Margie Newman lives in Winchester, California with her three grandsons. After sewage sludge was spread on land near their home, the boys became “deathly ill.” Newman said, "It is amazing how everybody is for the environment, yet out there we are being poisoned." [1]

The land application of sewage sludge is a controversial practice. Some people say sludge is poison. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to set regulations for sewage sludge use or disposal, says that it is safe. Since 1993, when the EPA promulgated the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, its official policy has been to promote the land application sludge. Every year, at least 60% of the estimated 6 million dry tons of sludge produced by sewage treatment plants goes on land.

There has recently been a legal case in which the claim of harm done by the land application of sewage sludge has been litigated through to judgment by a court in the United States. Specifically, on June 24, 2003 a court in Georgia ruled that the land application of sewage sludge was responsible for destroying the fourth generation, Boyce family farm’s dairy herd and damaging farm property. Boyceland Diary of Burke County, Georgia, sued the city of Augusta over claims that toxic metals from the city’s sewage sludge poisoned their cattle and land. There was no evidence that the land application of sewage sludge on the Boyce farm was out of compliance with EPA’s 1993 rules for the practice of land applying sewage sludge. Significant anecdotal evidence also indicates that the land application of sewage sludge, both before and after the EPA began regulating the practice in 1993, has caused public health and environmental harm.

Sewage sludge is the product of municipal wastewater treatment. Often thought to consist of only “human waste,” sewage sludge in fact contains organic, inorganic, and biological pollutants from commercial, industrial, and household wastes, and compounds added to and formed during treatment processes.

What is in sludge and the public health effects of exposing people to it were the topics of a November 2001 conference at the Boston University School of Public Health. The conference, “Sewage Sludge on Land: Public Health and Environment Impacts,” was sponsored by the Boston University School of Public Health; the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility; Tufts Medical School, Department of Community Health; and the Department of Environmental Health at the Boston University School of Public Health.

A special issue of the peer-reviewed journal, New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, Volume 12, Number 4, 2002, examines many of the themes presented at the sludge conference in Boston, with a look at the health impact of the land application of sewage sludge and the EPA’s policy promoting it.

In the journal, Abby Rockefeller argues that, “sludge is…a hazardous waste, and it is at once unmonitorable, unregulatable, and irremediable,” and that since sewage and sewage treatment result in the production of sludge we must turn to on-site systems and away from sewers and sewage treatment. [2]

The EPA coined the word “biosolids” for sewage sludge that has been treated to meet its regulatory requirements for land application. Sheldon Rampton asks why changing the name of sludge is so important to the EPA and why the extraordinary effort to propagate a euphemism. In his article, he explores the propaganda model of communication vs. the dialogic approach, and how the propaganda model embraced by the EPA and the waste management industry is impacting the discussion about sludge’s safety. [3]

Ted Schettler’s article is about the precautionary principle and its application to sewers and sewage sludge. The Clean Water Act states that pollution limits have to be established by risk analysis. But risk assessment, Schettler argues, is incapable of addressing the uncertainties and complexities of sewage sludge. [4]

I interview Hugh Kaufman, a 32-year veteran of the EPA, about the role of citizen activism in the effort to change EPA’s sewage sludge policy. [5] This short piece is followed by reports from people who say they or their friends or families were made sick by exposure to sewage sludge. Helane Shields, a volunteer sludge researcher from New Hampshire, excerpted the list from a much longer survey of sludge victims she has documented. [6]

The EPA looked at 411 pollutants in sludge before deciding on regulations that govern 9 metals and nothing more. When synthetic organic chemicals were considered for regulation in 1993, EPA’s risk assessments concluded that they do not pose significant risks and so need not be regulated. Robert Hale and Mark LaGuardia ask if the risks associated with the presence of synthetic organic compounds in land applied sewage sludges have been adequately assessed. In studies conducted by the two researchers, high concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, a chemical used in flame retardants and related to PCBs and polybrominated biphenyls, and nonylphenols, a product of the degradation during wastewater treatment of surfactants used in detergents, were detected in sewage sludge. If both chemicals were regulated, it could significantly curtail the land applications of sludge. [7]

