In their promotion of biosolids EPA/WEF plans included
expanding their market for sludge by getting USDA to accept
it as a fertilizer in the proposed Organic Standard. Their
target is the organic farmers who have strongly resisted the
use of sludge on food crops organically grown. Authors of
Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, Stauber and Ramption (1995),
noted what a coup it would be for EPA to have sludge declared
fit for organic farming. They wrote:
"Currently, "certified organic" farmers are prohibited
from using sludge on their crop, but the sludge industry
is pushing for acceptance by organic farming
organizations, and this will be a battle-ground for
industry PR in the future. The amount of farm acreage
dedicated to organic farming is currently very small.
However, said Brian Baker of California Certified
Organic Farmers, "imagine what great PR it would be for
the sewage sludge promoters to say that sludge is so
clean it can be certified organic---what a way to
`greenwash' sewage sludge." [7]
Stauber and Rampton were right. EPA/WEF needed USDA's
endorsement if they were going to succeed in their plan to
force organic farmers to use sewage sludge on their food
crops. This was evident in a letter dated November 10, 1997,
to USDA's Deputy Secretary, Richard Rominger. EPA's
Assistant Administrator, Robert Perciasepe's letter to
Rominger emphasized the past support of USDA in developing
Part 503 and the need for USDA to continue supporting the
regulation with technical information. He wrote, "The
authoritative support by your Department is most helpful to
our program. It is [was] vital to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to promulgate
scientifically valid regulations for biosolids (sludge) use
and to provide technically correct information."
Perciasepe added further:
Assuming that the organic standards rule is corrected so
that practices which can cause disease are omitted, I
request that high quality biosolids [sludge] be included
as a recognized suitable material for organic food
production. EPA has a policy that promotes the recycling
of biosolids [sludge] to land and your Department, EPA,
and the Food and Drug Administration issued a policy
statement as far back as 1981 that endorsed the use of
biosolids [sludge] for production of fruits and
vegetables (copies enclosed).
If EPA/WEF are to accomplish their purpose to spread
sludge on organic crops, they have to eliminate the
competition. The primary competition is manure.
In Perciasepe's letter to Rominger, he requested his
assistance in prohibiting or severely limiting the use of
manure in organic farming. He wrote:
I am writing this letter to request your assistance in
another important matter. I have significant concerns
about a rule that I understand is about to be
promulgated in final form by your department. This rule
will provide standards to the farming community that
produce organically grown foods. It is my understanding
that this National Organic Standards Rule would permit
the application of raw unprocessed animal manures to
soils to support "organic production" of vegetables and
fruits. It would seem unwise to permit such a practice
in light of the recent revelations of human diseases
that apparently have resulted from the use of such
improperly treated and/or used manures. A demonstrated
occurrence of human disease from such organically grown
foods after promulgation of the National Organic
Standards Rule could have major negative consequences
for the organic food industry.
Perciasepe essentially outlined how the biased
stakeholders group was setting manure up as a scapegoat for
all the problems created by unregulated, unmonitored, and
unenforced use of sewage sludge. In the letter to Rominger,
he wrote:
Dr. John Walker, of my staff, just attended an
excellent U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agriculture
Research Service-Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
(USDA-ARS- BARC)-stakeholders meeting in Beltsville,
Maryland that outlined specific instances of human
health problems that were associated with the use of
animal manures for the production of foods and efforts
that a team of scientist there are proposing to develop
basic information which should help overcome these
problems. At that meeting Dr. Walker suggested that the
biosolids treatment, site access, and crop harvesting
restrictions which have been successful in protecting
public health from diseases when biosolids are recycled
might also be helpful with the management of pathogens
when recycling animal manures. ARS scientists at that
meeting indicated that they share his views.
Panic at EPA
In spite of Dr. Walker's claims at the meeting that
biosolids treatment, site access, and crop harvesting
restrictions have protected public health from adverse
effects from sludge, Freedom of Information requests reveal
the opposite, and show why manure had to be blamed.
At a Citizens Forum on Environmental and Health Concerns
from Landspreading of Sewage and Paper Mill sludges held in
November of 1997 in Concord, New Hampshire, Helane Shields
shared with the crowd her recent experience with the EPA on
the subject of the victims of sludge. When Helane filed a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting data on victims
of sludge, she received a call from Dr. Alan Rubin. Excerpts
from Helane's conversation with Dr. Rubin reveals that EPA's
claim that there's never been a documented case of any harm
to a person, or animal or any contamination of water or land
from sludge is refuted by EPA itself. According to Helane:
On October 30, I got a call from Dr. Alan Rubin, who
headed up the group who wrote the EPA 503 sludge rules.
Some of you may recall the sludge industry and the DES
brought in Dr. Rubin earlier this year to tell us dumb
country bumpkins what great stuff sewage sludge is, and
why we should be so happy to be importing it, for
dumping all over our countryside.
Dr. Rubin told me it was going to cost me $42,000 for
the EPA to process my FOIA request, and that this was
probably going to make it too expensive for me to pursue
the matter. He wishes. He said they would have to search
thousands of files, and that needed staff time, and then
there would be a charge of 15 cents a page for about
10,000 pages, for a cost of $1500 just to copy. Dr.
Rubin said he is aware of thousands of allegations of
problems. Those are his words not mine.
He said it would be inappropriate government spending
for the EPA to provide me with this information without
getting reimbursed for their time. I asked him if it was
an appropriate use of government funds to give the WEF--
the Water Environment Federation, which is the lobbying
and PR arm of the sludge industry--hundreds of thousands
[$7.5 million] of our tax dollars to debunk and
discredit sludge victims and sludge opponents. Dr. Rubin
got very huffy, and naturally declined to answer that
question, and I haven't heard from him since.
On November 5, I got another call from the EPA, this
time from a woman who said she was calling for Dr.
Rubin. She wanted to know if I had filed my Freedom of
Information request on victims with all ten regional EPA
officers. I said I had. She said, "That's what's causing
the problems," and that Dr. Rubin was on edge because
each region has massive records, and the EPA wants to
handle this request through headquarters. I told her I
had already spoken with some of the regional offices and
that they were being most cooperative. She said to me,
"This is not what they're telling us. They are calling
us panicking. They are saying they have massive amounts
of records. Someone is not getting their story
coordinated. Region 6--which is Texas--"has no idea what
to do about this request."
Helane closed her presentation with the following
comment which put the whole sludge victim problem in
perspective:
If no one has ever been harmed by the land spreading of
sewage sludge, what are these thousands of documents and
massive amounts of records all about? Why is Dr. Rubin
on edge? Why are they panicking? The answer is obvious.
The truth about what is really happening to America from
the land spreading of sewage sludge lies in those
records, which the EPA is trying so very hard to
withhold.
The High Road
By January 1998, in the draft Statement Summary
requesting additional funding, Perciasepe wrote Harman about
how Al Rubin and John Walker Plan to take the high road on
the USDA National Organics Rule:
* With the Statement that the rule is a marketing rule
and is not risk based;
* That the rule should be science based--otherwise using
raw manures and composts without regulation or
guidance can and is causing diseases;
* That the criteria used for chosing what is acceptable
for use to produce organic grown food should be
science based;
* That the rule should be subject to Peer Review
* And that biosolids are safe for use and are highly
regulated.
If this proposed National Organic Standard is comparable
to Part 503 we could expect the science to be biased and only
studies favoring the EPA position acceptable; the peer review
committee will be stacked with EPA "approved" scientists and
risk assessment will be flawed, and then removed from the
standard like the cancer assessment was in Part 503; once its
passed, it would be poorly regulated, inefficiently
monitored, and with minimal to no oversight.
The EPA failed in its effort to get sludge included in
the Organic Standard, for now. The public outcry was
overwhelming. Over 100 thousand people responded during the
extended comment period. However, the Organic Standard will
be up for review in three years.
By that time the new manure standards should be in
place. Of course we know that in comparison to how the sludge
standard was promulgated, the manure standard will have very
conservative, very stringent requirements that must be met
before manure can be land applied.
One has only to read the proposed Congressional law
on manure to see that our assertion is correct. The proposed
manure law is the result of an extensive lobbying effort by
the EPA/WEF to take the heat off toxic sludge used on
farmland, which has caused, according to FIOA information,
many, many victims for which they are wanting to put the
blame on manure. They have a problem though, tying all
adverse health and environmental effects to manure, because
manure should not contain toxic heavy metals and deadly
organic chemicals. Of course, if the animals grazed on
sludge amended soil, the manure may contain toxic heavy
metals and organic chemicals.
We discovered the intense lobbying effort of EPA/WEF on
members of Congress, when the following letter was passed on
to us.
"ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS; IT TOLLS FOR THEE!"
This cryptic message to a vocal California farmer
opposed to sludge/biosolids use on farmland, was attached to
a Water Environment Federation (WEF) letter, dated February
28, 1996, with the heading, "DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS:" The
signature on the message belonged to the WEF's temporary
Senior Scientist, Alan Rubin, who was on loan to WEF by the
EPA.
Rubin's implied threat to the California farmer was
contained in the WEF letter sent to each member of Congress.
WEF was lobbying Congress to place the blame for water
pollution on farmers and their operations, because, "Water
Quality 2000 found that "polluted runoff from agricultural
activities...is a major cause of impairment of our nation's
waters." WEF urged that, "Congress must make a clear
statement that agriculturally derived water pollution
problems is a national priority."
The letter continued, "Current Farm Bill provisions have
produced some progress in water quality. But future
improvements will require a new way of thinking about these
problems. Agricultural conservation and environmental
protection programs should be re-oriented to make pollution
prevention the primary focus."
The WEF letter assured Congress that, "Preventing
pollution is easier and cheaper than implementing new
pollution control requirements." They state:
Congress should encourage prevention-oriented actions at
the watershed level in which farmers, ranchers, local
residents, and other stakeholders are all partners in
the search for solutions. Federal and state government
should serve as a catalyst for progress by bringing all
parties together and providing technical and financial
assistance. Any Farm Bill approved by Congress should
build upon existing mechanisms to protect and enhance
water quality in agricultural areas.
This lobbying campaign, with taxpayer dollars, for more
taxpayer dollars, smells to high heaven, worse than sludge
itself. First, because taxpayer money is used for the
lobbying campaign to blame the farmers, and second, because
EPA and municipalities are responsible for dumping
approximately 5 million metric tons of disease causing
organisms, toxic heavy metals and deadly organic chemical
contaminated sludge on our agricultural food production land
where storm water can and does take it right off the sludge
site into the water supply.
Under the current EPA policy, sludge is generally
disposed of as a liquid on farmland with only a few pounds of
solid waste in each ton of water. If the agronomic rate for
sludge use is 5 tons to the acre, there may be 500 tons of
the liquid toxic soup dumped on each acre within 10 meters
(approximately 30') of any waterway in the United States on a
slope. Basically, it does not make any difference whether the
slope is 1 degree or 15 degrees. It does not take a scientist
to understand that sludge site runoff runs downhill to the
rivers and eventually the pollutants in sludge are carried
into the ocean where sludge dumping was banned, because it
was destroying the ocean environment.
The EPA/WEF lobbying campaign on manure paid off. A Bill
(HR-3232) was introduced into the 105th Congress, 2/17/1998
by Congressman Miller, etc., of California. The purpose of
the Bill is, "To amend the Federal Pollution control Act to
control water pollution from concentrated animal feeding
operations, and for other purposes."
We are not sure what the `for other purposes' are, but
it is a conservative Bill. If the `for other purposes'
included "sewage sludge", at least 80 percent of the water
pollution in this country would be effectively stopped. Since
there is no current federal law to justify the beneficial
sludge use section of Part 503, this would be a perfect time
to back up the Part 503 regulation with a law. All that would
be needed is to add the word "sludge" in conjunction with
`concentrated animal feeding operations'.
It is clear, the writers behind this Bill (WEF/EPA),
were aware of the dangers from water pollution, even if they
lied about the cause. According to the Bill, the amendment
was needed because Congress found: "(2) An outbreak of
cryptosporidium in Wisconsin, which killed more than 100
people, and an outbreak of pfiesteria piscida in the coastal
waters of North Carolina and Maryland, which killed millions
of fish and sickened dozens of people, have been linked to
contaminants associated with animal feeding operations."
(a) Discharges and run-off from concentrated animal
feeding operations are a major source of water
pollution in many watersheds.
(3) Current controls on water pollution from
concentrated animal feeding operations are
inadequate to control surface discharges and do not
adequately protect ground water.
(4) Additional controls on all forms of water pollution
resulting from concentrated animal feeding
operations are needed to protect the public health,
water quality, and fisheries of the United States.
When we look at the liability section of the bill, we
see included in it all of the safety provisions missing from
Part 503. In fact, the most important section of this Bill
vs. Part 503, is the liability section which include:
(A) MAXIMUM LEVELS FOR NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS -The
application of animal waste to land by a person
shall be considered a discharge of pollutants for
purposes of this subsection if (taking into account
all sources of nutrients, including commercial
fertilizers) the application of animal waste would
result in the application of nitrogen or phosphorus
in a quantity that exceeds the reasonable
anticipated agronomic nutrient uptake of the
vegetative covering or to be grown on the land.
