SLUDGE POLLUTANTS
Hazardous substances -- Hazardous Constituents -- Toxic Pollutant
Priority Pollutants
Can there really be only nine?
40 CFR 503.9 (t) 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 either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through the
food chain, could, on the basis of information available to the Administrator of EPA,
cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction), or physical
deformations in either organisms or offspring of the organisms.
EPA has claimed that sewage sludge is not a hazardous waste. The primary reason is that
EPA considers sludge to be fertilizer excluded from Environmental laws under the commercial
fertilizer exclusion in the CERCLA.. EPA has spent millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to
convince farmers that sludge disposal on famland should be considered a "Normal
Application of Fertilizer" under the Environmental Laws.
The secondary reason is that once sludge is dumped on farmland it becomes a nonpoint
source of pollution. EPA considers that contamination running off a farmland sludge disposal
site is excluded from regulation under the statutory exclusion for Agricultural nonpoint source
runoff.
EPA has never adequately explained how it could transfer sludge from a point source of
pollution to a nonpoint source under the law.
What EPA has said is that sludge fertilizer is authorized under a domestic sewage exclusion
in the RCRA. Yet it acknowledges in the regulation, "Domestic sewage is waste and waste
water from humans or household operations that is discharged to or otherwise enters a
treatment works." (40 CFR 503.9) Furthermore, it claims, "This is a key definition, because
the standards in the part 503 regulation apply to sewage sludge generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. When domestic sewage is in the influent
to a treatment works, even if the influent also contains industrial wastewater, sewage sludge
is generated during the treatment of the domestic sewage." (FR. 58, p. 9326 - 40 CFR 257 et
al.)
EPA gave cities two choices: 1) sludge could be disposed of in a highly regulated part 258
sanitary landfill; or, 2) sludge could be dumped on unregulated farmland as a fertilizer.
EPA made the choice simply when it stated, "When the sewage sludge is not used to
condition the soil or to fertilize crops or vegetation grown on land, the sewage sludge is not
being land applied. It is being disposed on the land. In that case, the requirements in the
subpart on surface disposal in the final part 503 regulation must be met." (FR. 58, p. 9330 -
40 CFR 257 et al.1)
It didn't take a genius to figure out that some of the sludge fertilizer couldn't even be placed
in a permitted surface disposal site because of the high level of hazardous metals.
Especially, before EPA removed chromium from the part 503.
In 1989 proposed sludge regulation, EPA identified twenty-one carcinogens (cancer
causing agents) known to be in sludge. Five of these are carcinogenic when inhaled,
Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium IV and Nickel (FR 54, p. 5777).
This information was removed from the final 1993 part 503 sludge policy regulation.
EPA and its partners engineered a federal court action to remove Chromium from the Part
503. The court would not do that. However, EPA claimed the court ordered it to remove
Chromium from the Part 503. (1)
Hazardous
Toxic
substance
pollutant
constituent
|
Hazardous
inorganic and
organic
constituents
level part 258
Total
ug/1000g
|
Hazardous
level in
mismanaged
landfill
TCLP Test -
20% of Total
metals Test
mg/1000g
|
Pat 503.13
Hazardous
level allowed
in sludge
fertilizer
Total
mg/1000g
|
Part 503.13
Table 3
Hazardous
level allowed
In Class A
Biosolid
Total
mg/1000g
|
Part 503.23
Table 2
level allowed
0-25 meters
of surface
disposal
boundary
mg/1000g
|
Part 503.23
Table 1
level allowed
in Surface
Disposal site
Total
mg/1000g
|
Arsenic
|
500
|
5.0
|
75
|
41
|
30
|
73
|
cadmium
|
40
|
1.0
|
85
|
39
|
|
|
Chromium
|
70
|
5.0
|
3,000 (1)
|
|
200
|
600
|
Copper
|
60
|
|
4300
|
1500
|
|
|
Lead
|
400
|
5.0
|
840
|
300
|
|
|
Mercury
|
2
|
0.2
|
57
|
17
|
|
|
Molybdenum
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
Nickel
|
150
|
|
420
|
420
|
210
|
420
|
Selenium
|
750
|
1.0
|
100
|
100
|
|
|
Zinc
|
20
|
|
7500
|
2800
|
|
|
|
Arizona sludge/biosolids
Table 1. Ceiling Concentrations
http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/brules.pdf
Pollutant
|
Regulated hazardous
waste level
milligrams per Liter
mg/1000g
|
Ceiling concentrations
allowed in sludge
(milligrams per kilogram) (1)
mg/1000g
|
Potential
hazardous
waste level
mg/1000g
|
Arsenic
|
5.0
|
75.0
|
3.75
|
Cadmium
|
1.0
|
85.0
|
4.25
|
Chromium
|
5.0
|
3000.0
|
150.0
|
Copper
|
|
4300.0
|
|
Lead
|
5.0
|
840.0
|
42.0
|
Mercury
|
0.2
|
57.0
|
2.85
|
Molybdenum
|
|
75.0
|
|
Nickel
|
|
420.0
|
|
Selenium
|
1.0
|
100.0
|
|
Zinc
|
|
7500.0
|
|
|
The only legal methods to determine if a sludge is hazardous is either the old Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Test (EP Toxicity) or the new standard Toxicity Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
Part 503 uses the Total metals test which has no legal standing in determining the
hazardous nature of a substance or enforcing the hazardous waste rules. As an example,
EPA's part 503 allows lead at a concentration of 300 ppm. Dividing that by 20 give us a
total of 15ppm which, according to EPA and Corps of Engineers, indicates the lead is
expected to be well above the hazardous waste level of 5ppm.
Total Constituent Analysis instead of TCLP Analysis Question:
Is it acceptable to perform a total constituent analysis instead of a TCLP analysis and
then divide the total concentration by 20 to determine if a waste is non-hazardous, as is
implied in Section 1.2 of Method 1311, TCLP?
Answer: Section 1.2 of the TCLP does allow for a total constituent analysis in lieu of the
TCLP extraction. If a waste is 100% solid, as defined by the TCLP method, then the
results of the total constituent analysis may be divided by twenty to convert the total
results into the maximum leachable concentration. This factor is derived from the 20:1
liquid-to-solid ratio employed in the TCLP. If a waste has filterable liquid, then the
concentration of the analyte in each phase (liquid and solid) must be determined. The
following equation may be used to calculate this value:
http://www.epa.gov/SW-846/faqs_tclp.htm
An example can be found at;
http://www.esgenv.com/chem/tclp.html
An explanation can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/tclp.pdf
The following is adapted from the National Sludge Fact Sheet #107 "The Sludge Gets
Deeper" dated March 10, 1997. http://www.penweb.org/issues/sludge/107.htm.
When 40 CFR 503 was published in February 1993, sewage sludge containing chromium at
3,000 ppm (1) could be used on lawns, gardens and crop production land, but it could not be
disposed of in a part 503 landfill, which prohibited Chromium levels above 600 ppm. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a revised list, in the October 25, 1995
Federal Register (FR), of regulated pollutants for beneficial sludge fertilizer/ biosolids,
which deleted Chromium. (FR. 60, p. 54769--1995 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). 40 CFR 503.13 and 503.23 Tables)
In reality, the EPA arbitrarily removed chromium from the regulation based on an Federal
Appeals court ruling that the "Exceptional Quality" sludge pollutant levels in Table 3 of
503.13(b) were not risk based as it applied to Milwaukee's "Milorganite" heat-dried sludge
fertilizer. (Leather Industries of America, Inc. v. EPA. Nos. 93-1187, 93-1376, 93-1404, and
93-1555 - 40 Federal Reporter, 3d Series p. 392
The Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) joined with Milwaukee and the
Leather Industries of America in the Appeals suit. In 1992, Milwaukee complained to the
EPA about the limits on chromium which prohibited the sludge from being disposed in a part
503 landfill. "The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District is concerned about EPA's limit on
molybdenum and chromium. Milwaukee's wastewater contains chromic acid from the
numerous leather tanners in the Milwaukee area. A limit of 1,200 mg/kg on chromium will
necessitate pretreatment of this wastewater if Milwaukee is to continue marketing its
Milorganite product. MMSD has sent letters to EPA expressing its concern and has had
discussions with the leather tanning industry as well. "Landfilling our sludge would be a
much more costly option," notes Tom Crawford, senior staff attorney for MMSD. Milwaukee
is considering a formal request for review." (Water Environmental Federation Washington
Bulletin -December 1992- Page 3)
According to the Court record, "The AMSA challenges the risk-based caps in Table 3. It
argues that the assumptions about the rate and duration of sludge application underlying
the risk-based concentration caps in Table 3 are irrational with respect to heat-dried
sludge, which is applied at lower rates for shorter duration, For what ever reason, the EPA
chose not to respond to this particular claim, and the AMSA has been less than totally clear
about what parts of the regulations are allegedly infected (sic) by the use of these
assumptions, We are, accordingly, somewhat handicapped in evaluating the challenge.
Nonetheless, on the record, we conclude that the EPA has not adequately justified its use
of the assumed rate and duration of application to apply the risk-based caps in Table 3 to
heat-dried sludge." (40 Federal Reporter, 3d p. 402)
It would appear the Court was aware the Appeal was engineered, but it could not define the
purpose of the suit since, "The EPA has provided no response to the AMSA's claim that the
assumed rate and duration are irrational as applied to heat-dried sludge." (40 Federal
Reporter, 3d p. 402)
The Appeals Court did not order EPA to remove chromium from the regulation. Yet, it is
clear the EPA used the Appeals Court as an excuse to remove chromium from the
regulation. In reality, it appears the AMSA argument was less than truthful to the Appeals
Court