Ellen Harrison investigates allegations of adverse health effects from sludge exposure and explores federal and state authorities’ response to them. Her article reveals significant weak points in the EPA sludge rules and concludes with a call for the end of the use of Class B sludges on land. [8]

David Lewis looks at the interaction of pathogens and irritant chemicals in land applied sewage sludge. His research into self-reported illnesses among residents living near land application sites indicates a pattern of chemical irritation from exposure to dusts and other airborne contaminants followed by bacterial infections of the skin and respiratory tract. Affected residents appear to be at particularly high risk of infection with Staphylococcus aureus, a pathogen that tends to invade irritated or inflamed tissue. He reports that the prevalence of S. aureus infections was approximately twenty-five times higher than infections among hospital patients, a recognized risk group for this pathogen. Dr. Lewis gives credence to the claims of self-reporting sludge victims that it is sludge that adversely affected their health. [9]

Lennart Hardell, a researcher from the Department of Oncology at the Örebro Medical Center Hospital in Sweden, was unable to attend the conference, but submitted a previously published article from a scientific journal [10]. His study suggested an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), a chemical found in sewage sludge.

This issue of New Solutions ends with an article by Joel Tickner and Sara Wright that argues for a pollution prevention strategy for controlling sewage sludge contamination. [11]

The regulations that govern the use and disposal of sewage sludge are meant to protect public health and the environment. They fall short according the National Research Council [12], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [13], the Inspector General of the EPA [14], and the researchers, medical professionals, engineers, and activists who are represented in this special issue of New Solutions.

Laura Orlando

References

1. Wyatt Haupt, Jr., Residents Complain Sludge Making Them Sick, North Country Times, January18, 2001.

2. Sewers, Sewage treatment, Sludge: Damage Without End, by Abby A. Rockefeller, New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, Volume 12, Number 4, 2002.

3. Sludge, Biosolids, and the Propaganda Model of Communication, by Sheldon Rampton. Ibid.

4. Sewage Sludge-Looking Upstream: The Precautionary Principle, by Ted Schettler. Ibid.

5. The Role of Citizen Activism in Protecting Public Health and the Environment from Land Application of Sewage Sludge, by Laura Orlando. Ibid.

6. Sludge Victims: Voices from the Field, by Helane Shields. Ibid.

7. Have the Risks Associated with the Presence of Synthetic Organic Contaminants in Land-Applied Sewage Sludges Been Adequately Assessed? By Robert C. Hale and Mark J. La Guardia. Ibid.

8. Investigations of Alleged Health Incidents Associated with Land Application of Sewage Sludges, by Ellen Z. Harrison and Summer Rayne Oakes. Ibid.

9. Interactions of Pathogens and Irritant Chemicals in Land-Applied Sewage Sludges (Biosolids), by David L. Lewis, David K. Gattie, Marc E. Novak, Susan Sanchez, and Charles Pumphrey. Ibid.

10. Concentrations of the flame retardant 2,2',4,4'-tetrabrominated diphenyl ether in human adipose tissue in Swedish persons and the risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, by Hardell L, Lindstrom G, vanBavel B, Wingfors H, Sundelin E, and Liljegren G. Oncology Research 10(8):429-32, 1998.

11. Primary Prevention of Chemical Contamination, by Joel Tickner and Sara Wright. Ibid.

12. Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices, National Research Council, Washington DC, National Academy Press, July 2002.

13. Workers Exposed to Class B Biosolids During and After Field Application, NIOSH Hazard ID, HID 10, DHHS (NIOSH) 2000-158, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 2000.

14. Biosolids Management and Enforcement, Audit Report No. 2000-P-10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, March 20, 2000. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereading_room/list300/00P0010.pdf

ReSource editorials are archived in the ReSource Musings Archive