(B) MAXIMUM LEVELS FOR OTHER SUBSTANCES - (i)
ESTABLISHMENT - The Administrator (EPA), in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall establish maximum permitted levels for other
nutrients, minerals, metals, or other substances
found in animal waste whose presence in land above
the reasonably anticipated agronomic uptake of the
vegetative cover growing or to be grown on the land
would pose a significant threat of pollution to
surface or ground water.
(ii) EXCESS LEVELS - The application of animal
waste to land by any person shall be considered a
discharge of pollutants for purposes of this
subsection if following the application of the
animal waste the level of substance referred to in
clause (i) would exceed the maximum permissible
level established for the substance by the
Administration.
(c) Monitoring and Recordkeeping-Permits issued or
renewed for concentrated animal feeding operations
under this section shall at a minimum, specify the
surface and ground water monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements necessary to ensure that
no discharge of pollutants is occurring from the
operation.
(D) Discharge - The term `discharge' or `discharge of
pollutants' include the release, directly or
indirectly to the waters of the United States, of
animal waste or nutrients, minerals, metals, or
other substances derived from animal waste or any
combination thereof.
When the Bill mentioned metals, it became evident that
EPA/WEF are determined to place the blame for all
agricultural pollution run-off on animal waste. According to
a comparison sheet prepared by Cornell scientists, animal
manure is very low in metals compared to sludge.
Ag Cd Co Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dairy Manure 0.09 0.7 2.2 --- 18. 9.6 7.5 150.
Milorganite 24.00 7.2 4.1 2940. --- 31.0 130.0 450.
sludge
Syracuse- 11.90 5.6 11.0 130. 590. 36.0 132.0 545.
sludge
-----------------------------------------------------------
If EPA doesn't know or won't control all of the toxic
materials in sludge, how will it determine the permitted
levels for minerals, or other substances found in animal
waste which it wants to regulate? Phosphorus is not even
mentioned in the Part 503 and the control of nitrogen is a
management practice. Not only that, but this Bill, based on
the term `vegetative cover', would stop the manure from even
being used on crops, organic or otherwise.
The Bill even discusses the owner's liability for a
civil suit penalty for violating this act. However, if the
manure is mixed with sludge, it becomes a fertilizer and
there are no penalty provisions in Part 503--and in fact--EPA
claims no one will be held liable for human health or
environmental damages from the use of sludge, if the Part 503
is followed, even if a Superfund site is created. EPA can
effectively use this section of the bill to blackmail farmers
into using sludge. The new law enacted by Congress regulating
manure will also be used against vocal farm owners who oppose
EPA land application policy for sludge.
While we do not argue that mismanaged animal waste can
cause problems, and large concentrated animal feeding
operations should be regulated, both EPA and Congress know
animal waste is not the primary problem causing water
contamination.
Part of the water contamination source was pointed out
in an article "The Safe Drinking Water Act in Retrospect"
published in the EPA Journal, Summer of 1994 edition.
According to the article:
The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) has
recently completed an analysis of the protection and
treatment techniques currently used by the nation's largest
drinking-water systems. The results of this analysis were
published in a March 1994 report entitled "Victorian Water
Treatment Enters the 21st Century." Brian A. Cohen and Erik
B. Olson, authors, found:
The vast majority of large water supplies do little
or nothing to prevent contamination of the watershed or
groundwater that they rely on for source water. About
two-thirds of large surface water systems have failed to
adopt even minimal watershed protection techniques such
as watershed land ownership and stream or reservoir
buffers to prevent runoff or discharge of chemical or
microbiologically polluted water into the source water.
More than 90 percent of major water utilities have
failed to install modern post World War I chemical
contamination removal technology despite widespread
chemical contamination. Scores of major systems have
not installed basic 19th Century filtration and particle
removal technology needed to protect water from
dangerous microbes. As of 1989, nearly 50 large
groundwater systems provided no water treatment
whatsoever--not even basic disinfection.
Aged, crumbling distribution systems are neglected
and are often the cause of waterborne disease outbreaks.
The network of pipes that carries the water from the
treatment plant to the customer contain millions of
pipes made with lead and as a result, millions of
Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of lead in the
drinking water. (p.15)
It appears that EPA, USDA and WEF are placing the entire
blame for food and waterborne outbreaks of diseases on
contamination from animal manure to draw attention away from
sludge. Although the Milwaukee outbreak was blamed on animal
manure, CDC's Emerging Infectious Diseases/Volume 3 Number 4/
October-December 1997, reported that some samples that were
taken from infected people during the 1993 Milwaukee
outbreak showed a human type of crytosporidium. CDC has
identified 2 strains of crytosporidium, one animal and one
human. According to the report:
The genotypic and infection data from the four isolates
we examined suggest a human rather than bovine source...
Furthermore, of the isolates tested in experimental
infection studies, none could successfully infect
laboratory animals. These results lead us to suggest
the possibility of a second transmission cycle that is
anthroponotic and maintained through person-to-person
contact or through human sewage contamination of the
water supply." (pp.7-8)
The human type of crytosporidium were also found in a
Georgia water park outbreak in 1995 as well as a Florida
outbreak in 1995. The October 20, 1997 issue of Sludge
reported the pfiestria organism outbreak in Chesapeake bay is
linked to municipal waste discharge sites and swine effluent
discharge.
The Newsletter SLUDGE reported the real problem with
disposal of waste whether manure or effluent or sludge is
the numerous deliberate violations:
July 30, 1997 issue--In Virginia, Smithfield Foods, Inc.
was found liable for up to 7,000 violations of dumping
hog waste into a Chesapeake Bay tributary between 1991
and 1996. The state was admonished a number of time by
EPA for not carrying out federal environmental
requirements. The Plant manager was jailed for
destroying and falsifying records. The $4 billion pork
processor's chairman gave $125,000 to the governor's
political campaign while he was trying to negotiate a
settlement of $650,000, rather than the $20 million
proposed fine.
December 1, 1997 - A Federal Judge found that Atlanta
violated the Clean Water Act and falsified monitoring
reports. According to SLUDGE, "The Court finds as a
matter of undisputed fact that the CSO (combined sewage
overflow) treatment facilities are dumping massive
amounts of proscribed metals and fecal coliform bacteria
into the Chattahoochee River in violation of the
permits." Some examples showed the fecal coliform to be
hundreds or thousands of times higher than the limit of
400/100ml.
November 3, 1997 - EPA proposed a $125,000 fine for
Crawford, Ind. for sludge related violations. The
violations between October 1992 and July 1997 included
releasing fecal coliform bacteria, total suspend solids,
ammonia-nitrogen, chlorine, zinc, cyanide and dissolved
oxygen into Sugar Creek as well as the City allowing
contaminated sludge to be used as a fertilizer.
July 16, 1997 - Omaha, Nebraska discharged 20 million
gallons of untreated wastewater (sewage) into the
Missouri River during June in anticipation of heavy
rains.
February 12, 1997 - Environmental Group reports Atlanta
treatment plant spills 2,000 gallons of sewage into
Chattahoochee River. The city also "accidently" spilled
500,000 gallons of sewage into the river in June 1996
and was fined $20,000 for the incident.
October 6, 1996 - New Jersey, ex-operations manager
contends he was fired because he threatened to tell the
state environmental department Rockaway Valley Regional
Sewage Authority sent untreated wastewater into the
Rockaway River during overflow events.
June 19, 1996 - In California, water contaminated by
fecal matter threatened the health of 80,000 people in
1993-1994. Sewage discharges at 39 rivers and lakes in
the state were blamed for the contamination.
In Illinois, over 270,000 people drank contaminated
water tainted by sewage discharges at more than 1,000
locations. Over half the rivers and all but 9 percent
of the lakes are not suitable for swimming or fishing in
1993-1994.
In Minnesota, 12,000 residents in 22 communities drank
tap water contaminated by bacterial matter from sewage
discharges into rivers and lakes at 105 locations.
April 24, 1996 - It was reported that a former New York
City Port Commissioner and her sister could pay fines of
$250,000 and spend 5 years in jail for dumping 106 tons
of sludge in New York Harbor and other area waterways in
the late 80s and early 90s.
February 13, 1996 - John Morrell and Co. illegally
dumped slaughterhouse waste from 1985 to 1993 into the
Big Sioux River in Sioux Falls, S.D. and falsified test
data and monitoring reports. Most of the 130 violations
were committed over a 17 month period in 1991-1992. The
company was fined $3 million.
If Congressman Miller is really worried about the
pollution in our air, in our water, in our food, and on our
land, he and Congress should insist that EPA employees
actually enforce the current federal environmental laws for
sludge disposal.
Back Next