November 08, 2009
What's Inside:
Company reacts to findings
Prime Tanning official believes sludge claims have ‘no basis’
Prime Tanning official believes sludge claims have ‘no basis’
Prime Tanning and others are disputing claims that chromium 6 is to blame for an outbreak of tumors.
Environmental activist Erin Brockovich told a group in Cameron, Mo., that sludge from Prime Tanning spread on farm fields could be linked to brain tumors and other health problems in the area. Two residents filed a lawsuit against the company on Wednesday.
Prime Tanning suspended land application of sludge pending the outcome of its investigation. The company takes the allegations seriously and will cooperate with state and federal agencies, Grover Elliott, vice president and chief financial officer, said in a statement Thursday.
“Based on our preliminary investigation, we believe there is no basis for the claims made in the litigation,” Mr. Elliott said.
The leather tannery on Stockyards Expressway in St. Joseph appeared to be in operation Thursday. The company was recently purchased by National Beef Packing.
The charges center around a practice where sludge from Prime Tanning was given to farmers to spread on crop fields. The material, which contains hair, fat and proteins from the tanning process, adds nutrients to the soil.
The lawsuit, filed by William Kemper of Cameron and Janet Lasher of Gallatin, claims that hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium 6, was used by Prime Tanning to remove hair from hides. Chromium remained in the sludge, became airborne and exposed residents to a known carcinogen, the lawsuit states.
Defendants in the case include National Beef Leathers Co., Prime Tanning and Rick Ream, identified as a Prime Tanning employee who oversaw land application.
Mr. Kemper’s wife died of a brain tumor in May 2008. Mrs. Lasher was diagnosed with lung cancer in February.
Chromium 6 has been determined to cause cancer of the lungs and stomach, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But chromium 6 is not used in the tanning process, says a scientist from the Leather Research Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Nicholas J. Cory, director of the lab, was referred to the media by Prime Tanning.
In an e-mail to the News-Press, Dr. Cory said only chromium 3, which is a safe product, is used to tan hides. The lab’s Web site at www.leatherusa.org, states that chromium 3 may be converted to chromium 6 in the industrial process.
Others see problems linking an apparent outbreak of tumors in Cameron with the sludge. Bob Kelly, agriculture business specialist with Buchanan County Extension, said the product has been spread on land in Andrew, Buchanan, Clinton and DeKalb counties for many years.
“Why aren’t we seeing more of this in a widespread area if this is the case?” Mr. Kelly said.
He said when farmers receive the sludge, it should be tested to determine it is safe to use. The soil is tested to determine how much can be applied to raise a crop.
Based on research and technology available, the sludge appears to be safe, Mr. Kelly said, and a responsible way to reuse material instead of sending it to a landfill.
“For years we have used it as a nutrient and haven’t seen problems until this perceived problem,” he said.
Prime Tanning has not had a history of environmental violations, said Andy Clements, assistant director of public works for the city of St. Joseph.
“They’ve been a very good industry in St. Joe,” Mr. Clements said.
Sludge from the city’s own wastewater treatment facility is applied to fields that the city owns and leases to farmers, Mr. Clements said.
Prime Tanning has a primary wastewater treatment facility at its factory.
Dr. Cory said the sludge from Prime Tanning contains organic nutrients, such as manure and proteins, and calcium hydroxide, which is known as lime and is applied to soil to make it less acidic.
“Chromium 6 is not added to the soil,” he said. “If it were, it would rapidly be converted to harmless chromium 3 by the extremely high organic content.”
Mr. Kelly said the sludge is applied to the same fields every two to three years.
“I understand the desire to want to know what’s causing the problem, but I think we’re clutching at straws here,” he said.
Susan Mires can be reached
at susanm@npgco.com.
This story has 7 comments. Click here to join in on the discussion.
Story Tools
Hyperlink Legend
E-mail story
Print friendly version
iPod friendly version
Today's Top Headlines
Abuse support programs threatened
Study: U.S. sliding in math, science
House passes health care bill
Enthusiasts get first shot at Geiger's new range
InterServ marks a century of changing lives
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
Your letters, Nov. 7, 2009
(15 comments)
A resounding yes on school levy
(183 comments)
Same sex marriage loses in Maine
(71 comments)
Survey: Many above poverty hurting
(35 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(15 comments)
A resounding yes on school levy
(183 comments)
Same sex marriage loses in Maine
(71 comments)
Survey: Many above poverty hurting
(35 comments)
Chromium 6 isn't associated with tumors, Hazmat data talks about breathing problems, and contact sores. We need to look harder for the cause rather than rush to punish Prime tanning.
Maybe you should look up the information before you type nonsense. Chromium 6 is carcinogenic.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm
This comment was removed by the site staff.
donaldo April 25, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)you go girl!!!! i too have a friend who had to go on disability because of plugged off blood veins in his legs.now i know that isnt what they are saying , he has had tumors and weakness along with memory loss. i had to walk him through the paper work for disability . any way i worked 31 years at agp and the smell from the south side was horrible.
Logically, lets look at the case that is being purported here.
1. Claims that the waste from the tannery process; fleshings, are the cause. Due to their use as fertilizer and containing Chromium 6 caused the cancer spike in the local area. So with this logic, due to Cameron drinking the water that has 'tainted' this led to the increase of cancer. That however doesnt make sense. If the cancer is linked to exposure, then those that would be MOST likely to have cancer would be the employees of Prime Tanning. Whatever the rates are in Cameron that are greater than the norm would pale in comparison to those that the employees at Prime would. Remember that the claim states that Cameron was exposed to Chromium 6. Who else would have a higher exposure risk, those that drank from an aquifer that contains millions upon millions of gallons where the ppm was far below legal requirements or the staff and employees that work at a site where not only is the compound present but present in a concentrated and vast amount?
2. This spike in cancer rates is localized to the Cameron area and out-lying areas, as if it is radiating from a centralized locale. If the byproduct that is used as fertilizer is really the root, wouldnt it make more sense that the rates would be higher across the board for all the counties implicated in this report, why only Cameron and the surrounding areas? All counties involved would be at risk, and not only on paper, but there would be medical findings spread over a wider area, not only on a centralized area.
3. The Chromium 6 findings that were found were below legal limits of the ppm set by federal guidelines. Why would only Cameron's aquifer be the only water source affected, if indeed the fertilizer was spread over such a wide area? A handful of counties have been using the byproduct for decades, yet nothing has been reported.
The fact is that there is absolutely no legitimate proof that Prime is responsible. Not only that, it has to be obvious that their case has no merit. As an ex-employee of Prime (I was laid off last fall) I have had no ill affects from my employment. Not only that but I personally know dozens of employees who have worked for Prime for decades, none of whom have had any side effects from their line of work. This is simple fear mongering and finger pointing. While I have no doubt that there is something that is causing this spike in cancer for the residents of Cameron, when one simply looks that the evidence it plainly does not point towards Prime. However it seems that all that is required for a case is to plaster images of sick people then point fingers at a big bad corporation that has provided employment for countless local families. All that Brockovich is looking for is a scapegoat for her next movie and the people of Cameron are being played for fools by their emotions and their desire to lay blame. The key is that Brockovich is attempting to tell a big enough lie that it will sound plausible, resulting in a judgment, and notoriety.
dlk7941-I am so glad to hear someone else voicing our opinions. I am raising a family of my own in Cameron and feel it is a wonderful town getting too much undeserving and unwanted attention. I feel sorry for the families that are suffering, but they need to stop grasping at straws and find the real culprit. From what i have read about Chromium 6 it is believed to cause cancer in the respiratory system and the stomach. These cases in Cameron are all Brain Tumors and are non-cancerous. Where is the connection? If it is coming from this sludge like Erin says, then why is Cameron the only one with issues? According to test results, Cameron's cancer rate is lower than the state average. Someone please expain this to me.