Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, August 4, 1994 TAG: 9408040051
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-11 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: By PAUL DELLINGER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: PULASKI LENGTH: Medium
The Pulaski County Planning Commission voted Tuesday night to deny a request by the Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority for a special use permit allowing the residue disposal on Fairlawn land on the north side of Virginia 114 near the Peppers Ferry sewage plant.
The commission did allow the permit for acreage in Dublin area, where there had been no objections to it. The authority withdrew another tract from consideration because of objections from residents.
Commission member Dr. Bruce Fariss made the motion to deny the permit for the Fairlawn acreage ``not because I think the sludge application is a health risk. I make that motion because of the concern of the community.''
Fariss said the processed waste ``is chemically safer than commercial fertilizer'' routinely applied to agricultural lands. But the Fairlawn residents living around land where the sludge would go were not convinced.
``The reason that the farmer wants it is the nutrient organics,'' authority director Charles Maus told the Fairlawn delegation at the commission meeting. ``I don't know how to convince you that it is not a hazardous, toxic substance, except to tell you that it is not.''
The authority must get agreements from landowners before applying the sludge, and landowners can end those agreements at any time.
Another commission member, Larry Hancock, had moved that no permits be granted at all, even though there had been no objections regarding a site owned by K.B. Alexander Jr. off Virginia 683 (Alexander Road) in Dublin. Fariss made a substitute motion separating the permit applications for Fairlawn and Dublin.
Hancock voted against the permit for the Alexander site, saying the area where residue would be dispersed was too close to houses. Fariss got assurances from Maus that dispersal would be at least 700 feet from those property lines.
People in the Fairlawn area complained of odors from parts of their community where the sludge is already dispersed, heightened by water and fog in the area.
``Dampness is there. You've got the river, you've got the fog, you've got everything,'' Richard Dawson told the commission. ``Think about it and see if you would want it in your area.''
Commission Vice Chairman Doug Warren said he would not mind sludge applications on his land, but road access for heavy vehicles is not feasible.
``The bottom line is we don't want it,'' said Judith Anderson. She's an advocate of recycling wastes, she said, "but I have to live there and it is a very highly populated area ... We like to go out and enjoy our yard.''
Fairlawn resident Conrad Matherly said the official position from health officials he's spoken with is that if sludge is applied properly, eveything should be okay. ``If everything will be okay, why not apply it to the courthouse lawn?'' he said. ``My position is it would stink to high heaven and pose a health hazard to the public. That's why it isn't put on public land.''
Maus said the odor that residents detect now is mainly from the authority's pump station in Fairlawn, and that additives are being used to try to alleviate that problem. He said there should be no lingering odor from sludge applied to the farmland, and that applications on a particular piece of land are limited to one a year.
Sludge began being applied to land in the 1950s, and industrial sludge used at that time did damage soils, he said. Standards on what can be applied have been strengthened since the 1960s, he said.|
by CNB