Sludge Spread on Fields Is Fodder for Lawsuits

Note error in this story:  organic farmers are not allowed to use sewage
sludge.

June 26, 2003
     Sludge Spread on Fields Is Fodder for Lawsuits
     By JENNIFER 8. LEE


     The farmers outside Augusta, Ga., say the hay had a musty chemical
odor and was dark and mottled. But they fed it to the cows. Then the
cows started to waste away, growing so thin that their ribs could be
counted through their skin, the dairy farmers say. The cows died by the
hundreds.

     "We just couldn't save them," said Andy McElmurray, whose family
has been farming here since 1946. "They wouldn't respond to antibodies.
They wouldn't respond to IV fluids. They wouldn't respond to anything.
They just ended up dying."

     The McElmurrays and the Boyce family, which owns another farm in
the area, Boyceland Dairy, blame the fertilizer they used on their
hayfields - processed sewer sludge from the city of Augusta, which they
say was tainted by industrial waste from surrounding factories. When the
families sued the city, Jim Ellison, the lawyer for Augusta, argued that
the cows' deaths were unrelated to the sludge. On Tuesday, a jury sided
with the Boyces, awarding them $550,000 in damages. The McElmurray suit
is pending.

     Since Congress banned ocean dumping starting in 1992, using
processed sewer sludge as fertilizer has become the most popular way for
municipalities to deal with waste. Sixty percent of the 5.6 million tons
of sewer sludge disposed of in the country is processed, relabeled
"biosolids" and applied to land, according to industry figures.

     There have been no conclusive scientific studies on the link
between sludge and health, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
which regulates the sludge fertilizer industry, has agreed to do more
research.

     But industry representatives and the E.P.A. say complaints are an
exception to an otherwise successful effort. "Biosolids, properly
applied, are safe," said George Clarke, a spokesman for Synagro, a
leading waste management company.

     In fact, many farmers say processed sewer sludge is a cheap and
effective fertilizer, and organic farmers prefer biosolids over chemical
fertilizers. "It actually raised my protein content in my wheat that
goes for milling," said Andy Domenigoni, a farmer in Winchester, Calif.,
who is disappointed that his county banned sludge just over a year ago
because of health concerns.

     But some farmers say that E.P.A. regulation has not guaranteed
safety. There are 15,000 municipal wastewater treatment plants in the
United States - too many for inspectors to visit regularly. These
farmers contend that toxic residues in improperly treated sludge have
hurt health, crops and land.

     One Georgia farmer, H. J. Peterson of Stockbridge, sued DeKalb
County in 1995, saying 61 of his cows died after eating hay grown using
sludge; the suit is pending. Chris Bryan, 31, a road construction worker
from Dublin, Ga., said that tainted hay used in building roads made him
and other workers ill. Mr. Bryan said nausea, chills, shaking and liver
damage forced him to go on disability leave for four months. And
Atwater, Calif., was cited in 1996 by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for excessive sludge applications after 13 cows on
two farms died of nitrate poisoning.

     Some environmental and citizens groups are culling what they call
anecdotal evidence of problems linked to sludge. The Cornell Waste
Management Institute has compiled more than 250 sludge-exposure
complaints in more than 25 communities, ranging from dust inhalation to
water runoff contamination. The list includes four lawsuits; two cases
involve deaths. One suit was settled, and the others are continuing.

     James B. Slaughter, a lawyer for Synagro, said the complaints were
relatively few given as "many locations as we are talking about, for as
many states, and as many years."

     In a 2002 report, the National Academy of Sciences looked at the
science behind sludge. "The committee recognizes that land application
of biosolids is a widely used, practical option," the report said. It
noted that while there was "no documented scientific evidence" that the
sludge regulation had failed to protect public health, "additional
scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the
potential for adverse health effects."

     The agricultural use of sewer sludge strikes a delicate balance.
Most processed sludge is organic enough to be fertilizer, but toxic
enough to be regulated. A 1978 E.P.A. memorandum acknowledged the toxic
substances in sludge but said the risks "just have not been demonstrated
to be that great." Sludge should be considered separately from other
toxic wastes because "it contains nutrients and organic matter which
have considerable benefit for land and crops," the memorandum says.
"Most industrial wastes do not have such benefit."

     A Georgia Department of Environmental Protection report, made
public through the Augusta lawsuits, called for ending use of the
fertilizer. "The land application program should be shut down
immediately," it said, in part because the wastewater facility was
"grossly neglected."

     Mark Pollins, director of the water enforcement division at the
E.P.A., said his office had to prioritize use of its limited resources.
"The agency addresses significant harms first," Mr. Pollins said.

     He said the agency issued about 390 administrative orders relating
to sludge from 1997 to 2002 - 110 of them punitive.

     Nonetheless, the E.P.A. inspector general, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the National Research Council, each citing
the growing anecdotal evidence, have issued reports urging more research
into the effects of sludge.

     The E.P.A. issued a proposal for research in April. "We're taking
a hard look at the issue of the science," said Pamela Barr, a deputy
director of the Office of Science and Technology in the E.P.A.'s office
of water.

     Critics are skeptical that the E.P.A. can objectively assess the
program, given its promotion of sludge since it set new regulations in
1993 under the Clean Water Act.

     For example, a 1994 E.P.A. brochure says that biosolids may
"protect child health." The brochure cites a study showing that animals
that ingest "biosolid-treated soil and dust may have a decreased
absorption of lead into the blood stream, thus lessening the potential
for lead-induced nerve and brain damage."

     A researcher with the Sierra Club, Caroline Snyder, said, "Instead
of protecting the public, they are right there in there with industry
promoting the practice."

     One of the agency's most senior scientists left as a result of a
dispute over sludge research. In May, the agency terminated the
scientist, David Lewis, a 32-year veteran who had published an article
in the journal Nature raising questions about the agency's sludge
research.

     "To me, of all the environmental issues, this is Mount Everest,"
said Dr. Lewis, who won the agency's top science award in 2000. The
Labor Department ruled in 1996 and 1998 that the E.P.A. had retaliated
against him for whistle-blowing.

     Other groups say the E.P.A. research proposal is not rigorous
enough. "It's not looking at health outcomes," said Ellen Harrison, the
director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute, who helped write the
National Research Council report. Ms. Harrison said most of the research
was being done by groups with a history of promoting sludge.

     "There has to be a change in the way that E.P.A. operates," she
said, "so that it's not just lining up the same old guys."



     Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |