Showing posts with label Sewage treatment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sewage treatment. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Call It Sludge, or Biosolids: It's Poison

Michelle Obama, official White House portrait.Image via Wikipedia

Published on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Toxic Sludge Taints the White House

by Jill Richardson

When First Lady Michelle Obama decided to plant a vegetable garden at the White House, she faced a problem that many new homeowners in America run into. Previous residents of her house had applied sewage sludge to her lawn, but left no warnings to alert the her about the potential toxicity of her soil as a result of the sludge application. When the Obamas tested the soil in preparation for planting their garden, they found some lead in the soil. At 93 parts per million (ppm), the lead showed that the soil was probably contaminated by something, even though at 93 ppm the lead itself was not necessarily a danger. Still, the Obamas took precautions to further lower the lead level to 14ppm, and make the lead unavailable to plants by adding soil amendments that diluted the lead and increased the acidity of the soil.

Sludge Politicized

Unfortunately for the Obamas, and for the entire nation, once the story hit the news, it became politicized. While the issue was initially raised as a comment on the safety of using sewage sludge as fertilizer - an issue that has no political party - the right soon grabbed a hold of the story as a way to make fun of the Obamas. Some on the left fiercely defended the Obamas in return. But the Obamas are not the villains in this story; they are the victims. They are among many other Americans whose yards and gardens are contaminated with sewage sludge without their knowledge and who, as a result, are exposed to toxic contaminants in the soil. And lead is just a fraction of the overall problem.

When it was conceived, the White House garden was intended as a symbol of support for home gardening and fresh, organic food. In fact, famed chef and visionary Alice Waters lobbied for the White House garden for more than a decade. When it finally became a reality last year, she said, "Fresh, wholesome food is the right of every American. This garden symbolizes the Obamas' commitment to that belief." But in planting her garden, Michelle Obama not only set the example she intended for home gardening, she also illustrated why using sewage sludge as fertilizer is so harmful.

How the White House Got Sludged

To the best of anyone's knowledge, the White House garden was first sludged in the Reagan years. During the 1980's, the nation was experiencing the aftermath of the Clean Water Act, which required wastewater treatment plants to remove toxins from wastewater before releasing the water into the environment as effluent. As a result, wastewater treatment plants across the country were left with sewage sludge, a grey jelly comprised of everything they removed from the water. Some cities -- most notably New York City -- dealt with sludge by dumping it in the ocean, a practice that environmental groups were working to end. As this played out in court in the 1980's, New York searched for a new way to dispose of sludge. Ocean dumping was finally banned by the Ocean Dumping Reform Act of 1988, a law that fully took effect in 1991.

There is no really "good way" to dispose of sludge. Recent EPA data shows that the majority of sludge samples tested contained a list from A to Z of toxins including metals, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, semivolatile organics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and steroids. Sludge may also include other substances (or organisms) that the EPA did not test for, including parasites, bacteria, viruses, dioxins, and pesticides. Yet today, wastewater treatment plants and even the EPA talk about "beneficial uses" for sludge: converting it to energy (while releasing pollutants into the air), using it as alternate daily cover in landfills, or spreading it on farmland, gardens and lawns as fertilizer.

Sludge PR

The language around sludge (and even the name of sludge itself) changed as wastewater treatment plants across the country looked for ways to dispose of sludge when ocean dumping was no longer an option. New York City shopped their sludge around, looking for a community that would welcome it as fertilizer. Understandably, nobody wanted it. For obvious reasons, sludge is a public relations nightmare, even before people understand the volume and variety of toxins it contains. It was in this environment, as the issue played out during the Reagan and Bush years, that the National Park Service began applying sludge at the White House.

Sludging the White House was but one part of the campaign to clean up sludge's public image. In the waning days of the first Bush administration, the sewage industry trade, lobby, and public relations group, the Water Environment Federation (WEF), held a contest among its members to rename sludge. The EPA liked the new name they selected - "biosolids" - so much, they gave WEF a $300,000 grant to promote the "beneficial use" of sludge. The EPA also modified its rules governing the application of sludge on America's farmland, which previously classified sludge as hazardous waste. With its nifty new name, "biosolids" now qualified as fertilizer - so long as it met some minimal requirements. Specifically, the EPA regulates the amounts of only nine heavy metals and fecal coliform bacteria that are permitted in sludge that is applied to land as fertilizer. And, while keeping high levels of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals out of sludge is a nice gesture, compare that to the long list of chemicals and organisms that sludge may actually still contain.

What's In That Stuff, Anyway?

Sewage sludge is not only a mix of everything that goes down household drains, it also contains industrial and hospital waste. The root of the problem is our sewer system, which uses water as a means to transport waste and does not separate what goes down toilets or kitchen sinks from what goes down the drain at oil refineries, factories, or other industrial sites. Instead of forcing industry to bear the cost of disposing of its waste products responsibly, we let them send it to our wastewater treatment plants, mixed in with water, and taxpayers bear the cost of separating that waste out from the water and then dealing with it as sludge. Therefore, the contents of sludge are determined by the materials disposed of by nearby industrial sites (although some chemicals are more or less universal in all sludge, based on the EPA's tests).

It's Not Sludge, It's "Biosolids"!

Despite this, the EPA continued promoting the "beneficial use" of biosolids and the National Park Service continued applying it at the White House until as late as 2004. In the rest of the country, home gardeners could buy sludge for their own lawns or gardens in commercially marketed fertilizers like Milorganite (sludge from Milwaukee, marketed using the slogan "For Better Results. Naturally."), Hou-Actinite (sludge from Houston, marketed as "a naturally nutrient rich slow release organic fertilizer"), Allgro (which promises to help you "fertilize organically - while promoting environmental sustainability among American businesses"), and Vital Cycle (marketed as "a concentrated natural organic fertilizer"). Companies marketing sludge as fertilizer frame their products as natural, sustainable, and even organic, terms that are misleading and and dangerous. In fact, the USDA's organic standards specifically forbids applying sewage sludge to land that is farmed organically, and making any claim that sludge is organic is just plain wrong.

What's In Your Soil?

If, like Michelle Obama, a gardener moves to a new house that was previously owned by someone else, or builds a new house on land that was previously farmland, the gardener will have no way of knowing what contaminants are in the soil if the previous owner has applied sludge. Garden stores sell soil test kits, but those only test for pH and a few key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). University labs often offer more extensive soil testing for a low price ($10-$30 or so), and those can include tests for lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, and a few other heavy metals. However, it is impossible for the average gardener to find an inexpensive soil test kit that could even begin to identify the long list of contaminants that may be in soil "fertilized" with sludge. Also, commonly-available tests may not be sensitive enough to detect small amounts of contaminants that may only be present in parts per million or parts per billion. (Depending on the substance, a tiny concentration may be enough to harm one's health.)

Sludge Isn't Harmless

Despite the EPA's claims of safety, sludge has not been used as fertilizer for decades without incident. People and animals have become ill or died, and farms have gone out of business due to land application of sludge. Harry Dobin, who ran a coffee truck one thousand feet from a sludge composting site, was one such casualty. He began experiencing health problems in 1991, when he was 25 years old. After months of worsening symptoms and a number of wrong diagnoses, doctors discovered Aspergillus fumigatus, a fungus common in composting sludge, in his lungs. By the time he was diagnosed, the disease was too advanced to treat. Dobin died nine months after he was diagnosed, on September 23, 1992.

In a more recent example, Andy McElmurray spread sludge on his Georgia dairy farm for more than a decade. The sludge fertilized crops fed to his cattle. All went well until he switched the crop he was growing and added lime to raise the pH of his soil in order to do so. The higher pH caused a toxic metal - molybdenum - to become bioavailable to the plants. The cows were poisoned by molybdenum, and many died. Ultimately, McElmurray went out of business. Even consumers are at risk, so long as farms use sludge as fertilizer. In McElmurray's case, a nearby NutraSweet factory had been sending thallium (used in rat poison) down its drains and it wound up in the sludge he applied to his land. When milk from a local grocery store was tested, it contained thallium at 11 times the legal limit for thallium in drinking water.

Michelle's Opportunity

It is truly a shame that Michelle Obama's vegetable garden is marred by past use of sewage sludge on the White House grounds. The historic garden has inspired many, both at home and abroad, and the First Lady is credited as one reason for a national surge in home gardening. It is not her fault that previous administrations were dishonest about the safety of sewage sludge as fertilizer, but now that she has uncovered the problem, she has the power and high-profile to do something about it to help other Americans. We hope she does.

The article originally appeared on PR Watch.org

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, October 27, 2009



There are some upcoming meetings and we need your help with one in particular. Next Monday, Nov 2nd, there will be a public hearing regarding sewer use regs and your participation is absolutely crucial. This may be the last public hearing related to biomasswe need all concerned residents there! Please be prepared to attend and/or testify (see bottom of message for more on the wastewater issue). Here is the proposed addition to the sewer regs:
and

650-55. Supply of Wastewater.
The mayor, with the prior approval of the Town Council, may enter into a contract for the supply of treated or untreated wastewater, the duration of which shall not exceed twenty (20) years. The person or entity receiving supply of such wastewater shall obtain, at its sole cost, all necessary permits from local, state and federal authorities. Said contract shall set forth the price for supply of such wastewater and all other terms and conditions related to such supply. The price for the sale of such wastewater may include all or a portion of sewer use fees that may have been charged on the return of wastewater to the sewer in lieu of separate changes for such sewer use.

The hearing will be at the Greenfield Middle School at 7 p.m. Again, it is crucial that we make our concerns known either with testimony or in our overwhelming attendance. Other upcoming meetings that you are encouraged to attend (although public testimony will not be accepted):

Tuesday Nov 3 6:30 p.m. Greenfield P.D., Economic Development Committee: Water supply Agreement, Lease of space for Installation of Pump(s) at WPC Plane

Wednesday Nov 4 6:30 p.m. Greenfield P.D.; Ways and Means Committee: Water Supply Agreement, Lease of Space for Installation (see above)

Please also take a moment to voice your concerns before next Monday's meeting to the Appointments and Ordinance Committee telling them that we shouldn't be selling sewer water to anyone:

David Singer, Chair 773-8300
Brickett Allis 773-8875
Christopher Joseph 773-0296
Alfred Siano 773-3485
Thomas McClellan 774-4612

Things to consider for your testimony (as written by one of CCFC's members):

The change to the Sewer Regs should be opposed because it will exempt Wolfe from paying to discharge his industrial wastes into the Greenfield sewer. Thus, all the people of Greenfield will be subsidizing the incinerator with their sewer bills, and he will get a completely free ride. Instead of charging him based on how toxic his discharge is (and it will be very toxic), he will be able to buy sewage water at a guaranteed volume and quality, even if he discharges so much toxicity into the sewer that the town can't clean up his wastes and therefore can't meet it's obligation to provide less contaminated water to his incinerator. The town will then be forced to supply municipal water for cooling the burner.

Instead of the incinerator paying for its discharge and the money going into the sewer fund where it will help defray the costs of the treatment and the fees paid by residents (in the Enterprise Fund), Shields wants to keep all of the money for herself to spend however she wants. Thus, this plan will steal money from the citizens of Greenfield and allow it to be put in a slush fund for the Dept of Public Works. It removes all accountability and instead provides for a cash cow that will be feeding at the public trough.

Wolfe should be charged for every ounce of water that he discharges, just like everyone else. In fact, he should be charged a premium if his toxic waste is at all above the level of contaminants that would be normally found in domestic wastewater. This is standard in the sewer business. It costs more to treat highly concentrated and contaminated industrial wastes. The only way to address this is to make him pay for the discharge.

