Ecotechnology, Ltd. (Ecotech Systems) analyzes the terms that make up the world—the cliché, the misunderstood, and the “don’t tell your mama” variety—and how they play in today’s society. Today’s word is the product of an image makeover, but when you find out the truth, you may wish you’d not eaten already.
What comes to mind when you think of biosolids?
If you’re like most people, the answer is nothing, and that blank slate is exactly what proponents of biosolids want you to have in mind, because the last name brought up all kinds of negative connotations. That term? Sewage sludge.
That’s right, biosolids are human fecal matter mixed with everything else that goes from a household water line to the wastewater treatment plant. Granted, biosolids are treated to varying degrees (and therefore changed), but sometimes you can’t shake the yuck factor. Thus far, it seems biosolids can’t get away from their origin to become the great sustainable energy resource some think they should be.
As long as wastewater plants treat water, biosolids are an inevitable byproduct. After much of the water is separated, you’re still left with a semi-solid material (containing fats, oil and greases [FOG] — matter that is difficult to treat and the number one source of drain/pipe clogs). The main solutions for biosolids disposal are landfill (which is getting less prevalent and more expensive as they get full), heat treatment (which goes up to $250/dry ton for incineration), non-heat treatment (lime, aerobic and anaerobic digesters — $85/dry ton and up, though drying biosolids at a rate much slower than heat) and land application. Regardless of what you do with the biosolids, however, some level of drying (and therefore some level of energy expenditure) is required.
Amusingly enough, although green supporters love recycling, even they often oppose biosolids use. Thing is though, biosolids are readily available, and unless something radically evolves in the human gastrointestinal tract, they’re going to continue to be around (everyone poops indeed). Fear not; biosolids are not allowed for use with food growth applications (wouldn’t that be creepy?* might actually be — see the comments), but huge, multi-year papers have concluded that biosolids are sustainable and can improve soil and crops. That said, for every 20-year pro-biosolids study I find, there are just as many touting the harmful effects.
In 2006, a U.S. E. coli outbreak from spinach spread over 26 states, causing 206 illnesses and three deaths. Though the incident didn’t involve biosolids — the outbreak was attributed to irrigation water contaminated by (untreated) cattle feces — the damaging effects gave critics a close example of what could happen with improper use.
(I’m still waiting for the news story of the angry hippie defecating on a wastewater treatment plant’s lawn, pouring chemicals on the lot and screaming, “Here’s your biosolids!” before getting hauled off in cuffs. Thus far, my Google searches have come up empty… What I did hear of, however, is when my boss visited a local biosolids plant and was warned that if he fell off the narrow plank high above the large, aerobic digester and into the muck, no one would come get him out.
Death by biosolids — not the way you want to go.)
These bare-hands-holding-biosolids pics are common, but not enough to overcome the yuck factor
Here are the main regulations involving biosolids: In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the Clean Water Act. Part 503 of this regulation authorized the continued use of biosolids on land while addressing the public’s concerns with the reuse of human waste. The greatest potential health risk is pathogens—a disease-producing agent linked to E. coli, hepatitis A, salmonella, Giardia and parasitic worms—carried in untreated sewage. That said, pathogens are also an issue with other organic fertilizers.
Part 503 defined different types of treated biosolids: Class A biosolids contain no detectable levels of pathogens and can be applied to land the same way as fertilizers. Class B biosolids are treated, but still have detectable levels of pathogens. (There are restrictions on their use and availability to the public.) The main reason for these different standards is the efficiency of the treatment process versus the amount of time available. As wastewater volumes increase, there is not enough time to treat to class A standards. Since the Clean Water Act, an even higher standard of biosolids has come about — class A EQ (exceptional quality) — requiring lower metal counts.
Despite what you think of biosolid use, with FOG still an issue that needs to be dealt with at any stage, drying biosolids is an essential part of the process, regardless of where they end up. As a result of that, Ecotechnology Ltd. (Ecotech Systems) launched its patented drying system into the biosolids market. With a low-grade heat (~150 F) and a patented air flow, Ecotech is able to non-thermally dry biosolids for less than $1/ton. Considering the above ranges of $85-$250/ton, this is the value savings the biosolids industry is looking for.
More on that another time. Enjoy your dinner.
