United States       Office of Water      July 1981
           Environmental Protection    Program Operations (WH-547)  430/9-81-013
           Agency          Washington DC 20460

v>EPA     Institutional Constraints and
           Public Acceptance Barriers to
           Utilization of Municipal
           Wastewater and Sludge
           for Land Reclamation
           and Biomass Production


                       Disclaimer Statement

This report has been reviewed by the Environmental  Protection Agency
and approved for publication.  Approval  does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Environmental  Protection
Agency or other agencies involved, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

EPA 430/9-81-013
                          Patricia L. Deese, P.E.
                           Urban Systems Research &  Engineering,  Inc,
                           Cambridge, Massachusetts   02138

                          J.  Raymond Miyares,  O.D.
                           Braken and Baram
                           Boston, Massachusetts  02108

                          Samuel  Fogel,  Ph.D.
                           JBF Scientific  Corp
                           Wilmington,  Massachusetts  01887
                             Project Officers

                Robert K.  Bastian, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency


                David E. Burmaster, Council  on Environmental  Quality
                                 JULY 1981
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Water Program Operations
                      Municipal Construction Division
                         Washington, D.C.  20460

December  1980
A Report to:

The President's Council on Environmental Quality
  David Burmaster
  Project Officer
Prepared by:

Patricia L. Deese, P.E.
  Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc,
  Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138

J. Raymond Miyares, J.D.
  Bracken and Baram
  Boston, Massachusetts  02108

Samuel Fogel, Ph.D.
  JBF Scientific Corporation
  Wilmington, Massachusetts  01887

     A number of people have contributed to the preparation of this
report during its many stages of development.  Any errors of omission
or commission, however, remain the responsibility of the authors.

     Special thanks go to the Project Officers for this project,
David Burmaster at the Council on Environmental Quality and Bob
Bastian at the Environmental Protection Agency.  Their guidance and
direction have been essential in ensuring that the research is use-
ful to EPA, states, local governments, and the private sector.  The
research would not have been possible without the cooperation of the
officials and individuals involved in each of the case studies.  We
are grateful to them for their willingness to share their experiences.

     The development of this report required key contributions from
a number of past and present USR&E staff members.  In particular, the
work of Martha Monserrate, Michael Plust, and Tom Sullivan in perform-
ing the case study research and in developing the initial drafts of
the case studies is greatly appreciated.  Jim Hudson served as USRSE
internal reviewer for the report.  Finally, the efforts of Tina Cutino
on the administrative and production aspects of the report have been

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


Executive Summary .  	

SECTION 1:   Introduction  	    2

SECTION 2:   Constraints and Barriers  	    3

SECTION 3:   Past Experience	   20

SECTION 4:   Strategies for Project Sponsors 	   28

APPENDIX A:  Case Study Summaries 	   40

                            EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
     While  researchers  have  repeatedly demonstrated the technical
 feasibility of utilizing  POTW's  sludges  for the reclamation of
 disturbed lands, there  have  been relatively few full  scale pro-
 jects  implemented.   Public opposition and  institutional red tape
 have often  caused delays  and have resulted in  some projects being
 abandoned.  This study  has involved an analysis of the institutional
 contraints  and public acceptance barriers  to the development of full
 scale  projects utilizing  sewage  sludge in  land reclamation and biomass
 production.  The findings of this research are often  applicable to a
 broader range of wastewater  and  sewage sludge  land application pro-

     Public opposition  to land application projects is generally
 initiated by a small group with  a very strong anti-project bias.
 This group  may include  abutters  to either  the application or inter-
 mediary storage sites,  residents along transportation routes, and
 concerned citizens.  Once a  core group is  formed, it  attempts to
 halt or modify the project utilizing political, regulatory or
 judicial channels.   Public officials, in local government or regu-
 latory agencies, may also be opposed to a  proposed project and can
 frequently  use their authority to impede development.

     Compliance with the  various institutional and regulatory require-
 ments  is a  project's first line  of defense.  Depending on the quantity
 and quality of the sludge applied, certain future uses of the site may
 be restricted for compliance with EPA criteria for acceptable solid
 waste  disposal facilities and requirements governing  land application
 of sewage sludge under  RCRA  and  CWA.

     However, the states, which  are responsible for implementing solid
 waste  and sludge management  control programs, may promulgate even more
 stringent requirements.   Local governments frequently have their own
 requirements in the areas of public health and land use control.
 Thus there  are a multitude of regulatory requirements providing
 opponents with many opportunities to delay a project.

     When the site to which the  sludge is to be applied is a strip
mine, the situation is  further complicated by the requirements and
procedures which have been, and  are being, developed under the SMCRA.

     Citizens groups also may seek an injunction against a project
based on general nuisance claims (particularly for odor).

     Given this complex institutional structure and the likelihood
that a core opposition group will form,  it is useful to learn what
measures have proven effective in expediting projects.  The study
reports on the use of demonstration projects,  site visits, public
relations campaigns,  and compensation schemes.

                              SECTION 1

     Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the technical feasibility
and potential benefits of applying municipal sewage sludges to enhance
biomass production and reclaim disturbed sites.  The formidable tasks
of obtaining regulatory approvals and overcoming public concern often
discourage serious examination of the alternative.  However, those who
have successfully negotiated the approvals process have achieved excel-
lent results, both in terms- of land reclamation and biomass production.
These successful projects are proof that overcoming institutional con-
straints and public acceptance barriers can be well worth the effort.

     The goals of this research effort have been to identify the insti-
tutional pitfalls and public opposition obstacles, and to suggest meth-
ods for addressing these non-technical aspects of project implementation.
The study focused on projects utilizing sewage sludge for reclamation
and biomass production, although many of the findings presented here are
relevant to a broad range of municipal wastewater and sewage sludge land
application projects.

     Section 2, Constraints and Barriers of Project Implementation, sets
forth theoretical analysis of the public and institutional framework with-
in which projects must be proposed and implemented.  The current legal,
regulatory and institutional structure on the federal, state, and local
level is reviewed.  The possible strategies of public interest groups
which might oppose a proposed project are also presented.

     To assess the magnitude of institutional constraints and public
acceptance barriers to project implementation, a series of case histories
was developed.  Information on the non-technical aspects of successful,
as well as unsuccessful attempts to establish projects has been collected
from secondary sources and extensive telephone interviews with project
participants.  An analysis to the case study data is presented in Section
3, Past Experience.  The analysis attempts to discern patterns that may
assist sponsors of future projects in developing their proposals and
strategies for obtaining necessary approvals.  Reports of the individual
cases are presented in Appendix A of this report.

     Strategies which a potential sponsor might use to mitigate the im-
pacts of institutional constraints and public acceptance barriers are
presented in Section 4, Strategies for Sponsors.  The conclusions drawn
from both the theoretical and case study analyses are set forth in the
form of recommendations to those wishing to initiate considerations of a
sewage sludge reclamationor biomass production project.  For the most
part, these strategies would be equally applicable to any type of municipal
wastewater or sewage sludge land application proposal.

                               SECTION  2

                        CONSTRAINTS  AND BARRIERS
 Public Opposition

     Although  some  land application projects have proceeded virtually
 unopposed, most have generated  some level of local  controversy.   If a
 sufficient number of individuals  feel their interests threatened, the
 "Core Opposition Group" they form can often mount a significant cam-
 paign against  a project.  Historically, Core Groups have been formed
 to oppose a specific project.   In contrast, traditional environmental
 organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation, National
 Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Audubon  Society have typi-
 cally not mobilized their membership against such projects.

     While Core Groups may vary in composition from site to site, they
most frequently include owners of property abutting the project site
or along the transportation route to be used for site access.  Such
parties generally expect that a project will result in personal incon-
venience or loss of property value.   Other private  citizens may also
participate in Core Groups, however, for a variety of reasons including
environmental and health concerns, and general animosity toward accept-
ing another municipality's sludge.  Once a Core Group has coalesced,
strategy for fighting the sludge project may be developed,  consisting
of one or more of the following components:

     •  Regulatory Intervention:  Before a project can obtain
        the necessary federal,  state or local approvals,  oppo-
        nents may seek to intervene  in the regulatory proceed-
        ings.   Simultaneously,  they  may launch a political
        effort to influence regulatory decision makers,  either
        through direct lobbying or by  indirect means such as
       public information campaigns.   The goal of the component
        is  either to deny  a project  sponsor  the necessary per-
       mits  outright,  or  to raise the costs of obtaining such
       permits sufficiently to make the project financially
       infeasible.   Since land application  projects are  likely
       to  be  anything  but routine,  the Core Group may attempt
       to  convince  a  large  number of  licensing and  permitting
       authorities  to  assert their jurisdiction.  Frequently,
       such efforts  can be  successful if  the roles  of the various
       federal,  state  and local authorities are  not well defined.
       Of  course, as experience with  land application increases,
       the regulatory  scheme will become more  routine and the
       possibility of  overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions
       should  decrease.

          Court  or  Administrative Challenge:  Once a
          particular  approval has been  given, opponents
          may  challenge  this decision in  an appeal
          either to a higher administrative authority
          (if  there is one) or  to the courts.   Courts
          often  decline  to  consider  an  appeal,  however,
          before administrative remedies  have been

          The  ground  for such an appeal may be  jurisdictional,
          procedural  or  substantive. A jurisdictional
          challenge questions the power of the  particular
          agency or board to grant the  approval given.
          A procedural challenge is  aimed at the process
          by which  that  approval was given and  may
          involve allegations of violations of  due process
          or of  any applicable  administrative procedures.
          A substantive  challenge questions the suffi-
          ciency of the  evidence in  support of  an
          approval  decision, or the  correctness of the
          standard  applied. Any of  these proceedings
          can, of course, be quite lengthy and  can raise
          the  cost  of gaining final  approval.   However,
          litigation  and appeals are costly to  the complain-
          ing  parties as well.

          Nuisance  Action:  Even after  approval of a
          project is  final, opponents can challenge the
          project in  a common law nuisance action.  Such
          an action may  be  difficult to maintain if the
          characteristics of  the project  that are alleged
          to constitute  the nuisance—for example, its
          odor—have  been expressly  sanctioned  in the
          regulatory  proceeding.  In most cases, however,
          nuisance  allegations  arise when the actual
          characteristics of  a  project  fall below the
          standard  promised during  the  regulatory pro-
          ceeding.  While it  is occasionally possible
          to have a project declared to be an  "anticipatory
          nuisance,"  based  on a finding that  the untoward
          effects alleged are  imminent  and unavoidable,
          generally nuisance  actions must await the
          initiation  of  a project.   Nevertheless, the
          availability of a nuisance action permits
          project opponents to  resume  their dispute  long
          after  they  lose the regulatory  battle.
Institutional Setting
     Obviously, no project will proceed unless some public or private
organization is willing to serve as its sponsor.  The sludge generating
municipality, the consulting engineers, the site owner,  or the receiving

community may initiate consideration of a land application project.
In many cases the primary sponsors have retained the services of a
specialized contractor to actually implement the program.  This is
a reflection of the relatively low levels of capital investment and
high personal service requirements of project sponsorship.  In con-
trast to other wastewater and sludge treatment technologies, land
application primarily involves identifying sites, attending public
hearings, meeting with public officials, negotiating with landowners
and transportation companies, and applying for the necessary permits.
All of these activities are generally aimed at only a few weeks of
actual sludge application annually.  While a firm that specializes
in performing the necessary services can apparently profit from the
initiation of a reclamation project, the more traditional consulting
engineering firm, which concentrates on equipment design, has few
incentives to participate.

     A key actor in a sludge reclamation project is the application
site owner.  The range of possible public or private site owners
presented in Figure 1 is reflected in the variety of institutional
arrangements exhibited in the case studies.  The type of ownership
becomes a key factor in cases where, in order to meet permit require-
ments, certain restrictions must be placed on the future uses of the
sites.  Such restrictions are not uncommon on publicly-owned lands.
However, a private owner may demand compensation in some form before
accepting a restriction on the use of his land, and enforcement of
such restrictions may be impossible.

     The siting of a land application project has the potential for
creating controversy.  Moreover, this potential increases with any
increase in the number of regulatory bodies which may have jurisdic-
tion over the site.  Since each review conducted, or permit applied
for, represents a possible snag in the approval process, it also
represents an increased potential that the proposed project may not
be initiated.

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) has promulgated
guidelines for land application of municipal sewage sludge and the
Office of Surface Mining of the Department of Interior has developed
guidelines for mine reclamation practices.  These federal guidelines
represent minimum levels for acceptable performance.  The states have
been tasked with developing programs to implement these guidelines.
EPA's regional offices are assigned the duty of insuring state compli-
ance with EPA guidelines.  In addition, some state and local govern-
ments have developed more stringent regulations.  However, since each
requirement is set to serve the issuing organization's best interests,
the rules vary considerably.  It is difficult to reconcile all of the
regulatory requirements applicable to a given application site.  This
problem can be exacerbated when the staffs of the various regulatory
bodies exhibit competitiveness or jealousy over their jurisdictional

     Many of the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over some
aspect of a municipal sludge land application project are listed in
Figure 2.

                                 FIGURE 1

                              LAND OWNERSHIP

Federal Government
(National Forest, National Park,
DoE, Department of Interior,
Indian Lands, etc.)

Private Owner in Fee Sample

(industry, coal company, timber
company, farmer, private indivi-
duals, environmentalist organi-
zations, etc.)
Federal Lands managed by private concerns

(mineral or timber rights leased
to private concerns)
Private Owner in Fee Subject
to mineral or timber rights
in another party
(parks, conservation land, forests,
abandoned coal mines, etc.)
Owned by Private General
 (wastewater management authority,
land within one community but owned
by another, conservation and recrea-
tion sites, etc.)

                                  FIGURE 2
                           INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
             Agencies with  Jurisdiction over Land Application
                                          _Office of Water Programs Operations-
                                           Construction Grants
-Solid Waste Management Guidelines
-Enforcement Policy
Construction Grants Review
•Solid Waste Program Review
                   Office of Surface Mining—National Guidelines
•Wastewater Programs
Environmental Quality  (surface water,  ground  water,  soils,
Solid Waste Management
Public Health
Land Use
Conservation/Environmental quality
 ublic Health
Solid Waste Management


    Federal Programs

    Wastewater Management;  Under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA)1 as amended, nearly all POTW1s were required to have
achieved secondary treatment by 1977.  They are also under a mandate
to use the "best practicable" waste treatment technology by 1983.

    To assist municipalities in meeting their obligations under the
FWPCA Act, EPA is authorized to pay 75% of the costs to plan, design,
and construct municipal wastewater treatment facilities.  Over 20,000
grants for planning, design and construction, amounting to about $28
billion, had been made under the program by September 1980.  Thus, as
a practical matter, EPA has a considerable influence over POTW techno-
logy through both its regulatory and its construction grants programs.

    The 1977 amendments to the FWPCA, contained in the Clean Water Act
(CWA), placed new "technology forcing" mechanisms into EPA's hands by
providing incentives for the use of "innovative and alternative"  (I/A)
technology in the construction grants program.2  EPA had defined land
application of POTW sludges as an alternative wastewater treatment
and sludge technology within the definition of this provision.  An I/A
process option can be funded if the life cycle cost exceeds the life
cycle costs of the conventional option by less than 15%.  In addition,
EPA may fund 85%, rather than 75%, of eligible cost for the I/A portion
of any project.  Finally, EPA is authorized to pay 100% of all costs
to replace or modify I/A facilities if they fail to meet their perfor-
mance specifications.

    In a  series of regulatory measures beginning in 1975, and as yet
incomplete, EPA has restricted the incineration,  ocean dumping,
land disposal,5 and landspreading^ of sludges.  Each of these measures
has effectively made the disposal of sludge more complex and more
costly, and in part has contributed to a shifting of the focus away
from disposal methods that are regulated to methods that remain unreg-
ulated, or are regulated less severely.  EPA has promulgated a
set of interim final* regulations for land disposal of POTW sludges
under the joint authority of the CWA  and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act  (RCRA)^.  TWO provisions are most relevant to POTW
sludge reclamation projects:

    1)  No contamination of underground drinking water
        sources beyond  the outermost perimeter of the
        site is permitted;

    2)  The cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyl  (PCBs)
        levels of POTW  sludges applied to land used for
        the production  of food chain crops**are strictly
     Final regulations are expected in December 1980.  Major changes
in the structure of the regulations are not anticipated although nu-
merical values may change.
     The term food chain  in this context refers to human  food chain.

 Of the metals present  in municipal  sludge,  cadmium  is of greatest
 importance because of  its potential toxicity and  the relatively  low
 levels in the natural  background.   EPA has  expended much effort  to
 develop health protection criteria  for this metal pollutant.

     With respect to cadmium, a less stringent standard is set for
 those lands where the  only food-chain crop produced is animal feed;
 a plan exists for assuring that the crops produced will not be in-
 gested by humans; and  future owners are notified by a stipulation
 in the land record or property deed that the site has received high
 cadmium waste applications and that food chain crops should not be
 grown due to possible health concerns.

     In situations where sludge is used as an amendment for growth
 of agricultural crops, annual and cumulative limits for cadmium
 have been recommended.  These limits are designed to minimize the
 potential for plants to incorporate this metal into plant tissue
 which may later be consumed by animals or humans.  The imposed
 limits take into account three factors:

     1)   The type of crop is important since metals such as
         cadmium more readily enter the leafy portions of
         crops than the grain or root portions.   Thus,  the
         selection of a crop permits a degree of control
         over cadmium uptake.

    2)   The  annual  and cumulative  loadings  of metals provide
         a quantitative framework  for assessing  the soil's
         capacity  to bind metals.   The  cation exchange  capacity
         (CEC)  of  the  soil  is  a  measure of the degree to  which
        metals are  bound to soil particles  and  consequently
        the  degree  to  which the metals can  be leached  into
         solution  where  they would  be available  to plants.
        Thus,  annual and cumulative  loadings of metals need
        to be  evaluated so  that the  metals  holding capacity
        of a given  soil is  not  exceeded.  Metal loadings  to
        soil must be known  to keep metal levels in the soil
        below  concentrations  that  are  toxic  to plants.

    3)  The pH of the soil  strongly  governs  the uptake of
        metals by plants.  Since most  of the metals  of con-
        cern are present in soil as  insoluble precipitates
        under neutral-to-basic conditions, their availability
        to plants is lessened.  Alternatively, acid  soils
        (pH less than 6.0)  facilitate metal movement into
        plants and groundwater.

EPA's cumulative limits  (Interium  final)  for food chain application
range between 4.5 and 18 Ibs./acre cadmium (depending on the soil
CEC)  per acre application.

    With regard to PCB's, EPA's concern has been directed toward
methods of incorporation into soil, depending on the PCB content
of sludge.  This criteria is based on the observation that municipal
sludge may be ingested by grazing cows if it is deposited or merely
sprayed on soil or growing crops.  One potential result of such in-
gestion is the appearance of PCB's in milk.  To minimize this possi-
bility, EPA requires that sludges containing 10 ppm (interim final)
or more PCB be incorporated into soil.  Other regulations on PCB's
and their implications for sludge management practices are being
developed by EPA.

     The interim final regulations outline two levels of treatment
for pathogen control and stabilization of POTW sludge prior to land
application.  The less stringent treatment is authorized where public
access to the land is controlled for at least 12 months after appli-
cation, and grazing by animals whose products are consumed by humans
is prevented for at least one month.  The more stringent treatment is
mandated if crops for direct human consumption are grown within 18
months of the application and there will be contact between the sludge
and the edible portion of the crop.

    EPA is now developing proposed regulations to govern the distribu-
tion and marketing of sewage sludge products.9  These regulations would
be in addition to the landspreading standards described above in order
to fill important regulatory gaps until comprehensive sewage sludge
regulations can be formulated and put into place.  It is expected that
these regulations would add a substantial recordkeeping requirement to
the present provisions governing land application.

    Other EPA Land Disposal Programs.  RCRA also contains additional
provisions that may apply to the land application of POTW sludges.  In
particular, under Subtitle C of RCRA, EPA has issued "cradle to grave"
regulations governing the disposal of hazardous wastes.  While most
POTW sludges will not constitute hazardous wastes, there is nothing in
the regulatory definition of the term that would automatically exclude
them.  That definition is based upon four characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and extraction procedure  (EP) toxicity.

    Sludge is obviously difficult to ignite, and seldom corrosive or
reactive; the real concern is EP toxicity.  A POTW sludge is presumed
to be nonhazardous unless EP tests, conducted either by the POTW staff
or another organization, indicate otherwise.  The potentially hazardous
chemicals of concern are those listed in EPA's drinking water quality
criteria and include:

                 Arsenic         Endrin
                 Barium          Lindane
                 Cadmium         Methoxychlor
                 Lead            2, 4, D
                 Mercury         2, 4, 5T

 If  the  EP testing results on a specific sludge  show that the concen-
 tration of one  or more  of the above  chemicals equal or  exceeds  100
 times the drinking water  standards  (for the  respective  chemical), the
 sludge  is considered  to be a hazardous  waste and  subject to  the pro-
 visions of the  hazardous  waste regulations.  Based  on recent informa-
 tion, very few  sludges  are likely to be designated  hazardous under
 EPA's EP  testing  procedure.   However, new  criteria,  such as  one for
 PCB's,  are expected to  add to EPA's  list in  the near future.  This
 may increase  the  fraction of those sludges found  to be  hazardous

     If  a  particular sewage sludge is found to be  a  hazardous waste,
 then the  site of  a land reclamation  project  utilizing such a sludge
 would be  a hazardous  waste disposal  facility.   EPA  has  promulgated
 extensive regulations governing the  operation,  maintenance,  monitor-
 ing and eventual  closure  of such facilities, including  numerous safe-
 guards  designed to protect surface and  groundwater  quality from
 contamination,  and to restrict uses  of  the site in  perpetuity.

     In  the preamble to  the hazardous waste regulations,  EPA  has acknow-
 ledged  that it  eventually intends to issue a comprehensive regulation
 under the authority of  §405 of CWA,  dealing  with  all forms of sewage
 sludge  disposal.   Such  a  regulation,  EPA states,  will deal with both
 hazardous and non-hazardous sewage sludges and  will include  provisions
 "equivalent"  (but not necessarily identical) to those contained in the
 existing  RCRA hazardous waste regulations.   Once  such regulations are
 in  place,  EPA states  that it intends  to exclude sewage  sludges  from
 the provisions  now in effect.   For now,  however,  these  provisions
 govern  land disposal  of sewage sludges  that  are found to be  hazardous

     No  regulations presently cover the  large number of  potentially
 toxic synthetic organic chemicals (other than PCB's) in sewage  sludge.
 This situation  exists because a vast majority of  these  chemicals are
 present in only trace quantities and generally  constitute no health
 hazard.   Note that such organic contaminants present in sewage  sludge
 would probably  not be highly toxic to soil microorganisms since they
 would have been toxic in  the sewage  treatment plant organisms,  and
 would already be  known.

     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.   The Surface Mining
 Control and Reclamation Act,3-0 passed in 1977,  established a nation-
 wide program  to protect the  environment from the  adverse impacts of
 surface coal  mining and prohibits such  mining where land reclamation
 is  not  feasible.

     The Department of the  Interior issued  its regulations under SMCRA
 in  March  1979.  They  set performance  standards  for  surface mining of
 coal to protect the environment and  the  public  health and safety.
 Specifically, the  regulations  require mine operations post a  bond to
 insure  that they will conserve natural  resources  in the  course  of
 their mining  activity;  stabilize surface areas  during mining  and re-
 claim mine lands contemporaneously as mining proceeds;  and restore
prime farmland  and revegetate  all land  promptly upon completion of the

mining operation.  The regulations require that the soil be able to
support the same or higher uses after reclamation that it was capable
of supporting before the mining operation began.

    Where the land was used for agricultural purposes before mining
began, the SMCRA regulations require that such agricultural uses be
possible after reclamation.  Yet, under the regulations governing
sludge application, such future uses may need to be prohibited or
restricted for some time, or even permanently, depending upon the
quality and quantity of sludge and sludge contaminants applied to the
land.  Where such a prohibition or restriction would be permanent
(based on current and future guidelines) the SMCRA requirements may
not be met.  Where such a restriction would be temporary, for example
18 months, the SMCRA regulations would appear not to be met during
the time of the restriction.  Holding of the bonds posted by a mine
operator to guarantee reclamation may be required during that period.
However, if the land was a forest and not involved in food chain crop
production before surface mining operation began, the SMCRA regulations
requiring that it be suitable for reforestation after reclamation
could easily be met even if restrictions were placed on the land for
future food chain crop production by the sludge management regulations.

    SMCRA establishes an Abandoned Mined Reclamation Fund, financed by
fees levied against all coal mine operators subject to the Act, to be
used for reclaiming and restoring land adversely affected by past coal
mining, including revegetation of such land.  The Fund is to be used
to reclaim land that was mined or affected by mining before August 3,
1977; that was left in unreclaimed or inadequately reclaimed condition;
and for which the mining operator has no continuing responsibility for
reclamation.  The Fund may be used to acquire land by purchase or emi-
nent domain, if such acquisition is deemed necessary for successful

    There is no regulatory obligation for abandoned mine lands that
are being reclaimed to be restored to their use before mining began.
Thus, the fact that sewage sludge application might restrict future
land use should not pose a barrier to projects on abandoned mine lands.
Of course, if the land is to remain in private hands, the owner would
have to agree to any restrictions on her own and later uses the land,
preferably by deed restriction.

    The National Environmental Policy Act.  The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPALI- requires that an environmental impact statement be
prepared for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment".  The award of a construction grant
for a large POTW by EPA can be such a major federal action warranting
a full EIS.  It is common  for EPA to conduct only an environmental
assessment before awarding small grants.  Where the grant involves
funds to implement land application projects, the impacts will be
examined by EPA in either the EIA or EIS process before a final
funding decision is made.  A problem arises on how to prepare an EIS
if the actual application sites are not yet known.  In addition, alter-
native means of sludge management must be considered and their environ-
mental consequences evaluated and compared to the land application

option.  An EIS frequently takes months or even years to complete,
but the federal action at issue cannot proceed until this process
is complete.

    Actions taken by the Interior Department under SMCRA might also
be considered "major" and thus require an EIS.  A decision to license
a major mining operation is one example.  A decision to reclaim a
major abandoned mine is another.  In both these instances, an EIS
might have to be prepared before the final decision is made.

    State Programs: Relevant State Agencies

    Wherever a public agency or private body decides to investigate,
sponsor, or promote a land application project utilizing sewage
sludges, it will face the problem of compliance with the various fed-
eral regulatory programs and funding conditions outlined above.  In
contrast, experience with state and local regulations may vary widely.
This is because the 50 states are separate sovereigns, each with their
own administrative structure and regulatory priorities.  Thus, there
is no uniform body of state procedures or substantive regulations that
will apply to a project involving land application.  Nevertheless, a
few common aspects of several state programs can be highlighted.

    As noted above, a number of regulatory bodies may have authority
over a sewage sludge land application project.  In many states, most
of the environmental regulatory power is vested in a single agency,
such as a Department of Environmental Affairs.  Such an agency may be
separately constituted, or it may be part of a state Public Health
Agency, which has a wider jurisdiction.  Many states also have Depart-
ments of Natural Resources that have primary authority over minerals,
watersheds, certain lands such as forests, and other natural resources.
Finally, many states have Departments of Agriculture that may be con-
cerned with the proper protection of farm products.

    In nearly every state, at least one form of license or permit would
be required to apply POTW sludge to a particular site.  Thus, for example
in Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Resources must issue a
permit for sludge utilization in land reclamation projects.  The state
has issued guidelines which specify maximum lifetime loading rates for
land reclamation under conditions where farming of the reclaimed site
is not intended.  A maximum of 3 Ibs. of cadmium per acre is specified
along with a maximum sludge loading of 60 dry tons per acre.  The imp-
lications of this limitation are potentially significant when one con-
siders that sludge loadings for reclamation projects are also based on
the nitrogen content of the sludge.  For example, good management prac-
tices utilize about 1000 Ibs. total nitrogen per acre.  (It is generally
assumed that only 200 Ibs. of nitrogen is actually available for plant
uptake during the first year.)  Thus, if the nitrogen content of the
sludge is 1% then 50 dry/acre is necessary.  If,  however,  the sludge
has been composted and has a nitrogen content of 0.5% then 100 dry tons/
acre are needed to provide sufficient nitrogen.   This loading would be ir
excess of the 60 dry ton limit and would not be possible irrespective
of cadmium content under the current Pennsylvania guidelines as is
shown in Figure 3.

                              FIGURE 3

                     TO SLUDGE LOADINGS TO SOIL
                                          Sludge Lifetime
           Cd Content                     Loadings Under
           in Sludge                      Penn. Guideline

                10                               150*

                20                               75*

                25                               60

                40                               37.5

                80                               18.7
*Not allowed because of 60 tons/acre limit on total sludge.

    When  the values  of Figure  3 are  compared,  for example, with
 loading rates  of  one hundred tons/acre  (for  a  0.5% nitrogen  content
 sludge) needed to restore both the organic matter and nutrients to
 strip mined lands, a potential constraint is apparent if the cadmium
 content of the sludge is  20-30 ppm.  The conservative nature of  these
 guidelines apparently arose out of the perception on the part of
 officials that there would be  a lack of on-site  controls during and
 following sludge  application.  It is important to note, however,  that
 if a sludge is low in nitrogen content, commercial fertilizers con-
 taining nitrogen  can be added  to augment the nitrogen content and
 consequently reduce  the need for higher overall  sludge loadings.

    Permits issued for land application of sludge typically  are
 accompanied by a  number of special conditions  designed to assure
 project safety.   These requirements  are likely to become more
 structured as  states gain experience with RCRA and other applicable
 environmental  regulatory programs, and as comprehensive sludge
 disposal regulations, under CWA, are developed by EPA.  At present,
 the permit conditions may be the product of  case-by-case ad hoc
 agency deliberations, under a  general mandate  to protect the environ-
 ment, public health  and safety.  Typically,  such conditions might
 include requirements that the  operator of the  site provide for
 proper surface drainage and initiate a monitoring program.  States
 may require that  private contractors post a  bond or otherwise demon-
 strate financial  responsibility for  damages  that may be caused by
 a land application project.

    In addition to direct permitting of land application sites, a
 number of state agencies may assert  authority  over  and the right to
 control such operations because of their concern with a particular
 aspect of public  welfare potentially affected  by the operation.
 For example, most states have  drinking water programs that
 require monitoring and protection of water supplies from certain con-
 taminants.  Similarly, air pollution control boards may conceivably
 be concerned with the potential for  odors or aerosols being generated
 during land application.  In states with substantial mining operations,
 a state or local  agency may be specifically  authorized to regulate the
 operation of land reclamation projects on mine sites.

    Local Programs

    Powers of Organizations Operating the PQTW.  States have com-
 prehensive police powers, may  take a variety of regulatory actions and
 may make spending decisions they deem appropriate when in reasonable
pursuit of protecting the public's health,  safety and welfare.   Local
 governments frequently lack such powers.  Local government entities,
whether a municipality or a special purpose authority,  typically have
only limited powers,  and must adhere closely to the restrictions of
their state enabling legislation.

    A number of powers which would be quite useful to the successful
implementation of a land application project may thus be lacking in
particular situations.  These powers would be especially important
where the operator of the POTW generating the sludge is the project
sponsor.  They might include the power to engage in commercial activ-
ities beyond the operation of the POTW; the power to acquire land by
purchase or eminent domain within or outside the physical jurisdiction
of the POTW authority; the power to operate sewage facilities outside
such boundaries; and the power to give something (sludge) away.
Depending on the design of a particular project, any or all of these
powers may be required.  If the POTW authority does not have the
necessary powers, new legislation may be required to grant them, or
the project may have to be restructured or limited in scope.

    Relevant Agencies in the Receiving Community.  A number of local
boards and commissions may assert authority over the site where POTW
sludges are to be applied.  In a few communities, a local board such
as a county health department has primary authority over the siting
of waste disposal facilities.  It may issue a comprehensive operating
or solid waste landfill permit.  It may conduct some form of environ-
mental impact assessment prior to the issuance of such a permit, and
it may attach monitoring or other conditions to the permits.

    Other local boards that may have jurisdiction over the land reclam-
ation site are planning boards, zoning boards, and conservation commis-
sions.  The influence of these boards, however, may be minimized in
those circumstances where a governmental entity is undertaking the
project.  In general, a federally-owned site will be exempt from local
land use controls unless the federal agency voluntarily submits itself
to local control.  Other governments are usually immune from local
zoning regulation, at least when they are exercising a "governmental"
rather than a "proprietary" function.  Waste management has generally
been regarded in the law as such a "governmental" function, and there
appears to be no reason to expect that the result would be different
where the waste management involves land reclamation or biomass produc-
tion as well.

    Many land applications sites, however, will be neither owned nor
operated by government entities, and thus will be subject to zoning.
Although many local governments have declined to exercise zoning power
over remote, sparsely populated areas where surface mines frequently
are located, the extent and breadth of zoning control continues to
expand.  Thus, it is increasingly likely that a land reclamation pro-
ject will be subject to zoning regulation.

     Few  (if any) local zoning ordinances will include land application
 as one of the listed land uses.  Waste disposal, however, is a commonly
 listed land use, and is generally severely restricted to only a very
 small zone within a community.  Thus, if a land application project is
 characterized as a waste disposal land use,  it  is quite possible  that it
 will not be permitted in many zones where it may be suitable.

     The argument that a sewage sludge land application project consti-
 tutes waste disposal is bolstered by the fact that such a project is
 treated as waste disposal for the purpose of the environmental regula-
 tions discussed above, and by the fact that, like conventional land-
 fills, some of the concerns associated with the project remain after
 application is completed.  On the other hand, land reclamation is not
 unlike other types of site preparation associated with any creation of
 new land uses.  Site preparation itself is never considered a land use
 for zoning purposes, and is generally permitted if the ultimate land
 use is permitted.  Under such a view, sewage sludge land application
 can proceed as long as the ultimate land use — agriculture or forestry
 or the like — is permitted.  Such uses are, of course, among the most
 widely allowed.   The latter argument has prevailed in the only reported
 decision to consider this issue, but there remains a substantial ques-
 tion of characterizing land application uses under each zoning regime.

     General Legal Issues

     Ownership of Application Site.   A key problem in organizing a sewage
 sludge land application project is  in sorting through the various land
 ownership interests associated with a particular site.   Typically, in
 the case of surface coal mines,  the land title is held by one party while
. a mine operator  has purchased or leased only the mineral rights in the
 land.   Thus,  while a mine operator  may have a statutory obligation under
 SMCRA to reclaim the land after surface coal mining operations are com-
 plete,  it may be powerless to effect reclamation in other circumstances
 or to restrict the later uses of the land by covenant.   These powers may
 remain with a site owner who may have few other assets.

     A project sponsor will thus  have to identify the appropriate  owner-
 ship interests in a proposed reclamation  site and negotiate  agreements
 with such owners as seems appropriate.  When the sponsor is  a public
 authority with power to acquire  land interests by eminent domain,  this
 negotiation may  be facilitated somewhat.

     Easements  and  Covenants.   An easement  allows someone  to use the
 land of another  for  a  special  purpose not  inconsistent with the general
 property  interests of  the  owner.  A  covenant  is  an agreement  of two  or
 more parties by deed  in which  one of the parties pledges  himself to
 the other  that something  is  either done or will  be done.   Each of  these
 instruments may be needed  if a proper, enforceable promise from the
 owner of the land is expected to restrict the property to  certain  uses.

    As noted above, current EPA land disposal regulations require, in
certain instances, that future owners of property to which POTW sludges
have been applied be notified of high cadmium waste applications in the
land record or property deed.  There is an important difference, however,
between giving notice that crops should not be grown on a particular
property and recording a restriction of the property's use.   A notice
may remain recorded in the land record indefinitely, but is not legally
enforceable in the way a restriction would be.  A deed restriction,
however, is enforceable only by the party owning the benefit of the
restriction, and, in many jurisdictions, will be automatically extin-
guished after the passage of a certain period if it is not rerecorded.

    Enforcement of such restrictions can, of course, be troublesome
after the passage of time.  Moreover, a problem associated with creat-
ing legally enforceable land restrictions is that some entity must be
said to "own" the restriction, and only that entity will have the power
to enforce it.  This is true whether the owner conveys an easement
restricting certain uses of the property or guaranteeing access to it,
or alternatively records a covenant promising and requiring the necessary
restrictions.  The easement must, of course, be conveyed to someone —
the project sponsor or the local community, for example.  The covenant,
however, must recite the benefit received by the landowner in exchange
for the restriction, and only the party who has given that benefit can
enforce the restriction.  Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the covenant
must be attached to a particular parcel of land.

    Thus, it will be no simple task to draft the legal document that
may be necessary to restrict future land uses in order to gain agency
approval for land reclamation of biomass production projects using POTW
sludges or to respond to local concerns about the potential impacts of
such a project.  Nor is it always realistic to expect that such land
use restrictions can be enforced in perpetuity.

    Externalities from Operation.  The fact that many land application
projects using POTW sludges have faced opposition from abutting property
owners indicates that such parties frequently believe that they will
suffer, or are suffering unreasonable harm from the project at issue.
If the project sponsor is a public body, these persons may legally oppose
the project by asserting that it is effecting a diminution in the value
of their property substantial enough to constitute a "taking" of value
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.  Regardless of the iden-
tity of the sponsor, they may also argue that the project should be
stopped as a nuisance.

    In legal terms, a nuisance is more than merely a hurt, annoyance or
inconvenience.  The law of nuisance embodies two entirely distinct —
and arguably unrelated — concepts.  A public nuisance is "an unreasonable
interference with a right common to the public" .3-2  under this defini-
tion, land application will be considered unreasonable unless its utility
outweights the gravity of the harm it produces.  In contrast, a private

 nuisance consists of an invasion of a person's interest in the  private
 use and enjoyment of land.   A private nuisance is  actionable  if it is

     •  intentional and  unreasonable,  or

     •  unintentional but negligent,
        reckless,  or abnormally dangerous.

     Under both nuisance concepts,  the legal  injury involved is  a rough
 balance of the benefits and burdens derived  from a particular activity.
 An activity will  be actionable as a nuisance if its harms  are not jus-
 tified  by its  utility.   A land application project using sewage sludge
 could thus be  the subject of a nuisance  action for a number of  reasons.
 Certainly any  allegation of air or water pollution,  odors,  or spills
 can be  a sufficient basis for action.  Alternatively,  a nuisance case
 might allege that the land application was inappropriate by its very
 nature  for the area in  which it is or is to  be located.  Finally,  a
 nuisance action may allege  that insufficient ameliorative  measures have
 been taken to  reduce the harmful effects of  the project, or that in-
 adequate warnings have  been given so  that others may take  such  measures.

     The alleged harms that  arise from even proper  operations  of a POTW
 sludge  land application project have  been repeatedly noted.   They in-
 clude odor,  water pollution or contamination,  the  attraction  of rodents
 and other disease-carrying  pests,  and the raising  of the heavy  metal
 content of the soil.  For each project under litigation, a court would
 have to  make an individual  determination concerning the  magnitudes of
 these burdens,  the availability and use  of ameliorative  measure such
 as  incorporating  sludges  in the soils  or applying  dry  rather  than wet
 sludges,  and the  benefits to the public  and  to the  land  owner.   Where
 the harms arising from  an unreclaimed  mine are substantial, the benefit
 of  reclamation will  be  likely to outweigh its  burden.

     Indeed,  if the focus  of a "taking" or nuisance  case  is  on the  ad-
 verse effect of property  values  associated with a project,  it should
 be  noted  that  land values around a reclaimed  surface mine may not  be
 diminished at  all.   On  the  contrary,  they may be increased.

     Of course,  very  different conclusions concerning liability  to
 third parties  can  be  drawn  where the evidence  is that  negligence was
 involved  in  a project.  Such negligence  might,  for example, be  the
 application  of  the sewage sludge to a  spot that was not  intended,
permitted, or  licensed  to receive it.  Insufficient monitoring  of  the
project might  also constitute  negligence.

    The law  evaluates whether  conduct  is negligent by  focusing on a
 "reasonable person" possessing ordinary  skills and prudence.  If the
conduct alleged does not conform to what such a person would do under
similar circumstances, then  it is negligent.   Obviously, any lawsuit
alleging negligence would turn on its own peculiar facts, and the
question of negligence would be resolved as a matter of fact by a jury.

                              SECTION 3

                          PAST EXPERIENCE
     As part of this research effort,  the staff developed case
studies on the institutional and public acceptance aspects of a num-
ber of actual and attempted POTW sludge land application projects.
The files were compiled from a series of telephone interviews with
key project participants as well as from secondary sources.

     The selected sites included most of the well-known sludge land
application projects, as well as some which have received less pub-
licity.  In order to increase our sample size we also included sev-
eral projects which involved land application of POTW sludge for
agricultural purposes since the institutional and public acceptance
issues raised by such projects are much the same.  After eliminating
from further analysis those case studies that were primarily demon-
stration projects, we analyzed the remaining 16 sites to determine
if we could discern any significant patterns among them.  Key infor-
mation about all the case studies is presented in Figure 4.  Individual
case study summaries are included in Appendix A.

Permitting Process

     The 16 case studies suggest that the actual procedures for obtain-
ing approval of a land application project may differ from the procedures
set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations.  For example, even
in the absence of a statutory requirement that project sponsors obtain
the consent of the local community prior to obtaining a state permit,
state regulatory agencies have demonstrated sensitivity to the wishes of
the community which is to receive the solid waste.  This informal policy
has resulted in communities  having de facto power over regulatory deci-
sions, even which such power is not conferred by the law.

     Where state law provides no formal mechanism for local regulation
of a land application project, local governments may enact ordinances
which give them control over project operations.  Such ordinances have
been passed even in the absence of clear statutory or constitutional auth-
ority for such regulation.  When one county government, for example,
authorized the county Board of Health to issue permits for the transpor-
tation,  storage, use and/or disposal of digested and undigested sludge,
a subsequent challenge resulted in the invalidation of the ordinance on
the grounds that the county had exceeded its authority.  Clearly, such
actions  by county governments can slow or stop project implementation.

     Even when a single agency has sole permitting authority, the formal
review process whereby that agency decides whether or not to  issue a per-
mit may  involve several different independent agencies and offices within
these agencies.  The case studies indicate that the inability of various
offices, either in one or several agencies, to agree upon a common policy
regarding sludge application has complicated and hindered issuance of

County 1




Aged (minimum 10 years)
secondary sludge




H 5



Lagooned anaerobically
digested sludgo
U) N)
CD I--






CSD Canal



Anaerobically digested
and air dryed







Pennsyl- i



- H-
a '





0 1- H-
i= ft) ft)
3 1- Eu




Lagooned anaerobically
digested sludge
W Kl






1 Count




Lagooned anaerobically
digested sludge







0 X r*
0 H ft
§£ £

o s
" U)
&i o

o o
o o
O 1



Anaerobically digested &
dewatered by a polymer



0 0






Liquid digested sludge








re in



Anaerobically digested
heat treated sludge












Mine mix composted sludge
and dewatered sludge cake







c o
3 3




5 QJ












Vacuum filtered anaero-
bically digested sludge






3 ft
< 3



Liquid digested sludge








5 S
5 3

Metro Denver




Air drying of anaerobic-
ally digested sludge






Metro Denver

t— '



Vacuum filtration of an-
aerobically digested











Vacuum filtered digested
secondary sludge; lime &
ferric chloride added









Generally Applicable Public Attitudes Concerning Sludge

     The case studies (and common sense)  indicate that the willingness
of a community to cooperate with a land application project varies with
the community's perceptions of the project's potential benefits and
costs.  For a land application project to gain public acceptance, the
majority of the community must determine that the reclamation or other
benefits (e.g., monetary compensation)  are greater than any burdens
(odors, noise, truck traffic, etc.).

     The major public acceptance barrier which surfaced in all the case
studies is the widely held perception of sewage sludge as malodorous,
disease causing and otherwise repulsive.  These attitudes are a barrier
to any beneficial use of wastewater or sewage sludges.  Experience has
shown that public apprehension on these points can be allayed somewhat -
although not totally dispelled - through public education campaigns.
Demonstration projects which provide first hand experience are an inval-
uable public education tool in this regard.

     The case study experience also indicates that members of core
opposition groups seize upon the public's lack of experience with
wastewater or sewage sludges and attempt.to propogate the view that
sludge is repulsive in an effort to frustrate project implementation.
It is also clear that there is an irrational component to public
attitudes about sludge which means that public education will not
always be entirely successful.

     The relative novelty to the public of the concept and practice  of
land application of sludges may, in itself, be a barrier to public accep-
tance of such projects.  Even after extensive public education by regu-
latory officials addressing the scientific data available to date, there
often remain lingering doubts by the public about the safety of  the  pro-
cedure, based upon fears that the risks are not yet apparent.  The grow-
ing awareness about hazardous wastes and the inadequacy of their past
disposal practices will inevitably  increase public skepticism about  land
application of sludge.

Transporting Sludge into Other Communities

      In 13 of  16 cases studied, the sludge-generating authority  used or
wanted to use an application site outside  its own sewage treatment district.
In one case, the sludge-generating  community attempted to secure access
to a  site in another  state.  The case  studies demonstrate that a shortage
of suitable application sites will  frequently compel a sludge-generating
authority to obtain land application sites beyond its jurisdictional

      The success of any sludge application project depends on  the
sponsor's ability to  gain  the cooperation  of:  (1) the site owner;
 (2) the abutting land owners;   (3)  the surrounding community;  and
 (4) the responsible local  officials.   Transporting sludge into other
communities tends to  multiply institutional barriers.  While a sludge

 generating authority has extensive power to persuade, if not coerce,
 communities within its jurisdiction into accepting sludge, it has no
 such influence or control over other governments.  Moreover, the oppor-
 tunities for project opponents to obstruct project implementation by
 intervening in local regulatory procedures multiply when jurisdictional
 lines are crossed.  When state lines are crossed, even greater barriers

      Success in obtaining use of an application site in another juris-
 diction will vary with the ability of the project sponsors to anticipate
 and to resolve potential conflicts with local interests.  There may be
 latent antagonisms between the sludge-generating community (often a
 large city)  and the receiving (often rural)  community.   These rivalries
 may be the consequence of a variety of factors, including perceived
 cultural differences,  political rivalry, and economic inequality.  What-
 ever the history of the relations between the communities, the unresolved
 conflicts may well arise again when a project is proposed.

 Ownership of the Site

      Of the  16 cases considered,  6 projects  were associated with attempts
 to obtain access to sites which were publicly owned (by federal, state,
 or local government) prior to the inception  of the project.  Four of these
 attempts succeeded in  securing access to the sites.

      In four other cases,  the sludge-generating community purchased or
 leased sites from private land owners.   Two  of these projects have
 reached full scale operations,  one project is attempting to overcome
 institutional and public acceptance barriers to implementation,  and
 another project was frustrated by legal action which was unrelated to
 ownership of the site.

     Six  of  the  case study project  designs involved efforts to use pri-
 vately-owned  sites  which were  to  remain in private  control  throughout
 the project.  Of these,  three  reached full scale operations,  one  was
 suspended because the private  landowner  withdrew from the project, and
 two others failed because of  legal  action or  inability to obtain  the
 required permits.

     These results  do not reveal  any meaningful correlations  between the
 identity of the  application site  owner  and the  success or failure of the
projects.  However, there are some  interesting  findings with  regard to
application site ownership and project  initiation and operations.  Auth-
orities responsible for management  of publicly owned sites may initially
be more receptive to projects that  the owners of private sites.  This is
particularly true with respect to federal lands, where some agencies
have actively sought to become involved in land application projects.
Indeed, in the case of the Savannah River Laboratory project in South
Carolina, and the Palzo Project in  Illinois,  where successful land appli-
cation projects have been conducted on  federally owned lands, the
initiative for the projects came  from the federal agencies  which had
responsibility for management of the sites.

     There is no apparent correlation between site ownership and the
uninterrupted implementation of projects.   The cases included one
project where application on publicly-owned land was terminated after
start-up and two cases where projects on privately-owned lands were
interrupted after start-up.   However, whereas the project on publicly-
owned land was- stopped by legal action initiated by local government,
the projects on privately-owned land were stopped because the land
owners of the application site decided to withdraw from the project.

     It would appear that where the application site is owned by a pri-
vate party, that private party constitutes a potential weak link in the
project's operations.  Such a land owner may, for personal reasons or as
a result of public pressure, withdraw from the program at any time.  For
these reasons, a project promoter may wish to consider approaches which
give them at least limited control over the site, such as leasing.

Abutting Land Uses

     For the purposes of the cross-case analysis, the areas abutting
the application sites were categorized according to use and density
on a comparative basis as:

     •  low - forests, barren strip mine sites and sand dunes

     •  medium - active strip mining, low intensity farming
                 such as grazing and ranching

     •  high - residential areas and intensive agriculture.

Five of the 16 land application sites were next to low-use/density
areas.  Eight sites were next to medium-use/density areas and three
projects were next to high-use/density areas.

     Public opposition to project implementation varied directly with
the nature of the abutting land uses.  Among the four cases where
abutting land use was categorized as low, there was no significant
public opposition to project implementation.  Three of the four pro-
jects achieved full  scale operations; the failure of the  fourth pro-
ject was directly attributable to a  political decision not to permit
importation of sludge from another state.

     Among the eight cases where abutting land uses were  categorized
as medium, there were two cases where community  groups actively opposed
the project;  five cases where  individual abutters voiced  opposition;
and only one  case where there was no significant public opposition.
In three cases lawsuits were filed against  the project.   Five of  the
projects abutted by  medium  land uses achieved full  scale  operations;
the  failure of two of the other three was at least  partially  attri-
butable  to public opposition.

      In  each  of the  three cases where abutting  land uses  were categor-
ized  as  high, abutters organized  to  oppose  project  implementation.   Bach
of these projects became  the subject of a lawsuit and  failed  as a result
of legal action.

 Public Relations

      For this analysis, public relations has been defined as that com-
 ponent of the project which was designed to create favorable public
 attitudes.   This is different from the public participation component
 where a public forum is provided for discussion of unfavorable as well
 as favorable aspects of several alternative projects.   While public
 relations management strategies varied from case to case, concerted
 public relations efforts were made in at least 14 of the 16 case

      Public officials and private contractors involved in project
 planning often expressed the opinion that an effective public relations
 campaign was an essential component of a successful project.   The atti-
 tude was also expressed that,  while a public relations campaign did not
 ensure project success, failure to undertake a public  relations campaign
 ensured project failure.

      It was apparent that the importance given to public relations
 varied with the likelihood of significant public opposition.   Projects
 carried out on isolated sites generally did not involve significant
 public relations  efforts.   Sites  in densely  settled areas or which
 were  likely  to  be the objects  of  inter-jurisdictional  conflict were
 the  focus of  extensive  public  relations  campaigns.

      Responsibility  for Public Relations

      Primary responsibility for conducting public relations campaigns
 falls either to public  officials  who  have no particular training  in  the
 field (six  cases) or to specialized consultants (eight cases).  Five of
 the  eight projects involving private  contractors  were  eventually  imple-
 mented as full  scale operations,  while  only  two of  the six  projects
 whose public  relations  were handled by  public  officials were similarly
 successful.   Given the  limited number of  cases  considered and the great
 number of variables  which  affect  project  implementation,  caution  is
 advised in drawing a correlation  between  responsibility for public
 relations management and project  success.

      The interviews  with public officials and  private  contractors  sug-
 gested that the contractors were  often  able  to serve as a "buffer" or
 mediator between a wary and suspicious  receiving  community  and the
 sludge  generating authority.   The case  studies  provide some indication
 that,  where an  inter-jurisdictional or public  acceptance barrier was
 likely, the generating  community  recognized  the need to  enlist a pri-
 vate  consultant.  Three of  the six cases  where  public  relations were
managed by public officials involved  the  use of relatively  isolated,
publicly-owned application  sites which posed little risk of public
opposition.  However, six of the eight cases where public relations
were handled by private consultants involved privately-owned sites in
medium or high-use areas, with a high risk of vocal public opposition.

     Specific Public Relations Techniques

     There was a wide range of techniques which were used in connection
with public relations campaigns, both by private and public promoters.
These included distribution of brochures describing the project;  public
meetings to explain the project and to field questions from the public;
lectures to citizens groups (e.g., Kiwanis Club, League of Women Voters);
interviews with project officials on TV and radio; visits to demonstra-
tion projects; educational programs in the schools; and establishment of
a "hot-line" telephone service to answer questions.

     These tactics were used about as often for projects that failed as
for projects that succeeded.  No single or combined use of any set of
techniques appears to be more effective than any other.

     Public Relations Strategies

     One of the 16 case study projects operates on the philosophy that
litigation is to be avoided at all costs, even if it means the abandon-
ment of particular application sites.   The rationale for this strategy
is that litigation, even if successful, results in negative publicity
for land application of sludge.  This publicity, in turn, tends to harden
public resistance to project implementation when it is attempted at other
sites.  Adherence to this philosophy has resulted, however, in abandonment
of between 40-50% of the application sites considered by the project.

     The experience of several projects suggests that the effectiveness
of public relations campaigns may be directly related to the timing and
visibility of such campaigns.  Several project managers expressed the
opinion that public attitudes about a project tended to form and
"harden" very soon after initial public disclosure.  Moreover, the
terms and issues of the ensuing public debate tended to be determined
by the tone and content of the initial public disclosure.  Hostile
attitudes and misconceptions engendered by an unfavorable initial
public disclosure may be difficult to allay by a subsequent public
relations campaign.

     The timing of public relations alone did not, of course, ensure
a positive public response to project implementation.  In one case
where there was an early and aggressive public relations campaign,
public opposition to the project proved  insurmountable.  However,
seizure of the initiative by the project sponsor  in the public debate
over the advisability of the project can be one factor contributing
to the success of the project.

     It should be noted that some project managers disagreed with the
proposition  that public relations campaigns should be highly visible
early in project planning.  These people argued that  a highly visible
public relations campaign,  in  the absence of clear  signs of public
opposition,  would  in itself alarm and  harden public opinion against
the  project.

     The public relations campaigns of the various projects differed
most markedly with respect to who was included (or excluded) as the
objects of the public relations efforts.  Some projects were narrow
in scope:  public relations were limited to the application site
owner, or to the immediately surrounding community.  Other projects
made full scale efforts to win over local journalists, politicians,
land owners, administrative officials, businessmen, etc.

     Some public relations efforts may be described as passive, in
the sense that there was little effort to reach out to particular
segments or constituents of the public.  Rather,  information about
the project was made available for individuals and groups which made
the effort to obtain it.  Other public relations  efforts were designed
to reach particular audiences and to win them over to support of the

Application Methods

     It is difficult to say to what extent odors emanating from sludge
mav be imagined.  However, it is the most common ground voiced by
opponents in taking action against land application projects.

     Of the nine projects studied which have reached full scale imple-
mentation, eight involved the use of aged or anerobically digested
liquid sludge.  Of these, the three which were in low land use areas
proceeded with no adverse public reaction.  However, the remaining
five, which were surrounded by either medium or high land use, were
plagued by abutting land owners' complaints of odors.  In each
case, administrative or court action resulted in modification to the
application methods which ensured greater incorporation of the sludge
into the soil.

     Two of the three projects which reached the full scale implementa-
tion stage but were interrupted by litigation employed the use of  liquid
anaerobically digested sludge.  In one  case, the project management would
have changed from spraying to direct incorporation if the courts had
allowed continuation of the project.

     Not surprisingly, the presence of  storage lagoons near the appli-
cation site also arouses public opposition.  Six of the eight projects
involving the use of storage  lagoons became the object of lawsuits or
administrative actions based  on odor complaints.   In two of these
cases, litigation was directly related  to the existence of  the storage

                            SECTION 4

    Land application projects have been initiated by landowners,
receiving communities, sludge producers and private contractors.
In this section, we have summarized our research findings in terms
of strategies for any of these parties interested in sponsoring
a project.  As the analysis of the case studies indicates, no one
approach will guarantee public acceptance or regulatory approval
of a given proposal.

    Nevertheless, at least two general lessons were learned from the
case studies.  First, patience is required to implement a land appli-
cation project.  Second, for a wide variety of reasons, land applica-
tion simply will not be acceptable on every site where it is technically
appropriate.  While no strategy can guarantee success, due consideration
of the following issues should help sponsors reduce the risk that their
proposed projects will not be approved.

Hire Experts

    Some wastewater management authorities have found it useful to hand
over various aspects of the project's promotion to specialized contrac-
tors.  This step may be desirable in some cases, though it may not be
essential.  However, any project sponsor should investigate the possi-
bility of hiring an expert to assist in the permitting process.  In most
cases, the retention of a local lawyer who can provide expertise on both
the formal and informal requirements for obtaining local approvals is
desirable.  Certainly an environmental specialist familiar with the state
regulatory procedures and staff would be helpful.

Reduce Risk of Public Opposition Through Proper Design

    From the case studies, it is clear that the degree of public oppo-
sition to past projects has been directly related to the intensity of
abutting land uses.  The selection of isolated sites greatly improves
the possibility of project acceptance.  Similarly, the project should
be designed to minimize any potential impact from odors.  While soil
incorporation greatly reduces odors from application of anerobically
digested sludge, the use of an aged or thoroughly aerobic sludge form,
such as properly composted sludge, should be considered.  Also, exten-
sive on-site storage of sludge in any form is not recommended.

Clarify the Incentives

    When a land application project is proposed, one can assume that it
is because the sponsor  seeks to take advantage of some benefit to be
derived from the project.  Other parties, however, may stand either to
gain or to lose from the proposal.  By identifying who these parties
are, the project sponsor can clarify for each what benefits they are
likely to derive from the project and can develop strategies for alter-
ing the balance of  such benefits against any project-related burdens
 (for example, by initiating compensation).

      Based on  the unique character of a given proposal the sponsor
 should make sure that everyone whose interests are served in any way
 is informed exactly how they will benefit.  Figure 5 summarizes the
 possible incentives that various parties associated with a reclamation
 program might  have.

 Provide Indemnity and Obtain Insurance

      In any land application project, the potential exists for  some
 harms to project participants, property owners, workers or others,
 either out of  some negligence or from statutory or regulatory viola-
 tion.  In either case, when personal injury or property damage  occurs,
 tort  claims and lawsuits are likely to follow.

      In such a situation, an injured party normally has a selection
 of possible defendants, including the engineer that designed the
 project; the contractor that executed it; any subcontractors in-
 volved; the owner of the land; the operator of the mine; and the
 municipality that generated the sludge.  Moreover, when only some
 of these defendants are named, they may bring others into the liti-
 gation by filing third party complaints.  Any one of the defendants
 in a  common lawsuit could conceivably be held liable for the entire
 amount of damages due — even if that amount is out of proportion to
 the injury —  when other defendants fail or are unable to pay their

      Because land application involves some undeniable risks, and
 because the precise nature and magnitude of those risks may be
 unknown, participants essential to a project may be reluctant to
 join.  Although not used in any of the case studies, one way for
 a project sponsor to overcome such reluctance is to offer to
 indemnify such participants for any liabilities they incure or
 damages they suffer themselves, as a result of their participation.

      The project sponsor is ordinarily in the best position to assess
 the risks of the project.   Thus, if it can satisfy itself that the
 risks are outweighed by the benefits , it can provide reassurance to
 other participants by voluntarily assuming those risks.  The indemnity
 agreement should explicitly state if the sponsor is assuming liability
 for even those harms resulting from the negligence of other project
 participants,  since such indemnity may be demanded as a condition of
 participat ion.

      Indemnity agreements do not preclude an injured party from bring-
 ing suit against the project participants perceived to be actually at
 fault in causing the harm alleged.   Rather, they provide a conceptual
 basis for those participants to be reimbursed by the project sponsor.
 Such  a contract may be worthless,  however, if the project sponsor is
without the financial resources to provide such reimbursement.   In
 such circumstances, project participants are still liable to injured
parties,  and may be left without recourse for damages they had sought
 to shift to the sponsor.

                             FIGURE 5


                   (Assuming Everything Goes Well)
 Wastewater Authority

 -  Alternative  sludge  disposal option
 -  Sludge  disposal  at  lower  cost
 -  Sludge  disposal  acceptable to EPA

 Active Coal  Strip  Mine Operator*

 -  Meet reclamation requirements  for  less money
 -  Less risk  of reclamation  failure
 -  Prompt  bond  return

 Active Coal  Strip  Mine Site Owner**

  -  Reclamation  quality higher than required by OSM

  Other Application  Site Owner***

  -  Increase property value at low investment
  -  Improved public  image
  -  Reduce conflict  with water quality agencies


  - Business revenues

  Local Community

  - Improved aesthetic  environs
  - Improved water  quality
  - Increased tax base
  - Jobs and local  business
  - Other  compensation


  - Improved  environment
  - Increased property values
  - Other  compensation
  *Usually a mining company.
 **May be the same as the operator or may be a different party who
   has leased or sold mineral rights to the mining company.
***Abandoned mines, mill tailing,  dredge spoils,  etc.

      The obvious  solution is  insurance.   By providing insurance for
 all harms arising out of a particular  project,  for a premium paid at
 the outset,  a project sponsor can back an indemnity agreement with the
 security of  a major insurance corporation,  and  thereby satsify any ob-
 jections  to the  sponsor's ability to  provide the  indemnity agreed
 upon.   In any case,  a sludge-generating  authority  and specialized con-
 tractor should obtain professional liability insurance.

 Compile Comprehensive Record

      There are two reasons for a  project sponsor to compile as
 complete a record about  the project as practical.

      1)   A comprehensive record-keeping  mechanism  provides
          evidence that the sponsor has control  over the
          project.   It can therefore serve to reassure
          abutting property owners and  the receiving
          community that  every step possible is  being taken
          to  implement the  project in accordance with a
          specific plan,  to guarantee that the plan is
          followed,  and to  record  the effects of the appli-
          cation of sludge  as  they are  monitored.

      2)   In  the event that something goes wrong with a land
          application  project,  the sponsor will  be  in a better
          position to  explain  and  defend  its actions — and
          possibly avoid  liability for  itself and other project
          participants — if it has  prepared and maintained  a
          comprehensive record.  Since  those who are thinking
          of  participating  in  projects  may be quite  concerned
          with  their potential liability,  the existence of a
          mechanism for compiling  such  a  record  can  serve as
          an  inducement to  their participation.

     In  addition  to arranging for the  compilation and maintenance  of
 factual  data about the design,  operation  and effects  of the reclama-
 tion project,  the  sponsor  should  provide  for continuous analysis of
 these data with as much  critical  objectivity as possible.   Project
 design,  inspection procedures,  testing, quality control efforts, safety
 measures,  and  warnings should be  scheduled  for  regular examination as
 critically and  freshly as possible.  The  information  contained in  such
 evaluations,  as well  as  accident  or  incident reports,  should be widely
 circulated among project participants  and within the  community.

     The  sponsors should take care to  avoid  preparing  a record that can
be used unfairly against them.  For  example,  care should be taken not
 to write a tentative report analyzing  and incident or procedure that
 looks like a final report.  Nor should a  final report be written before
all relevant evidence is gathered, especially if it is critical of pres-
ent or past practices.  Words that imply negligence should be avoided.
For example,  reporting that a lysimeter has  "cracked" is more accurate
and objective then stating that it "failed".

Comprehensive and Open Monitoring Program

     While the details of a monitoring program will be governed by
site-specific considerations there are some generalizations that can
be made about monitoring programs.  Monitoring serves two important
non-technical roles.  As discussed above, monitoring provides a much
needed record, if there are questions in the future about the project.
Monitoring also provides a means of allaying some of the public's
fears about adverse impacts.  For these reasons alone, regardless of
their technical importance, monitoring programs should be carefully
designed and conscientiously implemented.

     The specifics of a monitoring program must be determined
on a site-by-site basis.  A comprehensive monitoring program should
have three components:  sludge quality, field operations, and environ-
mental effects.

     •  Sludge quality should be assessed in two ways.
        First, it is important to know something of the
        historic composition of the sludge.  At least a
        one year record of such compositional data as nitro-
        gen, heavy metals and PCB content should be obtain-
        able from the POTW.  This information can then be
        used to establish loading rates.  Second, a composite
        sample should be taken from the particular batch of
        sludge actually applied to a given site.  Analysis
        of this sample should be recorded and evaluated to
        ensure that the heavy metals and PCB loadings were,
        in fact, within the limits specified in permits.

     •  Field operations are the procedures by which  the
        site is prepared and sludge is applied.  The  state
        or local permitting agency may wish to have an
        observer at the site to ensure that the specified
        procedures are, in  fact, followed.  In any case, it
        is in the sponsor's best interest to encourage such

     •  Environmental effects include project effects on
        ground water, soil  water, soil,  and vegetation.
        Pennsylvania, for example, has developed a rela-
        tively standardized monitoring program which  calls
        for ground water, soil water, vegetation and  soils
        monitoring  at quarterly  intervals  for a minimum  of
        one year.   The decision  as to whether or not  to  con-
        tinue monitoring is then based on  the results of the
        first year tests.

     The  question of  who does the monitoring  raises many credibility
 issues.   In at  least  three  of the  case  studies,  the  local  community
 felt uncomfortable  having  to believe  the project management's

results.  Sponsors should not take these concerns as an attack on
their integrity, but rather as legitimate concerns based on unfortunate
past experience.  A number of approaches can be used in the resolution
of this issue.

     •  Probably most cost-effective is for the sponsor to
        arrange to have a third party perform the monitoring.
        This third party might be the local university or
        agricultural college, the state water quality control
        agency, the state department of agriculture, or a
        private laboratory.  In any case, the project manage-
        ment can arrange to cover the costs of monitoring
        and use the results for their own records.

     •  Alternatively, the project management can offer to split
        samples collected with any of the regulatory authorities or
        public interest groups.  The project management should be
        prepared to finance the duplicate analysis as well as their own.

     •  Finally, the local community can conduct a sampling
        program completely independent of the project's pro-
        gram.  While this may seem excessive, it may also
        be politically necessary.

Public Relations Campaigns

     As discussed above, there are no sure ways to gain public accep-
tance of land application projects,  short of locating them in
completely isolated areas.  Where interaction with the public is pro-
jected, there are various techniques that may help the promoter to
gain public acceptance.

     While public relations campaigns are designed and carried out
by the project sponsor to bring out a project's major benefits, candor
is nevertheless essential in order to do this effectively.  The case
studies revealed a wide range of public relations techniques that
have been used to promote POTW sludge projects, including development
and distribution of glossy brochures describing the project; open pub-
lic meetings; presentations to specific interest groups; presentation
of films about similar projects;  local media coverage;  technical edu-
cation campaigns for the public and in the schools; establishment of
a hotline for quick response to individual questions; and presentation
of materials stressing community benefits from the project.

     It is important to design a public relations program which fits
the character of the receiving community and the specifics of the
application site.   A major consideration is whether to take an aggres-
sive or passive approach to public relations.  There has been mixed
success with both tactics.  An aggressive campaign allows a sponsor
to stay on the offensive and to conduct an effective technical educa-
tion before project opponents can play upon public prejudices against
sludge,  but may also engender opposition where none would have existed

     The case studies show a direct correlation between higher density
abutting land uses and the amount of public controversy.  Thus, a pas-
sive public relations campaign should be implemented only in situations
where the application site is relatively isolated.   For other sites,
which are likely to be controversial anyway, an aggressive public rela-
tions campaign is recommended.

Technical Education

     Before local citizens can discuss the pros and cons of a  pro-
posed project they must become familiar with the technical aspects
of a new field.  A technical  education program presenting the  funda-
mentals of the land application process will enable various partici-
pants to ask questions.  Unlike a public relations campaign which is
directed at the community as  a whole, technical education is directed
toward a more limited audience with greater than average interest in
the project.

     It is likely that many with whom a sponsor deals  will have  had
little or no experience with  POTW  sludge or land application.  The
first phase of this program,  therefore, should be to explain  exactly
what will happen if the project is  implemented:  how the land  is pre-
pared; what time of   year the sludge is applied; when  a grass  cover
can be expected, etc.  This is one  point where reclamation projects
have an advantage over some other  land application projects.   Since
the sludge used  in reclamation is  generally only applied once, the
public can be assured that any inconvenience due to traffic,  dust or
odors will be a  one-time occurrence of very short duration.   While
movies on the general topic can be  used to introduce the subject, it
is important also to  set out  the  specifics of  the particular  applica-
tion proposal.   Oral, written and  visual materials  should  be  prepared
for presentation at public meetings.

     The next important effort is to inform the public as to
the high degree of anticipated compliance with state and federal
guidelines and standards.  These guidelines or standards should
cover the following topic areas:

     •  Pathogen control

     •  Heavy metal content of sludge and  soil

     •  Synthetic organic chemical content

     •  Storage facilities

     •  Application methods

     •  Site preparation

     •  Seeding methods

     •  Monitoring plans

     •  Deed restrictions

      Where possible, standards of performance should be stated and the
 expected conformance of the project to these standards should be stressed.
 For example, with respect to sludge stabilization for odor and pathogen
 control, details of the composting process or anaerobic digestion process
 should be provided.  For heavy metals, the composition of the sludge and
 the resulting soil and crop concentration of metals should be presented
 and comparisons made where possible.   It is particularly important to com-
 pare the proposed loading with prescribed loadings as recommended in
 state and EPA guidelines.

      It would be a good idea to enlist local experts, university
 researchers, or agricultural/forestry extention staff to assist with
 a public education effort in order to improve credibility of the project.

 Advisory Panels

      Another proven means  of gaining  credibility for a project and to
 defuse public opposition is to ask parties with a potential interest to
 participate on a project advisory panel.   This is particularly useful in
 the case of the first site to be located in a general area.  Governmental
 personnel with actual or de facto power of approval should be asked to
 participate along with representatives of the core opposition group,
 abutters and other groups.  Such a panel provides a perfect mechanism
 for finalizing monitoring procedures  and reviewing project progress.
 It also provides a forum for the settlement of disputes.   Advisory
 panels have proven very useful during the facilities planning stages
 for a wide range of wastewater treatment options under EPA public
 participation regulations  and appear  to be particularly useful during
 the initial phases of a land reclamation project.

