Action | Amendment of Regulations Pertaining to Biosolids After Transfer from the Department of Health |
Stage | NOIRA |
Comment Period | Ended on 7/31/2008 |
7 comments
7-28-08
on NOIRA (Notice of Intended Regulatory Action):
9VAC 25-32-10 et seq.; 9VAC 25-31-10 et seq.; 9VAC 25-20-10 et seq.
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) consistently came under documented criticism for its failure to properly administer the disposal of sludge pollution in Virginia’s rural communities. In fact, VDH became a prime promoter of sludge pollution exposure to community residents, many of whom became ill and suffered property damages. In actuality, VDH failed to monitor, test, train local monitors, and to enforce the existing BUR Regulations or Codes of Virginia.
By late 2006 and early 2007, a decision was made to transfer the disposal authority to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This action was confirmed on 9-25-07 by the State Water Control Board without public input. (See VRTH-NOIRA)
Whereas the concerned citizens, scientists, physicians, educators, county supervisors and state legislators had consistently sounded the fire alarm of documented harm caused by exposure to sludge pollution constituents, DEQ has adopted a different policy, i.e., quiet the alarm and let the fire destruction continue.
This DEQ policy, dictated by the sludge pollution generators, is beneficial and profitable for the waste industry entities. Though the DEQ policy contradicts the will of the people and defies the intent of the General Assembly, DEQ has political support and has limited data to other decision makers. (DOCUMENTED)
While there are countless examples of DEQ’s misdeeds and anti-citizen policies, one prime public-exhibit should be noted: A father of sickly children sought assistance in the protection from exposure to harmful sludge pollution constituents. He furnished health documents to DEQ, VDH, landowner, county supervisors, media, sludge pollution applicators and the generator of sludge. All to no avail, no one stepped forward to help.
Mr. Foster related his documented efforts before the DEQ “Expert Panel”. Though there were representatives there, no one contradicted his statements. However, Mr. Peot, Blue Plains sludge generator administrator, did speak up and stated that he made the sole decision to grant an additional buffer footage between the sludge pollution application site and Mr. Foster’s residence. Mr. Peot was quick to state that his lone decision was based on “community relations” and not for the health of the children.
Concerned citizens question why one non-medical, non-county resident, non-legislator and non-scientist can have more control over sludge pollution exposure than the Commonwealth’s Governor, General Assembly, Secretary of Natural Resources, Secretary of Human Health and Human Resources or the VDH Commissioner of Health?
We inquired into this issue and found:
6-5-08 Letter, Ann Carkhuff, EPA Regional Sewage Sludge Coordinator, Water Protection Div.: “In response to the question raised April 22, 2008 letter, it is not the EPA interpretation of Section 1345 (e) of the CWA to give your local board of Supervisors the power to determine the manner of sludge disposal in your county. The wording actually comes from Section 405 (e) of CWA. The Agency’s interpretation of this provision has consistently been that local determination is made by the generator of the sewage sludge.This includes all sludge whether locally generated or imported into the county. (emphasis added)
It is conclusive that listing amendment on the NOIRA is but a scam to deceive the citizenry and hoodwink the members of the General Assembly who responded to the will of the people, i.e., EPA’s Carkhuff letter contradicts BUR 12VAC5-585-260/460.
There is no need to comment on NOIRA issues of leaving the sludge pollution piled up in rural communities uncovered and unmonitored for months, changing language when current regulatory and statutes are ignored, procuring additional fees that will be spent on DEQ pet projects and administrative perks, establishing buffers when no study nor testing is being performed to determine any safe distance, establishing issues for an “Expert” panel when not even one panelist has been exposed to sludge pollution effects, investigating animal exposure to sludge pollution constituents when DEQ refuses to test sludge or land, seeking State Water Control Board approval when the Board members have been denied data for an informed decision, or volunteering-serving on a committee that is puppeteered by the waste industry entities.
