From: Ned Beecher, NEBRA [ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:45 PM To: NEBRA Subject: NEBRAMail NEBRAMail “essential news only...” January 21, 2009 - HAPPY NEW YEAR! ------------- * This occasional email newsletter from NEBRA is provided as a service to members and contacts. * Feel free to forward in entirety to interested parties. * To subscribe or unsubscribe, please send a "reply to" email stating your request. If your address changes, please let us know. * Essential past NEBRA news articles are available at http://www.nebiosolids.org/index.php?page=news. ------------- Contents * EPA Releases Latest National Sewage Sludge Survey Results * Virginia Expert Panel Final Report Does Not Shake Things Up * Maine Advances Pharmaceutical Return Program * EPA Issues PFOA (C8) Advisory After Land Application Concern * $825 Billion Stimulus Package Includes Significant Water/Wastewater Funding * EPA Climate Official Indicates Greenhouse Gas Reporting Proposal Likely in Spring * Supreme Court of Canada Finds Environmental Liability for “Excessive Annoyance” in Québec * National Research Council Recommends Cumulative Risk Assessment for Phthalates IN BRIEF / EN BREF... pelletizing plant resumes operations, using biogas in Pittsfield, Seabrook facing odor & power cost issues, wood ash in Québec, Canada faces aging infrastructure too, gasification, biofuel, biochar/pyrolysis, Halifax shuts down, Liquid Assets... CALENDAR: NEBRA Board Meeting, MABA Session at NYWEA Conference, etc. ---------- EPA Releases Latest National Sewage Sludge Survey Results Last week, the EPA Office of Water made available the results of the latest targeted national sewage sludge survey. This targeted survey was one of the action steps to which EPA committed in response to the 2002 National Research Council report Biosolids Applied to Land. The survey involved collecting samples of sewage sludge from 74 randomly-chosen wastewater treatment facilities in 35 states during 2006 and 2007. The sampled facilities are considered to be representative of the nation’s 3,337 largest treatment facilities, those that treat more than 1 million gallons per day (MGD). The samples were tested for 145 analytes, including metals, PAHs, N, P, flame retardants (PDBEs), pharmaceuticals, hormones, and steroids. According to the Overview report: “Briefly, the survey found that: “Nitrite/nitrate, fluoride and water-extractable phosphorus were found in every sample. “27 metals were found in virtually every sample, with one metal (antimony) found in no less than 72 samples. “Of the six semivolatile organics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, four were found in at least 72 samples, one was found in 63 samples, and one was found in 39 samples. “Of the 72 pharmaceuticals, three (i.e., cyprofloxacin, diphenhydramine, and triclocarban) were found in all 84 samples and nine were found in at least 80 of the samples. However, 15 pharmaceuticals were not found in any sample and 29 were found in fewer than three samples. “Of the 25 steroids and hormones, three steroids (i.e., campesterol, cholestanol, and coprostanol) were found in all 84 samples and six steroids were found in at least 80 of the samples. One hormone (i.e., 17a-ethynyl estradiol) was not found in any sample and five hormones were found in fewer than six samples. “All of the flame retardants except one (BDE-138) were found in nearly every sample; BDE-138 was found in 56 out of 84 samples.” The report goes on to note that “results include minimum and maximum concentrations for 145 different analytes.... Results also include nationally- representative estimates of the underlying distribution of concentrations across POTWs as well as an in-depth statistical analysis of a subset of 34 out of the 145 analytes.” Many of the findings are consistent with limited past measurements. For example, total flame retardants (PDBEs) were estimated to average in the low parts per million, as was found in previous work by Robert Hale at The College of William and Mary. Levels of the anti-bacterial agent triclocarban averaged 39 parts per million (mg/kg), similar to previous measurements by Rolf Halden at Johns Hopkins, although the maximum estimate of 441 mg/kg was relatively high (Halden assisted with this EPA study). As expected, natural steroids such as cholesterol and related compounds were found at the highest concentrations. Coprostanol, a natural product of cholesterol break-down in the gut, which has been used as a biomarker for the presence of sewage, was estimated to average 4,367 mg/kg. In its report, EPA cautions that the results of the analyses of pharmaceuticals, steroids, and hormones are preliminary, as the method of analysis is relatively new. These targeted national sewage sludge survey results do not come with any interpretation. Measurement is just the first step of any study. Potential fates and impacts, if any, remain to be looked at. EPA does state that the levels of metals measured suggest that wastewater agencies are complying with the Part 503 limits (those few with metals concentrations over the regulatory ceiling limits are disposing of their biosolids). In addition, it appears that the estimated mean concentrations of the organics 4-chloroaniline, fluoranthene, and pyrene are in the range of 1 to 2 mg/kg, down from the 8 to 9 mg/kg measured in the 1988 National Sewage Sludge Survey. The report notes: “EPA is committed to taking action and working with our partners to ensure sewage sludge is managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment. We plan to evaluate the pollutants identified by the survey as being present in sewage sludge. As its first priority, using the survey information, EPA has begun assessing molybdenum and the nine pollutants identified from the 2003 biennial review as needing updated concentration information to determine whether additional action may be necessary. In addition to the survey information, EPA will evaluate other available data and conduct exposure and hazard assessments for these pollutants if sufficient data are available. Later this year, EPA expects to initiate evaluations of other pollutants in the survey that may warrant further consideration. The evaluations will depend on the availability of data needed to conduct the evaluations.” The full survey report and associated documents are available at the EPA Biosolids Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/. ---------- Virginia Expert Panel Final Report Does Not Shake Things Up In response to ongoing controversy in several parts of the state, two years ago the Virginia legislature created an expert panel to evaluate biosolids use on land. Specific questions were asked of the Panel: 1. Are citizen-reported health symptoms associated with the land application of biosolids? 