 Demonstration Projects

      Conducting a demonstration project does  not guarantee that promoters
 will  be  able to expand a project to full  scale.   However,  it is much eas-
 ier to start a demonstration project  than it  is  to start  a full scale pro-
 ject.  Once under way,  the demonstration  project sets the  stage
 for a larger program.   The sponsor  may wish to plan a strategy whereby
 full  scale  operations  can  be reached  after three or four years.   Exper-
 ience  has  indicated  that a well-run demonstration program  can help  sell  a
 full-scale  project.  Thus,  a demonstration should be  initiated if there
 is  no  ongoing land application project within  a  reasonable distance  from
 the proposed site.   A  local  demonstration program,  preferably with  exten-
 sive participation of  local  university researchers, will provide  an  excel-
 lent vehicle  for  educating the  public  about the  process, and  should  receive
 local media  coverage.

     Such demonstration programs, when operated  as  a  "pilot program"  to
 develop  full  scale project design criteria may be  fundable under  the
 Step I facilities planning portion  of  the EPA construction grants process.
 We  have  identified a number of  instances where such "pilot" scale waste-
 water treatment programs have been  funded in this manner.  Also, research
 funding  to support demonstration programs may be available from EPA, other
 federal or state agencies.  Otherwise,  the costs of demonstration programs
may have to be born by the project promoter prior to seeking assistance
 for establishing full-scale projects.

Compensation to the Receiving Community

     In many cases, the recipient community may not have any incentive
to provide the necessary project approval.   In cases where public
opposition is anticipated,  the promoters should carefully examine the
community's incentives and consider the possibility of modifying the
project to increase them.  Recent research13 in the field of community
compensation summarized the various methods into four major categories:

     •  Impact Prevention - This category covers the technical
        aspects of the project discussed under the strategy
        of proper design.  To gain public acceptance a project
        sponsor must be sensitive to local concerns and be
        willing to modify practices to meet local requirements.
        Some modifications which might be considered are:

        - Location changes
        - Changes in sludge application technique
        - Use of dry rather than wet sludge
        - Truck route changes
        - Drainage control system
        - Buffer zone

     •  Impact Mitigation - These techniques are used to com-
        pensate a community or individuals for adverse impacts
        of a project which are unavoidable.  Although the risk
        of such impacts is often very small, it is advisable
        to establish a mechanism to provide compensation just
        in case.  It is very unlikely that this form of compen-
        sation will be required for land application pro-

     •  Side Payments - This form of compensation involves the
        payment of a benefit to the community to offset any
        burdens.  These payments may be in the form of direct
        monetary payments or may be more indirect.  One approach
        is transfer of a service or amenity to the community
        which is the direct result of a land reclamation project.
        For example, a portion of the reclaimed site could be
        deeded to  the community as a park.  Side payments may
        also be possible in the form of local economic support.
        For example, consider the maximum use of local resources
        such as local trucking  firms, local labor, and  local merchants.

     •  Contingency Management  - This is the method of  local
        compensation most commonly used in reclamation projects
        to date.   Sponsors use  these techniques to reassure the
        community  that the project is well managed and  that
        procedures have  been established to deal with problems.
        Providing  the  local community not  only with access  to
        the  site  for purposes of monitoring but also  providing
        them with  funds  to conduct an  independent monitoring

program has been a key to project acceptance in the
past.  Such independent monitoring programs can be
financed either directly or through a tipping fee
on each truck load of sludge brought into the commu-
nity.  Other methods used to reassure the local
communities include   posting of performance bonds,
purchasing of liability insurance, and establishing
a "hotline".

     While no one is going to say that gaining approval for land
application projects is easy, it is certainly possible, it may,
in fact be no more difficult than gaining approval for other types
of wastewater and sewage sludge management projects.  Sponsors who
are patient, taking the time to properly design projects, to con-
duct demonstrations, and to provide public education programs, will
most likely be able to successfully establish projects.

     At this time, the only note of caution is that land application
as a management option is very vulnerable.  Public acceptance of the
concept is growing with every successfully implemented project, but
it might only take one disaster to shelve the technology.  Thus, while
dealing with the red tape of federal guidelines and state permit
requirements may be frustrating, it will be worthwhile if projects
perform well.

     With the number of disturbed areas in this country increasing
daily, the potential for sewage sludges in reclamation and biomass
production projects is enormous.  If projects implemented during
the next five years demonstrate that the procedures not only work,
but can be conducted in a publicly acceptable manner, it is quite
likely that  land reclamation and biomass production will become a
more widely  used method of recycling sewage sludges.  Land owners
may then begin to assume an  increasing  share of the overall project

 1.  33 U.S.C.  §§ 1251 et seq.

 2.  33 U.S.C.  § 1281(d).

 3.  See EPA's  regulations under the Clean Air Act  (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
     §§ 7401 et seq., dealing with new stationary sources of air
     emissions, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, and with hazardous pollutants.
     40 C.F.R.  Part  61.  See also EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act
     (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. regulations on PCBs, 40 C.F.R.
     Part 761,  and the recently promulgated hazardous waste regulations
     under  the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCAA), 42 U.S.C.
     §§ 6901 et seq., 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 et seq.

 4.  See EPA's  ocean dumping regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 220-230,
     promulgated under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries,
     33 U.S.C.  §§ 1401 et seq.

 5.  See EPA's  PCB regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 761, and  its solid
     waste  disposal  regulations, promulgated jointly under RCRA and
     the CWA at 40 C.F.R. Part 257.  See also EPA's hazardous waste
     regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 et seq.

 6.  See EPA's  solid waste disposal regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 257,
     and the forthcoming regulations on distribution and marketing
     of sewage  sludge products, to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part

 7.  33 U.S.C.  § 1345(d).

 8.  42 U.S.C.  §§ 6907, 6944.  These standards appear at 40 C.F.R.
     Part 257.

 9.  40 C.F.R. Part  258 (forthcoming).

10.  30 U.S.C.  §§ 1202 et seq.

11.  42 U.S.C.  §§ 4321 et seq.

12.  Restatement (second) of torts § 821B.

13.  "A Handbook for States in the Use of Compansation and Incentives
     in the Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities" (Draft),
     September, 1980, prepared by USR&E for EPA.


Case Study Summaries

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case Study                                                            Page
Vestel, New York	     A-l
Lowry and Adams County, Colorado	     A-5
Fulton County, Illinois  	    A-ll
Wood County, Ohio	    A-16
Boone County, Indiana	    A-19
Savannah River Laboratory Project  	    A-25
The Palzo Project	    A-27
Lewis and King Counties, Washington	    A-31
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal   	    A-33
The Philadelphia Case Study	    A-36
Grundy County, Illinois  ...  	    A-44
West Virginia and Maryland	    A-47
Louisa County Case Study 	    A-48
Pittsburgh Case Study	    A-50
Harlem Valley, New York	    A-52
Montgomery County and Prince George's County, Maryland  	    A-54
Fort Collins, Colorado Case Study  	    A-57
Redwood National Park	    A-60

                            VESTEL, NEW  YORK
     The treatment facility in Binghamton  serves a population of 120,000 and
is mutually e»«aed by the City of Binghamton (56%)  and the Village of Johnson
City (44%).  In 1973, the rising cost  of landfilling the sludge forced the
Joint Sewer Board to evaluate new  alternatives.   Ba-sed on success stories
©f land application programs in Chicago aaad Denver and the economic attrac-
tiv®«<@** ®f swob program® , the B©aa?d decided to  con-tract Sludge Disposal
ftwrvieoas, lac.  (SBS) , owned by Neil Guiles, to laraid apply sludge at a cost
•f $33/Ory Horn  (preeen-tly SDS receives $65/Ury t©m) .  The liquid digested
       is starieisJ t© approximately 20% solids by vacuum filtration.  Metals
            rage ®n a dry weight basis, 115 rag/kg OB, 1250 mg/kg Cu, 650
      f*,, 19,©®® mg/kg Fe.

     Since the project's start in  1975, Guiles has used two trucks of 5,200
    6,00€ gallon capacity to transport the sludge four miles from the plant
to approximately 100 acres of farmland in  the Town of Vestel.  According to
tbe Manager of SDS, 40 acres of land are owned by Neil Guiles' father and SDS
       the other 60 acres from farmers.  The sludge is stored in a 3-4 million
IV.  Regulation

     The key state regulatory agencies include the New York State Departments
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Agriculture and Markets, and Public
Health.  On the local level that Broome County Department of Health is involved ,
but only to the extent that it refers problems to the regional office of the
DEC.  The major problems in the Binghamton case have resulted from the lack of
communication and coordination among agencies as well as major disagreements
within the agencies as to the proper regulatory actions to be taken.

     The only permit presently required for land application of sludge in
New York State is based on Part 364 of the New York Code of Rules and Regula-
tions which deals with sludge hauling (commonly referred to as a waste scaven-
ger permit).  In the future, according to an associate Sanitary Engineer with
DEC, a contractor will need both Parts 364 and 360 permits.  Part 360 deals
with waste disposal site regulations.  The DEC has full responsibility for
permitting and is the major regulatory agency in this case.

     The DEC first became aware of high levels of cadmium in the Binghamton
sludge in the fall of 1978.  At that time, DEC proposed that the sludge
disposal operation could continue only if consent orders were negotiated
between the DEC and all communities contributing to the Treatment Plant,
the Joint Board, and Neil Guiles.  The City and Neil Guiles decided not to
negotiate a consent order since the order specified a tight deadline for
site closure.  The City Engineer informed the DEC of their intentions and
arranged for all parties to meet in the DEC office in Albany.  As a result
of the meeting, a considerable amount of time and effort was spent by the
City and its consulting engineering firm to obtain a Federal grant which
would pay the cost of groundwater and other tests necessary to satisfy DEC.
A lot of time was spent negotiating testing requirements with DEC so that the
Federal grant, which had to be approved by the Construction Grants Division
of EPA and the DEC, complied with DEC's Permit Section.  However, in  June  1979,
when the DEC backed down on its original insistence that the site be closed,
Guiles signed the consent order.  The City still objected to a stipulation
in the order requiring that no crops grown on the farmland enter the food
chain, but made arrangements to buy SDS1 crop at market value.  The City sold
the crop to a local farmer after tests were done which indicated that there
was no danger of toxic metals problems in the crop.  The City was prepared to
take the State to court on the issue, but with the  issuance of the  U.S. EPA
Interim final requirements in September 1979, the State said it was prepared to
vacate the  consent order.

     The consent order was issued in absence of any state or federal regulations
specifically related to SDS's operations, but contained an "escape clause" which
stated that the consent order would become null and void in the event that
federal or state guidelines for land application were finalized into regulation.
When the federal regulations were established in September 1979, SDS and the DEC
Regional Attorney, found the sludge disposal operation to be in compliance with
the new regulations.   However, DEC's Division of Solid Waste Management, declared
that because the federal regulations were only interim-final, the consent order
should remain in effect.  The DEC Regional Attorney responded to this by saying,

 "The fact that the area in question is characterized as interim-final,  does
 not change the fact that they are fully enforceable as final."

      As part of the federal regulations,  Guiles is required to  submit a state-
 ment to DEC declaring that the crops grown on the sludge amended soils  are used
 only for animal feed.  However,  the Regional Engineer for Environmental Quality
 (in charge of issuing scavenger permits such as the one SDS is  seeking)  states
 that he has not been authorized to request or acknowledge such a statement.

      The Binghamton case is such a political hot potato that other  agencies
 seem to avoid active involvement.   When high cadmium levels in  the  Binghamton
 sludge  were first  measured,  DEC asked the other two agencies for some deter-
 mination.   After 6 months of inaction,  the DEC decided to use its own consent
 order mechanism to control the situation.   In addition,  the DEC has  been able
 to  exert further controls by imposing additional monitoring requirements as
 part of the State  grant stipulations for  all sewage treatment plants in the
 State (New York is the  only State  which pays a portion (33-1/3%)  of  facilities'
 operation  and maintenance costs).

      Although the  state agencies  are unwilling to take any enforcement  action,
 the  Department of  Agriculture  and  Markets  has been very  verbal  on the subject.
 The  State  of New York is presently trying  to make its  own sludge regulations
 through the public hearing process.   Representatives  of  the Department  of
 Agriculture and Markets have attended the  hearings to  protest the new regula-
 tions,  saying that they are  not  stringent  enough in terms of allowable  cadmium
 concentrations  and have asked  for  a  2  year  moratorium  on land spreading
 operations.   Cornell  University  Department  of Agriculture representatives,  on
 the  other  hand,  have  attended  the  hearings  to express  the opposing view.
 Estimates  are that it will be  early  1981  before  the State's  sludge landspread-
 ing  regulations  are  finalized.

 V-   Political and  VI.   Local Government

      A professor at the  State  University of  New  York at  Binghamton  (SUNY),
 researched  cadmium uptake  in various types  of corn.   An  English professor  at
 SUNY read  a 1977 progress  report on  the project  and became  alarmed at the
 levels of  cadmium  cited.   He has complained  several times to DEC and writes
 to the editor of the  local paper about his  concerns of a cadmium problem.
 Interestingly,  his home  is  located on the road which Guiles'  uses to truck the
 sludge to the  site and  he  is apparently also opposed to  having  the trucks  pass
 his  house.

      The local governments of  Binghamton and  Vestel are  in  favor  of  land appli-
 cation in that it  is  the cheapest way to dispose  of the  sludge.   State legis-
 lators have made inquiries at  DEC concerning  the  difficulties that have arisen,
 but  have not made attempts to do much more than  suggest  that  the  DEC keep  things
moving in the regulatory process.

VII.  Interest Groups

     No groups as such are involved in the project.  The campaigns of indivi-
duals have apparently not caused any arousal of public concern.  Except for
the isolated incident described above, none of the landowners abutting the
site have complained about the sludge spreading operations (there are only 2
or 3 others owning land directly adjacent to the site).

VIII.  Public Participation and Public Relations

     There is no organized public relations program in Binghamton.

IX.  Technical Issues

     The major issue has been that of cadmium accumulation in the soil and
possible uptake in the corn grown on the farm.  As described in the regulation
section, the DEC would not allow the corn to be used as livestock feed until
each harvest was analyzed.  Cornell studies proved that there was no uptake
of cadmium in the grain — only in the leaves.

     There was some discrepancy as to how much cadmium had been added to the
soil by the sludge application.  While SDS was supposedly spreading on all
100 acres, and cadmium concentrations in the soil were conservatively calculated
based on 85 acres.  In practice, SDS had applied the  sludge to only 56 acres.
As a result, the calculated levels were lower than the levels actually present
at the site.

     There have not been problems with pollution of ground water  or runoff in
this case.
 CONTACTS:  Department of Environmental Conservation,  Region  I
            7481 Henry Clay Blvd.
            Liverpool, New York  13088

            Sludge  Disposal Services
            209 Stage Road
            Vestel,  New  York

            Binghamton-Johnson City Sewage  Treatment Plant
            Old Vestel Road
            Binghamton,  New York  13904

            Department of Environmental  Conservation
            50 Wolf Road
            Albany, New  York   12233

                        LOWRY AND ADAMS COUNTY,  COLORADO

 I.   Background

      This case study examines the experience  of Metropolitan Denver Sewage Dis-
 posal District No.  1 (Metro)  with sludge application to land.  For eleven years
 Metro sludge  had  been applied to a site owned by the City and County of Denver
 at  the old Lowry  Bombing  Range site in Arapahoe County Colorado.   Metro is also
 proposing a sludge  drying and distribution center in Adams County.

      Metro is an  authority serving 21  agencies  in the Denver metropolitan area,
 with its  central  plant located in Adams County.  The plant,  originally built
 in  1966,  and  recently expanded,  provides activated sludge secondary treatment
 for 170 million gallons per day.   Sludge was  incinerated at  the original facility
 until 1971 when rising fuel costs,  mechanical,  and air pollution  problems resulted
 in  a switch to land application  at the Lowry  site.   In 1972,  when the plant ex-
 pansion was proposed,  land application of sludge was the recommended plan.   How-
 ever, this was such a controversial issue that  officials decided  to proceed with
 the construction  of the wastewater treatment  facilities expansion and to study
 the question  of sludge management further.  As  a result of these  studies,
 Metro has proposed  the Adams  County sludge drying and management  project.

      A.   Lowry Site

      Since 1969,  Metro has been  transporting  sludge to the Lowry  Bombing Site
 by  truck.   The sludge  was  spread on the  land  in strictly a disposal mode.   Cattle
 ranches and small wheat farms abut  the Lowry  site,  although  there is a residen-
 tial development  within a  mile and a half of  the site.   Metro pays  the City and
 County of Denver  $2.00 per dry ton  of  sludge  disposed of at  the site.   The  City
 sanitary  landfill is near  the application site  and  the whole  area will be re-
 stricted  to park  or recreational  land  use  after the operations  are  complete.
 Although  the  Lowry  application site is not  in the service  district  itself,  46
 percent of Arapahoe County (where  Lowry  is  located)  is served by  Metro.   A  Metro
 official  commented  that he  could  see Lowry  becoming part of the service  district
 in  the future.  Funding for the  Lowry  project is entirely from  user charges.
 There have  been complaints  of odors due  to  application of  unstabilized primary
 sludge at the  Lowry site.   These odor  problems  have  been solved by  mixing the
 sludge with soil.

      B.  Adams  County  Site

     Metro's consultant, CH2M-Hill,  recommended  a plan  to pipe  the  anaerobically
digested sludge from the Central Plant, which is  located in Adams County, to
 600 acres of drying beds also  in Adams County.   After  drying, the sludge will
be used on public lands (parks, open space, etc.) and  sold to area  farmers  as
a fertilizer.   The rate schedule for the  sale of  this  sludge  has not been
established, but will be based on nitrogen  content.  Metro would like  to make
a total purchase of 2000 acres in Adams County and would use  the land  not desig-
nated for drying beds for a buffer  zone, demonstration plots  and distribution
facilities.  Design on the project was 95% complete  in  1977.  Construction  on
the project is awaiting a Certificate of Designation for the  operation of a
Solid Waste Site and Facility from the Adams  County  Commissioners.  Under

Colorado State Law all solid waste disposal facilities,  which the drying and
distribution facility is considered, must receive a Certificate of Designation
before the operation can begin.   A hearing to determine  whether or not the
certificate should be awarded is scheduled for January 13, 1981.  Although
design on the project is 95% complete, it will have to be updated and completed
before construction can begin.

     Construction is estimated to start six to nine months after the Certificate
of Designation is approved.  The cost of the project is  estimated to be $40
million  (1978 $).

     Abutters to the proposed drying site in Adams County are predominanly dry
land farmers in a very remote area.  The proposed drying basin site is not within
the treatment plant service district, although 74% of Adams County is.  Metro
had to get a partial condemnation order so that it could perform geotechnical
studies on land proposed for the drying beds.

II.  Litigation

     Litigation in this case seems to be hazy at best.  At the Lowry Bombing
Range site there have been no real issues of litigation, but there have been
public hearings before the Arapahoe County Commissioners.  These hearings
have been requested by the abutters to the Lowry site who have complained of
odors.  Metro and the City and County of Denver, who own the land, have made
requested adjustments  (mixing the sludge with soil to stop odor problems).

     In Adams County, Metro brought local land owners to court to obtain  access
to land for geotechnical studies.  Adams County District Court awarded partial
condemnation rights of the drying bed site in Adams County so that Metro  could
carry out the necessary geotechnical  studies to get the project underway.   In
other court action, Metro brought Adams County to  court saying that under cur-
rent law, Metro did not need  a Certificate of Designation for its sludge  drying
beds.  Metro's rationale was  an amendment to Colorado's Solid Waste Act which
says in  effect that beneficial uses of sludge are  not considered  solid waste
disposal  facilities,  and therefore, do not need a  Certificate of  Designation.
The court ruled against Metro saying  that Adams County was within its rights
in requesting a Certificate of Designation for the drying bed  sites.

III.  Legislation

     The  State of  Colorado  Solid  Waste Disposal  Sites and Facilities  Act  was
amended  in  1976 to allow beneficial uses of  sludge without a Certificate  of
Designation.  Metro,  the League of  Women Voters,  Keep Colorado  Beautiful  and
other environmental  groups  proposed the change.   Although not proposing  the
amendment,  the  State  Department of  Health  favored it.   The farmers  abutting
and owning  the  Adams  County drying bed  sites were opposed to the amendment
feeling  that  Adams County  was being used  for waste disposal  without receiving
the benefits  that  surrounding counties were.

 IV.   Regulation

      In this  case, the primary  regulatory agency is the State Department of
 Health.   At the Lowry Site the  State provides technical assistance in the form
of monitoring,  but allows  Metro to set  its own application rate.  At_the Adams

County site, the State Department of Health is responsible for implementing
the EPA construction grants program.  The State has promulgated land applica-
tion guidelines this year (1980).  In promulgating these guidelines, the State
Health Department staff researched similar guidelines promulgated by EPA,
Illinois and Ohio.  Metro does not feel that the State regulators have been
inconsistent, but rather that they move slowly.  Metro attributes this to the
lack of technical capabilities and manpower the State has for dealing with the
sludge problem, and does not believe the new State guidelines will cause any
major changes in the way Metro handles the project.  The major permit required
for the project is the Certificate of Designation needed for the sludge drying
bed site.  The process involved in obtaining this certification includes:

     o  The Adams County Commissioners' review plans and sends them to
        the State Department of Health;

     o  The State Department of Health reviews the plans and comments,
        then sends them back to the County Commissioners;

     o  The Adams County Commissioners hold a public hearing to again
        review plans (January 13, 1981) and to determine whether or not
        the certificate should be awarded.

V.  Political

     There are four key interest groups and one research institute involved in
the land application project in Adams County.  The interest groups include the
League of Women Voters, the Keep Colorado Beautiful Environmental Group, the
Adams County Chamber of Commerce and a loosely knit group organized to oppose
the project.  The League of Women Voters and the Keep Colorado Beautiful Group
both favor the project, while the Adams County Chamber of Commerce is willing
to endorse the project if Metro will carry out some recommendations that they
have put forth.  The research institute involved is the Colorado State University.

     Currently, the local county government seems to be opposed to the project.
The past county commissioners were opposed to the project, but two of the cur-
rent county commissioners are new and have yet to take a stand.  At EPA hearings,
the Adams County Planning Commission has voiced opposition to the project on
behalf of the County Commissioners.  They have done this even though many of
them personnally favor the project.  The opposition of the Adams County Commis-
sioners to the project fits historical patterns of Adams County residents fear-
ing that the county is becoming a waste disposal site for the metropolitan area.

VI.  Local Government

     As stated in the Political Section of this report, the Adams County Govern-
ment has traditionally been opposed to this project even though county residents
have become more receptive over time.  The past commissioners did not feel that
they had played a significant enough role in the planning of the project.  The
Planning Commission felt that this criticism was unjustified and suggests that
being opposed to the project has been a very popular political stance.

VII.  Interest Groups

     The four key interest groups involved in this case are:

     o  Keep Colorado Beautiful

     o  League of Women Voters

     o  Mams County Chamber of Commerce

     o  A loosely organized opposition group.

The loosely organized opposition group is made up mostly of area farmers.  The
group formed a couple of years ago to oppose a landfill that was proposed for
Adams County.  The Keep Colorado Beautiful Group and the League of Women Voters,
both of whom are in favor of the project, were influential during the draft EIS
review process as they furnished petitions supporting the project.

     The Adams County Chamber of Commerce said they would support the project if
Metro would:

     o  Provide more sewer service to rural areas in Western Adams County;

     o  Completely rebuild (rather than patch) all streets the pipeline
        goes under in Commerce City;

     o  Research land application sites farther away from Commerce City.