*EDIT: Corrections, chatter and linked-up responses (oh my!) in the comments.
***
Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:
–SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with a 3.5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).
–Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).
–Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).
Dr. David Lewis, who was the EPA Director responsible for assessing the safety of spreading sewage biosolids, says there is no difference between Class A and Class B after a few days on the field, because the pathogens in the environment find sewage sludge an ideal medium to grow in. For more factual info on the health and environmental risks from spreading sewage sludge go to sludgefacts.org or cornell.edu/search/?q=sludge+biosolids
Yeah, the EPA standards for biosolids have come under fire, but so far, haven’t changed (save class A EQ classification and other minor tweaks). Admittedly, I find it strange that the EPA hasn’t changed their stance in this area, as they’re usually fairly opposed to things like this, but from what I can gather, Dr. Lewis’ research said the same thing back then (no difference in pathogens between class A and B), and for whatever reason — other research from other people? — this still didn’t change how the EPA classified biosolids.
According to EPA standards, right or wrong, there is still a difference in pathogen levels between class A and B. If the issue is pathogens growing after application — basically nullifying the treatment processes — I’m curious as to why there’s still so much contrary info. Maybe it’s more complicated than opponents and proponents of biosolids are making it (most are fairly black and white on the issue — all the way for or all the way against [save minor limitations]).
Biosolids — not unlike fracking in oil and gas — rarely come with a neutral viewpoint. Before even reading those sites (and after reading some of the content, too) it’s clear what stance you take, but there’s a reason why there’s still a debate today. As noted above, for every large study I see regarding the safety and value of highly-treated biosolids, I see another large study noting all the health issues.
Also, Jim, looks like you’ve gotten a reputation: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/11/05/11641261-sun.html
Lots of strong viewpoints there.
It is absolutely not true that “biosolids are not allowed for use with food growth applications.” It *is* creepy, and it’s very much common practice. Sewage sludge that the EPA designates as “Class A Biosolids” can be “land applied” with no restrictions: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/biosolids/genqa.cfm . The National Resource Defense Council, among other groups, criticized the EPA’s decision in 2003 not to regulate dioxins in land-applied sewage sludge and called for the agency to “prohibit sludge application on land used for pasture or growing forage food for livestock that will be consumed by humans”: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/031017.asp . This, however, has not been done, and municipalities and corporations continue to dispose of sludge by spreading it on soil used to produce food. USDA national organic standards do prohibit the spreading of sludge on certified organic fields: http://1.usa.gov/u39qy1 . For more, see the Toxic Sludge Portal on the publicly editable wiki, SourceWatch, here: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Toxic_Sludge . For more on the history of the Orwellian PR euphemism for toxic sewage sludge, “biosolids,” by the sewage industry lobby association “Water Environment Federation” (itself the subject of several “rebrandings”), see the SourceWatch article here: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biosolids .
That is creepy (and oddly circular food wise), Rebekah. I’ll make a note at the end of the post.
Looks like your stance on being vehemently opposed to biosolids use is fairly easy to call. Curiosity on my part (for the both of you):
1) Are you for any land use of biosolids?
2) Why do you believe the EPA hasn’t changed its overall stance on biosolids in the last 18 years?
3) What should we do with everything at wastewater treatment plants?
The risk of spreading prion diseases that catalyze dementias in rural people 10 years later has greatly increased with Dr. Adriano Aguzzi’s recent research at the University of Zurich that found aerosolized prions are 100,000 times more infectious than prions that are eaten. The rate didn’t vary with quantity breathed either, the weakest aerosols were still 100% fatal in the test animals if breathed for more than two minutes. An earlier study in Portugal that compared the rate of dementias between rural and urban people found it was 40% higher in rural areas, but didn’t consider the spreading of aerosolized prions from sick people in the sewage sludge used to fertilize crops as a possible cause. I want government to do comprehensive health studies of rural people living near sewage spread fields to see if they have higher rates of dementias, cancer, immune diseases, and antibiotic resistant infections than people living some distance away. I have requested this of government, of infectious disease researchers (AMMI), and of the Cancer and MS Societies. The silence on this subject from these groups for the past year is deafening.
