IS SEWAGE SLUDGE REALLY FREE FERTILIZER TO THE FARMER?

Sewage treatment plants were never designed to produce fertilizer: they were designed to treat and condense whatever goes down the drain from homes, businesses, industry, hospitals, laboratories, nursing homes and funeral homes. Sewage is treated at the waste water treatment plant in order to release the effluent water back into rivers or streams. The condensed remaining byproduct is called sludge or biosolids. Ocean dumping of sludge, banned in the 1980's because the toxic mix created dead zones, necessitated the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and municipalities to find another way to dispose of the seven million tons of sludge produced annually. Although untested for human safety, land application was promoted as the cheapest and easiest way to dispose of America's hazardous sewage waste. Approximately half of all of America's sludge is applied to farmlands, home landscaping and gardens, public parks and golf courses. What had been toxic waste that killed life in the oceans somehow morphed into a "beneficial use" program for farmers.

We are told that sewage sludge/biosolids are recycled organic human waste. The distribution of human waste was once acceptable, before the knowledge of the health and safety implications of modern chemicals, heavy metals and pharmaceuticals. While the human "manure" is promoted, what is not discussed is the combining of thousands of chemicals from detergents, personal care products, industrial solvents and the bacterial, pharmaceutical and viral waste from medical and laboratory facilities. The filtered information the farmers and citizens receive from the sludge hauling industries helps make their big money, upwards of $500 million annually. Pennsylvania is second in the nation in the number of waste water treatment plants and imports sludge from neighboring states including New Jersey and New York. Lancaster, Berks and York are the top counties in Pennsylvania for sewage sludge disposal.

For farmers, sludge is a less expensive alternative to synthetic fertilizer. Unfortunately, the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer option for food production increases our health risk by directly introducing contamination into our food cycle and water supply. The waste water treatment process does not remove all the drugs, chemicals, pathogens or toxic levels of heavy metals and the EPA requires monitoring of only nine toxic metals. Hazardous compounds collect and increase as they are applied to the soil. Also, once toxic metals are applied, they remain in the soil unless they uptake into plants (especially green leafy vegetables or root crops), or migrate into ground water.

Treated sludge does not require testing or monitoring for bacteria, viruses and parasites and antibiotic resistant bacteria are now being discovered in both soil and ground water. Resistant bacteria can be transferred from sludge-contaminated soil and plants to grazing animals and humans, including 18 human-excreted viruses, 19 parasites and 31 bacteria. There are 5,000 annual deaths from food poisoning.

Farms throughout America, including Georgia, Vermont, Washington and Missouri, have been destroyed by the toxic pollutants in sludge. The farmers also often encounter financial ruin. In some cases, such as United States vs. Cooper the farmer was charged and imprisoned for improper disposal of Class B sludge. In other cases, such as Georgia farmer Andy McElmurray, the guaranteed safe sludge caused the death of his land and lifestyle. With the filtered information and constant reassurance of safety of the sludge, McElmurray had no idea that the sludge contained levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals and PCB's two to 2,500 times federal health standards. His cows died a slow and painful death while he searched for an answer, finally finding the free and "safe" fertilizer was the cause of his problems. Even years after halting sludge application, his farm is still too toxic to support plants and livestock. In McElmurray's court case, McElmurray v. USDA, Judge Alaimo stated, "senior EPA officials took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent, and any questioning of EPA's biosolids program."

After accepting sludge as a fertilizer for cultivation and grazing, Georgia farmer Bill Boyce also lost his 50-year old family farm. Despite constant reassurance from sludge haulers and the city of Augusta, Boyce witnessed the steady decline of his prize-winning dairy herd. In 1999, Boyce had milk tested from his cows. Independent milk tests revealed high levels of thallium, molybdenum and cadmium. EPA lists thallium as a toxic heavy metal that can cause gastrointestinal irritation and nerve damage, but the agency has no standard on the metal's presence in milk. Although regarded by the US Agriculture Department as one of the most dangerous agents of potential bioterrorism against the nation's food supply, thallium is not tested in sludge. Boyce won his court case, Boyceland Dairy v. City of Augusta, but only after the death of his cows and the poisoning of his land. His dreams of passing the farm on to his children were shattered.

In 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) reviewed Part 503 of the US EPA standards of sewage sludge. NRC found the basis of the 1993 chemical standards for biosolids to be outdated and suggested that "additional scientific work is needed to reduce uncertainties about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids." Because different soils have different toxicity abilities, blanket standards for acceptable levels are irrelevant. Periodic reporting is required, but enforcement is largely "self-implementing" with the sludge producers and haulers often performing the monitoring and record keeping. No permits or record-keeping are maintained for applications of Class A sludge. Without permits or records, there is no way to track sludge products or assess cumulative loads of substances like heavy metals. Without oversight, even required practices, such as agronomic rates to meet crop nutrient plans and setback distances from waterways, cannot be enforced. For the farmer, there is no way to track what compounds are being applied to his land should he experience a drop in production of crops or health of livestock.

^TOP

What Farmers Are Not Told About Sludge:

1) No two loads of sewage sludge have the same composition of chemicals or pathogens, so the farmer does not know what is actually applied on his land. Load testing is inconsistent and unmonitored.
2) Independent tests from Cornell University Waste Management Institute find that farms using sewage sludge as fertilizer may actually experience a reduction of crop production after several years.
3) Farmers put themselves at financial risk and liability for any nuisance litigation from nearby neighbors exposed to sewage sludge causing property damage, well-water pollution, personal injury, illnesses or death.
4) There is no financial liability to the sludge hauler or municipality after they discontinue dumping sludge on a property. In fact, the farmer can be held accountable to clean his own property if soil tests show high levels of heavy metals and toxins.
5) In PA, a sludged property must make this fact known as a "Hazardous Use" on a "Seller's Disclosure Sheet" at the time of property sale. Neighboring property to a sludged farm must also state this fact at the time of a sale and the farmer may be held accountable for reduction of property value.
6) Under the Clean Water Act, sludge is declared a pollutant and must be disposed of properly, an issue that is downplayed by companies spreading sludge on farmland because the farmer will be the one charged with breaking the law.
7) The stunning lack of research on the impact of dioxin in sludge applied to pastures is unsettling. Dioxin gathers in meat, fats and milk and is known to cause birth defects and as a carcinogen.
8) EPA has admitted there have never been cancer risk assessments for the pollutants in sludge yet there are known cancer causing agents in sludge, some of which have been found to cause cancer just from inhaling dust. Of course, cancer and other major illness often do not present symptoms for years

By accepting sewage sludge as a fertilizer option, regardless of approval by a regulatory bureaucracy or marketing by businesses, the farmer is unknowingly participating in damaging his own land, crops, livestock, family and future. Legal and insurance concern may argue that the farmer accepted known toxic material, therefore nullifying any obligation of protection. Can legal argument be made that a farmer who accepts sludge accepts the responsibility for transferring hazardous waste his own property? Large, independent bodies of scientific work point to the dangers of the "free" fertilizer and how sludge will impact our food and farm future.

References:

Snyder Caroline. The Dirty Work of Promoting "Recycling" of America's Sewage Sludge. 2005

Elliott H, Brandt R, Shortle J. Biosolids Disposal in Pennsylvania. Center for Rural Pennsylvania. 2007

Heilprin J, Vineys K. Sewage Based Fertilizer Safety Doubted. Associated Press. March 6, 2008

Harrison EZ, McBride M, GillettJ, Comments to US EPA
Regarding Dioxin Standards for Land Applied Sewage Sludge. Cornell University Researchers. March 27, 2000

Kulick M. Smart Guide On Sludge Use and Food Production. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. September 2008

McGowan E. Is Reclaimed Wastewater Too Contaminated to Use. Santa Barbara Independent. December 18, 2008

Harrison EZ, Krogmann. Guidelines For Application of Sewage Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in Northeastern US. Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. April 2007

Heidler J, Sapkota A, Halden R. Sludge Recycling Sends Antiseptic Soap Ingredient to Agriculture. John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. April 26, 2006

Information compiled by United Sludge-Free Alliance