New Jersey - critics turn up noses to sludge

----------------Critics turn up noses to sludge

Thursday, July 31, 2003

By TRACEY L. REGAN

Since the federal government banned ocean dumping more than a decade
ago, New Jersey has been scrambling to find new ways to dispose of the
more than 200,000 metric tons of dry sewage sludge that treatment plants

produce each year.

It is sprinkled on landfills and used by some landscapers as topsoil and

as fill in brownfields projects here and out of state, and about a
quarter of
it is incinerated.

A much smaller fraction, less than 10 percent, is spread each year on
wheat, hay and sod farms, although many food growers have been
reluctant to embrace that idea.

But a proposal by a state
agency to use sludge, or
biosolids, as fertilizer on
farms that have been
preserved with public funds
is roiling many in the farming
and environmental
communities. Some county
agricultural programs,
including Mercer and Morris
counties', have publicly
stated their opposition.

Proponents of expanding the
use of sludge - the solid
waste collected by sewage
treatment plants that cannot
be piped into waterways -
argue that the material is
possibly safer than fertilizers sold at large garden centers. Critics
say it is
inadequately tested and may contain high levels of contaminants such as
organic chemicals.

"The farming community is very polarized on this issue," said Lisa
Specca, a farmer who sits on the state Agricultural Development
Committee (SADC), which oversees New Jersey's farmland preservation
program and probably will vote on the proposal later this year. State
regulations now forbid the use of waste products on those and other
public
or publicly subsidized properties, although treated sludge can be sold
legally to other farmers.

"My gut feeling, like many citizens, is `yikes,' but I'm trying to sort
it out,"
added Specca, a farmer from Springfield who noted that other farmers in
the state now use it.

"Many people are against it, but there is a big need to do something
with
sewage sludge," said Gary Mount, a farmer from Lawrence who also sits
on the SADC, whose staff proposed the new rule.

Mount said farmers are concerned primarily about how accurate tests of
the material are and whether there are ways to ensure growers apply it
properly and keep good records of how often and how much they use it.

"There is a lot of legitimate concern," he added. "What does a farmer
have
to work with but his soil? What you put there stays there."

Mount said that while he monitors what goes into his own soil, "I might
be
buying a farm or renting a farm" that uses sludge. -- -- -- Testimony at
a
public hearing on the proposal earlier this week, dominated by
environmental advocates, was overwhelmingly opposed.

Nelson Carrasquillo, a representative of CATA, a group representing
farmworkers, said use of the fertilizer is unsafe in the absence of
studies
examining the long-term effects on the health of workers who come in
direct contact with it.

But SADC Director Gregory Romano said his agency had proposed
expanding the use of sludge at the request of farmers, particularly
nurseries. Environmental regulators say farmers who use fertilizer
produced by sewage treatment plants receive some of it for free and much

of the rest at a lower cost than they would pay for other commercial
brands, depending on the quality. To date, about 5 percent of the sludge

produced, called "exceptional quality," is used on farms.

But the plan has an important ally in state Department of Environmental
Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell, who dismissed concerns
about high levels of contaminants as entirely unwarranted.

Campbell said he viewed the treated sludge as adequately tested and
safer than other fertilizers that "may have greater adverse impacts on
the
environment" and have even less labeling. Campbell said he would
consider permitting its use on other public lands, such as farmland the
state leases.

Critics calling the material unsafe "do a disservice to the public to
generate hysteria about the risks," he added, noting that the state
rules
would establish guidelines, or best management practices, for the use of

sludge that are more stringent than those currently in effect either at
the
state or the federal level.

Farmers would be motivated to follow the guidelines, proponents say,
because adherence would grant them immunity from municipal nuisance
laws under the state Right to Farm laws, among other actions.

But environmental advocates, such as Jane Nogaki, say testing for
contaminants, now limited to heavy metals, should be much broader and
include other chemicals found in the waste stream of treatment plants,
such as chlorinated pesticides. "Testing is not frequent enough either,
given the dynamic nature of what is going down the drain," she said.--
-- --
Both sides say they fear the SADC's decision will have substantial
implications for the future use of sewage sludge.

Environmental advocates say if it is approved, it could soon be used on
other public lands, such as parks. The people who produce it say a vote
against the expansion could lead to further restrictions.

"If this thing were to not go through, the people who stopped it would
feel
they had a foot in the door," said David Ertle, director of central
services
for the Ocean County Utilities Authority, which produces fertilizer.
Ertle
said he speculated that opponents would suggest that "If it's no good on

preserved farms, then it's not on regular farms, and why are we using it
on
golf courses?"

He described the authority's sale of fertilizer as a cost-savings,
rather than
a profitable business, that cuts down on expensive fees to out-of-state
landfills. New Jersey does not allow the material in landfills here,
although
it can be incinerated.

Noting the growing number of farming acres in the state's preservation
program, Ertle added, "If these farmers can't use it, then the door is
closing. We could be left with landfills and that's where we were in
1990."

Uta Krogmann, a professor of environmental science at Rutgers University

and an agricultural extension specialist who worked on the guidelines,
called the sludge "relatively safe, under conditions."

She said it should not be used in sandy soils or near wetlands, where it

could leach easily. She noted that the guidelines recommend against use
on fruits and vegetables.

"But there are uncertainties," she said. `'We need to be more
protective."

Asked about treated sludge, several fruit and vegetable farmers said
they
were unlikely to use it.

"I don't need the perception that I'm growing sweet corn in someone's
sewage. Perception is reality," said Scott Ellis, a Mercer County
farmer.