Epa to Re-Examine Impact of Sewage Sludge Fertilizer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it’s ready to take a new look at the science and risks involved in using treated human waste – sewage sludge – as fertilizer on farmland. That’s seen as good news for people who live near farms using sewage sludge. Some of them say the sludge makes them sick. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it’s ready to take a new look at the science and
risks involved in using treated human waste – sewage sludge – as fertilizer on farmland. That’s
seen as good news for people who live near farms using sewage sludge. Some of them say the
sludge makes them sick. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif reports:


About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – is used to fertilize sod, pasture
land and even food crops every year in the United States. As cities sprawl and people move into
rural areas they discover the practice. And many don’t like it.


“We were like what is that smell? This is sick. It makes you want to vomit. Your eyes start
burning and you want to get away from it as quick as you can.”


Molly Bowen is one of a group of homeowners suing the haulers who dump and landowners who
use sewage sludge near their neighborhood. People around the country have blamed the sludge
for causing illnesses and even deaths. They say their wells are contaminated with sludge. They
say they breathe sludge dust blowing from recently treated fields. Bowen and her neighbors
blame the sludge for a lot of health problems.


“Laryngitis, stomach, upper respiratory, not being able to breath well.”


For a while these people thought no one was listening. But cases are coming in from all over and
the Environmental Protection Agency is starting to pay attention. In 2002, the EPA asked the
National Academy of Sciences to study the public health aspects of sludge. Thomas Burke is a
professor and epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
He chaired the study.


“This is poop we’re talking about here. It has the potential to cause serious illness if they’re not treated
appropriately and if there is not appropriate protection of the population.”


Burke and others studied to see if the EPA methods used to determine the limits for chemicals,
viruses and bacteria in sewage sludge were strong enough. Burke says the methods are not strong
enough to use the sludge safely.


“We need to understand better the potential health effects. We need a new national survey to
understand the microbes and the potential pathogens that might be present. And also we need to
better characterize the chemicals that might be present in sludge. The current rules are based upon
work that was done back in the ’80’s.”


The EPA is looking at those concerns. It says it will try to determine if there are contaminants in
the sludge that could cause health problems.


Prior to the National Academies of Sciences report, government regulators, including the EPA,
sewer plant managers, and sludge haulers, insisted sludge was safe when applied according to
the rules.


Houston-based Synagro manages sludge biosolids for municipalities in 35 states. Vice President
for government relations, Bob O’dette says there’s been plenty of studies already.


“If I thought for a moment that this caused anybody any health problems, I wouldn’t be in the
industry. I formed my opinion on biosolids before I came into the private sector.”


Problems have been pointed out. But the Federal Office of Inspector General reported in 2002
that the EPA offers virtually no federal oversight over sludge disposal and the agency is not
protecting the public. Those in the agency that tried to point out the problems were pressured or
fired.


Dr. David Lewis says he warned his bosses that using sludge might cause health problems. He
worked as a research microbiologist at the EPA’s national exposure research laboratory in
Georgia. He was fired last May. He alleges in whistleblower lawsuits that the EPA – which not
only regulates, but also promotes recycling sludge biosolids as fertilizer – wanted his sludge
research stopped.


“I can assure you that many of the issues raised by private citizens are issues that are raised and
that many scientists at EPA share those concerns and have from the beginning because of the
concerns over pathogens, metals and other contaminants in sludge and that concerns the risk that
might be present for public health and the environment.”


Lewis says although many viruses and bacteria die in the field, especially when exposed to
sunlight, the biggest risk of infection comes from what grows in the sludge after it’s put down.
Bacterial pathogens grow when the organic matter decomposes. He says it’s just like meat that’s
cooked and then left out on the counter. Some nasty stuff can start growing.


But now the EPA indicates it is ready to make changes. It plans to spend nearly six-million
dollars over the next three years following some of the advice of the National Academy of
Science study. Geff Grubbs is the EPA’s director of science and technology.


“We’re looking at what are the possible impacts and risks to people who live near and would
otherwise be exposed to pollutants that are emitted into the air from biosolids as they’re applied
to land. We’ll be conducting an analysis of samples of biosolids from various points across the
country to help determine the concentrations of additional pollutants that could impact health.”


The EPA says it will first look at health studies of people who claim to have become sick from
exposure to sludge. And it hopes to work with the Centers for Disease Control and state health
departments to arrange for them to track and investigate alleged cases of sludge sickness.


Environmentalists and others say they hope this is a more science-based look at the issue, but
they remain skeptical.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Amy Tardif.

Related Links

“Biosafety Engineers” for Gmo Industry?

  • According to the USDA, 40% of the corn grown this year in the U.S. has been genetically modified. Some researchers fear there's not enough oversight on the rapidly growing biotech industry. A program at the University of Minnesota wants to create a new profession - the 'Biosafety Engineer.' (photo courtesy of the USDA)

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now there’s a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:

Transcript

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a
battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated
food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears
we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now, there’s
a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers
think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:


To remove a gene from one organism and transfer it to another…
that’s genetic engineering. Genetically modified or GM crops are
easier to grow, according to bio tech supporters and in the future
might be more nutritious. But they also might contain hidden
allergens, because they use genes from a plant or animal that
people might be allergic to. And there are concerns that GM crops
might harm the environment by crossbreeding with natural plants in
the wild. And so the University of Minnesota is proposing a
solution – an entirely new profession – call them biotech safety
engineers – along with a new science of bio safety. Anne
Kapuscinski is a researcher at the University of Minnesota and a
force behind the initiative called Safety First. Kapuscinski says
rather than regulating the industry after a new product is developed,
companies should prove safety first.


“It will mean that some ideas that will be on the lab bench won’t go
any further in development because the developers
will realize there are safety concerns that we don’t know how to
mitigate, or how to prevent from happening or how to address.”


And that could save companies money… by avoiding costly mistakes
such as the Starlink corn debacle. That’s when genetically modified
corn accidentally mixed with conventional corn and got into dozens of
foods. Kapuscinski says it was common knowledge in the industry that
the corn could get mixed up because of the way it’s transported and
stored… which might have been avoided with uniform safety standards
and government oversight. But until now, industry has resisted that.
They’ve been touting the benefits rather than the risks such as this
ad campaign put out by a group called the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.


(music under)


“Biotechnology, a big word that means hope.”


But one expert says if the industry wants to inspire public
confidence, it should support the Safety First initiative. John
Howard is the founder of a Texas based biotech firm called
ProdiGene. Not all biotech companies support the University of
Minnesota effort, but Howard thinks it has a good chance of
alleviating public concerns.


“The problem is, however, if you do it yourselves, what
credibility do you have as a company promoting your own safety
assessment? So an independent agency or source that comes out
and says, ‘Look, this is now credible, we’ve looked at all the safety
issues,’ that’s great, and if they find something that we’ve missed
then fine, we want to do it that way.”


John Howard says his company is working to bio-engineer corn to
deliver drugs. For instance, if you need insulin you could have it
in your breakfast cereal.


Opponents of bio tech say we don’t know all of the ramifications of
engineering drugs into food or altering the genetics of any organism,
but John Howard thinks we know enough to be safe.


“You can always argue that we just don’t know
enough yet and that’s an argument that can go on and on. And this
applies to everything that we think about in terms of risk. But
what you can do is look at a risk benefit equation. There’s
no question this is a for-profit company, let’s not make any mistake,
but not at the expense of harming people.”


And supporters say the Safety First initiative will see to that.
Lawrence Jacobs is a political scientist at the University of
Minnesota and a leader in Safety First. Jacobs says, like it or not,
GM food is here to stay.


“If we do not find some credible way to address the biosafety issues in
biotechnology, we are heading for a major maelstrom. The challenge
that’s out there now for the biotechnology industry right now is get
your act together. And the potential for consumers to panic in this
country is significant.”


Of course safety standards are already engineered into the
manufacturing of airplanes and cars. But will that work in an
industry which is manufacturing a living thing?


Supporters of the Safety First initiative say there’s too little
oversight on an industry that could have much greater impact on health
and the environment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Related Links

Report Finds White House Blocked Asbestos Warning

A recent newspaper report says that the White House stopped the EPA from issuing a warning about widespread asbestos-contaminated insulation last spring. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

A recent newspaper report says that the White House stopped the
EPA from issuing a warning about widespread asbestos-contaminated
insulation last spring. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton
reports:


Zonolite insulation was produced in this country from the 1940’s through
the 1990’s, and almost all of it was made from ore that came from one mine
in Libby, Montana. Thousands of miners were killed or sickened because
the ore was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber.


