|
Nancy V. Raine |
Mr. Daniel L. Richardson Environmental Health Supervisor Bedford County Health Department PO Box 148 Bedford, VA 24523 Dear Mr. Richardson: My husband, Steve Stevick (Planning Commissioner, District 5), has suggested I write to you in order to share information about biosolids storage in Bedford County. We have had direct experience with the operation of a biosolids storage facility and its impact on our quality of life, our immediate environment and community of neighbors. This letter is a detailed report about the storage of sewage sludge in Bedford County based on our experience, a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve McMahon, a representative of Synagro, the biosolids hauler, and research on biosolids issues. Our neighbor, with whom we share a right-of-way and whose property adjoins ours in an area zoned Agricultural Preserve operated a Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility on his property for four and a half months in 2006. This Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility was the first to operate in Bedford County. It was located approximately 1/3rd of a mile from our property and operated from mid-December, 2005 until late April, 2006. Photographic documentation is provided in Attachment I. (See Page 3 below for a detailed description of the “facility.”) Introduction Prior to the establishment of this facility, biosolids had been spread (2005) on top of the field our neighbor uses to grow hay for his cattle. Our neighbor spread biosolids on this hay field again in 2006. Regulations forbid the plowing under of biosolids. They are spread on top of the ground. Generally the odor of ammonia gas emanating from spread sewage sludge is present for two to three weeks, depending upon weather conditions; over time the solid waste decomposes due to exposure to the environment. According to an article in the News and Advance (February 19, 2006) nearly 11,000 acres were under permit for sludge application in Bedford County in 2006. As I am sure you are aware, communities throughout the Commonwealth are divided about the practice of spreading of biosolids. Farmers see it as “free fertilizer,” and as evidenced by their use of it, believe it is safe for the livestock that eats the hay grown on fields where biosolids have been spread and safe for humans who eat beef from cattle fed forage fertilized by biosolids. Their neighbors, however, may view the practice as a health and environmental hazard. While one neighbor saves money on fertilizer, others living nearby fear they may pay dearly for his savings – they worry a neighbor may be exposing them to heavy metals known to be high in municipal sludge, such as cadmium and lead. They are concerned about airborne diseases, bacterial contamination (including E-Coli), persistent organic pollutants, medical waste (from both homes and hospitals), and the industrial waste that biosolids contain. They worry about the long-term impact on streams, rivers, and wells that supply their drinking water. Mr. McMahon noted in our conversation that “…pathogens in biosolids are not eliminated sufficiently to allow application to root crops.” Citizens may not reassured by such federal restrictions on the use of biosolids, which suggest that biosolids may not be 100% safe. Awaiting convincing scientific evidence on the safety of food grown on sludge treated land, many organizations involved with agriculture and the food industry do not support sludge use. H.J. Heinz Company, Del Monte, Western Growers and other major food suppliers refuse to accept produce grown on land treated with sewage sludge. The March 2000 EPA Office of Inspector General’s audit report, “Biosolids Management an Enforcement,” concluded that the “EPA does not have an effective program for ensuring compliance with the land application (of sewage sludge) requirements of Part 503. Accordingly, while EPA promotes land application, EPA cannot assure the public that current land application practices are protective of human health and the environment.” In the six years since this audit report, the safety of biosolids has not yet been definitively proven. Until definitive assurance of health and environmental safety can be given to the public, the community debate about the use of biosolids will continue in localities where they are spread throughout the nation. The practice of spreading biosolids divides rural communities. Neighbors square off – one side under the banner “no one is going to tell me what to do with my land” and the other demanding that local officials “do something” to protect their health, the air they breathe and the water they drink. One person’s “right to do what he wants on his land” is another person’s “right to protect his health.” The operation of a Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility in an agricultural area in Bedford County raises even more concerns about the health and environmental safety of biosolids and will only intensify the conflict among neighbors in rural areas. Bedford County’s First Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility The Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility that operated in Bedford County this year was a “transitional” station where biosolids were dumped, held, and then reloaded for local delivery when the timing was right, i.e. when weather and ground conditions permitted spreading. The facility was described by Mr. McMahon as a “bunker silo” – an earth and berm rectangular pit 4 feet deep. It was 100 feet long by 70 feet wide. Because it was a “temporary” facility, no concrete was used to line the bunker or “pit,” nor was it covered during the period of operation. Instead, the bottom of the pit had a packed soil bottom. The biosolids stored there were exposed to the air and weather. Biosolids were carried to this facility in a steady stream of large, rapidly-moving trucks coming from rail heads or directly from source sites in the north. The basic route was from Route 460 to the Centerville Road, to Route 122 North, to Route 643 East. I do not know the exact tonnage of biosolids deposited in this facility, but I do know that during the period of operation 30 to 40 trucks arrived daily (except Sunday) for deliveries, starting at 6:30 AM and continuing until dusk. In a Letter to the Editor of The Bedford Bulletin written in mid-March, 2006, Jim Bryant, who lives on the Centerville Road, described the traffic on that route as “horrendous.” As you are no doubt aware, sewage sludge is 70% liquid. Because this facility was located approximately 500 feet uphill from the North Otter Creek, a berm was built on the downward slope side (i.e. western side) to limit seepage of fluids. Haulers are well aware of the problem of run-off from storage facilities because of the bacterial content of biosolids and attempt to address the problem with earthen berms. Mr. McMahon stated without hesitation that E-Coli bacteria are present in biosolids. There is no debate on this point. He said that the pit was located in such a way that any run-off was diverted to a “vegetated buffer.” However, most of the pit adjoined short grasses. After the facility was fully operational, remedial measures were required (perhaps by your office?) to address the run-off problem of the section of the pit that did not border a wooded “vegetated buffer.”. According to Mr. McMahon, the potential problem of ground water contamination was addressed by packing the bottom of the pit. As far as I know, this has not been subjected to independent scientific verification, and, it is almost certain that the dredging process to extract and reload the biosolids stored in the pit undermines, if not negates, any benefit of packing that surface to avoid seepage into the groundwater. The scale of the operation was “industrial.” The noise from the operation can best be compared to the operation of railroad switching yard and could be heard over our 120 acres and beyond. Although “noise” is not considered a public health issue, falling instead in the “nuisance” category, the stress of exposure to this level of noise over an extended period of time and being awakened at daybreak over many months may have an adverse effect on the health of some individuals, such as chronically ill persons and children. The delivery trucks routinely lined up on Route 643 (the Otterville Road), waiting their turn to access the site. The trucks leaked liquid while waiting, which ran onto the road surface and into ditches. Trucks often waited at a turn out located a few yards uphill of the North Otter Creek, which has already been identified as an “impaired” stream by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. For a period of nearly a month, the pit was, in fact, an uncovered “hill” of biosolids rising 15 feet or more feet above the ground because many tons of material had been delivered, but could not yet be spread -- the fields for which the sludge was destined were still too wet. The mound was not covered, even by a tarp. Mr. McMahon told us that “the site was used more than we planned” and that “had they known,” they would have “made it twice the size.” Unfortunately, it was not “twice the size.” The remedial measures for run-off mentioned earlier in this report consisted of a thin straw “blanket” placed on top of the ground on the downhill side (i.e. creek side) of the pit/mound. The straw “blanket” was secured to the ground with short stakes. In addition, plastic “fences,” approximately 3 feet tall, were placed on the downhill side (western side) of the pit, below the blanketed area. The plastic “fences” were secured by wooden stakes pounded into the ground. Whether or not these measures held back the run-off from heavy rain that fell on the “hill” of biosolids is unclear, because to my knowledge no testing was done. Perhaps, if the pit had been filled only to ground level, the run-off would have been contained within it (with any seepage on the berm side into the soil itself.) As it happened, there was more sludge than pit. It could certainly be argued that the remedial measures that were implemented likely did not adequately address the problem of run-off on the down slope to North Otter Creek. Because the facility was “temporary” more effective (and expensive) remedies were not taken by Synagro, whose interest was spreading the biosolids, not protecting Bedford County’s North Otter Creek from run-off known to contain bacterial contamination. Many researchers argue that such run-off may also contain other residues, such as heavy metals or persistent organic pollutants. The odor of such concentrated tonnage of sewage sludge was intense, constant and pervasive. This odor is the odor of ammonia gas – the result of “burnt lime added to the sewage to raise the phosphate level in order to reduce pathogens by heat,” according to Mr. McMahon. Because of the prevailing winds, the odor of ammonia gas was present half a mile from the site, reaching into our home. I do not know the health effects of inhaling ammonia gas over an extended period of time, but I cannot imagine it is healthy. From personal experience I can attest that it creates headaches and a chronic feeling of low-grade nausea. According to Mr. McMahon, there is a 120-day limit per load for storing biosolids in temporary facilities. However, it is not possible to distinguish between loads in order to implement such a control. Even if such a distinction could be made, what purpose would it serve, if one load of biosolids replaces another? Placing a time limit suggests a concern about the safety of piling up so many tons of biosolids in one place. The 120-day limit per load makes little practical sense -- loads are not numbered, solid “bricks” that can be inventoried, tracked and retrieved. They consist of the type of material that co-mingles when dumped into an earthen pit using heavy equipment. This facility represents a considerable investment for the haulers – somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000. The farmer is paid well for the use of his land for storage. Mr. McMahon told us that temporary storage facilities are “not as environmentally sound as permanent facilities.” It appears that the “temporary” designation exempts haulers from controls they otherwise would be required to implement, such as concrete liners and caps, monitoring measures to determine seepage from the site, and air quality monitoring. In addition, the soil scientists who select temporary sites are employed by the haulers, so conflict of interest may be a problem. How can a locality be confident that “temporary” site soils do, in fact, have a sufficient impermeable character (e.g. enough clay content) to minimize seepage? Without independent testing of the soil for each location being considered for such a facility, the public cannot be certain that seepage into groundwater or wells used for drinking water is not taking place. However, because the haulers contract with private landowners, it is impossible for such independent tests to be made in advance. The contracts are a private matter and county officials have no way to be aware of them. The way officials do become aware of the establishment of these facilities is when neighbors affected by the noise, odor and traffic alert them to it. By then, it is already operational. Mr. McMahon told us that these facilities must be at least 100 feet from wells. Because the substrata in Bedford County is fractured rock, it is impossible to know whether or not a well drawing water even miles distant might not be affected by contamination from a storage facility. That is, we cannot know whether or not contamination from these facilities is reaching down into aquifers. Mr. McMahon told us this “seepage into aquifers was possible.” Because no public notice is required, citizens may not know that temporary facilities even exist in their area. Private testing of well water for those contaminants that can be detected (many cannot) ought to be an option for citizens who are concerned about the dangers of stored biosolids. Because no notice of the establishment of a Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility is required, citizens are not aware of potential risks to their drinking water. Were they aware, many might choose to have their water tested. The results of those tests could be informative, if shared with appropriate county officials. Because these facilities are located on private property, trespass laws apply. Affected neighbors and the press cannot access the facility to document its operation. Neighbors may not wish to interfere with private property rights they respect or create bad relationships with a neighbor who does not share their uncertainty regarding safety and who, at any rate, is making money from the operation. The biosolids industry has been successful in assuring that local communities have limited, if any, control over both the spreading of biosolids in fields within their jurisdiction and the storage of biosolids on private land in their jurisdiction. I do not know how many other Temporary Biosolids Storage Facilities have operated, are operating or are being planned for operation in Bedford County. Mr. McMahon told us last spring that he hoped to establish several more. In theory, as long as landowners are willing to contract with haulers, many such sites could be established. Landowners who wish to earn money from the use of their land for biosolids storage facilities recognize such use as a “use-by-right,” directly related to their farming and agricultural operation. Concern about their neighbors’ anxiety level and/or health is unlikely to outweigh the financial rewards they reap, especially when haulers assure them that the storage sites pose no health or environmental risks. When private land used for such facilities changes hands, new owners may be unaware that such a facility was in operation on their property at one time. They might build a home on top of where a pit once stood, dig a pond that submerges earth used for a pit, or sink a well into the ground that once stored tons of sewage sludge. No disclosures are required and few buyers would be likely to ask, even were the seller willing to divulge this information. With the growth and development going on in Bedford County and many farms being turned into subdivisions, Bedford County has a duty to assure current and future residents it is not exposing them to long-term health and environmental dangers from storage facilities. Debate about safety of sludge aside, it is indisputable that temporary storage facilities: &Mac183; Emit high concentrations of ammonia gas; &Mac183; Burden narrow rural roads with a significant amount of polluting truck traffic that poses a danger to school buses and local drivers and that leaks liquid sludge onto public roadways and ditches; &Mac183; Create significant noise pollution; and &Mac183; Contribute to increased levels of stress among neighbors who cannot be reassured that the facility poses no danger to their health. They cannot be reassured because the research on safety of biosolids is on-going; the scientific data is complex and not (yet) definitive. It will be difficult for Bedford County to find a way to address the problems these storage facilities present because they are, in essence, private operations on private property. Haulers save money by encouraging landowners to contract with them for the use of private land for storage. They assure landowners that biosolids are safe to both spread and store. Their assurances are sufficient for many landowners, especially those who need income from the use of their primary asset – their land. The spreading and storage of biosolids in Bedford County has the unfortunate effect of eroding the social fabric that has long characterized rural communities, turning neighbors against each other. The social impact of the storage facility on our neighbor’s property has disrupted personal relationships on the Otterville Road that were once characterized by mutual respect. Regrettably, this mutual respect has turned to resentment and hostility. Rural communities, such as Bedford County, have become the dumping ground for the unwanted wastes of distant northern municipalities, whether we like it or not. While rural residents have accepted, sometimes reluctantly, the spreading of sludge -- perhaps because the “unpleasantness” is of relatively short duration (2 to 3 weeks) and the practice is viewed as part of “country life” -- the storage of biosolids is another matter. Storage of sewage sludge for up to six months on private land in rural areas will be viewed by citizens who do not profit from it financially -- but who are “forced” to live with the noise, odor, and traffic associated with storage operations -- as an unacceptable, even intolerable, practice that local officials must address to fulfill their responsibilities as guardians of “the public good.” Thank you for taking the time to read this document. If you are interested in speaking with Mr. McMahon, his number is 804.443.2170. I would also be happy to share my research with you. Sincerely, Nancy V. Raine cc: Chuck Neudorfer Carl Boggess Steve Wilkerson Steve Arrington Steve Stevick return to home page |