Making The Most Out Of Biosolids
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on this subject. First off, I have to commend Rose for her keen eye. I do, in fact, buy clothes at The Gap. They have clothes shopping for men figured out - brown pants, black belt, black/white shirt. That's all I really need on 350 days of the year. As a matter of background, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm the Biosolids Manager at the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in Washington, DC. I'm an engineer by training and am a public servant, working for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA). I'm a left leaning, tree hugging liberal who believes the earth is in peril and that we (the humans) need to make major changes in order to right the ship. I also believe that given the current state of science and understanding of the risks, recycling biosolids to the land is the best solution for our organization. I am in charge of a program that recycles 1200 tons per day of biosolids, and I do not believe that properly stabilized biosolids, land applied within the regulations, will make individuals ill. Is it a perfect solution? No. Can it be improved upon? Yes. My colleagues in this profession work hard every day to examine issues, conduct research, and improve techniques to ensure we are producing a quality product for the end users.
This debate is all too often over-simplified into an urban vs. rural issue, when in fact it is a societal issue. I live in DC, and as an urban dweller, I understand that I depend heavily upon the rural areas surrounding Washington for food, open space, recreation, clean air, etc. Rural residents all rely on urban areas for stable governance, manufacturing, phone service, banking, military, etc. Urban and rural residents live a symbiotic existence, and we need to share the burdens and benefits of biosolids production. The benefits are clear.
- Nutrients (N,P,K and micronutrients) and, in our case, lime in the biosolids are of great value to the farmers. Farmers have recently testified in public that with skyrocketing fertilizer costs (directly associated with rising energy costs), the material is worth $300/acres to them. Many small farmers have stated that without biosolids, they would not be able to continue farming.
- Researchers at the University of Washington have calculated that land applying biosolids sequesters carbon in the soil. This benefit, combined with the benefit of avoiding the use of manufactured fertilizers (which requires energy and uses fossil fuels) has a net positive effect (even considering hauling) on the greenhouse gas inventory in the atmosphere. The Blue Plains biosolids recycling program has a net positive benefit of approximately 3000 tonnes CO2 e each month, equivalent to approximately 6,000,000 car miles off the road
- Researchers at Virginia Tech are examining the levels in biosolids of naturally occurring essential plant growth compounds (auxins) secreted by microorganisms when they consume organic matter. These compounds are essential to plants ability to resist stress. Because of the abundance of microbial activity and organic content in fecal matter, there are high levels of auxins in biosolids, and helps explain why farmers that use biosolids are able to resist drought better than those that strictly use manufactured fertilizers. It's Mother Nature at work, and is an essential and important part of the nutrient cycle.
The burdens include odors, industrial content, and pathogens. Recent work has shown (and proven to be effective in practice) that treatment plants can tweak processes to minimize odors. 10 years ago, our product was inconsistent from an odor standpoint. In order to address this, we committed funds to researchers examining lime mixing efficiency and the mechanisms of odor production. We implemented findings and now produce a consistent, low odor product. This, in conjunction with proactive monitoring at the plant and in the field have dramatically reduced (nearly to zero) our annual odor complaints.
Industrial content is a stickier wicket, because of the perception of large quantities being dumped in to the system. In order for a treatment plant in an urban area to legally land apply biosolids, it must have an EPA approved pre-treatment program, requiring that any industrial discharger be permitted, sampled, and inspected (not always scheduled inspections) by our staff. If a discharger is found to found to be in violation of their permit, we can legally cap their sewers. This, in many cases, would put a manufacturer out of business, so they take the process very seriously. Extremely small amounts of some contaminants do make it into the biosolids. The fact that they are present does not necessarily mean that they are present at dangerous levels. Presence without a specific concentration does not equal danger.
One example that has been used is the small "heavy metals" content in biosolids. As an example of how concentration can determine a compound's danger or safety, I'd like to point out that 6 of the heavy metals regulated under the EPA 503 rule are also contained in Centrum Vitamins (chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc - check the label). At small concentrations, these "heavy metals" are considered micronutrients essential for human health. The most dramatic example is selenium. One would have to eat approximately 200 lbs of the Blue Plains Biosolids annually in order to get the selenium that the body needs - forget for a second about toxic levels - this is what the body requires. The others are less dramatic, but worth mentioning (chromium - 5 lbs, copper - 20 lbs, molybdenum - 14 lbs, nickel - 0.5 lbs, zinc - 113 lbs). Obviously I am not endorsing the use of biosolids as a dietary supplement, but am merely demonstrating that for these regulated compounds, the EPA risk assessment is very conservative.
Another example is triclosan, an anti-microbial that is present in almost all hand sanitizers, dish soaps, and other products. It shows up in extremely small amounts in our biosolids product. Is it great that it is there? No. In my opinion, it is largely useless, is overused, and is ending up in our environment. Are the levels in biosolids affecting the environment? Preliminary research results from USDA indicate that it likely is not. Triclosan shows up at a few parts per million in biosolids, and if we are alarmed by this we should be outraged by the levels in the products we buy. I've seen hand sanitizers at 5% triclosan by weight, which is 50,000,000 ppm. This is the product that we are required to send to school in the fall with our kids (I have 4 and 6 yr old boys) and that they lather their hands and faces with presumably to avoid catching colds and spreading germs. If we are alarmed by a few ppm in the biosolids, we should be livid about the products that are sold in our society, and we should concentrate our efforts in getting them off the shelves.
My organization is comfortable with the land application program we have, but are about to invest in technology to improve the product, produce energy, and reduce our biosolids output (much to the chagrin of the farmers). We are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in an advanced digestion system that will produce a better product, increase our options for reuse of the residual, and produce 12 MW of renewable energy. We are doing this not because we feel what we are currently doing is unsustainable, but because it makes economic sense (power, renewable energy credits, etc). I'll be able to release more details in the coming weeks.
Lastly (only because I have to run off to a meeting), I want to mention that I do use biosolids compost on my yard, I grow tomatoes, and I feed them to my family. I continue to support research to look into the issues of concern, and we require that our independent researchers publish the results in peer review journals and conference proceedings. We believe in our product and will continue to do so until such time that evidence is presented to the contrary.
Thanks again for listening.
Thanks for clearing up the issue of heavy metal contamination of biosolids. I, and a few other here, had been mislead on this.
January 9, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snyder responds to Peot:
In contrast to Chris Peot who is paid to promote biosolids and can afford GAP clothes, I live on a retirement income and have no conflict of interest when commenting and researching the use of sewage sludge.
I have a Harvard Ph.D. designed, administered, and taught environmental science courses at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and chaired the Department of Science, Technology, and Society, before retiring. For the last 12 years I have worked full-time and gratis with top scientists, attorneys, activists, and sludge victims, researching the risks of land application.
Peot's comment contains a number of unsubstantiated statements and a lot of misleading information. Let me just point out a few of them.
First, sludge quality is not much improved because of the pretreatment program. Pretreatment only reduces, not eliminates, a very SMALL proportion of the contaminants that end up in the waste stream. The majority of industries don't even need to pre treat their waste water. Those that do, are often in significant non-compliance. EPA has warned that the current pretreatment system is not working and in a critical state.
Second: Peot implies that the toxic material in sludge is in such small quantities that it can not do harm. He ignores that chemical compounds can react with each other, and that breakdown products are often more harmful than the parent chemical. He gets hung up on triclosan, but ignores a much more serious problem caused by alkaline-based detergents used by every industy and every household in the country. Breakdown products of these detergents are powerful hormone disrupting agents. This brings me to
Third: Hormone disrupting compounds do their damage in very small amounts: parts per trillion. It is not the dose that matters, but when a developing organisms is exposed to these gender-bending agents, that matters.
Four: current US sludge standards permit amounts of the so-called micronutients in much higher quantities than are essential for plants. In fact, when used according to the permitted levels, this metals become poisons. Note also that Peot does not mention lead, mercury, cadmium, or arsenic. All powerful poisons, and all permitted in sludge.
Five:
The "conservative" risk assessment that Peot refers to has been debunked by the 2002 National Academy of Sciences.
Six: I am surprised that Peot can claim that his researchers are independent. Many of them get paid by WEF and "the shit capitalists" to publish only findings that support land application. Often even fraudulent studies are published in peer reviewed journals to defend the practice ( see the recent Qui Tem case posted on www.sludgefacts.org
Seven: Finally, I am surprised that Peot, who is a Biosolids Manager, believes that molybdenum and chromium are regulated by the EPA. They are not.
January 9, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "lobby" referred to earlier--the lobby for the sewage treatment plant owners and operators supported by the interested industry partnerships (engineering companies, pipe manufacturers, large waste management contractors, etc.)--around the world is very strong and very well financed, often from public funds. This lobby has launched a heavy campaign to promote sludge as "fertilizer" and has for this purpose created a new vocabulary. Sludge has become "bio-solids," and spreading unknown and potentially toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic and hormone mimicking chemicals on farmland is referred to as "recycling." There can be no other purpose for this change of language than to deceive the public concerning the real content and origin of this product.
This lobby has a lot to loose if sludge cannot be spread on farmland: if thoroughly investigated, it would eventually face opposition to the heart of its operation and consequently would face the same situation as the nuclear power industry faced: the cost of operation will be too high when all aspects of the operation are subject to unrestricted liability.
If, on the other hand, growing food on sludge should become an even wider spread practice, there will be no particular area to correlate health and environmental damage to sludge, and the increased frequency of cancer and other disease will simply be blamed on general environmental pollution. From the sludge spreading industry and its lobby's point of view, to rapidly and massively make this practice standard is therefore of the greatest importance. Which may explain the lobbying blitz that is now everywhere: the toxification of our agricultural assets are promoted as a brave new green world where "recycling" is reinvented. And when we wake up to the nightmare of a significantly weaker and sicker world population, there will predictably be the "we-could-not-anticipate-this" stance from corporations and allied policy makers claiming their innocence based on ignorance.
January 9, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caroline Accusing Chris of a conflict of interest because he is a professional in the field working in a public agency is very weak. Makes you sound very defensive even saying this.
You have an impressive list of credentials but that does not immunize you from becoming an irrational toxicsphobe, I have seen over the course of my career this affecting some impressively titled people working in the EPA. This is a problem that transcends rational discourse. My own professional background is in, among other areas, toxicology. There is a saying among pharmacology professionals: the three rules of pharmacology are its the dose, the dose, the dose. Your flat out assertion that there are heavy metal contaminants in biosolids is extremely misleading if the concentrations are in trace amounts as Chris is suggesting. Given that he actually works in the field and has access to the data, I think we should go with his judgment.
The potential problem with hormone disrupting agents are just that -- theoretical possibilities based on observations of contaminated effluents from waste water treatment plants to biosolids. There does not seem to be any observed problem here.
January 9, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heavy metals added to farmland ACCUMULATE and once there you can't get it out. It is bad enough that they are added once but with a few applications we have examples of farm-land, [not just in the US but all over the world where there is sewage sludge to be disposed of] that is ruined after only a few application. In Sweden the problem of for example Cadmium is very serious -- the damage to kidney patients has worsened dramatically in recent years and that is just one factor.
January 9, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for supplying answers to questions I asked down thread.
January 9, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caroline:
Triclosan, an EPA registerred pesticide manufactured by Ciba-Geigy, is a major source of hormone disrupting chemicals in biosolids, septage discharge, and wastewater discharge. It resists breakdown in septic tanks and waste treatment. Its ubiquitous presence in waterways has been indicated as a candidate cause of observed damage to sensitive amphibian populations throughout North America. Science tells us that triclosan's value as a ubiquitous additive in hand soap, toothpaste (Colgate Total, is the latest example), shampoo, and in mouthwash, is questionable at best. Used excessively, triclosan causes dry skin and scalp problems. Weighing the near zero benefit against the ecosystem risk triclosan presents by being allowed to contaminate our sludge makes it a no-brainer for banning from consumer products. Apparently, because banning triclosan would not result in banning land application of biosolids, and in fact would make sludge cleaner, and less deserving of concern, banning triclosan has a relatively weak political constituency. That's insane. How did our environmental concern ever get so polarized that we can't rally environmental sentiment to pick off the low hanging fruit that banning triclosan offers us?
January 9, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The EPA has fallen into such disarray that any protections it approves are suspect. Any recommendations it makes are suspect. I'm not even going to deal any further with the EPA on this comment. I'm not going to deal with credentials, either. The dots and letters after my name have nothing to do with me being an environmental scientist. What I am, is a human being. And I have a nose. It works. When that farmer down the road from me spreads biosolids on his field, it stinks. And it doesn't stink like shit. It stinks like chemicals. It burns the inside of my nose.
All the scientific testing, pre, post and in between are no where near as impressive as my nose test.
Even if the various elements and compounds are present in acceptable levels, would not these levels continue to build up as the farmer repeatedly spreads biosolids on his fields? At what point would the practice of spreading biosolids become detrimental to the soil?
A build up of chemicals, whether from manufactured fertilizer or biosolids, a build up of chemicals kills the soil. Kills it. No one is gonna get tomatoes from dead dirt.
The soil of our planet sustains ALL of us. Treat it with respect and it will sustain us always. Slathering on layer after layer of 'almost safe' biosolids is progressively detrimental no matter how hard you 'tweak' it.
January 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carthage_(c.149_BC)
It is rumored that after the fall of Carthage, the Romans sowed salt into the soil in order to ensure that nothing would ever grow there again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
January 9, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it was meant "ordinary" sodium-chloride salt, it doesn't ruin the soil for ever. In Holland for example, 'recovered' land that has been ocean-bottom can be farmed after only 5-10 years. Rain water is leaching out the salt, channeled and pumped back into the ocean and land that was soaked in salt water, is able to yield crop again. Heavy metals, however, can not be removed with any practical method today.
January 10, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like a little ethnic cleansing by starvation via ruining crop land. Even after 2000 years there are those that still delight in punishing their enemies even after victory. We've learned nothing.
But, that is for another thread, eh?
January 10, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 22, 2009
Get the Facts on Triclosan at
www.triclosan-info.com
Dear Mr. Peot: Your TPMCafe Book Club web article, “Making the Most Out of Biosolids” and some of the comments contributed by other bloggers contain some inaccuracies and false information about the antibacterial agent triclosan that are unfortunately perpetuated in the media and blogs such as yours. I have provided below, clarifications of these false claims. In addition, I suggest that you review the facts at www.triclosan-info.com where you will find many of the peer-reviewed and published studies that support triclosan’s use.
First of all, washing with plain soap and water is NOT just as effective in killing germs. In fact, a new study published in the prestigious Journal of Food Protection, provides scientific proof that all hand soaps are not alike in their performance. This study showed that a leading brand of antibacterial foaming hand soap containing Ciba® IRGASAN® DP300 (triclosan) helps protect people from significantly more illness-causing germs than ordinary soap.
In the USA, triclosan is an over-the-counter drug, reviewed and authorized for use by the US FDA. It is typically used in over-the-counter drugs such as handwash and oral care products with an incorporation level of 0.3%, and a maximum use level of up to 1% in some formulations. This use level is based on safety and efficacy data. On the basis of the wealth of scientific data provided to global regulatory authorities, triclosan is registered for use in personal care, household and industrial products throughout the world and has not been removed from the marketplace by regulatory restrictions in any country.
What’s more, because triclosan is used in toothpaste as an effective way to fight gingivitis, the antimicrobial agent had to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an oral care drug product and had to undergo the same extensive review as other over-the-counter or prescription drugs.
With regards to the amount of triclosan that would appear in biosolids used for land treatment, a mass balance, based on all current data, safely excludes any risk to humans or wildlife from secondary exposure to triclosan from any environmental route. As a quick reality check, think of it this way, in order to ingest the same amount of triclosan from sludge that you might ingest from brushing your teeth with an FDA approved triclosan containing toothpaste, you would have to eat almost 1 kg (~2 pounds) of raw undiluted sludge containing triclosan, everyday!
