Sewage Sludge | Sewage | Sludge | Biosolds | Wastewater

Sewage Sludge

This Ad Space Generates:

* New Customers
* Greater Market Share
* Increased Sales Revenues
* Durable Competitive Advantage

There's Only One:
www.SewageSludge.com
Website!

For more information, call/email
the Renewable Energy Institute:

info@SewageSludge.com

____________________________________________________________________________

Sewage Sludge:
also called by the innocent-sounding, non-alarming, non-toxic term; "Biosolids"
is Poisoning our Planet!

Sewage Sludge is a TOXIC Soup of Hazardous Pollutants
and Carcinogenic Chemicals and NOT to be Used in "Fertilizing"
ANYTHING, Especially on our Fruits, Vegetables, Farms, Lawns,
Parks or ANYPLACE People or Animals Could Come in Contact!

For more information, call/email
the Renewable Energy Institute:

info@SewageSludge.com

Some would have the public believe that sewage sludge, also known as "biosolids," is recycled "domestic waste." The latest is the E.P.A. is allowing "sewage sludge" to be renamed "compost" in an effort to fool the public about the toxic nature of sewage sludge.

The fact is, sewage sludge is defined by Harper-Collins Dictionary of Environmental Science as "a semi-solid mixture of bacteria, virus-laden organic matter, toxic metals, synthetic organic chemicals, and settled solids removed from domestic and industrial waste at sewage treatment plants."

It gets worse, current federal regulations allow every business to dump 33 pounds of hazardous waste into public sewers every month without reporting or scrutiny.

No wonder that the Federal Clean Water Act classifies sewage sludge as a pollutant.

The EPA is charged with protecting the environment, but when it comes to sewage sludge, the E.P.A. seems to be making exceptions to its' own laws and regulations, and looks the other way.

The Sewage Sludge Hits the Fan in San Francisco!

Friday, March 26, 2010

Ed Harrington, General Manager
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
1155 Market Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Mr. Harrington,

Thank you for the letter you sent on March 10, 2010 to the Center for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers’ Association. Since the two letters were identical, we are responding jointly.

As you note, we have called upon the city of San Francisco to stop applying toxic sewage sludge onto private and public lands. Your deceptive program of packaging sewage sludge as "organic compost" and giving it to unsuspecting gardeners has rightfully provoked dismay and anger among the Bay Area's gardeners and citizens as was manifested in the public protest at Mayor Newsom's offices on March 4.

Furthermore, we object to your use of the invented PR term "biosolids" to promote what is a nationwide scam perpetrated by the sewage sludge industry. You are talking about sewage sludge, and we will continue to call sewage sludge by its correct name, sewage sludge, not by a euphemism that is the result of a public relations contest held within the sewage sludge industry to come up with a name that would deceive the public. (1.)

Yes, the Center for Food Safety initiated a very limited pilot test program on only one small sample of the tons of toxic sludge you gave away. And, yes, as was accurately reported by Channel Five CBS News, even this very limited test confirmed the presence of unregulated hazardous materials in your sewage sludge. Our two non-profit organizations cannot afford the very expensive testing that would be necessary to even begin to identify the thousands of toxic contaminants and pathogens present in sewage sludge of the sort you are giving away. But, as manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission you surely know that the EPA has found that dozens of hazardous materials—not regulated and not required to be tested for—have been documented in each and every one of the sludge samples EPA took around the USA. (2.)

When you, the entity that has given away tons of sewage sludge contaminated by hazardous materials from nine California counties, make available to the public complete test results for all the hazardous materials present in this sludge, we will also release the results of our very limited testing. In short, due diligence requires that you perform this testing and make it available to the public.

Finally, it is the ethical and legal responsibility of the SFPUC and the city of San Francisco to conduct cleanup and remediation of the gardens that received your sludge under false pretenses. You know that if you had attempted to give away truthfully labeled sewage sludge for use in gardens where children play and where food is grown, the public would have adamantly refused and would certainly not have accepted your “gift” of tons of toxic sewage sludge. (3.) Indeed, this is why the sewage sludge industry has for decades gone to such great lengths in its effort to promote toxic sludge as “fertilizer,” and “land application” as “recycling”: first by disguising the very idea of sewage sludge with the fabricated green-sounding euphemism “biosolids,” and now by usurping from the organic gardening and farming movement such revered words as “compost” and “organic” itself. This is really a toxic disposal program masquerading as “environmental recycling.” We demand you end it and clean up the pollution you have created.

Sincerely,

Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety

Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association

Citations:

1.) See the 1995 book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! By John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biosolids

2.) Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey results are described in two EPA reports that together constitute the TNSSS: EPA-822-R-08-016 and EPA-822-R-08-018. http://epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/tnsss-overview.html Published by EPA, January 2009.

3.) For instance, imagine the public reaction if even an industry document such as this one had been supplied during the sewage sludge give-away, replete with some of the general sludge exposure warnings provided to sludge and sewage workers. See the document titled: National Biosolids Partnership, Waste Water and Biosolids Worker Health and Safety - Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.biosolids.org/news.asp?id=1415, July, 2002

The Poison Bill Clinton Spread on the White House Lawns, Now Barack and Michelle Obama’s Worst Nightmare, in the Form of "toxic veggies."

Michelle Obama's "Organic Garden" Contaminated by Sewage Sludge

When Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn in March 2009, she was planning to set an example of healthy eating by growing vegetables for her daughters and husband.

But Michelle’s organic garden plans have been crushed by finding learning that a toxic soup mix of hazardous materials and carcinogenic chemicals in the form of Sewage Sludge, were dumped on the lawns at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over 15 years ago by Bill Clinton, thinking that sewage sludge was "fertilizer."

This is a fairly common practice with many problems as Sewage Sludge is laced with anything and EVERYTHING that people pour down the drain and flush down their toilets, often contains heavy metals, female hormones from birth control pills, pain killers, and anti-depressant medications.

Not surprisingly, the National Park Service tested the soils in Michelle’s garden and found it has highly elevated levels of lead averaging 93 parts per million. That’s below the 400 ppm that the Environmental Protection Agency says is a threat to human health.

It's safe to say that NOT eating your vegetables grown at the White House "organic garden" is much healthier for you!

The Ultimate Online Resource about Sewage Sludge
and Solving the Problems with Sewage Sludge.

Sewage Sludge
www.SewageSludge.com
Engineering, Consulting & "Safe" Sewage Sludge Solutions

"Even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration, and recent improvements in MSWLF containment technologies suggest that releases may be delayed by many decades at some landfills. For this reason, the Agency is concerned that while corrective action may have already been triggered at many facilities, 30 years may be insufficient to detect releases at other landfills." Source: US EPA Federal Register, Aug 30, 1988, Vol.53, No.168.

DON'T EAT YOUR VEGETABLES GROWN AT
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
GROWN IN THE ORGANIC GARDEN
AT THE WHITE HOUSE!

Inside the White House: From The Organic Garden to the Kitchen and Dinner Table!

Michelle Obama’s "Organic Garden"

Organic Garden Planted at the White House:
Michelle Obama could be in trouble if HR875 passes!

Michelle Obama: "White House Organic Garden Will Feed Many"

We Turn Your City or County's Sewage Sludge Problems
into Profits and Green Energy!

Renewable Energy Ventures provides the following power and energy project development services:

__________________________________________________________

We Have the Solution to Sewage Sludge Problems
And other Biomass Wastes now being "Wasted" by Landfilling

Sewage Sludge Facts:

Sewage sludge contains over 10 times the amount of energy needed to treat it. On average, dried sewage sludge contains as much energy - pound for pound - as lignite coal! More precisely, sewage sludge contains about 7780 Btu's/pound! Therefore, it makes sense to use the available energy in sewage sludge and to recover the energy from the sewage sludge in "waste to energy" technologies such as biomass gasification.

As renewable energy, sewage sludge can be integrated into wastewater treatment systems which can make wastewater treatment plants net exporters of renewable energy - instead of net importers of fossil fuel based power from the grid. The more sewage sludge that is used as a "fuel" in generating renewable energy, the more that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Today, many cities are paying as much as $180/ton to landfill sewage sludge. New York City has paid as much as $800/ton to dispose of their sewage sludge. Every city's wastewater treatment plants must process their sewage sludge prior to disposal. These sewage sludge processing expenses cost about 35% of a wastewater treatment plant's annual budget. (Ask us how we can save this 35% expense for your city, and much more.) This is simply wasteful - and wasteful in several ways. First of all, cities are wasting their limited and finite economic resources by spending enormous sums of money to temporarily landfill their sewage sludge. We say temporary, as every landfill will fail at some uncertain date in the future. The "toxic soup mix" of found in sewage sludge may contain a host of 60,000 different chemicals, carcinogens, pharmaceuticals, pathogens, and poisons, that will poison and destroy the ground, groundwater, and everything that the sewage sludge comes in contact with once the landfill fails. And when your landfill does fail, the E.P.A. will come in and order the generator (your city that generated the sewage sludge) to pay for the clean up of the environment, even though the generator (your city) paid to have the sewage sludge "disposed of" - it was never really "disposed" - it was simply "stored" - and it will no longer be stored when the landfill fails, and releases the sewage sludge, and the rest of the contents in the landfill to the environment. Secondly, you wouldn't "waste" enormous amounts of money sending other fuels and renewable fuels such as; Biomethane, B100 Biodiesel, coal, etc., to a landfill, would you? That's what your city is doing when you treat your sewage sludge as a liability instead of an asset.

We Help City's Transform Sewage Sludge From Liabilities into Assets - Along with all Other Biomass Presently Being Disposed of in Landfills!

Sewage sludge becomes an asset - NOT a liability, after we install our biomass gasification and trigeneration plant at your city's landfill or wastewater treatment plant! We will then be able to reduce your city's sewage sludge expenses at least 50%. Additionally, when we generate green power from your city's sewage sludge and the other biomass "wastes" presently being wasted by disposing of in landfills - wastes such as; grass clippings, municipal solid waste, paper, wood chips, urban wood waste, food waste and construction and demolition materials, we further reduce your city's expenses, and significantly reduce your city's greenhouse gas emissions. These other biomass "wastes," along with sewage sludge generated by your city, no longer needs to be "wasted" by landfilling. Instead, these biomass "wastes" can be converted to green power through our biomass gasification and trigeneration plant.

Imagine, 65% of the waste your city generates - presently going to landfills - becomes renewable energy for your city through our biomass gasification and trigeneration plant! This prolongs the life of your landfill(s) and saves the landfill for true waste. This also immediately translates to significant reductions in your city's related budget, as well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Your city can become truly "green" when your city treats its sewage sludge and other biomass "wastes" as an asset and not a liability. Your city's biomass is a valuable resource, and instead of sending these resources to your landfill, bring the biomass "waste" to our biomass gasification and trigeneration plant - and stop "wasting waste.™"

When cities begin seeing their sewage sludge as an asset and renewable resource instead of a liability and a waste, new revenues are generated and expenses are eliminated, renewable green power and energy is generated, city budgets and operating expenses are reduced, finances improve, the tax burden of their citizens are eased, and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

Each year, wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. generate about 7.2 million tons of dry sewage sludge.

Number of public wastewater treatment plants in the U.S.: 16,583

U.S. population connected to a central wastewater treatment plant: 227,740,677 or about 77% of the population

Sun Aug 4, 2008

You may be anything but flush with health if you live near farm fields fertilized with sewage sludge.

Burning and irritated eyes and lungs, skin rashes and other illnesses are among the problems experienced by residents of homes close to land where Class B biosolids -- a byproduct of the human waste treatment process -- are applied, says a recently published University of Georgia study.

The study included 54 people living near 10 biosolid application sites in Alabama, California, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas and the province of Ontario in Canada.

Many of the residents had Staphylococcus aureus infections on the skin and in their respiratory tracts. About 25 percent of the people in the study were infected, and two died as the result of septicemia and pneumonia. S. aureus is commonly found in the lower human colon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn't consider S. aureus to be a significant public health risk, even though it's the leading cause of hospital-acquired infections and is commonly found in sewage, says study co-author David Lewis, a research microbiologist at the university.

Lewis says that chemicals are added when the sludge is being processed. These chemicals can irritate the skin and respiratory tract and make people more susceptible to infection, he said.

In a recent report about biosolids, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concluded the use of processed sewage sludge as a commercial fertilizer may be a public health risk.

Along with pathogens, sewage sludge can contain household chemicals,heavy metals, pesticides, and synthetic hormones from birth control pills and dioxins.

Source: safe2use.com

The "Dirty Business" of Sewage Sludge
the City of Detroit and Employees of Synagro Technologies
in the F.B.I.'s Sights Amid Bribery and Other Criminal Charges

The sewage sludge disposal contract that was approved last year by the Detroit City Council - giving the city's lucrative sewage sludge disposal business to Houston, Texas based Synagro Technologies - has been rescinded by the Detroit City Council after a federal investigation led by the F.B.I. has led to bribery . The council voted 5-4 in November 2007 to award Synagro Technologies Inc., based in Houston, Texas, a contract to handle the city's processed sewage for close to $47 million a year.

Synagro Technologies is a wholly- owned subsidiary of the Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, with more than $82 billion under management. Carlyle has operations located in 21 countries and have close ties to the former George W. Bush administration. Several years ago, Carlyle took Synagro Technologies private thereby shielding Synagro Technologies from public scrutiny. Synagro Technologies is a company that states on its website, that it; serves municipal and industrial water and wastewater facilities and operates in 33 states. Synagro also states that "After two decades and many acquisitions, we’ve become the country’s leading independent, full-service provider of "residuals management" services to municipal and industrial facilities.

The term "residuals management," like "biosolids" and compost, is an industry buzzword for the reality the industry would rather not use, which in reality, is "sewage sludge." In fact, the website addresses: www.ResidualsManagement.com and www.Biosolids.com are owned by Synagro Technologies and both of these domain names leads to their company's websites.

Synagro Technologies lobbied the city for seven years in attempting to land the 25 year, $1.2 Billion contract for the city's sewage sludge contract. Synagro Technologies offered cash to community groups, enlisted the support of pastors from local churches, and other community leaders in their quest to land this lucrative contract. An outspoken community activist said he was approached by an agent for Synagro Technologies and offered "financial assistance" in exchange for writing letters and testifying before City Council in support of a $47 million sludge hauling and disposal contract. Ernest Johnson, executive director of the Detroit Community Coalition said that Synagro Technologies attempted to "recruit" his help in swaying the city council to approve the sewage sludge contract for Synagro. However, Mr. Johnson said he failed to see the benefit of Synagro Technologies being awarded the contract, stating; "that wasn't the sort of thing we would do because it wasn't in anyone's best interest."

The proposal by Synagro Technologies to Ernest Johnson was one of many attempts by Synagro to lobby or influence community leaders. Church pastors that Synagro deemed had influence were also lobbied for their support of Synagro. Synagro was lining up people who had no interest in that part of the city," said Johnson, who said, "the amount of compensation was only a few thousand dollars at most. It didn't make sense to me."

According to a letter from Synagro Technologies that is dated Sept. 17, 2007, Synagro Technologies promised more than $50,000 annually to community projects once the facility was complete. Synagro's plan called for building a new, "cutting-edge" incinerator to burn the sludge. While the incinerator was being built, the company learned of the F.B.I. investigation and stopped construction.

On July 21, 2008, Synagro Technologies' President Robert C. Boucher Jr. sent a letter to the Detroit City Council, just one day before the Council was expected to consider rescinding the sewage sludge recycling contract it awarded to Synagro Technologies. In the letter to the council, Boucher asked the council to hold off taking action until the investigation by the F.B.I. was complete. Synagro Technologies suspended their Vice President James Rosendall and the contractor Rayford Jackson after Boucher learned of the criminal investigations by the F.B.I. Boucher's letter to the City Council read, in part; “I understand that the ongoing federal investigation has created a difficult environment in which this issue is being discussed and debated, but I believe it is important that you have the results of the investigation before considering taking any action. I would encourage you to wait for all the facts to come out and to consider the benefits to the city, and particularly to the residents on the southwest side, before taking any action on this contract.”

The F.B.I. has been investigating whether council members, staff and departmental personnel were bribed for their support of the contract, which was approved in November 2007. Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson proposed rescinding the contract after learning the price Synagro paid to buy Minergy Detroit LLC – the company that initially proposed recycling the sewage sludge in 1998 – dropped from $3 million to $2 million because the deal was approved before Dec. 31, 2007. The city council approved the contract Nov. 20, 2007.

Synagro Technologies' Chief Executive for Michigan, James Rosendall pled guilty to conspiracy to bribe unnamed city officials in Detroit, over a period of seven years. Synagro Technologies' Rosendall, for seven years, tried to win a $1.2 billion contract for Synagro Technologies, for handling the city's lucrative sewage sludge disposal business.

Rosendall's guilty plea with the federal government, and his cooperation with the F.B.I.'s investigation implies upcoming indictments against others. In the federal indictment to which Synagro Technologies' James Rosendall pled guilty, he is referred to as “Defendant #1.

Is your orange juice grown with sewage sludge that is applied as a "fertilizer" to many orange trees, orchards and farms throughout Florida? Yes, there is a very good chance this is the case.

Did you know that about 60% of New York City's sewage sludge is "pelletized" by a company called Synagro? Synagro is located in Houston, Texas.

Companies like Synagro - even the E.P.A. - will probably state that it isn't "sewage sludge" from our toilets and wastewater treatment plants that are being applied to our food crops, farms, agricultural lands and lawns and gardens. They will say it's "fertilizer" or "biosolids," not "sewage sludge."

Synagro Technologies is based in Houston, Texas - Synagro owns and operates six "sewage sludge to fertilizer" plants in the U.S. These six plants are located in; Sacramento, California, Pinellas County, Florida, Honolulu, Hawaii, Baltimore, Maryland, Hagerstown, Maryland, New York, New York.

In New York city, they own a company called the New York Organic Fertilizer Company (NYOFCO) which is located in the Bronx. There in the Bronx, at their plant, they "pelletize" the sewage sludge from New York city's wastewater treatment plants. This pelletized sewage sludge is sent to Florida and used as "fertilizer" on many of the citrus groves (not just oranges, but also lemons, grapefruit, etc.) and other agricultural farms and operations throughout Florida.

Yes, some of Florida's "finest" orchards and agricultural lands are "fertilized" with New York city's finest "fertilizer," straight from the toilets and wastewater treatment plants in New York city to Florida's fruit orchards and farms.

The following toxic soup mix of ingredients were found by the E.P.A. in the sewage sludge of 35 wastewater treatment plants that the E.P.A. tested. Some companies have dared to rename sewage sludge or biosolids as "fertilizer" and are applying this toxic soup mix to our food crops, farmlands and lawns and gardens! And you wonder why cancer is on the increase?!?

Why are we "fertilizing" our crops and food with the following known pollutants, carcinogens, pathogens, found in sewage sludge/biosolids and some companies "fertilizers?!?"

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), including the Tetra, Hexa, Penta, and Deca congeners:

Antibiotics and their degradation products, disinfectants, and other antimicrobials:

Why Are We Allowing SEWAGE SLUDGE or BIOSOLIDS
to be applied as "Fertilizer" Our Agricutural Lands and Food Crops?

How Are All of These Chemicals, Drugs and
Toxic Pollutants Ending Up in our Food Supplies?!?!

Could it be that the U.S. EPA is "100 times more lax"
in regulating Sewage Sludge than Every European Country?

And, the U.S. EPA's "solution to pollution" is to allow these Toxic Chemicals, Drugs and Pollutants to be applied to our food crops?!?

No, that couldn't happen here in the U.S., where the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture protect our food supplies! Yes, it can happen here, and has been happening - for decades!

More about "Sewage Sludge"

Sewage Sludge has been defined as a "viscous, semisolid mixture of bacteria comprised of virus-laden organic matter, toxic metals, synthetic organic chemicals, and settled solids removed from domestic and industrial waste water at a sewage treatment plant."

Sewage sludge is the final product of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) also called "wastewater treatment plants," wastewater treatment systems," or "sewage treatment plants." After treatment breaks down the organic matter and kills disease-causing organisms, the remaining fine particles ultimately become "sewage sludge." Although much of the water has been removed, sewage sludge for application to farmland is still mostly water and resembles mud.

At least 60,000 toxic substances and chemical compounds have been found in sewage sludge. Researchers and the American Society of Civil Engineers have determined that sewage sludge contains the following toxins:

The U.S. General Accounting Office determined in 1994 that "the full extent of the radioactive contamination of sewage sludge, ash and related by-products nationwide is unknown." Most of the radioactive material is flushed down the drain by hospitals, businesses and decontamination laundries, a practice which has contaminated at least nine sewage treatment plants in the past decade.

In 1977, the E.P.A. estimated that by 1990 POTW's (publicly owned treatment works) would generate 10 million tons of sewage sludge per year. Today there are about 15,000 publicly-owned publicly owned treatment works (wastewater treatment plants) in the United States, discharging approximately 28 billion gallons per day of treated wastewater into lakes, streams and waterways. Before treatment, this wastewater contains over a million pounds of hazardous components. POTW's use heat, chemicals and bacterial treatments to detoxify 42 percent of these components through biodegradation. Another 25 percent escapes into the atmosphere, and 19 percent is discharged into lakes and streams. The remaining 14 percent--approximately 28 million pounds per year--winds up in sewage sludge.

Once generated at a POTW, sewage sludge must be disposed of. Typically, sewage sludge is disposed of in one of the following methods:

More About "Sewage Sludge"

Every time you flush your toilet or clean a paintbrush in your sink, you may be unwittingly contributing fertilizer used to grow the food in your pantry. Beginning in the early 1990s, millions of tons of potentially-toxic sewage sludge have been applied to millions of acres of America's farmland as food crop fertilizer. Selling sewage sludge to farmers for use on cropland has been a favored government program for disposing of the unwanted byproducts from municipal wastewater treatment plants. But sewage sludge is anything but the benign fertilizer the Environmental Protection Agency says it is.

Sewage sludge includes anything that is flushed, poured, or dumped into our nation's wastewater system--a vast, toxic mix of wastes collected from countless sources, from homes to chemical industries to hospitals. The sludge being spread on our crop fields is a dangerous stew of heavy metals, industrial compounds, viruses, bacteria, drug residues, and radioactive material. In fact, hundreds of people have fallen ill after being exposed to sewage sludge fertilizer--suffering such symptoms as respiratory distress, headaches, nausea, rashes, reproductive complications, cysts, and tumors.

The compounds added and formed during the sewage treatment process create an unknown and unpredictable product, one that should fall under the category of hazardous waste. Monitoring and regulating the content of these dangerous combinations has fallen terrifyingly short of protecting public health and the environment. Currently, no records are kept on the date or location of these lethal land applications, allowing these toxins to enter the soil of our nation's cropland untraced.

Despite the apparent danger of using sludge in food production, federal regulations are woefully lax. The EPA monitors only nine of the thousands of pathogens commonly found in sludge; the agency rarely performs site inspections of sewage treatment plants; and it almost never inspects the farms that use sludge fertilizer. Regulations governing the use and disposal of sewage sludge have been criticized by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Research Council, as well as numerous medical professionals, engineers, and activists.

The information above is from the Center for Food Safety (CFS) - The CFS seeks to end the use of sewage sludge as an agricultural fertilizer--first through an immediate moratorium on its application to croplands. CFS strongly suggests that the government launch an independent investigation into all specific claims that sludge has caused harm to people, animals, and the environment.

We Turn Sewage Sludge Problems, Expenses and Liabilities into
Solutions, Profits and Green Power

Our company and strategic partners provides engineering, consulting and "waste to energy" solutions. We can turn your city's sewage sludge problems and liabilities into profits and green power.

Unlike most companies, we are equipment supplier/vendor neutral. This means we help our clients select the best equipment for their specific application. This approach provides our customers with superior performance, decreased operating expenses and increased return on investment.

Renewable Energy Ventures provides the following power and energy project development services:

Regulation of Sewage Sludge

EPA regulations for sewage sludge disposal and use—the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge at Section 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 503—establish numeric limits, management practices, and operational standards to protect public health and the environment from adverse effects of chemical and microbiological pollutants in sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is the solid, semisolid, or liquid organic material that results from the treatment of domestic wastewater by municipal wastewater treatment plants, also known as publicly owned treatment works or POTWs. The terms sewage sludge and biosolids are used by EPA interchangeably, but others often use the term biosolids to describe sewage sludge that has had additional processing for land application. The Part 503 regulations set national standards for use or disposal of sewage sludge. Regulatory options include:

States may adopt additional or more stringent requirements for the land application of sewage sludge.

Production and Treatment of Sewage Sludge

Municipal wastewater, or sewage, refers to water that has been used in urban and suburban area homes or businesses for washing, bathing, and flushing toilets. Municipal wastewater also may include water from industrial sources. To remove pollutants resulting from industrial processes, industrial contributors to municipal wastewater systems may treat the wastewater before it is discharged to a wastewater treatment system. The wastewater is usually conveyed via a sewer system to a centralized wastewater treatment plant (e.g., publicly owned treatment works, or POTW). At the POTW, the wastewater passes through a series of treatment steps that may use physical, biological, or chemical processes designed to remove pollutants.

The treatment steps may include preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, and tertiary treatment. Preliminary treatment removes large objects, such as sticks, paper, sand and grit, which are typically landfilled and do not become part of sewage sludge. Primary treatment involves gravity sedimentation for removing solid material that settles out and flotation processes that remove oil, grease, wood, and vegetative matter. Secondary treatment is a biological process in which naturally occurring microorganisms are used to degrade (break down or digest) suspended and dissolved organic material in the wastewater. Tertiary treatment includes steps designed to further reduce plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), suspended solids, or biological oxygen demand in the wastewater. Preliminary, primary, secondary, and sometimes tertiary treatments are often combined in any given POTW.

Sewage Sludge - How Much of It Is There & How Do Other Countries Resolve the Sewage Sludge Problem?

Sewage Sludge generation rates (According to the U.S. EPA)

Country	Amount (million tons dry solids/yr)	Disposal method (%)
Application to land	Land filling	Incineration	Other
Austria	320	13	56	31	0
Belgium	75	31	56	9	4
Denmark	130	37	33	28	2
France	700	50	50	0	0
Germany	2500	25	63	12	0
Greece	15	3	97	0	0
Ireland	24	28	18	0	54
Italy	800	34	55	11	0
Luxembourg	15	81	18	0	1
Holland	282	44	53	3	0
Portugal	200	80	13	0	7
Spain	280	10	50	10	30
Sweden	180	45	55	0	0
Switzerland	215	50	30	20	0
United Kingdom	1107	55	8	7	30
United States	6900	41	17	22	20

United States stands alone

When it comes to spreading sludge on agricultural land, the United States has the most relaxed standards for metals among developed nations. Standards for heavy metals are up to 100 times higher than any other country has ever proposed. To make this comparison, U.S. standards, expressed as cumulative loadings, or total permissible additions of sludge on a metric tons per hectare basis, have to be compared with European standards, expressed in terms of concentration in treated soil. Although these comparisons require an assumption about how far down into the soil the sludge is mixed, the differences between the standards are so large as to overwhelm any uncertainty in the conversion.

Everyone agrees that sludge contains toxic metals, although at what level and when such metals might cause harmful effects are largely unknown. In most cases, the metals are not a problem now, but they could be an issue sometime in the future, between 50 and 500 years hence. Many European scientists favor the low estimate, whereas many U.S. scientists favor the high one. Depending on who is right, farmers could be risking potentially dreadful consequences because once damaged, soil could be almost impossible to fix. Faced with these questions, EPA scientists decided that they already knew enough to make some decisions. “We know more than enough to say with confidence that high-quality sludge can be used practically forever on farmland without any adverse effects,” says Rufus Chaney, a U.S. Department of Agriculture soil scientist in Beltsville, MD, who is one of EPA's principal science advisors and a vigorous champion of the U.S. approach.

Heavy Metal Contaminant Standards

There is - at present - no agreement, standards or international guidelines regarding
the maximum allowable concentrations of various metals in sewage sludge.

Country	Year	Cd	Cu	Cr	Ni	Pb	Zn	Hg
European Community	1986	1–3	50–140	100–150	30–75	50–300	150–300	1–1.5
France	1988	2	100	150	50	100	300	1
Germany	1992	1.5	60	100	50	100	200	1
Italy		3	100	150	50	100	300	-
Spain	1990	1	50	100	30	50	150	1
The Netherlands
Clean soil reference values		0.8	36	100	35	85	140	0.3
Intervention values		12	190	380	210	530	720	10
United Kingdom	1989	3	135	400	75	300	200	1
Denmark	1990	0.5	40	30	15	40	100	0.5
Finland	1995	0.5	100	200	60	60	150	0.2
Norway		1	50	100	30	50	150	1
Sweden		0.5	40	30	15	40	100	0.5
United States	1993	20	750	1500	210	150	1400	8

Certainly NOT by placing on our agricultural lands where our food is grown!

We believe the best way to handle the sewage sludge pollution problem is through the "waste to energy" solution of Biomass Gasification!

Our renewable energy project development expertise has made us a leading authority of helping our clients with Section 45 Tax Credits. Our company and our attorneys are skilled in the areas of renewable energy project finance and tax issues relating to renewable energy projects. We are able to assist our clients in connection with Section 45 tax credit project finance.

Our experience in Section 45 tax credits has helped us structure optimal renewable energy project solutions that match our clients unique economic and tax goals and requirements, which include regulatory constraints and regulatory compliance for most any state.

Section 45 tax credits generate $.021 cents per kwh of electricity produced by the taxpayer and sold to an unrelated person or company. Section 45 tax credits are available for renewable electricity produced from certain renewable energy projects including, closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal power plants, solar energy, small irrigation power, municipal solid waste, and qualified hydro power production, refined coal and wind power generation.

Thermal decomposition - sometimes referred to as "thermolysis" - is a chemical reaction wherein a chemical substance splits or decomposes into at least two chemical substances when heated. The reaction is usually endothermic as heat is required to break the chemical bonds of the material(s) undergoing decomposition. The decomposition temperature of a substance is the temperature at which the substance decomposes into its' constituent atoms.

You need a Very Efficient Cogeneration or Trigeneration Energy System, Operating at Around 90% Efficiency to Maximize the Power Generation

Trigeneration Diagram & Description
Trigeneration Power Plants' Have the Highest System Efficiencies and are
About 300 % More Efficient than Typical Central Power Plants

One of our company's principal's first experience with the design and development of a trigeneration power plant was the trigeneration power plant installation at Rice University in 1987 where our trigeneration development team started out by conducting a "cogeneration" feasibility study. We installed a 4.0 MW Ruston gas turbine for the power plant. Rice University selected an EPC company that installed the trigeneration power plant, along with waste heat recovery boilers and absorption chillers. A "waste heat recovery boiler" captures the heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine. From there, the recovered energy was converted to chilled water - originally from (3) Hitachi Absorption Chillers - 2 were rated at 1,000 tons each, and the third Hitachi Absorption Chiller was rated at 1,500 tons. The Hitachi absorption chillers were replaced shortly after their installation by the EPC company. The first trigeneration plant at Rice University was so successful, they added a second 5.0 MW trigeneration plant so today, Rice University is now generating about 9.0 MW of electricity, and also producing the cooling and heating the university needs from the trigeneration plant and circulating the trigeneration energy around its campus.

Trigeneration Chart
Trigeneration's "Super-Efficiency" compared
with other competing technologies
As you can see, there is No Competition for Trigeneration!

Our trigeneration power plants are the ideal onsite power and energy solution for customers that include: Data Centers, Hospitals, Universities, Airports, Central Plants, Colleges & Universities, Dairies, Server Farms, District Heating & Cooling Plants, Food Processing Plants, Golf/Country Clubs, Government Buildings, Grocery Stores, Hotels, Manufacturing Plants, Nursing Homes, Office Buildings / Campuses, Radio Stations, Refrigerated Warehouses, Resorts, Restaurants, Schools, Server Farms, Shopping Centers, Supermarkets, Television Stations, Theatres and Military Bases.

We partner and collaborate with other forward thinking companies and communities that are interested in changing the outdated power and energy model of the past - inefficient and highly-polluting central power plants that average 33% efficiency - to a new paradigm and model for the future - community-based cogeneration and trigeneration energy systems at more than 90% efficiency - and therefore provides power and energy at lower prices while significantly reducing and even eliminating typical power plant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.

Call (832) 758 - 0027 for more information about community-based cogeneration and trigeneration energy systems or about making your community, hospital, university or other commercial facility a model for the future.

At about 86% to 93% net system efficiency, our trigeneration power plants are about 300% more efficient at providing energy than your current electric utility. That's because the typical electric utility's power plants are only about 33% efficient - they waste 2/3 of the fuel in generating electricity in the enormous amount of waste heat energy that they exhaust through their smokestacks.

Trigeneration is defined as the simultaneous production of three energies: cooling, heating and power. Our trigeneration energy systems use the same amount of fuel in producing three energies that would normally only produce just one type of energy. This means our customers that have our trigeneration power plants have significantly lower energy expenses, and a lower carbon footprint.

Our trigeneration plants can use renewable fuels such as Biomethane, B100 Biodiesel or Dimethyl Ether, instead of fossil fuels to run them. We also offer an optional selective catalytic reduction technology that takes NOx down to "non-detect" without the use of ammonia or urea on our new trigeneration plants.

Our range of services (some provided by affiliate companies or manufacturing suppliers) include:

The U.S. has 3,091 active landfills and over 10,000 old municipal landfills, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. However, in the "good old days," every town (and many businesses and factories) had its own dump. According to the 1997 U.S. Census, there are 39,044 general purpose local governments in the United States - 3,043 county governments and 36,001 subcounty general purpose governments (towns & townships). One suspects that there are many more old and abandoned commercial, private, and municipal dumps than the 10,000 estimated by the EPA.

Municipal landfills and their leachate (water) and air emissions are hazardous. Municipal landfills can accept hazardous waste under federal law. An unlimited number of 'conditionally exempt small generators' of hazardous waste have access to municipal landfills. (See 40 CFR 261.5).

All landfills will eventually fail and leak leachate into ground and surface water. Plastics are not inert. State-of-the-art plastic (HDPE) landfill liners (1/10 inch or 100 mils thick) and plastic pipes allow chemicals and gases to pass through their membranes, become brittle, swell, and breakdown.

"...82% of surveyed landfill cells had leaks while 41% had a leak area of more than 1 square feet," according to Leak Location Services, Inc. (LLSI) website (March 15, 2000).

According to Dr. Fred Lee, "detection in new landfills can be difficult since the only way to know this is detection in the monitoring wells. The likelihood of a monitoring well at a single or double lined landfill detecting an initial leak is very small." Monitoring wells should be located in areas most likely to detect contamination (i.e., testing the ground water after it has passed under the landfill.) See: Subchapter I: Solid Waste. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate.

Old and new landfills are typically located next to large bodies of water (i.e., rivers, lakes, bays, etc), making leakage detection and remediation (clean-up) extremely difficult. This is due to the incursion of surface water in both instances. Federal and state governments have allowed landfill operators to locate landfills next to water bodies under the misguided principle: Detection by monitoring wells can also be very difficult at lined landfills. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate.

All landfills could require remediation, but particularly landfills built in the last 60 years will require a thorough clean-up due to the disposal of highly toxic chemicals manufactured and sold since the 1940's.

Introduction to Electricity Generation via Biomass Gasification
The following article by the Department of Energy

The U.S. economy uses biomass-based materials as a source of energy in many ways. Wood and agricultural residues are burned as a fuel for cogeneration of steam and electricity in the industrial sector. Biomass is used for power generation in the electricity sector and for space heating in residential and commercial buildings. Biomass can be converted to a liquid form for use as a transportation fuel, and research is being conducted on the production of fuels and chemicals from biomass. Biomass materials can also be used directly in the manufacture of a variety of products.

In the electricity sector, biomass is used for power generation. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) reference case,¹ projects that biomass will generate 15.3 billion kilowatthours of electricity, or 0.3 percent of the projected 5,476 billion kilowatthours of total generation, in 2020. In scenarios that reflect the impact of a 20-percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS)² and in scenarios that assume carbon dioxide emission reduction require- ments based on the Kyoto Protocol,³ electricity generation from biomass is projected to increase substantially. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate the practical limits and challenges faced by the U.S. biomass industry. This paper examines the range of costs, resource availability, regional variations, and other issues pertaining to biomass use for electricity generation. The methodology by which the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) accounts for various types of biomass is discussed, and the underlying assumptions are explained.

A major challenge in forecasting biomass energy growth is estimating resource potential. EIA has compiled available biomass resource estimates from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),⁴ Antares Group, Inc.,⁵ and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).⁶ This paper discusses how these data are used for forecasting purposes and the implications of the resulting forecasts, focusing on biomass used in grid-connected electricity generation applications.

Biomass has played a relatively small role in terms of the overall U.S. energy picture, supplying 3.2 quadrillion Btu of energy out of a total of 98.5 quadrillion Btu in 2000.⁷ The vast majority of it is used in the pulp and paper industries, where residues from production processes are combusted to produce steam and electricity. The industrial cogeneration sector consumed almost 2.0 quadrillion Btu of biomass in 2000. Outside the pulp and paper industries, only a small amount of biomass is used to produce electricity. There are power plants that combust biomass exclusively to generate electricity and facilities that mix biomass with coal (biomass co-firing plants). The electricity generation sector (excluding cogeneration) consumed about 0.7 quadrillion Btu of biomass in 2000. The remaining 0.5 quadrillion Btu of biomass was consumed in the residential and commercial sectors in the form of wood consumption for heating buildings. To put these numbers in perspective, the electricity generation sector consumed 20.5 quadrillion Btu of coal and 6.5 quadrillion Btu of natural gas in 2000.⁸

Biomass played a significant role among renewables in 2000, however, providing 48 percent of the energy coming from all renewable sources. In EIA’s AEO2002 reference case projection, growth in demand for biomass is expected to be modest. In the AEO2002 high renewables case projection, the demand for biomass is higher than in the reference case due to assumptions of reduced initial capital cost⁹ and increased supply. In aggressive RPS cases,¹⁰ the demand for biomass is much higher than projected even in the high renewables case.

Among many reasons for increased biomass utilization in those cases, environmental benefits are the most important. Compared with coal, biomass feedstocks have lower levels of sulfur or sulfur compounds.¹¹ Therefore, substitution of biomass for coal in power plants has the effect of reducing sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions. Demonstration tests have shown that biomass co-firing with coal¹² can also lead to lower nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions. Perhaps the most significant environmental benefit of biomass, however, is a potential reduction in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

A closed-loop process is defined as a process in which power is generated using feedstocks that are grown specifically for the purpose of energy production. Many varieties of energy crops are being considered, including hybrid willow, switchgrass, and hybrid poplar. If biomass is utilized in a closed-loop process, the entire process (planting, harvesting, transportation, and conversion to electricity) can be considered to be a small but positive net emitter of CO₂. It is not precisely a net zero emission process in a life-cycle sense, because there are CO₂ emissions associated with the harvesting, transportation, and feed preparation operations (such as moisture reduction, size reduction, and removal of impurities). However, those emissions are not the result of combustion of biomass but result instead from fuel consumption (mostly petroleum and natural gas) for harvesting, transportation, and feed preparation operations.

Although biomass-based generation is assumed to yield no net emissions of CO₂ because of the sequestration of biomass during the planting cycle, there are environmental impacts. Wood contains sulfur and nitrogen, which yield SO₂ and NO_x in the combustion process. However, the rate of emissions is significantly lower than that of coal-based generation. For example, per kilowatthour generated, biomass integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) generating plants can significantly reduce particulate emissions (by a factor of 4.5) in comparison with coal-based electricity generation processes.¹³ NO_x emissions can be reduced by a factor of about 6 for dedicated BIGCC plants compared with average pulverized coal-fired plants.¹⁴

Both dedicated biomass and biomass co-firing are used in the electricity generation sector. New dedicated biomass capacity is represented in NEMS as BIGCC technology. It is assumed that hot gas filtration will be used for gas cleanup purposes in this technology. Hot gas cleanup technology is relatively new, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and many industrial partners are conducting tests to demonstrate the technology. The alternative to hot gas cleaning is low-temperature gas cleaning. In low-temperature cleaning the gas is quenched with water, and particulates are removed in a series of cyclone vessels. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both processes.

The advantages of cold gas cleaning are that it is commercially available, the capital cost is relatively low, and the systems are easier to operate than hot gas cleanup systems. The disadvantages of cold gas cleanup are that the cooling process, the cold gas cleanup system, and fuel gas recompression systems reduce the overall process efficiency by up to 10 percent. The gas turbines downstream of the gasifier require the gas at high temperatures and pressure, and therefore the gas that has just undergone cooling for cleanup purposes must be repressurized and reheated in order to conform to gas turbine inlet specifications. The advantages of the newer hot gas cleanup technology are that it allows the process to be operated at higher efficiencies and it generates less waste water than the cold gas cleanup processes. The disadvantages of the hot gas cleanup technology are that operational experience is limited, it has higher costs, and it adds complexity to the process; however, it is considered to be the technologically more advanced choice for new dedicated biomass plants.

The McNeil Generating Station demonstration project in Burlington, Vermont, is an example of a biomass gasification plant. It has a capacity of 50 megawatts and supplies electricity to the residents of the City of Burlington. This is an existing wood combustion facility whose feedstock is waste wood from nearby forestry operations, including forest thinnings and discarded wood pallets. To this existing wood combustion facility a low-pressure wood gasifier has been added that is capable of converting 200 tons per day of wood chips into fuel gas. The fuel gas, fed directly into the existing boiler (Figure 1) augments the McNeil Station’s capacity by an additional 12 megawatts. The system was designed and constructed in 1998 and attained fully operational status in August 2000.

In addition to the Vermont project, DOE has funded five new advanced biomass gasification research and development projects beginning in 2001. Emery Recycling in Salt Lake City, Utah, will test new IGCC and integrated gasification and fuel cell (IGFC) concepts based on a new gasifier that uses segregated municipal solid waste, animal waste, and agricultural residues. Sebesta Blomberg in Roseville, Minnesota, has begun a project on an atmospheric gasifier with gas turbine at a malting facility, using barley residues and corn stover. Alliant Energy in Lansing, Iowa, is developing a new combined-cycle concept that involves a fluidized-bed pyrolyzer and uses corn stover as a feedstock. United Technologies Research Center in East Hartford, Connecticut, has begun a project that will test a biomass gasifier coupled with an aero-derivative turbine with fuel cell and steam turbine options, using clean wood residues and natural gas as feedstocks. Carolina Power and Light in Raleigh, North Carolina, will develop a biomass gasification process that will produce a reburning fuel stream for utility boilers, using clean wood residues. After completion of research and development tests, these projects are candidates for commercialization over the next few years.¹⁵

Biomass co-firing involves combining biomass material with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. Coal-fired boilers can handle a pre-mixed combination of coal and biomass in which the biomass is combined with the coal in the feed lot and fed through an existing coal feed system. Alternatively, boilers can be retrofitted with a separate feed system for the biomass such that the biomass and coal actually mix inside the boiler.

Table 1 shows the power plants that currently are co-firing with biomass on a commercial basis. The portion of biomass consumed varies from less than 1 percent to about 8 percent of total heat input, with two exceptions: Excel Energy’s Bay Front plant in Ashland, Wisconsin, and Tacoma Steam Plant Number 2, owned by Tacoma Public Utilities.

The Bay Front Station can generate electricity using coal, wood, shredded rubber, and natural gas. Experience has shown that it is better to operate units 1 and 2 on 100 percent coal during periods of high load and on 100 percent biomass during off-peak periods. A blending of coal and biomass can cause ash fouling and slagging problems. Therefore, the heat input from biomass averages about 40 percent in this plant.¹⁶

Tacoma Public Utilities is a municipal utility that provides water, electricity, and rail services. Tacoma Steam Plant uses a fluidized-bed combustor that can co-fire wood, refuse-derived fuel, and coal. The plant runs for only as many hours as necessary to burn the refuse-derived fuel it receives. The City of Tacoma Refuse Utility has modified its resource recovery facility to produce refuse-derived fuel. The generating plant is paid $5.50 per ton to accept the refuse-derived fuel from the Refuse Utility. A memorandum of understanding between the Refuse Utility and Tacoma Public Utilities commits the latter to burn the refuse-derived fuel for electricity generation. Coal is the most expensive fuel for the plant, making it desirable to burn as much biomass as possible.¹⁷ The fuel mix varies from season to season, depending on the availability of biomass feedstocks. The cost of renovating the steam plant to co-fire the biomass fuel was about $45 million. Washington State’s Department of Ecology provided a grant of $15 million to partially offset the renovation costs.

Biomass for electricity generation is treated in four ways in NEMS: (1) new dedicated biomass or biomass gasification, (2) existing and new plants that co-fire biomass with coal, (3) existing plants that combust biomass directly in an open-loop process,¹⁸ and (4) biomass use in industrial cogeneration applications. Existing biomass plants are accounted for using information such as on-line years, efficiencies, heat rates, and retirement dates, obtained through EIA surveys of the electricity generation sector.

The biomass fuel price is calculated from regional supply curves, which are an input to the model. The raw data for the supply schedules are available at the State or county level. These are aggregated to form the regional supply schedule by North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) region. Supply schedules are aggregated for four fuel types: agricultural residues, energy crops, forestry residues, and urban wood waste/mill residues. Table 2 shows the biomass supply available in the United States. The data in Table 2 are based on survey and modeling work by ORNL, the USDA, and Antares Group, Inc. Table 2 represents the maximum supply available in the various regions at a price of $5 per million Btu.¹⁹ A brief description of each type of biomass is provided below:

By 2020, the United States is estimated to have a maximum of 7.1 quadrillion Btu of biomass available at prices of $5 per million Btu or lower. Agricultural residues, forestry residues, and urban wood waste/mill residues are currently available. EIA also assumes that energy crops can become available on a commercial basis beginning in 2010. By 2020, the four biomass types are projected to be fairly evenly divided, with agricultural residues providing most of the supply and urban wood waste/mill residues providing the least amount at the high end of the supply curves.

Figure 2 shows the variation in the resource as a function of price. A relatively small portion of the supply is available at $1 per million Btu or less. Feedstock cost is a contributing factor that keeps the growth of biomass-based electricity generation at low levels under AEO2002 reference case conditions. The available low-cost feedstock (<$1 per million Btu) is almost exclusively urban wood waste and mill residues. This category of biomass continues to be the only significant resource available at prices up to about $2 per million Btu. At that price level, agricultural residues become viable as a second source of biomass. Energy crops and forestry residues begin to make significant contributions at prices around $2.30 per million Btu or higher. A brief description of the methodology by which the supply curves are derived is provided below. Table 3 shows the biomass quantities, expressed in various units, that are projected to be available at different price levels.

The underlying assumption behind the agricultural residue supply curve is that after each harvesting cycle of agricultural crops, a portion of the stalks can be collected and used for energy production. Agricultural residues cannot be completely extracted, because some of them have to remain in the soil to maintain soil quality (i.e., for erosion control, carbon content, and long-term productivity). It is assumed that 30 to 40 percent of the residues could be removed from the soil, depending on the State. In terms of acreage, the most important agricultural commodity crops being planted in the United States are listed in Table 4. Corn, wheat, and soybeans represent about 70 percent of total cropland harvested.

The agricultural residue supply curve used in NEMS incorporates only the residues available from corn stover and wheat straws. While this may appear to understate the agricultural residues that are potentially available for energy production, there are compelling reasons for excluding other types of commodity crops. In the case of hay, the whole crop is harvested and fed to livestock; therefore, it is assumed that there would be no useful amount of residue available. An attempt has been made to produce alfalfa, pellet the leaves using adhesive materials, and use the stems as biomass. The processing costs were too high, however, and there was no market for alfalfa pellets in the United States. In the case of tobacco the whole plant is used, leaving little or no residue. Residue from soybeans is relatively small and tends to deteriorate rapidly in the field, making it unsuitable for collection and energy extraction. Barley, oats, rice, and rye are produced in relatively small geographical areas and thus are not likely to have an impact on the national biomass supply curve.

The procedure for estimating the agricultural residue supply curve is as follows. Data on the quantities of corn and wheat produced in each State are available from the USDA.²⁵ From the harvested quantities of corn and wheat grain, a certain amount must be subtracted, representing the amount that the farmer needs to leave on the soil in order to maintain organic matter and prevent erosion. The quantity of residue that must remain depends on the crop type and rotation, soil type, weather conditions, and the tillage system. ORNL is currently preparing detailed estimates of how much residue needs to remain on the soil, taking into consideration these factors. For NEMS, only State-wide average yields and soil carbon needs using a reduced till practice (somewhat similar to mulch till and continuous crop rotations) are being considered.

The price of corn stover and wheat straw includes three components: the cost of collecting the residues, a transportation cost for transporting the material from the farm gate to the energy conversion facility, and a premium paid to farmers to encourage participation. For each harvest operation, a list of needed equipment is determined. Using standard engineering estimates consistent with those used by the USDA, the time per acre required to complete each operation and the cost per hour of using each piece of equipment are calculated.

Both the premiums to farmers and the transportation costs are based on current market practices. Several companies purchase corn stover or wheat straw to produce bedding, insulating materials, particle board, paper, and chemicals. These firms typically pay $10 to $15 per dry ton ($0.58 to $0.87 per million Btu) to farmers to compensate for any lost nutrient or environmental penalties (such as land erosion) that result from harvesting the residues. Studies have shown that transporting giant round bales of switchgrass costs $5 to $15 per dry ton ($0.29 to $0.87 per million Btu) for distances of less than 50 miles. Because agricultural residue bales would be of similar size, weight, and density as switchgrass bales, it is assumed that the cost of transporting bales from the farm gate to the energy conversion facility would be $10 per dry ton ($0.58 per million Btu). It is assumed by ORNL that the premium that would have to be paid to farmers would amount to $10 per dry ton ($0.58 per million Btu), for a total premium and transportation cost of $20 per dry ton ($1.16 per million Btu).

Energy crops are not currently being commercially grown in the United States. Demonstration programs are underway with DOE funding in Iowa and New York, including IES Utilities Inc.’s biomass co-firing project at its Ottumwa Station plant in Iowa, for which there are plans to produce 200,000 tons of switchgrass harvested from 40,000 to 50,000 acres of land; and NRG’s Dunkirk Station at Dunkirk, New York, where willow from 400 acres of farmland is being co-fired with coal. Therefore, the energy crop supply curve in NEMS represents future resources that could be more profitable at different market prices for farmers to plant in place of existing uses of cropland. An important assumption is that energy crops will not become commercially available until 2010.

The energy crop supply curve prepared by ORNL for EIA has three components: hybrid poplar, hybrid willow, and switchgrass. ORNL uses a model called the Policy Analysis System (POLYSYS) to estimate the quantities of energy crops that could be produced at various prices. POLYSYS is an agricultural sector model that forecasts the production of major agricultural crops. In addition, it has a livestock sector and food, feed, industrial, and export demand functions. POLYSYS was developed and is maintained by the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center at the University of Tennessee and is also used by the USDA Economic Research Service to conduct economic and policy analysis. The underlying assumption in the POLYSYS model is that a farmer will plant and harvest energy crops only if the crop can be sold at a price that assures a profit higher than the profit made by producing conventional agricultural crops on the same piece of land. POLYSYS captures the interaction between energy crops and conventional crops when land is switched from conventional crops to energy crop production. As a joint project between USDA and DOE, POLYSYS has been modified to include dedicated energy crops. POLYSYS uses the 1999 USDA crop and livestock projection as a baseline and can be used to estimate deviations from that baseline.

POLYSYS considers the availability of four types of cropland in the United States: acreage that is currently being planted with traditional crops, idled acreage, acreage in pasture, and acreage in the CRP. The model assumes that energy crop production will be limited to areas that are climatically suited for their production, thus excluding all States in the Rocky Mountain and Western Plains regions. The rationale for these exclusions is that there is a natural rain gradient in the United States, as a result of which land to the west of the gradient generally requires irrigation for crop production, which may have significant environmental penalties. Irrigation has been excluded as a viable management practice for energy crop production. All land east of the rain gradient has been included in POLYSYS, but land to the west has been excluded. Future genetic improvements in energy crops could, however, extend this range.

A POLYSYS model run using assumptions that optimize the yield of biomass was used for NEMS.²⁶ These assumptions apply only to the acreage under CRP programs and not to acreage currently planted, in pasture, or idle. Different management practices are assumed for CRP and non-CRP acres, because the CRP acres are among the most environmentally sensitive cropland and because CRP is explicitly an environmental program.

Energy crop yields in the supply curve vary within and between States and are based on field trial data and expert opinion. Table 5 shows the energy crop yield assumptions that have been used for POLYSYS. The variation in yields is due to differences in weather and soil conditions across the country. The lowest yields are assumed to be in the Northern Plains and the highest in the heart of the corn belt, as is the pattern observed with traditional crops. In addition, POLYSYS assumes that different varieties of switchgrass, hybrid poplar, and willow are produced in different parts of the country, with different yield assumptions. Energy crop production costs are estimated using the same full-cost accounting approach that is used by USDA to estimate the cost of producing conventional crops.²⁷ The approach includes both fixed costs (such as equipment) and variable costs (such as labor, fuel, seed, and fertilizers).

Switchgrass stands are assumed to remain in production for 10 years before replanting, to be harvested annually, and to be delivered as large round bales. The plants can regenerate, and the same plant can continue to produce switchgrass for up to 10 years. It is assumed that new switchgrass varieties will have been developed after 10 years, and that it will be financially beneficial to plow under the existing switchgrass stand and replant with a new variety. Once established, a switchgrass field could be maintained in perpetuity, but the advantages of new, higher yield varieties would warrant periodic replanting.

Hybrid poplars are assumed to be planted at spacings of 8 feet by 10 feet (545 trees per acre) and to be harvested after 6, 8, and 10 years of growth in the Pacific Northwest, southern United States, and northern United States, respectively. Harvesting is assumed to be by custom operation, and the product is assumed to be delivered as whole tree chips.

Willow production is assumed only in the northern United States. Willows can technically be grown throughout the entire eastern United States, but limited research has been done for areas outside the Northeast and North Central regions. Willows are produced in a coppice system with a replant every 22 years. They are planted in 2 x 3 double rows (6,200 trees per acre) with first harvest in year 4 and subsequent harvests every 3 years for a total of 7 harvests. Willow is delivered as whole tree chips.

In terms of product quality, hybrid poplar and willow contain about 45 to 50 percent moisture when harvested. The trees would typically be fed into a wood chipper, which generally would provide chips between 0.5 and 1 inch square and less than 0.25 inch thick. Switchgrass is harvested at about 15 percent moisture, baled, and generally ground in a tub grinder before use.

It is assumed in POLYSYS that energy crops are produced if they generate a profit equal to or greater than those earned for existing agricultural uses of cropland. Energy crops compete for land not only with existing uses but also with each other. Under the assumed yields and management practices, switchgrass dominates the biomass supply curve due to higher average yields and lower average production costs than hybrid poplar or willow. POLYSYS provides an estimate of the farm-gate price. To that price, an average transportation cost of $10 per dry ton (1997 dollars) is added to determine the plant-gate price.

The forestry residue supply curve was derived on the basis of work done by the USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS) and ORNL. The ORNL estimate of the availability of forestry residues is based on a 1984 USDA-FS study by McQuillan et al.,²⁸ which analyzed several types of data, including forestry inventory, logging and chipping costs, hauling distances and costs, stocking densities, wood types, slope, and equipment operability constraints. The McQuillan study is the only such analysis with national coverage. More recent studies exist, but they are local or regional in scope. The fundamental approach used in the McQuillan study still remains valid.

The input data were used to estimate regional supply schedules for softwood and hardwood chips for 1983 and to provide projections for 1990, 2010, and 2030. The USDA-FS study used estimates of “recoverability factors” that reduced the size of the inventory. Recoverability is used to account for the accessibility of the resource (i.e., existence of roads), whether the resource occurs in stands that are available, and how much of the resource can be retrieved (taking into account gathering problems with small pieces, breakage, etc.). The original data for the study came from a national inventory of “waste wood,” which was defined as logging residues, rough rotten salvable wood, excess sapling, and small pole trees.

The forestry residue supply curve used in NEMS is based on the 1984 USDA-FS analysis and a 1994 ORNL study by Turhollow and Cohn,²⁹ which was revised in 1995 by Decision Analysis Corporation under contract to EIA.³⁰ The amount of waste wood available has been updated using the most recent USDA-FS inventory data. Other adjustments to reflect the availability of waste wood include (1) the exclusion of sapling and small pole trees, (2) changes to the recoverability factors, (3) the addition of a nominal stumpage fee, and (4) conversion from 1980 dollars to 1998 dollars based on an index of agricultural prices paid. The modifications were implemented by ORNL, based on the following rationale:

1. Saplings as a source of waste wood generally do not become available below costs of $6 per million Btu (1998 dollars). Because of the relatively high cost of recovering sapling waste wood, it was excluded from the updated supply curves. The USDA-FS defines polewood as trees with greater than 5 inch dbh (diameter breast high) but smaller than saw timber trees. Although large quantities of pole trees become available at costs of about $3.60 per million Btu (1998 dollars) or higher, the polewood has potential to grow into future pulpwood or future saw timber inventory and, therefore, is not likely to be harvested by the forest products industry.

2. The recoverability factor is a resource reduction factor that takes into account three site-specific considerations: retrieval efficiency due to technology or equipment, site accessibility or existence of roads, and steepness of slopes. In modifying the recoverability factors, ORNL did not change the retrieval efficiency assumptions from those in the USDA-FS study (i.e., 50 percent of inventory is assumed to be recoverable); however, ORNL’s changes to the site access and steep slope factors reduced the inventory of softwood and hardwood that could potentially be recovered to 54 percent and 43 percent of the existing inventory, respectively. ORNL assumed that cable or helicopter logging would be necessary on steep slopes, and that in either situation it would not be economical to haul out much of the low-value wood, such as cull or branches.

3. For live cull, sound dead wood, and logging residues a stumpage fee of $2 per dry ton was assumed. The stumpage fee represents a cost to acquire the materials, based on data that was provided to ORNL by USDA’s Southern Research Station.

4. ORNL subtracted the cost of transporting forestry residues from collection sites to power plants. Therefore, the ORNL data for forestry residues represent the supply schedule at the collection point (i.e., at the edge of the forest). EIA assumes a transportation cost from the collection point to the power plant of $10 per dry ton, which is added to the forestry residue supply curve from ORNL. This constant transportation cost is applied to all regions in all years for agricultural residues, forestry residues, and energy crops.

The spatial distribution of agricultural residues, energy crops, and forestry residues varies considerably. Transportation costs are dependent on spatial distribution and on the quantity needed by a facility.³¹ Therefore, the estimation of transportation costs is highly problematic for these resources. For example, the estimated transportation cost for supplying switchgrass to hypothetical facilities in Tennessee varies by 50 percent among facilities of the same size and increases on average by 30 percent when the facility demand changes from 100,000 dry tons per year to 630,000 dry tons per year. Similar or even larger variations can be expected with agricultural residues, because less is removed per acre at harvest, and thus the hauling distances would have to be greater to supply a given quantity of feedstock. There are also regional differences that result from differences in road regulations and labor costs.

Estimating transportation costs for forestry residues is especially difficult, because they vary significantly depending on whether the chips are hauled on primary or secondary roads. There are no national studies that have examined the variations in transportation costs for different feedstocks, different regions, and different facility demands. For this reason, a uniform transportation cost of $10 per dry ton was assumed. The transportation cost for urban wood waste/mill residues, which are point sources of biomass, is calculated somewhat differently, as described below.

Most of the residues in this category are waste wood from manufacturing operations and wood that would otherwise be landfilled. Antares Group, Inc., performed this analysis for EIA. Antares estimated the State-by-State available supplies of urban wood waste and mill residues. Urban wood waste is further broken down into wood yard trimmings, construction residues, demolition residues, and other waste wood, including discarded consumer wood products. The mill residues are further broken down into bark residues and wood residues, both from primary mills. When available, State-level data from existing reports were used to construct supply curves of urban wood waste and mill residues. When published State-level data were not available, quantities were estimated by disaggregating reported national quantities. The disaggregation from national to State-level data was done by using accepted “indicators” (such as housing start data) that are correlated with residue generation.

The cost at which these residues can be obtained was estimated using processing costs, State-specific landfill tipping fees, and transportation costs. If a residue is typically landfilled, it was assumed that a 50-percent reduction in tipping fees would be offered at a waste collection facility as an incentive for people to take their wood waste to the collection facility instead of a landfill. The maximum distance beyond which transporting the residues would become prohibitive was assumed to be 100 miles from a potential biopower site. Costs were estimated for each residue type for hauling distances of 25, 50, 75, and 100 miles.

An important assumption in this analysis, made by Antares, was that urban wood waste and mill residues would be considered to be available only if they are not currently being used for other productive purposes. In other words, it was assumed that if urban wood waste and mill residues are currently being used for any purpose, it would not be economically attractive to divert them to electricity generation at any price.

Table 6 shows representative characteristics for different subcategories of urban wood waste and mill residues. The collection and processing costs are obtained from the available literature. While these are average collection and processing costs, the actual costs are expected to range from $0 to $8 per wet ton for mill residues and from $10 to $14 per wet ton for urban residues. A transportation cost is added to the collection and processing costs. The total expenditure in local transportation costs in 1996 was reported to be $122 billion (in 1996 dollars).³² Local trucking accounted for 506 billion ton-miles in 1996.³³ This implies a national average local freight charge of about $0.24 per ton-mile (1996 dollars). For distances of 50, 75, and 100 miles around a co-firing facility, this would translate to transportation costs of $12, $18, and $24 per dry ton ($0.70, $1.05, and $1.40 per million Btu), respectively.

The national average was converted to State averages using transportation price indexes for different geographical areas. For pallets, construction debris, and demolition debris, a particular State’s major urban-based transportation indexes were used. For primary mill residues, the State’s lowest transportation index was used to reflect the more rural nature of the location of wood processing centers. A supply curve for urban wood waste and mill residues was constructed using this methodology.

Although a significant amount of effort has gone into estimating the available quantities of biomass supply, the following uncertainties still are associated with the numbers:

Given these uncertainties, the current supply curves represent our best understanding of the availability of biomass at this point in time. Responses of the biomass, solid waste, agricultural waste, and forestry communities to market changes will determine the ultimate availability of biomass materials in the United States.

NEMS represents both dedicated biomass (BIGCC) and biomass co-firing plants for new capacity. BIGCC is treated in the same way as any other generation option in NEMS. In addition to the supply curves, which provide feedstock costs, NEMS needs the following BIGCC-specific inputs in order to generate the biomass forecast: capital cost, operating and maintenance cost (fixed and variable), project life, production tax credits, and heat rate. Table 7 shows the overnight capital costs assumed for BIGCC projects in the AEO2002 reference case. BIGCC plants are assumed to have a 4-year construction lead time. Therefore, for projects initiated in 2001, the earliest time that a plant could come on line would be 2005. The BIGCC capital cost assumption in the reference case is derived from a 1997 estimate published by DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute.³⁴ The DOE/EPRI costs are adjusted upward to take into account greater uncertainties concerning the costs for the gasification portion of the plant as opposed to the gas conditioning/power generation portion of the plant. EIA assumptions are used in place of the published values for interest during construction and contingency costs. Figure 3 shows the capital costs used in NEMS for biomass, compared with the costs used for several other technologies. BIGCC, at $1,536 per kilowatt, has a relatively high capital cost in comparison with coal- and natural-gas-based generation technologies. BIGCC capital costs are higher than coal IGCC capital costs mainly as a result of the need for additional feed preparation equipment. Capital costs are assumed to decline over time as more units are built.

Biomass co-firing is represented in NEMS by assuming that coal-fired capacity can be retrofitted for biomass co-firing at levels up to 5 percent on a heat input basis. It is assumed that, for such low levels of co-firing, no additional capital or operating and maintenance costs would be incurred. The biomass would be commingled with coal, and the mixture would be fed into the boiler through the existing coal feed system. Therefore, no new capital expenditure would be required. The existing coal feedlot operators would be able to manage the tasks of mixing biomass and coal without the need for additional labor.

It is also assumed that the biomass co-firing limits will vary by region (Table 8). The regional limits are based on the availability of biomass and of coal-fired capacity. These are the maximum upper bounds on biomass co-firing. NEMS chooses lower levels of co-firing, depending on the other generation options available in each region. It has been suggested, based on demonstration-scale tests, that biomass co-firing could be carried out at higher levels by incurring an incremental capital cost.³⁵ Incorporation of this capability into NEMS is currently being investigated.

Figure 4 shows the AEO2002 reference case projection for biomass use in electricity generation. Biomass continues to be the largest nonhydroelectric renewable technology throughout the forecast horizon, growing from a capacity of about 6.7 gigawatts in 2000 to about 10.4 gigawatts by 2020, including dedicated biomass and industrial cogeneration (Table 9).³⁶ In comparison, wind capacity, which has a much lower utilization rate than biomass, is projected to grow from about 2.4 gigawatts in 2000 to 9.1 gigawatts in 2020. Similarly, generation from biomass grows from 38.0 billion kilowatthours in 2000 to 64.3 billion kilowatthours by 2020 (Table 10).

AEO2002 also includes a high renewables case that assumes more favorable cost and performance characteristics for nonhydroelectric renewable energy technologies, including biomass, than are assumed in the reference case. The assumptions in the high renewables case include lower capital costs, lower operating and maintenance costs, and increased availability of biomass fuel supplies. Capital costs are assumed to be similar to those in the publication Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.³⁷ The costs are about 3 percent lower than those assumed in the reference case in the early years of the forecast period due to more optimistic assumptions about the costs for the gasification portion of the plant. In addition, it is assumed that operation and maintenance costs would be 14 percent lower than in the reference case, also based on the same document. The biomass supplies are increased by 10 percent at each step of the supply curve. Fossil and nuclear technology assumptions remain unchanged from those in the reference case.

The basic trends in the high renewables case are similar to those in the reference case, but biomass capacity increases to 12.3 gigawatts by 2020 instead of 10.4 gigawatts in the reference case (Table 9). Generation from biomass plants increases to 76.0 billion kilowatthours by 2020, as compared with 64.3 billion kilowatthours in the reference case (Table 10).

EIA has analyzed the impact of imposing 10-percent and 20-percent renewable portfolio standards by 2020.³⁸ The 10% RPS case assumed that a legislatively mandated nationwide RPS would require 10 percent of the Nation’s electricity to be generated from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources in 2020 and beyond. Similarly, the 20% RPS case assumed that a legislatively mandated nationwide RPS would require 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity to be generated from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources in 2020 and beyond. The RPS cases assumed the same NO_x and SO₂ caps as mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which is the assumption made in the AEO2002 reference case.

The biomass supply curves used for the RPS cases are the same as those used for the AEO2002 reference case. The emissions caps are applied only to the electricity generation sector (excluding cogenerators) and are assumed to cover emissions from both utility-owned and independently owned electric power plants. In the 20% RPS case, as a result of the assumed nationwide legislative mandate, renewables are projected to enter the market much more rapidly than in the reference case (Tables 9 and 10). Figure 5 shows projected biomass consumption in the different cases. In the 20% RPS case, dedicated biomass is projected to provide 3.8 quadrillion Btu of energy for electricity generation by 2020. An additional 0.7 quadrillion Btu of biomass energy is projected to be consumed for co-firing and as ethanol derived from cellulose. Ethanol from cellulose utilizes biomass from the same supply curve as dedicated biomass and biomass co-firing, and thus the three biomass applications compete with each other for their respective feedstocks.

The growth of biomass generation depends on the level of renewables required by the RPS. A low RPS requirement (such as 10 percent or less by 2020) would first be met by wind, which is more economical than biomass. In addition, biomass co-firing with coal is sensitive to the growth of other electricity generation technologies. In general, biomass co-firing with coal is more economical than biomass gasification; however, it is less economical than biomass gasification in scenarios where large amounts of coal-fired capacity are projected to be retired, such as cases which assume that U.S. emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol will be met exclusively through reductions in domestic carbon dioxide emissions. In the 20% RPS case, biomass gasification grows substantially by 2020, and this translates into a large demand for biomass feedstocks, which increases the feedstock cost for co-firing, making the use of biomass for co-firing uneconomical relative to biomass gasification.

The projected growth of biomass consumption in the 20% RPS case raises the question of whether or not there would be sufficient land to sustain the required level of biomass production. An analysis of the results of the 20% RPS case shows that there would be a requirement for approximately 9.6 to 14.4 million acres of land devoted to energy crops by 2020, depending on the yield obtained.³⁹ There were 932 million acres of land in U.S. farms and ranches in 1997. The acreage devoted to farms and ranches has been declining steadily since the 1950s, at a rate of about 4.9 million acres per year.⁴⁰ It is possible to grow biomass energy crops on CRP lands. Under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, signed into law on May 13, 2002, the acreage that can be enrolled in the CRP has been increased to 39.2 million acres. Therefore, in the 20% RPS case, if all the energy crops were planted on CRP land, approximately 24 percent to 37 percent of the CRP land would have to be devoted to energy crop production by 2020. Land use for biomass-based energy consumption is not expected to conflict with land requirements for crop production, because the land requirements for energy crops are far smaller and less than the land that has been removed from agricultural production as a result of improvements in farm productivity.

EIA’s estimation of biomass resources shows that there are 590 million wet tons (equivalent to 413 million dry tons) of biomass available in the United States on an annual basis. Historically, biomass consumption for energy use has remained at low levels, although it is the largest nonhydroelectric renewable source of electricity in the United States (considering both industrial cogeneration from biomass and electricity sector generation). The main impediment has been the cost of obtaining the feedstock. Of the estimated total resource of 590 million wet tons, only 20 million wet tons (equivalent to 14 million dry tons, or enough to supply about 3 gigawatts of capacity) is available today at prices up to $1.25 per million Btu.

Biomass use for power generation is not projected to increase substantially by 2020 in the AEO2002 reference case because of the cost of biomass relative to the costs of other fuels and the higher capital costs relative to those for coal- or natural-gas-fired capacity. Slightly more growth is projected in the high renewables case, but the difference from the reference case projection is relatively small. In the 20% RPS case, significantly more use of biomass for electricity generation is projected than in the reference case, because electric utilities would be required to generate a portion of their power from renewable resources, including biomass.

How ARE All of These Chemicals, Drugs and Toxic Pollutants Ending Up in our Food Supplies?!?! Could it be that the U.S. EPA is "100 times more lax" in regulating Sewage Sludge than Every European Country, and the U.S. EPA's "solution to pollution" is to allow these Toxic Chemicals, Drugs and Pollutants to be applied to our food crops?!?

The Following Chemicals, Drugs, and Toxic Pollutants were found in a sampling of the Sewage Sludge Taken from 35 Publicly Owned Treatment Works in the U.S.

And typical of the Sewage Sludge Being Applied to our Agricultural Farmlands.... and ending up in our food supplies!

Analytes Included in the TNSSS, by Analyte Group
Analyte Group	Analyte
Metals	Aluminum Manganese Antimony Mercury* Arsenic* Molybdenum* Barium Nickel* Beryllium Phosphorus Boron Selenium* Cadmium* Silver Calcium Sodium Chromium* Thallium Cobalt Tin Copper* Titanium Iron Vanadium Lead* Yttrium Magnesium Zinc*
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)	Benzo(a)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Fluoranthene Pyrene
Semivolatile organics	Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 4-Chloroaniline
Inorganic anions	Fluoride Water-extractable phosphorus Nitrate Nitrite
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), including the Tetra, Hexa, Penta, and Deca congeners	2,2',4,4'-TeBDE (BDE-47) 2,2',4,4',5,5'-HxBDE (BDE-153) 2,2',4,4',5-PeBDE (BDE-99) 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6'-DeBDE (BDE-209)
Antibiotics and their degradation products, disinfectants, and other antimicrobials	Anhydrochlortetracycline Ofloxacin Anhydrotetracycline Ormetoprim Azithromycin Oxacillin Carbadox Oxolinic acid Cefotaxime Oxytetracycline Chlortetracycline Penicillin G Ciprofloxacin Penicillin V Clarithromycin Roxithromycin Clinafloxacin Sarafloxacin Cloxcillin Sulfachloropyridazine Demeclocycline Sulfadiazine Doxycycline Sulfadimethoxine Enrofloxacin Sulfamerazine 4-Epianhydrochlortetracycline Sulfamethazine 4-Epianhydrotetracycline Sulfamethizole 4-Epichlortetracycline Sulfamethoxazole 4-Epioxytetracycline Sulfanilamide 4-Epitetracycline Sulfathiazole Erythromycin Tetracycline Flumequine Triclocarban Isochlortetracycline Triclosan Lincomycin Trimethoprim Lomefloxacin Tylosin Minocycline Virginiamycin Norfloxacin
Other drugs	1,7-Dimethylxanthine Diphenhydramine Acetaminophen Fluoxetine Albuterol Gemfibrozil Caffeine Ibuprofen Carbamazepine Metformin Cimetidine Miconazole Codeine Naproxen Cotinine Norgestimate Dehydronifedipine Ranitidine Digoxigenin Thiabendazole Digoxin Warfarin Diltiazem
Steroids	Campesterol Epi-coprostanol Cholestanol Ergosterol Cholesterol β-Sitosterol Coprostanol β-Stigmastanol Desmosterol Stigmasterol
Hormones	Androstenedione Estriol Androsterone Estrone 17α-Dihydroequilin 17α-Ethynyl estradiol Equilenin Norethindrone Equilin Norgestrel 17α-Estradiol Progesterone 17β-Estradiol Testosterone β-Estradiol-3-benzoate

Biosolids and Sewage Sludge

Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report

Overview

The Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey is a valuable step in advancing the understanding of what is present in treated sewage sludge. The information from the survey provides important input for EPA and others to use in evaluating biosolids generated by the nation's publicly owned treatment works. It also fulfills an important commitment under the agency's four pronged strategy for pharmaceuticals and personal care products by providing the first national estimates of which pharmaceuticals, steroids and hormones may be present in sewage sludge and at what concentrations.

EPA is committed to taking action and working with our partners to ensure sewage sludge is managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

Background

Introduction

Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and regulate toxic pollutants that may be present in biosolids at levels of concern for public health and the environment. This report provides an overview of the recently conducted Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS). The objective of the survey was to determine which analytes (or chemicals) were present in sewage sludge and obtain national estimates of the concentrations of selected analytes. The information will help the Agency in assessing if exposures may be occurring and whether those levels in sewage sludge may be of concern.

The sampling effort collected sewage sludge from 74 randomly selected publicly owned treatment works in 35 states. Samples were collected in 2006 and 2007. The TNSSS Technical Report provides results for 145 analytes, including:

Some analytes were found in all 84 samples, while others were found in none or only a few of the sewage sludge samples.

The results presented in the TNSSS Technical Report do not imply that the concentrations for any analyte are of particular concern to EPA. EPA will use these results to assess potential exposure to these contaminants from sewage sludge.

Contents of this Overview Report

This document provides an overview of two reports that together make up the TNSSS report: 1) Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Sampling and Analysis Technical Report ("Technical Report"), and 2) Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Statistical Analysis Report ("Statistical Report"). This overview report addresses the following topics:

Regulation of Sewage Sludge

States may adopt additional or more stringent requirements for the land application of sewage sludge.

Production and Treatment of Sewage Sludge

Previous EPA Sewage Sludge Surveys

EPA has conducted three previous surveys for purposes of identifying contaminants in sewage sludge. In 1982, EPA conducted the "40 City Study" to develop information on the fate and effects of priority pollutants in wastewater treatment plants and estimates of pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge. In 1988, EPA conducted the National Sewage Sludge Survey to gather information on sewage sludge use and disposal practices and to obtain updated information on the concentration of over 400 pollutants in the Nation's sewage sludge. This information was used in establishing the Part 503 biosolids use and disposal regulations and in setting numeric standards for ten metals and operational standards for pathogens in biosolids.

In 2001, EPA conducted a survey to obtain updated national estimates of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in sewage sludge managed by land application. Results from this survey helped EPA conclude that neither numerical standards nor additional management practices are needed to protect human health and the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects from dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in sewage sludge that is land-applied. EPA determined that the incremental risk from exposure to dioxins in land-applied biosolids is below levels of concern.

EPA conducted the current TNSSS to obtain updated concentration values for some pollutants previously evaluated and to obtain information on whether certain contaminants of emerging concern may be present in sewage sludge and at what levels. EPA continues to evaluate pollutants that may be present in biosolids to ensure that there are effective and protective management options in place.

Summary of Survey Methodology

Selection of Pollutants

Section 405(d) of the CWA requires EPA to review existing sewage sludge regulations at least every two years (i.e., a biennial review). The purpose of such reviews is to identify additional toxic pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge and, if appropriate, to promulgate regulations for those pollutants consistent with the requirements set forth in the CWA. In conducting the biennial review for 2003, EPA identified a subset of 15 pollutants that needed further evaluation. EPA subsequently reduced the list of pollutants to nine—barium, beryllium, manganese, silver, fluoranthene, pyrene, 4-chloroaniline, nitrate, and nitrite—based on an updated biosolids exposure and hazard assessment. EPA decided that updated concentration data were needed to conduct a more refined risk evaluation and risk characterization for these nine pollutants.

Given the national scope of the survey, EPA expanded the list of analytes to reflect the Agency's interest in collecting concentration data for other chemicals. The expanded list included 24 additional metals that could be analyzed at little extra cost at the same time as the four metals (barium, beryllium, manganese, and silver) included in the list of nine pollutants above; molybdenum because of the Agency's interest in determining the need for a revised numeric standard for it in land-applied biosolids; and other analytes because of their widespread use and emerging concern. The latter category included:

The table in Appendix A provides a complete list of the analytes included in the TNSSS.

Inclusion of analytes in the TNSSS does not reflect a determination that their presence in sewage sludge adversely affects human health or the environment. Rather, EPA decided that updated or new concentration data were needed to assess exposure and help in evaluating whether the levels of these pollutants in sewage sludge may pose environmental or human health concerns.

Selection of POTWs

For this survey, EPA focused its efforts on POTWs that treat more than one million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD). This group of facilities collectively treats approximately 94 percent of the wastewater in the nation. To be eligible for the survey, EPA also required that a POTW be located in the contiguous United States and employ secondary treatment or better. EPA identified POTWs meeting the criteria from information in the 2004 Clean Water Needs Survey and the 2002 version of the Permit Compliance System. From the 3,337 POTWs that met the criteria in either data source, EPA statistically selected 74 facilities for the survey and collected biosolids samples from those facilities. Whether the facility land applies the treated sewage sludge or disposes it via incineration or surface disposal was not a consideration for selecting a facility for inclusion in the survey. By using statistical methods, the concentration measurements can be extrapolated to the entire population of 3,337 POTWs.

Sampling Methodology

As noted above, EPA collected samples of the final sewage sludge produced at each of the 74 POTWs. Final sewage sludge, for purposes of the TNSSS, is defined as the liquid, solid, or semi-solid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works, receiving secondary treatment or better, and which may include sewage sludge processed to meet land application standards.

EPA collected a single sewage sludge sample from all but ten facilities. EPA collected two samples at the remaining ten facilities for quality control purposes or because the facility had more than one treatment system.

From an analytical methods standpoint, sewage sludge is a challenging matrix because it is not uniform in its composition or ratio of water to solids. In addition, EPA needed to accurately identify and measure the target chemicals in the presence of the large number and types of chemicals present in the sewage. The preparation of a sewage sample to conduct chemical analysis of its content using highly sophisticated instruments, such as a Liquid Chromatographs in tandem with two Mass Spectrometers (LC/MS/MS), is extremely complex.

The survey used both well-established, multi-laboratory validated EPA procedures as well as three analytical methods that were developed or updated for the survey. The two new methods are single laboratory validated methods for pharmaceuticals (EPA Method 1694), steroids and hormones (EPA Method 1698). The multi-laboratory validated method for flame retardants (EPA Method 1614) was updated for the survey.

Survey Results

As noted previously, the TNSSS results are described in two EPA reports that together constitute the TNSSS:

The Technical Report includes the number of samples in which each analyte was reported, along with minimum and maximum concentrations for each analyte. To ensure consistency, all sample results are reported on a dry-weight basis.

The Statistical Report describes the survey design and national estimates derived from the concentration data. For 34 analytes measured in the survey, the Statistical Report discusses an in-depth statistical analysis and presents nationally-representative estimates of the 50th percentile (i.e., median) of the underlying distribution of measurements across POTWs, as well as the 90th, 95th, 98th, and 99th percentiles. The characterization of specific percentiles is useful for EPA's subsequent evaluation of exposure and risk.

It is not appropriate to speculate on the significance of the results until a proper evaluation has been completed and reviewed.

Next Steps

EPA plans to evaluate the pollutants identified by the survey as being present in sewage sludge. As its first priority, using the survey information, EPA has begun assessing the nine pollutants identified from the 2003 biennial review as needing updated concentration information and molybdenum to determine whether additional action may be necessary. In addition to the survey information, EPA will evaluate other available data and conduct exposure and hazard assessments for these pollutants if sufficient data are available. Some of the information generally needed to conduct exposure and hazard assessment includes:

Later this year, EPA expects to initiate evaluations of other pollutants in the survey that may warrant further consideration. The evaluations will depend on the availability of data needed to conduct the evaluations.

Analytes Included in the TNSSS

Analytes Included in the TNSSS, by Analyte Group
Analyte Group	Analyte
Metals	Aluminum Manganese Antimony Mercury* Arsenic* Molybdenum* Barium Nickel* Beryllium Phosphorus Boron Selenium* Cadmium* Silver Calcium Sodium Chromium* Thallium Cobalt Tin Copper* Titanium Iron Vanadium Lead* Yttrium Magnesium Zinc*
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)	Benzo(a)pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene Fluoranthene Pyrene
Semivolatile organics	Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 4-Chloroaniline
Inorganic anions	Fluoride Water-extractable phosphorus Nitrate Nitrite
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), including the Tetra, Hexa, Penta, and Deca congeners	2,2',4,4'-TeBDE (BDE-47) 2,2',4,4',5,5'-HxBDE (BDE-153) 2,2',4,4',5-PeBDE (BDE-99) 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6'-DeBDE (BDE-209)
Antibiotics and their degradation products, disinfectants, and other antimicrobials	Anhydrochlortetracycline Ofloxacin Anhydrotetracycline Ormetoprim Azithromycin Oxacillin Carbadox Oxolinic acid Cefotaxime Oxytetracycline Chlortetracycline Penicillin G Ciprofloxacin Penicillin V Clarithromycin Roxithromycin Clinafloxacin Sarafloxacin Cloxcillin Sulfachloropyridazine Demeclocycline Sulfadiazine Doxycycline Sulfadimethoxine Enrofloxacin Sulfamerazine 4-Epianhydrochlortetracycline Sulfamethazine 4-Epianhydrotetracycline Sulfamethizole 4-Epichlortetracycline Sulfamethoxazole 4-Epioxytetracycline Sulfanilamide 4-Epitetracycline Sulfathiazole Erythromycin Tetracycline Flumequine Triclocarban Isochlortetracycline Triclosan Lincomycin Trimethoprim Lomefloxacin Tylosin Minocycline Virginiamycin Norfloxacin
Other drugs	1,7-Dimethylxanthine Diphenhydramine Acetaminophen Fluoxetine Albuterol Gemfibrozil Caffeine Ibuprofen Carbamazepine Metformin Cimetidine Miconazole Codeine Naproxen Cotinine Norgestimate Dehydronifedipine Ranitidine Digoxigenin Thiabendazole Digoxin Warfarin Diltiazem
Steroids	Campesterol Epi-coprostanol Cholestanol Ergosterol Cholesterol β-Sitosterol Coprostanol β-Stigmastanol Desmosterol Stigmasterol
Hormones	Androstenedione Estriol Androsterone Estrone 17α-Dihydroequilin 17α-Ethynyl estradiol Equilenin Norethindrone Equilin Norgestrel 17α-Estradiol Progesterone 17β-Estradiol Testosterone β-Estradiol-3-benzoate

According to R. James Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: "The basic insight is to realize that global warming, the geopolitics of oil, and warfare in the Persian Gulf are not separate problems --- they are aspects of a single problem, the West's dependence on oil."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Renewable Energy Institute is made up of the brightest minds, professors, climatologists, engineers, politicians and universities. Their "crystal ball" sees "renewable energy" and "renewable energy technologies" as the best path forward for providing the energy the world needs. And it's no longer any energy that will do - the future is for energy that is clean, sustainable, renewable, and "Carbon Free Energy" and "Pollution Free Power."

According to Monty Goodell, MBA the Founder and Chairman of the Renewable Energy Institute, "we must become less dependent on unstable, foreign oil and energy supplies and reduce our 'addiction' to fossil fuels so that we can become energy independent - so that we will not be held hostage by counties with large supplies of fossil fuels such as Iran, Venezuela or Russia, countries that we cannot rely on as our allies or friends."

WE DON'T NEED FOREIGN OIL OR DOMESTIC COAL!

WE ALREADY HAVE ALL OF
THE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
WE NEED TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT.... TODAY!

WE ONLY NEED TO DEPLOY THE OPTIMUM
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
SPECIFIC RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES,
WHICH WILL PREVENT
"DANGEROUS INTERFERENCE" OR
"DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE"!

For More Information About,
click on one of the Following Links:

"Dangerous Interference"

"Dangerous Climate Change"

The electric power generation, transmission and distribution system (the electric "grid") is changing and evolving from the electric grid of the 19th and 20th centuries, which was inefficient, highly-polluting, very expensive and “dumb.”

You can easily and affordably reduce or eliminate your company's "carbon footprint."

Did you know that the United States Congress will be passing the S. 2191 "Cap and Trade" Law in 2009? Did you know that Supreme Court ruled in April (2008) that the EPA already has the authority to regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Cap And Trade narrowly passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is now in the U.S. Senate, who has threatened to make even greater reductions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in their final Bill of the Cap And Trade legislation.

According to Monty Goodell, the Founder and Chairman of the Renewable Energy Institute, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions will be the world’s biggest commodity market and will probably soon be the world’s largest market, period." In fact, Mr. Goodell anticipates that Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions will become one of the fasting-growing commodities and markets ever.

Every day, leading companies are spending millions of dollars going "GREEN" and reducing their Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Market Potential is staggering! According to a recent New York Times article, carbon trading is one of the “fastest-growing specialties in financial services.”

Already, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading and International Carbon Trading markets are worth in excess of $50 billion/year. The United Nations expects this market to be valued in excess of $2 Trillion/year by 2012 and others are saying this could easily exceed $5 Trillion/year within the next several years!

You may be wondering, how can such a relatively new commodity grow so rapidly? Here in the USA, 40 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions are produced every year. At the present price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, the Carbon Dioxide Emissions market is valued at $2.0 Trillion (40 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions x $50.00/ton).

Qualified commercial, government, industrial and municipal clients can affordably have one of our Solar Cogeneration and Solar Trigeneration energy systems installed, with ZERO up-front costs, with our Power Purchase Agreement. Call/email the Renewable Energy Institute to learn more and find out if your business qualifies.

Monty Goodell, Founder and Chairman of the Renewable Energy Institute, along with the Renewable Energy Institute's Scientific Advisory Board, which is comprised of several of our nation's leading experts, engineers, attorneys, professors and universities, is calling for our nation and all 50 states to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 25% by 2025.

And even better than a Renewable Portfolio Standard, according to Mr. Goodell, is a "Feed In Tariff," which is the route Germany took, and why they have had such great success in their transition to a solar based economy. The fastest paths to jump-start the renewable energy industry, is through a "Feed In Tariff.

A Feed In Tariff is superior to a Renewable Portfolio Standard," according to Mr. Goodell. "For example, look at Germany's success in their transition to an economy based on the installation of solar energy systems, they adopted a Feed In Tariff, are further north from the Equator than we are here in the U.S., and they are placing solar panels on every rooftop and wind turbine generators throughout their country. They are leading the world in renewable energy technologies, primarily due to their early adoption of a Feed In Tariff"

A Feed In Tariff is a utility rate that is established by a state or federal government, that requires a utility to pay higher electricity rates for green electricity generated by the owners of the solar energy systems, whether that is a homeowner or business owner. Feed In Tariffs shifts the expenses of subsidizing green energy from taxpayers, to electricity ratepayers. Feed In Tariffs also include guarantee that the Feed In Tariffs' artificially higher rates, will continue for periods as long as 25 years.

Germany's great success for jump-starting the solar energy industry there, first established Feed In Tariffs in 1999. Germany now has about five times as many solar photovoltaic panels installed as the United States - even though their total combined installations of PV panels still only account for about 0.5% of the electricity generated there.

"So, we go with a Feed In Tariff in lieu of a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Simultaneously, we need to start re-building our national electric grid, and transforming it into 'Transmission Superhighway' or 'Unified Smart Grid' and dramatically increase the nation's power supply as well as implement greater use of 'Energy Efficiency Measures' - also referred to as Energy Conservation Measures. And we need to implement "real" 'Demand Side Management' programs. Failure to move in these areas and to do so immediately increases the risks to our country, our national security and the climate" according to Mr. Goodell.

According to Mr. Goodell, our nation is at a crossroads and we have been 'over the Middle Eastern barrel of their fossil fuels' long enough. We must shift from energy dependence to energy independence and place significant emphasis and investments in our national energy security and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable energy, and only renewable energy provides the significant economic and environmental dividends our country now needs. Preferably, our fledgling renewable energy industry in the U.S., will be "jump-started" with a Feed In Tariff.

Some of the economic and environmental dividends that renewable energy will provide our country include:

According to the Energy Information Administration, the total US primary energy consumption is expected to increase from 100 quadrillion Btu (quads) in 2005 to 131 quads in 2030. However, the renewable electricity generation remains at 9% while use of coal increases 50 percent in 2030 to 57%. Ethanol use is expected to increase from 4 billion gallons in 2005 to 14.6 billion gallons in 2030, yet that is only about 8% of total gasoline consumption.

In January (2008) the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) blamed the burning of fossil fuels as a key contributor to global warming and accelerating climate change. The NCDC warned that the rate of the warming is accelerating and that the rise in temperatures over the past 9 years is “unprecedented in the historical record." This was underscored in February (2008) in the consensus report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded with near certainty that human activity was the main contributor to global warming.

The renewable energy industry, single-handedly, provides a powerful argument and solutions for these problems.

Global warming and climate change are symptoms of a sick planet and the results of unrestrained "dumping" of huge amounts of pollution - in the form of carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gas emissions comes from "dirty" fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) used in making electricity at power plants and dirty fuels (gasoline and petroleum diesel) that run our internal combustion engines in our cars, trains, planes, and trucks. Our planet is home to millions and millions of internal combustion engines that run on dirty fossil fuels - whether they are fueled with gasoline for running our cars and lawnmowers or running on diesel fuel in the engines of trucks and ships like the very large crude carriers that transport the crude oil all around the world...... every internal combustion engine that is running on dirty fossil fuels is dumping millions and millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere - which is aggravating and exacerbating our sick planet - and making manmade climate change and global warming more difficult to resolve through manmade remedies and solutions.

"Finally, the fact that over 60% of the gasoline we use every day in our cars comes from foreign countries - should be the "clarion call" that jump-starts the renewable energy industry here in the U.S." said Mr. Goodell.

According to Monty Goodell, the Chairman and Founder of the Renewable Energy Institute, "our country desperately needs to upgrade its' national electric grid. The grid of today is a relic from the past, that is inefficient and costly. Originally built in the 1930's, it is costing our nation approximately $120 billion every year due to its' outdated and out-lived existence. The national power grid as designed and built in the 1930's does not have the efficiencies and capabilities to keep pace with the national power grid's demands of today."

A Transmission Superhighway would be buried underground and "wheels" or transmits the renewable power ("green electricity") from the wind farms of the midwest, and solar farms of the southwest, and geothermal farms of the west, to load centers throughout every corner of the U.S."

According to many estimates, the "Unified Smart Grid" or "Transmission Superhighway" could be built for about $400 billion. Through its' increased efficiencies, savings and reliability improvements that it will provide, the nation's new "unified smart grid" will be paid in full, in less than 4 years.

The carbon clock tracks total carbon dioxide emissions in metric tons since 1750.

Since 1750, humans have emitted over 5 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Roughly half of this has ended up in the oceans where it is beginning to damage the coral reefs. The other half is still in the atmosphere and causing global warming. Each pound of CO2 takes up as much space as a 500 pound person.

The formula (which should be good for a year or two) is:
C(t) = 2.58 ×1012 + 1240×t, where t is seconds since the start of 2007.

C is tonnes (metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions.
2205 x C gives pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

That comes to over 43 billion tons/year or over 86 trillion pounds/year.

Carbon dioxide (2) = 1 carbon atom with 2 oxygen atoms.
Carbon has relative weight 12 and Oxygen 16.
So it takes only 12 pounds of carbon to make 12+16+16 = 44 pounds of CO2.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions have caused
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
to reach 387 ppm - over 100 ppm
higher than pre-industrial revolution
levels that were at 280 ppm

The Renewable Energy Institute (REI) does not take a stand in the debate on global warming, and if there is global warming, is it "anthropogenic" or is it caused by the sun, or the sun's normal cycles. Or, if there is " climate change," is it " global cooling" caused by the water vapor in the atmosphere?

At the Renewable Energy Institute, we are waiting for the "true" scientists who doing the real research, to provide us with the science and answers critically needed to formulate correct policy - and not the phony " scientists" who are following politically-motivated and profit-driven agendas of the United Nations and government leaders. These phony scientists are not interested in conducting real scientific research. Their very livelihoods are dependent on the government grants to fund their phony research that have pre-determined conclusions before and "research" is conducted.

Political-interference by governments, governmental agencies, and bureaucrats that hand out billions of tax-payers dollars to phony scientists to conduct "junk science" and research, expect the conclusions that supports anthropogenic global warming, or climate change.

When scientists conclude in their research that they find no evidence of anthropogenic climate change or global warming, they are summarily dismissed, and black-balled from their communities and colleagues, and never again receive funding or grants. Grants and funding by government bureaucrats with politically-driven agendas to "scientists" expecting their pre-determined results and conclusions supporting anthropogenic global warming must stop.

Taxpayers have bankrolled the oil and gas industry, and the coal industry for 100 years now, and the nuclear industry for 50 years, to keep these dirty fuels and energy "cheap." Take away the tax-payer incentives and tax dollars, and we believe the real cost of gasoline, would be similar to the gasoline cost in Europe - $7.00 - $8.00/gallon!

In the meantime, our U.S. Military is spending billions of tax-payer dollars each year protecting the Straits of Hormuz where much of the world's crude oil is produced and shipped through the straits' international shipping lanes. Each day, hundreds of "very large crude carriers" pass through the Straits of Hormuz carrying oil from OPEC and the Middle-East to the U.S. and many other countries.

Isn't it time we take some of the tax-payer dollars supporting the nuclear, coal and oil and gas industries, and start incentivizing clean, renewable energy technologies that don't pollute or harm the environment in any way? Isn't it time that America ends its reliance on non-sustainable energy sources and stop over $1 billion every day, to oil suppliers from foreign countries, and start putting this money in "solar on every rooftop?!?

Regarding the harm being caused to our planet from energy use, far more harm is being done to the planet, as well as to people and plants and animals, particularly fish, from the mercury emissions from coal fired power plants than from the coal fired power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. We surmise that if any polar bears have died as a result of an environmental problem, it was more likely from the high levels of mercury in their food chain, than from greenhouse gas emissions.

The Renewable Energy Institute is supporting and advancing renewable energy technologies, as well as reducing and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and the fossil-fuel problems related to America's oil addiction and ending our dependence on foreign oil. The renewable energy technologies we support are already deemed to be economic, viable and practical. Solutions such as Solar Trigeneration energy systems (see www.SolarTrigeneration.com for more information) for any kind of facility or building - office buildings, shopping centers, data centers, university campuses, etc.

Since 2003, a Solar Trigeneration energy system has been providing 100% of the power and energy for a 5,300 sq. ft. office building near downtown Los Angeles, and doing so without any connection to the electric grid, whether its 12 noon or 12 midnite!

The Renewable Energy Institute is also involved in research and advocacy of "Net Zero Energy" (see: www.NetZeroEnergy.com for more information) and "Net Zero Energy Buildings" (see: www.NetZeroEnergyBuildings.com for more information). Net Zero Energy Buildings generate as much (or more) energy than they use, and export their excess power to the grid, which we believe needs to be updated into a "Transmission Superhighway."

The past 10 years indicates the opposite of "global warming" has occurred - that the "Earths Fever" has and that global cooling has taken place.

Weather, on a daily basis, or even an annual basis, is not climate, and climate is not weather.

"Climate change" is always taking place, from one day to the next, and one week to the next, as well as one year to the next. The planet's climate is an ever-evolving, changing and dynamic process.

Again, researchers and scientists need to refrain from being political, and stay out of politics, and politicians need to stay out of the way of the scientists and researchers, and let them do their work. Politicians, government leaders and bureaucrats scientists need true and accurate data and climate research from scientists that do not have a political agenda.

In the meantime, as there may still be 30 years of research before there are conclusive answers concerning anthropogenic climate change, can we "risk" 30 years of our children and grand children's future, should there is a link between climate change and greenhouse gas emissions? Should we not err on the side of caution?

Marion King Hubbert was a geologist and scientist who worked at Shell Oil company's research lab in Houston, Texas. Hubbert made several important contributions to geology, geophysics and petroleum geology. Hubbert is most recognized for the "Hubbert Curve" and " Hubbert Peak Theory" which is now referred to as " Peak Oil.

Hubbert's life work determined that the world has a finite amount of petroleum that can be produced. (Similarly, there is a finite amount of coal.) Many scientists and engineers believe we have reached Hubbert's "peak oil" limit. Hubbert's espouses that when 50% of domestic crude oil production has been reached, that there will be such significant upward demand on prices of the limited supplies of oil production, that the U.S. economy will experience severe economic, social, and political turmoil.

Hubbert's Peak Oil predictions have proven to be true and this is validated as the U.S. in the early 1970's produced about 60% of its' oil demand and imported 40%. That equation has flipped since then, because our domestic oil production has been on the decline since 1970, so now, due to our declining domestic oil production, we have to import 60% of our oil supplies, to meet our country's oil/energy demands.

How severe our economic calamity and next "oil shock" will depend upon a number of factors, including when this occurs, as well as the following:

1. the dependence of the individual country upon its own crude oil production to meet its energy needs and to subsidize consumer imports;

4. the degree to which our country had prepared in advance for this inevitable geological and economic calamity.

Examples of past "oil shocks" and the economic and political calamities that followed:

United States: Our peak crude oil production of domestic oil occurred in 1970; the first "oil shock" and oil crisis followed in 1973 with the Arab/OPEC Oil Embargo.

Iran: Their peak crude oil production occurred in 1974; They had their islamic revolution 1979 that overturned government and replaced it with radical islam.

Soviet Union: Their peak crude oil production was in 1989; what happened next?
Their country disintegrated and the collapse of the Soviet Union followed in 1991.

Indonesia: Their peak crude oil production was in 1991; their financial and government crisis followed in 1997.

Iraq: Iraq's crude oil production was in 1989; they then invaded Kuwait (for their oil) in 1991.

Using Mr. Hubbert's predictions, that beginning around 2000 we would see peak (global) oil production, then, if the country's not weaning themselves off of their oil addiction, and had not begun making the switch to renewable energy, that the negative economic and political calamities would soon follow, including ever-increasing prices of energy that is from fossil fuels.

Now is the time to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and making the transition to and increasing the use of renewable energy. If you don't believe in climate change, or global warming, GREAT! Join us in the switch to renewable energy and a fossil-free economy!

America Has INCREASED its' Dependence on Foreign
Sources of Energy by 50% Since 1973.

America is even more "addicted" to foreign oil today, than we were in 1973 - 1974 when OPEC, Saudi Arabia and other suppliers from the Middle-East stopped selling us their fossil fuels, and created a significant blow to our economy.

This Means that 65% of America's Energy Supplies are Now Imported from Suppliers from Foreign Countries.

Simply put, about 65% of the gasoline in your car's gas tank, comes from a foreign country.

EVERY day, the U.S. must IMPORT over 13 million bbls of oil from foreign countries and foreign suppliers to meet demand.

At $80/barrel of oil, this also means that $1,040,000,000.00 American Dollars leave our country, EVERY DAY, to foreign countries/suppliers of our fossil fuels, to pay for the energy we need.

That's $1 Billion EVERY day leaving our economy, and going to support a foreign country's economy.

Talk about our foreign trade deficit..... nearly $400 Billion each year, leaves our country to pay for our oil addiction and the energy we need. To be exact, that's $379,600,000,000.00 American Dollars.

Millions of new and sustainable American jobs would be created here at home, if we would end our addiction to foreign fossil fuels, and quickly transition to an economy based on renewable energy and renewable fuels, produced here in the U.S.A.

According to Monty Goodell, Founder and Chairman of the Renewable Energy Institute, "our increased dependence and reliance on foreign energy supplies represents a Clear and Present Danger to our national security, our economy, and the lives and livelihood of every American. Energy - including the energy we use from imported fossil fuels, is the very "lifeblood" of the American economy as it is for every industrialized country. An economy dies without it's lifeblood of energy. This Clear and Present Danger we face is far more serious than the problems related to greenhouse gas emissions. And while greenhouse gas emissions are very serious issue, in the long-term, pales in comparison to America's vital national security interests and America's economic stability in the short term. For this reason alone, America needs to transition away from its addiction to foreign energy supplies. And America's abundant renewable energy resources such as the energy we receive from the sun, and renewable energy technologies such as concentrated solar power (CSP) plants - can supply 100% of America's power requirements with a concentrating solar power plant measuring 75 miles by 75 miles, located in the Southwest U.S. By generating America's power from concentrating solar power plants, America resolves its' short-term Clear and Present Danger as it relates to importing its energy from foreign countries, and the long-term problems relating to greenhouse gas emissions."

Continuing, Mr. Goodell states that "too many Americans have forgotten what happened to us in 1973, when the Arabs and OPEC brought the United States economy to a screeching halt during the OPEC Oil Embargo. This happened because they (mainly the country of Saudi Arabia) disagreed with our foreign policy and is the reason why they "turned off the tap" of our need for their oil supplies. When Saudi Arabia and OPEC stopped the vital flow of oil to our country in 1973, they caused an "oil shock" that severely and negatively impacted our economy.

Mr. Goodell's question for us to ponder is, "do these countries who sell us 60% of our daily energy requirements, like us and our foreign policy, or might they leverage our addiction to their fossil fuels, and turn off the tap to make us adjust or revise our foreign policy?? Like any addict, America's foreign policy may be held hostage to its addiction, and in this case, our addiction to foreign oil, may over-ride our national interests."

Have American's forgotten the gas shortages and long lines at
their gas stations to get gas during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973?

"Apparently so." Mr. Goodell states that "in 1973, America was 'addicted' and 'over the barrel' of foreign oil to the amount of 40%. Forty percent of our energy 'needs' in 1973 came from countries - many of which didn't like us then, and I'm afraid, many of them still don't. The difference between 1973 and today - is that today we receive 50% MORE foreign oil now than we did in 1973. And now we know about the problems relating to greenhouse gas emissions that we didn't know then. America needs to change course, and change course now, in terms of its' energy supplies and how we keep America's economy strong, without the threat of being held hostage to a middle-east tyrant or regime, that could once again, turn on us, and turn off our supply of foreign oil."

" Sadly," Monty Goodell continues, " most Americans have forgotten the long lines of people waiting in their cars - lined up and waiting for gasoline at their nearby gas station, with lines that were many blocks long. And, after waiting 4-5 hours, many even waiting overnight in many places, to finally take their turn to fill up their car with gasoline, only to find that the gas station had run out of gas."

"Let me Repeat.... That was 1973 when we imported 40% of our daily energy requirements in the form of crude oil from overseas, and from foreign countries - and many of these from countries that don't like us.

Today, over 35 years later, America has yet to learn the lesson. We cannot continue our reliance on energy from foreign countries that supply us with 60% of the crude oil that our refineries use as a feedstock for producing gasoline and diesel fuel for our cars and trucks comes from overseas.

America is "over the barrel" and it's not our barrel, but the barrels of oil that we are addicted by and owned by other countries. Why have we not learned the lessons we needed to learn in 1973 when we were cut-off from the vital energy supplies we need?

Countries like China, are growing rapidly, and have an insatiable need for crude oil. China, with their booming economy, is increasingly growing in its clout and control over international supplies of crude oil - whether they do this through their ability to buy as much oil as they need on a daily basis, or whether they simply but American drilling rigs, technology, and explore and produce oil and gas from their own fields. China, is buying large amounts of oil for their country, and causing upward pricing on declining supplies. What happens if Russia, with all of their oil and natural gas, along with China and Venezuela, with or without the help of OPEC, decided to NOT sell oil to us????

America's reliance for 60% of our energy "needs" coming from foreign suppliers is un-acceptable.

The "driver" to get America to begin reducing and eliminating fossil fuel use should be our nation's national security and the welfare and safety of its citizens. And this can all begin with developing and investing in our own renewable energy resources and renewable energy technologies, let's start by putting solar on every rooftop that has a clear and unobstructed view of the Southern sky. See www.RooftopPV.com or www.DistributedPV.com for more information. Let's create incentives begin with adopting a national "Feed In Tariff" as Germany did in 1990.

* eliminate or greatly reduce our customer's electric demand charges and electric expenses.

* reduce the need for inefficient and expensive central power plants owned by utility companies.

* promote energy independence.

* end America's dependence on oil from OPEC and other countries in the Middle-East, Venezuela and end our need for importing natural gas from Russia.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA Petitioned by 73 farm, labor, and environmental organizations to stop the land application of sewage sludge, October 7, 2003 (pdf)

On April 3, 2002, the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) officially released a report on EPA's sewage sludge rule (OIG sludge report). The OIG identified over ten major problem areas under the current rule and warned that "EPA cannot assure the public that current land application practices [of sewage sludge] are protective of human health and the environment."

Information on sewage sludge from the Cornell Waste Management Institute, including the document, "A Case for Caution: Recommendations for the Land Application of Sewage Sludge," 2001 Sludge Application recommendations, scientific papers by Cornell faculty, and 82 questions and answers on sludge.

Rachel's Environmental Health Weekly: A new US Waste Policy Emerges, numbers 560 and 561; Excrement Happens, numbers 644 and 645; and Drugs in the Water, number 614; by Peter Montague.

On March 20, 2000, the USEPA Office of the Inspector General, in an Audit Report, found that "EPA cannot assure the public that current land application practices are protective of human health and the environment." This is a pdf file.

Congressional Hearings, March 22, 2000, "EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate?" "The hearing will explore allegations that EPA scientists who disagree with EPA's science associated with the sludge rule were ignored or, worse, subjected to harassment. Even more disturbing are documented reports of intimidation directed at private citizens who express concerns about EPA sludge policies and the science behind those policies."

The Sludge Hits the Fan
Chapter 8 from Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
Common Courage Press,1995.

C U R E (Citizens United for Responsible Environmentalism, Inc.) is a national, non-profit, education and research organization based in California that works on sludge and composting issues. The Hawaii Chapter of CURE has a web page with sludge links and information about their effots to stop sludge spreading on Maui.

Redefining Sludge: Activists search for answers about sludge and its impact on our food supply. The Workbook. A publication of the Southwest Research and Information Center. Summer 1998. P.O. Box 4524, 105 Stanford SE, Alburquerque, NM 87106. Tel 505 346-1455. Email: THEWORKBOOK@igc.org.

Conference Proceedings. Dangers of Sludge: A Citizens Forum on Environmental and Health Concerns from Landspreading of Sewage and Paper Mill Sludges. November 1997. 51 pages. Order here.Sponsored by Citizens for a Future New Hampshire.

Links to information about factory farms and laundering of industrial waste in commercial fertilizers:

See, "Fear in the Fields: How Hazardous Wastes Become Fertilizer," Duff Wilson, Seattle Times.

The above links on Sewage Sludge may be reproduced or
republished without permission.

No other information from this site may be reproduced or copied
without permission.

The Renewable Energy Institute is "Changing The Way The World Does Energy by Providing Research & Development, Funding and Resources That Creates Sustainable Energy via 'Carbon Free Energy' and 'Pollution Free Power' Through Expanding the use of Renewable Energy Technologies."

The information contained on this site is copyright protected and
cannot be reproduced in any form or manner without our consent.

The Sewage Sludge Hits the Fan in San Francisco!

The Poison Bill Clinton Spread on the White House Lawns, Now Barack and Michelle Obama’s Worst Nightmare, in the Form of "toxic veggies." Michelle Obama's "Organic Garden" Contaminated by Sewage Sludge

Inside the White House: From The Organic Garden to the Kitchen and Dinner Table!

Michelle Obama’s "Organic Garden"

Michelle Obama: "White House Organic Garden Will Feed Many"

Regulation of Sewage Sludge

Production and Treatment of Sewage Sludge

Sewage Sludge generation rates (According to the U.S. EPA)

United States stands alone

Heavy Metal Contaminant Standards

Biosolids and Sewage Sludge

Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report

Overview

Background

Introduction

Contents of this Overview Report

Regulation of Sewage Sludge

Production and Treatment of Sewage Sludge

Previous EPA Sewage Sludge Surveys

Summary of Survey Methodology

Selection of Pollutants

Selection of POTWs

Sampling Methodology

Survey Results

Next Steps

Analytes Included in the TNSSS

The Poison Bill Clinton Spread on the White House Lawns, Now Barack and Michelle Obama’s Worst Nightmare, in the Form of "toxic veggies."

Michelle Obama's "Organic Garden" Contaminated by Sewage Sludge