This Modern World Toxic Sludge is Good For You
posted by Sludge at 7:12 PM
0 comments
Monday, September 11, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Group protests use of sewage sludge on Boston parks
Group protests use of sewage sludge
Calls it dangerous as park fertilizer
By Gloria Rodriguez, Globe Correspondent, 8/8/2002
The battle to keep sewage out of Boston Harbor is mostly ended, but now environmentalists say the unwelcome substance has invaded another important resource - city parks.
The Boston Parks Department is using sewage sludge as fertilizer in dozens of city parks, including the Boston Common. But environmentalists, in a news
conference yesterday, said it contains toxins that could be dangerous to pets and children, especially when combined with pesticides.
''I just don't know why in a heavily trafficked area where there are a lot of kids, why that has to be the kind of fertilizer that's used,'' said Susan Worgaftik, who says her 2-year-old dog gets sick every time she drinks rainwater from puddles in Southwest Corridor Park.
The sewage sludge was created by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority in 1991 as a way to recycle the material instead of dumping it into the harbor. The sludge contains nutrients such as calcium, nitrogen, and iron, as well as a variety of metals.
So far, a grass-roots group, the Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee, has gathered 600 signatures from Jamaica Plain residents asking the parks department not to apply the sludge at Southwest Corridor Park, which runs from the South End to Forest Hills. The group suggests park workers use safer alternatives that are disease resistant.
Consistent exposure to toxins in the sludge can cause headaches and dizziness and can lead to long-term health problems such as learning disabilities, said Sherry Ayres, field director for the Toxics Action Center, a Boston-based environmental group.
The MWRA, however, said the fertilizer has received Environmental Protection Agency approval and is used on citrus crops, wheat farms, golf courses, and parks nationwide. ''It's safe for use on lawns and garden vegetables,'' said MWRA spokesman Jonathan Yeo. ''If it meets the standard, it's safe to use.''
No park user has complained about any ill effects from the fertilizer, said Allan Morris, superintendent of the Southwest Corridor Park, which is run by the Metropolitan District Commission. The park uses the fertilizer because it has a high concentration of nutrients that promote grass growth and because it is free, Morris said.
Using the sludge as fertilizer is considered a better option than burning it or burying it in a landfill, Yeo said.
Although the sludge meets federal regulations, activists said the fertilizer still contains dangerous metals.
''If you put it over 60 acres, that's a lot of heavy metals even though it's within legal limits,'' said Margaret Connors, a founder of the Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee. ''When it dries up and becomes dust, the wind carries all those heavy metals through the air and what you end up with is breathing those substances into your lungs.''
Steven Glickel, a volunteer at the local baseball youth league, said residents need to be assured their children are safe playing on the grass.
''This is really the only open space kids come to,'' he said. ''This is the closest green space to a very highly concentrated area. This is a very serious concern in the whole community.''
This story ran on page B3 of the Boston Globe on 8/8/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
Calls it dangerous as park fertilizer
By Gloria Rodriguez, Globe Correspondent, 8/8/2002
The battle to keep sewage out of Boston Harbor is mostly ended, but now environmentalists say the unwelcome substance has invaded another important resource - city parks.
The Boston Parks Department is using sewage sludge as fertilizer in dozens of city parks, including the Boston Common. But environmentalists, in a news
conference yesterday, said it contains toxins that could be dangerous to pets and children, especially when combined with pesticides.
''I just don't know why in a heavily trafficked area where there are a lot of kids, why that has to be the kind of fertilizer that's used,'' said Susan Worgaftik, who says her 2-year-old dog gets sick every time she drinks rainwater from puddles in Southwest Corridor Park.
The sewage sludge was created by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority in 1991 as a way to recycle the material instead of dumping it into the harbor. The sludge contains nutrients such as calcium, nitrogen, and iron, as well as a variety of metals.
So far, a grass-roots group, the Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee, has gathered 600 signatures from Jamaica Plain residents asking the parks department not to apply the sludge at Southwest Corridor Park, which runs from the South End to Forest Hills. The group suggests park workers use safer alternatives that are disease resistant.
Consistent exposure to toxins in the sludge can cause headaches and dizziness and can lead to long-term health problems such as learning disabilities, said Sherry Ayres, field director for the Toxics Action Center, a Boston-based environmental group.
The MWRA, however, said the fertilizer has received Environmental Protection Agency approval and is used on citrus crops, wheat farms, golf courses, and parks nationwide. ''It's safe for use on lawns and garden vegetables,'' said MWRA spokesman Jonathan Yeo. ''If it meets the standard, it's safe to use.''
No park user has complained about any ill effects from the fertilizer, said Allan Morris, superintendent of the Southwest Corridor Park, which is run by the Metropolitan District Commission. The park uses the fertilizer because it has a high concentration of nutrients that promote grass growth and because it is free, Morris said.
Using the sludge as fertilizer is considered a better option than burning it or burying it in a landfill, Yeo said.
Although the sludge meets federal regulations, activists said the fertilizer still contains dangerous metals.
''If you put it over 60 acres, that's a lot of heavy metals even though it's within legal limits,'' said Margaret Connors, a founder of the Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee. ''When it dries up and becomes dust, the wind carries all those heavy metals through the air and what you end up with is breathing those substances into your lungs.''
Steven Glickel, a volunteer at the local baseball youth league, said residents need to be assured their children are safe playing on the grass.
''This is really the only open space kids come to,'' he said. ''This is the closest green space to a very highly concentrated area. This is a very serious concern in the whole community.''
This story ran on page B3 of the Boston Globe on 8/8/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
posted by Sludge at 11:55 AM
0 comments
Sunday, August 17, 2003
Survival of the Feces...
Wednesday, August 6, 2003, p. B1
Survival of the feces or disaster in the making?
Critics question safety of using region's sewage sludge on fields
BRENT DAVIS RECORD STAFF
WATERLOO REGION -
Ontario - Canada
Farmers love it. Environmentalists hate it. Some municipalities have tried to ban it.
Supporters say it's a safe, effective way of dealing with the byproducts of daily life. Its opponents believe it's
another Walkerton-like tragedy waiting to happen. Like it or not, tens of thousands of tonnes of treated human
and industrial waste -- the products of municipal sewage treatment plants -- are being spread on Ontario farm
fields every year. Waterloo Region alone produces between 200,000 and 250,000 cubic metres of liquid
sewage sludge annually, and almost all of it is trucked to dozens of agricultural properties in and around the
region. Cambridge resident Kevin Hennessy sees those trucks almost daily on his way to work. From the
outside, you'd never guess what's in the blue and white tankers belonging to Terratec Environmental, the
Hamilton-based company that holds a $1.3 million contract to haul away the region's sewage sludge. But
Hennessy knows. His father-in-law, Bruce Fulcher, a councillor in East Garafraxa Township, west of Orangeville,
helped lead the charge to keep Terratec's trucks off their roads, and the stinky sludge off their fields. And
Hennessy thinks it's about time Waterloo Region did the same. "I think the people who are aware of this, or sit
and take the time to think about this, would be disgusted," Hennessy said. "We're not meant to fertilize our fruits
and vegetables and our land with our own feces." That's where the misconceptions begin, say proponents of the
decades-old practice. "It is not raw sewage, it's not even close to that," said David Andrews, the region's
manager of wastewater operations. "But it's easy to say that because it comes out of the same facility."
Extensive treatment breaks the sewage down into its base materials, producing what the industry prefers to call
biosolids. The finished product is most often spread or injected into fields -- to mitigate odour -- in a watery mix.
Critics charge that "biosolids" is just a sanitized name for a nasty witches' brew of disease-causing pathogens,
metals, pharmaceuticals and organic contaminants like flame retardant.
"Everybody thinks that it's just human
waste that's being put on the land," said Paul Chantree, a member of the Grand River Conservation Authority
and an outspoken opponent of the practice. "But it's hospital waste, industrial waste, chemicals, heavy metals,
infectious diseases. It's all in this pot." The provincial Environment Ministry notes that the presence of
pathogens and heavy metals is greatly reduced during treatment, and that by definition, biomedical waste from
hospitals is classified as hazardous and cannot be flushed down municipal sewers. Municipalities also place
restrictions on industrial waste, said ministry spokesman John Steele. Those bylaws vary from place to place.
But even its backers admit the practice has risks. "If there were no hazards at all associated with it, we wouldn't
have guidelines," said Beverley Hale, a professor of land resource science at the University of Guelph. "But
there is no solid evidence . . . in Ontario that directly links a negative impact to the environment or human
health." SPREADING COMMON It's estimated that 80 per cent of Ontario municipalities spread sewage sludge
on land as a means of disposal. Sludge that doesn't end up on fields is either incinerated or sent to a landfill.
Environment ministry guidelines establish criteria such as application rates, crop suitability and separation
distances from waterways, wells and residences. Each spreading location must also have its own site-specific
certificate of approval from the ministry. Officials acknowledge, though, that inspections are not conducted on a
regular basis and more often come in response to neighbours' complaints about the odours coming from the
sites. Terratec has been fined twice this year -- $5,000 for creating a surface runoff problem on a Beaverdale
Road field in Cambridge, and $12,000 for odour emissions from a Southgate Township field.
Generally,
biosolids are applied for cash crops such as feed corn, wheat, soybeans and hay. Terratec, which deals with
about 70 per cent of Ontario's sewage sludge, maintains it does not spread the material on fruits or vegetables
meant for direct human consumption. Once a field receives the equivalent of eight dry tonnes per hectare,
biosolids cannot be spread there again for five years. Biosolids will be included under Ontario's new Nutrient
Management Act, but many regulations, including those affecting smaller farms, won't apply until at least 2008.
Waterloo Region's biosolids end up at 60 local sites and at other farms in places such as Welland and Oxford,
Brant and Perth counties. Biosolids are a good source of nutrients and contain organic matter that can improve
soil structure and reduce erosion.
Even more important to farmers? The stuff is free. Companies like Terratec
find a receptive home for the sludge, and farmers don't have to invest in commercial fertilizers. "They're using it
on crops with relatively low margins," Hale said. Banning the practice would "cut out a valuable resource for the
farmer."
But do the benefits outweigh the risks? In 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
warned that sewage sludge can pose a potential health risk from bacteria and viruses like E. coli, salmonella
and hepatitis B. The center advised workers to wear protective clothing. The following year, the Canadian
Infectious Disease Society said studies should be undertaken to ensure current spreading techniques are safe
for humans. And a Cornell University study concluded that groundwater leaching of sludge-borne contaminants
is greater than generally believed. "There is evidence out there it has proved harmful," Chantree said. The
vice-president of the company that owns Terratec downplays the concerns. "You will receive the anecdotal
evidence from fear mongers," said Phil Sidhwa of American Water Services Canada.
TWO DEATHS IN U.S.
Anecdotal evidence surrounds the 1994 death of an 11-year-old Pennsylvania boy, who rode his bike along a
sludge-covered hillside and fell ill the next day. Within a week, he was dead. Anecdotal evidence surrounds the
1995 death of a New Hampshire man who lived downwind of a sludge site. His mother believes he inhaled toxic
fumes. These are the kinds of stories that have spurred several Ontario municipalities into taking action. Later
this month, Terratec will challenge a Melanchton Township bylaw that all but bans the company's activities there.
The bylaw restricts sludge spreading to an 80-hectare parcel considered at low risk for groundwater
contamination. A groundwater survey commissioned by the municipality northwest of Orangeville declared that
all remaining lands are at greater risk and should not receive biosolids. In nearby East Garafraxa, councillors
determined they couldn't ban the provincially regulated practice, but they could make life difficult for Terratec.
Accessibility and weight restrictions were imposed on area roads. The tankers bearing Toronto sludge haven't
been seen there in the two years since the rules were established.]
"The bottom line is that the Ministry of the
Environment has got to listen to the concerns of rural municipalities," said Fulcher, the councillor. "It wasn't
going to be in our backyard." While these municipal decisions may be well-intentioned, they're uninformed, Hale
argues. "They're basing these decisions on emotion, and not on the facts," she said. "The public outcry relative
to the very vigilant approach to treating biosolids and applying them is out of whack." Here in Waterloo Region,
the future looks bright for haulers like Terratec.
REGION PREFERS SPREADING The finishing touches are
being put on a 20-year biosolids master plan that says land application is still the preferred method of dealing
with our sludge, even in light of a projected 40 per cent increase in volume. The plan is expected to be
presented to regional council in September. Four open houses attracted little public interest. Some of Waterloo
Region's sludge is now being dewatered and hauled to a London landfill in an effort to increase capacity at the
Kitchener storage lagoons. Officials say a deep winter frost and spring rains hampered this season's spreading
schedule. The trips to London will likely continue for another couple of weeks, Andrews estimated. Looking
ahead, though, "there is adequate land available within an economically reasonable hauling distance," said Karl
Cober of the region's water services division. Techniques to reduce volume and improve treatment to make
biosolids safer are being considered, he added. But that's not good enough, say critics like Chantree. The
region should look at other ways of dealing with sewage treatment residue, he believes. "I'm sure this practice
will have to change. People will not put up with this."
Survival of the feces or disaster in the making?
Critics question safety of using region's sewage sludge on fields
BRENT DAVIS RECORD STAFF
WATERLOO REGION -
Ontario - Canada
Farmers love it. Environmentalists hate it. Some municipalities have tried to ban it.
Supporters say it's a safe, effective way of dealing with the byproducts of daily life. Its opponents believe it's
another Walkerton-like tragedy waiting to happen. Like it or not, tens of thousands of tonnes of treated human
and industrial waste -- the products of municipal sewage treatment plants -- are being spread on Ontario farm
fields every year. Waterloo Region alone produces between 200,000 and 250,000 cubic metres of liquid
sewage sludge annually, and almost all of it is trucked to dozens of agricultural properties in and around the
region. Cambridge resident Kevin Hennessy sees those trucks almost daily on his way to work. From the
outside, you'd never guess what's in the blue and white tankers belonging to Terratec Environmental, the
Hamilton-based company that holds a $1.3 million contract to haul away the region's sewage sludge. But
Hennessy knows. His father-in-law, Bruce Fulcher, a councillor in East Garafraxa Township, west of Orangeville,
helped lead the charge to keep Terratec's trucks off their roads, and the stinky sludge off their fields. And
Hennessy thinks it's about time Waterloo Region did the same. "I think the people who are aware of this, or sit
and take the time to think about this, would be disgusted," Hennessy said. "We're not meant to fertilize our fruits
and vegetables and our land with our own feces." That's where the misconceptions begin, say proponents of the
decades-old practice. "It is not raw sewage, it's not even close to that," said David Andrews, the region's
manager of wastewater operations. "But it's easy to say that because it comes out of the same facility."
Extensive treatment breaks the sewage down into its base materials, producing what the industry prefers to call
biosolids. The finished product is most often spread or injected into fields -- to mitigate odour -- in a watery mix.
Critics charge that "biosolids" is just a sanitized name for a nasty witches' brew of disease-causing pathogens,
metals, pharmaceuticals and organic contaminants like flame retardant.
"Everybody thinks that it's just human
waste that's being put on the land," said Paul Chantree, a member of the Grand River Conservation Authority
and an outspoken opponent of the practice. "But it's hospital waste, industrial waste, chemicals, heavy metals,
infectious diseases. It's all in this pot." The provincial Environment Ministry notes that the presence of
pathogens and heavy metals is greatly reduced during treatment, and that by definition, biomedical waste from
hospitals is classified as hazardous and cannot be flushed down municipal sewers. Municipalities also place
restrictions on industrial waste, said ministry spokesman John Steele. Those bylaws vary from place to place.
But even its backers admit the practice has risks. "If there were no hazards at all associated with it, we wouldn't
have guidelines," said Beverley Hale, a professor of land resource science at the University of Guelph. "But
there is no solid evidence . . . in Ontario that directly links a negative impact to the environment or human
health." SPREADING COMMON It's estimated that 80 per cent of Ontario municipalities spread sewage sludge
on land as a means of disposal. Sludge that doesn't end up on fields is either incinerated or sent to a landfill.
Environment ministry guidelines establish criteria such as application rates, crop suitability and separation
distances from waterways, wells and residences. Each spreading location must also have its own site-specific
certificate of approval from the ministry. Officials acknowledge, though, that inspections are not conducted on a
regular basis and more often come in response to neighbours' complaints about the odours coming from the
sites. Terratec has been fined twice this year -- $5,000 for creating a surface runoff problem on a Beaverdale
Road field in Cambridge, and $12,000 for odour emissions from a Southgate Township field.
Generally,
biosolids are applied for cash crops such as feed corn, wheat, soybeans and hay. Terratec, which deals with
about 70 per cent of Ontario's sewage sludge, maintains it does not spread the material on fruits or vegetables
meant for direct human consumption. Once a field receives the equivalent of eight dry tonnes per hectare,
biosolids cannot be spread there again for five years. Biosolids will be included under Ontario's new Nutrient
Management Act, but many regulations, including those affecting smaller farms, won't apply until at least 2008.
Waterloo Region's biosolids end up at 60 local sites and at other farms in places such as Welland and Oxford,
Brant and Perth counties. Biosolids are a good source of nutrients and contain organic matter that can improve
soil structure and reduce erosion.
Even more important to farmers? The stuff is free. Companies like Terratec
find a receptive home for the sludge, and farmers don't have to invest in commercial fertilizers. "They're using it
on crops with relatively low margins," Hale said. Banning the practice would "cut out a valuable resource for the
farmer."
But do the benefits outweigh the risks? In 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
warned that sewage sludge can pose a potential health risk from bacteria and viruses like E. coli, salmonella
and hepatitis B. The center advised workers to wear protective clothing. The following year, the Canadian
Infectious Disease Society said studies should be undertaken to ensure current spreading techniques are safe
for humans. And a Cornell University study concluded that groundwater leaching of sludge-borne contaminants
is greater than generally believed. "There is evidence out there it has proved harmful," Chantree said. The
vice-president of the company that owns Terratec downplays the concerns. "You will receive the anecdotal
evidence from fear mongers," said Phil Sidhwa of American Water Services Canada.
TWO DEATHS IN U.S.
Anecdotal evidence surrounds the 1994 death of an 11-year-old Pennsylvania boy, who rode his bike along a
sludge-covered hillside and fell ill the next day. Within a week, he was dead. Anecdotal evidence surrounds the
1995 death of a New Hampshire man who lived downwind of a sludge site. His mother believes he inhaled toxic
fumes. These are the kinds of stories that have spurred several Ontario municipalities into taking action. Later
this month, Terratec will challenge a Melanchton Township bylaw that all but bans the company's activities there.
The bylaw restricts sludge spreading to an 80-hectare parcel considered at low risk for groundwater
contamination. A groundwater survey commissioned by the municipality northwest of Orangeville declared that
all remaining lands are at greater risk and should not receive biosolids. In nearby East Garafraxa, councillors
determined they couldn't ban the provincially regulated practice, but they could make life difficult for Terratec.
Accessibility and weight restrictions were imposed on area roads. The tankers bearing Toronto sludge haven't
been seen there in the two years since the rules were established.]
"The bottom line is that the Ministry of the
Environment has got to listen to the concerns of rural municipalities," said Fulcher, the councillor. "It wasn't
going to be in our backyard." While these municipal decisions may be well-intentioned, they're uninformed, Hale
argues. "They're basing these decisions on emotion, and not on the facts," she said. "The public outcry relative
to the very vigilant approach to treating biosolids and applying them is out of whack." Here in Waterloo Region,
the future looks bright for haulers like Terratec.
REGION PREFERS SPREADING The finishing touches are
being put on a 20-year biosolids master plan that says land application is still the preferred method of dealing
with our sludge, even in light of a projected 40 per cent increase in volume. The plan is expected to be
presented to regional council in September. Four open houses attracted little public interest. Some of Waterloo
Region's sludge is now being dewatered and hauled to a London landfill in an effort to increase capacity at the
Kitchener storage lagoons. Officials say a deep winter frost and spring rains hampered this season's spreading
schedule. The trips to London will likely continue for another couple of weeks, Andrews estimated. Looking
ahead, though, "there is adequate land available within an economically reasonable hauling distance," said Karl
Cober of the region's water services division. Techniques to reduce volume and improve treatment to make
biosolids safer are being considered, he added. But that's not good enough, say critics like Chantree. The
region should look at other ways of dealing with sewage treatment residue, he believes. "I'm sure this practice
will have to change. People will not put up with this."
posted by Sludge at 7:13 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
What's in your sewers?
What's In Your Sewers?
H2infO - The Water Information Network is pleased to announce the
publication of a new report ... What's In Your Sewers?
The report is available for free download from the H2infO web site at
www.H2infO.org (click on "Campaigns").
Under Ontario’s Municipal Act, municipalities have the power to pass
local sewer use by-laws through which they can regulate what
is discharged into their sewer systems. Although adoption of a sewer use
by-law is optional, most urban centres in the province have
done so. Sewer use by-laws, therefore, are one of the most important
regulatory tools for stopping the pollution of our lakes and
rivers.
The What's In Your Sewers? is guide is intended as an introduction to
sewer use by-laws in Ontario for citizens who are working to
improve water quality in their communities. It (i) compares the sewer
use by-laws and associated pollution prevention
programs of a representative sample of Ontario municipalities within the
Great Lakes Basin; (ii) describes the
elements of a model sewer use by-law; and (iii) provides citizens with
the tools they need to understand their
municipality’s by-law and to advocate for stricter rules to protect
water quality.
H2infO would like to thank the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and
Fund for their support of this project.
H2infO - The Water Information Network is pleased to announce the
publication of a new report ... What's In Your Sewers?
The report is available for free download from the H2infO web site at
www.H2infO.org (click on "Campaigns").
Under Ontario’s Municipal Act, municipalities have the power to pass
local sewer use by-laws through which they can regulate what
is discharged into their sewer systems. Although adoption of a sewer use
by-law is optional, most urban centres in the province have
done so. Sewer use by-laws, therefore, are one of the most important
regulatory tools for stopping the pollution of our lakes and
rivers.
The What's In Your Sewers? is guide is intended as an introduction to
sewer use by-laws in Ontario for citizens who are working to
improve water quality in their communities. It (i) compares the sewer
use by-laws and associated pollution prevention
programs of a representative sample of Ontario municipalities within the
Great Lakes Basin; (ii) describes the
elements of a model sewer use by-law; and (iii) provides citizens with
the tools they need to understand their
municipality’s by-law and to advocate for stricter rules to protect
water quality.
H2infO would like to thank the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and
Fund for their support of this project.
posted by Sludge at 6:45 AM
0 comments
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Lifting Ban on sludge dangerous, skeptics say
New Jersey News
Lifting ban on sludge dangerous,
skeptics say
Sunday, August 03, 2003
By PETER HALL
The Express-Times
A proposal to lift a ban on the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer on
preserved farmland has sparked alarm and opposition among farmers and
environmentalists.
The New Jersey State Agricultural Development Committee is considering
lifting a ban on the use of sludge on farms where the state has helped
purchase development rights. The rule applies to about 110,000 acres of
preserved farmland statewide.
New Jersey Department of
Agriculture spokesman
Ralph Siegel said the SADC
is considering the change in response to requests from members of the
state's farming community. The proposal was the subject of a hearing
Monday, in which about 20 people testified against the use of sludge on
preserved land.
Environmentalists and some farmers say allowing the use of sludge,
technically called biosolids, is dangerous because the long-term effects of
the material are unknown. Furthermore, they say the material presents a
risk of pollution to the state's rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
Sludge is the solid matter that settles out of sewage in treatment plants.
The sludge is treated to kill bacteria and viruses and mixed with other
material including coal ash and cement kiln dust to make biosolids.
Several utility authorities in New Jersey treat sewage sludge and market it
to farmers as "exceptional quality" biosolids.
The SADC rule would apply only to "exceptional quality" biosolids, which
meet standards established by the federal Environmental Protection
Agency for maximum levels of heavy metals and other chemicals used in
industrial processes.
The rule would recommend against the use of biosolids on land used for
fruit and vegetable crops and establish new guidelines for the use of
biosolids by farmers, Siegel said.
In Warren County, the use of sludge has been a controversial issue. The
county freeholders, Franklin Township and other municipalities stepped to
the brink of a legal battle with the state Department of Environmental
Protection over their right to oversee or block use of the material.
In Harmony Township, residents have rallied against Hydropress Inc.,
where sludge from New York is processed into fertilizer, claiming the plant
is a source of air pollution.
The battle has even extended into Pennsylvania, where officials in Upper
Mount Bethel Township are awaiting a state Supreme Court ruling on a
township law that regulates the use of Hydropress' product.
Sister Miriam MacGillis, founder and director of Genesis Farm in Hardwick
Township, was one of about 20 people who testified in opposition of the
SADC's rule change at hearing Monday in Trenton.
Genesis Farm is an organic farm where community members buy stakes
and share the risk and bounty of the operation. The farm, owned by the
Dominican Sisters of Caldwell, N.J., is part of the state's preserved
farmland inventory.
MacGillis testified at the SADC hearing and said she's opposed to the use
of sludge because it is simply a different way of disposing of waste that
was once dumped at sea and is now most commonly buried in land fills.
"What happened was a public relations decision to change the name from
hazardous waste to biosolids and find a cheap convenient way to dispose
of it," she said.
While the EPA sets maximum levels for a handful of chemicals,
thousands of others in common use aren't monitored in sludge used as
fertilizer.
Lori Gold, a member of the Warren County Environmental Commission
and an employee of Genesis Farm, also testified at the hearing.
"The meaning of a preserved farm is that it is going to be viable for growing
food for generations to come. It's our legacy to the future," she said.
The use of biosolids on preserved land is risky because the long-term
impact of sludge is not known. Chemicals contained in sludge could one
day find their way into the human food cycle.
"To do anything at this time that is so questionable and controversial is a
mistake in my mind and it could turn out to be grave mistake," Gold said.
In addition to the risk of contaminating farmland, biosolids pose a risk to
the environment in general, New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel
said.
Opponents' concern is intensified by state DEP Commissioner Bradley
Campbell's statement that he would allow the use of sludge on highway
medians and park land if the SADC changes its rule.
In a statement delivered at the SADC hearing, Campbell challenged
opposition to the rule change, saying it has no scientific basis.
In a telephone interview Thursday, Campbell said biosolids are proven to
be safe if used properly. He said the product presents less of a risk of
contaminating farmland than most commercial fertilizers and helps solve
the problem of how to dispose of sludge.
"We have testing data on a wide variety of contaminants in sewage
sludge, far more than we have on commercial fertilizers and that is what
underlies our confidence in this product," Campbell said.
The alternative is to continue building landfills to dispose of sewage
sludge, Campbell said.
Environmentalists disagree.
High in nitrogen and phosphorous, runoff from fields treated with biosolids
could cause severe damage to streams and lakes by promoting the
growth of algae, they say. Algal blooms deplete oxygen levels in water
and can kill fish.
Tittel said the dangers of widespread use of sludge far outweigh the
benefits of allowing its use on preserved land.
"Frankly, the DEP has fertilized the truth because they want to get rid of
this problem," he said. "This whole thing smells like sludge."
Lifting ban on sludge dangerous,
skeptics say
Sunday, August 03, 2003
By PETER HALL
The Express-Times
A proposal to lift a ban on the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer on
preserved farmland has sparked alarm and opposition among farmers and
environmentalists.
The New Jersey State Agricultural Development Committee is considering
lifting a ban on the use of sludge on farms where the state has helped
purchase development rights. The rule applies to about 110,000 acres of
preserved farmland statewide.
New Jersey Department of
Agriculture spokesman
Ralph Siegel said the SADC
is considering the change in response to requests from members of the
state's farming community. The proposal was the subject of a hearing
Monday, in which about 20 people testified against the use of sludge on
preserved land.
Environmentalists and some farmers say allowing the use of sludge,
technically called biosolids, is dangerous because the long-term effects of
the material are unknown. Furthermore, they say the material presents a
risk of pollution to the state's rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
Sludge is the solid matter that settles out of sewage in treatment plants.
The sludge is treated to kill bacteria and viruses and mixed with other
material including coal ash and cement kiln dust to make biosolids.
Several utility authorities in New Jersey treat sewage sludge and market it
to farmers as "exceptional quality" biosolids.
The SADC rule would apply only to "exceptional quality" biosolids, which
meet standards established by the federal Environmental Protection
Agency for maximum levels of heavy metals and other chemicals used in
industrial processes.
The rule would recommend against the use of biosolids on land used for
fruit and vegetable crops and establish new guidelines for the use of
biosolids by farmers, Siegel said.
In Warren County, the use of sludge has been a controversial issue. The
county freeholders, Franklin Township and other municipalities stepped to
the brink of a legal battle with the state Department of Environmental
Protection over their right to oversee or block use of the material.
In Harmony Township, residents have rallied against Hydropress Inc.,
where sludge from New York is processed into fertilizer, claiming the plant
is a source of air pollution.
The battle has even extended into Pennsylvania, where officials in Upper
Mount Bethel Township are awaiting a state Supreme Court ruling on a
township law that regulates the use of Hydropress' product.
Sister Miriam MacGillis, founder and director of Genesis Farm in Hardwick
Township, was one of about 20 people who testified in opposition of the
SADC's rule change at hearing Monday in Trenton.
Genesis Farm is an organic farm where community members buy stakes
and share the risk and bounty of the operation. The farm, owned by the
Dominican Sisters of Caldwell, N.J., is part of the state's preserved
farmland inventory.
MacGillis testified at the SADC hearing and said she's opposed to the use
of sludge because it is simply a different way of disposing of waste that
was once dumped at sea and is now most commonly buried in land fills.
"What happened was a public relations decision to change the name from
hazardous waste to biosolids and find a cheap convenient way to dispose
of it," she said.
While the EPA sets maximum levels for a handful of chemicals,
thousands of others in common use aren't monitored in sludge used as
fertilizer.
Lori Gold, a member of the Warren County Environmental Commission
and an employee of Genesis Farm, also testified at the hearing.
"The meaning of a preserved farm is that it is going to be viable for growing
food for generations to come. It's our legacy to the future," she said.
The use of biosolids on preserved land is risky because the long-term
impact of sludge is not known. Chemicals contained in sludge could one
day find their way into the human food cycle.
"To do anything at this time that is so questionable and controversial is a
mistake in my mind and it could turn out to be grave mistake," Gold said.
In addition to the risk of contaminating farmland, biosolids pose a risk to
the environment in general, New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel
said.
Opponents' concern is intensified by state DEP Commissioner Bradley
Campbell's statement that he would allow the use of sludge on highway
medians and park land if the SADC changes its rule.
In a statement delivered at the SADC hearing, Campbell challenged
opposition to the rule change, saying it has no scientific basis.
In a telephone interview Thursday, Campbell said biosolids are proven to
be safe if used properly. He said the product presents less of a risk of
contaminating farmland than most commercial fertilizers and helps solve
the problem of how to dispose of sludge.
"We have testing data on a wide variety of contaminants in sewage
sludge, far more than we have on commercial fertilizers and that is what
underlies our confidence in this product," Campbell said.
The alternative is to continue building landfills to dispose of sewage
sludge, Campbell said.
Environmentalists disagree.
High in nitrogen and phosphorous, runoff from fields treated with biosolids
could cause severe damage to streams and lakes by promoting the
growth of algae, they say. Algal blooms deplete oxygen levels in water
and can kill fish.
Tittel said the dangers of widespread use of sludge far outweigh the
benefits of allowing its use on preserved land.
"Frankly, the DEP has fertilized the truth because they want to get rid of
this problem," he said. "This whole thing smells like sludge."
posted by Sludge at 7:43 AM
0 comments
Friday, August 01, 2003
Burlington Iowa - Sludge not a priority
This could be fun to follow... Search powered by FreeFind
Friday, July 25, 2003
Sludge not high priority
Property owners near storage building for waste not complaining, yet.
By JAMES QUIRK Jr.
jquirk@thehawkeye.com
Property owners within a 1,000 feet of the former Rutheford Potato Building are
apparently not concerned it will soon become a sludge storage facility.
Don Fitting, wastewater treatment plant superintendent, scheduled several tours of the
plant over the next week — the first tour was held Thursday night — to give those
with properties near the building a chance to ask questions about its future.
Fitting sent letters to 53 property owners within 1,000 feet of the building, but only
Ann Marie Stout, 712 S. Third St., and representatives from The Hawk Eye
responded to request a tour. Stout simply wanted to tour the plant.
"There could be various reasons why they don't want to come," Fitting said. "It could
be that people don't have any real complaints about what's going on. It could be they
think the city doesn't listen to them and it's not going to do them any good for them to
come down, anyway. Or, it could be they are just waiting to see what happens and
have plans to contact us if a problem arises."
The city plans to use a 12,800–square–foot portion on the south end of the building, which is about 250 feet to the
east of The Hawk Eye building at 800 S. Main St., to store sludge.
The sludge is used by farmers as fertilizer, but when something, like inclement weather, prevents plant operators from
shipping it to a farm, it builds up in the plant system, Fitting said. The city needs a place to store the material to
prevent too much of the material from building up.
Fitting said the city will be leasing space from Burlington River Terminal. If problems arise, the city can pull out of the
lease.
Fitting describes the material as "a dry cottage cheese."
Stout, after touching the material, categorized it as "spongy ... it feels like Play–Doh."
"I had one guy call up who said he didn't like the idea we were spreading human waste on a field (near his home),"
Fitting said. "I told him this stuff doesn't smell anything as offensive as cow manure or pig waste, but odor is in the
nose of the beholder."
Friday, July 25, 2003
Sludge not high priority
Property owners near storage building for waste not complaining, yet.
By JAMES QUIRK Jr.
jquirk@thehawkeye.com
Property owners within a 1,000 feet of the former Rutheford Potato Building are
apparently not concerned it will soon become a sludge storage facility.
Don Fitting, wastewater treatment plant superintendent, scheduled several tours of the
plant over the next week — the first tour was held Thursday night — to give those
with properties near the building a chance to ask questions about its future.
Fitting sent letters to 53 property owners within 1,000 feet of the building, but only
Ann Marie Stout, 712 S. Third St., and representatives from The Hawk Eye
responded to request a tour. Stout simply wanted to tour the plant.
"There could be various reasons why they don't want to come," Fitting said. "It could
be that people don't have any real complaints about what's going on. It could be they
think the city doesn't listen to them and it's not going to do them any good for them to
come down, anyway. Or, it could be they are just waiting to see what happens and
have plans to contact us if a problem arises."
The city plans to use a 12,800–square–foot portion on the south end of the building, which is about 250 feet to the
east of The Hawk Eye building at 800 S. Main St., to store sludge.
The sludge is used by farmers as fertilizer, but when something, like inclement weather, prevents plant operators from
shipping it to a farm, it builds up in the plant system, Fitting said. The city needs a place to store the material to
prevent too much of the material from building up.
Fitting said the city will be leasing space from Burlington River Terminal. If problems arise, the city can pull out of the
lease.
Fitting describes the material as "a dry cottage cheese."
Stout, after touching the material, categorized it as "spongy ... it feels like Play–Doh."
"I had one guy call up who said he didn't like the idea we were spreading human waste on a field (near his home),"
Fitting said. "I told him this stuff doesn't smell anything as offensive as cow manure or pig waste, but odor is in the
nose of the beholder."
posted by Sludge at 7:39 AM
0 comments
New Jersey - critics turn up noses to sludge
----------------Critics turn up noses to sludge
Thursday, July 31, 2003
By TRACEY L. REGAN
Since the federal government banned ocean dumping more than a decade
ago, New Jersey has been scrambling to find new ways to dispose of the
more than 200,000 metric tons of dry sewage sludge that treatment plants
produce each year.
It is sprinkled on landfills and used by some landscapers as topsoil and
as fill in brownfields projects here and out of state, and about a
quarter of
it is incinerated.
A much smaller fraction, less than 10 percent, is spread each year on
wheat, hay and sod farms, although many food growers have been
reluctant to embrace that idea.
But a proposal by a state
agency to use sludge, or
biosolids, as fertilizer on
farms that have been
preserved with public funds
is roiling many in the farming
and environmental
communities. Some county
agricultural programs,
including Mercer and Morris
counties', have publicly
stated their opposition.
Proponents of expanding the
use of sludge - the solid
waste collected by sewage
treatment plants that cannot
be piped into waterways -
argue that the material is
possibly safer than fertilizers sold at large garden centers. Critics
say it is
inadequately tested and may contain high levels of contaminants such as
organic chemicals.
"The farming community is very polarized on this issue," said Lisa
Specca, a farmer who sits on the state Agricultural Development
Committee (SADC), which oversees New Jersey's farmland preservation
program and probably will vote on the proposal later this year. State
regulations now forbid the use of waste products on those and other
public
or publicly subsidized properties, although treated sludge can be sold
legally to other farmers.
"My gut feeling, like many citizens, is `yikes,' but I'm trying to sort
it out,"
added Specca, a farmer from Springfield who noted that other farmers in
the state now use it.
"Many people are against it, but there is a big need to do something
with
sewage sludge," said Gary Mount, a farmer from Lawrence who also sits
on the SADC, whose staff proposed the new rule.
Mount said farmers are concerned primarily about how accurate tests of
the material are and whether there are ways to ensure growers apply it
properly and keep good records of how often and how much they use it.
"There is a lot of legitimate concern," he added. "What does a farmer
have
to work with but his soil? What you put there stays there."
Mount said that while he monitors what goes into his own soil, "I might
be
buying a farm or renting a farm" that uses sludge. -- -- -- Testimony at
a
public hearing on the proposal earlier this week, dominated by
environmental advocates, was overwhelmingly opposed.
Nelson Carrasquillo, a representative of CATA, a group representing
farmworkers, said use of the fertilizer is unsafe in the absence of
studies
examining the long-term effects on the health of workers who come in
direct contact with it.
But SADC Director Gregory Romano said his agency had proposed
expanding the use of sludge at the request of farmers, particularly
nurseries. Environmental regulators say farmers who use fertilizer
produced by sewage treatment plants receive some of it for free and much
of the rest at a lower cost than they would pay for other commercial
brands, depending on the quality. To date, about 5 percent of the sludge
produced, called "exceptional quality," is used on farms.
But the plan has an important ally in state Department of Environmental
Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell, who dismissed concerns
about high levels of contaminants as entirely unwarranted.
Campbell said he viewed the treated sludge as adequately tested and
safer than other fertilizers that "may have greater adverse impacts on
the
environment" and have even less labeling. Campbell said he would
consider permitting its use on other public lands, such as farmland the
state leases.
Critics calling the material unsafe "do a disservice to the public to
generate hysteria about the risks," he added, noting that the state
rules
would establish guidelines, or best management practices, for the use of
sludge that are more stringent than those currently in effect either at
the
state or the federal level.
Farmers would be motivated to follow the guidelines, proponents say,
because adherence would grant them immunity from municipal nuisance
laws under the state Right to Farm laws, among other actions.
But environmental advocates, such as Jane Nogaki, say testing for
contaminants, now limited to heavy metals, should be much broader and
include other chemicals found in the waste stream of treatment plants,
such as chlorinated pesticides. "Testing is not frequent enough either,
given the dynamic nature of what is going down the drain," she said.--
-- --
Both sides say they fear the SADC's decision will have substantial
implications for the future use of sewage sludge.
Environmental advocates say if it is approved, it could soon be used on
other public lands, such as parks. The people who produce it say a vote
against the expansion could lead to further restrictions.
"If this thing were to not go through, the people who stopped it would
feel
they had a foot in the door," said David Ertle, director of central
services
for the Ocean County Utilities Authority, which produces fertilizer.
Ertle
said he speculated that opponents would suggest that "If it's no good on
preserved farms, then it's not on regular farms, and why are we using it
on
golf courses?"
He described the authority's sale of fertilizer as a cost-savings,
rather than
a profitable business, that cuts down on expensive fees to out-of-state
landfills. New Jersey does not allow the material in landfills here,
although
it can be incinerated.
Noting the growing number of farming acres in the state's preservation
program, Ertle added, "If these farmers can't use it, then the door is
closing. We could be left with landfills and that's where we were in
1990."
Uta Krogmann, a professor of environmental science at Rutgers University
and an agricultural extension specialist who worked on the guidelines,
called the sludge "relatively safe, under conditions."
She said it should not be used in sandy soils or near wetlands, where it
could leach easily. She noted that the guidelines recommend against use
on fruits and vegetables.
"But there are uncertainties," she said. `'We need to be more
protective."
Asked about treated sludge, several fruit and vegetable farmers said
they
were unlikely to use it.
"I don't need the perception that I'm growing sweet corn in someone's
sewage. Perception is reality," said Scott Ellis, a Mercer County
farmer.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
By TRACEY L. REGAN
Since the federal government banned ocean dumping more than a decade
ago, New Jersey has been scrambling to find new ways to dispose of the
more than 200,000 metric tons of dry sewage sludge that treatment plants
produce each year.
It is sprinkled on landfills and used by some landscapers as topsoil and
as fill in brownfields projects here and out of state, and about a
quarter of
it is incinerated.
A much smaller fraction, less than 10 percent, is spread each year on
wheat, hay and sod farms, although many food growers have been
reluctant to embrace that idea.
But a proposal by a state
agency to use sludge, or
biosolids, as fertilizer on
farms that have been
preserved with public funds
is roiling many in the farming
and environmental
communities. Some county
agricultural programs,
including Mercer and Morris
counties', have publicly
stated their opposition.
Proponents of expanding the
use of sludge - the solid
waste collected by sewage
treatment plants that cannot
be piped into waterways -
argue that the material is
possibly safer than fertilizers sold at large garden centers. Critics
say it is
inadequately tested and may contain high levels of contaminants such as
organic chemicals.
"The farming community is very polarized on this issue," said Lisa
Specca, a farmer who sits on the state Agricultural Development
Committee (SADC), which oversees New Jersey's farmland preservation
program and probably will vote on the proposal later this year. State
regulations now forbid the use of waste products on those and other
public
or publicly subsidized properties, although treated sludge can be sold
legally to other farmers.
"My gut feeling, like many citizens, is `yikes,' but I'm trying to sort
it out,"
added Specca, a farmer from Springfield who noted that other farmers in
the state now use it.
"Many people are against it, but there is a big need to do something
with
sewage sludge," said Gary Mount, a farmer from Lawrence who also sits
on the SADC, whose staff proposed the new rule.
Mount said farmers are concerned primarily about how accurate tests of
the material are and whether there are ways to ensure growers apply it
properly and keep good records of how often and how much they use it.
"There is a lot of legitimate concern," he added. "What does a farmer
have
to work with but his soil? What you put there stays there."
Mount said that while he monitors what goes into his own soil, "I might
be
buying a farm or renting a farm" that uses sludge. -- -- -- Testimony at
a
public hearing on the proposal earlier this week, dominated by
environmental advocates, was overwhelmingly opposed.
Nelson Carrasquillo, a representative of CATA, a group representing
farmworkers, said use of the fertilizer is unsafe in the absence of
studies
examining the long-term effects on the health of workers who come in
direct contact with it.
But SADC Director Gregory Romano said his agency had proposed
expanding the use of sludge at the request of farmers, particularly
nurseries. Environmental regulators say farmers who use fertilizer
produced by sewage treatment plants receive some of it for free and much
of the rest at a lower cost than they would pay for other commercial
brands, depending on the quality. To date, about 5 percent of the sludge
produced, called "exceptional quality," is used on farms.
But the plan has an important ally in state Department of Environmental
Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell, who dismissed concerns
about high levels of contaminants as entirely unwarranted.
Campbell said he viewed the treated sludge as adequately tested and
safer than other fertilizers that "may have greater adverse impacts on
the
environment" and have even less labeling. Campbell said he would
consider permitting its use on other public lands, such as farmland the
state leases.
Critics calling the material unsafe "do a disservice to the public to
generate hysteria about the risks," he added, noting that the state
rules
would establish guidelines, or best management practices, for the use of
sludge that are more stringent than those currently in effect either at
the
state or the federal level.
Farmers would be motivated to follow the guidelines, proponents say,
because adherence would grant them immunity from municipal nuisance
laws under the state Right to Farm laws, among other actions.
But environmental advocates, such as Jane Nogaki, say testing for
contaminants, now limited to heavy metals, should be much broader and
include other chemicals found in the waste stream of treatment plants,
such as chlorinated pesticides. "Testing is not frequent enough either,
given the dynamic nature of what is going down the drain," she said.--
-- --
Both sides say they fear the SADC's decision will have substantial
implications for the future use of sewage sludge.
Environmental advocates say if it is approved, it could soon be used on
other public lands, such as parks. The people who produce it say a vote
against the expansion could lead to further restrictions.
"If this thing were to not go through, the people who stopped it would
feel
they had a foot in the door," said David Ertle, director of central
services
for the Ocean County Utilities Authority, which produces fertilizer.
Ertle
said he speculated that opponents would suggest that "If it's no good on
preserved farms, then it's not on regular farms, and why are we using it
on
golf courses?"
He described the authority's sale of fertilizer as a cost-savings,
rather than
a profitable business, that cuts down on expensive fees to out-of-state
landfills. New Jersey does not allow the material in landfills here,
although
it can be incinerated.
Noting the growing number of farming acres in the state's preservation
program, Ertle added, "If these farmers can't use it, then the door is
closing. We could be left with landfills and that's where we were in
1990."
Uta Krogmann, a professor of environmental science at Rutgers University
and an agricultural extension specialist who worked on the guidelines,
called the sludge "relatively safe, under conditions."
She said it should not be used in sandy soils or near wetlands, where it
could leach easily. She noted that the guidelines recommend against use
on fruits and vegetables.
"But there are uncertainties," she said. `'We need to be more
protective."
Asked about treated sludge, several fruit and vegetable farmers said
they
were unlikely to use it.
"I don't need the perception that I'm growing sweet corn in someone's
sewage. Perception is reality," said Scott Ellis, a Mercer County
farmer.
posted by Sludge at 7:32 AM
0 comments
Atlanta asks Judge to overturn sludge finding
City asks judge to overturn sludge finding
Web posted Friday, July 25, 2003
By Robert Pavey | Staff Writer
A jury's $550,000 award to a Burke County family who alleged their cattle and land were
poisoned by the city of Augusta's sewage sludge should be set aside, according to the
city's lawyer.
Jim Ellison, who helped defend the city in a
two-week civil trial last month, filed a request in
Superior Court asking Judge Carlisle Overstreet to
reverse the jury's June 24 finding in favor of the
Boyce family.
The city cited several reasons for its request,
including a claim that "there was insufficient
evidence as a matter of law that plaintiffs'
farmlands were damaged due to the application of
sewage sludge."
The c ity's defense team also said the Boyce
family was barred by the statute of limitations from
collecting damages over the sludge applications,
which occurred from 1986 to 1998.
No ruling has been made on that allegation.
The Boyce family had sought $12.5 million in
damages over allegations that sludge - a
byproduct of wastewater treatment applied to
pastures as a free fertilizer - contained heavy
metals that killed cattle.
The city said during the two-week trial that
common bovine diseases and poor farm
management practices by the Boyce family were
responsible for the cattle deaths. Witnesses for
the plaintiffs, however, said the sewage was responsible.
Also this week, the Boyce family - through its legal team headed by Ed Hallman, of Atlanta
- filed a request for a new trial for purposes of recalculating damages.
That request contends "the jury clearly made a mistake about the amount of damages,"
which should have been much greater, based on testimony from witnesses. No hearing
date has been scheduled to discuss either request.
The city also faces a similar lawsuit from another farm that received Augusta's sewage
sludge. R.A. McElmurray & Sons of Hephzibah filed its lawsuit in February 2001, a week
after the Boyceland Dairy lawsuit was filed.
No trial date has been scheduled in that case, but lawyers on both sides have said they
are ready to try the case.
Web posted Friday, July 25, 2003
By Robert Pavey | Staff Writer
A jury's $550,000 award to a Burke County family who alleged their cattle and land were
poisoned by the city of Augusta's sewage sludge should be set aside, according to the
city's lawyer.
Jim Ellison, who helped defend the city in a
two-week civil trial last month, filed a request in
Superior Court asking Judge Carlisle Overstreet to
reverse the jury's June 24 finding in favor of the
Boyce family.
The city cited several reasons for its request,
including a claim that "there was insufficient
evidence as a matter of law that plaintiffs'
farmlands were damaged due to the application of
sewage sludge."
The c ity's defense team also said the Boyce
family was barred by the statute of limitations from
collecting damages over the sludge applications,
which occurred from 1986 to 1998.
No ruling has been made on that allegation.
The Boyce family had sought $12.5 million in
damages over allegations that sludge - a
byproduct of wastewater treatment applied to
pastures as a free fertilizer - contained heavy
metals that killed cattle.
The city said during the two-week trial that
common bovine diseases and poor farm
management practices by the Boyce family were
responsible for the cattle deaths. Witnesses for
the plaintiffs, however, said the sewage was responsible.
Also this week, the Boyce family - through its legal team headed by Ed Hallman, of Atlanta
- filed a request for a new trial for purposes of recalculating damages.
That request contends "the jury clearly made a mistake about the amount of damages,"
which should have been much greater, based on testimony from witnesses. No hearing
date has been scheduled to discuss either request.
The city also faces a similar lawsuit from another farm that received Augusta's sewage
sludge. R.A. McElmurray & Sons of Hephzibah filed its lawsuit in February 2001, a week
after the Boyceland Dairy lawsuit was filed.
No trial date has been scheduled in that case, but lawyers on both sides have said they
are ready to try the case.
posted by Sludge at 7:30 AM
0 comments
Further details- Coca-Cola sludge
This is the text of a draft letter to the Indian Government.
It describes the Coca-Cola sludge issue.
23rd June, 2002
Shri C. K. Antony
Chief Minister
Government of Kerala
Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram
Re: Hardships caused to the local community in Plachimada, Palakkad due to
the bottling plant of Coca Cola and in Kanjikode Industrial area due to that
of Pepsi
Dear Shri Antony,
You may be aware that the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd had
established a bottling unit in 1998-99 in a 40 acre plot (previously
multi-cropped paddy lands) at Plachimada of Perumatty Panchayat in Chittur
Taluk of Palakkad District, Kerala. On an average about 85 lorry loads of
beverage products each load containing 550-600 cases and each case
containing 24 300 ml bottles leave the factory premises every day. Sixty
borewells (besides 2 open wells) are sunk in the factory compound extracting
some 15,00,000 litres of water. The site is located a few meters away from
the main irrigation canal from the Moolathara barrage. The INTACH
investigation (the report of which has been submitted to the state
government) has found that water is being pumped from this canal. Of the 40
acre plot, the plant building is located on a two acre plot that has not
been cleared under the kerala Land Utilisation Act. As a result, the
building does not have a Panchayat or a Register number and hence there is
no electricity connection given by KSEB to this plant. However, the plant is
solely being run by huge generators. The law prohibits a factory from
operating for 24 hours continuously on generators alone. Bottle washing that
involves the use of chemicals, the sludge from the plant mainly from the
products brought to the factory site after the expiry date have expired etc
are carried out. The plant generates 38 load waste on a daily basis. While
earlier the foul smelling dry sedimented slurry waste was "sold" as
fertilizer to the unsuspecting farmers which was later given "free" and now
with protests and objections surreptitiously dumped on the way side and on
lands at night even going beyond the state boundary into the villages of
adjoining Pollachi Taluk of Coimbatore District of Tamilnadu. Observers from
the surrounding areas state that 36 truck loads each containing six 200
litre barrels of sludge waste come out of the factory daily. The ground
water and hence water from the open wells have rapidly depleted in this
perennially rich paddy growing belt (paddy is abandoned now with the mostly
landless Adivasis loosing their jobs also). The water turns turbid or milky
on boiling and is unfit for drinking, bathing and washing clothes etc.
Already over 1000 families have been affected in the surrounding villages
within a radius of 5 kms, of which a quarter are Adivasis and the rest
Dalits and other non-Adivasis. The villages severely affected are the
'colonies' of Adivasis and Dalits such as Plachimada, Vijayanagaram, Veloor
and Madhavan Nair colonies in the Perumatty Panchayat and the Rajeev Nagar
and Thodichipathy colonies in the Pattanamchery Panchayat facing acute water
shortage and contaminated water. Most of the plant workers handling the
waste have become victims of skin diseases. Tests conducted on the effluent
water released by the plant show that it contains high concentrations of
Calcium and Magnesium.
The struggle against the Plachimada Plant of Coca Cola was launched on 22
April 2002 with a symbolic blockade and an ongoing continuous
picketing/dharna by mainly the Adivasis, particularly by women and children,
belonging to the Eravalar and Malasar communities classified by the
government as Primitive Tribes. The local or state govt authorities have not
bothered to take heed of these agitations. And instead massive police
protection has been provided to the Company property. Peaceful agitations
held on June 9th have witnessed police atrocities on a large scale on the
protestors mainly targeting women, children and outside supporters. About
130 protesters were arrested of whom 30 were women and nine were children,
mostly babies, at around 5 pm and taken to the Chittoor Police Station.
Blouses of five Adivasi women were torn and some senior officials were
particularly keen to abuse and threaten the protesters with further physical
attack. Incidentally the arrested included all those who had come to
participate in the struggle from elsewhere to extend their solidarity which
included environmental activists, struggle groups fighting industrial
pollution elsewhere in the state.
This is an utterly shameful act and we express our strongest outrage
against the mass arrest and the police action and brutalities. We hope that
your government will withdraw all false cases against the peaceful
protesters and demand that the company compensates all those who have been
adversely affected by their bottling unit.
At the same time, we have information that a similar bottling unit of
Pepsi in Kanjikode Industrial Area of Palakkad District has also caused
drinking water scarcity in the neighbouring areas. This is due to more than
20 bore-wells being sunk within their premise and sucking up 10 lakh litres
of water everyday. Their effluent pipeline drains into Velanthavalam river
which is the source of Bharatapuzha, a major lifeline of North Kerala and is
contributing to the pollution of this major drinking water source for 30
village panchayats downstream.
That such plants are coming up and causing irrevocable damage to a state
known for its natural beauty should be a matter of grave concern to your
government. We urge you to take the following steps immediately:
1) Conduct investigations against both the companies and close the
plants till investigations are complete
2) Take corrective steps for the waterbodies and lands polluted, at
the cost of
the companies
3) Prosecute those responsible under relevant pollution and
environmental laws including penalising them to pay for the costs of the
clean-up and compensation
to affected families
4) Demand written assurances from the companies that they will comply
with environmental laws and respect the interests and rights of local
residents; and
5) Prosecute the officials who have been turning a blind eye to the
illegal and destructive activities of the companies.
We hope that you will take serious note of the fact that the Adivasi
agitation has been going on for the past two months demanding for justice
and the basic requirement for survival - which is good, clean drinking
water.
Yours sincerely,
It describes the Coca-Cola sludge issue.
23rd June, 2002
Shri C. K. Antony
Chief Minister
Government of Kerala
Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram
Re: Hardships caused to the local community in Plachimada, Palakkad due to
the bottling plant of Coca Cola and in Kanjikode Industrial area due to that
of Pepsi
Dear Shri Antony,
You may be aware that the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd had
established a bottling unit in 1998-99 in a 40 acre plot (previously
multi-cropped paddy lands) at Plachimada of Perumatty Panchayat in Chittur
Taluk of Palakkad District, Kerala. On an average about 85 lorry loads of
beverage products each load containing 550-600 cases and each case
containing 24 300 ml bottles leave the factory premises every day. Sixty
borewells (besides 2 open wells) are sunk in the factory compound extracting
some 15,00,000 litres of water. The site is located a few meters away from
the main irrigation canal from the Moolathara barrage. The INTACH
investigation (the report of which has been submitted to the state
government) has found that water is being pumped from this canal. Of the 40
acre plot, the plant building is located on a two acre plot that has not
been cleared under the kerala Land Utilisation Act. As a result, the
building does not have a Panchayat or a Register number and hence there is
no electricity connection given by KSEB to this plant. However, the plant is
solely being run by huge generators. The law prohibits a factory from
operating for 24 hours continuously on generators alone. Bottle washing that
involves the use of chemicals, the sludge from the plant mainly from the
products brought to the factory site after the expiry date have expired etc
are carried out. The plant generates 38 load waste on a daily basis. While
earlier the foul smelling dry sedimented slurry waste was "sold" as
fertilizer to the unsuspecting farmers which was later given "free" and now
with protests and objections surreptitiously dumped on the way side and on
lands at night even going beyond the state boundary into the villages of
adjoining Pollachi Taluk of Coimbatore District of Tamilnadu. Observers from
the surrounding areas state that 36 truck loads each containing six 200
litre barrels of sludge waste come out of the factory daily. The ground
water and hence water from the open wells have rapidly depleted in this
perennially rich paddy growing belt (paddy is abandoned now with the mostly
landless Adivasis loosing their jobs also). The water turns turbid or milky
on boiling and is unfit for drinking, bathing and washing clothes etc.
Already over 1000 families have been affected in the surrounding villages
within a radius of 5 kms, of which a quarter are Adivasis and the rest
Dalits and other non-Adivasis. The villages severely affected are the
'colonies' of Adivasis and Dalits such as Plachimada, Vijayanagaram, Veloor
and Madhavan Nair colonies in the Perumatty Panchayat and the Rajeev Nagar
and Thodichipathy colonies in the Pattanamchery Panchayat facing acute water
shortage and contaminated water. Most of the plant workers handling the
waste have become victims of skin diseases. Tests conducted on the effluent
water released by the plant show that it contains high concentrations of
Calcium and Magnesium.
The struggle against the Plachimada Plant of Coca Cola was launched on 22
April 2002 with a symbolic blockade and an ongoing continuous
picketing/dharna by mainly the Adivasis, particularly by women and children,
belonging to the Eravalar and Malasar communities classified by the
government as Primitive Tribes. The local or state govt authorities have not
bothered to take heed of these agitations. And instead massive police
protection has been provided to the Company property. Peaceful agitations
held on June 9th have witnessed police atrocities on a large scale on the
protestors mainly targeting women, children and outside supporters. About
130 protesters were arrested of whom 30 were women and nine were children,
mostly babies, at around 5 pm and taken to the Chittoor Police Station.
Blouses of five Adivasi women were torn and some senior officials were
particularly keen to abuse and threaten the protesters with further physical
attack. Incidentally the arrested included all those who had come to
participate in the struggle from elsewhere to extend their solidarity which
included environmental activists, struggle groups fighting industrial
pollution elsewhere in the state.
This is an utterly shameful act and we express our strongest outrage
against the mass arrest and the police action and brutalities. We hope that
your government will withdraw all false cases against the peaceful
protesters and demand that the company compensates all those who have been
adversely affected by their bottling unit.
At the same time, we have information that a similar bottling unit of
Pepsi in Kanjikode Industrial Area of Palakkad District has also caused
drinking water scarcity in the neighbouring areas. This is due to more than
20 bore-wells being sunk within their premise and sucking up 10 lakh litres
of water everyday. Their effluent pipeline drains into Velanthavalam river
which is the source of Bharatapuzha, a major lifeline of North Kerala and is
contributing to the pollution of this major drinking water source for 30
village panchayats downstream.
That such plants are coming up and causing irrevocable damage to a state
known for its natural beauty should be a matter of grave concern to your
government. We urge you to take the following steps immediately:
1) Conduct investigations against both the companies and close the
plants till investigations are complete
2) Take corrective steps for the waterbodies and lands polluted, at
the cost of
the companies
3) Prosecute those responsible under relevant pollution and
environmental laws including penalising them to pay for the costs of the
clean-up and compensation
to affected families
4) Demand written assurances from the companies that they will comply
with environmental laws and respect the interests and rights of local
residents; and
5) Prosecute the officials who have been turning a blind eye to the
illegal and destructive activities of the companies.
We hope that you will take serious note of the fact that the Adivasi
agitation has been going on for the past two months demanding for justice
and the basic requirement for survival - which is good, clean drinking
water.
Yours sincerely,
posted by Sludge at 7:27 AM
0 comments
BBC: Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertilizer
Tests revealed the material was
useless as a fertiliser and contained
a number of toxic metals, including
cadmium and lead.
Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertiliser
Waste product from a Coca-Cola plant in India which the company provides
as fertiliser for local farmers contains toxic chemicals, a BBC study has
found.
Dangerous levels of the known carcinogen cadmium have been found in the sludge
produced from the plant in the southern state of Kerala.
The chemicals were traced in an investigation by BBC Radio 4's Face The Facts
programme and prompted scientists to call for the practice to be halted imediately.
However, Vice-President of Coca-Cola in India, Sunil Gupta, denied the fertiliser posed any risk.
"We have scientific evidence to prove it is absolutely safe and we have never had any complaints," Mr Gupta said.
The results have devastating consequences for those
living near the areas where this waste has been dumped
Professor John Henry,
poisons expert
Face The Facts presenter John Waite visited the plant following complaints from
villagers that water supplies were drying up because of the massive quantities of water required by Coca-Cola.
Villagers, politicians, environmentalists and scientists have accused the firm of robbing the community of the area's most precious resource.
They say the area's farming industry has been devastated and jobs, as well as the health of local people, have been put at risk.
'Disturbing'
As part of the probe, Face The Facts sent sludge samples to the UK for
examination at the University of Exeter.
Tests revealed the material was useless as a fertiliser and contained a number of toxic metals, including cadmium and lead.
The lab's senior scientist, David Santillo, said: "What is particularly disturbing is that the contamination has spread to the water supply - with levels of lead in a nearby well at levels well above those set by the World Health Organisation."
According to Britain's leading poisons expert, Professor John Henry, consultant at St Mary's Hospital in London, immediate steps should be taken by the authorities in India to ban the practice immediately.
The levels of toxins found in the samples would, he said, cause serious problems - polluting the land, local water supplies and the food chain.
"The results have devastating consequences for those living near the areas where this waste has been dumped and for the thousands who depend on crops produced in these fields," Professor Henry said.
'Good for crops'
Cadmium is a carcinogen and can accumulate in the kidneys, with repeated
exposure possibly causing kidney failure.
Lead is particularly dangerous to children and the results of exposure can be fatal.
Even at low levels it can cause mental retardation and severe anaemia.
Professor Henry said: "What most worries me about the levels found is how this
might be affecting pregnant women in the area. You would expect to see an
increase in miscarriages, still births and premature deliveries."
Mr Gupta said local farmers had been grateful for the fertiliser because many could not afford brand-name products of their own.
"It's good for crops," he said. "It's good for the farmers because most of them are poor and they have been using this for the past three years."
Coca-Cola say they will continue to supply the sludge to farmers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/3096893.stm
Published: 2003/07/25 17:51:55 GMT
useless as a fertiliser and contained
a number of toxic metals, including
cadmium and lead.
Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertiliser
Waste product from a Coca-Cola plant in India which the company provides
as fertiliser for local farmers contains toxic chemicals, a BBC study has
found.
Dangerous levels of the known carcinogen cadmium have been found in the sludge
produced from the plant in the southern state of Kerala.
The chemicals were traced in an investigation by BBC Radio 4's Face The Facts
programme and prompted scientists to call for the practice to be halted imediately.
However, Vice-President of Coca-Cola in India, Sunil Gupta, denied the fertiliser posed any risk.
"We have scientific evidence to prove it is absolutely safe and we have never had any complaints," Mr Gupta said.
The results have devastating consequences for those
living near the areas where this waste has been dumped
Professor John Henry,
poisons expert
Face The Facts presenter John Waite visited the plant following complaints from
villagers that water supplies were drying up because of the massive quantities of water required by Coca-Cola.
Villagers, politicians, environmentalists and scientists have accused the firm of robbing the community of the area's most precious resource.
They say the area's farming industry has been devastated and jobs, as well as the health of local people, have been put at risk.
'Disturbing'
As part of the probe, Face The Facts sent sludge samples to the UK for
examination at the University of Exeter.
Tests revealed the material was useless as a fertiliser and contained a number of toxic metals, including cadmium and lead.
The lab's senior scientist, David Santillo, said: "What is particularly disturbing is that the contamination has spread to the water supply - with levels of lead in a nearby well at levels well above those set by the World Health Organisation."
According to Britain's leading poisons expert, Professor John Henry, consultant at St Mary's Hospital in London, immediate steps should be taken by the authorities in India to ban the practice immediately.
The levels of toxins found in the samples would, he said, cause serious problems - polluting the land, local water supplies and the food chain.
"The results have devastating consequences for those living near the areas where this waste has been dumped and for the thousands who depend on crops produced in these fields," Professor Henry said.
'Good for crops'
Cadmium is a carcinogen and can accumulate in the kidneys, with repeated
exposure possibly causing kidney failure.
Lead is particularly dangerous to children and the results of exposure can be fatal.
Even at low levels it can cause mental retardation and severe anaemia.
Professor Henry said: "What most worries me about the levels found is how this
might be affecting pregnant women in the area. You would expect to see an
increase in miscarriages, still births and premature deliveries."
Mr Gupta said local farmers had been grateful for the fertiliser because many could not afford brand-name products of their own.
"It's good for crops," he said. "It's good for the farmers because most of them are poor and they have been using this for the past three years."
Coca-Cola say they will continue to supply the sludge to farmers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/3096893.stm
Published: 2003/07/25 17:51:55 GMT
posted by Sludge at 7:17 AM
0 comments
Coca-Cola sludge troubles - sludge 'fertilizer'?
'Toxic sludge': Coca-Cola on the defensive
By Our Special Correspondent
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JULY 31. The Hindustan Coca-Cola company today went on the defensive with regard to the sludge which allegedly has high toxicity, that its bottling plant at Plachimada in Kerala's Palakkad district had been supplying to farmers in the area who have been using it as a fertilizer.
The company's vice-president (technical), D. S. Mathur, convened a press conference here to react to media reports that alleged that it had been passing on `toxic' sludge from its bottling plant to the farmers, but when asked to specify the composition of the sludge he said: ``We have never claimed that it is a fertilizer. But we have been using it in our gardens wherever we have bottling plants. We have not compelled anyone to take the sludge''.
Mr. Mathur said the sludge was a ``good soil conditioner''. Answering a question, he said that in the United States, where the Coca-Cola company had many bottling plants, similar sludge was being used for land-filling operations.
The company's director (corporate communications), Nantoo Banarjee, who was present at the press conference, said Coca-Cola was not contemplating any legal action against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which had reported last week that the sludge contained ``dangerous levels of the known carcinogen cadmium'' and also lead.
The chemicals were traced in the sludge in an investigation by BBC Radio 4's `Face the Facts' programme.
``We do not want to take anyone head-on. At the same time, we are working with the regulating authorities here to show that the BBC report is baseless,'' Mr. Banarjee said.
Mr. Mathur said the company was getting the sludge and water samples from its borewells tested regularly to ensure that they conformed to acceptable standards.
He circulated copies of the report of a test conducted at an accredited laboratory in Kochi in January this year, which showed that cadmium and lead in the sludge were well within the threshold levels prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board. According to this test report, the sludge contained only 0.17 ppm (parts per million) of cadmium and 0.40 ppm of lead.
Referring to the complaint of water table depletion in Plachimada due to ``over-exploitation'' of groundwater resources by the company, Mr. Mathur said the company could meet 65 per cent of its annual requirement of water through the water harvesting technique it had introduced in its 35-acre compound.
He said poor rains during the last two years was the reason for the water table having come down.
He said Coca-Cola was only happy to help the community by undertaking a water harvesting programme for the entire Plachimada area.
``We are in consultation with the authorities for this,'' he added.
The State has in recent times witnessed a series of protests against the operation of the Coca-Cola plant.
On Tuesday, the panchayat, within whose area the plant operates, had cancelled the licence that had been granted to the plant.
By Our Special Correspondent
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JULY 31. The Hindustan Coca-Cola company today went on the defensive with regard to the sludge which allegedly has high toxicity, that its bottling plant at Plachimada in Kerala's Palakkad district had been supplying to farmers in the area who have been using it as a fertilizer.
The company's vice-president (technical), D. S. Mathur, convened a press conference here to react to media reports that alleged that it had been passing on `toxic' sludge from its bottling plant to the farmers, but when asked to specify the composition of the sludge he said: ``We have never claimed that it is a fertilizer. But we have been using it in our gardens wherever we have bottling plants. We have not compelled anyone to take the sludge''.
Mr. Mathur said the sludge was a ``good soil conditioner''. Answering a question, he said that in the United States, where the Coca-Cola company had many bottling plants, similar sludge was being used for land-filling operations.
The company's director (corporate communications), Nantoo Banarjee, who was present at the press conference, said Coca-Cola was not contemplating any legal action against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which had reported last week that the sludge contained ``dangerous levels of the known carcinogen cadmium'' and also lead.
The chemicals were traced in the sludge in an investigation by BBC Radio 4's `Face the Facts' programme.
``We do not want to take anyone head-on. At the same time, we are working with the regulating authorities here to show that the BBC report is baseless,'' Mr. Banarjee said.
Mr. Mathur said the company was getting the sludge and water samples from its borewells tested regularly to ensure that they conformed to acceptable standards.
He circulated copies of the report of a test conducted at an accredited laboratory in Kochi in January this year, which showed that cadmium and lead in the sludge were well within the threshold levels prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board. According to this test report, the sludge contained only 0.17 ppm (parts per million) of cadmium and 0.40 ppm of lead.
Referring to the complaint of water table depletion in Plachimada due to ``over-exploitation'' of groundwater resources by the company, Mr. Mathur said the company could meet 65 per cent of its annual requirement of water through the water harvesting technique it had introduced in its 35-acre compound.
He said poor rains during the last two years was the reason for the water table having come down.
He said Coca-Cola was only happy to help the community by undertaking a water harvesting programme for the entire Plachimada area.
``We are in consultation with the authorities for this,'' he added.
The State has in recent times witnessed a series of protests against the operation of the Coca-Cola plant.
On Tuesday, the panchayat, within whose area the plant operates, had cancelled the licence that had been granted to the plant.
posted by Sludge at 7:13 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Sludge Responsible for Cattle Deaths
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/062403/lat_sludge.shtml
JURY: AUGUSTA RESPONSIBLE FOR CATTLE DEATHS Web posted Tuesday, June 24,
2003
By Robert Pavey | Staff Writer Jurors concluded today that the city of Augusta's sewage sludge
was responsible for cattle deaths and property damage at a Burke Conty dairy farm.
But the victory for Boyceland Dairy and members of the Boyce family was bittersweet: jurors
awarded the family only $550,000 - a mere fraction of the $12.5 million in damages sought by
the plaintiffs. "We won the case, but lost the farm," said a tearful Carolyn Boyce, who hugged
her husband, Bill Boyce, and other family members after the verdict was delivered shortly before
noon. Jurors heard two weeks of testimony - mostly from the plaintiffs' witnesses - in the
Superior Court civil trial, then deliberated eight hours Monday without reaching a verdict. After
words of encouragement by Judge Carlisle Overstreet, who warned that failure to decide the
case would require a future retrial, the panel resumed their deliberations at 10 a.m. An hour
later, a note was delivered to the bailiff, who advised that a verdict had been reached. "We've
always known, all along, that we were right," Mr. Boyce said. "We didn't make this up. We know
exactly what happened to the cows." However, he added, the jury's finding for the plaintiffs in
the amount of $550,000 was a disappointment. "We appreciate the jury and all they've done," he
said. "But the farm has been very much damaged. It will be hard to stay in business after all
that's gone on." The Boyces contended that the city's sewage sludge, applied to their land as
free fertilizer in the 1980s and 1990s, contained heavy metals that eventually contaminated feed
grown in their pastures. Those metals, they contended, weakened immune systems in cattle
from their dairy herd, contributing to what some witnesses described as "unprecedented"
mortality with no apparent cause. The city's defense team, which rested its case on Friday after
calling only two of its 10 witnesses, contended the problems were linked to poor management
by the Boyce family and common cow ailments, such as Johne's disease. Jim Ellison, who led
the city's defense in the case, did not say whether the city would appeal the verdict. --From the
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle
JURY: AUGUSTA RESPONSIBLE FOR CATTLE DEATHS Web posted Tuesday, June 24,
2003
By Robert Pavey | Staff Writer Jurors concluded today that the city of Augusta's sewage sludge
was responsible for cattle deaths and property damage at a Burke Conty dairy farm.
But the victory for Boyceland Dairy and members of the Boyce family was bittersweet: jurors
awarded the family only $550,000 - a mere fraction of the $12.5 million in damages sought by
the plaintiffs. "We won the case, but lost the farm," said a tearful Carolyn Boyce, who hugged
her husband, Bill Boyce, and other family members after the verdict was delivered shortly before
noon. Jurors heard two weeks of testimony - mostly from the plaintiffs' witnesses - in the
Superior Court civil trial, then deliberated eight hours Monday without reaching a verdict. After
words of encouragement by Judge Carlisle Overstreet, who warned that failure to decide the
case would require a future retrial, the panel resumed their deliberations at 10 a.m. An hour
later, a note was delivered to the bailiff, who advised that a verdict had been reached. "We've
always known, all along, that we were right," Mr. Boyce said. "We didn't make this up. We know
exactly what happened to the cows." However, he added, the jury's finding for the plaintiffs in
the amount of $550,000 was a disappointment. "We appreciate the jury and all they've done," he
said. "But the farm has been very much damaged. It will be hard to stay in business after all
that's gone on." The Boyces contended that the city's sewage sludge, applied to their land as
free fertilizer in the 1980s and 1990s, contained heavy metals that eventually contaminated feed
grown in their pastures. Those metals, they contended, weakened immune systems in cattle
from their dairy herd, contributing to what some witnesses described as "unprecedented"
mortality with no apparent cause. The city's defense team, which rested its case on Friday after
calling only two of its 10 witnesses, contended the problems were linked to poor management
by the Boyce family and common cow ailments, such as Johne's disease. Jim Ellison, who led
the city's defense in the case, did not say whether the city would appeal the verdict. --From the
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle
posted by Sludge at 4:25 PM
0 comments
Links
Previous Posts
- This Modern World Toxic Sludge is Good For You
- Group protests use of sewage sludge on Boston parks
- Survival of the Feces...
- What's in your sewers?
- Lifting Ban on sludge dangerous, skeptics say
- Burlington Iowa - Sludge not a priority
- New Jersey - critics turn up noses to sludge
- Atlanta asks Judge to overturn sludge finding
- Further details- Coca-Cola sludge
- BBC: Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertilizer
Archives
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- August 2002
- October 2002
- May 2003
- June 2003
- August 2003
- September 2006