Triclosan is NOT polluting our waterways. Studies show that 90-98% of triclosan in waste water is typically removed in waste water treatment plants. Only small traces are detectable in the effluent water that reaches rivers. The little amount that does leave with effluent is degraded to almost a non-existent state by either biological or photolytic processes. In fact, a recent study used archived sediment samples from two important US waterways, Jamaica Bay, NY and Chesapeake Bay, MD to examine triclosan content. The absence of triclosan in measurable concentrations confirmed the importance and efficacy of the wastewater treatment infrastructure in the US. These data also showed that increased use of triclosan during the past 25 years did not lead to accumulation in key environmental areas. In addition, the results of a several new studies indicate that environmentally-relevant triclosan concentrations do not alter the normal course of thyroid-mediated metamorphosis (growth and development) in the standard anuran model (order of frogs and toads). The research has been presented at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) meeting in Warsaw, Poland in May 2008 and in Tampa, Florida in November 2008.
Recent studies claiming that triclosan impacts the endocrine system are based on unvalidated cell culture models and extremely high dose animal studies; however, in animal studies at relevant dose levels, results show no effect on thyroid function from exposure to triclosan. These data, from 14-day to lifetime studies (1 or 2 -years) using validated test methods, demonstrate that triclosan does not adversely modulate normal hormone organs or their functions; does not interfere with normal reproduction, and does not interfere with normal developmental processes. These studies have been done to gain regulatory approval for triclosan worldwide and support its safe use in oral care, personal care and home care products.
Claims that using products containing triclosan may be harmful to human health and the environment are fundamentally wrong and seriously misguide consumers, serving to deny them the choice of protecting themselves and their families from the spread of germs, the risk of infections, dental diseases and odors caused by microbes. The use of this beneficial product should not be discouraged based on stories that do little more than stir up disproved fears rather than describe real-life, present day scenarios.
I hope that in the future, you will strive to provide an accurate and true representation of triclosan.
Lisa Navarro, PhD, DABT
Director, Product Safety, Toxicology & Regulatory Affairs
Ciba Corporation
January 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biosolids are not a disposal issue as much as they are a renewable resource. Since so much public perception is dictated by non-scientific bias the opportunities for capitalizing on this significant asset are minimized.
One excellent opportunity which still exists is to generate energy from the biosolids. While the anaerobic digestion processes at the WWTP supply some power from the biosolids it still leaves a great deal of undigested material available for other technologies.
Pyrolysis is the heating of biomass in an oxygen deprived environment which can yield oil, char and syn gas. The byproducts are a mineral rich and sterile ash.
Gasification is combusting biomass in a reduced oxygen environment to primarily produce syn gas and ash. Either or both technologies can be employed with biosolids for the benefit of the WWTP economics and the environment.
We would be willing to fund,design, build, own and operate such facilities for Chris' WWTP or for any other for which the economics work.
Neal Van Milligen
Bioten Power and Energy Group Inc
cavm@aol.com
March 22, 2010 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your posting. I am very intrested in it. iPad to PC Transfer | iPhone 4 Converter
August 14, 2010 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another example is triclosan, an anti-microbial that is present in almost all hand sanitizers, dish soaps, and other products. It shows up in extremely small amounts in our biosolids product. Is it great that it is there?
Dishwasher
September 16, 2010 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
trafik ceza sorgulama
This is highly informatics, crisp and clear. I think that Everything has been described in systematic manner so that reader could get maximum information and learn many things. This is one of the best blogs I have read.
araç sorgulama
March 14, 2011 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
bağkur borç sorgulama
With all the sites out there with information on them with a ton of junk it's nice to find a blog whose admin takes the time to create good material. TY for the good post.
sgk
March 19, 2011 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
emekli sandığı
I used to be very pleased to discover this site.I needed to we appreciate you this great read!! I definitely enjoying every amount of it and that i have you ever bookmarked to look at new belongings you post.
araç sorgulama
March 23, 2011 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v update, virtual iscsi san
April 1, 2011 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just browsing online looking for a Name Necklace or something like that when I founw your website.I enjoyed reading your article.I must admit that I found some very interesting information
April 19, 2011 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability servers
April 29, 2011 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink