Agricultural biosolid application is increasingly becoming more controversial due to increased public knowledge and unknown possible health and environmental effects. In 1998, there were approximately 16,500 publicly owned wastewater treatment plants in the United States that produced an enormous amount of biosolids (Lindsay et. al., 2000). A 1986 survey in the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) revealed that 75% of sewage is treated and 40% of the residual sludge is used on agricultural fields mainly for animal consumption (Mininni and Santori, 1986). More recent data claims that 54% of the residual sludge is used for land application (Rutter, 2000). In Pennsylvania, according to the Department of Environmental Protection’s April Hutcheson, 790 publicly owned sewage treatment facilities produce 307,000 dry tons of sludge a year (Rutter, 2000). The EPA claims that land application of biosolids may provide benefits by recycling organic and inorganic nutrients, thereby enhancing the physical properties of soil and increasing plant growth. Biosolids are also cheap, as Jim Bridges of Carlisle Sewage Treatment claims, Carlisle pays four cents per gallon- a figure that covers all treatment costs, including salaries (The Sentinel, 1999). With increasing awareness of environmental health and safety, the public is becoming more aware of the numerous disadvantages of biosolids, such as the unknown components that are not being regulated and the health and environmental impact of heavy metals and pathogens. However, as Pathologist from Pennsylvania State University, Catherine Baker, stated, "What else are we to do with it?" (Baker, 2001).

Large-scale cropland application of municipal wastewater was first practiced approximately 150 years ago with the idea of "night soil". Asians used night soil, or excrement, as fertilizer, thus recycling human waste onto cropland. This practice helped maintain soil fertility by closing the nutrient cycle. Asian farmers grew crops that were shipped to surrounding cities in exchange for their waste (NEBRA, 2001). While the increasing European populations were busy defecating on the other side of the country, the amount of waste grew until community pits evolved. For more privacy, outhouses were built. These private stalls concentrate wastes, in turn promoting pollution of groundwater. Cesspools (lined pits with some drainage of liquids) were created as populations continued to increase, but the amount of waste grew until the carrying capacity of the soils were exceeded. Excess excrement was dumped into streams and rivers that carried the problem "away" (Montague, 1999).

In 1802, the U.S. first piped water to open sewer systems in Philadelphia, PA. Water use increased drastically until cesspools overflowed. Many pathogens and water-borne diseases entered the water ways which caused typhoid and cholera outbreaks and many deaths. To solve this problem, engineers designed closed sewer systems where pipes used water as the vehicle for carrying away excrement. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. and Europe industrialized rapidly, which created a demand for low-cost waste disposal. Sewers were the cheapest place to dump because the public paid. As the pressure for greater waste disposal capacity increased, industrialized nations allocated vast sums of money to construct centralized sewer systems to serve the combined needs of homes and factories, creating a mix of toxic, chemical waste from factories and organic household waste (Montague, 1999).

The three common methods used in the past for mass quantity disposal of sewage waste were landfilling, incineration, and ocean dumping. However, treatment plants found these methods to be quite expensive (Laur, 2001). Stricter operating and construction requirements imposed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D of 1993 have resulted in fewer materials being landfilled (Lindsay et. al., 2000). During the 1980's, more than 1,000 landfills in the U.S. were closed due to concerns of reaching treatment facility capacity, not meeting RCRA standards, leaching, and underground water contamination. Approximately 5,500 landfills remain active today (OTA, 1989 in Lindsay et. al., 2000). Incineration of biosolids destroys pathogens and most hazardous chemicals, but the process vaporizes heavy metals and also creates toxic ash that has to be landfilled (Whitcomb, 1998 in Lindsay et. al., 2000). In 1988, Congress banned ocean dumping due to the formation of dead zones, areas where sludge was dumped that could not support any marine life (Montague, 1999; Logan, 1995 in Lindsay et. al., 2000).

The Clean Water Act of 1972 placed further restrictions on the "borne constituents from entering the nation’s navigable waters", and encouraged beneficial uses such as land application (NEBRA, 2001). Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act required the EPA to develop regulations and guidelines for alternative uses and disposal methods of sludge, as well as what factors and concentrations must be accounted for in determining the intended use of sludge. It was at this point in history that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency felt tremendous pressure to solve the sludge disposal problem. They looked back through history and discovered that sewage sludge is really "night soil", the nutrient-rich product that has fertilized crops in Asia for over a century. The EPA decided that the most beneficial way to dispose of sludge was to apply it to the land.

Shortly after 1992, when the ban on ocean dumping went into effect, EPA renamed toxic sludge to "beneficial biosolids", and began aggressively selling it to the American people as fertilizer (Montague, 1999). The difference between sludge and biosolids is that biosolids specifically refers to sewage sludge that has undergone treatment and meets federal and state standards for beneficial use as soil fertilizer (EPA, 1999). Section 405(d) of the CWA was amended by Congress in 1987, which forced the EPA to identify toxic pollutants that may be present in biosolids. The amendment also required the EPA to establish the health and environmental threats and to define regulations for acceptable management practices (NEBRA, 2001). Currently the EPA and DEP are jointly regulating biosolids formation, storage, and application processes.

The treatment process of sludge combines both biological and physical processes (Map 1). The treatment processes of the Carlisle Regional Water Pollution Control Facility will be used as an example of biosolids formation. The process begins with raw, wet sewage that is pumped into a series of clarifiers where settling occurs to decrease the amount of suspended solids, BOD, and phosphorus. The sludge then goes through a physical treatment where it is filtered in a cyclone degritter to remove additional suspended solids and BOD’s. After it is degritted, the sludge can be injected with lime slurry, combined with aluminum and/or an anionic polymer to reduce phosphorus. The pH is adjusted accordingly, and is then sent to aeration tanks to sufficiently convert the ammonia nitrogen to nitrates, and to further reduce carbonaceous BOD. All sludge produced in the aeration tank is sent to two sludge thickeners where it is degritted again, and then injected with lime slurry to raise the pH of the thickener to above 12.0 for at least two hours without the addition of more alkali. After the sludge is thickened and the pH is right, it is pumped into four holding and mixing tanks called aerobic digestors. A pH level of 11.5 or higher is maintained in the digesters for at least another twenty-two hours without the addition of more alkali to stabilize the biosolids until they are pumped into trucks for land application (Selan, 1981).

There are two classifications of biosolids, Class A and Class B. Class A or "EQ" (exceptional quality) biosolids can be treated as any other type of fertilizer, and is sometimes sold commercially for lawns and home gardens. Catherine Baker uses this on her home garden. Class A can also be used on crops for human consumption as long as the crop does not touch the biosolids, such as apple trees as opposed to alfalfa. There are stricter regulations for pathogens and vectors in Class A biosolids than Class B (Baker, 2001).

Most wastewater treatment plants produce Class B biosolids. According to Eric Laur, the regional inspector for biosolids in this area, there are four treatment plants that produce an EQ product (Class A) and about four more that are moving in that direction out of approximately 150 generators. Laur and Baker both agree that the reason facilities want EQ biosolids vary, but most feel that the public would be more comfortable with the EQ label. Class A biosolids are not subject to site restrictions, management practices and tracking requirements, unlike Class B. Furthermore, adjacent landowners do not need to be notified when an EQ product is land applied. Essentially, the treatment plant can give away, sell, or distribute the EQ product like any other product on the market.

Not all farms are suitable for biosolids application. Farms must meet a number of criteria such as soil type, field slope, farming practices, and soil depth (Appendix 1). Soil samples are taken and analyzed for nine metals and pH to configure the annual whole sludge application rate, which determines the amount of biosolids that can be applied to a unit area over a 365-day period. For example, if an application of a load of biosolids will raise the zinc concentration of the soil above the pollutant limit (as defined in Table 1), then the application cannot be processed. Cumulative metals loading records are a running record of the total amounts of metals that are maintained throughout the life of a farm (Bridges, 1997). When the maximum lifetime cumulative loading amount is reached, the field can no longer be used for biosolids application.

There are many different EPA regulations that establish a number of site restrictions and management practices designed to limit access and use of farmland during and after application. If the agricultural land is flooded, frozen, or covered with snow, biosolids cannot be applied due to the chance of runoff. Typically, the busiest application times of the year are in the Spring and Fall. In the Spring, farmers are preparing their fields for planting crops that need fertilizer. Municipalities also have an abundance of biosolids that have been in storage over the Winter months that need to be disposed of as quickly as possible. In the Fall, harvest occurs and the fields need to be fertilized again to replace the nitrogen before Winter (Runkell and Cambell, 2001).

The natural landscape alters where biosolids can be applied as well. For instance, to prevent ground water contamination, biosolids cannot be applied:

• within 100 feet of less of a perennial stream
• within 33 feet of an intermittent stream
• within 100 feet of a sinkhole
• within 300 feet of a water source
• within 11 inches of the seasonal high water table
• within 3.3 feet of the regional groundwater table

The farming area must have an implemented erosion and sedimentation control plan, or a farm conservation plan that is usually written by the farmers, sludge applicators, and the DEP. However, Eric Laur stated that these farm conservation plans are lacking in their application. Agricultural utilization of biosolids on slopes greater than 25% is not permitted unless specifically approved by the DEP. The soil pH must be equal to or greater than 6.0 prior to land application (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997; Laur, 2001).

Once all of these rules and regulations have been considered, a map of the area is made for each permitted site. The field is prepared beforehand as to where biosolids may be applied, with field markers of a bright color that distinguish distances from natural landforms such as streams, rocks, property lines, etc. Then, the amount of biosolids that will be applied is calculated based on the nitrogen requirement of the crop that will be planted. "The nitrogen requirement is calculated with consideration to the nitrogen content in the biosolids, soil type, type of crop being planted, expected crop yield, additional fertilizers being applied, and residual nitrogen from previous crops and/or previous biosolids applications" (Bridges, 1997).

On October 16, 2001, we met at Mr. Baleshore’s Dairy Farm located in Hampden Township with Eric Laur, Diane Campbell, a Biosolids Coordinator, and an applicator named John from the Roth Lane Wastewater Treatment Plant in Hampden Township. There are currently four application sites within Perry County, with two of them active this season (Map 2). In Cumberland County there at least 48 biosolids sites (Map 3). We witnessed a biosolids application to a field that will be planted with corn and hay for Baleshore's dairy cattle. The biosolids were brought to the farm by two different hauling trucks from Hampden Township.

One of the hauling trucks holds up to 2,000 gallons and the other holds about 6,000 gallons. According to the EPA Transportation Regulations, as stated in Section 285.213 of Chapter 25, all collection and transportation equipment must be equipped with a fire extinguisher, must be properly labeled on the sides and rear in numbers at least 3 inches high as to where the waste is coming from (name and address of treatment plant), designated type of waste (in this case, Municipal Waste), and permit numbers for the farms they are distributing to (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997) (Appendix 3). The trucks must be cleaned as frequently as necessary to prevent odors and vectors for disease, and must also be constructed in such a way as to not leak or litter during waste transportation (Laur, 2001; EPA, 1998). Those applying the biosolids, such as John from Roth Lane, must complete a training course that is 2-3 whole days sponsored by the DEP, and attain a minimum grade of 70% (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997).

Biosolids can be applied in either a solid or liquid form, which is surface applied or subsurface injected. Liquid or de-watered biosolids can be surface applied to fields that have at least a 40% crop cover, or can be applied using a deflector on the back of a tank truck that will create a fan type effect. Subsurface injection involves a chisel plow type tanker that has a series of chisels on the back that creates holes about 5-6 inches deep in which to inject biosolids. Theoretically, the land around the chiseled holes should crumble over and cover the holes once the biosolids have been injected so that nothing is visible, preventing runoff and contact with the air. The biosolids are applied 3-5 tons per acre, depending on the nitrogen uptake of the crop that will be planted (Laur and Cambell, 2001).

The farmer decides where he/she wants the biosolids, but does not have a say in how much will be applied and where on that field. Generally, farmers want more than can be applied to their fields because it is a free fertilizer and has been said to improve crop yields (Runkell, 2001; Campbell, 2001). Liming fields and buying commercial fertilizers can be very expensive, which is why farmers are partial to biosolids application. Farmers have the choice after an application to apply more fertilizer (either chemical or manure) to their fields, but this is not regulated by the DEP or EPA. Aside from donating and applying fertilizer, treatment plants will also make free improvements to the property, such as stoning a driveway for easier truck access. In some cases, wastewater facilities will pay farmers to take their biosolids. When asked whether or not facilities will charge farmers for biosolids, Dianne Cambell stated that she does not think farmers will ever have to pay because of the growing opposition within the community (Cambell, 2001).

A farmer is allowed to plant crops immediately after application, but crops cannot be harvested for at least fourteen months after application. The farmers have to apply a cover crop, like alfalfa, to prevent soil erosion. This is a part of the farm conservation plan to keep the biosolids on-site. The DEP works with the Farm Conservation Program to create farmer conservation plans and best management practices. The Conservation District conducts farm inspections, and visits every farm in the county to determine how well the farmer is following the conservation plan.

There is controversy surrounding the use of biosolids, mainly because no one is sure of what exactly is in each shipment. The EPA and DEP regulate biosolids while the burden of proof is on the waste water treatment plants even after the biosolids are applied to farmland. The EPA requires only nine major metals be monitored: Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, and Zinc; but there are hundreds of other components that come from industry waste (Appendix 2).

If biosolids are applied to a lawn or a home garden, to farmland, or sold, the concentration of each metal in the sewage sludge may not exceed the concentration for the pollutant in Table 1. Representative samples of the biosolids that are applied to the land must be collected and analyzed for the above regulated metal concentrations, for enteric viruses, fecal coliform, Helminth Ova, Salmonella, inorganic pollutants, the specific oxygen uptake rate, and total, fixed and volatile solids (Baker, 2001). Most wastewater treatment plants only test their sludge monthly, and assume that the components of the biosolids will be consistent.

The most characteristic potential health hazard of biosolids is the wide range of pathogenic microbes carried in sewage from humans and animals (Baker, 2001). There are over 100 different kinds of pathogenic viruses naturally occurring on Earth (Baker, 2001). The four main types of pathogenic organisms are bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and helminthes. A pathogen, as defined by the EPA, "is an organism or substance capable of causing disease" (EPA, 1998). Pathogens infect humans through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, but an infective dose depends upon the pathogenic organism and on the health status of the exposed individual. Due to increasing concern of pathogens to human and animal health, the 503 regulations require that sewage sludge undergo pathogen treatment prior to land application (EPA, 1998). The process for making Class B biosolids, must reduce indicator microorganisms below 2 million colony forming units of fecal coliform per gram of dry weight (EPA, 1998). The approved treatments include aerobic or anaerobic digestion, composting, heat treatment, and drying (Runkell, 2001).

Wastewater treatment plants and storage facilities must obtain a permit from the DEP before they are able to apply biosolids to the land. The permit establishes quality criteria, management practices, site restrictions and follow-up monitoring and reporting requirements (Appendix 4). A farmer seeking to land apply biosolids must obtain two permits from the DEP as well (Appendix 5 and 6). All surrounding landowners must be notified that the farm is going to apply biosolids, but they cannot stop the application if they disagree.

Upon notification or written complaint of a physical or chemical change in the composition of the biosolids, the DEP will conduct an investigation and order necessary corrective action (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997). According to Eric Laur, the corrective actions taken depend upon the type or severity of the violation. Generally, the first step is to send a notice of violation to the permittee stating the violations and asking for a response as to why the violations occurred and what steps will be taken to prevent future violations. In some cases, if the response is satisfactory, the corrective action ends at this point.

In more serious cases, the DEP can refer the case to their compliance specialists for enforcement action. Enforcement actions vary depending on severity, damage, willfulness, and violation history. A formula is used to impose a monetary penalty. The Clean Streams Law allows a maximum of $10,000 per day per violation. If land application occurs without a permit the minimum penalty is $1,000 per acre (Laur, 2001).

There are also other types of corrective actions that may accompany a fine. The DEP can pull the treatment plant's permit, a consent order and agreement can be made, or the DEP can refer the case to the Attorney General's office for criminal prosecution. Compliance history is one factor the DEP looks at when someone is renewing a permit. If the permittee has outstanding violations, or numerous violations the permit may not be renewed, or special conditions may be created for their permit (Laur, 2001).

Despite the noted benefits of using recycled biosolids, many still question whether the heavy metals, toxic organic compounds, and pathogens in biosolids could or are contaminating soil, water, and food supplies, especially with the use of Class B biosolids. Opposition towards biosolids monitoring and application is growing in communities nationwide due to increased public knowledge. Eric Luar mentioned the mass of complaints he receives daily about the spread of biosolids in communities. Eighty-nine percent of the biosolids in the state are Class B (Rutter, 2000). Microbiologist Dr. David Lewis calls biosolids "a witch’s brew of all kinds of chemicals and disease causing organisms" (Rutter, 2000).

A Pennsylvania Environmental Network citizen activist, Tina Daly, and many others feel that the EPA has not done enough testing, and have falsely approved biosolids as safe just to find a solution to the waste problem. Daly stated during a phone interview on November 10, 2001 that most studies on biosolids are biased because the scientists are funded by treatment facilities. "It’s not something we believe you want to take a gamble on -- the public’s health" (Rutter, 2000).

Two recent experiments on the bioaccumulation of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) found in the first experiment that "no differences were observed in the concentrations of PTEs in muscle tissue between lambs that grazed on treated or un-treated pasture". However, the second experiment of lambs who grazed on applied land opposed to non-applied found that "accumulation of cadmium and copper were found in edible lamb tissue of those that grazed on sewage sludge applied land, but the amounts were low" (Wilkinson et al., 2001).

The media plays a major role in influencing the public opinion of biosolids application. Lindsay et. al. (2000) conducted a study on residential household owners in two different New Hampshire communities (a city and a town) where land application was not taking place. They found that the more media reports about the land application of biosolids, the less inclined residents were to support land application of biosolids (Lindsay et. al., 2001). Advertising, even when scientifically tested, against the use of biosolids can become a real problem for distribution. Eric Laur stated that the sewage treatment plants have to adhere to the farmer's wishes. At any time, the farmer can say that he/she no longer wants biosolids applied to their fields. However, there is no contractual agreement. Eric Laur and Dianne Cambell feel that one of the biggest problems with biosolids is its negative misconception.

There is a huge debate over the name "biosolids" itself. Eric Laur claims that biosolids can be labeled as such because they have been properly treated. The Water Environmental Federation, one of the partners in the National Biosolids Partnership, wants to use the term biosolids to:

"Replace all references to wastewater sludges which can be beneficially recycled with the name biosolids. Use of this term provides a significant advantage with respect to perception. Using the term "biosolids" in laws, regulations, and guidelines will help communicate to the public that the product from wastewater treatment can be used in many beneficial ways" (WEF, 1996).

According to Charlotte Hartman of New York, Coordinator of the National Sludge Alliance, the term "beneficial biosolids" is a PR-agency-coined term for toxic sewage sludge. "This toxic and radioactive soup is used on agricultural fields growing crops for distribution throughout the nation's commercial food supply, without public knowledge" (Hartman, 2001). This last statement highlights the fact that sludge based products are not required to be labeled.

Tina Daly feels that the name "biosolids" is just a public relations title to confuse citizens. When people see the term "biosolids" they usually do not know what it is and are not concerned, as opposed to the reaction upon seeing a truck with Municipal Waste in big letters (Daly, 2001).

Given the controversy that exists over land application of biosolids, there is often a clash between community residents and their farmer neighbors, as well as with the companies willing to provide biosolids for land application (sometimes with payment). Most neighbors have the biggest problems with the smell that some biosolids have. The smell usually occurs when the biosolids are applied in the form of a cake (Cambell, 2001). Sometimes, with crops such as hay, applicators will surface apply the biosolids using fan trucks which spray the biosolids, in turn aerating them and creating a more intense smell (Laur and Cambell, 2001). The sewage treatment process helps to reduce the odor through aeration (Runkell, 2001). Eric Laur stated that the applicators "try not to let people smell the biosolids", this being an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to the smell. This is pertinent with subsurface injection, the method used at the Baleshore farm.

Montague (1999) claims that we need to find a new way to flush. Pathologist, Catherine Baker, also agrees (2001). Baker feels that the current system of adding waste to water, piping it long distances, and then trying to treat large amounts of contaminated wastewater is ridiculous. Every flush uses 3.3 gallons of drinking water; there are approximately 5.2 flushes per day, which equals 6260 gallons of drinking water a year to flush 1300 pounds of waste (Montague, 1999). What kind of people would dump their excreta into their drinking water when an alternative method presents itself? Baker suggests smaller, decentralized wastewater treatment plants. She states, however, that engineers are not innovative enough for this concept in industrialized countries due to already existing sewage networks. However, decentralized sewage systems could possibly be attained in developing countries. Montague claims that the pit used by the early Europeans was environmentally sound. He also suggests other alternatives such as onsite composting toilets, pricing water correctly so that the market works to keep it clean, building anaerobic digesters that produce methane gas and fertilizer, and most importantly enforcing industry to be responsible for their own waste (Montague, 1999).

Another problem with treatment plants can be found at the Carlisle Sewage Treatment Plant, who is currently working with Catherine Baker of Pennsylvania State University to make treatment improvements to produce Class A biosolids. Baker relayed that treatment plants are consistently paying for biosolids research, not the EPA, which raises an ethical question. Should the community be responsible for improving the quality and answering questions on a product that the government claims is safe? Baker feels the problem is that other plants are taking advantage of the research that Carlisle has funded. Wastewater plants also do not want to fund research in case a problem is uncovered that could negatively impact current or future processes. The major benefit of a wastewater treatment plant that produces Class A biosolids is that they can apply biosolids anywhere without forcing farmers to obtain a permit through the DEP. This means that there is less of a hassle for applying the waste, and a reduced risk of the presence of pathogens in the biosolids due to better treatment.

All in all, no matter if you call it "beneficial biosolids" or "toxic sewage sludge", there is a certain level of risk with the application of biosolids on agricultural fields as a fertilizer (Baker and Laur, 2001). Some think that risk is too high. For example, Class B pathogen contents are low, a federal Environmental Protection Agency biologist acknowledges, however, "in the opinion of myself and other microbiologists, those low levels still present significant health risks, particularly in lime stabilized sludge" (Rutter, 2000). Futhermore,

appealed Jim Bynum of Kansas City, a National Sludge Alliance leader who claims his farm was irreparably poisoned by run-off from toxic sewage sludge (Hite, 2001).

Not only should citizens be informed of the risks involved, but more important testing needs to take place to assess the risks. Baker noted the lack in testing for downwind pathogens from the sludge, although she does not think that unsafe elements of biosolids can be transported downwind. Baker also mentioned the non-fool-proof 99.99% pre-treatment of industry waste before sending it to the treatment facility because not all toxins are eliminated. It is very hard to find supportive evidence in terms of the levels of PCBs, dioxin, and di-benzine flourines in biosolids; there are no labs in this area capable of testing for PCBs either (Baker, 2001). However, as an Environmental Protection Agency biologist named Lewis states "we do know that sludge contains cancer-causing agents, such as nickel and chromium" (Rutter, 2000). We do not yet have the knowledge to test for estrogen mimicking substances, although this should be studied in relation to biosolids use. The fate of biosolids in terms of groundwater needs more research as well. However, in conjunction with risk assessment, people must also consider the question "What else are we to do with it?".

Due to the controversy over farmland application of biosolids, and upon the advice of Eric Laur, we did not conduct citizen interviews as a means of community outreach. We decided instead to post our findings on the Internet as well as a Fact Sheet that will be linked to Candie Wilderman's Analysis and Management of Aquatic Environments web page.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2001. Toxicological profile for cadmium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Internet. Accessed November 24, 2001. <http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/>.

Bridges, James S. Operating a Biosolids Land Application Program. Borough of Carlisle: October 1997.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health Division of Laboratory Sciences. 2001. Molybdenum. Internet. Accessed November 29, 2001. <http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/Chemicals/molybdenumgeneral.htm>.

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, No. 21. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 1997.

Department of Environmental Protection. Appendix 6: "Notification Of First Land Application (30-Day Notice)". 1999.

Department of Environmental Protection. Appendix 4: "Pennsylvania Notice of Intent (NOI) For Coverage Under General Permit For Beneficial Use Of Sewage Sludge By Land Application". 1999.

Department of Environmental Protection. Appendix 5: "Contractual Consent of Landowner".2000.

Environmental Defense Scorecard. 2001. Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc. Environmental Defense. Internet. Accessed on November 11, 2001. <http://www.scorecard.org/>.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge: Environmental Regulations and Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH: 1999. Chapter 285 "Storage, Collection and Transportation of Municipal Waste". April 8, 1998.

Environmental Protection Agency. May 7, 2001. Arsenic and Compounds 107-02-8. Technology Transfer Network. Internet. Accessed on November 26, 2001. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/arsenic.html>.

Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix 1: Municipal Waste Regulations. "Pennsylvania Bulletin". 27.4: 545-557. 1997.

Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix 3: Storage and Transportation. "Storage, Collection and Transportation of Municipal Waste". 1998.

Hartman, Charlotte. National Sludge Alliance. New York: New York. 2001.

Hite, Robert. 2001. National Biosolids Partnership. Internet. Accessed on November 9, 2001. <http://biosolids.policy.net/welcome/>.

Lindsay et. al., Bruce E., Haojiang Zhou, and John M. Halstead. "Factors influencing resident attitudes regarding the land application of biosolids". American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 15 (2000): 88-94.

Mininni, Giuseppe, and Mario Santori. "Problems and Perspectives of Sludge Utilization in Agriculture". Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 18 (1987): 291-311.

Montague, Peter. "#644 Excrement Happens — Part One,". Rachel’s Environment Health & Weekly. 644 (April 01, 1999).

New England Biosolids & Residuals Association (NEBRA). 2001. Biosolids History. Internet. Accessed October 29, 2001. <http://www.nebiosolids.org/history.html>.

Pennsylvania Bulletin. Beneficial Use of Sewage Sludge by Land Application: Rules and Regulations. Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 4, Subchapter J., January 25, 1997.

Perry County, Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, No. 50. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 1999.

Rutter, John. "A debate: Is sludge fertilizer or poison?". Sunday News for Lancaster PA. 3 December 2000: A-1.

Selan, Peter. Carlisle Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. Gannett Fleming: Engineers and Planners. August 25, 1981.

"Waste treatment ‘sludge’ goes on farm fields". The Sentinel. [Carlisle] February 28, 1999: Online. http://www.cumberlink.com/localnews/local.news.page.shtml.

Water Environmental Federation. 1996. Guidance for Regulatory Officials on Biosolids Recycling. Internet. Accessed November 12, 2001. <http://www.wef.org/govtaffairs/Policy/rlps2b.jhtml>.

Wilkinson, JM; Hill, J; Livesy, CT. "Accumulation of potentially toxic elements in the body tissues of sheep grazed on grassland given repeated applications of sewage sludge". Animal Science. 72: 179-190. Part 1. February 2001.

Baker, Catherine. Pathologist for Penn State University. Personal Interview. October 13, 2001.

Campbell, Diane. Biosolids Coordinator at Hampden Township, Roth Lane Wastewater Treatment Plant. Personal Interview. October 16,. 2001. (phone - 761-7963) <lmassie@twp.hampden.pa.us>.

Daly, Tina. Network’s Sludge Leadership Team. Creator of biosolids web page: <http://www.penweb.org/issues/sludge/>. Phone Interview. November 10, 2001.

Laur, Eric J. DEP Soils Scientist under the Water Management Program for the South-central region of Pennsylvania. Personal Interview. October 16, 2001. (phone: 705-4773) <elaur@state.pa.us>.

Runkell, Dave and Jeff Heinbaugh. Biosolids Coordinator. Personal Interview. September 26, 2001. (phone: 240-6991).

Table 1. Values of Pollutant Concentrations

(The Ceiling Concentrations are instantaneous values — no single sample may exceed these values. The Monthly Average Concentrations are monthly averages. A monthly average is the arithmetic average of all measurements taken during the month. The Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rates limit the amount of a pollutant that can be applied to an area of land, and are expressed in pounds of pollutant per acre of land for the life of the application site.)

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element on Earth. It can be dissolved in water, but not destroyed.

Human Health: There are no recognized human health effects, but there are several suspected effects, as defined by the Environmental Defense Fund, who proclaim arsenic as a carcinogen, a cardiovascular or blood toxicant, a developmental toxicant, a gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, a kidney toxicant, a neurotoxicant, and a skin or sense organ toxicant.

Inorganic arsenic creates a higher risk for many cancers, and has been shown through animal studies to cross the placenta and affect the fetus. The EPA has already classified arsenic as a Group A human carcinogen of high carcinogenic hazard (EPA, 2001). It is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds to ecosystems and human health. Arsenic is regulated on many federal regulatory lists, such as RCRA, Superfund, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Cadmium is also a natural element in the earth’s crust that is found in rocks and soil. It does not corrode easily or break down in environment, but some can be dissolved in water. (ATSDR, 2001). Bioaccumulation in tissue of animals is prevalent, making it one of the worst 10% of hazardous compounds to ecosystems and human health. (EPA, 2001).

Human Health: Cadmium is a recognized carcinogen, developmental toxicant, and reproductive toxicant. It is a suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant, endocrine toxicant, immunotoxicant, kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, and respiratory toxicant. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Cadmium is also one of the most hazardous compounds to ecosystems and human health due to its persistency, bioaccumulative habits, and toxicity. This metal is currently being regulated by OSHA, CAA, RCRA, Superfund, SDWA, and the CWA. (ASTDR, 2001).

Copper is a reddish metal that is essential for life, which is why this metal occurs naturally in the environment, in plants and animals (ASTDR, 2001).

Human Health: It is a suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant, developmental toxicant, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant. There are no recognized health effects.

Amazingly this chemical is also ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds to human health. Copper is regulated by OSHA, Superfund, SDWA, CWA, and FIFRA. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

A naturally occurring element in the Earth’s crust, lead most commonly comes from anthropogenic sources such as burning fossil fuels, mining and manufacturing. This metal does not break down in environment, but its compounds can be changed by sunlight, air and water.

Human Health: Recognized carcinogen, developmental toxicant, reproductive toxicant. Suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant, endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, immunotoxicant, kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, respiratory toxicant, skin or sense organ toxicant. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001; EPA, 2001)

Lead is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds to ecosystems and human health, and is regulated by OSHA, CAA, RCRA, Superfund, SDWA, and CWA. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that has several forms. Metallic mercury is a shiny, silvery-white, odorless liquid. Mercury combines with other elements, such as chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen, to form inorganic mercury compounds, which are usually white powders or crystals. (ASTDR, 2001).

Human Health: The only recognized effect is that it is a developmental toxicant. Mercury is a suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant, endocrine toxicant, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, immunotoxicant, kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, and a skin or sense organ toxicant. This element is also ranked as very hazardous to ecosystems and human health, and is regulated by OSHA, CAA, RCRA, Superfund, SDWA, and CWA. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Molybdenum occurs naturally in compounds with other elements. Elemental molybdenum is a silver-white, hard metal that is frequently used in commercial processes. It is also nutritionally essential. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Human Health: There are no recognized effects, but it is a suspected neurotoxicant.

Molybdenum is another hazardous compound to human health, and is only regulated by OSHA. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health Division of Laboratory Sciences, 2001)

Nickel is a very abundant element in the natural environment that is found primarily combined with oxygen (oxides) or sulfur (sulfides). It is found in all soils as it attaches to soil and sediments that contain iron or manganese. This element does not appear to bioaccumulate (EPA, 2001). There is a high usage rate of nickel, exceeding 1 million pounds yearly (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Human Health: Nickel is a recognized carcinogen. It is suspected to be a cardiovascular or blood toxicant, developmental toxicant, immunotoxicant, kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, and skin or sense organ toxicant (ASTDR, 2001).

Nickel is regulated by OSHA, CAA, RCRA, Superfund, and CWA (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).

Selenium is a nutritionally essential element for humans that usually combines with other compounds (ASTDR, 2001).

Human Health: A suspected cardiovascular or blood toxicant, developmental toxicant, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, and skin or sense organ toxicant.

This metal is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds to human health (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001). Regulated by OSHA, CAA, RCRA, Superfund, SDWA, and CWA (EPA, 2001).

Zinc is one of the most common elements in the earth's air, soil, and water. The EPA claims that it is present in all foods. Pure zinc is a bluish-white shiny metal that combines with other elements to form zinc compounds. It attaches to soil, sediments, and dust particles in the air. Rain and snow can remove zinc dust particles from the air, only to deposit them into the groundwater, lakes, streams, and rivers, but most of the zinc in soil stays bound to the soil particles. (ASTDR, 2001). Zinc bioaccumulates in fish and other organisms, but not in plants (EPA, 2001). For humans, zinc is an essential element. Too little and too much zinc can cause health problems (ASTDR, 2001).

Human Health: A suspected developmental toxicant, immunotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, and skin or sense organ toxicant.

Regulated by Superfund, CWA, and FIFRA. (Environmental Defense Scorecard, 2001).