The Proper Questions About Sludge
Published: November 21, 2008
Bedford County Supervisor Annie Pollard came close to asking the most important question the other night about the spread of biosolids on farmland in the county. But she stopped short of it.
The discussion that came before the board focused on whether and to what extent the board should become involved in farm-related matters between the state and the county’s farmers. The supervisors appointed the agricultural board to advise them on such matters and to resolve problems that come up from time to time.
The agricultural board had asked the state to speed up the regulatory process for biosolids so they could get on with the business of applying for permits and having the sludge spread on hayfields and pasture land. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality assumed oversight of treated municipal sewage sludge from the state health department in January. DEQ is still working on regulations that would govern the spread of the sludge — a controversial matter because of the potential existence in the sludge of substances harmful to human health.
Many in Bedford and other counties in Central Virginia have publicly opposed the spread of the nutrient-rich sludge, which is said to be beneficial to farmlands. But Bedford farmers, along with their colleagues in other counties, see the free sludge as a way to cut fertilizer costs in their farming operations.
Jeff Powers, chairman of the agricultural advisory board, said farmers are concerned about the state’s delay in processing their applications for the spread of sludge on their lands. “The cost of fertilizer ... is going to be key if some of them can stay in business,” he told the board.
DEQ officials have said that permits for the spread of sludge are being accepted. But, if the permit had not been approved before the regulatory change took place, that farmer must reapply and start over again.
Members of Bedford’s agricultural board sent a letter to DEQ and other state officials seeking to speed up the process. The letter was signed by the farmers and not by the Board of Supervisors, which prompted the discussion.
Pollard said the county doesn’t know the long-term effects of the sludge, some of which comes from out-of-state sewage treatment plants. She raised the question about the potential health effects, but then backed away from it too soon. “The best thing we can do is stay out of it,” said Pollard.
On that, she is wrong. Control of the spread of biosolids in the commonwealth properly resides with state government in Richmond, but it is altogether proper for local governments to have more input in the granting of permits. (The approach Virginia takes in granting air and water permits could serve as a model to follow.)
Far more important than a free source of fertilizer for Bedford farmers are the long-term effects of sludge on the environment. How safe to human health is the treated sewage sludge? Where does it come from? What industries or manufacturing processes are contributing to it?
The state doesn’t really know. For that matter, the federal Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t really know, either. And no one in Richmond, at least, seems to be in any rush to answer those and dozens of other questions about the possible hazardous effects of sludge on the health of humans living near the fields on which it is spread.
Those are questions the supervisors should be asking. Annie Pollard came close, but then she said, “The best thing we can do is stay out of it.” Not really. The best thing the supervisors can do is keep raising the questions until they get some answers. The health of future generations in the county is far more important than today’s cost differential for a truckload of fertilizer for the farmers’ fields.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
FYI: The Commonwealth does allow, has permits for, and actively utilizes the land application of biosolids on its property. I suggest contacting the DEQ should you have any questions about the procedure or exact locations of these state-owned land application sites.
And it would also be nice to know WHY the Federal and State governments do NOT allow sludge to be spread on land owned by them.
Virginia Tech does not allow the spreading of sludge on its extensive farm fields.
Anybody ever asked why?
No, I didn’t think so. Sounds to me like it could be the basis of a hard-hitting investigative report.
Those who have not had to live next to a field with sludge spread on it probably don’t understand why it’s so objectionable.
It’s nothing like using manure as a fertilizer.
It is shortsighted to suggest the only way to get rid of toxic/pathogenic sewage sludge “biosolids” is landfilling,
incineration or land spreading. Sludge spreading, with its vile odors and swarms of filthy flies, is a public health risk.
Airborne dusts, gases and pathogens make people sick. Sludge has killed livestock and contaminated land and water.
Family pets track this pathogenic waste into homes on their feet and fur, exposing residents to illness.
http://www.sludgevictims.com
Europe and Japan are rapidly discontinuing land application to preserve their agricultural soil untainted. They are
reducing their dependence on imported oil, and reducing greenhouse gases by utilizing new, non-polluting technologies
such as pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc incineration to convert sewage sludge from contaminated waste to a valuable renewable resource to cleanly and economically produce biogas, heat, electricity, power and energy.
The new thermal technologies are NOT the pollution belching incinerators of the past.
See new sludge-to-energy technologies already being used:
http://www.sludgevictims.com/clean-alternatives.html
Pretty good, “In the Middle”.
Apparently anyone who has a different opinion than yours must be “emotional” - while you are using your intelligence (rather than emotions) to remain completely objective.
And I love your “Straw Man” - “Do you want to go back to privies?“ No one suggested it, and it’s not even the logical extension of what anyone said, it’s just something you WISH we said so you could make it sound silly.
Well, now your suggestion comes across as the silly, emotional one. A reasonable opinion might say:
1) I don’t want to spread human waste where I grow my food.
2) Just because The Government says it’s OK doesn’t mean it really is, and that I should accept it.
3) Just because no one has come up with the final solution yet doesn’t mean that we should start soiling our own kitchen in the meantime.
The sludge has to go somewhere. I notice that not anyone expressing an emotionalobjection to spreading it on farmland has offered a viable alternative.
Manure has been spread on farmland in Virginia for four centuries. Granted industrial waste means precaution need to be taken, but unless those objecting can submit evidence that the Health Department and DEQ are wrong they should accept that this comes with the convenience of municipal lifestyles. Do they want to go back to having outdoor privies?
This is to provide a link to answer your reader who asked for information on pollution, water contamination, and adverse health effects from sewage sludge in Virginia: http://www.sludgevictims.com/States/Virginia_sludge_victims.html
Sewage sludge “biosolids” (both Class B AND Class A may contain infectious human and animal prions which pose a risk to both humans and animals: http://www.sludgevictims.com/pathogens/prion.html
Sewage sludge “biosolids” are toxic because they contain billions of pounds of hazardous industrial wastes: http://www.sludgevictims.com/toxic_in_sludge.html
Virginia needs a good lawyer to step forward and challenge the outrageous bullying by State and waste industry who are forcing communities to be disposal sites against their will for toxic/pathogenic sewage sludge from urban and industrial sources, both instate and out of state. Federal law says communities can enact LOCAL sludge rules more stringent than federal regulations. Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, federal law trumps state law - even in so-called “Dillon Rule” states. Therefore, states do NOT have the right or power to rescind, repeal, supercede, overrule or preempt federal laws granting LOCAL sludge control:
http://www.sludgevictims.com/local-determination.html
Helane Shields, Alton, NH sludge researcher since 1996 http://www.sludgevictims.com
In my county, about 20 people in the county (the farmers who are receiving free fertilizer), and about 1000 people outside the county (the purveyors of human waste who can’t believe their luck in finding a place that will accept this stuff) are FOR dumping sludge in the county.
The other 12,000 who have to live with it are against it.
Even hogs will “do their business” in a far corner of their pen, away from where they eat and sleep. They do NOT eliminate their waste into their food trough. Maybe they’re smarter than us? Or less greedy?
I have worked long hours in sewage treatment plants. I recognize the smell when I drive by a freshly “treated” field.
If we could call this fertilizer exactly what it IS instead of using the euphimism “sludge”, maybe people wouldn’t be so quick to try to use it. But I suppose that would be “offensive” or “vulgar” ....
Well said Jason. I also agree with Annie Pollard on importing sludge into Virginia. It would serve citizens better to know the effects of using the product and if it contributes to autism, birth defects, cancer, etc via our food chain and air we inhale.
And why did our state legislators allow this in the first place? It would be interesting to know how many Richmond lobbyist touting the advantages of NJ sludge contributed to the campaign funds of Delegates Putney/Byron and Senator Newman? Being the honorable citizens they are, I trust “0”.
At the same time, the cost of fertilizer and maintaining farmland is beyond what the average landowner can undertake. The cost of a gallon of milk and loaf of bread must increase in keeping with the cost to produce or we will be importing all of our food…. and what assurances then of what the quality will be?
A compromise must be reached but with oversight and until that happens, we would be wiser to “stay out of it”.
Wow! Who wrote this? I wish the local debate on sludge could sound more like this…where both sides could step out of their own interests and be reconciled at the table of civil debate. It’s a shame how this issue has divided our community into a cold war of neighbor against neighbor. This is not true for everyone, but I know many of us are gridlocked in a bitter relational division.
I feel this article fairly brings to light the motivations of both the farmers using sludge and those who oppose it. This is critically needed: an openness for both sides to understand and address the concerns of the other.
I personally oppose the use of sludge and feel it is one of the biggest PR scams ever leveraged against American farmers. It is a public hazard to rural communities and a silent environmental devastation that is increasing with each application on the land.
But I also oppose the emotional and spiritual sludge that is often a
byproduct of these kinds of heated debates. The health of the entire community suffers when we do not seek the common good.
I understand the farmers see a monetary relief in the use of sludge as fertilizer on their land -but my appeal to them is: don’t let the money blind you to asking the hard questions about this highly controversial mix. I would also beg: be reconciled to your neighbors and seriously consider their concerns.
Likewise, I understand those who oppose sludge have very legitimate counterpoints. As I said, I am one who opposes it and have directly experienced the steady stream of industrial trucks rolling back and forth past my house, the toxic stench on the wind and other ill effects.
It disturbs me that more people aren’t concerned that we may be doing irreparable damage to both our bodies and our precious land.
My appeal to those of us who are in opposition to sludge is this: don’t stop raising your voice, don’t quit the fight, don’t stand down…but also, don’t let your neighbor become your enemy. Don’t let bitterness or fear drive you to action. Seek and pray for reconciliation. Let hope for the common good be our motivating force.
I hope to GOD this county, this state and this nation wakes up to what’s at stake and stops letting corporate interests rewrite our environmental legacy. But even in this, I am waging war with prayer and trying to look at my neighbor as I should: a man just like me, scared about what the outcome may mean.
-Jason Fowler
Bedford, Virginia
Advertisement