EPA EMPLOYEES WANT TO TURN SLUDGE PROBLEMS OVER TO WEF.

EPA Inspector General, Robert Bastian, Bob Brobst,  Mark Meckes, James E. Smith Jr., Joseph Farrell (a consultant).  
John Walker and Alan Rubin all agree sludge is a very dangerous product with no science, no data, and no enforcement.
                                                                                                                                                           References
THIS IS A WORKING COPY

Letter sent to EPA
employees involved and EPA Administrator

In developing a paper for Help for Sewage Victims to be published www.deadlydeceit.com, there appears to be several
statements from EPA documents and EPA employees that I would like clarified. Particularly, the EPA's documentation
that the
Plague bacteria Yersinia pestis was consistently found in sludge compost in a 1988  EPA study by William
Yanko.

Clarification of this item is particularly important since some EPA employees have been promoting compost as an
unlabelled soil amendment for home lawns and gardens as well as school yards and parks.

I would apperciate any comments or clarification on the other statements by EPA employees outlined below..

Jim Bynum
PO Box 682
Smithville, Mo. 64089
(816) 699-3975

http://deadlydeceit.com/EPA_Employees.html
EPA
  • Yersinia only occurred significantly at the static pile facility and were isolated in a pattern consistent with a
    seasonal occurrence.

  • EPA documented that five of the toxic metals were cancer causing agents when inhaled: Arsenic, Beryllium,
    Cadmium, Chromium VI and Nickel. (FR 54, No 23,  p.5777. Feb. 6, 1989)

  • EPA report in 1988, when root crops such as carrots, potatoes and onions are grown in contaminated soils, they
    can develop dioxin levels that equal or exceed those already in the soil

Congress -
  • EPA appeared to care more about protecting its own regulations than ensuring adequate protection for the
    environment and the public's health.

US Court of Appeals -
  • "while EPA "may `err' on the side of overprotection," it "may not engage in sheer guesswork

EPA Inspector General -
  • "the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) provides none [people], even though it has
    program responsibilities. As we explained in our prior report, that office has disinvested from the biosolids
    program."  [Didn't get involved]

  • "EPA has not conducted the basic research needed to determine the risk associated with certain biosolids
    disposal practices,"  "EPA has failed to adhere to its commitment to comprehensively assess the extent of the risk"

  • "Our reviews and investigations have disclosed a disturbing trend in the number of environmental laboratories
    that are providing misleading and fraudulent data to the states for monitoring the nation' public water supplies.

Jim Ryan and USDA's Rufus Chaney -
  • "The term "toxic pollutant" is not used in the final part 503 regulation because this generally is limited to the list of
    priority toxic pollutants developed by EPA. The Agency concluded that Congress intended that EPA develop the
    part 503 pollutant limits for a broader range of substances that might interfere with the use and disposal of
    sewage sludge, not just the 126 priority pollutants."

  • EPA documented that five of the toxic metals were cancer causing agents when inhaled: Arsenic, Beryllium,
    Cadmium, Chromium VI and Nickel

  • that for most chemicals, "a positive determination was made -- that EPA lacked sufficient data to establish a safe
    level."


  • "(For lack of adequate data, the inherent variable in individual exposure to pollutants in sludge is not addressed"

  • 503  sludge marketing rule restricts a grass (turf) farmer from harvest his crop for one year,  yet, all human food
    crops can be harvested in 30 days

John Walker -
  • "the Part 503 metals were considered noncarcinogens (they do not cause or induce cancer for the exposure
    pathways evaluated)."


Robert Bastian, Bob Brobst,  Mark Meckes, James E. Smith Jr., Joseph Farrell (a consultant).

  • bacteria could live up to one year in soil and six months on plants.

  • Viruses could live up to one year in soil and two months on plants

  • " A.  fumigatus is not covered in the Part 503."

Jim Hanlon, (Director), ED Gross and Jacqueline Rose, -

  • odors, other bioaerosols, such as pathogens, endotoxins, and various volatile organic compounds, must also be
    controlled

  • Survival and presence of primary pathogens in the product.•

  • Dispersion of secondary pathogens such as Aspergillus fumigatus, particulate matter,other airborne allergens.

  • persons handling composted biosolids being exposed to these spores is also high

Mark Meckes -
  • "Again, it can be stated that lime treatment did not significantly reduce the number of spore forming bacteria."  

  • discovered that some Escherichia coli strains could transfer antibiotic-senstive strains of shigella spp.

Robert Bastian -  
  • "Concerns raised over emerging pathogens and chemicals for which little or no data are available tend to be put
    off for future consideration when more adequate data are generated."

  • "Little experience is available for conducting quantified microbial risk assessment, and successful evaluations
    require better data on infectious dose and the survival and transport of specific organisms during land
    application."  

  • "Less active EPA oversight, but continued program support,"

  • Increase the resources devoted to EPA's biosolids program,

Jim Smith and Gerba -
  • "The hazards associated with pathogens in land-applied animal and human wastes have long been recognized."

Joseph Farrell and Alan Godfree -
  • Wastewater contains human, animal, and plant pathogens capable of causing viral, bacterial, or parasitic
    infections.

Robert B. Brobst, Alan Rubin (EPA), Rufus Chaney (USDA) and David Taylor, -

  • "The analytical methods currently used for the determination of organic compound concentrations in biosolids
    leave many decisions to the discretion of the lab analyst and do not specify the extraction method or necessary
    cleanup steps." "Unless analysts have extensive experience specific to the determination of organic compound
    concentrations in biosolids, the reported levels of organic compounds in biosolids should be considered suspect."

  • "Commonly,insufficient data exist for detailed environmental risk assessment for a chemical of concern."

Jim Smith -
  • "We're looking at a document that is 26 years old," "is impossible to find a body of knowledge in one place,"
    
  • Smith said the project is cost-prohibitive for EPA to tackle alone.

  • "Smith said he believes that the arrangement will include WEF taking ownership of the updated manual


Robert Brobst  -
  • "The limitations identified above are risk based and are maximum limitations not to be exceeded at any time. EPA
    believes that any time those limitations are exceeded, it should be reported promptly."



WHAT THEY SAID




When an EPA program goes bad, the human and environmental cost can be horrific. Such is the case with the beneficial
sludge use program. It got off to a really bad start in 1988 when William A. Yanko , with County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, found that the plague causing bacteria Yersinia pestis  consistently showed up in sludge  compost
which is sold as an unlabelled soil amendment. After 26 years of spreading the plague bacteria EPA employees are  
scared

Now EPA wants to wash it hands of the liability and turn it over to the Water Environment Federation (WEF). The first
step  was the 1995 public relations debunking campaign, which included setting up the  research arm (WEFR) to receive
direct funding from Congress (12.9 million (1999-2001) . According to the March/April 2006 WEF Bulletin, EPA is now
negotiating to turn over to WEF the copyright to its Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal
(EPA/625/1-79-011) .

"
We're looking at a document that is 26 years old," said James Smith, a senior environmental engineer who is heading
up the project. Smith also is chair of EPA' Pathogen Equivalency Committee. With all of the information that has  been
published since the first manual was printed, "
is impossible to find a body of knowledge in one place," he added."

"Smith said the project is cost-prohibitive for EPA to tackle alone. Thus, EPA is working toward an agreement with the
Water Environment Federation (WEF®; Alexandria, Va.) and Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF®;
Alexandria, Va.) and their memberships to collaborate on the project."

"Smith said he believes that the arrangement will include WEF taking ownership of the updated manual as well as rights
to produce and sell the information. EPA will be granted a limited license to publish enough copies to supply its
headquarters personnel, regional offices, and the regional solids coordinator in each state, he said".

"Smith said he hopes WEF will maintain the manual as a living document after the updated document is initially
Published."
.

As I understand this, EPA has not updated its science in the last 26 year?. It hasn't kept up with the science? Congress
is giving WEF millions of dollars for some type of research, but EPA doesn't have the money to update its manuals? EPA
is going to give away the rights to a manual funded by public tax payers, which it sells?  EPA expects the regulated
community to keep the manual updated with new science, which will cost the regulated community more money?

The real reason appears to be explained by one of the WEF members:

In January 2006, Ned Beecher (59) responded to Dr. Caroline Snyder's paper on The Dirty Work of Promoting
"Recycling"of America's Sewage Sludge
, published November 2005, in The International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health

Beecher, said, "The abstract of Dr. Snyder's paper states: "Serious illnesses, including deaths, and adverse
environmental impacts have been linked to land application of sewage sludge. EPA and the wastewater treatment
industry have worked with Congress to fund wastewater trade associations to promote land application, supporting
industry-friendly scientists and discouraging independent research, to prevent local governments from restricting land
application and to thwart litigation against municipalities and the industry." In making these charges, the paper ties
together many disparate events and statements from a wide variety of public and private reports, court documents,
letters, Internet sites, media news stories, and a few formal published papers. Dr. Snyder's arguments build, in part, on
those of Dr. David Lewis, a former EPA scientist who also criticized EPA's sewage sludge management regulations,
policy, and the science behind them. Dr. Snyder's paper can be downloaded at: www.ijoeh.
com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Snyder.pdf"

Beecher said, "NEBRA, one of the professional associations that Dr. Snyder's paper criticizes, understands and
appreciates that the application to soils of treated sewage sludge/biosolids can sometimes be a contentious topic.
However, thirty years of concerted research and experience with biosolids recycling have found "negligible risk," as a
1996 National Academy of Sciences review stated. A second National Academy review in 2002 found "There is no
documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health. However, additional scientific
work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to
biosolids" (see scienceof.html for more details). Indeed, the science behind current biosolids management policies and
activities, as in other fields, is not static – current ongoing research addresses not only emerging issues of concern, but
ways to improve existing biosolids use and management techniques."

But is that really the case?

In  the 1998 paper, Developmental Neurotoxicology of Endocrine Disruptors and Pesticides: Indentification of Information
and Gaps and Research Needs
, Hugh Tilson, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (EPA),
stated, "it is generally accepted that disruption of endocrine function could have a number of neurodevelopmental
effects, including altered reproduction behaviors mediated by hypothalamic-pituitary axis, hypothala-mically mediated
body metabolism, sexual differentiation in brain morphology, and cognitive and psychomotor development. Sexual and
brain development, are under the influence of estrogenic and androgenic hormones and chemicals that interfere with
these hormones during development can adversely affect neurodevelopment. Thyroid hormone also play an important
role in development of the nervous system and chemical-induced alterations of thyroid function during development can
produce developmental neurotoxicity (15). Moderate to severe alterations in thyroid hormone concentrations during
development result in motor dysfunction, cognitive deficits, and other neurologic adnormalities. In addition, recent
research (18) suggests that developmental hypothyroidism in rats can cause permanent ototoxicity."