But it was only last year that the EPA decided to issue a public health
emergency warning to residents and workers who could come in contact with
Zonolite insulation in homes where it had been installed.


A St. Louis Post Dispatch investigation revealed that the White House Office of
Management and Budget intervened, and the EPA never issued the warning.
The Post Dispatch reports that EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman was
outraged by the decision.


Hundreds of thousands of homes in Michigan and Illinois probably have
Zonolite insulation. The insulation is often strewn loose in attics.
It’s silvery-brown and comes in feather-light pieces ranging from the size
of a pea to the size of a nickel.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Epa Wavers Over Online Information

  • Some federal agencies and laboratories have restricted access to information. The government fears terrorists could use some information to plan attacks against the U.S.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the Internet. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U-S from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the E-P-A is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the internet. For example. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U.S. from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the EPA is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But, some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


In the last decade or so, the government has put volumes and volumes of information on the internet. In the interest of an open and free government, federal agencies have given the public access to all kinds of data. But after the terrorist attacks, there was a scramble to remove a lot of that data. Some government agencies concede they might have overreacted when pulling information off the web. But, most indicate they thought it was better to be safe than to leave information on the internet that terrorists could use to more effectively plan an attack.


For example, the Environmental Protection Agency removed Risk Management Plans from the EPA website. Those plans give details about certain hazardous chemicals that are kept at industrial plants, how a chemical leak or fire at a plant would affect the surrounding community. and even how many people might be hurt or killed in a worse case scenario.


The EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman recently explained to journalists why she had the agency remove those plans.


“That was information on our website that really gave terrorists a road map as to how to where to plan an attack. I was just not sure that we wanted to have that up for any –not so much terrorists, but terrorist wannabe— to find and to take advantage of.”


The information was originally put together in EPA office reading rooms open to the public. Later it was put up on the EPA’s website. That was so community groups could more easily learn about the risks they faced from nearby chemical plants. It was also used by some neighborhood groups to pressure companies to either implement better safety measures or stop using certain chemicals.


Administrator Whitman says in the weeks since the attacks, the EPA has been reviewing whether some of that information can be restored to the internet.


“What we’re doing is reviewing and seeing if it is readily available elsewhere, then there’s no point in our taking it off. We’d put it back again.”


But many chemical companies and other industry groups don’t want that information put back on the government’s websites, even though it’s sometimes still available elsewhere on the internet. In fact, they don’t want the information available to the public at all.


Angela Logomasini is with the Washington-based libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. She says the information, such as worse case scenarios, shouldn’t be available because it might be used by terrorists. Logomasini was surprised to learn the EPA Administrator is considering putting the information back on the internet.


“I think it’s ridiculous. I think what they should be doing is trying to investigate, you know, what the risks are and whether this is really a wise thing to do. You know, just simply because other groups have taken the information and posted some of it on the internet does not mean that our government should go out of its way and provide it too.”


Logomasini says the risk management plans are of little use to the public anyway. She says the only people who used them were environmentalists, who wanted the information to scare people.


There’s some skepticism about the chemical industry’s real motivation to keep the information out of public view. Besides environmentalists. Some journalists use the information to track industry safety and government regulations.


Margaret Kriz is a correspondent for the National Journal where she writes about government, industry and the environment. She says since September 11th, chemical industry people might be arguing that the risk management plans should be kept secret for national security reasons. But before then, their reasons had more to do with corporate public relations and competition.


“Some of the information that was taken off the web by EPA the day of the attack is information the chemical industry has been trying to get off the web for years. They have not wanted it on there because they really don’t want to have— they fear two things: they fear the public will overreact to the information if they find out (about) some chemicals in a nearby plant and the second thing, they’re fearful if a competitor for them will go look at this information and find out what chemicals are being used and figure out what their secret formula is for whatever they make.”


So, it appears to at least some observers that the chemical industry sees the concern over terrorism as an opportunity. an opportunity to get the internet-based information removed for good. But it looks as though the Environmental Protection Agency is leaning toward making some of the information available on the website again. However. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman didn’t say when. Other agencies are also reviewing the information they’ve removed from the web with an eye toward eventually making some version of the data available to the public once again on the internet.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Epa Limits Pesticide Exposure for Children

The Environmental Protection Agency is increasing restrictions on two pesticides that are used on food children frequently eat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has this report:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is increasing restrictions on two pesticides that are used on food children frequently eat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Under recent federal legislation, the E-P-A has been required to review all classes of pesticides and their potential affects on children. That’s because kids are considered to be more vulnerable to any adverse effects than adults. The new restrictions affect two chemicals, azinphos-methyl and phosmet. They’ve been used to ward off insects from certain fruits, nuts, and vegetables for 35 years. But, the E-P-A has stated that azinphos-methyl, which is sold under the trade names of Guthion, A-P-M, and Sniper, poses an unacceptable risk to children six and under. So use of the pesticide is being restricted. Farmers will phase out use or no longer be able to use it on nearly 40 different crops. Phosmet is sold under the trade name Imidan. The EPA is further tightening its use on nine fruits, including apples, grapes, and peaches. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

CANADIAN ‘SPECIES-AT-RISK’ ACT TOO WEAK?

More than 1,300 U.S. and Canadian scientists are asking the Canadian government to strengthen proposed legislation that would protect endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly explains:

Transcript

More than 13 hundred U.S. and Canadian scientists are asking the Canadian government to strengthen proposed legislation that would protect endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports.


Right now, endangered species in Canada have no federal protection. The new Species at Risk Act would make it illegal for people to kill the 3 hundred 80 plants and animals considered at risk. But unlike the American law, the proposal does not guarantee that the land or waters in which these animals live will be protected from development. University of Ottawa biology professor David Currie says that’s led to a protest among scientists.


“Virtually all of the studies that have been done on the reasons why species become endangered or go extinct have shown that at least some aspect of habitat loss is involved and in many of the most dramatic cases of extinction, species’ habitats have been simply been entirely wiped out.”


The government’s environment committee will consider amendments to the bill in October. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Counterpoint: Drilling Not Worth Risk

As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now turning their attention to prospecting in one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly:

Transcript

As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now focusing their attention on prospecting for one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly.


No matter which estimate you believe – that there’s only enough oil and gas to power a Great Lakes state for 2 minutes or 8 weeks – opening the Great Lakes to new oil and gas drilling is simply not worth the risk. Hydrogen sulfide, known to exist in lakebed oil and gas reserves, can escape during drilling causing far-reaching human health problems. Wellhead and pipeline leaks can contaminate groundwater and surface water in streams, often without adequate cleanups by the state agency responsible for drilling oversight. And, drilling can damage some of the most fragile fish and wildlife habitat known, habitat that exists along Great Lakes coasts.


The argument that drilling means more royalties to states doesn’t even hold up. One state Auditor General recently found that oversight of leasing and royalty payments from drilling operations continues to be lax. What does this mean? It means that taxpayers aren’t getting the financial benefits from drilling that they’re supposed to get.


Last, it’s not unusual for the same state agency to serve as subjective promoter of drilling while at the same time supposing to be the objective regulator. States such as Michigan, which is leading the charge for new drilling, can’t have it both ways and maintain their credibility. If they try to have it both ways, it’s inevitable that Congress will step in – as it did this summer with its own legislation.


President Bush, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, and a majority of citizens have all said that Great Lakes oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk. So why does a bad idea keep moving forward?

Related Links

Scientists Push for Tougher Arsenic Standards

Groundwater in some Great Lakes states has been found to meet or exceed
acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic. Growing concern about
the health effects of arsenic consumption recently prompted the U-S
Academy of Sciences to recommend that the federal government create more
stringent standards for human consumption of arsenic. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Marisa Helms has the story:

Teens Design Program to Evaluate Trees

Last winter, small towns and villages throughout the Northeast were devastated by an ice storm. Many residents lived without power for two weeks. But even after electricity was restored and the roads were cleared, the damage to thousands of trees remained. Local officials quickly cut many of them down, despite protests from residents. Now, a group of high school students has developed a software program that they hope will help the public officials make better decisions about the fate of damaged trees: