This is the initial story relating to the biosolids issue as it recently played out here in Hansville, WA, plus some background information to help educate us all on this rather unsavory topic.  Further information as it arises (in due time) can be found here.

March 17, 2011

Grade B Biosolids in Hansville

1.  The Story

Sometimes an outside threat provides the catalyst for bringing people together.  And that's what happened here in Hansville during the first two weeks of March 2011.

It began with a somewhat innocuous notice, a small sheet of paper hung on the gate to the old Hansville Tree Farm entrance.  There were five or six Shore Woods' neighbors who happened to read it.  The notice mentioned that West Sound Utility District was applying for a permit to use Grade B biosolids on the farmland.

At first, that sounded benign because no one knew what biosolids were.

So research began, and this is what was learned.  Grade B biosolids as partially treated sewage sludge.  Additional research demonstrated there were health hazards recorded by other communities who had found themselves in a similar situation, except they had not been successful in stopping the delivery of sewage sludge to agricultural land in their neighborhoods.

A small group of Hansville residents began asking one another questions.  Why were the owners of the old tree farm allowing sewage to be used as a fertilizer?  What can be done to stop it?  It didn't take long to realize that if anything were to be done, it would have to begin with that small group.  More neighbors had to be made aware of what was happening.  So the group began the campaign to get the word out. 

In two weeks, the notice read, a permit would be granted to West Sound Utilities, the company that would spread the biosolids on the farmland.  Only if complaints against this action were received by the Washington Department of Ecology before March 15, would a hearing be scheduled to protest it.

Word spread slowly at first.  Going door to door was a daunting task.  So signs were tacked on telephone poles.  Fliers were pressed onto mailboxes.  Neighborhood board members were informed. Word spread neighbor to neighbor. Tad Sooter from the North Kitsap Herald was the first reporter to take an interest.  Tad's story caught the attention of people living in the outlying neighborhoods.  

Coincidentally, the Greater Hansville Area Advisory Council (GHAAC) had planned an informational meeting that included the key players in this controversy.  John Poppe of West Sound Utility District, Daniel Thompson of the Department of Ecology, and Brandon Bird of Olympic Properties Group (OPG) would all be in attendance at GHAAC's March 8th meeting.

The fervor of Hansville neighbors intensified.  People rightly sensed that attendance at this GHAAC meeting was critical.  So another round of getting the word out ensued.  The results of this second word-campaign were rather amazing.  Whereas a normal crowd at other GHAAC meetings often meant five people showed up, the March 8th GHAAC meeting attendance amounted to standing room only.  People who attended this meeting had done their research and asked the guests pointed questions.  The answers from John Poppe, Brandon Bird, and Daniel Thompson were less than satisfying, and many attendees went home even more determined to fight West Sound's plan to dump biosolids in the Hansville community.

After Chris Dunagan wrote a story that appeared in the North Kitsap Sun and Hansville residents sent in an onslaught of emails and letters opposing the biosolids project, the Department of Ecology came to a decision.  Since the members of Olympic Properties Group (the current owners of the tree farmland) had signed a statement declaring that they would not allow Grade B biosolids to be applied to the land, the Department of Ecology declared:

"The decision by the landowner renders the proposal moot because West Sound Utilities District currently produces only Class B biosolids. Thus, the Department of Ecology is hereby withdrawing the proposal from consideration. The requested Public Hearing will not be held, as there is no longer a proposal to discuss."

So the residents of the Greater Hansville area rejoiced, at least temporarily.  Then they realized that as long as this large parcel of agricultural land was on the market, everyone in Hansville remained vulnerable.  The Department of Ecology had not banned the use of biosolids, it merely had stated that West Sound's proposal was "moot."  What this meant was that if the property at the old tree farm was bought by someone who wanted to use Grade B biosolids on the land, they could potentially do so. 

So the work for our community continues.  First, the community needs to decide if it can come together and find a way to purchase the old tree farm land.  If the community agrees and a purchase is made, then what will be done with the land.  How will it be developed?

The second part of this work is to discover just how invasive the use of biosolids is.  We are learning that biosolids can be included in garden and lawn products that we might be using.  At this time there are no requirements that biosolids be listed in the ingredients of commercially produced compost.  We also need to find out what food products are being grown using biosolids as fertilizer.  This practice is approved by Washington state.  For instance, hay is grown in biosolids and then fed to cattle, that we eventually eat.  A farmer in Georgia lost an entire herd after feeding the cattle hay grown in biosolids.  What else don't we know about this practice?  


2.  What are Biosolids?
The term biosolids was coined in the 1990s by a PR firm for the national wastewater treatment industry.  There was a need to find uses for wastewater management by-products and the industry knew how people would react if the term treated sewage was used.  Thus they created the word biosolids.  There are two different grades (or classes) of biosolids:
Grade A biosolids (sometimes referred to as Class 1)

Grade A biosolids are sold directly to the public as fertilizer for lawn and garden use.  Grade A biosolids receive more intensive treatment than Grade B and contain minimum concentrations of chemicals and pathogens. EPA does not require Grade A biosolids to be tested for pharmaceuticals.  Products containing Grade A biosolids do not have to list biosolids as ingredients and these products are often described as "organic" or "natural."
Grade B biosolids (sometimes referred to as Class 2)

Grade B biosolids are utilized on agricultural and forest lands. Grade B biosolids contain higher levels of pathogens, organic and inorganic chemicals, and pharmaceuticals than Grade A.

The chemical and biological makeup of either Grade A or Grade B biosolids can vary greatly depending on the source of the sewage and the treatment processes the sewage has undergone.  Sources of sewage may include wastewaters of households, commercial establishments, industries, medical facilities, and in some cases street runoff.

Pollutants that are found in biosolids can generally be divided into the following categories: inorganic contaminants (metals and trace elements, such as lead and mercury); organic contaminants (PCBs, dioxins, and pharmaceuticals); and pathogens (bacteria, viruses and parasites).  In some cases, radioactive contaminants may also be present in biosolids.


3.  What Scientists Are Saying about the Use of Biosolids

In the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency established guidelines for the use of biosolids.  However, since then, prominent scientists (including EPAs own microbiologist, David L. Lewis, who was forced to retire after whistle-blowing on the agency) have criticized the ineffectiveness and lack of scientific study on the topic of biosolids.  Here are some of the problems that have been vocalized about the use of biosolids.

a. Ineffectiveness of EPA's Guidelines (referred to as Part 503)

From an independent report by Cornell University's Waste Management Institute:

"Over the past 15 years since the 40CFRPart503 rules were promulgated, there have been many new scientific findings regarding the environmental and health implications of the application of sewage biosolids to agricultural soils. Many of these findings show increased risks, risks that were not assessed as part of the risk assessment that U.S. EPA used as the basis for the standards promulgated in 1993. These new findings support the rational basis for U.S. EPA to revise the federal regulations and for states and municipalities to regulate the application of sewage biosolids in order to protect their citizens and the land-base."

From: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/case.pdf

b.  Problems with Pathogens Found in Biosolids

From a report by scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

"After raw biosolids are applied to the soil surface, surface movement of water could increase the hazard for pathogen distribution. The enrichment of surface (runoff) water from organic materials or fertilizers placed on land is of genuine concern."

"Methods for processing biosolids can destroy pathogens but also can lead to putrifaction and persistent instability. Regrowth of human pathogens, fecal coliforms, and Salmonella spp., has occurred even in biosolids treated by a process to further reduce pathogens, for example, heat drying, high-temperature composting, irradiation, and pasteurization."

[From USDA website: "Agricultural Uses of Biosolids and Other Recyclable Municipal Residues," by P.D. Millner, L.J. Sikora, D.D. Kaufman, and M.E. Simpson at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/agbyproducts/agbychap1.pdf]

 c.  Potential Health Hazards

There are several scientific reports concerning the health hazards of using biosolids as a fertilizer or soil amendment.  From a study conducted by scientists at Biomed Central came these results.

--Health complaints from people living near a field treated with biosolids:

"Affected residents lived within approximately one-half mile radius of land application sites and generally complained of irritation (skin rashes and burning of the eyes, throat, and lungs) after exposure to winds blowing from treated fields. A prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus infections of the skin and respiratory tract was found. Approximately 1 in 4 of 54 individuals were infected, including 2 mortalities (from septicaemia, pneumonia)."

The scientists involved in this study concluded that when assessing public health risks from applying sewage sludge in residential areas, health monitors should pay close attention to the potential interactions between chemical contaminants and low levels of pathogens. "An increased risk of infection may occur when allergic and non-allergic reactions to endotoxins and other chemical components irritate skin and mucus membranes and thereby compromise normal barriers to infection."

[The above taken from a published report from Biomed Central researched by David L. Lewis (EPA), David K. Gattie (Marine Sciences at Univ. of Georgia), Marc E. Novak (biological/agricultural Engineer, at Univ. of Georgia), Susan Sanchez (Medical Microbiology at Univ. of Georgia), and Charles Pumphrey (Prime Care of Sun City, Menifee, CA).]

Prions are a new concern.  Prions are an infectious protein particle similar to a virus and thought to be the agent responsible for degenerative diseases of the nervous system, such as "mad cow" disease. There is the potential for prions to be present in wastewater and to accumulate in sludges and persist through treatment.  Prions are highly resistant to degradation and to many disinfection procedures suggesting that, if prions enter wastewater treatment systems through sewers and/or septic systems they could survive conventional wastewater treatment.  

[See article published by Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Journal Sentinel, "Prions can survive sewage treatment, UW-Madison study" at http://www.jsonline.com/features/29484449.html]

[Journal of Environmental Engineering, September 2006, "Prions: Novel Pathogens of Environmental Concern?" at http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~tmcmahon/PDFs/Pedersen_2006_JEE.pdf]

4.  Banning the Use of Sewage Sludge (biosolids)

A number of European countries, including Switzerland, have banned sludge application. So too have parts of Canada and the United States.

Although sludge contains plant nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen it also comprises a whole range of harmful substances and pathogenic organisms produced by industry and private households. For this reason, many farmers avoid using sludge as a fertilizer since they are aware of the risk of irreversible damage to the soil, the danger to public health, and possible negative effects on the quality of the food they produce.  Organic farmers are prohibited from using biosolids, Grade A and Grade B.

 5.  Online Articles about the Use and Concerns of Using Biosolids

"Case for Caution Revisited: Health and Environmental Impacts of Application of Sewage Sludges to Agricultural Land," September 2008 (updated March 2009), Cornell Waste Management Institute, Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, at: cwmi.css.cornell.edu/case.pdf

Washington State's Guidelines, Chapter 70.95 RCW, Solid Waste Management – Reduction and Recycling at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.95

or State guidelines at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/biosolids/guidelines.html

or State rules at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/biosolids/lawsandrules.html

Department of Ecology FAQ page at: http://ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/biosolids/faq.html

Online chapter from the book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, about how PR helped to promote the beneficial use of biosolids at: http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/sludge.html

Collected news articles (including one about Hansville) that address farmers' and citizens' concerns about the use of biosolid sludge at (you might have to copy and paste onto a Google search): http://www.sites.google.com/site/nosludgedumping/