- Subject: Part 5 -- It all began in New York
- From: T*@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 05:39:13 EDT
- Full-name: TheBynums
Cornell no doubt has created some outstanding scientists and scientific work,
However, its kind of hard to reconcile that fact when you look at the current
debate between it's most visible graduate at the moment, EPA's Alan Rubin,
and the Cornell professors who wrote "A Case for Caution". The Cornell
professors think Rubin's sludge regulation has the potential for doing
serious harm to the environment and public health. Rubin on the other hand
tried to get the professors fired for writing the study, or at the least, get
the study suppressed by Cornell management. Needless to say, "A Case for
Caution" was published. Cornell management couldn't side with Rubin and the
EPA because it had already proven the case and the University's
credibility would have been destroyed. On the other hand Cornell management
had to be careful in addressing the credibility of one of it's prime
graduates.
There seems to be a gentlemen's agreement that even in the worse dogfight you
don't question the scientific credibility of your opponent. In this case,
while the scientists endlessly debate, members of the public are dying and
both sides know it. This type of science destroys the credibility of both
sides and the institutions which employ them. Whats worse is that they have
helped to destroy the credibility of the National Science Academy, who's
members agreed with Rubin and EPA that toxic and hazardous sewage sludge
could safety be used as a fertilizer and the effluent from the wastetreatment
plants could safety be used to recharge groundwater supplies.
Half-truths and lies seems to have become the scientific norm. As an example,
Rubin's explanation for the pathogen regrowth in the west Texas EPA/WEF Fact
Sheet, which he claimed was verified by an independent analysis by
Alternative Resources, Inc., of Stroudsberg, Pa., was "variations were most
likely caused by inconsistencies in the sampling and analytical methods at
the five separate labs conducting the analysis". (p. 3) Can you imagine,
the National Science Academy actually bought this scientific explanation.
However, different findings using the same test were explained by J. G.
Babish (Cornell) in the Criteria and Recommendations for Land Applications of
Sludges in the
Northeast (Pennsylvania State University, 1985). When he stated, "any
analytical technique employed to examine the contents of sludge will suffer
from a bias--it can only find what it is set up to detect. This analytical
procedure involves some pre-existing knowledge of possible contaminates."
(p. 55)
Cornell has actually done extensive studies on the toxic and hazardous
nature of sludge and it is not a pretty story. According to Babish, "Cornell
University studies (1981) on ambient exposure to carcinogenic and mutagenic
compounds included evaluations of sewage sludge from 34 American
cities-----only one sample, Dallas Central failed to demonstrate a
dose-related increase in revertants in any of the five tester strains with or
without metabolic activation (S-9). The other thirty-three sludge samples
exhibited a positive mutagenic response with at least one strain; twelve of
the thirty-three samples were positive with two or more strains. Seventy-six
percent (25/33) of the positive samples required metabolic activation to
demonstrate
mutagenicity,..." (pp.56-57)
Extracts from the Dallas sludge was used as a possible non-toxic sludge
to test for toxicity in mice versus a Boston sludge which did test positive
for mutagenic
effects with metabolic activation. "Both treated and control animals
exhibited signs of discomfort immediately after dosing...fifteen to thirty
minutes after dosing, the Boston sludge-treated animals begin to show sign of
effects on the central nervous system. Orientation was effected to some
degree in all groups as animals rotated repeatedly in both clockwise and
counter-clockwise directions; one animal (dosed
at 32.9 mg/kg) turned over continuously for a period of four to six minutes.
Additionally, motor coordination and gait were adversely affected by the
Boston sludge extract in nearly all the animals."
"Mean time-to-death for Boston sludge extract ranged from 4.5 to 1.8
days, decreasing with increasing dose. The same decrease in mean
time-to-death with increasing dose was observed for Dallas sludge extract,
although the range of 3
to 1 day was somewhat shorter....High-dose groups for both Boston and Dallas
sludge extracts did not consume any food before dying." (p.60) "Although,
the Boston sludge was more toxic, as demonstrated by LD 50, approximately
one-half the Dallas sludge, both of these sludge extracts would be considered
extremely toxic." (p.60)
However, the most disturbing part of the study was that, "No gross
lesions were observed in any animals which could be associated with the test
materials. Additionally, no treatment effects were seen in gross or relative
organ
weights. Hepatic cytochrome P-450 levels were not significantly different
from control values." (61) In effect, there was no documentable evidence
indicated to support the
cause of death for the mice. In effect, a doctor would have said these mice
died of natural causes.
Babish leaves us with a warning, "it is clear that setting standards of
sludge application based on analytical measurement of one or any number of
compounds is inadequate for protection of public health. Moreover, the
absence of
information concerning the organic constituents of municipal sewage sludge
must not be equated with low risk or safety. Under conditions of minimal
data, maximal risk must be assumed in order to protect public health." (p. 61)
Cornell also studied the potential danger of compound conversions which
was noted by (Babish, et al, 1981, Cornell Special Report (SR) No. 42),
"Trimethylamine in sewage is converted to the potential carcinogen
dimethylinitrosamine. Dimethylinitrosamine formed in soil to which
dimethylamine and nitrite were added, but only when organic matter was
present. Dimethylinitrosamine and diethylinitrosamine continue to volatilize
from soils for several weeks following incorporation. The half-life of these
compounds in soil is about 3 weeks....The demonstrated carcinogen,
dimethylinitrosamine, which can form in sludge, has also been shown to be
absorbed by spinach and lettuce." (SR. p.2-3)
The 1996 National Academy of Science Report included a warning that
chlorine could convert nontoxic compounds into toxic elements from the its
own 1980 study:
"In addition, nontoxic organic compounds in wastewater can be
transformed into potentially toxic chlorinated organic compounds, such as
trihalomethane,
when chlorine is used for disinfection purposes (National Research Council,
1980)." (p. 100)
However, the warning was not as clear as that reported for Rock's 1976
study:
" Rock (1976) discovered that chlorine used in disinfection reacts with
natural occurring humic substances in water to form trihalomathanes (THMs),
the most prevalent species among them are chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochlorimethane, and bromoform." (p. 106)
Cornell's Professor Lisk (L)(1988, unpublished paper), put the organic
problem in perspective, "One can argue that organics in sludge are no more
harmful than pesticides which are applied to crops. However, pesticides are
molecules of known identity and up to seven years of intensive research,
costing up to $15 million has been spent on each, exhaustively studying
their fate in plants, soils, animals and aquatic species including
metabolism, toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, birth defects, etc. By
contrast, sludge is a complex mixture of countless synthetic and natural
compounds of mostly unknown structure, properties, toxicity, or fate and
effects in the environment, including man.....The legal aspect is also of
paramount importance. Let us assume that a farmers wife has a deformed infant
after the farmer has used sludge on his land. There may be no connection
whatsoever. However, with the judicial process today for citizens bringing
all kinds of damage suits to court, who is going to disprove the plaintiffs
claims? Are the proponents of sludge use on land willing to sign on the
dotted line as to their willingness to be held responsible for possible
hazards whether real or fabricated which may result in litigation?
More likely, they will be unavailable for comment." (L. p. 1-3)
In a special report entitled "Organic Toxicants and Pathogens in Sewage
Sludge and Their Environmental Effects" (December, 1981) Babish, Lisk,
Stoewsand and Wilkinson, members of the Subcommittee on Organics in Sludge of
Cornell
University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, cites several studies
showing that plants have become contaminated with PCBs. The PCB contaminated
plants were corn and grass (Curry, 1977), soybeans (Weaver, et al., 1981),
spruce trees
(Buckley, 1979), carrots (Iwata and Gunther, 1978). Although there is some
uptake of PCBs by certain crops, these researchers say that plants usually
become contaminated by volatilization of the PCBs.
PCBs are not the only organic chemicals taken up by plants, dioxins are
also taken up. According to an EPA report in 1988, when root crops such as
carrots, potatoes and onions are grown in contaminated soils, they can
develop dioxin
levels that equal or exceed those already in the soil.
The greatest danger to humans from PCB or dioxin contamination is not
from eating contaminated plants but from eating animals who have grazed on
sludge-amended soil, particularly those who have pulled up the plants by the
roots
with the sludged soil adhering. That large amounts of soil are ingested by
animals, particularly cows, was substantiated by research by Babish, et al
(1981). According to their findings:
Cows which have been autopsied typically exhibit a layer
of soil several centimeters deep in their abomasum.
This occurs because plant roots with absorbed particles
are torn loose during grazing. Also, swine allowed to
forage in sludge treated areas can expect to uproot the
surface and injest sludge-amended soil. (pp. 2-3)
Cornell scientists, Harrison, McBride and Bouldin, authors of "A Case
for Caution", found ingestion of sludge containing PCBs is the pathway of
concern. They say "since PCBs (and other persistent, fat soluble toxic
organics) bioaccumulate in animal fats, ingestion of sludges containing such
organics by cattle could be a concern regarding milk and meat quality." (p.
25)
The story gets worse, the revelations in the 1996 National Academy of
Science report on the EPA's data base (NSSS) are alarming because on the
basis of the NSSS results, which according to the report because of sampling
inconsistency "may vary by as much as two or more orders of magnitude",
limits were developed for only ten heavy metals. Moreover, the heavy metal
limits allowed not only are the highest ever allowed in the United States,
but are several magnitudes higher than in Europe. For example, cadmium, which
according to the EPA, "from a human health standpoint,... is the sludge-borne
metal that has received the greatest attention."
When McGrath, Chang, Page and Witter did a review of the regulations
which set limits to the additions of metals in sludges to agricultural lands
in the United States and in Europe "Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
Scientific Perspectives of Heavy Metal Loading Limits in Europe and the
United States" published in the Environmental Review, Volume 2, 1994, they
discovered that for most metals the limits in the United States were "several
magnitudes higher than any country (including the United States) has ever
proposed" (p.116) According to the report:
The U.S regulations also allow the largest rate of
annual input of metals to soil and the largest metal
concentrations in sewage sludges that can be used in
agriculture. The maximum cumulative pollutant loadings
limits in the United States are the highest ever
proposed for land application of sewage sludge. The
unconventional loading limits have created an uneasiness
among the regulatory authorities worldwide. (p. 115)
A disquieting finding in the report was that the C- values in the
Netherlands which "indicate the concentration at which there is considered to
be serious soil contamination and a need for further action or for soil
remediation" (what in the U.S. would constitute a superfund site) "are close
to or lower than the United States Protection Agency derived limits, and for
some metals they are considerably lower."
(p. 113). The report states the difference between the precautionary
approach of the European countries and that of the EPA under Part 503 sludge
regulations:
Thus, in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries,
there is an underlying philosophy of caution. Also,
there is a deep concern to preserve soils and other
natural resources, in their present state, for future
generations. This, means, ultimately, not adding
potentially hazardous substances to the soil in excess
of the likely rates of loss. (p. 116)
Al Page, one of the authors of this study was the Co-chair of the Part 503
Peer Review Committee which gutted the safety warnings included in the 1989
proposed Part 503, and increased the metals limits. Page was also the Chair
of the National Academy of Science's Committee which said it was OK to reuse
sludge as long as all the laws worked. But that is a major problem with the
EPA/WEF partnership, especially when the laws forbid the operation. The
solution is to work the legal system to get the desired foregone result both
parties want. At that point a Judge has little choice in the decision he must
make. As an example, EPA and it's partners want to remove Chromium from the
Part 503 regulation.
The ten heavy metals which were addressed in Part 503 were reduced to
nine when chromium was deleted. Although the pollutant limits for molybdenum
in sludge applied to land were also deleted, the molybdenum ceiling limits
were retained.
In December 1992, before the final Part 503 was released, the Water
Environment Federation's Washington Bulletin published Milwaukee's complaint
about EPA's limits on molybdenum and chromium. It was Milwaukee's contention
that "A limit of 1,200 mg/kg on chromium will necessitate pretreatment of
this wastewater if Milwaukee is to continue marketing its Milorganite
product." According to Tom
Crawford, "Landfilling our sludge would be a much more costly option." (p. 3)
EPA chose an indirect method to take care of the regulatory problems and
protect Milwaukee and other municipalities from the liability of handling
sludge with
high chromium content as well as the public relation's problem with
selenium. EPA let the courts set the stage for completely removing chromium
from the beneficial section of the regulation and raising the selenium limits.
It is clear that EPA engineered the lawsuit to assist its partners (the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) and Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District) under the shelter of Leather Industries of
America, Inc., to completely remove chromium from regulation. If chromium
was not removed from the regulation, Milwaukee's Class A Milorganite sludge
fertilizer would have exceeded the Part
503 limits for chromium with the associated liability and the Leather
Industry would have had the additional expense for pretreatment of its
wastewater containing up to 30,000 mg/kg of hexavalent chromium in it.
In 1994, the Leather Industries of America, the City of Milwaukee, and
the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies challenged EPA's National
Sewage Sludge Survey (NSSS) in a court case, because it didn't include any
treatment plants where tannery waste chromium is received in excess of 30,000
mg/kg (ppm). According to the court record, the highest level of chromium
reported in the EPA's NSSS was 3,750 mg/kg (p.401). (United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Nos. 93-1187, 93-1376, 93-1404 and
93-1555)
The court found several problems with the data base for chromium limits
in Part 503 sludge rule. According to the Court records, which only refer to
heat-dried sludge, EPA could not document whether it had actually performed
sampling and analysis at 208 or 180 of the 479 treatment plants in the survey
(both numbers were given) -out of a national total of 11,407 (p.395).
According to the Judge:
... The AMSA challenges the risk-based caps in Table 3.
It argues that the assumptions about the rate and
duration of sludge application underlying the risk-based
caps in Table 3 are irrational with respect to heat-
dried sludge, which is applied at lower rates for
shorter duration. For what ever reason, the EPA chose
not to respond to this particular claim, and the AMSA
has been less than totally clear about what parts of the
regulation are allegedly infected by the use of these
assumptions. We are, accordingly, somewhat handicapped
in evaluating the challenge. Nonetheless, on the record,
we conclude that EPA has not adequately justified its
use of the assumed rate and duration of application to
apply the risk-based caps in Table 3 to heat-dried
sludge. (40 Federal Reporter, 3d series, p. 402)
Primarily, the Court ruling only concerned Chromium in heat-dried sludge
(Milorganite), a product of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. It
appears that the Court was led to believe by both the challengers and EPA
that all "clean" (EQ) sludges in 40 CFR 503.13(b) were heat-dried and EPA's
enforcement of the regulation was primarily directed at Milwaukee's
"Milorganite fertilizer", which has extremely high levels of chromium in it.
(40 Federal Reporter, 3d series p. 402 According to the Court:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to supply
rational basis for its assumed application duration and
rate underlying regulatory safe harbor for land
application of "clean" sewage sludge, in light of the
available information that actual application rate and
duration of use for heat-dried sludge were well below
EPA's assumptions. 40 CFR 503.13(b)." (p. 392)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also
found that the 503 Regulation was not scientifically risked based as claimed
by the EPA. The Court noted that, "while EPA "may `err' on the side of
overprotection," it "may not engage in sheer guesswork (p.408)." According to
the Court, EPA did not adequately
defend the science behind the chromium limits in Part 503. The court ruled
due to, "(4) the lack of data to support the risked-based cap on chromium
(3,000 ppm), we remand those parts of the regulation to the EPA for
modification or
additional justification." (p. 394)
Evidently John Walker and Rubin have a problem with understanding what
the court meant by the words remand and modification. According to Webster's
New World Dictionary, The word Remand means to send back. The word
Modification
means to alter or change. Neither one of these means drop. What the court
wanted them to do was either revise or justify their position based on the
fact that hexavalent tannery chromium was being dumped into the treatment
plants at 30,000
ppm. It did not order EPA to drop chromium from the regulation as John
Walker claimed in the 1995 Guide to the Part 503 Risk Assessment. What in the
world was he thinking when he wrote:
The court stated that EPA should drop chromium from the
Part 503 rule because the biosolids risk assessment did
not identify any chromium level associated with risk to
public health or the environment. EPA agrees and plans
to delete all chromium limits for land-applied biosolids
from the Part 503 rule. (p. 56)
What the Court also found was that EPA had failed to fulfill the
statutory requirement of the law to create regulations "adequate to protect
public health and the environment from any reasonable adverse effects."
The Court noted that there are two forms of Chromium (hexavalent and
trivalent) and that EPA had "delisted' chromium (removed it from the
hazardous waste list) in the tanning industry because this chromium is in the
trivalent form." (p.406) [It would be interesting to know who wrote that
misstatement] The Court also noted, "there are several studies cited in the
record showing that trivalent chromium can oxidize to hexavalent chromium."
(p.406)
According to EPA, although there are only 2 types of chromium, Trivalent
(chromium III) and Hexavalent (chromium VI), due to the sewage treatment
process, only the Trivalent form is found in sewage sludge. For this reason,
supposedly
EPA was trying to take chromium out of the regulation. Yet, in a sludge
analysis given to the State of Texas by Merco, dated 14 August 1991, New York
City specifically listed Hexavalent chromium in sludge from all of its 14
treatment
plants.
Water and food contamination is not the only potential problem,
according to a 1991-93 Canadian Government study (8/97), "Airborne
Hexavalent Chromium in Southwestern Ontario", approximately 20% of the
routinely monitored ambient airborne chromium (Cr) was in the hexavalent
form." In addition, the
range of carcinogenic health risks attributed to airborne Cr(vi) was
determined to be between 1.4 (in 100,000) and 3.0 (in 10,000) for people
living in the Winsor area." For people spending all of their time outdoors
the range increased to between 3.6 in 100,000 and 5.5 in 10,000. This
estimate was based on potency factors developed by our own EPA, the
California Department of Health Services and the World Health
Organization. [23]
If there is that much airborne hexavalent chromium in the air in Canada
and it is that dangerous, how much could we have in our cities or on a large
sludge farm dump site? What are these "expert" soil scientists doing to us?
Apparently they have never done any basic research or they would have found
that hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) is almost exclusively manmade. Natural
occurring chromium is in the trivalent (Cr-
III) form. Hexavalent chromium has been found in glue, cement, detergents
and other materials including chromite ore. It is/was used in the chrome
plating, corrosion inhibitors, dye, graphic art supplies, fungicides,
lithography solutions, paper matches, paint pigment manufacturing, wood
preservation and the leather industry.
Hexavalent chromium is produced by three methods, high-lime, low-lime,
and lime-free processes. In 1975, most of the chromite ore came from the
Republic of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the USSR. No chromite ore
has been mined in the United States since 1961.
EPA has suggested that the sewage treatment process changes the
carcinogenic nature of hexavalent chromium-VI used in the leather industry to
the non-carcinogenic form chromium-III. The literature suggests that
chromium-VI at low pH (less than 4) can oxidize water to oxygen thereby
resulting in chromium-III. However, the literature also suggest that above
ph 4, chromium-III will be oxidized by oxygen into Chromium-VI. Cropland
must be maintained at a pH of 6-7 to prevent other toxic metals from being
taken up by plants. In effect, all metals and particularly, chromium
compounds are very sensitive to pH balance and the oxidization process would
appear to become extremely effective in transforming natural occurring
chromium-III from the soil into Chromium-VI when the pH is raised to 11 or
12. Adding lime during the waste treatment process to create Class A sludge
raises the pH to 11 or 12. It is used to control odors and is one of the
recommended methods of treating sludge to reduce pathogens--- sludge is mixed
with lime, and the pH is raised above 12, where it must remain for at least
72 hours. In effect, it would appear the EPA's Class A treatment process is
at a minimum reactivating the chromium-VI compounds. As we saw from the
Canadian study, chromium may be one of the most dangerous elements in the
sludge products EPA is promoting for uncontrolled distribution to the public.
All of these scientists know the truth, according to the New Jersey
Department of Health and AQUIRE Database, ERL-Duluth, U.S.EPA, chromium is a
cancer causing agent and a mutagen. "It has been shown to cause lung and
throat cancer." Under the New Jersey Department of Health Right to Know
Program, "Chromium (III) and chromium (VI) both have high chronic toxicity to
aquatic life; no data are available on the long-term effects of chromium to
plants, birds, or land animals." According to the report, "Some substances
increase in concentration, or bioaccumulate in living organisms as they
breath contaminated air, drink contaminated water or eat contaminated food.
These chemicals can become concentrated in the tissues and internal organs of
animals and humans."
The report notes that, "Acute (short-term) toxic effects [which are
seen two to four days after animals or plants come in contact] may include
the death of animals, birds, or fish, and death or low growth rate in
plants." "...chronic (long term) health effects can occur at some time after
exposure to chromium and can last for months or years." "Chronic toxic
effects may include shortened lifespan, reproductive
problems, lower fertility and changes in appearance or behavior."
"REASON FOR (New Jersey's) CITATION of chromium in the Right to Know
Program:
* It is on the (EPA) Hazardous Substance List because it is regulated by
OSHA and sited by ACGIH, NTP and ARC.
* This chemical is also on the Special Health Hazard Substance List because
it is a CANCER CAUSING AGENT and a MUTAGEN.
* Chromium is a CANCER CAUSING AGENT in humans. There may be no safe level
of exposure to a carcinogen, so all contact should be reduced to the lowest
possible level.
The National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists
Chromium as a poison. It is also on the "Special Health Hazard Substance
list, as well as #15 and #72 on the 1995 CERCLA/EPA Priority List of
Hazardous substances
found in landfills. NIOSH first recommended standards for Occupational
Exposure to Chromium (VI) in 1975. It was so concerned about the medical and
carcinogenic dangers that "Preplacement X-ray and X-rays for the 5 years
preceding termination of employment and all medical records with pertinent
supporting documents shall be retained at least 30 years after the
individual's employment is terminated."
Although government regulatory agencies (e.g., OSHA, ACGIH, EPA) recognize
that chromium is very dangerous in the workplace at 8 hour exposure levels,
EPA claims farmers can't be hurt when they are exposed 24 hours a day. As an
example:
OSHA: The legal airborne permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 1 mg/m3 averaged
over an 8 hour work shift. [That is 1 ppm per cubic meter of air]
ACGIH: The recommended airborne exposure limit is 0.5 mg/m3
averaged over an 8 hour workshift. [That is 1/2 ppm per cubic meter of air]
While the Court could only address those points in question, chromium
and selenium limits, it did point out the limits of EPA's statutory
authority, "Although the EPA is not held to a standard of precise
refinement, it is held to one of rationality and it must supply a reasoned
basis for its regulatory choices." (p. 405)
When EPA's Alan Rubin, was asked about the court action on chromium, he
said, "You just couldn't defend it." [the research?] So in 1996, EPA removed
Chromium limits from the beneficial use section of the 503 regulation.
However, EPA
did not remove Chromium from the Surface Disposal Section of Part 503. Yet,
crops can be grown and cattle can be grazed on a surface disposal site. The
main difference between it and a beneficial use site is that there must be a
disposal permit and chromium has extremely low limits.
The only other heavy metal addressed by the suit was selenium. According
to the court records, in order for the City of Pueblo, Colorado, to use its
sludge on the highway meridians, the selenium limit needed to be raised. In
the suit the court ruled: "We conclude, however, that the EPA has failed to
show that the 99th percentile caps are risk- related, and thus that they
accord with the express mandate
of the statute." (p. 400)
Using the findings of the court as a justification for its actions, EPA
arbitrarily raised the selenium limit to 100 mg/kg to accommodate the City of
Pueblo in their beneficial use of sludge on the highway meridians. In taking
this action they ignored the selenium limit recommendation of the USDA.
On page 56 of the Part 503 Risk Assessment Document, it
states, "USDA recommended limiting the addition to soil of
selenium in biosolids to 28 kg/ha to avoid excessive plant
uptake and possible poisoning of certain sensitive livestock
or wildlife."
Jim Bynum
PO Box 34475
N. Kansas CIty, Mo. 64116