Look at it this way, the wastewater effluent is contaminated when it leaves the treatment plant. We are concerned that all the drugs and chemicals will be volatilized into the air. Whatever isn't spewed into the air will be sent back to the sewer, plus all the process contaminants that he adds, which will make it a very concentrated waste. Then it gets treated and sent back to him, where he concentrates it again and it gets recycled. This concentrating keeps happening because he is evaporating 80% of the H2O. Eventually the waste that he discharges is so concentrated that it can't be treated by the Wastewater Treatment Plant, it will cause a plant upset. And Matt doesn't pay for any of this, because he pays no discharge fees.

Everyone should oppose this change, in the strongest words. Residents of Greenfield should be especially outraged, as this is a plan to rip-off the sewer ratepayers and rob Peter (citizens) to pay Paul (Wolfe). This kind of crooked accounting should be illegal.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Columnist Susan Laing:

Top: Increasing atmospheric  CO 2             ...Image via Wikipedia

Dear Friends and Fellow Citizens,

Please visit the website StopSpewingCarbon.com to find information about the citizen “Initiative Petition to Change the Law in Massachusetts” regarding the allowable limit of CO2 emissions from new power plants in MA. I am one of the 10 original petitioners, and now that the petition has been certified, we must collect 100,000 signatures in the next 6 weeks to ensure that the proposed new law can be debated and voted upon in November of 2010.

We are trying to stop biomass incinerators. Biomass is a nice sounding term that denotes a set of things including public forests, trash including hospital waste, construction and demolition debris. Those biomass power plants (incinerators that make a tiny bit of electricity) emit at least 50% more CO2 than coal per killowatt hour (depending on what exactly is burned) – not to mention the other greenhouse gases and toxins.

In western MA there are many companies strong-arming small towns with promises of jobs and real estate taxes, looking for permits to do exactly this incineration in the name of (and with the public subsidies for) "renewable energy." Those public subsidies should go to wind, solar and geothermal; with biomass in the renewable category, the money will be diverted to biomass—a fancy name for incineration. Combustion does not belong with renewables. Our investment in the future does not belong in the hands

In my town of Greenfield, Massachusetts, Pioneer Renewable Energy, LLC will build (unless we the people succeed in stopping it) an incinerator to burn 3 million pounds of green wood, 24/7, to produce one quarter of one percent of the electricity Massachusetts citizens are using now.

55% of that wood will come from public forests. There have been clear cuts from Mass public forests for a biomass plant in New Hampshire. I urge you to visit MaForests.org to see the evidence. It will also evaporate close to 600,000 gallons of water daily--water that the river is accustomed to receiving daily from our wastewater treatment plant. In case of a drought, the biomass plant will have the right to take what it needs from our reservoir. If there is not enough water for both the people and the power plant...

None of this is going in the right direction for climate change and sustaining life on this planet. We can do something to help shift the direction, and we must do whatever we can!

In Massachusetts, and in the Waxman Markey bill and now in the Senate Climate Bill, biomass is included among the "renewables," which means that the CO2 from those operations will be off the books, not counted in the CO2 emissions. This is the most alarming and nearly invisible treachery of all.

At the Zoning Board Hearing in Greenfield, for example, when the developer (a 34 year old grad of Tufts School of International Diplomacy) was asked, "What about the CO2?" the answer on the record was, "There will be no CO2." In the real world there will be TONS of CO2 emitted, but in the made-up world of pollution trading, it helps the game to define biomass among renewables and to define renewables as having zero CO2 emissions.

The real world in which our bodies live and breath is irrelevant to these climate bill operatives. The financial game is what matters to them. What matters to you? Will you have enough to buy your family's passage to the new planet when this one is cooked? It's time to prove that WE THE PEOPLE means something.

Please be in touch in with me if you can help gather signatures. It's easy, fun and satisfying citizen work. A voter’s signature says, “Yes, let my fellow citizens raise this question for public discussion and a vote in November of 2010."

Please help me get this initiative to the ballot! Call me (413-773-5529) or email me (vermontlives@gmail.com) and let me know what you think. I'll make it easy for you to help!

Sincerely, Susan Laing, originally from Somerset, Massachusetts

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]