DOCSLIB.ORG

Options for Biosolids Management California Research Bureau

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Options for Biosolids Management California Research Bureau Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 8-2007 A Brief on Biosolids: Options for Biosolids Management California Research Bureau Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation California Research Bureau, "A Brief on Biosolids: Options for Biosolids Management" (2007). California Agencies. Paper 308. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/308 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Brief on Biosolids Options for Biosolids Management CALIFORNIA By Rosa Maria Moller, Ph.D. STATE LIBRARY FOUNDED 1850 California Research Bureau 900 N Street, Suite 300 Prepared at the Request of P.O. Box 942837 Former Senator Richard Alarcon Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 (916) 653-7843 phone (916) 654-5829 fax STATE DEPOS\TORY LAW UBRARY OC1 2 t 2007 GO L~ EN GATE UNNERS\TY August2007 NON-CIRCULATING CRB07-007 KFC 610 .AS I F 0 R N I A R E E A R C H B R E A U M65 2007 A Brief on Biosolids Options for Biosolids Management By Rosa Maria Moller, Ph.D. ISBN 1-58703-224-4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank Mr. Ronald Lew of the California Integrated Waste Management Board for reviewing this paper, and Mrs. Kim Johnston-Dodds, Policy Analyst of the California Research Bureau for her thorough review of this paper and valuable advice. The author would like to express her appreciation to the following persons who also committed valuable time and/or gave valuable advice for the development of this paper: the Director of the California Research Bureau, Mr. Dean Misczynski, his Assistant Mr. Chris Marxen, and Dr. Ken Umbach, Policy Consultant. Thank you also to Patricia Kinnard and Katie Sarber for their assistance in the publication of this report. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........•................................................................................... ! INTRODUCTION .....................................................•.....................................................•. 5 SECTION 1. BIOSOLIDS PRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 I. DEFINITION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 II. BIOSOLIDS PRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 III. CLASSIFICATION OF BIOSOLIDS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 IV. AMOUNT OF BIOSOLIDS PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 SECTION 2. BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 15 I. LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 I. Biosolids Application in Agricultural Land. ......................................................... I6 2. Compostingfor Agricultural, Horticultural and Land Reclamation .................... Il 3. Controversial Issues Associated with the Land Application ofBiosolids ............ I9 a. Public Concerns about Public Health Effects from Biosolids Use ................... 19 b. Health Risks Due to Biosolids High Trace Metals Content ............................. 20 c. Health Risks Due to Biosolids High Nitrogen Content .................................... 20 d. Health Risks Due to Biosolids Synthetic Organic Compounds Content.. ........ 21 e. Health Risks Due to Biosolids Pathogens Content.. ......................................... 23 f. Health Risks from Potential Radioactive Materials Contained in Biosolids ..... 25 g. Public Concerns about the Ability of Regulators to Protect the Public ............ 26 1) Concerns about How the Standards of Protection Are Determined ............. 26 2) Concerns about Implementation and Enforcement ...................................... 26 3) Regulators' Position ..................................................................................... 27 h. Other Concerns Related to the Land Use ofBiosolids ..................................... 28 1) Effects on Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................... 28 2) Deterioration ofthe Quality of Life in the Communities Where Biosolids Are Used ............................................................................................................ 28 3) Decrease in Farm Land Values .................................................................... 28 II. BIOSOLIDS EXPORTED TO OTHER STATES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29 III. STORAGE OF BIOSOLIDS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30 IV. TRANSFERS TO LANDFILLS AND DISPOSAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ••••••••••••••• 30 I. Final Surface Disposal ......................................................................................... 3 0 2. Landfill Disposa/. .................................................................................................. 30 3. Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) ............................................................................ 3I v. INCINERATION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31 VI. INNOVATIVE USES OF BIOSOLIDS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 32 I. As a Fertilizer ofEnergy-Dedicated Crops .......................................................... 32 2. In Cement Industries ............................................................................................. 32 3. In Construction Materials ..................................................................................... 32 a. For Bricks .......................................................................................................... 32 California State Library, California Research Bureau b. For Glass and Other Materials .......................................................................... 33 c. As a Source of Energy ...................................................................................... 33 SECTION 3. USE OF BIOSOLIDS AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY ..........................35 I. THE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PROCESS ....................................................................35 II. THERMAL DRYING •....••••••..••••.••....••••....••••..•.....•••......•••••.....•••••.....•.•••.......••......•••.. 37 III. PYROLYSIS ............•.................•.•.....................................•...................................... 38 1. Low-Temperature Pyrolysis .................................................................................. 39 2. Mid-Temperature Pyrolysis .................................................................................. 40 3. High-Temperature Pyrolysis................................................................................. 41 IV. SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION (SCWO) ....................................................42 v. GASIFICATION ...............................................................•......•................................... 44 VI. DEEP WELL INJECTION AND ENERGY RECOVERY ...............................................45 VII. VITRIFICATION •.•••.....••••..••..••••....•••••....•••.•....••.•......•••.•......••.••......•..•.....•••••....••••• 46 VIII. USE OF BIOSOLIDS AS FEEDSTOCK TO PRODUCE ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL ... 47 1. Ethanol .................................................................................................................. 47 a. Hydrolysis Processes ........................................................................................ 47 b. Gasification Process .......................................................................................... 48 2. Biodiesel. ............................................................................................................... 51 IX. REMARKS ON THE EFFECTS OF BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ON GLOBAL W ARMING •••••••......•••••...•..••......•••••...•.•.•.......••.......•••.•.....•••.•.•..•••••...•..••.•......•..•.....••••.... 51 X. PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR BIOSOLIDS ENERGY CONVERSION ..... 54 1. Federal Policies Supporting the Conversion ofBiosolids to Alternative Fuels ... 54 a. The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 .................................... 54 b. Executive Order 13134 ..................................................................................... 55 c. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) ...................................... 55 d. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ........................................................................ 56 e. American Jobs Creation Act of2004 ................................................................ 57 2. State Policies Supporting the Use ofBiosolids as a Source ofEnergy ................ 58 a. Renewable Portfolio Standard .......................................................................... 58 b. The Renewable Energy Program ...................................................................... 58 1) Existing Renewable Facilities Program (ERFP) .......................................... 59 2) New Renewables Facilities Program ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cost Analysis of the Impacts on Municipal Utilities and Biosolids Management to Address PFAS Contamination
    Cost Analysis of the Impacts on Municipal Utilities and Biosolids Management to Address PFAS Contamination October 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary Section 1 Background 1.1 Biosolids ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2 Data on Actual Costs to Wastewater and Biosolids Management Programs from PFAS 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 NEBRA Survey ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Expanded Utility Survey ................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Results .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation for the Reuse of Biosolids on Agricultural Land in Europe: Overview
    sustainability Review Legislation for the Reuse of Biosolids on Agricultural Land in Europe: Overview Maria Cristina Collivignarelli 1 , Alessandro Abbà 2, Andrea Frattarola 1, Marco Carnevale Miino 1 , Sergio Padovani 3, Ioannis Katsoyiannis 4,* and Vincenzo Torretta 5 1 Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Pavia, via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy; [email protected] (M.C.C.); [email protected] (A.F.); [email protected] (M.C.M.) 2 Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy; [email protected] 3 ARPA Lombardia, Pavia Department, via Nino Bixio 13, 27100 Pavia, Italy; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Technology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece 5 Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, University of Insubria, via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 September 2019; Accepted: 25 October 2019; Published: 29 October 2019 Abstract: The issues concerning the management of sewage sludge produced in wastewater treatment plants are becoming more important in Europe due to: (i) the modification of sludge quality (biological and chemical sludge are often mixed with negative impacts on sludge management, especially for land application); (ii) the evolution of legislation (landfill disposal is banned in many European countries); and (iii) the technologies for energy and material recovery from sludge not being fully applied in all European Member States. Furthermore, Directive 2018/851/EC introduced the waste hierarchy that involved a new strategy with the prevention in waste production and the minimization of landfill disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Revegetation of Mine Tailings Throughthe Use of Biosolid Amendment1
    REVEGETATION OF MINE TAILINGS THROUGHTHE USE OF BIOSOLID AMENDMENT1 I.L. Pepper2, S.A. Bengson, P.R. Rao, and K.L. Josephson Abstract. Mine tailings represent the end product of mineral ores that are processed to extract specific metals such as copper. Tailings are in essence crushed rock with 0% organic matter, and can be layered to depths of 30B36m. We evaluated revegetation of mine tailings through the one time application of municipal biosolids. Specifically a 2 hectare copper mine-tailing plot near the Mission Mine in Southern Arizona was designated for this study. Approximately 220 dry tons per hectare of biosolids was added and incorporated in December 1998. The potential for successful revegetation was evaluated by monitoring soil microbial populations, which quickly become established at •107 heterotrophic bacteria per gram of biosolid amended mine tailings. By September 2001 vegetative cover had increased from zero to 77%. Initially bermudagrass and Russian Thistle were the predominant species involved. More recently Buffalo grass and Lehmans Lovegrass have become more prominent. Monitoring of soil metal concentrations as a function of depth showed that the tailings were the major source of metals, not the biosolids. There was no evidence that metals were leaching under the low rainfall, non-irrigated conditions. Plant tissue metal concentrations showed that phytoremediation could remove metals from the surface depths of tailings. Soil nitrate concentrations varied seasonally and with tailing depth. Nitrogen transformations included ammonification, nitrification and denitrification, which allowed nitrogen to be removed from tailings. Leaching of nitrate appeared to be minimal. Overall biosolid amendment of mine tailings appeared to be a successful technological approach to enhance revegetation of the mine tailings.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report
    s 2019 ANNUAL WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING REPORT i Submitted to Seattle City Council (SCC) October 2020 [Page deliberately left blank] ii CONTENTS GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Results................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Seattle’s Recycling Rate Goals ................................................................................................................................... 3 Moving Upstream ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Daily) Cover Material Requirements. FROM
    April 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Clarification of 40 CFR 258.21, (Daily) Cover Material Requirements. FROM: Robert Springer, Director /s/ Office of Solid Waste TO: Jeff Scott, Director Waste Management Division USEPA Region IX You recently raised some questions about the daily cover material requirements at municipal landfills which operate on a continuous basis, specifically, regarding landfills that do not shut down at the end of each day. The federal regulations at 40 CFR '258.21 require that the owner/operator place daily cover on the disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at more frequent intervals if necessary. We received extensive comments on the proposed frequency for the daily cover requirement. Many rural communities argued for a weekly cover requirement. Others suggested that we design the daily cover requirements based on the length of time the waste is exposed (e.g., 6 to 24 hours). In the final rule, we retained the proposed language regarding cover placement at the end of each operating day. [The final rule can be found at 56 Fed. Reg. 50978, 51050-51 (Oct. 9, 1991) and the later clarification at 62 Fed. Reg. 40709-10 (July 29, 1997).] You have mentioned an issue where large commercial landfills operate continuously over a number of days. These large commercial landfills argue that they operate “around the clock” and therefore their “operating day” is something beyond a 24-hour period. It is our view, however, that the Federal regulations at 40 CFR '258.21 did not contemplate an “operating day” longer than 24 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Alternative Daily Cover Welcome
    Blue Ridge Services Understanding ADC: The Science of Alternative Daily Cover Presented: July 31, 2012 1(c) 2012 Neal Bolton Welcome • Sarah is our organizer • We’ll do Q&A during the webinar …and at the end ©2012 Neal Bolton 2 Alternative Daily Cover www.blueridgeservices.com 1 Blue Ridge Services Presented by: Neal Bolton, P.E. Neal is a Civil Engineer with over 34 years experience in landfills and heavy construction, including several years as a heavy equipment operator. He has conducted hundreds of evaluations on the process of using Alternative Daily Cover at landfills across the U.S. and abroad. He has provided training on this topic for the EIA, SWANA, CalRecycle, KDHE, and several thousand public/private landfill operators and managers. Contact Neal at: [email protected] ©2012 Neal Bolton 3 Alternative Daily Cover Today • We’ll be §258.21 Cover material requirements. talking Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the owners or operators of all MSWLF units must about cover disposed solid waste with six inches of earthen Alternatives material at the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control disease to Daily vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Cover Soil Alternative materials of an alternative thickness (other than at least six inches of earthen material) may be approved by the Director of an approved State if the owner or operator demonstrates that the • You alternative material and thickness control disease Know…ADC vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging without presenting a threat to human health and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee
    Date: November 28, 2017 To: Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (SWAAC) From: Tim Collier, Chair – Solid Waste Fee and Tax Exemption Policy Evaluation Subcommittee Subject: Subcommittee Fee and Tax Policy Recommendations This memorandum outlines the recommendations of the Solid Waste Fee and Tax Exemption Policy Evaluation Subcommittee (the “subcommittee”) that was tasked with evaluating Metro’s current solid waste fee and tax exemption policies and making recommendations on whether Metro should consider any changes to those policies. These recommendations were developed after discussions at five subcommittee meetings as detailed in the meeting summary documents provided as Attachments A through E. Subcommittee Purpose The purpose of the subcommittee was to determine if Metro’s current solid waste fee and tax exemption policies are achieving the public benefits, goals, and objectives of the solid waste system. Subcommittee Membership On March 8, 2017, the Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (SWAAC) appointed the subcommittee consisting of 13 members representing industry, government, advocacy groups, and the general public. The subcommittee included the following members: • Tim Collier, Chair (non-voting) – Metro • Terrell Garrett - Greenway Recycling • Mark Hope – Tire Disposal and Recycling • Reba Crocker – City of Milwaukie • Dave Claugus – Pioneer Recycling Services • Vern Brown – Environmentally Conscious Recycling • Matt Cusma – Schnitzer Steel • Audrey O’Brien – DEQ • Bill Carr – Waste Management • Janice Thompson
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management
    10 Waste Management Coordinating Lead Authors: Jean Bogner (USA) Lead Authors: Mohammed Abdelrafie Ahmed (Sudan), Cristobal Diaz (Cuba), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Qingxian Gao (China), Seiji Hashimoto (Japan), Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Tianzhu Zhang (China) Contributing Authors: Luis Diaz (USA), Peter Kjeldsen (Denmark), Suvi Monni (Finland) Review Editors: Robert Gregory (UK), R.T.M. Sutamihardja (Indonesia) This chapter should be cited as: Bogner, J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang, Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Waste Management Chapter 10 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................. 587 10.5 Policies and measures: waste management and climate ....................................................... 607 10.1 Introduction .................................................... 588 10.5.1 Reducing landfill CH4 emissions .......................607 10.2 Status of the waste management sector ..... 591 10.5.2 Incineration and other thermal processes for waste-to-energy ...............................................608 10.2.1 Waste generation ............................................591 10.5.3 Waste minimization, re-use and
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Compost Use As an Alternative Daily Coverin Sukawinatan Landfill Palembang
    International Journal of GEOMATE, Nov., 2018 Vol.15, Issue 51, pp.47-52 Geotec., Const. Mat. & Env., DOI: https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.51.50249 ISSN: 2186-2982 (Print), 2186-2990 (Online), Japan STUDY OF COMPOST USE AS AN ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVERIN SUKAWINATAN LANDFILL PALEMBANG Yudi Hermawansyah1, *Febrian Hadinata1, Ratna Dewi1 and Hanafiah1 1Faculty of Engineering, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia *Corresponding Author, Received: 14 March 2018, Revised: 11 April 2018, Accepted: 8 May 2018 ABSTRACT:The Sukawinatan landfill has been operating with an open dumping for twenty-four years. To extend the operation of the landfill, the landfill mining concept is examined, using compost in the old landfill area as an Alternative Daily Cover. A series of tests on control parameters was performed to determine the suitability of compost as an alternative material. The tests were carried out include: grain size distribution, permeability, Standard Proctor compaction test, plasticity index, pH, temperature, BOD, COD and heavy metal content. The compost sample was taken randomly at two points within the old landfill zone. The sample was filtered through sieve No.04 to remove inert waste and the granules were more than 4.75 mm in diameter. There were five sample variants of compost tested. The soil was taken from one of the locations in Palembang city and identified as organic clays of medium to high plasticity (OH). Based on the results of the test, the compost in Sukawinatan landfill met the requirements in the aspects ofliquid limit, plasticity index, clay fraction, bulk density, permeability, pH dan temperature.The results also showed that the heavy metal content (Pb and Cd) of the compost exceeded the requirements as an organic fertilizer, so if there is landfill mining activity in this landfill, the compost produced is only suitable as an Alternative Daily Cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosolids Management in New York State
    Biosolids Management in New York State MARCH 2018 DIVISION OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT | 625 BROADWAY, ALBANY, NY 12233-7253 Preface This report is an update to the Division of Materials Management 2011 edition of “Biosolids Management in New York State.” It provides the most current information available concerning biosolids management practices in New York State. Biosolids was previously called sewage sludge. 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations define biosolids as: the accumulated semi-solids or solids resulting from treatment of wastewaters from publicly or privately owned or operated sewage treatment plants. Biosolids does not include grit or screenings, or ash generated from the incineration of biosolids. We would like to thank all chief operators and managers of the wastewater treatment facilities in New York State that responded to our survey questionnaires. The report could not be completed as comprehensively without their assistance. Any comments, questions, or requests for specific data regarding this report may be sent to Molly Baker at [email protected]. Table of Contents Findings Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Biosolids Management Survey ...................................................................................................................... 3 Sources of Information ............................................................................................................................. 3 Biosolids
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Pretreatment Methods to Enhance Solids Reduction During
    applied sciences Review A Review of Pretreatment Methods to Enhance Solids Reduction during Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Wastewater Sludges and the Resulting Digester Performance: Implications to Future Urban Biorefineries Bimi Shrestha 1, Rafael Hernandez 1, Dhan Lord B. Fortela 1, Wayne Sharp 2, Andrei Chistoserdov 3, Daniel Gang 2 , Emmanuel Revellame 4, William Holmes 5 and Mark E. Zappi 1,* 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA; [email protected] (B.S.); [email protected] (R.H.); [email protected] (D.L.B.F.) 2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA; [email protected] (W.S.); [email protected] (D.G.) 3 Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Industrial Technology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA; [email protected] 5 Energy Institute of Louisiana, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70503, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 November 2020; Accepted: 18 December 2020; Published: 21 December 2020 Abstract: The rapid increase in the population is expected to result in the approaching of design capacity for many US wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) over the next decade. WWTPs treat both municipal and industrial wastewater influents, resulting in the production of biosolids after digestion. Biogas, a potential recovered alternative energy source, is also produced as an output from successful anaerobic digestion. More than 7M of dry tons/year of biosolids produced in the US are most often disposed in either landfills or land-applied (~80%).
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Were Incomplete Or in Biosolids but Cannot Yet and the Environment
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Cleaning up and revitalizing land EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment Report No. 19-P-0002 November 15, 2018 Report Contributors: Tina Lovingood Jill Trynosky Jenny Drzewiecki Ben Beeson Patrick Milligan Abbreviations CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OIG Office of Inspector General POTW Publicly Operated Treatment Works RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act USGS U.S. Geological Survey Cover Photo: Tilling soil and injecting biosolids into a farm field near Madison, Wisconsin. (OIG photo) Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an EPA Office of Inspector General EPA program? 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T) Washington, DC 20460 EPA Inspector General Hotline (202) 566-2391 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T) www.epa.gov/oig Washington, DC 20460 (888) 546-8740 (202) 566-2599 (fax) [email protected] Subscribe to our Email Updates Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig Learn more about our OIG Hotline. Send us your Project Suggestions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19-P-0002 Office of Inspector General November 15, 2018 At a Glance Why We Did This Review EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of We conducted this audit to Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied determine whether the U.S. Environmental Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has and implements controls What We Found over the land application of sewage sludge that are The EPA’s controls over the land application of The EPA identified 352 pollutants protective of human health sewage sludge (biosolids) were incomplete or in biosolids but cannot yet and the environment.
    [Show full text]