2. Do odors from biosolids impact human health and well-being and property values? 3. To what degree do biosolids-associated contaminants accumulate in food (plant crops and livestock)? 4. To what degree do biosolids-associated contaminants affect water quality? 5. What are the effects of an accumulation of biosolids-associated contaminants in wildlife? The panel met 12 times. The Panel’s findings are similar to those of other thoughtful evaluations of the issue (e.g. 2008 NH legislative commission, the National Research Council 2002 report): current biosolids management practices are acceptable, although there are questions that cannot be definitively answered and research should continue. The Panel considered the first question to be of the highest priority. In response, it carefully stated: “In the past 18 months, the Panel uncovered no evidence or literature verifying a causal link between biosolids and illness, recognizing current gaps in the science and knowledge surrounding this issue.... [T]he Panel does recognize that some individuals residing in close proximity to biosolids land application sites have reported varied adverse health impacts.” Regarding odors, the Panel recommended possible regulatory requirements for odor control plans and voluntary Environmental Management Systems to reduce odor incidents. In response to the final three questions about possible impacts of contaminants, the Panel found no evidence of significant impacts when biosolids are properly managed, but noted that more research is needed, particularly with regards to pharmaceuticals and personal care product chemicals. They recommended continued monitoring of research findings. Lastly, the Panel looked at diverse, proven and/or potential alternative technologies for management of wastewater solids. To facilitate this, they held a technology forum last September. The summary report from that forum (which is attached to the Panel’s report) is a fine compendium of current knowledge on topics ranging from use of biosolids for disturbed land rehabilitation or hybrid poplars to fluidized bed incineration, anaerobic digestion, composting, conversion to oil or ethanol, gasification, and the “slurrycarb” process. A year ago, Virginia transferred its biosolids regulatory program from the Department of Health to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ formed a Technical Advisory Committee that is to provide guidance on biosolids regulations in the state. They will be relying on the Panel’s report. It is available at http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD272008/$file/HD27.pdf ---------- Maine Advances Pharmaceutical Return Program A Maine law, passed in 2005, has led to the nation’s first comprehensive, hassle- free pharmaceutical return program. Postage-free mail-in envelopes are now available at locations around the state, allowing consumers to mail unused drugs to the state Drug Enforcement Agency, which destroys them by incineration. The goal of the program is to keep pharmaceuticals out of the environment, including wastewater and biosolids. Funding for the program is provided by the state, but is timed to run out in 2011, according to a late December public radio report ( http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/1858/ItemId/8 741/Default.aspx). Legislators are considering a bill that would place the responsibility for continued funding on pharmaceutical companies. Details about the Maine pharmaceutical return program are available at http://www.safemeddisposal.com. Additional information about managing unwanted pharmaceuticals has been developed by the Northeast Recycling Council; see: http://www.nerc.org/#unwanted%20meds. ---------- EPA Issues PFOA (C8) Advisory After Land Application Concern In late December, an article in Environmental Science & Technology reported that EPA, USDA, and FDA are investigating a biosolids land application site near Decatur, AL, where high levels (low parts per million) of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8), and other perfluorochemicals were found (see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803520c). The site is about 5,000 acres and was grazed by cattle for 12 years, according to the article. EPA’s exposure assessment branch is looking into the fate of perfluorochemicals and, with USDA, assessing whether there was any significant transfer from the Decatur site to the human food chain (e.g. meat) or drinking water. Sources of perfluorochemicals include manufacturing processes that produce non- stick cookware surfaces and consumer products containing them, as well as stain- resistant fabrics and coated papers. They are also found in food packaging and household dust. Research on the presence, fate, and impacts of these chemicals is limited. According to an earlier ES & T report, “worldwide, people have PFOA and PFOS in their blood at low part-per-billion levels. U.S. regulators have not set a federal standard for PFOA.” In a related story, the Charleston Gazette (WV) reported in mid-January that EPA was quickly issuing an advisory recommending a drinking water limit for PFOA (C8) of 0.4 parts per billion. According to the Gazette, this standard is an order of magnitude higher than the protective level recommended by some environmental and consumer groups. (See http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200901140231.) The Gazette article goes on to note that “the new health advisory was apparently driven in large part by an EPA investigation of high levels of C8 found in agricultural soils in Decatur, Ala..... If the chemicals are found to have contaminated meat, the results could mark the first time that PFCs would have been traced from sludge to commercially produced food. The EPA health advisory does not mention food contamination. It does say that the agency has tested community water systems in two Alabama counties, and found chemical concentrations far below the advisory level. Based on its current understanding, EPA believes these levels are not of concern and residents may rely upon public water systems, the EPA document says. EPA will soon begin testing to see if the chemicals have migrated into any private water systems, groundwater or ponds, the advisory said.” Stay tuned. ---------- $825 Billion Stimulus Package Includes Significant Water/Wastewater Funding (from the Water Environment Federation) On January 15, Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, released an executive summary and legislative language for the spending portion of the proposed Economic Recovery Package.... The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is on the House Appropriations website and is available by visiting: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf. The overall infrastructure investment portion of the package is approximately $63.5 billion with nearly 20% or approximately $11.8 billion targeted for community water and wastewater infrastructure: $6 billion for wastewater projects funded through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), $2 billion for drinking water projects funded through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and $3.8 billion for rural water and wastewater systems. In addition, the package includes $500 million for western water supply projects, including water reuse projects, through the Bureau of Reclamation and $400 million for watershed protection projects through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The breakdown of the $6 billion for the CWSRF is as follows: Half of the funding would be disbursed by the states as loans. States are required to use the additional 50 percent ($3 billion) to provide assistance, "in the form of additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, and grants, to municipalities (as defined in section 502 of such Act) for projects that are included on the State’s priority list established under section 603(g)." Eighty percent of the grant money would be for projects "to benefit municipalities that meet affordability criteria as determined by the Governor of the State," and 20 percent for projects "to address water-efficiency goals, address energy-efficiency goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage environmentally sensitive project planning, design, and construction, to the extent that there are sufficient project applications eligible for such assistance." Municipal, environmental and water sector organizations, including WEF, American Rivers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the American Public Works Association continue to press for a significant portion of the overall infrastructure investment package to be devoted to water projects, including green infrastructure. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) is circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter in support of increased funding for water infrastructure in the Senate version of the stimulus bill. The legislation calls for federal spending of roughly $550 billion and tax cuts of $275 billion over the next two years - totals that may rise as it makes its way through Congress. "Immediate job creation and continuing job creation" are the twin goals, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a news conference. At $825 billion, the legislation would be one of the largest bills ever to move through Congress, and Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate Majority Leader, have pledged to have it ready for Obama's signature by mid-February. ---------- EPA Climate Official Indicates Greenhouse Gas Reporting Proposal Likely in Spring (from the Water Environment Federation) The head of EPA's climate change office said on January 13 she hopes the agency will issue in early spring a proposed rule to establish a greenhouse gas emissions reporting system. EPA was required by law to propose the rule by September 26, 2008, but it did not send a draft to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review until October 24. The fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill (Pub. L. No. 110-161), approved by Congress in December 2007, requires the agency to issue a final rule by June 26,2009, but Dina Kruger, director of EPA's Climate Change Division, indicated at a conference of the Landfill Methane Outreach Program that it will not meet that deadline. “We anticipate that this will be an issue that is going to be a high priority to the new crew coming in, and are preparing to bring them up to speed on what's happening with it,” Kruger said, referring to the incoming Obama administration. When proposed, the rule would articulate the first broad-based mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements for large industrial facilities by the federal government. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the electric power industry to monitor carbon dioxide emissions using continuous emissions monitoring systems, but that is the only sector required to do so. A major issue addressed by the proposal is how to monitor emissions, Kruger told conference participants. The question is whether sources should use a simplified emissions estimate or direct monitoring—“the way we do in the Acid Rain Program with continuous emissions monitoring,” she said. Kruger did not indicate how the proposal would address the issue. Several industry groups have asked the agency to use estimates of emissions derived from factors such as energy input, or raw material and fuel specifications. ---------- Supreme Court of Canada Finds Environmental Liability for “Excessive Annoyance” in Québec It’s important to get along with neighbors and avoid creating nuisances! A November Globe and Mail article reported that Canada’s highest court ruled in favor of a group who sued a St. Lawrence Cement Ltd. plant near Québec City. The Court ruled that, although the plant was in compliance, the excessive annoyance it caused is a liability. “In a 6-0 ruling, the court said that there are two separate streams of potential liability in environmental class actions, one relating to actual wrong-doing, and the other relating to emissions that, despite being legal, exceed reasonable levels of tolerance in a community....” According to a legal commentator, “within this second regime, the liability of a person will be determined, not on the basis of his conduct, but rather with regard to the ‘result of the owner’s act’ upon his neighbors ( http://www.dwpv.com/en/17620_23119.aspx). The Globe and Mail article notes that “the case raised the important issue of whether a company can be liable for environmental nuisances even if it has complied with regulations, and is strictly not at fault.... The case was the first environmental class action from Québec to be heard by the Supreme Court. The court said that it represents many similar disputes across the country in an era when citizens no longer accept noxious pollutants as an acceptable irritant.... While the case was based on civil statutes particular to Québec, it is expected to give legal guidance to environmental lawyers in other jurisdictions [in Canada].... “St. Lawrence Cement based much of its appeal on its contention that it had consistent[ly] complied with regulatory standards. An [sic] legal intervenor in the case, the Quebec Business Council on the Environment, argued that companies will be unfairly affected if they dutifully adhere to regulations yet can still be found civilly liable.” See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081120.wclassactn1120/ BNStory/National/home. ---------- National Research Council Recommends Cumulative Risk Assessment for Phthalates In mid-December, a National Research Council (NRC) panel recommended that EPA conduct cumulative risk assessment on phthalates, plasticizing chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Because they are released from such products, phthalates are common in wastewater solids and biosolids, generally in single to tens of parts per million concentrations. They have also been found in many other environmental media, such as lake sediments, soils, indoor air, and house dust. According to a recent U.S.A. Today article about the NRC report, “studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and independent scientists have found phthalates in virtually everyone, including pregnant women and babies. The Environmental Protection Agency typically studies the impact of these and other chemicals individually. But that approach may underestimate the effect of being exposed to many different chemicals with similar effects, says the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry's Deborah Cory-Slechta, chairwoman of the committee that wrote the report. “The European Union has restricted phthalates in cosmetics and children's toys. A growing number of hospitals are phasing out phthalates in neonatal intensive care units, hoping to protect premature and sickly newborn boys. Congress last summer passed a ban banning several phthalates in children's products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has said that it will allow stores to continue selling toys made with phthalates, as long as they were manufactured before the law takes effect Feb. 10th.” Information about the NRC report is available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12528. The USA Today story is at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-12-18- phthalates-chemicalsoup_N.htm ---------- In Brief / En Bref... The New England Fertilizer Quincy biosolids drying and pelletizing plant resumed operations in early December after an October fire in ductwork had shut it down. During the shut-down, Boston MWRA solids were disposed in landfills. According to The Patriot Ledger, “Acting Quincy Fire Chief Joseph Barron said ‘they’ve satisfied me that they’re committed to safety and fire safety in the plant.’... New England Fertilizer Co. has agreed to install a sprinkler system in the duct work and replace certain pipes. It intends to reimburse the city for fire department expenses.” Using biogas: The Berkshire Eagle reported in early January that “the Pittsfield wastewater treatment plant is getting state money for an upgrade, while receiving accolades for how it's been running so far. The city has received a $400,000 state grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative toward paying part of an estimated $1.7 million to $2 million for a so-called biogas CHP system. The state- of-the-art process will convert methane gas from the sewage into electricity to help operate the facility... The result is an estimated 30 percent reduction in the plant's electric bill, saving taxpayers $206,000 per year.... [T]he renewable energy system is expected to be completed by August and pay for itself in five years.... ‘We would be the first wastewater treatment plant in Massachusetts to use microturbines and to use biogas to produce electricity to run the plant,’ noted [Public Works & Utilities Commissioner] Collingwood. He added using methane gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the sewage by-product is currently burned off into the atmosphere. The project will also generate waste heat that will warm up the sewage treatment process.” See http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_11383944. Seabrook, NH is struggling with odor issues and higher electricity costs apparently linked to the PMC BioTec solids reduction system installed last year, according to recent news stories. The system has been hugely successful in reducing the mass of solids produced at the plant. The Newburyport News noted that “selectmen have issued a stern warning to the company to work to reduce the odor or the town will have to remove the new technology. Selectmen are hoping solutions can be found, for the sludge reduction system can save the town money in sludge disposal fees once installation costs are paid off” ( http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_001220336.html). An earlier article said the company is working with the town to make the system more energy-efficient ( http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20081223-NEWS-812230326). 300,000 metric tonnes of wood ash was produced in Québec in 2007, and about half was applied as a soil amendment, according to a December 2008 paper in Agrosolutions (19(2): 18-33) by M. Hébert and B. Breton. 80,000 tonnes were applied on 250 farms. The paper reviews the benefits of wood ash use - including the potential for helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils - and points out best agronomic practices to address concerns related to dust, alkalinity, and the variability caused by different woods combusted. “[R]egulations and appropriate practices allow safe and economical use of ash in agriculture, in accordance with sustainable development,” notes the abstract. Canada is also facing problems of aging wastewater infrastructure, according to the Financial Post ( http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1079895). The estimated cost of needed improvements is $31 billion Canadian. Gasification? A small wastewater treatment plant in Sanford, Florida will become the first in North America to use a new “gasifier” to convert biosolids into clean energy that will help power the facility, according to http://swampie.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/sanford-fl-wastewater-treatment-plant- first-in-north-america-to-use-gasifier/. Another bio-fuel? According to a company news release, “N-Viro International Corporation..., an environmental and materials operating company that owns patented technologies to convert various types of waste into beneficial alternative fuel products, announces its renewable biofuel technology, N-Viro Fuel (TM), has satisfied guidelines set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to qualify as an alternative energy source that may be utilized in commercial power generation. Attaining this status means that N-Viro Fuel technology is now eligible to qualify for certain economic incentives that are granted alternative energy technologies.” Biochar & pyrolysis? “Following a successful meeting of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) in Newcastle, England, a Canadian group with similar interests met on December 11 and 12 at the Macdonald Campus of McGill University near Montreal, Quebec. Biochar is receiving considerable global attention as a means to sequester and store carbon in soils for soil fertility enhancement and as an alternate green energy source. The Canadian meeting was attended by leading scientists, company executives and biochar researchers and enthusiasts from across Canada. Biochar is charcoal derived from the burning of plant matter, a practice of several ancient civilizations as a soil improvement technique. Examination of carbon rich man-made Terra Preta soils of the Amazon confirms traditional claims of higher fertility of such soils. Modern biochar is a product manufactured from organic matter such as crop residues via a process called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the heating of biomass with no or very little oxygen, whereby the biomass is converted to charcoal that is stable in soil for hundreds to several thousands of years.” Pyrolisis of biosolids has been under development for at least two decades. The “Enersludge” process was built at a treatment plant in Perth, Australia in the late 1990s; it was the first such installation in the world. The process proved successful ( http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/waste/index.html#sis), but it shut down a few years ago. While the concept of managing biosolids through pyrolysis is appealing – given that it sequesters carbon in char and produces a synthetic oil – it is still not proven. For information about the Canadian Biochar Initiative: Lloyd Helferty, lhelferty@sympatico.ca. Halifax’s newest wastewater treatment plant was shut down indefinitely as of January 16th, CBC News reported. Power failures and electrical system problems were the purported causes. See http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/16/halifax-sewage-malfunction.html. There is a new “water blog” organized by the Water Environment Federation. See http://wefwaterblog.blogspot.com/ Liquid Assets is “a public media and outreach initiative that seeks to inform the nation about the critical role that our water infrastructure plays in protecting public health and promoting economic prosperity.” It includes a new documentary film from Penn State Public Broadcasting and a free, down-loadable “toolkit” See http://liquidassets.psu.edu/, where there is a viewable 4-minute trailer about the film. ---------- CALENDAR January 26 (next Monday), 4:30 pm - NEBRA Board of Directors Meeting at the NEWEA Annual Conference, Tufts Room, Marriott Copley Place Hotel, Boston. All are welcome! January 31 - Free Manure Management Workshop, Chester, NH, produced by NERC (see http://www.nerc.org) February 3, 8:30 – 12:00 – MABA Biosolids Session at the NY Water Environment Assoc. Conference, New York City (see http://www.mabiosolids.org) More events at http://www.nebiosolids.org/index.php?page=events-calendar. ---------- North East Biosolids and Residuals Association (NEBRA) P. O. Box 422 / 85 Main Street Tamworth, NH 03886 phone 603-323-7654 fax 603-323-7666 www.nebiosolids.org