(Article by Lainie Anderson, republished from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/lainie-anderson-to-all-small-businesses-in-sa-having-a-go-despite-tough-times-take-a-bow/news-story/e969c70d0d4880e53526d37cf7368fa2)
The highest unemployment in the nation and the imminent demise of car manufacturing will do that to a state.
But good things come in small packages, too, and collaboration and clever thinking are not confined to the heavy hitters.
Three separate stories made me excited during the week about the future of SA – not on any epic scale, but small signs of company “can-do” and a government that is, indeed, agile.
Silver Fleece is a Kilkenny-based woollen mill that’s been manufacturing Test jumpers for the Australian cricket team for 40 years. Who knew?
With 18 full-time staff and an annual turnover of up to $3 million, the company also supplies Aussie schools and the RAA, which ran a uniform design competition with TAFE students in 2012 and awarded the knitwear contract to Silver Fleece.
Read more at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/lainie-anderson-to-all-small-businesses-in-sa-having-a-go-despite-tough-times-take-a-bow/news-story/e969c70d0d4880e53526d37cf7368fa2
]]>(Article by Neetu Garcha, republished from http://globalnews.ca/news/2502159/clean-up-underway-after-truck-carrying-biosolids-from-west-kelowna-spills-material/)
A semi-truck operated by an RDCO contractor was hauling Class B biosolids from the RDCO plant when it hit an icy patch and overturned.
It happened on February 4 on the Riley Dam portion of Big Bar Road near Jesmond, about 10 kilometres from the truck’s destination at OK Ranch.
“When alerted to the accident, the regional district’s biosolids management subcontractor immediately enacted its Emergency Spill Protocol, notifying the Ministry of Environment of the spill, securing the site,” the RDCO said in a statement.
“Working in coordination with Ministry staff, Spill Response crews are taking all the necessary steps to remove the spilled materials and soil from the site.”
The RDCO says emergency crews freed the truck driver who was pinned in the cab. He was taken to hospital in 100 Mile House with minor injuries and has since been released.
The trailer contained about 20 cubic meters of biosolid material.
Emergency Services and Spill Response crews removed the remaining biosolids from the trailer and removed the truck from the accident site.
Since Friday morning, the response team has been cleaning up the approximately five cubic metres of biosolids that spilled from the trailer.
The truck’s fuel tanks were not damaged in the accident and spill response safely removed all fuel from the truck.
“An unknown quantity of engine oil, hydraulic oil, and coolant leaked from the overturned truck. Spill Response crews are working to isolate the site, however partially frozen waterways have proven to be a challenge when setting booms and retention systems,” the RDCO said in a statement.
The RDCO says over the next week, the Regional District will continue coordinating with health and environment regulatory agencies to monitor the cleanup and water quality in Big Bar Creek.
“Because a very small percentage of pathogens may still be present in treated biosolids, the public is advised to keep themselves and pets away from the area until the Ministry of Environment and Interior Health Authority are able to rule out any potential health risks.”
Read more at: http://globalnews.ca/news/2502159/clean-up-underway-after-truck-carrying-biosolids-from-west-kelowna-spills-material/
]]>(Article by Lystek Canada, republished from https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/03/10/818837/10160958/en/Third-Party-Field-Trials-with-Biofertilizer-Yields-Amazing-Results.html)
The Cambridge-based firm is quickly establishing itself as a market leader in the low temperature, low cost Thermal Hydrolysis space. This is being achieved by demonstrating how advanced technology based in sound science and research can not only help reduce the volumes and GHG’s that can be associated with biosolids and organics management, but also how these amazing resources can be safely diverted from landfills (or other, less beneficial uses) and converted into biogas for green energy, an alternative carbon source for BNR systems and a highly effective, pathogen free “Class A quality” biofertilizer product.
In an effort to better quantify the positive results seen by growers using the LysteGro product, in 2015 Lystek participated with the Georgian Central Soil and Crop Improvement Association in a trial comparing the use of typical application rates of commercial fertilizer with LysteGro at five field locations. The trials were conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and each treatment was replicated three times at each location. On average, the LysteGro treatments increased yield by 16.5 bushels/acre in comparison to the commercial fertilizer treatments. Other tests conducted during the trial, such as grain protein content and stalk nitrate tests also showed that the LysteGro treatments produced superior results, for lower costs, as compared to commercial fertilizer.
Due to the pressures of increasing fertilizer costs and the need to boost organic matter concentrations in soils, some farmers in Southern Ontario have embraced the use of organically-based biofertilizers to replace commercial fertilizer, build nutrient levels in soils and improve overall health. What they are finding is that the LysteGro product (in particular) offers a unique combination of balanced nutrients, ideal for crop production as well as organic matter, which help to improve soil health over the long term. In addition to providing nutrient concentrations of N-P-K (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium) at levels which meet crop demands, LysteGro also provides a suite of micronutrients, including Sulphur, Magnesium, Calcium, Zinc and many others.
Demand for the LysteGro fertilizer produced at Lystek’s OMRC in Southgate, ON and a growing list of converted, municipal Wastewater Resource Recovery Centers (WRRC’s) has been outstanding during the initial years of distribution, and continues to grow as word gets out about the results producers are seeing.
For example, Wayne Metzger of Highland Custom Farming, an organization that farms approximately 1,500 acres of their own land and an additional 8,000 acres as a custom operator in Grey County, was one of the first to use LysteGro. He describes it as; “…an important part of our long term strategy, this product allows us to build up our soils, which are typically low, to very low, in potassium and phosphorus.” He adds; “The initial results have been great. We’re getting 200 bushel corn on ground applied with LysteGro, which is extremely rare for this area. I’m really excited to watch the long term effects of this product. When you see the positive impact this material has had on our soil, and the results of this trial, it’s a wonder why anyone would allow these materials to be sent to landfill, or anywhere else for that matter.”
Following the trial, Jon Wiley, a trial participant and former President of the Grey County Soil and Crop improvement Association, stated that; “While I believed in the product before the trials, the results really do pop out at you, so I’m excited to use the product on my farm going forward”.
Full results from the 2015 trials, they can be found here http://lystek.com/solutions/lystegro-biofertilizer/
The company (Lystek) will continue trials with OMAFRA in 2016, investigating applying the material side dressed into established corn as well as with cover crop following wheat harvest.
Read more at: https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/03/10/818837/10160958/en/Third-Party-Field-Trials-with-Biofertilizer-Yields-Amazing-Results.html
]]>(Article by Arshon Howard, republished from http://delawarestatenews.net/news/levy-court-to-talk-biosolids-at-meeting/)
The county purchased the old Vineyard Farm off Carpenters Bridge Road in 2013, paying $1.3 million from its Sewer Fund for the 148-acre property.
The county and state officials said the property will be used infrequently to spread biosolids, which are nutrient-rich organic materials that result from the treatment of domestic sewage.
The field, located near two tributaries to the Murderkill River, sits across the street from a 55-plus community and adjacent to other farms. Browns Branch and Ash Gut run past Frederica and terminate a few miles south of the town.
Although the county has said the field rarely would be used for biosolids disposal, some nearby residents have reservations.
William Moffett, whose land is next to the field is concerned property values, will decline if Kent County spreads biosolids on the field next to his property.
“I just don’t understand how they think this is a good idea,” Mr. Moffett said Monday. “Why would you make that a sludge farm?
“There are a lot of other properties that they’ve could have done this. It’s going to cause many problems in the future.”
There are two types of biosolids, Class A and Class B. Both have been treated, but those in the Class B category contain “detectible” levels of pathogens, while Class A do not, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Class B biosolids have limits on use, such as buffer zones and crop restrictions, and anyone spreading them in Delaware must have a permit from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
A public hearing with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Surface Water Discharges Section is scheduled for March 10 at the Lake Forest East Elementary School in Frederica. It starts at 6:30 p.m.
The application proposes permitting additional land for the agricultural utilization of biosolids to the list of farms that the County currently has permitted for this use.
Currently the county has an agricultural utilization permit for agricultural utilization of biosolids onto lands known as the West Farm, Kent County Sludge Farm, Nyle Calloway Farm, Blessing Farm and the Goldinger Farm.
Before putting down biosolids under an agricultural utilization permit, they are required to undergo a process to reduce pathogens and must be analyzed for a list of specific parameters including nutrient content and metals, to ensure the biosolids meet state and federal regulatory requirements.
“I just don’t think it’s safe,” Mr. Moffett said. “Every time I think about I just don’t believe that they’re allowed to do this.”
The Levy Court meeting will be held at 7 tonight at the Kent County Administrative Complex at 555 S. Bay Road.
Read more at: http://delawarestatenews.net/news/levy-court-to-talk-biosolids-at-meeting/
]]>Price per unit of plant nutrients, availability, ease of storage and application, potential for nutrient losses and site specific factors are most important considerations when deciding on a fertilizer type.
(Article by George Silva, republished from http://www.suncommercial.com/news/article_2593e94a-036e-11e6-9f9b-6fc87d6d9923.html)
Fertilizers come in different forms, grades and formulations. Physically, they can be solids, liquids or gaseous. Some fertilizers can be applied in the fall, some in the spring and others during the growing season. The majority of fertilizers are synthetic but there are organic sources such as livestock manures. Most synthetic fertilizers sold today release their nutrients to the soil rapidly, but some fertilizers are designed to release their nutrients slowly.
All fertilizers irrespective of their origin or form are meant to serve one basic purpose — to supplement the essential nutrients in the soil. Some fertilizer nutrients, particularly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), if improperly used could move away from the application site and degrade water quality.
For handling purposes, there are two major classes of fertilizer: solid and liquid. Anhydrous ammonia is the most common gaseous form but it is stored as a liquid under pressure. Blended dry fertilizers are generally much less expensive in bulk and easier to store compared to liquid. Liquid fertilizer use in Michigan has steadily increased in the past 50 years and today liquids account for about 50 percent of the market. Liquid fertilizers are popular because of the ease of handling and application. With liquids, a custom blend and greater uniformity in the application rate can be achieved. In dry blended fertilizers, particles such as micronutrients can segregate during mixing and handling, resulting in uneven application.
Just like their solid counterparts, liquid fertilizers contain one or more available plant nutrients. They can be true solutions where all the N-P-K nutrients are dissolved in water or held in suspension. Suspension agents such as colloidal clay material are typically used to keep the fertilizer particles from settling out. Suspension fertilizers should not be stored for long periods. True solution fertilizers can be stored as long as the temperature stays above freezing but salting out in cold weather may be an issue.
In terms of crop response, there is no agronomic difference in the efficiency of liquid and dry fertilizers when the same rate and placement are used under satisfactory growing conditions. Fertilizer recommendations are the same regardless of the fertilizer source. When placed in moist soil, dry fertilizers absorb water and undergo chemical reactions similar to liquid fertilizers.
Both solid and liquid fertilizers, when properly diluted with water, can be applied directly on foliage or with irrigation water. Both forms can be used as starter or pop-up applications.
Farmers generally take advantage by using both solid and liquid fertilizer forms; solid fertilizers for heavy pre-plant applications and liquids preferred for starters and in-season applications. Certain pesticides are compatible for mixing with liquid fertilizers. Most liquid fertilizers weigh between 10 and 11 pounds per gallon. This density is used to determine how much liquid fertilizer to apply per acre. About 9 to 10 gallons of the liquid form are needed to provide the same quantities of nutrients as 100 pounds of dry fertilizer of the same grade.
A drawback of the liquid fertilizer system is that it requires special storage and application tanks and pumps, which greatly increase costs. Most farms use special poly tanks to store liquid fertilizer. Michigan regulations require secondary containment facilities to prevent leaks.
Organic fertilizers, such as chicken litter, biosolids and compost, in addition to providing plant nutrients, also contribute organic matter to the soil. Because of their low nutrient content, large quantities are needed. Their nutrient content also tends to be variable. Just like the synthetic counterparts, the N and P of organic fertilizers are susceptible to environmental losses if improperly managed.
The introduction of polymer coated urea fertilizers helped to reduce N leaching and runoff losses because of their controlled release action. Their use is particularly beneficial on fields close to surface water or on fields that are coarse textured where N leaching is predictable. They provide flexibility in application timing and higher N use efficiencies that may offset their higher cost (about 10-15 cents higher than normal urea).
A plethora of new fertilizer-related compounds have emerged recently. These products are advertised as soil amendments, nutrient enhancers or growth stimulants. When trying new products, use them on small acreage first and have untreated check strips side by side to compare yields and economic returns. A pre-plant soil test will serve to establish baseline nutrient levels in the treated plots.
This year farmers will spend about $150 per acre on corn fertilizer. Adding new fertilizer products will further increase the cost of production. In the meantime, the search for the perfect fertilizer, one that is freely available and easy to use with high plant recovery and low nutrient losses to the environment, will continue well into the future.
For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu or contact the Knox County Purdue Extension office by calling 812-882-3509 or by emailing Valerie Clingerman at [email protected]. You can also post questions on the Purdue Extension Knox County Ag and Natural Resources Facebook page.
Upcoming Dates:
Wednesday: Garden to Consumer Series, 10 a.m. to noon, Purdue Extension-Knox County Office, 4259 N. Purdue Road. For more information call 812-882-3509. Topic: safe food handling, preparation, and presentation; best practices to produce safe food, learn about bad bugs, and safe handling when selling. Cost: $5.
