|
IIIIIIIIIIII
<br />Lowman et al.
<br />in their neighborhood. For example, seven
<br />respondents said they noticed more deaths and
<br />illness among livestock and water life:
<br />I Look at the sludge on this slope—when they put it
<br />out, if it rains, this water flows down in this branch
<br />.... Now there is no fish or anything that lives in
<br />these little branches. No crawdads, anything ....
<br />When I was growing up, we'd go there and I would
<br />fish for them and so forth. But all this is gone ....
<br />So that is saying something has killed all this stuff.
<br />Five respondents reported a change in pri-
<br />vate well water since applications began near
<br />their homes, such as the presence of chemicals,
<br />"green slime," bacteria, or odor. One report
<br />came from a man whose property is adjacent
<br />to a land application site:
<br />My well ... water had an awful smell to it, and a
<br />green slime ... like three months [after sludge appli-
<br />cation] .... Before they [applied sludge], I had lived
<br />here ... two and a half years. Without a problem.
<br />Environmental] stice. The U.S. EPA
<br />(2012) defines environmental justice as the
<br />"fair treatment and meaningful involvement
<br />of all people ... with respect to the develop-
<br />ment, implementation, and enforcement of
<br />environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
<br />Seventeen of 34 respondents indicated they
<br />live near sludge application fields that are
<br />owned by individuals or entities, including
<br />municipalities, who do not live in the commu-
<br />nity. In light of this, some said their rural or
<br />semirural community was being used unfairly
<br />as a "dumping ground" for city waste and that
<br />they were left to deal with the odor, health
<br />problems, and other nuisances that come with
<br />it. Four respondents suggested they may be
<br />treated inequitably when sites are selected for
<br />land application because of their rural and
<br />lower income status:
<br />They've just got to have somewhere to dump the
<br />stuff, and the rural communities, where you've got
<br />low income people who aren't able to fight for them-
<br />selves and stuff like that. That could be some of it.
<br />Related to the "meaningful involvement"
<br />component of environmental justice, most
<br />respondents described barriers to obtain-
<br />ing information about sludge application in
<br />their neighborhood, reporting concerns and
<br />problems to public officials, and influencing
<br />decisions about the use of sludge where they
<br />live. We used these three aspects of "meaning-
<br />ful involvement" to categorize what respon-
<br />dents said on the topic into three subthemes:
<br />public notification, reporting concerns, and
<br />influencing decisions.
<br />Public notification. All respondents told
<br />us that neither public officials nor land appli-
<br />ers directly informed them that sewage sludge
<br />from wastewater treatment plants would be
<br />applied near their homes. Nearly all expressed
<br />disappointment about this. One respondent
<br />who reported sludge odors that smelled like
<br />"death" and blamed sludge for contaminat-
<br />ing his well water described resentment that
<br />nobody informed him that a neighboring city
<br />would apply sewage sludge a few hundred feet
<br />from his home:
<br />We have no knowledge about this, so therefore
<br />we're not prepared for the surprises that may come
<br />.... If somebody wants to come out here and
<br />explain something to us and it sounds common
<br />sense and Legit, we'll listen. Don't do us like you're
<br />doing us now.
<br />A few respondents mentioned that some
<br />municipalities or land appliers post signs to
<br />inform the public that land application is
<br />occurring but that it is not an effective form of
<br />notification because the signs are often difficult
<br />to see and interpret. One respondent described
<br />a "crumpled up and rusty sign down on the
<br />ground." He said new signs have since been
<br />posted but they are not posted at every "sludge
<br />field." Another respondent said she saw a sign
<br />by a field in the early days of land application
<br />near her home, but at the time she did not
<br />understand the terms on the sign, such as "bio-
<br />solids, " residuals, " and "Nutriblend," which
<br />she interpreted to mean they were "applying
<br />vitamins." Others noted that signs were too
<br />small or in obscure places, listed incorrect or
<br />no contact information, were not posted far
<br />enough in advance of application for residents
<br />to be prepared, or were present for only a few
<br />days rather than the entire application period,
<br />which made them easy to miss. Six respondents
<br />volunteered that they had not seen signs mark-
<br />ing fields where land application was occurring.
<br />Lacking information about land applica-
<br />tion of sewage sludge, interviewees spoke about
<br />their efforts to find out about it. Some said
<br />Table 3. Number of respondents reporting observations of environmental concern (n = 18/34 respondents)
<br />regarding land application operations.
<br />No. of respondents
<br />Reported observation reporting observation
<br />Sludge spillage on road, path, or property
<br />9
<br />Cattle grazing <30 days after an application event
<br />7
<br />No signage marking application sites during and after application events
<br />6
<br />Sludge runoff into surface waters
<br />5
<br />Sludge in buffer zones (e.g., across property lines, near ditches, gardens, and private wells)
<br />4
<br />Failure of sludge to assimilate into soil
<br />3
<br />Unmarked application boundaries
<br />2
<br />Application during rain event
<br />2
<br />Application in critical watershed
<br />1
<br />they discussed it with neighbors. At least seven
<br />made calls to public officials. Three of the seven
<br />said they received straightforward answers
<br />about land application of sewage sludge from
<br />public officials. Four described difficulty reach-
<br />ing officials and receiving satisfactory answers.
<br />For example, they described being trans-
<br />ferred on the telephone multiple times and
<br />never reaching anyone who would give them
<br />straight answers. They said officials responded
<br />to their inquiries about sludge with ambiguous
<br />statements, such as "it's safe," "it's a farming
<br />experiment," "it's a special fertilizer," or "it's
<br />approved." One woman said that she and her
<br />neighbors did not learn the truth about what
<br />was being applied in their neighborhood for
<br />several years after she first asked a local waste-
<br />water treatment official about it. Residents of
<br />a different neighborhood reported that when
<br />public officials evaded their questions about
<br />sludge, they resorted to following sludge trucks
<br />to find out what they were hauling.
<br />Reporting concerns. Fourteen respon-
<br />dents said they reported specific sludge - related
<br />concerns to officials, including offensive odors,
<br />land application in the rain, sludge run -off
<br />into drinking water sources, land applica-
<br />tion in critical watersheds, sludge that fails
<br />to assimilate in the soil, suspected well water
<br />contamination, reckless sludge trucks, health
<br />problems concurrent with sludge application,
<br />sensitivity of children and elderly to sludge
<br />due to respiratory infections and an immuno-
<br />compromised condition, inaccuracies in state
<br />land application records, and questions about
<br />the heavy metals content or general safety
<br />of the sludge. A few respondents reported
<br />improvements in the land application practice
<br />over time and said officials and operators had
<br />responded to their concerns by respecting set-
<br />back distances, using alternate driving routes,
<br />slowing down trucks hauling sludge, posting
<br />correct contact information on land applica-
<br />tion signs, and returning their phone calls
<br />requesting information.
<br />Nearly all (13/14) respondents who
<br />reported concerns registered dissatisfaction
<br />overall with the response from officials, saying
<br />they "do nothing," "don't listen to the people,"
<br />answer to the industry rather than the people,
<br />"beat around the bush," "sidestep stuff," "deny
<br />there's a problem," "don't investigate con-
<br />cerns," "don't keep their word," don't answer
<br />their phones, try to cover things up, say contra-
<br />dictory things about the constituents of sludge,
<br />act "like they don't care," and have no interest
<br />in doctors' letters stating it is unsafe for their
<br />patient to be exposed to sludge.
<br />Influencing decisions. One respondent
<br />described feeling "powerless" to influence land
<br />application in his community because all the
<br />power and control are with the sludge indus-
<br />try, and local leadership will not or cannot
<br />do anything to change the practice. Similar
<br />540 VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 • Environmental Health Perspectives
<br />
|