Edo_Al-Rubin

E

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>
To: "Edo McGowan" <edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com>,<payneb@nni.com>,<maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>,<Linda.
Macpherson@CH2M.com>
CC: <slb@u.washington.edu>,<RSchweinfurth@wef.org>,<buzbym@merck.com>,<jcleary@hydroqual.com>,
<pbrady@alpinetechnology.com>,<bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov>,<Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov>,<todd.
williams@ch2m.com>,<twilliams@wef.org>,<Stevens.rick@epa.gov>,<rbman@dock.net>,<sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us>,
<shadeed@wef.org>,<rbowen@hrsd.com>,<peterm7@prodigy.net>,<ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org>,
<MMOORE@OCSD.COM>,<Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov>,<lori.stone@adelphia.net>,<lkelly@wef.org>,<Greg.
Kester@dnr.state.wi.us>,<JLangC@aol.com>,<SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov>,<jmeberg@mycingular.blackberry.
net>,<jmeberg@cox.net>,<jslaughter@bdlaw.com>,<greinhardt@werf.org>,<gswett@arcadis-us.com>,<gswett@aol.
com>,<edemichele@wef.org>,< Diane.Gilbert@lacity.org>,<daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>,<chris.
westhoff@lacity.org>,<chris@nurseryproductsservices.com>,<chornback@nacwa.org>,<fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov>,
<cantilli.robert@epa.gov>,<blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.com>,<LBAROLDI@OCSD.COM>,<apramanik@werf.org>,
<ahais@werf.org>,<akrantz@nacwa.org>,<psinicropi@wef.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns for humans
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:14:39 -0500

Edo:

There is nothing in your remarks that would cause me to respond further. Others on this e mail list can respond if they
wish.

Cheers and a Happy Thanksgiving

Alan

----- Original Message -----
From: Edo McGowan
To: rubinhial@cox.net ; payneb@nni.com ; maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca ; Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com
Cc: slb@u.washington.edu ; RSchweinfurth@wef.org ; buzbym@merck.com ; jcleary@hydroqual.com ;
pbrady@alpinetechnology.com ; bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov ; Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov ; todd.
williams@ch2m.com ; twilliams@wef.org ; Stevens.rick@epa.gov ; rbman@dock.net ; sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us ;
shadeed@wef.org ; rbowen@hrsd.com ; peterm7@prodigy.net ; ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org ; MMOORE@OCSD.
COM ; Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov ; lori.stone@adelphia.net ; lkelly@wef.org ; Greg.Kester@dnr.state.wi.us ;
JLangC@aol.com ; SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov ; jmeberg@mycingular.blackberry.net ; jmeberg@cox.net ;
jslaughter@bdlaw.com ; greinhardt@werf.org ; gswett@arcadis-us.com ; gswett@aol.com ; edemichele@wef.org ; Diane.
Gilbert@lacity.org ; daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov ; chris.westhoff@lacity.org ; chris@nurseryproductsservices.
com ; chornback@nacwa.org ; fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov ; cantilli.robert@epa.gov ; blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.
com ; LBAROLDI@OCSD.COM ; apramanik@werf.org ; ahais@werf.org ; akrantz@nacwa.org ; psinicropi@wef.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns for humans

Al, got an "out of office" reply from Chris from NACWA and thus decided to see what his group might do and say. I see
that that group is vitally interested in the dogma you espouse.

NACWA represents the interests of over 300 public agencies and organizations that have made the pursuit of
scientifically based, technically sound and cost effective laws and regulations their objective. NACWA members serve
the majority of the sewered population in the United States and collectively treat and reclaim more than 18 billion gallons
of wastewater daily. NACWA maintains a key role in the development of environmental legislation, and works closely with
federal regulatory agencies in the implementation of environmental programs.

Thus with the above in mind let’s for a moment discuss the issues of sewage sludge impacting ground water in Kern. I
would like you to consider that the operational agency in charge of the Kern Water Bank, a vital part of the California
State Water Project, has been a constant in the questioning the wisdom of land application. Thus, assuming that this
operational agency is really doing its job, of which I have no doubt (do you know something here that I have missed?) in
considering contamination of its aquifer, how does the following jibe?

NACWA Member Agencies Get Another Victory in Challenging Kern County Ban
Los Angeles, the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and the Orange County Sanitation District, all NACWA
members, scored another impressive victory last week in their effort to overturn Kern County’s ban on the land
application of biosolids.

I could readily see this from your perspective of promoting the dogma, but there might be a bit of monkey business here.

Thus, to make my Thanksgiving more enjoyable and yours, I would be happy to await your answer until next week, thus
giving you some time to consider your response.

Cheers----------------------Edo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>
To: "Edo McGowan" <edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com>,<payneb@nni.com>,<maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>,<Linda.
Macpherson@CH2M.com>
CC: <slb@u.washington.edu>,<RSchweinfurth@wef.org>,<buzbym@merck.com>,<jcleary@hydroqual.com>,
<pbrady@alpinetechnology.com>,<bastian.robert@epamail.ep a.gov>,<Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov>,<todd.
williams@ch2m.com>,<twilliams@wef.org>,<Stevens.rick@epa.gov>,<rbman@dock.net>,<sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us>,
<shadeed@wef.org>,<rbowen@hrsd.com>,<peterm7@prodigy.net>,<ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org>,
<MMOORE@OCSD.COM>,<Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov>,<lori.stone@adelphia.net>,<lkelly@wef.org>,<Greg.
Kester@dnr.state.wi.us>,<JLangC@aol.com>,<SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov>,<jmeberg@mycingular.blackberry.
net>,<jmeberg@cox.net>,<jslaughter@bdlaw.com>,<greinhardt@werf.org>,<gswett@arcadis-us.com>,<gswett@aol.
com>,<edemichele@wef.org>,< Diane.Gilbert@lacity.org>,<daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>,<chris.
westhoff@lacity.org>,<chris@nurseryproductsservices.com>,<chornback@nacwa.org>,<fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov>,
<cantilli.robert@epa.gov>,<blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.com>,<LBAROLDI@OCSD.COM>,<apramanik@werf.org>,
<ahais@werf.org>,<akrantz@nacwa.org>,<psinicropi@wef.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns for humans
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:04:21 -0500

Edo:

I am not handing off anything to anybody. I will not disappear on this issue. It is encouraging to me that somebody
other than myself is challenging you on your unfounded assertions. Bryce can speak for himself on these issues. He is
not necessarily in lockstep with me , my opinions, and judgements, or for that matter the position and opinions of EPA.
The beauty of these discussions is that anybody can weigh in.

And yes, EPA has studied and continues to study many of these issues. As for additional information at an EPA web
site- No need to do that: Start by reading the thousands of studies that have been performed over the past 30 plus
years on the management of biosolids that were used as the technical basis of the part 503 Standards.

Edo and All:

Have the Happiest and healthiest of Thanksgiving. We should give thanks for our ability to have these open and frank
discussions.

Cheers

alan

----- Original Message -----
From: Edo McGowan
To: rubinhial@cox.net ; payneb@nni.com ; maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca ; Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com
Cc: slb@u.washington.edu ; RSchweinfurth@wef.org ; buzbym@merck.com ; jcleary@hydroqual.com ;
pbrady@alpinetechnology.com ; bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov ; Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov ; todd.
williams@ch2m.com ; twilliams@wef.org ; Stevens.rick@epa.gov ; rbman@dock.net ; sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us ;
shadeed@wef.org ; rbowen@hrsd.com ; peterm7@prodigy.net ; ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org ; MMOORE@OCSD.
COM ; Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov ; lori.stone@adelphia.net ; lkelly@wef.org ; Greg.Kester@dnr.state.wi.us ;
JLangC@aol.com ; SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov ; jmeberg@mycingular.blackberry.net ; jmeberg@cox.net ;
jslaughter@bdlaw.com ; greinhardt@werf.org ; gswett@arcadis-us.com ; gswett@aol.com ; edemichele@wef.org ; Diane.
Gilbert@lacity.org ; daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov ; chris.westhoff@lacity.org ; chris@nurseryproductsservices.
com ; chornback@nacwa.org ; fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov ; cantilli.robert@epa.gov ; blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.
com ; LBAROLDI@OCSD.COM ; apramanik@werf.org ; ahais@werf.org ; akrantz@nacwa.org ; psinicropi@wef.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns for humans

Al, many thanks for having the good sense to hand the topic off to Bryce. He brings out many excellent areas for further
analysis, which I'm sure that EPA had already considered and well studied. Thus for many of these answers, I think we
can go directly to some EPA web-site, but then you know the bowels of that agency far better than I. I'll allow your good
guidence in this area, where do you think we should begin?

By the way, saw a turkey carrying a sandwich sign the other day that said "Eat more beef"------------------have a good
Thanksgiving.

