What's in it? Until we know, sewage sludge is a cause for concern

The nationwide alarm over E. coli is a reminder: Dangerous substances lurk in the excrement of living organisms, and they can threaten human health.

That is an important lesson for Surry and Isle of Wight and Middlesex counties and every locality where sewage sludge is spread. It's a lesson the General Assembly of Virginia should take to heart.

Let us be careful about the differences between the E. coli scare and the things that scare people about sludge. The strain of E. coli that has caused so much sickness and at least one death isn't likely to be found in sludge. It lives in the digestive tracts of some cattle and creates problems for humans when it contaminates their food due to sloppiness when animals are butchered, or when contaminated manure is used on food crops or contaminated water irrigates fields.

The sludge used to fertilize farms and timberland comes from a different source: sewage treatment plants. They process whatever goes down the pipes in homes, offices and factories, and they end up with two products: water and solids. The cleaner the plants get the water - and they strive to get it clean, before discharging it into rivers and bays - the more contaminants may concentrate in the solid matter left behind.

But just as animal manure can contain E. coli, sludge from treatment plants can contain whatever was present in the waste of the humans and factories that was processed: toxins, metals, bacteria, viruses, parasites, pharmaceuticals. The content of one batch can differ from the next, depending on what was going down the drains at any particular time.

Yes, sludge is treated - but treatment doesn't eliminate all pathogens. And changing its name - calling it "biosolids" - doesn't change its nature.

Governmental regulation and oversight of sludge are so inadequate that the question "Is it safe?" can't be answered with any scientific confidence. Nor is there proper oversight to make sure sludge is adequately treated, or sufficient research to resolve questions about its safety.

In its eagerness to push sludge as fertilizer, the Environmental Protection Agency has been downright negligent. Its own inspector general concluded that the EPA really can't assure the public that its current practices are adequate to protect public health. It requires testing for only nine substances, mostly metals, ignoring the many thousands that could contaminate sludge. It has gone for years without inspecting an application of sludge in Virginia.

The state has done no better. The Department of Health has been lackadaisical in exercising its responsibility, rarely bothering to inspect whether sludge is applied according to state standards. The Department of Environmental Quality's willingness to accept the EPA's defensive position - that there is no definitive proof that sludge isn't safe - is disappointing, as there's no proof that it is safe.

That leaves localities in a bind. The General Assembly has denied them the right to refuse sludge and allows them only to test and monitor. They should wrest every bit of protection they can from that, with local ordinances and programs that keep a close and skeptical eye on what's going on in their borders.

Last year, one of the big sludge providers expanded its operation in Surry County from 100 to 4,000 acres, and it's trying to add more. In Isle of Wight County, several permits to spread sludge were recently granted.

All this with the questions unanswered: What's in it? Is it safe?

Source:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-37621sy0sep29,0,1739498.story