To recognize the authority of DEQ because it is a state agency, supposedly for the betterment and will of the citizens, is ludicrous. This childish mentality to blindly follow without questioning is antiquated. We must move forward with advanced thinking in order to achieve sustainable procedures for utilizing sludge pollution in a manner that is protective of safety, health and welfare. Antiquated thinking limits our horizons and stagnates our creativity.
This limited thinking is illustrated by the waste industry’s offered options of landfill, incineration or land application. Energy conversion, mono-fill, nutrient extraction, heavy metal extractions, composition recycling and a host of other more environmentally friendly programs can be developed with today’s technology. Think outside the box.
We Virginians crave for statesmanship that will pass legislation to direct DEQ to not waste our resources for quieting the alarm, but to properly address PUTING OUT the fire issues. DEQ already has the authority, why isn’t it’s administrators using the authority?
C. W. Williams
Biosolids Information Group
VDH-BURAC Citizens’ Representative
540-872-2409; cwwns3@wmconnect.com; P. O. Box 9871 Richmond, VA 23228 (docs. available)
Citizen Comment
I am writing first to confirm my support for the 17 recommendations made by Mary Carwile of the Commonwealth Coalition which has representation from nearly 30 counties. This group has worked to bring a united voice to citizens' concerns about the influence of the sludge industry within the political, and more importantly, the regulatory process. Citizen concerns regarding the land application of sewage sludge have been and continue to be dismissed by the VDH, and their office, along with the Division of Waste Water Engineering , shows indifference and a lack of professional credibility and objectivity. What is obvious is the cozy relationship these offices have with the sludge industry while nuisance complaints, public health concerns and regulation violations are discounted and dismissed. Most importantly has been the fact that the VDH ignores the independent, peer-reviewed studies of Dr. David Lewis whose work on sludges has never been refuted. Additionally, the "International Journal of Occupational Health" published an article by Dr. Caroline Snyder on the "Dirty work of promoting "recycling" of America's Sewage Sludge" which addressed the public health concerns and industry misinformation--it should be required reading for anyone in any office dealing with land application. Why are there no medical buffers for immune-compromised neighbors of sludge sites and why are setbacks so low? Why do VA taxpayers foot the bill (nearly 3/4 of a million dollars) for the private sludge industry for administration and permitting by the departments? Why is the permitting process rushed and secretive with poor notification? And with 300,000 acres already permitted (and only about 60,000 used last year) is there some hidden agenda to push for Virginia to move from #2 in the nation for importing sewage sludge to #1? Nearly 60% of land-applied sludge is from out-of-state and citizens feel they are being dumped-on--literally. The JLARC report of 2006 highlighted the "poor oversight" where there were 19 inspections out of over 1100 sites applied.--more failed bueaucracy in a terribly flawed system. As DEQ prepares to adopt this hideous stepchild of a sludge program, please be aware that thousands of Vrginians are watching to see if meaningful and significant changes occur. Public health and environmental protections cannot continue to be overlooked. The 17 recommendations of the Coalition deserve serious consideration. I remember in 1999 when both DEQ and VDH were blasted for sitting on information on PCB contamination in the Staunton River in my county for nearly 20 years before releasing the "don't eat the fish" warnings to the public. We are watching and waiting and guarded--DEQ has one chance to learn from the many mistakes at VDH and do it right the first time--I pray there is the political will to fully protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Lorraine Potter
Listed below are recommendations from citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be
considered for the changes to the current regulations on Biosolids.
It makes no sense to require extensive treatment of sewage to remove pollutants so clean water can be returned to waterways, and then to turn around and spread the removed pollutants on the land to enter the food chain and to run off into those same waterways that the treatment plants are required to protect. That said, and until this illogical and contradictory practice ceases, we require the following regulation changes:
Regulation changes must be carefully considered so this transfer of biosolids oversight will not be in vain.