Read more at: http://www.suncommercial.com/news/article_2593e94a-036e-11e6-9f9b-6fc87d6d9923.html
Before the early 1990s, it was common practice for motorists driving along the Princes Freeway to wind up their windows as they passed Werribee.
(Article by Alexandra Laske, republished from http://www.starweekly.com.au/features/theres-more-to-the-western-treatment-plant-than-meets-the-eye/)
You could count on a southerly breeze pushing the odours from the Werribee sewage farm northwards up until about 25 years ago when massive covers were installed on top of its main sewage lagoons.
Since then, the sewage facility, now called the Western Treatment Plant (WTP), operates like the well-oiled machine it is – just without the smells.
It’s been there almost 125 years, having been built when the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works was set up to manage the city’s supply of water and treatment of sewage.
Under the guidance of chief engineer William Thwaites, construction of a sewage system began at Werribee in 1892, with a pumping station at Spotswood. Just five years later, the first Melbourne homes had their effluent transported all the way to Werribee with just a single flush.
WESTERN TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER MARTIN BOWLES.
Now the plant serves more than 1.6 million people in the central, northern and western suburbs, and all it takes is 30 to 35 days for raw sewage to be recycled or discharged into Port Phillip Bay.
WTP manager Martin Bowles took Star Weekly on a tour to show how a little more than half of Melbourne’s sewage is treated and explain the other uses Melbourne Water has for its 10,500-hectare site at Werribee.
“Sewage is now thought of as a resource … It will become a source of revenue.”
It’s a grey, drizzly Melbourne morning as Bowles drives towards the open-cut drain where the city’s raw sewage enters the plant. The drain opens up on the property – which is equivalent in size to Phillip Island – alongside an “odour control facility” that removes hydrogen sulphide, or rotten egg gas, before the sewage flows along a 17-kilometre drain and then into 10 treatment lagoons.
Surprisingly, peering down into the drain wasn’t as visually off-putting as anticipated. The equivalent of 180 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of sewage is pumped to the treatment plant each day. But, as Bowles points out, the contents are 99 per cent liquid … it’s not just human effluent but waste water from washing machines, dishwashers and kitchen sinks.
And it’s already been through giant macerating pumps that break solids down.
From there we drive to the main treatment lagoons, or as Bowles calls them, “fart tarps” – ponds covered in high-density polyethylene that suppresses foul smells, halves greenhouse gas emissions and captures methane gases. “The covers starve the contents of oxygen, and bugs eat away at the solids that form on top,” he says.
AERATORS PUMP OXYGEN THROUGH PARTIALLY TREATED SEWAGE IN A PROCESS NICKNAMED ‘THE MILKSHAKE’.
A contract was signed with AGL in 1998 to harness the gases trapped under the tarp to produce electricity. This now generates almost 95 per cent of power used at the plant.
Bowles says works are under way to expand operations so the plant can produce more energy than it needs and begin exporting it back into the grid.
“Sewage is now thought of as a resource,” he says. “It will become a source of revenue.”
From here we’re driven to the aptly named “milkshake machine”. Thousands of bugs swarming just beyond the safety of the car door warn of the smell to come. We’re at the “activated sludge treatment plant”, where huge rotating motors aerate the sewage to remove its high nitrogen content into the atmosphere.
Without this step, organic nitrogen and ammonia would be deposited into the bay, turning it a sickly shade of green.
Occasionally the motors will fall off their shaft, requiring a “poo diver”, as Bowles calls commercial divers, to dive into the sludge and fix the mixer.
“Poo-diving, it’s a thing,” he says with a laugh. “There’s zero visibility, but they get suited up.”
From here, the sewage flows through 10 lagoons, becoming clearer and cleaner as bacteria breaks down the organic matter in the water making its way either into the bay or to be used to irrigate vegetable crops.
Bird watcher’s paradise
At the edge of the property, where the last lagoons run out into Port Phillip Bay, it’s difficult not to be impressed by the variety and sheer number of birds that come here to feed. Bowles says it’s testament to the cleanliness of the recycled water. “For me, the judge of water quality is the birdlife at the end.”
He points to the pelicans, swans, terns and shore-line birds that have gathered in a cacophony of noise at one of the bay outlets.
“The birds love the nutrients left in the water. This place has gone from being declared a wildlife sanctuary in the 1930s to a Ramsar- listed site.” (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance – the Ramsar Convention – was signed in Ramsar, Iran, on February 2, 1971.)
TRACTORS SCOOP UP DRIED BIOWASTE FOR STORAGE UNTIL AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND USE IS FOUND FOR IT
It’s considered the second-best bird-watching site in Australia (after Kakadu) and for just $50, and a $50 key deposit, you can purchase a two-year bird-watching permit to go there.
Mr Bowles says there’s no shortage of bird-watchers coming to catch a glimpse of some of the world’s rarest birds, including species that migrate from as far away as Siberia.
Back at the 10 eight-metre-deep lagoons, Bowles explains that each one has to be dredged every five years.
The solids that settle at the bottom are moved to “sludge-drying pans”, where they are ploughed to remove any liquids then excavated and made into mounds of biowaste, which are currently Bowles’ biggest headache. Recently, Melbourne Water trialled turning this byproduct into bricks, but they lacked the structural integrity to hold their shape.
“We have mountains and mountains of biosolids,” he says. “It would be a fantastic fertiliser were it not for all the metal in it.”
THE ODOUR PLANT WHICH TAKES GASES FROM THE INCOMING SEWAGE AND ELIMINATES THE SMELL ONCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANT AND WERRIBEE.
It’s hoped WTP’s partnership with universities will speed up a solution.
Ghost town
Our last stop is the former hub of Cocoroc, an abandoned town built to house MMBW staff and their families in 1894. At its peak, the community numbered 500.
Houses were moved or destroyed in the early 1970s, and the four primary schools are now gone, but the old football ground, a town hall and an empty outdoor swimming pool remain. “Cocoroc, that’s the sound the growling grass frog makes,” Bowles says.
The name also means frog in the traditional language of the Wathaurung people, traditional owners of WTP’s land.
As we head back to WTP headquarters, Bowles points out rows of healthy-looking corn crops. Six years ago, Melbourne Water signed a 20-year contract with MPH Agriculture, a privately owned agribusiness, to farm 5000 hectares of the property for livestock feed and take up other ventures.
Bowles says it costs $20 million to run the plant each year to treat more than 50 per cent of Melbourne’s sewage. To put it into context, it’s the same amount Premier Daniel Andrews spent last year to attract investment and visitors to the state.
This year marks the plant’s 125th birthday. And while it might still be called a “poo farm”, this is a milestone Victorians should consider next time they find themselves on the Princes Highway with the windows down.
Read more at: http://www.starweekly.com.au/features/theres-more-to-the-western-treatment-plant-than-meets-the-eye/
(Article by Water Online, republished from http://www.wateronline.com/doc/therma-flite-awarded-contract-to-provide-biosolids-drying-system-to-wisconsin-0001)
“We are seeing mounting pressures on municipalities around the country to upgrade to Class A biosolids due to increasing regulatory limitations on land application of Class B biosolids,” explains Peter Commerford, VP Sales for Municipal Drying Technology at Therma-Flite and a leading expert on biosolids management. “The Therma-Flite drying system was selected because it proved out to be the best fit due to the need for a cost-effective solution with a modest footprint that fits into existing buildings at the WWTP. Therma-Flite’s unique sealed drying chamber design provides ultra-low oxygen conditions for improved safety and very low off-gas flows for economical odor control.”
The engineering company consulting on the project conducted the technology assessment and presented its recommendation report for the dryer to the Public Utility Commission. A compelling fact influencing the final decision was that Class A biosolids can be applied anywhere and is a very effective fertilizer for golf courses and landscaping.
The growing demand for Class A biosolids is partly due to its 4-5% nitrogen which is released slowly over time and that it contains many micronutrients that have shown to be beneficial to crop growth ultimately reducing costs associated with purchasing other fertilizers. The Utility Commission approved the proposal with a unanimous vote.
About Therma-Flite
Therma-Flite, a leading resource recovery technology and services company, builds innovative thermal processing systems that extract resources that would otherwise go to a landfill or to waste. Serving municipalities, oil and gas, power and other industries, the company helps customers in NA as well as Europe and Asia, maximize the value of their waste streams in an environmentally responsible manner. For more information, visit www.therma-flite.com.
Read more at: http://www.wateronline.com/doc/therma-flite-awarded-contract-to-provide-biosolids-drying-system-to-wisconsin-0001
]]>(Article by Jonathan Webb, republished from http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/04/09/niagara-voices-long-term-sludge-solution-needed)
This seems to be a case of NIMBYism at its best, and I can’t really say I would disagree as I’m not overly keen on having sewage from parts unknown travelling by my doorstep.
Sewer sludge, or biosolids as the industry likes to call it, is basically a very concentrated mix of everything that goes down your toilet. Even worse, the sludge that is under protest in Lincoln is not necessarily produced here in Lincoln.
So not only does the toxic stew get concentrated at municipal treatment plants, it gets further concentrated by bringing 80 truckloads a day to one location.
This issue has been debated over and over, and the two sides I always see in this debate are the ‘for’ and ‘against’ crowds. What seems to be missing from the conversation is the argument that we should be finding a better way of treating our sewage, not worrying about finding a place to put the excess poop.
If it was treated in a way that rendered it to be inert, then there would be no discussion.
Collectively as a community, by neighborhood, municipality and federally, we always seem to take the path of least resistance in our decisions. We only investigate issues enough to solve the problem in the short term. As soon as we find a solution, we believe it is THE solution and we stop looking.
At some point in the 1970s, someone decided that because manure is good fertilizer, and sewage sludge has a large component of the human equivalent of manure in it, that we should spread it on the fields and voila! problem solved.
Unfortunately, as usual it’s not problem solved, it’s problem transferred.
So now we take the problems of quite a number of municipalities and concentrate them in one municipality – in this case, Lincoln. The question is not whether this stuff is bad, as even the provincial government admits it is toxic, indirectly – why else would they legislate wait times of 15 months for fruit or vegetable crops after biosolids are applied, or a two to six-month waiting period for grazing livestock?
What bothers me is that all parties spend so much time and effort fighting for or against this toxic soup, and no one is working on a real solution.
Solutions actually correct problems, not move them around. Maybe a real solution would come about if municipalities were forced to keep their own sewage. By giving them an easy out, they don’t even attempt to make it any better.
Our predecessors started this problem with the advent of the modern sanitary sewer system, and at the time all cheered the great innovation. This took the problem of dealing with our waste from our own backyards and transferred it.
I’m sure at the time it made great sense, as everyone was able to shed a nasty household issue. But as populations grow and become more dense, the solutions of the past are becoming the nightmare of the present.
The issue with all this is not so much sewage sludge, but the fact we do this over and over in modern society, taking the easy way out.
Sometimes solutions work in the short term, but long-term they turn out to be disasters.
Take a look at the way we used to treat garbage before we reduced, reused and recycled. Everything went in one container and we stuck it in a hole in the ground.
We have not truly moved away from that, but we have made great strides with the recycling and food waste programs. We are ever so slowly working toward a sustainable real solution in that department, something that should have been done from the beginning.
This is why I have difficulty with the sludge issue.
Let’s stop arguing over where to put it, and just work toward a good, ecologically sustainable solution. Maybe this means a complete rethinking of our system, but if we wait too long we might contaminate our environment to the point of no return.
Read more at: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/04/09/niagara-voices-long-term-sludge-solution-needed
]]>(Article by Casey Christie, republished from http://www.bakersfield.com/News/2016/04/26/LA-sludge-case-about-risks-to-Kern-County-lawyer-tells-court.html)
Los Angeles’ challenge of Measure E, Kern County’s 2006 voter-approved ban on farming with biosolids in unincorporated areas, has faced dueling motions and rulings at nearly every level of court in the nation.
Now, for the first time, a judge is hearing evidence, witness examination and debate in a full trial. Tulare County Superior Court Judge Lloyd Hicks is presiding over the case, which is expected to run as long as two weeks.
Attorney Brian Condon, speaking for the County of Kern, argued in his opening statement that the case isn’t about how Los Angeles-owned Green Acres Farm is meeting the current regulations that cover biosolids.
“It’s about the risks to Kern County from chemicals that aren’t covered by current rules,” he said.
Testimony will show, he said, that a host of questionable chemicals, including flame retardants, have been found in soil samples in the area.
Kern County voters, Condon argued, shouldn’t have to wait until someone is harmed by those chemicals before they can block Los Angeles from spreading biosolids on Kern County land.
Los Angeles’ attorneys spent their time Tuesday calling a string of witnesses, mostly Green Acres operators, biosolids handlers and city officials, to paint the picture that Los Angeles is operating within the law and recycling much of the city’s sewage solids in a beneficial manner by growing dairy feed crops in Kern County.
Condon and attorney Jonathan Hughes tried to poke holes in that picture and show Los Angeles was trying to do the minimum amount of work and testing to ensure biosolids were safe to spread on farmland.
City of Los Angeles attorney Mike Lampe started the day by questioning Kern County Public Health Services Director Matt Constantine about his role in enforcing county regulations on Green Acres Farm, the 4,700-acre Los Angeles-owned property where most of LA’s biosolids are disposed of.
“Has the Kern County Environmental Health Division… ever made a determination that the flies and odors came from Green Acres Farm?” Lampe asked.
“No,” Constantine said.
Lampe asked Constantine why Kern County Environmental Health Services, in 2011, stopped enforcing a 2003 ordinance that requires Los Angeles to apply only exceptional quality biosolids.
“After consulting with county counsel, I made the decision not to regulate the facility — not to enforce the 2003 AEQ ordinance,” Constantine said. “I did not believe not enforcing the ordinance would create an imminent health risk.”
Did he tell the Kern County Board of Supervisors that he had stopped enforcing the ordinance?
“I don’t remember notifying the board,” Constantine said.
On cross-examination, Condon worked hard to show Lampe was playing games with the facts and that other agencies are regulating impacts from Green Acres,
He asked Constantine about the impact that Measure E had on the 2003 ordinance.
“It repealed it,” Constantine said.
Constantine, prompted further by Condon, explained that the county stopped enforcement of the 2003 ordinance after a federal court dismissed Los Angeles’ case against Measure E several years ago.
Measure E has since been frozen by judge Hicks, who ordered Los Angeles to operate under the 2003 ordinance.
Next up was Rob Fanucchi of Kern County, who farms Green Acres Farm for Los Angeles.
Given a choice of manure or biosolids, he told Lampe, he would prefer to use biosolids.
“If things are planted at the same time, Green Acres Farm can out-produce some of the other areas I farm around there,” Fanucchi said.
Condon asked if Fanucchi knows where the irrigation water goes after it nourishes the crops.
“I don’t know how far down it goes,” he said.
Then Condon asked Fanucchi why he doesn’t use biosolids on his personal farmland, where he has almond and pistachio orchards.
“Because I don’t know if the haulers would allow it — for food quality,” Fanucchi said.
The most heated exchanges of the day came in the afternoon when Lampe called Diane Gilbert-Jones, regulatory liason for the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, to the stand.
He went over, in detail, the reports, tests and filings Green Acres completes to comply with San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies’ rules.
Then he asked, in a rapid-fire series of short questions, whether anyone has asked for additional testing of the soils, crops or water for either regulated substances or what the County of Kern calls “constituents of emerging concern.”
“No,” Gilbert-Jones said to each question.
Condon jumped in quickly to cross-examine.
“Does the City of Los Angeles monitor the groundwater at Green Acres Farms?”
“No,” Gilbert-Jones said, saying Los Angeles is not required to do so.
Condon also pushed hard on “constituents of emerging concern” — chemicals and substances that could be in biosolids but are not regulated.
He asked her if the City of Los Angeles has any plans to use constituents of concern as a control point in the treatment of biosolids — even though audits of operations called for that action.
“Not that I’m aware of,” Gilbert-Jones said.
She said regulations do not require Los Angeles to test for or treat for those chemicals and substances and — while they monitor studies on the materials — the city isn’t likely to do anything to control them unless regulations change.
Read more at: http://www.bakersfield.com/News/2016/04/26/LA-sludge-case-about-risks-to-Kern-County-lawyer-tells-court.html
]]>If you talk to its proponents, and there are lots of them, sewage sludge fertilizer is a great way to divert human waste from landfills and to grow crops, despite the unappealing picture it may conjure. The US Environmental Protection Agency has a nicer name for the muck that’s left over after processing our shit—“biosolids”—and has encouraged its widespread use as a cheap, effective way to fertilize crops and recycle human waste. But while the EPA requires that bacteria and viruses are killed off before sludge is applied to farm fields, other contaminants, like pharmaceuticals and metals, are only minimally regulated, if at all.
(Article by Peter Hess, republished from http://motherboard.vice.com/read/turns-out-that-using-human-poop-to-fertilize-crops-might-not-be-such-a-great-ide)
New research suggests this could be a problem, as contaminants are now showing up in treated sludge—and, in lower levels, even in some animals that have fed off the plants it fertilizes.
“I don’t think the present rules are even remotely adequate,” Murray McBride, a soil contaminant researcher at Cornell University, told me. “There are a lot more toxic metals on the periodic table [and potentially in the soil] than what they decided to regulate.”
According to him, the EPA’s rules are outdated. They regulate only nine metals with known health risks—including lead, cadmium and arsenic. And metals are just the beginning. Pharmaceuticals and other organic chemicals found in biosolids are cause for even greater concern, he said. Others agree. “If you look at what [could be] potentially regulated by EPA, it’s just a tiny fraction of the universe of the chemicals we live in,” David L. Lewis, a former EPA scientist who is now a fierce critic of the agency, told me.
“What the EPA regulates is negligible.”
EPA officials haven’t said whether the rules will be revised, but agency spokesperson Robert Daguillard noted in an email that the agency plans to assess the risks posed by pharmaceuticals in sludge. While they haven’t yet determined these risks, they do know what’s in it. An EPA sludge survey, Daguilllard said, includes “92 pharmaceuticals, steroids, and hormones.” But none of those are actually subject to enforceable limits under current rules.
For many farmers, biosolids are a cheaper alternative to synthetic fertilizers. Municipal governments like them, too: since some cities divert as much as 50 percent of sludge to farms, they can reduce the amount of waste they have to pay to landfill. San Diego, Portland and Edmonton, among many others, process their waste to produce biosolids.
It makes sense, then, that demand has been increasing. While the EPA hasn’t recently estimated the size of the market, it put biosolids production at 7.2 million tons in 2004, up four percent from six years earlier. If that growth rate has continued roughly apace, production would be near 8 million tons today. Organic farmers can’t use biosolids as fertilizer without risking their organic certification, but it’s relatively easy for others to get, often via local organizations.
Biosolids boosters say the fertilizer is effective. “If there are any small negative impacts [from contaminants], they are overwhelmed by the positive effects” on crop yields, said Ned Beecher of Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Association, which promotes its use. He believes that the EPA rules are adequate as-is, noting that the agency has already considered the risks posed by dozens of sludge contaminants, and judged them minimal. “Just because there is no limit set, doesn’t mean risk assessment hasn’t been done,” Beecher told me.
“What’s happening in natural environments is long term exposure to low concentrations”
Before sewage sludge is used on farm fields, the EPA requires that it undergo two processes aimed at destroying pathogens: anaerobic digestion—in which bacteria break sludge down in the absence of oxygen––and high-heat sterilization. Even so, some suggest that enough bacteria may survive to contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains. That’s a major concern, because when these “superbugs” spread in livestock farms and hospitals, disease can run rampant. And the bacteria can’t be easily killed with penicillin or other antibiotics.
Edo McGowan, a retired environmental scientist and outspoken critic of biosolids, is concerned about research showing antibiotic-resistance genes in soils treated with biosolids. These genes, he said, are easily spread by farm equipment or wind, winding up in bacteria that can be ingested by people and animals. “Some of these bugs are resistant to pretty much anything you can throw at them,” he told me.
Not all experts agree that using biosolids as fertilizer is hurting the effectiveness of antibiotics, mostly because we still don’t know how much disease resistance occurs naturally in soils. “It’s just speculation at this point,” said Marc Habash, who researches microbes in biosolids at the University of Guelph in Ontario. “Antibiotic resistance genes are in our soil. There are a lot of natively-occurring bacteria that possess these genes.”
Research has backed up some of the critics. A 2012 study led by environmental chemist Chad Kinney of Colorado State University, Pueblo, found that earthworms in soil treated with biosolids contained a variety of manmade compounds, including pharmaceuticals and personal care products, like the antibiotic drug trimethoprim (used to treat urinary tract infections and other conditions) and the disinfectant triclosan (a common ingredient in antibacterial hand soap).
Whether those synthetic compounds actually harm earthworms is unknown, and Kinney notes that the concentrations are low. But he said their presence shows that manmade contaminants in biosolids are moving up the food web. This suggests they could be reaching humans, too.
Despite his worrisome findings, Kinney said that the risks of biosolids are mostly speculative and hard to measure, while the benefits are clear: it’s a way to keep sewage sludge out of landfills and return nutrients to soil. “If sludge isn’t meeting the regulatory requirements [to be classified] as biosolids, it has to be disposed some way. But then you lose all that valuable organic carbon and nutrients that can be released into a soil environment.”
Any health risks associated with recycling contaminants in fertilizer and sending them up the food web may not be known for generations—if ever, according to Kinney.
Part of the problem, he said, is that most studies look only for immediate damage or death, not slower, less obvious effects like reductions in fertility. “Most of the toxicology is based on acute studies of one compound in short-term exposure,” Kinney told Motherboard. “What’s happening in natural environments is long term exposure to low concentrations, so you’re not going to see those acute effects per se. We’re not going to see typical things like lethality.”
“It’s going to be slower, subtler effects,” he said, “that have generational effects.”
Read more at: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/turns-out-that-using-human-poop-to-fertilize-crops-might-not-be-such-a-great-ide
