Letter to Congress concerning the Fraudulent Baltimore Soil Lead Study in a Black Neighborhood:
May 27, 2008
Mailed to the following
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski U.S. Senate
503 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin U.S. Senate
509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings U.S. House of Representatives
2235 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-2007
RE: Your April 16, April 17, and April 22, 2008, letters to HUD, about a grant awarded by the Department's Office of
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC) to the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore on methods for
improving the control of lead hazards in residential soil.
And HUD"s May 6, 2008 response.
Congressional Questions -- HUD Answers -- Help for Sewage Victims response.
Dear Senator Mikulski, Senator Cardin, and Representative Cummings:
As a retired safety consultant, and representative of a nonprofit group, Help for Sewage Victims, I was deeply disturbed
by HUD's response concerning the Baltimore Sewage Sludge Consumer Product (Compost) Lead Study on growing
grass on lead contaminated soils in the poor Black Neighborhood as an interim control measure. Placing sod on the
yards is also an interim control measure under HUD rules. Common sense dictates that using sod on the lawns without
disturbing the lead contaminated soil would have better protected human health until a permanent abatement solution
could be arranged. "Lead-based paint activities, in the case of target housing and child-occupied facilities, include risk
assessment, inspection and abatement. See TSCA section 402(b)(1); 15 USC 2682(b)(1).
In reviewing the study "Biosolids compost amendment for reducing soil lead hazards: a pilot study of OrgroR
amendment and grass seeding in urban yards" , it would appear the study was about grass and that the
researchers had no concern for the health of the workers involved, or the children who lived and played around these
homes. It would also appear that the local landscaping company workers the researchers used were not trained or
advised they were dealing with a hazardous waste situation with total lead levels up to 4,266 ppm in the soil. That may
not sound significant until you find that the legal hazardous waste level for lead is 5 (five) ppm.
The study indicates the HUD contractor, Kennedy Krieger Institute, only did the laboratory work and contracted out the
soil study research to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and
Management, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, and Department of Biostatistics overseen by EPA/USDA
chief sludge salesman Rufus Chaney. There is no indication that these health and lead experts insisted that the OSHA
"requirement that employees exposed to high levels of lead be enrolled in a medical surveillance program" was met.
The photographs clearly show the OSHA "Requirements that employees be provided with protective clothing and,
where necessary, with respiratory protection accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134" was ignored.
What is even more disturbing is that the researchers are modifying standard EPA test procedures to get some kind of
result close to what they were looking for when children ate the sludge mixture. Then in a new twist for this study only,
the test pH was raised from 1.5 to 2.2 to make sure they got the right numbers. However, the test procedure numbers
were not repeatable in their own study.
Basically, what we have is a $450,000.00 grant to a testing laboratory, who contracts a contaminated sludge consumer
product/hazardous soil study on the health effects of lead, to a School of Public Health, supervised by the EPA/USDA
chief sludge salesman, who modify a standard test and pH values to come up with some number that says it will be
safe to eat the combination of hazardous levels of leaded soil and a pollutant contaminated sludge consumer product
with wood chips and sawdust called Orgro or Eckology. However, they neglected to confirm the assumption that
children would not be poisoned by this mixture. .
If the pollutant contaminated sludge compost was not considered to be a consumer product and if it was not used to
grow grass, the rules would require the compost to be placed in a permitted landfill. Yet, there is no training require as
there is for other lead products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC Document #5055, states that,
"Lead-based paint should be removed only by professionals trained in hazardous material removal. Consumers should
not attempt to remove lead-based paint." Wouldn't that apply to lead contaminated soil?
Background:
At one point in our history lead was the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Of course, now you can not buy
lead birdshot, leaded gas, or lead paint. Still, the current theory is that pollutant contaminated sewage sludge and
products made with sludge (see Part 503.13) are the next best thing on sliced bread. In the poor black neighborhoods
of Baltimore, the scientific theory appeared to be that placing a pollutant contaminated sludge compost product on the
already hazardous soil would be safer for children when they ate it.
"Approximately 7% of U.S. dwellings (6.46 million units) have soil Pb concentrations above U.S. EPA and U.S. HUD
standards (400 mg/kg [parts per million (ppm)] for bare play area soil and 1200 mg/kg [ppm] for bare soil in the rest of
the yard) (Jacobs et al., 2002)."
According to the study, "In situ inactivation of soil Pb is an alternative to soil removal and replacement that has been
demonstrated in recent years at industrial sites with hazardous soil Pb concentrations. Most children exposed to
elevated soil Pb, however, reside in urban areas, and no government programs exist to remediate such soils unless an
industrial source caused the contamination. "
Basically, if HUD were real concerned about children's health, the soil from this poor black neighborhood would have
had to be removed and disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill under HUD rules. The optional interim controls under
HUD rules was to grow grass on the bare soil or cover the yards with sod. The study assumption was that some level of
phosphate and hydrous Fe oxides promote formation of pyromorphite and increase the strength of adsorption of Pb to
ingested soil particles. Instead of testing the assumption under controlled conditions to grow grass, the study
researchers chose to use a sludge compost where the levels of phosphate and hydrous Fe oxides are not controlled,
but depend on what waste happens to enter the treatment plant. The researchers stirred up the dusty contaminated
sludge compost/soil mixture without any idea of the actually number of toxic pollutants / hazardous substances in the
sludge compost.
The question not answered in the study was what are hazardous soil Pb concentrations and could the sludge compost
be hazardous? EPA's non-enforceable lead guidelines for Part 503 Class A sludge products are 840 mg/kg (ppm)
with Class A exceptional quality sludge products restricted to 300 mg/kg (ppm). The numbers are an average of seven
mathematical attained dryweight 1,000 gram samples. The EPA legal enforceable hazardous waste Standard for lead
is 5 mg/l (ppm). In this case, the number is exact, for one wet or dryweight 1,000 gram sample.
Class A simply designates that at the time of original treatment, the 7 sample average level of high temperature strains
of gram negative bacteria that grow at 112.1 F., (fecal coliform) were reduced to less than one million colony forming
units (cfu) per 1000 gram mathematical attained sample - 1000 per gram. There is no requirement to test for the more
robust gram positive bacteria and viruses.
Did HUD mislead Congress?
Congressional Questions -- HUD Answers -- Response
1. What criteria were used in selecting the nine families that were chosen to participate in the study?
D The soil had to have sufficiently high levels of lead; the goal was for average soil-lead levels to be greater than
1000 parts per million (ppm).
Response
The hazardous waste level for lead is 5 (five) parts per million (ppm). If the 1000 ppm is total lead, the
approximate leach rate to establish the hazardous waste level is 1 out of 20 which indicates an
approximate hazardous waste level of 50 ppm. The soil would need to be disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill if it was removed.
"Section 1.2 of the TCLP does allow for a total constituent analysis in lieu of the TCLP extraction. If a waste
is 100% solid, as defined by the TCLP method, then the results of the total constituent analysis may be
divided by twenty to convert the total results into the maximum leachable concentration." In effect, if lead
is over 100 ppm in sludge compost it is probably a hazardous waste.
2) What potentially dangerous chemicals and pathogens are in Eckology?
• Pathogens: The Orgro (also known as Eckology) compost used in the study was a "Class A" biosolid, as designated
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which means that it was composted at high temperatures to kill potential
pathogens (disease-producing agents).
a To meet the Class A standard, there must be no detectable levels of pathogens in the biosolid following composting,
and the biosolid must be tested quarterly.
D As an added precaution beyond the manufacturer's monitoring of these levels during the
making of the compost, HUD required the researchers to collect a sample of the compost
to be used at each of the treated yards to analyze for lead and other metals for which
there are standards.
Response
EPA regulations do not designate any material as biosolids. EPA regulations do not require any treatment
to kill potential pathogens. Nor is there any requirement to monitor pathogens. EPA only requires the high
temperature mutant strains of gram negative bacteria known as Fecal Coliform (indicators of potential
pathogens) that grow at 112.1 F. be reduced to 1000 cfu per gram, primarily E. coli. EPA does not account
for gram positive pathogens or the viable, but nonculturable pathogens created by the treatment process
and/or the addition of lime. EPA doesn't acknowledge that lime is an irritant on the skin which makes the
person more susceptible to infection, causes bacteria to go dormant for about 30 days, and it causes the
creation of the highly carcinogenic Chromium 6, which is easily taken up by vegetables. Nor does EPA
factor in the risk from 21 acknowledged cancer causing agents in the sludge compost.
3) Is it possible to remove these dangerous chemicals and pathogens?
• Please note the response to question 2, above. In particular, there were no detectable pathogens in Orgro, and
metal levels were found to be well below applicable standards and guidelines.
• The National Academy of Sciences published a report in 2002, at the end of the study period (http://books.nap.
edu/catalog/10426.html).
a The Academy's report was critical of the thoroughness of the "human risk assessment" that supported the EPA's
1993 rule establishing standards for biosolids that are applied to land (40 CFR part 503).
a However, in recommending that EPA update its risk assessment "to address scientific and management questions
and uncertainties that challenge EPA's biosolids standards," the Academy recognized (page 7, and similarly at page 4)
that "there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health."
• As a result, there is no demonstrated need for further treatment of the Orgro.
Response:
As noted under question 2, the requirement was only to test for indicator bacteria reduction, not
pathogens, and not when it was delivered. All metals pollutants (and organic chemicals) were not
accounted for and there is some question about where it was a standard or a guideline used to qualify
metals qualities. There was good reason for the Academy to be critical of EPA's "human risk assessment".
EPA admitted in 1995, that it did not do a human cancer risk assessment for organic chemicals, inorganic
chemicals or pathogens. The part 503 was not designed to protect public heath where effects were not
widespread and did not cost the government a lot of money. The money for scientific documentation of
human health effects has been spent on misleading fraudulent studies like this one and EPA's rapid
response incident team's debunking program in Georgia.
4) What possible health risks are associated with ingesting or digesting Eckology?
• It is our understanding that there is no scientific evidence that the use of Class A biosolids, such as Orgro, poses a
significant health risk.
• Orgro is not untreated sewage sludge; rather, it is a biosolid, which, as EPA states, is sewage sludge that has been
treated and meets state and federal standards for land application.
• Although we know that lead contaminated soil presents a significant hazard if ingested, we can not speculate on
possible health risks from the incidental ingestion of the compost.
Response:
Someone should have read EPA's Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Use of Composting for Biosolids
Management which states it is safe, BUT THERE ARE:
DISADVANTAGES
- Odor production at the composting site.
- In addition to odors, other bioaerosols, such as pathogens, endotoxins, and various volatile organic compounds,
must also be controlled
- Potential environmental impacts may result from both composting operations and use of the compost product
- Survival and presence of primary pathogens in the product.
- Composting is not a sterilization process and a properly composted product maintains an active population of
beneficial microorganisms that compete against the pathogenic members. Under some conditions ,explosive
regrowth of pathogenic microorganisms is possible.
- Dispersion of secondary pathogens such as Aspergillus fumigatus, particulate matter,other airborne allergens
- While healthy individuals may not be affected, immunocompromised individuals may be at risk.
- The spores of A. fumigatus counts at composting facilities are high, and-- persons handling composted biosolids
being exposed to these spores is also high (Epstein, 1998).
- These organisms can potentially invade a normal, healthy human being and produce illness or debilitation
- Lack of consistency in product quality with reference to metals, stability, and maturity.
- Dust and airborne particles from a composting operation may affect air quality. The impact to adjacent areas
may need to be mitigated and permitted to protect area ecology and water quality, run-off from application sites
must be controlled. The potential nitrogen and phosphorus rich run-off (or leachate) can cause algal growth in
surface water and render groundwater unfit for human consumption.
- Organic dust (such as pollen) is another nuisance that must be controlled at composting operations. These
contaminants are primarily a concern to workers at the composting facilities and are generally not present in
quantities that would cause reactions in most individuals that are not exposed outside of the facilities.
- It should be noted that the most plant-available form of nitrogen in biosolids (ammonium ion (NH4 )) is converted
to nitrate (NO3 -) by the composting process.
- Improper use of biosolids can result in the contamination of water resources with leached nitrogen, because
nitrate is more mobile than ammonium, and is taken up less easily by plants
5) What safeguards were in place to ensure that the families were not being exposed to potential health
risks?
• As part of the study protocol, in the interest of disclosure to the families, the researchers developed an informed
consent form, signed by an adult in each participating family. Regarding the compost, the form said that,
"Eckology compost is made from sterilized Baltimore sewage sludge mixed and composted with wood chips and saw
dust. Eckology compost is licensed and approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment for distribution to
the general public. Eckology compost is tested every month to ensure that it meets MDE requirements for low levels of
metals like lead. The composting process used to make Eckology kills germs."
• An institutional review board at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine reviewed and approved the study
protocol, including the consent form, before it was used, and determined that the study did not require any additional
safeguards to protect families.
• The researchers had no reason to believe that the use of Orgro (also known as Eckology) would pose a health risk
to families; it was used because it is licensed as a Class A biosolid by the Maryland Department of the Environment for
use in residential yards and gardens in accordance with the EPA's regulation.
Response:
Ignorance of the law is not a reasonable defense. Nor is ignorance of facts by researchers, especially by
USDA coauthor Rufus Chaney.
Lying to the public is never a good idea. As noted under question 5, EPA acknowledges compost is not a
sterilized product. As noted in EPA's original 1988 study of compost, Occurrence of Pathogens in
Distribution and Marketing Municipal Sludges: "Although the use of sludge as a soil amendment is attractive,
it is not without potential health risks. Toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and industrial organics, may
enter the food chain and present long-term health risks." "significant increases in bacterial populations,
including salmonellae, occurred during subsequent production of commercial soil amendment products."
In a companion 1988 EPA Study -- Trace Organics and lnorganics in Distribution and Marketing Municipal
Sludges, it was admitted, "Efforts to characterize major unknown organic components were limited to
computer comparisons of GC/MS peaks to the NBS mass spectral library. In none of the cases was a
tentative identification made. Manual review of those components with a high degree of fit with an NBS
library compound (>8O%) allowed probable compound class assignment for many peaks. Virtually all of the
major components classified appeared to be aliphatics or carboxylic acid type compounds. A majority of
the sample extracts exhibited a hydrocarbon "hump" in the ion chromatograms. The peaks reviewed,
therefore, were superimposed on this background. As a result, a significant portion of the major peaks
were multi-component peaks whose identities remain completely unknown."
If EPA has no idea what chemicals are in compose, then it can not establish a health risk.
If there was no reason to believe a health risk existed, why was Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine involved in a soil study?
6) What (if any) resource information was provided to families to contact in the event they experienced
health problems that could be traced back to the use of Eckology?
a With the compost being a Class A biosolid, the researchers had no reason to expect that there would be health
problems associated with its use, as described in answer 2, above. The contacts provided to the participants would
have addressed any concerns that participants may have had related to the use of Eckology.
Response:
Please see Response for question 4 & 5 & 7.
7) What safeguards were in place in awarding and monitoring this grant?
D Applicants were also asked to provide specific assurances, including: "Assurance that human research subjects will
be protected from research risks in conformance with the Common Rule (Federal Policy for the Protection of Human
Subjects, codified by HUD at 24 CFR part 60)."
• Following award, the application was monitored by the assigned Government Technical Representative for progress
in completing the study as described in the final study work plan.
Response:
How could anyone make that assurance after reading, Part 503.9(t) Pollutant is an organic substance, an
inorganic substance, a combination of organic and inorganic substances, or a pathogenic organism that,
after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,inhalation, or assimilation into an organism either directly
from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through the food chain, could, on the basis of information
available to the Administrator of EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction), or physical deformations in
either organisms (humans) or offspring (children) of the organisms.
It would appear that USDA's Rufus Chaney, coauthor of the study, was the assigned Government Technical
Representative. Chaney was a metals expert member of the part 503 peer review committee, helped
rewrite part 503, and coauthor of the document admitting no human cancer risk assessment was included
in the part 503 regulation and was one of the first to prove that leafy vegetable takes up cadmium at
dangerous levels. Apparent he neglected to mention the above part 503.9(t) section to the other study
participants.
8) Were families given adequate information about the potential harmful health effects from the sludge?
• The question presumes facts that have not been demonstrated. Please see, primarily, the response to question 5,
as well as the response to questions 2 and 4, above. The product was approved by the MDE and EPA for use in
residential settings. There was (and is) no evidence that use of the compost would present a health risk to study
participants.
Response:
While MDE and EPA approve the sludge compost for use in residential settings, there has never been a
health risk study. In fact, like this study, there has never been a study that looked at the 9 "regulated"
pollutants. EPA is only now funding a protocol to be tested that could be used to respond to health
complaints. However, because of the liability concerns, that is not going to happen.
The facts have been demonstrated under question 7 even though there are only 9 pollutants listed in the
part 503 sludge regulation. It is demonstrated by the fact that this compost is itself a pollutant under the
CWA and those 9 pollutants in the part 503 regulation are a few of the CWA listed toxic pollutants. Not only
that but, because the Part 503 acknowledges those 9 pollutants and the surviving disease organisms will
cause death, disease, cancer, etc., the compost is a hazardous waste under RCRA and those nine part 503
pollutants are a few of the RCRA/CERCLA list of hazardous substances.
9) Did the families give adequate consent?
* Please see the response to question 5, above. An adult from each household was provided and asked to sign a
consent form. If that person declined to sign at the time of recruitment, the house was removed from the study.
Similarly, an adult from an enrolled household could decide later to withdraw, and the house would be removed from
the study.
Response:
Not likely -- see question 7, if the adults were not told the pollutants could cause death, disease, cancer ,
etc., then they could not have given adequate consent.
10) Why and how were the nine families chosen to participate in this study?
Please see the response to question 1, above.
Response:
These poor folks were living on a hazardous waste site and EPA/USDA needed to use the poor black
people in the ongoing public relations campaign to "prove" to white people the unlabeled hazardous
waste compost sold as a consumer product soil amendment is safe to use on their lawns and gardens,
school grounds and parks.
As the Washington, DC, Director of American Nursery and Landscape Association, Warren A. Quinn, said, "I got a
Staphylococcus aureus infection of my skin from handling composted sewage sludge ("biosolids") at my home, so that's
enough research for me."
Jim Bynum
Help for Sewage Victims
Retired Safety Consultant
PO Box 682
Smithville, Mo. 64089
Attorney Ed Hallman's letter to
NAACP concerning the fraudulent
Kennedy Krieger / John Hopkins
Baltimore soil -lead Study in a black
neighborhood -- Fraud in Georgia and
Wisconsin