     According to the Adams County Planning Commission, Metro has balked at
these suggestions, while Metro maintains that some of the requests were not
legally feasible.  For example, the idea of extending service was not feasible
because Metro is not allowed to extend outside the planning area and still
receive grants.

VIII.  Public Participation and Public Relations

     There has been public participation and public relations programs both at
the Lowry and Adams County sites.   Robert Bardwell, then of Landfill, Inc.,
contractor for the Metro District, (later absorbed by BFI)  was in charge of
the public relations program at Lowry.  Mr. Bardwell said that this program

     o  research and extensive preparation;

     o  hiring a journalist for professional PR work;

     o  four public meetings;

     o  taking city and county officials to Chicago to show them
        demonstration plots;

     o  use of the media and brochures;

     o  use of experts for credibility;

     o  meeting with and informing political figures so that they could answer
        their constituents' questions.

The major weakness in the program, as noted by Bardwell, was a failure to meet
with and inform key members of the political party that was not in office
at the time.

     In Adams County, there was a public relations program when the project
was conceived in 1972, but there has been little evidence of one in recent
years.  Del Calzo Associates of Denver was retained by Metro for public rela-
tions activities.  Although not officially part of the public relations program,
Metro has also been running a program where school children are given tours of
the wastewater treatment works.  This program has helped to make the concept
of wastewater treatment and solids reuse more acceptable to the children and
also their parents.  Also, Metro held monthly meetings in Adams County to keep
the public informed and created an advisory board of interested citizens.
This board was active during the planning stages, but has been relatively in-
active during the years of project review.

     Drawbacks to the public participation/public relations projects in Adams
County include:

     o  the project's long review period (3 years to develop EIS and 1-1/2
        years of State review) has made it hard to keep the project in the
        public mind;

     o  Metro's technical explanations are offset by the emotional percep-

IX.  Technical Issues

     Actual contents of sludge from Metro's Central Treatment Plant have never
been challenged, although many people were initially suspicious because sludge
from most cities the size of Denver contains high levels of heavy metals and
PCBs.  There has been a concern that application rates at the Lowry site are
too high, but no legal regulatory action has been taken.

     One regulatory requirement imposed by EPA that differed from the recommend-
ation of CH_M-Hill and Metro was that all of the Adams County drying beds be
lined to prevent leachate.  CH_M-Hill and Metro were opposed to this because
the geotecnnical studies and the USGS confirmed that the groundwater table was
sufficiently deep and protected by impervious materials overlaying it such that
groundwater contamination was not an issue.   The EPA held the ultimate power
in the form of money and therefore won out.

     The farmers were originally opposed to the project saying it would do
more harm than good.  However, this was at the beginning of the project when
they thought Metro would own the application sites and lease the sites back
to them.  Since Metro opted to sell sludge to the farmers,  the farmers' views
have changed and many now support the project.

CONTACTS:  Adams County Planning Commission
           450 South Fourth Avenue
           Brighton, Colorado  80601

           Denver Department of Public Works
           City and County Bldg.
           Denver,  Colorado

           Department of Resource Recovery and Reuse for Metro
           6450 York Street
           Denver,  Colorado  80229

           Colorado State Health
           4210 East Eleventh Street
           Denver,  Colorado

           Delcalzo Associates
           Denver,  Colorado

           DNS Associates
           1901 L.  Street, N.W.
           Suite 616
           Washington,  D.C.  20036

           Water and Wastewater Division
           Box 22508
           Denver,  Colorado  80222

                             FULTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

 I.   Background

      Citizens of Fulton County, Illinois have been concerned about the effects
 of strip mining in the county for many years.  The first collective action was
 taken in 1969, when the County Board of Supervisors (The Board)  and the State's
 Attorney's Office formed a special citizens committee.   The group discussed
 the pending strip mine landfill proposal in Livingston  and Stark Counties,
 and directed the State's Attorney to investigate the feasibility of such a
 project in Fulton County,

      It was apparent from the studies of the landfill project that, although
 it would effectively level the -mined area, some measures would have to be
 taken to modify the inorganic mine spoil material covering the landfill.   It
 was then that the use of digested sewage sludge for soil rehabilitation was
 proposed.   Subsequently, the County Planning Administrator and the Board
 investigated the sludge project underway in Arcola to determine  whether Fulton
 County should consider such a process.   As a result of  this and  further in-
 vestigations, a resolution to negotiate a similar project was proposed,  and
 approved by The Board in a 30-0 vote.

      The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC)  made  a
 presentation to the Fulton County officials on September 11,  1970,  and con-
 ducted a tour through the MSDGC facilities in Chicago.   The Mines  and  Mining
 Committee  of Fulton County undertook a  series of discussions  with  various
 mine operators and the MSDGC attempting to organize a reclamation  project in
 Fulton County.   The objective of the discussions was a  lease  arrangement
 between Fulton County and a mine operator simultaneously with a  lease-back
 arrangement between Fulton County and the MSDGC.   However,  before  any  such
 contract could develop,  a private landowner negotiated  and sold  his  5,461 acres
 directly to the MSDGC.

      The MSDGC is  a municipal corporation responsible for the  treatment of
 wastewater from 123 communities  within  Cook County,  Illinois.  The main treat-
 ment plant involved in the  Fulton County  Land Reclamation Project  (or  Prairie
 Plan)  is the  West-Southwest Plant in Stickney,  Illinois.   According  to an
 April 1975 analysis,  the  digested sludge  resulting  from  the secondary  treatment
 at  the  plant  consists  of  3-4%  solids, 750 mg/g  Pb,  and 175 mg/g  Cd dry weight.
 The  sludge is  barged  200  miles down  the Illinois  River to  Liverpool, Illinois,
 by  a New Jersey barging  firm,  Modern Inland Limited.  From Liverpool dock, the
 sludge  is  pumped out  and  relayed 10.8 miles  via  underground pipeline to four
 large  clay-lined holding  basins  for  storage.  Dredge equipment is used to
 mix  sludge  to  uniform consistency  and solids  content of  6% or less before
 pumping  to the distribution  system.  Sludge was originally applied using
 traveling  sprayers, but soon switched to  a  direct soil incorporation system
 for better  odor control.  MSDGC halted operations at the Fulton County site
 only  once  since construction began in January 1971, while awaiting permit approval
 to  apply supernatant  to  the  fields.

     Since  the initial land purchase, MSDGC has added to its holdings and now
 (1980) owns 15,528 acres of  land in Fulton County.  The average price paid
has been $300 per acre as compared to an average market value for farmland

i» the oooftty of approximately $2000.  No future land  acquisitions are fore-
MMft fef th» mOGC.  tb* entire. cost of the Prairie  Plan  ha* b*en bom* by the
                   abutting the application site include rcM  crop  farming,
          graziftg , and *trip mining.
     A* «f Oecemfcer 12, 1975, a n««to*r of legal action* have been  filed both
toy «fe| «9aia*t tfee WKXJC.  I» KJPP«* v». HSO «n* Co. of Fulton,  various
      tpiidmnt* haw* sought injuftctlve relief ag*>in*t  the Prairie  Plan a**fl
iiame.0irir for all«f*4l «4MT nuieaM*.  HBOCC cowiidters thi* ea*e  closed sine*
                    not pr*jMM4 further action*.
              	                 i* *» enforc«*»nt oa»e of  th« Illinois EPA
              l«ti«» Control ftaajrd, ofcarging air pollution violation* again*t
                                   C4MW «NMI K»14 in 4i*co*«ry,  with th« a**«r-
                                   MOMTMiiHl vithlMld do«VH*nt* delaying the
                                   Ml «• ttdv o«M in tlM pisTBUiaf years.
           file* ftH y. TIIPA a*) a pemit appeal on Warcb  27,  1975.   However,
   ttMl KJPQC refuatit, any hearing or determination on the  pert of th«
          Control t»«rd to* h*«* Btay^, pendinf di«|»«ition of the  above
     I»*aw»ther ca|M of «BO v».  IEFA, a MH*HMI*  action wa* brought by the
      to op»i»l tb* i*a«Mtnc» of  it*  1975 Pulton County cowprehenaive operatinf
      ,  * hearing w*» *et for Octctoer  28,  1975 on  the question of whether IEPA
«*j» withhold doCMMmt* Cron di»oovery on the  assertion of attorney- client
            the ea»e haa been inactive  in  recent  year*.
     KSp vs. IEPA -  there  is  an  appeal  by  MSDGC from certain condition* iaposed
i* it«"Wi» a«4 BmAttM Xlectric  permit* i»«ued by IKPA (Gale and United Electric
           «r« * ret^nt NV> acquisition).   The Pulton Cowty citizens group
           in tM action,  thi*  ca*e ha* al*o been inactive in recent year*.

     A JPulton County Board  of Health  Permit,  which locally governed trawiperta-
%i«*v. *tor«ge,  and HUM of dig** ted sewage sludge,  wa* rejpealed at the July S,
If(|p f^najntfy jsjajrt  mmetA»9 k*4MW*e pewuttin«  pc«ce**e* had been preempted by
ftat* statutes.  Currently  the County has authority only to establish ordinance®
for undigested  sewage sludge (septage) .   Before repeal, the permit fees provided
fuftfe *o  that the  County  w*« *bl« **»  *>  independent Monitoring of the project.
Itttfc t*»  wwirca of fwte  terminated,  the role of the County in the monitoring
        will likely

      The WUEX3C mu«t comply with ttiree set* of standard* in order to construct
 and  operate th* project:

      «  Illinois EPA Mater Pollution Control Permit

      o  General Water Quality Standards of the State of Illinois

      o  Fulton County Board of Health Permit which governs  transportation,
         storage, use and disposal of digested and undigested sewage
         sludge.  (Note:  as of July 8, 1980, this permit is no longer
         required.  — See "Legislation".)

 V.    Political and VI.   Local Governments

      The official local government policy  has been receptive throughout the
 project.  According to Robert Carlson, senior engineer for  the Prairie Plan
 from 1973 to 1975,  the Prairie Plan became an issue in the  elections  of
 members to the Fulton County Board of Supervisors.  Several members were
 reportedly elected to the Board because of their strong stands against the
 project.  It has been alleged that once elected, the Chairman of the  Board
 appointed the new members to committees which dealt with issues totally un-
 related to the Prairie Plan.

      The Fulton County Board was the initial promoter of the project.   The
 Fulton County Citizens  for Better Health and Environment (CBHE),  according
 to  its leader Melba Ripper,  has been disappointed by the responses  it  has
 received from both  the  Board and the local government officials.

      The USDA and the University of Illinois have conducted research in
 Fulton County on heavy  metals in the sludge and  their effects  on  crops.

 VI.   Interest Groups

      Many of the 25-30  abutters to the site and  other members  of  the area
 communities  make up the  Fulton County  CBHE.   The  group,  formed at the  start
 of  the project,  has actively  served as  the  opposing  voice to  the  Prairie Plan.
 The  group's  leader, who  represents  the  group's concerns  on  the Fulton  County
 Steering Committee  and  the Fulton County Board of Supervisors,  asserts  that
 the  MSDGC bought not  only strip mined  land,  but  perfectly good farm land as
 well.   Project  staff  notes that landowners  often offered single parcels with
 both  disturbed  and  undisturbed portions.  For this reason,  CBHE filed  a $1
 million suit against  MSDGC based on odor nuisance.   Although the  suit  was
 filed in Fulton  County,  it is  being heard in Cook  County in keeping with the
 law.   CBHE is concerned  that  because the case is  being heard in MSD's  home
 territory, the  outcome will be  in favor of  the MSDGC.

      Another action initiated  by  the group  involved  a  drive to get 25% of
 the  registered voters in the  county  to sign  a petition to place a referendum
 on the  ballot that whether or  not sludge should be imported into  the county.
 However,  the petition was judged  illegal due  to  the  improper wording of the

     Other group activities include a booth  at the yearly local fair,  public
 meetings, stories in the media, and a coverage on the 60 Minutes television

VI1-  Public Participation and Public Relations

     The MSDGC has established an extensive public relations program.   In

1974, MSDGC hired Ross Advertising,  Inc.  of Peoria,  Illinois to conduct the
program.  One of the primary reasons for  hiring a firm in southern Illinois
was to have a MSDGC representative nearer to the Fulton County site.   It was
felt that a local firm could get a better sense of public opinion, respond
more quickly, and would have existing contacts with various media representa-
tives.  The MSDGC outlines all ads and brochures, allows the firm to do the
layouts, and then reviews all materials before printing.  In addition, the
MSDGC conducts lectures and tours for interested groups and runs a project
progress report column regularly in the local paper.

     The MSDGC has attempted to actively  involve the public while simultaneously
ironing out difficulties among the various agencies and interest groups through
the establishment of a Steering Committee.  The membership of the committee
includes local officials, interested citizens, and representatives of govern-
ment agencies.  The following is a list of the groups represented on the
Steering Committee.

     o  MSDGC (Sponsor and Chairman)

     o  Fulton County Board  (Co-Sponsor)

     o  Illinois Department of Business & Economic Development

     o  Illinois Department of Conservation

     o  Illinois EPA

     o  Western Illinois Regional Planning Council

     o  University of Illinois

     o  Fulton County Health Department

     o  Fulton County Planning Commission

     o  City  of Canton

     o  City  of Cuba

     o  City  of Lewistown

     o  Soil  Conservation  Service

      o  Fulton County Citizens  for  Better  Health and Environment

      The  Steering  Committee  initially  did not allow CBHE  to be  represented
 at their  meetings  because  the Committee  felt the meetings  would be too
 technically oriented  for the citizens  group.   Since 1974  project  staff have
 encouraged CBHE  attendance.   However,  CBHE claims that the Steering  Committee
 has no  real input  in  the developing of the Prairie  Plan other than distributing
 information.   The  project staff feels  that the Steering Committee provides the
 best sounding board for public  sentiment...and an excellent communication
 link between the agencies  involved  and the project  management.

     Some of the reclaimed land has been used for Big Bluestem — a MSD plan
designed to re-establish native prairie plants and animals as part of the
Prairie Plan.  The Big Bluestem Advisory Committee allows for citizen partici-
pation in the project.  Also, MSD has leased 440 acres to Fulton County for a
public conservation area and 1,480 acres to local farmers for crops, hay, and
pasture.  It is applying sludge to about 2000 acres which includes 747 acres
of row crops.

VIII. Technical Issues

     With the promulgation of the federal guidelines for land application,
cadmium content and cumulative loading rates have become a real issue at
the Prairie Plan.  Research has been conducted on the cadmium uptake of crops
grown on sludge reclaimed soils and the MSDGC is actively campaigning to have
the maximum cadmium loading limits raised.

     Application methods have been changed from spraying to soil incorporation
in order to reduce odors.  The MSDGC anticipates a shift from liquid sludge to
dry sludge in the future because of increasing transportation costs.
CONTACTS:  Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
           100 East Erie Street
           Chicago, Illinois

           Prairie Plan
           P.O.  Box 457
           Canton, Illinois

           Fulton County Citizens for Better Health and Environment

                            WOOD COUNTY,  OHIO
I.  Background

     In 1973,  the City of Toledo,  Ohio was ordered to stop landfilling sludge
from its activated sludge secondary treatment plant which is located in Loucas
County and serves the communities of Toledo, Northwood, Wallbridge, and Rossford.
It was proposed by the Ohio State EPA that the vacuum filtered anaerobically
digested sludge, which is 21% solids, 16 ppm cadmium and 3 to 4 ppb PCB's, be
applied to farm land in the surrounding area.  Soil Enrichment Materials Corpora-
tion  (SEMCO) became the first contractor engaged by the City.  SEMCO spread
sludge on private farms in nearby counties for the City of Toledo during the
period from 1973 to 1976.  It was a particularly stormy period in the life of
the project as poor management of a central sludge storage area caused odors
which brought an abatement order from the Wood County Health Department.  When
SEMCO1 s contract expired in 1976, it was not renewed.  A contracting firm lead
by Mr. Jim Perry was engaged to carry on the project.

     Mr. Perry's firm hauls 22 to 24 tons of sludge in specially-designed
trailers (with baffles and anti-spill lifts) an average of thirty miles to
rural areas.  None of these areas are within the Treatment Plant Service
district.  Perry charges the farmers $25/acre for application of five or
six dry tons/acre.  Application rates are predetermined by Ohio State Univer-
sity on a P fertilizer basis, and Perry plans one application per  site every
7 to 9 years.  There are restrictions, however, on what types of crops may
be grown on the land; for the first three years no root type vegetables may
be planted, and for the first five years no tomatoes or leafy vegetables may
be planted.

     Perry has developed a sludge storage system which has reduced odor problems.
A temporary storage lagoon with a lime base is constructed at each application
site. Sludge is stored in this temporary lagoon for  six to eight weeks during
periods of  inclement weather and at  the end of that time both the sludge and
lime are applied to the farmland.

II.  Litigation

     There were a number of complaints about odors from the  central  storage
facility that SEMCO maintained in Wood County when it was running  the project.
Because of  these complaints, the Wood County Health  Department issued an
abatement order  for SEMCO to take corrective measures  at  the storage facilities.
SEMCO appealed  this order to the Franklin County  Court of Appeals  who upheld the
appeal on the basis that that Wood County Health  Department  did not  give  due
notice of the abatement order and therefore did not  give  SEMCO ample time to
refute the  charges.   The Wood County  Health  Department issued another abatement
order this  time  giving due notice.   SEMCO  filed another appeal, but  their contract
ran  out before  the  case was resolved.

     The  appeals were heard in franklin Comnty Court iMtsjssl ef
Court because  under Ohio law a company foreign to Ohio  (MMSOf Bft* th»
to  appeal in a different jurisdiction and SEMCO opted to do this, feeling
that it was in their best interest.

HI.  Log illation - Bam*

IV.   Regulation

     The  state approves plans for wastewater treatment plans and under tMa
program they review plans for sludge handling procedure*,  ftowever, mice fcft*
plan is approved,  there i* no real regulatory mnchmniam.  Tim mnly reforffr
that can  legally be required by the Ohio ETA are those «*dm* the MPflfel petteit
     cam.   The  Ohio On also requires reports OB the •oaitarlJsf of %fet tlluApi
           whet is in it ami wnere it ejoaa, however, the Utility «f tfcU i*
in  fact presently being challenged in court.
     Ohio ha* pramul«*ted guideline* recommended in the Ohio State Unive*«it»
Oo*per*tiv* attention Program Bulletin Sit and ma* adfcered to the** gt»ia>flin*»
in plan approval.
     The local oovernnvnts  in the  land application areas hnve
Tbe only real opposition  occurs if a nuisance situation aria**.

     The local soil conaervation people have become involve* in t*4 I**}***.***
hav« shown opposition only  in  the case  of a nuiaance situatiom a* viti
VIII.  Pv^Dlic Participation  and  Public Halation*
                     an *»f«mis*d,  planned public relaftiatw

           •cjcactar,  •tt«sat«<  **v*r*l mast inns in till «v**
City of Toledo eav*  pr***ntati*M dealing  with sludge appUoMiaa am Cftto KA41
20t planning agency.  The project ha*  been very wall accepted in ta» etnapry
except when nuisances arise  (SOCO  developed brochures whan odor a tegpft)
a public relations program has not  really  been neceaaary.

!«•  Technical I
     none of the person* interviewed  felt  that the chemical conteftt of tlw
sludge has beea an issue in this case.   The  sludge is applied primarily «s
a P fertliser source and incorporated into the soil during application to
reduce the potential for odors.
                                                          *, v -

CONTACTS:  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
           Northwest Section
           1035 Devlac Grove Drive
           Bowling Green, Ohio  43402

           Bayview Water Reclamation Section
           3900 North Summit Avenue
           Toledo, Ohio  43611

           Jim Perry
           8636 Yawbarg Road
           Whitehouse, Ohio  43571

                             BOONE COUNTY, INDIANA

 I.   Background

      In 1975,  the Environmental Protection Agency advised the City of Indianap-
 olis that it would have to expand and upgrade its Belmont Wastewater Treatment
 Plant in order the meet NPDES permit requirements.   In order to accomplish this
 expansion,  the City had to drain ten storage lagoons where sludge had been stored
 for as long as 43 years.   The City received bids from many companies that pro-
 posed to use a variety of sludge management techniques.  In December 1976, the
 City awarded a contract to the Tousley-Bixler Construction Company, that had
 proposed land application of the sludge for agricultural use in Boone County,
 Indiana, located 50 miles northwest of the City.  Tousley-Bixler subcontracted
 with Organic Materials, Inc.  of Lebanon,  Indiana,  to conduct the sludge applica-
 tion operations,  and Coastal Tank Lines of Akron,  Ohio, to transport the sludge
 from the Belmont plant to Boone County.

      Coastal Tank Lines used a system of  tags that  stated sludge characteristics
 (%  solids,  etc.)  and destination of the truck.   On  reaching the Boone County
 site,  the sludge was transferred either to Organic  Materials,  Inc.  landspreading
 vehicles or storage lagoons.   The storage lagoons were for use during inclement
 weather or  during times of the year when  spreading  was not allowed, and even-
 tually became  the subject of litigation,  causing a  temporary suspension of the
 project.   In addition,  Coastal ran into trouble  with angry citizens in Boone
 County,  who once  shot at  and one other time ran  their cars into the Coastal
 Tank Line trucks.

      Restrictions placed  on the project and application sites  included:

      o  sludge  could not  be spread on  frozen ground or directly on
         growing crops;

      o  only corn and soybeans  could be planted  in  the first crop
         year following  sludge  applications;

      o  no  forage  could be  removed or  cattle allowed to graze  for one
         year following  sludge  application.

      In  addition  to  these restrictions  set  by the Indiana  State  Board  of Health
Health, the  farmers  would not allow sludge  application  in the  spring so that
the  ground  could  dry for planting.   This  limited the sludge  application  season
from late September  to  the  middle  of November.   The  contractor planned to  charge
$22  per acre for  sludge application.

     The analysis of  the sludge  from eight  of the Belmont lagoons indicated  PCB
concentrations  in the range of  10  to 20 mg/g, cadmium  concentrations in the
150-200 mg/g range and arsenic  concentrations averaging  25 mg/g.  Two  of the
Belmont lagoons had  PCB concentrations in the 60 mg/g  range, which  were con-
sidered unacceptable  for landspreading by the Indiana  State Board of Health.

     The land application system was initiated in spring 1977, with the first
applications occurring in September of that  year.  Funding for the project is
under the EPA Construction Grants  Program, paying 75%, the State, paying 10%,
and the City of Indianapolis, paying 15% of the total  12.1 million dollar pro-

II.  Litigation

     In June 1977, abutters to the storage lagoon in Boone County filed suit to
gain an injunction on the project.  There seems to be some confusion as to the
make-up of this abutters group.  The south lagoon is abutted predominantly by a
bedroom community and the north lagoon abutted by farmland.  The suit was filed
before the project even began, with odor, groundwater contamination, pests and
property devaluation being cited as potential problems the lagoons could cause.
The suit seemed to have a number of underlying causes, depending on whom you talk
to.  According to the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, the primary reason
for the suit being filed was that the storage lagoons were not in the original
design, and not because the abutters were opposed to the entire project.
This view is opposed by Organic Materials, Inc. who alleges that the storage la-
goons were in the Environmental Assessment done prior to the project.

     While the Boone County Health Department claimed that the suit was brought
by the abutters because of their wholehearted opposition to the project, and
that the abutters would not have been happy with anything short of an injunction,
Robert Penno of the Indiana State Board of Health indicated that he thought the
abutters biggest concern was that the lagoons would be permanent.  Although explan-
ations given for the suit varied, there were two points on which all parties
agreed: the project could not proceed until the suit was settled and that the  suit
was eventually settled out of court.  The out of court settlement called for:

     1.  EPA's final grant payment was to be withheld until the
         Boone County storage lagoons were removed and the sites
         returned to their natural state.

     2.  Tousley-Bixler  (the main contractor) was required to
         establish and monitor wells at  the lagoon sites.

     3.  The State would pay  for  and perform monitoring of
         residential wells in  areas adjacent to the  storage

     While  the storage  lagoons in operation, there  have  been  no complaints  about
 odors.   There  have been complaints  about groundwater contamination,  which when
 checked were  found to be invalid.   There have  also  been  complaints about land
 application of sludge on unpermitted  areas  and inappropriate  application tech-
 niques.   These allegations were investigated and  found to be  invalid.   The  pro-
 ject  has been  completed with no additional  applications  anticipated.

 III.   Legislation

      There  was no legislative action  involved  in  this case.

 IV.   Regulation

      Being  the first large scale operation  of  its type in Indiana,  the Indianapolis
 project has suffered through the process of the state regulatory agency gaining its
 first experience with land application technology.   The  three regulatory agencies
 involved were  the U.S.  EPA,  the State Board of Health,  and the Boone County Board
 of Health.   EPA helped  provide money  in the form of a construction grant and there-
 fore had considerable power.  In Indiana, the  Construction Grants program is man-
 aged by the State Board of Health,  which sets  limits and adopts guidelines  for
 projects.   County Health Departments  in Indiana are more or less the local branches
 of the State Health Department, but with no regulating powers of their own.


     Regulation in this case was a controversial issue due to fairly tough limits
on cadmium and PCB, as well as the types of crops that could be grown and when
sludge could be applied.  The original accumulative cadmium limit of 1 Ib./acre
was a stipulation of the agreement between Organic Materials, Inc. and the State.
This low limit resulted in extensive land requirements.  The U.S. EPA used guid-
ance suggestions for cadmium applications of 1.875 Ib/acre cumulative after the
original agreement between the State and Organic Materials, Inc. had been drawn
up.  The State subsequently modified its limit to 1.875 Ib/acre.  Only sludge
with PCB concentrations less that 60 ppm could be landspread; this precluded use
of the sludges from two of Belmont's ten lagoons.  The 60 ppm limit on PCB's is
more stringent that the limit imposed in other states.

     EPA Region V (Chicago) would not allow sludge to be applied during the winter
months because of potential problems with runoff.  This was inconsistent with
other EPA regional offices, notably Region VII (Denver), where winter application
is allowed.  In addition to contaminent concentration and winter spreading limits,
the State also imposed limits on what crops could be grown, allowing only corn
and soybeans.  In addition to the above restrictions, monthly reports are required
on groundwater and crop monitoring operations.

     All parties involved seemed to agree that the state was reluctant to get in-
volved in a sludge management practice that it had limited knowledge about.  Small
scale landspreading of sludge had been going on, essentially unregulated, for years
in Indiana, but there had never been a need for clear guidelines.  The state wanted
to protect itself from a possible suit as evidenced by the fact that it made each
of the contractors take out liability insurance.

     One other comment that did surface and may be true on a national basis was
that many of the project problems resulted from the high turnover of EPA Regional
personnel.  Private contractors often found themselves briefing new regulatory
officials about their project as well as land application of sludge in general.

V.  Political

     There were basically two political groups that affected the project.  These
groups were the abutters to the Boone County storage lagoons and Dr. Lee Sommers
of the Purdue University Agronomy Department.   Dr. Sommers was very supportive
of the project, and his role was to give the project credibility.  The storage
lagoon abutters were opposed to the project for a variety of reasons.  Depending
on whom you talked to,  these reasons included:

     o  Persistent odor,  pests,  groundwater contamination
        and property devaluation;

     o  They thought the lagoons would be permanent;

     o  They were entirely against the project.

VI.  Local Government

     According to the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, the Boone County
Health and Planning Boards were very receptive to the project and remained that
way.  This view was substantiated by the Boone County Health Department, however,
because of strong public opposition and Organic Materials, Inc. going out of
business, the Board will look very hard at any new projects.

VII.  Interest Groups

     The primary interest group involved in this case were the abutters to the
storage lagoon in Boone County.  They were formed for the sole purpose of opposing
the project and filing the suit complaining of odors, pests, groundwater contam-
ination and property devaluation, before application of sludge even began.  It was
during the early stages of the project, before operations got underway, that this
group was most influential.  The costly delays caused by the law suit may have
been a contributing factor to Organic Materials, Inc. going out of business.

     Although not as vocal as the storage lagoon abutters, there was a consider-
able number of people favoring the project.

VIII.  Public Participation and Public Relations

     Organic Metals, Inc., the contractor in charge of  land application operations,
took on the primary responsibility for public participation and public relations.
The company did extensive research on other land application projects  in  the coun-
try, noting in particular any litigation or questions raised.  Organic Materials,
Inc. hired the public relations firm of Howard S. Wilcox, Inc., of  Indianapolis.
Together, these two companies developed a public relations program  that included:

     o  Public meetings in which pots of sludge were placed
        under participants' chairs without their knowing  it;

     o  Press releases;

     o  Literature;

     o  Question  and answer newspaper  columns;

     o  Demonstration plots;

     o  Dr. Lee Sommers of  Purdue  as  an expert  witness;

     o  A film  of the  Boone  County operation  for  future use
         by Organic  Materials,  Inc.

     The  strong points  of the  public  relations  program were supplying Boone County
officials and key farmers with background  materials,  keeping interested environmental
groups  informed,  and above all,  being open and  honest with  all parties involved.
The County Health Board was  most impressed with the amount  of good and bad informa-
tion about sludge application  that Organic Materials,  Inc.  supplied.

      The only  criticism of the public relations program that we found was that
Organic Materials,  Inc. presented the project in such a manner that the public
got the impression that it was a sure thing.

IX.  Technical Issues

     There were several sludge analyses done, including one by Organic Materials,
Inc. during the bidding period for part of the contract.  The State Board of
Health didn't really believe the numbers from previous analyses and therefore
asked Tousley-Bixler to carry out a new sampling program with the Regional Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (Chicago)  doing the analysis.    An unusually hard
winter enabled Tousley-Bixler to get more representative samples from the middle
of the lagoons.  The Tousley-Bixler-EPA analysis found more heavy metals and
less nutrients than the previous studies suggested.  However, none of the studies
results varied significantly.  The EPA, State, City and the contractors sat down
and had no problem agreeing with the Tousley-Bixler-EPA analysis.

     There were many technical questions that were brought about during the course
of the project.  As mentioned in previous sections, the cadmium application limit
was called into question and evenutally changed.  In addition, whether or not to
apply sludge to land during the winter and the need to test lagoon liners were techni-
cal issues brought into question.  On the issue of testing lagoon liners, Organic
Materials, Inc. complained that the State required an inordinate amount of testing.
Organic Materials, Inc. tested the lagoon liner with a sludge that was five per-
cent solids, with no leachate being produced.  The State required them to initiate
further tests with sludges that were three and one percent solids, resulting in
costly delays for no benefits, since the Indianapolis sludge contained at the very
least eight percent solids.

     There didn't seem to be any variation in the opinions of the farmers regarding
the benefits of the sludge.  Their major concern was possible odors and plant tox-
icity, in that order.

     Several parties had responsibility for monitoring during this project.
Tousley-Bixler conducted a special sampling of the sludge lagoons with analysis
performed by the regional EPA office.  Soil analysis was subcontracted out to a
private laboratory.  Groundwater monitoring at and around the Boone County lagoons
was performed on a monthly basis.  The 4" wells at each storage lagoon were moni-
tored by Tousley-Bixler and all residential wells within a 5-mile radius were
monitored by the State Board of Health.
CONTACTS:   Indiana State Board of Health
           Water Pollution Section
           1330 West Michigan Street
           Indianapolis, Indiana

           Indianapolis Department of Public Works
           2700 South Valenout
           Indianapolis, Indiana  46221

           Boone County Sanitarian
           416 West Camp Street
           Lebanon, Indiana  46052

CONTACTS:  Dr. Lee Sommers
(Cont'd)    Purdue University
           Agronomy Department
           West Lafayette, Indiana  47907

           Tousley-Bixler Construction Company
           2916 Bluff Road
           Indianapolis, Indiana

           Resource Recycling Systems Inc.
           1499 Bay Shore Highway, Suite 120
           Burlingame,  California  94010

           Howard S.  Wilcox Inc.
           143 W. Meridian Street
           Indianapolis, Indiana  46204

 I.  Background

      Sutdies are being  conducted  at  the  Savannah  River  Plant  to  evaluate  the
 cost  effectiveness and  environmental effects of using sewage  sludge  to  aid
 in reclaiming disturbed lands and to increase biomass production in  pine  and
 hardwood plantations.   The  land restoration program  is  an  effort by  the
 Savannah River Laboratory,  Aiken,  South  Carolina,  Savannah River Forest Service
 and the Savannah River  Operations Office of the State Department of  Health  and
 Environmental Control to develop  methods for reclaiming land  on  the  Savannah
 River Plant site that have  been disturbed since construction  commenced  on the
 site.  Studies already  performed  by  the  Southeastern Forest Experimental  Station
 have  demonstrated that  the  nutrients and organic matter in sewage sludge  in-
 creases fertility and improves growing conditions  for vegetative cover  on the
 disturbed soil sites.

      The forest productivity program is  investigating areas of environmental
 concern associated with growing trees for energy resources, using sewage  sludge
 as a  fertilizer and soil conditioner.  The environmental studies  will determine
 the effects land application of sewage sludge has  on the hydrologic  cycle and
 cycling of nutrients, heavy metals and organics for  forest  ecosystems.  A cost-
 benefit analysis of using sewage  sludge  as a fertilizer and soil  amendment will
 be made by determining  the  increase  in wood fiber  production under varying amend-
 ment  regimes and comparing  it with sludge handling expenses.

      The sources of sewage  sludge will be two local  wastewater treatment plants.
 The Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility is a 20 MGD  capacity  treatment plant
 with  estimated sludge production of  20 wet tons/day.  The  sludge  is  thermally
 conditioned and dewatered following  aerobic digestion.  The Augusta  Municipal
 Wastewater Treatment Plant produces  50,000 gallons per  day  of anaerobically
 digested sewage sludge.  These wastewater treatment  plants  will be reimbursed
 the additional costs of transporting the  sewage sludge  to the Savannah  River

      The application sites are within the Savannah River plant, a 300 square
 mile  facility owned by the U.S. Government and managed by the Department of
 Energy (DOE).   The land restoration  sites are former borrow pits  and the forest
prodution site is an existing 18-acre plantation.   The Savannah River plant,
 approximately 12 miles  from the treatment facility,  is not within the Aiken
 County service district.  The sludge, which contains approximately 30%  solids,
 is transported to the application site in 20 ton capacity trucks owned by the
Aiken County Public Service Authority.  There are storage facilities on the site
 sufficient to hold 2-3 weeks of the  county's total .sludge production.

     The project was conceived in 1979.    The first application was conducted in
the fall of 1980.   The project is funded by the DOE as part of a biomass pro-
ductivity study.   Under the terms of the project grant,  all of Aiken County's
sludge will be applied to the Savannah River Plant site for two years.

II.  Litigation - None

III.  Legislation - None

IV.  Regulation

     The Savannah River Operations Office of the State Department of Health and
Environmental Control required that DOE apply for a permit to use the site and
to transport the sludge.  Variation of application rates is permitted up to
a maximum of 50 dry tons/acre.  The Department has no set guidelines for sludge

V.  Political/Local Government

     No involvement thus far, except for Public Service Authority.

VI.  Public Relations

     There has been no concerted public relations campaign, although local
officials have been informed of the project's existence.  There are tentative
plans to conduct a public meeting to explain the project once it is operational.

VII.  Monitoring

     Ground water monitoring has been required with a minimum of one upgradient
and two downgradient wells.  Ground water samples will be collected quarterly
with a complete metals analysis being performed on an annual basis.  The DOE
is responsible for the project although it is being carried out by its contractor,
E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company.
CONTACT:  Savannah River Lab
          Aiken, South Carolina  29801
          (803)  450-6211

                                THE PALZO PROJECT

 I -   Background

      In 1966, the USDA - Forest Service (Shawnee National Forest) purchased
 313 acres of strip mined land in Southern Illinois from the Stone Fort
 Mining Co., Inc.  190 of the 313 acres were inactive strip mines which did not
 support vegetation.  The remaining 123 acres was forested.

      In 1970, the Illinois Sanitary Water Board directed the Forest Service to
 correct the health and environmental hazards created by acid mine drainage at
 Palzo.  Later that year the Forest Service applied treated municipal waste
 to a 1/4 acre test plot.   Results pointed to the sludge applications as an
 extremely effective reclamation tool.  A final environmental impact statement
 describing sludge treatment was completed in July 1972.  The statement incor-
 porated and documented the inputs of local residents, universities, and govern-
 mental agencies at the local,  State and Federal levels.

      In 1974,  the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC)
 awarded a $2 million contract  to the Great Lakes Plumbing and Heating Com-
 pany to excavate, transport, and apply 216,000 cubic meters of anaerobically
 digested municipal sludge to the Palzo tract.   Peabody Coal Company,  the
 owner of much  of the land adjacent to the  site,  provided a railhead and pipe-
 line right-of-way necessary for delivery of sludge  to the site.   From 1974 to
 1977,  sludge was  transported approximately 300 miles  by rail from MSDGC's
 Calumet facility.   At the Peabody railhead sludge was unloaded into a lagoon
 from which  it  was pumped  4 miles  to the site.   The  sludge was incorporated into
 the  soil by means of disk application.

      According to the Research  Project Leader,  the  Forest Services'  contract
 with MSDGC  called for sludge applications  to only 60  acres  of spoils.   No
 federal  or  state  monies were used specifically  for  the  project.   However,  much
 of the  levelling  was  accomplished through  a  federal Job Corps  program which
 used the tract as  a  training site  for heavy-equipment operators prior to the
 start of the project.  The  Forest Service  aided  in  site preparation and has
 served  in an administrative role  throughout the  life  of the  project.  Also,
 the  Forest  Service issued  a $50,000 research grant  (pass-through  EPA  funds)'
 to Southern Illinois  University to  study vegetation grown on  the  sludge amended

     No  sludge has been spread since  1977 and the 15  applications plots have
 all been planted with a permanent  cover of trees, perennial  rye,  tall fescue,
 and orchard grass.  The Forest Service had considered acquiring sludge  from cities
 such as Carbondale and St.  Louis which, being closer  to the site, would make
 transportation more feasible.  However, sources other than the MSDGC have been
dropped  from consideration  for  various reasons.  The next phase of the project
will involve the use of dry sludge as opposed to the  liquid sludge  (10% solids)
used in the 1974-1977 applications, because the dry sludge will be easier to
use from a logistics standpoint.

II.   Litigation

     There was no litigation in this case.

Ill. Legislation

     There was no legislative action involved in this case.

IV.  Regulation

     All regulatory agencies have been involved since the start of the pro-
ject.  According to project staff, the U.S.  EPA, state and local public health
departments, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), and the local
planning agency have all been supportive of  the Palzo Project.

     The IEPA participated actively in the project design and monitoring
specifications and required that an operating permit be issued  to the private
contractor, Great Lakes Plumbing and Heating.  In addition to contract obliga-
tions to MSDGC and permit responsibilities to IEPA, the contractor entered
into a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service.  In this  way, respon-
sibilities were outlined for the excavation, transportation,  and incorporation
of MSDGC sludge at Palzo consistent with reclamation needs defined by the
Forest Service—each step performed with the environmental precautions specified
by IEPA.

     A Forest Services' monitoring plan was  integral to granting of the con-
tractor's IEPA permit.  The Forest Service sampled four surface-water sources
and eleven groundwater monitoring wells with point-in-time samples taken on
a regular basis.  Sample frequencies and parameters were specified in the plan,
with a monthly report of operations and monitoring to IEPA as a key element.
The monitoring program provides long-range,  baseline information separate from
cooperative research investigations designed to answer specific questions.

     Regulatory requirements became more stringent over time  in that prior
to the project there were no state or federal regulations specifically re-
lated to strip mine reclamation.  As the project progressed federal land ap-
plication guidelines were established, but there were still no  state regulations
concerning reclamation.  The regulations governing the Palzo  Project consist
of the federal guidelines and the state licensing requirements  for the hauling
and disposal of sludge.

V.   Political and VI. Local Government

     The local government and the public have been very receptive to the
Palzo Project.  The neighboring communities  stand to gain nothing from the
reclaimed lands, except, perhaps, the elimination of a long-time eyesore and
productive National forest land.  In addition, the project is still, for the
most part, surrounded by more strip mined land.  There are no odors or surface
runoff to the area's homes and farmlands.  Finally, the Forest  Service was
effective and timely in promoting the project to the public as  well as involv-
ing all interested and affected parties in the project from the very beginning.
In conclusion, the Palzo Project is non-controversial.  The usual reasons for
dispute found in other cases are not present in Palzo, Illinois.

     The University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University,  and the
University of Kentucky have all conducted various research projects involving
the Palzo Project.

 VI.  Interest Groups

      The Sierra Club is the only group which has expressed a continuing
 interest in the Palzo Project and their response has been extremely positive
 and supportive.

 VII. Public Participation and Public Relations

      The Palzo Project public relations program was organized and promoted by
 the Forest Service.  The program began with lectures to all interested groups
 and local governments before the start of the project.  The Forest Service
 staff presented research results and described the operation to the public
 through the media, open meetings, and site visits.

      The keys to the program's success were its early start and good organi-
 zation.  The following list of facts shows the organization and diversity of
 the Palzo Project's P.R. program.

      During 1977,  the Palzo Project was:

      o  visited  by 30 groups—a total of  439 people;

      o  the subject of four off-site presentations,  attended by 410

      o  the subject of two local T.V.  programs;

      o  the subject of at  least five feature articles  in  newspapers
         and magazines;

      o   the subject of several  technical  journal  articles,-

      o   the subject of requests  for  information from every state in the
         country  and several  foreign  countries.

 VIII. Technical  Issues

     Highly  acidic  and  toxic leachate was  flowing into Sugar Creek  which runs
 adjacent to  the  spoils prior to  sludge applications.  The amount of these
 leachates has dramatically reduced since reclamation.  Research on  the
 original test plots  showed that  a great deal of sludge is required—as much
 as  SOOT  (dry)/acre.  Applications began in late May and ended in September
 or October each of  the project's  four years.

     The only issue  involved concerns the pattern of uptake of metals in
 animals  and the longevity of vegetation planted.  However, at least  10-15
 years will be required before these issues can be resolved.

 IX.  Monitoring

     MSDGC was responsible for performing analysis of the sludge applied to
 the Palzo site.   Soil has not been systematically monitored throughout the
project  although the Southern Illinois University has performed analysis on

the plots it has monitored.  The Forest Service has taken the lead in water
quality monitoring by sampling 11 on-site wells and 4 stream locations, some
as frequently as every month.
CONTACT:  Lands, Watershed, and Minerals Officer
          U.S. Forest Service
          316 East Poplar Street
          Harrisburg, Illinois

I.  Background

     The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle  (Metro), began diverting effluent
discharges from Lake Washington to the Puget Sound in 1976.  Until 1971, sludge
was discharged into Puget Sound in response to requirements of the 1965 Water
Quality Act.  Since then, Metro has developed a strategy of testing the feasi-
bility of as many sludge utilization options as possible.  Currently, a long-
range utilization plan is being developed and should be completed in 1981.

     Metro serves 33 cities and sewer districts in King County and parts of
Snohomish County.  At the present time, solids handling occurs at the West
Point Treatment Plant in Puget Sound where the sludge is anaerobically digested
and dewatered by a polymer process to 18% solids.  The resultant sludge con-
tains 55mg/dry kg of cadmium, l,784mg/dry kg of zinc, and l,018mg/dry kg of
copper.  All aspects of this program have been financed by Metro.

     In one feasibility study sludge was hauled by a private contractor in open
top trucks to the application sites.  There was limited storage capacity at the
application sites.  One site Metro has used for this purpose was a strip coal
mine which is not within the Metro service area.  This 1,000 acre site is in
Lewis County, approximately 96 miles from Seattle, and is privately operated.
The site is abutted by timber and farmland.  Storage and application has been
the responsibility of the mine operator.  This project was conceived in 1975,
and the sludge has been applied since 1977.  In conjunction with the mine
operator, Metro is currently examining the potential of long-term sludge appli-

     In another study sludge was applied to a 100 acre site, which is a privately
owned mine in King County, roughly 50 miles from the treatment facility.  This
project was conceived in 1978, and in 1979 approximately 60% of the site received
sludge application.  Metro assumed the entire cost of this project.

     Other utilization sites include a Christmas tree farm, a community college
in an urban area, park lands, and an ongoing research program conducted by the
University of Washington at the Charles Lathrop Park Experimental Forest.

II.  Litigation

     There was no litigation associated with these projects.  There is no policy
to withdraw a site from consideration when legal action against the site appears
likely, as this has never occurred.

III.  Legislation

     Two years ago, the Washington State Legislature amended the State solid
waste law to define sludge as solid waste.  This amendment was designed to
bring State law into conformity with Federal law and EPA regulations.  The
effect of the legislation has been to bring regulation of sludge within the
jurisdiction of county health officials.  As yet, however, administrative
rules governing disposal have not been formulated at either the State or local

levels making the regulatory situation highly uncertain.   The legislative
change did not effect the projects discussed here.

IV.  Regulation

     As indicated above,  the County Boards of Health are  primarily responsible
for the regulation of sludge.  Some county boards have declined to exercise
their authority, while others require solid waste landfill permits prior to
land application.  Such a permit process would require an Environmental Impact
Statement and a monitoring program.  In the cases discussed here, there was no
formal permitting process.  Rather, the county boards concerned were notified
of the project, and the terms and conditions of the application were agreed
upon informally.  State Environmental Checklists are completed for each of the
sites which are not considered research projects.

V.  Political/Local Government

     The gravel mine site had to be approved by the Metro Council, Metro's
executive board.  A committee of the council is kept informed concerning project
status and new site opportunities.  Appropriate local agencies are contacted
prior to project initiation.

VI.  Public Relations

     Metro attempts to inform the affected population concerning the nature of
the projects to be undertaken in their area.  In addition, a public participa-
tion component is being developed for the long-range utilization plan.

VII.  Technical Issues

     In the early 1970's it was felt that the chemical content of sludge had
become an issue with regard to agricultural applications.  As a result, Metro
abandoned its attempts to utilize agricultural sites.  In addition to the use
of sludge for land reclamation, Metro is focusing a considerable amount of
effort on the use of sludge in silviculture.  The application method is site

     Sludge samples from Metro's POTW and sludge/soil samples from project
sites are continually analyzed, in addition to surface and groundwater moni-
toring.  Currently, a comprehensive, 18 month monitoring program is being
implemented, which will provide complete data on sludge composition and any
impacts of contaminants on the project sites.
 CONTACT:   Municipality of Metroplitan Seattle
           821  Second Avenue
           Seattle, Washington   98104

                         CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL
     This case study examines the efforts of two municipalities, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware, to develop sludge application programs
for the reclamation of land on the banks of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
 (C & D Canal), in Delaware.  Philadelphia's attempt to secure access to the
canal site failed.  Wilmington utilized the site for one year, but then dis-
continued the project.

Wilmington Case

I.   Background

     The Wilmington project employed sludge generated by a secondary treatment
facility which services Newcastle County, Delaware, in which Wilmington is
situated.  Advanced treatment was introduced between 1975-1976.  The sludge
was anaerobically digested and air dried.  It contained 50% solids and high
concentrations of chromium and copper, due to the presence in Wilmington of an
electroplating industry.  Cadmium content ranged from a low of 9.2 mg/kg to a
high of 49.4 mg/kg in 1974.  In 1979, cadmium content average below 10 mg/kg.
(Source:  Delaware Solid Waste Authority).

     Sludge was transported twenty miles to the application site by a private
trucking company.  Sludge was not stored on the site, but was applied immedi-
ately upon delivery.

     The application site, located near the Town of Summit, Delaware, is owned
by the U.S. Government and managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The
application site consisted of spoil piles onto which iron sulfide containing
minerals had been deposited during the most recent widening of the canal.   The
site was barren of vegetation and produced sand storms in windy weather.  The
site is within the same treatment plant service district as Wilmington.  The
site is abutted by other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property and by agri-
cultural lands.  Land use on the site is limited to recreational purposes.
The project site was leased by the Army Corps to the Delaware Solid Waste
Authority, an independent state agency, for the use of Wilmington.

     The project was conceived in 1973 as a joint demonstration project by
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and
the Army Corps of Engineers.   The sludge was applied to a 17 acre site in
1975 at the rate of 50 tons per acre.  The site was monitored jointly by the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control during 1975-1976.

     In 1977 the project was expanded to 30 acres and the application rate
was increased to 200 tons per acre.

     Since 1977 there has been no additional sludge application,  apparently
because it has been less expensive for Wilmington to dispose of its sludge in
a landfill.  It is possible that Wilmington may resume the land reclamation
project when the landfill site is depleted or costs of landfilling increase.

     The entire cost of the project,  except for the technical and scientific
                                 A-3 3

monitoring conducted by the Army Corps  of Engineers  and the  Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control,  was  borne by the  City of
Wilmington.  The Army Corps of Engineers provided the lease  of the site
free of charge.

II.  Litigation - None

III. Legislation - None

IV.  Regulation

     There was no formal permitting process.   The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and the Army  Corps of Engineers evaluated
the application site and recommended sludge application rates  and conditions,
which were incorporated as terms of the Army's lease of the  site to the Solid
Waste Authority.

V.   Political/Local Government/Public Participation and Public Relations

     Local government officials were advised of the  project, but no objections
were raised to it.  There was no concerted public relations  campaign.  An
official at the Solid Waste Authority expressed the  opinion  that if the public
had been informed of the project, public opposition  might have obstructed it.

     Objections to the project were voiced by several residents of Chesapeake
City, a town in Maryland 1/2 mile from the site.   Their concern focused on
the effect of sludge application on groundwater quality and  on the canal's
aquatic life.  Residents were accompanied to the site by Army Corps of
Engineers technical personnel, who explained that the risks  to groundwater
and marine life were minimal.

VI.  Technical Issues

     The engineering and scientific staff of the Army Corps  of Engineers and
the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control disagreed about
the proper rates of application during the planning  of the test site project.
Agreement was reached to initially apply the sludge  at relatively low rates
 (50 tons/acre).  After monitoring of the test site was completed, the applica-
tion rate was increased to 200 tons/acre.

Philadelphia's Attempt to Use the C & D Canal

I.   Background

     In 1975, the City of Philadelphia became interested in the possibility
of using the C & D Canal for its own sludge management program.  At that time
Philadelphia was planning to upgrade its Northeast treatment facility, and
as a first step in the construction of the new facilities, sludge stored in
lagoons at the Northeast site needed to be removed.   Sludge from  the Northeast
lagoons contained 21-38% solids and 72-205 mgAg of cadmium.

     In June, 1975, the Philadelphia Water Department requested "concept
proposals" from private contractors for removal of the sludge.  After

evaluation of the proposals by EPA Region III, firm bids were accepted.  The
lowest bidder, a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries  (BFI) , was granted
the contract contingent upon its ability to obtain the requisite permits and
to conduct a public hearing at the application site.  Funding was to be shared
by EPA under the construction grants program and the City of Philadelphia.

II.  Litigation - None

III. Legislation - None

IV.  Regulation/Political/Local Government

     Application was made to the Army Corps of Engineers for use of federal
land in the project, and to construct a dock on the canal and unloading area.
The Corps considered BFI's application but took no final action on it.  Corps
officials may have been reluctant to issue a permit to a private contractor
to use federal lands.  An application was also made to the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control for a permit to transport the
sludge, and to use the site.  The Department declined to issue a permit on the
grounds that the Canal site should be reserved for the use of Wilmington's
sludge management program.

V.   Public Relations

     During the permitting process, BFI contracted local politicians,  civic
leaders,  journalists, the County Agent and Extension Service Personnel in an
effort to win support for the project.
CONTACT:  Delaware Solid Waste Authority
          P.O. Box 981
          Dover, Delaware  19901

                       THE PHILADEPHIA CASE STUDY

A.   Background

     In 1975, Region III EPA, acting under the Marine Protection Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, required the City of Philadelphia to curtail
its practice of ocean-dumping of sludge.  Philadelphia reacted to the EPA
action by developing a ten-point "Sludge Master Plan" containing possible
alternatives to ocean dumping including the application of sludge to strip
mine areas.  The EPA was dissatisfied, however, with Philadelphia's sub-
sequent progress in developing alternatives to ocean dumping, and brought
legal action against the city.  The litigation was resolved by an agreement
among the parties to enter into a consent decree which required Philadelphia
to end its ocean dumping of sludge by December 31, 1980.

     This case study examines Philadelphia's attempt to develop a program of
sludge application to strip mine sites in five Pennsylvania counties:
Franklin, Clearfield, Somerset, Clarion and Westmoreland, and one site in
Ohio.  In addition, the case study examined attempts to apply Philadelphia
sludge to agricultural land in Bucks County.

B.   Treatment Facilities

     Philadelphia operates three wastewater treatment facilities through its
Water Department.  The Southwest and Northwest plants are secondary treatment
plants; the Southeast plant is equipped only for primary treatment.  Sludge
produced by the treatment facilities is anaerobically digested and de-watered
by centrifuge.  A portion of the sludge cake is composted by the Beltsville
forced aeration method using wood chips as a bulking agent.

     The final product used for mine reclamation, called "Mine Mix", is a
combination of one part composted material to one part de-watered sludge
cake.  Mine Mix contains 50% solids, 4.5 ml/kg cadmium  (7 mg/kg dry weight)
and less than one part per million PCB's.  Nitrogen content  is 1%.   (Source:
Philadelphia Water Department)

C.  Land Use Restrictions

     a)  Mine sites:  Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources  (DER) "Interim Guidelines for Sewage Sludge Use for Land Reclamation"
crops grown during the first year after application of  sludge can not be used
for either animal or human  consumption.  Disposal of such crops must be approved
by the DER.  Soil pH must be maintained at 6.5 for two years after final sludge
application.  A complete soil analysis  is required after final sludge applica-
tion before the reclaimed land is used  for farming purposes.

     b)  Agricultural use:   Pursuant to the DER's "Interim Guidelines for
Sewage Use on Agricultural Lands", sludge is not to be applied to land where
root vegetables eaten uncooked are grown.  Dairy cattle must not be allowed
to graze on sludge amended land for at least two months after a sludge

     c)  Enforcement:  The DER's only means of enforcing its guidelines is
to revoke the permit of the sludge hauler or mine operator for non-compliance
with the terms of the permit.

D.  Legislative Action

     In the 1980 session, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted an amendment
to the Solid Waste Management Act which eliminates the requirement of county
commissioner approval prior to issuance by the DER of a permit for sludge
application to a mine site.  The legislation is designed to facilitate the
land application of sludge.  The amendment also establishes a bonding require-
ment for municipalities which apply sludge to mine sites and requires DER to
issue guidelines for the classification of sludge as a solid waste.

A.  Background

     In 1973, the Region III EPA Office of Research and Development considered
certain federally-owned properties in rural areas of Pennsylvania for use in
a demonstration project using Philadelphia's sludge.  Early in 1974, the
Department of Defense approved EPA's request for use of 650 acres of land at
Letterkenney Army Depot near Chambersburg, PA in Franklin County.

B.  Handling; Application Site, Schedule, Finance

     The EPA proposal contemplated transporting sludge by rail car approximately
150 miles from Philadelphia to Letterkenney Army Depot.  The Letterkenney Army
Depot comprises several thousand acres of land in Franklin County.  Farm and
forest lands abut the Depot.  The 650 acres of land designated for the demon-
stration site were completely contained within the Depot; the demonstration
site did not abut any private property.

     Sludge application rates varying from 10-25 dry tons per acre were
recommended by a research team from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  An
EPA grant was to have funded the project.

C.  Regulations

     The DER played no role in planning or regulating this project.  Whether
the DER would have played a regulatory role had the project proceeded is

D.  Public Relations/Politics/Public Participation

     There was no public relations or public participation component of the
project during the planning stage.  Region III EPA officials were waiting for
approval of EPA funding for the project before implementing a plan to create
a citizens advisory group which would act as a liaison with the Chambersburg
community.  However, EPA plans were disrupted when, in February 1975, a
Chambersburg newspaper ran an article about the planned project.

     The newspaper article was the first opportunity local officials and
residents had to learn about the project's existence.  Numerous letters from
local citizens were published in the Chambersburg newspaper during the weeks
after the newsleak, most of which expressed reservations about the project.
Additional articles about the project appeared in the local newspaper during
the weeks thereafter.

     On March 7, 1975, several community leaders received invitations from
the EPA to attend a briefing on the proposed project.

     Public opposition to the project became increasingly vocal during March,
1975.  The Chambersburg newspaper conducted a poll of local residents which
purported to show that a majority of citizens opposed the project.  Petitions
against the project were circulated and submitted to the EPA.  Citizen con-
cern focused on the effect of sludge application on groundwater, on odors,
and on resentment at being used as Philadelphia's "guinea pig."

     On March 27, 1975, following a very volatile public meeting, Region  III
EPA officials decided to drop the Letterkenney project.

 A.  Background/Handling/Application Site/Schedule/Financing

     This project, conceived  in 1975, involved the use of  sludge  stored  in
 lagoons  at  the  Southwest  treatment plant to reclaim  1,000  acres of privately
 owned strip mines on  a site approximately  150 miles  from Philadelphia.

     The sludge was to be transported by rail to the site, where  it  would
 be  stored temporarily in  a containment  area.  Abutting sites  consisted of
 other strip mines and forests.  Financing  was to be  borne  by  the  City of

 B.  Regulation/Political/Local Government/Interest Groups/Public  Relations

     At  the time this project was undertaken, DER had not  yet issued its guide-
 lines for sludge application  for reclamation purposes.  The County  Commissioners
 were initially  favorable  towards the project, but as public opposition to the
 project  became  apparent,  County officials  assumed a  low profile  and permitted

opposition forces to operate unopposed.  The County Soil Conservation District
was initially wary of the project, but came to support it after discussions
with Philadelphia Water Department personnel concerning technical issues.

     A public relations campaign was conducted by Caess Environmental Company,
the private firm which had successfully bid for che contract to handle the
sludge application program for Philadelphia.

     As part of the public relations campaign, the county commissioners and
town supervisors were included in the planning of the project.  Public
meetings were held to explain the project and to answer the questions and
objections of local residents.  Press releases describing the project were
disseminated to the local media.  Project planners were interviewed on local
radio.  Question and answer sheets were distributed to post offices.  A
telephone "hot line" to field questions of local residents was established
and advertised on radio.

     Three housewives constituted the core opposition group.  They collected
money at public meetings to hire a lawyer, who organized the opposition effort.
The concerned citizens group canvassed local residents and mobilized opposition

      Eventually the DER declined  to  grant the sludge  application permit and
the project was abandoned.

     The two lowest bids received in response to Philadelphia's  1975 request
 for bids for the removal and environmentally acceptable disposal of sludge
 from the Northeast treatment plant were submitted by a subsidiary of Browning
 Ferris Industries, Inc.  The lowest bid was for the proposed transport of
 the sludge to the C&D canal site which has been discussed in the previous case
 study.  The second lowest bid called for the transport of sludge by rail to
 Mahoning County, Ohio.  The proposed application site was a privately owned
 strip mine which had previously been used as a disposal site for 60,000 cubic
 yards of digested sludge from Cleveland, and various toxic wastes.

     Local citizens were very much disturbed about the past disposal practices
 at the site and as a result mobilized against the project as soon as it was
 proposed.  Following a hostile public meeting, the Ohio State EPA, although
 agreeing that the proposal was technically sound, bowed to public opinion and
 denied the permit application.

A-  Background/Handling/Application Site/Schedule/Financing

     The Bucks County project, conceived in 1976, was an attempt to apply sludge
to agricultural land.  Liquid sludge was transported by a private truck company

approximately 20 miles from Philadelphia to Westminster Township in Bucks
County.  The application site was a privately owned farm abutted by other
agricultural land and forest.  The farmer was to receive the sludge free of
charge and the entire cost of the program was to be borne by the City of
Philadelphia.  A private company, Bi-Products Systems, Inc. had successfully
bid to handle the program for Philadelphia.

B.  Litigation

     Litigation resulting in an injunction halted the sludge application pro-
gram.  Suit was filed against the individual landowner, the State of Pennsyl-
vania and the City of Philadelphia in November 1977 by a group of local
residents who alleged that the project threatened surface water and groundwater
quality and that the DER lacked authority to enforce its own regulations con-
cerning sludge application.  After the suit was filed, the County Commissioners
and Town Supervisors joined with the citizens group against the program.  The
case was heard before the State Environmental Hearing Board, an administrative
tribunal which has state-wide original jurisdiction to hear cases involving
actions by the DER.

     The Board issued a temporary restraining order enjoining further sludge
application at the site.  On appeal, the Board reversed its earlier decision
and 200,000 gallons of liquid digested sludge  (4-5% solids) was applied at
the site in October 1980.  The Citizens group now plans to appeal the Board's
action in the state's courts.

C.  Regulation/Land Use Restriction

     The DER's interim guidelines for sewage waste use on agricultural lands
prohibit grazing on lands to which sludge has been applied for at least two
months after the application,

D.  Political/Local Government/Interest Groups/Public Relations

     The county and town elected officials in Bucks County played no official
role in the project's implementation.  They did nothing to obstruct the
project until local opposition to the project became vocal.  Only after legal
action to enjoin the project was brought by private citizens did the County
Commissioners and Town Supervisors intervene in the action against the project.

     There was no extensive public relations campaign undertaken either by
Philadelphia or its subcontractor, Bi-Products Systems, Inc.  There were
two public meetings conducted by Bi-Products, at which technical personnel
attempted to answer the objections to the project raised by local residents.

A.  Background/Handling/Application Site/Schedule

     Somerset County in western Pennsylvania contains Philadelphia's most active
and largest strip mine sludge application sites.  This project was conceived early

 in 1978,  and  sludge  was  applied to  a ten acre  demonstration site  later  that
 year.   In 1979,  permits  issued for  reclamation of 250-300  acres of strip
 mine  sites.   During  1980,  Water Department  officials  anticipate that 700-
 1000  acres of strip  mines  will be permitted and reclaimed.

      The  sludge  (Mine  Mix)  is  transported the  approximately 200 miles from
 Philadephia by a Somerset  County-based  trucking company  which  makes coal
 deliveries to the Philadelphia area.  On their return trips, the  coal trucks
 carry  the sludge to  the  application sites.

      Sludge is usually applied to the site  whithin 48 hours of delivery.
 County officials negotiated an understanding with the DER  and  Modern Earth-
 lines  Company (Philadelphia's  subcontractor, which handles  the Somerset
 County project)  that,  under usual practice,  no more than 300 tons  of sludge
 would  be  stored  at any time, and that storage  time would not exceed 72  hours.
 However,  there have  been instances  when the DER has permitted  on-site storage
 for up to a month, pending  preparation  of the  site or pending  DER  study of
 the site.  In such cases, the  sludge is covered with  plastic sheeting.

     To date,  the reclamation  of twelve strip-mined sites  in Somerset County
 using  "Mine Mix"  have  been  completed.   The  sites which were active bituminous
 strip  mine operations  requiring backfilling to the approximate original
 contour and replacement  of  topsoil.  In some cases the mine operator owned
 the site,  but in other cases the operator only owned  the mineral rights.
 At the inactive  strip  mine  site which had been reclaimed under the program,
 there  has  been no topsoil replacement.   Other  strip mines,  forests,  pasture,
 and crop  lands abut  the  application sites.

 B.  Financing

     The  City of  Philadlephia  has borne the  entire cost  of  the sludge applica-
 tion program.  Mine  operators  have  received  the  sludge,  including  application,
 free of charge.

 C.  Regulatory/Legislative/Land  Use Restrictions

     The DER  permitting process  and requirements  covering the  use  of  sludge
 for land reclamation are in  force for this project.   The Somerset  County
 Commissioners  resolved this year to require that  a notice be attached to the
 tax records of properties on which  sludge has  been applied.  This  notice is
 designed to alert  future property buyers  to the  fact  that sludge has been
 applied to the site.    The notice directs  the reader to the  records  concerning
 sludge applications maintained by the County Soil  conservation Department  and
 the DER.

D.  Political/Local Government/Public Relations

     When this project was developed DER regulations  required  the  consent  of the
County Commissioners  of Somerset County before Philadelphia's permit application
would be considered.

     After locating a mine operator who was willing to use sludge for reclama-
tion of a strip mine site, representatives of the Modern Earthline Company,
Philadelphia's subcontractor, met with the Somerset County Commissioners to
explain the project.  The initial application permit was for a ten acre
demonstration site.  The initial attitudes of the Commissioners have been
described by various sources as receptive, wary and hostile.  Public relations
personnel took the Commissioners to visit the DER experimental sludge applica-
tions site in Venango County.  The Commissioners then consented to a 10-acre
demonstration site in Somerset County.

     After the cooperation of the County Commissioners was won, representatives
of Modern Earthline Company requested the assistance of the Commissioners in
presenting and explaining the project to the general public.  A public meeting
was announded in the local media, at which the project was explained to the
interested public by representatives of Modern Earthline Company, DER and
scientists from Pennsylvania State University.

     The public raised questions concerning technical aspects of the project,
including the affect of the application of sludge on groundwater, the issues
of odors and heavy metal content of the sludge.  These questions were answered
in detail by technical staff of Modern Earthline Company and by scientists
from the DER and the Pennsylvania State University.

     When the second permit was submitted to DER in 1979, another public meeting
was held.  Apparently because the scale of the project was to be greatly
expanded under the new application, public apprehension and concern was more
pronounced at this second meeting than at the first.  Public discussion of the
project led to the creation of a citizens advisory committee which was comprised
of representatives of the County Soil Conservation Department, the Agricul-
tural Extension Service, local farmers and mine operators.  The advisory
committee was charged with the task of overseeing the project on behalf of the
general public.  The committee met monthly and received the results of the
site monitoring and testing conducted by scientists from Pennsylvania State,
the Soil Conservation Department, and Modern Earthline Company.

     In addition to the public meetings. Modern Earthline Company conducted
a public relations campaign which included slide and film presentations to
local associations  (e.g., Kiwanis, Rotary and Lions Clubs), circulation of
brochures explaining the project, education programs in the schools, sponsor-
ing of visits by private citizens to the demonstration site and establishment
of rapport with the local media.

     Modern Earthline Company has stressed in its communication with the Somerset
County community that the sludge application program would bring economic
benefits to the people of the county.  Modern Earthline Company  subcontracted
with a local trucking company, which hires local dirvers, to transport the
sludge.  They also hired local workers to apply the sludge, and purchased  limes
and equipment from county-based merchants.  Modern Earthline Company's management
and scientific staff are housed at local motels when they are working at sites
in Somerset County.


     In 1979, Modern Earthline Company obtained permits to reclaim 10 acres
of strip mines in Westmoreland and Clarion Counties.  The project planning
and implementation paralled that of Somerset County.
CONTACTS:   Philadelphia Water Department
           1140 Municipal Services Building
           Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107

           Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
           Bureau of Solid Waste
           3rd and Locust Street
           Harrisburg, Pennsylvania  17120

           Modern Earthline Company
           1015 Chestnut Street
           Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107

           County Commissioner
           Somerset County
           P.O. Box 30
           Somerset, Pennsylvania  15501

           Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources
           Pennsylvania State University
           University Park, Pennsylvania  16802

                           GRUNDY COUNTY,  ILLINOIS
I.  Background

     Soil Enrichment Materials Corporation (SEMCO),  a small independent company
organized by W. J. Bauer of Chicago,  was awarded a 2.5 million dollar contract
by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC)  to transport
and land apply 450,000 wet tons of 10-year-old sludge located in lagoons at
the Calumet Sewage Treatment Plant—part of the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago.  SEMCO was also awarded other similar contracts by MSDGC
and other agencies.  The Calumet facility provides secondary wastewater treat-
ment, but no sludge processing.  The sludge in the lagoons had 12% total solids.

     In May 1971, SEMCO began transporting the sludge by train to Grundy County,
70 miles away.  At the site, the sludge was stored in a small lagoon which had
the capacity for 6 train loads of sludge.  The sludge was then sprayed on the

     The site consisted of land leased from several farmers at $125/acre/year.
Surrounding the site were other corn and  soybean farms.

     Work was  stopped in July 1971, less than two months after the start of the
project and with 1/3 of the work completed.

II.  Litigation

     In July 1971, the Circuit Court of Grundy County issued an injunction
halting all operations at the  site.  The  County of Grundy alleged that the
SEMCO operations required a variance in the zoning of the land.  The  land on
which the storage  lagoon was located was  zoned "heavy industrial" and the land
application site was  zoned  "agricultural."  The  County  contended that SEMCO1s
operations were not of an agricultural nature, but involved  "waste disposal,"
which was not  permissible without a County waste disposal permit.  The ruling
was  in favor of the County and SEMCO was  forced to relocate  to Arcola, Illinois
where SEMCO had been  conducting a landspreading project utilizing  sludge  from
MSDGC1s West-Southwest facility for 9 months previous to the Grundy  County
project.  However, Arcola is approximately 150 miles  from  the  Calumet facility.
The  new  transportation and construction  costs caused  SEMCO to  incur  large  finan-
cial losses.   SEMCO appealed the  case to  the Appellate  Court,  Third  District
in Ottawa,  Illinois in February 1973.   SEMCO won  the  appeal,  but was unable to
recover  its  initial losses.

III. Legislation

      There  was no legislative  action  taken as  a  result  of  this case.

 IV.   Regulation

      The Illinois Environmental  Protection Agency (IEPA)  was the key regulatory
 agency  in the case.   SEMCO did eventually secure the necessary waste hauling
permit  from IEPA.  As part of the permit, the  IEPA required that periodic
 soil and crop analyses be conducted.   SEMCO felt that IEPA required^many more
 monitoring tests than were technically necessary and were  wasting time and

 money.   However,  a  considerable  amount of  laboratory  information on  soils,
 crops,  water,  and sludge  was  obtained.
 V.   Political
     William Bauer, then president of Bauer Engineering,  Inc., began promoting
 land application projects  in  1969.   The University of  Illinois was involved
 with a research project at the Arcola site, but there  were no research projects
 planned  for the Grundy County site.

     Those opposing the Grundy County project were individual abutters and a
 few other county residents.   One reason for their opposition may have been that
 Grundy County which is predominantly Republican, felt  that Cook County, which
 is Democratic, was "out to get them."  Also, the most  cooperative farmer leasing
 land to  SEMCO, was a prominent Democrat in the county.

 VI.  Local Government

     There was no initial  local government policy toward  the project.

 VII.  Interest Groups

     There were no organized  interest groups; however, the individual abutters
 were involved in writing letters to  the editor of the  local paper and in pres-
 suring the county attorney to file suit.  The abutters were upset about the project
 from the beginning, and utilized the zoning by-laws as a  means to halt the pro-
 ject.  SEMCO maintains there  were many odor complaints even when only water was
 sprayed on the site, and felt that the citizens filed  suit based on the zoning
 violation in order to establish a better legal standing than would have been
 possible with a suit based on odor nuisance.

 VIII.  Public Participation and Public Relations

     William Bauer organized  a public relations program when the abutters began
 to complain.  The PR program  involved his going door-to-door to speak with the
 neighbors, tours of the site, articles in the local paper, and public meeting
 participation.  Because the landspreading concept was new, SEMCO was unable to
 foresee the problems with the public.

 IX.  Technical Issues

     Heavy metals were not an issue in Grundy County, although high mercury
 levels were reported by SEMCO1s lab subcontractor on one  occasion.  After re-
 testing it was realized that a decimal point error had been made.  However,
 citizens in a community in Maryland where SEMCO was planning another project,
 got hold of the information concerning the high mercury levels.  SEMCO found
 it difficult to make people believe an arithmetic error had been made.

     Procedural aspects of the project were not an issue and the question of
the benefits of the land application of sludge were never raised.  However, an
accident did occur when a bus load of children was sprayed with some sludge.
Needless to say,  this resulted in numerous complaints to the County Health
Department from concerned parents.   Again, this incident was brought up by the
citizens involved in the Maryland project.  If the Grundy project had continued,
SEMCO would have  changed the application technique to disking,  a technique it
developed in Arcola in 1972.


CONTACT:  W.J. Bauer Consulting Engineers
          20 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, Illinois

                           WEST VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND

     The USDA Plant Science Division, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
is presently researching the use of sewage sludge in strip mine reclamation
in West Virginia and Maryland.  The treatment plants are located in
Morgantown, West Virginia; Frostberg, Maryland; and Westernport, Maryland.
All plants use activated sludge treatment with vacuum filters.  The sludge's
chemical characteristics are in the following ranges:  0.1-0.3 ppm cadmium,
500-1000 ppm Pb, and 10-15% total solids.

     The reclamation sites are located in Fort Martin, Morgantown, Elkin,
and Kingwood, West Virginia and near Franconia in Maryland.  All plant-to-
site distances are 10 miles or less.  Sludge is transported to the sites
by dump trucks which are operated by either the USDA or the local authorities.
There are no storage facilities at the sites.  According to the Project
Supervisor, the total area involves in the project is approximately 5

     The project began at the Fort Martin site in 1970.  The EPA has funded
most of the research via pass-through funds and there has been no local input
in the project other than in hauling the sludge.  The USDA cooperates with
the Department of Natural Resources in both states in providing test data
and with the County Health Departments by obtaining the necessary permits.
Bennett feels that the additional monitoring requirements imposed by the
Health Departments over the years have enhanced the research project in that
the regulations have helped to accelerate some of the information gathering
aspects of the USDA's research.

     Local and state publications and national journals have included articles
on the USDA research.   USDA officials have also been responsive to any public
requests for lectures,  tours,  and written information, although there is no
organized public relations program.   The public's attitude has been favorable
toward the project although a few people were initially opposed.   The strip
mine operators were initially hostile because they felt that the USDA was
stepping in to condemn the mines for their environmental damage.   However,
Bennett claims that over time the miner operators have changed their views
and are now supportive and willing to help with public relations.
 CONTACT:  USDA - Plant Science Division
          West Virginia University
          Morgantown, West Virginia  26506

                          LOUISA COUNTY CASE STUDY
I.  Background

     This case study concerns the reclamation of three abandoned mining sites
along Contrary Creek, in Louisa County, Virginia.  Acid mine drainage from the
three sites had lowered the pH of Contrary Creek to 2.5 and threatened the water
quality of Lake Anna, into which Contrary Creek empties.  The Virginia State
Water Control Board obtained EPA funding for a demonstration project to reclaim
the mine sites.

     The project used sludge generated by the Blue Plains Treatment Plant in
Washington, D.C.  The Blue Plains Treatment Plant, which services several
suburban communities as well as the District of Columbia, is a secondary treat-
ment facility.  The sludge is anaerobically digested and concentrated by vacuum
filtration to 20% solids.  Cadmium content averages 17 ppm.

     The sludge was hauled in 18 ton capacity trucks, the cost of which was
borne by the City of Washington, D.C.  The application sites were approximately
100 miles from the Blue Plains facility.  Sludge was not generally stockpiled
on the sites, the usual practice was to apply sludge immediately upon delivery.

     The three sites, which were not within the Blue Plains Treatment Plant
service district, were each privately owned.  The Sulfur mine site is owned by
a paper manufacturing company, and the Boyd Smith and Arminius sites are owned
by mining companies.  Each of the sites is abutted by forest areas.

     There are land use restrictions on the Sulfur and Boyd Smith mine sites
which require the landowners not to use the sites for any purpose that would
reverse the reclamation measures.  This use restriction was imposed as a re-
quirement of the EPA grant which funded the project, in the form of easements
obtained from the landowners by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

     The project was conceived in 1973 when the Virginia State Water Control
Board (SWCB) applied to the EPA for a demonstration grant under section 107 of
PL 92-500.  The grant was awarded in 1975.  Construction related to the land
application project was performed in April 1976.  Sludge was applied to the
Sulfur and Boyd Smith sites in the spring of 1976, and to the Arminius site in
the fall of 1976.  The project was limited to the areas reclaimed in 1976, which
constituted approximately 25 acres.

     Financing for the Sulfur and Boyd Smith sites was provided by an EPA grant
under section 107 of PL 92-500, which provides funds for mine water pollution
control demonstration projects.  The federal government paid 60% of the project's
costs, with the remaining 40% borne by SWCB in the form of inland services such
as project management and monitoring.  Sludge and transportation costs were
borne by Washington, D.C.

     The costs of the Arminius site was borne by the site's owner.

II.  Litigation

     The company which owned the Arminius site was required by the SWCB to enter
into a consent agreement in which it committed itself to a project schedule.  The
owner was required by Virginia law to abate the acid seepage from the site and
informally committed itself to do so in conjunction with the SWCB project.  How-
ever, the company failed to keep its informal commitment, and the SWCB moved to
bind the company by a consent order.  The Arminius site was reclaimed in the
fall of 1976.

III.  Legislation - None

IV.  Regulation

     The project was monitored by the SWCB, but there was no permitting process
involved.  Land use restrictions required as a condition of the EPA grant, were
imposed in the form of easements obtained from the landowners.  The Soil Con-
servation Service provided engineering and construction inspection services.
The Virginia Department of Health's regulations regarding disposal of waste-
water sludge were complied with.  Sludge hauling was performed in compliance
with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regulations, and trucks
were rented to minimize travel through populated areas.

V.  Political/Local Government

     The public utility company which uses the waters from Lake Anna to cool
its nuclear power plant played a role in alerting the SWCB in 1973 to the
danger posed to Lake Anna's water quality by the acid drainage from Contrary

     The county government was aware of the project, but played no role in
either advancing or opposing it.

VI.  Public Participation

     The SWCB conducted a public relations campaign to explain the project
to the Louisa County community.  Press releases were distributed to the local
media and a public meeting was held to explain the project to local elected
officials and civic leaders.  There was no discernable opposition to the
CONTACT:  State Water Control Board
          Valley Regional Office
          116 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 268
          Bridgewater, Virginia  22812

                            PITTSBURGH CASE STUDY
I.   Background

     In February 1980 a plan was conceived to use waste activated sludge from
the Allegheny County Sanitation Authority's Northside Plant for agricultural
use on the Vic-Nor Sod Farms in Butler County,  PA,  approximately 30  miles
away.  The Northside Plant is an activated sludge plant serving the  City of
Pittsburgh and 76 surrounding municipalities.   The application site  in Butler
County is surrounded by sod fields and forests.   Construction for the project
began in April 1980.

     The sludge (7% solids, lime stabilized pH 11-12, 42 ppm Cd, 2200 ppm Zn,
540 ppm Cu, 718 ppm Cr, 420 ppm Pb)  is to be transported to Butler County by
6,500 gallon tank trucks.   Storage facilities in Butler County consist of
another 6,500 gallon tank.  The sludge is given to the farmer free with land
use restrictions imposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.  These restrictions include:

     o  All sludge is to be digested or chemically stabilized.

     o  Sludge is not to be applied to root vegetables or vege-
        tables that are not cooked.

     o  Dairy cattle must not be allowed to graze on land for
        at least two months after sludge application.

II.  Litigation - None

III. Legislation - None

IV.  Regulation

     Regulatory aspects of the project center around obtaining permits and
meeting pre-existing minimum standards.  Regulatory agencies involved include:

     o  EPA

     o  State Health Department

     o  State Department of Environmental Resources  (very supportive)

The  local land use and environmental agencies in Butler County were notified
but  they had no input into the project design.

V.   Political - None

VI.  Local Government - None

VII. Interest Groups - None

VIII. Public Participation and Public Relation - None

IX.  Technical Issues - None

CONTACT:  Allegheny County Board of Health
          Water Pollution Program
          Frank B.  Black Health Center
          Bldg. #5
          40th and  Pennsylvania Avenues
          Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania  15224

                         HARLEM VALLEY,  NEW YORK
I.   Background

     Harlem Valley is the name given to the region surrounding the New York
and Harlem Railroad tracks in Eastern Dutchess and Columbia Counties in New
York State.  The area thrives on dairy farming, but it is necessary to
import feed, fertilizer,  machinery, and building materials by rail.  The
Harlem rail line has been financially ailing over the last few years and
the local farmers are worried that it might go out of business.  In 1975,
town officials from Dutchess and Columbia Counties authorized the formation
of a task force to study the possibility of transporting sludge from the
New York metropolitan area for composting and spreading on land.   This idea
was based on the fact that government subsidies might be obtained for the
$15 million project under Section 201 of the Water Pollution Control Act.
The composted sludge would be used on productive farmland, quarried land,
and marginal unproductive farmland.  According to the Harlem Valley Trans-
portation Association, an "energy plantation" was planned for the reclaimed

     Initial local reactions to the plan were negative and town officials
worried about the potential "politically damaging stigma" attached to the
project.  A tour was made of the USDA Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland
where Washington, D.C. sludge is being composed.  Twenty residents made the
trip and were impressed with that project.  As a result, the association set
out on a campaign to tackle the local acceptance problem.  Through lectures
and slide shows at community group meetings, the proposal gained a great
deal of support.  However, the local town boards had reservations about
allowing an outside municipality to operate a project within their jurisdic-
tions.  New York City authorities also expressed reluctance about such an
arrangement, especially when the Town of Ancram proposed that it have control
over the project.  This idea, however, was deemed illegal since under New
York State Town Law, no town can operate a business or give anything away.
As of July 1978, the association was pushing for legislation to authorize
the formation of a regional agency to control the project.  Since that time
there has been little action on the proposal.

     The towns would be aided by the Environmental Facilities Corporation
 (EFC), a state agency which helps municipalities set up public  interest
projects.  EFC would assist in the selection of consultants, make sure local
needs are met, and represent local interests in design meetings with other

     A major stumbling block for the project resulted from New  York City's
sludge disposal feasibility study  in September  1978.  The City  has been  under
tremendous pressure to find an alternative to  its existing practice of ocean
dumping sludge by the end of 1981.  Consequently, the amount of time necessary

to  implement each alternative held  top priority  as  an  evaluation  criterion.
The assessment of projects  such  as  the Harlem  Valley proposal  was summarized
in  the  "Draft Environmental Assessment Statement" as follows:

      "The options to:  (1) ship sludge, in  any  process  state, overseas
      to arid countries  for  possible land treatment  to  increase agricul-
      tural production;  (2)  transport sludge to rural areas  in  New York
      or other adjacent  states for land application; and  (3) transport
      sludge to strip mines  in any state for landfilling were faced with
      legal and institutional constraints not previously breached  by any
      public agency within a clearly defined timeframe.  Therefore, the
      risks involved rendered recommending  such untried schemes in a
      critical time period totally unacceptable."

      According to the State Department of  Environmental Conservation  (DEC),
the Harlem Valley project has been  in the  proposal  stage for the  past two
years.  A formal proposal to DEC which is  required  for such a  project, has
never been submitted.  As of February 1980 there was still talk of the
project, but the project's  initiator has since moved from the  area and
therefore the project's present and future status is unclear.
CONTACT:  Department of Environmental Conservation
          50 Wolf Road
          Albany, New York

I.  Background

     The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment facility, located in the District of
Columbia, services the City of Washington and parts of suburban Montgomery and
Prince George's Counties in Maryland and Laudon and Fairfax Counties in Virginia.
The facility is owned and operated by the District of Columbia.  Prince George's
and Montgomery Counties pay users charges for use of the plant through the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), a public utility managed jointly
by both counties.  Each of the system contributors is required by law to manage
a proportional amount of the sludge produced at the facility.  This case study
deals with the WSSC's attempts to meet this responsibility.

     Most of the influent undergoes advanced secondary treatment.  Approximately
80% of the sludge produced by this process is undigested; the other 20% is anaero-
bically digested.  The undigested sludge is chemically stabilized to a pH of 11.
Cadmium content averages 5 to 8 ppm.

     Digested sludge is transported by a private trucking company under contract
with the District of Columbia to farms and to publicly-owned parks and road em-
bankments.  Undigested sludge is hauled by a private company under contract
with the Maryland Environmental Service, a state agency, to entrenchment sites
in both counties.

     There are no storage facilities at any of the entrenchment sites.  When
land application or entrenchment activities are halted by inclement weather,
the sludge, is stored at the Blue Plains facility.

     Entrenchment sites are owned by the WSSC or by the individual counties, and
are operated by the Maryland Environmental Service, an independent state agency
which manages the entrenchment program.  The entrenchment sites are abutted by
low density residential areas.  The sites are closed for five years to all non-
waste disposal uses and then re-evaluated.

     Land treated with digested sludge may not be  used for the cultivation of
crops and vegetables directly consumed by humans for at least one year after
application to the  soil.  The Maryland State  Department of Health issues permits
for sludge application.

     Entrenchment of undigested sludge began  in 1974 in accordance with a court
order which was  issued that year.   Agricultural use of digested  sludge in
Montgomery County dates back to the 1930's.   Prior to the 1974 court order,
most of  the sludge  was managed by the District of  Columbia.

     The  cost of the program is borne by the  WSSC, whose budget  is approved by
both county governments.  Digested  sludge is  supplied to farmers  free of charge.
No federal or  state monies are used for the entrenchment program.

 II.   Litigation

      In 1973,  the State of Virginia sued the District of Columbia and the WSSC
 in federal district court, alleging that the Blue Plains plant was providing
 inadequate treatment and exceeding the design capacity and that as a result raw
 and  inadequately treated sewage  was emptying into the Potomac River.  The Dis-
 trict of Columbia and the WSSC were ordered to expand and improve the Blue
 Plains plant.

      The expansion and improvement of the Blue Plains plant resulted in an in-
 crease in the  amount of sludge generated.   The counties were unable to agree
 upon a fair allocation of the  burden of sludge disposal and the controversy
 was  heard in federal district  court.   The litigation  was resolved in 1974 when
 the  parties entered a consent  agreement whereby they  agreed to share the sludge
 generated by Blue Plains attributable to each county's influent.

      Legal difficulties persisted,  however,  when Montgomery County sought to
 purchase a tract of land approximately one mile from  its border with Prince
 George's County for use as an  entrenchment site.   Prince George's County objected
 to the choice  of a site near its own community.   Abutting landowners also ob-
 jected to use  of the tract for trenching operations on the gournds that such a
 use  would violate restrictive  covenants on the tract's deed concerning noise and
 odors.   Montgomery County sought to proceed with the  purchase anyway,  and it re-
 quested 'that WSSC buy the site for the use of Montgomery County,  as it contended
 WSSC was required to do under  the  terms of the consent decree.  When WSSC refused
 to authorize the purchase,  Montgomery County filed a  motion in federal court to
 compel WSSC to purchase the tract.   Prince George's County opposed the motion,
 arguing that the purchase  was  beyond  WSSC's  authority.   The court held that WSSC
 had  the authority to purchase  the  site  and ordered the purchase.

      Prince  George's County appealed  the decision  to  the U.S.  Court of Appeals
 for  a stay of  the  purchase.  When  the  appeals  court refused to stay the  purchase,
 Prince  George's  County  appealed  the case to  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court,  charging
 that  the district  court had exceeded  its jurisdiction by hearing  the  case.   The
 appeal  was  heard during the Court's 1980 fall  session and was denied.

 III.   Legislation

      In  its 1979  session,  the  Maryland  State legislature  passed a  bill which
 requires  that  applications  for permits  to  land apply  sludge be subject to a public
 hearing  which  could  become  an  adjudicatory process on  request  of  either  side.

 IV.   Regulation

      The  State Department of Health issues permits for the  land application  of
 sludge and for entrenchment operations.  Sites to be used  are also  subject to
recommendation by the county executives  and approval  by  county councils.  Soil
testing  is done by the  University of Maryland, Department  of Agronomy.  The
State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene determines the rates and condi-
tions of  sludge application and entrenchment.

V.  Public Participation

     The county governments have held public briefings to explain the entrench-
ment projects to the general public.  Issues discussed at the meetings include
choice of sites, health and environmental impacts and technical issues.  _Local
media have also covered the projects and the attendant controversies.  Citizen
groups were accompanied to the entrenchment sites by county officials and oppo-
sition groups were given the opportunity to meet with county executives.
CONTACTS:  Office of Environmental Planning
           Montgomery County, Maryland

           Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
           312 Marshall Avenue
           Laurel, Maryland  20810

           Maryland Environmental Service
           60 West Street
           Annapolis, Maryland  21401

                        FORT COLLINS, COLORADO CASE STUDY
 I.   Background

      Fort Collins is currently proposing an agricultural land application
 project on city owned farm land located just outside the city limits for
 sludge from its activated sludge secondary treatment plant.  The application
 site is abutted by two gravel pits, a river, an interstate highway and a
 residential development containing fewer than 10 homes with room for expansion.
 The sludge from the Southwest plant contains 30 mg/g cadmium and 10-20 mg/g
 PCB's and is treated by anaerobic digestion and vacuum filtration.  It is
 proposed to transport the sludge by pipeline across a river to the farm, with
 storage lagoons to hold sludge during inclement weather.  According to the
 proposal the storage lagoons would be located on the part of the farm farthest
 from residential abutters,  however, there has been some concern voiced by EPA
 that the proposed location  is within the ten year flood plain.   The city would
 be responsible for maintaining the pipeline and spreading the sludge and would
 contract out the farming operations.   No formalized restrictions on land use
 have been proposed.   However, Fort Collins officials are thinking about some
 operational restrictions including:

      o  Cumulative restrictions on cadmium loadings

      o  Growing only field  corn to keep  sludge  as remote in
         the food chain  as possible

      o  Sludge  application  plots  on the  site  would be  rotated
         out of  production every fourth year

      The  project was  conceived in 1978.   The  first sludge  application  is pro-
 posed for 1981.  EPA  would  apparently help  fund the  3.5  to  4.5 million  dollar
 project with construction grants  money.   The  City of Fort Collins  has  already
 purchased the land for $1.0 million to avoid  regulatory  pressures  to impose
 land use  restrictions.

 II.   Litigation  -  None

 III.  Legislation

      The  1976 amendment to the  State of Colorado  Solid Wastes Facilities and
 Disposal Act states that where  sludge is used for beneficial purposes a
 certificate of designation as a solid waste disposal site is not required.
 While  the city claims that this project is one such beneficial use, the
 county health officials believe that a certificate is required.  As of yet
 the project has not come to the point where this  issue has been resolved.

 IV.  Regulation

     The County Health Department which has been delegated authority by the
State Department of Health appears to be the key regulatory agency.  They
will issue a certificate of designation if necessary.  Fort Collins also has
to meet EPA requirements for Construction Grants approval.  The final setting
of cumulative cadmium restrictions will effect the project life.

V.   Political

     The real political situation here is the County Health Department's
insistence that the application site have a certificate of designation as a
solid waste disposal facility.  Because the County Health Department is no
longer involved in effluent monitoring (all lab work is done at the wastewater
treatment plant), they need to redefine their role.  This redefinition involves
their need to certify sludge application sites.  Also, on different occasions
Fort Collins has ignored the County Health Department and went directly to the
state level Health Department.

VI.  Local Government - N/A

VII. Interest Groups

     The primary interest group is the residential abutters to the application
site who seem to show more concern than opposition.

VIII. Public Participation and Public Relations

     There has not been an organized public relations program as such.  Fort
Collins has a good working relationship with the media and some brainstorming
ideas such as using sludge grown corn for gasohol have helped to create a
positive public image.

IX.  Technical Issues

     There have been no technical issues raised and the abutters have not

X.   Monitoring

     Fort Collins WWTP will be responsible for monitoring  the sludge quality
as  well  as for the performance of background monitoring at the proposed ap-
plication site.  Sludge will  be collected  from the anaerobic digestion units
monthly  and results indicate  fairly constant sludge composition.   Typical
values  for critical parameters include:

     Cd            30 mg/g

     Cu            1500 mg/g

     PCB's         10-20 mg/g

     pH            approximately  7

     TKN          4-6%

     NH3          2/3  TKN

 The ten monitoring wells  located on the  proposed application site will be
 monitored monthly  with a  range of analysis performed  including Cd, Cu,  Pb, Ni,
 Zn, Ar,  PCB's,  pH,  alkalinity and N.

CONTACTS:  Briscoo Maphis
           2336 Pearl Street
           Boulder, Colorado  80302

           Fort Collins Wastewater Treatment Plant
           3036 East Drake Road
           Fort Collins, Colorado  80525

                             REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

     As a result of the passing of PL 95-250 in 1978,  Redwood National Park
was expanded to incorporate a new area that has some paved roads.   The Park
authorities plan to turn the new acquisition into a forested area  with horse
and foot trails.  The paved roads are to be torn up which will result in the
creation of many areas devoid of topsoil.  In 1979, Lee Perkerson, a Forest
Manager with the Redwood National Park, decided that it might be beneficial
to use compost on this land.  Demonstration projects were conducted using the
static pile technique to compost the residuals from on-site chemical toilets
and other waste produced in the Park.

     A full scale project is now planned in which Redwood will buy compost
produced by sewage treatment plants in Arcata and Eureka, California.  Starting
in the summer of 1981, compost will be transported the 60-70 mile  distance
from these towns to the Park by truck.  The forest has prepared an Environmental
Assessment Statement for the U.S. EPA and has conducted the baseline studies in
compliance with the California State Water Quality Board permitting process.

     Perkerson does not anticipate any technical problems with the compost
since the chemical toilets use a harmless formaldehyde base and there are
no industries contributing to the influent at either the Eureka or Arcata

     Public participation has been fairly passive.  The Park is cooperative
in supplying information to interested visitors.
 CONTACT:   Redwood National Park
           Redwood, California

                                                                                                                          Fourth-Class Mail
                                                                                                                          Postage and Fees Paid
                                                                                                                          Permit No. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection
Official B
Penalty for Private Use
Washington DC 20430