EPA INSPECTOR QUESTIONS OK OF SLUDGE AS FERTILIZER.

Byline: Staff and Wire Services

WASHINGTON - The federal Environmental Protection Agency has done too little research to ensure humans are safe from the viruses, bacteria and toxins in sewage sludge like that spread on Antelope Valley farms in the 1990s, an EPA investigator has concluded.

In a draft report obtained by The Associated Press, the agency's inspector general cites gaps in the science used to approve sludge recycling in the 1990s and says the agency has cut money, staff and oversight since then, despite growing safety worries.

``The agency can neither investigate nor keep track of all of the complaints of adverse health affects that are reported,'' the agency watchdog wrote.

The National Research Council, a panel of distinguished scientists, has been asked to study any possible health issues related to the sludge recycling, an EPA official said this week.

``It has been quite awhile since we put a rule in place, and we've asked NRC to make recommendations and give us some advice,'' Mike Cook, EPA director of wastewater management, said.

Cook said the agency had significantly cut money and staff for sludge oversight to deal with other clean-water issues. He said the agency is now setting up a program to review compliance of sludge makers and users and to review complaints in local communities about problems ranging from odors to illness.

He stressed that the EPA has no evidence to suggest sludge poses increased risks.

``We have thousand of workers in sewage treatment plants and handling biosolids all the time, every day. We have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, handling raw manure. There is no evidence these people are any sicker than the general population,'' he said.

Sludge was spread on farmland in the Antelope Valley in the 1990s, but this was stopped by protests from environmentalists and government action in Kern County, where such use of sludge was banned.

In 2000, under a court order, state water officials adopted new regulations allowing sludge as fertilizer, but Antelope Valley air-pollution officials took a stance against the practice.

No use of sludge has been approved in the Antelope Valley under the new regulations, Lancaster activist Lyle Talbot said, but Los Angeles County officials have discussed getting rid of the Lancaster sewage treatment plant's liquid effluent by using it to water crops.

The EPA inspector general's report comes amid growing concerns by some scientists and officials in some states and communities that recycling solidified sewage, known as sludge or biosolids, may not be as safe as thought when the government approved it in the mid-1990s.

Among the concerns:

--EPA microbiologist David Lewis, a sludge-recycling critic, told a conference of scientists in November that his research into nine sludge-treated fields found nearby residents with irritated eyes, skin and airways who were 25 times more likely to contract staphylococcus aureus infections than even hospital patients at high risk for such staph infections.

--Saying they found potentially pathogenic bacteria in soil and air samples at places where workers prepared or spread treated sludge, officials in the worker safety unit of the Centers for Disease Control issued a hazard alert in 2000 for such workers. Several workers suffered from stomach and intestinal ailments. The hazard alert urged precautions ranging from getting tetanus and diphtheria immunizations to wearing protective gear such as goggles, face shields and respirators.

--A few EPA scientists have given sworn testimony that research was inadequate before agency officials approved sludge recycling.

``They're taking a position that I viewed as indefensible from a public health standpoint,'' one scientist testified at the National Whistleblower Center when asked why the EPA didn't post warning signs on properties treated with sludge.

In Pennsylvania, the deaths of two youths who lived near fields treated with sludge prompted public concern, though the state has not linked their deaths to the sludge.

State health officials recently performed soil testing near Reading, Pa., where the 17-year-old son of Russell and Antoinette Pennock died in 1995 across the street from a field treated with sludge.

Eight relatives or frequent visitors to the Pennock home suffered from multiple staph infections before the boy died from staph pneumonia, the family said. Staph bacteria can live in treated sludge but also appear in common dirt.

``We had repeated infections - boils, sore throats, coughing - but we had no clue as to what these infections were coming from,'' Russell Pennock said this week. ``We did not even know they were putting this stuff across the street.''

Pennock said he would not have bought his property if he had been told about the nearby sludge operations. ``Now there is no doubt in my mind - everything I know points to it,'' he said about the role of sludge in family illness.

There was similar alarm raised in Pennsylvania a few years back when 11-year-old Tony Behun died from multiple infections just a few days after he rode a dirt bike through a sludge-treated field. Though the state never cited sludge as the cause, opponents have used his case to bolster their arguments.

With tougher clean-water and air rules and dwindling landfill space, the government approved using solidified sewage as fertilizer during the 1990s.

There are two forms of sludge. The less common is so heavily treated that it is not believed to contain any detectable poisons. The other and more common recycled sludge - the type used on the Antelope Valley farms - is treated but contains reduced levels of bacteria, viruses, toxins and parasites.

The harmful substances can include salmonella, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, rotaviruses, cryptosporidium and tapeworms.

The EPA requires owners of fields treated with sludge to restrict human access for a period of time to let those toxins naturally degrade. Warning signs aren't required, but farmers are restricted in when they can plant crops.

When the EPA approved the rules, officials acknowledged that additional research was needed. Since then, the government has conducted one study and did not take any final action on the findings, the inspector general found.

In a separate letter, the inspector general told EPA officials they had not done enough.