We urge the committee to go the extra mile to insure protection of human and environmental health. Permit fees are not so high that they couldn’t be raised to cover proper testing and other added expenses. Hopefully, in the near future alternate means of handling sewage sludge / biosolids
As a member of Virginia Citizens for Protection from Sewage Sludge, i recommend the following:
2. Five (5) mile buffer from habitat.3. Once sign is posted, citizens have fifteen business days before biosolidsapplications begin.4. All signs posted should be the same perimeters as the re-zoning notice signs (4 x8), and information on sign is visible from a distance of at least 20 ft. They mustbe placed vertically to the roadway, straight up and down with no slant.5. All signs must have the name and phone number of the agency or companythat has the authority to lift, modify or abate any and all biosolids applications.6. Make regulation that you must have proof of receipt for notification to citizensadjacent to land applications and to those citizens within 1,000 ft of the land tobe applied.7. Biosolids applications can only be delivered and applied during businessdaylight hours.8. Any damage to infrastructure or spillage caused by biosolids truck traffic shouldbe paid by the haulers, spreaders and the recipients of the said treated sewagesludge and not the taxpayer.9. All land applications of biosolids must be recorded on each land deed. (impacton family)10. Monies placed in escrow by both land owners and sludge companies to ensurefinancial responsibility with direct proportion to the acreage to be applied.11. Penalties imposed immediately upon violations. (License revoked, suspended,etc., impound truck or trucks, pull permit, etc.).12. Cleanup of roadways, etc. should be removed and deposited back on the truck oron the designated field ready for application.13. Testing of soil semi-annually to ensure proper pH and that heavy metals remainbound in soil.14. Field storage of biosolids should be covered at all times and stored no longer than20 days.15. Field testing of all biosolids not applied within twenty-four hours for pH, andbiological pathogens including fecal coliform.16. When land applied, biosolids should be immediately incorporated into the soil.17. When storing biosolids, retesting should be done, based on the fact that you areno longer dealing with the original contaminants or pathogens. It should beconsidered a completely new source in itself. The retesting requirementsshould be the same as the regulations for biosolids before land applied.
I support the regulations recommended by the Virginia Coalition as listed below. In addition, it should be required for a survey to be made of any sick, immune compromised or elderly and very young children living within the 10 mile radius of the application site. If there are such persons, after proper documentation is presented, land application of biosolids should be prohibited in that area. The posting of notice shall give 30 days notice of application..I trust that the representatives of DEQ will take all action necessary to protect the health of citizens, and should petition the EPA to do the epidemiological studies necessary to determine adverse effects on public health.
1. Chemical Analysis for the EPA Priority Pollutants as well as for the Biological
2. Five (5) mile buffer from habitat.3. Once sign is posted, citizens have fifteen business days before biosolids applications begin.4. All signs posted should be the same perimeters as the re-zoning notice signs (4 x 8), and information on sign is visible from a distance of at least 20 ft. They must be placed vertically to the roadway, straight up and down with no slant.5. All signs must have the name and phone number of the agency or company that has the authority to lift, modify or abate any and all biosolids applications.6. Make regulation that there must be proof of receipt for notification to citizens adjacent to land applications and to those citizens within 1,000 ft of the land to be applied.7. Biosolids applications can only be delivered and applied during business daylight hours.8. Any damage to infrastructure or spillage caused by biosolids truck traffic should be paid by the haulers, spreaders and the recipients of the said treated sewag sludge and not the taxpayer.9. All land applications of biosolids must be recorded on each land deed. (impact on family)10. Monies placed in escrow by both land owners and sludge companies to ensure financial responsibility with direct proportion to the acreage to be applied.11. Penalties imposed immediately upon violations. (License revoked, suspended, etc., impound truck or trucks, pull permit, etc.).12. Cleanup of roadways, etc. should be removed and deposited back on the truck or on the designated field ready for application.13. Testing of soil semi-annually to ensure proper pH and that heavy metals remain bound in soil.14. Field storage of biosolids should be covered at all times and stored no longer than 20 days.15. Field testing of all biosolids not applied within twenty-four hours for pH, and biological pathogens including fecal coliform.16. When land applied, biosolids should be immediately incorporated into the soil.17. When storing biosolids, retesting should be done based on the fact that no one is dealing with the original contaminants or pathogens any more. It should be considered a completely new source in itself. The retesting requirements should be the same as the regulations for biosolids before land applied.