Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Sludge Wars
from an article by John Meyers - News Tribune (Duluth, MN)
"It's disgusting to think that everything we pour down our drains and flush down our toilets, in our homes and hospitals and paper mills, is ending up on our local farms in the form of treated sewage sludge," said Inese Holte a longtime opponent. "The farmers will take it because they are hurting and it's free."
It's the ultimate recycling," said Lauri Walters, environmental program coordinator for the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in Minnesota. "We're giving nutrients back to the land that we took out of it."
Not everyone agrees, and it's not just the "yuck" factor that's driving their opinions. Opponents say treated human waste is unproven, environmentally unsafe, and unhealthy for animals and people.
They contend that excess nutrients can pollute waterways, and that bacteria, diseases, heavy metals and other chemicals are being poured onto farm fields without proper oversight.
It is dubbed 'biosolids, to cover the undesirable connotations that come with the term 'sewage sludge'.
Recycling sewage sludge on fields has become the disposal method of choice for most of the 15,000 municipal wastewater plants across the United States. More than 60 percent of the 5.6 million dry tons of sludge produced nationally ends up on fields -- 3.4 million tons total, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA promotes spreading it as fertilizer, calling it the preferred disposal option. Incineration is less favored because it requires the consumption of fuels that contribute to air pollution. And burying the stuff takes up space in hard-to-permit landfills.
"I couldn't operate if I had to buy commercial fertilizer," farmer Mike Salzar said, noting the difference would be thousands of dollars each year, his margin between profit and loss.
Sludge opponents aren't convinced the substance is safe. They point to a 2002 National Academies of Science report that found EPA regulation of sludge is based on "outdated science." Moreover, the report said, federal oversight is lax, with little guarantee that what's inside the sludge is as harmless as claimed. "Additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for human health effects," it said.
While supporters say the process works, opponents say there's no guarantee that each batch of sludge spread on a field is safe. They point to dozens of incidents nationally, even worldwide, where people claimed sludge made them sick. And they worry that the current technology won't work to keep things like the SARS virus, pharmaceuticals and other problem substances out of the sludge spread on fields.
"My wife and I began to become concerned about sewage sludge during the summer of 1999, when sludge was applied to hay fields on two properties adjacent to ours," Tom Richards said. "When the wind blew from the right directions, the odor was nauseating, to say the least, and was something we were forced to deal with for months until winter set in."
Many cases of staphyloccoccal infections have been blamed on field-spread sewage sludge exposure.
There have been a few high-profile cases in recent years that sludge opponents cite as ample evidence sludge is unsafe. In Augusta, Ga., a farmer was awarded $550,000 by a jury this year after hundreds of his cows died. The farmer blamed contaminated sewage sludge spread on his field, apparently because of high levels of the metal molybdenum.
In 1994, 11-year-old Tony Behun of Osceolla Mills, Pa., rode a motorbike through a field where sludge had been recently spread. He developed a fever and lesions on his arm, fell into a coma, and died within a week.
One of those opponents is microbiologist David Lewis, a former EPA scientist who has blasted the agency for inadequate regulation. Lewis says Behun's and possibly other people's sickness and death are tied to exposure to sludge.
"The science is so bad, it clearly puts public health and safety at risk," he told the Washington Post. Lewis, an award-winning EPA scientist, was fired from the agency this year, he says, because of his criticism of EPA sludge policy.
*************************************************************************
from an article by John Meyers - News Tribune (Duluth, MN)
"It's disgusting to think that everything we pour down our drains and flush down our toilets, in our homes and hospitals and paper mills, is ending up on our local farms in the form of treated sewage sludge," said Inese Holte a longtime opponent. "The farmers will take it because they are hurting and it's free."
It's the ultimate recycling," said Lauri Walters, environmental program coordinator for the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in Minnesota. "We're giving nutrients back to the land that we took out of it."
Not everyone agrees, and it's not just the "yuck" factor that's driving their opinions. Opponents say treated human waste is unproven, environmentally unsafe, and unhealthy for animals and people.
They contend that excess nutrients can pollute waterways, and that bacteria, diseases, heavy metals and other chemicals are being poured onto farm fields without proper oversight.
It is dubbed 'biosolids, to cover the undesirable connotations that come with the term 'sewage sludge'.
Recycling sewage sludge on fields has become the disposal method of choice for most of the 15,000 municipal wastewater plants across the United States. More than 60 percent of the 5.6 million dry tons of sludge produced nationally ends up on fields -- 3.4 million tons total, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA promotes spreading it as fertilizer, calling it the preferred disposal option. Incineration is less favored because it requires the consumption of fuels that contribute to air pollution. And burying the stuff takes up space in hard-to-permit landfills.
"I couldn't operate if I had to buy commercial fertilizer," farmer Mike Salzar said, noting the difference would be thousands of dollars each year, his margin between profit and loss.
Sludge opponents aren't convinced the substance is safe. They point to a 2002 National Academies of Science report that found EPA regulation of sludge is based on "outdated science." Moreover, the report said, federal oversight is lax, with little guarantee that what's inside the sludge is as harmless as claimed. "Additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for human health effects," it said.
While supporters say the process works, opponents say there's no guarantee that each batch of sludge spread on a field is safe. They point to dozens of incidents nationally, even worldwide, where people claimed sludge made them sick. And they worry that the current technology won't work to keep things like the SARS virus, pharmaceuticals and other problem substances out of the sludge spread on fields.
"My wife and I began to become concerned about sewage sludge during the summer of 1999, when sludge was applied to hay fields on two properties adjacent to ours," Tom Richards said. "When the wind blew from the right directions, the odor was nauseating, to say the least, and was something we were forced to deal with for months until winter set in."
Many cases of staphyloccoccal infections have been blamed on field-spread sewage sludge exposure.
There have been a few high-profile cases in recent years that sludge opponents cite as ample evidence sludge is unsafe. In Augusta, Ga., a farmer was awarded $550,000 by a jury this year after hundreds of his cows died. The farmer blamed contaminated sewage sludge spread on his field, apparently because of high levels of the metal molybdenum.
In 1994, 11-year-old Tony Behun of Osceolla Mills, Pa., rode a motorbike through a field where sludge had been recently spread. He developed a fever and lesions on his arm, fell into a coma, and died within a week.
One of those opponents is microbiologist David Lewis, a former EPA scientist who has blasted the agency for inadequate regulation. Lewis says Behun's and possibly other people's sickness and death are tied to exposure to sludge.
"The science is so bad, it clearly puts public health and safety at risk," he told the Washington Post. Lewis, an award-winning EPA scientist, was fired from the agency this year, he says, because of his criticism of EPA sludge policy.
*************************************************************************
Comments:
Post a Comment
