Special Edition Member Alert

NACWA Helps Respond to News Stories on Biosolids, Compounds in Drinking Water

In the past several days, news articles have appeared in the media that are of significant interest to the clean water community. On Friday, March 7, the Associated Press (AP) ran an article raising concerns about the practice of land applying biosolids. Then on Sunday, March 9, and Monday, March 10, other news items appeared regarding an AP investigation that found traces of pharmaceuticals and other compounds in the drinking water of about 28 U.S. cities. NACWA has fielded a number of calls from the media on these stories and anticipates that a number of member agencies will also receive inquiries. NACWA is providing this additional information and list of resources to help you formulate a response.

I. AP Story on Biosolids

AP began investigating a story on the safety of biosolids in mid-2007. NACWA arranged an interview with its president, Chris Westhoff, assistant city attorney and public works general counsel for Los Angeles. Representatives from the Water Environment Federation (WEF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other stakeholders were also contacted for the story. It is possible that this is only the first of a series of articles on biosolids, but NACWA is working to confirm what additional coverage is planned.

The AP story is based on a recent U.S. District Court decision regarding claims that biosolids land application resulted in contaminated pastureland. The district court’s decision makes several harsh statements questioning the safety of biosolids and land application, and the AP story uses those statements to support its article. Below is background information on the issue and some additional information that should assist you if you receive questions from the media or your community.

Background on Georgia Biosolids Story
The AP story that ran last week relied solely on language in a decision associated with a recent U.S. district court case in Augusta, Ga. This is part of a legal battle that has been ongoing for many years. The litigation involves a case in which biosolids from the city of Augusta were applied to the pastures of nearby farms in the late 1970s and 1980s. A number of cows that grazed on the fields fell ill and died. The local farmers hired an attorney to sue the city alleging that the biosolids contaminated the pastures and caused the cattle’s death. The first case went to trial in 2003, with the jury awarding only $550,000 of the $12.5 million in damages sought by the plaintiffs. The award was based solely on a breach of contract issue. The jury made no finding of fact that the cows suffered injury as a result of the biosolids applications.

The second case, brought by the same attorney, was settled in 2007 for approximately $1.5 million as the result of an insurance payout; there was no admission of liability and no evidence that the biosolids harmed the cows or contaminated the land. It is important to note that in both cases, EPA and outside experts reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims and concluded that there was no evidence the biosolids had contaminated the pastures or caused the cattle to become ill. In addition, as indicated, neither court found liability regarding the biosolids application.

Not satisfied with these results, the same plaintiff’s attorney proceeded to pursue a third litigation, this time in federal court alleging that the USDA should compensate the affected farmers whose cattle died. The kind of compensation sought is usually reserved for farmers who have lost crops due to severe droughts or other acts of nature beyond the control of individual farmers. However, the plaintiffs allege that they qualified for such relief due to the loss of their cattle. In a lengthy ruling released last month, the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Georgia in Augusta agreed and ordered the USDA to compensate the plaintiffs. Much of the language in the decision calls into question the safety of land application of biosolids and suggests that EPA may have suppressed information on the dangers of biosoilds.

USDA Did Little to Refute Inaccurate Claims about Safety of Biosolids
In talking with attorneys familiar with the ruling, it has become clear that USDA made little effort to refute many of the inaccurate claims put forth by the plaintiffs about the alleged dangers of biosolids. The government attorney handling the case for USDA, unfamiliar with biosoilds issues, did not make a strong argument to counter many of the plaintiffs’ allegations. NACWA believes that a successful appeal of this decision could help to ensure that the District Court’s statements do not become the foundation for renewed attacks on land application and will be working with EPA to encourage USDA to appeal the decision.

Responding to Questions and Concerns
NACWA understands that this recent press coverage will likely result in additional scrutiny from reporters and citizens nationwide. NACWA is providing the following talking points and additional resources that might assist with these types of inquiries:

• The land application of biosolids, in compliance with the Part 503 rules and state requirements, is an environmentally sound and sustainable option for communities.

• The risk-based pollutant levels in the federal Part 503 regulations for biosolids, developed after extensive sampling and risk assessment, provide a scientific framework to ensure that biosolids land application is protective of human health and the environment.

• Most states have adopted regulations that provide further guidelines for the beneficial use of biosolids by local agencies.

• In 2002, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences found that there is “no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 Rule has failed to protect public health.” Since that time, the wastewater industry has worked to conduct millions of dollars of research to further confirm the safety of biosolids land application.

• Over the last 30 years, wastewater treatment agencies have developed advanced pretreatment programs to control the discharge of toxic substances that might contaminate biosolids. The pretreatment program has been recognized as one of the most successful programs under the Clean Water Act at reducing the discharge of toxic pollutants into the environment.

NACWA is following this issue very carefully. The following resources may be helpful as you respond to questions about this issue:

• The National Biosolids Partnership (various resources on biosolids management)
• EPA Office of Wastewater Management (EPA documents, including the Part 503 regulation)
• NACWA’s Biosolids Management Handbook– Options, Opportunities & Challenges
• Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Tracy Mehan Dec. 24, 2003, response to Center for Food Safety Petition to ban land application of biosolids (References to Augusta case appear on pgs. 3, 4, 10-13)
• National Research Council Report on Biosolids, 2002.

II. AP Story Focuses on Trace Compounds in Drinking Water

The AP released another story that ran in many newspapers and was discussed on television news programs March 9 and 10, which focused on its investigation on the presence of trace amounts of various pharmaceuticals and other compounds in the drinking water of 24 cities out of more than 50 surveyed. This story, the first in a three part series, notes that “the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose” and points out that current scientific information has not called into question the safety of drinking water . However, the range of compounds highlighted in the article may still cause alarm in your community — antidepressants, antibiotics, pain killers, medicines for asthma, epilepsy, heart problems, and neurological disorders, among others, were found in the study.

NACWA is working with the drinking water community to provide any necessary resources or information on how pharmaceuticals are affected by the wastewater treatment process. NACWA has focused a significant amount of attention and resources on the issue of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment, particularly through its Emerging Contaminants Workgroup. The Association released a white paper in 2005 that detailed the scope of the problem and possible solutions. In addition, several efforts NACWA and its water sector partners have underway to shed light on this issue include:

• The establishment of a national strategy to address the complex issue of PPCPs that make their way into the aquatic environment, accounting for the fact that while concentrations detected in public drinking water are miniscule, the public’s concerns must be addressed.

• A partnership with the Product Stewardship Institute on a national dialogue to develop a comprehensive approach for managing the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals.

• The development of pharmaceutical take-back programs by member agencies that are intended to keep these compounds out of the environment altogether resulting in the collection of significant quantities of unused medications.

• Support for increased funding for research into the potential aquatic and human health impacts from long-term exposure to trace concentrations of these contaminants. It should also be noted that millions of dollars are already being spent to look at the impacts from these contaminants. These funds support projects being conducted by EPA, the Water Environment Research Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Please do not hesitate to contact Susie Bruninga at (202) 833-3280 or at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Chris Hornback at (202) 833-1906 or chornback@nacwa.org , in NACWA’s Government Affairs Division if you need more information on any of these issues.