Politics of sludge determine who gets dumped on

[Guest guest]

http://www.whistleblowers.org/sludgepage.htm

 

Politics of sludge determine who gets dumped on

 

 

By SCOTT CARROLL

Article published Oct 11, 2002

DeSoto County residents pulled off a minor miracle when they got the state to

pay attention last month to their concerns about sewage sludge spread near their

homes.

Residents have been fighting to keep the industry from dumping sludge. They've

been after the state to police the haulers and the federal government to

research sludge's ill effects.

They've made small strides by being relentless in their quest for help. They've

gone to the media and called and written every politician who would listen.

They've consistently reported problems to the state Department of Environmental

Protection. One resident even rented a helicopter to get photos of illegal

dumping and animal carcasses lying in the muck.

They've gone to extremes because folks in this poor, rural county have no

political clout. They don't have the votes or the money to sway a national

election or to significantly affect state politics.

The companies that build sewage treatment plants and haul the waste, however,

have enough money and influence to intimidate those who speak out against

sludge, quash research into possible health problems surrounding sludge and help

maintain a national policy that evidence increasingly suggests is making people

sick.

The industry dumped more than 600,000 tons of sludge on DeSoto County cow

pastures and orange groves last year, making it one of the top recipients in

Florida, according to DEP officials.

In their effort to stop the dumping, residents are not only taking on the sludge

industry but fighting cities like Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and neighboring

counties like Sarasota and Manatee.

Those places have money and votes. And they need some place to dump sludge, a

concentrated, bacteria-laden byproduct of their treated sewage.

So even though state officials are now taking water and soil samples in DeSoto

County, are issuing warnings for illegal dumping and have hired someone to

monitor disposal, residents remain skeptical.

Tanya Bond dismisses the recent activity as " a public relations move, " and

wonders why the state is issuing warnings instead of fines. No meaningful change

will come until federal sludge laws are overhauled, Bond said.

" What the state is doing sounds good, but all I know is we're still getting way

too much sludge, " Bond said.

Nationwide, the battle over sludge is often waged between large cities and rural

counties. And those big cities have the political clout, and money, to prevail.

Because it's being dumped in the hinterlands, it hasn't received much attention,

said Bonner Cohen, an environmental specialist for Lexington Institute, an

Alexandria, Va., think tank.

" If this stuff were in Central Park or downtown Atlanta, it would politically be

a horse of a different color, " Cohen said. " As long as it's way out in the

boondocks and there are blue-collar people involved, it's not a big story. If it

was being dumped in some tony neighborhood with a TV reporter nearby, the stink,

both literally and figuratively, would be enormous. "

In 2000, the last year for which records are available, public sewage operations

in New Orleans, New Jersey, Milwaukee, Chicago and El Paso, Texas, which send

their sludge to rural areas, spent $800,000 on lobbyists. Some of the money was

spent on sludge-related issues.

The industry has also been lobbying state and national officials for more than a

decade to convince politicians and policymakers that sludge isn't toxic.

The federal government helps fund those efforts.

The sludge industry and its proponents spend about $1 million a year on campaign

contributions and lobbyists.

For that investment, the industry -- conglomerates that build wastewater

treatment plants and haul their waste -- gets access to politicians. It also

gets taxpayers' dollars: nearly $24 million since 1997.

The industry has had a hand in shaping federal law allowing sludge to be spread

as fertilizer, even though there's been little research into effects of the

practice on human health and the environment.

Most of the money given to the industry is used to promote and research sludge.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the industry use the research,

which critics say is decidedly biased, to defend current sludge policy and

disavow the notion that the muck is bad for human health and the environment.

Some money is also reinvested to help the industry get even more government

money, said Sam Hadeed, a spokesman for the Water Environment Federation, an

Arlington, Va.-based group that lobbies for the industry. The WEF boasts more

than 40,000 members, 140 staffers and a $19.5 million annual budget.

" We need to have somebody go up on the hill and say we need money for certain

things, " Hadeed said. " I mean, you just don't ask for $1 million and expect that

money to be spent in a vacuum. "

It makes sense for the industry and government to work hand-in-hand, instead of

as adversaries, he said.

" The paradigm shift of the last 10 years has been for the government to engage

parties who are stakeholders. We know the product and the different nuances and

ways to handle it, " Hadeed said, adding that when sludge is properly treated and

spread it poses no health risks.

" The issue here is perception. It's human waste, " Hadeed said.

But critics say government and industry have formed an impenetrable circle: The

sludge industry, wealthy landowners and urban governments contribute to

political campaigns, giving them access to politicians who make the laws. The

politicians, in turn, give the industry money for research to help the large

municipalities -- whose voters often elect them -- get rid of sludge. Those

municipalities pay the industry and landowners to take their sludge. And the

industry and landowners use some of that money to contribute to political

campaigns.

There's no place in the cycle for average citizens living in rural counties,

critics say.

" Often sludge users are large landowners who are politically connected, so the

ability of people to get their county to ban it is compromised, " said Ellen

Harrison, director of Cornell University's Waste Management Institute, and a

critic of current sludge policy.

" The victims are local, individual people in a community, while the companies

managing sludge are national. They obviously have a lot more access to resources

and to politicians, and so there's a substantial inequality there. These victims

don't have the wherewithal to alter the political landscape. "

Nancy Stoner, spokeswoman for the National Resources Defense Council, a

Washington, D.C.-based environmental group with more than 500,000 members, said

the sludge industry's " big money " and " sophisticated PR campaign " are

intimidating.

" The industry has seemingly unlimited resources, which they use to fund a very

sophisticated PR campaign, and get the ear of Congress, " Stoner said.

Fighting for a change

Folks in DeSoto County and other rural areas are convinced sludge is making them

sick, and at least one recent study supports some of those claims.

But those who speak out against sludge often become outcasts in their

communities. And it doesn't stop there.

Anti-sludge activists also face industry pressure.

Azurix North America, a former subsidiary of Enron and one of Florida's largest

sludge haulers, threatened to sue former DeSoto County resident Mari

Hollingsworth to keep her from showing photos of a dead cow lying in a pile of

muck near an Azurix sludge processing plant.

Hollingsworth showed them at a public forum anyway, and has not been sued.

When Gary Schaefer of Grand Bay, Ala., started a petition and letter-writing

campaign against sludge-dumping in his community, Houston-based Synagro

Technologies Inc., the largest sludge company in the nation with reported

revenues of $260 million last year, also threatened to sue.

" We caution you against making further statements that are false and which tend

to present Synagro and its employees negatively to the public, " Syangro told

Schaefer in a June 21 letter. " You have made statements … for which Synagro

could be entitled to money damages. "

The letter worked: Saying he can't afford a court battle, Schaefer stopped

working to ban sludge.

" I'm retired, and I've got a bad heart. I can't afford to fight these people, "

Schaefer said. " I'll be truthful: I'm afraid of them. "

Ross Patten, Synagro's chief executive officer, said he wasn't trying to

intimidate Schaefer. He just wanted to protect the company's reputation.

" We were just reminding him that he should be more cautious about making

allegations unless he has the facts to back it up. It's very simple, " Patten

said.

The sludge industry has also pressured national groups such as the Sierra Club.

Caroline Snyder, a retired environmental studies professor who sits on the

Sierra Club's sludge task force, said the group faced tremendous pressure not to

come out against dumping.

When the task force circulated drafts of a statement criticizing the nation's

sludge policy, its members received stern correspondence and calls from industry

and EPA officials.

Industry officials lobbied Sierra Club members to try to get them to quash the

statement, Snyder said.

" There was a lot of behind-the-scene pressure for us not to do this. There was

even a veiled threat of litigation, " Snyder said. " We spent a year getting the

Sierra Club to get on board with this. We were very proud that they stood firm. "

The organization's official statement, issued earlier this year, says the group

" opposes the land application of municipal sewage sludges as a fertilizer …

because the current policies and regulations governing this practice are not

adequately protective of human health and the environment. "

Hadeed of the WEF said his group wasn't trying to pressure the Sierra Club.

" When you have a group issuing policy in a vacuum, naturally we would want to

weigh in, " Hadeed said. " It was mainly a gesture of cooperation to work with

them to give them a better understanding of the issues. "

The sludge industry and the EPA also dispute the assertion that sludge poses a

health risk.

They point to a recent National Academy of Science study, which found no

scientific evidence that sludge is making people sick.

John Walker, an EPA scientist who helps write sludge policy, said that while

current policy adequately protects the public, his agency is always looking to

improve it.

Since a National Academy of Science report on sludge was released in July, the

EPA has been reviewing its policies and will respond to criticisms -- such as

its dearth of studies on sludge's effects on human health -- by next spring,

Walker said.

" There are a lot of people who are convinced they've gotten sick from sludge,

and we're going to study that, " Walker said.

Policy vs. research

Cornell University's Harrison, a member of the NAS panel that issued the sludge

report, said there's a reason scientific evidence linking sludge to illnesses is

scarce: no one's looking.

The industry and the EPA make sure research grants go to scientists whose past

research favors the industry, Harrison said.

Researchers, especially those from public institutions, are " under significant

pressure not to raise issues " about sludge, lest their funding dry up, she said.

After Cornell's Waste Management Institute published research questioning

sludge's safety, the industry countered with a report critical of Harrison, her

staff and the study. Funding for sludge research disappeared, she said.

Other researchers have also lost funding, Harrison said. The result is that few

take on sludge.

" Most just don't have the stomach for it, " she said.

Hadeed disputes that. The WEF receives most of the government money earmarked

for sludge research, and anyone can bid on those research projects, Hadeed said.

" I take exception to the notion that we suppress research. There is a lot of

research out there, " he said.

Robert Swank, a scientist who retired from the EPA in 1999 after 28 years, said

political pressure has suppressed the agency's own research.

Most EPA scientists think sludge is probably making people sick, and acknowledge

the need for more research, Swank said. But policymakers, who bend to the will

of the industry, ignore the scientists, he said.

" The people who make policy don't have the balls or the clear integrity to do

what needs to be done, " Swank said.

Stoner, from the Natural Resources Defense Council, points to a battle over

maximum dioxin levels in sludge.

Dioxin, a byproduct from plastics manufacturing, is highly toxic. As little as a

few parts per trillion in body fat can cause a range of health problems,

including cancer, birth defects and miscarriages. There is no " threshold " level

for dioxin -- the tiniest amount can cause damage, and the human body has no

defense against it, scientific research shows.

Despite the dangers, there's no limit on the amount allowed in sludge. In 1999,

the EPA proposed dioxin levels of no more than 300 parts per trillion.

Environmental groups, including the NRDC, say that's too high.

The industry doesn't want a ceiling. The argument is that dioxin levels have

been declining over the past decade and setting levels would be unnecessary and

testing for them costly.

A federal court ordered the EPA to set the limit before 2002. Since then, the

agency has received two court-approved extensions, first for April 2002 and then

this year, until October 2003. The EPA and NRDC negotiated the new deadline.

Stoner said the industry, which lobbies Congress, has the advantage because the

EPA answers to federal legislators.

Swank says policymakers are fighting to protect a system they set up.

The federal government began tightening regulations on discharges from municipal

sewage treatment plants after the Clean Water Act of 1972. Municipalities used

to dump the waste into nearby oceans, lakes and other waterways.

Between 1972 and 1987, the federal government spent nearly $100 billion helping

municipalities upgrade treatment plants. The result was cleaner effluent, and

millions of tons of toxic sludge.

The Ocean Dumping Ban Act, effective in 1991, left municipalities and the EPA

scrambling to get rid of sludge.

In 1992, the EPA rewrote rules governing sludge, reclassifying it from a

hazardous material to a " safe " fertilizer. In 1993 the EPA began allowing it to

be spread on crops and cow pastures.

Agency policymakers ignored scientists' warnings that the new rules posed a

public health risk, Swank said.

" There was a group of research scientists from all over the agency who had

concerns, but we were ignored, " Swank said.

Cohen, of the Lexington Institute, said the EPA has adopted a circle-the-wagons

mentality, and agency officials who want to speak out are reluctant.

" A lot of it has to do with the culture of the EPA. Once a policy is in place,

you have people staking their reputations on it, and everyone within the agency

is expected to love, honor and obey that policy, " Cohen said. " Science takes a

back seat to politics at the EPA. "

 

 

 

Sewage Sludge Safety Questioned in Two Major Studies

Washington, D.C., July 8, 2002: Two major scientific studies were released in

July documenting numerous potential human health and environmental risks

associated with the practice of dumping sewage sludge waste-products on farm

land. Sludge dumping is permitted under a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) rule which was found to be “outdated” and deficient. Since 1993 numerous

environmental groups and scientists have attacked the EPA sludge rule. The two

studies strongly supported the allegations raised by these critics. The first

study was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on July 2, 2002.

The NAS reviewed a limited number of issues related to the sludge rule. Funded

by EPA, the study was not authorized to evaluate the “adequacy” of the current

“individual standards for protecting human health” contained in the current

rule. Despite these limitations, the NAS report documented significant

weaknesses and deficiencies in current sludge practices, including the following

findings:

* “additional scientific work” was “needed” in order to “reduce persistent

uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure

to biosolids [i.e. sludge],” NAS, Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards

and Practices, p. 3;

* Various “allegations of disease” caused by exposure to sludge have not been

investigated and a basic “framework” for implementing “human health

investigations” regarding sludge exposures needed to be established; Id.

* A need existed to use “improved risk-assessment methods” to “better establish

standards for chemicals and pathogens” in sludge. Id.;

* No “epidemiological studies” have been “conducted on exposed populations,”

despite numerous “reports attributing adverse health effects” arising from

exposure to sludge. These reports have ranged from “relatively mild irritant and

allergic reactions to severe and chronic health outcomes.” Id., p. 4;

* No epidemiological investigations have been conducted on “sensitive

subpopulations” who are exposed to sludge, including “children,

immunocompromised individuals, and the elderly.” Id.;

* “EPA does not have an adequate program to ensure compliance” with sludge

“regulations and has not documented the effectiveness of its prescribed

management practices.” Id., p. 5;

* The “technical basis” for EPA’s 1993 rule is “outdated” and EPA failed to

conduct any “risk assessments” whatsoever to determine proper “pathogen

standards” for sludge. Various “exposure pathways” in which toxic materials in

sludge could infect humans “were not adequately evaluated by the EPA,” including

exposures from “inhalation” and the “potential for surface-water contamination.”

Id., pp. 9-10.

On July 8, 2002, the British medical journal BMC-Public Health published a study

which documented sludge related illnesses. The article discussed a study of

residents living near agricultural areas in the United States and Canada where

sewage sludge was used as a cheap fertilizer. The principle author of the study,

EPA microbiologist Dr. David Lewis, found unexplained infections among families

complaining of burning eyes, burning lungs, skin rashes and other symptoms of

chemical irritation. The study was co-authored by researched at the University

of Georgia and a pediatrician. Dr. Lewis is a nationally recognized expert on

pathogen contamination and sewage sludge.

View the BMC-Public Health article.

View the National Academy of Sciences Report.

View the EPA-OIG Report.

EPA Inspector General Slams Sludge Rule

Washington, D.C., April 3, 2002: The EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has

officially released its report on EPA's sewage sludge rule. The OIG identified

over ten major problem areas under the current rule and warned that " EPA cannot

assure the public that current land application practices [of sewage sludge] are

protective of human health and the environment. " Currently the EPA permits over

3.5 million metric tons of sewage sludge waste to be " land applied " on farm land

and forests throughout the United States.

The EPA OIG report was sparked by a March 16, 2001 complaint filed by the

National Whistleblower Center ( " NWC " ). The NWC filed the complaint based on the

allegations of Dr. David Lewis, an internationally respected microbiologist who

works as a research scientist for the EPA. In 2002, Dr. Lewis was awarded the

Science and Technology Achievement Award from EPA's Office of Research and

Development; and in 2000, Dr. Lewis obtained the Science Achievement Award from

former Administrator Carol Browner for research published in Nature regarding

EPA risk assessments, ncluding potential deficiencies in the sludge risk

assessment.

Click this link to view the Center's full press release. A copy of the OIG

Reportis posted at www.whistleblowers.org/OIGFinalSludgeReport.htm.

Senator Grassley Questions

Safety of EPA Sludge Rule

Washington, D.C., February 7, 2002: Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley expressed concern

over the EPA's apparent failure to ensure It's 503 Sludge Rule was " based on

sound, scientific process. " In a letter to EPA Administrator Christine Whitman,

Sen. Grassley stated that both Congress and the public should have full

disclosure on this issue. He also expressed concern that persons " who live near

locations where sludge has been applied " are at risk and should be informed.

The National Whistleblower Center also sent a request to the EPA urging it to

take immediate action to protect the public health and safety from harmful

exposure to Class B sewage sludge which the EPA currently permits to be dumped

on farmland throughout the United States.

 

 

 

National Whistleblower Center

Responds to Sludge Industry's Attack

on Renowned Scientist

Washington, D.C. January 25, 2002- The National Whistleblower Center released a

report responding to allegations from the sludge industry regarding an

internationally respected scientist who has documented major health risks

associated with the land application of sewage sludge. Dr. David Lewis'

testimony compelled one of the nation's leading sewage sludge distributors,

Synagro Technologies, Inc., to pay a major monetary settlement in a toxic tort

case involving a death believed to be caused by exposure to sewage sludge.

Synagro, issued a " white paper " attacking Dr. Lewis. The NWC investigated the

Synagro charges and concluded that Synagro's allegations have no merit.

Follow this link to view a copy of the Center's report Scientific Freedom Under

Attack: An Analysis of The Synagro Technologies, Inc. " White Paper " Regarding

Dr. David Lewis .

Order documents referenced in this report

Toxic Sludge Producer

Pays Historic SettlementWashington, D.C., January 17, 2002- The sludge industry

has paid its first damage award as a result of a successful toxic tort-wrongful

death suit filed. On January 8, 2002, Synagro, Inc., the nation's largest sludge

producer, paid the family of Shayne Conner an undisclosed amount of money in

order to settle a wrongful death suit. The settlement is the first known payment

of money to alleged victims of sludge-induced sicknesses.

" The settlement appears to be a complete vindication of the scientific critics

of EPA sludge policies and industry practices " according to Kris Kolesnik, the

Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center. " It is inconceivable

that a corporation such as Synagro, which has a reputation for aggressively

defending sludge from any criticism, would pay a significant settlement award,

if they did not fear losing the case, " Kolesnik added.

Click this link to view the full text of the Center's press release.

 

 

 

 

The information contained in this Web site is provided for informational and/or

educational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any

matter. We disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based

on any or all the contents of this site. Before acting on any information or

material in this web site, we strongly recommend you to seek professional legal

counsel. Please read our full Disclaimer.

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more