1) I have an off-grid summer house with a composting toilet. I use the composted mixture of feces, urine, toilet paper, peat moss and wood shavings as fertilizer for flowers, shrubs, and trees on my property. Such humanure is not biosolids, as it is not 40% composed of some 100,000 chemicals flushed into sewers from households and industry. It does not contain pathogenic germs from hospitals, mortuaries, and slaughterhouses that have mutated into antibiotic resistant super-bugs in the anaerobic sewage digesters kept at body temperature so viruses and many bacteria and parasites thrive. Few people realize that the Class B biosolids spread on agricultural land contains up to 2 million e-coli per 1/2 cup, and that it’s aerial spread at 10 tons per acre for corn. Biosolids are applied to our best farmlands which are mainly located on flood plains. The 10% of sludge left on the surface after disking is washing into our surface waters with spring snow melt and heavy rains and flooding. Knowing this pollution is happening and has never been studied, how could anyone who cares about the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe, be in favour of continuing to spread sewage sludge biosolids?
2) As for the EPA and other government agency positions in support of spreading biosolids, I suggest you follow the money. It goes primarily to the corporate trucking industry to transport and spread the sludge. The other major beneficiary will be those multinational corporations going for control of the world’s food supply, when North America’s best farmland is quarantined because of the contamination and taken out of global food production.
3) Better to landfill sewage sludge at a point source where contaminants can be contained than to spread it throughout the environment. Destroying it utterly while using the energy it contains to generate electricity is the best solution. Plasma torches can melt it into constituent atoms.The lighter elements create biogas to fuel electric generators, the metals are reclaimed, and the residue can be mixed with asphalt and used to pave roads. Eighty loads of sewage sludge produce just 1 load of inert residue. Such technology is most efficient with economical pre-drying of the sludge, which is a niche your own technology might help fill.
I’d say a lot of people — those who actually know of biosolids, mind you — know the issues with class B biosolids (hence the push for class A or class A EQ — which you argued above doesn’t matter).
Landfilling is getting trickier as they get full — more cost for less space. I’m sure you also know the horror stories of tipping fees (off the top of my head — so I may be wrong — I recall Native Americans getting paid to take some fairly hideous, contaminated material). Regardless, it’s not the solution it used to be (and many would argue never was).
A big part of the issue with biosolids is the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) — meaning that it’s already difficult to justify the treatment cost for the energy biosolids get you. The electricity solution sounds good, but what’s the cost-per-ton on that? Given what thermal drying / incineration solutions cost, I’m guessing it’s probably too high for widespread acceptance.
The company I work for (Ecotech Systems for this application) is pretty fortunate in that we can be used regardless of where the biosolids end up. We’re not a solution for every stage, but we can take off 15-20 points of moisture when starting with 25% solids. This is at a consistent rate and $1/ton. We’re not a complete part of the solution, but we hope to be enough of a value-adder to improve the current solutions, the electricity generation solution included.
We also have applications that aren’t so ill-favored — like drying sugar betters and safely moving soda ash / potash.
Thanks for the thoughts, Jim.
My city owns the municipal garbage landfill.Ten years ago the actual cost of burying garbage in the dump was $35 per tonne, and burying sewage sludge with it in the ratio of 1 load of sewage to 5 loads of garbage cost $15 per tonne. However the city staff told Councillors it would cost $85 per tonne to bury sewage, and justified this by declaring the city can charge itself whatever tipping fee it wants, since it owns the dump! This is the sort of creative accounting that artificially inflates the costs of landfilling sewage to maintain the myth that it is cheaper to spread it on farmland. Costs of such spreading were $35 per tonne then, but today with winter storage costs added have risen to $85 per tonne.There are several different existing energy from waste technologies that are equivalent or less expensive than this.
As for the myth that sewage sludge would fill up the landfills, the reality is that most sewage sludge biosolids are 70 to 80% water, which evaporates in the landfill, and the sludge fills in spaces in the garbage. So it eventually shrinks to just 15% of its original volume, freeing up 85% of it’s space for further landfilling. As it decomposes it accelerates the anaerobic decomposition of the garbage as well, producing methane gas which can be captured and flared or used as energy to produce electricity. This converts methane that would be released into the atmosphere if spread on farm fields into carbon dioxide which is some 20 times less harmful as a Greenhouse gas.
The Plague Horseman of the Apocalypse appears to be running this program, and no official dares stand in his way. Instead they are enabling pollution and sickness that future generations will suffer the consequences of. What’s lacking is public awareness to force politicians to act for the common good. And that’s why I take the time to participate in discussions like this.Thanks for bringing up the topic!
Let’s look at some facts related to using sewage sludge (biosolids) as fertilizer:
FACT: The US Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s and defines sewage sludge as a pollutant.
FACT: Sludge is not one pollutant but a complex mix of human and industrial waste. Sludge generated in large urban centers contain thousands of man-made chemicals, many of which are toxic, persistent and can be absorbed by plants. None are regulated or monitored
FACT: Every month, every industry, hospital , metal plating shop, superfund site– any entity that is hooked up to sewers–can legally dump 33 pounds of hazardous waste into sewage treatment plants.
FACT: Digesters do not remove these pollutants; instead, they concentrate in the resulting sludge.
FACT: Nevertheless EPA decided to exempt sludge from solid and hazardous waste laws so it can be used as an inexpensive fertilizer.
FACT: The most recent National Academy of Sciences biosolids report warned that the current sludge rules are based on outdated science, flawed risk assessment models, or no science at all.
Fact: Hundreds of sludge-exposed rural neighbors in 28 states have reported serious health problems, even deaths.
FACT: One dairy farmer, whose animals sickened and died after ingesting forage grown on land treated with biosolids, sued and a jury ruled that it was indeed the sludge that killed his cattle.
FACT: Another dairy farmer was compensated by the USDA because his land had been permanently poisoned by sludge.
FACT: Not only organic farmers, but major food processing companies, such as Heinz, DelMonte, and Western Growers, do not accept produce that is grown on land treated with biosolids. For more facts, visit sludgefacts.org
Can’t say I’m going to approve many more comments like what I’ve gotten from Rebekah and Caroline. (Jim, you’re good; there’s actually a conversation there.)
If you want to have a conversation about biosolids, feel free. If you want to just post a bunch of links and/or copy and paste the same thing to anything tagged biosolids, I’m going to shine up my ban hammer real nice.
Colin,
I’m sorry I didn’t have time to reply in the last few days, but I do want to have a conversation. I didn’t copy and paste anything onto your blog in my comment, but of course I did use links because I don’t believe in making unjustified claims.
I have been reading the conversation as I get time, and I think both Jim and Caroline are doing a great job of bringing up all the risks and issues. When I have something to add that they are not already very competently covering, I will.
Thanks for starting the conversation, Colin.
Bekah
Hmm, not sure why I can’t respond to you directly, Bekah, but I think you’re fine now.
My little Biosolids 101 article isn’t meant to cover much — rather just give a quick, neutral overview to those who know nothing of biosolids — so there’ll be a lot of gaps.
Sadly, I rarely see pro-biosolids peeps comment on these types of things. I don’t think it’s as simple as them having a less popular position; I think there’s a belief that there’s no sense in conversing with differing views, especially with heated topics. Thus even valid concerns (that I believe that most of the pro-biosolids still shares — like safety concerns) get lumped into a view of “I can’t reason with you on the acceptability of this, period, so I’m going to ignore everything you say.”
The spreading of toxic and pathogenic sewage biosolids on agricultural lands and hence into the food chain and environment is the best kept secret of our time. It is a secret because the sewage spreading lobby of government and industry knows full well that if this becomes common knowledge the people will not stand for it and insist it be stopped.That’s why nobody is commenting who is pro sewage spreading. They don’t want any publicity given to this issue.
It is a sign of the extent to which the mainstream media are controlled and dominated by an alliance of big business and government that the masses of city people remain blissfully ignorant while paying to contaminate their food and water with their own sewage. What a sick joke on them, eh?
If you would like more info, I recently made a submission on behalf of rural residents to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment asking for the case against sewage spreading to be considered. We just posted in on the web, and it can be viewed at http://www.box.com/s/4mtj27o2vzstvrcfzh1h
It’s odd, as I see everyone calling out a media bias against their beliefs. My conservative friends see a liberal bias; my liberal friends see a conservative bias. I’ve heard pro-biosolids peeps complain of the same bias you note on the opposite side, Jim. Surely it can’t be all of the above…
Colin, it appears that you got most of your information from the link you provided to an article by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service. This article is not neutral, but promotes the use of treated sewage sludge. Ian Pepper, author of the article and the 20-year study you cite, runs the Arizona Water Quality Center. The Center’s industrial members each pay up to $90,000. for a three year membership which entitles them to design and vote for projects that support their industry. Synagro Technologies Inc, the nation’s largest sludge broker, as well as several wastewater treatment agencies, are industrial members. To balance this industrial view on sludge, you might want to consider posting a link to the internationally renowned Cornell Waste Management Institute, whose soil scientists have concluded that the current US regulations do not protect human health, agricultural productivity, live stock, or the environment.
