Chapter Two
PUBLIC PERCEPTION PROBLEMS
While the NRC Report appears to be a well written
literature review of selected scientific studies, with
the appropriate scientific disclaimers and qualifying
statements for problems the Committee found, co-author
Michael Baram, a professor of public health law at the
Boston University School of Public Health, one of the 14
authors of the report, disagrees with the reports
conclusion, not for the misstatements of facts on the
federal regulations or law, but for the infectious
disease aspects.
Baram's statement of public dissent is quoted by
Joel Bleifuss in the June 10, 1996 edition of IN THESE
TIMES: "Having served on the NAS [the National Academy
of Sciences, which in turn operates the National
Research Council], which authored the report, I would
not want EPA-approved sludge applied to land in my
community nor to land within the watershed of my water
supply system. Nor would I want to purchase or consume
sludge-grown foods or foods containing sludge-grown
ingredients. ... [Sludge] poses risks to the health of
persons who would be exposed to it. ...The EPA
regulation which permits farmland application of treated
sludge (Part 503) does not prevent these risks."
Baram also puts the NRC Report in perspective.
"You can just look to see who's paying for all this, and
you get a pretty good idea of the vested interest
involved." Furthermore, according to Baram, "It's a main
weakness of the report that it did not probe
sufficiently into the infectious disease aspects... We
spent most of our time just determining if the EPA used
risk-analysis that met professional standards."
Not only that, "But the trouble is," according to
Baram, "that there were many (different topics of
concern) they didn't include in the risk-analysis. They
only picked a subset of things to study and they didn't
do risk-analysis of infectious disease organisms," he
says. (Baram is quoted from a Boulder Weekly article,
As the Topsoil Turns, by Greg Campbell, May 2, 1996.
Baram's statement of public dissent was also quoted in
the article)
There are a number of other major problems with the
Committee's literary review, (1) it did not determine if
the EPA actually used the risk-analysis in the final
regulation, [it didn't,] (2) it did not evaluate the one
health study done to prove that sludge was safe for use
on crops, it quoted from a third party abstract, rather
than the original study, (3) it failed to evaluate the
EPA's own research on sludge safety in relationship to
the regulation, given in the preamble to the regulation,
(4) it assured the public sludge used on crops was safe,
yet, the same sludge can not be disposed of in a part
503 disposal site because it may damage the environment,
(5) it assured the public that federal regulations
protected the quality of food grown on the sludge
amended land and public health, yet, the NRC did not
study the fate of crops grown with sludge, and (6) it
assured the public that the part 503 regulation
(guideline) was the law, and as long as the regulation
was followed, there could be no problems, yet the
Committee were aware sludge dumping on farms for crop
production was excluded from the protective provisions
of federal environmental law.
As scientists, the NRC Committee were also aware
that initially (1979), the EPA only restricted the use
of sludge based on PCB and Cadmium contamination. The
EPA's restrictions were based on limited scientific
pollutant studies of the time period. Yet, since that
time, the EPA has developed a list of 126 priority
pollutants that are known to cause health problems,
malformation of fetuses and death. Furthermore, the EPA
has gathered documented scientific evidence of at least
25 primary pathogens groups (families of disease causing
organisms) and 21 carcinogenic (cancer causing) agents
in sludge. Moreover, the EPA estimates there are
500,000 reportable (controlled) industrial chemicals,
which could enter the treatment plants, thereby creating
other chemical compounds of unknown toxicity. Not only
that, but the chlorine disinfection process used by some
treatment plants may convert some of the 500,000
chemicals into other unknown highly toxic carcinogenic
compounds.
An example of the potential danger of compound
conversions was noted by (Babish, et al, 1981, Cornell
Special Report (SR) No. 42), "Trimethylamine in sewage
is converted to the potential carcinogen
dimethylinitrosamine. Dimethylinitrosamine formed in
soil to which dimethylamine and nitrite were added, but
only when organic matter was present.
Dimethylinitrosamine and diethylinitrosamine continue to
volatilize from soils for several weeks following
incorporation. The half-life of these compounds in soil
is about 3 weeks....The demonstrated carcinogen,
dimethylinitrosamine, which can form in sludge, has also
been shown to be absorbed by spinach and lettuce." (SR.
p.2-3)
The NRC Report included a warning that chlorine
could convert nontoxic coumpounds into toxic elements
from the NRC's own 1980 study.
"In addition, nontoxic organic compounds in
wastewater can be transformed into potentially toxic
chlorinated organic compounds, such as trihalomethane,
when chlorine is used for disinfection purposes
(National Research Council, 1980)." (p. 100)
However, the warning was not as clear as that
reported for Rock's 1976 study.
" Rock (1976) discovered that chlorine used in
disinfection reacts with natural occurring humic
substances in water to form trihalomathanes (THMs), the
most prevalent species among them are chlorform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochlorimethane, and
bromoform." (p. 106)
Lisk (L)(1988, unpublished paper), put the organic
problem in perspective, "One can argue that organics in
sludge are no more harmful than pesticides which are
applied to crops. However, pesticides are molecules of
known identity and up to seven years of intensive
research, costing up to $15 million has been spent on
each, exhaustively studying their fate in plants, soils,
animals and aquatic species including metabolism,
toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, birth defects,
etc. By contrast, sludge is a complex mixture of
countless synthetic and natural compounds of mostly
unknown structure, properties, toxicity, or fate and
effects in the environment, including man.....The legal
aspect is also of paramount importance. Let us assume
that a farmers wife has a deformed infant after the
farmer has used sludge on his land. There may be no
connection whatsoever. However, with the judicial
process today for citizens bringing all kinds of damage
suits to court, who is going to disprove the plaintiffs
claims? Are the proponents of sludge use on land willing
to sign on the dotted line as to their willingness to be
held responsible for possible hazards whether real or
fabricated which may result in litigation? More likely,
they will be unavailable for comment." (L. p. 1-3)
NAS Committee member Baram wasn't willing to sign
on the dotted line. As noted, he has already issued a
public statement disagreeing with the report's
conclusion.
It would appear the Committee initially went along
with the EPA's public relations disinformation campaign
strategy that the public and legal community can be
fooled by a limited literary review on the public
perception of food crop safety, when it is presented as
a scientific study. Moreover, it is clear from the
final recommendation in the NRC study that this is a
public relations disinformation campaign to defuse the
toxic time bomb the `Compliance and Enforcement
Division' was giving them to explain away when it
states; "Part 503... merely augument...existing...
programs and controls...that have responsibly mitigated
risks from these practices in the past...These
regulations (EPA, FDA, USDA) and their overlapping
authority are complex and need to be adequately
explained to both the regulatory community and
interested public to avoid confusion and the perception
that beneficial use is a disguise for the dumping of
waste." (p.172) If the regulatory community doesn't
understand the regulations, how could the NRC report
assure the public that crops grown with sludge is safe?
The NRC statement is very misleading and yet at the
same time explains the rationale for the NRC report,
"the perception that beneficial use is a disguise for
the dumping of waste". There is a very good reason for
the perception that beneficial use is a disguise for the
dumping of solid waste. The EPA acknowledges that if a
sludge dumper does not claim the right to use sludge as
a fertilizer, it must be placed in a highly regulated
legal landfill. According to the EPA in the preamble to
the regulation 40 CFR 257 et al. (part 503), "When the
sewage sludge is not used to condition the soil or to
fertilize crops or vegetation on land, the sewage sludge
is not being land applied. It is being disposed of on
land. In that case (it's illegal), and the requirements
in the subpart on surface disposal in the final part 503
regulation must be met." (Federal Register (FR.) 58, p.
9330)
Basically, the EPA reinforced the "perception" that
beneficial use is a disguise for dumping when it stated
that if sludge can't be used as a fertilizer - the
sludge must be put in a legal part 503 landfill -
however, the sludge allowed for beneficial use is too
contaminated to be placed in a legal part 503 landfill!
Furthermore, according to the EPA, "EPA does not
believe that procedures yet exist for making `most
likely' or `best' estimates of risk." (Proposed 503-FR.
54, p. 9273) This statement was made before the higher
levels of toxic pollutants were allowed in the final
sludge regulation.
If the EPA does not believe the procedures yet
exist to make a best estimate of risk, how could the NRC
Committee conclude sludge use was safe from a limited
computer data base of studies?
The last paragraph in the NRC report indicates the
nature of the problem with the Regulation and sludge
disposal: "The suite of existing federal regulations,
available avenues for additional state and local
regulatory actions, and private sector forces appear
adequate to allow, with time and education, the
development of safe beneficial reuse of reclaimed
wastewater and sludge." (p. 172)
The NRC Committee claimed sludge use on crops was
safe, but it now states that only with additional state
and local regulatory actions, private sector forces,
time and education, safe beneficial sludge use can be
developed. It can't be both ways, either the program is
safe or it's not.
Furthermore, the NRC report was based on reviewing
the EPA's methods and procedures used in the EPA risk
assessment research, which stated safe sludge use was
not proven, "The Agency has concluded that the standards
adopted today are adequately protective based on its
assessment of the available data. However, to verify
its conclusion about the adequacy of today's standards,
the Agency is committing to develop a comprehensive
environmental evaluation and monitoring study." (FR. 58,
p. 8275)
The Agency may have concluded the standards were
adequate, but the Peer Review Committee didn't and these
were also scientists. According to the Peer Review,
there were serious problems with the Technical Support
Document: "1) The EPA documents (Proposed Rule and
Technical Support Document) suffered from serious
scientific deficiencies...b. Data was misinterpreted and
misuse was common in the TSD...2) The risk assessment
components of the EPA Proposed Rule need considerable
improvement, 3) Computer models of risk assessment from
sludge-applied pollutants are inadequate.
Conceptualization is poor, and validation with field
results were missing...5) Additional sludge constituents
need consideration in the proposed rules. Sludge F
(Florine) and Fe (iron) can cause toxicity to livestock
and wildlife by direct ingestion of some sludges...We
did not regard it as our responsibility nor did time
permit us to correct ever error in the proposed rule or
in the TSD." (pp. 27-8)
Did the NRC Committee review the complete Peer
Group report? Or the results? Apparently not.
After the Peer Group report, the final part 503 was
changed, for the worse. The EPA threw the "scientific"
risk assessment models out the window and continued with
its beneficial sludge dumping policy, although it had
even warned people that sludge use might not be safe.
The EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the regulation
that, "... other factors may bias results in the
opposite direction. In addition, some assumptions are
based on longstanding Agency policy and reflect risk
management choices. Again, some of these assumptions are
conservative, while others are less conservative. The
sections that follow examine the uncertainties in
several important aspects of the risk assessment: human
health, human exposure pathway, plant toxicity and
uptake, effects on wildlife, and ground water impacts."
(FR. 58, p. 9273)
In effect, when the sludge regulation was
published, February of 1993, the EPA still didn't know
how safe sludge use would be on farms for human health,
plants, wildlife or what it would do to ground water.
The EPA was not sure whether 501 people would be harmed
or die, or 5,001 people, so, it made a risk management
choice!
Yet, the NRC report concluded human health was
protected and sludge was safe for crop use based on the
regulation requirements AND ONE APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
used in the risk assessment study.
Moreover, the NRC report failed to note the
limitation of the risk assessment, according to the EPA;
"One important limitation of the assessment through food
is the projected effects are estimated only for sewage
sludge applied in a single year. Multi-year
applications were not evaluated, thus, the effects would
be underestimated for pollutants that remain in the soil
for long periods of time without decomposing, especially
the heavy metals." (FR. 54, p. 5781)
It appears that both the EPA and the NRC Committee
based their primary conclusion, that sludge is safe for
use on crops, on the EPA's computer exposure model which
assumes the harvested and food products are being spread
out to the total population and the average individual
exposure within the total population would be minimal.
(FR. 54, p. 5779) Not only that, but the primary focus
of the NRC report was on the transmission of infectious
diseases and not health damage caused by poisonous heavy
metals or toxic organics.
Since the EPA acknowledges that sludge use may not
be safe for use on crops and claims that sludge use on
crop land is excluded from the protective provisions of
the federal environmental laws, why would the NRC Review
Committee try to change the reality of public
perception, by assuring the public it is fully protected
by a number of overlapping federal regulations
(guidelines), when, it acknowledges there are only three
options available for protecting public health from
"inappropriate behavior" by the treatment plant
operators and sludge dumpers. "These include: (1)
common law liability, (2) market forces, and (3)
voluntary self-regulation." (p. 162)
Furthermore why didn't the NRC report acknowledge
the EPA literary review which discredits the NRC Report?
According to the preamble to the regulation, "In the
process of developing these regulations. EPA reviewed
the available scientific and technical literature for
information on sewage sludge. That search did not turn
up any evidence that the use of sewage sludge is causing
any significant or widespread adverse effects. While
anecdotal, the evidence tends to confirm what EPA's
(computer) risk assessment review showed more
scientifically." (FR. 58, p. 9249)
In effect, the EPA used anecdotal (hearsay)
evidence to confirm its computer models or was it the
reverse, and it used computer models to confirm the
hearsay evidence? It wasn't really a matter of whether
sludge is safe to use on crops, but whether there was
enough data to create the public perception that sludge
used on crops is safe, as the EPA, FDA, and USDA, has
claimed since 1981, and EPA has promoted since 1984 with
its Beneficial Sludge Use Policy.
Furthermore, why would the EPA Compliance and
Enforcement Division request a private NAS scientific
study on public health perception issues concerning the
use of sludge in crop production after "40 years of
intensive study", 14 years of compliance and enforcement
experience -scientific and technology research - and
after the final scientific sludge regulation was
released? What could the NAS report possible do for the
EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Division, that the
EPA's own Science and Technology Division didn't do?
The NAS Committee explains: "It is hoped that this
report will be particularly useful to food processors,
states, and municipalities in assessing the use of
treated municipal wastewater and sludge in producing
crops for human consumption." (p. viii)
While the NRC report "hopes" the report will be
useful to food processor and the dumpers, it assures the
public and the courts that sludge is safe to use on
crops Yet, the report did not explain how the sludge was
safe to use on crops, when it couldn't be placed in a
highly regulated part 503 landfill or the crops were not
tested for toxic effects.
Actually, as already noted, the EPA's own research
contradicts the findings and conclusions of the NRC
report. Before we look at the six areas the NRC "sought
to review" lets look at an example of sludge when it was
first used as a "commercial" fertilizer.
According to Collongs in his book, Commercial
Fertilizers, (1955). "It would be expected that the
`rare earths' (hazardous pollutants) would remain in the
soil more tenaciously than the common elements,--."
Collings (1955) noted that the rare earth elements,
"Aluminum, Arsenic, barium, chromium, flourine, lead,
molybdenum, selenium, and thallium have been shown to be
toxic to plants or animals at relatively low
concentrations." (p. 163)
Furthermore, Collins noted that, "Rehling and Truog
(1939) found that milorganite (Milwaukee's commercial
sludge fertilizer) contained many of the rarer
elements (Hazardous pollutants)."
According to Collings, while sewage sludge has been
used as a mixture in commercial fertilizer since 1927,
the milorganite sludge was, "freed from grit and course
solids and aerated after being inoculated with
microorganisms. The resulting flocculated organic matter
is filtered, dried in rotary kilns, and then ground and
screened." (p. 130, Commercial Fertilizer, Fifth
Edition, 1955, Mcgraw Hill)
The NRC Committee appears to have based their
opinion that sludge is safe for use on crops on the same
type of processed sludge, which would have an extremely
reduced pathogen level. However, the treatment process
would not effect the toxic and carcinogenic heavy metal
levels in the sludge.
Furthermore, according to recent media reports,
milorganite is banned in Maryland, yet, it is a far cry
from EPA's current part 503 "Commercial Fertilizer"
which may contain 98 percent liquid, disease causing
agents (25 acknowledge pathogen groups) and 21
acknowledged cancer causing agents, and over 126
priority pollutants (extremely hazardous substances).
The EPA refers to all substances that can cause health
problems, deformation of fetuses, or death as
pollutants.
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