Pa: Arsenic levels in landfill leachate 'not of public interest'

[Guest guest]

01/01/2006

Arsenic levels in leachate among factors affecting new contract for treatment

Evan Brandt , ebrandt@...

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15850067 & BRD=1674 & PAG=461 & d\

ept_id=18041 & rfi=6

POTTSTOWN -- Over the past 10 years that polluted water leaching from the

Pottstown Landfill has been treated at the borough’s sewer plant, the

level of arsenic permitted in the leachate has been exceeded at least six

times, but no fines were ever levied, an analysis of monthly reports has

revealed.

The permit which governs the limits on dangerous substances in the

leachate -- there are many other than arsenic -- is issued by the

Pottstown Borough Authority, which operates the wastewater treatment plant

on Industrial Boulevard.

The permit allows the borough authority to issue violations that " may

result in the imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties of up to

$25,000 per day per violation. "

However, since 1990, when the current leachate treatment contract between

Pottstown and Waste Management Inc., was enacted, only two notices of

violation were ever issued against the landfill, and both those were later

retracted at the request of the landfill’s owner, Waste Management Inc.,

the reports show.

Authority officials explained that the permit allows a polluter to exceed

the limits for certain pollutants and not be subject to a violation as

long as it causes no adverse effects at the sewer treatment plant.

Instead, the polluter is charged an extra " surcharge " for exceeding the

permit levels.

‘Not of Public Interest’

Waste Management officials referred questions on the issue of its arsenic

" exceedances " to the authority, but added in an e-mailed statement " with

all due respect, the questions you are asking are not, in our opinion,

matters of public interest, and are not relevant to the wastewater

treatment agreement, and involve isolated descriptions of events that are

as much as 10 years old. "

The landfill’s issues with arsenic, however, are not isolated events so

much as a part of an ongoing campaign to have its limits raised.

The last time the leachate’s arsenic level exceeded its permit limits was

Feb. 20, 1998, according to the reports, which were obtained with a

Freedom of Information Act request to the borough authority by the

Alliance for a Clean Environment, which provided them to The Mercury.

That year was also when the landfill asked, for at least the third time,

that its permit limits for arsenic be raised.

As far back as 1995, Waste Management warned the authority " we believe

that our pre-treatment facility will have difficulty meeting the new, more

stringent interim limit " for arsenic.

Two years later, the company’s requests continued.

" As we have explained to you numerous times in the past, our present

pre-treatment plant does not achieve significant arsenic removal, " the

company wrote in its Nov. 7, 1997 report to the authority.

" It is well documented in the literature that arsenic is difficult to

remove, especially at low concentrations. It is also known that arsenic

occurs naturally at or above these concentrations in the region, " Waste

Management wrote.

By 1998, the company was asking that its limit be doubled from .12

milligrams per liter to .25 milligrams per liter.

They got more than they asked for.

The limit now stands at .50 milligrams per liter, a level with which Waste

Management was " generally pleased, " according to a report in April 1999.

Studying Local Limits

Brent Wagner, chief operator at the wastewater treatment plant, raised the

limit for Waste Management and other industrial users after conducting

something called a " local limit study " from 1993 to 1995.

The study examined what’s necessary to maintain safe levels of pollutants

for discharge into the Schuylkill River, a drinking water source for

several million people, as well as what is technically feasible for each

of the many pollutants regulated in the permits the authority issues to

different industrial customers of the system.

In fact, a new " local limits " study is planned after the authority

completes construction on a new dryer that will treat the sludge that

remains after wastewater is treated. The new process will allow the sludge

to meet government standards that will allow it to be used as fertilizer.

The new limits which will result from that study aren’t all that’s new on

the horizon for Waste Management.

Contract Negotiations

The leachate treatment contract between Pottstown and the landfill, which

governs the issuance of those permits and the limits it contains, expired

Dec. 31.

Negotiations for a new contract " are in the preliminary stages, " said

Allebach, solicitor for the borough authority.

On Dec. 15, he said the authority has suggested a six-month extension of

the current contract to allow negotiations to continue, but Waste

Management officials had not responded as of that date.

The current contract contains provisions that allowed the landfill’s

leachate to be treated for free in exchange for the waiving of tipping

fees for the borough’s trash and, later, for providing free recycling

services.

Also, for years, the landfill is where Pottstown’s sewage sludge was

disposed of.

The sludge is now trucked, at great expense, to a landfill in Bucks

County. It is this expense that has pushed the authority to build the new

dryer to cut down on sludge disposal costs and perhaps even turn a profit

selling fertilizer.

Since the landfill officially closed in October, the option for a trade in

services no longer exists, said Allebach.

" We’ve been reviewing the (current) agreement and there are some

provisions there that we’re not sure how they came about, " Allebach said.

Rather than amend the current contract, Allebach said, " I think we’re

going to have to start from scratch. "

Allebach also said, " I don’t think there’s any question that from a

treatment standpoint, Waste Management will be paying higher fees. The

only question in my mind is what else are we looking at beyond that. "

New Drinking Water Standards

One of the things beyond that is the implementation next month of a new

federal standard for the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the new standard will be implemented that lowers the

amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water from the current level of .050

milligrams per liter to .010 milligrams per liter.

The current .050 level was set by the federal Environmental Protection

Agency in 1975 and was based on 33-year-old standards set in 1942 by the

Public Health Service.

According to an October statement issued by the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, the new more stringent standard was implemented

by EPA as a result of a 1999 recommendation from the National Academy of

Sciences.

Some studies have linked long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic in

drinking water to cancer of the bladder, prostate, skin and lungs,

according to the EPA.

EPA has also linked arsenic, which occurs naturally in rocks, soil, water

and air, to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, anemia and disorders of the

immune, nervous and reproductive systems.

" There is also some evidence that suggests that long-term exposure to

arsenic in children may result in lower IQ scores, " according to the

federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Arsenic No. 1 Threat

In fact since 1997, arsenic has topped the list of the top 20 most

hazardous substances compiled by the federal Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act program, better known by its

acronym -- CERCLA.

Arsenic makes the top not because it is necessarily more toxic than other

things on list, like mercury, lead, benzene and vinyl chloride, but

because it is so ubiquitous and the potential for people to be exposed to

it is high.

In addition to its natural occurrence, levels for which vary according to

local geology, arsenic is present " in at least 784 of the 1,662 current or

former (National Priorities List) sites " of the federal Superfund

pollution clean-up program, according to CERCLA documents.

Montgomery County has more Superfund clean-up sites than any other county

in Pennsylvania.

Other Leachate Options

Ron Furlan, program manager of DEP’s southeast regional office’s waste

management program in Norristown, said the EPA’s new arsenic standard

applies specifically to drinking water plants and public water providers,

not directly to wastewater treatment plants.

He said if abnormally high levels of arsenic were found in the Schuylkill

-- into which the treated wastewater from the Pottstown sewer plant, and

thus the landfill, is discharged -- water plants downstream could

conceivably demand discharge limits from upstream users be lowered.

Furlan also said the landfill has options other than having its leachate

treated by the Pottstown plant.

He said the GROWS Landfill in Bucks County, where Pottstown’s sewage

sludge is currently dumped, treats its own leachate and discharges it

directly into the Delaware River.

At the Pottstown Landfill, " part of their (DEP) permit has their leachate

being treated at the Pottstown Wastewater Treatment Plant. So if they

decided they wanted to do the treatment themselves, and say do a direct

discharge into the Manatawny, they could, but that would be a major permit

modification and they would need to give us a detailed explanation on what

they planned to do, " Furlan said.

He said Dec. 19 that he has received no such indication from Waste

Management officials, leaving the Pottstown plant and the ensuing contract

negotiations as the landfill’s only likely option.

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.