Well, here’s where I have a moment of honesty and admit that I pretty much only skimmed the Arizona article and didn’t pull ANY facts from there, so you’re off on that one. It’s only linked because it seems like pro-biosolids peeps can’t put out any study that is less than five years (and usually it’s a 10-year study or more). Somehow you’re supposed to be swayed by all the years they put in, see?
As far as putting up a link to an anti-biosolids study, give me a link to a multi-year study and I’ll put it next to the Arizona one. In the mean time, I think y’all are taking care of things fairly handily here in the comments.
Hey, Caroline, figured I’d check in with you again. Do you have a multi-year anti-biosolids study I can link up in my piece?
Colin: if you really want to continue this discussion, please send a direct link to the 20-year study you refer to in your first post. Your link only provides two short paragraphs from that study, without title or date.
Ultimately the question to ask is: what is more credible, a study designed and funded by the industry that profits from the practice, or, for example, the fact that two prize winning dairy herds were destroyed, when hundreds of cattle ingesting forage grown on land that had repeatedly been treated with biosolids, sickened and died.
These dairy farmers were assured that using biosolids was safe. One of the farmers won his lawsuit when a jury ruled that it was, indeed, the sludge that was responsible for killing his dairy cows. The other farmer was recently compensated by the Department of Agriculture because,–besides loosing his cattle–he could no longer grow crops on his land that had been permanently poisoned by biosolids.
. .
Caroline: So I ask you if you want me to link up a multi-year, anti-biosolids study and you come back with a hostile response about how if I really wanted to continue this conversation I’d cite my sources? That doesn’t make any sense, but the info on treatments and costs came from here:
Fitzmorris, Kari Beth, Isabel Lima, Wayne Marshall and Robert S. Reimers. 2004. Quality and Cost Analysis of Value-Added Products from Municipal and Agricultural Residuals. Chicago: IL: Water Environment Federation,
(Can’t link it as it’s not available on the internet [anymore]. I’ll go ahead and assume that you would have picked apart the source anyway.)
Part 503 info came from the EPA.
Again, this is a brief, intro to biosolids article, It’s not designed to cover everything with any particular bend. If you want to submit a multi-year, anti-biosolids report for me to link up, fine. If you’re looking to post up more content from your website, we’re probably done here.
Colin: actually, none of my previous posts were taken from http://www.sludgefacts.org. .You will be pleased to learn that I found the link to the 20-year study abstract that you mentioned in your original post:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20202022
However it is really worth while to read the entire article, and not just the abstract. Researchers injected liquid sludge to an irrigated site on southwestern desert soil. The authors concede that at sites with cooler temperatures, pathogens can survive and regrow for longer periods. They collected no data on groundwater impact or whether contaminants were picked up by plants. Sludge was injected. Where ground water levels are deep, this is a safer practice than top dressing and stockpiling. In much of the country dewatered sludges are top dressed and stockpiled. This is one provision of the EPA rules we are trying to change.
Fair enough.
I can get on board with that EPA change. I think if people are for biosolids use long term, these types of issues need to be addressed.
[…] time we spoke about the patented Ecotech system, we were talking about biosolids—a polarizing treatment process that blew up the comments section. This time, we’re […]
[…] of the process, like biosolids, I see people having a hard time getting past the yuck factor. No matter how fancy the products […]
[…] the first ones to believe that elephant dung is good business. That said, I still don’t see human waste alternate energy projects catching on any time soon. For whatever reason, animal waste still has less of a yuck factor. […]
[…] on how the lack of sanitation affects those around the world. For all the complaints about biosolids, many have it far, far […]
[…] what we do know: Like biosolids, this human waste is a worldwide problem. Unlike biosolids, it gets somewhat of a free pass on the […]