Stop Recycling Sewage Effluents on Food Crops, Etc.

We the undersigned request an immediate halt to the national EPA Agency policy of disposing sewage effluents (i.e. sludge and reclaimed water) as beneficial use on pasture land, land used to grow food crops, forest land, parks, school grounds, as well as home lawns and gardens. This was an arbitrary policy based EPA's conclusion (1981) that "Land spreading of urban sewage sludge is probably the most practical means of disposal."

We feel that you and the new Agency leaders should be made aware of
the result of this policy which has led to the current public outcry for new food safety laws to protect our food supply. New laws will not effect or solve the problem as long as the victims (i.e. farmers, packing houses, food processors, wholesalers and retailers) are blamed for infections and deaths caused by the 30 year old EPA policy.

Government documents show foodborne illnesses have increased from two million (EPA) cases in 1986 to 81 million (GAO) cases in 1997. That number was revised to 76 million (CDC) in 1999.

What is even more disturbing is the hospital stays with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections increased from virtually zero in 1985, to 1,900 cases in 1993, to 368,300 cases in 2005. About 19,000 people died from this flesh eating bacteria. Many more bacteria have now picked up the flesh eating gene.

Background
Acting on the 1981 conclusion that land spreading of disease contaminated sludge was the most practial means of disposal placed the EPA policy in direct conflict with the environmental laws designed to protect human health and the environment from concentrations of chemical, or infectious agents that may--(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Between 1973 and 1988 EPA documented that treatment processes only reduce some disease organisms for a short period of time at best.  In 1982 EPA's own Mark Meakes documented that antibiotic resistant bacteria were being created and released from sewage treatment plants.
Several more recent studies have documented this phenomenon.

When EPA released its policy as 40 CFR 257 et.al. (Part 503) regulation in 1993 it acknowledged EPA did not have the data needed to assure the public sludge use was safe.  In fact, in 503.9(t) EPA warned that exposure to the pollutants in sludge (chemical, heavy metals and disease agents could cause death, disease, cancer, etc. Moreover, in 1995, EPA acknowledged that chemicals and disease causing organisms were not included in the risk assessment. Furthermore, it did not consider any of the documented cancer causing heavy metals to be carcinogens in sludge.

By law, sludge is a solid waste which must be placed in a permitted sanitary landfill to protect the public and environment. The national EPA sludge policy regulation is based on exclusions in three environmental laws and mislead the public as to the true nature of its tests for disease causing organisms.

1. The first step came in 1980, "The Agency decided that growth of food-chain crops need not be banned at hazardous waste land treatment facilities but rather should be carefully regulated." By 1983, the EPA decided, "- to avoid conceivable stigmatization, we are willing to re-name recycled hazardous wastes "regulated recyclable materials."  And, in 1985, the "regulated recyclable materials" title was shortened to "recyclable
material"."  Not only that, but "---commercial hazardous waste derived fertilizers [which] would not have to undergo chemical bonding to be exempt." from the law. 

2.  EPA used the "domestic waste exclusion" for hazardous waste in the pipes between a home and the sewage treatment plant to claim that if domestic sewage entered the treatment plant, then it must be domestic sludge leaving the treatment plant regardless of the amount of industrial hazardous waste processed at the same time.

3.  EPA surmised that if sludge was promoted as a fertilizer called biosolids, then it could be considered a "normal application of fertilizer" under the Superfund Act.

4.  As a biosolids fertilizer disposed of on agricultual land, pollutants (i.e. chemicals and infectious disease causing organisms) polluting waters of the United States became a nonpoint source of pollution excluded from  the Clean Water Act by the Agricultural Stromwater runoff exclusion.

5.  EPA promoted the policy regulation Part 503 as a federal permit for the release of hazardous substances on land.

6.  EPA has misled the public and Congress by claiming the fecal coliform test is only for disease causing indicator bacteria which assures the safety of sludge and the public.  Actually, fecal coliform is the generic term for gram negative bacteria, primarily thermotolerant E. coli, that are still active enough to produce some gas and/or acid when incubated for 24-48 hours at 112.1 degF. after most other gram negative bacteria have gone dorment because of the high heat. E. coli grows best at 97 degF. where it may double every 20 minutes.

7.  EPA claims that sludge is safe for direct contact if the fecal coliform number is 1,000 thermotolerant colony forming units (most probable number) per gram in the above test. While high heat has caused most E. coli to go dorment in the test, E. coli in the sludge has been doubling about every 20 minute.  A second point is that the most probable number refers to count colonies of thermotolerant bacteria at the end of the test which assumes there was only one bacteria at the beginning of the test for each final colony.

8. EPA claims sludge with 2 million colony forming units of thermotolerant E. coli is safe for disposal on pasture land and food crops after a 30 day waiting period. However, EPA has documented that bacteria and viruses may persist in soil for up to a year. Bacteria on plants may persist up to six months.

Conclusion
We understand that in the Solid Waste law, Congress did order EPA to study "alternative methods for the use of sludge, including agricultural

applications of sludge and energy recovery from sludge. We also understand EPA was ordered to study "methods to reclaim areas which have been used for the disposal of sludge or which have been damaged by sludge."

To date, EPA has refused to study or acknowledge any complaint, health or environmental, that could negatively impact its sludge disposal policy.
In fact, According to the Inspector General (IG) 2002, "EPA officials said investigating health impacts from biosolids is not an EPA responsibility; rather, they believe it is the responsibility of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and local health departments." The IG also said, "we explained in our prior
report, that office (Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)) has disinvested from the biosolids program."

Recycling disease causing organisms such as E. coli  and Salmonella from humans through the sewage treatment plants, where more virulent strains of exotic bacteria are created, to animals grown on pasture land and food crops and back to humans is not a sustainable practice as we are now seeing with all the foodborne outbreaks and the associated cost to the economy.

The undersigned would like to thank you for you efforts to protect the public in the past and look forward to your consideration of this petition gratefully.