property owner discovers the contamination. Disclosing biosolid dumping on a property or adjacent land may render the real estate unsaleable since prospective buyers Google "biosolid" and viewings are cancelled. Mortgage lenders can get left holding contaminated land which, even if it can be sold, may not generate enough cash to repay the mortgage debt and costs incurred. Lenders then have to go after the original property owner who may have little financial resources after suffering the collapse of land value. This can make financing rural property more of a challenge. Environmental assessments and soil testing provide site specific information, but can be cost-prohibitive when testing is thorough enough to account for acres of land. Deavitt reports now that family and animals have been off their property for a few weeks, good health seems to be returning. Long-term affects have not been evaluated at this stage. Deavitt's email continued: "Although our battle is almost over and we have lost, it is important for people to realize that this issue is out there and they too could become victims of this. Unsuspecting buyers from Toronto who are looking for that nice piece of property to retire on in rural Ontario, completely unaware that this issue exists, could end up like us, left with property that you cannot live on and/or sell. Just because they have been 'doing this for years', doesn't make it right!!!! Our government told us asbestos was safe and lead was safe, both are banned now!!!" Spreading sludge on farmland is not a new practice, but how chemically similar is today's sludge when compared to that of 25 years ago? Currently, Ontario generates about 300,000 dry tonnes of municipal sewage biosolids annually of which approximately 40% is land applied, 40% goes to landfills and 20% is incinerated, according to the government. How can you escape the same biosolid fate if you buy your dream rural haven or hobby farm? Ask a lot of questions and investigate the answers. Share your biosolid concerns with the local real estate professional helping you find your ideal property and ask what precautions can be taken. Can you determine to what extent this land-use practice is used in the area? Municipal offices, the provincial environmental ministry, agricultural agencies, agricultural colleges, wastewater treatment plants, environmental groups, provincial ombudsman's office...may all be worth contacting once you have decided on a county or region. Remember, that, in spite of the fact that governments promote Carfax as a "consumer protection source" it does not necessarily list all the accidents a used car has been in. The assurances and paperwork you accumulate about biosolid application or non-use may not tell the whole story. Is there a moratorium on biosolid application in the municipality? Does it extend to biosolid haulers bringing truck loads in from other municipalities? Gather local feedback from neighbours, area landowners, animal care providers, media...anyone who will talk to you, but keep confidences as you go since you don't want a reputation as a gossip before you even move in. With renewed interest in organic farming, the irony of agricultural land and homes being deliberately contaminated by heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and anything else that is passed through a sewage treatment plant is not lost on affected property owners and environmentalists. Deavitt voiced concerns that government regulation is making it harder to track exactly which waste is going where. According to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment site, biosolids and "non-agricultural source materials" are under control: "Effective January 1, 2011, non-agricultural source materials (NASM) will be managed under the Environmental Protection Act until it arrives at the farm gate where it becomes subject to the General Nutrient Management Regulation under the Nutrient Management Act. 2002." Referring to existing alternative uses for sewage sludge, Deavitt said, "We will never run out of sludge as long as there are people eating and flushing the toilet, so why not put it into renewable energy?" Source: Sludge Watch Copyright ? 2009 Realty Times. Used wit ******************************************************************************************************** Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: NEW JERSEY -MONTVILLE - HOUSING PROJECT & PARKLAND -AGRICULTURAL pesticides CONTAMINATION- LAWSUIT - REAL ESTATE - - TOWNSHIP = NO DUTY OF CARE - polluters pay? - SELLERS disclosure required = NO SALES ! [ comment - This situation is analogous to sewage sludge contaminated land which is subsequently developed for residential housing - lack of testing and LACK OF DISCLOSURE - put buyers at significant risk from residual pathogens, (EPA says sludge helminths/ worms survive for up to 3 years) chemicals from farm sludge "fertilizers" . . . .home vegetable gardens, children, pets,-- all pathways of risk for parasitic worms and some long lasting pathogens, metals, pesticides and chemicals . . . ] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/us_district_court_judge_dismis.html New Jersey Real-Time News Breaking Local News from New Jersey Federal judge dismisses Montville contaminated land case By Brian T. Murray September 28, 2009, 5:49PM MONTVILLE TWP. -- In a ruling that could protect all New Jersey towns from responsibility for polluted private property within their borders, a federal judge in Newark has dismissed all liability claims leveled against Montville Township in a complex, six-year-old court battle over a housing development unwittingly built on a pesticide-contaminated family orchard.h permission. ************************************************************************************************** n my opinion, the presence of sludge on the property to be sold or on a neighboring property should be disclosed in this section . . . . 14. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS (substances, materials or products) including asbestos, formaldehyde, radon gas, methane gas, lead-based paint, underground storage tank, or other hazardous or toxic material (whether buried or covered), contaminated soil or water, or other environmental contamination? ?? ? Historically, the rule of thumb on disclosures: "Generally, you should disclose anything about the house that you, if you were the buyer, would want to know about the property when making the decision of whether or not to buy." *************************************************************************************************** http://www.ncrec.state.nc.us/bulletin/vol11-2bulletin/courts_rule_on_issue_of_misrepre.htm NORTH CAROLINA -Summary of Facts: A purchaser of a house and lot filed suit against a builder, alleging that the builder had failed to disclose that the house had been built on "disturbed soil" (the house was constructed over a large hole filled with debris and then covered with clay). Decision: The court ruled that "Since this defect in the lot and the house . . . was not apparent to plaintiffs (the purchasers) and not within the reach of their digilent attention and observation, defendant (builder) was under a duty to disclose this information to plaintiffs". (Although the defendant in this case was a builder/seller, the North Carolina Supreme Court held in a related case that a real estate agent would also have come within the rule applied in this case if the agent knew or had reason to believe that the builder had constructed the house on "disturbed soil" yet withheld this fact from the purchasers.) Although several of the cases cited above were not decided on the basis of North Carolina law, North Carolina real estate brokers and salesmen should be well aware of the principles set forth in all of these decisions: These principles, simply stated, are (1) that a real estate agent who intentionally or unintentionally gives a purchaser incorrect or incomplete information may be held liable for such statements even though the source of the incorrect information was the seller or another broker, and even though the purchaser could have verified the information himself; (2) that a seller and nis agent have an affirmative duty to disclose to prospective purchasers any latent (hidden) defects connected with the property (for example, faulty septic tank, leaky basement, etc.) about which they are aware or should reasonably be aware,- and (3) that although a real estate agent owes his primary loyalty to his principal, (usually the seller), the agent must treat all parties in the transaction fairly. Furthermore, if a licensee has actual knowledge of material facts regarding a property (or should reasonably have known of such facts), but the licensee fails to disclose these facts to a prospective purchaser, then such nondisclosure may subject the licensee to disciplinary action by the North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 7 08:15:06 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:15:06 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - Waterloo Region dries sludge to 25% solids Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is a story that suggests that spending $29M to dewater sewage sludge from 3% to 24% solids is going to do anything about the 136 spills of raw sewage into the Grand River. The Waterloo Region should stop the land application of sludge. It looks like there is some initiative in that direction. ..................... http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/609684 Region to spend $29 million on sewage sludge ?cake? facility October 07, 2009 By Jeff Outhit, Record staff WATERLOO REGION ? Local governments are fouling the Grand River with raw sewage even as politicians tout plans to upgrade sewage treatment. Regional councillors discussed the good, bad and ugly at a meeting Tuesday. They hailed a $29-million project to improve the sludge created when sewage is treated. They winced when told that communities up and down the Grand River spilled raw or partly-treated sewage into the watershed 136 times between 2002 and 2006. Regional facilities were responsible for 42 of these polluting events. To improve sewage treatment, council plans to spend $29 million on a centrifuge to spin wet sludge around and around in Kitchener. This will help dry it out. Sewage sludge, called cake, is more compact when dry, and easier to store. Fewer trucks will be needed to haul it to fields where it?s spread as fertilizer. It will also be easier to dump in the local landfill, which the region may start doing. ?It?s not a very sexy project, but a very necessary project,? said Coun. Jim Wideman, of Kitchener. A similar centrifuge dries sludge in the Galt area of Cambridge. There?s one planned in Waterloo as well. The indoor centrifuge will be added to a facility at 440 Manitou Dr. That?s where wet sludge is trucked away to spread on fields. Extra pipes will be installed to pump more wet sludge to Manitou Drive from the Kitchener sewage treatment on Mill Park Drive. Eventually, the region will be able to close the outdoor lagoons where wet sludge is currently stored in south Kitchener. The lagoons sometimes generate odour complaints from neighbours. ?This is going to be a great benefit to that neighbourhood,? said Coun. Tom Galloway, of Kitchener. The Manitou Drive facility will get an upgraded odour control system. It?s in an industrial area. Construction is planned in 2010 and 2011. A public information centre on the project takes place Oct. 8 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Doon Public School, 1401 Doon Village Rd. As for problems caused by sewage spills, councillors were assured by staff that the region is adding equipment, facilities and processes to better protect the Grand River. A report by area water managers estimates 200 million litres of sewage spilled into the watershed between 2003 and 2005. Spills happen most commonly when wet weather overwhelms municipal facilities, when equipment breaks, or when power fails. Coun. Sean Strickland called on governments to do more to protect the river, saying he is unimpressed with a recommendation that communities ?should? do more to reduce spills. He contends communities must do more. ?I think the language should be a little stronger,? said Strickland, of Waterloo. Regional council plans to spend up to $648 million upgrading sewage treatment by 2018. Treatment rates paid by homeowners will nearly triple to help pay the bill. jouthit at therecord.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 7 08:21:02 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:21:02 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Montgomery County NC: Discharges Drinking Water Sludge to Creek Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Sewage sludge isn't the only sludge that comes from cities. Drinking water is treated with a variety of chemicals and the sludge from water treatment needs responsible disposal. ........................................ Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Archives County cited for sludge violations By Linda Beaulieu Montgomery Herald The county water plant has received a notice of violation from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ), related to improper disposal of sludge that results from the treatment of the county?s drinking water. The problem apparently came to light following a visit from a DWQ inspector in July who discovered sludge build up and standing water below the water plant. The sludge is solids, ?Pee Dee River mud? that is precipitated out of the water during the treatment process, according to County Finance Officer Lisa Rolan, who has been monitoring the situation. Rolan said the plant has had only six times when it was found not in compliance with quality standards since 1992 and most of those were either weather related or problems getting test reports submitted on time. The plant?s discharge permit has been renewed regularly over the last 15 years without problems. County Commissioner Jackie Morris said from what he?s learned the standing water and sludge isn?t noticeable when visiting the plant, but is in an area where beavers have apparently built two dams, which backed up the discharge. Rolan said she believes the sludge is material that?s been deposited there for a number of years as well as something that was ongoing. She believes occasional improper operation of a discharge valve as well as not allowing long enough for sediment to settle before discharging are part of the problem. ?It wasn?t anything intentional,? she said. Discharge water sample tests have all been within permit limits, and the county has also received results of tests on the sludge done by a private environmental testing firm. The sludge also tested within the county?s permit limits. Rolan and County Manager Lance Metzler are working on a plan of action to address the violation as well as other items requested by DWQ. An environmental clean up company working on a similar problem in Anson County has provided information on costs. Rolan said a rough estimate, including 10 to 20 days to clean up the site, as well as dewatering and hauling the sludge to the landfill, could be as much as $125,000, depending on the tonnage. Rolan noted that dewatered sludge should be hauled to the landfill monthly, but landfill records show the last time it received sludge from the water plant was 2006. While Rolan had no explanation for that, she noted that at times in the past sludge hauled to the landfill had been too wet to be dumped and that getting the sludge properly dewatered has been an ongoing issue. Following receipt of the notice of violation, Sept. 16, Metzler and Rolan sent a memo to commissioners stating in part, ?Based on the letter, it doesn?t appear that they have assessed us any penalties but it does state that they can and may assess civil penalties of $25,000 per day per violation.? The NOV actually includes four separate violations related to the sludge discharge. ?The main thing is that we?ve got to clean it up and make it compliant with state statutes. The county commissioners and administration jumped on it as soon as we knew we had a problem and got everything tested,? said Morris. ?From everything I understand this does not affect the quality of our drinking water.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 8 09:20:33 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:20:33 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Pennsylvania- County Board mulls fears over biosolids Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Cities are always looking for cheap places to dispose of sewage sludge. They favor putting it on mine tailings, especially in the USA, since they are often allowed to put it on over a foot thick...rather than the 'agronomic rate' (plant nutrient rate) which would look like salt and pepper on a field. The limed sewage sludge they are discussing below is supposed to be not for nutrient value, but to change the pH of soil...so low application rates should apply. But these sludges are put on at massive application rates, in places where there is little or no soil to slow the movement of contaminants into groundwater. The high pH promotes the availability of some metals ... like molybdenum. This can poison animals who forage on sludged lands. .................... http://www.dailyitem.com/0100_news/local_story_280231001.html Board mulls fears over biosolids By Marcia Moore The Daily Item SUNBURY ? Northumberland County Commissioner Vinny Clausi is concerned that biosolids pose a risk to residents and opposes a Mifflinburg company?s plans to set up a processing facility on county-owned coal land. ?It can cause cancer, and I don?t want to contaminate Northumberland County. We should kill this (proposal) right now,? Clausi said, referring to the use of biowaste on reclaimed coal land. Ag Lime Biosolids Processing, of Mifflinsburg, wants to set up a portable facility in Mount Carmel Township to mix biosolids with chemicals and create a better quality soil, commissioners Chairman Frank Sawicki said. He argued that Class B sludge already is being used in the coal lands and that the Class A sludge processed by Ag Lime is better for the environment. Clausi was firm in opposing any use of biosolids on public property, and minority Commissioner Kurt Masser said he also worries about potential harmful effects it could have. Public hearings will be held about the firm?s plans if they move forward, but first the commissioners agreed to research the process more before giving it tentative approval. In other business, the county will hold a surplus equipment sale at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 27 at Mountain View Manor, Coal Township. Among the items to be sold are vehicles, computers and chairs. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 8 09:43:57 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:43:57 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec struggles with implications of rural municipalities enacting sludge bans Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This story has a few inaccuracies. Sludge spreading is not the cheapest way to get rid of sludge. Since the sludge must be digested, dewatered, trucked several hours away, stored in the winter months, stored in rainy months, can poison crops if applied during a drought, and is subject to rural municipal bans on sludge spreading..it is an increasingly expensive and unreliable sludge disposal method. The consumer does not want to eat food grown on sludge, or drink milk from animals pastured on sludged lands. Rural residents don't want to smell sludge from nearby fields. They don't accept the risks to their wells and swimming sites. They don't want their pets rolling in sludged fields and tracking the filth indoors. They don't want the risks to their family health posed by sludge: with its 2 million fecal coliform per gram and antibiotic resistant pathogens. Real estate agents do not want to sell properties near sludge and risk a law suit if buyers are not warned about sludge. Rural municipalities do not want to suffer tax revenue losses from devalued properties near sludge operations. As to costs? Land application is not cheap. Toronto is spending as much as $600 per dry ton to spread sludge on farmland or degraded soil sites in Quebec. Sludge as fuel for renewable energy projects is cheaper, more sustainable, and can replace some of the capacity now furnished by dirty coal plants. .................................................................. Oozing with controversy Leftover sludge from water treatment plants contains human waste, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and whatever else washes into the sewer system. It's also used as fertilizer - which concerns some experts By MICHELLE LALONDE, The Gazette October 8, 2009 A city worker checks on the level of water in one of three huge "wet wells" that handle the one millions of litres of waste water are cleaned daily at the Montreal sewage treatment facility, one of the largest single facilities in the world. At the municipal waste-water treatment plant in Rivi?re des Prairies, water is raised 15 storeys to ground level by 17 pumps that have 4,800-horsepower motors. Photograph by: Allen McInnis, Gazette File PhotoSome call it "human manure." Others use terms like "municipal biosolids" or "fertilizing residuals." Quebec's Environment Department describes it as "a valuable environmental resource" that can be spread safely and legally as fertilizer on agricultural lands. Whatever you call it, the province's municipalities produce a lot of it: 914,726 tonnes of sludge was scraped out of 700 water treatment plants in Quebec in 2007, the most recent year for which these statistics are available. About 42 per cent of the sludge was incinerated and 31 per cent was sent to dumps. But the remaining 27 per cent was "recycled" as fertilizer, mostly on farmland. The movement to ban the spreading of cities' sludge on agricultural lands scored a major victory last week when Superior Court Judge Steve J. Reimnitz ruled the rural municipality of Elgin, 95 kilometres southwest of Montreal, had the right to pass a bylaw banning the transportation, storage and spreading of sludge within its territory. "Now many other municipalities will pass the same kind of bylaw," Elgin Mayor Jean-Pierre Proulx said. "I know a lot of them were just waiting for this judgment." In his ruling, Reimnitz noted that experts are not in agreement on whether sludge spreading is safe. He referred to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Hudson town bylaw against the cosmetic use of pesticides. The ruling established that municipalities have the right to pass bylaws to protect the environment from the risk of irreversible damage, even in the absence of scientific certainty. While less than three per cent of cultivated land in Quebec receives municipalities' sludge, there is no way for consumers to know if the food they eat has been grown in soil where the sludge was spread. This urban sludge is a thick soup of human waste, chemicals, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, industrial cleaning products, oils, flame retardants and whatever else washes into the sewer system. The sludge can be spread in liquid form or dried into pellets. Although the material is treated to destroy some contaminants, opponents of sludge spreading claim the practice contaminates crops, soil and waterways, and puts human health at risk. In 2007, the Quebec government banned the spreading of municipalities' sludge on land used to grow crops for human consumption, except for the "highest quality" sludge, which is disinfected and approved by an independent certification agency, the Bureau de normalisation du Qu?bec. (That year, about 7,000 tonnes of BNQ-approved sludge was spread on soil where crops for humans were grown.) But some experts are concerned about certain contaminants accumulating in the meat, fat and milk of animals raised on crops fertilized with cities' sludge. "There is substantial risk, (particularly) in spreading sludge on dairy farms," because of persistent organic pollutants, said Murray McBride, director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. McBride, who has been studying the issue for 30 years, said spreading sludge from an open sewer system - one where there is little control over what is flushed - is an "invitation to disaster." - - - Many large municipalities in Quebec, including Montreal, incinerate sludge. It's an expensive process that generates air pollution and greenhouse gases. Others send it to landfills, where it risks leaching into water tables and produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The third option, and one the Quebec government promotes as a logical and laudable extension of its waste recovery efforts, is to "recycle" the sludge as fertilizer. Sludge spreading is the least costly option for municipalities. And because it is substantially cheaper than chemical fertilizers, more farmers are giving it a try. Almost 144,000 tonnes of urban sludge was spread on agricultural land in 2007, up from 84 per cent from 2004. According to Marc H?bert, the Quebec Environment Department's point man on sludge, this material should be seen as a resource. It can be made into compost and sold commercially (look for the words "mati?re d'?gout trait?" in the ingredients), used as landscaping material or to improve soil and fertilize crops. "A zero-risk solution (for disposing of sewage sludge) does not exist," said H?bert, an agronomist. Municipalities' sludge is carefully regulated and tested in Quebec, he said, and like animal manure, it can benefit soil and crops because it is rich in phosphorus and nitrogen. He notes the province's environmental watchdog agency, the Bureau d'audiences publiques du Qu?bec, held public hearings on municipalities' sludge back in 1996, and concluded that "we should favour reclamation of sludge for agriculture, silviculture (tree planting) and horticulture, rather than thermal reclamation (incineration), if sludge characteristics are appropriate. Landfilling should be authorized only as a last resort." Sludge at water treatment plants is tested periodically for more than a dozen heavy metals, like arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury and lead, as well as two organic contaminants: dioxins and furans. But Thea Toole, an anti-sludge activist in Franklin, in southwestern Quebec, says that is simply not good enough. For example, she would like the province to test for thallium, a highly toxic chemical that can leach from sewer pipes. So-called "emerging contaminants" are also a concern. This year, the United States Environmental Protection Agency completed a Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey that tested 84 samples of sludge from water treatment plants in 35 states. In every sample, they found three pharmaceutical products (ciprofloxacin, diphenhydramine and triclocarban), three types of steroids, (campesterol, cholestanol and coprostanol) and 10 flame retardants. While the EPA cautioned against drawing conclusions about health risks from the survey, it called for more study. "We don't feel the regulations and controls on spreading are transparent or adequate," Toole said. "If somebody does get sick or the water table gets contaminated, it will be very difficult to trace it to spreading" of sludge, added Toole, who said she is thrilled with the recent court ruling that supports Elgin's bylaw prohibiting the use of sludge, and hopes more municipalities will ban sludge spreading. Daniel Green, a toxicologist with the Soci?t? pour vaincre la pollution, said the real solution may be better separation of human waste from other sewage and careful composting to kill pathogens, before spreading the sludge on agricultural land. Other opponents of sludge say state-of-the-art, no-emission incinerators may be the best answer. "It would be more expensive in the short term, yes. But if we don't do it, it will be a lot more expensive 50 years from now when we find we've contaminated the soils that were supposed to provide food for us," Green said. "Then how will we feed ourselves safely?" mlalonde at thegazette.canwest.com WHAT QUEBEC DOES WITH CITIES' SLUDGE: Agricultural spreading 143,917 tonnes 16% Restoration of industrial sites (i.e., mines) 16,626 tonnes 2% Compost and landscaping materials 86,361 tonnes 9% Incineration 387,421 tonnes 42% Landfill 280,401 tonnes 31% Total 914,726 tonnes 100% Source: Statistical portrait of Beneficial use of fertilizing residuals in 2007, Quebec environment department From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 9 09:55:59 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:55:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Quebec town of Elgin wins fight against sludge - judge upholds by-law Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Rural Quebec municipalities have been waiting with interest for the outcome of this court case. Now that the judge has upheld Elgin's sludge ban municipal bylaw, more municipalities will likely enact similar laws. Paper mill sludge from recycling mills often has high levels of copper, and often has ecoli and other human fecal bacteria, since sewage sludge is often used to activate the digesters at the mill. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment conducted worm survival tests in paper sludge ammended soils. They found that worms died when exposed to low levels of paper sludge in the ammended soils. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091008/mtl_sludge_fight091008/20091008/?hub=MontrealHome Town wins fight against sludge Updated: Thu Oct. 08 2009 12:30:21 PM ctvmontreal.ca The small town of Elgin, near the New York border, has won a big court challenge. A judge has ruled the town has the right to ban the use of sludge as a fertilizer. A farmer had taken the town to court over a three-year-old bylaw that banned the importation and use of sewage sludge and deinking sludge on farmland. The sludge is industrial waste but when treated it can be used as a fertilizer. Elgin Town councillor David Drummond says the substance is a menace even when treated. "It'll probably help plants grow, but there's also all kind of other noxious, poisonous substances in it," he told CTV's Derek Conlon. "We feel (it's) a risk to public health and a risk to the environment." Drumond adds that Elgin is prone to flooding which means the sludge could end up in troublesome places. Farmer fought back The owner of this farm, Ferme l'Evasion Inc., wanted to use sludge on his fields as an inexpensive fertilizer and he took the town to court. Experts for each side were called but on Oct. 1 the judge decided to err on the side of caution and side with the town. The owner of the farm limited his comments because he has yet to read the judgment. He did say the sludge would be treated and that heavy metal concentrations would be no different than what's found in nature. But Elgin councilor James Quinn says the data shows a different story. "In our research, you can use de-inking sludge ... three times on a field and you max out the level of copper," says Quinn, who's also a farmer who follows organic guidelines. "Copper is toxic to earthworms, it's toxic to the soil, it's toxic to people at higher levels." Precedent Quinn says increasing numbers of food producers are avoiding fertilizer based on sludge. He says the Quebec dairy industry doesn't want cows grazing on land treated with sludge and major food producers have said they won't buy from farms that fertilize with sludge. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 9 10:02:43 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:02:43 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Victoria BC Mayor: "We can save money, generate electricity and heat and save the planet" Message-ID: http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Victoria+keen+sewage+plants/2085256/story.html# Victoria keen on sewage plants By Kim Westad, Times ColonistOctober 8, 2009 Victoria's upper Inner Harbour has large enough chunks of land to house both a sewage-treatment plant and an "energy centre" to make use of the sludge it creates, Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin said yesterday. He's excited at the thought of housing both at the same site, recommended as the best choice for the region in terms of cost, safety and environmental impact. "It's something Victoria would definitely like to look at," Fortin said. "We can save money, generate electricity and heat and save the planet." The province has ordered the region to have a sewage-treatment plan to the Ministry of the Environment by the end of the year, with treatment likely in place by 2016. But just where the plants will be located has been controversial. A recent report to the sewage committee by consultant Stantec said locating the liquid-waste plant with another plant to produce energy from the sludge would reduce costs by about $90 million. Stantec also said selling electricity, heat and fuel created by treating the sludge could generate revenue. The problem is land. McLoughlin Point in Esquimalt was initially thought to be the best site for sewage treatment, with a separate site for sludge elsewhere, likely on Victoria's upper Inner Harbour. One or two of the properties identified as potential sludge-treatment sites in Victoria could be large enough to also house the liquid-waste plant, Fortin said, although he wouldn't say which ones. Potential sites include the former Budget Steel operation on Pleasant Street, lands near Rock Bay owned by B.C. Hydro and another site north of Discovery Street and west of Government Street, as well as land used for gravel and cement operations south of Bay Street and west of Bridge Street. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 9 10:18:08 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:18:08 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Calif County - faces landfill increase - wants to dry sludge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: With escalating energy costs this misguided county thinks that making a 'Milorganite'-style sludge material will save them money. They need to read Milwaukee's audit reports that show that once you look at the capitol costs and the marketting costs - making 'Milorganite' was the most expensive option for sludge disposal. 97-6 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Audit: "...the District could have reduced disposal costs if it had chosen not to construct a new Milorganite processing facility, because when each disposal option is required to account for its related capital costs, the production of Milorganite is the most costly. " .................................................. http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2009/10/08/news/news03_sludge.txt News Sludge could be county?s new gold By Claudette Langley , October 8, 2009 10:34 AM CDT What Calaveras County considers trash could turn out to be the Calaveras County Water District?s treasure if a plan to turn biosolids into fertilizer materializes. Faced with an exorbitant rate increase for disposal of treated wastewater bi-products, CCWD, the San Andreas Sanitary District and the city of Angels Camp are getting innovative. The trio began looking at building their own sludge facility after learning that Public Works is raising disposal fees at Rock Creek Landfill from $6.33 to $54. ?Sadly, I honestly think they (Calaveras County) think it?s going to increase their budget,? Director Jeff Davidson said at the Sept. 23 CCWD board meeting. ?But in reality they are going to deplete their budget. They are going to price themselves out of the market.? The sludge fight started this summer when Public Works Director Tom Garcia announced the increase in cost for disposal. CCWD, SASD and Angels Camp cried foul and reminded the Board of Supervisors that there are two resolutions guaranteeing that the districts can bring the sludge to the landfill for $6.33 a ton. A debate ensued between Bill Perley, director of utilities at CCWD, and Supervisor Merita Callaway over the original intent of the agreements. Callaway is adamant that they were temporary and Perley, backed by the resolutions themselves, staunchly maintained that it was a long-term solution. The districts were given a temporary reprieve from the rate increase after several public airings of the issue. The county agreed to keep the cost at $6.33 until June. The inevitability of the increase sinking in, the districts started to explore building a sludge treatment facility at the SASD?s plant, which is presently going through a major upgrade. Perley said he and his partners are looking at grabbing some federal stimulus monies for the $1.3 million project and that he feels pretty good about their chances. ?I found out that there is $50 million in stimulus money still sitting on the table, because a lot of the applicants just didn?t follow through,? he said. Perley, who is also a board member of SASD, is a veteran of the federal stimulus process. The district received $10.5 million in loans and grants from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that were allocated to California. As part of the upgrade, SASD is putting in a concrete pad and electrical hookup for the wastewater drying facility. Once the bi-product is treated and dried it, becomes a dirt-like substance. The product is so clean that it is being bagged up and sold in some areas of the country as fertilizer. ?In Milwaukee, they have been selling Milorganite for years,? Perley said. Milorganite is the brand name of the treated waste from Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and is marketed for use on turf, ornamental plants, shrubs and home gardens, according to materials from the Cornell Waste Management Institute at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. According to the materials, Milorganite use reduces deer damage to gardens in summer, when other foods were available. The product has also been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for any use, including home gardens. For complete information on Milorganite, visit www.cwmi.css.cornell.edu/milorganite.pdf The board asked Perley if he had looked into a market yet for the fertilizer and he said no, but that the worst-case scenario would be that the districts use the product themselves. ?Even if we sell it to ourselves for zero dollars it will still be a good use of the product,? Perley said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 9 12:01:39 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:01:39 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tamiflu and flu mingle in treated sewage effluent in waterways - waterfowl create resistant flu strains Message-ID: The points where treated effluent is discharged into waterways tend to be warmer and resist freezing in winter, making them attractive spots for wild waterfowl. When influenza A virus in the birds' droppings encounters active Tamiflu metabolite in the water, the scene is set for resistance to develop. Previous studies have reported that the concentrations of OC required to disable 50% of influenza virus?a measure of the drug's effectiveness?ranged from 80 to 230 ng/L. Thus, the peak drug concentrations observed in this study may be high enough to promote the emergence of drug-resistant influenza strains in waterfowl exposed to OC-contaminated waterways. [Comment: birds' droppings are not the only source of swine flu virus in surface waters. 50 % of swine flu victims which suffer diarrhea are shedding swine flu virus in their feces flushed to local POTW - where it is mixed with Tamiflu to create virulent antibiotic resistant pathogen . . . . . . . ] http://www.salutedomani.com/il_weblog_di_antonio/2009/10/swine-flu-ah1n1-high-concentration-of-oseltamivir-tamiflu-in-japan-river.html 05/10/2009 SWINE FLU A/H1N1: HIGH CONCENTRATION OF OSELTAMIVIR (TAMIFLU*) IN JAPAN RIVER In a study published September 28th ahead of print in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), researchers measured oseltamivir carboxylate (OC), the active metabolite of the popular anti-influenza drug Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate), in samples of sewage discharge and river water collected near Kyoto City during Japan's 2008?2009 flu season. Scientists already knew that OC withstands the activated sludge treatment process used by many sewage treatment plants (STPs) and that the metabolite is released in STP wastewater, but the amount of OC reaching waterways as a result of this had not been measured. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to assess differences in the occurrence of OC in these waters over the course of a seasonal flu outbreak. OC concentrations were highest in all samples during the peak of the seasonal flu outbreak, with the highest concentration, 293.3 nanograms per liter (ng/L), measured in discharge water from a conventional activated sludge-based STP. However, OC levels in discharge samples varied significantly depending on the type of sewage treatment method used, with a substantially lower peak concentration (37.9 ng/L) measured in discharge from an STP that used ozonation as an additional (tertiary) treatment. The points where treated effluent is discharged into waterways tend to be warmer and resist freezing in winter, making them attractive spots for wild waterfowl. When influenza A virus in the birds' droppings encounters active Tamiflu metabolite in the water, the scene is set for resistance to develop. Previous studies have reported that the concentrations of OC required to disable 50% of influenza virus?a measure of the drug's effectiveness?ranged from 80 to 230 ng/L. Thus, the peak drug concentrations observed in this study may be high enough to promote the emergence of drug-resistant influenza strains in waterfowl exposed to OC-contaminated waterways. Seasonal flu epidemics cause tens of millions of respiratory illnesses and 250,000 to 500,000 deaths worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO recommends Tamiflu for both treatment and prevention of flu, and the drug is considered an important first-line defense in the event of a flu pandemic, including the current pandemic of H1N1 flu. However, there are widespread reports of resistance to Tamiflu among seasonal influenza. A growing number of similar reports in regards to novel H1N1 influenza highlight the need for measures to control the emergence and spread of drug-resistant viral strains. "Ozonation as tertiary treatment will substantially reduce the OC load in STP effluent during an influenza epidemic or pandemic," wrote first author Gopal C. Ghosh and colleagues. "Further research is needed to investigate the fate of antiviral drugs at every unit process in the STPs." Other authors of the paper include Norihide Nakada, Naoyuki Yamashita and Hiroaki Tanaka. This study was partially supported by The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 13 10:35:39 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:35:39 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Women suffer more from H1N1: Study shows 72 % of deaths were women Message-ID: http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/652402 Women suffer more from H1N1: Study October 13, 2009 Emily Mathieu Torstar News Service A "striking" number of women are becoming seriously ill after contracting H1N1, according to a new study, and researchers admit they have no explanation. Although it's been known that pregnant women, the young and elderly are at increased risk, the authors of the report, Critically Ill Patients With 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Infection in Canada, write "the tendency of females to develop severe 2009 influenza A (H1N1) infection in this series is striking," especially since "female susceptibility has not been observed" in other influenza outbreaks. And they can't say why. "The explanation for increased risk of severe disease and death among females in this report is unclear," the authors write, "but the role of pregnancy as a risk factor has been noted in previous influenza pandemics." About 67 per cent of the cases studied in the Canadian report were women. The study also found in one survey of 168 critically ill patients, 29 died ? the majority in two weeks. The majority of the deaths, 72 per cent, were women. Similar results were found last month after the Montreal public health department tracked cases from April to September, and found about 56 per cent of the 1,280 confirmed cases of H1N1 were women. In hospital, women were twice as likely as men to develop complications or die, the study found. The authors of the Critically Ill report also found Canadians in their 30s are most susceptible to contracting H1N1, and stress that, once admitted to hospital, they require rapid admission to critical care and aggressive treatment. "In the Canadian context we found these were young patients, much younger than we would usually imagine treating flu patients in the ICU," said Dr. Robert Fowler, a critical care physician at Sunnybrook hospital and the lead author of the study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. He said the two most "surprising," results in the Canadian study were the relatively low age of patients and the number of patients who required aggressive treatment, including ventilation, signalling the need to properly prepare for the second wave this fall. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 13 10:57:01 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Australia - sewage sludge for roadbed construction? Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin Anyone who has looked at the pictures of Austin Texas 'Dillo Dirt' has got to doubt that sewage sludge makes good road bed construction material. Crushed bricks? Sure. Sewage sludge is full of decomposing organic material. When wet it will continue to decompose, as it does in landfills and on farmfields. Not what you want under a roadway. Using it on embankments is also a problem since the run off from these sludged slopes will put nitrogen and phosphorus and bacterial contamination (and other contaminants) in the run off waters, degrading local streams. ................................................................... http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091410-19999-2.html# Wednesday, 14 October 2009 Swinburne University The researchers combined biosolids - a by-product of sewage treatment - with a crushed brick additive that would otherwise have gone to waste. Melbourne?s growing stockpile of biosolids could be significantly reduced, thanks to new research from Swinburne University of Technology. As part of a study into sustainable infrastructure, researchers determined that biosolids ? by-products of the sewage treatment process ? are suitable for use as fill material in road embankments. According to lead researcher, Dr Arul Arulrajah, the findings could go a long way to reducing the 67 000 tonnes of biosolids that Melbourne produces each year. ?We conducted tests on the shear strengths and compressibility of untreated biosolids, as well as biosolids stabilised with additives such as cement, crushed brick and lime,? he said. ?We found that biosolids, stabilised with additives, are suitable for carrying the embankment and traffic load, and can be used as fill material for road embankments.? As Melbourne?s population increases, finding innovative uses for biosolids is a key challenge facing the water industry. The Swinburne researchers? solution ? to combine biosolids with a crushed brick additive ? has numerous environmental benefits. Not only are the biosolids being recycled, but crushed brick that would otherwise go into landfill is also being used. According to Arulrajah, the research has shown that biosolids can provide a sustainable resource for road embankment construction in new roads, or in the repair or expansion of existing roads. The research was supported by the Smart Water Fund, an initiative of Melbourne?s water businesses in partnership with the Victorian Government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's Note: Original news release can be found here. http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/marketing/mediacentre/core/releases_article.php?releaseid=1431 The road to using biosolids Melbourne?s growing stockpile of biosolids could be significantly reduced, thanks to new research from Swinburne University of Technology. As part of a study into sustainable infrastructure, researchers determined that biosolids ? by-products of the sewage treatment process ? are suitable for use as fill material in road embankments. According to lead researcher, Dr Arul Arulrajah, the findings could go a long way to reducing the 67,000 tonnes of biosolids that Melbourne produces each year. ?We conducted tests on the shear strengths and compressibility of untreated biosolids, as well as biosolids stabilised with additives such as cement, crushed brick and lime,? he said. ?We found that biosolids, stabilised with additives, are suitable for carrying the embankment and traffic load, and can be used as fill material for road embankments.? As Melbourne?s population increases, finding innovative uses for biosolids is a key challenge facing the water industry. The Swinburne researchers? solution ? to combine biosolids with a crushed brick additive ? has numerous environmental benefits. Not only are the biosolids being recycled, but crushed brick that would otherwise go into landfill is also being used. According to Arulrajah, the research has shown that biosolids can provide a sustainable resource for road embankment construction in new roads, or in the repair or expansion of existing roads. The research was supported by the Smart Water Fund, an initiative of Melbourne?s water businesses in partnership with the Victorian Government. -ends- ________________________________________________________________ Media contact: Crystal Ladiges +61 3 9214 5064 or 0416 174 880 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 12 23:01:59 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:01:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia makes sludge rules stricter, Ontario makes them less rigorous Message-ID: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1146963.html New rules announced for biosolids Sat. Oct 10 - 2009 The Nova Scotia government has introduced stricter guidelines for the land application and storage of municipal biosolids. Municipal treatment facilities that make biosolids must follow the guidelines and have approval from the Environment Department to produce biosolids. The new guidelines only allow for the highest quality of biosolids to be used on agricultural lands. The biosolids recycling process is an environmentally acceptable way to manage sewage sludge that is generated by municipal treatment facilities. Halifax Regional Municipality sends its waste to the enviro-depot in the Aerotech Park and will not be affected by the revisions, said HRM?s compliance officer. "The main change is that the province used to have three categories of biosolids . . . they now only have two categories," Tony Blouin, of Halifax Water, said Friday. The revisions will also require treatment plants to do more intensive analysis and testing for contaminants such as dioxins, furans and fire retardants. The extra requirements are in response to requests from concerned Nova Scotians, the government said in a news release. Biosolids come from a treatment process that transforms sewage sludge into low-pathogen, organic material for plants and trees. The use of biosolids on land is common throughout Canada and the United States. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 14 12:37:15 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:37:15 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Small town in Quebec: Elgin sets legal precedent in blocking use of sludge in Elgin Message-ID: http://www.straightgoods.ca/2009/ViewFeature.cfm?Ref=504&Cookies=yes Block that sludge! Tiny Elgin, QC sets legal precedent in blocking use of municipal sludge on its territory. Dateline: Monday, October 12, 2009 by Holly Dressel , Straight Goods In November of 2006, the tiny municipality of Elgin, Quebec, comprised of only a few hundred people, passed a by-law prohibiting the spreading, storage or transport of municipal or de-inking sludge on its territory. The people living in Elgin, about 60 km southwest of Montreal, understood that Canada's water treatment systems are not able to remove many toxic elements intrinsic to sludge, such as: pathogens like H1N1 or E. coli; dangerous chemicals like flame retardants; medications; hormones; or, the heavy metals that get into sewage systems from small industries and the de-inking process of paper recycling mills. Farmers in the area were particularly worried about the heavy metals in de-inking sludges, which can sterilize soils, rendering the soil useless and in fact dangerous for crop production in a relatively short period of time. Such material can be trucked in from distant, large cities and cannot be traced. Elgin's by-law was passed in order to "protect public health and the environment." ? "...Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." The local farm wishing to spread the sludge took the village to court, on the grounds that the process is not only legal in Quebec and across Canada but encouraged by provincial regulations. They were backed by a huge multinational waste management company, GSI, which makes its money by taking human and de-inking sludge off the hands of overwhelmed municipalities, calling it a crop fertilizer, and selling it to farmers at much cheaper rates than regular chemical fertilizers. On October 1, 2009, to the surprise of many, Quebec's Superior court upheld the town's bylaw. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz invoked the well-known Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hudson, Quebec's similar ban on cosmetic pesticides. In his 38-page decision, Judge Reimnitz also invoked the Precautionary Principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." This is more support for the principle emphasized in the Hudson case, which obliges municipalities to be "proactive in the areas of human health and the environment." Every municipality today is coping with the daily rivers of human and industrial wastes removed by water treatment plants. Back in the 1970s, public opinion and health officials finally convinced all levels of government that raw sewage could no longer be dumped into rivers, lakes and oceans without destroying drinking water. Environmental reasons also were a driving factor in paper recycling. Arsenic, lead and other heavy metals in the inks are removed in the recycling process and are concentrated in the sludge. At first this material was put in landfills or taken by tanker for deep-sea disposal, but in 1992 it was discovered that these sludges were so toxic they were causing enormous dead zones along ocean coasts and were declared too poisonous to dump at sea. However, they were backing up in landfills and other storage facilities on land. Sludge can be slowly composted, although getting rid of the heavy metals can be difficult. Instead, sludge can be put through a "constructed wetland" or incinerated in closed-system plasma incinerators that leave very little residue. The practice of spreading sludge on farmlands developed in the early 1990s. Then, the American EPA provided the cheapest solutions when it renamed sludge "biosolids" [MRF or Materieles Residuelles Fertilisantes, "Residual Fertilizing Materials" in French] and declared it a valuable fertilizer, suitable for spreading on crop and pastureland. Canada's Food Inspection Agency followed the EPA action quickly. A predictable number of contamination cases followed, including some human deaths from pathogens and the loss of dairy herds that had been sickened by poisoned pastures. More than a third of sludge spread on fields, researchers found, is not taken up by soils or plants but washes into the surface water, percolates into the ground water, and ends up in rivers and oceans anyway. The anti-sludge movement that has grown up in Quebec and other provinces has turned to scientific research like that provided by the Cornell Waste Management Institute in Ithaca, New York. One part of the Cornell assessment states that "The sheer number of dangers associated with treating sludge as if it were a fertilizer is so great, so various and so serious that it would be the life work of thousands of professionals to divide up and respond to the categories of problems that will arise from this practice." The recent Elgin ruling forces large municipalities to deal with their own wastes, rather than dumping them out of sight on cropland far away. It also encourages rural municipalities to protect their territories and their citizens from harm. Elgin mayor Jean-Pierre Proulx says, "We've been given the right to say 'No!'" Will Amos, a staff lawyer with the NGO Ecojustice, involved in the Hudson case, says, "Towns across Quebec and Canada are heeding our highest court's message. They should be encouraged to take action." Holly Dressel, author and researcher, is one of Canada?s most recognized writers on environmental, health care, economic and aboriginal issues. Dressel is best known for her many collaborations with television host Dr. David Suzuki on film and radio programs. They have co-authored three books together, From Naked Ape to Super-species Good News for a Change and More Good News, which is coming out in the spring of 2010. Dressel is also the author of a forthcoming major history and analysis of Canadian health care, < the Killed Who>. Email: theatoole at yahoo.com. Related addresses: URL 1: http://www.rurale.ca/pageen.htm URL 2: http://www.whokilledthequeen.com/ From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 15 10:07:07 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:07:07 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> PEI wastewater plan intends to start land application Message-ID: http://www.journalpioneer.com/index.cfm?sid=294788&sc=118# 15/10/09 Funding aids water treatment facility, Mi'kmaq Confederacy STEPHEN BRUN The Journal Pioneer SUMMERSIDE ? P.E.I.?s federal cabinet minister doled out more money yesterday in Summerside, this time in support of more jobs for the Island?s aboriginal community and cleaner water for the city. Conservative MP Gail Shea inaugurated the Summerside Water Pollution Control Centre, just off MacKenzie Drive. The plant?s cutting edge sludge treatment technology allows for much safer water for city residents, said the city?s municipal engineer, Phil Hardy, following the announcement. ?With the old system, we used to get 50 to 60 per cent removal of solids in the water and with this new system it?s close to 95 per cent removal,? said Hardy. ?This system reduces nitrogen and phosphorous in the water and cuts down on potential algae growth. Through the sludge treatment, the leftover product can be land applied on farms. Before it was just hauled to a landfill.? The sludge treatment program received $4.5 million in funding through the Gas Tax Fund, while the city contributed more than $1.7 million. The federal and provincial governments each contributed $3.8 million. ?The investment will have a huge impact on the health and safety standards for the wastewater treatment facility here in Summerside,? said Shea. Also receiving funding Wednesday was the Mi?Kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I. The federal government is contributing $258,267 to address skills development and employment needs of 10 aboriginal people. Tabitha Bernard, ambassador for the Confederacy, said the resources would go toward individuals who have struggled to make the transition into jobs or career training. ?Developing necessary skills and building capacity within the P.E.I. aboriginal population remains a top priority of the Mi?Kmaq leadership,? she said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 15 10:57:21 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:57:21 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario septage land application - Dishonorable Discharge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Raw sewage pumpout and holding tank human waste (septage or hauled sewage) is still allowed to be land applied in Ontario. Crops spread with raw human waste may be harvested after 3 weeks for animal feed. The Ministry of Environment is still handing out new Certificates of Approval (permits) for sites that spread raw toilet waste on farmland. Residents in Tiny Township - outraged by the proposal to put a landfill over their famous pure water aquifer, are now appalled by a new septage spreading site on a height of land on Concession 15, Tiny Township. The Walkerton Inquiry recommendations said that septage should not be spread on the land. The Ontario government has offered little in the way of solutions, so the practice continues. Almost all the sewage treatment plants in southern Ontario are at over over capacity. They do not have the capacity or the infrastructure they would need to process this kind of overproof material. And more sewage and more sewage sludge is a very poor way to move forward. Municipal governments are now responsible for all the sewage and septage from their community. So rural municipalities will be looking for technology and answers. Upcoming OASIS conference and technology fair: http://www.oasisontario.on.ca/confrence.html Technologies to needed to provide a green, non-sewer plant, non land application solution. .......................................... www.oasisontario.on.ca/news/dishonorable-discharge-.html Dishonorable Discharge? Ontario pumpers and the provincial government butt heads over land application and future methods of septage disposal Source: PumperMagazine Ontario has two million septic tanks. In 2002, the provincial government passed a Nutrient Management Act, or NMA, forbidding the spreading of untreated septage on agricultural land by the end of 2005. The Ministry of the Environment, or MOE, told haulers to discharge their trucks at sewage treatment plants. Typical treatment plants, however, can only take septage up to about 2 percent of their operating flow. Many facilities didn?t want additional septage or were already taxed beyond their capacities. Complicating the plan, hauling distances to many treatment facilities in rural Ontario are considered unreasonable. The Ontario Association of Sewage Industry Services, or OASIS, told the Ministry of the Environment that it must force treatment plants to accept septage, enabling pumpers to comply. The ministry relented and land application continued. Some pumpers store septage in lagoons. The NMA requires them to be cleaned out, lined, fenced, signed, and insured against environmental accidents. In the private sector, such insurance is almost impossible to obtain ? even if haulers could afford it. Like the other approximately 600 pumpers in Ontario, Robert ?Pepi? Murrell of Pepi Sewage Disposal in Port Severn, Ontario, is caught between still applying raw septage on his farmland and wondering where MOE wants him to go with it. All parties agree that the practice should stop. They disagree on the alternatives. Interview with Bob Murrell Pumper: How does Canada?s governmental structure differ from the United States? Murrell: In place of counties within states, we have counties within municipal councils governed by a province. Some counties are independent, while others unite to form a municipality because of the distances between them. I live in the District of Muskoka, and inside are townships such as Georgian Bay and Muskoka Lakes. Simcoe County, south of us, has townships such as Tay, Tiny, Severn and Oro-Medonte. I?ve had septage lagoons in Tay since 1978, but shut them down in 1994 to comply with county Health Unit regulations. The district then allowed me to apply untreated septage to my farmland, and I?ve been doing it ever since. Pumper: Has the Ministry of the Environment suggested any solutions? Murrell: The ministry proposed lime stabilization, but OASIS said that it had to be on ministry-controlled property. After applying lime, the land must lay fallow for some time to recover. We?d run out of farmland real fast at that rate. Although farmers want them, the ?not in my back yard? attitude of many communities makes it hard to find land even for biosolids. It?s quite a controversial issue. This January, Tay Township told local haulers that one of its wastewater treatment plants would accept septage ? the same facility that has sewage overflows into Georgian Bay. The plant wants 24-hour notice of a discharge and is open weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The fee is $25 for 1,000 gallons of holding tank waste and $250 per 1,000 gallons for septage. An after-hours emergency adds $100. The septage receiver isn?t designed to accept our equipment. It?s not on a slope, so we push off the load, which could cause spills and leaves residue in the tank that freezes in winter. Wastewater treatment plants are not the proper way to dispose of septage. Pumper: What solutions are being proposed by OASIS? Murrell: I?m on the board of directors, and attended the 2006 NAWT (National Association of Wastewater Transporters Inc.) Septage/Grease Trap Waste Treatment Symposium. It was the most informative training method I?d ever seen. Consequently, OASIS held its first Rural Wastewater Treatment Expo last fall to show municipalities options for handling and processing septage. We envision OASIS partnering with municipalities and experimenting with pilot projects to test which treatment technologies handle septage best at the most reasonable cost. Our government pays lip service to environmental problems, but does nothing to solve them. For example, my lagoon site has had a Certificate of Approval to receive septage since 1978. I?m willing to partner with municipalities and OASIS. The government, however, wants the site insured against environmental accidents. OASIS has been unsuccessful in trying to obtain blanket coverage for our 250 members so we can build the facility. Whatever we propose is ignored or rejected, yet the government offers no alternatives. We?re hoping the 2005 provincial policy statement changes their minds. Pumper: How is OASIS addressing that attitude? Murrell: We keep attending meetings and voicing our environmental concerns. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario stated that 86 percent of its treatment facilities can?t handle the sewage they receive, let alone what pumpers discharge. The provincial policy statement is enforcing legislation making municipalities responsible for the waste they generate. That policy will affect taxpayers. Once they realize that they are responsible for their sewage, we?re going to make headway. The key is to give taxpayers the best value for their dollars, and that?s the goal of my presentations to various townships. In 2005, Ontario funded a $50,000 study in Grey County to seek a septage solution. The study recommended spending $8 million each to upgrade three municipal plants to accept septage. A partnership between OASIS, or private firms, and municipalities to construct and operate standalone plants would cost around $1 million each. Within a year, such a plant could process a million gallons. It should handle three million gallons in three to five years. Any hauler would have access, and MOE would monitor operations. Pumper: How does the provincial policy statement about reserved sewage system capacity for hauled sewage affect pumpers? Murrell: It doesn?t, directly. It limits commercial expansion by mandating that municipalities have disposal systems to handle the additional septage or an agreement with an adjoining municipality to accept it. The unaddressed problem concerns city people moving north and building large homes in cottage country. Our area is in a phenomenal growth spurt, but none of the infrastructure is there to support it. Our industry has pointed that out to government without success. For example, when Garfield Dunlop, Member of Provincial Parliament for Simcoe North, speaks to Liberal policymakers about the lack of infrastructure and its environmental impact, they talk just about expanding the tax base and tourism. Only Dunlop takes our issue seriously. Pumper: Is it legal to land-apply bio-solids from the dewatering process? Murrell: Yes, but city people who move to the country want to stop the process. OASIS also is fighting the chemical fertilizer industry and its anti-biosolids propaganda. That industry has deep pockets and lobbies government better than our organization does. We know that septage must be stabilized and used. It can?t be stockpiled and shot to the moon. One way Ontario could handle the waste it generates is by emulating Manitoba and Qu?bec. Municipal plants there process sludge into ?night soils,? an organic nitrogen fertilizer for lawns and gardens. The Ontario government could never tell us why it can be imported, but not produced locally. Pumper: Where do you go from here? Murrell: We?re in a transitional period. Everybody is starting to talk about these issues. Small operators in rural Ontario, like myself, have a commitment to our communities. We have good customers we care about. Most of us are environmentally conscious and good corporate citizens. If left untethered, private industry and individuals have always solved overwhelming problems. I?m positive it will happen again. The alternative is unacceptable. Robert ?Pepi? Murrell of Pepi Sewage Disposal in Port Severn, Ontario, may be reached at 705/756-2644. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 15 14:51:11 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:51:11 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Dillo Dirt Rash - call the Austin health Department Message-ID: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/health/index.html Dillo Dirt rash? Call health department at 972-5555 By Mary Ann Roser | Thursday, October 15, 2009, 11:18 AM It?s been 11 days since the Austin City Limits festival turned to the Austin City Sludge festival on Oct. 4, and I?ve talked to several people who think they got a rash from the mud. Kathy Carr, 38, of Austin said she had a rash on her leg, face and eye and suspects the Dillo Dirt that oozed from the rain-soaked grounds at Zilker Park. Laura Ramirez, 25, also of Austin, said she developed a rash near a series of mosquito bites she received several days earlier. She said her doctor thought the rash looked like poison ivy. ?I?m not upset,? Carr said. ?We loved the festival, we loved the mud.? Four of her five children, who range in age from 1 to 12, rolled around in the mud and were fine, as was her husband, Jeff Carr, 41. But Kathy Carr went to the doctor last week and would have gotten a steroid shot if she weren?t nursing her 1-year-old. Her eye is ?still a little crusty,? she said. The Austin/Travis County Health and Human Department said last night that it had received ?just a handful of calls? from people complaining about rashes from the Dillo Dirt, a compost the city makes from yard trimmings and treated sewage sludge that reportedly is heated to kill any pathogens that could cause harm to humans. But it has no scientific evidence to date that any illnesses have been caused by the Dillo Dirt, health department spokeswoman Carole Barasch said. ?The thing is, one of the people who called us, it turned out to be poison ivy,? she said. ?Another person, it turned out to be conjunctivitis (pink eye).? Still, she urged people to call so the illness can be investigated. Carr said she would probably call the health department with her report. A man from Dallas who did not want his name used said he had called the health department and reported that he had to go to the emergency room for treatment. He is convinced the culprit was Dillo Dirt. It is possible for people to get rashes from ?just grass, and there are so many allergies out there,? Barasch said. She advised people who think they became ill from Dillo Dirt to call the health department?s disease surveillance branch at 972-5555. Jody Slagle, the city?s compost manager, said the city has been making Dillo Dirt since 1987 and this is the first time he has heard complaints. Austin High and other campuses use it on ball fields, and athletes churn it around after rainstorms. ?It?s a little bit of a mystery,? he said of the claims about rashes. ?It seems there are very few people who were affected that way. I would be concerned if there were lots and lots of people who had symptoms, but whatever the cause, if a lot of people are sick it would behoove us as a city to find out what the problem is.? Ramirez went to a dermatologist a week ago, got a steroid shot and antibacterial soap. The rash is getting better now. She hiked the Thursday before the festival but was not exposed to poison ivy, she said. Carr said she was not exposed to poison ivy, either, and was treated with a topical medicine and antihistamine since she could not get a steroid shot. If you believe the Dillo Dirt made you sick, contact the health department so it can investigate your illness and drop me an e-mail at maroser at statesman.com with the name of your doctor so I can keep up with what?s going on. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 18 13:05:24 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:05:24 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Treating wastewater and sludges from mine tailings Message-ID: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Communities+using+technology+keep+water+clean/2108409/story.html# Communities using technology to keep the water clean Treatment system. Metal recovery reduces waste at landfills By DENISE DEVEAU, Canwest News ServiceOctober 15, 2009 In the picturesque town of Breckenridge, Colo., Mark Meyer, who works with the town water division, is happy to show you a single three-cubic-metre bag of zinc concentrate ready to make its way to a smelter. While that may not seem particularly noteworthy, the fact that the town is able to extract zinc from contaminated water and turn it into a product for recycling is a big deal when it comes to keeping waste out of the town's water systems. "The alternative to one bag going to a smelter would be 100 bags of waste sludge a week going to landfill," he says. Breckenridge is one of the first municipalities in North America to use a metal recovery technique originally developed for the mining industry by Vancouver-based BioteQ Environmental Technologies Inc. In Breckenridge, the waste water treatment technology is designed to remove dissolved zinc and other metals from waste water that is draining from an old abandoned mine (the process is known as acid mine drainage), while cleaning up the water so that it's safe for discharge to the environment. "Mines do a serious amount of sludge generation, and all that goes to landfill and not reclaimed," Meyer explains. "A neighbouring treatment plant in fact pays a tipping fee of $230,000 per year. With our approach, all we have is a high-quality zinc concentrate that can go to a smelter and water that's clean enough to be sent back to the environment." Of course, removing contaminants from water is nothing new. There is a wide variety of membrane, reverse osmosis, evaporation and other filtering techniques that do their part for removing even the smallest of offending particles. In many cases however, all that bad stuff that is filtered out of the water is what creates ongoing environmental headaches. In many cases, it ends up in some type of toxic sludge or as crystalline solids that have to be kept in special storage facilities or require specific disposal techniques. The reason BioteQ tackled the mining industry first was simple, explains Mike Bratty, manager of development engineering. "There are hundreds of refineries and mining sites throughout North America that are dealing with tens of billions of dollars in liability relating to acid mine drainage in both active and abandoned sites. What they are starting to focus on now is reducing the quantity of waste generated by the drainage." Those that have water treatment issues to contend with -- whether a mine or municipality -- are learning that there is merit to be gained in technologies that make sure those contaminants don't end up sitting in sludge or landfill sites in perpetuity. Depending on the technology of choice, it is possible to reclaim gold, silver, zinc, phosphorous, magnesium, and cobalt, among many other metals and minerals found in mining and industrial waste water streams. Sulfates can also be extracted from mine water and utility sites to produce a clean gypsum product that can be used in construction. Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc. is another Vancouver-based firm that is putting its own spin on removing and recycling products from waste water streams. Phosphorous is the main nutrient of choice in their case. As CEO Phillip Abrary explains, "What we're doing is recovering nutrients from waste water that would normally be destroyed by chemicals or disposed of in sludge, which is either landfilled or incinerated. But phosphorous in particular is something that the agricultural industry would like to get its hands on for making high-grade fertilizer." What makes the need for this type of technology more pressing is the fact that phosphorous is a non-renewable mined resource that is depleting at a high rate, he says. "But it's vital to survival." Ostara's latest project was unveiled with great fanfare at the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility in Tigard, Ore. "Our region accounts for 80 per cent of the container plant industry in the country, so fertilizer is in high demand. Most plants are grown in sawdust, bark dust, sand or peat moss, so they require a great deal of fertilizer," explains senior operations analyst Rob Baur. "With this system, we provide another outlet for getting the phosphorous out of the water system and using it to create high-quality, slow-release fertilizers. Better yet, we don't have to use as many chemicals or worry about disposal." While municipal waste water projects such as Breckenridge and Tigard are in their infancy, they're a strong indication as to where water treatment needs to go in the future. "There will be a lot more of this going on as demand for water increases," Abrary says. "We're just using technology to take something out (of the waste stream) and doing something worthwhile with it." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 20 15:37:59 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:37:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> US EPA orders 9 facilities to comply with Clean Water Act - re Sewage Sludge Message-ID: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/f59163266e0c36b385257655004db825?OpenDocument EPA : Biosolids Violations and Penalties in the SouthEast Nine entities were cited for failing to comply with federal requirements for land disposal of biosolids. Biosolids are primarily organic, accumulated solids separated from wastewater that have undergone treatment and can be beneficially used as an alternative fertilizer. Excessive application of biosolids, however, can result in nitrate contamination of surface or ground water. Improperly managed biosolids can expose people and animals to unsafe levels of pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, which exist in the biosolids. Settlements were reached with the following entities for the associated penalties: - Sheffield Utilities, in Sheffield, Ala. (civil penalty of $900) - Cooper City, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,200) - City of Miramar, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,000) - City of Pembroke Pines, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,300) - City of Perry, Fl. (civil penalty of $1,600) - St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners, in Fort Pierce, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,000) - City of Cartersville, Ga. (civil penalty of $900) - City of Sandersville, Ga. (civil penalty of $900) - Town of Rutherfordton, N.C. (civil penalty of $900) ....................................................................................... Complete story: Southeast Facilities Ordered to Comply with Clean Water Act; Penalties Total More Than $230,000 Release date: 10/20/2009 Contact Information: Davina Marraccini, (404) 562-8293, marraccini.davina at epa.gov (ATLANTA ? Oct. 20, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Consent Agreements and Final Orders (CA/FOs) against 17 entities throughout the Southeast from July 1, through September 30, 2009, for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). As part of the settlements, the responsible parties in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee agreed to come into compliance and pay $231,200 in civil penalties. "By taking these enforcement actions, we are sending a strong message about the importance of protecting rivers, lakes and streams across the Southeast,? said Stan Meiburg, EPA Region 4 Acting Regional Administrator. ?To protect our region?s waters, these regulated entities must comply with the Clean Water Act and promptly take the steps needed to resolve the violations noted in our inspections.? Five entities were cited for alleged stormwater-related violations of the CWA. Polluted stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into local water bodies. The settlements and associated penalties include: - Savannah Pointe Properties, LLC, for violations at its Savannah Pointe II subdivision in Chelsea, Ala. (civil penalty of $20,000) - Neopolis Development Group, LLC, for violations at its Flowood Town Center in Flowood, Miss. (civil penalty of $30,000) - Lake Harbour Crossing Investments, LLC, for violations at its Harbour Pointe subdivision in Richland, Miss. (civil penalty of $10,000) - Lake Glad Commercial, LLC, for violations at its Highland Trails Commercial Center in Creedmoor, N.C. (civil penalty of $5,000) - Wendell Falls Development, LLC, for violations at three of its Wendell Falls subdivision in Wendell, N.C. (civil penalties totaling $21,000) Nine entities were cited for failing to comply with federal requirements for land disposal of biosolids. Biosolids are primarily organic, accumulated solids separated from wastewater that have undergone treatment and can be beneficially used as an alternative fertilizer. Excessive application of biosolids, however, can result in nitrate contamination of surface or ground water. Improperly managed biosolids can expose people and animals to unsafe levels of pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, which exist in the biosolids. Settlements were reached with the following entities for the associated penalties: - Sheffield Utilities, in Sheffield, Ala. (civil penalty of $900) - Cooper City, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,200) - City of Miramar, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,000) - City of Pembroke Pines, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,300) - City of Perry, Fl. (civil penalty of $1,600) - St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners, in Fort Pierce, Fl. (civil penalty of $3,000) - City of Cartersville, Ga. (civil penalty of $900) - City of Sandersville, Ga. (civil penalty of $900) - Town of Rutherfordton, N.C. (civil penalty of $900) Six entities were cited for discharging dredged and/or fill material into wetland habitats. Wetlands are important, yet diminishing resources that serve as habitats for critical fish and wildlife and also help control floods, recharge groundwater, capture pollutants and cycle nutrients. The settlements and associated penalties include: - Conservancy Partnership, LLC, for impacts to 16.8 acres of forested wetlands and a tidal salt marsh adjacent to the Steinhatchee River in Taylor County, Fl. (civil penalty of $65,000) - Village of Holiday Lake, for impacts to 0.018 acres of the Butterford Canal in Charlotee County, Fl. (civil penalty of $12,500) - James C. Bickett, for impacts to 2.6 acres of forested wetlands in Scuffletown, Ky. (civil penalty of $40,000) - Thomas Kennedy, for impacts to 0.39 acres of tidal wetlands adjacent to the Back Bay in Biloxi, Miss. (civil penalty of $5,000) - Rhea County and East Tennessee Grading, for impacts to approximately 6,500 linear feet of the Roaring Creek, a tributary to the Tennessee River, near Graysville, Tenn. (civil penalties of $2,500 each) Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 to protect the nation?s rivers, lakes and stream, as well as some of the more fragile and vital wetland habitats. The entities cited violated the CWA by either failing to meet the requirements of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and subsequently causing point source discharges; failing to comply with biosolids requirements; or by filling or dredging wetlands. Pollutants of concern include nutrients, sediment, oil and grease, chemicals and metals. When left uncontrolled, water pollution can deplete needed oxygen and/or otherwise result in the destruction of aquatic habitats, as well as the fish and wildlife that depend on them. Water pollution can also contaminate food, drinking water supplies and recreational waterways, and thereby pose a threat to public health From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 20 15:54:39 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:54:39 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> USA - Full Clean Water Act protections must be restored Message-ID: http://media-newswire.com/release_1103141.html# Full Clean Water Act protections must be restored Washington, DC -- Today, Chairman James L. Oberstar (D-MN) is holding a hearing in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to examine Clean Water Act enforcement deficiencies at the state and federal level. The hearing will focus on the failure to meet the goals of having all our nation's waters both fishable and swimmable -- a strong tenet of the Clean Water Act. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified along with other witnesses. (Media-Newswire.com) - Washington, DC -- Today, Chairman James L. Oberstar ( D-MN ) is holding a hearing in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to examine Clean Water Act enforcement deficiencies at the state and federal level. The hearing will focus on the failure to meet the goals of having all our nation's waters both fishable and swimmable -- a strong tenet of the Clean Water Act. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified along with other witnesses. The following statement is from Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice: "The Clean Water Act is one of our nation's most important environmental laws, but a lack of enforcement has greatly limited its effectiveness, leaving almost half of our nation's waters too dirty to meet all of their uses, and in some cases threatening public health. We're pleased Administrator Jackson has committed to ramping up enforcement efforts and Chairman Oberstar and his committee are discussing the enforcement problems that are keeping the Clean Water Act from achieving its broad goals. "One of the most significant enforcement problems today is that two muddied Supreme Court decisions have left many of our streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands vulnerable and unprotected. Internal EPA documents show that between July 2006 and December 2007, confusion about Clean Water Act jurisdiction resulting from these decisions adversely affected approximately 500 of EPA's Clean Water Act enforcement cases -- almost 40 percent of the agency's annual docket. "Congress must pass legislation restoring the Clean Water Act's broad scope, ensuring the protection of all of our nation's waters against pollution, degradation and destruction. By passing the Clean Water Restoration Act, it would return the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to protect all streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands that were protected before the Supreme Court decisions." Contact: Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, ( 202 ) 667-4500, ext. 221 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 22 14:07:50 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:07:50 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> The Sludge Hits the Farm - "Biosolids" in Wayne and Pike, Pennsylvania Message-ID: http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-10-22/head2-biosolids.html The sludge hits the farm ?Biosolids? in Wayne and Pike By SANDY LONG PIKE AND WAYNE COUNTIES, PA ? It starts out as a complex mixture of industrial and human household waste containing what?s left behind after sewage treatment plants treat wastewater. It?s cooked, treated with chemicals and used to create several grades of a product that is applied to land, offered to farmers as free or low-cost fertilizer and carted home from local retail outlets in the family car for use in backyard gardens. Its old-fashioned name is sewage sludge, which was updated by industry professionals to the more palatable ?biosolids.? And it?s being applied at 34 sites in Wayne County and two in Pike. Everything that goes down the drain or is flushed away in American homes, from food and human waste to pharmaceuticals and household cleaning products, ends up in sewage sludge, along with industrial discharges. We used to dump such sludge in the oceans. That practice was banned in 1989 due to its negative impacts, leaving a massive amount of material in need of inexpensive disposal solutions. Enter land application of treated sludge, a solution that addresses the needs of municipalities and the sludge industry across the nation, while generating a product marketed as a safe low-or-no-cost fertilizer to struggling farmers and used to reclaim mining sites. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of sludge under its 503 rule, which has increasingly come under question for its ability to protect human health. Of the complex mixture of heavy metals, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and pathogens present in sewage sludge, the EPA requires testing for only a small number. Thirty years ago, EPA narrowed the scope of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to exempt sewage sludge and other industrial residuals from many hazardous and solid waste regulations, so that these materials could legally be ?recycled? as fertilizer, according to Caroline Snyder, Ph.D., of Citizens for Sludge-Free Land ( www.sludgefacts.org ). Current regulations permit every business, institution and industry in the country to pour 33 pounds of hazardous waste into the nation?s sewers monthly. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences warned in 2002 that the 503 rule was based on outdated or nonexistent science, and that unpredictable waste mixtures and standard risk management would not protect human health. In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversees biosolids. According to the permits it has approved, biosolids are being supplied to sites in Wayne and Pike counties by two companies, Ned Lang Enviroventures and Pike County Environmental. A list of those sites, provided by the DEP, can be viewed at www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-10-15/biosolids.pdf . The DEP encourages the recycling of biosolids by land application, and notes, ?This recycling of biosolids provides nutrients for sustaining plant life, helps protect our water resources, reduces the load on our landfills and will provide for a successful sewage sludge program in Pennsylvania.? While the DEP describes the odor of biosolids as musty or ammonia-like, others have likened it to rotting flesh or outdoor toilets. The flood of phone calls that came in to the Wayne Conservation District?s office following application of Class A biosolids at Chris Lantzsch?s farm in Texas Township, PA, was prompted by the intense odors generated by that application. A growing list of companies such as Heinz, Kraft Foods, Quaker Oats, DelMonte and Haagen Dazs have established policies to neither grow food for human consumption on fields that have been sludged, nor purchase ingredients for their products from farms using sludge. Though unproven, several deaths and other health impacts such as impaired digestion, respiratory problems like asthma, along with persistent infections including MRSA, have been linked to land application of sludge. Two of the deaths occurred in Pennsylvania. For more information visit www.depweb.state.pa.us, using the keyword: biosolids, or contact Northeast Regional biosolids coordinator Tim Craven at 570/826-2511. Biosolids: a DEP primer The PA DEP describes biosolids as nutrient-rich organic materials derived from wastewater solids (from municipal treatment plants, home septic tanks and industrial discharges) that have been stabilized, meet specific processing and quality criteria and are suitable for land application. Pennsylvanians produce an estimated 2.2 million tons of wastewater solids each year, nearly a quarter of a ton per household. According to the DEP: ? Only those biosolids that meet specific standards for pollutants, pathogens and vector attraction may be land-applied. DEP analyzes biosolids for nutrients, metals and PCBs ranging from once each month to once each year. ? Many of the trace metals found in biosolids (nickel, copper, iron, molybdenum, selenium and zinc) are micronutrients. Other metals like cadmium, mercury and lead are also commonly found in small quantities. Organic compounds from pesticides or from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) are either not detectable or present in very low concentrations. ? DEP regulations stipulate that biosolids, other than Class A, cannot be applied within 300 feet of a well or water source used for human consumption, on steep slopes or where the water table is close to the soil surface. ? During the past 20 years, DEP has permitted approximately 1,500 sites for the land application of biosolids. There are currently more than 700 active permitted sites. ? The biosolids generator must send or personally deliver a notice to each adjacent property owner at least 30 days before the first application of Type B biosolids or septage to that site. There is no notification required for Class A biosolids. ? Class A biosolids are considered landscape grade and may be sold or distributed for use on lawns and home gardens. ? Biosolids may not be applied to land if it is likely to adversely affect a Federal or Pennsylvania threatened or endangered species, or its designated critical habitat. ? Biosolids may not be applied to agricultural land, forest or a reclamation site that is within 100 feet or less of a perennial stream or within 33 feet of an intermittent stream or within 100 feet of an exceptional value wetland. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 22 14:10:35 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:10:35 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Difference between H1N1 and a cold Message-ID: H1N1 FLU..........THIS IS A KEEPER FOR REFERENCE H1N1 flue is about to be upon us and we need to be on top of information regarding it. Here is a comparison to the normal cold symptoms that was sent to me. Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms Symptom Cold H1N1 Flu Fever Fever is rare with a cold. Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100?F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu. Coughing A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold. A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough). Aches Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold. Severe aches and pains are common with the flu. Stuffy Nose Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week. Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu. Chills Chills are uncommon with a cold. 60% of people who have the flu experience chills. Tiredness Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold. Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu. Sneezing Sneezing is commonly present with a cold. Sneezing is not common with the flu. Sudden Symptoms Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days. The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains. Headache A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold. A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases. Sore Throat Sore throat is commonly present with a cold. Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu. Chest Discomfort Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold. Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 23 12:35:49 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:35:49 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> One more week to comment on Toronto's sludge plans Message-ID: http://mytowncrier.ca/news-briefs-501-streetcar-route-now-split.html Biosolids public feedback The city?s Biosolids Master Plan was released Oct. 1 with a month for public review. The 713-page report outlines what Toronto should do with the byproduct from treated sewage and wastewater over the next decade. The direct impact for Beach residents centres on the recommendations for the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant at Lakeshore Blvd. East and Leslie St. This report suggests that at Ashbridges, biosolids should be disposed of in a cake form applied to land, as a fertilizer or, as a last resort, sent to landfill. Burning biosolids has been ruled out as an option for this location. See the report online at www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/wws/biosolids. And to make a comment before the end of October, send an email to biosolids at toronto.ca or call Nancy Martins at 416-392-4390. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 23 12:47:01 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:47:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Lawsuit USA - sludge, dirt, cadmium, zinc placed all over town, on sportsfield Message-ID: Blackwell sues over mine site Years of health problems, contaminated groundwater, economic harm are claimed in lawsuit BY STEVE LACKMEYER ? Published: October 17, 2009 BLACKWELL ? For 58 years, the Blackwell Zinc Co. was a major employer in this northern Oklahoma city with a work force that once topped 1,000. Multimedia Photoview all photos But as federal and state officials began to investigate the company?s 160-acre operation, they found contaminants that led to its closing in 1974. Officials alleged the mining company didn?t just fail to dispose of its pollutants, but it even provided a mix of sludge, dirt, zinc and cadmium to be used as fill dirt for projects throughout Blackwell, including construction of a high school track field. Thirty-eight years later, after ongoing claims by the larger companies that bought out Blackwell Zinc Co. that they were cleaning the site, the city of Blackwell is suing the Arizona-based company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Kay County, alleges that the company, which bought out previous operators of the mine, is responsible for contaminating Blackwell?s water supply, endangering residents? health and ruining the city?s chance for economic development. "Approximately 38 years have passed, and only this year have defendants begun to construct any system to treat groundwater,? attorney Patrick Ryan wrote on behalf of Blackwell. "During that time, cadmium and zinc contamination have continued to pollute the groundwater and have migrated in a southeasterly direction beneath the city.? Jim Telle, spokesman for Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, said his company is responding to the city?s concerns. "We are disappointed by the city?s decision to pursue litigation, however, we remain hopeful about reaching an agreement with city leaders,? Telle said. "We are committed to maintaining our long-standing dialogue with the city in an effort to resolve this issue outside the courtroom. We are committed to the completion of our soil testing and cleanup program, as well as the construction and implementation of the groundwater remediation project in Blackwell.? Eric Wetzel, spokesman for a class-action lawsuit filed earlier this year against the company, said such statements are meaningless and part of an ongoing effort to "put on a show.? Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold reported gross revenues last year totaling $17.8 billion. It initially agreed to cleanup efforts after the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 threatened to classify the Blackwell property as a Superfund site. In his filing, Ryan referred to the mine?s contaminants as a "toxic soup? that he said is now trapped in clay and shale bedrock at the base of Blackwell?s groundwater system. "The Department of Environmental Quality has determined it is not feasible to treat it, and it will remain a source of heavy metal pollution to the groundwater for generations,? Ryan wrote. As a result, Ryan said, Blackwell is stigmatized as being a polluted community, property values have plummeted, jobs have been lost and the population has declined. Whetzel said the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit worked for months to convince the city to sue, and Thursday?s action followed repeated rulings against the mining operator to move the class action out of Kay County District Court. "We?re seeking compensation for everyone in town and the creation of a medical monitoring program for all Blackwell residents,? Whetzel said. "The contaminants cause a variety of health problems. And there are a number of residents in town who have complained for years about health problems they say are related to the contamination.? Read more: http://newsok.com/blackwell-sues-over-mine-site/article/3409688#ixzz0UmJd0TRD From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 23 12:57:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:57:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Dog Poo - the other urban poo gets new programs Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: There are fewer issues with managing dog poo, since it isn't combined with industrial waste, and there are fewer dogs on antibiotics, viagra, etc. Cat feces flushed to the toilet is a huge problem because the diseases in the cat feces are killing otters.? See second story below. ............................................................ Green trend turns animal poop into money-making 'Zoop' #WNVideoWidgetGallery { margin-bottom: 3px; border: 1px solid #96b044; background-color: #b4d05e; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery h3, #WnVideoWidgetGallery h4 { margin: 0; padding: 0; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryHeader { zoom: 1; overflow: hidden; background-color: #ef9c64; background-image: url(/images/static/gfx/bg_co_ribbon.gif); } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryHeader img { float: left; padding: 0; margin: 0; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryHeader h3 { float: left; padding: 4px; padding-left: 0; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryNavigation { float: right; padding: 4px; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryNavigation * { padding: 0 1px; cursor: pointer; font-size: 10px; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryNavigation .inactive { cursor: default; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryNavigation .active { font-weight: bold; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryPages { padding: 4px; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery .wnVideoGalleryPage { display: none; zoom: 1; overflow: hidden; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery #WNVideoGalleryPages .show { display: block; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery .wnVideoGalleryItem { float: left; width: 48%; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery .wnVideoGallerySubItem { float: right; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery .wnVideoGalleryItem img { width: 70px; } #WNVideoWidgetGallery .wnVideoGalleryItem span font { color: #ccc; } ?Rose Seemann, founder of EnviroWagg, bags her first orders of Doggone Good Compost on Earth Day 2009, at the Weld County, Colo., composting site. if (window.WNColumnManager) WNColumnManager.add('WNStoryRelatedBox', {collapsible : true, heightAdjustable : false}); Provided by Zootoo Pet News NEW YORK -- Trash is no longer the destiny of "doggie-poo." A green trend is spreading across North America as municipal dog parks, zoos and entrepreneurs are turning animal waste into fertilizing products. Municipalities from Denver to Canada hope to reduce the amount of dog waste and plastic bags bloating local landfills by re-purposing canine waste into soil amendments. "There is more dog refuse going into the landfill than No. 1 and 2 plastics," Rose Seemann, a 62-year-old entrepreneur, said. "It was just a thing I had to get to the bottom of." Two years ago, Seemann was sitting on a park bench reading a book on "natural capitalism" and watching dog owners in action. "I thought that must be a lot of stuff to pick up and throw in the community landfill," said Seemann, who wasn't a dog owner at the time. Her wondering -- if that "stuff" couldn't be recycled like the cow manure she had just been reading about -- lead to the creation of EnviroWagg. Based in Aurora, Colo., Seemann retired from her job as a marketer for non-profit organizations in September 2008, and took the helm, full-time, of her new company. Now the Colorado town of Englewood Parks has contracted with EnviroWagg to haul away and recycle the waste from three of its parks. EnviroWagg then bags the composted waste and sells it in nearby nurseries for gardening. The three Englewood parks, including a new off-leash dog park, Canine Corral, host about 6,000 dogs whose approximately six tons of waste a year would otherwise go into landfills, according to its Web site. Local business are sponsoring recyclable bag dispensers throughout the parks, and the town will provide bins lined with biodegradable plastic bags, three times the cost of regular plastic bags. After treating the waste, EnviroWagg sells the dog-waste as "Doggone Good Compost" in local retail garden centers for about $3.50 per 17-pound bag. But the movement extends beyond the muncipal services and small business level as zoos are engaging in green practices with their animal waste, also. How Poo Turns into Money-Making ZooDoo The San Francisco Zoo sends about 20,000 cubic yards of organic animal waste off-site for composting each year, as well as 200 tons of organic green waste, according to its Web site. In probably the country's most ambitious zoo waste recycling program, the Denver Zoo in Denver, Colo., will be using use 95 percent of its waste stream -- including animal feces and plastic trash from visitors -- to generate power for its exhibits. The energy will come from the gas emitted by the breakdown of waste, said Tiffany Barnhart, director of the Denver Zoo's department of communications. Expected to be operational in two years, the energy plant and is expected to completely power a 10-acre permanent Asian animal installation. The plant will also help cut landfill waste by 1.5 million pounds a year, according to Barnhart. Meanwhile the zoo sells its treated herbivore waste as a soil amendment, ZOOP, for $9.99 in its gift shop. Like the Denver Zoo, the San Francisco Zoo confines its composting to herbivore waste. Carnivore waste is replete with parasites, and so must be heat-treated under more rigorous conditions to a minimum internal temperature of 132-degrees Fahrenheit. Because rigorous controls cannot usually be replicated in the home environment, do-it-yourselfers are discouraged from using pet waste for fertilizer. Instead, pet owners -- in good conscience -- can treat their pet's waste as they would their own. "Pet waste can be flushed down the toilet to get processed," said Cary Oshins, an assistant program director for the U.S. Composting Council. "It would be treated the same as human waste." The Oregon Zoo has built an on-site manure composting system to turn 100 percent of its herbivore manure into usable compost. The system uses three 1,600-square-foot covered areas for composting, two of which are rigged with a forced airflow system to maintain an EPA-standard composting environment. The finished product, coined "ZooDoo" by the zoo, is used as fertilizer by the zoo's horticulture staff, as well as the neighboring Hoyt Arboretum and Washington Park. "If the pet waste goes to a commercial composting facility like in Ithaca, and the final material is pasteurized and no longer resembles original material," Oshins said. "If it meets all the requirement of a good composting facility, it can be used safely anywhere." Exploring Various Green Options In fact, Canadian municipalities have recently begun processing dog waste with human sludge, in response to mush dog waste spilling into and threatening to contaminate waterways. The city of Ottawa has taken that a step further and is now distributing green bags for residents to use when disposing of their dog waste. Municipalities are examining other approaches to treating animal waste as well. There's a hope that the methane gas emitted by heated pet feces can be harnessed for its energy as electricity, natural gas and even fuel, instead of leaching into the atmosphere where it may contribute to global warming. The city of San Francisco has considered harnessing canine refuse for energy, but has dropped the idea in favor of higher recycling priorities. This is a mistake, wrote Amelia Glynn in her "Tails of the City" Bay Area Pets Trends blog, on Sept. 22. "Unfortunately, this leaves few alternatives for those of us who don't want our 'shout out' to future generations to be carefully and lovingly preserved samples of our dog's excrement," Glynn wrote. While some cities may not be ready to harness doggie poo as an energy resource, the green trend is slowly reducing the footprint of canine ownership, if nothing else than by one compost pile at a time.For more information on recycling dog poop, visit EnviroWagg.com. Gabrielle Jonas is a Zootoo Pet News staff writer and can be reached at gjonas at zootoo.com. //////////////////////////////// http://www.otterproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=8pIKIYMIG&b=695263 Morro Bay mystery: sea otters' death rate ? SEWAGE PLANT A SUSPECT BUT EVIDENCE IS LACKING ? By Paul Rogers ? San Jose Mercury News ? MORRO BAY - Known for its fishing port, sandy beaches and hulking Morro Rock, a granite monolith that has guided sailors since the 1600s, Morro Bay has gained another distinction lately: It's a place where California sea otters appear to be dying in unusual numbers. Two years ago, a toxic algae bloom off the quiet San Luis Obispo County town was to blame. Last year, dozens of otters there died of a brain parasite found in opossums. And in a 2002 study, otters in Morro Bay were found to suffer the highest rate of infection of Toxoplasma gondii, a potentially fatal parasite found in cat feces, of any coastal area in California. Marine biologists -- who are working the mystery like sleuths in the TV series "CSI'' -- say they don't know for sure what the culprit is. They offer a range of theories: polluted storm runoff, the geography of the area, even toxic chemicals used in boat paint that might weaken otter immunity or -- most likely -- a combination of things. But as the detective work continues, one landmark is making environmentalists uneasy: the town's sewage plant. Built in 1954, the oceanfront plant discharges 1 million gallons a day of partially treated sewage into the ocean, half a mile off the beach. The facility, which treats the sewage of 14,000 residents, is one of only three wastewater plants on the California coast that still do not meet pollution standards set in 1972 under the federal Clean Water Act. The two others are in San Diego and Goleta, a town near Santa Barbara. California has 40 such coastal plants. Thursday, the Morro Bay wastewater plant board is set to vote on a $16 million upgrade. The plant's managers note that they come close to meeting the standards, and that years of regular water testing and state oversight have never found their discharges to be making surfers, otters or any other species ill. "There has been no adverse impact,'' said Bruce Keogh, Morro Bay's wastewater division manager. "Around the outfall pipe we have normal populations of fish, worms, clams and other species. They are the same as anywhere else in California.'' Under pressure But for the past several years, environmentalists and state water regulators have been pressuring the town to modernize anyway. Treating sewage more thoroughly before it is released into the ocean reduces the risk of parasites, viruses, bacteria, heavy metals and other pollutants getting into the ocean, they say. Harm may be occurring that can't yet be measured, they add. "Morro Bay is the lone straggler,'' said Steve Shimek, executive director of the Otter Project, an environmental group in Monterey. "They are the most antiquated and polluting plant, in terms of the concentrations, on the Central Coast. They are primitive.'' Last year, 78 of the 281 otters found dead or dying on California beaches were around Morro Bay -- more than any other area. Morro Bay also had the most in 2003, with 62 of 262. Although it is easier to find dead otters in places with wide sandy beaches, like Morro Bay, than in rocky remote areas, other areas with wide beaches don't register as many otter deaths. High mortality "There is a hot spot for sea otter mortality right there,'' said Greg Sanders, coordinator for southern sea otter recovery with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "It is an open question. People want a clean black-and-white answer, but it's still a mystery.'' If the Morro Bay board approves the upgrade, the plant will meet secondary treatment standards by 2015. Under those, all sewage is not only filtered and mixed with chlorine, but treated with bacteria to break it down more completely. Monthly sewage bills in Morro Bay could jump from $15 to about $50, said Keogh. Otters are considered an indicator of ocean health. Hunted nearly to extinction in the 1800s for their pelts, which are denser and softer than mink fur, California sea otters were protected by the Endangered Species Act in 1977 and began a slow comeback. Last year, biologists counted 2,825 otters, but they remain threatened because they suffer from high mortality rates, with up to 40 percent of dead otters examined being killed by parasitic disease. "Where those diseases in Morro Bay are coming from, whether it's the sewage plant or runoff, we can't say for sure,'' said Kim Delfino, California director of Defenders of Wildlife. "But the plant definitely should be modernized. Better safe than sorry.'' The Morro Bay plant has operated without higher standards because in 1977 Congress allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant waivers to oceanfront plants to delay modernizing. The idea was that the ocean dilutes waste more quickly than bays or rivers. Last year, Morro Bay's wastewater going into the ocean averaged 29 parts per million for total suspended solids, or sewage particles. By comparison, Santa Cruz's wastewater plant averaged 4 parts per million, Carmel's was 6 and San Jose's was 2. Stable population Morro Bay has been able to delay because its population hasn't grown and its effluent has been close to meeting secondary treatment standards, said Matt Thompson, a water-quality engineer with the state Regional Water Quality Control Board in San Luis Obispo. But those days are numbered. "By upgrading the plant you remove more pollutants from the wastewater and reduce the likelihood of impacts to people and wildlife,'' he said. Scientists are careful to say they can't prove any connection between otter deaths and the plant. Over the past two years, researchers from the University of California-Davis and the California Department of Fish and Game have hung mussels off a buoy where the sewage plant's outfall pipe ends. Last December, Patricia Conrad, a UC-Davis professor of parasitology, reported that of 120 mussels studied, none showed traces of Toxoplasma gondii, the parasite found in cat feces that has infected otters in high numbers around Morro Bay, killing many. Some observers had theorized that people flushing cat litter down the toilet might be sending the parasite into the ocean. That theory may now be defunct. Conrad noted, however, the tests have only recently been developed and may not detect low levels of the parasite. Melissa Miller, a Fish and Game pathologist who works with Conrad, said she believes runoff from land is more likely to be transporting diseases than the plant. Otter ailments There are high rates of otter disease in some parts of Monterey Bay, but "Morro Bay stands out,'' said Dave Jessup, a senior Fish and Game wildlife veterinarian in Santa Cruz. He ticked off ailments, including the parasite Sarcocystis neurona, found in opossum feces, which contributed to the deaths of 34 otters off Morro Bay in April 2004, along with Toxoplasma and domoic acid, a natural poison found in algae blooms that can kill otters. "There may be more disease, there may be more contaminants, there may be more parasites,'' he said. "It is not fair to say it is the Morro Bay sewage plant. But it certainly doesn't hurt to see it upgraded. That's certainly not going to hurt any otters.'' From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 24 00:21:17 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:21:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Virginia Beach sewage plant illegally discharged 9 million gallons of untreated sewage and other wastes Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This wholesale contamination of Chesapeake Bay is being allowed to continue. Note that the settlement agreement requires 'collection of data' and 'computer modelling'. Not stopping the flow of filth. It is similar to the Neuse River situation - where sewage sludge spreading is continuing to contaminate groundwater and the Neuse River and the Neuse sewage plant does not want to take any steps to fix the problem. ................................................ HRSD Agrees to Settle CWA Violations in Chesapeake Bay Area Sep 30, 2009 Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), based in Virginia Beach, Va., has agreed to pay a $900,000 civil penalty and to take corrective actions to reduce alleged sanitary sewer overflows from its collection system and nine sewage treatment plants that have polluted the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the Justice Department, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commonwealth of Virginia announced. Under a settlement filed in federal court in Norfolk, Va., HRSD is required to collect data, conduct computer modeling, and, working with the municipalities that it serves, develop a regional plan to ensure that the HRSD sewer system has adequate capacity to handle flows from severe storms and to prevent overflows of sewage. Subsequently, HRSD must implement the regional plan. Since HRSD has not identified the projects pending completion of the plan, the cost of that effort is currently unknown although it is expected to cost millions of dollars. The settlement also requires HRSD to make major upgrades and improvements to the sewer system infrastructure over the next eight years. These upgrades are estimated to cost at least $140 million. The settlement requires that HRSD evaluate, replace, rehabilitate, or upgrade pipes, pump stations and other infrastructure where inspections and screenings show a material risk of failure. HRSD also must submit and implement a plan to effectively manage, operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system to help prevent future sanitary sewer overflows. ?Today?s settlement represents EPA?s continuing commitment to protect and restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay,? said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator of EPA?s Office of Compliance and Assurance. ?EPA?s compliance and enforcement strategy targets sewage treatment plants, concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater runoff and other sources that may contribute significant pollution to the bay.? ?We?re pleased that the sanitation district has agreed to take these extensive steps to upgrade and improve the sewer systems for Hampton Roads and the surrounding region,? said John C. Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department?s Environment and Natural Resources Division. ?The federal Clean Water Act requires cities to eliminate or reduce their sewage overflows into the nation?s rivers, lakes and oceans. Today?s agreement and the future regional plan will result in a cleaner, safer Chesapeake Bay.? ?After extensive work on this case at the state and federal levels, we believe we have reached an agreement that represents a fair and comprehensive approach to corrective action,? said David K. Paylor, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. ?This should result in significant reductions of pollutants discharged to Virginia waters.? In a joint complaint filed by the United States and Virginia, the governments alleged that HRSD illegally discharged 9 million gallons of untreated sewage and other wastes from its sewer system and sewage treatment plants into various bodies of water including the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay. These discharges allegedly occurred on at least 249 occasions since 2003 and were not authorized under existing wastewater discharge permits. In addition, HRSD allegedly caused or contributed to at least 118 municipal overflows of sewage and other pollutants that occurred from the sewer systems of the municipalities during times when flows into the HRSD sewer system exceeded its capacity and the sewage and other wastes backed up and overflowed from manholes and other locations in the municipalities. The municipalities did not report the volume for most of the 118 violations but it is believed to be substantial. HRSD treats wastewater for 17 counties and cities in Virginia and serves 1.6 million people. HRSD has the capacity to treat up to 231 million gallons of wastewater per day and includes 13 sewage treatment plants, 81 pumping stations, and over 500 miles of pipes. The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. More information on EPA?s compliance and enforcement strategy is available at www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 24 00:47:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:47:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> North Carolina City holds off spraying sludge near school Message-ID: Dr. Mike Holland - right on target - protecting the school children from airborne pathogens - see attached file re swine flu/H1N1 in human feces and sewage . . . . /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// City holds off on spraying waste solids near school Friday http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/city-29095-spraying-class.html October 23, 2009 5:34 PM Mike Wilder / Times-News The city of Burlington is taking into account concerns about waste products being sprayed on property near Sylvan Elementary School, City Manager Harold Owen said. Environmental activists asked that the spraying of biosolids from the city?s waste water treatment facilities not be done while students are at the school, which is in a rural area in Snow Camp. The request was made prior to spraying scheduled for Friday. Jenny Faulkner, a spokeswoman for the Alamance-Burlington School System, said Friday the system asked the city to delay spraying until a time when students are not in school. City Manager Harold Owen said the spraying did not take place Friday, mentioning overcast skies and rain in addition to the school system?s request. The spraying, done on agricultural land as a way to provide soil nutrients, is done by a company the city contracts with. Owen said there?s a rigorous state application process that governs how much waste can be sprayed, where it can be sprayed, how frequently it can be applied to land and in what types of weather, and taking into account concerns about runoff. Owen didn?t make a blanket statement that the waste will never be sprayed while students are in school. He did, however, say the city and the company contracted to spray waste attempt to work with neighboring property owners, including the school in this case. ?Some people have concerns,? he said, and the city tries to take those into account. "Owen said he?s aware of no plans to reschedule the spraying of land near the school. Faulkner said the school system made the request after becoming aware one or more people had concerns. Local activist Mike Holland contacted the school by phone about the spraying. Faulkner said Sylvan Principal Whitney Oakley told her a woman had come by the school with a flier that listed potential dangers of spraying. In an e-mail sent to the school system, Holland mentioned the possibility of the waste containing the H1N1 virus and other dangerous or unknown substances. The use of biosolids has been controversial in different parts of the United States due to concerns about potential harm to people and animals." ********************************************************** http://www.swineflu.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=24226&PID=202293 Tamiflu in Rivers Could Breed Drug-Resistant Flu Strains By Janet Raloff, Science News September 30, 2009 | The premier flu-fighting drug is contaminating rivers downstream of sewage-treatment facilities, researchers in Japan confirm. The source: urinary excretion by people taking oseltamivir phosphate, best known as Tamiflu. Concerns are now building that birds, which are natural influenza carriers, are being exposed to waterborne residues of Tamiflu?s active form and might develop and spread drug-resistant strains of seasonal and avian flu. River residues showed up during only that second sampling ? from low-nanogram levels at most sampling points to a high of 190 ng/L in a portion of the Ni****akase River where treated sewage accounts for 90 percent of the flow. If correlations predicted by earlier studies are correct, concentrations measured at some river sites in the new Kyoto study seem ?high enough to lead to antiviral resistance in waterfowl,? Ghosh says And the Kyoto team didn?t test during a pandemic, when Tamiflu prescription rates might be 10 times higher, von T?mpling notes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-92122.html Tamiflu survives sewage treatment next article 04.10.2007 Swedish researchers have discovered that oseltamivir (Tamiflu), an antiviral drug used to prevent and mitigate influenza infections, is not removed or degraded during normal sewage treatment. Consequently, in countries where Tamiflu is used at a high frequency, there is a risk that its concentration in natural waters can reach levels where influenza viruses in nature will develop resistance to it. Widespread resistance of viruses in nature to Tamiflu increases the risk that influenza viruses infecting humans will become resistant to one of the few medicines currently available for treating influenza. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 24 10:13:13 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:13:13 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Florida septic sludge hauler - multiple violations - still hauling Message-ID: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/oct/23/collier-septic-tank-sludge-hauler-gets-permit-rene/ Collier septic tank sludge hauler gets permit renewed despite multiple infractions By ERIC STAATS Posted October 23, 2009 NAPLES ? A Collier County septic tank sludge hauler has agreed to pay a $50,000 fine as part of a deal to get his hauling permit renewed ? despite a 1994 court order that banned him from the business. ?Somehow he got through the system,? the county health department?s Environmental Health and Engineering Director Ken Rech said this week. Dixie Drainfields owner Timothy Beebe agreed to the deal in September to settle a Florida Department of Health complaint that alleges his company made septic tank repairs without a permit and used shoddy record-keeping to track what it pumped. The case has prompted changes in the way the Collier County health department keeps track of what local sludge haulers are pumping. ?Obviously there were some problems that took place or we wouldn?t have settled the case,? said Beebe?s attorney Louis Erickson. According to Erickson, the 1994 order should not stop Beebe from getting a sludge hauling permit. ?That was not written in a manner to permanently prohibit that guy from doing these kinds of things,? he said. The Florida health department?s complaint wasn?t Beebe?s first run-in with state regulators. In the 1990s, the health department and the Department of Environmental Protection accused Beebe of illegally dumping septage, the partially treated waste in septic tanks, into unauthorized wastewater collection systems, according to court documents. In 1993, the health department ordered that Beebe pay a $500 fine and put him on probation for six months after accusing him of dumping septage into a collection system at a camping resort. A year later, the department fined Beebe $4,000 and revoked his septic contractor?s license after accusing him of dumping septage into Collier County?s wastewater treatment system. Also in 1994, Collier Circuit Court Judge Ted Brousseau found Beebe in contempt of court for not paying a $5,000 fine the DEP had levied in connection with the dumping case at the private utility. Brousseau ordered that Beebe pay $100 a month, awarded $2,417 to Collier County to pay for its costs in the case involving the discharge into the county?s wastewater system and ordered that Beebe ?shall no longer engage in the septage or sludge hauling business.? The order sat largely ignored, though, until the health department rediscovered it this year with the new Florida Department of Health case. ?He had thought it was all over with,? Erickson maintained. Beebe was in his 20s, just starting out in the business and representing himself in court, and made a mistake by not addressing the order sooner, Erickson said. The county health department had overlooked the 1994 contempt order, too. In 2005, the health department issued Beebe a sludge hauling permit and renewed it every year until this summer, when the contempt order surfaced as part of the Florida Department of Health complaint accusing Beebe of doing repair work without a permit and not keeping accurate hauling records. The health department had approved Beebe?s new application to become a registered septic tank contractor in 2000 with the caveat that he could not haul septage because of the Collier County circuit court order. It didn?t take long for Beebe to run afoul of the health department again. He was fined $2,500 in 2002 after the health department accused him of failing to get a septic tank repair job inspected before he covered it back up. In September, at Beebe?s request and with no objection from the health department or the DEP, Collier Circuit Judge Cynthia Pivacek signed an order amending Brousseu?s 1994 contempt order to drop the septage hauling ban. That cleared the way for Beebe to get his hauling permit back as part of the $50,000 settlement with the health department. The DEP did not object to lifting the septage hauling ban, Randy Landers, DEP program administrator in Fort Myers, wrote in an e-mail Monday. ?Mr. Beebe has not slipped through the cracks,? Landers wrote. Rech, with the county health department, said the $50,000 fine fit the case. ?This is serious enough that we want to be sure we got his (Beebe?s) attention,? he said. The case began when county code enforcers notified the health department of repairs going on at the Armando?s Supermarket shopping center at Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard. Health inspectors found workers in the middle of a job replacing a drainfield and they said the shopping center owner had the permit. The health department, though, had not issued a permit because it was waiting for certification that the tanks had been emptied and checked to be sure they were not leaking. ?If you have a leaking tank, then you?re affecting the environment, and we don?t want that,? Rech said. Workers stopped and the health department eventually issued the permit, which is meant to ensure proper separation between the water table and the septic tank drainfield and that the new drainfield setbacks had not changed. But as the health department looked into whether the tanks had been pumped out to be checked, Beebe was unable to provide documentation this had been done, Rech said. The discovery led to what Rech called a ?full-scale investigation? of 15 months? worth of Dixie Drainfield?s records between January 2008 and March 2009. The resulting complaint alleges that the company falsified septic tank certifications for 11 repair or abandonment permits and alleges dozens of instances of bad record-keeping. ?Not to say he wasn?t doing a good job,? Rech said. ?It?s just that his records weren?t very good.? For example, Dixie Drainfields got certifications from the health department for having emptied tanks to check them but his hauling logs did not show he had pumped out the tank, Rech said. Drivers took the sludge to J.C. Drainfield Inc., an authorized disposal site, but the gallonages Dixie Drainfields reported collected and discharged didn?t always match, Rech said. Logs showed that a truck had pumped from as many as six locations even though a typical pumping job collects 1,000 gallons and a truck can hold only 3,000 gallons, Rech said. Rech said part of the problem was that Dixie Drainfield had two trucks, one driver and one log book that moved between the trucks. Sometimes Beebe would take the second truck but wouldn?t take a log book, Rech said. Rech complimented Beebe, though, on straightening out his record-keeping since the complaint, including moving from hand-written logs kept in a sprial notebook to computerized records. ?He?s gone a long way to fix these things,? Rech said. He said the case also has prompted the health department to enact clearer rules about how all septic tank sludge hauling companies report their logs. The health department is now cross-checking the logs against what companies report on septic tank certification permits. Rech said he has no evidence that any of the discrepancies in the Dixie Drainfields records was due to illegal discharges of sludge. ?We don?t believe that happened,? he said. Rech said the Dixie Drainfields case has not shaken his confidence in the safety of Collier County?s septic tank systems. The health department?s tests of tap water at homes and businesses in areas where septic tanks are in use has not shown any contamination, he said. And neighbors are not complaining about foul smells in county drainage canals, he added. ?We?re pretty assured that the environment as a whole is protected,? Rech said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 24 10:45:00 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:45:00 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario: Untreated human waste septage on foodland - new permits being written Message-ID: Here is the new 2008 Policy Guidelines for using raw human waste on farmland. http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTAwMzY3&statusId=MTQ5OTUz Here is an Ontario fact sheet on septage management. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/septage/septage.htm Here is Highlands East, an Ontario town, allowing residents to put their septic pumpout free in a trench. http://www.highlandseast.ca/files/application_septic_trench.pdf ........................... http://www.simcoe.com/article/146127 Provincial policy fails sniff test, says farmer Author: Nicole Million Date: Sep 25, 2009 Under Ontario law, septic trucks are permitted to dump untreated waste on farmers? fields without notifying neighbouring property owners. Currently, about 60 per cent of hauled sewage generated in Ontario is disposed of by land application, although Ministry of Environment official Christina Schlecht said the province is working to lower that number. Something stinks in Fran Sullivan?s neighbourhood. Sullivan, a farmer on Concession 15 in Tiny Township, is upset that a nearby farmer recently began to spread septage ? the untreated waste from septic tanks ? on his fields. Her biggest concern with this development, she noted, is the devaluation of property and the potential for water contamination. While the odour isn?t noticeable at her own home, Sullivan said it is a problem for residents downwind of the 200-acre property. Neighbours are now determined to find out if it is going to be a permanent sewage dumpsite or if the situation is just temporary for agricultural purposes. ?We just don?t think it?s right that you can just go ahead with something like this (without informing nearby residents), and the Ministry of Environment can OK something and just plop it down in front of us without telling or asking anybody for input,? she said. ?It puts people in a bad situation.? Neighbours weren?t informed about the decision, said Sullivan, who acknowledged she wasn?t initially concerned. ?I am a farmer and I was under the impression it was just being done to improve the land. But they kept it up and, finally, I started to ask a few questions and realized it?s a possibility it?s going to be a permanent dumpsite.? Christina Schlecht, senior environmental officer for the ministry?s Barrie district office, told The Mirror farmers and property owners are not required to inform neighbours when they plan to spread septage. ?There are no notification requirements under current legislation (including the Environmental Bill of Rights),? she said, explaining the application of septage ?is a temporary occurrence with no permanent change in land usage.? Schlecht said the ministry establishes terms and conditions based on site-specific criteria before it issues a certificate of approval. One condition specifies when the certificate expires. ?In most cases, hauled sewage sites? certificates of approvals are issued for five years. However, this period can be reduced substantially, and it is common for septage disposal site certificates of approval to be issued for a two- to three-year period,? she said, adding the ministry is currently reviewing options that may be enacted to phase out the land application of untreated septage ?over the next few years.? ?As a first step, the land application of untreated portable toilet waste was prohibited in 2003,? she said. ?In order to successfully end the practice of spreading untreated hauled sewage, there must be capacity to treat it.? Currently, about 60 per cent of hauled sewage generated in Ontario is disposed of by land application, with the remainder sent to municipal sewage treatment plants. Unfortunately, Schlecht noted, that capacity does not exist in all areas of the province, especially in rural areas where the use of septic and holding tanks is most common. ?The ministry is currently working with a number of stakeholders, including municipalities and the sewage hauling industry, to develop new treatment technologies and encourage the development of hauled sewage treatment facilities,? she said. The land application of septage, a fact of rural life in Ontario for decades, has been considered both a cost-effective and, if done correctly, environmentally friendly method of dealing with waste from septic tanks and holding tanks, Schlecht noted. There are, however, a number of restrictions on the practice, including: ? limitations on volume; ? seasonal restrictive periods; ? weather-related spreading restrictions; ? land-use restrictions when spreading is occurring and for the period after spreading has stopped; ? setback distances to residences, property lines, surface water, wells and sensitive receivers. Sullivan, meanwhile, told The Mirror she plans to approach the township to see what can be done to placate resident?s concerns. ?There?s not much we can do,? she said, ?except publicize it, I guess.? '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2141046 Biodigester may help village grow Posted By JON RADOJKOVIC, SUN TIMES CORRESPONDENT Construction of a $2.5 million biodigester, which will be shared between Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs, will begin Oct. 30 with the official sod turning at 10 a. m.. "This really will mean full services for (the village of ) Chatsworth," said Mayor Howard Greig. One of the main reasons Chatsworth council decided to go ahead with a biodigester was that the village does not have a municipal sewage system, only municipal water. It would also service the rest of the municipality's private septic tanks. New provincial rules are going to require all septic sludge to be processed through an approved municipal sewage system and not be spread on farm fields without processing. With a biodigester, which takes septic sludge and crop residue to produce methane to electricity, Chatsworth residents would have a waste disposal site that is close to the municipality. Although septic sludge would have to be trucked to the new site just southeast of Kilsyth, Greig said it would be the same as the village having full services, that is municipal water and sewage. That would allow the village to expand its boundaries more and be in line with provincial requirements. "All septic tanks will be treated, which is not a pipeline but still Chatsworth should be deemed as a full-service town," Greig said at yesterday's council meeting. Council plans to bring the point up with the Ministry of Environment. Two-thirds of the funding for the biodigester is coming from the Communities component of Canada Build, while the remaining third will be split between the two municipalities. This will be the first municipal biodigester in Ontario although they are common in Europe. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 25 11:58:36 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:58:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Louisiana sludge watchdog loves staying involved Message-ID: http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2009/10/25/news/doc4ae38ead16d24574097885.txt Local watchdog loves staying involved BY HEATHER MILLER THE DAILY IBERIAN Sunday, October 25, 2009 >From public official screaming matches to resident complaints to mundane government business, Deborah White has seen as much action at Iberia Parish Council meetings as the council members themselves. For the last five years, she and her long-time partner Richard Boutte have sat in the same seat of the Iberia Parish Council chambers meeting after meeting, their names invisibly etched into the seats they so often occupy. White?s name has appeared more frequently lately in parish news scenes as an outspoken opponent of the recently-defeated Parish Council pay raises. But her questioning of the status quo goes deeper than a pay raise, and her research has sparked a domino effect of involvement with quality-of-life issues for Iberia Parish residents. White and Boutte attended their first Parish Council meeting five years ago after a large boat-building company was built next door to their home. The constant sandblasting and paint debris flying into their yard prompted the two to research local ordinances that could end the disturbances. White found a noise ordinance, then went to the Parish Council for help, she said. After a back-and-forth struggle with the issue, the 16th Judicial District Attorney?s Office ruled that the ordinance was unenforceable, White said. The couple were not satisfied, so they continued their efforts and discovered that some of the boat builder?s operations were regulated through the state Department of Environmental Quality. ?We got some relief, but not from parish government,? White said. Parish officials blamed the problems on a lack of zoning in the parish and tried another route in the form of a compliance officer and a nuisance committee, on which Boutte served. The committee eventually dissolved. White gained knowledge of government procedure through her ordeal, but also learned of countless other parish residents who had problems of their own. ?We had people living in the parish calling us with nuisance problems. Some-times they still do,? White said. ?We?re stuck with this, but we didn?t want this to happen to other people in the parish. No one should have to go through what we went through.? At her first meeting, White met Barbara Foco, another parish watchdog of sorts who was fighting the parish on its plans to build a waste management facility that converts sewage sludge and waste into compost. She and Foco teamed up in their efforts to stop the Bedminster facility from coming to the parish because of concerns over lethal contaminants that facilities of that kind have brought to other communities. ?This went into the air and made people sick,? White said. ?We didn?t want this in the parish. We don?t want this in Louisiana.? They got involved with Help for Sewage Victims, a noprofit that investigates the effects of sewage sludge. Iberia Parish then became home to the Louisiana chapter of the national group, with Foco serving as president. Since Foco?s death this year, White has been named the newest Louisiana chapter president by the national director. Her constant questions posed to the Department of Environmental Quality also earned her a seat a few years ago on a state listening panel set up to discuss environmental concerns throughout Louisiana. ?It gave me an opportunity to look at the bigger picture, not just what was going on here with us,? White said. What started as self-interest in stopping the noise surrounding her home, White?s interest in the workings of the parish has not slowed since. ?We really got interested in what?s going on in our parish, started observing the things taking place,? White said. ?We started making ourselves heard.? Her and Boutte?s letters to the editor and call-ins to radio shows have continued to fluster even veteran council members as recently as a few weeks ago. ?It?s OK,? Boutte said. ?We?re not here to make friends.? But not all council members feel White and Boutte are negatively affecting the council?s image. ?I think it?s always healthy to have citizens in the community closely monitor what their public officials are doing,? said Parish Councilman John Berard. ?A couple of the parish councilmen have called Deborah White anti-government. I don?t agree with them at all. I think she?s just anti-corruption and wrong-doing.? White has offered praise to the parish on at least a few occasions, including the May passage of parish-wide zoning and the growing Iberia Parish Mosquito Control program. For White, though, staying involved is not just crucial because so few people are. She has been disabled for 10 years following a work-related injury. With her fifth back surgery approaching, researching the Home Rule Charter and speaking out have proven therapeutic, she said. ?It?s mentally helped me,? she said. ?It helps me focus. It?s something I can do and be involved in. There aren?t enough people in this parish who participate in what?s going on.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 25 12:34:29 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:34:29 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - rural resident eye huge quarry project with dismay Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This enormous quarry proposal would blast away limestone in an enormous site at Shelbourne and Melancthon (north east of Toronto). It would dewater thousands of acres of the headwaters and ammonium nitrate from blasting would contaminate the vulnerable cracked karst aquifer. How did this huge proposed horror escape public notification for so long? ..................................... http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2009/1008/regional_news/013.html Melancthon council clarifies stand on quarry By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter Prior to a public meeting Monday involving all affected provincial ministry officials and the township planner, Melancthon Council outlined its official stance on a proposed 2,400-acre quarry. The public resolution outlining the stance had been drafted earlier in the day behind closed doors. It followed within weeks Mayor Debbie Fawcett's advising an open council meeting that she does not favour the quarry. The conclusion of the resolution reads: "Council is soliciting constructive information and advice from all proponents and opponents of the initiative, both as to process and factual matters. "Council is considering the best ways of structuring the process; for instance, whether to work towards a joint agency review approach, or to preserve total independence in regard to peer reviews. "In any event, Council will work co-operatively with all parties to enable an expeditious, fair and thorough review of all the aspects of the initiative. Council is considering also the best way of adapting the processes to ensure input by the public. "Council will be diligent in making sure that all reasonable peer reviews of the initiative are brought forward before decisions are made. "Council is making sure that all costs of the initiative, considered reasonable, are borne by the proponent, and not by the general public. Council will not engage in exercises the sole purpose of which would appear to be to defeat the initiative. All of Council's actions will be in the broader context of considering what is best for our community overall," the resolution reads. The Highland Companies is proposing a 2,400-acre limestone quarry in the township, which represents about one-third of the approximately 7,500 acres it has purchased there. The company says the quarry would be in 300-acre segments, phased on 50 acres of each segment and rehabilitated to farmland continuously. Highland, a private corporation, has not revealed specifically who its shareholders are except that it is a Boston-area group. That group, or at least Highland, is headed by John Lowndes, whose family proposed a quarry in Flamborough Township that ultimately was flipped to St. Marys Cement, a Canadian company now owned by a Brazilian corporation. An application for necessary zoning of the already designated aggregate extractive lands has yet to be submitted. But opponents, largely members of North Dufferin Agriculture and Community Taskforce (NDACT) have made allegations of bylaw infractions against Highland, along with accusations of inaction by the council. The essence of Monday's public meeting was generally confirmation that the Province would have over-riding authority on any decisions made by the council. Andrew Doersam of Municipal Affairs and Housing said decisions under the Planning Act must also be "consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement" (PPS). Township Planner Jerry Jorden told the crowd of about 200 Melancthon and Mulmur residents that the council must make a decision on a quarry application within a legislated time frame. Even then, the decision must be consistent with federal and provincial legislation and guidelines, such as the PPS and Aggregate Resources Act. "The key thing to bear in mind in both of these processes [Planning Act and ARA] is that the Township does not have the final approval authority. Overriding both of these, of course, is the provincial policy framework, primarily the Provincial Policy Statement. Our planning documents and planning decisions have to be consistent with the applicable provincial policies," he said. On the burning issue of water, Barbara Slattery of the Ministry of Environment said every human activity has an impact of ground and/or surface water. She said the mandate of MOE is the ensure that such impacts are within acceptable limits. Carole Neumann of OMAFRA said the PPS allows aggregate extraction, above and below the water table, on prime agricultural land, classes 1-3, including areas with special crops designations. But, she said, the extraction would be subject to rehabilitation to agricultural land, if feasible. In cases of pits and quarries, she added that there must be a demonstrated need. In response to questions from the crowd, Mr. Jorden confirmed that the Township has compiled a list of requirements for a completed application. Once the quarry application has been filed, even if complete, the Township can ask the proponent for more studies or information. Responding to Marni Walsh, he said the Township would not be doing studies "from the ground up," but would employ the best available peer reviewers of the proponent's studies at the proponent's expense. Mayor Fawcett said aggregate resource information will soon be posted on Melancthon's website, www. melancthontownship. ca. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 25 21:07:28 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:07:28 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario -where they grow our junk food Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The wastewater industry sludges the corn and soy acreage that goes to make our junk food. There is no requirement to test the food grown on sludge for uptake of toxins from the sludge. '''''''''''''''''''' Where they grow our junk food Our reporter went looking for the farms that produce the raw materials for junk food and found that they take up almost half of the cropland in Ontario Margaret Webb Special to the Star Published On Sun Oct 11 2009 Dave Ferguson grows mostly corn and soybeans on his 364-hectare farm. CRAIG GLOVER FOR THE TORONTO STAR Follow the flow of food. That's what any farmer will tell you. Because apples don't grow in supermarkets. So to get to the root of the exploding obesity epidemic, I went in search of a junk food farm. Such farms are not so easy to spot. No fields of Dorito bags waving in the breeze, no orchards blooming with soda pop, no soil bursting with 99-cent burgers. What you do see are vast operations growing the raw materials for junk food: soybeans and corn. The two crops go into the production of many things: pharmaceuticals, industrial products, animal feed ? and inexpensive calories. Tonnes of soybeans and corn are turned into "edible food-like substances," as food system critic Michael Pollan calls them, used in virtually all processed foods, beverages and junk food. Last year, Ontario farmers planted 2.4 million acres of soybeans and just over 2 million acres of corn. That's nearly half of all cropland in the province, a near-colonization of Ontario farms by the soy and corn industry. It has provided an abundance of cheap calories for a food system that operates by Doritos economics. A bushel of corn produces some 440 two-ounce bags of 99-cent chips. Farmer grosses $3.70 for the bushel of corn, Doritos more than $440. Dave Ferguson grows ingredients for junk food on his 364-hectare farm about an hour west of London, Ont. With no market for local food in his area, he has few other options than to grow soybeans and corn, along with wheat and a little alfalfa. A portion of his harvest heads to Windsor, to American-owned ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., and to London, to Casco Inc., an affiliate of U.S.-based Corn Products International. ADM crushes soybeans, producing feed for livestock, which helps make the 99-cent burger possible, while extracting the oil for lards, frying oils, shortening and margarines. Soybean oil is responsible for much of the added fat in our diets. >From corn, Casco produces syrups, sweeteners, starches and oil. Some 55 per cent of the sweeteners used in the food and beverage industry derive from corn. Corn supplies our diet with its sugar high. Ferguson, a fit 50-year-old, says the demand for cheap food, combined with competition from ever cheaper global imports, has placed relentless pressure on farmers not only to grow these crops, but to expand (Ontario is beginning to sprout 2,000- to 4,000-hectare crop farms, which dwarf Ferguson's and are even less environmentally sustainable than his). He says the demand for cheap food also puts pressure on farmers "to work every corner, every square inch" ? eliminating woodlots, wetlands and buffer strips near vulnerable waterways. He knows that current farming techniques ? growing too few crops in limited rotation, with chemical fertilizer, and returning too little organic matter to the soil ? is mining his land of fertility, and that the current methods will not feed increasing populations. Ferguson is trying to turn things around. He is the volunteer chair of the Rural Lambton Stewardship Committee. When he's not farming, he encourages fellow farmers to create wetlands and native grass buffers to protect waterways in the local Sydenham River watershed. Ferguson himself has taken several acres out of production for such "ecological functions" ? at his cost, he says, though it's society that benefits. The Sydenham is a lazy stretch of water that oozes through the last remnants of Carolinian forest south of Lake Huron. It has the greatest diversity of flora and fauna of any Canadian river, including some 80 species of fish and 32 kinds of mussels. The Sydenham once supplied drinking water to some area communities. But it has turned the colour of chocolate milk. Bacterial levels are high, the water quality too poor for swimming. Some 14 aquatic species have been designated endangered, threatened or of special concern. Muriel Andreae, co-chair of the Sydenham River Recovery Team and a biologist, can pinpoint the cause of the damage ? topsoil erosion and runoff from intensive crop farms and livestock feeding operations, as well as some outdated septic systems. "Nitrogen and phosphorous from manure and chemical fertilizers are big issues," she says, as well as "historically high levels of glyphosate," a widely used agricultural herbicide. Walk upstream of the Sydenham, or any waterway in Ontario's agricultural belt, and you can find a junk food farm. Turns out environmental degradation and junk food farming go together like fries and a Coke. Or a Coke and insulin. The Sydenham is just a snapshot of what's happening to waterways around the world. Nutrient runoff from agriculture starves water of oxygen, fish of life, and us of a healthy, once-reliable source of protein. In all, some $1.5 million in grants have been spent on 240 projects in the Sydenham watershed. That doesn't include the value of land voluntarily retired, without compensation. Not surprisingly, only about 5 per cent of landowners have done so. Ferguson says farmers alone can't shoulder the expense of caring for the environment. "Until society gets in their mind that they have to pay to get these farms sustainable ..." "If you want cheap food, that's what you're going to have." In the 1950s, before farming started to industrialize in Ontario, we spent about 20 per cent of our income on food. Most of us spend less than half that now, less than any other nation in the world. But we're paying in other ways ? environmental degradation, health-care costs and transportation (half of Ontario's soybean harvest, for example, is exported). Instead of an official food policy, Canada has an unofficial cheap food policy that no one voted for, yet it shapes our food system all the same. It lets private companies largely drive our food system, without paying for health and environmental repercussions. They have had a heyday. Ferguson recommends a read of the report, "Compare the Share," written by his father, Ralph, a former Liberal MP. The National Farmers Union has produced similar research, "The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits." The reports show that an incredibly small number of large food processors, retailers and agricultural businesses are generating massive profits delivering cheap food by squeezing farmers' incomes, forcing farmers into environmentally unsustainable practices ? or out of business. Those corporations also manage to make massive profits from cheap food by cheapening food. Just follow the flow. "Unfortunately, there is a real disconnect between agriculture, food and health," says David Jenkins, one of Canada's top nutritional researchers. "We've compartmentalized too long." Jenkins, a professor at the University of Toronto, is conducting a study of 720 Toronto families to find out what level of intervention is required to get people to eat healthier. He says it's a massive challenge to turn families off processed food and toward fruits, vegetables and grains. Former federal health minister Carolyn Bennett said the same thing at a 2006 conference on food policy organized by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. Bennett voiced frustration at being unable to make progress on health issues because there's no Ministry of Food. Instead, responsibility falls between the silos of government: Health, Education, the Environment and Northern Affairs, which must deal with the consequences of Industry, Agriculture and Fisheries treating food as commodities produced for profit rather than public good. Jenkins would like to see policy changes: better food labelling, health claims on fruits and vegetables, healthy food cheaper than junk food, government support for farmers who grow good food in an environmentally sustainable manner. Improving our diets through education and persuasion alone will take decades, Jenkins believes. What's required is an overhaul of Canada's food system through focused public policy. "We're paying too little for our food. We're losing farmers like soil erosion. They're being lost to factory farms. What we're doing is screwing the land and screwing the farmers. It's almost a crime. We've got cheaper food and we've become fatter. We've got pollution closing beaches. We have built ourselves a mini hell and food is part of that problem." But there is good news in this bleak harvest. Food is powerful. Change is possible with every purchase we make, in every link we forge between good food and good farming, and in every bite we take. And instead of an unofficial cheap food policy, we can create an official good food policy. If we built this food hell then we can also fix it. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 25 21:17:34 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:17:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> PERFLUORINATED PHOSPHONIC ACIDS IN CANADIAN SURFACE WATERS Message-ID: http://www2.allenpress.com/pdf/entc-28-10-2101-2107.pdf PERFLUORINATED PHOSPHONIC ACIDS IN CANADIAN SURFACE WATERS AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT: DISCOVERY OF A NEW CLASS OF PERFLUORINATED ACIDS JESSICA C. D?EON,{ PATRICK W. CROZIER,{ VASILE I. FURDUI,{ ERIC J. REINER,{ E. LAURENCE LIBELO,? and SCOTT A. MABURY*{ {Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, 80 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H6, Canada {Laboratory Services Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 125 Resources Road, Toronto, Ontario M9P 3V6, Canada ?U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail Code 7406C, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 (Received 20 January 2009; Accepted 11 May 2009) Abstract?The environmental prevalence of a new class of perfluorinated acids, the perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs), was determined in Canadian surface waters and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. For quality control and comparison, the C8- to C11-perfluorinated carboxylic acids and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid were included in the analysis. Water samples were extracted using weak anion-exchange solid-phase extraction cartridges. Perfluorinated phosphonic acids were observed in 80% of surface water samples and in six of the seven WWTP effluent samples. The C8-PFPA was observed at concentrations ranging from 88 6 33 to 3,400 6 900 pg/L in surface waters and from 760 6 270 to 2,500 6 320 pg/L in WWTP effluent. To our knowledge, this is the first observation of PFPAs in the environment. Given their structural similarities with perfluorinated carboxylic and sulfonic acids, PFPAs are expected to be persistent. The observation of PFPAs in the majority of samples analyzed here suggests they are prevalent environmental contaminants and should be considered in future environmental monitoring campaigns to better understand the total burden of fluorinated materials in the environment. Keywords?Perfluorinated acids Perfluorinated phosphonic acids Surface water Wastewater Solid-phase extraction INTRODUCTION Fluorochemicals have been produced industrially since the 1950s [1]; however, widespread fluorochemical contamination was not identified until 2001 [2?6]. The observation of fluorinated acids in environmental media was not limited by environmental concentrations but by analytical limitations and a lack of awareness regarding the appropriate analytes. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the environmental prevalence of a class of fluorinated acids known to be in commercial use but previously unidentified in the environment?namely, the perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs). Perfluorinated phosphonic acids (Table 1) are prevalent commercial surfactants. The C8-PFPA was listed as a highproduction- volume chemical in 1998 and 2002, with 10,000 to 500,000 pounds (4,500?230,000 kg) produced annually [7]. Publicly known applications of PFPAs include leveling and wetting agents and defoaming additives in pesticide applications [9] (http://www.masonsurfactants.com). Perfluorinated phosphonic acids lack hydrogen atoms (aside from exchangeable acidic protons), suggesting they may be similarly resistant to degradation as perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluorinated sulfonic acids (PFSAs). Perfluorinated phosphonic acids are used commercially as surfactants, with no precursor compounds known to be in production. As strong acids, PFPAs are not expected to be present in the atmosphere, so migration from an emission source likely would be limited to movement in the aqueous phase. Migration of PFCAs and PFSAs in the environment may be similarly limited; however, an additional source of these acids to the environment is via the biological or atmospheric degradation of volatile precursor compounds, the fluorotelomer alcohols and perfluorinated sulfonamides [9?13], which have been observed in the atmosphere [5]. The persistence and ubiquity of PFCAs and PFSAs have resulted in voluntary and regulatory action in the United States [14,15] (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pfoa/index.htm) and Canada [16] (http://canadagazette.gc.ca) to control their dissemination. Similar regulatory action has been taken in the United States regarding the use of PFPAs as inert ingredients in pesticide products. In August 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the tolerance exemption for certain PFPAs, thereby no longer permitting their use as inert ingredients in pesticide products applied to food crops [17]. The lack of available hazard data and potential concerns about persistence and toxicity were contributing factors in the U.S. EPA decision to no longer permit the use of these chemicals in food-use pesticides. These regulatory decisions were based on uncertainty regarding the environmental fate of PFPAs; to our knowledge, no environmental evidence has been available before the present study. The goal of the present work was to determine the environmental prevalence of PFPAs in Canadian surface waters and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. The observation of a novel fluorinated acid in environmental samples demonstrates that to date, a comprehensive under- * To whom correspondence may be addressed (smabury at chem.utoronto.ca). This work was reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication but does not necessarily reflect official Agency policy. Published on the Web 5/22/2009. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 2101?2107, 2009 ? 2009 SETAC Printed in the USA 0730-7268/09 $12.00 + .00 2101 standing about the full environmental burden of fluorinated chemicals does not exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS Chemicals The perfluorinated acids (PFOAs; purity, .99%), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA; purity, .99%), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA; purity, .99%), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA; purity, .99%), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS; purity, .99%), 13C4-PFOA (purity, .99%), 13C5- PFNA (purity, .99%), 13C2-PFDA (purity, .99%), 13C2- PFUnA (purity, .99%), and 13C4-PFOS (purity, .99%) were obtained from Wellington Laboratories. The 13C2-PFOA was obtained from PerkinElmer Life Sciences. All other chemicals were obtained from commercial sources and used without further purification. Perfluorinated phosphonic acid calibration was performed using the industrial product Masurf-780, which is marketed as a leveling and defoaming agent (http://www.masonsurfactants. com). The C6-, C8-, and C10-PFPAs present in Masurf-780 were intercalibrated using C6-, C8-, and C10-PFPA (purity, .99%) standards obtained from Wellington Laboratories late in the investigation. Environmental sample collection Surface water samples were collected from creeks and rivers across Canada, with specific emphasis on agricultural and urban inputs. Details regarding time and location of sampling are provided in the Supporting Information (http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1897/09-048.S1). Field blanks were included at the Indian Creek sampling site (Burlington, ON, Canada). Final effluent was obtained from five WWTPs in 2004 and two WWTPs in 2007, all within the province of Ontario (Canada). Some of the environmental samples analyzed in the present study were initially collected for use in government monitoring programs. Extraction procedure Surface water and WWTP effluent was extracted using a modified version of the solid-phase extraction (SPE) method using weak anion-exchange (WAX) SPE cartridges developed by Taniyasu et al. [18]. Approximately 500 ml of surface water or 150 ml of WWTP effluent were weighed and then extracted using OasisH WAX SPE cartridges (6 cc, 150 mg, 30 mm; Waters) on a vacuum manifold. Before extraction, water samples were acidified to pH 4 using formic acid, and 2 ml of a 100 mg/L solution of 13C4-PFOA were added as a qualityassurance standard. Cartridges were rinsed and conditioned using 5 ml of methanol, then allowed to come to dryness before samples were loaded at a rate of approximately 5 ml/ min. Cartridges were eluted by gravity with 5 ml of 90:10 methyl-tert-butyl ether:methanol with 1% ammonia. Methyltert- butyl ether was removed under nitrogen, and the resulting 0.5 ml of basic methanol extract was weighed to determine the exact volume. A survey of the surface water samples was conducted by extracting one subsample per site. Detection of PFPAs resulted in the extraction of two additional subsamples, for a total of n 5 3 for each reported value except at the Rouge River, Don River, Humber River, and Etobicoke Creek, where only a single subsample was available. The WWTP effluent samples were all extracted in triplicate. One extraction blank was included with every set of five aqueous samples. Instrumental analysis All samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (LC)?triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry using an API 4000TM mass spectrometer (Applied Biosystems/ MDS Sciex) coupled to an Agilent 1100 LC system. Analysis was performed using negative electrospray ionization, with unit resolution in both Q1 and Q3. Multiple reaction monitoring transitions and optimized mass spectrometry parameters (declustering potential and collision energy) for each target compound are provided in the Supporting Information (http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/09-048.S1). Samples were analyzed using a LC mobile phase composed of water and methanol, each with 10 mM ammonium acetate. All separations were performed using a Gemini C18 LC column (length, 50 mm; inner diameter, 4.6 mm; particle size, 3 mm; Phenomenex). Surface water samples were analyzed using 100-ml injections, and WWTP effluent samples were analyzed using 35-ml injections. Perfluorinated phosphonic acids were analyzed using the following linear methanol:water gradient at a flow rate of 500 ml/min: From initial conditions of 50:50 methanol:water (t 5 0 min), proceed to 95:5 over 5 min (t 5 5 min), hold for 4 min (t 5 9 min), revert to initial conditions of 50:50 over 30 s (t 5 9.5 min), and re-equilibrate at 50:50 for 2.5 min (t 5 12 min). Perfluorinated carboxylic acids and PFOS were analyzed under isocratic solvent conditions of 80:20 methanol:water at a flow rate of 500 ml/ min. Quality control The C8- to C11-PFCAs and PFOS were quantified using the following mass-labeled internal standards: 13C2-PFOA (PFOA), 13C5-PFNA (PFNA), 13C2-PFDA (PFDA), 13C2- PFUnA (PFUnA), and 13C4-PFOS (PFOS). To account for potential matrix interferences and internally confirm expected Table 1. Structures, acronyms, and a description of the congeners monitored for the analytes of interest Structure Congeners monitored Acronym 3 congeners Cx-PFPA x 5 6, 8, or 10 4 congeners PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnA x 5 8?11 1 congener PFOS x 5 8 2102 Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 J.C. D?eon et al. retention times, standard addition was used for PFPA quantification. Standard addition analyses involved three additions to the sample of approximately 1-, 5-, and 10-fold the concentration present in the extract (Fig. 1). Analyte recoveries were determined by spiking 500 ml of high-performance LC?grade water with 0.50 ng of C8- to C11- PFCAs and PFOS and 25 ng of Masurf-780. The samples were stored for 24 h at 4uC (n 5 4) before extraction as described previously. Analyte recoveries ranged from 52% 6 6% to 101% 6 17% and are provided in the Supporting Information (http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/09-048.S1). Mean recovery of the 13C4-PFOA quality-assurance standard for all SPE analyses was 94% 6 4%. Reported values were not corrected for recovery. Analyte limits of detection (LODs) were defined empirically as the concentration producing a signal to noise ratio of three, and limits of quantification (LOQs) were defined as the concentration producing a signal to noise ratio of 10 [19]. The instrumental LOD for all analytes was 1.0 pg on column. Perfluorooctanoic acid was consistently observed at low levels in the extraction blanks (n 5 16); as such, the LOD for PFOA was defined as three standard deviations (3s) from the mean blank level and the LOQ as 10s from the mean blank level [19], resulting in a blank-defined LOD for PFOA of 2.1 ng/L in the surface water samples (see Supporting Information; http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/09-048.S1). Values less than an empirical LOD are reported as nondetect; values less than a blank-defined LOD are reported as less than the LOD. For calculating means, values less than the LOD were given a value of zero and values less than the LOQ a value of half the LOQ. Matrix-specific LODs and LOQs are presented in the Supporting Information (http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/09-048.S1). Values are presented using the arithmetic mean and standard error. The nominal molecular weights of the C6-, C8-, and C10- PFPA anions are the same as those of the C6-, C8-, and C10- PFSA anions: 399, 499, and 599 m/z, respectively. Perfluorinated sulfonic acids fragment to SO{ 3 ?80 m=z?, FSO{ 3 ?99 m=z?, and a variety of fragments indicative of the perfluoroalkyl chain [20]. Perfluorinated phosphonic acids fragment to PO{ 3 ?79 m=z? alone, meaning cleavage of the carbon?phosphorus linkage is the dominant dissociation process, with the phosphonate moiety retaining the charge during the majority of collisions. The multiple reaction monitoring transition 499.99 was used for PFOS quantification; however, PFOS in the sample also may fragment to 80 m/z. With unit resolution, the triple quadrupole mass spectrometer used in this investigation can distinguish between the 499.79 transition for the C8-PFPA and the 499.80 transition produced by PFOS. However, PFOS was present in the samples at concentrations one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of C8-PFPA, so to ensure no interference between transitions, C8-PFPA and PFOS were chromatographically separated with baseline resolution (Fig. 2). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Surface water Perfluorinated phosphonic acids were detected at 24 of the 30 sites investigated (Fig. 3). Concentrations of PFPAs in Canadian surfaces waters were in the pg/L to low-ng/L range, with the C8-PFPA dominating the concentration profile at all sites. Field blanks taken to the Indian Creek site were clean aside from PFOA, which also was observed in the extraction blanks. From the analysis of Canadian surface waters, low- Fig. 1. Sample chromatogram of the perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs) in a surface water sample with corresponding chromatograms from three additions of the standard addition analysis. Fig. 2. Sample chromatogram to demonstrate the chromatographic resolution obtained between the C8-perfluorinated phosphonic acid (PFPA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in a surface water sample. Discovery of a new class of perfluorinated acids Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 2103 level PFPA contamination clearly is widespread. Because no PFPA precursors currently are known, the direct input of PFPAs into the environment appears to be extensive. Because PFPAs have been used as defoaming additives in pesticide formulations, surface water samples were obtained from creeks and rivers in regions that receive agricultural inputs. Water samples collected from agricultural sites around the province of Ontario in October 2005 (n 5 6 sites) and August 2007 (n 5 5 sites) had detectable amounts of PFPAs in four of the six sites from 2005, with levels of the C8-PFPA ranging from 88 6 33 to 260 6 80 pg/L (Fig. 3A); however, PFPAs were only detected in two of the five water samples from 2007 (Fig. 3B). Although collected in similar regions, there was no overlap between the creeks and rivers collected in 2005 and 2007, so no direct comparison can be made. Water samples collected from three creeks on the Niagara peninsula in August 2007 showed detectable levels of PFPAs at all three sites, with the concentration of C8-PFPA ranging from 110 6 80 to 580 6 140 pg/L (Fig. 3C). Water samples collected from eight creeks and rivers in western Canada in July 2007 had quantifiable levels of PFPAs at all but one site, with the concentration of C8-PFPA ranging from 280 6 160 to 1,600 6 300 pg/L (Fig. 3D). To investigate the levels of PFPAs in an urban watershed, water samples were collected from eight creeks and rivers within and surrounding the city of Toronto (ON, Canada; population, 2.5 million) in August and September of 2007. The PFPA levels observed at the urban sites were similar to those at the agricultural sites (Fig. 3E), with the exception of Indian Creek, an urban creek sampled in the city of Burlington Fig. 3. The arithmetic mean concentration (pg/L) and standard error for the perfluorinated phosphonic acid (PFPA) concentrations observed in Canadian surface water samples separated by region: (A) Southwest Ontario collected in 2005, (B) southwest Ontario collected in 2007, (C) Niagara peninsula, (D) western Canada, (E) urban samples surrounding the city of Toronto (ON, Canada). For comparison between sampling sites, the horizontal line on each plot indicates 250 pg/L. All sites include n 5 3 subsamples except those indicated by an asterisk, which include n 5 1. 2104 Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 J.C. D?eon et al. (population, 160,000), 40 km west of the city of Toronto. With mean concentrations of 1,200 6 500, 3,400 6 900, and 660 6 40 pg/L for the C6-, C8-, and C10-PFPA, respectively, Indian Creek was the most contaminated site of the present study. Potential inputs upstream from the Indian Creek sampling site include a heavily urbanized watershed, two major highways, and several steel manufacturing facilities. Surface water samples also were analyzed for the C8- to C11-PFCAs and PFOS. Concentrations ranged from less than the LOD (2,100 pg/L) to 19,000 pg/L for PFOA, less than the LOQ (,125 pg/L) to 3,000 pg/L for PFNA, less than the LOQ (,125 pg/L) to 2,800 pg/L for PFDA, nondetect (,25 pg/L, n 5 14 sites) to 1,100 pg/L for PFUnA, and 560 to 80,000 pg/L for PFOS. Because PFCAs and PFOS are ubiquitous in the environment, the detection of PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA in all analyzed samples validates the extraction and analytical methods used here. The concentration ranges observed were similar to those reported by Simcik and Dorweiler [21] in surface waters from the midwestern United States, by Sinclair et al. [22] from surface waters throughout New York (USA), and by Nakayama et al. [23] in the Cape Fear basin (NC, USA). Concentrations of the PFCAs and PFOS observed in Indian Creek are plotted together with the PFPAs in Figure 4. The levels of PFOS and PFOA dominate the concentration profile, which was true for the majority of surface water samples. Linear correlations were determined for the analytes of interest using Pearson correlation coefficients (see Supporting Information; http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/09-048.S1). The four PFCAs and PFOS were linearly correlated with each other ( p , 0.01), as were the C6-, C8-, and C10-PFPA congeners ( p , 0.01). No correlations were observed between the C8-PFPA and any of the PFCAs or PFOS, suggesting the PFPAs likely have a different environmental source. Fig. 4. The arithmetic mean concentration (pg/L) and standard error for the perfluorinated phosphonic acid (PFPA), perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (PFCA), and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) concentrations observed in the Indian Creek surface water sample (n 5 3) and the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent samples (n 5 7) (all samples from ON, Canada). Discovery of a new class of perfluorinated acids Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 2105 Wastewater treatment plant effluent Perfluorinated phosphonic acids were detected in effluent from six of the seven WWTPs sampled (Fig. 4). The C6-PFPA was observed in five samples at concentrations ranging from 330 6 200 to 6,500 6 1,100 pg/L. The C8-PFPA was observed in six samples at concentrations ranging from 760 6 270 to 2,500 6 320 pg/L. The C10-PFPA was observed in three samples at concentrations of 380 6 130, 420 6 50, and 460 6 70 pg/L. Perfluorinated phosphonic acid concentrations in WWTP effluent were similar to those observed in surface water. Concentrations of PFCAs and PFSAs have been found to increase from WWTP influent to effluent [24?27], suggesting WWTPs may be a source of these chemicals via microbial degradation of precursor compounds during treatment. In the present study, the concentration of PFOA observed in WWTP effluent was high compared to the surface water samples (5,800 6 3,100 to 180,000 6 11,000 pg/L); however, no statistically significant differences were found between the concentrations observed in surface water and WWTP effluent for any of the PFCAs or PFOS. Environmental implications Perfluorinated carboxylic acid and PFSA contamination is pervasive throughout the developed world [2?4,21?23]. This contamination is expected from the legacy of fluorochemical use and from the atmospheric and biological degradation of fluorinated precursors [5,9?13]. Because PFPAs are not known to be produced from any precursor chemicals, their detection in surface water samples suggests a nearby source. The observation of PFPAs in the majority (80%) of surface water samples analyzed suggests direct inputs of PFPAs into the environment are widespread. Because volatilization is not expected to be important for the PFPAs, their ability to migrate from an emission source in the aqueous phase is determined by their partitioning onto particles and sediments. Although partitioning of PFCAs and PFSAs into sediment has been studied [28], comparison of the behavior of carboxylates and sulfonates with that of phosphonates is difficult, because the dianionic character of the phosphonate moiety can result in novel interactions with cationic moieties in the sediment phase. The pesticide glyphosate contains a phosphonate moiety, and with pKa1 and pKa2 of 0.8 and 5.6 [29], respectively, it is doubly charged at neutral pH. We expect the phosphonate moiety of the PFPAs to be dianionic at neutral pH as well, because the addition of fluorine to an alkyl chain adjacent to an acidic functional group tends to stabilize the negative change, resulting in a significant decrease in pKa [1]. In addition to the phosphonate moiety, glyphosate also contains carboxylate and amine functionality and so is multiply charged at neutral pH and predicted to be highly water soluble (,999 g/L at pH 7, 25uC) [30]. Despite this high water solubility, the major fate of glyphosate in a water/sediment system is adsorption to the sediment via electrostatic interaction of the dianionic phosphonate moiety with multivalent cations [31]. Similar adsorptive processes may control the fate of the PFPAs in a water/sediment system. If loss to sediments is important for the PFPAs, then the concentrations observed during the present study in surface waters and WWTP effluent may be a conservative estimate for the total environmental burden of these chemicals. The prevalence of PFPAs in Canadian surface waters and WWTP effluent observed in the present study demonstrates that the current suite of fluorinated analytes does not provide a comprehensive understanding about the extent of environmental fluorochemical contamination. Determining the environmental fate of other commercially relevant fluorinated materials may be important to further characterize this burden. The present results suggest PFPAs should be included with PFCAs and PFSAs in future environmental monitoring campaigns to better characterize the fate and distribution of fluorinated materials in the environment. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Table S1. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions and spike and recovery results (n 5 4) from high-performance liquid chromatography?grade water for the analytes of interest. Table S2. Limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantification (LOQs) for the analytes of interest. Table S3. Location of the sampling site and date of collection for the surface water samples. Table S4. Arithmetic mean and standard error for the perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs) detected in the surface water samples. Table S5. Arithmetic mean and standard error for the C8- to C11-perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) detected in the surface water samples. Table S6. Arithmetic mean and standard error for the perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs) in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent samples. Table S7. Arithmetic mean and standard error for the C8? C11 perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) detected in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent samples. Table S8. Concentrations of perfluorinated acid (PFOA) observed in the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) water solid-phase extraction (SPE) blanks. Fig. S1. Map of Canada. Fig. S2. Map of agricultural surface water sampling sites in Ontario (Canada). (Map from Natural Resources Canada, The Atlas of Canada; http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index. html.) Fig. S3. Map of surface water sampling sites in Manitoba (Canada). (Map from Natural Resources Canada, The Atlas of Canada; http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.) Fig. S4. Map of surface water sampling sites in Saskatchewan (Canada). (Map from Natural Resources Canada, The Atlas of Canada; http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index. html.) Fig. S5. Map of surface water sampling sites in Alberta (Canada). (Map from Natural Resources Canada, The Atlas of Canada; http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.) Fig. S6. Map of urban surface water sampling sites in and surrounding the city of Toronto (ON, Canada). (Map from Natural Resources Canada, The Atlas of Canada; http://atlas. nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.) Fig. S7. Correlation plots for the C6-, C8-, and C10- perfluorinated phosphonic acids (PFPAs) in the surface water samples. Fig. S8. Correlation plots for perfluorinated acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid 2106 Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 J.C. D?eon et al. (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA), and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in the surface water samples. Fig. S9. Correlation plots for the C8-perfluorinated phosphonic acid (PFPA) with the C8- to C11-perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). All found at DOI: 10.1897/09-048.S1 (912 KB PDF). Acknowledgement?The authors would like to thank Gilles Arsenault (Wellington Laboratories) for providing the C6-, C8-, and C10-PFPA standards and the labeled internal standards, 3M for the donation of an API 4000 mass spectrometer, and Brian Scott (Environment Canada), John Struger (Environment Canada), and Paul Helm (Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, ON, Canada) for water samples. Funding was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Best in Science award, and a Canada Graduate Scholarship to J.C. D?eon. REFERENCES 1. Kissa E. 2002. Fluorinated Surfactants. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA. 2. Giesy JP, Kannan K. 2001. Global distribution of perfluorooctane sulfonate in wildlife. Environ Sci Technol 35:1339?1342. 3. Hansen KJ, Clemen LA, Ellefson ME, Johnson HO. 2001. Compound-specific, quantitative characterization of organic fluorochemicals in biological matrices. Environ Sci Technol 35: 766?770. 4. Hansen KJ, Johnson HO, Eldridge JS, Butenhoff JL, Dick LA. 2002. Quantitative characterization of trace levels of PFOS and PFOA in the Tennessee River. Environ Sci Technol 36:1681?1685. 5. Martin JW, Muir DCG, Moody CA, Ellis DA, Kwan WC, Solomon KR, Mabury SA. 2002. Collection of airborne fluorinated organics and analysis by gas chromatography/chemical ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 74:584?590. 6. Martin JW, Smithwick MM, Braune BM, Hoekstra PF, Muir DCG, Mabury SA. 2004. Identification of long-chain perfluorinated acids in biota from the Canadian Arctic. Environ Sci Technol 38:373?380. 7. Howard PH, Meylan W. 2007. EPA Great Lakes study for identification of PBTs to develop analytical methods: Selection of additional PBTs?Interim Report. EPA Contract EP-W-04-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Syracus, NY. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Meeting with Registrant on Perfluorinated Chemical (Masurf-FS-780, Fluowet PL 80-B, and Fluowet PL-80) Use as Inerts. Letter from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to the Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. EPA Public Docket AR226-3804. Washington, DC. 9. Dinglasan MJA, Ye Y, Edwards EA, Mabury SA. 2004. Fluorotelomer alcohol biodegradation yields poly- and perfluorinated acids. Environ Sci Technol 38:2857?2864. 10. Martin JW, Mabury SA, O?Brien PJ. 2005. Metabolic products and pathways of fluorotelomer alcohols in isolated rat hepatocytes. Chem-Biol Interact 155:165?180. 11. Xu L, Krenitsky DM, Seacat AM, Butenhoff JL, Anders MW. 2004. Biotransformation of N-ethyl-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)perfluorooctanesulfonamide by rat liver microsomes, cytosol, and slices and by expressed rat and human cytochromes P450. Chem Res Toxicol 17:767?775. 12. Ellis DA, Martin JW, De Silva AO, Mabury SA, Hurley MD, Sulbaek Andersen MP, Wallington TJ. 2004. Degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols: A likely source of perfluorinated carboxylic acids. Environ Sci Technol 38:3316?3321. 13. D?eon JC, Hurley MD, Wallington TJ, Mabury SA. 2006. Atmospheric chemistry of N-methyl perfluorobutane sulfonamidoethanol, C4F9SO2N(CH3)CH2CH2OH: Kinetics and mechanism of reaction with OH. Environ Sci Technol 40:1862?1868. 14. 3M. 2000. Phase-out plan for POSF-based products. U.S. EPA Docket ID OPPT-2002-0043. Specialty Materials Markets Group, St. Paul, MN, USA. 15. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 2005. DuPont global PFOA strategy?Comprehensive source reduction. U.S. EPA public docket AR226-1914. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 16. Environment Canada and Health Canada. 2006. Action plan for the assessment and management of perfluorinated carboxylic acids and their precursors. Canada Gazette Part 1 140:1542?1546. 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Inert ingredient; revocation of the tolerance exemption for mono- and bis- (1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluoroalkyl) phosphates where the alkyl group is even numbered and in the C6?C12 range. U.S. EPA Public Docket OPP-2006-0253. Washington, DC. 18. Taniyasu S, Kannan K, So MK, Gulkowska A, Sinclair E, Okazawa T, Yamashita N. 2005. Analysis of fluorotelomer alcohols, fluorotelomer acids, and short- and long-chain perfluorinated acids in water and biota. J Chromatogr A 1093:89?97. 19. Keith LH, Libby RA, Crummett W, Taylor JK, Deegan J Jr, Wentler G. 1983. Principles of environmental analysis. Anal Chem 55:2210?2218. 20. Martin JW, Kanna K, Berger U, De Voogt P, Field J, Franklin J, Giesy JP, Harner T, Muir DCG, Scott B, Kaiser M, Jarnberg U, Jones KC, Mabury SA, Schroeder H, Simcik M, Sottani C, Van Bavel B, Karrman A, Lindstrom G, Van Leeuwen S. 2004. Analytical challenges hamper perfluoroalkyl research. Environ Sci Technol 38:248A?255A. 21. Simcik MF, Dorweiler KJ. 2005. Ratio of perfluorochemical concentrations as a tracer of atmospheric deposition to surface waters. Environ Sci Technol 39:8678?8683. 22. Sinclair E, Mayack DT, Roblee K, Yamashita N, Kannan K. 2006. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in water, fish, and birds from New York State. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:398? 410. 23. Nakayama S, Strynar MJ, Helfant L, Egeghy P, Ye X, Lindstrom AB. 2007. Perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear drainage basin in North Carolina. Environ Sci Technol 41:5271?5276. 24. Schultz MM, Higgins CP, Huset CA, Luthy RG, Barofsky DF, Field JA. 2006. Fluorochemical mass flows in a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Environ Sci Technol 40:7350?7357. 25. Loganathan BG, Sajwan KS, Sinclair E, Kumar KS, Kannan K. 2007. Perfluoroalkylsulfonates and perfluorocarboxylates in two wastewater treatment facilities in Kentucky and Georgia. Water Res 41:4611?4620. 26. Becker AM, Gerstmann S, Frank H. 2008. Perfluorooctane surfactants in waste waters, the major source of river pollution. Chemosphere 72:115?121. 27. Murakami M, Shinohara H, Takada H. 2009. Evaluation of wastewater and street runoff as sources of perfluorinated surfactants (PFSs). Chemosphere 74:487?493. 28. Higgins CP, Luthy RG. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on sediments. Environ Sci Technol 40:7251?7256. 29. Sadi BBM, Vonderheide AP, Caruso JA. 2004. Analysis of phosphorous herbicides by ion-pairing reversed-phase liquid chromatography coupled to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry with octapole reaction cell. J Chromatogr A 1050:95? 101. 30. Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD/Labs). 2009. Software V8.14 for Solaris. Toronto, ON, Canada. 31. Borggaard OK, Gimsing AL. 2008. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: A review. Pest Manag Sci 64:441?456. Discovery of a new class of perfluorinated acids Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 2009 2107 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 26 11:10:31 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:10:31 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Toronto tap water - antibiotic resistant bacteria Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin The problem is sewage treatment. In the sewage treatment process antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria sit together in tanks for about 15 days. The 'naive' bacteria in contact with the chlorine and antibiotics in the sewage will die. Those bacteria that have antibiotic resistant DNA will survive and reproduce. There will also be genetic exchange as fragments of DNA are swapped. Just because the bacteria die, it doesn't mean that the antibiotic resistant genetic fragments are destroyed. And further...sewage treatment backwashes the incoming sewage-borne bacteria with the old bacteria from the digesters...the antibiotic resistant bacteria. The sewage treatment plant acts like a factory - creating antibiotic resistance bacteria and releasing them into the environment in both effluent and sewage sludge. The sewage sludge is put on farmland where it is exposed to farmers, pets, rural neighbours, wildlife (including migratory birds) who can pick up the antibiotic resistant bacteria and carry them thousands of miles away. In drinking water systems, the bacteria can live a long time in the slime 'bio-films' inside the drinking water system pipes. In Walkerton, the pipes themselves became the source of drinking water contamination, and had to be completely replaced. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/AEM.00382-09v1 Appl. Environ. Microbiol. doi:10.1128/AEM.00382-09 Copyright (c) 2009, American Society for Microbiology Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Chuanwu Xi*, Yongli Zhang, Carl F. Marrs, Wen Ye, Carl Simon, Betsy Foxman, and Jerome Nriagu Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, and Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA * To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: cxi at umich.edu. Abstract The occurrence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a pressing public health problem worldwide and aquatic ecosystems are a recognized reservoir for antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB). We used culture-dependent methods and quantitative molecular techniques to detect and quantify ARBand antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in source waters, drinking water treatment plants and tap water from several cities in Michigan and Ohio. We found ARGs and heterotrophic ARB in all finished water and tap water tested, although in small amounts. Quantities of most ARGs were higher in tap water compared to finished water and source water. In general, ARB was greater in source water than tap water, and tap water greater than finished water, indicating re-growth of bacteria in drinking water distribution systems. Elevated resistance to some antibiotics was observed during water treatment and in tap water. Water treatment might increase antibiotic resistance of surviving bacteria and water distribution systems may serve as an important reservoir for spread of antibiotic resistance to opportunistic pathogens. If you want to read more about antibiotic resistance in sewage effluent and sludge: Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Found in Fertilizer Could Breed More Super Bugs http://www.naturalnews.com/026583_bacteria_infections_fertilizer.html Spreading sewage sludge means spreading antibiotic resistance. Ontario hospitals are being overwhelmed with antibiotic resistant infections many of them community acquired. Ontario hospitals must now publicly post their infection rates from such infections, so the public knows the risks of dying from these resistant infections at any particular hospital. Note that Ottawa hospital has such terrible antibiotic resist bacterial infections that it no longer performs certain medical procedures since the infection rate is so high. Note, too, that Ottawa drinking water comes from the Ottawa River, where there are many sewage plants discharging antibiotic resistant bacteria upstream of the Ottawa drinking water intake pipe. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/10/25/toronto-tapwater-bacteria.html Toronto water has drug-resistant bacteria Last Updated: Monday, October 26, 2009 CBC News Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been found in Toronto tap water, a U.S. scientist says.Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been found in Toronto tap water, a U.S. scientist says. Bacteria resistant to some antibiotics have been found in Toronto tap water, a University of Michigan scientist says. The water remains safe to drink, he said, but the finding raises the possibility that disease-causing bacteria will pick up the resistance genes. In the United States, researchers have found bacteria that have evolved to become resistant to some antibiotics in some municipal water supplies. At his lab in Ann Arbor, Mich., microbiologist Prof. Chuanwu Xi showed a stack of petri dishes, some filled with yellow dots of bacteria that should have been killed off by antibiotics. The source of the bacteria was drinking water from several communities in Ohio and Michigan. "In tap water in Toronto, there's antibiotic-resistant bacteria," Xi said, after testing water samples provided by CBC News. The researchers don't know what kinds of bacteria they've found, just that they can't be killed by antibiotics. But most bacteria in the environment are not the kinds that cause human disease, so the water is safe to drink, the researchers said. The real concern is the genetic pollution created by antibiotic-resistant genes circulating in the environment, and the risk that human pathogens will pick up those resistant genes, said Gerry Wright, a researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton. Bacteria "have this remarkable ability to take up drug-resistance genes from their neighbours," Wright said. "In some cases, they can collect dozens of drug-resistance genes and incorporate them into their genomes. It's really quite astounding." Since overuse of antibiotics helps fuel drug-resistant bugs, public health officials continue to fear they may run out of options to treat human infections, he said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 26 18:30:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:30:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Livestock now picking up bugs from people - MRSA went from humans to chickens Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin With pathogenic antibiotic resistant bacteria in sewage sludge spread (think hospital waste, etc) on farmlands near livestock, and on hay and pasture grounds, it is small wonder that animals are picking up human diseases ... especially the resistant diseases. Ontario even continues to allow spreading untreated human waste and septic holding tank and porta potty wastes on hay fields. ....................................................... Animals now picking up bugs from people, study shows October 26th, 2009 Globalisation and industrialisation are causing diseases to spread from humans to animals, a study has shown. Researchers from The Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh have shown that a strain of bacteria has jumped from humans to chickens. It is believed to be the first clear evidence of bacterial pathogens crossing over from humans to animals and then spreading since animals were first domesticated some 10,000 years ago. The study identified a form of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus - of which MRSA is a subtype - in chickens, and found that the bacteria originally came from humans. Genetic testing showed that the bacteria crossed over from one species to another around 40 years ago, coinciding with a move towards intensive poultry farming practices. In comparison to the corresponding form of Staphylococcus aureus in humans, which was isolated to one geographical area, the strain in chickens was spread across different continents. Infectious diseases in chicken flocks are a major economic burden on the industry and the spread of bacteria from humans to chickens could have a huge impact on poultry farming. If bacteria are also shown to be crossing over from humans to other livestock then there could be an impact on food security. Dr. Ross Fitzgerald, of The Roslin Institute, said: "Half a century ago chickens were reared for their eggs, with meat regarded as a by-product. Now the demand for meat has led to a poultry industry dominated by a few multinational companies which supply a limited number of breeding lines to a global market - thereby promoting the spread of the bacteria around the world." The bacteria are a major cause of animal diseases, including bone infections in poultry. Further research will look at analysing other livestock for emerging pathogens and diseases which may have come from humans. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Source: University of Edinburgh From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 27 15:29:55 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:29:55 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Detroit - Conyers to be sentenced Dec 1, 2009 - paid to vote for Synagro Message-ID: http://www.freep.com/article/20091027/NEWS01/91027028/1318/Conyers-to-be-sentenced-Dec.-1- ?Oct. 27, 2009 Conyers to be sentenced Dec. 1 Former Detroit councilwoman to hear fate in bribery case BY BEN SCHMITT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER Conyers, who was the council's president pro tem, went from one of Detroit's most politically powerful and mercurial women to an admitted felon in a pay-to-play scheme for a $1.2-billion-plus Synagro sludge treatment contract. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn will issue the sentencing. Conyers faces up to five years in prison. She was president of the council during Ken Cockrel Jr.'s mayoral regime from September through May. Now, she faces up to five years in prison for taking cash-stuffed envelopes at a city recreation center and in a McDonald's parking lot. She admitted taking at least $6,000 from Detroit businessman Rayford Jackson to change her vote in favor of the Synagro contract in 2007. Jackson is scheduled to be sentenced by Cohn on Friday. Conyers is married to U.S. Rep. John Conyers. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 27 15:35:33 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:35:33 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> BBC: Gaza thirsts as sewage crisis mounts Message-ID: This you may wish to read on line - to view the photos and better layout. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8327146.stm Gaza thirsts as sewage crisis mounts Partially treated sewage seeps into the groundwater from the lagoons By Heather Sharp BBC News, Gaza Gaza's aquifer and only natural freshwater source is "in danger of collapse," the UN is warning.Engineers have long been battling to keep the densely populated strip's water and sewage system limping along. But in September the UN Environment Programme warned that damage to the underground aquifer - due to the Israeli and Egyptian blockade, conflict, and years of overuse and underinvestment - could take centuries to reverse if it is not halted now. We could in a short time change people's lives if we were allowed to, but there is a key phrase - open borders Monther Shoblak Monther Shoblak, director of Gaza's Coastal Municipality Water Utility, sniffs the air at the Beit Lahia water treatment plant and smiles. "I'm happy when I smell sewage," he jokes, "it means the turbines are working." Propellers are agitating the frothy sludge in one of the lagoons, aerating it to help bacteria digest it. He says the machinery sometimes falls silent during the power cuts that plague most of Gaza. But the mirror-smooth pond next to it is a perpetual concern. The plant is handling twice its capacity and is only able to partially treat the sewage. Lagoons designed to allow treated clean water to infiltrate through Gaza's sandy soil back down into the aquifer are instead funnelling sewage straight back into the groundwater In addition, with several years of drought and the digging of hundreds of illegal, unregulated wells, the UN Environmental Programme says at least three times more water is extracted than is replenished each year. Up to 80m litres of partially treated sewage are pumped into the sea each day As the level is dropping in the aquifer, sea water is invading. With nitrates from the sewage and salt from the sea, only 5-10% of the water in Gaza's wells - and therefore its taps - now meets World Health Organization guidelines, even after it has been chlorinated. Years of declineThe aquifer has been in decline for years. But Oxfam's Mark Buttle, who co-ordinates international organisations working in the water sector, says the pressures are adding up. Gaza faces a "pending environmental disaster" he warns. "Water is life," he says. Action must be taken now, "so that we can prevent future problems with Gaza becoming uninhabitable". Khader Makdad and his wife find it difficult to pay for water Next to a school among a dense tangle of crumbling concrete homes, a water pump in Shati refugee camp hums as it sucks water from a borehole close to the sea. Mr Buttle says it is some of Gaza's worst water. "It's like sea water," says local resident Shadi Dosh, 27. "It's not clean. It's only for washing. It has a bad smell," says Nabila Makdad, a mother of six. Poverty has risen in Gaza as the blockade has ended much economic activity. An estimated 70% of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. Mrs Makdad and her husband Khader say they make so little from their two street stalls that they have to rely on charity and loans from friends. They spend 20NIS (about $5) a week buying water for cooking and drinking from private tankers, which bring water from small-scale desalination plants. "I'd rather buy vegetables or fruit, or put the money towards my children's education, but there's no other way," says Ms Makdad. Health concernsAnother concern is the blood disorder dubbed "blue baby syndrome", which is associated with nitrate pollution. It results in low oxygen levels in an infant's blood, which can cause breathing trouble, diarrhoea and vomiting, and in extreme cases, loss of consciousness, convulsions and death. Some building supplies have arrived, but water and sanitation workers say they need a lot more The World Health Organization has not discovered any recent, full-blown cases in Gaza. But in a 2002 study, nearly half the children surveyed had higher than safe levels of methemoglobin, the substance that indicates the condition. Nitrate pollution has increased since then. Under Israel's crippling blockade, and with the border with Egypt closed, most building materials are refused entry, for fear they could be used to make smuggling tunnels or the rockets that militants fire at Israel. But limited amounts of materials for sewage and water infrastructure have been allowed in. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev says he believes the system for approving shipments is currently "going quite well". He says Israel "wants to work effectively with the international community" on the issue, which with 50-80m litres of partially treated sewage pumped into the sea each day, is also likely to have an impact on southern Israel's coast. But Mr Shoblack says, since Israel's military operation in Gaza last winter, only five of 40 orders for building materials have arrived. Nevertheless, he says, most of the $6m of damage sustained by the water and sewage system during the fighting has been repaired. The lagoon which burst, killing five people, has now been drained Thirty kilometres of pipes and 11 wells were damaged, and sewage flooded for up to a kilometre after one waste water plant was hit. Even some control rooms at a brand new facility - locally referred to as the Tony Blair project as it has been heavily championed by the international Middle East envoy - were damaged. But Mr Shoblack speaks proudly of his organisation's few achievements - for example, the draining of a lagoon in Beit Lahiya that burst in 2007, killing five people in a flood of sewage. And he says donors have committed $250m to a master plan including a sea water desalination plant and new sewage treatment facilities - but only if the political and security situation improves. In the meantime, he shows me a large pipe belching brownish-white sludge into a frothy patch on the beach south of Gaza City. It pollutes the sea and wastes water that could, if treated, be used to recharge the aquifer. "We have a vision. We could in a short time change people's lives, if we were allowed to," says Mr Shoblack. "But there is a key phrase - open borders." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 29 13:08:01 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:08:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> NY: Greenport - why put toxic sludge into your green compost? Message-ID: http://www2.timesreview.com/ST/stories/T102909_compost_jal ?10/29/2009 #printerFriendly {display:inline;} #commentBubble {display:inline; padding-left: 3px;} #commentLink {display:inline;} #communitylinks {display:inline; } ? var addthis_pub="dondmcg"; Greenport has composting woes To proceed or delay -- that is the question BY JULIE LANE |STAFF WRITER ??0 comments below var c3465678 = 0 if (c3465678 == 0) { document.getElementById("3465678").style.display = "none";} else { } RANDEE DADDONA PHOTO Southold composts only yard debris, some of which generates the leaf compost shown here. The town facility does not handle the sewer system sludge Greenport would process. Whether composting is a recipe for disaster or an opportunity for the Village of Greenport to save and make money depends on whose opinion you believe. Greenport's sludge is filled with heavy metals and toxins and that's why Village Board members should shun a proposal to build and operate a composting plant that would only cause problems, said Bill Swiskey, a former trustee and ex-utilities chief. Current utilities chief Jack Naylor has another view. He believes the sludge that would result after treatment at the planned upgraded wastewater treatment operation would have none of those toxic elements and feels a composting plant would both save the village money and present opportunities to make money. RANDEE DADDONA PHOTO Solid waste coordinator Jim Bunchuck is dwarfed by piles of the double-ground compost available there, which he says many users prefer. With just two months before Greenport would have to pull the trigger on an application to create a composting plant on Moore's Lane, Village Board members know little more about which outcome to expect. But time pressures for the stimulus money to build the plant have forced them to set in place several actions, just in case they decide to push ahead with the composting operation. "Believe me, this is not a good deal and you people better think hard and fast before you do this," Mr. Swiskey said at Monday night's Village Board meeting. Sludge that currently goes into lagoons in Greenport Harbor to be pumped out and transported to Bergen Point in West Babylon for processing does contain the toxins about which Mr. Swiskey warns. But the nature of the sludge that would result from the upgraded wastewater treatment plant is unknown and can't be tested until it's created once the sewer plant upgrade is completed, Mayor David Nyce told Mr. Swiskey. Still, the upgrade is all about treating components so they don't pollute the water, enabling Greenport to meet state Department of Environmental Conservation and federal Environmental Protection Agency standards. The problem the village faces is that it has to make a decision by Jan. 1 to pursue the stimulus money and launch the project or abandon it and hope that it might have a future opportunity after the waste-water treatment plant upgrade is completed. Mr. Naylor points to the town of Waterville, N.Y., where he first learned about the composting operation he's proposing for the village. In 2008, Waterville was recognized by the EPA for its outstanding and creative technological achievements in waste-water treatment and pollution abatement in Region 2. Mr. Naylor envisions a similar operation in Greenport that could be built at no cost to the village, but save $75,000 a year in sludge treatment costs. It could even generate income as the only sludge composting operation in the area offering its services to other municipalities, he said. While he traveled to Waterville to see the sludge composting operation, Mr. Naylor hasn't spoken to Jim Bunchuck, Southold's solid waste and recycling center director and a Greenport resident, about the leaf and yard debris composting operation he runs. Mr. Bunchuck agreed to speak with The Suffolk Times about his experiences with composting. "It's not a panacea," he said. "It's not something you would jump into; there is a learning curve." Mr. Bunchuck said he is pleased with the $200,000 he expects the town to see in sales of composting material this year, but he has experienced bumps along the way. Sludge composting is a whole different animal than the leaf and yard debris his workers process at the Cutchogue site. DEC requirements are more strict when dealing with sludge wastes and the approval process is more complex, Mr. Bunchuck said. Even dealing with yard waste, he has had to test source materials coming into Cutchogue to assure they don't contain elements he doesn't want. He has turned down some contract offers with other municipalities that wanted to process their debris here because it didn't meet his standards. He abandoned efforts to process grass because of its odors. Mr. Naylor told Village Board members that odors would be contained within a composting plant. Mr. Bunchuck said inside composting should cause less odor problems, but he added, "It's a an issue at most compost sites." Not only are there more complexities in gaining regulatory permits to operate a sludge-based composting facility, but the DEC also imposes limits on where the sludge can be used, Mr. Bunchuck said. East Hampton created a composting system for its garbage that didn't work and the town ended up using the large building for yard waste instead because they lacked an adequate separating system to handle the garbage, he said. >From Mr. Swiskey's vantage point, Greenport is "rushing this thing through" and it will meet the same fate as the now defunct scavenger waste plant. "Get rid of this thing," he advised. "You could put yourselves at risk. The only board member to publicly express concerns about the idea is Trustee Chris Kempner, who said she doesn't necessarily object, but feels she has too little information to make a decision and is cautious about moving forward without more answers. Despite the financial steps taken to date, the village hasn't committed itself to pushing forward with a composting operation. But Village Board members will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 10, at either the Third Street Firehouse or Village Hall to hear from residents before making a decision. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 29 13:12:58 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:12:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tumors and Sex Changes - sewage - nonylphenol Message-ID: http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/3508/tumors-and-sex-changes-part-deux/ October 28th, 2009, in the New Times - Volume 24, Issue 13 Tumors and sex changes: part deux Suspected Morro Bay pollutant looks more prevalent than previously believed BY COLIN RIGLEY GROWING CONCERN Local scientists guessed last spring that tumors found in Morro Bay (California) goby fish were caused by sewage runoff. After doing the research it turns out they?re probably right. In spring of 2008, scientists from Cal Poly discovered that about 10 percent of goby fish collected in Morro Bay were plagued by bulbous liver tumors. At the time they hypothesized the gobies were being poisoned by sewage runoff and a common chemical found in everything from detergents to spermicides. After some preliminary research, it looks as though their first guess was right and, perhaps, not broad enough in scope. The chemical in question is called nonylphenol (pronounced ?non-il-fe-NALL?). It results from chemical breakdowns, most commonly during sewage treatment processes. In fact, beyond being a suspected goby carcinogen, nonylphenol has been linked elsewhere as causing gender changes in gobies. The European Union all but banned the chemical in most uses and Canada officials labeled it as toxic. In the United States, however, nonylphenol is considered an inert ingredient, which is part of the problem, according to Dan Berman, program director of the Morro Bay National Estuary Program. ?It?s especially worrisome because the stuff is really ubiquitous,? Berman said. ?It?s in personal products like shampoo and it?s not listed on the ingredients because technically it?s not an active ingredient.? In other words, nonylphenol has an easy avenue into the environment. Nonylphenol concentrations found in Morro Bay are just among the few known studied areas in California. The Cal Poly research group, headed by biologists Lars Tomanek and Dean Wendt, also found nonylphenol in Tomales Bay and as far north as Oregon. Tomanek and Wendt stressed that the data is still very preliminary and, while it points to a correlation between nonylphenol and ecological problems, hasn?t proven a causal link. Out of 60 organic pollutants studied in Morro Bay, nonylphenol is considered to be the main candidate for causing tumors in gobies, Tomanek said. Levels in the water were fairly low, about .5 parts per billion. The average concentration in sediment, however, was about 32 parts per billion. Sediment concentrations were found as high as 87 parts per billion from samples collected near the State Park marina. ?It?s emerging I think in sort of our collective consciousness,? said Karen Worcester of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ?Probably we need to figure out ways to address it.? There were nonylphenol concentrations of 716 parts per billion found in samples of goby livers, according to the Cal Poly research. The chemical may also cause liver and gonadal tumors in other organisms. When the tumors were first discovered one of the unanswered questions was whether nonylphenol was accumulating in other species. According to the research, the answer is a definitive yes. Some Pacific oysters in Morro Bay had nonylphenol concentrations of up to 363 parts per billion found in their digestive tissues. There is no known health risk for human consumption of nonylphenol. Morro Bay Oyster Company owner Neal Maloney stressed that his company complies with all state health laws. ?We wouldn?t give anything to the public which we and the health department didn?t think was safe for humans and something I wouldn?t eat myself,? Maloney said. Tomanek and Wendt stressed the same point: nonylphenol has not been shown to be a health risk to humans. They said there?s more work to be done and the findings await peer review. Maloney agreed: ?We?re stewards of the bay; we want to find pollution as well. But until the science is done I think it?s kind of premature to blow the whistle.? Furthermore, the chemical is prevalent throughout the state and really, across all U.S. coastlines. ?This stuff is everywhere,? Wendt said. ?Not just in Morro Bay; it is not just a Morro Bay issue.? After the goby tumors were first discovered, Tomanek and others suspected nonylphenol was produced mostly in septic and other sewage processing systems, then leaked into the bay through other water bodies as treated effluent. In Chorro Creek, upstream of the California Men?s Colony wastewater treatment there was no detectible nonylphenol in the sediment. But 100 meters downstream the sediment contained 610 parts per billion. In the sludge byproducts tested in a septic pump tank that serves 186 Los Osos homes, there was a staggering 5 million parts per billion. Tomanek and Wendt wrote a letter to county officials raising the nonylphenol issue now that the Los Osos sewer project is nearing construction. ?Although it is not a unique problem to Morro Bay, at this point it occurs that it is the major pollutant threatening the marine life in Morro Bay,? they wrote. The response: ?The Los Osos Waste Water Project would not discharge into any stream or Morro Bay. Sludge from the treatment facility will be disposed in appropriate landfills.? If the chemical truly is causing tumors in gobies and problems in other marine life, the next steps could still be tricky. There are no regulations in the U.S. as there are in other countries, though the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to court challenges from the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the Sierra Club, and other similar groups, has begun the process to review whether nonylphenol should be on a federal watch list of toxic chemicals in water and sediment. The comment period for the federal review ended on Sept. 15. Meanwhile, there?s no way to ask people not to use products containing the chemical because it?s not required to be listed in the active ingredients. Asked about possible solutions, Berman said, ?Rather than asking people to change their personal behavior, we just need to get this stuff out of the system?if it?s as serious as it?s looking like.? Staff writer Colin Rigley can be reached at crigley at newtimesslo.com. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 29 13:17:05 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:17:05 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Deleware - sludge 'recycler' closes facility - multimillion in cleanup needed Message-ID: http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20091029/NEWS01/91029009/1002/DELAWARE--Sludge-recycler-closes-facility- DELAWARE: Sludge recycler closes facility the news journal ? October 29, 2009 (function(){ GEL.thepage.initializer.addInitRoutine({ name: "YahooBuzz", namespace: "remoting", callback: loadcontent, priority: 100 }); GEL.thepage.initializer.addInitRoutine({ name: "sharelinks", namespace: "widget.ArticleTools", callback: initShareThis, priority: 91 }); function initShareThis(){ var _w= GEL.thepage.shareThis= new GEL.widget.ShareThis("sharelinks"); _w.init(); } function loadcontent(){ var _jscntr= GEL.ement("YahooBuzz"), _u= "http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge2.js"; window.yahooBuzzBadgeType= 'text'; _jscntr.setContentUrl(_u); _jscntr.updateRemoteContent(); return; } })(); A long-troubled Wilmington sludge recycling operation has shut down, a move that could add millions to regional wastewater treatment costs and chew up precious northern Delaware landfill space. Idling VFL Technology's "stabilization" plant off I-495 at East 12th Street diverted a 50,000 ton-per-year flow of dewatered sewage sludge into Cherry Island Landfill, offsetting gains from a space-saving yard waste ban at the same disposal site. Left in the aftermath are multiple government agency disputes and legal appeals over cleanup, monitoring and removal requirements for mountains of sludge, power plant ash and industrial residues at East 12th Street.Also unresolved is the city's refusal to accept liability for properly closing a landfill at the site that received more than 1.5 million tons of mixed sludge, ash and other materials from the city plant -- including more than 100,000 tons deposited illegally. Earlier this year, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control estimated that $17 million might be needed to remove and safely dispose of a portion of the stockpile at East 12th Street. DNREC has only a $500,000 cleanup and monitoring guarantee from VFL and its parent company, Utah-based Headwaters Inc. "The city often comes looking for relief from the state on tax issues. Now, on the other hand, they're turning around and creating a liability that's going to be paid by non-city residents," said Rep. Gregory F. Lavelle, R-Sharpley. "It's just insane. On the one hand, we can't put yard waste in Cherry Island, but they're taking up the volume and nobody seems to want to resolve it." City officials said in a written statement that they already have notified New Castle County about recent developments at the wastewater plant. County residents pay the majority of operating costs for the regional plant and account for about 70 percent of the sludge handled there.The switch to landfilling, city officials said, increases the cost of sludge disposal to $61.50 per ton, "almost double" the rate paid to VFL. State officials separately estimated that sludge disposal costs would rise to about $3.7 million yearly. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 29 13:39:23 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:39:23 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Yakima Washington - biosolids deal called off Message-ID: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/10/28/biosolids-deal-called-off Biosolids deal called off By CHRIS BRISTOL Yakima Herald-Republic ? YAKIMA, Wash. -- The city of Yakima has pulled the plug on a proposed deal with two local farms that drew public opposition for its use of treated human waste as fertilizer. The city currently pays a Sunnyside company to get rid of waste and was looking at options to move the matter for free. The savings for the city was projected at about $150,000. On Wednesday, the city's Planning Department formally withdrew an environmental review of the proposed deal. The decision was expected. Representatives of Roy Farms had said they were going to back out even before a public forum designed to allay fears about the deal was held last month at the Yakima Area Arboretum. But the forum went badly for the city, according to city officials, who concede they have a long way to go in educating the public about biosolids. "I feel like I got the wind knocked out of me," Tim Cooper, biosolids chief operator for the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, said. "If somebody's interested in this material, that would be nice. Give me a call." Biosolids is the term of art in the wastewater industry for human waste that has been processed through a series of dewatering and cooking into a gel-like state that is considered safe for use as a fertilizer. The city currently pays Sunnyside-based Natural Selections Farms to dispose of the 8,500 tons of sludge the wastewater plant generates annually. The company then "land-applies" the material to client farms throughout the Lower Valley. Looking for ways to save money, the city was negotiating with Roy Farms of Moxee and WS Farms of Zillah to take the material for free. Along with reduced fuel costs for delivery, savings were estimated at $150,000 or more a year. But the plan went awry due to growing opposition from neighbors of the farms. The residents of the Hi Valley View subdivision in Terrace Heights, which sits adjacent to a field owned by Roy Farms, were especially vocal about the potential for odor, dust and truck traffic. Mike Roy said nothing that happened at the forum changed their minds. Roy added that opposition from breweries was also a factor in the company's decision to nix the deal. One of the company's major products is hops, a key ingredient in beer. Even so, he voiced his own concerns about growing conflict between suburbanites and the agricultural industry that forms the backbone of the region's economy. "It's something we as a community need to deal with," he said of biosolids, adding, "The residential pressure is going to keep increasing around here for years to come." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 29 14:02:02 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:02:02 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Clean Energy States Alliance Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Some of the materials that are currently land applied could be more safely used as renewable energy.? These projects must use the best available technologies to prevent emissions. This website has reports on different kinds of projects. ....................... http://www.cleanenergystates.org/ States across the U.S. with established clean energy funds or programs have banded together to promote clean energy technologies. Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) is a nonprofit organization comprised of members from 16 clean energy funds and two state agencies; it provides information and technical services to its members and works with them to build and expand clean energy markets in the United States. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 31 11:28:38 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:28:38 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> USA: Coalition asks FDA to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle Message-ID: USA: Coalition asks FDA to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle 31.oct.09 L.A. Times Jerry Hirsch http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feed31-2009oct31,0,477197,print.story A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. Even McDonald's Corp., the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle. Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn't act to do so in the coming months. Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates. Using the litter -- which include feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus -- increases the risk of cows becoming infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union. That's because the spilled chicken feed and the feces contains tissue from ruminants -- cows and sheep, among other mammals. The disease is transmitted through feeding ruminant remains to cattle. "It takes a very small quantity of ruminant protein, even just 1 milligram, to cause an infection," said Steve Roach, public health program director with Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago-based animal welfare group that is part of the coalition. Although it is rare, people can contract a fatal form of the disease by eating meat from cows with BSE. The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the beef industry's main trade group, said the ban was not needed and that several FDA reviews had determined that the chance of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease from eating poultry litter was remote. "Science does not justify the ban, and the FDA has looked at this now many times," said Elizabeth Parker, chief veterinarian for the trade group. "I still think you need to totally restrict using any ruminant protein in feed that gets back to ruminants," said Linda Detwiler, a food safety consultant and former U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian. Prohibiting high-risk tissues as a feed source makes the chances of transmitting mad cow disease through poultry litter low but does not remove all risk, Detwiler said. The practice also makes McDonald's, one of the nation's biggest beef purchasers, nervous. "We do not condone the feeding of poultry litter to cattle," it said in a statement. Feeding farm animals feces may sound gross, but is a practice that goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis. "In the old days when people had mixed farms, what came out the back end of the cows was eaten by pigs, and what came out the end of pigs was eaten by chickens. That was the natural way of farming," he said. "Anything that hit the ground was fair game." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 31 12:06:34 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:06:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia Environmentalists want tighter biosolids rules Message-ID: http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1150233.html Environmentalists want tighter biosolids rules By GORDON DELANEY Valley Bureau Chronicle Herald Nova Scotia Fri. Oct 30 - 4:46 AM Joey Cogswell, who owns a certified organic farm near Berwick, holds a placard outside Kings County offices Thursday, urging the municipality to say no to the spreading of biosolids on farm land. (GORDON DELANEY / Valley Bureau) KENTVILLE ? The province?s stricter new guidelines governing the use and spreading of biosolids are not nearly strict enough, say environmentalists. Earlier this month, the Environment Department announced new guidelines for storing municipal biosolids and applying them to land. The guidelines also require more intensive testing for contaminants in biosolids and government approval to produce them. But the Nova Scotia Environmental Network says there are no monitoring mechanisms and the guidelines are not legally enforceable. It wants the province to hold a plebiscite to determine if Nova Scotians want treated sewage sludge spread on farmland and other public lands. "Most residents in Nova Scotia have no idea that sewage sludge is being applied on some land," Marilyn Cameron, chairwoman of the network?s biosolids and waste-water caucus, said in an interview Thursday. The scientific advisory committee working with the province even recognized the risk involved, Ms. Cameron said. "There is potential for harming the public." The advisory committee asked the department to develop a health-risk monitoring program, "but that didn?t happen," she said. "There is no monitoring of public health and food safety." She said the new guidelines are merely a list of suggestions for users of biosolids. "They are not enforceable regulations. If someone bends or breaks the rules, there are no repercussions." She said the rules are already being broken. "People are concerned about their health and food safety." The environmental group believes that hundreds of potential contaminants remain in sewer sludge after it is treated. It wants more comprehensive testing and risk assessment before spreading of the material as fertilizer on farmland. Some farmers are using the material on their fields because it?s cheaper than commercial fertilizers, which doubled in price this year because of a shortage in supply in the face of high demand from China and other developing countries. Ms. Cameron appeared at a special Kings County council meeting in Kentville recently to express concerns about biosolids being used on some farms. She is concerned about the safety of the product and its use in the production of locally grown food. The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture has remained neutral on the issue. Some county councillors have expressed concerns about the product, and one has asked for a total moratorium on its use. Warden Fred Whalen said in a recent interview that he is not aware of its use on any farmland in the county. Mr. Whalen said before taking action, the municipality wants to see the details of the province?s new guidelines. Environment Department officials were expected to meet with county councillors and staff late Thursday afternoon. The environmental network is also concerned that the guidelines do not require labelling of products grown with biosolids and do not require giving rural communities notice when used. Ms. Cameron said that while more intensive testing may sound good, that testing will be done by the facilities producing the biosolids, not an objective party. "I?m a certified organic farmer, and you should see the list of hoops and regulations I have to jump through," said Joey Cogswell, whose farm is north of Berwick. "Yet they want to spread this stuff on our farmland. It?s crazy." Mr. Cogswell carried a placard in front of the Kings County municipal offices Thursday. He wants the municipality to say no to spreading biosolids on farmland. ( gdelaney at herald.ca) From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 31 12:09:43 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:09:43 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Delaware - state gov't handling of sludge is 'a convoluted mess' Message-ID: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091030/OPINION11/910300315/1004/OPINION/State+government+s+handling+of+sludge+is++a+convoluted+mess++ State government's handling of sludge is 'a convoluted mess' NEVER-ENDING TROUBLES The News Journal ? October 30, 2009 Del.icio.usFacebookDiggRedditNewsvine http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091030/OPINION11/910300315 Buzz up! var numDivs ="1";if (GDN.Cookie.Exists("GCIONSN") ) { var GPCookie = GDN.Cookie.Get('GCIONSN'); var GPvalueEncData= GDN.Base64.Decode(GPCookie); var GPvalueDecData= GPvalueEncData.match(/GPvalue:([\w\@\.\-\%\|]+)/i); if(PaginationArticleCookie != PaginationArticleUrl || GPvalueDecData == null || GPvalueDecData[1] == 'undefined' || typeof(GPvalueDecData[0]) == 'undefined') { var saxoNextPage = "910300315%7C2%7C1"; var saxoPreviousPage = "910300315%7C1%7C1"; } } else { var saxoNextPage = "910300315%7C2%7C1"; var saxoPreviousPage = "910300315%7C1%7C1"; } Maybe now that VFL Technology has shut down its sludge recycling operation -- which could cost Wilmington and New Castle County taxpayers millions of dollars -- maybe the public outcry to increased costs and future disposal expenses will lead to an agreement on responsibility for the tons of illegally deposited power plant ash and other materials at the East 12th Street plant. triggerAd(1,PaginationPage,7); This ongoing debacle with the state Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, the city of Wilmington, New Castle County and the Delaware Solid Waste Authority has become among the biggest governmental embarrassments in recent memory. Wilmington officials continue to refuse to comment or explain their exact role in this convoluted mess of who's paying who for what or how legal it is.DNREC continues to threaten, cajole and warn but apparently is so weak-kneed at this kind of thing that nothing happens. Maybe the recent change in DNREC leadership, with new Secretary Collin P. O'Mara, will lead to some new state positions. Meanwhile, we now learn that some 140 tons of sludge will be sent to a landfill in northwestern Pennsylvania. The actual operation of VFL will continue, according to a spokesman, but there will not be the mixing of other materials with the sludge because of recent layoffs.Complicating matters further for Wilmington and the state, VFL is a defendant in two Virginia lawsuits filed this year that seek more than $2.6 billion in damages linked to coal ash pollution in Chesapeake, Va.This switch to land-filling the sludge increases the cost of disposal almost double the rate paid to VFL. How that will be paid is unclear.We hope Secretary O'Mara can take charge of this disaster. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 28 10:37:22 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:37:22 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Heat recovery from sludge in Connecticut - 4.4 M kw hours of electricity Message-ID: http://www.reliableplant.com/article.aspx?articleid=20859&pagetitle=Heat+recovery+system+creates+electricity%2C+lowers+utility+costs Heat recovery system creates electricity, lowers utility costs RP news wires Dresser-Rand Company recently designed and installed a complete waste heat recovery system at the Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority (GNHWPCA) in Connecticut. The project included engineering, construction and testing of the waste heat boiler, steam turbine generator set and condenser, ducting and valves. ? Through a long-term service agreement with GNHWPCA, Dresser-Rand will also maintain the facility, to achieve the guaranteed electrical production. The system is expected to produce 4.4 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. ? Providing wastewater treatment for the residents of New Haven, Hamden, East Haven and Woodbridge, Conn., the GNHWPCA wanted to reduce its electricity costs, minimize future rate increases and pass those savings on to their customers. The Dresser-Rand project uses waste heat from the wastewater treatment facility to produce steam, powering a Dresser-Rand 750 kW steam turbine generator at the East Shore Water Pollution Abatement Facility. As a result of the project, GNHWPCA expects to reduce its electricity costs by one-third. The GNHWPCA has received financing for 50 percent of the capital cost for project through the use of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB?s) at zero percent interest for 16 years. The GNHWPCA also received a $300,000 incentive grant from CTDPUC, under Connecticut?s legislation for distributed energy facilities. ? ?With the nation?s focus on building renewable and alternative energy capabilities, there?s a push to extract all economically viable energy, including energy at water treatment plants,? said Peter Salvatore, vice president of global field operations at Dresser-Rand. ?This project is illustrative of Dresser-Rand?s ?turnkey? approach, providing single-point responsibility, offering an efficient and effective project delivery, and providing added value for our clients. We estimate this type of power recovery solution could be viable for 200 similar facilities in the U.S. And while this project falls on the smaller end of the power scale, Dresser-Rand has equipment and capabilities exceeding 60 megawatts.? ? The GNHWPCA water treatment process involves removing sludge, or sewer system waste, from the water, reducing the moisture content to a combustible level, and burning the dried sludge in a multiple hearth furnace. The resulting exhaust gas is scrubbed to remove pollutants and then released to the atmosphere. ? Dresser-Rand?s waste heat recovery solution routes the exhaust gas directly from the furnace to a waste heat boiler, creating steam. The steam powers the turbine generator set, producing electricity in a closed loop cycle. The exhaust gas is returned from the boiler to the scrubber and out the exhaust stack. The process is designed such that it does not change emissions and, therefore, does not impact the facility?s air quality permit. The system simply diverts the gas upstream of the scrubber, extracts a significant amount of the otherwise wasted heat and returns the gas back to the scrubber to continue its normal exhaust path. ? Salvatore adds that, ?One of Dresser-Rand?s corporate goals is to provide technology enabled solutions that positively impact the environment and the company is constantly seeking opportunities to further that goal.? ? This project is Dresser-Rand?s first complete service installation at a sludge incineration facility. ? ?We designed, constructed and tested the system, and we trained the client?s personnel on operations,? Salvatore said. ?Our long term service agreement with GNHWPCA requires us to maintain the plant, to achieve the guaranteed electrical production. To ensure we meet this requirement, the keystone of the maintenance agreement is Dresser-Rand?s proprietary ?Performance, Diagnostics, and Consultation? service, which monitors and analyzes the health of the plant and provides ?management-ready information? upon which maintenance decisions are based.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 28 11:13:36 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:13:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Cedar Rapids - state and FEMA provides $26M for sludge removal Message-ID: http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=173698 Gov. Culver: Culver, Loebsack announce $26 million in disaster aid to Cedar Rapids 10/15/2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 15, 2009 Governor?s actions save city $3.9 million DES MOINES ?Governor Chet Culver and Congressman Dave Loebsack today announced that more than $26 million in federal and state funds have been identified and are in final approval for disaster recovery efforts for the city of Cedar Rapids. ?Repairing the infrastructure of our state to smooth the way for a solid recovery continues to be a primary job of this office and all involved in the flood recovery,? said Governor Culver. ?We will work with all of our partners to ensure that Cedar Rapids and every jurisdiction in Iowa receive all of the disaster aid they are eligible to receive.? ?Infrastructure improvements are critical to rebuilding our communities,? said Congressman Loebsack. ?The community of Cedar Rapids has been among one of the hardest hit, and these funds will go a long way toward helping Cedar Rapids recover from the floods of last summer.? The State and FEMA have approved $26,339,247 for the City of Cedar Rapids to cover the cost of sludge removal at the water treatment plant while the main incinerator is repaired. Because of the Governor?s efforts to have FEMA pay 90 percent of the cost, the city will save the local match of $3,950,887. State funds will be used for the remaining 10 percent. These projects are part of an expected 12,500 projects that will be identified under the State/FEMA Public Assistance Program designed to help public and certain non-profit agencies rebuild Iowa infrastructure and pay for response efforts. Eligible entities in 84 counties qualify for public assistance under the State and FEMA program. To date, the State and FEMA have obligated more than $758 million in federal and state funds for public assistance projects in Iowa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: