Ned Beecher’s guest commentary (“Reviewing federal biosolids recycling standards,” BDN, July 18) contains a number of highly inaccurate statements about the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on the potential health hazards of sludge spreading.

Beecher, director of the New England Biosolids and Residuals Association (NEBRA), a trade group promoting the use of land spread sludge, claims that the NAS report confirms “federal sludge regulations are protective,” and that the report “seems to agree that we are on the right track.”

Anyone who reads the NAS report will realize that it conveys just the opposite message. The report finds that the science and risk assessment behind the current sludge rules are unreliable and outdated. Therefore, the rules may not protect human health. The National Academy of Sciences was asked to do this study because hundreds of illnesses and at least three deaths have been linked to sludge spreading; the Academies’ mission was strictly to “reassess the scientific basis” of the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules regarding the land spreading of sewage sludge (Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices, summary).

The National Academies overarching recommendations, as detailed in the summary of the report, identified the following data gaps and issues in management practices:

. A lack of exposure and health information on exposed populations.

. Reliance on outdated risk-assessment methods.

. Reliance on outdated characterization of sewage sludge.

. Inadequate programs to ensure compliance with biosolids regulation.

. Lack of resources devoted to EPA’s biosolids program.

Professor Thomas A. Burke, of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, who chaired the panel that wrote the report, said in his press release:

“There is a serious lack of health-related information about populations exposed to treated sewage sludge.To ensure public health protection, EPA should investigate allegations of adverse health effects and update the science behind its chemical and pathogen standards.”

Press releases across the nation echo Professor Burke’s concerns:

. “The report underscores that current federal regulations on applying sludge do not protect public health” (Natural Resources Defense Council).

. “Safety of Sludge as Fertilizer questioned” (Reuters News Service)

. “Sewage Sludge Rule Fails to Protect Public Health.” (Environmental News Service).

. “NAS Report Threatens Current Sewage Sludge Disposal Practices, Vindicates (David Lewis), Warns of Public Health Risks from Sewage Sludge” (National Whistleblower Center).

. “This report should be a wake-up call for those who have been pooh-poohing the ways sewage sludge harms people’s health.”(Sierra Club).

. “EPA Outdated in Assessing Risks of Sludge Fertilizer: NH Sludge Rules Pose a Risk” (The Union Leader, July 3, 2002).

The National Academies’ report holds special significance for Maine, where 116 towns in 2000 alone had permitted sludge sites and citizen opposition to land spreading has been vocal and widespread. In 1999, the standards for allowable heavy metals in sludge were weakened in the state of Maine. Until that point, our standards were actually stricter than federal standards. Since Maine’s sludge very rarely exceeded the previous standards, the only possible explanation for the weakening of the standards are 1) to allow more heavy metals into our sewers, or 2) to allow more toxic out-of-state sludge to be spread on our land. Citizens in Whitefield, who recently discovered that over 650 tons of sludge generated in Springfield, Mass., is being spread in their community, would probably agree with the latter.

We recommend that the state of Maine do the following: Set a goal of phasing out toxic chemicals from use and set a timetable to achieve this goal. Prohibit sludge that contains industrial discharges from being land applied. Require land spread sludge to undergo the strictest pathogen reduction method available. Broaden and strengthen sludge testing parameters to test more frequently for more contaminants.

Unless NEBRA, Maine legislators, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection finally face up to the serious problems with the current sludge management rules, there will only be more sludge illnesses, more public opposition to land application, and more costly litigation.

Toxics Action Center is a non-profit organization providing support to citizens and communities facing toxic threats to public health and the environment in their neighborhoods. Citizens concerned about sludge spreading in their community should contact Toxics Action Center at 207-871-1810, or visit our Web site at www.toxicsaction.org, for more information.

Maggie Drummond is the field director for the Toxics Action Center in Portland.