On behalf of our 400+ members, the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River offers these comments on the request by Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC to mine for natural gas in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Shenandoah. The proposed process called hydrofracturing, injects high volumes of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to breakdown the shale rock formations and release natural gas. There is potential for contamination of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, its tributary streams and groundwater with this technology. Contaminated wells have been documented in Pennsylvania and other states near natural gas extraction sites. Due to these concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced plans to study the potential adverse impacts of hydrofracturing on water quality and public health.

The Friends of the North Fork have several concerns with this proposal. Specifically:

• The unknown nature of the chemicals used in the process;
• The lack of understanding of the effects of this technology on the environment and human health;
• Withdrawal of millions of gallons of water from the North Fork drainage, which may affect town and private water sources and fish populations;
• Location of a natural gas drilling operation on the floodplain in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River;
• Proposal to store brine and other contaminated drilling by-products in the floodplain;
• Potential for disposal of those wastes in the floodplain;
• Potential approval not only of an exploratory well, but of a full-blown natural gas production facility with no further opportunities for review.

The Vision statement for Rockingham County calls for the Board to take actions to protect the environment, preserve the historical assets and perpetuate the agricultural heritage of the County and encourage healthy, managed growth to sustain a balanced, vibrant economy. One only has to look at the experience of Sublette County Wyoming to see the serious detrimental effects that natural gas development can have on a small, rural community (attachment).

Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River commend the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors for tabling a decision on whether or not to approve a special use permit submitted by Carrizo LLC for the extraction of natural gas near the community of Bergton.  Gas extraction was cost prohibitive in the past but is currently worth the million dollars it would cost to install and explore the well.  Carrizo intends to extract natural gas using a mining method known as hydrofracturing.  This method is in use in WV, PA and NY and each of these states is experiencing the regulatory, water quality and social challenges of dealing with a fairly new mining technology on the east coast of the US.  Carrizo's permit application is vague and their representative had little detail to offer in answer to pointed questions from the supervisors regarding the safety, water quantity and water quality impacts of exploration and potential permanent rig installation.  Friends looks forward to learning more about this process as the BOS further explores the costs and benefits of this extraction technology.

Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and our 500 members commend the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors for tabling a decision on whether or not to approve a special use permit submitted by Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC, a subsidiary of Carrizo Natural Gas and Oil Inc., for the extraction of natural gas near the community of Bergton.  The eastern flank of Shenandoah Mountain in Rockingham County and north into Shenandoah County is underlain by a geologic formation known as the Marcellus Shale.  This formation is anywhere from 5,000 to 9,000 feet under the surface and contains significant amounts of natural gas.  Extraction of this gas was cost prohibitive in the past but is currently worth the million dollars it would cost to install and explore the well.  Carrizo intends to extract natural gas that may be present using a mining method known as hydrofracturing.  This method of mining is in use in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York and each of these states is experiencing the regulatory, water quality and social challenges of dealing with a mining technology that is fairly new to the east coast of the United States.  The permit submitted to the BOS by Carrizo is vague and their representative had little detail to offer in answer to pointed questions from the supervisors regarding the safety, water quantity and quality impacts of the mining process, and potential impacts to surrounding groundwater and wells from both the chemicals and the pressure used during the exploratory process and potential permanent rig installation.  Friends looks forward to learning more about this process as the BOS further explore the pros and cons of this extraction technology.

Oral comments given a public hearing before the State Water Control Board in Verona VA, April 2011

Subject:  Amendments to Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulations and Amendments to Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulations.

            Chairman Miles, thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight on this most important issue.  My name is Leslie Mitchell-Watson. I am Executive Director of Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and I am a resident of Shenandoah County, Virginia.  My comments tonight are in reference to the revised regulations to allow land application of sewage sludge in the State of Virginia and are made on behalf of the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  We are a community-based volunteer organization representing 450 members dedicated to enhancing and protecting the purity and flow the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and its watershed.

            In 2010, we opposed the issuance of a specific permit to spread sewage sludge in the North Fork watershed.  The permit, which was ultimately approved, allows the application of sludge to fields in karst topography and in the floodplain, immediately adjacent to the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.

            It was our expectation and belief that the proposed regulations issued February 28, 2011, would tighten the permit requirements and thus remove our concerns, and that any previously issued VPDES permits would be rewritten to include the new requirements. 

            However, the revised regulations do not address or alleviate our concerns, which remain (1) the largely unknown content of the sludge, (2) application of sludge to geologically and ecologically vulnerable sites, and (3) insufficient requirements in the regulations to protect the environment or human health.  

        According to the Virginia Department of Health, it is not possible to make a definitive statement about the safety of sludge because we do not  know the actual contents of the sludge and there is a complete lack of knowledge regarding the health effects of some of the contaminants that may be present in the sludge.

            Despite language in the state regulations stating that “biosolids may be required to be tested for certain organic compounds prior to agricultural use”, the draft regulations require analysis for only 9 heavy metals.  We will know nothing about what else is being dumped along the river and potentially entering our drinking water supply.

            Therefore, to ensure the protection of surface and groundwater resources, the regulations must require a more complete chemical characterization of sewage sludge.   At a bare minimum, biosolids monitoring should include aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver (identified by EPA as metals of concern in sewage sludge and/or additional screening parameters identified in VPA regulations). 

            Although the use of sludge may be less risky in some regions of the Commonwealth, the proliferation of karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, solution channels and caves makes areas such as the North Fork watershed too risky for spreading sewage sludge.  Our water is directly affected by what happens on the ground surface, period.

            Application of sludge in many of the fields in the North Fork watershed as well as floodplains across the state poses an unacceptable risk of contamination of streams,  rivers and groundwater, both of which serve as drinking water sources.

            The current state of knowledge is insufficient to ensure that DEQ meets its mission to protect and enhance the environment of Virginia and promote the health and well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth.  Given an incomplete analysis of what is in the specific sewage sludge and the lack of scientific information regarding the fate, transport and environmental effects of many of the chemicals that may be found in sewage sludge, DEQ cannot confidently determine what an adequate setback distance will be to protect water quality, aquatic organisms, endangered species or human health.

            The draft regulations  (Table 2 – Minimum Buffer Requirements) require buffers around sites sensitive to the application of sewage sludge.  However, we recommend doubling buffers for water supply wells or springs, perennial and intermittent streams, surface waters, and agricultural drainage ditches for any time of the year sewage sludge is applied. 

            And we would prefer excluding completely some areas from land application of sewage sludge.  These are flood plains (which are easily identifiable across the State) and karst landscapes characterized by sinkholes, solution channels and caves.  Also, sewage sludge should not be applied to slopes greater than 7 percent.     

