No New Sludge

by VJ Vitkowsky | February 22, 2007 8:28 AM | | Comments (3)

DiGangi.JPG A plan to haul in extra sludge from West Haven into the East Shore incineration plant was tossed after a firm hired to conduct a feasibility study on the deal, decided the agency’s proposal would not work.

In a briefing for the Board of Aldermen at City Hall Wednesday night, representatives of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and the consulting firm it hired, CH2M, reported on tackling another burning question raised by environmental activists last fall, too:

Can the city find a more environmentally friendly way to handle 22.5 tons of sludge than burning it every day?

Dominick DiGangi [pictured], director of the WPCA, accompanied by the air quality and “BioSolids” specialists his agency hired, told the aldermen if they don’t want New Haven to burn liquid waste, “the two most viable options are taking the problem and moving it somewhere else.”

Which is exactly what environmental activists, East Shore residents, and aldermen say is happening when the regional authority imports 15 tons of sludge a day to be incinerated in the city.

One option the agency proposed was to turn the sludge into a cake at the New Haven plant and then ship it to another facility in Hartford, Waterbury, or Naugatuck, where it would still be incinerated. The other proposal, slightly more expensive, would be to turn the waste into liquid, and still ship it off.

Because New Haven currently gets money from the suburban towns that send their waste water into the city, any alternative to the current arrangement would cost taxpayers money. CH2M estimated the current project to cost $31 million a year, whereas the options to turn the material into cakes or liquid would cost $62 and $91 million a year, respectively.

Another option CH2M presented was the construction of a large facility to turn the waste into fertilizer for agriculture used in the Midwest. It is illegal to use converted municipal sewage as fertilizer in Connecticut, according to senior project manager Brian Gackstatter. This project would cost $105 million a year over the next 20 years, according to the consultants.

Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield said he wanted to be sure the conversation was not restricted to dollars and cents.

“It’s like assessing the costs of smoking cigarettes,” Goldfield said. “You can’t just say ‘I’m going to get this much pleasure for this much money.’ You have to factor in that you will get sick and have to pay for treatment.”

DiGangi also said his agency is planning to convert the 2.5 tons of vegetable oil, grease, and restaurant fats into a fuel, which he said will not only recycle the waste but stabilize the energy costs.

The CH2M report will be available on March 6 for the public to view, DiGangi said.
On March 27, WPAC and CH2M will have another meeting at Nathan Hale School : 7 p.m.
where they will be taking feedback from the community on the proposals.







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: annabelle blausten | February 23, 2007 8:39 AM

I love the idea of turning the fats and grease from restaurants into a fuel. Recycling is definitely the way to go whatever the cost.

Posted by: lynne bonnett | February 25, 2007 9:18 PM

Several people from the community were able to attend the somewhat impromptu meeting hosted by the GNHWPCA on alternatives to sludge incineration on Jan 16, 2007. One representative from CH2M provided an overview of all available technologies and the short list of options.

Members of the community said that they would like the GNHWPCA to:
Be Sustainable: We are willing to take care of our own waste products but don’t want to have to take care of sludge from all over the state
Reduce Toxic Air Pollutants released from sludge incineration such as mercury vapor, dioxins, and other toxic chemicals – list options to sludge incineration that do this
List greenhouse gas emissions from the different options:
Separate the environmental impacts from the financial costs so that we don’t just have the environmental concerns and costs given in one line together.
Explain the point source control mechanisms for the state: why does CT sludge have 30 % more mercury concentration that Seattle – they both use point source control.

Other members brought up the fact that biosolids from other states are sold for organic fertilizer in CT ; Mr. DiGangi stated that the DEP does not allow CT to use their biosolids for this purpose. 93 % of the sludge in CT is incinerated in one of 7 incinerators (3 of which are in Hartford where the new general manager, Mr. DiGangi, comes from). So a community such as New Haven incinerates our own region (New Haven, East Haven, Woodbridge and Hamden) as well as 1/7 of the rest of the state: 40 % of the sludge incinerated in New Haven comes from outside our region. We not only have to treat more than we produce but we get to have other state’s waste products spread on our land as well in the form of organic fertilizer. Something is wrong with this picture. Is it because CT doesn’t produce class A biosolids that can be used for this purpose? Why not? .

There is an excellent resource available online for anyone interested in learning more about sewage treatment published by King County, Washington. Seattle does not incinerate sludge. They produce some class A biosolids that are sold to the community to be used for organic lawn fertilizer. The rest is spread on agricultural land including forests, wheat and hop fields. The link is: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/biosolids/index.htm. It’s the 2005 Biosolids Quality Summary in King County, WA. If you can’t get it online please email me at nhejn@snet.net and I can forward it to you. It’s very informative listing what chemicals are in sludge, glossary, explanation of the process etc. I haven’t seen anything like this produced in CT.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: COME TO THE COMMUNITY INFORMATIONAL SESSION LISTED IN THIS ARTICLE GIVEN BY CH2M, THE ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRM THAT IS THE PARENT COMPANY TO THE CURRENT GNHWPCA OPERATING MANAGEMENT COMPANY OMI, Inc.


Posted by: 02belle | March 15, 2007 7:33 PM

Surface to Surface Waste Management has a method to handle waste sludges efficiently and economically. View case study: go to wastewater section of www.stswm.com

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35