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 131
Farms And Public Health Destroyed — For Removal Credits
4/15/2002
In 1995, John Stauber and Shelton Rampton published Toxic Sludge Is Good
For You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. They exposed
the
EPA’s public relation campaign to change the name to biosolids and sell
sludge as a safe fertilizer. EPA and its partners went to great lengths to
discredit the book and asserted that there was nothing toxic about sludge.
However, the NPDES permit requirement, part 122.2 states: “Toxic
pollutant
means any pollutant listed as toxic under section 307(a)(1) or, in the case
of “sludge use or disposal practices,” any pollutant identified in
regulations implementing section 405(d) of the CWA.
This would appear to exclude the possibility of the part 503 sludge rules
being created to implement section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act. It doesn’t
mention anything about toxic pollutants. Nor does it include all of the toxic
pollutants listed under section 307(a)(1).
EPA’s Dr. Alan Rubin, who claims to have written part 503 says sludge is
neither toxic or hazardous. Yet, he just can not bring himself to the point
of using EPA’s proper Environmental Terms. He does admit exposure to toxic /
hazardous
“Pollutants” in sludge can cause death. In December of
1999, the EPA
Administrator was asked to clarify the definitions used in the part 503
policies. Dr. Rubin, replied: “The definition of “pollutant” in
section
503.9(t) of the 40 CFR Part 503 Biosolids Rule is taken directly from the
definitions section of the governing statute, the Clean Water Act. This
definition of “pollutant” indicates the type of impacts that these
materials (inorganics, organics, pathogens) could cause to humans and other species if
humans and other species are exposed to these materials at sufficient doses
and over a sufficient period of time. The main classes of these pathogenic
organisms are bacteria such as salmonella, viruses such as polio, protozoa
such as giardia, and helminthes such as ascaris. EPA or “The
Administrator”
has enormous amounts of information on these “pollutants” compiled
over
decades of studies and research. This information clearly indicates that if
humans and other living species are exposed to these materials at sufficient
doses and over sufficient periods of time, there is a potential for adverse
effects to be observed” (NSA FS 123).
As chief scientist, sludge salesman, and regulator for the EPA Office of
Water,
Rubin should have known better. Rubin actually refers to the Clean Water
Act
definition for a “toxic pollutant.” A
“Pollutant (Under the Clean Water
Act definitions) means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue,
filter backwash,
sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials (except those regulated under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or
discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into water.”
“Is there more to the toxic /hazardous pollutant contaminated
sludge/biosolids debate than meets the eye? It would appear that the sewage
sludge regulation has less to do with the protection of public health and the
environment, than a 1986 court decision, which found that, “EPA cannot,
in
the absence of section 405(d) regulations (part 503) authorize the issuance
of removal credits under section 307(b)(1).” This was a court decision
which
invalidated EPA’s pretreatment regulations on four aspects.”)”
(Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 790 F. 2d 289 (3rd Cir. 1986) (FR. 58, p.
9261)
“The 10 pollutants [originally] regulated by part 503 for land
application
are the same ones listed in Appendix G to Part 403 – “Regulated
Pollutants in
Part 503 Eligible for a Removal Credit.” Only three of the pollutants,
Arsenic, Chromium and Nickel, would be eligible for removal credits under the
part 503-landfill disposal subpart. (1993-FR. 58, P. 9386)” (NSA Fact
Sheet
#108)
“Chromium is one of only three toxic substances that allow removal
credits be
granted to industrial polluters when sewage sludge is placed in a part 503
landfill. Therein lies the true purpose of EPA’s Sludge Use and Disposal
Regulation. Part 503 is the court ordered authority EPA used for granting
removal credits to industrial polluters under the Pretreatment regulation 40
CFR 403. []” (NSA Fact Sheet #107)
EPA’s part 503 Sludge policy currently suggests that only (9) of the
toxic/hazardous substances released into the environment be reported.
However, EPA misused the Environmental Terms and listed them as
“Pollutants”.
The Environmental Terms also identifies the group as very dangerous:
“Heavy
Metals: [are] Metallic elements with high atomic weights; (e.g., mercury,
chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead); [which] can damage living things at
low concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food chain. ”
To get past this obstacle, in 1989, “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) (NSA Fact Sheet #104)
In effect, the regulation is based on the fact that the public is not
supposed to
be on a sludge disposal site. It is also the EPA’s position that the damage
to a farm environment and farm family is not significant and the health
effects would not be widespread. EPA and its partners could only get a
way
with this, if farmers
and the public thought sludge was a safe fertilizer product. To do this, EPA
and its partner, WEF, hired a public relations firm to spread the gospel.
They changed the name to biosolids. Then petitioned to get the word biosolids
included in Webster’s Dictionary. To top it off, these gentlemen now have
biosolids included in the latest Prentice Hall’s, Environmental Science
and
Techniology Text book as a safe organic fertilizer.(i.e. “biosolids–The
dried
remains of wastewater treatment used as organic fertilizer”)
Change Public Perception
The multi-million dollar EPA/WEF PR campaign to sell sludge as a safe soil
amendment (fertilizer) seems to have worked in places. EPA’s attempt to cover
up the damage did not work. Nor did changing the name to “biosolids”
remove
any danger to the farmer or the public health. “Just how clean are the
biosolids? Even the EPA does not know what is in it. The best guess of the
EPA group responsible for the Community Right to Know Act estimates there are
over 500,000 reportable chemicals. Any or all of them could be in sludge at
varying levels on any given day. Using standard tests, EPA doesn’t even know
how many pathogenic disease organisms survive the treatment process or
“regrow”. In reality, EPA knows that the treatment processes causes
the
pathogens to create viable spores which are non-detectable. EPA also
knows
the [toxic/hazardous] “pollutants” will kill or at least make you
wish you
were dead”. (NSA Public Fact Sheet 123)
Yet, EPA and its partners paid for a report from the National Academy
Science’s NRC Committee, which claimed the laws would keep us safe, if
everyone understood the complex system. EPA furnished the documents and
controlled what could be reviewed. Science was not an issue, “According
to
the [1996] NRC study, “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)
What it really did was convince some courts that EPA actually enforced
the
rules, and was protecting public health. The scientists would like us to
believe sludge was not a toxic waste regulated by part 503. The study also
notes, “Related regulations pertain to toxic waste handling and
treatment,
surface and groundwater protection, and public health. These regulations and
their overlapping authority are complex and need to be adequately explained
to both the regulatory community and the interested
public to avoid confusion and the perception that beneficial use is a
disguise for the dumping of waste.” (p.172)
Actually under CWA Section 405, the part 503 was supposed to accomplish
everything NRC claims other related regulations cover. The study is
qualified, “If it were not for this regulatory framework and investment
by
industry, beneficial use sludge would not be a viable option.” (p.
165)” (NSA Fact Sheet #109)
The EPA OIG Report has stated the laws and rules are not working. Basic
scientific research isn’t even working here. Both the NRC Committee and the
EPA OIG Report referenced document EPA 600/Z- 85- 062. This documented
purported
to be a human health study attributed to: Brown, R.E, and titled,
Demonstration of acceptable systems for land disposal of sewage sludge. Water
Engineering Research Lab. EPA 600/Z- 85- 062. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
This was flat out deception. The Brown paper [referenced] was a third party
two page abstract of the actual “OHIO” study. The real study
noted the World
Health Organization (WHO, 1981) reported a positive association and a cycle
of infections of Salmonella from humans to sludge to animals to humans, where
cattle grazed on sludge treated pastures. (Municipal Sewage Sludge
Application on Ohio Farms: Health Effects. Dorn, R.C., et al, Environmental
Research 38, 332- 335).” (NSA Fact Sheet #109)
Recent information released by the National Whistleblower Center indicates
that the confusing nature of the part 503 was further compounded in late
1992, when scientists (EPA ORD’s Jim Ryan and Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Rufus Chaney) hastily revised the final part 503. Apparently what
these changes did was remove all information relating to the 25 primary
groups
of death and disease causing agents and 21 cancer causing agents in sewage
sludge that were listed in 1989. (FR. 54. 23, pp. 5829, 5777). NSA Fact Sheet #110
Rufus Chaney (USDA) has been a long time promoter of sludge use as a
fertilizer. It
would appear that EPA would like us to believe that Chaney and Ryan had
little or no knowledge about the uptake of pathogens by plants. It would also
appear that they had no idea that animals could be infected and passed on to
humans. This is alarming since the USDA’s responsibility includes protecting
our meat supply, before it gets to the slaughterhouse, as well as during the
processing.
As a matter of fact, Chaney did some of the first studies which show that
toxic / hazardous chemicals in sludge could be taken up be plants. Of course
at the time, the soil scientists thought Cadmium (called a “rare
earth”) was
the only toxic metal of concern.
“The one limited human health study funded by EPA in Ohio noted the build
up of Cadmium in the kidney of animals grazed on pastures fertilized with small
quantities (less than the recommended rate) of toxic sewage sludge. The study
also noted the documented transfer of Salmonella contamination from humans,
to sludge, to animals, to humans.” (Public Facts #110)
These scientists knew animals could be contaminated by the toxic /hazardous
chemicals and pathogens in sludge. They knew sludge posed a threat to our
meat supply, air and water. Yet, they chose to promote this to the farmer and
public as a safe fertilizer. The same can be said for our plant crops. What
is amazing is that EPA has studied and promoted the use of plants to clean up
hazardous waste sites. Yet, it continued to promote toxic /hazardous chemical
and disease contaminated sludge for our food crops.
One other significant change to part 503 made by Ryan and Chaney was adding
food crops to the 30-day grazing restriction rule. No farmer would let his
land lie fallow for 14 months after sludge use. Under the EPA rules, tobacco
is a food crop. The most critical studies that have been done on Cadmium take up
by tobacco illustrate what could be happening to the rest of our food supply.
“Actually, United States Department of Agriculture studies (1974) [by
Chaney]
indicated there could be very serious problems with tobacco grown on land
where toxic sewage sludge was used because of the high uptake of Cadmium.
“Chaney et al. (84)— observed Cd (Cadmium) content in tobacco to be 15
to
20 ppm at 1 ppm in the soil, and 45 ppm with 2 ppm Cd in the soil.”
(1)”
(NSA Fact Sheet #112)
The science backs up Congress’ RCRA position that sludge is a hazardous
waste when used to grow food crops. “Food crops take up some unknown
quantity
of toxic pollutants and tobacco has long been recognized as an accumulator of
Cadmium at 11 to 20 times (plus) the rate of Cadmium levels in the soil. This
has been associated with the accumulation of Cadmium in the lungs and kidney
of smokers. However, when the studies were done, Cadmium was the only
inorganic toxic pollutant the EPA and scientists considered to be dangerous
to human health. (1)” (NSA Fact Sheet #112)
In fact they didn’t know the Cadmium was an environmental carcinogen which
could get to the lungs and kidneys through other routes of exposure. Examples
are, working with sludge and the food chain.
“North Carolina State University studies found, “3. The bottom
leaves of
tobacco consistently had the highest Cd concentrations. With tobacco grown on
Norfolk soil at Ph 5.2 and 1.8 ppm Cd in the soil, the Cd content in the
lower leaves averaged 73 ppm compared to 26 ppm in leaves higher up the
stalk.” (1)
It was also noted in the studies that 5% to 20% of the Cd was readily
transferred to the smoker during the burning of tobacco. Furthermore,
“40% to
80% (of the CD) enters the side stream smoke which may be passively inhaled
by nonsmokers. (1) ” (NSA Fact Sheet #112)
Cadmium is just one of approximately 400 chemicals documented to harm human
health. No one has any idea how much of the other 400 chemicals will be taken
up by our food crops. “If the toxics [and hazardous
substances] in sewage
sludge can be transferred to humans through tobacco and animals grazing on
grass, wouldn’t the same hold true for other food crops consumed by
humans?”
(NSA Fact Sheet #112)