Fox River Home
Search
Index to Site
Recent Additions

Frequent Questions
Media Coverage
History
Statistics
Maps

PCB Chemistry
Human Health
Wildlife Health
Economic Damage
Corporate Profiles

Compensation
Sediment Cleanup
Cleanup Technologies

State Government
Federal Government
Local Government
Native Nations

International & Great Lakes
Technical Assistance
Other PCB Sites
Links

Photo Gallery
Political Cartoons

Message Board
Guestbook

The DNR is refusing to implement a new health standard to protect the public from PCB-contaminated wastes spread on farm and forest lands throughout Wisconsin. 
 

For four and a half years, a DNR Citizen Advisory Committee has tried to develop a science-based PCB Soil Criteria to represent a “safe” PCB level in soil.   This criteria would have determined how much PCB-contaminated waste could be safely spread.  Unfortunately, though a reasonable compromise Criteria was developed, the “safe” level is extremely low and would prohibit most landspreading of contaminated wastes.  The DNR’s response has been to abandon the criteria and instead propose rules to regulate the rate of landspreading, but they’ve adjusted those numbers to simply allow present landspreading practices.

In some cases, they would require that sludges be spread more thinly over a longer period of time.   Despite this precaution, in many cases, the resulting soil PCB contamination levels would still exceed the abandoned Criteria levels.

“These rules will not protect the public.  The original criteria must be applied statewide, or the state will not be performing one of its most basic duties: public health protection,” stated Rebecca Katers, Executive Director of Clean Water Action Council.   Katers served on the DNR Citizen Advisory Committee which developed the PCB Soil Criteria.

For information on PCB health effects, please click here.

“The meetings were frustrating because the committee was dominated by contaminated waste generators:  municipal sewage treatment plant operators, harbor managers, paper companies, and their lawyers.  During the last 2 years, the DNR staff seemed too eager to appease these people,” explained Katers.  “The committee was not balanced and did not include any organizations representing farmers, foresters, fishermen, or boaters.  Only a handful of environmental groups were invited to participate.”

More than 98% of the human sewage sludge in Wisconsin is landspread on farm fields, with minimal testing or oversight.  Approximately 87% of this sludge has been found to have significant PCB contamination.  In addition, harbor managers who need to dispose of huge quantities of dredged river and lake sediments, and paper companies who generate a large amount of sludge each year are very interested in landspreading.  Some harbor and paper mill sludges are contaminated with PCBs.

Despite the pressures to allow continued or increased landspreading, Dr. Mark Werner, a toxicologist with the Wisconsin Division of Health, was a strong positive presence on the committee.  He worked diligently with a team of scientists on the wildlife and human health risk assessments used to develop the PCB soil criteria.  As a result, their final proposed number was honest and strict.  Only extremely low PCB levels could be considered “safe,” around 1 ppb (part per billion).   Years passed as the pro-landspreading committee members railed against the calculations of PCB health effects.  On their behalf, the DNR aggressively opposed the Wis. Division of Health risk assessment.

“When the DNR couldn’t convince the Division of Health to weaken the criteria, the DNR made a purely political choice: they dropped the criteria, and found a way around it, to try to save face,” Katers charged.

This means the committee worked under false pretenses.  Members had to drive to Madison at their own expense every few months for four and a half years, with the belief that they were working on a soil criteria, but when that criteria was developed, the DNR changed the committee’s direction.  “This is not honest behavior,” Katers concluded.

Concerns About the Landspreading Rule

At almost every meeting, several of us tried to raise the following concerns, but the DNR just shrugged them off: 

1.  Fails the Criteria   The rule allows landspreading at rates which increase soil PCB levels above levels deemed safe by the health experts.

2.  The Public is Already Dangerously Contaminated with PCBs   The state’s toxicologist told us that the average Wisconsin resident who does NOT eat Great Lakes fish is already 3 times over the threshold for beginning health effects due to PCBs, due to widespread background PCB contamination in our food supply and environment.  Great Lakes fish eaters are at much higher risk.   We need to reduce public PCB exposure, not increase it.

3.  Thousands of Chemicals Spread, Not Just PCBs  If  sludge spreaders can’t pass ONE risk assessment for just ONE chemical, they certainly won’t pass additive risk assessments for the THOUSANDS of chemicals found in sewage sludges and other wastes.  (Just think of all the chemicals dumped down the sewer by homeowners, businesses and industry.)  Many of these chemicals have known toxic properties, while others are unknown.    The state has never attempted a combined risk evaluation and has no intention of doing one.

One example would be brominated fire-retardants which are currently being intensively studied.   Polybrominated diethyl ethers (PBDEs) have become very common, and scientists are concerned because PBDEs appear to have many of the same health effects as PCBs and other dangerous chlorinated compounds.  While the DNR's PCB Soil Criteria Citizen Advisory Committee was meeting and discussing Wisconsin soil and sludge samples for PCBs, the laboratory people told us that PBDEs were common at high levels in the sewage sludges and interfering in the chemical analysis, due to PBDE's similar chemical structure.   At the same time, DNR staff mentioned that PBDEs have recently skyrocketed to high levels in Lake Michigan fish at the same time that PCBs are gradually dropping.  Should we continue landspreading PBDEs?   Probably not, but the DNR refused to consider them during discussion of the PCB Soil Criteria.  They have tunnel vision.

Other common concerns in sewage sludge include highly potent medicines which pass through our bodies and end up in sewage.  (Heart drugs, birth control pills, caffeine, Viagra, Prozac, etc.)  European studies have found high levels of these drugs in lakes and streams, due to direct discharges and, undoubtedly, landspreading practices.  Scientists don't know the longterm impacts.

4.  Ignores Volatilization    The criteria and proposed rule both ignore the fact that PCBs volatilize into the air, especially from damp soil.  Landspreading contributes to global redistribution of PCBs via the atmosphere, with significant impacts on people and wildlife in cooler climates, in the arctic and mountaintops, where the PCBs fall out and reconcentrate.

5.  Ignores Run-off   The critieria and proposed rule both ignore field soil erosion, which will lead to  lake and stream contamination with PCBs.

6.  Wildlife Sacrificed   Even the criteria were a compromise allowing increased PCB health risks for sensitive wildlife such as mink, otter and weasels.  Predatory birds may also be at risk.  The proposed rule will be even worse.

7.  Weak Standard for Products   The rule would prohibit the “public distribution” of bulk or packaged wastes if they contain more than 1 ppm PCBs, so wastes slightly less would be legal, with no warning required.   1 ppm is roughly a thousand times higher than the stifled soil criteria.     Example products:  Brown County Harbor Commission wants to sell or give away bulk sediments dredged from the Fox River and Green Bay.  Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District wants to bag and sell local sewage sludge, like Milorganite from Milwaukee sewage.  Grantek already sells huge quantities of PCB contaminated sludge from the old Fort Howard Corporation mill (Georgia-Pacific) in Green Bay, for kitty litter and as a carrier for pesticides and fertilizer.

8.  Ignores Paper Sludge and Sediment   For years we pestered the DNR to provide the committee more detail about statewide PCB contamination in paper sludges and harbor sediments, so we could know the impact of the rule proposal.  They ignored us and acted as if it was a new idea each time.   The only data finally discussed were 5 samples voluntarily provided by the paper industry.

9.  Waits for Federal Rule  The DNR says they’re waiting for the federal EPA to propose dioxin landspreading rules sometime next year, but many toxic PCBs do not behave like dioxins.  Also, the Bush Administration is unlikely to propose a good rule.  The national proposal has been embroiled for several years in controversy.  A concerned whistleblower in EPA was recently fired, and Congress members are calling for an investigation.  There’s no reason to delay Wisconsin’s better PCB criteria.

10.  Poorly Monitored and Enforced  The DNR’s budget is being cut drastically, which will further weaken the lax oversight DNR maintains over their landspreading program.  Much of this program is based on an honor system, not inspections.

11.  Easy, Cheap Disposal   It’s disturbing that the sewage plant operators, who are supposedly public servants, would be so opposed to health protections.  Their only goal seems to be easy, cheap sludge disposal. 

12.  Landuse Changes Not Included  The rule ignores risks of changing landuse.  If a farmer sells his land for houses, after using his fields for sludge spreading, will homeowners be unwittingly growing root-crops and vegetables in contaminated soil? 

13.  False Concensus -- Not Controversial?  All of the concerns above were debated many times by the committee.   Initially, the process seemed open and honest, but as the sludge generators became more aggressive, the DNR began inserting weakening changes, ignoring the objections from the minority.  It’s amazing now that the DNR falsely claims “consensus” (unanimous approval) from the committee in support of their proposal.  The DNR also claims, in writing: “This rule package is not expected to be controversial even though there is at least one member of the Advisory Committee who believes that the proposed maximum annual application rates should be lower.”  In fact, several committee members did object several times to changes the DNR made.

Conclusion

The public comment period for the proposed PCB landspreading rule is now over.  The DNR will review the public comments, possibly make modifications, then send the rule for final approval by the legislature.   For more information from the DNR on the proposed rule, call Kate Fitzgerald, at 608-267-2764. 

Back to top