Farmers Urged to Take a Second Look at Biosolids

Nearly 200 People Attend Event On Biosolids Use

Chris Torres
Staff Writer

KUTZTOWN, Pa. — When Andy McElmurray and Bill Boyce decided to accept biosolids on their fields more than 20 years ago, they thought they were getting a cheap but adequate alternative to synthetic fertilizer, which can be expensive.

Little did they know that two decades later, they would be warning a crowd of the potential dangers biosolids can have on farms.

Nearly 200 people came to hear the two farmers and an expert from Cornell speak on the topic at the Janelle Hall near Kutztown Tuesday. The event was organized by the United Sludge Free Alliance, a volunteer group of concerned citizens that seeks to raise awareness over the land application of biosolids, often referred to as “sludge.”

Dr. Murray McBride, director of Cornell’s Waste Management Institute, contends that while biosolids have come a long way since cities and towns across the country started offering it to farmers as a soil amendment in the 1970s, it is still not tested adequately enough for some heavy metals and chemicals.

Between 50 and 60 percent of biosolids produced in the country is land-applied on farms, with the rest either taken to landfills or incinerated.

Giving the biosolids to farmers, McBride said, has been seen as a cheaper alternative to having it hauled to a landfill or burned.

But he said the Environmental Protection Agency’s 503 rule, which was passed in 1993 and sets the groundwork for biosolids testing across the country, is inadequate and is based on out-of-date research.

Why? McBride contends that there are many more potentially harmful metals and chemicals in sludge because of the mixture of industrial wastes it may contain that are not being tested.

“With sludge, we found things out about it that we never knew,” he said.

The 1993 rule lists nine metals, McBride said, that are required to be tested for before sludge is approved for land application.

But results of a survey released just two months ago shows the potential of more metals getting into sludge that can potentially be harmful to animals and humans.

The National Sewage Sludge Survey, which was conducted by the EPA last year, showed traces of up to 27 different metals in the samples, including mercury, lead and molybdenum, which he said is used in motor oil.

Along with that, the samples also showed various levels of flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, hormones and steroids.

The survey included 74 wastewater treatment plants that were randomly selected by the EPA. While many of the samples contained only trace elements of the various metals, McBride warned prolonged exposure to metals such as mercury, cadmium and lead can lead to serious health problems in animals and humans.

It’s what Georgia farmer Andy McElmurray thinks led to the demise of his crops and cows.

McElmurray at one time raised hundreds of acres of crops and milked more than 500 cows outside of Augusta, Ga. He started applying biosolids on his farm in 1979 after coming into an agreement with the city.

Based on what he knew at the time, he felt good about applying what he thought would be a beneficial soil amendment to his land.

“We as a family were led to believe it was just human waste” and that it was perfectly safe to apply on the ground, he said.

McElmurray saw an almost immediate benefit. The crops looked better than ever with the added nitrogen and phosphorus.

Eventually, however, problems began to arise. The crops weren’t growing like they once were and no one could explain why.

Then his herd of cows started to get sick. At one point, the colostrum from his cows was tested and found to have no antibodies.

Still, no one could explain what was happening, even though soil scientists, agronomists and veterinarians investigated the problems.

In 1994, McElmurray planted cotton for the first time since 1976 on land where the biosolids were being applied. According to him, the results were disastrous.

Then a test revealed that the land had high levels of aluminum in the soil. The aluminum was linked to the wastewater treatment plant that was the source of the biosolids being spread on his farm.

“It was very, very high,” McElmurray said of the aluminum content. “At that point, I asked them to cease application of (the biosolids).”

Since he made that decision, McElmurray has been embroiled in several legal cases, mainly against the city who owns the wastewater treatment plant.

It has cost McElmurray and his family thousands of dollars in legal fees. Along with that cost, he attributes the death of 360 cows and the culling of another 350 to the biosolids problem.

The land he used to farm has been sitting barren since 1998.

He has come to the conclusion that biosolids are the only logical explanation for his troubles. Last year, a judge ordered the government to compensate him for the 1,730 acres that he considered to be “poisoned” due to the application of biosolids on the fields.

According to an Associated Press article released last March, samples of the sludge that was applied to McElmurray’s farm contained high levels of arsenic as well as other toxic heavy metals that are not required to be tested.

The article states that the judge in the case, Anthony Alaimo, ruled that EPA officials working on the case took steps to “quash scientific dissent and any questioning of EPA’s biosolids program” and stated that records kept of the toxic metals in the sludge were “unreliable, incomplete and in some cases, fudged.”

The article also states that McElmurray settled with the City of Augusta for $1.5 million for his dead cows.

Even though he technically won his battle, McElmurray contends it caused more headaches than anything.

“My point is that the legal system is not very friendly to the problems that people like we have,” he said. “My concern is for the farmers of this country and the situation you can get yourself into from a liability standpoint.”

Bill Boyce, a longtime dairy farmer and good friend of McElmurray, was awarded $550,000 after a judge found the City of Augusta liable for the death of 300 of his prized cows.

He accepted biosolids for the same reasons McElmurray did: as a soil amendment. But he said constant exposure to toxic elements by his animals led to health problems and eventually, death.

Most of the 690 acres he used to farm has been sold, with only 60 acres remaining.

He has now changed his career, running a small diner where he and his family still live.

“I lost everything we had because of sludge,” Boyce said. “I can tell you people it is not worth it.”

But even with their bad experiences, both McElmurray and Boyce concede that sludge can provide a benefit. Farmers just need to be aware of the potential ramifications of accepting it.

“There are so many things you should be aware of before the trucks come out and spread it,” Boyce said. “It should be safe and beneficial, but it is not always.”

McElmurray said farmers must first and foremost get some legal advice before accepting sludge on their farm, making sure they have contracts that cover them from having to clean it up in case there are problems, and protecting themselves from third party claims.

Farmers also need to check to make sure whoever is spreading biosolids has the proper permits and that the wastewater treatment plant where it is coming from is properly testing for chemicals and metals.