            Even when regulations allow it and specific site conditions warrant, DEQ has demonstrated an unwillingness to impose any more than the minimum permit conditions to enhance protection of water resources.   The following revisions to the draft regulations would make spreading sewage sludge less of an impact on the surrounding environment.  

            Soil sample analyses should be required immediately before the application of sewage sludge.  Results from a 3-year old analyses (the current requirement) are likely not to be reflective of actual soil conditions at the time of application. If other fertilizer or soil amendments are applied within the 3-year period, the older soil sample results would be meaningless.

            The permit holder should be required to notify counties of specific delivery dates for any sewage sludge being applied in the county and the specific locations within the county where it will be applied.

            Because many soils in the Chesapeake Bay region contain very high concentrations of phosphorus due to long-term application of manure, chicken litter and commercial fertilizer, Dr. Evanylo recommends applying sludge at rates to meet the phosphorus needs of the crops.  The proposed regulations should be revised to make this a requirement of any permit.

            Virginia State Code Section 62.1-44.19:3.B requires that the State Water Control Board,  “… adopt regulations to ensure that …ii)land application, marketing, and distribution of sewage sludge is performed in a manner that will protect public health and the environment; and iii) the escape, flow or discharge of sewage sludge into state waters, in a manner that would cause pollution of state waters … shall be prevented.”   As was concluded by the Panel of Experts and reinforced by the EPA study on sewage sludge, much additional information is needed to ensure protection of health and the environment.

            Permit Modifications and a public hearing should be required for any additional acreage proposed to be added to a permit.  Allowing an increase of up to 50% in acreage covered by a permit without any public notice or review is excessive and precludes any review necessary to protect the environment.

            Finally, it is important that the landowner understands exactly what is being spread on agricultural lands.  Using the term “biosolids” throughout the draft regulations to replace “sewage sludge” does not accurately describe what is being spread.  It seems an effort to “clean up” what is a potentially toxic material.

            In summary, we object to the revised regulations because they do not address the failure of the existing regulations to protect the environment both for humans and wildlife.   Therefore, we look forward to DEQ publishing revised regulations that protect the environment and human heath from land application of sewage sludge.  

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Leslie D. Mitchell-Watson

Executive Director

Final Written Comments on 2011 Sludge (Biosolids) Regulations - Virginia 

William Norris

P.O. Box 1105

Richmond, VA  23218

Dear Sir:

The following comments on “Amendment of Regulations Pertaining to Biosolids After Transfer from the Virginia Department of Health - Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation (Primary) ; Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation; Fees for Permits and Certificates” are filed on behalf of the 400 member of the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  In the interest of brevity, our comments are specific to proposed changes to VPA Regulations.  Please apply them to comparable sections of VPDES Regulations. 

Although we recognize the need to dispose of treated sewage sludge and that land application may be appropriate under some circumstances, as indicated in our statement at the April 7, 2011 public hearing, we are concerned that the proposed regulations do not adequately protect the environment and natural resources of the Commonwealth. Specifically, the revised regulations do not adequately address (1) the largely unknown content of the sludge, (2) application to geologically vulnerable sites, and (3) insufficient permit requirements to ensure the protection of the environment or human health. 

Contents of the sludge:  Given the largely unknown chemical composition of sewage sludge and the resultant lack of information regarding the fate, transport and effects of these materials, much more stringent regulations are required to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.  According to the Deputy Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health (letter to DEQ dated May 2, 2008), it is not possible to make a definitive statement about the safety of sludge because we do not know the actual contents of the sludge and there is a complete lack of knowledge regarding the health  and environmental effects of some of the contaminants that may be present in the sludge.  The Panel of Experts convened by the Secretaries of Natural Resources and Health and Human Services to study the impact of land application of biosolids also concluded that insufficient information exists to determine the long term effects of these materials on wildlife or water quality (Final Report, January 2009)

What we do know is that sewage treatment plants are not designed to remove many of the chemicals that are currently entering the waste stream.  Emerging contaminants of concern are being found in waterways across the country, including the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  Because these chemicals are not removed in the treatment process, they also end up in the sludge.  In its recent “Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report, January 2009) the U.S. EPA reported finding 145 different chemicals in sewage sludge from 74 sewage treatment plants in 35 states.  In addition to nitrates and phosphorus, almost every sample contained metals, organics and hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, steroids, hormones and flame retardants.  Overall, 27 different metals were detected in virtually every sludge sample analyzed.  Despite language in the state regulations stating that “biosolids may be required to be tested for certain organic compounds prior to agricultural use”, the draft regulations require analysis for only 9 heavy metals (only 1/3 of those EPA found in every sample).   Concluding that this minimal requirement for chemical characterization of sewage sludge applied to agricultural land will be protective of human health and the environment defies logic.  We will know nothing about what else is being dumped along the river and potentially entering our drinking water supplies.

To ensure the protection of surface and groundwater resources, the regulations should require a more complete chemical characterization of sewage sludge.  All biosolids permitted for land application should first be monitored for an expanded list of pollutants that are known to occur in sewage sludge.  At a minimum, 9VAC25-32-356 Pollutant Limits should be revised to require biosolids be analyzed for aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver (identified by EPA as metals of concern in sewage sludge).   Because sludge can come from municipal sources and may affect drinking water sources, analyses of class B biosolids should also include the organic chemicals listed in Table 1 at 9VAC25-32-570.  The rationale given for not requiring more thorough chemical analyses is “primarily… the lack of a scientific basis for the inclusion of additional parameters”.  In the absence of definitive proof to the contrary, DEQ assumes that these materials will be safe. 

Given the weight of circumstantial evidence indicating the prudence of including additional chemical analyses and the total lack of scientific evidence to support the safety of these materials, a more conservative regulatory approach is warranted.   U.S. EPA’s Part 503 specifically allows states to adopt more stringent requirements than those enumerated in the guidance.   The Endocrine Society is concerned that the public may be placed at risk due to the proliferation of new chemical compounds in the environment and their potential to cause adverse effects at very low levels.  Of specific concern to them are endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), and they recommend “Until such time as conclusive scientific evidence exists to either prove or disprove harmful effects of substances, a precautionary approach should be taken in the formulation of  EDC policy” (Postion Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals, June 2009).  Field studies from around the world have demonstrated that very low concentrations of some endocrine disrupting compounds can significantly affect natural populations of aquatic vertebrates.  Work conducted by the U.S.G.S. found a very high rate of intersex in bass from the Potomac and its tributaries, and also quantified EDCs in their blood (Blazer, et al, 2007, Journal of Aquatic Animal Health; Chambers and Leiker, 2006, U.S.G.S. Report 2006-1393).  The U.S. EPA is sufficiently concerned about the potential effects of emerging contaminants that they have undertaken a special review to determine how best to facilitate development of aquatic life criteria for compounds that, among other things,  may cause adverse effects at very low levels (U.S. EPA White Paper “Aquatic Life Criteria for Contaminant of Emerging Concern, Part I, June 2008). It is time for the burden of proof to be shifted to require that biosolids be proven to be safe prior to being land applied throughout the Commonwealth.

Geologically Sensitive Sites:  Given an incomplete analysis of what is in the specific sewage sludge and the lack of scientific information regarding the fate, transport and environmental effects of many of the chemicals that may be found in sewage sludge, DEQ cannot confidently determine what an adequate setback distance will be to protect water quality, aquatic organisms, endangered species or human health.  The buffer zone requirements recommended in 9VAC25-32-560 (Table 2) are different for different types of water bodies (perennial streams, intermittent streams, sinkholes, agricultural drainage ditches).  These different distances seem to be indicative of the uncertainty regarding what is an adequate buffer to protect water sources.  Dr. Greg Evanylo of the Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences at Virginia Tech has cautioned that potentially unsuitable areas for sludge application include: areas bordered by ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams, steep areas with sharp relief, areas of karst geology, rocky, shallow soil, and other environmentally sensitive areas, such as floodplains (Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 452-300).  Given the prevalence of these features in areas of karst geology, the interaction between surface water and groundwater in these areas, the heavy dependence on wells for drinking water in agricultural areas and the lack of chemical-specific information to determine adequate buffers regulations need to err on the side of safety in these environmentally sensitive sites.  Because the adequacy (i.e., protectiveness) of a buffer cannot be established with any certainty, application of sludge in areas of karst geology and  floodplains poses an unacceptable risk of contamination of surface and groundwater, both of which serve as drinking water sources.  9VAC25-32-560 should prohibit land application of biosolids on areas designated as floodplains, on karst landscapes characterized by limestone outcroppings, sinkholes, solution channels, and caves and on slopes greater than 7%.   Barring that, minimum buffers around all environmental features listed in Table 2 should at least equal the 35 foot buffer required by NRCS standards, regardless of the method of application.

Permit Requirements:  Standard permit requirements should be prescriptive enough to ensure protection of human health and the environment in all cases.  Providing DEQ the ability to add conditions on a case-by-case basis to account for situations that may warrant additional scrutiny is not sufficient.  DEQ has demonstrated an unwillingness to address unique situations (such as karst geology).  This is understandable because there is a lot of pushback from applicants to not require anything over and above the bare minimum allowed by the regulations.  Therefore, the regulations must be strengthened to ensure that all applications of sludge are done in as safe a manner as technologically possible.

Section-by-Section comments:

9VAC25-32-10. Definitions:  Biosolids - Regulations should not change terminology from sewage sludge to biosolids   To support transparency and full disclosure to the public, the regulations should call these materials “treated sewage sludge” or “sewage sludge biosolids”.

Local Monitor – Defining local monitors as “employed by a local government” is too restrictive and may preclude some localities from being able to monitor biosolids applications within their jurisdictions.  Regulations should be revised to define a local monitor as “designated by” or “engaged by” a local government.

9VAC25-32-60.  Application for a VPA Permit. Section F.1.c.(7) General information required should include the exact location of sites proposed for application, such that interested individuals can identify specific fields proposed for application.

Section F.2. a. Biosolids characterization -  Biosolids analytical data should be from samples taken within one (1) year of the permit application.  Allowing analyses that may be 4 or more years old is excessive and may not be representative of the materials that will be applied.

Section F.2.d. Land application sites – topographic maps should depict flood plains, which should be used to determine where biosolids can be applied, rather than “frequently flooded areas”.

9VAC25-32-140.B and C. VPA Permit application – Permit Modifications, a public hearing and a public comment period should be required for any additional acreage proposed to be added to a permit.  Allowing an increase of up to 50% in acreage covered by a permit without any public notice or review is excessive and precludes any review necessary to protect the environment.

Section D.2.A minimum of 15 days should be allowed for public comment after any public hearing on a permit.  The Department should not be allowed to shorten the period.

9VAC25-32-315.C.  Additional and more stringent requirements.  For the reasons stated already, this section of the regulations should prohibit land application of biosolids on areas designated as floodplains, on karst landscapes characterized by limestone outcroppings, sinkholes, solution channels, and caves and on slopes greater than 7%.  

9VAC25-32-356. Pollutant limits.  Biosolids should be monitored for an expanded list of pollutants that are known to be present in sewage sludge.  At a minimum, 9VAC25-32-356 Pollutant Limits should  be revised to require biosolids be analyzed for aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver (identified by EPA as metals of concern in sewage sludge).   Because sludge can come from municipal sources and may affect drinking water sources, analyses of class B biosolids should also include the organic chemicals listed in Table 1 at 9VAC25-32-570. 

9VAC32-25-460. Soil monitoring and reporting.  This sections states “Soil shall be sampled and analyzed prior to biosolids application…”, but does not say when soil samples must be taken.  Soil sampling should be required to take place between the last application of fertilizer (in any form, including poultry litter) and the time of application covered by the subject permit.  In no case should samples be taken more than one (1) year prior to the permit application.  Results from a 3-year old analysis (the current requirement) are likely not to be  reflective of actual soil conditions at the time of application. If other fertilizer or soil amendments are applied within the 3-year period, the older soil sample results would be meaningless

9VAC25-32-560.B. Agricultural Use. Section 3.e.(3) Slopes – should be revised to state “Biosolids should not be applied to slopes in excess of 7%”

Section 3.f. Buffer zones.  Because the adequacy (i.e., protectiveness) of a buffer cannot be established with any certainty, application of sludge in areas of karst geology and  floodplains poses an unacceptable risk of contamination of surface and groundwater, both of which serve as drinking water sources.  9VAC25-32-560 should prohibit land application of biosolids on areas designated as floodplains, on karst landscapes characterized by limestone outcroppings, sinkholes, solution channels, and caves and on slopes greater than 7%.   Barring that, minimum buffers around all environmental features listed in Table 2 should at least equal the 35 foot buffer required by NRCS standards, regardless of the method of application.

It is difficult to tell whether these proposed regulations require prior notification to the local government of the exact date of application.  The regulations should explicitly require the permit holder to notify counties of specific delivery dates for any sewage sludge being applied in the county and the specific locations within the county where it will be applied.

9VAC25-32-560 - Because many soils in the Chesapeake Bay region contain very high concentrations of phosphorus due to long-term application of manure, chicken litter and commercial fertilizer, Dr. Evanylo recommends applying sludge at rates to meet the phosphorus needs of the crops (Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 452-300).  If this is not a requirement of the nutrient management plans, the proposed regulations should be revised to make this a requirement of any permit. Virginia is under increasing pressure to reduce its phosphorus contribution to the Chesapeake Bay.  Permitting application of excess phosphorus in the form of sludge is counter to that goal and may necessitate further expenditures by the Commonwealth and our towns to reduce their phosphorus loadings.  

There is no provision in the state constitution that requires the state to provide easy disposal of sewage sludge or that entitles farmers or others to receive free fertilizer.  However, Article XI, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Virginia establishes that it is “the Commonwealth’s policy to protect its atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairment or destruction, …”  Pursuant to that, Virginia State Code Section 62.1-44.19:3.B requires that the State Water Control Board  “… adopt regulations to ensure that …ii)land application, marketing, and distribution of sewage sludge is performed in a manner that will protect public health and the environment; and iii) the escape, flow or discharge of sewage sludge into state waters, in a manner that would cause pollution of state waters … shall be prevented.”   As was concluded by the Panel of Experts and reinforced by the EPA study on sewage sludge, much additional information is needed to ensure protection of health and the environment.   DEQ and the State Water Control Board should use all the flexibility they have available to them under federal and state law to regulate the use of biosolids within the Commonwealth in a manner that actually ensures those protections.

Sincerely,

Leslie D. Mitchell-Watson

Executive Director

Friends of the North Fork Comments Against Approval of Recyc Inc.'s Application to Land-Apply Sewage Sludge in Shenandoah County, VA

Good evening, my name is Leslie Mitchell-Watson and I am Executive Director of Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  Friends of the North Fork is celebrating our 22nd year as a community watershed organization.  Our mission is to enhance and protect the beauty, purity and flow of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  We have more than 500 members throughout the watershed who are concerned about health of the North Fork, and many of them and other concerned citizens are here tonight to show their frustration over the potential further endangerment of our surface and ground water by the spreading of out-of-state biosolids in Shenandoah County and the granting of a permit that does not meet the regulations and statutes for application of sewage sludge in Virginia.

DEQ is considering a request by Recyc Systems, Inc. of Remington, Virginia to apply sewage sludge (biosolids) on more than 600 acres of land in Shenandoah County.  All of this land is either in the floodplain or in areas of karst terrain.  The permit would allow Recyc to haul biosolids from sewage treatment plants in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Richmond, and other cities and deliver them as free fertilizer to farms at Mt. Airy and west of I-81 near Hawkinstown.

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the safety of these materials. The Virginia Department of Health has concluded that because they do not always know what the actual contents of the sludge are and there is a complete lack of knowledge regarding the health effects of some of the contaminants that may be present in the sludge, it is not possible to make a definitive statement about the safety of biosolids.  They recommend that additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids.

As an example of what can occur, two Georgia farmers have received court-ordered settlements for the deaths of over 650 cows and poisoning of almost 2,500 acres of farmland (by very high levels of arsenic and aluminum) as a result of using biosolids on their fields.

The proliferation of karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, solution channels and caves makes this part of the Shenandoah Valley a particularly bad area to use biosolids.  Many of the fields identified in this draft permit are in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Shenandoah or areas that have visible sinkholes and prolific rock outcroppings coupled with slopes in excess of 7 %.  Application of biosolids to these fields poses an unacceptable risk of contamination of the river and groundwater, both of which serve as drinking water sources.

Multitudes of arguments exist for why sewage sludge should not be spread on farmland in environmentally fragile areas but I will confine my arguments to the specific draft permit that is in question tonight and to one specific area of concern.   This area of concern relates directly to a State regulation and statute concerning the spreading of sewage sludge - regulations and statutes that the VA Department of Environmental Quality must uphold as part of their mission to protect and even to improve the environment for the well being of all Virginians.  Because of the following concerns Friends of the North Fork requests that the Water Control Board DENY this draft permit.

Failure to Protect the Environment:

Section 62.1-44.19:3(B) provides that the State Water Control Board, with the assistance of the Dept. of Environmental Quality shall adopt regulations to ensure that land application of sewage sludge (mind you biosolids is never mentioned in the Code) is performed in a manner that will protect …. the environment.  My dictionary defines ensure as "to make sure that something will happen and to protect something or somebody from harm".  Therefore, DEQ at the minimum must take reasonable steps to make certain that human and environmental health is protected where sludge is spread, and downstream for that matter.  Currently, Recyc's permit terms fail to reflect reasonable steps to meet this Code's requirement.

1. There is a Failure to Protect Karst Areas:

As mentioned before all land in this permit is either in the 100 year floodplain or in areas of karst geology.  Ground and surface water contamination is a severe concern in areas of karst as has been discussed throughout the evening.  

The highly sensitive nature of our karst terrain results in an unacceptable risk of contamination to our surface and ground water.   This area of Virginia is much different from the sandy and gavel laden soils of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.  Our water is directly connected to what happens on the ground surface - no questions.  Although the regulations identify sinkholes and other features that are prohibited by the statute, as a practical matter it takes an engineering study to make certain that all sinkholes have been identified.

Further given all the unknowns regarding the behavior in the environment and effects of many of the chemicals that have been found in biosolids, DEQ cannot confidently determine what an adequate setback distance will be to protect water quality, fish and other aquatic organisms or human health, nor can they predict what level of harm will occur. 

2. There is a Failure to Protect Areas that Flood:

The majority of potential spreading areas located along the eastern side of the North Fork in the Mt. Airy area is located in the 100-year flood plain and is in areas classed as experiencing rare flooding.  Well, portions of this property have been underwater twice already in 2010 and I'm sure everyone will remember the times that Mt. Airy land and Route 11, which forms the eastern Board of the Mt. Airy property has been underwater due to flooding (particularly in 1996 with Hurricane Fran).   Regulations only prohibit land applications on areas that frequently flood, but do not establish buffers to ensure that those areas are eliminated.  Thus DEQ argues that it cannot prohibit applications on areas that do not flood frequently or to increase buffers that may be needed to cover the flood areas beyond those set forth in the regulations.  However, unless DEQ can somehow document that the environment is not protected only when flooding occurs frequently, the Virginia Code prohibits applications on all areas that flood.  

Regardless of whether this area floods frequently or infrequently, flooding (and potential contamination from sludge) at any time is a major concern because towns downstream withdraw water for drinking directly from the North Fork.  This is a significant concern as it is not clear to what extent some of the many harmful constituents that may be in sewage sludge can even be removed as part of the normal treatment process.  Therefore, allowing sewage sludge on any area that is subject to flooding at anytime would violate the statute. 

It is difficult to see how DEQ or the State Water Control Board can conclude that approval of this draft permit is protective of public health and the environment.  In the absence of more definitive information regarding the safety of these materials, they should be encouraged to err on the side of safety and not permit the continued use of sewage sludge as fertilizer!

However, if a permit is issued to apply sewage sludge to the proposed fields, the following changes should be made to the final permit to ensure more adequate protection of surface and groundwater resources.    

·      Fields containing sensitive environmental features, such as floodplain, sinkholes, rock outcroppings, should be excluded from the permit.  At a minimum, buffers around sensitive features should be doubled and aligned with current science regarding karst geologic features.

·      Biosolids should not be applied to fields with slopes in excess of 7% (to minimize the risk of runoff and contamination of nearby water bodies).

·      Biosolids should be analyzed for a more complete suite of heavy metals, including aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver, which have been identified as metals of concern in biosolids. 

·      Because these biosolids will come from municipal sources and may affect drinking water sources, analyses should be required for the organic chemicals listed in Table 12 of the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation.

·      To ensure that nutrients and metals are not over applied, soil samples should be taken within 30 days of application, not up to three years before.  This is especially important given the current high levels of phosphorous in these site areas and the history of poultry litter use in this area and the potential for high levels of nutrients and other metals or chemicals to be present in the soil.

·      Entire fields should either be included or excluded from this permit, depending on the suitability of the field as a whole.  Excluding parts of a field will be very confusing and is likely to lead to application of biosolids to areas that need protection.

·      Groundwater monitoring should be required due to the prevalence of karst and dependence on wells for drinking water.

·      More frequent sampling of biosolids should be required as indicated in Table 1 of the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation.

In conclusion, the issue and Friend's opposition to this permit boil down to three significant points:  the unknown content of the biosolids being brought into the County, the geologically vulnerable nature of the sites in questions and inadequate buffer areas, and site locations within the floodplain of the Shenandoah River.

If we're all honest with each other, we can come to the same conclusions as that of the EPA and the former director of the VA Department of Health - the true nature of biosolids and especially their potential impact on aquatic life and human health are unknown  - and this leads to the 2nd and 3rd objections.

Karst and floodplain - these are direct routes of contamination to our ground and surface waters from sludge.  The potential for contamination of our ground and surface waters are great in this particular region of Virginia and it is absurd to truck potentially contaminating materials in our County.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the approval of Recyc's application to spread out-of-state sewage sludge on environmentally sensitive farmland in Shenandoah County.  It is our hope that the Water Control Board will give due consideration to all of the objections raised at this meeting, in past and in future comments.

Submitted by

Leslie Mitchell-Watson

DEQ is considering a request by Recyc Systems, Inc. of Remington, Virginia to apply sewage sludge (biosolids) on 640 acres of land in Shenandoah County.  The permit would allow Recyc to haul biosolids from sewage treatment plants in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Richmond, and other cities and deliver them as free fertilizer to farms at Meems Bottom and west of I-81 near Hawkinstown.

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the safety of these materials  .The Virginia Department of Health has concluded that because they do not always know what the actual contents of the sludge are and there is a complete lack of knowledge regarding the health effects of some of the contaminants that may be present it is not possible to make a definitive statement about the safety of biosolids.  They recommend that additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids.

As an example of what can occur, two Georgia farmers have received court-ordered settlements for the deaths of over 650 cows and poisoning of almost 2,500 acres of farmland (by very high levels of arsenic and aluminum) as a result of using biosolids on their fields.

The proliferation of karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, solution channels and caves makes this part of the Shenandoah Valley a particularly bad area to use biosolids.  Many of the fields identified in this draft permit are in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Shenandoah or areas that have visible sinkholes and prolific rock outcroppings coupled with slopes in excess of 7 %.  Application of biosolids to these fields poses an unacceptable risk of contamination of the river and groundwater, both of which serve as drinking water sources.

RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS:

1. Request that the State deny this permit.    We don’t want to leave a legacy of contaminated water or farm land for our children and grandchildren.

The proximity of these fields to the North Fork, the presence of steep slopes and the highly sensitive nature of our karst terrain result in an unacceptable risk of contamination to our surface and ground water.  Given all the unknowns regarding the behavior in the environment and effects of many of the chemicals that have been found in biosolids, DEQ cannot confidently determine what an adequate setback distance will be to protect water quality, fish and other aquatic organisms or human health, nor can they predict what level of harm will occur.  It is difficult to see how DEQ or the State Water Control Board can conclude that this action is protective of public health and the environment.  In the absence of more definitive information regarding the safety of these materials, they should be encouraged to err on the side of safety and not permit the continued use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.

2. If a permit is issued to apply sewage sludge to the proposed fields, the following changes should be made to the final permit to ensure more adequate protection of surface and groundwater resources.    

·      Fields containing sensitive environmental features, such as floodplain, sinkholes, rock outcroppings, should be excluded from the permit.  At a minimum, buffers around sensitive features should be double.

·           Biosolids should not be applied to fields with slopes in excess of 7% (to minimize the risk      ofrunoff and contamination of nearby waterbodies).

·      Biosolids should be analyzed for a more complete suite of heavy metals, including  aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver,  which have been identified as metals of concern in biosolids. 

·      Because these biosolids will come from municipal sources and may affect drinking water sources, analyses should be required for the organic chemicals listed in Table 12 of the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation.

·      To ensure that nutrients and metals are not over applied, soil samples should be taken within 30 days of application, not up to three years before.  This is especially important given the history of poultry litter use in this area and the potential for high levels of nutrients and other metals or chemicals to be present in the soil.

·      Entire fields should either be included or excluded from this permit, depending on the suitability of the field as a whole.  Excluding parts of a field will be very confusing and is likely to lead to application of biosolids to areas that need protection.

·      Groundwater monitoring should be required due to the prevalence of karst and dependence on wells for drinking water.

·      More frequent sampling of biosolids should be required as indicated in Table 1 of the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation.

March 2010 Biosolids Update - Comments and Request for Public Hearing:

March 24, 2010

These comments on the permit application to allow land application of biosolids in Shenandoah County are being filed on behalf of the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, which is a community-based volunteer organization representing 400 members dedicated to protecting and enhancing the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  The Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River opposes the issuance of this permit and requests a public hearing on this matter to be attended by a member of the State Water Control Board and a member of the Technical Advisory Committee on Biosolids to hear specific comments and concerns regarding this permit. 

The subject permit would allow the application of biosolids to 716 acres of farmland in Shenandoah County.  The proliferation of karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, solution channels and caves makes this part of the Shenandoah Valley a particularly bad area to use biosolids.  Many of the fields identified in this permit application are in areas that have visible sinkholes and prolific rock outcroppings coupled with slopes in excess of 7%.  These karst features allow surface water to rapidly enter groundwater aquifers with none of the natural filtration that occurs when surface water slowly percolates through soil.  Absent this slow percolation and filtration, bacteria and chemicals are much more likely to degrade the river, ground water and domestic water supplies. 

The application of biosolids to the proposed sites is not prudent.  Given the prevalence of karst in this part of the Valley, the proximity to the North Fork of the Shenandoah and its streams and the many unknowns regarding the fate, transport and effects of many of the chemicals that have been found in biosolids, DEQ cannot confidently predict what level of harm will occur, nor can they conclude that this action is protective of public health and the environment.  Many of our comments on earlier drafts of this permit are still germane to this version and appear at the end of this document.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

A.  LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS :  A more complete chemical characterization of biosolids should be required.  Biosolids should be monitored for an expanded list of pollutants that are known to be present in sewage sludge.  Twenty-two (22) heavy metals occurred in each of 84 biosolids samples analyzed by EPA in the most recent Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey. Requiring analysis of only 9 heavy metals does not provide enough information to ensure protection of the environment or human health.  At a minimum, biosolids monitoring should include aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, manganese and silver (identified by EPA as metals of concern in biosolids by EPA and/or additional screening parameters identified in VPA regulations).  Analyses should also be required for the organic chemicals listed in Table 12 of 9VAC25-32-660.

TABLE 1 of the draft permit indicates the frequency of sampling biosolids based on the amount of biosolids produced by each facility.  However, the amounts of biosolids produced are inconsistent with those listed in Table 1 of 9VAC25-32-440 (Bisolids monitoring/reporting).  The lower thresholds in the permit appear to result in less frequent sampling for several of the facilities listed in the permit application.  The more conservative (frequent) sampling regime required by the regulations should be applied to this permit.

TABLE 3.  Given the history of manure and chicken litter use in this area of the Shenandoah Valley, soil sample analyses should be required immediately prior to the application of biosolids.  Three years as the interval for testing is excessive and results from 3-year old analyses are likely to not be reflective of actual soil conditions at the time of application.  In keeping with 9VAC25-32-560, the permit should stipulate that the pH of the biosolids and soil mixture must be 6.0 or greater at the time of each biosolids application if the cadmium concentration in the biosolids is greater than or equal to 21 mg/kg.  This requirement seems to require sampling of each batch of biosolids and the soil at the time of application.

LAND APPLICATIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 

Special condition 1 states that “Biosolids shall be applied only at the sites identified in Attachment A”.  Attachment A lists 23 fields totaling approximately 716 acres to which biosolids may be applied.  Supplemental maps indicate that parts of some fields have been removed from the permit.  This is very confusing and may lead to issues with application to areas that are not intended for biosolids application.  To ensure compliance with the permit and facilitate enforcement, entire fields should either be included or excluded from the permit, depending on the suitability of the field as a whole.  Fields that have karst features, fractured bedrock or rocky, shallow soils, are highly erodible or have slopes greater than 7% should be excluded in their entirety.  At a minimum, to facilitate delivery of the appropriate tonnage of material to each site, the total acreage of permitted area, by farmer, should be recalculated and specifically identified in the permit.  Otherwise, the hauler and applicator may plan for and apply excess tonnage based on the total of all fields, including areas that are supposed to be excluded.  If DEQ persists in permitting application to parts of fields, excluded areas should be clearly marked by flags or other visible means.

Special Condition 6.  Because Shenandoah County has expressed particular concern with this permit, the permit holder should be required to notify them of specific delivery dates for any biosolids being applied in the county and the specific locations within the county where it will be applied.

Special Condition 10 states “Biosolids shall not be applied to the land if it is likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species … or its designated critical habitat”.  Simply stating this as a condition is insufficient to ensure compliance with the requirement or to meet DEQ’s responsibility to ensure that it’s permitted actions do not affect a listed species.  Because habitat of the brook floater ( Alasmidonta varicose), a State-listed endangered species, is known to occur near J. Day fields 1 - 6, DEQ should consult with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to determine whether this permitted activity is likely to affect that species or it’s critical habitat.  If DGIF determines that it is likely to affect the listed species, those fields should be removed from the permit.

Special Condition 11 should be modified to require soil testing more recently than within 3 years.  If other fertilizer or soil amendments are applied within the 3-year period, the older soil sample results would be meaningless.

Special Condition 16 states that biosolids should not be applied to site slopes in excess of 15%.  Given the proximity of many of these fields to surface water, the almost total lack of understanding of what is in these materials, the history of fish kills and contamination of the North Fork of the Shenandoah, applications should not be allowed on slopes greater than 7%.  Given the environmentally sensitive nature of the areas covered by the permit,  application to slopes greater than 7% with the minimum buffers allowed is not sufficiently protective of water quality.

Special Condition 17 establishes the minimum buffers established by regulation.   The regulations allow buffer requirements to be increased based on site-specific features.  The fields covered by this permit are in an area of heavy prevalence of karst, sink holes, rock outcroppings, shallow soils on fractured or limestone bedrock, slopes greater than 7% and surface water.  Due to these features, buffers around water supplies, streams and other surface waters, rock outcrops and sinkholes, and agricultural drainage ditches should all be doubled for applications during any time of the year.

Special Condition 29 states that “Biosolids shall not be land applied to soils where the water table is less than 18 inches.”  Instead of stating this as a special condition, the permit should exclude any fields that fit this criterion, in part or in whole.  A review of the USDA Soil Survey indicates that some of the Gochenour (2 and 5) and Day (9) fields violate this condition and should be excluded from the permit.

Special Condition 30 states “Biosolids shall not be land applied to soils where the depth to  bedrock is less than 18 inches.”  Instead of stating this as a special condition, the permit should exclude any fields that fit this criterion, in part or in whole.  A review of the USDA Soil Survey indicates that one of the Gochenour fields (4) violates this condition and should be excluded from the permit.

STORAGE SPECIAL CONDITIONS

3.c. allows for 30 days temporary storage.  This seems excessive and should be reduced to 14 days. 

3.f. should be revised to state that “best management practices shall be utilized”.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS

2. Allows a point source discharge of pollutants to surface waters in the case of a storm event greater than that 25-year, 24-hour storm.  It is inappropriate to permit a point source discharge of biosolids from agricultural fields.

GROUNDWATER MONITORING:  The draft permit does not address groundwater monitoring.  Because of the prevalence of karst and the interaction between surface water and groundwater in the areas covered by this permit and the fact that most residents in proximity to these fields depend on wells for drinking water, groundwater monitoring should be required as allowed by  9VAC25-32-480.

Attachment A.  Listing of Land Application Sites -  Although entire fields are listed here, supplemental maps indicate that some areas have been excluded from the permit.  This is confusing and should be clarified.  Fields with sensitive features should be excluded in their entirety.  Some of the fields are in extremely close proximity to the North Fork of the Shenandoah or streams that flow into the North Fork.  To ensure protection of surface and groundwater, soil incorporation should be required and streamside buffers should be doubled for applications at any time of the year.  If fields with sensitive features are not excluded, buffers around sensitive features should also be doubled to protect surface and groundwater.

A large portion of the Day acreage is immediately adjacent to and in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Shenandoah.  Fields in the floodplain have been underwater at least twice already during this winter and spring (see attached photographs).  There is a wet area on the border of fields 2 and 5 that drains toward the North Fork and should be excluded.  There is also a pond in field 6, which should be excluded.  Fields 9, 10 and 11 drain into steep slopes and into the North Fork.  Application of biosolids to all Day fields poses sufficient risk to groundwater and surface water to warrant increased buffers and mandatory soil incorporation.  Habitat of the brook floater (Alasmidona varicose), a state-listed species, may occur near several of the Day fields.  DEQ should consult with DGIF to ensure protection of that habitat.

All of the Gochenour fields) are noted to be environmentally sensitive due to a combination of conditions, including:  presence of sink holes, slopes greater than 7% (and in some cases greater than 15%), shallow soils on fractured or limestone bedrock, and potential for leaching based on texture or excessive drainage.  The USDA Soil Survey map indicates that a large part of the fields identified as Gochenour numbers 2 and 5 are comprised of Blairton silt loam, which characteristically has a water table less than 18 inches and field 4 has Rock outcrop, which is less than 18 inches to bedrock.  Virginia Pollution Abatement Regulations specifically state that depth to bedrock should be a minimum of 18” and depth of seasonal water table should exceed 18”.  Otherwise, soil borings should be utilized to ensure compliance with the 18’ water table depth restriction.  Gochenour – fields 2 and 5 should be excluded in their entirety due to insufficient depth to bedrock and risk of contamination of groundwater.  Field 4 should be excluded entirely due to rock outcroppings and risk of contamination of groundwater.

The Eastep fields all have slopes in excess of 7%, with rock outcrops, most are classified as highly erodible and some appear to be in an area where sinkholes are common.  About half of the total acreage appears to have limestone outcroppings and should be excluded.  Fields 1 and 3 should be excluded in their entirety.  The eastern edge of fields 4, 5. 6 and 7 drain to an area that flows directly into the North Fork.  Soil incorporation of biosolids and doubling of  buffers should be required on these tracts

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Although land application of treated sewage sludge is legal in Virginia, because the regulations governing such use are based on out-of-date or insufficient information, they are not adequate to protect the environment or human health.  Due to the uncertainty surrounding the effects of land application of sewage sludge to the environment and human health, in 2007 the Virginia General Assembly instructed the Virginia Departments of Health and Natural Resources to convene a Panel of Experts to study the impact of land application of biosolids on human health and the environment.   In its final report, the Panel stated that except for nutrients and metals, very little is known about the other chemicals in biosolids.  There is very little research on the transport mechanisms for many of these chemicals and how they might affect water quality.  The Panel concluded that because so much is unknown about the effects of biosolids on water quality they were unable to reach a conclusion.  The report recommends the need for additional research regarding 1) the additive or synergistic effects within the complex mixture of biosolids, 2) effects of antibiotics, hormones, flame retardants, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, and other organic compounds, 3) what buffers are adequate to protect water bodies, and 4) long-term environmental effects.   The Panel also recommended that a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) should examine DEQ regulations regarding identification of environmentally sensitive sites and that particular attention should be paid to applications on slopes greater than 7%, karst topography and soils with high runoff potential.  Finally, the Panel recommended the review and analysis of the most recent literature on the effects of biosolids on health and the environment to facilitate more informed decision-making by DEQ. 

Biosolids have been treated to reduce (but not eliminate) the levels of disease-causing organisms and odor.   However, under federal and state regulations, they are allowed to contain heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and numerous other potentially harmful chemicals at certain levels.  Today’s sewage treatment plants are not designed to remove many of the chemicals that are currently entering the wastestream.  As a result, many industrial and household products including hormones and other drugs, personal care products, PCBs and other organic chemicals are being found in waterways across the country (including the North Fork of the Shenandoah River).  Because these chemicals are not removed in the treatment process, they also end up in the sludge that is used as fertilizer. 

In it’s recently released “Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report” (Jan. 2009), the U.S. EPA reports on the presence of 145 different chemicals in sewage sludge samples from 74 sewage treatment plants in 35 states.  In addition to nitrates and phosphorus, almost every sample collected in 2006 and 2007 contained metals, organics and hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, steroids and hormones and flame retardants.  Overall, 28 different metals were detected (27 of them were present in every sludge sample analyzed), 57 different pharmaceuticals (3 were present in every sample), 25 steriods and hormones (9 of which were found in 95% of samples), 6 organics and hydrocarbons and 4 flame retardants.  While not much is known about the environmental effects of many of these chemicals, it is well documented that prolonged exposure to metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead can cause serious health problems in animals and humans.

 Because insufficient information exists to assess the effects of some of these chemicals, there are no regulatory controls on the levels of these chemicals that can be present in biosolids used as fertilizer.   Even less information is available regarding the effects of any number of potential combinations of these chemicals in the environment.

Virginia State Code Section 62.1-44.19:3.B requires that the State Water Control Board,  “… adopt regulations to ensure that …ii)land application, marketing, and distribution of sewage sludge is performed in a manner that will protect public health and the environment; and iii) the escape, flow or discharge of sewage sludge into state waters, in a manner that would cause pollution of state waters … shall be prevented.”   As was concluded by the Panel of Experts and reinforced by the EPA study on sewage sludge, much additional information is needed to ensure protection of health and the environment.

The current state of knowledge is insufficient to ensure that DEQ meets its mission to protect and enhance the environment of Virginia and promote the health and well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth.  Given an incomplete analysis of what is in the specific biosolids and the lack of scientific information regarding the fate, transport and environmental effects of many of the chemicals that may be found in sewage sludge, DEQ cannot confidently determine what an adequate setback distance will be to protect water quality, aquatic organisms, endangered species or human health.  In a letter to DEQ on May 2, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health made the following statements regarding land application of biosolids:

            “…it is not possible to make a definitive statement about the safety of biosolids.”

            “additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids.”

            “Long term health effects are challenging to study and quantify due to a variety of issues.  Further difficulty includes not always having knowledge of the actual contents of the sludge and a complete lack of knowledge regarding health effects for some of the contaminants that may be present and the difficult issue of the toxicology of mixtures of compounds.” (emphasis added).  Given the lack of environmental and human health effects information that currently exists for this kind of material, existing water quality problems in the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and the prevalence of steep slopes and karst topography in the areas covered by this permit application, the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River recommends that this permit not be issued.  If the permit is issued, special conditions should be amended to address the issues described above.  DEQ should suspend granting permits for land application of biosolids until such time as adequate information is obtained to thoroughly assess the potential for effects on water quality and human health and the state review of DEQ regulations pertaining to the land application of biosolids is completed. 

We further request that DEQ convene a public hearing on this permit application and request the attendance of a member of the State Water Control Board and the Technical Advisory Committee on Biosolids.  Such hearing should be held in Shenandoah County.

Thank you for consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Ron Falyar,

President, Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River

December 2009 UPDATE:

Currently, we are waiting for the publication of a draft permit by the VA Dept. of Envinronmental Quality (DEQ) based upon Recyc Systems' application to DEQ in November.  Once this draft permit is published, we will have 30 days to comment on the most recent permit and TO REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING so that Friends and others can air our concerns in front of DEQ and  a member of the State Water Control Board. 

Please stay tuned for alerts from Friends regarding HOW YOU CAN HELP!

Below are the November alert fo comments (comment period is over) and our concerns related to Recyc Systems Inc.'s latest permit application for your reference. 

November 2, 2009 - alert

Dear Friends;

The potential for spreading biosolids from sources of industrial sewage and sewage treatment facilities from outside of Shenandoah County AND the Commonwealth of Virginia has risen again. Recyc Systems Inc. of Fredericksburg, VA withdrew their initial permit request in March of this year due to pressure from the public and lack of interest from the farming community. Recyc Systems has now re-submitted a permit request to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the permitting process has begun again. We need you to submit comments AGAIN in order to gain a public hearing in which a member of the State Water Control Board will be present to hear our concerns.

The issues we are confronting are the same, however some landowners have withdrawn their land and one landowner has been added. We continue to have great concerns related to the the environmentally sensitive areas still included in the permit - areas of floodplain, karst geological features including rock outcrops, sinkholes and shallow soils, and the foreign nature of the materials originating from out of state and from large sewage and industrial waste treatment facilities in Washington D.C., Philadelphia, etc.

Recyc Systems, Inc. is applying for a permit to authorize land application of biosolids to 23 fields, totaling 716.5 acres of agricultural land. Seven of the fields are owned by Wilson G. Eastep and are located near the intersection of Rt. 796 and Rt. 11; eleven fields are owned by Jonathon E. Day and are located near the intersection of Rt.11 and Rt. 720 (Meems Bottom); five fields are owned by Lewis F. Gochenour and are located near the intersection of Rt. 11 and Rt. 661.

Please take the time to comment on this revised permit with your own personal concerns and by using the information to the right in the blue box.

COMMENT PERIOD IS OVER BUT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY SOON!

Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
P O Box 746
Woodstock VA 22664
540-459-8550
friends@shentel.net
leslie.watson@fnfsr.org

Friends' concerns regarding the spread of out of state biosolids on Shenandoah County agricultural land:

• Much of the land to which the biosolids would be applied is in extremely close proximity to, or in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Shenandoah or streams that flow into the North Fork;

• Much of the application area identified in the permit is noted to be environmentally sensitive due to a combination of conditions, including: presence of sink holes, slopes greater than 15%, shallow soils on fractured or limestone bedrock, and potential for leaching based on texture or excessive drainage;

• The current state of knowledge regarding the movement and effects of biosolids (including the affects of combination of products including heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury as well as many industrial and household products like hormones and other drugs, personal care products, PCBs and other organic chemicals that are not removed during the sewage treatment process) in the environment is insufficient to ensure that DEQ can approve this permit and still meet its mission to protect and enhance the environment of Virginia and promote the health and well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

More information about biosolids can be found at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality website:

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/vpa/sewage.html

• To protect our drinking water: The majority of Shenandoah Valley residents obtain their drinking water from surface waters.
• To protect fishing, recreation and tourism: The hot, dirty water that comes off parking lots, roads, and roofs after a rainstorm damages good fishing and our streams. 
• To save our water supply: Improved stormwater management helps recharge groundwater by letting the rain soak into the ground while heavy run-off from developed areas makes periods of flooding more intensive and damaging.
• Please support the proposed stormwater regulations now because:      
• Runoff from poorly designed development contaminates drinking water sources and adds to the cost of providing clean drinking water. The karst topography in the Shenandoah Valley leaves our water resources particularly vulnerable to contamination.    
• Most of the rivers and streams in the Northern Shenandoah Valley are already impaired.  If run-off caused by land development is not reduced now, pollution will continue to harm our water quality and fishery resources.  
• While pollution from municipal waste water treatment plants and agriculture have been reduced considerably, pollution from stormwater run-off is rising at an alarming rate.
• More needs to be done to prevent increased pollution from stormwater run-off. While local residents are paying higher fees to construct new sewage treatment plants, run-off pollution from developed land is increasing. The proposed regulations require developers to join the agricultural community, industry and local governments in taking additional steps to reduce pollution in our streams and rivers.

1. Strengthening of the stormwater regulations to improve water quality in Virginia.
2. Adoption of the proposed development design criteria limiting runoff from developed and developing land to 0.28 pounds of phosphorus per acre.
3. Regulations that support smart growth development strategies and do not provide disincentives for redeveloping previously developed land or high-density projects in more urban areas.
Click here or type in http://www.townhall.state.va.us/L/comments.cfm?stageid=5070 in your browser to submit your personal concerns about protecting water quality in Virginia

 Why do we need regulation? 

1. We need healthy drinking water: The majority of Shenandoah Valley residents obtain their drinking water from surface waters.
2. To protect fishing, recreation and tourism: The flash of hot, dirty water that comes off parking lots, roads, and roofs after a rainstorm decimates good fishing streams.
3. To save our water supply: Improved stormwater management helps recharge groundwater by letting the rain soak into the ground while heavy run-off from developed areas makes periods of flooding more intensive and damaging.

"Comments regarding Biosolids permitting in Shenandoah County"

DEQ Proposal to Relax Water Quality Standards

1. All of the weekly average limits in this portion of the permit should be daily average limits. If the facility only has to meet a weekly limit, very high hourly and daily levels that damage the river may be allowed.
2. Monitoring for BOD, CBOD, Suspended Solids and Ammonia should occur daily. This plant should not be allowed to operate without sampling on the weekends and that is the situation that is being created by the draft conditions.
3. Limits on BOD/CBOD should be the tightest limits possible and should be applied year round. While the permit package does not explain why the limit for half the year is BOD and the remainder is CBOD, the limit should be the more stringent of the two. It appears from the permit that a monthly BOD limit of 15 and a daily limit of 22 should apply year round.
4. The lowest ammonia limit achievable also should apply year round. At a minimum the limits specified for Jun-Dec should also apply in the January to May period. Ammonia contributes to algae blooms and bacteria grow and may contribute to fish health problems. In that context the lowest possible limit should be imposed year round.
5. TRC sampling and analysis should be conducted three times a day, every day of the year. Chlorine levels are the only assurance of bacteria control and this river already suffers from high bacteria levels.
6. The 85% control requirement in footnote g should be made practically enforceable with testing and reporting requirements at least monthly.