Cheers--------------------------Edo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>
To: "Bryce Payne" <payneb@nni.com>,"Edo McGowan" <edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com>,<maureen.reilly@sympatico.
ca>,<Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>
CC: "Sally Brown" <slb@u.washington.edu>,<payneb@nni.com>,<RSchweinfurth@wef.org>,<buzbym@merck.com>,
<jcleary@hydroqual.com>,<pbrady@alpinetechnology.com>,<bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov>,<Winchester.
Erik@epamail.epa.gov>,"Todd Williams" <todd.williams@ch2m.com>,"Tim Williams" <twilliams@wef.org>,<Stevens.
rick@epa.gov>,"Steve Stockton" <rbman@dock.net>,"Steve Frank" <sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us>,"Sam Hadeed"
<shadeed@wef.org>,"Rhonda Bowen" <rbowen@hrsd.com>,"Peter Machno" <peterm7@prodigy.net>,"Ned Beecher"
<ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org>,"Moore, Michael" <MMOORE@OCSD.COM>,<Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov>,"Lori
A. Stone" <lori.stone@adelphia.net>,<Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>,"Linda Kelly" <lkelly@wef.org>,"Kester, Greg"
<Greg.Kester@dnr.state.wi.us>,"Jon Coffin" <JLangC@aol.com>,"Jim Smith" <SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov>,"Jeff
Meberg" <jmeberg@mycingular.blackberry.net>,"Jeff Meberg" <jmeberg@cox.net>,"James Slaughter"
<jslaughter@bdlaw.com>,"Glenn Reinhardt" <greinhardt@werf.org>,"Geoffrey Swett" <gswett@arcadis-us.com>,"
Geoffrey Swett" <gswett@aol.com>,"Gene Demichele" <edemichele@wef.org>,"Diane Gilbert" <Diane.Gilbert@lacity.
org>,<daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>,"Chris Westhoff" <chris.westhoff@lacity.org>,"Chris Seney"
<chris@nurseryproductsservices.com>,"Chris Hornback" <chornback@nacwa.org>,"Cathy Fehrenbacher"
<fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov>,<cantilli.robert@epa.gov>,"Brian Lochrie" <blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.com>,"Baroldi,
Layne" <LBAROLDI@OCSD.COM>,"Amit Pramanik" <apramanik@werf.org>,"Alan Barry Hais" <ahais@werf.org>,"Adam
Krantz" <akrantz@nacwa.org>,"Patricia Sinicropi" <psinicropi@wef.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns for humans
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:45:55 -0500
>Bryce:
>
>BRAVO!!! You make some excellent points including your challenge to
>Edo to produce field data data to back up assertions at the end of
>your e mail. I agree with you that issues such as hauling distances
>re. transportation energy expenditure with resultant CO2 emissions
>are important factors to be considered as a municipality chooses the
>method/technology to manage biosolids. You are also "right on" on
>your suggestion to use biosolids to fertilize biomass crops for
>bioenergy production. I am working with a startup company that
>plans to use biosolids on dedicated sites to fertilize rapeseed to
>produce canola oil as a biodiesel feedstock. Dr. Sally Brown from
>the University of Washington has been the national leader in
>research in this area of biosolids use.
>
>Your comments add a great deal of value to these discussions. KEEP
>IT UP!!
>
>Cheers and a Happy Thanksgiving to all
>
>Alan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryce Payne" <payneb@nni.com>
>To: "Edo McGowan" <edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com>; <rubinhial@cox.net>;
><maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>; <Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>
>Cc: <payneb@nni.com>; <RSchweinfurth@wef.org>; <buzbym@merck.com>;
><jcleary@hydroqual.com>; <pbrady@alpinetechnology.com>;
><bastian.robert@epamail.epa.gov>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish -
>concerns for humans
>
>
>>Edo,
>>
>>Not much time but I just have a problem letting some
>>obvious misunderstandings without some effort to help.
>>
>>On your first couple points -- whatever. Exchanging
>>challenges of each other's ethics serves no purpose. You
>>apparently have had some experience with ferocious
>>enforcement of air quality standards. I have heard a lot
>>of people have a distinctly different view on that. 'Nuff
>>said.
>>
>>98% reduction in emissions!?!?!? As a scientist I find it
>>really discouraging when anyone makes such an unqualified
>>statement. If you count carbon dioxide, there can be no
>>reduction in emissions from incineration vs. digestion.
>>The total amount of carbon and other volatilizable
>>components are the same regardless of how you get them into
>>the atmosphere. If there is any net advantage, and it
>>would be small, it resides in the difference between how
>>much it takes to haul and apply biosolids compared to drive
>>off enough water from sewage solids to get them to burn. A
>>few calculations on heat balances for two processes show
>>that it is always a toss up depending on things like how
>>far biosolids will be hauled, mode of transportation,
>>effectiveness of dewatering, and whether or not methane
>>from digestors will be utilized. As to sewage as a source
>>of renewable energy, the most effective use of
>>sewage/biosolids for production of renewable energy would
>>be to use them to fertilize biomass energy crops.
>>Unfortunately never been any seriously effective effort on
>>that front. (Would have get at least 3 federal agencies
>>and who knows how many individuals and private entities to
>>cooperate. A formidable challenge indeed.)
>>
>>Also, you seem to be very anxious to ignore the carbon
>>sequestered in soils as a consequence of land application
>>of biosolids. I must admit this is a management dependent
>>benefit that is rarely optimized, but under most any
>>circumstances anything sequestered is better than zero that
>>results from incineration/combustion approach. I presume
>>you feel that fuel saved by avoiding hauling, etc. would
>>offset
>>carbon sequestration benefits from land application, but in
>>reality that depends on the factors mentioned just above.
>>
>>On the methane and treatment/digestion issues:
>>So, 3000 CF methane per ton sewage solids released during
>>treatment through application. OK, why not collect methane
>>biogas and use it as such? Actually that's a fairly common
>>practice in some places. I know of one municipality that
>>is apparently having some success with such a full scale
>>system.
>>
>>On your repetitively cited "fact" that methane (released to
>>the atmosphere) will "evolve into 21 X that volume of CO2."
>>Again, you are making lax use of language and raise the
>>concern that you may not understand the fact you are
>>attempting to use. Even if you do understand, your wording
>>is setting up others to misunderstand. You can do the
>>chemistry any way you want. One volume of methane yields
>>one volume of CO2. The actual fact you are speaking of is
>>that methane has about 21 times the greenhouse effect of
>>CO2. That being the case, what seems more important is not
>>the relatively minor methane contribution from sewage
>>treatment, but the massive amounts from animal manures and
>>loss of the methane sinks due to degradation of our soils
>>and biological methane sinks on a global scale. Methane
>>from sewage/biosolids is a minor methane source on a global
>>scale. Your focus on methane distracts from the more
>>immediate concerns with regard to sewage -- local water and
>>air quality.
>>
>>As to digestion of sewage in treatment. You seem to want
>>to have compounds broken down, and solids increasing at the
>>same time. Every step of the process you discuss is a
>>decomposition process. The microbes use and release energy
>>and substantial amounts of waste products (recall 3000 CF
>>methane/ton and probably as much or more CO2). With those
>>losses what mass is making up the volume of solids which
>>you say are increasing? What data are you basing this on?
>>
>>You state that current POTWs are incapable of dealing with
>>dissolved materials. You must be speaking of some specific
>>dissolved materials since much of what is actually
>>decomposed and converted into methane, CO2 and biosolids
>>was dissolved in the influent. Other data indicates that
>>biosolids can capture substantial portion of dissolved
>>pharmaceutical and related compounds (see some of reports
>>that are now circulating in this email exchange). You need
>>to be more careful of your wording and/or support your
>>statements with actual data.
>>
>>Sorry. Got to go. Will try to do more listening for a
>>while -- do not have time for this.
>>
>>Bryce Payne, PhD
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:47:11 +0000
>>"Edo McGowan" <edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Agree---------T'would be good to have a straight
>>>conversation with you, might be productive as you have a
>>>gerat deal of history on EPA. Also would enjoy conversing
>>>with Peter.
>>>I don't, however, think you should be bringing in
>>>ethics here as if this was a one-sided issue until your
>>>own skirts are clean.
>>>I find it unethical to attack one biosolids management
>>>technique on a scientific basis to gain support for
>>>another biosolids management technique when there are no
>>>data from the field to justify the attack based on
>>>science.
>>>You say-----------------
>>>My bottom line is that all of these management practices
>>>are safe and efficacious. All of them also emit very
>>>small amounts of "stuff" to the environment.
>>>I don't know about "all" here, but let's stick to air
>>>quality and incineration for a moment if we may. I would
>>>agree that this is relatively clean, or can be. St Paul’s
>>>old system met EPA air quality standards otherwise that
>>>ferocious enforcement agency’s Air Office, just like the
