VIRGINIA SLUDGE/BIOSOLIDS STUDY ON OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT
Questions by::
Mary H. Carwile, Co Chair
CRAS
Erik Messick
Principle Legislative Analyst October 21, 2005
JLARC
Dear Mr. Messick:
I am writing you in regard to the JLARC Draft of the Review of Land Application of Biosolids in
Virginia. Within the limited scope of the study, the Draft raises a number of the issues that citizens
have been raising. However, many were not addressed, or inadequately addressed, and in some
cases understated. It is understandable that this would occur in a study with limited time and
resources. It is requested that you make the limitations of the study clearer in your final document.
One of the important issues not adequately addressed is the actual harm to health, the
environment and quality of life that has occurred. I understand that safety was not within the scope
of the study. However, the Report should clearly reflect those situations to give the General
Assembly a better understanding of the importance of correcting existing failures.
At the same time, greater emphasis should have been made on the importance of seeking more
meaningful citizens input by the General Assembly and agencies charged with protecting their
interests. That would include real investigation of complaints. More contact with citizens who are
fighting this battle every day would have provided additional information and thus a more balanced
report. I can assure you that Prince Edward County's citizens would have demonstrated far greater
opposition than the 8% shown by County Administrators.
We also believe that the 8% itself is understated, for reasons that are not evident in the draft.
Would you also please email the responses received, as well as the names of the counties and
their administrators that were surveyed for this report so that those of us who are seeking relief
can make certain that each of them is aware of the many health, environmental and quality of life
issues that they need to be aware of when citizens in their counties are forcibly exposed to the
sludge.
When administrators are surveyed, it is also important that there be a clear understanding of just
who that individual speaks for. It is my understanding that you were present at a recent BURAC
meeting where an individual who was a County Board of Supervisor stated that Boards would
object to language under discussion, without disclosing that he was an employee of one of the
companies that land applies sludge. It is also a good example of why the concerns are
understated in the draft.
I noted that the Draft states that Buckingham County was foremost in receiving sludge, more than
33,000 dry tons of Biosolids; yet Buckingham was not mentioned among the counties that adopted
resolutions attempting to address this issue. Buckingham County passed a resolution on biosolids
on August 9, 2004. Another county that was not mentioned was Lunenburg County that adopted
their resolution on August 12, 2004. That is a total of eight (8) counties that adopted a resolution
on biosolids in 2004. Northumberland County's Resolution was adopted August 9, 2001; this
makes a total of nine counties.
I trust that there will be an opportunity to address some of these issues in your final report.
Sincerely,
Mary H. Carwile, Co Chair
CRAS
1010 Rosser Mill Rd.
Pamplin, VA 23958
Email-humhaven18@aol.com
Phone-434-248-6905