National Sludge Alliance
Charlotte Hartman, National Coordinator
180 Boston Corners Road
Millerton, NY 12546
(518) 329-2120 (phone/fax)
email: chartmannsa@taconic.net
NSA Public Fact Sheet 104
The Law vs. EPA Science
2/1/1997
- Four years after Congress enacted major cradle to the grave legislation (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976) to protect the American public from hazardous
substances (pollutants) in the environment, Congress found the EPA was not enforcing the
law and enacted even stronger legislation in 1980 with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), to give the EPA even more power to
protect the public health and environment from “releases” of hazardous (toxic) substances into
the environment. (House Report No. 96-1016 Part 1, 1980) - Since that time, Congress has enacted even stronger laws such as the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and other related laws which identify all sludges generated from
pollution treatment plants as solid wastes which must be disposed of in sanitary landfills) in
an attempt to protect the public health and the environment. Yet, EPA and many States have
ignored the Congressional mandates in favor of the “science-based” sludge rules under the
Clean Water Act. - In fact, “The French government wants to increase land application of biosolids and is looking
to the United States for guidance, said Alan Rubin, a senior scientist with the Water
Environment Federation on loan from EPA. Rubin was in Paris last week explaining through
interpreters how EPA wrote its risk assessment. “The French love the U.S. rules,” Rubin said.
The European Union’s strict precautionary biosolids standards are not science-based, Rubin
said. EU nations are preparing for a 1998 ocean-dumping ban, while analysts have predicted
biosolids volumes in member countries may rise to 17 million tons in 2000 from 7 million in
1990.” Sludge, July 5, 1994, p. 111 – June 20, 1995, p. 101) - New York City had the same problems as France in 1989, strict federal laws, increasing
volumes of sludge, an ocean dumping ban, and the EPA’s proposed “science-based” beneficial
use and disposal sludge rule (40 CFR 503), which was destined to quickly degenerate into a
self-implementing blanket Federal permit for sludge dumping on lawns, gardens and food
crop production land. (see NSA Fact Sheet # 103 ) - The primary impact of the proposed science-based sludge rule would have fallen on New
York City, which was ocean dumping its sludge. At the time, New York City had completed a
comprehensive study “In accordance with the USEPA General Pretreatment Regulation—“.
The study found, “Surveys of municipal wastewater in the United States and all over the world
indicate the presence of toxic substances which, even in cases where treatment is provided,
eventually end up in the aquatic environment and the soil. The toxics most often reported are
heavy metals. — USEPA includes in its list of 126 priority pollutants 14 of these metals.” - According to the study, pretreatment by industry would not help New York City control the
toxic metals. “The 1970 to 1972 study of the sources of these heavy metals in New York City
waste-water concluded that even with zero discharge by industry, 94 percent of the zinc, 91
percent of the copper, 84 percent of the cadmium and 80 percent of the chromium being
discharged would continue to be discharged by sources virtually immune to treatment (Ref.
1).” - Furthermore, the study found, “For land application, the Task 4 Report used NYDEC criteria
(Table 5). It concluded that because of metals concentration, 94% of New York City Sludge is
presently unacceptable for land application. After pretreatment, either through local limits or
categorical standards, 83% to 84% of New York City Sludges would still be unacceptable for
land application. The reason for this is that non-domestic sources of pollutant loading, not
industrial sources, are primarily responsible for interfering with this sludge use.” - Not only that, but the study determined, “Although it was determined acceptable to continue
ocean dumping at the newly designated 106-mile off-shore site, most of the sludge is currently
not suited for land application according to NYSDEC Criteria.” (Yapijakis, Constantine, and
Papamichael, Fotios, (1987). Sources of Heavy Metals and Their Impacts on Wastewater
Bodies Quality–Case Study of a Metropolitan Area. (Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 19, No. 9, pp.
133-144) - While NYDEC did not change its Criteria for land application of sludge, the EPA’s
science-based sludge use rules were changed after, “Commissioner Harvey Schultz of New
York City’s Department of Environmental Protection, explained in a letter to EPA
Administrator Reilly, dated June 5, 1989, that “compliance with the pollutant standards would
be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.” According to the letter, “no disposal option covered
by the proposal would be allowed or feasible for eighty percent of the City’s sludge.” In
closing, Mr. Schultz urged Mr. Reilly; “Considering the economic and environmental
importance of these regulations, the large volume of potentially beneficial sludge affected, and
the cost and paucity of landfill space, I urge you to devote the necessary resources to revise
503 in accordance with the best available technical information.”” (Bynum, James W., 1996.
Report to National Sludge Round- table, Toxic Sludge is Safe for Your Food says National
Academy of Science. p. 144. Laredo Safety Institute. Laredo, TX.) - The best available technical information at the time indicated “The standards for the various
methods of use and disposal were thus established to protect human health and the
environment at a risk level of 1 in 10,000. The recently- released final rules set standards for
pathogen and limits 12 pollutants which have the potential for adverse effects, and explains
why limits are not needed for 61 other pollutants that were considered.” — “Tudor Davis,
Director of EPA’s Office of Science and Technology, noted that the ecological risk assessment
approaches in this rule will serve as a model for future regulatory efforts in a variety of EPA
programs.” (Water Environment Federation Bulletin p. 4 – December 1992) - However, that was not destined to happen. The risk level of 1 in 10,000 in the standard was
based on conservative pollutant concentrations in sludge which prevented New York City
sludge from being used as a fertilizer on food crops. As an example, the Peer Review
Committee recommended a lead level of 500 ppm “based on the observation that body
burdens (absorptions) of animals fed up to 10 percent of their diet as sewage sludge did not
change until the lead concentration in the sewage sludge exceeded 300 ppm. The Agency
therefore decided to select the more conservative numerical limit for the final part 503 rule to
minimize lead exposure to children and set the allowable lead concentration in sludge at 300
ppm.” (FR. 58, 9286) - The primary reason for the lower limit was, “Because childhood ingestion of dirt is so
widespread a phenomenon and the potential consequence so severe, a high order of
conservation is warranted on this point, especially in the context of regulatory decisions
authorizing the addition of a threshold pollutant like lead to the environment. In addition, a
300 ppm lead concentration in sludge is consistent with current sewage sludge quality at all
but a small number of POTWs.” (FR. 58, 9286) - EPA changed part 503 to accommodate the disposal of most of the New York City Sludge as
a beneficial sludge/biosolids fertilizer in other states, because New York State rules still
prevented it from be used in the state. Yet, EPA claimed part 503 was still a science-based
sludge rule after arbitrarily raising the lead concentration to 840 ppm for beneficial use sludge.
Not only that, but EPA has since deleted the chromium restrictions. (Part 503.13, 1996) - New York City had two major problems with the heavy metals, lead and chromium: the “Mass
weighted average of 90% confidence limits, all 12 NYC WPCPs; July 1979 to June 1981” was
“6,400 ppm” for lead, and 4,230 ppm for chromium, whereas the New York State Criteria
limited lead and chromium in beneficial use sludge to “1000 ppm”. (see, Yapijakis, 1987,
study, Table 5, P. 139) - Not only did the EPA change the science-based regulation to accommodate the disposal of
sludge as a fertilizer, it funded a massive public relations campaign before the regulation was
released. “With the publication of the new sewage sludge regulation, the Water Environment
Federation will be mounting a campaign to educate the public on beneficial uses of sludge.
The Federation has received a $300,000 cooperative grant from EPA for development of
educational materials and other programs, and work on these and other strategies now under
way.” (Water Environment Federation Washington Bulletin (WEF) p. 4 – December 1992) - The funding didn’t stop there. According to a memo from EPA’s Robert E. Lee to John
Walker and Robert Bastian, dated Oct. 17, 1994, at least part of the money used for the public
relations campaign funding was from EPA 104 funding, which actually restricted funding
to…”establish national programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.”
Yet, among other things the money was to be used for was [to debunk] “Sludge Horror
Stories”, “arid lands”, “PCBs in Biosolids” and “What about one with a watershed twist
—Ways to utilize biosolids in watersheds to mitigate other environmental problems” as well
as “maybe we should put one or some $ in for the wetlands work in watersheds also.” (Public
Facts #101) - EPA’s public relations campaign appears to be working, according to the Water Environment
Federation / EPA Biosolids Fact Sheet 1, Figure 2, New York City sludge was extremely
clean by the time it arrived at the arid lands of the 128,000 acre west Texas ranch owned by
Merco. When compared to the Texas, New York and Federal standards (p. 2), chromium was
down from the average 4,230 ppm to 93 ppm and lead was down from the average 6,400 ppm
to 193 ppm. - How did the New York City sludge become so clean? The answer can be found in the
WEF/EPA Biosolids Fact Sheet 1, “the biosolids are analyzed and tested routinely for
pollutants and disease causing organisms using Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
(TCLP) tests.” (p.5) The TCLP test actually measures the amount of a toxic substance that can
be chemically leached out of a test sample, while the regulations are based on the total
concentration of the toxic substance in the test sample. Two different types of scientific tests,
therefore, two extremely different results. - As Commissioner Schultz noted, under the proposed science-based sludge rule, 80% of New
York City sludge was too contaminated to be used as a fertilizer in New York State or
anywhere else. Yet, the Biosolids Fact Sheet 1 notes, “Merco handles 27% of New York City
biosolids. About 67% goes to the New York Organic Fertilizer Company, where they are
pelletized. Pelletized biosolids have been used on dry wheat farms in Colorado, irrigated
cotton and grain farms in Arizona, and Citrus orchards in Florida. The remaining six percent
is landfilled.” -LSI-