Sludge mess in EPA's back yard: the EPA tried some sleight of hand by declaring sludge beneficial to the environment, but the agency can't make allegations of poisoning the public disappear

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 25, 2002 | by Sheila R. Cherry

Then the EPA began spreading its sludge fertilizer all over rural America, whereupon the official view became that the "EPA strongly concludes the land application of biosolids, when performed under the federal Part 503 Rule, is fully protective of public health and the environment."

Eventually the biosolids hit the fan. In 2000, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a hazard warning (HID 10) for workers who might handle or inhale Class B sludge fertilizers. NIOSH officials advised workers near Class B biosolids land-application sites that exposure to sludge could pose the risk for either the onset of disease (e.g. gastroenteritis) or in a carrier state of a disease (such as typhoid) where an infection does not clinically manifest itself in the individual but can be spread to others.

Charged with providing occupational health information under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), rather than promoting an environmental policy for the EPA, the NIOSH warning about biosolids was direct. "These enteric [intestinal] organisms are usually associated with self-limited gastrointestinal illness but can develop into more serious diseases in sensitive populations such as immunocompromised individuals, infants, young children and the elderly."

Like official Cassandras who had preceded them over the decades, years and months, the NIOSH officials also questioned the uncertainty of the science behind EPA's sludge policy, observing: "Because data are sparse on what constitutes an infective dose, it is prudent public-health practice to minimize workers' contact with soil or dusts containing Class B biosolids during the restricted periods."

An industry group, describing itself as the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, now is petitioning the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services, seeking to have HID 10 pulled or euphemized to omit the word "hazard."

In its complaint, the group charges that NIOSH failed to comply with OMB document-distribution rules. It also complains that the label "hazard" conveys the impression that the hazard is general and widespread, rather than limited to any special circumstances that might have existed at the one facility on which the alert is based.

Synagro is predicting a regulatory victory.

SHEILA R. CHERRY IS A WRITER FOR Insight.