From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 1 11:31:48 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:31:48 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> India - Yamuna River is a Putrid Ribbon of Black Sludge Message-ID: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/09/3186 A putrid ribbon of black sludge? Union environment minister said the Yamuna is not a river in Delhi. If it is a sewage drain, whatever happened to Rs 1,800 crore spent on cleaning the river? The Yamuna is one of the filthiest and polluted rivers of the world. The river pays a heavy price for passing through one of the dirtiest, most congested (and insensitive) cities of the world - Delhi. This city dumps almost 60 per cent of its daily waste, including industrial effluents and sewage, into the river, and contributes 70 per cent of its total pollution load. Despite numerous attempts to revive it, the river remains a sewage drain, a dirty and stagnant nullah (drain), carrying thousands of harmful bacteria and toxic waste that cause fatal waterborne diseases. The toxicity directly affects the ground water and agriculture land around it, and thereby enters the food and drinking water cycle. Indeed, fish and vegetables grown on the banks of Yamuna in Delhi are prone to be seriously toxic and dangerous. Most sewage treatment plants are ineffective, either working under capacity or do not have electricity as pending bills have not been cleared. Meanwhile, the State promises to usher in electricity in every village and widespread progress with nuclear energy. When? And, how? Even when they can 't clean up a dead river in the heart of its capital? Yamuna traverses 1,375 km from Yamnotri, its Himalayan source in Uttarakhand, to Allahabad in UP, and maintains a seemingly good quality of water till it reaches Wazirabad in Delhi. In Delhi, 15 drains discharge their filthy muck and waste into the river, making it the most polluted river in the country with practically no biologically dissolved oxygen. It runs for 22 km in Delhi and what flows (does not flow) is basically stagnant filth, effluents, sewage and pollutants. Delhi generates about 3,267 million litres per day (mld) of sewage while the city's installed waste water treatment capacity is only 2,330 mld. More than 937 mld of waste is not treated. Out of Delhi's 2,330 mld treatment capacity, 37 per cent is under-utilised and 1,270 mld of sewage is untreated and allowed to enter the river everyday. During summers, the Wazirabad barrage lets out little fresh water into the river and the only flow downstream is waste. Lesser fresh water would mean more discharge and greater pollution levels. The exit point for the river in Delhi is the Okhla barrage and during summers no water is released while the river is joined by the Shahadra drain downstream, massively adding more effluents. The Shahadra drain is not far behind the Najafgarh drain in polluting the river. For the river water to be fit for bathing, Yamuna needs at least 24,000 mld of freshwater for dilution, but with no fresh water available for almost nine months the river has only deadly pollutants, toxins and wastewater flowing into it. The dead river has a dilution requirement of 75 per cent, implying that for every 100 litres of wastewater, 75 litres of freshwater is required. Scientists state that with the flow of fresh water, pollutants (especially organic pollutants) degrade to a large extent. But at every step, this purified water is extracted, and larger loads of pollution make their way into the river. Newsweek describes Yamuna as "a putrid ribbon of black sludge" where faecal bacteria is 10,000 times over basic safety limits, despite the existence of a 15-year official programme to address the problem. Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh recently said that Yamuna is not a river in Delhi. It is a nullah. So, whatever happened to the Rs 1,800 crore spent on cleaning the river? Hollow promises made by Delhi and Central government to clean the river before Commonwealth Games in 2010 have met a dead-end. Yamuna is dead in a city that expresses no gratitude towards the river that meets more than 70 per cent of its water demand (before it turns into a virtual drain at Wazirabad in west Delhi). If towns (like Agra) downstream do what Delhi is so ruthlessly doing to the river, then even this 'river-nullah' might turn into a multitude of open sewers and drains. As environmentalist Sunita Narain said cryptically: "The River is dead. It just has not been officially cremated." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 1 12:10:43 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:10:43 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Louisiana sludge haulers now required to take gov't training program Message-ID: Sludge haulers, owners must have DEQ training Staff report ? news at thenewsstar.com ? August 31, 2009 The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is sponsoring a free program concerning new regulations for sewage sludge haulers and others involved in the sewage sludge hauling and disposal business. Facility owners, operators, drivers and the owners of any wastewater treatment facility that accepts sewage sludge should attend. The workshop is from 8:30 a.m. until noon Sept. 24 at Louisiana Technical College, Building E - auditorium, 2010 North Market St., Shreveport. The reason for the seminar is to discuss the regulations regarding the registration of sewage sludge haulers, how to properly fill out the registration form and monitoring and reporting requirements for haulers and designated receiving facilities. The registration, monitoring and reports are necessary to ascertain that the hauled sewage sludge is properly disposed of and handled for the protection of human health and the environment. It is important to understand the new rules and regulations because, if a hauler, who is hauling sewage sludge is not registered or approved by DEQ by Oct. 28, the hauler will be in violation of the biosolids regulations and can face fines and penalties. If a receiving facility is not permitted or has not applied and been approved by DEQ on or before Oct. 28, the facility is in violation of the biosolids regulations and/or the Louisiana Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations and could receive fines and penalties. Participants must register by Sept. 18. To register send your name, address, organization, telephone number and e-mail address to LDEQ Sewage Sludge Program, 1525 Fairfield Ave., Room 520, Shreveport, LA 71101-4388 or fax the information to (318) 676-7573. For more information, call the DEQ regional office at (318) 676-7476. All participants will receive three hours Department of Health and Hospitals continuing education credit and will receive a certificate of completion. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 1 12:18:26 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:18:26 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> British Columbia - industrial park targetted as sludge compost site Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Note that the Capital Region waste manager is telling the public they can plant tomatoes in the proposed sludge compost. Sludge compost is generally high in heavy metals and this makes it inadvisable for use in home gardens or any kind of agriculture. In addition sludge compost can regrow pathogens. Not what you want on tomatoes. ............................................... http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/56363167.html Cowichan News Leader and Pictorial Composter targets Chemainus The vacant industrial park off the Trans-Canada Highway in Chemainus is being targeted for a new composting operation. John McKinley Text By Peter Rusland - Cowichan News Leader and Pictorial Published: August 31, 2009 11:00 AM Updated: August 31, 2009 A cutting-edge composting plant, touted as the first of its kind, is targeted for Chemainus? industrial park. ?This will be world?s first Gore-cover system to be fully enclosed in a building,? said Dan Lazaro of Chemainus Composing Inc. CCI?s two-acre operation on heavy-industrial land would see biosolids ? treated septage, restaurant grease and other wastes ? trucked in and blended indoors with thousands of tons of buried, untreated wood waste on the former Western Forest Products site. CCI will employ several full-time staff and could start making some 4,000 annual tons of compost by September?s end, Lazaro said. But first he needs a North Cowichan business licence plus a waste-stream management licence from the Cowichan Valley Regional District. Highway access approval is also needed, said North Cowichan planner Chris Hall. CCI?s site sits on 45 acres owned by Victoria?s Chemainus Park Holdings, Hall said. The firm is working with the municipality to remediate the property for various industrial uses, Hall explained. The deadline for public comments to the CVRD about CCI?s proposed plant is 4:30 p.m. Sept.12, noted CVRD environmental technologist Harmony Huffman. So far, so good permit-wise, she signaled. ?We?re pretty comfortable so far with what they?ve submitted about odour and leachate (liquid run-off), and all aspects of the operation.? Her boss, CVRD recycling and waste manager Bob McDonald, agreed. ?These folks have stepped up to meet all the requirements we have. ?They?ve been doing pilot projects for several months now and we?ve had no complaints.? He cited CCI?s assurances ?no leachate will hit the ground and no odors will leave the site boundary.? ?They have to compost properly.? To make sure, CVRD staff will do site inspections and follow up on public complaints, said Huffman. ?In an extreme case we can look at licence suspension,? she said, noting fines are also possible. Lazaro declined to publicly elaborate on potential plant leachate and odours. ?It?s an odor-free product,? he said Lazaro has explained CCI?s operations to Huffman. CCI?s plans call for bio-filters to remove any smell, she said. ?The nearest home is 700 metres away.? The plant would basically be leachate neutral, Huffman added. ?We?re not worried about leachate from rain. ?They have a source capture system under each composting pile that drains into a central tank, and it?s pumped back onto each pile for moisture, if necessary.? ?It?s similar to a big backyard composter,? summed Lazaro. He added CCI?s facility would be fully enclosed with berms preventing run-off. CCI?s operating plan went to B.C.?s environment ministry in January. Huffman said CCI?s in-vessel composting system would see biosolids unloaded in an enclosed building then mixed with wood chips and moved to lock-block cement bays under Gore?cover technology. Biosolids will be ?a sludge cake that?s dewatered,? she said. ?It?s treated to ministry biosolids standards.? Cooking compost will be aerated, turned and computer monitored for about two weeks before secondary curing, Huffman said. ?They?d be making a class-A compost you can plant your tomatoes in,? McDonald said. Luzaro said there?s heavy demand for compost like CCI?s from landscapers and homeowners. CCI will also sell its waste chips to landscapers and to pulp mills. Cowichan?s other composting plants are Fisher Road Holdings doing in-vessel composting, and the south-end?s Central Landscape Supplies doing windrow-style composting, Huffman said. ?The CVRD encourages as much local recycling as possible and it adds to overall waste diversion the valley. ?It?s good having healthy recycling in the valley.? Watchdog group spokesperson has mixed feelings about the operation Chemainiac Mark Kiemele sees a proposed biosolids-wood waste composting plant near the town as a mixed blessing. One own hand, Kiemele views Chemainus Composting Inc.?s operation as a needed industry. One the other hand, he has environmental concerns about proposed site. ?From what I know it?s a fairly benign process, and it?s one of those new industries we may be counting on in future to get us out of the current economic mess were in,? the Chemainus Residents? Association acting chairman said. ?But I am worried about runoff from that derelict site and contaminated soils that may already be there. ?You never know what?s in these old industrial sites.? People walking along Hall Road see muck in the ditches too, he said. That crud runs from the former WFP site into the ditch, then into a culvert connecting to Mill Creek, Kiemele explained. ?I welcome the CVRD to look at the site?s current situation. I went to North Cowichan council with these concerns years ago but they didn?t think it was their problem and said they had no resources to deal with it.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 2 10:04:41 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:04:41 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> New Mexico makes efforts to keep medications out of Rio Grande River Message-ID: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRNiTtgwAEeIASdS5QDK8fH0NlQAD9AERFPO0 Effort in NM to keep medications out of Rio Grande By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN (AP) Sept 1, 2009 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. ? New Mexico's largest water utility announced a plan Tuesday aimed at educating the public and keeping pharmaceuticals out of one of the West's most important water ways, the Rio Grande. The announcement by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority follows a recent discovery in the Rio Grande of caffeine, which scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other contaminants. An environmental group also reported earlier this summer that it found traces of pharmaceuticals in the Rio Grande Valley's irrigation system. Both the U.S. Geological Survey and the New Mexico Environment Department have tested the Rio Grande for pharmaceuticals and other organics at several locations in recent years. The studies by the Environment Department turned up only a minute amount of the antidepressant amitriptyline in a stretch of the river near Santa Fe. Starting this month, the water authority will start testing both raw and treated drinking water and wastewater to determine the amount of pharmaceuticals in the water and where in the system they occur, said John Stomp, water resources manager for the authority. As part of the new program, the authority also will educate Albuquerque-area residents on how to properly dispose of old and unwanted medications. Rather than flushing them down the drain, the authority wants residents to mix unwanted medications with water and cat litter in a disposable container, seal it and throw it out. Fliers will be included with monthly bills starting in October, and the authority is looking at putting up posters in pharmacies and pursuing legislation that would allow pharmaceutical take-back programs for New Mexico residents. While the water authority said there are no known human health effects from exposure to trace amounts of pharmaceutical residues in drinking water, it wants to be proactive. "It's our life line here and we are now using it for drinking water and we don't want it polluted downstream or here," said Alan Armijo, chairman of the Bernalillo County Commission and vice chair of the water authority. More than a half million people in Albuquerque are served by the water authority and depend on the Rio Grande for some of their drinking water, while Santa Fe and Las Cruces are building diversion systems to use river water in the future. El Paso, Laredo and other Texas cities also depend on the Rio Grande along with the countless farmers along the river valley. Nationwide, an Associated Press investigation found pharmaceutical traces in drinking water supplies of at least 51 million Americans and in many waterways. The drugs ranged from antibiotics to psychiatric drugs to endocrine-disrupting sex hormones. The biggest source of pharmaceutical residue in the water is from human excretion, but manufacturers, health care facilities and residents also send unused drugs down the drain and into rivers and streams. Of the new effort to test the Rio Grande water, Stomp said measurements will be taken in parts per trillion. That's equivalent to about one-twentieth of a drop of water diluted into a 2-meter-deep Olympic-sized swimming pool. While drug companies, water providers and some scientists downplay any danger to ingesting pharmaceuticals at such low levels, other scientists believe that even tiny amounts ? because drugs are designed to impact the human body ? may cause harm over decades, especially in combination with other drugs. Scientific studies indicate that some drugs, including sex hormones and psychiatric drugs, can harm aquatic species. A smaller, emerging body of research suggests that tiny concentrations of some drugs can interfere with functions of human cells. The water authority also will participate in a yearlong study by the American Water Works Association Water Research Foundation to evaluate the effectiveness of specific filter techniques to remove pharmaceuticals from water. "It's just to step up our efforts and figure out what we can do," Stomp said. Michael Jensen of Amigos Bravos, the group that discovered trace pharmaceuticals in the valley's irrigation ditches, said the water authority's efforts are a "first step in the right direction." Jensen said it's hard to get a handle on the pharmaceutical issue because the science around it is just starting to come together, but he added that it's clear from numerous studies that there are impacts to aquatic life from even small amounts of pharmaceuticals and caffeine. "The big question is what's the impact on human health. That's what people are worried about," he said. Jensen said Amigos Bravos is pleased that the water authority is trying to get ahead of the curve by educating residents and considering take-back programs. Armijo said the problem of pharmaceuticals in New Mexico's waterways is not as bad as in other states and he wants to keep it that way. "If you don't start being proactive about it, when you do have a problem then your spending millions and millions of dollars to clean up the water," he said. "... We don't want it to get critical." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 2 10:10:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:10:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> California: Judge rules against air quality district composting rule Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The lawyers for Help Hinkley have prevailed and forced the Mojave Air Board to enact more stringent air protection laws at sludge composting sites. Nursery Products has posted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on its controversial proposed sludge compost site in Hinkley. It can be found on the San Bernardino County website. A judge ordered San Bernardino County to vacate the Nursery Products EIR as inadequate - after a lawsuit brought by Help Hinkley. That judgement is also posted on the San Bernardino County website. See Desert Region: http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/landuseservices/Public%20Notices/Projects/Projects.htm ................................................... http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/quality-6790-air-rule.html Judge rules against air quality district composting rule Nursery Products claims ruling won't affect plans August 28, 2009 By JESSICA CEJNAR, staff writer JOSHUA TREE ? A superior court judge ruled in favor of a Hinkley-based group that sought a stronger air quality rule for composting facilities. But according to a composting company that plans to build a facility near Hinkley, this ruling could ultimately help them. The ruling, made by Judge John P. Vander Feer at the Joshua Tree Courthouse on Wednesday, rendered the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District?s composting rule void, according to the Statement of Decision and Order Thereon. The judge ruled that the district had to prepare an environmental impact report, conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the best way to minimize emissions from composting facilities and come up with a new rule. HelpHinkley.org filed the lawsuit against the air quality district in December 2008. The group has also been fighting for two years to keep Nursery Products LLC from building a sewage sludge composting facility eight miles west of Hinkley. In his statement, Vander Feer said because the air quality district?s composting rule wasn?t as strict as rules in the Los Angeles basin or San Joaquin Valley, it?s cheaper for composting facilities to be located in the High Desert, which could negatively affect the environment. According to the judge?s statement, composting facilities in the Los Angeles basin are required to be enclosed and have an aeration system. Composting facilities in the San Joaquin Valley are regulated based on their size, Vander Feer stated. Ingrid Brostrom, staff attorney for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, which provided its services to HelpHinkley.org pro-bono, said now that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District has to rewrite their composting rule, hopefully it will create a rule that will protect the environment. ?The public has been going to (the management district?s) meetings for years now,? she said. ?They?ve been asking them for a strong rule, we hope this gives them the encouragement they need to recognize they can make a strong rule that is legally adequate.? Even though HelpHinkley.org is declaring victory because of Vander Feer?s ruling, Chris Seney, director of operations for Nursery Products, said the judge?s ruling really helps his company by removing an additional regulation. Eliminating the air quality district?s rule, which Seney contends was very tough for the desert, just made it easier for composters to build, he said. A supplemental environmental impact report for Nursery Product?s proposed Hinkley site is currently undergoing public comment, Seney said. The public comment period for that report ends Sept. 13. If the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approves the supplemental EIR, which Seney says will probably be in October or November, building the site can begin, he said. ?(This lawsuit) doesn?t have any impact on Nursery Products whatsoever,? he said. ?It eliminates one layor of regulation.? HelpHinkley.org Chairman Norm Diaz said no rule would be better than the rule the air quality district wrote because that rule offered a financial incentive for composting facilities to build in the High Desert. HelpHinkley.org will work with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District to rewrite its composting rule, Diaz, said. ?We will work with (the air quality district) and do whatever we can to help because we know sludge composters will be doing the same,? he said. ?I hope they listen to the judge.? Diaz said HelpHinkley.org will continue to participate in the public comment period for the Nursery Product?s supplemental EIR. HelpHinkley.org will also work with the Lahontan Regional Water Board, which, Diaz said, Nursery Products needs a waste discharge permit from. According to Seney, construction on the facility can begin without the waste discharge permit. Because the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District is waiting on recommendations from its attorneys, Community Relations Manager Violette Roberts said she couldn?t comment on Vander Feer?s ruling. ?Our attorneys are currently reviewing the judge?s order and its implication,? she said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 2 10:16:12 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:16:12 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Canadian Medical Association Calls for Ban on Triclosan Message-ID: Best to look at this on line, since then you can see the illustrations and live links. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/cma-calls-for-triclosan-ban.php Canadian Medical Association Calls for Ban on Triclosan by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 08.24.09 Food & Health TreeHugger has been all over Bisphenol A this week, but there is another gender bender chemical that we have been talking about since John wrote There?s A Frog Disruptor In My Soap three years ago: Triclosan. It is in all kinds of so-called "antibacterial" products, from Right Guard to Total toothpaste. Two years ago we were quoting Scientific American in Antibacterial Cleaners Do More Harm Than Good" "What is this stuff doing in households when we have soaps?" asks molecular biologist John Gustafson of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. "These substances really belong in hospitals and clinics, not in the homes of healthy people." Now the Canadian Medical Association has asked the Federal Government to ban it in consumer products because it may cause bacterial resistance. Jennifer Yang of the Globe and Mail writes about the issue: A growing body of research is showing that antibacterial products can cause bacterial resistance, thus decreasing the effectiveness of antibiotics. The most common ingredient in antibacterial products is a chemical compound called triclosan, which was invented more than 35 years ago and used by doctors during surgical scrubs. But as the chemical creeps into more and more household products, it's also causing bacteria to become more resistant - not just to triclosan, but also other antibiotics such as isoniazid, a drug used to treat and prevent tuberculosis. The environmental effects are serious as well: Research has shown that over 95 per cent of products containing triclosan are disposed of through residential drains. Unfortunately, the compound is also extremely stable, so it tends to stick around in the environment. According to Mike Layton, program manager with advocacy group Environmental Defence, triclosan can react to chlorine in drinking water and form chloroform, which is a carcinogen. And when triclosan reacts with light, it can actually form poisonous dioxins, he says. She asks Dr. Kapil Khatter, who is also president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment about the stuff and whether we need it. "Really all you need is soap and water and the alcohol rubs that are available," Dr. Khatter said. "There isn't any benefit to going to these other products - there's only potential harm." But that doesn't stop manufacturers from putting it into many products, including this list from Food and Water Watch, all of which you should avoid: Neutrogena Deep Clean Body Scrub Bar Lever 2000 Special Moisture Response Bar Soap, Antibacterial CVS Antibacterial Hand Soap Dial Liquid Soap, Antibacterial Bar Soap Softsoap Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap Cetaphil Gentle Antibacterial Cleansing Bar Clearasil Daily Face Wash Clean & Clear Oil Free Foaming Facial Cleanser Dawn Complete Antibacterial Dish Liquid Ajax Antibacterial Dish Liquid Colgate Total Toothpaste Right Guard Sport Deodorant Old Spice Red Zone, High Endurance and Classic Deodorants Vaseline Intensive Care Antibacterial Hand Lotion More on Triclosan: There?s A Frog Disruptor In My Soap Antibacterial Cleaners Do More Harm Than Good "Frog Disruptor In My Soap", Revisited Why Is There Still a Frog Disruptor In My Toothpaste? Germ Fighters Lead to Hardier Germs Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss! Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles: Germophobes: Are You Unknowingly Poisoning Dolphins? Lloyd Alter: Fox News of Antibacterial Fear-mongering. August 24, 2009 3:46 PM | flag a problem Dave says: Such a ban is very good idea given the carcinogenic compounds that can result from triclosan reaction with other chemicals, not to mention the fact that we are building super bugs in the process all just so that products can add the "antibacterial" tag to their label. We do have immune systems for the common cold and flu as well soap and water and these are still effective if used. Unfortunately, unless our governments get the message out and try to enlist the soap brands in marketing, the message will likely be lost and people will cry out at the loss of the antibacterial products. Because of growing antibacterial resistance, considerable costly research efforts are constantly underway to find new alternatives. The attached link is an article about some current research. August 24, 2009 4:00 PM | Wellescent Health says: Well, what is new with Triclosan NOT being a good thing? I flatly refuse to use most products containing Triclosan. For one, it breaks me out, for another, all the anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, disinfectant trash we have been using for so long is one of the things that give bacteria a penchant for being resistant to the things we used to be able to use to kill them. Good, old-fashioined hand washing with NON-antibacterial SOAP would have helped prevent a lot of this. Not using alcohol and triclosan everywhere would NOT have resulted in the weakening of most peoples' immune systems. I'm just grateful doctors have stopped issuing prescriptions for antibiotics for every sneeze and sniffle! August 24, 2009 5:35 PM | CASReaves says: Great news! If Health Canada could make a move similar to the one it made with BPA, it could result in a similar global reaction; worldwide recalls and reformulations! Go for it Canada, we all depend on it! August 24, 2009 6:08 PM | Anonymous says: I couldn't be more thrilled to hear about the proposed ban on triclosan. This is great progress. I hope this will signal to the US that we need more precautionary environmental and public health regulations. If you're interested in learning what anti-triclosan work is happening in the US, please visit: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ August 27, 2009 10:45 AM Kathy Dolan says: For those of you out there that may be a wee bit germophobic, never fear! You can still use alcohol-based hand sanitizers (which don't have quite the risk of resistance) to kill the nasties. Here's a link to a good article regarding a similar issue (although it deals more with the bacterial-resistance side rather than the environmental impact of Triclosan and similar agents): http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/larson.htm From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 3 12:19:04 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:19:04 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Eat, Sleep, Drink Sludge : a germy lifestyle for Washington DC bedroom community Message-ID: Lots of links: Best format- go to webpage http://www.examiner.com/x-2134-DC-Ethical-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Eat-sleep-and-drink-sludge-A-germy-treat-for-DC-bedroom-community-residents Eat, sleep and drink sludge: A germy lifestyle for DC bedroom community residents September 2, 2009 Ethical Issues Examiner Laura Harrison McBride In Marston, MD, these signs would be an improvementCarroll County, Maryland, is increasingly a bedroom community for Washington, DC. It?s pretty quick to get to a Metro stop near Gaithersburg; at non-peak times, one can be almost anywhere inside the Beltway in well under an hour. And yet, it has retained its reputation as a clean, unspoiled, healthful place of abundant natural beauty. But it stinks. It stinks so badly for several miles around the tiny hamlet of Marston that people run from house to car in winter and early spring with their noses covered with handkerchiefs. It stinks so badly that people leave home and stay with relatives in the summer if they have no air-conditioning. It stinks so badly that some residents experience gastro-intestinal events all summer long. Their only relief comes when they are out of town. The smell, which blankets whole neighborhoods for days on end, is not simply farm smells, the manure of a relative few horses and a large number of dairy cows; it?s worse. Much, much worse. In summer, it?s unbearable. In winter, it?s sometimes worse than unbearable, the only saving grace being that residents are mainly indoors. Still, with frozen ground, the Class B sludge that's delivered to the farms by Enviro Organic Technologies can?t be injected underground; it must be spread on top. And spread on top, the smell of the stuff and the harmful pathogens it contains (E. coli and salmonella and more) fly through the air across acres and acres of cropland and hundreds and hundreds of nearby homes. It would be a prescription to change heating unit filters daily. Even if the stench is gone, the teeny-weeny particulates, the microbes, are blanketing the land, the trees, the houses, the cars, the swing sets and the family dog and cat. With the help of the ubiquitous heat pump, they are doubtless entering the indoor environment and the noses and throats of the inhabitants. The Carroll County Times ran a story about it all on July 26, 2009. The story noted that: Many neighbors began calling the county and state agencies in the winter when they thought the smells coming from the business?s home farm had become unbearable, and spreadings were done in the middle of the night, which seemed suspicious.? In addition, one resident ?said the company spreads in the middle of night, on weekends, and even on holidays. He said he believes these actions are done deliberately to avoid detection by regulatory authorities.? Naturally, Carroll County government claimed it had inspected the company responsible, Enviro-Organic Technologies of Marston, MD, and had found the company in compliance with federal and county guidelines for solid waste handling. Still, there is one cogent question for the county to answer. How was Enviro Organics permitted to purchase land in an agricultural easement area in order to run what is an industrial operation? Here?s one possible answer: ?At the encouragement of Carroll County, the state dropped the requirement at the beginning of fiscal year 2008 that a land owner interested in selling an agricultural land preservation easement must first voluntarily have it listed as an agricultural preservation district for five years. Requiring a farm to be in an ag district for five years tied the land up from alternative uses and discouraged landowners from applying to the program when there was uncertainty over future funding?.? (Carroll County Times) How very convenient for Enviro Organic Technologies. All they had to do was find land that had not been put into the easement five years ago, and apparently there would be no problem with what many might consider a wildly non-conforming use. And, too, one must ask what?s the point, then, in identifying agricultural areas if the next thing one does is permit them to become industrialized waste-treatment facilities? And worse, privately owned ones that are unlikely to be as stringently run as municipal facilities that must report to a voting population. In the Bush EPA climate, it?s no wonder the past few years have been an odiferous nightmare for folks living in and near Marston, MD. In fact, according to the Carroll County Times article, a slight reduction in the stench did occur after a citizens? group/website, www.stopthestinknow.com, got active last spring?and after the EPA came under the aegis of the much more environmentally conscious Obama administration. Southern Pennsylvania had a similar problem. But as long ago as 2000, they began to tackle it, with a local representative seeking suspension of spreading Class B sludge, the stuff Enviro Organics is storing in Marston (often, by observation, in open containers) and spreading on local farms while calling it biosolids, which sounds ever so much more environmentally friendly. What is Class B sludge? Here?s how the Centers for Disease Control?s Institute of Occupational Safety and Health described it: "Class B sludge contains E. coli, salmonella, cryptosporidium and other pathogens. "Exposure to it may result in disease or a carrier state where diseases can be spread to others. "Class B sludge stored before it is applied contains high levels of coliform. "Workers may be exposed to disease-causing organisms while handling Class B sludge." Moreover, the sludge doesn?t stay where it?s spread; ask anyone in the affected Carroll County area. ?Potentially disease-causing bacteria were found in bulk and air samples at a sludge-processing facility in LeSourdsville, Ohio,? a citation in the Pennsylvania documents against spreading disease-bearing sludge on its fields. A drive through Marston on a hot, sunny day will alert you like nothing else can that there are open-topped containers storing a tasty mix of dead animals, animal waste and industrial water for sale to local farmers to use on their crops. That, too, is a frightening concept. Why? Here?s why, according to an EPA document: Unlike Class A biosolids, which are essentially pathogen free, Class B biosolids may contain some pathogens. Site restrictions that restrict crop harvesting, animal grazing and public access for a period of time are required. This allows environmental factors to further reduce pathogens.? And, shortly beyond that: Biosolids that are placed on a surface disposal site also must meet the Class B pathogen requirements, unless the active biosolids unit in which the biosolids are placed is covered at the end of each operating day. Because the use of Class B biosolids must be closely monitored, Class B biosolids cannot be given away or sold in bags or other containers.? The Class B ?biosolids? (the market-savvy reinvention of the much more graphic but older and more succinct word, sludge) are so germ-laden that they must be covered to prevent excessive amounts escaping overnight. One wonders, then, if the material that escapes during the ?operating day? are any less harmful. One also wonders if the ?operating day? must conform to a set number of hours. If Enviro Organics spreads on frozen fields at night, can they leave the tanks open then, as well as during the day, when one might assume they are filled with excrement, dead animals, blood and farm and industrial runoff? If all that isn?t enough, there is a question for farmers in this, and for those eating farm products, that is, all of us. If the sludge a farmer spreads on the fields on which he is growing corn to feed milk cows (most of the farms around Marston), how healthy are those milk cows and how good is that milk? The ethics questions here are numerous. One: What standards are the Carroll County Commissioners following in allowing a noxious industrial operation to set up shop in the middle of otherwise unspoiled farmland? Two: What possible excuse can the EPA have for ever allowing disease-agents to be spread on arable land? Three: Why has it taken several years of stench, inconvenience and illness for regulatory bodies to investigage this outrage in a DC bedroom community? (Hint: If it were 20 miles west, it would be stinking up Camp David, a sure prescription for action, one might suppose.) One wonders at the ethics of various government agencies in all this, from the Carroll County zoning board to the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) to the EPA. One doesn?t wonder at all about the ethics of Enviro-Organic Technologies. Apparently, they clean up their act even a little bit not because it is the right thing to do, but because they fear adverse publicity. It is unlikely they fear the heel-dragging government agencies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE ALARMING INFORMATION Click here to view the entire document that contains this alarming information: http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref98.pdf (see below this story) In Class B sludge-treated fields, ?Lewis and Gattie suggested that the potentioal exists for Staphylococcus aureus to be transmitted from land-applied biosloids. S. aureus is the suspected agent for a wide variety of human infectinos, incuding skin infections and pneumonia.? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here?s a list of websites with abundant information regarding Class B biosolids, a/k/a, sludge: Marston, MD, environmental group against Class B spreading, www.stopthestinknow.com www.deadlydeceit.com www.thewatchers.us www.Sludgevictims.com www.sludgefacts.org www.sludgenews.org Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy www.healthobservatory.org/ Loudoun Neighbors Against Toxic Sludge www.loudounnats.org/ Pennsylvania Sludge www.boostdam.net/sludge/index.html /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref98.pdf Health Survey of Residents Living Near Farm Fields Permitted to Receive Biosolids Sadik Khuder, PhD; Sheryl A. Milz, PhD; Michael Bisesi, PhD; Robert Vincent, PhD; Wendy McNulty, MS; Kevin Czajkowski, PhD ABSTRACT The authors studied the health status of residents living in Wood County, OH, near farm fields that were permitted to receive biosolids. They mailed a health survey to 607 households and received completed surveys from 437 people exposed to biosolids (living on or within 1 mile of the fields where application was permitted) and from 176 people not exposed to biosolids (living more than 1 mile from the fields where application was permitted). The authors allowed for up to 6 surveys per household. Results revealed that some reported health-related symptoms were statistically significantly elevated among the exposed residents, including excessive secretion of tears, abdominal bloating, jaundice, skin ulcer, dehydration, weight loss, and general weakness. The frequency of reported occurrence of bronchitis, upper respiratory infection, and giardiasis were also statistically significantly elevated. The findings suggest an increased risk for certain respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other diseases among residents living near farm fields on which the use of biosolids was permitted. However, further studies are needed to address the limitations cited in this study. KEYWORDS: biosolids, epidemiology, health survey Little is known about the health risk associated with Class B biosolids for residents living near the fields undergoing application. These residents are potentially exposed to a wide variety of agents ranging from heavy metals and other hazardous materials in industrial waste to bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in domestic waste. 4 Notably, there have been anecdotal reports of symptoms and disease among communities surrounding areas where biosolids were applied.5 We examined whether an association existed between self-reported health effects of residents living in Wood County, OH, and distance from fields where application of Class B biosolids was permitted. METHODS Wood County has 11 operational wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Plants located in the county?s 2 largest cities?Bowling Green and Perrysburg?performed the majority of biosolids application for the county. Biosolids application may be performed by splash application, injection, or cake application. The method of application used by each WWTP is determined independently. At the time of the study, Bowling Green used splash application and Perrysburg used cake application. No injection was being performed in Wood County. We used a clustered cross-sectional survey design, as approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Toledo?Health Science Campus. We generated a listing of all households in Wood County by distance from farm fields permitted to receive Class B biosolids, using ArcView software (ArcView 3.2, ESRI, Redlands, CA). To develop this list, we created a GIS shapefile using input from 3 sources: paper plat maps obtained from the Northwest Ohio EPA office; a high-resolution aerial, digital orthophoto mosaic of the county from the Wood County engineer; and a parcel layer (a map that shows the boundaries of each property) from the Wood County auditor. We located the fields where biosolids application was permitted by manually interpreting photos in the digital orthophoto mosaic. In addition, we used the plat descriptions from the 2 other inputs to help locate the permitted fields. We then drew polygons around each field that had been permitted for Class B biosolids application. Using ArcGIS software, we produced a distance buffer zone layer. We calculated and plotted distance buffer zones from the edges of fields where Class B biosolids application was permitted for areas by distance from the nearest field where such application was permitted: on the field, within 1 mile of the field, greater than 1 mile and within 2 miles away, greater than 2 miles and within 3 miles away, greater than 3 and within 4 miles away, greater than 4 and within 5 miles away, and greater than 5 miles away.6 We selected households on the basis of their distance from farm fields that were permitted to receive Class B biosolids. We selected all houses located on these fields (n  193). From categories developed on the basis of the house?s distance from the fields, we selected a random sample of households off the fields. The categories included distances within 1 mile (1.61 km; n  203) and distances more than 1 mile (1.61 km; n  211), with this sample divided between houses within 2 miles (1.61?3.22 km; n  108) and greater than 2 miles away (3.22 km; n  103). In total, 607 households received the mailed health survey. The 607 households received mailings that included a cover letter explaining the study, 1 general household questionnaire, 6 human disease questionnaires, and a postagepaid return envelope. The first mailing occurred October 3, 2005, with responses requested by October 14, 2005. The second mailing to nonrespondents was sent October 17, 2005, with responses requested by October 28, 2005. We sent a third and final mailing to the remaining nonrespondents on October 31, 2005, with responses requested by November 11, 2005. We developed the human disease questionnaire after an extensive literature review. In addition, we used previously validated questions from a study of wastewater workers when appropriate.7 We based the questionnaire on symptoms and diseases possibly associated with exposure to agents within biosolids. We included in the questionnaire demographics (age, sex, race, occupation), smoking habits, employment in occupations with exposure to infectious agents (ie, a potentially confounding variable), and the occurrence of specific physician-diagnosed acute and chronic diseases and specific self-reported symptoms. Individuals designated as exposed lived within 1 mile of a field where application of Class B biosolids was permitted. Individuals designated as unexposed lived more than 1 mile from the nearest such field. Therefore, we based the exposure determination solely on the distance the household was located from a field where application of biosolids was permitted. Data Analysis For the first analysis, we combined the data for individuals living on the field with that of individuals living within 1 mile (1.61 km) of the field (exposed group), which we compared with the data for individuals living more than 1 mile from the field (unexposed group). To accommodate the clustering of the data at the household level, we used SAS SURVEY procedures (SURVEYFREQ & SURVEYLOGISTIC8). To adjust for differences in the number of surveys received per household, we used survey weights. We defined the weighting factor as the ratio of the number of individuals to the number of households for each group. We compared demographics and other characteristics of the 2 groups using chi-square analysis. We used logistic regression models to compare the proportion of individuals reporting a particular symptom between the 2 areas. We defined a positive response as an individual symptom reported to occur during the previous 12 months and a negative response as no symptom during the previous 12 months. We 6 Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health tested dose-response relations between frequency of reported symptom and exposure using the Cochran- Armitage test. We performed additional analyses for the exposed group to determine whether the actual distance of each household from the farm fields where application of Class B biosolids was permitted, on the basis of the GIS determination, had a relationship to the self-reported diseases or symptoms. We also used logistic regression models in these analyses. RESULTS We received 437 surveys from 178 households in the exposed area and 176 from 80 households in the unexposed area. The response rate from the exposed households was 50% after 3 mailings for the houses on the fields and 42% after 2 mailings for houses within 1 mile of the fields. The response rate from the unexposed households was 36% after 1 mailing for houses more than 1 mile from the fields. The demographic characteristics of the 2 groups are relatively similar (see Table 1). The average age for the exposed area was 41.9 years (SD  23) and for the unexposed area, 41.3 years (SD  23). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to gender, race, length of time living on the farm, percentage of time each year spent at that address, high-risk occupations, or smoking status. Table 2 summarizes the symptoms experienced for the previous 12 months for both the exposed group and the unexposed group. Most of the symptoms experienced occurred more often among the exposed group than in the unexposed group. The highest percentage of symptoms, reported among the exposed group, was for headache, cough, sneezing, and sore throat. Symptoms significantly elevated in the exposed group relative to the unexposed group included excessive secretion of tears (p  .023), abdominal bloating (p  .020), jaundice (p  .012), skin ulcers (p  .035), dehydration (p  .009), weight loss (p  .001), and weakness (p  .043). The Cochran-Armitage test revealed significant dose-response relations for excessive secretion of tears, abdominal bloating, and dehydration. Table 3 summarizes the chronic medical conditions for both the exposed group and the unexposed group. Emphysema, arthritis, and chronic bronchitis occurred more frequently in the exposed group than in the unexposed group, but the difference was statistically significant for emphysema only (p  .025). Cases of ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson?s disease, and scleroderma were reported only among the exposed group. However, these differences also were not statistically significant. Table 4 summarizes the frequency of occurrence of acute disease reported by the exposed group and the unexposed group. We observed significant elevations in the prevalence rates of bronchitis (p  .022), pneumonia (p  .045), upper respiratory infection (p  .023), and giardiasis (p  .023). Table 5 summarizes results from the logistic regression analyses for the frequency of occurrence of acute disease and actual distance from the fields where biosolids application was permitted. Negative association with distance was found for bronchitis, pneumonia, upper and lower respiratory infection, cold, giardiasis, and gastroenteritis. However, only the association with bronchitis was statistically significant (p  .042). Additional analyses of children (aged  18 years) only revealed no significant differences between the exposed group and the unexposed group. COMMENT We observed an association between respiratory, gastrointestinal, and general symptoms linked with infectious diseases and residence in homes near farm fields permitted to receive Class B biosolids. Moreover, we found a significant dose-response relationship for excessive secretion of tears, abdominal bloating, and dehydration. These findings are in agreement with the findings of Lewis et al9 and studies on wastewater treatment workers.7 However, they contradict an earlier study from 3 areas in Ohio, in which researchers reported no significant differences in the risk of Spring 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1 7 Table 1.?Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population Exposed Unexposed (n  437) (n  176) Variable n % n % p Age (y) .972  18 95 21.7 40 22.7 18?35 70 16.0 29 16.5 36?59 173 39.6 66 37.5  60 99 22.7 41 23.3 Gender .630 Male 215 49.9 84 47.7 Female 216 50.1 92 52.3 Race .062 White 409 95.3 174 98.9 Other 20 4.7 2 1.1 Length of time .549 living on farm (y)  5 147 34.2 57 32.8 510 75 17.4 37 21.2 10 208 48.4 80 46.0 Percentage of time .114 each year living in the house 50 25 5.8 5 2.9 100 408 94.2 170 97.1 High-risk .726 occupationa Yes 95 21.7 36 20.5 No 342 78.3 140 79.6 Current smoker .631 Yes 57 13.4 21 11.9 No 369 86.6 155 88.1 aHigh-risk occupations included having been employed in a hospital, dental clinic, veterinary clinic, long-term care facility, day care center, wastewater treatment facility, or as a waste collector. respiratory, gastrointestinal, and general symptoms between sludge-farm residents and control-farm residents. In the Ohio study, the biosolids application rates were low and thus exposure levels may not have been comparable to those in this study.10 The finding of significantly elevated risk for bronchitis and upper respiratory infection among residents living near farm fields where the use of biosolids was permitted agrees with other published findings. A significantly increased risk for chronic bronchitis and pneumonia has been reported for sewage workers,11?14 and possible causative agents include viruses, other microorganisms, and endotoxins.14?16 Smit et al17 even reported a dose-response relationship between endotoxin exposures and flu-like symptoms. Chemical irritants such as lime, ammonia, and alkyl amines also may contribute to broncho-obstructive and inflammatory responses. 10 In addition, increased rates of symptoms?including respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea, and weakness? have been reported among residents living near a large-scale swine farm.18 However, investigators evaluating livestock waste (which is used as a natural fertilizer) reported that less than 0.01% of aerosolized microbes are viable,19 possibly indicating that exposure to aerosolized biosolids is unlikely to cause infections. Rates of reported gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal bloating and giardiasis, were significantly elevated among the exposed residents in this study. This finding is in agreement with several studies that have reported that gastrointestinal symptoms are elevated among sewage workers. 7,14,15,20,21 In addition, Heap and McCulloch22 reported 3 cases of sewage workers who appeared to have become infected with giardiasis after being exposed to raw sewage while not wearing personal protective equipment. The increased risk for ulcer on the skin (and to some extent, skin rash) among exposed residents is expected. Lundholm and Rylander23 reported that sewage treatment plant workers exhibited a higher proportion of skin disorders than a control group. Residents living near fields where biosolids are applied potentially are exposed to a wide range of pollutants, ranging from chemicals such as heavy metals to various infectious agents, parasites, and noninfectious bacterial agents. Lewis and Gattie2 suggested that the potential exists for Staphylococcus aureus to be transmitted from land-applied biosolids. S. aureus is the suspected agent for a wide variety of human infections, including skin infections and pneumonia.24 Newly applied biosolids contain microorganisms. As the biosolids dry, some microorganisms die and others become 8 Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health Table 2.?Reported Symptoms for Residents Living Within 1 Mile of Farm Fields Where Biosolids Application Was Permitted (Exposed) and Residents Living  1 Mile From Such Fields (Unexposed) Exposed Unexposed (n  437) (n  176) Symptom n % n % p Headache 342 80.9 133 76.9 .274 Fever 214 50.4 90 50.6 .615 Excessive 106 25.2 28 16.5 .023 secretion of tearsa Cough 346 81.6 133 76.9 .189 Sneezing 351 82.4 139 79.4 .395 Sore throat 310 72.4 118 67.8 .258 Chest pain or 130 30.3 48 27.8 .534 discomfort Abdominal 180 42.5 64 37.2 .239 pain Abdominal 150 35.9 44 25.9 .020 bloatinga Nausea 193 45.8 79 45.9 .985 Vomiting 153 36.3 64 37.4 .789 Diarrhea 273 64.5 111 63.8 .863 Constipation 189 45.1 68 39.8 .236 Jaundice 33 7.9 4 2.3 .012 Skin rash 110 26.1 34 19.8 .105 Ulcer on 36 8.5 6 3.6 .035 the skin Muscle spasm 128 30.3 44 25.9 .281 Chills 129 30.6 56 32.9 .573 Dehydrationa 72 17.1 15 8.8 .009 Loss of appetite 92 21.8 41 24.0 .565 Weight loss 93 22.1 18 10.6 .001 Insomnia 197 46.6 83 48.5 .664 Fatigue 224 53.2 96 55.5 .612 Weakness 143 34.1 44 25.6 .043 General ill 187 44.8 74 43.0 .686 feeling Note. Italicized p values are significant at .05. aSignificant dose-response from the Cochran-Armitage test. Table 3.?Distribution of Chronic Diseases of Residents Living Within 1 Mile of Farm Fields Where Biosolids Application Was Permitted (Exposed) and Residents Living  1 Mile From Such Fields (Unexposed) Exposed Unexposed (n  437) (n  176) Disease/condition n % n % p Asthma 52 12.3 17 9.9 .406 Emphysema 12 2.9 1 0.6 .025 Crohn's disease 1 0.2 1 0.6 .582 Migraine headache 39 9.3 16 9.4 .956 Ulcerative colitis 4 1.0 0 0.0 .099 Chronic bronchitis 26 6.2 5 2.9 .066 Irritable bowel syndrome 30 7.1 16 9.4 .380 Allergies 129 30.5 50 29.2 .762 Multiple sclerosis 5 1.2 0 0.0 .065 Parkinson's disease 4 1.0 0 0.0 .099 Scleroderma 3 0.7 0 0.0 .153 Skin disease 22 5.2 10 5.9 .752 Poliomyelitis 3 0.7 2 1.2 .619 Autism 3 0.7 0 0.0 .153 Skin cancer 9 2.1 4 2.3 .868 Arthritis/osteoarthritis 12 2.8 1 0.6 .057 Note. The italicized p value is significant at .05. more concentrated along with chemical agents present. The concentrated form of biosolids may be more irritating after dermal contact and inhalation.9We found an elevation of excessive secretion of tears among exposed residents, which could be explained by the presence of ammonia in the concentrated, dried biosolids. Other symptoms significantly elevated in the exposed group were increased weight loss and general weakness. An increased risk for central nervous symptoms such as unusual tiredness has been reported among sewage workers15,17 and among persons in an organic dust environment.25 We observed an increased risk for arthritis and osteoarthritis in this study. Likewise, Rylander14 reported an increased risk of joint pain among sewage workers. Thorn et al26 attributed this increased risk of joint pain to an inflammatory/ systemic response among sewage workers. Possible causative agents have been reported as viruses such as Norwalk virus, other microorganisms, and endotoxins.14?16 Cases of ulcerative colitis (3 cases), multiple sclerosis (5 cases), Parkinson?s disease (4 cases), and scleroderma (3 cases) were reported in the exposed area. Although no cases of these diseases were reported in the unexposed area, the difference between the 2 areas in the number of multiple sclerosis cases approached statistical significance (p.065). The lack of statistical significance may be attributed to our small sample size. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis (1,171 per 100,000 population) found in this study is significantly elevated (p  .001) relative to the reported prevalence of 85 per 100,000 for the noninstitutionalized population in the United States.27 However, a larger sample should be studied to verify whether the difference is real or just occurred by chance. A variety of infectious agents have been postulated as important in the etiology of multiple sclerosis, but a causal association has not been demonstrated convincingly for any infectious agent.26?29 An increased risk for multiple sclerosis is likely to involve a combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental exposures.30 In addition, a clustering of multiple sclerosis in Galion, OH, from 1982 to 1985 was attributed to an excess concentration of heavymetal wastes, especially cadmium and chromium, in sewage and river water.31 Kraut et al32 reported that neurotoxic effects can be caused by chemical exposures from sewage. There are several limitations with this study. First, the results were based on self-reporting of symptoms and diseases. It is possible that individuals living near fields where biosolids are applied and who are exposed to odors and other biosolids debris may be more prone to report diseases and symptoms. Odors and other nontoxic emissions from biosolids could trigger an overreporting of certain symptoms among residents. In a study in North Carolina, residents of areas near swine farms reported significantly more tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion at the time when odors were present than did a control group of unexposed persons.33 In addition, retrospective studies indicate that symptom prevalence near polluted sites can significantly increase when the ambient air is odorous.34 Finally, irritant symptoms coupled with a fear of toxicity may produce a state of autonomic arousal leading to a panic attack. This panic attack can then progress to a conditioned response in which subsequent exposure could produce panic attacks automatically because of a behavioral sensitization to odorants. 35 Unfortunately, we collected no information on odors in this study. Spring 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1 9 Table 4.?Distribution of Acute Diseases Among Residents Living Within 1 Mile of Farm Fields Where Application of Biosolids Was Permitted (Exposed) and Residents Living  1 Mile From Such Fields (Unexposed) Exposed Unexposed (n = 437) (n = 176) Disease/condition n % n % p Leptospirosis 1 0.2 2 1.1 .281 Salmonellosis 2 0.3 2 1.1 .445 Shigellosis 2 0.3 2 1.1 .445 Typhoid fecer 2 0.3 2 1.1 .445 Hepatitis A 2 0.3 2 1.1 .445 Poliomyelitis 1 0.2 2 1.1 .281 Amoebiasis 1 0.2 2 1.1 .281 Bronchitis 69 16.3 17 9.7 .022 Pneumonia 23 5.5 4 2.3 .045 Upper respiratory 115 27.3 33 18.9 .023 infection Lower respiratory 25 6.0 6 3.4 .157 infection Cold 182 43.4 64 36.8 .131 Giardiasis 12 2.9 1 0.6 .023 Gastroenteritis 37 8.8 12 6.9 .415 Note. Italicized p values are significant at .05. Table 5.?Logistic Regression Results for Acute Diseases According to Actual Distance From Farm Fields Where Application of Biosolids Was Permitted Disease/condition  SE 2 p Leptospirosis .84 0.62 1.83 .175 Salmonellosis .45 0.51 0.77 .381 Shigellosis .45 0.51 0.77 .381 Typhoid fever .65 0.52 1.58 .208 Hepatitis A .50 0.51 0.95 .331 Poliomyelitis .84 0.62 1.84 .175 Amoebiasis .84 0.62 1.84 .175 Bronchitis .29 0.15 4.12 .042 Pneumonia .40 0.27 2.28 .131 Upper respiratory .17 0.11 2.25 .134 infection Lower respiratory .22 0.23 0.92 .337 infection Cold .09 0.09 0.92 .337 Giardiasis .70 0.47 2.29 .130 Gastroenteritis .12 0.17 0.47 .491 Note. The italicized p value is significant at .05. For the 2 values: df  1, n (exposed)  437, n (unexposed)  176. Second, recall bias is possible, especially with regard to the frequency of reported symptoms over a long period of time. We made the assumption that all of the symptoms and diseases included in the questionnaires are potentially related to biosolids. However, certain symptoms (such as insomnia and fatigue) may be related to systemic factors and are less likely to be related to biosolids. In this study, almost 50% of both the exposed and unexposed groups reported insomnia and fatigue symptoms, suggesting a nondifferential recall bias in the exposed group. Third, the overall response rate for this study was less than 50%. However, a low response rate is not unusual in studies conducted in rural areas.36 In addition, despite a lower response rate for postal questionnaires compared with interviews, Morgaine et al37 reported that the 2 methods produced similar health data. Therefore, even with a low response rate the respondents? health data are assumed to be similar to that not collected from nonrespondents. Residents who are more concerned, have symptoms, or are otherwise affected by biosolids applications also may be more likely to respond. We offered a monetary reward to all responding households in an attempt to minimize this problem. In addition, the households were not informed of the biosolids focus of the study (their letter of explanation stated that the study was on the health status of Wood County residents) and were also questioned on their knowledge of chemical fertilizer application, natural fertilizer (animal waste) application, and biosolids application. Fourth, residents who responded to the first mailing of the survey possibly were more or less healthy than those who responded to the second or third mailings. We did not record the date of response for any of the returned surveys and therefore, could not analyze the data to confirm or deny that such a limitation existed. Fifth, exposure misclassification is a definite concern with this study. We classified the exposed group solely on the basis of the household being located within 1 mile from a field where biosolids application was permitted. However, exposure could exist beyond the 1-mile boundary. Moreover, at the time of the study, we did not know the date of last application, cumulative amount of biosolids application, direction of the household from the permitted fields, and meteorological conditions. We plan additional analyses using the date of last application, cumulative amount of application, and direction from the fields once the information has been collected. Researchers in future studies can evaluate the effect of prevailing winds on the possible dispersion of biosolids to households (using the information on the location of the household and its relative direction from the fields). Finally, we compared our findings with those in the literature concerning wastewater workers. However, exposure characteristics of wastewater workers would presumably differ from those in residents living near farm fields where biosolids were applied. For example, potential exposure to airborne contaminants from wet sewage, more likely to occur among wastewater workers, is different from the potential exposure to airborne contaminants from dry biosolids, more likely to occur among residents living near farm fields where biosolids were applied, resulting in differing routes of exposure. In addition, many of the risks to individuals living near farm fields where biosolids were applied are chronic and may be evident only after long-term exposure. Such effects are difficult to measure and relate to exposure from these fields. In conclusion, our findings suggest an increased risk for certain respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other diseases among residents living near farm fields where the application of biosolids was permitted. Moreover, the reported occurrence of certain chronic diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, were elevated in the exposed group. Further studies are needed to determine the relation between time from last application of biosolids and reported health effects as well as to address cited limitations. ********** Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr Sheryl Milz, University of Toledo, DPHHS, 3000 Arlington Ave., Toledo, OH 43614, USA. E-mail: sheryl.milz at utoledo.edu ********** References 1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Guidance for Controlling Risks to Workers Exposed to Class B Biosolids. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006. Publication No. 2002-149. 2. Lewis DL, Gattie DK. Pathogen risks from applying sewage sludge to land. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36:287A?293A. 3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States.Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 1999. EPA530-R-99-009. 4. McCunney RJ. Health effects of work at waste water treatment plants: a review of the literature with guidelines for medical surveillance. Am J Ind Med. 1986;9:271?279. 5. Evanylo GK. Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids in Virginia: Risks and Concerns. Blacksburg, VA: Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1999. Publication 432-304. 6. McNulty WS. The Creation of a GIS Database and the Determination of Sludge?s Spectral Signature in an Agricultural Setting [master?s thesis]. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University, Department of Geology; 2005. 7. Khuder SA, Arthur T, Bisesi MS, Schaub EA. Prevalence of infectious diseases and associated symptoms in wastewater treatment workers. Am J Ind Med. 1998;33:571?577. 8. SAS Institute, Inc. Introduction to survey sampling and analysis procedures. In: SAS/STAT 9.1 User?s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2004:159?169. 9. Lewis DL, Gattie DK, Novak ME, Sanchez S, Pumphrey C. Interactions of pathogens and irritant chemical in land-applied sewage sludges (biosolids). BMC Public Health. 2002;2:11. 10. Dorn CR, Reddy CS, Lamphere DN, Gaeuman JV, Lanese R. Municipal sewage sludge application on Ohio farms: health effects. Environ Res. 1985;38:332?359. 11. Nethercott JR, Holness DL. Health status of a group of sewage treatment workers in Toronto, Canada. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1988;49: 346?350. 12. Zuskin E, Mustajbegovic J, Schachter EN. Respiratory function in sewage workers. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23:751?761. 13. Friis L, Norback D, Edling C. Self-reported asthma and respiratory symptoms in sewage workers. J Occup Health. 1999;41:87?90. 10 Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 14. Rylander R. Health effects among workers in sewage treatment plants. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:354?357. 15. Clark CS. Potential and actual biological related health risks of wastewater industry employment. J Water Pollut Contr Fed. 1987;59: 999?1008. 16. Melbostad E, Eduard W, Skogstad A, et al. Exposure to bacterial aerosols and work-related symptoms in sewage workers. Am J Ind Med. 1994;25:59?63. 17. Smit LAM, Spaan S, Heederik D. Endotoxin exposure and symptoms in wastewater treatment workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:30?39. 18. Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, et al. A control study of the physical and mental health of residents living near a large-scale swine operation. J Agric Safety Health. 1997;3:13?26. 19. Kiekaefer MS, Donham KJ, Whitten P, Thorne PS. Cross-sectional studies of airborne microbial populations and environment in swine buildings: implications for workers and animal health. Ann Agric Environ Med. 1995;2:37?44. 20. Scarlett-Kranz JM, Babish JG, Strickland D, Lisk DJ. Health among municipal sewage and water treatment workers. Toxicol Ind Health. 1987;3:311?319. 21. Friis L, Agreus L, Edling C. Abdominal symptoms among sewage workers. Occup Med. 1998;48:251?253. 22. Heap BJ, McCulloch MLB. Giardiasis and occupational risk in sewage workers. Lancet. 1991;338:1152. 23. Lundholm M, Rylander R. Work related symptoms among sewage workers. Br J Ind Med. 1983;40:325?329. 24. Waldvogel FA. Staphylococcus aureus. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Principles and Practices of Infections Diseases, 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2000:2069?2091. 25. Rylander R. Endotoxins in the environment?a criteria document. Int J Occup Environ Health. 1997;3:S1?S48. 26. Thorn J, Beijer L, Rylander R. Work related symptoms among sewage workers: a nationwide survey in Sweden. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59:562?566. 27. Noonan CW, Kathman SJ,White MC. Prevalence estimates for MS in the United States and evidence of an increasing trend for women. Neurology. 2002;58:136?138. 28. Marrie RA,Wolfson C, Sturkenboom MCJM, et al. Multiple sclerosis and antecedent infections: a case-control study. Neurology. 2000;54:2307?2310. 29. Murray J. Infection as a cause of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J. 2002; 325:1128. 30. Willer CJ, Ebers GC. Susceptibility to multiple sclerosis: interplay between genes and environment. Curr Opin Neurol. 2000;13: 241?247. 31. Ingalls TH, Huguenin I, Ghent T. Clustering of multiple sclerosis in Galion, Ohio, 1982?1985. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989;10: 213?215. 32. Kraut A, Lilis R, Marcus M, Valciukas JA, Wolff MS, Landrigan PJ. Neurotoxic effects of solvent exposure on sewage treatment workers. Arch Environ Health. 1988;43:263?268. 33. Schiffman SS, Saltely-Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG. The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull. 1995;37: 369?375. 34. Shusterman DJ, Liscomb J, Neutra R, Satin K. Symptom prevalence and odor-worry interaction near hazardous waste sites. Environ Health Perspect. 1991;94:25?30. 35. Shusterman D, Balmer J, Cone J. Behavioral sensitization to irritants/odorants after acute overexposures. J Occup Med. 1988;30:565?567. 36. Tarone RE, Alavanja MCR, Zahm SH, et al. The Agricultural Health Study: factors affecting completion and return of self-administered questionnaires in a large prospective cohort study of pesticide applicators. Am J Ind Med. 1997;31:233?242. 37. Morgaine KC, Firth HM, Herbison GP, Feyer AM, McBride DI. Obtaining health information from farmers: interviews versus postal questionnaires in a New Zealand case study. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2005;12:223?228. Spring 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1 11 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 3 22:44:59 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:44:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Gore technology used for compost operations Message-ID: The Hinkley operation said they couldn't afford a cover. They didn't look at Gore. Look at the photos on line ... better format: http://www.netzerowaste.com/about/ Home About Us How it works Pilot the Gore Cover System Contact About Net Zero Waste Mateo Ocejo Mr. Ocejo has 10 years of project management experience in heavy industrial and environmental projects. He has managed engineering efforts in excess of 20 personnel and on-site construction efforts up to $10 million (USD) in contract value and 100,000 direct labor man-hours. Over the past four years Mr. Ocejo has focused his efforts on developments in the solid waste industry; specifically as they relate to composting. He has on-site experience with all principal composting technologies on the market and has consulted with multiple clients on potential process and operational improvements. A focus has been placed on the Gore Cover Technology which is new to North America as Mr.Ocejo has been recognized as an expert in the design and construction of this process technology. Relevant Project Experience Metro Vancouver Gore Cover Project This trial project was designed to simulate the operation and performance of a full scale Gore Cover Composting Facility treating a 50% food waste mixture. Approximately 260,000 lbs of waste was composted by the process producing a stable high quality compost after only two months. Odour sampling was conducted during the trial demonstrating more than a 95% reduction in ammonia and VOC's. Following the trial, Metro Vancouver issued a Request for Information and Qualifications (RFIQ) to treat a total potential of over 410,000 tonnes of organic waste in the region. This request resulted in 23 competitive submissions and Net Zero Waste's Proposal was advanced as one of 7 shortlisted composting technologies. Net Zero Waste is currently competing in the final stages of the award process with notification to the best qualified team expected in early 2009. Chemainus Bio-solids Gore Cover Project Initially started as a trial, a series of batches were tested with various wood waste products until the correct mixture was determined. Modifications to the mixing of the pile and the best operational practices were also made during the processing of the demonstration batches. Following the trial, Coast Environmental and NZW constructed a small indoor 8,000 tpa facility with small covers and a single aeration trench. A unique cover hanging system which will raise and lower the covers from the roof is currently in development. ENVIRONMENTAL Experience Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Consulting Services for the Development of the Westlake Farms Bio-solids Composting Facility, Kings County, California Front end design and planning was completed for the District's plan to build the largest composting facility in the world with the potential to handle up to 1,000,000 tpa of waste. Involvement included a review of the partially completed internal designs so as to ensure conformance with the Gore Cover Process Model as well as cost optimization for facility construction based on recently completed Gore Projects. Scope included: Site Review and Discussion, Staffing Plan Review, Facility Layout Design Options, Operation and Maintenance Considerations, Equipment Recommendations / Pricing and a Construction Information Package (including detailed installation photos). NZW involvement saved millions of dollars of project costs through design optimization. The result was significant changes to many areas including the leachate design, conveyor layout and a significant reduction in the amount of infrastructure required for the site. [$80 million, 02/2009 - Present] Cape Breton Regional Municipality, Development of an Organic Waste Management Facility, Sydney, Nova Scotia Dynamic Compaction site densification was completed on this decommissioned landfill site prior to the construction of a 10,000 tones/year Christiaens Controls Compost Facility. Designed to receive mixed organic waste including SSO, seismic and thermal load case considerations were the focus of this design. [$12 million, 10/2006] Correctional Services Canada, Rockwood Institution Leachate Remediation and Containment, Winnipeg, Manitoba Project manager with the aim to optimize facility layout and processing alternatives while minimizing capital costs. Site investigation consisting of a borehole drilling program an electromagnetic survey and groundwater sampling was required to determine the extent of on-site contamination. A remediation plan and assessment of contaminant presence and migration from the compost area was provided. Detailed design and cost estimates for infrastructure upgrades were provided resulting in improved throughput and process control [2005-12/2006] Integrated Municipal Services, Niagara, Ontario Engineering project manager and construction manager for the development and implementation of a new Gore Cover facility. Key considerations were made for year round (winter) operations including in-slab heating [$10 million, 05/2005 - 10/2008] City of Spruce Grove, Solid Waste Program Evaluation and Preliminary Facility Design, Spruce Grove, Alberta Reviewed existing operations at the city, and developed a cost model which incorporated all aspects of the cities solid waste management program. This analysis provided the city with the data necessary to evaluate the cost impact of the design, construction and operation of their own composting facility. [01/2006 ? 04/2006] Region of Peel, Engineering Services for the development of an Organic Waste Management Facility, Peel, Ontario This project involved working closely with our construction project partners in a design build effort focused on controlling capital costs while maintaining the performance specifications. Implemented a Christiaens Controls bunker style process technology as a centralized composting facility capable of processing (primary phase only) up to 60,000 tones/year of organics. [$8 million, 05/2005 - 08/2006] City of Abbotsford, Consultant Services for the development of an Organic Waste Management Facility, Abbotsford, British Columbia Engineering Project Manager and Construction Manager for the development and implementation of an Organic Waste Management Facility. Phases of work include pre-design analysis, public consultation, design, tendering, construction management and commissioning services. [$5 million, 05/2005 - 11/2006] City of Vancouver, Consultant Services for Infrastructure Review ? Vancouver South Transfer Station, Vancouver, British Columbia Engineering Project Manager for a solid waste management transfer station design. Due to heavy increases in traffic at the site operational considerations were a focus of the design including traffic management and modeling. Options for upgrading the facility were considered as were the advantages and disadvantages of a demolition of the existing structure with the construction of a new facility when determining the best option moving forward [Total Project Value $12 million, 05/2005 - 04/2007] Saipan Waste Management Pacific Drilling J.V., Marpi Landfill Gore Cover MSW Densification Project, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Engineering Project Manager and Site Engineer for preliminary design, layout and planning of a 40,000 ton/year Municipal Solid Waste densification composting facility. Unique site challenges such as the remote location of the island, extreme weather events (rainfall & wind), a fractured limestone sub grade and a cliff constraining one side of the site resulted in the development of unique design features. [$8 million USD, 04/2005 ? 2006 Project cancelled prior to construction] Cedar Grove Principal Operations Composting Facility Expansion, Maple Valley, Washington Engineering Project Manager and Site Engineer for the design, procurement and construction of an 80,000 ton/year Gore cover expansion to an existing 120,000 ton/year composting facility. Managed all aspects of design including site surveying, grading, stormwater, utilities, civil, site layout, structural, electrical, and leachate design. This expansion will include the removal / decommissioning of the existing facility and design optimization of the Gore cover technology. [$10 million USD, 10/2004 - 8/2005] Cedar Grove Composting Ltd., Gore Cover Composting Facility Expansion Phase II, Everett, Washington Engineering Project Manager and Site Engineer for the design, procurement and construction of an 80,000 ton/year expansion to an existing composting facility. Once completed the new facility was capable of processing more than 200,000 tones/year making it the largest of its kind in North America. Design optimization across all areas was focused on cost reduction and improved operating efficiency. Concrete surfaces were replaced with asphalt where possible, mix designs improved and electrical distribution was optimized with wall mounted multiplex cabinets. Refined installation procedures incorporating previous experiences drastically reducing construction schedule while allowing a reduction in concrete thicknesses and reinforcing steel quantities. [$8 million USD, 02/2005 - 06/2005] Cedar Grove Composting Ltd., Gore Cover Composting Facility, Everett, Washington Engineering Project Manager and Site Engineer for the design, procurement and construction of an 80,000 ton/year composting facility (the largest of its kind in North America), which is composed of multiple stormwater collection ponds an independent leachate collection and distribution system and included the installation of over 10,000 yards of concrete. [$12 million USD, 02/2004 - 10/2004] From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 4 05:43:40 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:43:40 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Human waste dumped in Antarctica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Human waste dumped in Antarctica. Antarctica, the most pristine continent on Earth, has a dirty secret. Human waste is being dumped there as governments turn a blind eye to normal standards. Melbourne Age, Australia. http://www.theage.com.au/national/big-stink-brews-in-antarctica-20090902-f8fq.html Big stink brews in Antarctica ANDREW DARBY, HOBART September 3, 2009 Emperor penguins are at risk from untreated human waste. Photo: Ross Knights Antarctica, the most pristine continent on Earth, has a dirty secret. Human waste is being dumped there as governments turn a blind eye to normal standards. More than half of 71 Antarctic scientific stations surveyed lack any kind of sewage treatment system, a Swedish study has found. The biggest countries are among those with the most basic operations at some of their permanent stations, and Australia does not emerge unscathed from the survey. Sewage treatment at Davis station has for years been limited to maceration before the waste is dumped into the sea. Fredrik Grondahl, of Stockholm's Royal Institute of Technology, said technology already existed for effective waste treatment in most of Antarctica. The larger countries particularly needed to take responsibility to improve overall standards, Professor Grondahl said. ''I have been on a couple of Antarctic stations, and with my own eyes seen the need of improvements,'' he told The Age. ''On one station the sewage water was released without treatment directly into the sea.'' The Antarctic Treaty's Madrid Protocol commits countries to comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, and calls for waste to be reduced as much as possible to minimise its impact. The effect of this waste on the vast frozen continent is magnified because stations cluster mainly on the 2 per cent of ice-free Antarctic rock - terrain that is hot property not just for people, but for wildlife. Fouling of the nearby marine environment was, until 2003, clearly visible at the largest station, the US McMurdo base. It had no treatment, and high densities of coliform bacteria damaged sea life along a one-kilometre shoreline. More recently, Professor Grondahl said there was evidence salmonella bacteria had been brought to Antarctica by people, and E.coli had turned up in Antarctic wildlife for the first time, in fur seals. In the survey, published in Polar Research, Professor Grondahl found 15 permanent stations used no treatment at all, and only four went to the length of operating state-of-the-art tertiary stage plants. Among the offenders were the US, Japan, France, Russia and Britain. Two of the three permanent Australian stations, Casey and Mawson, operate secondary treatment plants that then discharge to the sea. This complies with the treaty protocol, according to John Gunn, chief scientist with the Federal Government's Antarctic Division. But Dr Gunn said problems with the Davis plant meant it had been without secondary treatment since 2002. ''A $2.7 million budget had been set aside to do the work on Davis,'' Dr Gunn said. ''We are fast-tracking a replacement that will be up with world's best practice in the next couple of years.'' From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 4 08:57:59 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:57:59 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Acrylamide Placed on Canada's Toxic List Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Polyacrilamide Polymers are used as sludge thickening agents. About 5 kilograms of polymer may be added to one ton of sludge before transport and land application. Since sludge is generally tested before the thickeners are added, the toxic chemicals in the thickener are not captured. The acrylamide is present as a fraction of the polyacrylamide polymer. Less toxic polymers are used on drinking water, but sludge thickening is generally done with the cheaper more toxic formulations. The acrylamide is highly mobile and can move swiftly into groundwater. The presence of acrylamide in paper sludge and sewage sludge and sugar residue lime needs to be investigated. ........................ 2-Propenamide (Acrylamide) CAS Registry Number 79-06-1 What is it? 2-Propenamide, also known as acrylamide, is an industrial chemical. How is it used? The majority of acrylamide is used in the manufacture of various polymers, which in turn are used as binding, thickening, or flocculating agents in grout, cement, sewage/waste water treatment, pesticide formulations, cosmetics, sugar manufacturing and soil erosion prevention, ore processing, food packaging, plastic products and in molecular biology laboratory applications. Based on the most recent data available, acrylamide is not manufactured in Canada but is imported into Canada. ////////////////////////////////// Canada adds acrylamide to list of toxic substances By Staff Reporter, 27-Aug-2009 Related topics: Cleaning / Safety / Hygiene, Packaging Materials Acrylamide, a chemical that that appears in both food packaging and processed foods, has been added to a list of toxic substances by Canadian health authorities. Health Canada confirmed it had placed acrylamide onto Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 in order to minimise the public?s exposure to the chemical which Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said ?may pose a risk to human health?. Acrylamide first came onto the health and safety agenda in 2002 when scientists at the Swedish Food Administration reported unexpectedly high levels of acrylamide in carbohydrate-rich foods and published evidence linking the chemical to cancer in laboratory rats. The majority of acrylamide is used in the production of polymers which are then used to manufacture food packaging. But the primary source of exposure is from food sources - although the level is low, said Health Canada. The chemical is produced when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures. It forms by a reaction, known as the Maillard effect, between sugar and an amino acid called asparagine, which creates the brown color and tasty flavor of baked, fried and toasted foods. Risk management approach Health Canada declared it was implementing a three-pronged risk management approach to cut the exposure of Canadians to the substance. ?The approach includes pressing the food industry to develop and implement acrylamide reduction strategies for use by food processors and the food service industry; regularly updating consumption advice; and coordinating risk management efforts for acrylamide in food with key international food regulatory partners,? said the body. Industry action But Food and Consmer Products of Canada (FCPC) spokesman Derek Nigheor said there was still a need for further research to understand the health effects of acrylamide. Over the past few years, aware of consumer concerns and the inconclusive nature of current research, food manufacturers have been making efforts to remove or reduce the chemical in their products. Most attention in the past two years for reducing the chemical has focused on the use of enzymes to convert asparagine into another amino acid called aspartic acid, thereby preventing the creation of acrylamide. Nigheor said FCPC would be working with government to develop guidance documents to make food companies aware of all the tools at their disposal to reduce levels of acrylamide. The inclusion of the chemical on Health Canada?s toxic list is part of the Canadian government?s ongoing review of nearly two hundred chemical substances in widespread commercial use that have never before been subjected to thorough risk analysis. .................................... http://www.carexcanada.ca/research/carcinogens/en/acrylamide.pdf General Information Acrylamide is a crystalline powder that ranges from colourless to white (2). First synthesized in 1949, acrylamide is used as an intermediary in the production of polyacrylamide and acrylamide copolymers (3). Polymerized acrylamide is not toxic, but acrylamide monomer can remain as a contaminant in the polymers (2). Acrylamide may also be referred to as 2-propenamide or acrylic acid amide (4). There are numerous other synonyms and product names; see the HSDB for more information (4). Acrylamide has been classified by IARC as a Group 2A carcinogen (probably carcinogenic to humans) (5). The evaluation was based on evidence in animals as studies of workers exposed to acrylamide provided insufficient data on carcinogenicity to humans (5). Acrylamide ingestion has been shown to cause cancers at a variety of sites in rats, including the thyroid and testes, mammary glands, thyroid, central nervous system, oral cavity, and uterus (5). Other studies have shown increases in lung tumours and skin cancer in mice (5). Additionally, human studies have shown that acrylamide can cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems (5) and contact dermatitis (6). The NTP, also basing its evaluation on animal data, classifies acrylamide as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (2). CAREX Canada ranks acrylamide as a Group A (immediate high priority) for occupational settings and as a Group B (possible high priority) for environmental settings. Prioritization was based on the carcinogenicity and other toxic properties of the substance, the prevalence of exposure in Canada, and the feasibility of assessing exposure. ...................... http://www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles/Acrylamide.htm Acrylamide PRODUCER CAPACITY* Ciba Specialties, Suffolk, Va. 33 Cytec Industries, Avondale, La. 90 ONDEO Nalco, Garyville, La. 35 S.N.F. Floerger, Riceboro, Ga. 143 Total 301 *Millions of pounds per year. Commercial production is by hydration of acrylonitrile to form acrylamide monomer, which is supplied to the market as a 50 percent aqueous solution. A small amount of crystalline acrylamide is imported, but solution is favored on a cost basis and because of toxicity and safety concerns in handling the solid product. Last year Nalco Chemical's parent company, Suez, announced the creation of ONDEO, an expansive water-solutions group comprised of Suez' four water-related companies. As a result, Nalco Chemical changed its brand name to ONDEO Nalco. In late 2000, S.N.F. Floerger began installing the first of three acrylamide lines at Riceboro, Ga. These were completed in early 2001. The combined annual capacities amount to 143 million pounds. In mid-2001, Dow closed its acrylamide plant in Midland, Mich., eliminating 105 million pounds of annual capacity. Profile last published 3/15/99; this revision, 3/13/02. DEMAND 2000: 191 million pounds; 2001: 200 million pounds; 2005: 232 million pounds, projected. Demand equals production plus imports (2000: 2 million pounds; 2001: 2 million pounds) less exports (2000: 11 million pounds; 2001: 8 million pounds). GROWTH Historical (1996 - 2001): 5.1 percent per year; future: 3.8 percent per year through 2004. PRICE Historical (1996 - 2001): High, $1.76 ? 1.86 per pound, 50 percent solution, 100 percent basis, bulk, f.o.b. works; low, $1.76 ? 1.86, same basis. Current: $1.76 ? 1.86, same basis. USES Polyacrylamide (PAM), 94 percent (for water treatment, 56 percent; pulp and paper production, 24 percent; mineral processing, 10 percent; miscellaneous, 4 percent); N-methylolacrylamide (NMA) and other monomers, 6 percent. STRENGTH Water treatment is the largest market for polyacrylamide in the US, accounting for nearly 60 percent of PAM demand last year. The largest use for PAM in this category is as dewatering aids for sludges in the treatment of effluents from municipal wastewater treatment plants (e.g., sewage treatment) and industrial processes (e.g., pulp and paper plant wastewater). Polyacrylamides are also consumed as flocculants in feedwater treatment for industrial purposes. PAM consumption for water treatment is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent through 2005. Growth for PAM is being driven by the need for more efficient effluent treatment to reduce sludge volumes, thereby reducing transportation and disposal costs. The largest volumes of polyacrylamide consumed by paper mills are used to flocculate fillers, fibers and pigments at the headbox of the papermachine. This application is commonly referred to as a retention and drainage aid and is expected to grow at 4.5 percent over the next four years. Papermaking accounts for 24 percent of PAM demand. WEAKNESS Polymer flooding, a means of maximizing oil output from an existing well, was a substantial market in the mid-1980s. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) consumed 8 percent of polyacrylamides in 1986. Then, the drop in the price of crude oil made EOR economics generally unfavorable. Consumption of PAM for EOR has since fallen to the point of being negligible. Moreover, significant recovery in the EOR applications during the next few years is unlikely. The market for EOR becomes attractive when oil is priced above $25 per barrel. OUTLOOK Although there is considerable overcapacity in the marketplace, no rationalization is likely as all producers consume the majority of their acrylamide production in manufacturing higher value polyacrylamides. Acrylonitrile and its precursors are in good supply and stable in price, which should result in a correspondingly stable acrylamide market. Acrylamide's growth prospects depend largely on polyacrylamides and their primary markets in water treatment and the paper industry. These sectors are growing at 3.5 and 4.5 percent, respectively. Growth for acrylamide is projected at 3.8 percent per year, through 2005. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 8 09:44:23 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:44:23 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Buffalo City South Africa - Making the most of waste Message-ID: http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=343216 Making the most of waste 2009/09/08 BUFFALO City could soon lead the rest of the country into a new era, joining the developed world in using technology that turns waste into valuable ? and marketable ? resources. Last week , a top engineer from one of the world?s leaders in sustainable technologies jetted into East London for a whistle-stop tour of its sewage treatment plant. ?I was surprised,? said Lettinga Associates? Dr Henri Spanjers. ?Years ago, South African engineers invented technology that today is being used all over the world ? but not in the country of its origin.? He was referring to what is known as the ?UCT process?, developed by then-UCT researchers Peter Dold and George Ekama, for removing nitrogen and phosphorous from sludge. ?There are very few places on earth that have phosphorous. It costs about R10000 a ton. Yet here you pour it into the sea,? Spanjers said. Spanjers has been appointed to advise and oversee the company that on Friday began researching the technical feasibility of building a sewage solution for Buffalo City Municipality (BCM) that could provide daily power and water for the East London Industrial Development Zone (Elidz) and beyond, as well as fertiliser for farmers. In sharp contrast, the present overloaded and aging infrastructure pours 12 to 17 million litres of raw sewage into the sea ? every single day. Dennis Smith, who ran BCM?s sanitation and water system for nine years before forming his own company, Element Consulting Engineers, has been appointed to assist with the technical feasibility study, which will look at installing a biodigestion system for the city. In a nutshell, biodigesters take sewage ? sludge and ?waste? water ? and treat it anaerobically (depriving it of oxygen) to generate three by- products: energy (in the form of methane gas), clean water and nutrients. ?Not only is water a very scarce resource in South Africa, but all our sanitation processes are under tremendous strain,? Smith said. (Biodigesters do not produce clean water - Admin) ?We have to learn to see waste as a resource. Our technology has to cost ? us and the earth ? less and still produce the same result. Once we begin to extract value from it, I believe we will look at waste differently.? Spanjers smiled. ?One plate of food, digested and discharged as faeces, can provide 60 litres of methane.? (Admin: Just how big are his plates of food??) Smith is excited about the feasibility study, which he plans to have completed by the end of this year. ?I?ve always been interested in alternative technologies,? he said. ?We learnt all about them at university, but it hasn?t been practical in this country up till now because energy was so cheap that no other way of producing power could beat Eskom?s price. It?s only now, with the crisis at Eskom, that we are being forced to change, and it?s long overdue.? Smith and his team will study a variety of technologies that use anaerobic pre-treatment, including something called an ?upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor?. ?Basically we?ll assess their applicability in these specific (Buffalo City) conditions and draw up a cost- benefit scenario for each,? he explained. ?Perhaps the cost will be enormous and the benefit only minimal . We really don?t know yet.? But Dave Oldfield and Mark Wells, founding members and directors of People?s Power Africa, the company spearheading the BCM biodigester project, are convinced otherwise. ?How can we keep spending all these millions to clean water up to drinking standards, use that clean water to flush away urine and faeces ? and then pour it into the sea? It?s insane. Completely unsustainable.? Oldfield said the Elidz was enthusiastic about the project . Elidz is right on the doorstep of East London?s current sewage plant on the West Bank, and almost all industries use large amounts of water that needn?t be as clean as drinking standards demand. They also need power. One example is the new aquaculture project, which needs to heat the seawater it uses to 23? C. ?A simple gas turbine can convert methane gas into useable power,? said Oldfield. ?Mercedes-Benz South Africa uses 3.5 million kg of LPG gas (liquefied petroleum gas) a year. They have indicated an interest in a ?greener? source of gas, especially if it?s locally produced. And of course it would be far cheaper.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 8 09:51:23 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:51:23 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Biolite and BAFF secondary sludge system by Degremont installed in Windsor Ontario Message-ID: http://dcnonl.com/article/id35223 September 8, 2009 RON STANG Windsor's Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant expansion is a multi-stage $110 million project. European technology at the heart of Windsor, Ontario treatment system RON STANG correspondent WINDSOR, Ont. At close inspection it looks like a very pebbled beach. But you wouldn?t want to walk on it. ?It?s almost like a quicksand,? Tony Bietola, the City of Windsor?s project administrator for the $110 million Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant expansion, says. The clay-like material is known as Biolite. It was trucked up from Cleveland Ohio, near where it was mined and baked into granular material. And this ?beach? is surrounded by four concrete walls, enclosing a 1506-square-foot BAFF (Biological Aerated Filtration Facility) cell, containing the Biolite to a depth of 3.9 metres. At the Lou Romano plant there are 16 such cells. They form the guts of the plant?s new secondary treatment process. Biolite and its BAFF system were developed by Degremont Technologies, the France-based multinational known for its water and sludge treatment worldwide. Its Canadian subsidiary is in Montreal. ?We developed the (Biolite) concept using something like lava ? it?s very light and we can clean it easily,? says Jean Yves Bergel, Degremont?s technical vice-president. The patented treatment process in the BAFF is called BIOFOR (Biological Filter Oxygenated Reactor). It treats sludge pumped up through the Biolite where the bacteria contained in the sludge adheres to the pebble medium. The cleansed water then flows into a channel on its way to be treated by ultraviolet light, the final stage before being released into the Detroit River. The Degremont system cost just under $13 million. The facility is the second largest in Canada after Quebec City?s, which has 52 cells. Originally opened in 1969 the west end Lou Romano plant is just finishing its third, and largest expansion, introducing secondary treatment. (The city?s smaller east side Little River pollution control plant has activated sludge secondary treatment.) The plant is named after Lou Romano, now retired, who was the city?s director of pollution control for 30 years. The secondary facility has been up and running since late 2007 but there is still construction to do on site in the multiyear expansion, which started in 2003. The build was tendered over six contracts, the first being excavation and the driving of 1300 H piles 75 feet down to bedrock. They support the BAFF cells. The second was for the BAFF, a new supplementary diesel generating station and a primary pumping station which includes four Archimedes pumps to push the water up from the settling basins to the BAFF cells. Next was expansion of the primary settling basins or clarifiers. Two 36.5 m diameter concrete basins were added to six existing ones. And a larger 52 m diameter basin was constructed. The sludge that accumulates in the basins is pumped to a dewatering facility, spun in centrifuges (two new centrifuges included in a separate contract), and the dry residue dumped into hoppers. The city contracts with Prism Berlie Ltd. to remove it to a nearby plant where it?s made into pellets for fertilizer. Next was contracting for the ultraviolet disinfection facility, which eliminates the need for chlorine. Windsor used to add, as a final step, chlorine to its primary treated water. Then there was roadwork and landscaping. Still ongoing is the replacement of a conveyor system for the dewatering plant and replacing the coarse bar screens to remove larger objects like rags at the beginning of the process so they don?t damage plant equipment. Also being installed is a receiving inlet chamber for wastewater from the adjoining Town of LaSalle, which contributed $25 million of the expansion cost. Contributions of $28 million were also received through the Canadian Ontario Infrastructure Program (COIP). Still to tender, likely this fall, is work to modernize the administration building, control room and laboratory, as well as, other related wastewater processes. Besides improving treatment the expanded plant can handle almost twice the water capacity as it did previously at 273 million litres per day. Outwardly the buildings adhere to the neat, red brick finish that characterizes the original plant. ?We?re happy with the work up to now but it has been some time to complete such a large multi-contracted project,? Bietola said. ?This plant is good news for the city, with built-in capability to handle higher waste loads in the years to come.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 8 10:41:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:41:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> French Report: Organic Food is More Nutritious Message-ID: Organic is more nutritious according to the FRENCH 03.sep.09 Food Magazine http://www.foodmag.com.au/Article/Organic-is-more-nutritious-according-to-the-French/496876.aspx A new report by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) has found that organic foods are better for you and contain less pesticides and nitrates, which have been linked to a range of health problems including diabetes and Alzheimer?s. Andre Leu, Chairman of the Organic Federation of Australia, says the up-to-date exhaustive and critical evaluation of the nutritional quality of organic food and has found organic foods have higher levels of minerals and antioxidants.? "The AFSSA study has been published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development ensuring that it has met rigorous scientific standards," Leu said. The major points of The French Agency for Food Safety study are: 1. Organic plant products contain more dry matter (more nutrient dense) 2. Have higher levels of minerals 3. Contain more anti-oxidants such as phenols and salicylic acid (known to protect against cancers, heart disease and many other health problems) 4. Organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids (protect against heart disease) 5. Carbohydrate, protein and vitamin levels are insufficiently documented 6. 94?100% of organic foods do not contain any pesticide residues 7. Organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less (high nitrate levels are linked to a range of health problems including diabetes and Alzheimer?s) 8. Organic cereals contain similar levels of mycotoxins as conventional ones In 2001, the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) set up an expert working group to perform an exhaustive and critical evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic food. The AFSSA says they aimed for the highest quality scientific standards during the evaluation. The selected papers referred to well-defined and certified organic agricultural practices, and had the necessary information on design and follow-up, valid measured parameters and the appropriate sampling and statistical analyses. After more than two years of work involving about 50 experts from all specific areas including organic agriculture, a final consensus report was issued in the French language in 2003. The current study published in the peer reviewed journal, in English, is a summary of this report and the relevant studies that have been published since 2003. The conclusions of this study are different from the recent UK Food Standard Agency Study that was widely criticised by international experts for using flawed methodology and a conclusion that contradicted its own data. The full scientific report can be found at http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/organic/ASD_Lairon_2009.pdf From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 9 13:26:56 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:26:56 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> $10M settlement for residents impacted by Ford paint sludge - David v Goliath personal injury suit Message-ID: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2516553/ Sludge suit faced long odds at trial Tue. September 08, 2009 New Jersey Sep 05, 2009 The Record - McClatchy-Tribune Lawyers who agreed to what's believed to be a $10 million settlement for Upper Ringwood residents against Ford Motor Co. would have faced a nearly impossible task persuading a jury to award money to their clients, say law experts. The case, centered on illnesses the residents blamed on industrial waste dumped by Ford four decades ago in their neighborhood and settled Thursday in state court in Hackensack, presented a challenge on legal, medical and personal fronts. Sources close to the case said the settlement was $10 million, but the agreement legally is confidential. "From my perspective, this was an extremely difficult case," said Chris Placitella, a lawyer based in Red Bank who has handled many environmental contamination cases. "I know other law firms that refused the case." Indeed, the odds were against the residents' team of attorneys: First, a state judge ruled each of the more than 700 plaintiffs would have to testify. Then, lawyers had to prove the essential link that the exposure to toxins caused the residents' illnesses. Finally, as time wore on, almost 100 of those plaintiffs dropped out of the suit, refusing to show up for depositions or not responding to legal queries. The personal injury case was filed in January 2006 by a superstar list of attorneys -- Johnny Cochran's firm based in Dothan, Ala.; Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s practice, Kennedy & Madonna; Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo PC, in New York City; and Catalano & Plache. The case claimed that the residents who now or once lived in the remote community, mostly Ramapough Mountain Indians, were made ill by the liquid paint sludge dumped and left for almost 40 years in their neighborhood. The residents blamed their pervasive asthma, skin rashes, cancers and other illnesses on the contamination, which was lead-based and contained arsenic. Arsenic is a known carcinogen and is linked to an increased risk of lung and other cancers. And even in small amounts, lead can harm the nervous system, kidneys and affect reproduction and development. But to prove the illness is a direct result from the exposure is a link that can't always be made. Some of the Upper Ringwood residents are heavy smokers. Trying to get a jury to accept that the illness is from the toxin and not cigarettes would have been a difficult sell. A 2001 contamination case in Toms River involved a specific compound that causes a certain type of cancer, said Mike Gordon, a Springfield lawyer. "Here the toxin is out in the community so the exposure is less severe than if it was in the house. And the defendants would have pointed to the lifestyle." Then, there was the legal hurdle state Superior Court Judge Jonathan Harris imposed when he said all 700-plus plaintiffs would have to be heard by the jury. Law experts said trying the case in this manner would have made it time- and cost-prohibitive. "This shows a problem in the way the judicial system was used in this case," Gordon said. "This wasn't a fair way to hear this case." Jeff Tittel, originally from Ringwood and now director of the Sierra Club New Jersey chapter, said he, too, understands why the case was settled. "The New Jersey courts have become very business-friendly and anti-citizen," Tittel said. "We're very reluctant to take cases to court so as not to set new bad precedents. But the people in Upper Ringwood deserve 100 times more than what they got." Residents said that after the settlement was finalized, they were more upset that Ford continued to deny liability, as Ford attorney Alan E. Kraus said in a public statement, than they were about the amount. But Placitella said "that is the norm" in settlements. "If a plaintiff pushes to have the company admit liability, that will stand in the way of a settlement." "When deciding whether to settle, a company will often weigh the cost of litigation and what the benefit would be to them of settling and putting the issue behind them," said Jay Feinman, a tort law expert at the Rutgers School of Law-Camden. "And a lot can happen that's unexpected during the course of a trial. Sometimes the certainty of having a bird in hand is appealing." Staff Writer James O'Neill contributed to this article. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 9 13:34:04 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:34:04 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Toronto sludge plans - public meetings tonight and tomorrow Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: I see there are no meetings in the communities impacted by Toronto sludge People interested in commenting on Toronto's sludge practices should send comments in to Nancy Martins: biosolids at toronto.ca Or to discuss it - talk to Nancy Fleming: nflemin at toronto.ca 416 397 9556 ..................................................... http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/wws/biosolids/pdf/pis4/flyer.pdf Biosolids Master Plan Update Notice of Public Information Session # 4 - New Dates You are invited to attend a Public Information Session to learn more about the Biosolids Master Plan, and the work completed to date, including the identification of the recommended biosolids management options for each of the four wastewater treatment plants. Drop in anytime between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to view displays, speak with the project team and provide your comments. A detailed map of each meeting location, including TTC directions is posted at toronto.ca/biosolids_masterplan. As a result of the labour disruption, the following three new Information Session dates and locations have been scheduled: Background In 2003, the City of Toronto initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process to develop a Master Plan for the future management of biosolids, generated from the treatment of wastewater at the City?s four wastewater treatment facilities. A draft Biosolids and Residuals Master Plan was completed in 2004 and is now being updated to reflect the findings of a peer review, completed in 2008, and to incorporate any changes that have arisen since the preparation of the draft Master Plan. This update focuses on finalizing plans for the management of biosolids. The Biosolids Master Plan Update is being carried out in accordance with the procedures defined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, and when completed will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA processes. Need More Information? Please visit our website at toronto.ca/biosolids_masterplan. To be added to the project mailing list, please contact: The City of Toronto holds public consultations as one way to engage residents in the life of their city. Toronto thrives on your great ideas and actions. We invite you to get involved. Tuesday, September 8 North York Memorial Hall Gold Room 5110 Yonge Street north of Sheppard Avenue next to North York Civic Centre, lower level Wednesday, September 9 Mennonite New Life Centre of Toronto Main Floor Meeting Room 1774 Queen Street East one block east of Kingston Road Thursday, September 10 Polish Association of Toronto 2282 Lake Shore Boulevard West west of Park Lawn Road Nancy Martins Public Consultation Unit City of Toronto Metro Hall, 19th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Tel: 416-392-4390 Fax: 416-392-2974 TTY: 416-397-0831 biosolids at toronto.ca toronto.ca/biosolids_masterplan Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal 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 Wed Sep 9 14:08:58 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:08:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Surry BC - stunk out the homeless with manure - stinking out residents with sludge Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The City of Surry British Columbia removed the manure that was stinking out the homeless. Those residents who have homes in BC who have been stunk out with sludge - face and expansion of the practice. ss The story shows that the city governments know that it is unreasonable to expect people to tolerate the odour of fecal waste...here the city staffers deliberately used manure against the homeless to limit loitering. Note that some Toronto councilors say Toronto residents shouldn't have waste stockpiled in neighbourhoods during garbage strikes due to odour and health problems. So why is ok to stockpile Toronto waste sludges in non Toronto neighborhoods? Cities know how intolerable these smells are. Why is the manure unacceptable while sludge malodour is called a 'perception' problem? ..................................... Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Biosolids plant expanding Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star August 11, 2009 Residents are fuming that a sewage biosolids plant is getting bigger.On Monday, Vernon council agreed to upgrade and expand the biosolids composting facility in the Commonage. The plant takes waste from sewer plants in Kelowna and Vernon and turns it into Ogogrow fertilizer.?It?s a disappointment for people in the area,? said Dave Facey, who lives at nearby Kekuli Bay Estates.Residents in that subdivision have complained about foul odours emanating from the facility, and while they believe the upgrade should go ahead, the expansion is unacceptable at this time.?We should see improved work before there is an expansion,? said Facey. The only council opposition to the project came from Patrick Nicol and Bob Spiers, who are both members of the regional biosolids composting committee. ?The two councillors who have been studying the problem are opposed and those with little knowledge are in favour of it,? said Facey. Kelowna will pick up most of the tab for the upgrades and expansion but Vernon will be responsible for $1,971,000.Coun. Mary-Jo O?Keefe backed the expenditure, saying that a considerable amount of biosolids has been diverted to the landfill because the facility can?t cope with all of the material.?We have sourced the funds now and we have ran into problems with a lack of facilities,? she said. Coun. Jack Gilroy believes construction will address the odour concerns of the nearby residents.?We have seen some progress made on the smell and if we go with the expansion and deal with the overload, we can reduce it further,? said Gilroy, who is a former member of the biosolids committee. ?We?re into that facility for $7 million and we need to make it work.? However, Nicol insists that expansion shouldn?t proceed because testing of the facility and odour issues has only occurred for two-and-a-half months.?They don?t have enough information. I think we hurried this whole thing,? he said. Spiers also defends his decision to vote against a larger plant.?The only reason for the expansion was to allow the Central Okanagan Regional District to become a full partner,? he said, adding that council vetoed CORD?s participation Monday. ?We won?t become a dumping ground for other municipalities without our approval.? ................................... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/24/bc-surrey-chicken-manure.html Surrey, B.C., probing who hatched chicken manure scheme Last Updated: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 CBC News Surrey, B.C., city hall is investigating spreading of offensively odorous chicken manure around a drop-in centre for homeless. (City of Surrey)Chicken manure spread on city property in Surrey, B.C., is causing a stink at city hall following allegations that city crews left the manure to prevent the homeless from loitering. Chicken manure was left on the grass, along sidewalks and in an empty city-owned lot beside the Front Room, a busy resource centre for the homeless on 135a Street in North Surrey. "You got all this staff here at the Front Room trying to save lives. They can't even sit out here and talk to the clients, try to guide them to the right place when all that smell is around," said Tim Tabor, an advocate for the homeless. "It's just inhuman. How would they like it in their yard?" Witnesses saw Surrey city workers spreading the manure, Tabor said. Acting Surrey mayor Barinder Rasode did not deny it was municipal employees who did the deed but she said the order was not given by city council or the mayor. An investigation is underway into whether bylaw officers and RCMP initiated the plan, Rasode said. "A part of our understanding [is] that it may have been the city's law enforcement agency, which are the bylaw officers, in conjunction with maybe a local officer at the [RCMP] office," Rasode told CBC News. Rasode said that following the complaints, the manure was removed over the weekend. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 11 17:42:57 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:42:57 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Kern wins another round in sludge lawsuit Message-ID: http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x616725970/Kern-wins-another-round-in-sludge-lawsuit Kern wins another round in sludge lawsuit BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer jburger at bakersfield.com | Wednesday, Sep 09 2009 Details of teacher arrest not likely to be released for weeks - Bakersfield.com Bakosphere: Noisy drunks from Bakersfield ruin camping trip Breaking News: Girl critical after Kern River accident Charges dropped against cop accused of groping woman while on ... - Bakersfield.com Funeral services for Sept. 11 - Bakersfield.com Breaking News: Man found shot to death on Panama Road near Lamont Restaurateurs aren't giving up dream - Bakersfield.com 'PINKS All Out' show races into Famoso - Bakersfield.com Breaking News: Arrest log for September 10 Savings guru spreads good news of coupons - Bakersfield.com State accuses broker of failing to complete loan modification ... - Bakersfield.com Breaking News: Deputies arrest two for child endangerment during Inyokern dog sweep Breaking News: Arvin police looking for drive-by murder suspects Source: Builders Exchange votes to fire councilman as accountant - Bakersfield.com Is the recession over? We asked locals in business what they ... - Bakersfield.com Breaking News: Charges dropped against cop in groping case Breaking News: Rosamond home owner shot at as he interrupts vehicle burglary Planners give blessing to Tejon project - Bakersfield.com Pete Tittl: The Q does barbecue to a T - Bakersfield.com Breaking News: Deputies Taser a pit bull chasing children Two wrongs don't make a right, they make a left !: Meniere's disease - Does anyone know about or have this ? Breaking News: Reward offered in 2002 cold case killing of woman Politics, anyone?: Joe Wilson's "You lie" Stuff on my mind at the time: Warning about Sierra Montessori Children's Center Tenants complain of receiving fraudulent eviction notices - Bakersfield.com School House Zach: Week 1 HS football podcast New magistrate judge selected - Bakersfield.com More Signposts Along the Middle Path: Space Shuttle Landing Likely at Edwards Today Irish eyes: Proof that Joe Wilson's "You lie!" was a lie Breaking News - Bakersfield.com - Moron of the month - Bakersfield.com Quirks of the County: Tejon Mountain Village Irish eyes - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Sept. 9 high school roundup - Bakersfield.com City Beat: Builders Exchange drama...Canyons tonight...city stuff Sam Lynn will be a-Blaze again in 2010, team says - Bakersfield.com There is a Chance: A strange Wednesday night School House Zach: Central Section football rankings, Week 1 Tehachapi, Jesus and the law: a clash? - Bakersfield.com School House Zach: Week 1 running thread and scoreboard Irish eyes: Sean Hannity: YOU LIE! Breaking News: 31 cited and 19 vehicles impounded in Calloway Drive checkpoint - Bakersfield.com - Radical local attorney David A. Torres calls Obama critics racist, Hitler lovers MARK'S WORLD - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Action Line: BBB offers mediation service for probate issues - Bakersfield.com MARK'S WORLD: I've seen Resource Day finds businesses want to expand - Bakersfield.com Things that interest ME: Our enemies meant what they said Crashing through the phony left-right paradigm : Asia Times: Fifty questions on 9/11 Bakosphere: Noisy drunks from Bakersfield ruin camping trip Breaking News: Girl critical after Kern River accident Breaking News: Bakersfield man dies in Tulare County car accident Breaking News: Man found shot to death on Panama Road near Lamont Bakosphere: Labor Day UFO sighting, with photos Breaking News: Arrest log for September 10 Breaking News: Cops find lots of people using cell phones in cars, issue tickets Breaking News: Sunday accident claims life of Fresno woman Breaking News: Deputies arrest two for child endangerment during Inyokern dog sweep Breaking News: Arvin police looking for drive-by murder suspects Breaking News: Charges dropped against cop in groping case Breaking News: Rosamond home owner shot at as he interrupts vehicle burglary No holds barred: Developer's bottom line not our concern Breaking News: Marijuana bust pushes total to new record high Breaking News: Deputies Taser a pit bull chasing children Two wrongs don't make a right, they make a left !: Meniere's disease - Does anyone know about or have this ? Breaking News: Reward offered in 2002 cold case killing of woman Politics, anyone?: Joe Wilson's "You lie" Stuff on my mind at the time: Warning about Sierra Montessori Children's Center School House Zach: Week 1 HS football podcast More Signposts Along the Middle Path: Space Shuttle Landing Likely at Edwards Today Irish eyes: Proof that Joe Wilson's "You lie!" was a lie Breaking News - Bakersfield.com - Bakersfield Boomers: Wilson's opponent, Rob Miller, raises over $350,000 after the "YOU LIE" shout from Wilson Quirks of the County: Tejon Mountain Village The President wants "civility" but threatens to "call you out". Hmm . . . Breaking News: Former CEO charged in nursing home drugging and deaths case Irish eyes - Bakersfield.com - More than before. School House Zach: Week 0, most important things I'm Still Kicking! - Bakersfield.com - More than before. City Beat: Builders Exchange drama...Canyons tonight...city stuff There is a Chance: A strange Wednesday night School House Zach: Central Section football rankings, Week 1 School House Zach: Week 1 running thread and scoreboard Irish eyes: Sean Hannity: YOU LIE! There is a Chance - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Breaking News: 31 cited and 19 vehicles impounded in Calloway Drive checkpoint - Bakersfield.com - Radical local attorney David A. Torres calls Obama critics racist, Hitler lovers MARK'S WORLD - Bakersfield.com - More than before. MARK'S WORLD: I've seen - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Crashing through the phony left-right paradigm - Bakersfield.com - Things that interest ME - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Things that interest ME: Our enemies meant what they said Politics, anyone? - Bakersfield.com - Shining the light of the Catholic faith on the Culture of Death - Bakersfield.com - More than befor Cyber Storm Mark II - Bakersfield.com - More than before. Cyber Storm Mark II: September 11th, 2009 Quirks of the County - Bakersfield.com - WitnessLogVwXYz: Common Sense School House Zach: Week 1 running thread and scoreboard Irish eyes: Sean Hannity: YOU LIE! Breaking News: Rosamond home owner shot at as he interrupts vehicle burglary Breaking News: Reward offered in 2002 cold case killing of woman Breaking News: 31 cited and 19 vehicles impounded in Calloway Drive checkpoint Radical local attorney David A. Torres calls Obama critics racist, Hitler lovers Breaking News: Deputies Taser a pit bull chasing children MARK'S WORLD: I've seen More Signposts Along the Middle Path: Space Shuttle Landing Likely at Edwards Today Bakersfield Blaze Blog: Blaze even series with Modesto Breaking News: Arrest log for September 10 Stuff on my mind at the time: Warning about Sierra Montessori Children's Center Things that interest ME: Our enemies meant what they said Crashing through the phony left-right paradigm : Asia Times: Fifty questions on 9/11 Cyber Storm Mark II: September 11th, 2009 Advertisement New Shoe Styles at Zappos.com! Kern County claimed another victory Wednesday in its legal battle with the city of Los Angeles and Orange County over Measure E, which bans the spreading of sewage sludge on unincorporated county land. The fight over sludge -- treated human and industrial waste also referred to as biosolids -- will now return to the lower U.S. District Court, where Kern's ban could still face major challenges. But for now, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given Kern County lawyers hope for an ultimate victory. Judges Dairmuid O'Scannlain, Pamela Rymer and Kim Wardlaw ruled that Kern County's sludge-spreading ban does not violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. And they vacated an earlier judgment by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess that rendered Measure E invalid. "We're very pleased with the court's decision. We didn't think that Feess had it right in the first place and we're glad that the 9th Circuit has vindicated our position on the commerce clause," said Assistant Kern County Counsel Steve Schuett. "This is another step in upholding the will of the Kern County voters." Kern's ban was designed to head off environmental concerns about sludge. Requests for comment from the office of Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo were not returned Wednesday afternoon. Technically, Measure E - passed by local voters in 2006 - is now in effect and ongoing sludge spreading by Los Angeles-area entities violates that law, Schuett said. But he said the county is not likely to enforce Measure E until the final challenges to the law have been resolved. "Until we get some clarity from the court, I don't think we will go out and close down Green Acres (the city of Los Angeles farm) or Shane Magan (operator of Honeybucket Farms)," Schuett said. Some major what-if scenarios still loom in the case: Judge Feess will now have to decide whether he has jurisdiction over two remaining challenges to Measure E: * Los Angeles' claim that the measure defeats state recycling goals. * The accusation that Kern County overstepped its police powers by passing a measure that damages a neighboring community's commerce. Both are state law issues, Schuett said. Feess is a federal judge. If he keeps the case, Feess likely rule again that Measure E defeats state recycling goals - killing the Measure E ban once again, Schuett said. Or Feess could rule the issues should be handled in state court, and Los Angeles and its allies would be required to refile their suit, Schuett said. The core of Wednesday's ruling dealt with the issue of interstate commerce. During a March court hearing, Thomas S. Hixson, an attorney for Los Angeles, argued that Measure E impairs interstate commerce by forcing the southland jurisdictions to ship their sludge to Arizona. The judges were critical of that argument from the bench in March. "So what?" said Rymer. Trucking a product to another state is, she said, "a boon (to interstate commerce), not a bane." Wednesday's ruling upheld that approach, saying the dispute between Kern, Los Angeles and Orange was purely a conflict between governments within the same state. "Nothing in Measure E hampers the recyclers' ability to ship waste out of state," O'Scannlain wrote. "In short, Measure E in no way burdens the recyclers' protected interest in the interstate waste market." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 12 09:45:54 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:45:54 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Stamford Conn chooses Nexterra biomass gasification for sludge Message-ID: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/city+chooses+Vancouver+Nexterra+build+biomass+gasification+system+wastewater/1980171/story.html U.S. city chooses Vancouver's Nexterra to build biomass gasification system for its wastewater By Gordon Hamilton, Vancouver Sun September 10, 2009 The Nexterra Development Centre in Kamloops.Photograph by: Paola Bahamondes/Nexterra Systems Corp. photo, Vancouver Sun filesVANCOUVER ? Vancouver-based Nexterra Systems Corp. has been selected by the city of Stamford, Conn., to develop a biomass gasification system for the city?s sewage treatment plant that will replace natural gas with clean-burning synthetic gas made from urban wood debris. Nexterra?s system, developed originally for use in the B.C. forest products industry, will be used by the Stamford Water Pollution Control Authority to dry wet biosolids in the authority?s existing biosolids dryer. The project is to be funded by U.S. Department of Energy grants and matching funds from the Stamford authority. The project is scheduled for completion by the end of 2010. After that, Stamford and Nexterra may proceed with a second phase that would use the dried biosolids as fuel for the plant, creating a closed loop. A third phase would use Nexterra?s synthetic gas to fuel a generator to create electricity, making the Stamford facility energy-independent. ?This project showcases the potential to transform the wastewater treatment industry into a major producer of renewable heat and power from waste fuels,? Jeanette Brown, executive director of the Stamford pollution control authority, said in a news release. The Nexterra system burns wood waste at a controlled temperature to slowly release gases that can then be used to replace fossil fuels. Stamford, with a population of 100,000, estimates that the Nexterra system will lower its fuel costs by up to $1 million a year. It is expected to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by about 4,000 tons annually, equivalent to taking 1,000 cars off the road. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 14 20:51:34 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:51:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tip from North Carolina Riverkeeper - leads to EPA criminal investigation re sewage spill Message-ID: http://carolinanewswire.com/news/News.cgi?database=00001news.db&command=viewone&id=1684&op=t Tip from Yadkin Riverkeeper? Leads to EPA Criminal Investigation after Thomasville Officials Fail to Report 15 million gallon sewage spill 09-14-2009 Thomasville NC ? An EPA criminal investigation prompted Thomasville officials to suddenly revise a sewage report, indicating 15.93 million gallons of raw sewage entered Hamby Creek which is part of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin. Raw sewage poured into Hamby Creek for more than twenty days until it was discovered near Baptist Children?s Home Road. Hamby Creek empties into Abbott?s Creek and eventually High Rock Lake one of the state?s largest recreational lakes and a drinking water supply for the town of Salisbury. Thomasville Public Services Director Morgan Huffman initially reported a sewage spill of only 385,000 gallons to NC Division of Water Quality on Aug. 4 but amended the report Tuesday August 8th when EPA Criminal Investigations Division made an unannounced visit to review plant data. EPA officials conducted their investigation based on a report they received from Yadkin Riverkeeper, Dean Naujoks on August 28th. Naujoks received a tip from a Thomasville plant operator who contacted Yadkin Riverkeeper to report plant officials had intentionally underreported the spill totals to the media. NC Law requires sewage spills over 1000 gallons be reported to the media to alert the public about potential health risks. EPA refuses to comment on the details of the investigation, but falsifying data can lead to criminal prosecution. The spill first began on July 13 lasting through Aug. 4, when plant officials claim to have first discovered the spill. The spill resulted from a collapsed manhole cover after heavy rainfall on July 13th, but according to Huffman no one at the plant knew there was a problem at that time. Huffman used plant data from August 4th to initially determine 385,000 gallons entered Hamby Creek but it is unclear why plant officials did not look at the plant data prior to August 4th to determine a much larger sewage spill had occurred. When the Dispatch reported the amended spill on Tuesday, Huffman failed to mention EPA Criminal Investigations had spent several days reviewing plant data which led to the amended report. Naujoks began his own investigation on Friday once it was clear the EPA had obtained Thomasville plant data for their investigation. Naujoks interviewed plant officials and made copies of the operator logs, flow meter data and the plant?s internal SCADA reports. ?Someone is lying about what took place out here because it is clear from the plant?s own data people knew this spill was happening? said Naujoks. ?A 15 million gallon sewage spill, larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill, does not go undetected for 20 days straight without someone knowing it is happening.? Plant operator logs from July 16th and again on July 25th clearly indicate operators reported flow coming into the plant had dropped significantly from an average of 2 million gallons a day (MGD) down to 1.2 MGD. The plants flow meters and SCADA also showed a significant drop in flow entering the plant which could only mean a rupture in the cities ageing sewage lines had occurred. Naujoks? report to EPA also indicated plant employees allegedly reported the spill shortly after it occurred on July 13th but Public Utilities Director Huffman stated no one at the plant knew the spill occurred until August 4th. ?I am deeply alarmed about the lack of concern Thomasville officials are displaying regarding this spill. It is appalling to think recreational users at High Rock Lake were swimming in raw sewage for weeks. I hope the town of Salisbury who depends on High Rock Lake for drinking water and property owners who live on High Rock Lake contact Thomasville officials and demand an investigation as well as direct accountability for what happened? said Naujoks. High Rock Lake is already listed on the states 303d list for impaired waters as a result of nutrients and sediment pollution entering the lake. EPA estimates more than 850 billion gallons of sewage are released into American rivers, lakes and coastal waters every year. Sewage contains disease pathogens, bacteria, toxins, nutrients and oxygen-depleting compounds causing algae blooms, fish kills and dead zones. Sewage also contains antibiotics, hormones and other prescription drugs that are entering drinking-water supplies. Thomasville, like many local governments, have struggled to keep pace with development and a growing population. Aging sewer lines and outdated sewage-treatment plants are unable to accommodate additional capacity and become overwhelmed every time it rains. Unfortunately, political leaders in Thomasville and many municipalities fail to adequately invest in sewage infrastructure while giving developers a free pass on paying the true cost for clean water. Huffman told Naujoks the town of Trinity was allegedly overwhelming Thomasville?s sewage collection system and was going to recommend to Thomasville officials to remove Trinity from the Thomasville sewage system. Naujoks told Huffman he would call for his resignation if the city did not immediately conduct an investigation to determine how the incident happened, who is responsible and what the city is going to do to address its failing sewage collection system. ?It is unacceptable for plant officials to act as if this is not a big deal and nothing can really be done about it. This is one of the largest sewage spills we have seen in the state over the last ten years. There needs to be accountability for what happened. Thomasville political leaders must provide the necessary funding to rehabilitate leaking sewage lines, develop new collection system designs and commit to upgrading treatment standards or risk potential litigation? Naujoks said. About the Yadkin Riverkeeper?: The Yadkin Riverkeeper?s mission is to respect, protect and improve the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin through education, advocacy and action. It is aimed at creating a clean and healthy river that sustains life and is cherished by its people. To achieve this vision, it seeks to accomplish the following objectives: sustain a RIVERKEEPER? program, measurably improve water quality, reestablish native bio-diversity, preserve and enhance the forest canopy, bring legal action to enforce state and federal environmental laws, and teach and practice a ?river ethic? of ecological respect to all ages. For more information, visit http://www.yadkinriverkeeper.org or call 336-293-8105. About Dean Naujoks: Dean Naujoks is the Yadkin Riverkeeper, employed by Yadkin Riverkeeper Inc. since the fall of 2008 to manage and implement a river advocacy program for the Yadkin Pee Dee River watershed in North Carolina that will keep it a healthy and vibrant river for residents and businesses in the long term. Yadkin Riverkeeper is a licensed member of the Waterkeeper Alliance, which connects and supports local Waterkeeper programs to provide a voice and champion clean water for waterways and their communities worldwide. A longtime water quality advocate, Naujoks became the first Upper Neuse Riverkeeper in 2001 at the nonprofit Neuse River Foundation. In 2002, Naujoks worked with whistleblowers to uncover more than 20 environmental and labor law violations at Raleigh?s sewage treatment plant?the largest discharger to the Neuse River. According to Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker, ?it was the Riverkeeper who alerted us to extensive problems which existed at our waste treatment plant, problems which had not been brought to our attention by then plant management.? Since 2003, Raleigh has invested more than $50 million in sewage plant upgrades and provided free drinking water to 32 families as a result of ground water contamination (over 1000 acres, the largest in the state) from the over application of sludge. A graduate of N.C. State, Naujoks created his own major in environmental policy and sustainable development. He also worked for the NC Wildlife Federation from 1991-1999. Naujoks has received American Rivers? 2009 National ?River Hero? Award on behalf of his efforts. Media Contact: Dean Naujoksv Yadkin Riverkeeper?v 2435 Westfield Ave. Winston-Salem, N.C. dean at yadkinriverkeeper.org www.yadkinriverkeeper.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 14 23:51:43 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:51:43 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Publicity on Sludge Hardship Cases Could Impact Whole Ag Industry - SouthEast Farm Press Message-ID: http://southeastfarmpress.com/news_archive/biosolid-industry-0914/ Public opinion important to future of agriculture Sep 14, 2009 2:10 PM, By Roy Roberson, Farm Press Editorial Staff Farming is a global business these days ? what happens on the far side of the world often impacts what farmers in the Southeast plant and how they market their crops. Farming is also a local business and how the public perceives agriculture goes a long way toward influencing state and federal elected officials, who make the laws that govern agriculture. For the most part our elected officials don?t really understand what farming is all about and don?t have unified voice to explain it to them. Food safety is a big public issue, yet the estimated 6-7 million tons of potentially toxic municipal waste that goes on farm land each year is not a public issue ? at least not yet. In Virginia, for example, there are about 8.5 million acres of farmland, but only 55,000 acres are treated with biosolids, a legal, but euphemistic term for municipal sludge. Mike McEvoy, chairman of the Virginia Biosolids Council, says there is a five-year waiting period for farmers to get in on the practice of applying biosolids to farm land. In my time with the Farm Press I have interviewed several farmers in Virginia who use biosolids on their land. The results have been good, the input-savings have been good. They understand public concern, primarily over the odor, and the farmers I know who use biosolids use it carefully and on land not adjacent to urban areas. Then there is the case of Georgia farmers Bill Boyce and Andy McElmurray who say they lost productive farming operations and have had their personal lives turned inside out because of the use of biosolids from the municipal waste disposal plant operated by the City of Augusta, Ga. Their story and the emotional, gut-wrenching way they tell it is as scary as any horror story you?ll ever want to hear. Andy McElmurray has become a self-made expert on the use of biosolids on farm land. He is an out-spoken critic of the biosolids industry and of local, state and federal agencies that regulate the use of biosolids, which he refers to as municipal waste. Andy has become a sort of Erin Brockovich and Jeffery Wigand rolled into one. Erin Brockovich brought to life by Julia Roberts? award winning portrayal in the movie indirectly played a role in McElmurray?s woes. Brockovich?s efforts created a public outcry that forced the government to ban hexavalent chromium (chrome 6) from being used in industrial cooling systems. The replacement, molybdenum is a primary cause of the loss of their dairy cattle, McElmurray says. Jeffery Wigand portrayed in the movie, The Informer by Russell Crowe blew the whistle on the tobacco industry. An afternoon conversation with Andy left me mad as hell about what the use of municipal waste has done to his family and that of his neighbor Bill Boyce. Like most emotional stories ? there are two sides to this one, too. There has been plenty of finger pointing going on for over 15 years between the Georgia farmers and an array of legal opponents who oppose the farm families. The cruelest irony may be that a Federal judge ruled in their favor, but forbid them from growing food chain crops on their land. The McElmurrays and the Boyces aren?t suit-happy crusaders ? far from it. They are good, law-abiding country folks who have had their lives shredded by a seemingly unending stream of legal blockades, hazy regulations, and unscrupulous public officials. Just a cursory look on the Internet will provide hundreds of cases of individuals who blame health problems on the use of biosolids. Look a different way and you?ll find just as many proclaiming the benefits of biosolids on farm land. In terms of revenue generated the tobacco industry is a small, maybe miniscule part of U.S. agriculture and water treatment plants barely a dot on the radar screen compared to our farm industry. Public opinion, spurred on by Hollywood movies, brought both to their knees. If the McElmurray case in Georgia, the Nancy Holt case in Burlington, N.C., the Ellington case in Gladys, Va., or one of hundreds of other equally poignant and gut-wrenching stories make it to 60 Minutes or a Hollywood movie, what impact would that publicity have on the entire agricultural industry? I don?t know! I doubt those of us involved directly or indirectly want to find out. It is wise counsel I believe for farmers to know exactly what they are getting into when they agree to have biosolids, regardless of the source, applied to their land.\ Somewhere between the horror stories of the McElmurrays and Boyces of the world and the success stories of the biosolids industry there must be some common ground. For the well-being of the agricultural industry, I suggest we find it. e-mail: rroberson at farmpress.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 15 08:55:55 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:55:55 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> California -Sludge too toxic for landfill - but ok to grow the food you eat Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: It is interesting to see that landfills have more stringent toxicity limits than the sewage sludge biosolids that are allowed on farmland. Here is the San Diego Waterboard limits .... sludges are generally much higher in metals and toxic compounds than the limits allowed into landfill. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION: http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/ep/pdf/93-86add1.wdr.pdf Similarly, here is a report on a dispute about sludge into landfill in San Andreas California. The allowable threshold of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons into the landfill is 1000 ppm. Sludge land applied on farm fields has no petroleum hydrocarbon limit. It isn't generally tested for this class of contaminant. Note too that the Atlantic Packaging paper sludge that goes into 20 foot berms in Ontario Canada gun clubs and farm fields and compost sites is more than 10 times times over this limit. In Ontario 1,000 ppm is the limit for total petroleum hydrocarbon in agricultural soil. http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/environmental/vol5-no2.htm ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, County's sludge situation still snarly By Claudette Langley Posted: Monday, September 14, 2009 The ongoing dispute over the county's policy for accepting biosolids at Rock Creek Landfill was quelled but not quashed this week by the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. Public Works Director Tom Garcia brought a resolution before the board to loosen restrictions in relation to sludge disposal. The board approved the resolution, which cleared the way for four wastewater service providers to continue bringing their waste to the landfill ? at least until next summer. ?The resolution before you is a modification of the county procedures for accepting biosolids at the Rock Creek facility,? Garcia said. He said the main change concerns the amount of hydrocarbons in the material. If the amount of the organic compound exceeds the allowable threshold of 1,000 parts per million, extra testing will be done until the material is in compliance. ?This brings the biosolids into line with the acceptance of other materials from the other providers in the county,? Garcia said. While the Public Works director focused on a specific technical aspect of the biosolid disposal, service providers challenged the bigger issues. ?We appreciate the change in the hydrocarbon restriction, but we object to the language in the resolution that makes it sound like the arrangement is temporary,? said Bill Perley, director of utilities for the Calaveras County Water District. The resolution read, ?The above-named agencies are again strongly encouraged to investigate long-term disposal alternatives which do not rely on Rock Creek. ...? Perley has served as the spokesperson for CCWD, San Andreas Sanitary District and Angels Camp, three of the four utility districts using the landfill to dispose of their sludge. He has gone head-to-head with supervisors, in particular Supervisor Merita Callaway, over what he said is basically a breach in the agreement hammered out in 2001-02 among the county and districts. ?We ended our long-term contracts with landfills outside the county to enter into this contract with the county,? Perley said. ?If we do not have a long-term plan for disposal of the sludge, we are out of compliance with the state water board.? On Tuesday, Perley came with a posse to back him up. CCWD Directors Bertha Underhill, Bob Dean and Jeff Davidson came to the board meeting. The three directors implored the supervisors to clarify the policies and they challenged Callaway's staunch assertion that the agreements reached in 2001-02 were never meant to be a permanent solution. Underhill stepped up the podium and told supervisors that the phrase ?long-term? may be getting in the way, but the districts are bound to it by state regulations. ?I want the board to understand that we are governed by the state water resources control board and that (long-term agreements) is something that we have to have,? she said. ?That's what we are asking right now that we do not fall back from that agreement we had in 2001-02 and that you understand what the other agencies are up against as well.? At the core of the dispute are two resolutions passed by the Board of Supervisors in the aforementioned years that set the agreement for the sludge to be used at the landfill as daily cover. The resolutions do not contain any language defining the agreements as temporary. However, Callaway is adamant that the agreement was never meant to be a permanent solution for the districts. The issue between the county and districts blew up at the end of April, when a Public Works staff member sent a letter to service providers telling them that the practice of accepting biosolids at Rock Creek would end in 60 days. The letter stated that the county no longer needed the biosolids for use as daily cover at the landfill because it now has tarping equipment to take its place. ?Apparently, the county had the tarping machine for a while, but we were never notified that there might be a change,? Perley said. The districts responded quickly to the letter, pointing out they had agreements with the county that essentially guaranteed their use of the landfill for biosolids. In addition, the amount the county would charge for the disposal could rise from $6.33 a ton to $54 a ton. All of these issues were aired again Tuesday as a host of players from district board members to district staff members to staff from Public Works, including Garcia and supervisors, tried to cut through the muck and mire. What became increasingly clear was that nothing was clear. Garcia, who is fairly new to the process, didn't seem to know what the major ruckus was about. In his capacity as director of Public Works he appeared to be just trying to bring a financially ailing department under control, as waste management services are facing at least a $2 million deficit. He told the board that it costs $54 to bury a ton of material at the landfill and the county needs to recoup its expenses. He referred to the still-developing five-year plan for the county's Integrated Waste Management as a future catalyst for changing how the county handles its garbage. Perley and his colleagues expressed concern that perhaps Garcia and his staff didn't realize how integral the Rock Creek agreement is to the districts' financial buoyancy. He said, for example, that 450 tons of sludge are removed from the ponds at Copper Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant each year at a cost of $7,600 to dispose of it at the landfill and that the new rate would raise the cost to $60,550 per year. With the passage of the resolution Tuesday, nothing will change for now. The districts can still haul their sludge to Rock Creek and dump it for $6.33 a ton. However, that agreement appears to hold only until the end of the fiscal year, June 30. The lack of permanency in Tuesday's action has left Perley and the others from the districts concerned about the future of their operations and looking to alternatives, such as hauling the material to a facility in Stockton for $38 a ton. http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2009/09/14/news/news001_w_sludge.txt From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 16:18:41 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:18:41 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Warkworth Ontario- sludge victim can't sell home - abandons property Message-ID: Mrs. Wendy Deavitt Warkworth, ON K0K 3K0 September 15, 2009 Dalton McGuinty, Premier Legistrative Building, Queens Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 Dear Mr. McGuinty; I wrote to you on October 11, 2007 and October 24, 2007, regarding the issue of the spreading of biosolids on farmland adjacent to our property. In my letter, I expressed my concerns about the health issues and property values. You responded on October 15, 2007 with a letter in which you stated ?Our government shares your concerns about the threat this practice poses to our environment and health?. In less than 3 weeks, we will be walking away from our mortgage and/or dream farm. 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 60,000.00, 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? Our horses have been removed from the property because of their health issues. Despite addressing various levels of government; MOE, MOH, yourself, our Mayor (Trent Hills), Cobourg Mayor as well as council meetings, to inform them of our health issues, which started immediately after the first application and still continue today and the issue of property values being affected, they have all choose to ignore the issue and continue to insist it is a safe practice, even though there has never been a health study done and/or risk assessment on the affects of land application of biosolids in Canada. Our listing runs out on September 30, 2009, at which time we feel that after 2 years of trying to sell the farm, we have no other choice but to leave the property. My husband and I live in constant fear that the farmer will return to spread, knowing that our health and that of our animals could not stand any more exposure. - 2 - We and other families affected, did request a property reassessment with MPac , based on the negative impacts the use of sludge on fields adjacent to our homes had, such as health and property value. We were granted a reduction on our property taxes, but MPac denied any relationship between the reduction and the sludge, despite that being the only reason any of us filed for property reassessments. My husband and I have not paid our property taxes on the property for the last 2 years, as we feel that if our home is worthless, why would we pay any taxes on it and we will go bankrupt on the taxes as well. 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!!! My husband and I will loose everything as a result of sewage sludge, we don?t want to see this happen to anyone else!!!!! As a result of this hell we have been living in, we have absolutely no faith or trust in any government office of any kind and we will continue to tell our story to people and assist others who may have to endure the same kind of devastation we have been faced with. Sincerely, Wendy Deavitt Cc; Lou Rinaldi, MPP Hector MacMillan, Mayor, Trent Hills Peter Delanty, Mayor, Cobourg & Chairman, Board of Health Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, Medical Officer of Health Ministry of Environment, Peterborough Branch Minister John Gerretsen, Ministry of Environment Cobourg Daily Star Toronto Star Northumberland News Community Press The Independent Chex Television CFTO, Global, TVO, City TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 16:24:16 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:24:16 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Hamilton : sewage sludge spill fouls up traffic Message-ID: http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/632619 SEWAGE SLUDGE FOULS UP TRAFFIC Hamilton Spectator Photo: John Rennison, the Hamilton Spectator A tractor-trailer spill in Mount Hope caused smelly problems for commuters on Upper James Street yesterday. The truck, loaded with sewage sludge from a Niagara waste treatment plant, spilled its load at the Highway 6 bypass just after 7 a.m. The southbound lanes were closed while crews cleaned up the mess. John Rennison, the Hamilton Spectator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 16:25:33 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:25:33 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Hamilton Ontario - residents blockade trucks - "keep your windows closed" Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Looks like rural residents can't abide Hamilton's decisions on what to do with its sludge. The wastewater staff seem determined to put in 'extended sludge digestion' and continue to land apply sludge that has been concentrated through high temperature digestion. This form of digestion also known to result in sludge that does not kill pathogens effectively, since there can be a 1,000 times more bacteria detected just 20 minutes after it comes out of the centrifuge. Hamilton is supposed to be doing a Biosolids Management Environmental Assessment but has refused to meet with or answer questions from local residents and environmentalists. The city wastewater staff insist that even though they are supposed to be doing public consultation on their biosolids plans, they can simply start construction on new sludge management technologies skirting around the environmental assessment process. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/637257 Hamilton Ontario Hamilton Spectator Sept 18, 2009 Rural residents block sludge spreading Kaz Novak, The Hamilton Spctator Trucks loaded with biosolids from Hamilton wait as neighbours block access to a field. They eventually left. document.write(count++);1 Kaz Novak, The Hamilton SpctatorTrucks loaded with biosolids from Hamilton wait as neighbours block access to a field. They eventually left. Kaz Novak, The Hamilton Spctator Trucks loaded with biosolids from Hamilton wait as neighbou ... Kaz Novak, The Hamilton SpctatorTrucks loaded with biosolids from Hamilton wait as neighbours block access to a field. They eventually left. Protest waste on neighbouring fields September 18, 2009 Rosie Ann Grover Special to The Hamilton Spectator HAGERSVILLE - Dave and Donna Richardson are fuming with mouths closed. Five transport trucks filled with bio-solid sludge, or human waste, arrived before 7 this morning, poised to spray the free fertilizer across 40 of the 50 acres of an adjacent farm. "They told us it would be a real nasty smell," Donna said from her home on 10th Concession near Hwy 6. The Richardson's found a courtesy letter from Terratec Environmental Ltd. last night in their mailbox. The company advised it would carry up to 14 truckloads of the sludge from Hamilton's Waste Water Treatment plant on Woodward Avenue and suggested keeping their windows closed. Diane Elms, another neighbour, didn't receive a letter. But it's not the smell they are worried about. "I have a pond," said Donna. "I use that water for my vegetable garden. It's going to run off. They said it?s solid (waste) but when it gets wet, it will run off. It has to. Will this devalue my home?" The trucks are currently parked on Hwy 6 and have not yet dispersed the solids. rgrover at thespec.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 18:48:25 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:48:25 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Warkworth Ontario Resident: Sludge drove me from my dream home Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Muncipalities can pass bylaws that limit sludge spreading. ....................................................... http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1756714 Deavitt says sludge is driving her family from their home Posted By JOYCE CASSIN Northumberland Today Sept 17, 2009 Wendy Deavitt and her family are walking away from their Warkworth hobby farm come the first of October - walking away from the home she says was once their dream. Now, she says, because of 'sludge' or human biosolids that have been spread on adjacent farm property they can't live there any more, and they haven't been able to sell their property even though they dropped the price by $60,000. "We have no other option but to walk away from this property," said Deavitt. "We made various attempts to contact different levels of government to stop them from allowing the spreading of sludge, but no one would listen." Asked for comment, Northumberland-Quinte West MP Rick Norlock said the spreading of sewage sludge is a municipal/provincial matter, but that he knows the area, and some farms have sold there recently. "I didn't think she was interested in moving, just in stopping the spreading of sludge," said Norlock. "But I'm sorry to hear she feels she has to move." Deavitt said she still wants the spreading of sludge stopped and even though she is walking away from her property and mortgage, she wants members of the public, and potential home buyer especially, to know that this issue is out there. "I want to make people aware of this issue," Deavitt said. "I don't want them to unknowingly buy property without checking with the neighbours first to see if sludge has been spread on the land." And with talk of the provincial government looking to remove the need for a certificate of approval to allow the spreading of biosolids, there will no longer even be a paper trail through which people can find out what has been spread where, she says. "I want people to realize it's out there," she said. Mayor Hector Macmillan says Trent Hills does not spread biosolids in its community, but that doesn't mean other municipalities can't come spreading their biosolids. "It's a provincial responsibility," said Macmillan. "Municipal council can't stop someone from importing it -it's Cobourg's biosolids she's talking about." Northumberland-Quinte West MPP Lou Rinaldi says the process of spreading sludge has been going on for over 30 years under strict supervision, and the process is constantly being reviewed. He says he has to take the environment ministry's word that it is a safe thing to do. "It's unfortunate that Ms. Deavitt has to take this action, but that's a personal decision," Rinaldi said. "I'm tired of being sick and I'm tired of my horses being sick," Deavitt said. "I just can't live like this any more. As of the first of the month, we'll be vacating the land. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 18:55:13 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:55:13 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Perfluorinated phosphoric acids (PFPAs) found in Canadian creeks Message-ID: http://wwn-online.com/articles/2009/09/17/pfpas-found-in-canadian-surface-water-effluent.aspx PFPAs Found in Canadian Surface Water, Effluent Sep 17, 2009 Another contaminant found in Canadian water samples may join the list of environmental substances that could be harmful to humans and the environment, according to recent study results by Jessica C. D'eon of the University of Toronto and colleagues. An article of the study, published in the September 2009 issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, was written by D?eon, Patrick W. Crozier, Vasile I. Furdui, Eric J. Reiner, E. Laurence Libelo, and Scott A. Mabury. The newest potential threat to human health and the environment is fluorochemicals known as perfluorinated phosphoric acids (PFPAs), which were found in water samples taken for study in the past decade from Canadian creeks, rivers and, waste treatment effluents. PFPAs, which were found at 24 of 30 sites used in the research, are used commercially as leveling and wetting agents and to defoam additives in pesticide formulations. Similar fluorochemicals have been used for industrial purposes since the 1950s but were not identified as widespread environmental contaminants until 2001. As noted in the article, PFPAs lack hydrogen atoms and may resist degradation, like other fluorochemicals such as perfluorinated carboxylic and sulfonic acids that once were used commercially and now are regulated in the United States and Canada. ?From the analysis of Canadian surface waters, low-level PFPA contamination clearly is widespread,? the authors say. PFPAs had not previously been identified as contaminants of potential concern, although the United States has acted to limit their use in food crop pesticides because of health concerns and a lack of research on their implications. ?These regulatory decisions were based on uncertainty regarding the environmental fate of PFPAs,? the authors write. ?To our knowledge, no environmental evidence has been available before the present study.? The study shows that researchers still do not have a clear understanding of the extent and significance of fluorochemical contamination of the environment and the authors conclude that additional research on PFPAs is necessary. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.setacjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1897%2F09-048.1 Volume 28, Issue 10 (October 2009) Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Article: pp. 2101?2107 | Full Text | PDF (830K) 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 Jessica C. D'eon Patrick W. Crozier Vasile I. Furdui Eric J. Reiner E Laurence Libelo Scott A. Mabury 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 ? 33 to 3,400 ? 900 pg/L in surface waters and from 760 ? 270 to 2,500 ? 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 Received: January 20, 2009; Accepted: May 11, 2009; Published Online: May 22, 2009 DOI: 10.1897/09-048.1 *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. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 19 11:28:30 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:28:30 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Hamilton - Biosolids Backlash - Residents balk at sludge spreading of 'human manure' Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The Ministry of Environment staff, contacted by the Richardsons, did not provide them with a copy of the Certificate of Approval for the neighboring property. Nor did Terratec provide a copy of the permit. The Terratec trucks left once the CHCH TV trucks arrived. The property owner, Mr Zylstra, who lives about 70 miles away from the proposed sludge site, has been told that there is no industrial waste discharged into the public sewers of Hamilton, and has been told that sewage sludge is only human fecal waste. That is why he calls it 'human manure'. Sewage sludge - especially from an old heavily industrialized city like Hamilton, has very high inputs of industrial waste. In the recent past, heavy metals in land applied Hamilton sludges have even passed the allowable metal limits. Copper levels in Hamilton sludge spread on farm fields a few years ago tested at over 1800 ppm. Some landowners are clearly not adequately educated about the contents of sewage sludge. While sewage sludge is allegedly used to fertilize fields and meet crop nutrient needs, the Terratec sludge spreading staff were unaware that the fields had already been spread with pellets, either sewage sludge pellets or chicken manure pellets a few days earlier. This raises questions of over application of nutrients, a practice that can promote groundwater and surface water contamination. ....... http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/637810 Biosolids backlash Residents balk at spreading of 'human manure' on nearby land September 19, 2009 Paul Morse The Hamilton Spectator GARNET (Sep 19, 2009) Angry rural residents yesterday won Round 1 in a standoff with a company that spreads Hamilton sewage sludge on farmers' fields outside the city. About a dozen neighbours convinced Terratec Environmental Ltd. to turn away 14 truckloads of treated human waste from Hamilton's Woodwood Avenue sewage treatment plant, destined for a 15-hectare farmer's field on 10th Concession southwest of Hagersville. But, say the residents, Terratec officials promised they would be back to spread the sludge. Donna and Dave Richardson said they received a letter from Terratec Wednesday night that a field several dozen metres from their home was about to be covered in biosolids, an industry term for sludge. Sludge-filled transport trucks and tractors appeared yesterday morning. The Richardsons and other neighbours say they are worried the treated sludge contains heavy metals and PCBs, along with pathogens that will leach into their water systems. "We want to know exactly what's in this stuff. We have a pond out back that we use to water our vegetables and that our pets drink out of," Donna Richardson said. "I'm hoping Terratec doesn't come back, and that the owner and farmer decides not to use it." Hamilton uses bacteria to digest solid waste, then separates out the solid matter and discharges the cleaned water to the harbour. The leftover slurry is tested and approved by the Environment Ministry for use on fields. Hamilton pays Terratec Environmental, a subsidiary of American Water based in New Jersey, to spread the sludge as natural fertilizer. Haldimand County does not have a problem with biosolids fertilization, said Geoff Rae, general manager of public works, yesterday. "The county spreads its own biosolids," he said. Terratec yesterday said sludge spreading is highly regulated, with every site requiring a certificate of approval from the Environment Ministry. "While public information is not required, Terratec voluntarily notifies community members ... in an effort to keep people informed," said spokesperson Denise Venuti Free. "About 80 per cent of municipalities in Ontario recycle biosolids on agricultural land, and Ontario's guidelines are among the strictest in the world." Farm owner Frank Zylstra, 68, said he does not understand why people object to use of sewage sludge as fertilizer. "How do you grow crops if you don't put some humus on the field to make it grow?" he asked. "Fertilizers are not the answer because they are just chemicals. What is wrong with human manure against cow or pig manure? "This is environmentally controlled manure from the city." pmorse at thespec.com 905-526-3434 From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 15 10:30:58 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Tour of Japan's sludge management facilities Message-ID: September 14, 2009 Visits Delegation to study waste treatment in Japan A delegation comprising Environmental Protection Department officials, and Tuen Mun and Islands District Councillors has arrived in Tokyo to study how advanced incineration technologies for waste and sludge are operated in Japan. The delegation will first visit the waste treatment facilities including the Waterfront Landfill and the Tobu Sludge Incineration Plant in Tokyo. Joining the delegation to visit the Shin Koto Incineration Plant in Tokyo on Wednesday morning, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau will meet car manufacturer Nissan in the afternoon to learn about the latest development of electric vehicles. He will return to Hong Kong that evening. The delegation will learn about how a green concept becomes reality during a stop at the Yumenoshima Tropical Greenhouse Dome which utilises the heat energy from the adjacent Shin Koto Incineration Plant. The delegation will also visit the Asahi Clean Centre in Kawaguchi City, the Maishima waste incineration plant and the Maishima sludge treatment centre in Osaka. The delegation will return to Hong Kong Thursday. http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/090914/html/090914en04002.htm From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 18 22:36:52 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:36:52 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Toxic Waters: "Powerful industries have often successfully lobbied to undermine effective regulation" Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This powerfully written series of stories on water can be found on the New York Times website: http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters Health Ills Abound as Farm Runoff Fouls Wells Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering This page also have valuable links to water quality websites, standards, and information about water pollution in each of the US states. ................................. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?pagewanted=print September 13, 2009 Toxic Waters Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering By CHARLES DUHIGG Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va. In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater ? polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals ? caused painful rashes. Many of his brother?s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away. Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system. ?How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?? said Mrs. Hall-Massey, a senior accountant at one of the state?s largest banks. She and her husband, Charles, do not live in some remote corner of Appalachia. Charleston, the state capital, is less than 17 miles from her home. ?How is this still happening today?? she asked. When Mrs. Hall-Massey and 264 neighbors sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste into local water supplies, their lawyer did not have to look far for evidence. As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals ? the same pollutants that flowed from residents? taps. But state regulators never fined or punished those companies for breaking those pollution laws. This pattern is not limited to West Virginia. Almost four decades ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into waterways and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. States have passed pollution statutes of their own. But in recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen steadily across the nation, an extensive review of water pollution records by The New York Times found. In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses. However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene. Because it is difficult to determine what causes diseases like cancer, it is impossible to know how many illnesses are the result of water pollution, or contaminants? role in the health problems of specific individuals. But concerns over these toxins are great enough that Congress and the E.P.A. regulate more than 100 pollutants through the Clean Water Act and strictly limit 91 chemicals or contaminants in tap water through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulators themselves acknowledge lapses. The new E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said in an interview that despite many successes since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, today the nation?s water does not meet public health goals, and enforcement of water pollution laws is unacceptably low. She added that strengthening water protections is among her top priorities. State regulators say they are doing their best with insufficient resources. The Times obtained hundreds of thousands of water pollution records through Freedom of Information Act requests to every state and the E.P.A., and compiled a national database of water pollution violations that is more comprehensive than those maintained by states or the E.P.A. (For an interactive version, which can show violations in any community, visit www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters.) In addition, The Times interviewed more than 250 state and federal regulators, water-system managers, environmental advocates and scientists. That research shows that an estimated one in 10 Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways. Those exposures include carcinogens in the tap water of major American cities and unsafe chemicals in drinking-water wells. Wells, which are not typically regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, are more likely to contain contaminants than municipal water systems. Because most of today?s water pollution has no scent or taste, many people who consume dangerous chemicals do not realize it, even after they become sick, researchers say. But an estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses, according to a study published last year in the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. That figure does not include illnesses caused by other chemicals and toxins. In the nation?s largest dairy states, like Wisconsin and California, farmers have sprayed liquefied animal feces onto fields, where it has seeped into wells, causing severe infections. Tap water in parts of the Farm Belt, including cities in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, has contained pesticides at concentrations that some scientists have linked to birth defects and fertility problems. In parts of New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, California and other states where sewer systems cannot accommodate heavy rains, untreated human waste has flowed into rivers and washed onto beaches. Drinking water in parts of New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Massachusetts shows some of the highest concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, a dry cleaning solvent that has been linked to kidney damage and cancer. (Specific types of water pollution across the United States will be examined in future Times articles.) The Times?s research also shows that last year, 40 percent of the nation?s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once, according to an analysis of E.P.A. data. Those violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. More than 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated a health-based standard. In some cases, people got sick right away. In other situations, pollutants like chemicals, inorganic toxins and heavy metals can accumulate in the body for years or decades before they cause problems. Some of the most frequently detected contaminants have been linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological disorders. Records analyzed by The Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual number of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded. Environmental groups say the number of Clean Water Act violations has increased significantly in the last decade. Comprehensive data go back only five years but show that the number of facilities violating the Clean Water Act grew more than 16 percent from 2004 to 2007, the most recent year with complete data. Polluters include small companies, like gas stations, dry cleaners, shopping malls and the Friendly Acres Mobile Home Park in Laporte, Ind., which acknowledged to regulators that it had dumped human waste into a nearby river for three years. They also include large operations, like chemical factories, power plants, sewage treatment centers and one of the biggest zinc smelters, the Horsehead Corporation of Pennsylvania, which has dumped illegal concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, chlorine and selenium into the Ohio River. Those chemicals can contribute to mental retardation and cancer. Some violations are relatively minor. But about 60 percent of the polluters were deemed in ?significant noncompliance? ? meaning their violations were the most serious kind, like dumping cancer-causing chemicals or failing to measure or report when they pollute. Finally, the Times?s research shows that fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials. And the E.P.A. has often declined to prosecute polluters or force states to strengthen their enforcement by threatening to withhold federal money or take away powers the agency has delegated to state officials. Neither Friendly Acres Mobile Home Park nor Horsehead, for instance, was fined for Clean Water Act violations in the last eight years. A representative of Friendly Acres declined to comment. Indiana officials say they are investigating the mobile home park. A representative of Horsehead said the company had taken steps to control pollution and was negotiating with regulators to clean up its emissions. Numerous state and federal lawmakers said they were unaware that pollution was so widespread. ?I don?t think anyone realized how bad things have become,? said Representative James L. Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, when told of The Times?s findings. Mr. Oberstar is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over many water-quality issues. ?The E.P.A. and states have completely dropped the ball,? he said. ?Without oversight and enforcement, companies will use our lakes and rivers as dumping grounds ? and that?s exactly what is apparently going on.? The E.P.A. administrator, Ms. Jackson, whose appointment was confirmed in January, said in an interview that she intended to strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act and pressure states to apply the law. ?I?ve been saying since Day One I want to work on these water issues pretty broadly across the country,? she said. On Friday, the E.P.A. said that it was reviewing dozens of coal-mining permits in West Virginia and three other states to make sure they would not violate the Clean Water Act. After E.P.A. officials received detailed questions from The New York Times in June, Ms. Jackson sent a memo to her enforcement deputy noting that the E.P.A. is ?falling short of this administration?s expectations for the effectiveness of our clean water enforcement programs. Data available to E.P.A. shows that, in many parts of the country, the level of significant noncompliance with permitting requirements is unacceptably high and the level of enforcement activity is unacceptably low.? State officials, for their part, attribute rising pollution rates to increased workloads and dwindling resources. In 46 states, local regulators have primary responsibility for crucial aspects of the Clean Water Act. Though the number of regulated facilities has more than doubled in the last 10 years, many state enforcement budgets have remained essentially flat when adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled to 19,000 in the last decade, but the number of inspections each year has remained about the same. But stretched resources are only part of the reason polluters escape punishment. The Times?s investigation shows that in West Virginia and other states, powerful industries have often successfully lobbied to undermine effective regulation. State officials also argue that water pollution statistics include minor infractions, like failing to file reports, which do not pose risks to human health, and that records collected by The Times failed to examine informal enforcement methods, like sending warning letters. ?We work enormously hard inspecting our coal mines, analyzing water samples, notifying companies of violations when we detect them,? said Randy Huffman, head of West Virginia?s Department of Environmental Protection. ?When I look at how far we?ve come in protecting the state?s waters since we took responsibility for the Clean Water Act, I think we have a lot to be proud of.? But unchecked pollution remains a problem in many states. West Virginia offers a revealing example of why so many companies escape punishment. One Community?s Plight The mountains surrounding the home of Mrs. Hall-Massey?s family and West Virginia?s nearby capital have long been mined for coal. And for years, the area enjoyed clean well water. But starting about a decade ago, awful smells began coming from local taps. The water was sometimes gray, cloudy and oily. Bathtubs and washers developed rust-colored rings that scrubbing could not remove. When Mrs. Hall-Massey?s husband installed industrial water filters, they quickly turned black. Tests showed that their water contained toxic amounts of lead, manganese, barium and other metals that can contribute to organ failure or developmental problems. Around that time, nearby coal companies had begun pumping industrial waste into the ground. Mining companies often wash their coal to remove impurities. The leftover liquid ? a black fluid containing dissolved minerals and chemicals, known as sludge or slurry ? is often disposed of in vast lagoons or through injection into abandoned mines. The liquid in those lagoons and shafts can flow through cracks in the earth into water supplies. Companies must regularly send samples of the injected liquid to labs, which provide reports that are forwarded to state regulators. In the eight miles surrounding Mrs. Hall-Massey?s home, coal companies have injected more than 1.9 billion gallons of coal slurry and sludge into the ground since 2004, according to a review of thousands of state records. Millions more gallons have been dumped into lagoons. These underground injections have contained chemicals at concentrations that pose serious health risks, and thousands of injections have violated state regulations and the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to reports sent to the state by companies themselves. For instance, three coal companies ? Loadout, Remington Coal and Pine Ridge, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy, one of the largest coal companies in the world ? reported to state officials that 93 percent of the waste they injected near this community had illegal concentrations of chemicals including arsenic, lead, chromium, beryllium or nickel. Sometimes those concentrations exceeded legal limits by as much as 1,000 percent. Those chemicals have been shown to contribute to cancer, organ failures and other diseases. But those companies were never fined or punished for those illegal injections, according to state records. They were never even warned that their activities had been noticed. Remington Coal declined to comment. A representative of Loadout?s parent said the company had assigned its permit to another company, which ceased injecting in 2006. Peabody Energy, which spun off Pine Ridge in 2007, said that some data sent to regulators was inaccurate and that the company?s actions reflected best industry practices. West Virginia officials, when asked about these violations, said regulators had accidentally overlooked many pollution records the companies submitted until after the statute of limitations had passed, so no action was taken. They also said their studies indicated that those injections could not have affected drinking water in the area and that other injections also had no detectable effect. State officials noted that they had cited more than 4,200 water pollution violations at mine sites around the state since 2000, as well as conducted thousands of investigations. The state has initiated research about how mining affects water quality. After receiving questions from The Times, officials announced a statewide moratorium on issuing injection permits and told some companies that regulators were investigating their injections. ?Many of the issues you are examining are several years old, and many have been addressed,? West Virginia officials wrote in a statement. The state?s pollution program ?has had its share of issues,? regulators wrote. However, ?it is important to note that if the close scrutiny given to our state had been given to others, it is likely that similar issues would have been found.? More than 350 other companies and facilities in West Virginia have also violated the Clean Water Act in recent years, records show. Those infractions include releasing illegal concentrations of iron, manganese, aluminum and other chemicals into lakes and rivers. As the water in Mrs. Hall-Massey?s community continued to worsen, residents began complaining of increased health problems. Gall bladder diseases, fertility problems, miscarriages and kidney and thyroid issues became common, according to interviews. When Mrs. Hall-Massey?s family left on vacation, her sons? rashes cleared up. When they returned, the rashes reappeared. Her dentist told her that chemicals appeared to be damaging her teeth and her son?s, she said. As the quality of her water worsened, Mrs. Hall-Massey?s once-healthy teeth needed many crowns. Her son brushed his teeth often, used a fluoride rinse twice a day and was not allowed to eat sweets. Even so, he continued getting cavities until the family stopped using tap water. By the time his younger brother?s teeth started coming in, the family was using bottled water to brush. He has not had dental problems. Medical professionals in the area say residents show unusually high rates of health problems. A survey of more than 100 residents conducted by a nurse hired by Mrs. Hall-Massey?s lawyer indicated that as many as 30 percent of people in this area have had their gallbladders removed, and as many as half the residents have significant tooth enamel damage, chronic stomach problems and other illnesses. That research was confirmed through interviews with residents. It is difficult to determine which companies, if any, are responsible for the contamination that made its way into tap water or to conclude which specific chemicals, if any, are responsible for particular health problems. Many coal companies say they did not pollute the area?s drinking water and chose injection sites that flowed away from nearby homes. An independent study by a university researcher challenges some of those claims. ?I don?t know what else could be polluting these wells,? said Ben Stout, a biology professor at Wheeling Jesuit University who tested the water in this community and elsewhere in West Virginia. ?The chemicals coming out of people?s taps are identical to the chemicals the coal companies are pumping into the ground.? One night, Mrs. Hall-Massey?s 6-year-old son, Clay, asked to play in the tub. When he got out, his bright red rashes hurt so much he could not fall asleep. Soon, Mrs. Hall-Massey began complaining to state officials. They told her they did not know why her water was bad, she recalls, but doubted coal companies had done anything wrong. The family put their house on the market, but because of the water, buyers were not interested. In December, Mrs. Hall-Massey and neighbors sued in county court, seeking compensation. That suit is pending. To resolve a related lawsuit filed about the same time, the community today gets regular deliveries of clean drinking water, stored in coolers or large blue barrels outside most homes. Construction began in August on a pipeline bringing fresh water to the community. But for now most residents still use polluted water to bathe, shower and wash dishes. ?A parent?s only real job is to protect our children,? Mrs. Hall-Massey said. ?But where was the government when we needed them to protect us from this stuff?? Regulators ?Overwhelmed? Matthew Crum, a 43-year-old lawyer, wanted to protect people like Mrs. Hall-Massey. That is why he joined West Virginia?s environmental protection agency in 2001, when it became clear that the state?s and nation?s streams and rivers were becoming more polluted. But he said he quickly learned that good intentions could not compete with intimidating politicians and a fearful bureaucracy. Mr. Crum grew up during a golden age of environmental activism. He was in elementary school when Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972 in response to environmental disasters, including a fire on the polluted Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. The act?s goal was to eliminate most water pollution by 1985 and prohibit the ?discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.? ?There were a bunch of us that were raised with the example of the Clean Water Act as inspiration,? he said. ?I wanted to be part of that fight.? In the two decades after the act?s passage, the nation?s waters grew much healthier. The Cuyahoga River, West Virginia?s Kanawha River and hundreds of other beaches, streams and ponds were revitalized. But in the late 1990s, some states? enforcement of pollution laws began tapering off, according to regulators and environmentalists. Soon the E.P.A. started reporting that the nation?s rivers, lakes and estuaries were becoming dirtier again. Mr. Crum, after a stint in Washington with the Justice Department and the birth of his first child, joined West Virginia?s Department of Environmental Protection, where new leadership was committed to revitalizing the Clean Water Act. He said his idealism was tested within two weeks, when he was called to a huge coal spill into a stream. ?I met our inspector at the spill site, and we had this really awkward conversation,? Mr. Crum recalled. ?I said we should shut down the mine until everything was cleaned up. The inspector agreed, but he said if he issued that order, he was scared of getting demoted or transferred to the middle of nowhere. Everyone was terrified of doing their job.? Mr. Crum temporarily shut the mine. In the next two years, he shut many polluting mines until they changed their ways. His tough approach raised his profile around the state. Mining companies, worried about attracting Mr. Crum?s attention, began improving their waste disposal practices, executives from that period said. But they also began complaining to their friends in the state?s legislature, they recalled in interviews, and started a whisper campaign accusing Mr. Crum of vendettas against particular companies ? though those same executives now admit they had no evidence for those claims. In 2003, a new director, Stephanie Timmermeyer, was nominated to run the Department of Environmental Protection. One of West Virginia?s most powerful state lawmakers, Eustace Frederick, said she would be confirmed, but only if she agreed to fire Mr. Crum, according to several people who said they witnessed the conversation. She was given the job and soon summoned Mr. Crum to her office. He was dismissed two weeks after his second child?s birth. Ms. Timmermeyer, who resigned in 2008, did not return calls. Mr. Frederick died last year. Since then, hundreds of workplaces in West Virginia have violated pollution laws without paying fines. A half-dozen current and former employees, in interviews, said their enforcement efforts had been undermined by bureaucratic disorganization, a departmental preference to let polluters escape punishment if they promise to try harder, and a revolving door of regulators who leave for higher-paying jobs at the companies they once policed. ?We are outmanned and overwhelmed, and that?s exactly how industry wants us,? said one employee who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. ?It?s been obvious for decades that we?re not on top of things, and coal companies have earned billions relying on that.? In June, four environmental groups petitioned the E.P.A. to take over much of West Virginia?s handling of the Clean Water Act, citing a ?nearly complete breakdown? in the state. The E.P.A. has asked state officials to respond and said it is investigating the petition. Similar problems exist in other states, where critics say regulators have often turned a blind eye to polluters. Regulators in five other states, in interviews, said they had been pressured by industry-friendly politicians to drop continuing pollution investigations. ?Unless the E.P.A. is pushing state regulators, a culture of transgression and apathy sets in,? said William K. Reilly, who led the E.P.A. under President George H. W. Bush. In response, many state officials defend their efforts. A spokeswoman for West Virginia?s Department of Environmental Protection, for instance, said that between 2006 and 2008, the number of cease-operation orders issued by regulators was 10 percent higher than during Mr. Crum?s two-year tenure. Mr. Huffman, the department?s head, said there is no political interference with current investigations. Department officials say they continue to improve the agency?s procedures, and note that regulators have assessed $14.7 million in state fines against more than 70 mining companies since 2006. However, that is about equal to the revenue those businesses? parent companies collect every 10 hours, according to financial reports. (To find out about every state?s enforcement record and read comments from regulators, visit www.nytimes.com/waterdata.) ?The real test is, is our water clean?? said Mr. Huffman. ?When the Clean Water Act was passed, this river that flows through our capital was very dirty. Thirty years later, it?s much cleaner because we?ve chosen priorities carefully.? Some regulators admit that polluters have fallen through the cracks. To genuinely improve enforcement, they say, the E.P.A. needs to lead. ?If you don?t have vigorous oversight by the feds, then everything just goes limp,? said Mr. Crum. ?Regulators can?t afford to have some backbone unless they know Washington or the governor?s office will back them up.? It took Mr. Crum a while to recover from his firing. He moved to Virginia to work at the Nature Conservancy, an environmental conservation group. Today, he is in private practice and works on the occasional environmental lawsuit. ?We?re moving backwards,? he said, ?and it?s heartbreaking.? Shortcomings of the E.P.A. The memos are marked ?DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.? They were written this year by E.P.A. staff, the culmination of a five-year investigation of states? enforcement of federal pollution laws. And in bland, bureaucratic terms, they describe a regulatory system ? at the E.P.A. and among state agencies ? that in many ways simply does not work. For years, according to one memo, federal regulators knew that more than 30 states had major problems documenting which companies were violating pollution laws. Another notes that states? ?personnel lack direction, ability or training? to levy fines large enough to deter polluters. But often, the memos say, the E.P.A. never corrected those problems even though they were widely acknowledged. The E.P.A. ?may hesitate to push the states? out of ?fear of risking their relationships,? one report reads. Another notes that E.P.A. offices lack ?a consistent national oversight strategy.? Some of those memos, part of an effort known as the State Review Framework, were obtained from agency employees who asked for anonymity, and others through Freedom of Information Act requests. Enforcement lapses were particularly bad under the administration of President George W. Bush, employees say. ?For the last eight years, my hands have been tied,? said one E.P.A. official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. ?We were told to take our clean water and clean air cases, put them in a box, and lock it shut. Everyone knew polluters were getting away with murder. But these polluters are some of the biggest campaign contributors in town, so no one really cared if they were dumping poisons into streams.? The E.P.A. administrators during the last eight years ? Christine Todd Whitman, Michael O. Leavitt and Stephen L. Johnson ? all declined to comment. When President Obama chose Ms. Jackson to head the E.P.A., many environmentalists and agency employees were encouraged. During his campaign, Mr. Obama promised to ?reinvigorate the drinking water standards that have been weakened under the Bush administration and update them to address new threats.? He pledged to regulate water pollution from livestock operations and push for amendments to the Clean Water Act. But some worry those promises will not be kept. Water issues have taken a back seat to other environmental concerns, like carbon emissions. In an interview, Ms. Jackson noted that many of the nation?s waters were healthier today than when the Clean Water Act was passed and said she intended to enforce the law more vigorously. After receiving detailed questions from The Times, she put many of the State Review Framework documents on the agency?s Web site, and ordered more disclosure of the agency?s handling of water issues, increased enforcement and revamped technology so that facilities? environmental records are more accessible. ?Do critics have a good and valid point when they say improvements need to be made? Absolutely,? Ms. Jackson said. ?But I think we need to be careful not to do that by scaring the bejesus out of people into thinking that, boy, are things horrible. What it requires is attention, and I?m going to give it that attention.? In statements, E.P.A. officials noted that from 2006 to 2008, the agency conducted 11,000 Clean Water Act and 21,000 Safe Drinking Water Act inspections, and referred 146 cases to the Department of Justice. During the 2007 to 2008 period, officials wrote, 92 percent of the population served by community water systems received water that had no reported health-based violations. The Times?s reporting, the statements added, ?does not distinguish between significant violations and minor violations,? and ?as a result, the conclusions may present an unduly alarming picture.? They wrote that ?much of the country?s water quality problems are caused by discharges from nonpoint sources of pollution, such as agricultural runoff, which cannot be corrected solely through enforcement.? Ultimately, lawmakers and environmental activists say, the best solution is for Congress to hold the E.P.A. and states accountable for their failures. The Clean Water Act, they add, should be expanded to police other types of pollution ? like farm and livestock runoff ? that are largely unregulated. And they say Congress should give state agencies more resources, in the same way that federal dollars helped overhaul the nation?s sewage systems in the 1970s. Some say changes will not occur without public outrage. ?When we started regulating water pollution in the 1970s, there was a huge public outcry because you could see raw sewage flowing into the rivers,? said William D. Ruckelshaus, who served as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Richard M. Nixon, and then again under President Ronald Reagan. ?Today the violations are much more subtle ? pesticides and chemicals you can?t see or smell that are even more dangerous,? he added. ?And so a lot of the public pressure on regulatory agencies has ebbed away.? Karl Russell contributed reporting. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 20 09:56:10 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:56:10 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Converting Human Waste to Energy Message-ID: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/16/converting-human-waste-to-energy-here-today-dung-farms-booming/ Converting human waste to energy, here today; dung farms booming tomorrow Alex Salkever Sep 16th 2009 Frank Sinton thinks human waste is highly underrated -- and highly profitable. A tech entrepreneur and the founder of PMC BioTec, Sinton pounds the table for the benefits of better processing of biowastes as not only environmentally sound but also good business. And he has the technology to prove it. His company and others are on the leading edge of a new generation of companies trying to improve the way society deals with biosolids, also known as sludge. America spends $5 billion a year dealing with sludge. Biosolids producers pay hundreds of dollars a ton to remove it, quickly filling landfills or other means of disposal, Sinton said on Sept. 15 at the AlwaysOn Going Green Conference in Sausalito, California. The scope of the globe's sludge problem is mindboggling. Every year, cattle feedlots produce more than 150 million tons of animal waste; the U.S. and Europe together generate 40 million tons of sludge from sewage treatment; and food production waste weighs in at a staggering billion tons per year. Companies working on these types of technologiesBeyond being socially unpalateable, sludge often contains elevated levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead, nickel, and cadmium, which cause serious health problems even at low levels of absorption into groundwater or farm soil. The technology used to extract the metals from sludge lets companies create "organic fertilizer" from biosolids, but environmentalists vehemently oppose such efforts. (When First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn, she sparked a political brouhaha when the soil showed detectable levels of lead, attributed to contaminated sludge fertilizer.) Other, harder-to-destroy substances found in common sludge include the prions believed to cause "mad cow disease," and endocrine-disrupter compounds: complex chemicals that interfere with human hormones. Europe has instituted a ban on putting organic waste in landfills. That's where Sinton and PMC hope to step in. His $2 million machine is like a giant Port-a-Potty that takes in sludge, mixes it with bacteria, or renders the organic matter into methane gas, an energy source that can offset the high power requirements of many biosolid treatment facilities. Such facilities are among the largest consumers of electricity in many large cities. Another process, AquaCritox, cooks sludge in a special pressurized vapor chamber at temperatures above 705 degrees Farenheit. The process provides enough heat to produce 2 megawatts of power, using heat-transfer devices and other standard power-generation equipment. The process's byproducts are carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water; heavy metals are collected in a fine ash and can be recycled for industrial use. While not as sexy as solar-energy power companies like Ausra or electric-vehicle darlings like Tesla Motors, companies looking into waste-energy technologies. But the mandate to deal with sludge in a more ecofriendly and economical fashion may be more potent than the mandate to move to green power. "Thames Water, which produces 25 percent of the biosolids in the U.K., has been instructed to run their operations as energy neutral within 10 years," says John O'Regan, the founder and CEO of SCFI group, the parent company of AquaCritox. "That means they have to look at biosolids as a source of energy." The ban on biosolids in landfills in Europe adds pressure to figure out what to do with this ugly form of garbage. And in the U.S., as landfills continue to fill up, cities and large corporations are realizing they'll need to figure out alternative means for disposing of their sludge. A key to the adoption process, Sinton and O'Regan believe, will be that the new generation of biosolids treatment technologies can quickly turn into money-saving measures for cash-strapped sewage-plant and feed-lot operators, among others. "Company's have a budget right now," says O'Regan. "It's difficult to get a new technology adopted if you are asking a customer to pay a lot more for it. It's not going to take." For his part, Sinton's dream is to put a PMC bioreactor in every backyard. "The technology scales down to fit inside a portable toilet," he says. "I'd like to make it so easy and cheap that we can sell them in Home Depot and give everyone a good source of power as well as a better way to get rid of their waste than flushing it down the toilet. That's like washing money right down the pipes." And just as the technology scales down, it also can scale up. "There is no reason we should not have giant biosolids power plants that can do the same thing as solar power plants and the like," Sinton says. "All the sludge we bury or throw away is wasted energy." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 21 07:19:17 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:19:17 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> United Kingdom: Farm used flouride contaminated biosolids: cattle dead, crops destroyed Message-ID: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Fluoride-debate-made-simple.5663974.jp Monday, 21st September 2009 Premium Article !Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button. Options Premium Article !To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Evening Courier site. Subscribe Registered Article !To read this article in full you must be registered with the site. Sign InRegisterFluoride debate made simple 21 September 2009 Duck Hill Pecket Well, IN response to the letter by David Sutherland (Your say September 7) and the previous letter by Barbara Sutcliffe (August 27, "Dennis is boxed into a corner"). I have previously answered Barbara Sutcliffe's questions adequately, particularly by quotADVERTISEMENTing an article in the Farmers Guardian in 1982 concerning the fluoride poisoning of an entire herd of cattle at Rawmarsh near Sheffield resulting from a high fluoride intake derived from both hay meadows and pastures. For some reason best known to the editor, that passage was deleted from my letter. At the time of recording a conversation with the farmer, Reg Ellis, a former German prisoner of war who had settled in Britain joined in the conversation and related how a neighbouring farmer who like Reg Ellis had accepted sewage sludge containing a high fluoride content from the Old Yorkshire Water Authority to use as what he had considered to be organic manure, was directed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to destroy his entire crop of cabbage which had grown exceedingly well. Reg Ellis had the sludge delivered in September 1976 and by 1977 his entire herd of cattle had either died or had to be destroyed. The WYA settled his claim out of court and Mr Ellis would not reveal the amount but Farmers Guardian believed it to be in excess of ?20,000 and Mr Ellis was so pleased with the settlement he told me and my two companions that they could poison his cattle again anytime. The media has been putting out misinformation for decades, quoting the so-called experts of health authorities who simplistically and repeatedly claim that "fluoride is safe and effective as one part per million." Donald Sutherland asks why people living in Northumberland and other areas where fluoride occurs naturally and in regions where it has been artificially fluoridated for 40 years have not been affected with the ailments that I have mentioned? The simple answer to that question is that they have, but the Health Service has been attempting to conceal it by instructing pathology labs not to examine urine, blood or other biological specimens for fluoride levels, particularly in cases of paediatric illness or sudden infant deaths. Let me make this simple for both these ill-informed advocates of fluoride to understand. In the case of most, if not all prescription drugs, good doctors and vets do not prescribe the same amount of drug for a baby as they might for an adult, due to the much lower body weight. Likewise a vet would not administer the same amount of an anthelmintic to worm a corgi as he would to a St Bernard or Newfoundland, otherwise he would kill the dog as well as the worms. Dennis Edmondson From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 21 08:17:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:17:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Province of Ontario determined to remove requirement for waste permits for sludge spreading Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: This is a dreadful decision by the Ontario government, and another indication that the Liberals continue their policy of targetting farms and rural lands for urban waste disposal. The discussion period was a joke, since many municipalities do not meet over the summer. Even if tey did meet - to respond councils in Ontario would need one meeting to direct their staff and another meeting to accept the report and surrrender it to the Ontario government. So they could not respond. Thirty days in the middle of summer is not enough time to digest over 300 pages of regulations and their implications. Cities have solid waste (trash) and liquid wastes (sludge). Why is province continuing to direct industrial/fecal waste to farmlands where we grow our food? As of last Friday anyone with a truck can haul sewage sludge - no waste permit needed to haul it. "Good things grow in Ontario" is the Ontario food lovers motto. But consumers of Ontario's produce do not want food grown on sludge. This misguided deregulation of sludge will make it easier for sludge to put drinking water, food, farm soils, and rural residents at risk from disease and industrial contamination. .............................................. Ministry of the Environment 7th Floor 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 3rd Floor 1 Stone Road West Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 Minist?re de l?Environnement 7?me ?tage 135 avenue St. Clair ouest Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Minist?re de l?Agriculture, de l?Alimentation et des Affaires rurales 3?me ?tage 1 Stone Road ouest Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 September 18, 2009 Dear Sir or Madam, The purpose of this letter is to advise you of new rules relating to the management of nutrients in Ontario. The new rules apply to the agricultural use of non-agricultural source materials (NASM), which include yard waste, fruit and vegetable peels, food processing waste, pulp and paper biosolids and sewage biosolids, as a nutrient. These rules enhance environmental protection. They build on the current Certificate of Approval process by ensuring that conditions for land application are now standards withinregulations and focus on the quality of material. They include greater consideration of the material quality and potential odour generation and will cover all farms in Ontario where non-agricultural source material will be applied, as opposed to just large livestock farms. The requirements will take effect in two stages. Stage 1 changes will take effect immediately upon filing of the regulation and consists of general requirements that establish the framework. The general requirements are needed to transition to the requirements of the new system for managing NASM which take effect at stage 2 on January 1, 2011. Transition periods are also outlined within the regulation to assist in moving from the current framework of approvals to the new requirements. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) consulted between September 7, 2007 and January 5, 2008 for 120 days on a plain language proposal, and again for an additional 30 days on the draft regulations, which were based on the plain language version of the proposal. The second consultation took place this past summer from June 29, 2009 to July 30, 2009 for a total of 5 months of public consultation. The responsibility for overseeing the framework is shared between MOE and OMAFRA. OMAFRA is responsible for administering, training and certification of plan preparers and approvals of NASM plans to confirm they meet requirements. MOE will continue to conduct compliance and enforcement activities under to the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act. Certificates of Approval will be required for materials that do not meet the requirements of the General Nutrient Management Regulation and, where required, for those generating and transporting NASM under the Environmental Protection Act. In addition, there are new rules around the management and treatment of milking centre washwater and amendments to requirements for on-farm mixed anaerobic digestion facilities regulated under the NMA and the use of off-farm materials as a co-substrate. The amendments to anaerobic digestion will increase the quantity of off-farm material allowed to be received and stored on a daily basis. For further information on the new framework, including links to the revised regulation, please visit the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry at: www.ebr.gov.on.ca (EBR #: 010-6515). Note that the revised regulation may only be available through the ?Source Law? link on the government?s e-laws website for the time being at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/. Consolidation with the existing regulation is in progress. If you have any additional questions, please contact either Sharon Johnston (OMAFRA) at (519) 826-3118 or Michelle Whitbread (MOE) at (416) 314-9398. We look forward to your continued support for Ontario?s future efforts to maintain our commitment to the protection of public health and the environment. Sincerely, Original signed by John Vidan Director of Waste Management Policy Branch, Ministry of the Environment and Peter Meerveld Director (Acting) of Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. ........................... Admin: It is best to visit this website, since there are so many live links: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/land/nasm/index.php NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR NASM On September 18, 2009, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs jointly announced new rules and guidelines for applying non-agricultural source materials (NASM) to farmland. Changes to the management of non-agricultural source materials are designed to strengthen the rules and remove overlapping approval processes for farmers and generators of NASM. The new rules establish consistent standards and requirements across the province which focus on the quality of the material being land-applied, ensuring it meets strict criteria and is beneficial to the soil. The revised regulations will cover all Ontario farms where non-agricultural source material will be applied. NASM includes yard waste, fruit and vegetable peels, food processing waste, pulp and paper biosolids and sewage biosolids. Proper spreading of these materials on farmland returns essential nutrients to the soil to help foster new plant growth. It allows the soil to breathe and hold water, decreasing water runoff and soil erosion and increasing overall water conservation. Soils that have good organic matter content are easier to work and plant roots can find water and nutrients more easily. New Rules For Using Nutrients On Farms Become Law McGuinty Government Strengthens Standards That Protect Health and Environment Backgrounder: Regulating Biosolids Comparing Old and New Requirements Regulatory and approval requirements New requirements focus on the quality of the material being land applied, building on standards that already exist. They include greater consideration of alternatives and cover all the agricultural land where non-agricultural source material will be applied in Ontario. The requirements are detailed in the regulation. A plain language guide to the regulatory requirements will be ready in late fall. Please check back to this web page in December. The requirements will take effect in two stages. Stage 1 changes will take effect immediately upon filing of the regulation and consists of general requirements that establish the framework. The general requirements are needed to transition to the requirements of the new system for managing NASM which take effect at stage 2 on January 1, 2011. Transition periods are also outlined within the regulation to assist in moving from the current framework of approvals to the new requirements. The establishment of consistent environmental standards across the province and clearly defines who is impacted and the requirements they must follow. Compliance and enforcement MOE?s longstanding role in ensuring environmental protection through compliance and enforcement activities continues with the new regulation. Through proactive inspections and responding to reports of pollution or other incidents, MOE will help to ensure that materials are land applied according to provincial standards. NASM land application standards and requirements are enforceable under the NMA and if an adverse effect occurs or may occur, the EPA or the Ontario Water Resources Act may also apply. Check back to this web page in December for more details on compliance and enforcement. Regulatory framework EBR Decision Notice O. Reg. 338/09 amending Regulation 267/03 under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 - proposed posting date on the Source Law section of e-Laws September 23, 2009 O. Reg. 336/09 amending Regulation 347 under the Environmental Protection Act- proposed posting date on the Source Law section of e-Laws September 23, 2009 Nutrient Management Protocol Sampling and Analysis Protocol NASM Odour Guide 2 DIN Standard: Air Quality ? Determination of Odour Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry. EN 13725:2003 Nutrient Management Tables Other Documents Hauler fact sheet Farmer fact sheet Generator fact sheet Odour Fact Sheet For more information on sewage biosolids. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 13:03:26 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:03:26 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> California - Sewage Sludge Compost Poisons Gardens - endangers our offspring Message-ID: http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/3340/sewage-sludge-compost--poisons-gardens/ Sewage sludge compost poisons gardens Lax regulation endangers our nests and offspring BY DAVID BROADWATER For more than 10 years, SLO County has been wrestling with whether or how to allow spreading sewage sludge on land, due to the concentrations of toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and infectious agents in the material. These contaminants pose short- and long-term risks for public health, the environment, and agriculture. Among those focused on local policy are the SLO County Board of Supervisors, several county commissions and departments, agricultural and environmental organizations, and various advisory councils. A recent incident highlighted the importance of exercising caution when exposing people, especially children, and plants and animals to the heavy metals, synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, endocrine-disrupting compounds, and pathogens combined in sewage sludge. As reported by New Times on Aug. 13 (?Real-world learning? by Kathy Johnston), Morro Bay High School grew vegetables in composted sewage sludge from the city?s sewage plant, planning to feed the produce to students through the cafeteria and home-economics classes. Eight of the school garden?s ten raised beds contained 100 percent composted sewage sludge. The levels of cadmium, lead, molybdenum, and selenium in the material were high, compared to average uncontaminated agricultural soil in the state. After receiving some information about the risks involved, and a site visit by the author of this commentary, in late August the school returned the compost to the sewage plant and restarted the garden with natural soil amendments. Sewage sludge contains a wide array of concentrated contaminants, the vast majority of which are unregulated, including such metals as beryllium, chromium and thallium; such chemicals as dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides; such hormones as progesterone and testosterone; such drugs as codeine, digoxin, and erythromycin; and various bacteria, viruses, protozoa, worm cysts, and fungi. Exposure to these contaminants can occur through direct contact, inhalation of particles and gases, and ingestion of contaminated plants and water. Once spread on land, the synthetic chemicals and heavy metals in sewage sludge persist for decades and centuries, and accumulate with each successive application. Federal, state, and local regulations place limits on only nine heavy metals and one pathogenic organism, and these are considered unsafe by many, including the Cornell Waste Management Institute, the state Farm Bureau, and the national Sierra Club. Cadmium, for example, is a carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting heavy metal toxic to the liver and kidneys, which is readily absorbed by root crops and leafy green vegetables. The limit for cadmium (39 ppm) is 108 times the concentration found in background soil (0.36 ppm), and the amount in the Morro Bay compost (3.7 ppm) is 10.3 times that soil level. Federal and state regulations allow cadmium soil concentration to build up to 20 ppm, which is 13 to 25 times higher than allowed in Ontario, Germany, Denmark, and Norway. In setting the limits on cadmium, and other metals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not consider exposure of children, dietary exposure, or simultaneous exposure to multiple contaminants, and it used a cancer risk factor 100 times less protective than it uses in water and air regulations. After the defeat of a plan to dump 50,000 tons of sewage sludge annually in San Miguel in 1998, the county took control of the activity from the state and federal governments. Concurring with the recommendations of two county task forces, the board of supervisors imposed an interim moratorium ordinance to prevent an escalation in sewage sludge land application, and directed the drafting of an as yet incomplete permanent ordinance. Neither the interim nor the permanent ordinance regulates amounts smaller than five cubic yards and both rely on obsolete federal standards that allow land application of highly contaminated sewage sludge. Both cap annual land application at historic levels (1,500 to 1,600 cubic yards) and, while the permanent ordinance would regulate sewage sludge and composts containing it, the interim ordinance does not regulate such composts. The proposed permanent ordinance would restrict applications exclusively to agriculturally zoned land used for growing food and feed, and for grazing. This would permanently prevent organic farming on such land and marketing produce grown on it to such food processors as Heinz and Del Monte. It fails to adequately protect the public, environment, property owners, and agribusiness from the risks of using sewage sludge as a soil amendment. It appears that our county and schools need better policies to prevent the poisoning of our own nests and offspring. The state Department of Education, which issued $2,500 grants to local schools in 2008 through its ?Garden in Every School Program?, has no policy regarding the use of sewage sludge in school gardens. Sewage sludge isn?t going away anytime soon, but spreading it on land poses a threat to the quality of our soil, water, food and air we may not immediately recognize. In this situation, what you don?t know can hurt you, and those you care about. Excellent resources with scientific and experiential information include: Cornell Waste Management Institute (cwmi.css.cornell.edu/sewagesludge.htm), Sludge Facts (sludgefacts.org) by Dr. Caroline Snyder, and Sewage Sludge Victims (sludgevictims.com) by Helane Shields. As a member of both sewage sludge land application task forces convened by the county, the author of this article can also provide further information. David Broadwater, of Atascadero, has been researching this topic and advocating protective policies for more than a decade. Contact him via the editor at econnolly at newtimesslo.com. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 13:08:20 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:08:20 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Michelle Obama - How does your garden grow? Message-ID: http://inthesetimes.com/article/4902/michelle_obama_how_does_your_garden_grow In These Times News ? September 24, 2009 Michelle Obama, How Does Your Garden Grow? Critics say EPA standards allowing sewage sludge to become fertilizer are outdated. By Sisi Tang First Lady Michelle Obama harvests vegetables from the White House Kitchen Garden with students from Bancroft Elementary School on the South Lawn of the White House on June 16. (Photo by: Win McNamee/Getty Images) Share Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine The potential public health threat posed by the application of sewage sludge as fertilizer made news in June when lead levels of 93 parts per million (ppm) were reported in Michelle Obama?s garden. According to a February National Park Service soil analysis, the levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead on the White House South Lawn were all at levels deemed safe by the EPA. Yet some public health experts maintain the EPA?s current heavy-metal safety standards are outdated. What?s more, the EPA sludge standards don?t include other dangerous contaminants that lurk in sewage. A stew of new pharmaceuticals, personal care products and cleaning agents gush down drains daily, and are later processed through municipal treatment plants. The resulting sewage sludge, known euphemistically as ?biosolids,? is then applied as fertilizer to land. Sewage sludge, under the brand name ComPRO, was last applied to the White House South Lawn in the mid ?80s, according to D.C. Waste and Sewer Authority (DC WASA) Biosolids Manager Chris Peot. More recently, the George W. Bush administration encouraged federal agencies and contractors to purchase recycled products, and in 2003 added ?compost from biosolids? as a recommended product of the federal green purchasing program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Subsequently, much to the sludge industry?s delight, 1,500 cubic yards of sludge was used in the 2004 conversion of Pennsylvania Avenue into a pedestrian mall. The EPA sets the bar for heavy metal levels considered safe for gardens and contact with children. Yet the current one-size-fits-all lead standard doesn?t account for the different bioavailability of various chemical forms of lead. According to David L. Johnson, a professor at the school of Environmental Science and Forestry at the State University of New York in Syracuse, 93 ppm of lead acetate is very different from 93 ppm of lead chloropyromorphite, as the latter is more likely to be absorbed into an organism?s circulation system. Neither the Park Service?s White House South Lawn report nor EPA regulations account for these variables. A number of potentially harmful non-metallic toxins commonly found in sewage sludge are not regulated by the EPA. The typical soil report tests only for some biological pathogens and heavy metals. ?It?s fair to say that EPA rules in general are out of date,? says Murray McBride, director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute. What?s more, EPA rules have failed to take into account the surface water runoff from sludge application sites. That runoff is thought to contribute to the sudden appearance of intersexed fish in the Potomac River. EPA regulations on sewage sludge have collected dust since 1993, when current standards for sewage sludge disposal were first implemented. In 2001, the EPA revisited the standards for a biennial review required by the Clean Water Act, and concluded that no additional pollutants should be included. In 2002, the National Research Council?s Committee on Toxicants and Pathogens in Biosolids Applied to Land report gingerly broached the subject of local outbreaks of sewage-sludge-induced illnesses, but fell shy of an actual judgment on the safety of biosolids usage. The report also found the EPA did not have a systematic way of documenting local complaints. In response to the EPA?s failure to take any action, in 2007 the Cornell Waste Management Institute compiled a matrix of reported incidents of illnesses near sewage sludge application sites, documenting a slew of symptoms ranging from nosebleeds and thyroid disorders to vomiting and cancer. The EPA finally responded to the 2002 National Research Council?s report and in January published the Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report (TNSSSR), which covered sludge from 74 publicly-owned treatment works in 35 states. The EPA tested for and discovered in all samples additional metals, disinfectants, steroids and flame retardants never before scrutinized as pollutants. But recognition of potential risks on paper does not translate to action. ?At this point, there?s not enough known about each one of these microconstituents that are in there to allow major efforts right now in developing standards,? says Alan Rubin, the EPA?s retired senior scientist and Chief of the Sludge Risk Assessment Branch in 1993, when then the EPA first redefined sewage sludge as fertilizer. The EPA refuses to release information about the progress of its deliberations and no decisions have been made on whether sludge will be more strictly regulated. For the rest of the year, the EPA will study the risks of certain sludge pollutants and their toxicity to humans and wildlife. Maybe standards will be written for some of those toxins. Maybe sewage plants will be required to implement extra treatments to bring down levels of certain pollutants. But what is certain is that the elimination of sewage sludge use as a ?tried and true? fertilizer is not on the table at the EPA. GET INVOLVED: Re Source Institute for Low Entropy Systems www.riles.org From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 13:17:06 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:17:06 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - Hamilton sewage sludge problems - sludge spreaders unfair to residents Message-ID: THE REGIONAL NEWS THIS WEEK -September 23, 2009 Sewage spreading raises concerns Sludge applicators not being fair, residents say by Bill Jackson Local residents who managed to stop a company from spreading 14 truckloads of treated sewage on a nearby farmer?s field last Friday are concerned about the ramifications that such a practice could have on people?s lives. When television media showed up on Concession 10 in Garnet last Friday, the trucks filled with the sludge retreated, even though company representatives said they?d probably return at a later date. "Maybe we?ve stopped this temporarily on this field, but this is a big issue," said Diane Elms, a homeowner along the same road, located just outside Hagersville. "This is about clarification and being notified," she said. Only some residents living within a short proximity of the field were informed of the planned application one day earlier via notices in mailboxes. Elms, who lives about half-a-kilometer down the road, didn?t receive any notification and worries about the effects that the sludge could have on her well water and lifestyle. Earlier this year she hosted a wedding at her property. "This would have brought a really nice smell," she said facetiously. According to the Ministry of the Environment, Terratec Environmental Ltd. has the necessary permits and approvals to transport and apply biosolids. Such companies are not required to provide notification, but some do to ensure that homeowners are made aware of rules that stipulate minimum setback requirements, maximum slope allowance and proximity to wells and water courses. MOE issues certificates of approval for the application of biosolids and their transportation, in this case from sewage treatment facilities in Hamilton, Halton and Niagara. "What that means is that all those facilities also have to have approvals as waste generators," said Jen Hall, a ministry spokesperson. "So they?re all approved and that waste from the treatment plants is sampled and tested regularly to make sure it meets all the ministry guidelines for metals and bacteria and other nutrients, phosphorus for one." According to Denise Venuti Free, Terratec?s manager of external communications, the company has managed biosolids for many years and there is "great support from the agricultural community for biosolids usage and of Terratec. Terratec has hundreds of farmers in its program that control tens of thousands of acres." About 80 percent of municipalities in Ontario recycle biosolids on agricultural land and Ontario?s guidelines are amongst the strictest in North America, she pointed out. However, health issues among other concerns have been documented by people living all over North America, including Ontario. Cayuga resident Dave Pearson has done some investigating on his own and doesn?t believe that testing is comprehensive enough. "It?s not only human waste that?s the problem," according to his wife Mary Ann. "It?s everything that goes down every drain in the city including waste from factories, hair dyes and chemicals." The couple had to live with a pungent odour earlier this year when sewage sludge was spread all over a 150-acre field off Irish Line near Cayuga. "The smell is just sickening," said Mary Ann. "You can?t go out of your house and do anything outside.? The couple contends that there are many grey areas to legislation that controls the spreading of biosolids and the ministry of environment doesn?t always bother to ensure that regulations are adhered to. Dave said it?s a lucrative business because companies are paid by municipalities such as Hamilton to take the treated sewage. Farmers have it put on their fields for cheap. "We don?t like it, but it?s legal if it?s done according to the rules," he said. A study in 2002 that included research conducted by recognized experts from several agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and University of Georgia concluded that the occurrence of staphylococcal infections among residents suggested health risks posed by pathogens may be higher than expected at some application sites. "Chemical contaminants in sludges, which irritate the skin and mucous membranes, may be responsible for an increased host susceptibility," it says. The study also cited cases involving mortality after people had direct contact with freshly applied biosolids, including an 11-year-old boy who developed septicemia. Cheryl Black, the principal at Walpole North Elementary School said that she received no notification about the planned sludge spreading less than a mile down the road from the school. Some parents and staff members expressed concern and Black was attempting to establish some communication with the school board and Terratec last week. After the story appeared on CH News and in the Hamilton Spectator, Elms said she received phone calls from people who had biosolid sludge applied to lands surrounding their properties. Their "compelling, graphic description of ill health, animals becoming impotent and general sickness of all their animals have confirmed our fears of TOXIC material being spread on the lands," she said in an email to Terratec?s health and compliance safety manager who, according to Elms, has agreed to hold a public meeting. Hall said the application of sewage biosolids on farmland is constantly being looked at by government scientists and health experts to make sure that the regulatory requirements and standards for applying biosolids to land are appropriate and to make sure they protect food, safety and the human environment. According to the province?s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario has long supported the land application of quality organics. "We are taking a science-based approach to put standards in place under the Nutrient Management Act to protect public health and the environment," said Leona Dombrowsky in a prepared statement last week. "The use of non-agricultural source materials benefits farmers since it provides for options other than fertilizers, and it benefits Ontarians by keeping these materials out of landfills." According to the ministry, new odour categories have been developed based on materials and their odour potential. The categories will ensure proper land application and setbacks from dwellings and other occupied buildings. However, Hall reiterated that farmers, government ministries and spreaders will still not be required to provide notification to nearby residents before biosolids are applied. At press time on Tuesday, The Regional News received a call from Judy Coulter off Mines Road in Caledonia who said that trucks belonging to Terratec had started spreading sewage on a field adjacent to her home. She also reported a sore throat. "We can?t sit outside it?s so bad" she said. "Yesterday it made me sick." "I think we have a right as neighbours," she added. "I don?t think they?re being very fair about this." ? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 14:09:51 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:51 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Morro Bay Calif - school officials send sludge "fertilizer" gift back to sewer plant Message-ID: http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/3328/a-lesson-in-sludge September 23rd, 2009, in the New Times - Volume 24, Issue 8 The following articles were printed from New Times [newtimesslo.com] - Volume 24, Issue 8 A lesson in sludge BY KATHY JOHNSTON Morro Bay High School officials responded quickly when questions were raised about the safety of the school?s garden during the first week of school last month. Researcher David Broadwater met with a science teacher at the school after an Aug. 13 article in New Times revealed that some of the raised beds where vegetables are grown had been filled with composted sewage sludge donated by the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. Broadwater, who runs the Center for Sludge Information in Atascadero, cited research about heavy metals and pathogens in composted sludge. Superintendent Ed Valentine of San Luis Coastal School District told New Times that officials decided to remove the material and take it back to the wastewater plant up the road during the weekend of the first week of school. ?This was a perfectly well-intentioned project involving the school garden and a donation of fertilizer that at the time everyone believed was fine for the re-nutrition of soil. Then we found out later about what substances are in it, and the questions about it. We thought, ?Till the controversy is settled, why not stay away from it?? So we replaced it with new soil,? Valentine said. ?To the extent that there are questions, we?re not going to use our school garden to find answers,? he noted, adding that he is ?totally? a supporter of school gardens. The San Luis Coastal school board also discussed the issue at a meeting earlier this month, after Broadwater spoke. Many of the schools in the district have school gardens, mostly using ?self-generated compost? and traditional sources for soil mixes, according to Valentine. Morro Bay High?s garden was ?more cutting edge,? he noted. Plant growth rates in 100 percent composted sewage sludge were compared to plants grown in half topsoil, half sludge compost. Broadwater also presented a packet of information about heavy metals and other chemicals in sludge to the SLO County Health Commission at its meeting Sept. 14. After another agenda item covered the health impacts from breathing tiny particulates in polluted air, commission Chair Pam Heatherington asked whether sludge produces unhealthy airborne particles. After the health commission meeting, Broadwater said he did some research on the issue and wrote a short report for commissioners, citing concerns about heavy metals, fungus, and bacterial pathogens that can cause respiratory illnesses From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 12:52:01 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:52:01 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> San Francisco Poised to Give Away Toxic Compost to Residents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 The Center for Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Syste= ms petitioned the City of San Francisco to immediately and permanently susp= end their compost giveaway events because SF compost contains sludge.=20 =20 San Fransisco's PUC specifically targeted school gardens and community gard= ens. The next giveaway is tomorrow. =20 Please see this link for more info and a copy of the petition. http://ga3.org/campaign/SF_sludge/33bbsb349j3j6ijn? =20 =20 =20 San Francisco Poised to Give Away Toxic Compost to Residents =20 The City of San Francisco=92s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) hosts bia= nnual =93Compost Giveaway Events=94 every spring and fall in which the City= offers the residents free =93compost.=94 Compost=2C the bedrock of organi= c agriculture=2C traditionally offers a way for a farmer or gardener to tur= n food scraps and manure into a nutrient rich soil amendment. San Francisc= o=92s free =93compost=94 is not traditional compost at all=2C but instead c= ombines sewage sludge (a toxic product of waste water treatment) with green= waste=2C yard waste and wood chips.=20 =20 While seemingly innocuous or even environmentally beneficial=2C these compo= st giveaway events are distributing toxic compost to community gardens=2C s= chool gardens and local residents because the =93compost=94 distributed by = the SFPUC is made with sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is shown by EPA and ot= hers to contain heavy metals=2C pathogens=2C pharmaceuticals=2C PCB=92s=2C = flame retardants and endocrine disruptors. Numerous additional organic pol= lutants are present in US sludge samples=2C such as polybrominated diphenal= ethers (PBDEs)=2C polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons=2C DDT degradation prod= ucts=2C chlordadanes=2C synthetic musk products=2C triclosan=2C and tributy= tin. =20 The SFPUC also claims that biosolids are =93non-hazardous and nontoxic.=94 = Yet=2C upon request=2C the only test result provided by the SFPUC is a met= als analysis of Synargo - Central Valley Compost. No toxic analysis or oth= er data about the hazardous contents of the sludge are provided! Residents may be led to believe that the City=92s sludge compost is =93orga= nic.=94 The USDA=92s National Organic Program=92s (NOP) regulations=2C how= ever=2C strictly forbid the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer or soil am= endment=2C no matter if it is composted or otherwise =93treated.=94 This = =93compost=94 is by no means organic. The next SFPUC compost giveaway is September 26=2C 2009. The Center for Fo= od Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems filed a petiti= on with Gavin Newsom=2C San Francisco=92s Mayor and Ed Harrington=2C Genera= l Manager of SFPUC yesterday asking them to immediately and permanently sus= pend the sewage sludge compost giveaways. Please send a letter to Gavin Newsom and Ed Harrington in support of this p= etition right away! Talking Points Please edit the letter as you see fit. If you like=2C you may download your= letter and mail it as well. Subject: =20 =20 Dear Mayor Newsom and Ed Harrington=2C GAVIN NEWSOM=20 in his official capacity as Mayor of San Francisco=20 City of San Francisco City Hall=2C Room 200=20 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco=2C CA 94102 ED HARRINGTON in his official capacity as=2C=20 General Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission=20 1155 Market St.=2C 11th floor=20 San Francisco CA=2C 94103 I am strongly opposed to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission usin= g sewage sludge in "compost" and then distributing it to local residents=2C= community gardens and school gardens for the following reasons: =20 (Edit Sample Letter Below) see http://ga3.org/campaign/SF_sludge/33bbsb349j3j6ijn? =20 =20 Dear Mayor=20 =20 Sewage sludge=2C also known as biosolids=2C has been shown by EPA to contai= n heavy metals=2C pathogens=2C pharmaceuticals=2C flame retardants and endo= crine disruptors. In fact=2C in a 2009 EPA study of sewage sludge from acr= oss the nation=2C nearly all the samples contained 27 metals=2C 10 differen= t flame retardants=2C 12 pharmaceuticals=2C and high levels of known endocr= ine disruptors. =20 Furthermore=2C peer reviewed studies indicate sewage sludge contains other = toxic agents with known and unknown consequences to human health and the en= vironment. Numerous additional organic pollutants are present in US sludge= samples=2C such as polybrominated diphenal ethers (PBDEs)=2C polycyclic ar= omatic hydrocarbons=2C DDT degradation products=2C chlordadanes=2C syntheti= c musk products=2C triclosan=2C and tributytin. Residents are vulnerable t= o the health impacts of the above toxic agents and children are especially = susceptible. =20 Neither treatment nor composting will render sewage sludge safe for use in = agriculture=2C school gardens=2C community gardens or backyard gardens. Fo= r these and other reasons=2C please immediately and permanently suspend San= Francisco's "Compost Giveaway Events."=20 =20 Your name and address here. =20 = From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 13:33:48 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:33:48 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Iowa - sludge farm - Wulfekuhl Farm has sludge in manure pits, storage with no permits Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Many people who are exposed to sludge end up with pneumonia - just like the Ellerbachs. They have had to leave their home to get relief from the sludge. In this situation, the sludge hauler is bringing sewage sludge from two Iowa facilities onto his father's land...land that is supposed to be in trust as CRP land. Sludge from the Dyerville sewage plant is being stored at the farm in a manure pit that has not been designed, engineered, nor permitted for the storage of sewage sludge. The Cedar Rapids dewatered sewage sludge is sitting in approximately 2,500 ton storage piles. Also without the required permit from the DNR. DNR staff are investigating. Watch the video. .................................................................. WAtch the new video clip: http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/61265307.html Neighbors Raise a Stink About Human Waste Fertilizer By Katie Wiedemann, Reporter Story Updated: Sep 24, 2009 HOLY CROSS - A war of words has erupted in Dubuque County over what one neighbor calls a very smelly fertilizer. The fertilizer is sewage sludge from the Waste Water Treatment Plant in Cedar Rapids, in other words, treated human waste. Farmers say it is rich in nutrients. Two neighbors say the odor is offensive, and the reason they are getting sick. Jim and Karen Ellerbach say the stench and chemicals in the air coming from the Wulkekuhl farm are destroying their health. Karen Ellerbach said, "We've both been in the emergency room probably about four times and Jim's been going to a doctor and both doctors want us to move off the farm." Jim showed us a doctor's note, diagnosing him with pneumonia, citing exposure to human waste from his neighbor's property. Jim Ellerbach said, "As you can see it's taking my life away, if my lungs are damaged, what can I do?" DNR Environmental Specialist Mike Wade says the fertilizer the Wulfekuhl's are using contains human waste but it is legal. Wade said, "I'm not really a doctor but as far as the regulations it complies with all of our regulations regarding the use of this sludge material." Lee Wulfekuhl said, "We are trying to help the city by not having to spend extra money on the land-fill and helping the farmers by giving him a product to use on the soil that's good." State Representative Roger Thomas is trying to figure out if laws regarding using human waste should be changed. Thomas said, "I have to figure out if there is something we need to do to look at differently, whether it's changing stock piling permits or whatever." Many of the other people who live in this neighborhood were not home when we knocked on their doors. The neighbors we did talk to say they don't smell anything out of the ordinary and no one in their households have been sick. Wulfekuhl said, "I have not heard any other complaints except for Jimmy Ellerbach in this area." Jim Ellerbach said, "You talk to neighbors around here, not just neighbors, people that drive by this road, they don't like it." Farmer versus farmer, it's an argument both families say just plain stinks. The Ellerbach's say they have not filed a lawsuit against their neighbors. But they say if something doesn't change soon, that will be their next move. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 18:20:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:20:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sewage Sludge Not Safe for Crops Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Interesting article, but has a strange concept of sludge being ok to land apply if it is heated over 800 degrees. There isn't much left but ash after sludge is heated to that temperature. And sewage sludge incineration ash should not be land applied, since the metals are concentrated in the ash. ........................................... http://www.ajc.com/opinion/sewer-sludge-not-safe-143395.html Monday, September 21, 2009 Sewer sludge not safe for crops By Christianne Carin President Barack Obama has shown his willingness to jump on ?teachable moments,? events that at first seem small or local but can act as a springboard to look at larger issues. Obama has one of these moments right in his own backyard, literally, with the discovery that his organic vegetable garden contains high amounts of lead. Tests for other harmful chemicals are underway. The story first broke in mid-June when tests showed elevated levels of lead in the garden. The levels were 93 parts per million, slightly under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s 100 ppm danger level, which, to be fair, is common in urban areas from the settling of a hundred years of vehicle exhausts. In fact, many urban gardens have levels that exceed the EPA?s limits. What?s of more danger are the tens of thousands of chemical compounds that are found in treated sludge ? including hundreds of different prescription and over-the-counter drugs that we flush down our drains, cleaners and soaps ? from home and industrial and processing wastes that use our sewers for disposal. Sludge is the end result of ?treating? human and all other wastes entering our sewers, mainly by decomposition during storage, aeration and filtration in order to turn it into material for reintroduction back into the environment. This year, U.S. farmers will fertilize their lands with 45 million wet tons of processed sludge coming from municipal and county sewage plants across the nation. The sludge is used by farmers for fertilizer on crops that make their way directly or indirectly to our kitchen tables. The cities are more than happy to find a place for their sludge other than already overcrowded landfills. In 1993, the EPA supported the disposal of sludge on farmland, through regulation and set limits on pathogens present. At the time, the government and sludge producers found a seemingly perfect symbiotic relationship to spread sludge on farmland including a massive PR campaign that quieted dissenting voices. Even spreading sludge on then-President Bill Clinton?s White House lawn was part of that campaign. But this sludge may not be as safe as we think. In February 2008 a federal court ruled that Georgia farmer Andy McElmurray was entitled to Agriculture Department ?prevented planting? subsidies because of contamination of his farm by sewage sludge. Judge Anthony Alaimo found that the sludge was responsible for killing hundreds of dairy cattle and contaminating the milk supplies in several states. The U.S. District Court concluded that the evidence showed ?McElmurray?s land is contaminated and unfit for growing food-chain crops? and that ?the evidence of contamination on the McElmurray?s land was substantial.? Among those now wary of using sludge on farms are food suppliers H.J. Heinz and Del Monte, both of which do not accept vegetables grown using sludge as fertilizer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture?s cutting-edge National Organic Program doesn?t allow organic farmers to use sludge. Currently, there is a way to treat sludge that makes it safer for use in many situations. By heating sludge to over 800 degrees Fahrenheit all pathogens and many chemical compounds are rendered inert and the sludge is safe to use in nonfood crops (such as cotton and biofuels), land repair, golf courses and turf applications. President Obama has made food safety a priority for his administration, and this teachable moment compels us to find a suitable and safe way to manage our sewage even if it means radically changing how we think about it. It?s time for policy makers and legislators to take a serious look at the dangers of using sludge on farms. Christianne Carin, CEO of EarthRenew, Inc., is writing a book about the politics of manure. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 18:44:34 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:44:34 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Drinking water at thousands of schools contains unsafe lead, other toxins Message-ID: To see the contamination distribution map go to the web page http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-toxic-water-schools,0,4277450.story AP IMPACT: Drinking water at thousands of schools contains unsafe lead, other toxins Graphic shows number of U.S. schools with water contamination violations by state, 1998-2008; includes a chart of states with highest violations (M. Sherman, JB, AP / September 24, 2009) GARANCE BURKE Associated Press Writer 10:06 a.m. CDT, September 25, 2009 E-mail Print Text Size CUTLER, Calif. (AP) ? Over the last decade, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country has been found to contain unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins. An Associated Press investigation found that contaminants have surfaced at public and private schools in all 50 states ? in small towns and inner cities alike. But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied. "It's an outrage," said Marc Edwards, an engineer at Virginia Tech who has been honored for his work on water quality. "If a landlord doesn't tell a tenant about lead paint in an apartment, he can go to jail. But we have no system to make people follow the rules to keep school children safe?" The contamination is most apparent at schools with wells, which represent 8 to 11 percent of the nation's schools. Roughly one of every five schools with its own water supply violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past decade, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the AP. In California's farm belt, wells at some schools are so tainted with pesticides that students have taken to stuffing their backpacks with bottled water for fear of getting sick from the drinking fountain. Experts and children's advocates complain that responsibility for drinking water is spread among too many local, state and federal agencies, and that risks are going unreported. Finding a solution, they say, would require a costly new national strategy for monitoring water in schools. Schools with unsafe water represent only a small percentage of the nation's 132,500 schools. And the EPA says the number of violations spiked over the last decade largely because the government has gradually adopted stricter standards for contaminants such as arsenic and some disinfectants. Many of the same toxins could also be found in water at homes, offices and businesses. But the contaminants are especially dangerous to children, who drink more water per pound than adults and are more vulnerable to the effects of many hazardous substances. "There's a different risk for kids," said Cynthia Dougherty, head of the EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water. Still, the EPA does not have the authority to require testing for all schools and can only provide guidance on environmental practices. In recent years, students at a Minnesota elementary school fell ill after drinking tainted water. A young girl in Seattle got sick, too. The AP analyzed a database showing federal drinking water violations from 1998 to 2008 in schools with their own water supplies. The findings: ? Water in about 100 school districts and 2,250 schools breached federal safety standards. ? Those schools and districts racked up more than 5,550 separate violations. In 2008, the EPA recorded 577 violations, up from 59 in 1998 ? an increase that officials attribute mainly to tougher rules. ? California, which has the most schools of any state, also recorded the most violations with 612, followed by Ohio (451), Maine (417), Connecticut (318) and Indiana (289). ? Nearly half the violators in California were repeat offenders. One elementary school in Tulare County, in the farm country of the Central Valley, broke safe-water laws 20 times. ? The most frequently cited contaminant was coliform bacteria, followed by lead and copper, arsenic and nitrates. The AP analysis has "clearly identified the tip of an iceberg," said Gina Solomon, a San Francisco physician who serves on an EPA drinking water advisory board. "This tells me there is a widespread problem that needs to be fixed because there are ongoing water quality problems in small and large utilities, as well." Schools with wells are required to test their water and report any problems to the state, which is supposed to send all violations to the federal government. But EPA officials acknowledge the agency's database of violations is plagued with errors and omissions. And the agency does not specifically monitor incoming state data on school water quality. Critics say those practices prevent the government from reliably identifying the worst offenders ? and carrying out enforcement. Scientists say the testing requirements fail to detect dangerous toxins such as lead, which can wreak havoc on major organs and may retard children's learning abilities. "There is just no excuse for this. Period," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "We want to make sure that we fix this problem in a way that it will never happen again, and we can ensure parents that their children will be safe." The problem goes beyond schools that use wells. Schools that draw water from public utilities showed contamination, too, especially older buildings where lead can concentrate at higher levels than in most homes. In schools with lead-soldered pipes, the metal sometimes flakes off into drinking water. Lead levels can also build up as water sits stagnant over weekends and holidays. Schools that get water from local utilities are not required to test for toxins because the EPA already regulates water providers. That means there is no way to ensure detection of contaminants caused by schools' own plumbing. But voluntary tests in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle and Los Angeles have found dangerous levels of lead in recent years. And experts warn the real risk to schoolchildren is going unreported. "I really suspect the level of exposure to lead and other metals at schools is underestimated," said Michael Schock, a corrosion expert with the EPA in Cincinnati. "You just don't know what is going on in the places you don't sample." Since 2004, the agency has been asking states to increase lead monitoring. As of 2006, a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found nearly half of all schools nationwide do not test their water for lead. Because contaminant levels in water can vary from drinking fountain to drinking fountain, and different children drink different amounts of water, epidemiologists often have trouble measuring the potential threats to children's health. But children have suffered health problems attributed to school water: ? In 2001, 28 children at a Worthington, Minn., elementary school experienced severe stomach aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, the result of a poorly installed treatment system. ? In Seattle several years ago, a 6-year-old girl suffered stomach aches and became disoriented and easily exhausted. The girl's mother asked her daughter's school to test its water, and also tested a strand of her daughter's hair. Tests showed high levels of copper and lead, which figured into state health officials' decision to phase-in rules requiring schools to test their water for both contaminants. Many school officials say buying bottled water is less expensive than fixing old pipes. Baltimore, for instance, has spent more than $2.5 million on bottled water over the last six years. After wrestling with unsafe levels of arsenic for almost two years, administrators in Sterling, Ohio, southeast of Cincinnati, finally bought water coolers for elementary school students last fall. Now they plan to move students to a new building. In California, the Department of Public Health has given out more than $4 million in recent years to help districts overhaul their water systems. But school administrators in the farmworker town of Cutler cannot fix chronic water problems at Lovell High School because funding is frozen due to the state's budget crisis. Signs posted above the kitchen sink warn students not to drink from the tap because the water is tainted with nitrates, a potential carcinogen, and DBCP, a pesticide scientists say may cause male sterility. As gym class ended one morning, thirsty basketball players crowded around a five-gallon cooler, the only safe place to get a drink on campus. "The teachers always remind us to go to the classroom and get a cup of water from the cooler," said sophomore Israel Aguila. "But the bathroom sinks still work, so sometimes you kind of forget you can't drink out of them." From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 21:59:32 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:59:32 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Port Hope radioactive sewage sludge - long term storage? Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: There is a pile of sewage sludge in Port Hope See description and photo here: http://www.davidjwidmann.ca/category/writing/articles/environment/ The sludge has radioactive contamination and is still stockpiled on the site of the sewer plant. Decisions will be made about how to store this low level radioactive waste. ..................... http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1717659 Radioactive waste cleanup hinges on one-day hearing Posted By MANDY MARTIN August 2009 Will they or won't they? And if they do, for how long? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will decide whether 1.2 million cubic metres of low-level radioactive and historic waste from around Port Hope will be excavated and contained in an encapsulated mound south of Highway 401. The commission is expected to decide whether to grant a licence to Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) to proceed with the cleanup project within the next two months. There was a lot of ground and a lot of history to cover at the one-day public hearing Wednesday. Everyone was on best behaviour as the televised and webcast proceedings, complete with English/French translators, transcript stenographers and large-screen monitors for better in-house viewing got underway at the Town Recreation Centre. As the licence requester, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) outlined its plans for the estimated $150-million chore ahead. The CNSC, as safety overseer of the project, had its staff there, too, formal presentations and answering questions of panel members. With 96 intervenors registered -- 43 of them with oral presentations -- it was a full day and evening for all concerned. "If required, we will resume tomorrow at 8:30 a. m," CNSC president and chief executive officer Michael Binder announced. Further, the commission members were prepared to delay an 11:30 a. m. Thursday hearing on another matter to accommodate the Port Hope hearing, he assured. The project timeline calls for two, and up to three, years of detailed design and approvals for the construction of the Welcome waste mound, and the physical processes for the removal of the soil from 13 existing major low-level radioactive waste locations, five historic industrial waste sites plus approximately 300 small-scale sites within the former town of Port Hope. The waste mound will be under construction starting Year 3 through Year 6. First will be the consolidation of existing low-level radioactive waste at the Welcome facility into a new contained cell area. From there, additional sealed bottom cells to contain the soil from the off-site contaminated area will be constructed. The off-site soil will be moved to the mound site though the fourth and 10th years from licence approval. The soil from off-site will be trucked -- up to 2,000 cubic metres of material per day, or 150 to 200 trucks for 10 to 12 hours a day -- on established road routes to the Welcome site. AECL assured the CNSC that procedures will be presented for approval to ensure vehicles are washed down and contamination is contained within the loads. In fact, the licence application is going forward with the caveat that a list of "hold items", all requiring specific CNSC approval, be included. The Municipality of Port Hope whole-heartedly supports of the licence application -- with the same caveat, Port Hope Mayor Linda Thompson told the hearing. The dredging of Port Hope harbour will also be part of Phase 2 of the cleanup. The harbour will be sealed off, drained and 110,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil hauled to the Welcome mound. The water will be treated and returned to the basin. The harbour block-ups will not be removed until the water is up to standard, the CNSC was assured by Joan Miller, AECL vice-president and general manager of decommissioning and waste management. Advertisement The waste water pipe leading from the Welcome waste management facility to Lake Ontario also came up. What's been done? CNSC Commissioner Alan Graham asked. Because the Welcome waste management site is still under the aegis of Cameco, the question was answered by Andy Oliver, Cameco vice-president of fuel services. The old pipe has been replaced by a pipe which extend 23 metres out into Lake Ontario at a cost of $1.5 million. To the suggestion the pipe could be better at 100 metres in length, Oliver said it would, by extrapolation, have been millions of dollars more in cost and at no environmental advantage because the 23-metre water discharge meets CNSC standards -- without lake water dilution. If and when AECL obtains licence approval, within two months Cameco will be hand- ing over the ownership of the Welcome waste facility to the government of Canada. The AECL will assume administration of the site on behalf of the federal government. When the 2001 agreement for the Port Hope cleanup was announced, the federal government set aside $260 million for the project. Since then, $80 million of that was set aside for Phase 1 of the Port Hope Area Initiative cleanup project, another $30 million went to the then-three affected municipalities -- Clarington, Town of Port Hope and Hope Township, and another $30 million was moved into a transfer fund. At present $150 million is left to work with. Regardless, the federal government is committed to paying for the long-term maintenance of the waste storage site. "Perhaps we will need another public hearing?" within the 10-year licensing span, CNSC president Binder asked at one point. "At any rate, I suppose we will find out." When the concern was raised that the public have opportunity for comment, it was pointed out that, to date, there have been 62 strategic level meetings and 20 technically oriented meetings with Port Hope and the public plus 50 working group meetings, 21 scheduled public workshops during the Environmental Assessment process, 250,000 newsletters/brochures, maintenance of a project office where the public is invited to drop in and meet with staff and 21 public booths and exhibits in the past seven years. Both the AECL and the municipality of Port Hope maintain they remain committed to continuing with the same level of dialogue. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 25 22:16:18 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:16:18 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Why would Hamilton Ontario need two sludge incinerators ? Message-ID: http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/09/25/incinerators-good-but-why-two/ Incinerators good, but why two? Burke Austin, The Hamilton Spectator September 25th, 2009 Farmers and consumers are being deceived if they are being told Hamilton?s sewage sludge (biosolids) is safe for application on farmland. On a dry day, everything flushed into the sewer system from residents and industry ends up at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Dilution is not the way to eliminate chemicals and metals. Incineration of this material is coming. Liberty Energy, after years of seeking approvals from the environment ministry and from its neighbours, will build an incinerator in an industrial area to burn sludge mixed with clean wood to produce electricity. This is a better than land application. But we don?t understand why we need two sludge incinerators in our community. On Sept. 16, Hamilton council quietly passed a recommendation to construct a $90-million incinerator at the Wastewater Treatment Facility, 109 metres from the closest home. We were told this project is part of the Biosolids Master Plan that had years of public consultation. The problem is they didn?t inform the hundreds of families that live around the plant until last June and little information was provided. This proposed incinerator will not produce renewable energy. The question remains, why do we need two sludge incinerators within a kilometre of each other? Why can?t we send our four trucks a day to Liberty and spend the $90 million on existing sewer infrastructure? During a heavy rain, raw sewage flows into our harbour and homes flood. Why not fix that? City-owned Hamilton Utility Corp. wants to build a garbage incinerator on Pier 22. That will give us three incinerators in a one-kilometre radius. Aren?t we special? The Biosolids Master Plan logo is ?Hamilton; Water is life.? Maybe it should be ?Hamilton, home of waste incineration.? From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 26 11:17:42 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:17:42 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sludge-in-a-bag ? Sludge De-Watering in Maine Message-ID: http://www.bethelcitizen.com/story.php?storyid=6658 Sewer District has high hopes for black bag By Alison Aloisio BOILING DOWN THE SLUDGE?A bag technology dewatering system was demonstrated last week at the Bethel Wastewater Treatment Plant. It might look like a giant black pillow, but the staff at the Bethel Wastewater Treatment Plant see it as a possible long-term money saver. The pillow? actually a 75,000-gallon geo-textile bag? is part of a system that removes 99 percent of the water from the water/sludge mix produced by the plant. By wringing out the water first, said superintendent Rob Gundersen, the BWTP can save many truck trips to another location in town, where the sludge is spread across a field. Currently BWTP pays to have the water/sludge mix trucked to the field about three times a year, roughly 20 loads at a time, at a combined annual cost of about $7,500, Gundersen said. Add to that labor time to lime and otherwise prepare the material for trucking, he said. But by first ?dewatering? the sludge, the same material can instead be transported in about 15 total truck loads by town dumptrucks, said Gundersen. The condensed form of sludge would also be more economical to deal with at the field site, which is nearing its capacity. ?The sludge site is almost full,? said Gundersen. There is also potential to compost the sludge. Composting, he said, would be an environmentally-friendly way to spread the material at the field site. The compost could also be given away. But there would be an additional cost to verify the material was safe to dispense, Gundersen said. Demonstration Last week, the system?s manufacturer, Blue River Technologies of Indiana, came to Bethel to demonstrate the process as part of the current round of sludge removal. The steps: sludge is pumped out of one of the plant?s storage tanks and through a small machine that infuses a chemical polymer into it. The polymer molecule, said Blue Water salesman Frank Grant, can be compared to a microscopic strand of yarn with small hooks on it that capture the sludge. That mix then moves on into the geotextile bag. As the water separates from the sludge, it seeps out through the fabric, collecting on the ground. The water is then pumped back to the plant for processing. Bethel purchased the geotextile bag for about $1,000, Gundersen said, to use in the demonstration. Used bags are periodically replaced. But because they are the same material that is often used under roads, the bags could be recycled as part of town roadwork, he said. If Bethel were to adopt the bag-technology process on a permanent basis, the setup cost for the equipment would be approximately $4,500, Gundersen said. He estimates the system would pay for itself in about two years. Now that the demonstration has concluded, Gundersen will evaluate it in detail for the town?s selectmen. Other possibilities Dennis Doyon is in an unusual position to consider the new technology. He?s a Bethel selectman, interested in making the town?s dollars work more efficiently. He?s also the primary sludge hauler for the treatment plant, and could stand to lose business if a change is made. While he doesn?t like to lose a contract, he said, the town?s bottom line is the priority. And, said Doyon, there may be a silver lining. He also hauls septage from private septic systems in town to the BWTP. Currently, processing that material is a breakeven financial arrangement at best for the plant, said Doyon. With a little tweaking, the bag dewatering system could be adapted to more efficiently process the septage, and turn it into a revenue producer for the BWTP, he said. That adaptation, in turn, ?could make it so they can bring more septage into the plant,? Doyon said. As a result, he said, haulers with material from nearby towns could come to Bethel instead of Rumford or Paris, saving on transportation costs. ?It could be a win-win for everyone,? said Doyon. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 16:11:14 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:11:14 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Atlanta Georgia - sewage dumped into Chattachoochee River - sewage plant fails - flood control fails Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: The wastewater industry is bilking the public for hundreds of millions of dollars in technology that does not work. They are ignoring climate change issues, like drought and flooding, and sending toxins from the sewer systems into water - and drinking water- all over North America. There needs to be far greater scrutiny of the environmental impacts of sewage systems as currently built - and scrutiny over failure to utilize more environmentally friendly and effective technologies for sanitation. ................................................ http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/sewage-dumped-into-chattahoochee-143871.html Atlanta News 2:58 p.m. Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Sewage dumped into Chattahoochee as plant floods By Staff The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Rising water from the Chattahoochee River flooded out Atlanta's sewer treatment plant on Tueday, causing a massive dump of raw sewage into the rain-swollen river. City officials said the river rose some 12 feet outside its banks, when water flooded into the R.M. Clayton plant in northwest Atlanta near Cobb County. The rising river also flooded out sewage pump stations nearby, causing them to fail as well. Atlanta officials were trying early Tuesday to assess the damage and see how quickly they could restore the plant and other facilities to working order. The R.M. Clayton plant is the largest in Georgia with capacity to treat 240 million gallons of sewage a day. It's also connected to the city's controversial combined sewage overflow tunnel, which was designed to hold about 177 million gallons of sewage and rainwater. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 18:54:36 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:54:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Yakima Washington - residents raise stink about sludge compost dump Message-ID: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/09/23/biosolids-have-moxee-residents-upset POSTED ON Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Moxee residents raise stink over proposed biosolid dump By CHRIS BRISTOL Yakima Herald-Republic GORDON KING/Yakima Herald-Republic A sign notifying people of the proposal to spread biosolids on this vacant field was tacked on a post on one corner of the property on East Norman Road Aug. 25. Neighbors of the field are concerned about the plan. YAKIMA, Wash. -- The city of Yakima has been transforming human waste into fertilizer-grade biosolids at its sewage treatment plant for years. It is a common industry practice that's benefited farmers in the Lower Valley. But a proposed deal to have Roy Farms use the fertilizer in the Moxee area has riled up residents of a Terrace Heights subdivision. "Why would they dump stuff like that in the middle of a housing tract?" says Vern Upson, a retired defense industry consultant who has lived in the Hi Valley View subdivision for 30 years. "That's stupid." Local officials are hosting a public meeting next week to dispel misconceptions about using treated human waste from Yakima's sewer plant as fertilizer. They're also hoping to persuade residents that the process is safe and beneficial in an agriculture-based community. The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility produces roughly 8,500 tons of the material every year, and most of it ends up on farms in the Lower Valley. Biosolids are processed human waste that have been repeatedly de-watered and baked into a thick, black, gel-like state. Wastewater utility engineer Max Linden compared it to peat moss, "only not as dry." "It doesn't leak or run. It's a solid," he explained. "And it's got fantastic nutrient value as a fertilizer." To date, the city has been paying a Sunnyside outfit known as Natural Selection Farms for the privilege of taking biosolids off the city's hands. Natural Selection then "land-applies" the material to client farms throughout the Lower Valley. Roy Farms would do it for free. City officials estimate considerable savings of anywhere from $150,000 to $250,000 in tipping fees as well as reduced fuel costs. As before, the city would still shoulder the cost of delivery, but the distances would be shortened. "We supply it, they apply it," Linden quipped. It's the applying part that concerns the residents of Hi Valley View the most. They worry about a lot of things, including chemicals, dust, truck traffic and odor. Especially odor. "I can't imagine what it's going to smell like," says Vernon Woods, a Charter Cable technician whose home next to Upson's place commands stunning views of Mount Adams and Mount Rainier. "It's not a good thing, I'm sure." In recent weeks, he and many of the residents of Hi Valley View received highly technical notifications from the city of Yakima warning of a "land application" plan for biosolids, a term of art in the wastewater industry that many residents had been unfamiliar with. Formally known as the Hi Valley View Water Association, the subdivision borders one of the dozens of fields and orchards that Moxee-based Roy Farms operates across the East Valley. Despite its suburban feel, the area is in the county and is zoned agricultural. Laurie Penuel didn't get one of the notification letters because her home on St. Hilaire Road lies just outside the notification buffer. She doesn't think odors are stopped by points on a map. "That odor's going to go a heckuva lot further than 300 feet," she complains. City officials acknowledge biosolids are smelly. On the other hand, they swear other types of big-farm fertilizers and chemicals are much worse. "Chicken manure is highly stinky, very bad," says Tim Cooper, the city's biosolids chief operator, who adds, "Hop waste is also very gross." Moreover, fields would receive a batch only once every other year or so. And rules enforced by the state Department of Ecology, which permits the agricultural use of treated biosolids, require the material be tilled into the soil within 24 hours of delivery. It remains unclear how many residences besides those in the Hi Valley View subdivision would be affected by the deal. The city sent out 165 notifications to property owners within 500 feet of Roy Farms property, but not every property is necessarily a residence. The city also has been negotiating a similar deal with WS Farms of Zillah. City officials said another 29 notifications were made to property owners neighboring WS Farms property. Jeff Peters, Yakima assistant planner who has been handling the notifications, said he's received at least a dozen calls about the proposed deal as well as three letters. Residents in the Hi Valley View neighborhood have been the most vocal but residents in other parts of East Valley have also raised questions. Most of the callers had seen large warning signs in the area, notifying the public of a pending land-use change, and were more worried about new subdivisions and other development than biosolids, he said. "Once we explained the situation, they were satisfied," Peters said, theorizing that part of the problem is "the word biosolid kind of sounds like biohazard." "People just don't know much about the wastewater treatment process," he said, adding, "There may be some misconceptions." That's why officials representing the city as well as the Department of Ecology and the Yakima Health District have scheduled a meeting Monday night at the Yakima Area Arboretum. They hope the meeting will prove educational. "I think it will take care of a lot of people's concerns," Peters predicted. "Once it's treated, biosolids are no different than any other type of fertilizer." Meanwhile, a spokesman for Roy Farms said the company won't ink a deal with Yakima if it upsets neighbors. For that reason, Les Roy said the company supports Monday night's meeting and hopes people attend. "It's not a new problem that just cropped up in the last day or so," he said of biosolid disposal, adding "It's going somewhere, you know?" From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 26 11:48:26 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:48:26 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Sacred Mountain - Lawsuit to stop sewage effluent snow production at AZ snowboard facility Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Say no to yellow snow http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=6588&blz=1 U.S. Government Ignores Public Health Dangers of Sewer Water Snowmaking 2009-09-22 Concerned Citizens File New Lawsuit to Force Government to Study and Disclose Effects of Ingesting Snow Made from Treated Sewage Effluent Flagstaff, AZ A group of concerned citizens will not let the potential health risks of using treated sewage effluent to make snow at the Snowbowl ski area on the San Francisco Peaks outside of Flagstaff get swept under the rug on a technicality. Although Snowbowl is a private, for-profit entity, the ski area operates on federal land under a special use permit. As a result, the federal government must approve Snowbowl?s plan to use 100% reclaimed sewer water to make snow ? something that is not done anywhere else in the world. The City of Flagstaff agreed to sell Snowbowl the treated sewage effluent and off they went, or so they thought. The San Francisco Peaks are well documented as sacred and holy to, at least, thirteen of the tribes in the Southwestern United States, all of whom viewed the decision as a direct threat to their religious and cultural survival. Litigation on cultural and religious issues surrounding the project was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently declined to consider the case. The Supreme Court?s refusal to hear the case left a decision of an enbanc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in place which, as is often the case, went against the tribes. The use of reclaimed sewer water to make snow, however, was not only repulsive to people who hold the San Francisco Peaks sacred, it raised concerns from skiers and the community over the safety of being immersed in, and even eating, snow made from non-potable treated sewage effluent. MORE http://www.savethepeaks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=15 Save the Peaks Coalition http://www.savethepeaks.org ....................... http://www.svherald.com/articles/2009/09/22/news/state/doc4ab865139be22814954461.txt Lawsuit aims to stop expansion of Ariz. ski resort Sep 22, 2009 FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) ? Critics of a plan to expand a ski resort on an Arizona mountain are suing the U.S. Forest Service in what has been a yearslong battle to protect a site considered sacred by American Indians. The lawsuit filed Monday comes more than three months after the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal from tribes that said the use of treated wastewater to make artificial snow on the mountain threatened their religious and cultural survival. The lawsuit filed by the Save the Peaks Coalition and a group of citizens contends the Forest Service failed to consider the human health risks of ingesting snow made with treated wastewater at the Arizona Snowbowl resort outside Flagstaff. ?By approving treated sewage effluent for snow making without adequate analysis, the government essentially turns the ski area into a test facility with our children as the laboratory rats,? said Howard Shanker, an attorney for the plaintiffs. ?That is unconscionable.? The Forest Service and former Coconino National Forest Supervisor Nora Rasure are named as defendants. Coconino forest spokeswoman Karen Malis-Clark declined to comment, citing pending litigation. A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously sided with tribes who asserted that drinking water tainted by runoff from the man-made snow could pose health risks. The full court later overturned the decision, saying the plaintiffs never properly raised the issue in the lower court, according to the lawsuit. Shanker, who represented tribes in the previous lawsuit, called it a ?ridiculous assertion? that left the door open for refiling. He said this case likely would not reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit contends that treated sewer water has been found to contain pharmaceuticals, hepatitis, industrial pollutants and drugs that could be harmful to children playing in the snow and to skiers. The plaintiffs are asking a judge to determine that the environmental analysis is inadequate. Snowbowl general manager J.R. Murray said officials remain focused on planned improvements at the resort despite the lawsuit and are looking forward to an expected snowy winter season. He declined to comment directly on the lawsuit but said: ?You tend to believe when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, that puts some finality to it. But I guess in America, people can sue for whatever reason. Whether it has merit, that has yet to be seen.? Snowbowl officials have said the snowmaking equipment is necessary to ensure the survival of the ski area, which opened in 1937 and has struggled with short seasons because of a lack of snow. The Snowbowl is privately owned and operated by Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership. The 777-acre resort wants to spray man-made snow, add a fifth chair lift and clear about 100 acres of forest to extend the ski season on the western flank of the San Francisco Peaks that have spiritual and religious significance to 13 Southwest tribes. The resort operates under a special use permit with the Forest Service. Work to produce artificial snow using reclaimed water piped about 15 miles from Flagstaff is set to begin next spring. Snowbowl officials are hoping for more than 100 days of skiing per season, but the lawsuit is asking for an injunction to delay improvements until the complaint runs its course. Snowbowl owner Eric Borowsky said the lawsuit appears to be ?just more of the same from the Flagstaff activists network.? ?I think this matter has already been addressed in the previous litigation, but the courts will have to make that decision,? he said. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 27 10:09:57 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:09:57 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Center for Food Safety Petitions San Francisco to End Sludge Compost Giveaway Message-ID: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/26/BAAK19SC1J.DTL Nonprofit calls PUC's compost toxic sludge Heather Knight Sunday, September 27, 2009 It seems we have a compost smackdown on our hands. In one corner is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and in the other is the Center for Food Safety. The latter, a national nonprofit that seeks to curb harmful food production, has petitioned the former to stop giving out free compost. The nonprofit says the PUC's regular giveaways are actually toxic sewage sludge advertised as compost. The PUC turns the treated solid waste removed from sewage (basically anything that's flushed down our drains except water) into compost and gives it away to gardeners and others. The Center for Food Safety says this sewage sludge should never be used on home gardens because it contains heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants and other hazardous material. "San Franciscans may think they're getting a gift from the city, but this is no gift," said Paige Tomaselli, staff attorney for the center. "City residents could be at serious risk of poisoning from the application of sewage sludge to local crops and gardens." The center admits the PUC is in total compliance with federal regulations regarding sewage sludge, but says the regulations need to change. Tony Winnicker, spokesman for the PUC, said the center's charges are "flatly untrue." He said San Francisco's sludge is treated over the course of several weeks and mixed in with wood chips or paper fiber at a composting facility in Merced. The material has been tested and contains metals not only below U.S. standards, but below the standards of the European Union, too. ("And you know how they regulate everything," he said with a laugh.) "It's unfortunate and irresponsible that they're raising such a stink," Winnicker said. "Our biosolids compost is safe, tested and great for plants." Check out Winnicker's full rebuttal here: www.sfgate.com/blogs/cityinsider. Tomaselli said a lawsuit could be in the works so stay tuned. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/26/BAAK19SC1J.DTL#ixzz0SJdpsgBM From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 15:59:38 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:59:38 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> San Francisco asked to stop toxic sludge giveaway Message-ID: San Francisco asked to stop toxic sludge giveaway 9/23/09 The Center for Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems (RILES) petitioned the City of San Francisco today to stop its "compost giveaway" program, in which the City gives bagged sewage sludge (composted with wood chips and yard waste) to schools, gardeners, and the general public. See the press release online at: http://truefoodnow.org/2009/09/23/the-center-for-food-safety-petitions-san-francisco-mayor-to-stop-giving-away-poison-compost-to-public/ Press Release Contact: Paige Tomaselli, Center for Food Safety, 415-826-2770 Laura Orlando, Boston University School of Public Health, 617-413-8505 Heath Fradkoff, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700 The Center for Food Safety Petitions San Francisco Mayor to Stop Giving Away Poison Compost to Public San Francisco, CA, September 23, 2009 ? Compost is the sine qua non of organic gardening and farming. But the material that San Francisco is giving away to homeowners, gardeners, and the general public is toxic sewage sludge masquerading as compost. This is why the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has petitioned the City to immediately stop its ?compost giveaway events? that will spread toxic sludge to homeowners? backyards, increasing the risk of health problems to children and the community. ?I do not believe the Mayor and leadership of San Francisco can have been aware that the compost being given away is heavily contaminated with hazardous and toxic material. Now that they know I am sure they?ll stop this giveaway program,? said Laura Orlando, an adjunct professor of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health. Background Sewage sludge contains heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, PCB?s, flame retardants, endocrine disruptors, and other toxic chemicals. There is scientific consensus that composting in no way reduces the toxic and hazardous materials in sewage sludge. ?San Franciscans may think they?re getting a gift from the city, but this is no gift. City residents could be at serious risk of poisoning from the application of sewage sludge to local crops and gardens,? said Paige Tomaselli, Staff Attorney for the Center for Food Safety. ?With this petition, we?re strongly urging the Mayor to put an immediate end to the toxic giveaways, which carry the risk of dangerous and far-reaching impacts on the health of our most vulnerable citizens.? Peer-reviewed studies show that sewage sludge can pose severe threats to human health, especially for children who are more developmentally vulnerable to toxic chemicals than adults. San Francisco?s sewage sludge is produced from wastewater containing a combination of industrial, commercial, hospital, and household contaminants that is routed through municipal sewage treatment plants. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) claims that sewage sludge treated with heat, anaerobic digestion, and then composted is ?non-hazardous and nontoxic? and can be ?safely used for growing edible vegetables and fruits.? However, no toxic analysis has actually been conducted by SFPUC. The EPA?s most recent Sewage Sludge Survey (January 2009) showed that nearly all sewage sludge samples contain 27 metals, 10 different flame retardants, 12 pharmaceuticals, and high levels of known endocrine disruptors. Serious health problems have been directly linked to the land application of sewage sludge, sludge that is no different than that which the City of San Francisco is giving away to the people of San Francisco. The next San Francisco City-wide compost giveaway event is planned for Saturday, September 26. Petitioners plan to flood the Mayor?s office with thousands of comments from concerned local citizens. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 28 12:04:58 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:04:58 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Nova Scotia - Sludge Spreading Unsustainable - Energy From Sludge Recommended Message-ID: Sludgewatch Admin: Two stories from Nova Scotia Environmentalists recommend end to land application and development of better sludge management technologies. Fabgroups of Quebec may be invited to address Council to explain their low emissions energy from sludge. ........................................................ Environmentally unsustainable Presentation outlines dangers of applying bio-solids by Kirk Starratt/The Advertiser Kings County September 28th 2009 Dr. Marilyn Cameron, chair of the NSEN Bio-solids and Waste Water Caucus, made a presentation to Kings County council last week calling for a moratorium on the land application of bio-solids and an upgrade of the regional sewage treatment plant. Kirk Starratt Environmentally unsustainable Presentation outlines dangers of applying bio-solids Allowing the spreading of contaminated sewage sludge on our farmland is publicly unacceptable and an environmentally unsustainable practice. This was the message in a presentation by Nova Scotia Environmental Network (NSEN) member Fred Blois and Dr. Marilyn Cameron, NSEN Bio-solids and Waste Water Caucus chair, to Kings County councillors at the September committee of the whole (COTW) session. Blois said some people insist applying bio-solids to agricultural land is safe, but he has to question that claim. Treatment plants are not designed to remove all chemicals, hormones, heavy metals and pathogens from wastewater, he asserted. ?It?s a great concern to me that comprehensive third party testing is not required,? Blois said. Multiple contaminants can join together to create something entirely different, creating serious environmental and heath risks, he said. Adding, there is a need to review and expand current provincial regulations because, if a substance is not tested for, it won?t show up. Blois said contaminants would remain in the soil, ground water and the food chain for decades or centuries and provincial wastewater policy must be sustainable. He went on to say the precautionary principle must be paramount to decision making. Better treatment needed Cameron told council ideal sewage treatment systems should create high quality effluent, be modestly priced, aesthetically pleasing and not have negative secondary environmental impacts. ?What we have now are systems that create highly toxic effluent, are ugly and odourous, are very costly, use expensive fossil fuels and create air and water quality concerns and have sludge disposal as secondary problems,? she said. Cameron gave an overview of four sludge treatment options, including wet-landing sewage sludge; producing bio-gas from sewage sludge, as is being done by BioGas Energy of Sheffield Mills, which has a 100 per cent solar powered plant capable of converting food and animal waste into methane gas; fluid bed incineration of sludge and plasma assisted sludge oxidation. At the conclusion of the presentation, Cameron said the land application of sewage sludge has to stop and that taxpayers would support greener technology to handle waste. The NSEN is asking council to enact a moratorium on the land application of treated sewage sludge in the county and to update the regional sewage treatment plant with appropriate technology. Already happening? Following the presentation, Cameron said a letter from Kings County Engineering and Public Works director Richard Lloyd, dated March 25, 2009, states that Loomers Septic Services of Annapolis County transports and stores sludge from sewage treatment plants in Kings County and that all land application of Kings County sludge takes place in Annapolis County. Lloyd was unaware of any bio-solids being applied to land in Kings and was not aware of any transportation of bio-solids from HRM to Kings. However, Cameron asserted, thousands of tonnes of HRM?s ?treated? sludge have already been transported and dispersed on farmland in Kings this year. Bio-solids product originates from the Halifax Regional Municipality N-Viro facility, she said, which takes sewage sludge from residential, hospital, industrial, street run-off and commercial sources from the HRM?s waste water treatment plant and, when not flowing waste directly into the Halifax Harbour, is transporting it to the N-Viro plant to be ?stabilized,? having bacteria destroyed. Cameron alleged N-Viro?s plan is to distribute 34,000 tonnes of bio-solids on 4,800 hectares of agricultural land each year in our province. The NSEN contends that there are hundreds of thousands of contaminants in sewage sludges that are neither being eliminated during treatment processes nor being tested for. They claim land application of bio-solids is not recycling, but pollution transfer. Cameron noted no council members took the opportunity to smell a sample of the bio-solids product she brought along. http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-381849-Environmentally-unsustainable.html //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Council urged to hold off on bio-soilds moratorium CAO recommends further staff study by Kirk Starratt/The Advertiser September 28th 2009 Following a presentation last week, Kings County councillors were urged to hold off on a proposed moratorium on the application of bio-solids to farm fields in the municipality until staff has a chance to respond. After hearing from Dr. Marilyn Cameron and Fred Blois from Nova Scotia Environmental Network (NSEN) at the September committee of the whole (COTW) session, councillor Dick Killam said he would like to see a moratorium established on the land application of bio-solids, treated human waste, in Kings. Presenters asked council to consider upgrading the regional wastewater facility to produce a cleaner effluent and to include one of the technologies for appropriate sludge disposal. In the meantime, they asked council to enact an immediate moratorium on treated sewage sludge being applied to agricultural land in the county. Chief Administrative Officer Brian Smith recommended council refer the matter to staff because there could be significant financial ramifications to upgrading the plant. He noted the county was going to do a study on bio-solids cost-shared with the federal Green Municipal Fund. However, council held off because the provincial Department of Environment will soon be announcing new guidelines. Sewer sludge needs handling The county land-applies its sewage sludge, but not within the municipality. Smith said the matter should be referred to staff before a moratorium is enacted. He pointed out that the municipality has to handle its own sludge and there is a significant quantity. Legal advice is needed, as well. ?At least give us a chance to come back with a response to what you heard today,? he said. Councillor Killam said he was prepared to defer the matter to the next COTW session for a staff report, but stated he is strongly against the land application of bio-solids and agrees the county?s plant must be updated. Smith said staff would prepare a report in response to the presentation. He added that terms of reference have already been established for a municipal bio-solids study. Quebec option Councillor Wayne Atwater said the county should ask representatives of Fabgroups of Quebec to come do a presentation on their plasma assisted sludge oxidation technology, explained by Cameron in her presentation. Smith agreed Fabgroups could come and make a presentation, but pointed out provincial environmental approval would be needed before the company could treat the county?s waste. Cameron said the Quebec firm would take a regional approach and set-up a plant locally. Waste could be trucked there for treatment and this is something that could happen rather quickly. She said the company could scale a plant to the size required. The company has received a $2 million grant from the National Research Council under the Opportunities Envelop to operate a plant in Valleyfield, Quebec, processing 32,000 wet tonnes of municipal waste sludge per year. The waste is converted to useful thermal energy while reducing the original mass of the sludge by 95 per cent by oxidizing it with a plasma torch. http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-i381855-Council-urged-to-hold-off-on-biosoilds-moratorium.html From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 28 12:09:36 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:09:36 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> More debate on San Francisco's sludge compost Message-ID: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=48367 More debate over San Francisco's compost It seems we have a compost smackdown on our hands. In one corner is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and in the other is the Center for Food Safety. Paul Sakuma/Associated Press Just what's coming out of this place? The latter, a national nonprofit that seeks to curb harmful food production, has petitioned the former to stop giving out free compost. It seems everybody's pro-compost these days - and you won't have a choice for long if you're a San Franciscan - but the nonprofit says the PUC's regular giveaways are actually toxic sewage sludge advertised as compost. The PUC turns the treated solid waste removed from sewage (basically anything that's flushed down our drains except water) into compost and gives it away to gardeners and others. The Center for Food Safety says this sewage sludge should never be used on home gardens because it contains heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants and other hazardous material. "San Franciscans may think they're getting a gift from the city, but this is no gift," said Paige Tomaselli, staff attorney for the center. "City residents could be at serious risk of poisoning from the application of sewage sludge to local crops and gardens." The center admits the PUC is in total compliance with federal regulations regarding sewage sludge, but says the regulations need to change. Tony Winnicker, spokesman for the PUC, said the center's charges are "flatly untrue." He said San Francisco's sludge is treated over the course of several weeks and mixed in with wood chips or paper fiber at a composting facility in Merced. The material has been tested and contains metals not only below U.S. standards, but below the standards of the European Union, too. ("And you know how they regulate everything," he said with a laugh.) "It's unfortunate and irresponsible that they're raising such a stink," Winnicker said. "Our biosolids compost is safe, tested and great for plants." Check out Winnicker's full rebuttal here. Tomaselli said a lawsuit could be in the works so stay tuned. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=48367#ixzz0SPyoTlNL ................................... hshields669/27/2009 1:08:56 PM Earlier this year, the US EPA made news when it released a list of unregulated, untested, unmonitored chemicals, drugs and pharma it found in sewage sludge "biosolids". http://www.beyondpesticides.org:80/dailynewsblog/?p=1196 "New Report Finds High Concentrations of Toxic Contaminants in Sewage Sludge (Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) national sewage sludge survey identifies high concentrations of toxic contaminants with heavy metals, steroids and pharmaceuticals, including the antibacterials, triclocarban and triclosan. Despite the prevalence of these toxic chemicals in the environment and their potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment, EPA maintains that it is not appropriate to speculate on the significance of the results at this time." San Francisco sludge compost is NOT tested for these toxic substances which are found in ALL sewage sludge "biosolids". Included on EPA's list are antibiotics, disinfectants, antimicrobials, steroids, endocrine disrupting chemicals and other anthropogenic drugs found in sludge biosolids which can be taken up by plants and cause great harm in the environment, particularly to aquatic biota. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/tnsss-tech.pdf Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=48367#ixzz0SPzHQs5U From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 21 09:02:07 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:02:07 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Elementa - proposes sludge and trash to energy in Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie, Fernlea Message-ID: http://www.thespec.com/News/Business/article/631098 Flower power plan rooted in waste SPECIAL TO THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR 1 Eric McGuinness The Hamilton Spectator (Sep 9, 2009) Garbage in, flowers out. That's the formula Joe Howe hopes will boost his family's greenhouse business, divert Norfolk County's garbage from landfill and produce enough green power to supply 4,000 homes. He plans to do it with energy-from-waste technology developed by Niagara-based Elementa Group, whose vice-presidents include former political candidate Mark Mullins of Dundas and Burlington marketing specialist Tom Hughes. Howe believes Elementa's steam reformation process will help Fernlea Flowers of Delhi overcome the double whammy of a high dollar and high fuel prices by providing heat for year-round operation and revenue from the sale of energy. Hughes says Norfolk is ready to send its garbage to a $30-million Fernlea plant subject to environmental approval and a deal to sell power to the provincial grid at an attractive rate. Elementa is also close to signing a contract for a full-scale plant in Sault Ste. Marie, where the company has a two-year-old demonstration plant, Hughes said. He also wants Hamilton to consider steam reformation to dispose of both garbage and sewage sludge. "Incineration is not the way to go. We eliminate four times as much greenhouse gas as incineration, but most Ontario municipalities are unwilling to choose technology until it has been proven elsewhere. "Proof of the pudding will be executing a number of facilities. Once that happens, there will be a comfort level for Canada and Ontario." Elementa heats waste in a rotary kiln, with little air, until it turns into a gas that burns cleanly to heat the kiln and to produce steam for power generation. Excess steam can be used for other things such as heating greenhouses in place of natural gas, oil, coal or wood pellets. Elementa says the oxygen-depleted environment prevents formation of highly toxic dioxins and furans produced by incinerators, and that the glassy, gravel-like residue can be sold. Howe, the third generation of his family to work in the 78-year-old business, says he's travelled to Europe and Asia over the past six years, searching for an alternative energy source that would assure a sustainable future for the industry. "I feel steam reformation is head and shoulders above anything else," he said. "Its performance standards are through the roof." Employment at Fernlea is down to about 100 from 250 several years ago. The business now produces one crop of flowering annuals for big retailers such as Lowe's and Walmart, then leaves 16 hectares of greenhouse space empty the rest of the year. Fernlea is so confident about Elementa's process that it is promoting a subsidiary, Fernlea Energy Group, to partner in building plants to create energy from municipal solid waste, medical waste, plastics or sewage sludge. emcguinness at thespec.com From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 24 18:44:14 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:44:14 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Canada - Calgary looks at sewage sludge into fuel Message-ID: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewage+turned+into+power+source/1777730/story.html Sewage may be turned into power source Canwest News Service July 9, 2009 A B.C. company is turning feces into fuel. Vancouver-area officials shipped eight truckloads of sewage to Kamloops for the pilot project, hoping to create a new source of revenue from one of the city's natural resources. Tests showed the fecal sludge can be used to make fuel, generate power and potentially create a new source of revenue, using a technology known as biomass gasification. The process, developed by Nexterra Energy Corp., involves burning treated fecal matter in an oxygen-deprived environment to create a synthetic gas. The gas can be used to power dryers that dry sewage at waste-water plants. The dried sewage is then chopped into pellets, which can be burned to power the waste-water plants, sold to other users or turned into electricity to be sold to power producers, or used in other Vancouver operations. "This was one of our first steps to take a look at how we can actually recover the inherent energy in biosolids so that it can be used as a fossil-fuel replacement," said Paul Kadota, a regional program manager. From maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 29 17:38:08 2009 From: maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca (Maureen Reilly) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:38:08 -0400 Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Ag-Caustic! Battling Toxic Compost Giveaways in San Francisco Message-ID: September 28, 2009 by Luanne Bradley Ag-Caustic! Battling Toxic Compost Giveaways in San Francisco http://www.ecosalon.com/ag-caustic-battling-toxic-compost-giveaways-in-san-francisco/ At first, it seems extremely eco-friendly, the biannual Compost Giveaway Events every fall and spring in San Francisco hosted by the city?s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Residents are offered free compost to produce soil for community and school gardens and local backyards. It?s the green and organic thing to do. The problem is the mulch isn?t made of food scraps and manure but a combination of toxic sewage sludge from waste water treatment, green waste, yard waste and wood chips. What?s in sewage sludge? Stuff that?s foul and harmful to people and other living things. The True Food Network, which is leading a petition drive against the latest giveaway argues sewage sludge is shown by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to contain heavy metals, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, PCB?s, flame retardants and endocrine disruptors. In addition, organic pollutants are present in sludge samples, such as polybrominated diphenal ethers (PMDEs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, DDT degradation products, chlordadanes, synthetic musk products, triclosan and tributytin. ?Residents may be led to believe that the city?s sludge compost is organic,? says the network. ?The USDA?s National Organic Program?s (NOP) regulations, however, strictly forbid the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer or soil amendment, no matter if it is composted or otherwise treated. This compost is by no means organic.? The Center for Food Safety and the Resource Institute for Low Entropy Systems filed a petition with Gavin Newsom, San Francisco?s Mayor and Ed Harrington, General Manager of SFPUC, asking them to immediately and permanently suspend the sewage sludge compost giveaways for the fall. Residents are asked to join the letter writing campaign to protect the health of its gardeners.