Chapter Eight
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
The NRC's fourth point discusses:
(4) public health concerns about microbiological agents
and toxic chemicals;
According to the NRC report, "Treatment processes
are also available to effectively reduce the
concentration of pathogens in sewage sludge to levels
safe for direct contact. Some examples include lime
treatment, heat treatment, drying and composing (EPA,
1992b)." (p. 90)
However, the NRC Report also notes that coliform
levels may not be reduced by composting [and EPA agrees]
.(94) Not only that but, according to the EPA, salmonella is subject to
regrowth within 14 hours after leaving the treatment
plant unless it is incorporated into the soil. Most
sludges used for fertilizer on crops are treated to a
less stringent level, Class B.
The Report also states, "Reports of the occurrence
of infectious disease transmission linked to the
irrigation of food crops with wastewater are associated
with untreated sewage or treated wastewater (effluent)
of questionable quality. A recent epidemiological review
of disease transmission from irrigation with reclaimed
water (Shuval, 1990) also concludes that only untreated
wastewater (the effluent wasn't disinfected) has been
implicated in transmission of infectious disease."
(pp. 95) However, sludge site restrictions are also
used as part of the treatment process to reduce
pathogens. (p. 94)
Moreover, they also note, "The infectious disease
agents associated with municipal wastewater (effluent)
and sludge are those found in domestic sanitary waste of
the population and from industries that process meats,
fish and other food products. These microbial pathogens
include a large number of bacteria, viruses, and
parasites. Important examples are the members of the
bacteria genera Salmonella and shigella; the infectious
hepatitis, Rota and Norwalk viruses; and the parasites
associated with giardiasis, cryptosporidious, taeniasis,
and ascariasis (See Table 5.1 for a more complete
list) It is reasonable to assume that any or all of
these infectious agents might be present in water and
solids factions of raw sewage." (p. 89)
Might be found in raw sewage? As noted earlier, the
report found the diseases in clean treated effluent and
as well as treated sludge. And, in fact found them in
ground water 27.5 meters below an application site for
clean effluent that would normally be returned to a
river or lake.
Furthermore, the NRC report found, "Many of the
variables associated with the transmission of infectious
disease from wastewater and sludge are either not well
understood or are unpredictable." (p. 93-94)
According to the NRC, the answer is in reducing
pathogens through treatment and site management.
While the NRC report does quote part of the Clean
Water act "The intent of the 1987 amendment was to
"adequately protect human health and the environment
from any reasonable anticipated adverse effect of each
pollutant" (Section 405(d)(2)(D), the NRC report does
not quote the EPA version which excludes individual
human health concerns and isolated environmental damage.
"EPA concluded that adequate protection of public health
and the environment did not require the adoption of
standards designed to protect human health or the
environment under exposure conditions that are unlikely
and where effects were not significant or widespread."
(FR. 58, p. 9252)
Furthermore, that statement indicates that as long
as only a few isolated deaths are caused by the sludge
dumping, the dumpers are protected by the exclusions in
the law and the implied permit provisions of part 503.
Moreover, the courts have even used the public duty
doctrine to say that an individuals health can be
sacrificed for the public good of low cost sludge
dumping.
And what about the Constitutional right, the
unalienable right to individual "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness" of those 501 people the EPA
estimates will be harmed [high blood pressure] by sludge annually?
Since the NRC Committee were aware diseases
associated with sludge disposal are under-reported,
scattered and unrecorded, how could the NRC report
conclude sludge use is safe for use on crops or land?
The NRC Committee were aware the EPA had chosen to
ignore any damages to health or the environment, that
is, except to fund a 1.2 million dollar campaign to
debunk the horror stories concerning the misuse of
sewage sludge as a fertilizer. (EPA memo's dated 10-17-
1994, 12-29-1994, 2-27-1995 and a press release from the
Water Environmental Federation dated March 15, 1996)
Furthermore, on November 2, 1995, Alan Rubin,
Ph.D., the EPA official in charge of producing the
Sludge Use and Disposal Regulation, claimed in a
memorandum that, "Biosolids that have been land applied
under state and Federal requirements have never been
documented to cause any negative human health or
ecological impact." Yet, HELP FOR SEWAGE VICTIMS, a
national non-profit organization has been asked for help
from people in thirty-four states who have been harmed
by the uncontrolled dumping of sewage sludge. Moreover,
EPA will not investigate any of these claims of negative
human health or ecological impact. Not only will they
not investigate these claims, but they are funding the
efforts of the Water Environment Federation (WEF) to
debunk these claims. Therefore, the EPA claims it has
not documented any health problem associated with sludge
use. However, that is not quite true.
One year earlier, on 12-29-1994, John Walker and
Bob Bastian of the EPA, who were apparently filling in
for Rubin while he was on loan to the WEF, put together
a, DRAFT -- For comment, CANDIDATES FOR THE REST OF THE
STORY. They suggested a potential WEF
Writer/Coordinator for this effort. Their purpose was
to debunk the damage claims of people. According to
their own Draft, one of the top five stories for the
writer to debunk is, "Tree kill in Washington State with
King Co. METRO biosolids on Weyerhauser land." After
King Co. METRO sludge was dumped on the forest, the
trees died and King Co. METRO was forced to pay for the
damage.
Number 2 on the list to debunk is, "Linda Zander
case -Sick & dead cattle - worker health - Farm Bureau
and Dairy Today stories".
There is additional documentation which confirms
the EPA, WEF, Washington State Ecology Department and
King County Department of Metropolitan Services are
conspiring to destroy the credibility of the Zander
family claim.
Peter Machno is the WEF expert delegated (according
to the EPA memo dated 12-94) to explain away this case.
On February 22, 1993, two State Ecology Representatives
-Al Hanson, Kyle Dorsey and five King County Metro
representatives - Mark Lucas, Carol Ready, Steve
Gilbert, Dan Sturgill and Salley Tenney of the Metro
Legal Services as well as Mel Kemper of the City of
Tacoma, Hal Thurston an Attorney, and four individuals
actually associated with the Zander law suit, met in a
closed meeting to discuss the Zander Case. According to
Keith A. Bode's, Zander Action Summary, the legal cost
will exceed 500,000 dollars.
Before the toxic waste dumping started, the
Zanders, who had operated the dairy farm for 20 years,
had a comfortable life with no major problems they could
anticipate. They looked forward to a comfortable and
relatively healthy old age. Within a year after the
Western Services Waste Management began spreading sludge
adjacent to their farm, Linda and Raymond Zander
reported changes occurring in normally healthy dairy
cows. Some of their herd developed arthritis and a
number of their calves were born with tendon
abnormalities. Milk production dropped by 17 percent.
Then the cattle started dying.
The Zanders also experienced health problems. While
Linda experienced mycoplasma pneumonia, chemical induced
brain damage, thyroid problems and immune system damage,
Raymond suffers from hypothyroid, lupus and nickel
toxicity. In addition to their other medical problems,
the Zanders are facing financial problems. They were
forced to declare bankruptcy, when the bank, who is
financing the sludge producers' defense of the suit,
foreclosed on their property.
When Zander started looking for answers, she found
that the Whatcom County Health Department, the very
agency that should have helped her, had approved the
sludge dumping. When she could not get the Whatcom
County Health Department or the State Ecology Department
or the EPA to stop the dumping, she went to Court for an
order to stop the dumping. The Court Order to stop it
was not effective, because it was then dumped at night.
Linda has sued the sludge producers' organization
and the haulers involved with the dumping and the County
Health Department. Since the Zanders filed suit
September 24, 1991 against the producers', haulers and
County, she has been experiencing her own private hell
because there was no one to turn to for help. In fact,
the very agencies that are supposed to help her are
trying to destroy her credibility. To fight this Linda
has amassed the help of qualified scientists.
Zander started Help for Sewage Victims as a means
of gathering and passing on information concerning the
hazards of sewage sludge dumping. Help for Sewage
Victims has been very effective in combating the
spreading of sewage sludge. Zander's story and stories
of others harmed by sewage sludge have been reported in
over 30 newspapers and 4 farming magazines since 1991 as
well as John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's new book,
TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU! (1995) Through Zander's
efforts and the efforts of other tireless workers, the
harmful effects of the EPA's sludge (biosolids)
regulation is coming to light.
Zander's activity has not gone unnoticed by the
EPA, WEF or the sludge producers' association. The
attorney for the defendants in the law suit, Keith A.
Bode, warned the producer organization in the Zander
Action Summary that Zander had identified 18 medical
experts (including physicians, immunologists,
toxicologists, and nutritionists), 9 veterinarians, 2
property valuation/devaluation experts, 3
soil/hydraulic/geologic experts and 1 testing lab who
would testify about the dangers of sewage sludge use to
humans and animals. Bode also warned that there would be
extra-regional impact and "This action must not be
settled". Bode further warns that, "The public persona
of biosolids is precarious, at best, and each member of
WEF and AMSA can be assured that Zander appears
dedicated to capitalizing on every available opportunity
to publicize her scare story ... and remember, with
respect to land application, the farming community
comprises less than 2% of the population, so she need
only reach a narrow population to cripple land
application. It is essential that her soapbox be removed
and her credibility challenged before our regional
problem has any more effect (than she has now)
nationally or internationally on land application of
biosolids."
One of the articles written about Zander was
"Sludge under suspicion," by Ed Haag, published in the
Farm Journal, in March, 1992. According to a letter
dated, May 17, 1996, from PIMA GRO SYSTEMS, INC. to the
Planning Director of Imperial County, Ca., Pima Gro
Systems Director of Technical Services assures Imperial
County that, "the Farm Journal article was retracted by
the magazine itself due to the amount of mis-information
it included." Furthermore, "The Farm Journal
article...... was thoroughly rebutted by Dr. Terry
Logan, a respected soil scientist from the University of
Ohio and a member of the peer review committee that
developed the 503 regulation. This rebuttal article is
attached."
The rebuttal article, dated April 27, 1992, is
impressive. Dr. Logan has been, "active in sludge
research and consulting for 15 years." Not only that
but he, "co-chaired the W-170 Regional Research
Committee of USDA-CSRS that has coordinated research on
sewage sludge in the U.S. for the same period of time."
However, according to Logan, he sympathized " with the
Zanders who were taking advantage of an opportunity to
reduce their input cost and to assist in recycling of
our waste. It was also logical for them to suspect that
sludge was the cause of the observed livestock
disorders." "No data is given, for example, of the metal
analysis of the sludge applied to the Zander land, or
analysis of soil or forage from sludge amended
pastures."
Apparently, Dr. Logan never even read the article
he was rebutting. No sludge has ever been applied
directly to the Zander land. Furthermore, in spite of
Pima Gro Systems assuring the Imperial County Planning
Director that the Farm Journal article had been
retracted because of Dr. Logan's rebuttal article, as of
July, 11, 1996, Karen Frieberg, Managing Editor of Farm
Journal, states that the Farm Journal has not retracted
the article.
Pima Gro claimed it could only supply enough sludge
for about 8,000 acres at 25 wet/tons an acre. The
National Research Council (NRC) report was referenced by
both sides of the sludge battle in Imperial County.
Furthermore, according to Pima Gro's letter,
"Scientifically. the reuse of biosolids has been proven
safe, effective and beneficial to the soil, crops and
growers." It would appear that Pima Gro Systems was also
wrong on that count. The NRC Report was not designed to
prove sludge was safe for use on crops, it was designed
to evaluate the EPA risk-assessment standards. However,
it concluded sludge was safe for use on crops based on a
lack of scientifically documented studies.
If sewage sludge is so safe, how could Zander find
so many medical experts to verify the danger of sludge
use and why would Bode be so concerned about the persona
of sludge being precarious, at best? Why would the EPA
need to fund a lobby group to change its image? The
answer to these questions is found in the EPA's own
damaging research.
Number 3 on the list to debunk is, Miami-Dade
County biosolids causing loss of papaya trees on 100
acres of land -$7 million settlement in lawsuits by
Miami-Dade -covered by United Press."
Evidence produced in court, according to an article
in American City & Country, May 1993, showed the sludge
included high levels of fecal streptococci, salmonella
and even a live tapeworm.
The NRC Report notes that the parasites are "quite
resistant to chemical and physical disinfection."
(p. 96) Salmonella, according to the EPA, is subject to
growth within 14 hours after the sludge leaves the
treatment plant, even if it is Class A sludge.
Number 6 on the list to debunk is, "Miniature horse
deaths in Oklahoma."
Number 9 on the list to debunk is, "Pathogen
regrowth during shipment -- Merco." That was the easy
one for the WEF/EPA to debunk in the Biosolids fact
sheet - After the fact, an independent analysis,
"determined that the variations were most likely caused
by inconsistencies in the sampling and analytical
methods at five separate labs conducting the analysis."
Is the WEF/EPA trying to say that six laboratories using
the same EPA specified methodology and procedures can
not come up with the same answer?
Actually it would appear, the EPA is using the
Waste Management, Inc. technique of discounting
laboratory test results, as reported by Robert McClure
and Fred Schulte (News/Sun-Sentinel); "Just how much lab
results vary is difficult to assess. Some industry
experts estimate the testing-error rate as high as 50
percent.
EPA records reveal dozens of cases in which Waste
Management insisted -- in a few cases for years -- that
test results showing pollution were simply lab mistakes.
Yet, EPA officials have failed to resolve the
conflicts. The Agency has the right to conduct its own
tests, but it rarely does.
Because of the EPA's laxity in setting regulations,
"You could kind of expect things to run amok." Said
Steven Sisk, an EPA investigator. "It was bound to.""
(Final Report, San Diego District Attorney, 1992)
Number 10 on the list to debunk is, "Biosolids a
cause of AIDS."
The NRC Report states that Aids doesn't persist in
water. However, at least one study by Dr. Shamim A.
Ansari and Dr. Saeul R. Farrah has found the AIDS
virus may persist in sewage. Both proviral and viral
sequences of HIV-1 was found in wastewater samples.
Number 11 on the list is, Biosolids used on ball
fields causing Lou Gehrig's Disease - what it took to
debunk this claim."
That really doesn't sound like a scientific
investigation. What did it take to debunk this claim?
Number 12 on the list to debunk is, "Maryland turf
grass grower crop loss due to biosolids use - involved
grower's use of a highway roller on his fields."
The EPA makes it sound like the turf grower went
out and bought a highway roller to smooth out the sludge
on his field and that was what killed the turf.
Number 13 on the list to debunk is, "Raleigh, NC --
dead cattle from nitrate poisoning due to high nitrogen
content. Forage was not mixed with other low-nitrate
fodder as advised by the POTW (Public Owned Treatment
Works)."
In effect, the EPA is saying that the POTW
knowingly sold or gave away contaminated animal fodder
that would cause the death of any animal who ate it, if
it was not diluted with less contaminated fodder.
If the EPA allows contaminated crops to be sold by
POTWs when they know it will harm public health and the
environment, how safe are the crops grown on the 15,600
acre site the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago has been operating for 20 years in
Fulton County Illinois? Sewage sludge is applied at
that site to condition and fertilize strip-mine spoils
to produce crops, such as corn, which are sold as animal
feed or for alternative fuel production,
(FR.58.32,p.9260).
However, if the corn is sold to an elevator, it
could just as easily become corn meal. As a general
rule crops grown on sludge amended farms, such as soy
beans or wheat, are sold directly to elevators without
any testing.
Number 14 on the list to debunk is, "BLM (Federal
Bureau of Land Management) policy opposing use of
biosolids on Federal lands: equating its use to
hazardous waste dumping and landfilling raising
SUPERFUND liability concerns." It is clear from the
effort many agencies (both state and federal) are
expending to debunk the Zander and other horror stories
that there is a major problem with the EPA and our
justice system. If the Zander story was not true and
sludge use was safe, the simple solution would have been
to do the proper testing. There would have been no need
for Zander to find so many expert witnesses. Nor, would
she have found them, if these qualified state and
federal people had done the test themselves.
It would also appear that at least one Federal
Agency Director understands the serious nature of toxic
pollution from the use of sewage sludge and understands
that it can not be disposed of in a part 503 landfill.
It is clear the BLM did not buy the EPA's beneficial
sludge use policy and understands that at some point,
Rubin, the EPA, and state agencies will have to answer
for the damage they are doing to human health and the
environment.
The NRC claims that based on its scientific study,
sludge use on crops is safe. Yet, the NRC Committee did
not review the one human health study (Municipal Sewage
Sludge Application on Ohio Farms: Health Effects) funded
by the EPA and used by the EPA as the ultimate proof of
the safety of sludge. An abstract by a third party is
quoted, and the study is re-titled, Demonstration of
Acceptable Systems for Land Disposal of Sewage Sludge.
According to the NRC report of the third party abstract:
"An epidemiologic study on human exposure to
pathogens in sludge compared health effects in 164
people living on 47 farms which received 2 to 10
tons of sludge per ha per year for three years to
130 people from 45 farms who formed a control
group. Both study groups were from geologically
matched areas of rural Ohio. Study participants
answered monthly surveys and had annual tuberculin
testing and serological tests of quarterly blood
samples. In addition, monthly surveys included
questions about farm animals' health. It was found
that there were no significant differences in the
health of those living on farms where sludge was
applied compared to the control group with respect
to respiratory or digestive illness or reported
physiological symptoms. Similarly, no differences
were reported between domestic animals from sludge-
amended versus control farms (Brown et. al,, 1985).
(p. 113)
The NRC report failed to reveal the Ohio study's
finding that, "There have been no previous reported
studies of the human health effect of land application
of treated municipal sewage sludge."
The real question here is, why would the NRC
Committee quote from Brown's abstract, rather than quote
the researchers who actually made the study: Dorn,
Reddy, Lamphere, Gaeuman and Lanese? The study was
published in, Environmental Research 38, pp. 332-359,
1985.
Moreover, it would appear that the NRC writer
failed to read beyond the sixth paragraph of Brown's
abstract. Brown stated, in the seventh paragraph of the
abstract, "Significantly higher fecal Cd (cadmium)
concentrations in cattle, and significantly higher Cd
and Pb (lead) accumulations were observed in kidney
tissues of calves grazing on sludge-amended pastures."
If the researchers found significantly higher
levels of toxic pollutants in cattle grazing on pastures
with very low sludge application rates, wouldn't the
cattle have had even higher rates of toxic pollutants in
their systems at the agronomical rates recommended by
the EPA?
Furthermore, according to the actual researchers,
by the third year of the study, only thirteen of forty-
seven farms and 53 of the 165 participants remained in
the study. In fact, 35 of the participants were
recruited late and only 20 were counted for a second
year, which would have been the third year of the study.
So, how could monthly surveys, annual tuberculin testing
and quarterly blood samples be done to study
participants for three years who were not there as
claimed in Brown's abstract?
Not only that, but the researchers made it very
clear the study was not to be used in the manner the EPA
and NRC are now using it. In the actual abstract of the
study, the researchers state, "The absence of observed
human or animal health effects resulting from sludge
application in this study of Ohio farms was associated
with low sludge application rates which were in
accordance with Ohio and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency guidelines. (Not current part 503 guidelines)
Caution should be exercised in using these data to
predict health risks associated with sludges containing
higher levels of disease agents and with higher sludge
application rates and larger acreages treated per farm
than used in this study."
According to a recently released EPA fact sheet,
the latest scientific study on sludge dumped at the
128,000 acre sludge ranch at Sierra Blanca, Texas is
also using the same methodology. Very low application
rates and cattle grazing restricted for two years.
Public perception issues, not health issues, are
the concern of the EPA and the NRC report. As an
example, the NRC report (p.90) listed examples of
pathogens associated with raw domestic sewage sludge and
sewage solids, an incomplete list, that did not include
all of the EPA's acknowledged pathogens known to be in
treated sewage sludge, which were listed in the preamble
to the proposed part 503. (FR. 54, p. 5829)
Not only that, but the NRC Committee even ignored
the EPA's definition of a pollutant:
"- is an organic substance, an inorganic substance,
a combination of organic and inorganic substances,
or a pathogenic organism that after discharge and
upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or
assimilation into an organism (human or animal)
either directly from the environment or indirectly
by ingestion through the food chain, could on the
basis of information available to the Administrator
of the EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions, (including malfunction
of reproduction) or physical deformations in either
organisms or offspring of the organisms (babies)."
(Part 503.9(t))
Furthermore, the NRC Report acknowledges
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) is found on sludge
amended soil and that it reduces nitrogen fixation
(p. 77). They do not acknowledge that cyanobacteria has
been reclassified as the parasite, Cyclospora, and the
first infectious disease outbreak from Cyclospora was
reported in 1990. Apparently, as with Florida in 1995,
many states are neglecting to report or document disease
outbreaks caused by contaminated food. Medical
scientists are even now searching for the cause of
Cyclospora contaminated strawberries and raspberries.
The EPA's own research has documented the danger to
humans and animals from the pollutants in sludge.
Besides toxic heavy metal, the EPA has established a
primary list of 25 pathogens (family groups) in sewage
sludge which can cause serious damage. Five pathogens
are bacteria, nine are viruses, five are helminths, Five
are protozoans and one is a fungi. Most of these
pathogens can be very deadly to humans and animals, the
others will only make you wish you were dead.
The bacteria Campylobacter jejuni and Escherichia
primarily cause a relative mild case of diarrhea, while
Salmonella, shigetla and Vibrio cholerae can lead to
death.
[E. coli 0157:H7 was not a concern at that time and Necrotising (flesh
eating bacteria was just making their appearance felt]
The nine listed viruses are a little misleading,
1) Entroviruses or Picornaviruses actually includes 152
species and includes three of the listed viruses, many
will cause pneumonia [including Necrotising pneumeonia], 2)
Poliovirus (3 species) causes
inflammation of the grey matter of the spinal cord, 3)
Coxsackievirus A (23 species), B (6 species) mostly mild
but can cause inflammation of heart in newborns, 4)
Echovirus (31 species) primarily causes inflammation of
the heart, spinal cord & brain, 5) Hepatitis A virus,
can cause death , 6) Norwalk viruses, 7) Norwalk like
viruses, mostly diseases of the gastrointestinal tract,
8) Reovirus, unknown, 9) Rotavirus, acute
gastroenteritis.
The five Helminths actually produce different
worms such as hookworms, tapeworms and nematode worms.
In humans, the nematode worms may end up in the brain,
retina vessels, liver, lung and heart. The larve cause
hemorrhage, inflammation, necrosis in these tissues.
This causes myocarditis, endophthalmitis, epilepsy or
encephalitis.
The five Protozoans; 1) Toxoplasma gondii,
causes pneumonitis, hepatitis and encephalitis, 2)
Balantidium, is mild, 3) Entamoeba histolyca, forms
liver abscess, 4) Giardia lambia, is the cause of severe
intestinal problems, 5) Cryptosporidium, causes
explosive diarrhea and cramps [and death], it was first described in
humans in 1976 [and infected 400,000 Miluwakee residents in 1993].
The one fungi considered is Aspergillus, it causes
inflamed tissues in bronchi, lungs, aural canal, skin
and membranes of the eye, nose or urethra. It may also
produce mycotic [fungal] nodules in the lungs, liver, kidney and
other organs (FR 54-P.5829 & Tabor's Cylopedic Medical
Dictionary).
The NRC Committee did note that the 30 day waiting
period between sludge application and grazing cattle on
the site may not be long enough. There is a possibility
of transmission of animal tape worms to the grazing
cattle. (p. 147)
The NRC Report notes a 1991 study which indicates
that the beef and pork tapeworms ova are of primary
concern to humans as the ova have remained viable for 5
to six months and they were non-viable for another 2 to
4 months in soil. (p. 124)
In the past, the EPA's main concern with toxic
metals has been Cadmium, a poison which can be taken up
by plants grown on sludge amended soils. Particularly,
tobacco which can have up to 10 times the soil level of
Cadmium in the leaves. Inhaling cadmium dust and fumes
is very hazardous and will produce pulmonary edema. It
can cause death or delayed death from acute renal
failure. Acute renal failure simply means the kidneys
fail to function. Bacterial toxins can also cause renal
failure. Cadmium also concentrates in the liver and
kidney of animals. This could be a major concern for
people who eat liver.
Furthermore, the NRC "Study" assures the public
that Coxsackie Viruses and Echoviruses in sludge only
cause "flu-like" symptoms. However, according to
Tabor's Cylopedic Medical Dictionary, the (sixty species
`EPA') of the two viruses can also cause inflammation of
the heart, spinal cord and brain. From a public
perception point of view, it would seem that the health
aspects are a little more serious than "flu-like
symptoms.
Moreover, the study did not address the EPA's
removing the term toxic pollutant from the regulation,
because, according to the EPA, Congress intended the EPA
to address a broader range of substances than the 126
priority toxic pollutants known to be in sludge. (FR.
58, p. 9327) If Congress intended for the EPA to
address a broader range of substances than the 126
dangerous priority pollutants, why hasn't the EPA
complied with the intent of Congress?
If the EPA was interested in human health, and not
just in promoting toxic sludge disposal, why did it fail
to regulate the 126 priority toxicity pollutants and
only regulated 10 of the 25 hazardous substances on the
Superfund list? And, in the process blamed Congress for
the EPA's problem of inaction.
Furthermore, the NRC review did not address the 21
known carcinogenic (cancer causing agents) in sludge
listed in the original proposed part 503. Five of these
agents are listed by the EPA as carcinogenic when
inhaled. (FR. 54, p. 5777)
In effect, we could expect to find at least five
different types of cancer occurring close to a
beneficial sludge dump site from dust blown off the
site. This type of situation appears to have occurred at
a Kansas City, Missouri beneficial sludge use site.
However, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
claims that a cluster of cancer cases can be explained
statistically. Plus, since there were different types
of cancer -- it couldn't be caused by sludge.
Nor did the study note that all of the regulated
hazardous substances (pollutants) listed in part 503 for
safe use on crops are listed by the National Institute
for Occupational Health (NIOSH) as a poison by
inhalation, ingestion or other routes. NIOSH also has
data which not only indicates the regulated hazardous
substances in sludge are poisonous, but that they will
cause mutagenic effects.
Yet, the EPA "assumes" the following hazardous
substances and their compounds are safe at the ceiling
level in sludge, when used as a fertilizer and the NRC
Committee appears to agree. In any other case, the
pollutants are poisons and seven of the regulated
pollutants in sludge will cause mutagenic effects:
Arsenic (NIOSH CC 4025000) by inhalation or
ingestion-carcinogen-mutagenic
data.
Cadmium (NIOSH EU 9800000) by inhalation
and other routes-carcinogen-
mutagenic data.
Chromium (NIOSH GB 4200005) by inhalation
and other routes-carcinogen-
mutagenic data.
Copper (NIOSH GL 5325000) by ingestion and
other routes-carcinogen-mutagenic
data.
Lead (NIOSH OF 7525000) by ingestion and
other routes-carcinogen-mutagenic
data.
Mercury (NIOSH OV 4550000) by inhalation
and other routes-carcinogen-
mutagenic data.
Molybdenum (NIOSH QA 4680000) by inhalation,
ingestion and other routes.
Nickel (NIOSH QR 5950000) by inhalations,
ingestion and other routes-
carcinogen- Mutagenic data.
Selenium (NIOSH US 7700000) by inhalation
and other unknown routes-
carcinogen-(causes blind staggers
in cattle)
Zinc (NIOSH ZG 8600000) by ingestion and
other routes-carcinogen.
The NRC report did find one potential problem area
with feed corn grown on sludge amended soil for swine.
"Hansen et al., (1976)" ...."did observe elevated levels
of hepatic [liver] mircosomal mixed function oxigase (MFO)
activity. This increased MFO activity may have been
caused by toxic organics and inorganic trace elements in
sludge, and the authors concluded that further study
should be performed before such grain can be recommended
as the major dietary component for animals over long
periods." (pp. 113) Yet, according to the report, "Few
adverse health effects have been found in studies where
treated sludge and treated effluent were fed directly to
animals." (p. 113)
While overall, the report indicates that plants and
animals will not be harmed by the use of sludge, it did
note a study in which it was observed that commercial
fertilizer application did result in increased plant
tissue levels of some metals and other studies where,
cadmium and other metals do accumulate in the liver and
kidneys of animals. What happens when people eat the
liver of the contaminated animals?
Moreover, the report notes, "Nonspecific
toxicological testing of whole reclaimed water (clean
effluent) using the Ames Salmonella Microsome Mutagen
Assay and Mammalian Cell Transformation Assay have been
used to indicate the potential of mutagenic [cause a cell to mutate],
cytotoxic [toxic effect on cells],
and carcinogenic effects on bacterial and mammalian [human]
cells (Nellor et al., 1984) However, "Clevinger et al.,
(1983) performed bioassays on five sludges using the
Ames test and found that none had significant mutagenic
effects." (p. 111-12)
According to these scientists, the toxic pollutants
in sludge have no adverse or mutagenic effects, yet,
adverse and mutagenic effects could be found in clean
effluent from the treatment plant, which is normally
returned to the rivers and lakes, or reclaimed for irrigation
and aquifer [drinking water].recharge
However, different findings using the same test
were explained by J. G. Babish (Cornell) in the Criteria
and Recommendations for Land Applications of Sludges in
the Northeast (Pennsylvania State University, 1985).
When he stated, "any analytical technique employed to
examine the contents of sludge will suffer from a bias--
it can only find what it is set up to detect. This
analytical procedure involves some pre-existing
knowledge of possible contaminates." (p. 55)
Furthermore, according to Babish, "Cornell
University studies (1981) on ambient exposure to
carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds included
evaluations of sewage sludge from 34 American cities---
--only one sample, Dallas Central failed to demonstrate
a dose-related increase in revertants in any of the five
tester strains with or without metabolic activation (S-
9). The other thirty-three sludge samples exhibited a
positive mutagenic response with at least one strain;
twelve of the thirty-three samples were positive with
two or more strains. Seventy-six percent (25/33) of the
positive samples required metabolic activation to
demonstrate mutagenicity,..." (pp.56-57)
Extracts from the Dallas sludge was used as a
possible non-toxic sludge to test for toxicity in mice
versus a Boston sludge which did test positive for
mutagenic effects with metabolic activation. "Both
treated and control animals exhibited signs of
discomfort immediately after dosing...fifteen to thirty
minutes after dosing, the Boston sludge-treated animals
begin to show sign of effects on the central nervous
system. Orientation was effected to some degree in all
groups as animals rotated repeatedly in both clockwise
and counter-clockwise directions; one animal (dosed at
32.9 mg/kg) turned over continuously for a period of
four to six minutes. Additionally, motor coordination
and gait were adversely affected by the Boston sludge
extract in nearly all the animals."
"Mean time-to-death for Boston sludge extract
ranged from 4.5 to 1.8 days, decreasing with increasing
dose. The same decrease in mean time-to-death with
increasing dose was observed for Dallas sludge extract,
although the range of 3 to 1 day was somewhat
shorter....High-dose groups for both Boston and Dallas
sludge extracts did not consume any food before dying."
(p.60) "Although, the Boston sludge was more toxic, as
demonstrated by LD 50, approximately one-half the Dallas
sludge, both of these sludge extracts would be
considered extremely toxic." (p.60)
However, the most disturbing part of the study was
that, "No gross lesions were observed in any animals
which could be associated with the test materials.
Additionally, no treatment effects were seen in gross or
relative organ weights. Hepatic [liver] cytochrome P-450 levels
were not significantly different from control values."
(61) In effect, there was no documentable evidence
indicated to support the cause of death for the mice.
In effect, a doctor would have said these mice died of
natural causes.
Babish leaves us with a warning, "it is clear that
setting standards of sludge application based on
analytical measurement of one or any number of compounds
is inadequate for protection of public health. Moreover,
the absence of information concerning the organic
constituents of municipal sewage sludge must not be
equated with low risk or safety. Under conditions of
minimal data, maximal risk must be assumed in order to
protect public health." (p. 61)
The NRC report concluded sludge was safe because
there have been no reported outbreaks of infectious
diseases caused by sludge. The question is, who is going
to investigate, and how do they know what they are
investigating. An example is the current infectious
disease outbreak caused by Cyclospora on strawberries
and raspberries. The media reports indicate the
parasites can not be found on the strawberries, or the
plants, or in the fields. Yet, the NRC report documents
that Cyclospora is found on sludge amended cropland as
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), rather than
Cyclospora. (p.77)
W. C. Stiles reports in the Criteria and
Recommendations for Land application of Sludges in the
Northeast, Pennsylvania State University, 1985, study
that "Strawberries are low-growing plants, the fruit of
which are subject to contamination resulting from
surface application and splashing of sludge residues, or
splashing of soil (and contaminants as a result of
rainfall and overhead irrigation, and surface runoff
resulting from any of these conditions. Lack of data
concerning the extent and significance of organic
toxicants and/or pathogenic organisms that might
contaminate fruit in this manner prevents a
consideration of the use of sewage sludge in strawberry
production.....No sewage sludge should be applied to a
vineyard until the significance of the heavy metals and
organic toxicants has been thoroughly evaluated.
Brambles (raspberries, blackberries) and bush fruits
(currants, elderberries, gooseberries) present problems
and concerns similar to those indicated for strawberries
and grapes." (p, 34)
The NRC report states, "There is a great diversity
of pathogenic agents involved in the fecal-oral exposure
route, and an equal diversity of the dose-response
relationships. Monitoring for all these agents is
impractical; therefore, the use of indicator organisms
has been the traditional approach to estimating sanitary
quality. Coliform bacteria have been the most used in
this regard...(however, they)...may not adequately
predict the present of viruses, protozoa or helmiths.
Many enteric viruses, for example, have a greater
resistance to chemical disinfection and irriation than
do most bacterial indicators.....There are instances in
sludge processing, such as composting, in which the
coliform levels can not be satisfactorily reduced even
though there is reason to believe that the sanitary
level of the material is acceptable (EPA, 1992b;...Many
of the parasites of concern exist in the encysted stage
outside the human or animal intestinal track, and are
quite resistant to chemical and physical disinfection in
this form. Wastewater reclamation practice relies on the
treatment process to control these parasites. Parasites
ova and cysts concentrate in sewage sludge and thus are
of most concern for land application of sludge." (p. 94)
They point out the problems, but claim they can be
taken care of by pretreatment, alternate schemes, and
management of the application site. They do not address
regrowth.
"This (pathogen) reduction can be achieved by
treatment prior to land application or, as an
alternative scheme in the case of sludge and reclaimed
water of lower sanitary quality, crop restrictions and
management of the application site to restrict human and
grazing animal contact during the time required for
pathogens to decay to acceptable levels." (p. 96-97)
"When sludge is applied to land, inactivation of the
remaining pathogenic organisms and viruses continues,
biological stabilization of residual organic material
progress, and biologically-mediated and abiotic chemical
transformations occur." (p. 51)
In effect, pathogens, viruses and parasites can be
washed into the streams and lakes as well as be carried
into the water by poorly treated effluent. Yet, this is
seldom, if ever documented any more.
An example of why the NRC report could find no
reported outbreaks of infectious diseases associated
with sludge was recently given by the CDC who explained
an out break of fecal bacteria-caused diarrhea in
children who swam in a lake near Rockford, Il. and a
gastroentritis outbreak among children at a day camp in
Florida. The CDC explained that swimming in
unchlorinated water can be hazardous to health and the
Florida contamination incident probable occurred at the
nozzle of the hose which was used to fill coolers.
The question is, how much damage to human health in
isolated or scattered locations must be done before the
public health authorities get involved? An indication of
the level of damage that must be done before an
investigation is justified is the Texas Neural Tube
Defect Project (TNTDP). The EPA and CDC are now funding
a study of Neural Tube Defect births (the brain is
outside the body) along the length of the Rio Grande
River because of the high incident rate there.
While sludge or the clean water effluent may not
have anything to do with this particular problem, the
EPA and TNTDP have identified: arsenic, lead, mercury,
nitrates, nitrophenols, and polychorinated biphenyls as
a major concern of the study. All the pollutants are in
sludge, and according to the NRC report, will not cause
any major damages, except for those 5 to 10 percent of
the sludges used as a fertilizer that would exceed the
EPA's risk based exposure assessment level for four
organic pollutants, "PCBs, benzo(a)pyrene,
hexachlorobenzene and N-Nitrosodimethylamine".
In fact, "for N-Nitrosodimethylamine the APLR
calculations using the 50th percentile concentration is
above the exposure assessment APLR. This pollutant was
eliminated because it was detected in less than 5
percent of the samples." (p.136) That translates into
roughly 800 to a 1,000 treatment plants and their sludge
dumps sites where the public is at risk.
Not only that, but TNTDP intends to evaluate the
possible connection between agricultural chemicals used
and industrial contaminates emitted within a given
radius of the residential locations.
The question is, why didn't the NRC scientist note
that these same chemicals, plus many more, could be a
major concern for farm families within a given radius of
a sludge dump?
Furthermore, the NRC Committee apparently had ignored
the EPA's research in the preamble to part 503 when it
made the statement; "Based upon pathogen reduction
criteria, the Rule divides sludge into two categories,
Class A (safe for direct contact) and Class B (land and
crop restrictions apply). Class A sewage sludge can be
used in an unrestricted manner." (p. 122)
But, can all class A sludge be used in an
unrestricted manner? According to the preamble to the
final part 503, there is a problem, "The vector
attraction reduction requirement concerning
incorporation of sewage sludge into the soil also
requires that sewage sludge that is Class A with respect
to pathogens be applied to or placed on the land within
eight hours after being discharged from the pathogen
treatment process. After that, the sewage sludge must be
incorporated into the soil within six hours after being
applied (beneficial use) or placed (disposed of) on the
land. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that
regrowth of Salmonelle sp. bacteria do not occur between
the time the sewage sludge is discharged from the
pathogen process and the time the sewage sludge is
applied or placed on the land." (FR. 58, p. 9353, 9401,
part 503.33(9)(iii)(10)(i)(ii) [This was removed from the regulation]
Yet, according to the EPA's restrictions for Class
B sludge, that doesn't happen for the more dangerous
material: (ii) Food crops with harvested parts below the
surface of the land shall not be harvested for 20 months
after application of sewage sludge when the sewage
sludge remains on the land surface for four months or
longer prior to incorporation into the soil. Yet, low
public traffic and animals are only restricted from the
site for 30 days after the sludge is applied [and that section
has been added for food crops]. And,
crops with parts that do not touch the ground can be
harvested after 30 days. However, when the same sludge
is used on a turf farm, the turf can not be harvested
for one year. (503.32(5)) There appears to be a major
problem here, when you can eat the food crop after 30
days, but you can not walk on the grass for one year?
Another example of the risk management choices the
EPA made is for lead. According to the preamble to the
regulation, "The IUBK Model resulted in an allowed risk
level of lead in sludge, where children might ingest it,
of 500 ppm. The EPA thought it would be safer for
children to set the allowed limit of lead in sludge at
300 ppm. This was based on the Peer Review findings that
the body burden of lead in cattle did not change until
the lead in sewage sludge exceeded 300 ppm and it was
consistent with the sludge quality of all but a few
public owned treatment works." (FR. 58, p.9286)
However, even though the EPA stated the Peer Group
research in the preamble to the final Part 503
regulation, it raised the allowed lead limits in sludge
to 840 ppm. (Part 503.13-Table 1 - FR. 58, p. 9392)
Since the pollutants in sludge are known by the EPA
to cause death and since the EPA promotes the
unregulated use of sludge, wouldn't a death caused by
sludge dumping on farmland be a criminal act of
homicide?
Prev Next
Review of National Academy of Science's (NAS) 1996 literary review report by
its National Research Council (NRC) Committee :
"Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production"
Back