>>>well-staffed and ethical enforcement arm of Water Office
>>>for which you worked, would have stomped all over them.
>>>Be that as it may, the new fluid beds dropped the air
>>>emissions put out of the plant by 98%. I saw the results
>>>and they were impressive.
>>>Then there is the evolution of greenhouse gasses from
>>>land applied and composted sewage. Let’s take Loren
>>>Faundahl’s data, which she compiled in California. A ton
>>>of sewage sludge will generate between 2,000 and 4,000 cu
>>>ft of methane (CH4) and this will evolve into 21 X that
>>>volume of CO2. Thus taking the average of 3,000 cu ft
>>>CH4/ton of sludge, we can do some calcs.
>>>The following provides an estimate of sewer sludge
>>>generated through sewer plants currently discharging to
>>>the marine environment along the southern portion of the
>>>California coastline------- from Monterey to the border
>>>with Mexico.
>>>Data were obtained in circa 2002 through the San
>>>Luis Office of the RWQCB. Sewer sludge is the term I will
>>>use for the separated solids that are received by a sewer
>>>plant (POTW) from the municipal and industrial sewage
>>>flow. In industrial areas, this includes discharges from
>>>industrial sources. It should be mentioned here that
>>>numerous toxic materials are discharged by industry into
>>>sewers. Industry, through an exemption, is allowed to
>>>discharge about 30 pounds of regulated toxins per month
>>>with out any requirement for reporting or pretreatment.
>>>Some of these are highly toxic biotoxins.
>>>The sewer processes based on current plant design send
>>>the entire suite of wastewater through a series of
>>>treatment processes. Thus the dissolved as well as the
>>>solid materials that constitute sewage are subjected to
>>>microbial actions that break down constituents into
>>>simpler components. The process also generates cellular
>>>structures (multiplication of microbes in this nutrient
>>>rich environment), thus the end volume of solids exceeds
>>>that originally seen within the influent. Further,
>>>because of the biological digestion, many of the solids
>>>are rendered into solutions. POTWs as currently designed
>>>are incapable of effectively dealing with dissolved
>>>materials. Thus these are sent with the discharge into
>>>the environment at large. It is thus a gross misnomer to
>>>speak of treated wastewater, although it may meet current
>>>standards.
>>>These standards, however, actually meet but a fraction of
>>>the mandates of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If sewer
>>>plants were actually to meet CWA requirements, it would
>>>require a complete redesign of almost the nation’s entire
>>>POTW physical plant. This fact is conveniently ignored by
>>>regulators. The politics involved had been, until the
>>>present, beyond the capacity of regulatory control.
>>>Current technology may change this picture, especially
>>>when combined with benefits from a previously untapped
>>>renewable energy resource.
>>>Note: the list below comprises POTWs located along the
>>>coast between Monterey and the US border with Mexico.
>>>Some are named for the major city and others noted below
>>>are for a collective of towns within an area. Some of
>>>these POTWs have very short and shallow outfalls and thus
>>>discharge to the surf.
>>>Nonetheless, even with longer outfalls, the effluent may
>>>be entrained within the two major currents
>>>(northward-moving warm water and southward-moving cold
>>>water that meet and form a gyre just off Santa Barbara.
>>>Thus, because these two currents combine within a gyre,
>>>there is a concentration of toxins within this unique
>>>area. This area is one of two unique points on the entire
>>>globe where this mixing occurs. Hence the species
>>>presented and their biodiversity are found in only one
>>>other very unique global area. The potential
>>>contamination from discharged sewage and thus damage to
>>>this unique marine bioregion has not been well studied or
>>>estimated.
>>>Average Dry Weather Flow—Monterey to US border, including
>>>Tia Juana in MGD.
>>>
>>Monterey---------------------------------------------------------------9.1
>>>
>>Watsonville------------------------------------------------------------7.5
>>>Monterey
>>>Regional------------------------------------------------
>>>29.6
>>>Carmel/Pebble
>>>Beach--------------------------------------------- 1.6
>>>Cayucus/Morrow
>>>Bay---------------------------------------------- 1.4
>>>
>>Avila--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-0.03
>>>
>>Goleta------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>4.8
>>>Santa
>>>
>>Barbara--------------------------------------------------------
>>>8.5
>>>
>>Montecito---------------------------------------------------------------1.0
>>>
>>Summerland-----------------------------------------------------------0.15
>>>
>>Carpinteria-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>1.7
>>>
>>Oxnard-----------------------------------------------------------------21.0
>>>
>>Hyperion-------------------------------------------------------------45 0.0
>>>LA
>>>
>>County-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>350.0
>>>Terminal Ils (LA
>>>City)----------------------------------------------- 30.0
>>>
>>Avalon--------------------------------------------------------------------0.6
>>>San
>>>
>>Clemente----------------------------------------------------------0.02
>>>Orange
>>>
>>County------------------------------------------------------320.0
>>>Laguna Niguel &
>>>surroundings------------------------------------17.6
>>>Capistrano Beach &
>>>surroundings------------------------------- 18.7
>>>Oceanside &
>>>surroundings-----------------------------------------12.3
>>>Encina &
>>>
>>surroundings----------------------------------------------22.9
>>>San Elijo &
>>>
>>surroundings-------------------------------------------15.0
>>>Pt. Loma (San Diego &
>>>surroundings)---------------------------17.0
>>>South Bay (San Ysidro to & incl TJ,
>>>Mexico)-------------------29.0
>>>Total average dry weather flow in MGD--------------1369.5
>>>At an average influent sludge load of 3 tons/MGD, the
>>>average daily sludge tonnage contained with the
>>>wastewater is estimated at roughly 4100. It must be
>>>remembered that even with secondary treatment of sewage,
>>>a fair amount of dissolved material is passed through to
>>>the environment with the discharged wastewater. Thus
>>>considering the volume of water discharged to the ocean
>>>and the current but unknown suite of metabolic toxins,
>>>the impact of this combined activity can not have a
>>>beneficial impact on marine life or the habitat.
>>>There are sufficient technologies extant to allow
>>>conversion of this daily sludge out put as a recoverable
>>>energy source. Further, technologies exist to remove the
>>>solids ahead of treatment by a POTW. This obviates the
>>>bioconversion of solids such as heavy metals into
>>>solutions. As we have noted above, current POTW
>>>technology and design are notoriously poor at dealing
>>>with solutions. Thus the negative externalities that now
>>>accrue to these activities can be essentially erased and
>>>the sludge (extracted or separated solids) can be
>>>converted into a valuable source of renewable energy.
>>>Using the above data, this is equivalent to 12,300,000 cu
>>>ft of methane per day.
>>>Based on data supplied by industry, as a
>>>rule-of-thumb-equivalent, 600 MGD of wastewater would
>>>supply 20,000 homes with their energy needs. Thus, using
>>>this conversion, the 4100 tons of sludge would equate to
>>>the entire energy needs of Santa Barbara and its
>>>surroundings. This energy equivalent, is however mainly
>>>squandered on land application and thus evolves into CH4;
>>>this consequently converts into 21 times that amount into
>>>CO2. Thus, a major and previously little considered
>>>source of greenhouse gas emissions is the land
>>>application of sewer sludge.
>>>For example, the Bakersfield area currently receives,
>>>from the Greater LA Basin area, roughly ½ million tons of
>>>sewer sludge annually. At 3,000 cu ft of CH4 per ton of
>>>sewage sludge, this amounts to 1.5 billion cu ft of CH4
>>>evolving into an oversubscribed air basin (lower Central
>>>Valley) and thus the Bakersfield area and its industry
>>>are subsidizing the LA area’s population and its smog
>>>problem.
>>>For example, the wine and grape growing industry of the
>>>San Joaquin as well as agriculture generally, are picking
>>>up the cost of this inter-basin translocation of air
>>>quality impact. The results of air pollution within the
>>>lower San Joaquin is now also seeing a tax on both the
>>>area’s wine industry and building trades industry through
>>>an equivalent of a tax applied by the area’s air
>>>pollution district. This is clearly a subsidy for LA’s
>>>sludge industry and the land application of sewer sludge.
>>>This observation is but one of the negative aspects of
>>>this activity. The cost in human health from smog in the
>>>lower San Joaquin Valley would also need to be entered
>>>into the calculations.
>>>Further, the transport of this sludge represents a major
>>>cost and use of fuel. The emissions from trucks hauling
>>>sludge between LA and Bakersfield over the Garpevine
>>>constitutes a not only a secondary major source of air
>>>quality impact, but represents an unneeded consumption of
>>>fuel recourses.
>>>Thus--- what energy levels are additionally thrown away
>>>by current sewer treatment activities? Let’s talk about
>>>trucks hauling sludge---assume 1984 through 2000 vitnage
>>>60,000 to 80,000# vehicles all on diesel. The average
>>>consumption of fuel is approximately 5 miles per gallon.
>>>NOx generation is approximately 20g/mile (range 13-23).
>>>Thus to calculate the round trip generated amount would
>>>require destinations. PM and CO2 are respectively 0.4 and
>>>2000/g/mile.
>>>Thus by eliminating sludge transport and converting
>>>sludge to energy, one can see considerable benefit. The
>>>almost 1/2 million tons transported from LA into the
>>>lower Central Valley is a major source of air quality
>>>degradation in the Bakersfield area--an already
>>>oversubscribed air shed.
>>>Then we get to the recent LA-Kern decision. The judge in
>>>this case is grossly ignorant of the facts and thus has
>>>made a fairly large blunder with his decision. Because
>>>there are extant technologies that would obviate many if
>>>not all of the issues associated with sewage sludge,
>>>including its transport costs and costs of running
>>>expensive ratepayer operated plants, his argument on
>>>necycling fails to meet any reasonable and logical test.
>>>Unfortunately, it appears that this judge was not aware
>>>of these newer technologies or chose not to avail himself
>>>of a broader picture.
>>>In the LA Times, it was recently noted that------------
>>>Judge Gary Feess said he believes state laws that push
>>>for recycling of all solid waste -- including sewage
>>>sludge -- take precedence over the Kern County ordinance
>>>that bans spreading treated human and industrial waste on
>>>unincorporated land in Kern County.
>>>If this man really believed this and was not just
>>>ignorant, he would have come to a different conclusion.
>>>Below is the reason why. With existing technology using
>>>fluid bed incineration, the sludge is removed before
>>>entering the plant. This then is converted into biofuel
>>>and the return is about 85%. The gas is better BTU
>>>quality than natural gas. Thus this removal and energy
>>>conversion of sludge obviates risks associated with
>>>pathogens, chemicals, endocrine disrupters and almost all
>>>else that is found in the sludge. By taking this off
>>>before it reaches the treatment works this eliminates the
>>>need for much of the treatment work’s current physical
>>>structure. It also vastly diminishes the solubilazition
>>>of solids and sewer works are notoriously poor at
>>>handling materials in solution, hence many of these
>>>pollutants would not reach the ocean. Further, the water
>>>coming out of the newer technology can be used for many
>>>uses rather that discharge to the sea. Because the plant
>>>can be vastly reduced in size and complexity, the need
>>>for expensive staff is greatly reduced. Because the
>>>material that would be normally transported to Kern is
>>>now fuel converted to useable energy, all transport costs
>>>and environmental issues associated with transport are
>>>eliminated. Thus, how could this judge come up with his
>>>rational, other than ignorance?
>>>What energy levels are thrown away by current sewer
>>>treatment activities all because they are too ignorant to
>>>look at alternative recycling.
>>>The following is based on data generated by a study,
>>>commissioned by the California Integrated Waste
>>>management Board (CIWMB) and prepared by the University
>>>of California, Riverside’s College of Engineering-Center
>>>for Environmental Research and Technology. The entire
>>>article can be read by obtaining a web copy from Forester
>>>Pubs, the latest issue
>>>(http://www.gradingandexcavating.com/msw.html). The paper
>>>is entitled Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of
>>>Theromchemical Conversion Technologies Using Municipal
>>>Solid Waste Feedstock. MSW Management, Elements 2007Vol
>>>16, No 4.
>>>Using this study as a model, I have merely substituted
>>>data but essentially used their methodology. In the case
>>>presented, we are discussing the movement of about ½
>>>million tons of sewer sludge from the Greater LA Basin
>>>into the San Joaquin Valley for land application. Thus, I
>>>will look at the added air quality impacts in this case
>>>from trucking and then the evolution of CH4 from that
>>>sludge. Please remember this is in essence a transfer of
>>>smog out of LA and into the already oversubscribed air
>>>basin of Bakersfield.
>>>TRUCKING IMPACTS
>>>Assume the following. 500,000 tons of sewer sludge is
>>>transferred from the LA Basin to the Bakersfield area.
>>>Over the grapevine route assumes an elevation shift of
>>>about 4,000 feet. The trip from Hyperion to Bakersfield
>>>is about 100 miles which will be our assumed one-way
>>>distance. The average truck is assumed to carry 25 tons
>>>and has an average fuel consumption rate of
>>>5-miles/gallon.
>>>Thus far we can compute some data.
>>>At 25 tons/truck, we will be making 20,000 trips to
>>>Bakersfield and back. That is 55 trips/day. At a round
>>>trip of 200 miles this consumes 40 gallons of diesel. At
>>>55 trips, this is 2,200 gpd or about 803,000 gallons of
>>>diesel per year.
>>>Heavy Duty Diesel NOx EmissionsCocker et. al. measured
>>>NOx emissions with a mobile laboratory that serves as the
>>>semi-trailer for a heavy duty diesel truck-tractor (1).
>>>With a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 60,000 lbs, NOx
>>>emissions averaged 20 g/mile for the 106-mile round trip
>>>between Riverside and Victorville, CA (with an altitude
>>>change of 3,000 feet between the two cities).
>>>Using Cocker’s data and substituting the Hyperion to
>>>Bakersfield run, we get the following (note the elevation
>>>difference in our example is 1,000 feet more thus using
>>>Cocker’s example directly will be an underestimate).
>>>CARB EMFAC gives NOx emissions from 13.4 to 23 g/mile for
>>>heavy duty vehicles manufactured between 1984 and 2002
>>>
>>(http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/tsd/HDT_Emissions_New.pdf).
>>>
>>>The hypothetical distance used by Cocker was 53 miles,
>>>(our one-way trip is approximately double that). From
>>>Cocker, NOx emissions for a heavy-duty diesel truck
>>>(class 8) making this roundtrip will be approximately 2
>>>kg (using an emission factor of 20 g NOx/mile) (2).
>>>Assume a payload of approximately 25 tons (50,000 lbs.
>>>Maximum gross vehicle weight is 80,000 lbs). Thus based
>>>on this assumption, the 55 trips from Hypperion to
>>>Bakersfield and back will generate 110 pounds of NOx
>>>PM and CO2 EmissionsFrom CARB EMFAC, approximate emission
>>>factors for PM and CO2 are 0.4 g/mile and 2000 g/mile
>>>respectively. Therefore, the avoided emissions of diesel
>>>engine PM and CO2 due to MSW transport from the transfer
>>>station to landfill are about 0.2.4 and 1200 tons
>>>respectively.
>>>Evolution of Methane by Transferred Sewer Sludge
>>>Assuming Loren Faundahl and her staff are correct that
>>>each ton of sewer sludge will produce on the average
>>>about 3,000 cuft of CH4. The roughly ½ million tons of LA
>>>Basin sewer sludge will produce 1.5 billion cubic feet of
>>>CH4 or 21 times that amount of CO2 will eventually
>>>evolve.
>>>SUMMARY
>>>From the above assuming assumptions, it should be clear
>>>that the transfer of sewer sludge from one area to
>>>another is not without consequence. In preparing a proper
>>>economic analysis of benefits from the land application
>>>of sewer sludge or its conversion via composting, the
>>>above externalities (this is just a short list) need to
>>>be backed out to obtain a more accurate cost benefit
>>>analysis. Until such an economic analysis has been
>>>presented, it will be difficult to continue any
>>>reasonable discussion of the merits of this activity.
>>>Notes _______________________________
>>>(Cocker, D.R.; Shah, S.D.; Johnson, K.; Miller, J.W.; and
>>>Norbeck, J.M. 2004. "Development and Application of a
>>>Mobile Laboratory for Measuring Emissions From Diesel
>>>Engines. 1. Regulated Gaseous Emissions." Environmental
>>>Science and Technology, 38[7Apr 1], 2182-2189).
>>>(2) Cocker estimated NOx emissions for transporting solid
>>>waste from the transfer station to the landfill are,
>>>therefore, 0.1 lb/ton (0.046 kg/ton). The 129,780 tons of
>>>MSW no longer trucked to a landfill result in a reduction
>>>of approximately 6.1 tons of NOx emissions emitted to the
>>>atmosphere annually.
>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>Cheers------------------Edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: "The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>To: "Edo
>>>McGowan"
>>>
>><edo_mcgowan@hotmail.com>,<maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>,<Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>CC:
>>>
>><payneb@nni.com>,<RSchweinfurth@wef.org>,<buzbym@merck.com>,<jcleary@hydroqual.com>,"
Peter
>>>Brady" <pbrady@alpinetechnology.com>Subject: Re:
>>>Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish -
>>>concerns for humansDate: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:36:13 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Edo:
>>>
>>>Finally, an issue that we can have a productive and
>>>civil discourse!!! Actually, I support all
>>>Part 503 regulated biosolids management options: Direct
>>>Land Application, production of biosolids products such
>>>as composts, heat dried pellets for subsequent land
>>>application, surface disposal (monofilling), co-disposal
>>>at municipal solid waste land fills, and
>>>incineration. My support is premised on the
>>>assumption that as a minimum, all of these management
>>>practices are performed in compliance with all of the
>>>requirements of the Part 503 Standards which to me and
>>>many others makes them safe.
>>>
>>>Peter Brady of WEF's Bioenergy Subcommittee of the
>>>Residuals and Biosolids Committee would be interested in
>>>your remarks and he is an additional cc on this
>>>reply. My bottom line is that all of these
>>>management practices are safe and efficacious. All
>>>of them also emit very small amounts of "stuff" to
>>>the environment. That being the case, the risks
>>>from any of these management practices are not zero but
>>>so close to zero that the risks are "in the noise" of
>>>everyday living. Any difference in risk/impact to
>>>humans and the environment from these practices is
>>>"in the noise". You will never be able to measure
>>>these differences or even detect human health impacts
>>>from any of them in the real world operating
>>>environment with the exception of mal odors.
>>>Even here there is no scientific consensus on whether
>>>odors are or are not a health impact. However, they
>>>have the potential to impact the quality of
>>>life in a community that hosts any of these biosolids
>>>practices. But then too that goes for land
>>>application of animal manures, operating municipal
>>>solid waste landfills accepting trash, animal
>>>rendering operations, paper mills,etc.
>>>
>>>Your support for incineration (I see that Maureen is now
>>>also supporting thermal processes) is certainly a
>>>position that I cannot take exception to. However,
>>>I hope that you are not so naive to believe that most
>>>communities would accept a biosolids thermal processor
>>>(aka incinerator) "in their back yard" without at least
>>>considerable concerns and perhaps opposition. Why
>>>in this case, dozens of Edo McGowans and Maureen Reillys
>>>would be popping up to denounce this technolgy as an
>>>impacter of public health and the environment coming up
>>>with assertions of a multitude of toxins pouring from the
>>>stacks! Greenpeace USA and maybe even
>>>Greenpeace International is on record as opposing
>>>incineration in managing socity's residues. You
>>>should open a dialogue with them and see how they
>>>react. I also would expect that you and/or Maureen
>>>would show up in the town that would potentially host an
>>>incineration project and support it in front of the
>>>townsfolk.
>>>
>>>The saying goes; "Whatever Floats Your Boat".
>>>From my remarks above, I would support any biosolids
>>>management option including incineration as long as the
>>>practice was regulated. However, I find it
>>>unethical to attack one biosolids management technique on
>>>a scientific basis to gain support for another
>>>biosolids management technique when there are no data
>>>from the field to justify the attack based on science.
>>>
>>>I am enjoying your exchanges with Bryce Payne. If I
>>>feel that I have to weigh in on those discussions, I
>>>will.
>>>
>>>Edo: A happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: Edo McGowan
>>>To: maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca ;
>>>Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com
>>>Cc: rubinhial@cox.net ; payneb@nni.com ;
>>>RSchweinfurth@wef.org ; buzbym@merck.com ;
>>>jcleary@hydroqual.com
>>>Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 3:45 AM
>>>Subject: RE: Fw: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals -
>>>changes in fish - concerns for humans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, Al---these issues would be obviated with
>>>removal of the solids ahead of their reaching the
>>>digesters and sending the solids through a fluid-bed,
>>>thus converting them to useable energy. Additionally, by
>>>doing that the solids would not be put into a solution
>>>via microbial breakdown, hence they would be less likely
>>>to be found in the treated effluent.
>>>The technology is out there, this would also destroy the
>>>pathogens----and even the prions. Who in EPA is looking
>>>at this? You save the aquatic systems, you get biofuel,
>>>you don't contaminate the soil with heavy metals and
>>>other materials.
>>>Cheers---------------------Edo
>>>
>>>>From: "The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>>Date:
>>>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:25:32>To:"Bryce Payne"
>>><,"Rob'>payneb@nni.com>,"Rob Schweinfurth"
>>><,"Mary'>RSchweinfurth@wef.org>,"Mary E. Buzby,
>>>Ph.D." <buzbym@merck.com>,"Joseph G. Cleary"
>>>
>><jcleary@hydroqual.com>,<Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>,"Linda
>>>Kelly" <lkelly@wef.org>>Cc:"Alan Barry Hais"
>>><ahais@werf.org>,"Glenn Reinhardt"
>>><greinhardt@werf.org>,"Amit Pramanik"
>>>
>><apramanik@werf.org>,<daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>,<maureen.reilly@bell.blackberry.net>,"
M
>>>Reilly" <maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>,"Moore,
>>>Michael" <MMOORE@OCSD.COM>,"Todd Williams"
>>><todd.williams@ch2m.com>,"Rhonda Bowen"
>>><rbowen@hrsd.com>,"Sam Hadeed"
>>><shadeed@wef.org>,"Gene Demichele"
>>><edemichele@wef.org>,"Tim Williams"
>>><twilliams@wef.org>,"Adam Krantz "
>>><akrantz@nacwa.org>,"Chris Hornback"
>>><chornback@nacwa.org>,"Ned Beecher"
>>><ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org>,"Steve Frank"
>>><sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us>,"Peter Machno"
>>><peterm7@prodigy.net>,"Lori A. Stone"
>>><lori.stone@adelphia.net>,"Kester, Greg"
>>>
>><Greg.Kester@dnr.state.wi.us>,<Stevens.rick@epa.gov>,<cantilli.robert@epa.gov>,<Bastian.
Robert@epamail.epa.gov>,<Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov>,"Jim
>>>Smith"
>>>
>><SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov>,<Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov>,"Jeff
>>>Meberg" <jmeberg@cox.net>,"Geoffrey Swett"
>>><gswett@arcadis-us.com>,"Brian Lochrie"
>>><blochrie@faubelpublicaffairs.com>,"Chris Seney"
>>><chris@nurseryproductsservices.com>,"James
>>>Slaughter" <jslaughter@bdlaw.com>,"Chris Westhoff"
>>><chris.westhoff@lacity.org>,"Diane Gilbert"
>>><Diane.Gilbert@lacity.org>,"Jon Coffin"
>>><JLangC@aol.com>,"Steve Stockton"
>>><rbman@dock.net>,"Ellen Z. Harrison"
>>><ezh1@cornell.edu>,"Cathy Fehrenbacher"
>>><fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov>>Subject: Re: Fw:
>>>Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in
>>>fish - concerns for humans>>Bryce:>>Excellent
>>>comments. Yes, the sentence was long but I
>>>wanted to show a>seamless connection!!! My
>>>main point is that the best way
>>>to>manage/degrade/sequester these trace contaminants
>>>that have appeared in the>environment is to apply them
>>>to soils via biosolids land
>>>application. I>realize that there is the
>>>potential (in my opinion very small) for
>>>some>environmental impact by doing this but the
>>>consequence of allowing these>constituents to remain
>>>in the effluent for direct exposure to
>>>sediments,>humans, plants, and animals is many times
>>>more risky. Yes, I am suggesting>that these
>>>trace constituents be captured even more efficiently by
>>>biosolids>production. The only other option
>>>is to have increased treatment at the>effluent end
>>>(reverse osmosis, activated carbon filtration, ozonation,
>>>etc)>to remove/capture/degrade these
>>>compounds. Then you have the residues
>>>from>these processes to deal with.>>Actually,
>>>these compounds that are appearing in our environment
>>>should have>been evaluated by EPA and FDA for their
>>>consequences of appearing in>wastewater and the
>>>aquatic environment in trace amounts long before
>>>these>compounds were licensed by these Federal
>>>agencies for production,>distribution, and
>>>use. In my opinion, the political inertia to
>>>get the>agencies to do this for the tens of thousands
>>>of compounds in production>today is
>>>enormous.>>As for who all these people in the e
>>>mail list are: With few exceptions,>they
>>>are professionals in the water, wastewater treatment, and
>>>biosolids>professions. Included are
>>>engineers, consultats, academics. Ms. Reilly
>>>is>an individual who has consistently expressed her
>>>opposition to centralized>wastewater treatment and
>>>until recently has expressed her displeasure with>all
>>>biosolids management methods. Recently, she
>>>"has seen the light" and>has begun to support high
>>>temperature/thermal processes for achieving
>>>the>elimination of biosolids. I
>>>specifically mention her because you became>aware of
>>>this issue/discussion by being a recipient of the
>>>original story in>the Las Vegas newspaper via her
>>>blogging service, "Sludge Watch".>>Finally, I have
>>>attached a superb report that you prepared as a
>>>consultant>in Pennsylvania a few years
>>>back. It is one of the best papers that I
>>>have>reviewed over the years while I was employed at
>>>USEPA. Your defense of>biosolids science
>>>and the protectiveness of the Federal Part 503 and
>>>State>standards is superb. I hope that
>>>everyone who is receiving this e mail>reads
>>>it!!!!>>Bryce: Let's keep in touch on
>>>this and other biosolids
>>>issues.>>Cheers>>Alan>>>>-----
>>>Original Message ----->From: "Bryce Payne"
>>><payneb@nni.com>>To: "The Rubins"
>>><rubinhial@cox.net>; "Bryce Payne"
>>><payneb@nni.com>; "Rob>Schweinfurth"
>>><RSchweinfurth@wef.org>; "Mary E. Buzby,
>>>Ph.D."><buzbym@merck.com>; "Joseph G. Cleary"
>>>
>><jcleary@hydroqual.com>;><Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>;
>>>"Linda Kelly" <lkelly@wef.org>>Cc: "Alan Barry
>>>Hais" <ahais@werf.org>; "Glenn
>>>Reinhardt"><greinhardt@werf.org>; "Amit
>>>Pramanik"
>>>
>><apramanik@werf.org>;><daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>;
>>><maureen.reilly@bell.blackberry.net>;>"M Reilly"
>>><maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>; "Moore,
>>>Michael"><MMOORE@OCSD.COM>; "Todd Williams"
>>><todd.williams@ch2m.com>; "Rhonda
>>>Bowen"><rbowen@hrsd.com>; "Sam Hadeed"
>>><shadeed@wef.org>; "Gene
>>>Demichele"><edemichele@wef.org>; "Tim Williams"
>>><twilliams@wef.org>; "Adam Krantz
>>>"><akrantz@nacwa.org>; "Chris Hornback"
>>><chornback@nacwa.org>; "Ned
>>>Beecher"><ned.beecher@nebiosolids.org>; "Steve
>>>Frank" <sfrank@mwrd.dst.co.us>; "Peter>Machno"
>>><peterm7@prodigy.net>; "Lori A. Stone"
>>><lori.stone@adelphia.net>;>"Kester, Greg"
>>><Greg.Kester@dnr.state.wi.us>;
>>>
>><Stevens.rick@epa.gov>;><cantilli.robert@epa.gov>;
>>>
>><Bastian.Robert@epamail.epa.gov>;><Winchester.Erik@epamail.epa.gov>;
>>>"Jim Smith"><SMITH.JAMES@epamail.epa.gov>;
>>><Meckes.Mark@epamail.epa.gov>; "Jeff
>>>Meberg"><jmeberg@cox.net>>Sent: Thursday,
>>>November 16, 2006 1:55 AM>Subject: Re: Fw: Sludge
>>>Watch ==> Chemicals - changes in fish - concerns
>>>for>humans>>> > Alan,> >> >
>>>Glad to hear you are aware of Christian Daughton and
>>>that> > he is still doing his thing on the
>>>subject.> >> > You may not have noticed, but
>>>you wrote one really long> >
>>>sentence. Have to parse it a bit to be sure
>>>what I am> > agreeing to, especially with regard to
>>>a best course.> >> > First, my impression is
>>>that these compounds have been> > recognized as
>>>measurable pollutants with documented> >
>>>environmental consequences for at least a few years
>>>now.> > Seems to me that as pollutants they are
>>>"emerging" only in> > the sense that public
>>>awareness and recognition of the> > situation is
>>>"emerging". Pardon my bluntness, but it
>>>has> > long been one of my personal gripes my that
>>>the biosolids> > and wastewater management industry
>>>likes to play word games> > aimed at deflecting
>>>criticism, rather than taking on the> > critics and
>>>disarming them or learning from them. Most>
>>>> industries do the same thing on environmental
>>>issues, but> > most industries do not claim water
>>>quality as their purpose> > for being.> >>
>>>> Second, I am a dirt guy mostly, and do not keep up
>>>to speed> > on waste water treatment processes, but
>>>I will proceed with> > reckless abandon
>>>anyway. Your proposed best course seems>
>>>> to presuppose that biosolids production processes
>>>can be> > modified to achieve a re-proportioning of
>>>pharmaceuticals> > and related compounds (I will
>>>call them PRCs) so that the> > largest proportion
>>>is retained in the biosolids. What I do>
>>>> not know is the actual current
>>>biosolids-vs.-effluent> > proportioning of
>>>PRCs. Are most of them already in the> >
>>>biosolids? If so, then the mischief is being
>>>done by a> > relatively small proportion escaping
>>>in the effluent. That> > would seem a
>>>bit scary since it would imply the already> >
>>>diagnosed contamination cases are being caused by a>
>>>> relatively small portion of the PRCs load influent
>>>to the> > treatment processes. Seems to
>>>me that would be a really> > good question to
>>>answer as soon as possible.> >> > If it
>>>should be the case that current treatment (biosolids>
>>>> production) processes are sending most of the PRCs
>>>load out> > in the effluent, then we get back to
>>>your proposed best> > course. What are
>>>you going to do to cause retention of the> > PRCs
>>>in the biosolids? I actually have a couple
>>>ideas on> > that one, but they are only pictures in
>>>my head and, hence,> > not commercially available
>>>anyway.> >> > Third, let's presume that we
>>>can get the PRCs to> > reproportion to remain
>>>effectively entirely in the> >
>>>biosolids. We then arrive at the second point
>>>in your best> > course: land application of
>>>biosolids. Your choice of> > words
>>>troubles me, though, in that it sounds like you are>
>>>> proposing land application with reckless abandon
>>>based on a> > presumption that the robustness of
>>>the upland soils is> > without practical
>>>bounds. I should be more cautious here>
>>>> and clarify that when I say "upland soils" I am
>>>actually> > referring to the soils as dependent
>>>components of upland> > terrestrial
>>>ecosystems. As is the case with all> >
>>>effectively functioning ecosystems, upland
>>>terrestrial> > ecosystems have limits as to how
>>>much of anything they can> > effectively process
>>>and ultimately tolerate. Two exemplary>
>>>> cases come to mind. I will only mention
>>>them and leave> > them for development some other
>>>time. They may seem a bit> > contrary to
>>>the purpose of my spouting here, but bear with> >
>>>me.> >> > One is nitrification
>>>potential. Soils can tolerate> >
>>>seemingly remarkable amounts of organic and ammonia>
>>>> nitrogen inputs. However, that does not
>>>mean it's a good> > idea to load them to anywhere
>>>near their microbiological> > processing capacity
>>>unless you have some way to handle the> > nitrate
>>>levels that will result, most often in just a few>
>>>> days to weeks.> >> > The other is be
>>>careful what you train soils to do. Some>
>>>> years ago there was at least one case where a
>>>herbicide> > (2,4-D as I recall -- not sure right
>>>now) was used> > repeatedly on agricultural
>>>soils. Over a period the> > herbicide
>>>lost its effectiveness. Initial concern
>>>was> > weeds had developed
>>>resistance. Turned out the herbicide> >
>>>was so consistently present that the microflora adapted
>>>to> > it as a regular substrate and decomposed it
>>>virtually upon> > contact. A corollary
>>>to this type of case is that there is> > no magic
>>>rule in soils that prevents the rise of antibiotic>
>>>> resistant strains of particular organisms if the
>>>ecosystem> > is pushed too hard, e.g., regularly
>>>loaded with> > functionally excessive loads of
>>>antibiotics or other PRCs.> >> > Point is,
>>>soil microflora can, do, and in most cases when> >
>>>pushed too hard, will run wild and then
>>>amok. Additionally> > there are
>>>physicochemical capacities that cannot be> >
>>>exceeded in upland soils unless you are willing to
>>>accept> > intermediate breakdown products and other
>>>possible nasties> > in soil leachates (to
>>>groundwater) and runoff (to surface> > waters).>
>>>>> > Actually my first pass reaction as to best
>>>courses with> > respect to loading of our waterways
>>>(and sediments) with> > PRCs bears the marks of my
>>>prejudices as a soil scientist.> > Sewage farms, or
>>>more correctly effluent farms (or> > forests,...)
>>>-- current biosolids could continue to be> >
>>>produced and managed as they are. The
>>>effluents apparently> > are the current problem
>>>carrier of PRCs. Those effluents> > need
>>>to be processed through effective soil ecosystems>
>>>> before entering our surface
>>>waterways. Needless to say,> > such an
>>>approach carries a number of other issues that> >
>>>would require management, some of which hopefully are>
>>>> apparent from my preceding discourse. It
>>>might be possible> > to actually design and
>>>construct very intense plant/soil> > systems that
>>>could function as maximum throughput (minimum> >
>>>size) "farms". Usually such designed
>>>ecosystems are bad> > boys to manage and maintain,
>>>though. Besides, there are> > biomass
>>>fuel crops in need of homes that would marry well>
>>>> to the effluent farming concept. The old
>>>tried and true> > standby forests and grasslands
>>>should not be overlooked.> > Of course, these would
>>>likely be of little interest if a> > low cost means
>>>of getting the PRCs to stick in the> > biosolids
>>>were found (back to your proposed best course),> >
>>>or if economically viable technologies arise that
>>>could> > remove or break down the PRCs in the
>>>influent or effluent.> >> > So, I guess I
>>>sort of agree with your proposed best course.> >
>>>Interesting stuff. By the way, who are you
>>>people anyway?> > Glad to have been included in
>>>your email but I don't think> > I know anybody on
>>>the list except Bob Bastian. By the way>
>>>> something went wrong with my "reply to all" command
>>>so some> > folks have not received this if you want
>>>to check and send> > it to them.> >> >
>>>'Night to all,> > Bryce Payne, PhD> >>
>>>>> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:54:37 -0500> >
>>>"The Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net> wrote:>
>>>>> Bryce:> >>> >> Interesting
>>>hypotheses. Then you would agree that the>
>>>>> best course of environmental processes would be
>>>the> >> treatment of municipal wastewater to
>>>produce biosolids,> >> in that process having an
>>>optimal transfer of these> >> "emerging
>>>pollutants" from the wastewater influent to the>
>>>>> biosolids matrix, and then land applying the
>>>biosolids to> >> the soil in an aerobic
>>>environment to allow the enormous> >> amount of
>>>non-antibiotic resistant background micro> >>
>>>organisms to efficiently degrade/destroy these
>>>"bogeymen"> >> pollutants of concern no matter
>>>the annual loading of> >> these pollutants to
>>>the soil would be.> >>> >> Oh and by
>>>the way, the researcher at the EPA lab in Las>
>>>>> Vegas is Christian Daughton and he is still
>>>pursuing> >> these trace constituents in the
>>>environment. His> >> department was
>>>not "defunded". He is ccd on this> >>
>>>response to you.> >>> >>
>>>Comments???> >>> >> cheers>
>>>>>> >> alan> >>> >>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryce Payne">
>>>>> <payneb@nni.com>> >> To: "The
>>>Rubins" <rubinhial@cox.net>; "Rob Schweinfurth">
>>>>> <RSchweinfurth@wef.org>; "Mary E. Buzby,
>>>Ph.D."> >> <buzbym@merck.com>; "Bryce
>>>Payne, Ph.D."> >> <payneb@nni.com>;
>>>"Joseph G. Cleary"> >>
>>><jcleary@hydroqual.com>;
>>><Linda.Macpherson@CH2M.com>;> >> "Linda
>>>Kelly" <lkelly@wef.org>> >> Cc: "Alan
>>>Barry Hais" <ahais@werf.org>; "Glenn Reinhardt">
>>>>> <greinhardt@werf.org>; "Amit Pramanik">
>>>>> <apramanik@werf.org>;> >>
>>><daughton.christian@epamail.epa.gov>> >>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:03 PM> >>
>>>Subject: Re: Fw: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes
>>>in> >> fish - concerns for humans>
>>>>>> >>> >> > Gosh, did not
>>>know everybody was so far behind the> >> curve
>>>on> >> > this one. As I now recall
>>>this problem dates back to> >> > originial
>>>discovery of physilogically active> >>
>>>concentrations> >> > of clinically active
>>>blood pressure medicatiions in the> >> >
>>>1970's, in the Rhine River in
>>>Germany. Feminization of> >> >
>>>male fish became a serious concern in the Thames
>>>River> >> in> >> > England some
>>>years back. I first caught wind of this>
>>>>> > problem in 2002 when Susquehanna River
>>>sediment was> >> found> >> > to have
>>>abnormally low diversity of microflora and> >>
>>>> negligible (i.e., abnormally low) microfloral
>>>response> >> to> >> > substrate
>>>amendments. Turns out that only microbes>
>>>>> left in> >> > the sediment showed
>>>across the board resistance to 5> >> (may>
>>>>> > have been 7 -- been a while -- can't
>>>remember specifics> >> > right now) of the
>>>most commonly prescribed antibiotics.> >>
>>>>> >> > It struck me then that if anybody
>>>wants to talk about a> >> > ticking
>>>biological time bomb, loading our aquatic> >>
>>>sediments> >> > with antibiotics (and
>>>hormones, blockers, and other> >> >
>>>pharmaceuticals) would be a good
>>>candidate. I> >> approached>
>>>>> > several parties with the concern at that
>>>time and got> >> no> >> > serious
>>>interest.> >> >> >> > It is also
>>>interesting to note that the EPA authority> >>
>>>on> >> > the subject at that time was based
>>>in Las Vegas. Don't> >> > recall
>>>his name now, but could relocate him. The>
>>>>> forwarded> >> > article seems to
>>>have missed him and info he may have> >> to>
>>>>> > offer. Maybe his office was
>>>de-funded like others in> >> the> >>
>>>> EPA in recent years.> >> >> >>
>>>> As it turns out, most antibiotics and
>>>pharmaceuticals> >> are> >> > passed
>>>in the urine, pretty much unaffected by sewage>
>>>>> > treatment systems, end up in treated
>>>effluents and> >> finally> >> >
>>>adsorb onto aquatic sediment. Consequently,
>>>most do> >> not> >> > remain long in
>>>the water phase. However, the input to>
>>>>> the> >> > water bodies can be
>>>expected to remain the same or> >> >
>>>increase. Hence, the correctness but
>>>probable> >> unimportance> >> > of
>>>the engineer's comment (in the article) that> >>
>>>detection> >> > limits (in water) are below
>>>biologically important> >> >
>>>concentrations. My impression is that there
>>>is> >> probably> >> > some time
>>>until the sediments adsorption capacity is> >>
>>>> effectively loaded. Once that occurs the
>>>normal> >> microflora> >> > cease to
>>>function (or maybe even survive). After
>>>that> >> the> >> > pharmaceuticals
>>>will continue to accumulate in the> >> >
>>>sediment, but likely at increasingly more active>
>>>>> levels,> >> > and sustained
>>>concentrations in the water phase will> >> >
>>>increase. As this process has been underway
>>>for some> >> time,> >> > it seems
>>>likely to me that the sediment adsorptive> >>
>>>capacity> >> > in most affected water bodies
>>>probably has been or will> >> > soon be
>>>exceeded. The finding that affects on fish>
>>>>> were> >> > greater nearer to the
>>>inlet from the Las Vegas Wash> >> would>
>>>>> > seem to be compatible with my
>>>speculationl. The> >> effects in>
>>>>> > Lake Mead can be expected to spread
>>>gradually over> >> wider> >> > and
>>>wider areas as sediments load up and influent>
>>>>> loading> >> > continues.>
>>>>> >> >> > From a soil scientist's
>>>perspective this is very> >> > interesting in
>>>that producition and decomposition of> >> >
>>>antibiotics are normal functions of the microflora in>
>>>>> > upland soils. If that were not
>>>the case, soils would> >> have> >> >
>>>long ago become beds of accumulated antibiotics (and>
>>>>> > related compounds). The beauty
>>>of natural upland soil> >> > environments is
>>>that they provide a full range of> >>
>>>aeration> >> > conditions (anaerobic to fully
>>>aerated) and a diverse> >> > microflora with
>>>regular inputs of biologically> >> effective>
>>>>> > substrate. In comparison,
>>>sediments are almost by> >> > definition
>>>oxygen and substrate poor. Consequently,
>>>in> >> > sediments (and to some degree water)
>>>decomposition> >> pathways> >> > are
>>>biochemically constrained. When
>>>those> >> constraints> >> > result
>>>in accumulation of compounds that reduce the> >>
>>>> effective diversity of the sediment microflora,
>>>then> >> the> >> > system as a whole
>>>will biologically run down -- and> >> >
>>>something will eventually fill the void and it
>>>probably> >> > will not be something we
>>>really want to deal with.>
>>>>> Point> >> > of all this
>>>is that our waste water management> >>
>>>practices> >> > have, in fact, been asking
>>>waterways to do the natural> >> job> >>
>>>> of soils. The accumulation of antibiotics
>>>and other> >> > pharmaceuticals in our
>>>waterways should, therefore, not> >> be>
>>>>> > such a surprize. Again, as a
>>>soil scientist, the> >> solution> >>
>>>> strikes me as obvious, but I have run on long
>>>enough.> >> >> >> > Anybody wants
>>>to continue the discussion, I can be> >>
>>>reached> >> > by email.> >> >
>>>Regards to all,> >> > Bryce Payne, PhD>
>>>>> >> >> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006
>>>07:44:19 -0500> >> > "The Rubins"
>>><rubinhial@cox.net> wrote:> >> >>
>>>FYI. These stories seem to "have
>>>traction". WEF must> >> >> deal
>>>with this issue.> >> >>> >>
>>>>> Cheers> >> >>> >>
>>>>> Alan> >> >>> >> >>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Reilly">
>>>>> >> <maureen.reilly@sympatico.ca>>
>>>>> >> To:
>>><Sludgewatch-l@list.web.net>> >> >>
>>>Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:03 PM> >>
>>>>> Subject: Sludge Watch ==> Chemicals - changes
>>>in fish> >> -> >> >> concerns for
>>>humans> >> >>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> > Sludgewatch Admin:> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > Fish becoming
>>>girly fish?> >> >> > Men becoming girly
>>>men?> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> We gotta fix this!> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >
>>>
>>..........................................................................>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >
>>>
>>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2006/oct/20/566640420.html>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Las
>>>Vegas Sun> >> >> > 10-20-06>
>>>>> >> > Chemicals cause changes in fish
>>>and raise concerns> >> for> >> >>
>>>humans> >> >> > By Launce Rake
>>><lrake@lasvegassun.com>> >> >> >
>>>Las Vegas Sun> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > There's
>>>something wrong with the fish.> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > It's been confounding
>>>scientists for years: Male> >> fish> >>
>>>>> are developing> >> >> > female
>>>sexual characteristics in Lake Mead and other>
>>>>> >> freshwater sources> >>
>>>>> > around the country.> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > On Thursday, the U.S.
>>>Geological Survey released a> >> >>
>>>four-page summary of> >> >> > more than
>>>a decade of studies linking wastewater> >>
>>>>> chemicals to those> >> >> >
>>>changes.> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> But a scientist who has studied the issue for
>>>years> >> >> complains that the>
>>>>> >> > report understates the danger of
>>>those toxins at> >> Lake> >> >>
>>>Mead and elsewhere.> >> >> > The
>>>researcher had aired his concerns seven months>
>>>>> ago> >> >> - shortly after he>
>>>>> >> > was fired by the USGS.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > The
>>>federal agency says the researcher was fired for>
>>>>> >> failing to publish> >>
>>>>> > his data. The researcher says the federal
>>>agency> >> >> wouldn't allow him to>
>>>>> >> > publish.> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > Both sides, however,
>>>agree on the basic issue: In> >> Lake>
>>>>> >> Mead and in other> >> >>
>>>> freshwater sites, scientists have found traces
>>>of> >> >> pharmaceuticals,> >>
>>>>> > pesticides, chemicals used in plastic
>>>manufacturing,> >> >> artificial
>>>fragrances> >> >> > and other
>>>substances linked to changes in fish and> >>
>>>>> animals. Thursday's> >> >> >
>>>report noted that the primary source for the> >>
>>>chemicals> >> >> in Lake Mead was>
>>>>> >> > the Las Vegas Wash, a man-made
>>>river made up almost> >> >> entirely of
>>>treated> >> >> > wastewater from cities
>>>in the Las Vegas Valley.> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> > Lake Mead is the source of 90
>>>percent of Las Vegas'> >> >> drinking
>>>water and> >> >> > provides water for
>>>millions more people in> >> California>
>>>>> >> and much of the> >> >>
>>>> winter vegetables produced in the United States.
>>>The> >> >> lake and> >> >>
>>>> contamination have been the subject of intense>
>>>>> scrutiny> >> >> from federal
>>>and> >> >> > local scientists.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > One of
>>>those scientists studying Lake Mead was Tim> >>
>>>>> Gross, who was the> >> >> >
>>>federal lead researcher on the lake's issue of>
>>>>> emerging> >> >> contaminants
>>>until> >> >> > he was fired earlier
>>>this year by the USGS. Gross, a> >> >>
>>>researcher and> >> >> > teacher at the
>>>University of Florida , said he was> >> >>
>>>terminated because the> >> >> >
>>>government didn't like his research conclusions ->
>>>>> >> namely, that> >> >> >
>>>hormone-disrupting chemicals are prevalent in Lake>
>>>>> Mead> >> >> and affecting the>
>>>>> >> > environment to a greater degree
>>>than once suspected.> >> >> Federal
>>>officials in> >> >> > April said Gross
>>>was fired for failure to publish> >> >>
>>>research results and a> >> >> > new
>>>team of scientists would evaluate Lake Mead data>
>>>>> >> and publish the> >> >>
>>>> results.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > The Thursday report, which suggests more
>>>research is> >> >> still needed, was
>>>the> >> >> > product of the new team, a
>>>summary of research by a> >> >> number of
>>>scientists.> >> >> > It did not include
>>>Gross' results.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > Gross, meanwhile, is still battling the
>>>federal> >> >> government.> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > "They (federal
>>>officials) refuse to let me be> >> involved>
>>>>> >> in the research.> >> >>
>>>> They still haven't published the data. They
>>>don't> >> want> >> >> us to
>>>publish."> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > Kimball Goddard, state director of the
>>>Nevada-U.S.> >> >> Geological Survey
>>>water> >> >> > science center, rejected
>>>the allegation that data> >> had> >>
>>>>> been suppressed.> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> > He said research data from Gross
>>>was not included in> >> >> the fact
>>>sheet> >> >> > released Thursday
>>>because the Florida scientist's> >> >>
>>>results were not> >> >> >
>>>published.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > Gross said the problem is acute in Lake
>>>Mead and in> >> >> other freshwater>
>>>>> >> > sites. One element left out of the
>>>Thursday report> >> is> >> >>
>>>evidence of sperm> >> >> > failure in
>>>fish, he said.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > "On a national scale we see alterations in
>>>fish,"> >> said> >> >> the
>>>scientist, who> >> >> > continues to
>>>research hormone-disrupting chemicals> >> in>
>>>>> >> Florida and other> >> >>
>>>> states. "Endocrine (a hormone) disruption is>
>>>>> widespread> >> >> across the
>>>United> >> >> > States and is
>>>widespread in Lake Mead."> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> > Gross said his conclusions, shared
>>>by other> >> >> researchers, are not
>>>popular:> >> >> > "The (Southern
>>>Nevada) Water Authority doesn't want> >> to>
>>>>> >> hear it. My agency> >>
>>>>> > doesn't want to hear it ¦ The Department of
>>>Interior> >> >> does not want to deal>
>>>>> >> > with it. They want to make the
>>>argument that there> >> is> >> >>
>>>nothing to worry> >> >> > about, but
>>>common sense just suggests it is not that> >>
>>>>> simple."> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > Gross, echoing comments he made in the
>>>spring, said> >> he> >> >> is
>>>concerned that> >> >> > there could be
>>>effects to human health from> >> >>
>>>hormone-disrupting chemicals> >> >> >
>>>in Lake Mead.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > "There are huge implications, and they're
>>>treating> >> it> >> >> like
>>>there's a> >> >> > little preliminary
>>>work and the significance of> >> these>
>>>>> >> effects are> >> >> >
>>>unknown," Gross said Thursday. "I would disagree>
>>>>> with> >> >> that. They don't>
>>>>> >> > discuss the possibility of human
>>>exposure. The> >> >> potential for that is
>>>real,> >> >> > and they don't discuss
>>>that."> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> Goddard said the implications for human health
>>>are> >> >> outside the realm of>
>>>>> >> > the Geological Survey's work.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > "The
>>>studies that we have been involved in at the> >>
>>>USGS> >> >> are not designed to>
>>>>> >> > answer those kinds of questions,"
>>>he said.> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> Gross and the federal researchers have found
>>>sexual> >> >> abnormalities in carp,>
>>>>> >> > bass and the endangered razorback
>>>sucker. The> >> problems> >> >>
>>>are higher in Las> >> >> > Vegas Bay,
>>>at the confluence with the wash, than in> >>
>>>>> other reference points> >> >>
>>>> in Lake Mead.> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> > Studies documenting sexual
>>>abnormalities in fish in> >> the> >>
>>>>> Potomac River -> >> >> >
>>>source of drinking water for millions in the> >>
>>>>> Washington, D.C., area -> >> >>
>>>> raised similar concerns in September. Water>
>>>>> officials> >> >> there said
>>>the> >> >> > studies showed no evidence
>>>that drinking water was> >> >> unsafe, but
>>>the studies> >> >> > did not answer the
>>>question on potential impacts to> >> >>
>>>human health.> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> > Water Authority officials maintain that
>>>while> >> chemicals> >> >> from
>>>the waste> >> >> > stream flowing
>>>through the sewers and Las Vegas Wash> >> to>
>>>>> >> the lake could> >> >>
>>>> affect fish and the environment, drinking water>
>>>>> drawn> >> >> from the lake is>
>>>>> >> > sufficiently treated to eliminate
>>>any significant> >> >> threat to human
>>>health.> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> Shane Snyder, the Water Authority's principal>
>>>>> >> researcher on the issue,> >>
>>>>> > said Thursday at a conference of the
>>>American> >> Society> >> >> of
>>>Mechanical> >> >> > Engineers that
>>>people are exposed to far higher> >> levels>
>>>>> >> of most> >> >> >
>>>hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment than>
>>>>> >> they would receive> >>
>>>>> > from treated drinking water.> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > He asked
>>>rhetorically whether it was good policy to> >>
>>>>> spend "trillions of> >> >> >
>>>dollars" removing hormone-disrupting chemicals from>
>>>>> >> water when such> >> >>
>>>> chemicals are present in far larger amounts in
>>>the> >> >> environment.> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > Snyder said the
>>>central question of the> >> "toxicological>
>>>>> >> relevance" of> >> >>
>>>> chemicals in tiny quantities - amounts that were>
>>>>> >> undetectable just a few> >>
>>>>> > years ago - has yet to be answered.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > J.C.
>>>Davis, Water Authority spokesman, noted that> >>
>>>even> >> >> in Lake Mead> >>
>>>>> > itself, the quantities are minuscule - in
>>>the parts> >> per> >> >>
>>>trillion, a grain> >> >> > of salt in a
>>>swimming pool. Treatment processes> >>
>>>further> >> >> degrade, destroy>
>>>>> >> > and dilute these chemical
>>>compounds in drinking> >> water.> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> > "Eventually the
>>>analytical ability outpaces the> >> health>
>>>>> >> effects," Davis> >> >>
>>>> said. "The question is, at what concentration
>>>are> >> these> >> >> relevant and
>>>you> >> >> > have to do something about
>>>them?"> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> He said Snyder will join federal and local>
>>>>> researchers> >> >> in trying to
>>>find> >> >> > those answers.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > "People
>>>in the water industry want to know the> >>
>>>answers> >> >> to the questions we>
>>>>> >> > are asking."> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > Launce Rake can be
>>>reached at 259-4127 or at> >> >>
>>>lrake@lasvegassun.com.> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>
>>http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1574&from=rss>
>>>>> >> > USGS Monitors Endocrine Disrupting
>>>Compounds in Lake> >> >> Mead> >>
>>>>> > Released: 10/20/2006 6:21:13 AM>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> > --------------------------->
>>>>> >> > This message was sent to you via
>>>the Sludge Watch> >> list> >> >>
>>>serv, the list serv> >> >> > of the
>>>Sludge Watch Working Group of the Ontario> >>
>>>>> Environment Network Waste> >> >>
>>>> Caucus. This list serv is maintained by
>>>H2infO -> >> The> >> >> Water
>>>Information> >> >> > Network.>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > For
>>>more information visit www.H2infO.org or> >>
>>>www.oen.ca> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >
>>>_______________________________________________>
>>>>> >> > Sludgewatch-l mailing list>
>>>>> >> > Sludgewatch-l@list.web.net>
>>>>> >> >
>>>http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/sludgewatch-l>
>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>>>> > Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The
>>>Premier National> >> provider.> >> >
>>>http://www.nni.com/> >> >> >>
>>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>>> Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier
>>>National provider.> > http://www.nni.com/>
>>>>> >>
>>>><< BsldsFnlRprtIrvil(A5).DOC >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not only does Windows Live™ OneCare™ provide all-in-one
>>>PC care to keep your computer protected and
>>>well-maintained, but it also makes creating backup files
>>>a breeze. Try it today! Not only does Windows Live™
>>>OneCare™ provide all-in-one PC care to keep your computer
>>>protected and well-maintained, but it also makes creating
>>>backup files a breeze. Try it today!
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
>>http://www.nni.com/
>>
>>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hello to the next generation of Search. Live Search – try it now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hello to the next generation of Search. Live Search – try it now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off to school, going on a trip, or moving? Windows Live (MSN) Messenger lets you stay in touch with friends and family
wherever you go. Click here to find out how to sign up!