"There are several chemical or classes of chemicals that could cause neurodevelopmental alterations  by interfering
with neuroendocrine function, including
polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, chlorinated pesticides, some metals (e.g.
Methylmercury, lead, organotins)
insect growth regulators, dithiocarbamates, synthetic steroids, tamoxifen,
phytoestrogens, and triazine herbicides (13, 14). Research is needed to determine if other chemcials or classes of
chemicals affect neurodevelopmental processes by disrupting endocrine function during development. Any compounds
that mimic or antagonize the actions of neurotransmitter, hormones, growth factors in the developing brain have the
potential to adversely neurodevelopment."

In the March 28, 2002
EPA Inspector General Status Report, Land Application of Biosolids, it was noted that there were
less than the equivalent of 6 people involved with sludge program at the Headquarters level  and "the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) provides none, even though it has program responsibilities. As we
explained in our prior report, that office has
disinvested from the biosolids program."  [Didn't get involved]


On September 6, 2002, EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the report EPA's Key Management Challenges
stating its concerns about the science behind EPA's Sludge Use and Disposal Policy. On page 14 the report stated,
"EPA committed to conducting a comprehensive research program to assess the risks associated with land application
of biosolids, yet it has not yet done so.
" The report pointed out  not only the fact that, "EPA has not conducted the basic
research needed to determine the risk associated with certain biosolids disposal practices,"  "EPA has failed to adhere
to its commitment to comprehensively assess the extent of the risk"

"Approximately six million tons of sewage sludge ("" are produced annually by sewage treatment plants in the United
States. With inadequate treatment these biosolids may contain a wide variety of chemicals and pathogens, the remains
of the sewage treatment process.
  • (1) EPA does not know whether current regulations, when adhered to, are protective of public health;
  • (2) EPA does not have an overall understanding of the magnitude and quality of Biosolids production and
    disposal practices;
  • (3) EPA does not know if the enforcement and compliance resources committed to managing biosolids are
    adequate to ensure that the regulations are adhered to."

"EPA uses the Permit Compliance System (PCS) to manage water quality activities of point source dischargers such as
sewage treatment plants, but PCS is acknowledged by the Office of Water (OW) as inadequate for managing biosolids.
EPA is unable to answer basic questions such as how much biosolids are land-applied.

"EPA has diverted compliance and enforcement resources away from this program. The safety of biosolids land
application depends on the adherence to highly technical treatment standards by land applicators across the country. In
a 2000 report we found inadequacies in EPA's management and enforcement of the biosolids program. In a status
report on the biosolids program published two years later, we reported a further 44% reduction in full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions (from 18 to 10). This is a particular concern because EPA runs the biosolids program in 45 states.
Adequate oversight of this program is critical for ensuring regulatory compliance. To date, EPA has not committed the
resources needed to fulfill its oversight Responsibilities."

"Questionable analyses by laboratories raise concerns about the effectiveness of environmental decisions and lead to
additional costs and unnecessary delays when EPA has to identify and assess the impact of the fraudulent data and
undertake additional sampling. In a June 1999 memorandum to the Acting Deputy Administrator, we suggested actions
the Agency could take to better identify data of questionable quality. Ongoing lab fraud investigations in FY 2002
indicate that despite Agency efforts to ensure improved data quality, manipulated data continues to be generated and
supplied to EPA."

"Our reviews and investigations have disclosed a disturbing trend in the number of environmental laboratories that are
providing misleading and fraudulent data to the states for monitoring the nation' public water supplies. For example,
several current lab fraud investigations involve severe manipulation of data used to evaluate the compliance of public
water supplies with Federal drinking water standards. Many other EPA programs (e.g., Superfund, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, National Pollution Elimination and Discharge System, air toxins, underground storage
tanks, and pesticides) have also been impacted by laboratory fraud".

"--several issues remain unsettled and we are not convinced that the agency is directing adequate resources to
resolving these concerns once and for all."

"Toxic air pollution remains one of the most significant health and environmental problems in the U.S.,
causing cancer, neurological, immunological, and other serious health problems.
Despite the potential for
serious harm, EPA is nearly two years behind in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for issuing all Phase 1 air toxics
standards (also known as MACT1 standards) by the November 2000 statutory deadline. Of 176 air toxics categories that
EPA is required to regulate under the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA has issued MACT standards for about 82 categories.

"EPA' goal is to eliminate the risks of cancer and other significant health problems from air toxics emissions
for 95 percent of the U.S. population by 2020.
"

The OIG report was a result of a  March 22, 2000 House Committee on Science  Hearing on EPA's Sludge Rule. One of  
the reasons for the Hearing, which was stated in the Committee's Agenda  for the Congressional Hearing,  was to"
address whether EPA, in its development and enforcement of the Part 503 Sludge Rule, is failing to foster sound
science with an open exchange of ideas and information between scientists, EPA officials, and private citizens.."  
Another reason for the Hearing was to "explore allegations that EPA scientists who disagree with EPA's science
associated with the sludge rule were ignored or, worse, subjected to harassment."

A further reason for the Hearing were to investigate "documented reports of intimidation directed at private citizens who
express concerns about EPA sludge policies and the science behind those policies." (182)

Congressman  F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of  the House Committee on Science, opened the Hearing with
the Statement, "This is not the first time this Committee has examined the scientific process at EPA. For example, just
last fall the Committee addressed the issue of whether EPA ignored scientific evidence that MTBE is harmful to the
public's health and the environment. Another example is EPA's handling of the High Production Volume Chemical testing
program; In both these instances,
EPA appeared to care more about protecting its own regulations than
ensuring adequate protection for the environment and the public's health.
And in both of these cases the
science has ultimately supported EPA's critics and not the Agency. In fact, just this Monday, EPA officially reversed itself
on the issue of MTBE after dragging its feet on the issue for the last five years." (183)

BACKGROUND

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent
or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on
Environmental Quality

The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of
the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all
agencies of the Federal Government shall --
  • (A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
    sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on
    man's environment; assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
    surroundings; attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or
    safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; promoting the advancement of scientific knowledge
    of the effects of actions and technology on the environment and encouraging the development of the means to
    prevent or reduce adverse effects that endanger the health and well-being of man;

When in December 2, 1970 President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, which was
chartered and funded by Congress,  the mission and purpose of all of its Offices were to protect "human health and to
safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends" and to ensure "that all Americans
are protected from significant risks to human health in the environment where they live, learn and work."  (182)

At that time EPA's scientists were directed to conduct research on all possible significant risks to human health and the
environment.  Scientists in the Office of Solid Waste were looking at various options for the use and disposal for solid
waste and the possible risks associated with each of these options which included landfilling and land application.

In 1976 Congress created the Resourse Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate the handling and disposal
of all wastes, including sludge. The Act was designed to:
  • protect human health and the environment
  • reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes, and
  • conserve energy and natural resources.

Under RCRA no material can be a hazardous waste unless it is a solid waste. RCRA defines a solid waste as:
  • . . . any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
    facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting
    from industrial, commercial or mining and agricultural operations, and from community activities . . . [excluding] . . .
    solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage [before it enters the treatment plant], or solid or dissolved
    materials in irrigation return flows, or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under
    Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act . . . , or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as
    defined by the Atomic Energy Act [AEA] of 1954 . . . . [Section 1004(27)]

The statutory definition of a hazardous waste is provided in RCRA as follows:
  • . . . a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
    chemical, or infectious characteristics may -
  • (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
    incapacitating reversible, illness; or
  • (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
    stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. [Section 1004(5)]

"Congress' overriding concern ---
  • the safe handling of hazardous waste (H.R. at 3) and
  • the elimination of the "last remaining loophole" in environmental regulation (H.R. at 4) - -- must prevail." (45 F.R.
    33092, dated 5-9-1980)."

To this end Congress has included whistleblower protection in the federal environmental statutes.
In his article Suppression of Environmental Science, Robert R. Kuehn, writes, "As the U.S. Secretary of Labor explained:
"[E]mployees must  feel secure that any action they may take that furthers the Congressional policy and
purpose, especially in the area of public health and safety
, will not jeopardize either their current employment or
future employment opportunities."244 Narrow interpretations of employee protection provisions, therefore, interfere with
the remedial environmental protection and public health purposes of the statutes." American Journal of Law & Medicine,
30 (2004): 333-69

It would appear that a lot of EPA employees did not feel secure that the action they were taking  furthered the
Congressional Policy and purpose in the area of public health and safety.

EPA and the Sludge Rule

According to National Sludge Alliance fact Sheet #131, EPA's Jim Ryan and USDA's Rufus Chaney (91) were given the
job of revising the 1989 conservative distribution and marketing sludge rules before it was  released in 1993. They
removed the references to distribution and marketing (nows sales or give away) and virtually all references to cancer
and disease causing agents. Toxic organics were removed from the rules and limits on inorganic toxic metals
(pollutants) were also raised. Not only that, but someone inserted harvesting food crops (without limitations) as a part of
the 30 day restriction for feed and fiber crops. Farmers were told sludge was safe and no longer had to wait the
minimum of 14 months to harvest --food crops."

There were a lot of warnings put in which no one seemed to pay attention too.

"The term "toxic pollutant" is not used in the final part 503 regulation because this generally is limited to the list of priority
toxic pollutants developed by EPA. The Agency concluded that Congress intended that EPA develop the part 503
pollutant limits for a broader range of substances that might interfere with the use and disposal of sewage sludge, not
just the 126 priority pollutants." (FR. 58, 32, p. 9327)

Not only that but they said  (188)  that for most chemicals, "a positive determination was made -- that EPA lacked
sufficient data to establish a safe level."

They also warn that sludge meets the RCRA definition of a  solid waste and infectious hazardous waste, and for it to
meet the CERCLA commercial fertilizer exclusion for a release I the environment, it must be disposed of under an
enforceable NPDES permit:
"If the placement of sludge on land were considered to be "the normal application of fertilizer," that placement could not
give rise to liability under CERCLA." (Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act) --- "Under CERCLA,
protection from liability is also provided when there is a release of a CERCLA hazardous substance and the release
occurs pursuant to Federal authorization. Thus under CERCLA, in defined circumstances, the application of sewage
sludge to land in compliance with a permit required by section 405 of the Clean Water Act is a Federally permitted
release as defined in CERCLA." ---"
Consequent, releases of hazardous substances from the land application of
sewage authorized under and in compliance with an NPDES permit would constitute a Federally permitted
release."
(FR. 58, p. 9262 - 40 CFR 257 et al.)

EPA's Region 8 uses a General Sludge Permit to cover the radioactive and toxic hazardous waste clean up of the Lowry
landfill which piped into a Denver treatment plant. The sludge is then used on  50,000 acres of crop owned by the city
and sold to residents in bags.

There were also other warnings by Ryan and Chaney:

  • "(For lack of adequate data, the inherent variable in individual exposure to pollutants in sludge is not addressed"
    (FR.58,32,p.9275).

  • "When sewage sludge is not used to condition the soil or to fertilize crops or vegetation grown on the land, the
    sewage sludge is not being land applied. It is been disposed of on the land. In that case, the requirements in the
    subpart on surface disposal in the final part 503 must be met." (FR. 58, 32, p. 9330)

  • "...If sewage sludge containing high levels of pathogenic organisms (e.g.,viruses, bacteria) or high concentrations
    of pollutants is improperly handled, the sludge could contaminate the soil, water, crops, livestock, fish and
    shellfish" (Preamble to 503, FR. 58, 32, p.9258).

  • "Sewage sludge with high concentrations of certain organic and metal pollutants may pose human health
    problems when disposed of in sludge only landfills [units] (often referred to as mono-fills) or simply left on the land
    surface, if the pollutants leach from the sludge into ground water. Therefore, the pollutant concentrations may
    need to be limited or other measures such as impermeable liner's must be taken to ensure the ground water is
    not contaminated" (FR. 58, 32, p.9259)

Table 1 of § 503.23_Pollutant Concentrations_Active Sewage Sludge Unit Without a Liner and Leachate Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration (milligrams Pollutant per kilograms \1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic................................................. 73
Chromium................................................ 600
Nickel.................................................. 420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dry weight basis.

According Robert Brobst
"The limitations identified above are risk based and are maximum limitations not to
be exceeded at any time. EPA believes that any time those limitations are exceeded, it should be reported
promptly."

This "safe fertilizer /biosolids" for lawns, gardens and school yards with Chromium at 3, 000 ppm for beneficial use could
not be placed in a part 503 regulated surface disposal landfill which restricted Chromium to 600 ppm and that 150
meters from the site boundary . (FR. 58, pp. 9392, 9396 - 503.13 Tables -503.23 Tables) Chromium concentrations
(3,000 ppm) was deleted from the 1996 benefical use section of Part 503.13,  because Milwaukee treatment plants were
receiving tannery waste water  with 30,000 ppm  of chromium VI in it.
This treatment plant was not included in the
National Sewage Sludge Survey (NSSS).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also found that the 503 Regulation was not scientifically
risked based as claimed by the EPA. The Court noted that,
"while EPA "may `err' on the side of overprotection," it
"may not engage in sheer guesswork

(p.408)." According to the Court, EPA did not adequately defend the science behind the chromium limits in Part 503.
The court ruled due to,
  • "(4) the lack of data to support the risked-based cap on chromium (3,000 ppm), we remand those parts of the
    regulation to the EPA for modification or additional justification." (p. 394) (Leather Industries of America  et al.v.
    EPA  (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Nos.  93-1187, 93-1376, 93-1404 and 93-1555)

Moreover, EPA states  in the part 503.4 sludge marketing rule that part 258 is actually the sludge regulation that
constituted compliance with section 405(d) of the CWA

Part 258 is appropriate because in the 1995, A Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessment for the EPA Part 503 Rule,(96)  
Chapter 6, p.110,  co-authored by  John Walker, it was noted,  "that pollutant limit determinations based on 1 x 10 -4
cancer risk level were made for potentially toxic organic pollutants that could occur in biosolids" [but], "the pollutant limits
determined in this way were not included in the final rule."[and] "the Part 503 metals were considered noncarcinogens
(they do not cause or induce cancer for the exposure pathways evaluated)."

When EPA release the proposed regulation in 1989 for comments, it only addressed some toxic organics and some toxic
metals. EPA had a section on sludge Distribution and Marketing. However, the preamble to the new proposed (Coded
Federal Regulation Section 40, Parts 257/ 503) sludge regulation,  documented the following cancer inducing agents:
Aldrin, Arsenic, Benzene, Benso(a)Pyrene, Beryllium, Bis(2-3thylhexyl) phthalate, Cadmium, Chlordane, Chromium VI,  
DDD/DDE/DDT, Dieldrin, Dimethyinitrosamine, Heptachlor, Heptachlorobenzene, Lindane, Nickel, PCBs, Toxaphene,
Trichloroethylene.

EPA documented that five of the toxic metals were cancer causing agents when inhaled: Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium VI and Nickel. (FR 54, No 23,  p.5777. Feb. 6, 1989)

In response to the 2002 Congressional and EPA OIG criticism, in 2003, members of EPA's  Pathogen Equivalency
Committee,revised the 1992 EPA Office of Research and Development (191) manual on the Control of Pathogens and
Vector Attractions .   

The EPA  committee of experts on disease causing pathogens included Robert Bastian, Bob Brobst,  Mark Meckes,
James E. Smith Jr., Joseph Farrell (a consultant). The committee's work was reviewed by John Walker. They said, "If
improperly treated sewage sludge [RCRA/CWA solid waste] was illegally applied to land [without an enforceable NPDES
permit] or placed on a surface disposal site, humans and animals could be exposed to pathogens directly by:
  • coming into contact with the sewage sludge, or
  • indirectly by consuming drinking water or
  • food contaminated by sewage sludge pathogens. Insects, birds, rodents, and even farm workers could contribute
    to these exposure routes by transporting sewage sludge and sewage sludge  pathogens away from the site."  

They document that:
  • bacteria could live up to one year in soil and six months on plants.
  • Viruses could live up to one year in soil and two months on plants.

What is remarkable, is that the part 503  sludge marketing rule
restricts a grass (turf) farmer from harvest his crop
for one year,  yet, all human food crops can be harvested in 30 day
s and cattle can be grazed 30 days after
sludge has been applied to the land.

They also state the part 503 sludge marketing rule was never intended to protect the public from invasive fungi
infections. They state, while "Aspergillus fumigatus (pathogenic fungus) is a secondary, or opportunistic pathogen, and
infection from A. fumigatus ("Aspergillosis") is limited to debilitated  or immune-compromised individuals.,"
" A.
fumigatus is not covered in the Part 503."

It would appear that Jim Hanlon, (Director), ED Gross and Jacqueline Rose, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
(OWM) were not comfortable with the old position that sludge/biosolids use is safe and added a few warnings in the
current revised Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet, Use of Composting for Biosolids Management.

They point out:
In addition to odors, other bioaerosols, such as pathogens, endotoxins, and various volatile organic compounds, must
also be controlled. Biofilters are often used to control odors, but the biofilters themselves can give off bioaerosols.

Their concerns are:
  • Survival and presence of primary pathogens in the product.

  • Dispersion of secondary pathogens such as Aspergillus fumigatus, particulate matter,other airborne allergens.

  • Lack of consistency in product quality with reference to metals, stability, and maturity.

They warn:
  • "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."

  • Compost workers may be exposed to a common fungus known as Aspergillus fumigatus, endotoxins, or other
    allergens. A. fumigatus is common in decaying organic matter and soil. Inhalation of its airborne spores causes
    skin rashes and burning eyes. [part 503 does not cover A. fumigatus fungi which can infect the lungs,
    cause death, etc.]

While healthy individuals may not be affected, immunocompromised individuals may be at risk. The spores of A.
fumigatus are ubiquitous and the low risk of exposure is not a significant health concern. However,
spore counts at  
composting facilities are high,
and the risk of operators and persons handling composted biosolids being
exposed to these spores is also high
(Epstein, 1998).

  • 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 [beneficial use] 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. [This restriction is for a 503.24 surface disposal landfill site]

Not only that but OWM's  Biosolids landfill fact sheet is the only EPA document that mentions pathogenic toxins in
sludge/biosolids.

EPA's (32) 2006, Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet, Use of Landfilling for Biosolids Management, states "There are
several potential environmental impacts associated with landfilling of wastewater biosolids. Leachate from the landfill
may transport nitrate, metals, organics, and/or pathogens to groundwater if the landfill site has not been properly
selected or if the liner has been damaged."

  • Landfilling is generally considered for wastewater biosolids management when land application or other beneficial
    reuse is not possible. Typical scenarios that lead to selection of landfill disposal rather than beneficial reuse
    include:

  • Land acquisition constraints;   

  • High concentration of metals  [note: high concentrations of three metals are prohibited under the surface
    disposal section of 503.23] or other toxins [Note: toxins are not mentioned] in the biosolids; or
  • Odorous material that may create a public nuisance if managed through other options

Disadvantages

• Landfilling biosolids eliminates their reuse potential and is contrary to the EPA national beneficial reuse policy. [note:
which is based on exclusions in the National Policy (laws) of the United State].

In spite of the revisions there is still some misinformation on EPA's web for Biosolids Facts (33) , -- Frequently Asked
Questions, # 9) Are biosolids safe? EPA states, "The National Academy of Sciences has reviewed current practices,
public health concerns and regulator standards, and has concluded that "the use of these materials in the production of
crops for human consumption when practiced in accordance with existing federal guidelines and regulations, presents
negligible risk to the consumer, to crop production and to the environment."

What the National Academy of Sciences actually said in 1996 was
"The suite of existing federal regulations,
available avenues for additional state and local regulatory actions, and private sector forces appear
adequate to allow, with time and education, the development of safe beneficial reuse of reclaimed
wastewater and sludge." (p. 172)

In their paper, "Interfacing with the Real World", 2005, Bastian and Smith (19) mentioned. "An important
conclusion from the 1973 [sludge use] conference was that "unless political and institutional constrains on
land application of effluents and sludges are recognized, identified, and resolved, projects will likely fail,
regardless of their technical, scientific, and economic feasibility"

"John Walker (USDA) made it clear in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluent
on Land, July 9-13-1973, pp. 39-47. Sponsored by EPA, USDA, and National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges, that there would be serious problems with the EPA's beneficial sludge use program. In the discussion
section of the proceedings, Walker of the USDA Research Station at Beltsville, Maryland, (now retired from EPA)
discovered that EPA actually knew very little about the nature of limed treatment destroying disease organisms in sludge
or making the metals less available to plants. (USDA didn't either, Beltsville Research Station was declared a Superfund
site in the 80's."

Walker (171)   reported USDA research on Salmonella inactivation in sludge.  USDA found that while Salmonella was
non-detectable with lime treatment, it didn't make any difference where lime was mixed with the sludge or the soil, there
was regrowth of Salmonella to previous levels in about 30 days. The term used today is
viable (infectious), but non-
culturable (VBNC).

Although lime treatment raises pH to 11-12, which supposedly creates a pathogen free Class A biosolids, it doesn't
inactivate spore forming bacteria and  the high pH  also changes Chromium 3 to the cancer inducing agent Chromium 6.

In his 2004 paper,  Evaluation of bacteriological indicators of disinfection for alkaline treated biosolids, EPA's Mark
Meckes,  reafirmed that culturable fecal coliforms, E. Coli  and Salmonella were reduced during lime treatment to meet
the part 503 requirements. However, he cautioned,
"Again, it can be stated that lime treatment did not
significantly reduce the number of spore forming bacteria."  

It was Meckes opinon that lime plus heat would inactivate the spore forming bacteria.
Specifically, Meckes was looking at Clostridium perfringen endospores and aerobic endospores such as Bacillus
anthracis. Clostridium perfringens cause gas gangrene infections as a part of necrotizing fasciitis.  Michael Maynor, MD,
(4) Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Hyperbaric/Emergency Medicine, Louisiana State University School of
Medicine said, " "In necrotizing fasciitis,  group A hemolytic streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus, alone or in
synergism, are frequently the initiating infecting bacteria. However, other aerobic and anaerobic pathogens may be
present, including Bacteroides, Clostridium, Peptostreptococcus, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, Proteus,
Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella."

In a 1982 EPA study, Effect of UV light disinfection on antibiotic-resistant coliforms in wastewater effluents, M. C.
Meckes' (35)  did address gene transfer in treatment plants. He found that,  "In 1959, Wantanabe (31) discovered that
some Escherichia coli strains could transfer antibiotic-senstive strains of shigella spp. Subsequent research has
demonstrated that bacteria carrying transmissible R-factors [genetic resistant transfer] are responsible for the spread of
multiple antibiotic resistence among members of the Entero-bacteriaceae (such as E. coli, Samonella typi, and Shigella
dysenteriae) Aeromonas and Yersinis species (4), Pseudomonas, and Vibro cholerae (34),"

Another study on gene transfer was undertaken by Herbert Marcinek, et al., (43) 1998. The study concluded, "Taken
together, our data seem to indicate that under severe stress situations very unusual (high) gene transfer efficiencies
can occur." "Heat treatment resulted in enhanced gene transfer from Escherichia coli to various coryneform bacteria
(31), as did other stress situations, such as exposure to organic solvents or detergents and pH shifts."
In effect, lime and heat enhances gene transfer to create more lethal bacteria.

Unfortunately Meckes did not address the viable, but nonculturable state, which would allow regrowth.  Nor did he
address bacterial-facilitated transport of metals through the soil to ground water.

In the 2005 L. Pang, et al.study Heavy Metals in the Environment, the authors found, "Colloids (e.g. Microbes, humic
substances, clays and metal oxides) have an affinity for heavy metals--" "For example, in the presence of colloids, the
transport  velocity of copper and zinc increased from 5 to 50 times (Karathansis, 1999), and transport of lead increased
10 to 3,000 times, compared with controlled experiments were no colloids were present. (Karathansis, 2000). Pang and
Close (1999a)  reported that transport velocity of  a portion of Cd [Cadmium] through an alluvial gravel aquifer in the
field was enhanced 5 to 28 times in the presence of bacteria.

They state, "Our studies has demonstrated that B. subtilis spores and E. coli cells act as carriers and facilitators for the
transport of Cd in alluvial gravel aqifer media, resulting in signifinact increase in total Cd concentrations and enhanced
Cd travel velocity. When cotransported with the bacteria, the transport of Cd was controlled by the bacteria and the
effect of the aquifer media became insignificant because the affinity of Cd to the bacteria is three orders of magnitude
greater than its affinity to the aquifer media."

They warn, "Bacteria-facilitated transport of heavy metal may be a potential problems in sites such as landfills and
during land disposal of industrial and domestic effluent and sludge, where bacteria and heavy metals might coexist.
Toxic, immobile heavy metals, when cotransported with mobile bacteria, could arrive at water supplies much earlier than
expected, and could, therefore, pose a threat to the quality of ground water."

Robert Bastian (16)  of EPA (2005) in the paper,Interpreting Science in the Real World for Sustainable Land
Applications states, "The major objectives of this paper are to (i) review how current land application practices, and our
understanding of them, have evolved over time and (ii) explore how science is used (and sometimes misused or
ignored) in the development of design, regulation, and management of sustainable land application."

He explains EPA's position,
"Concerns raised over emerging pathogens and chemicals for which little or no
data are available tend to be put off for future consideration when more adequate data are generated."

Robert Bastian and James Smith. (19)  (2005), EPA's experts on pathogens, acknowledge in the paper Sustainable
Land Application that, based on sound science, "Little experience is available for conducting quantified microbial risk
assessment, and successful evaluations require better data on infectious dose and the survival and transport of specific
organisms during land application."  

Charles Gerba (University of Arizona) and James Smith (EPA) (11) ,  2005, also agree in their paper, Sources of
Pathogenic Microorganisms and Their Fate during Land Application of Wastes. They say, "The hazards associated with
pathogens in land-applied animal and human wastes have long been recognized."." Futhermore, they say, "For risks to
be quantified, more data are  needed on the concentrations of pathogens in wastes, the effectiveness of treatment
processes, standardization of detection methodology, and better quantification of exposure. "

In 2005, Alan Godfree and Joseph Farrell (13) (also a pathogen expert on 503 Peer Review Committee) in Processes
for Managing Pathogens, said, "Wastewater contains human, animal, and
plant pathogens capable of causing viral,
bacterial, or parasitic infections. There are several routes whereby sewage pathogens may affect human  
health, including direct contact, contamination of food crops, zoonoses [animals], and vectors" [flies,
mesquites, etc.]

They note that "Commonly used treatment processes such as anaerobic digestion were neither designed , nor operate
specifically, to remove or inactivate pathogenic microorganisms, and the mechanisms of pathogen inactivation are
poorly understood in some instances."

They also note, "The performance of lime process against Cryptosporidium was variable ranging from a 2 log loss to no
loss."

In their 2005 paper, Risk Characterization, Assessment, and Management of Organic Pollutants in Beneficially Used
Residual Products,  co-authors Robert B. Brobst, Alan Rubin (EPA), Rufus Chaney (USDA) and David Taylor, et al.,  
state, "The extent of our knowledge about the chemical and the impact on recycling programs varys from high to low.
Two significant challenges in regulating these materials are to accurately determine the concentrations of organic
compounds in residuals and to appropriately estimate the`risk that the chemicals present from land application or public
distribution."

They say, "important attributes that must be understood to appropriately characterize and manage potential risks for
organic chemicals in biosolids include toxicity and dose response, transport potential, chemical structure and
environmental stability, analytical capability in the matrix of interest, concentrations and persistence in waste streams,
plant uptake, availability from surface application versus incorporation, solubility factors and environmental fate. This
information is complete for only a few chemicals. Questions persist about the far greater number of chemicals for which
toxicity and environmental  behavior are less well understood."

They say, "This information is robust for only a few chemical. Polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins are
examples of such chemicals."

However, they say, "The analytical methods currently used for the determination of organic compound concentrations in
biosolids leave many decisions to the decretion of the lab analyst and do not specify the extraction method or necessary
cleanup steps." "Unless analysts have extensive experience specific to the determination of organic compound
concentrations in biosolids, the reported levels of organi compounds in biosolids should be considered suspect."
In reality, in report concerning biosolids (including risk assessment) should be considered suspect. As an example, the
Case study: State of Wisconsin effort to regulate Polychlorinated biphenyls concentrations in soil from land-applied
organic amendments (e.g. Biosolids, paper mill sludge, compost, sediment).

They say, "Based on the PCB concentration found in the WDNR 2000 biosolids survey, beneficial reuse would have
been eliminated, with management practices shifting to either landfilling or incineration." "The WDNR  tentatively chose
not to adopt the recommendations based on risk assessment," However, when the USEPA decided not to further
regulate dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in biosolids based on low risk potential (USEPA 2003), the WDNR likewise
decided to suspend regulatory action for PCBs. That decision reflects a full acceptance of the probalilistic risk
assessment conducted by the EPA."
"Commonly,insuficient data exist for detailed environmental risk assessment for a
chemical of concern."

The cats are doing a risk assessment for the mice.

In 1992, the Madison (Wisconsin) Metropolitan Sewage District (MMSD) proposed to EPA that it would clean up a
PCB contaminated sludge lagoon on the Superfund list by using the toxic sludge as a fertilizer on farmland.
According to MMSD, it had mass-loaded soil with 170  ppm PCBs and found that they disappeared from the soil. It
claimed there was no plant uptake or groundwater contamination. (EPA weighs PCB levels, (Sept. 7, 1992), ENR
`Engineering News Record')

"It (the research) documents that land treatment can be done in a way that is still protective of human health
and environmental quality," says David Taylor, manager of MMSD's Superfund clean-up and its Metrogro
fertilizer program." Not only that, "But signs already indicate that EPA's future regulation of PCBs in soil will
focus less on TOSCA's rigid 50 ppm limit and more on MMSD's type of risk based, mass-loading criteria of pounds
per acre." The MMSD and it's Metrogro program have been furnishing farmers with TOSCA "approved" sludge
since 1979."

MMSD's request for the use of hazardous PCBs contaminated sludge on food crop production land had the backing of
Rufus Chaney. "Public interest and common sense dictate that [MMSD's request] be granted," says Rufus Chaney, a
research agronomist and consultant to the U.S.Department of Agriculture."

Strange, they do still have a problem with current laboratory analytical methods!

PCBs were not the only thing MMSD furnished farmers. "Researchers from the University of Wisconsin--Madison's
veterinary medical teaching hospital studied an outbreak of drug resistant salmonella anatum in horses in 1991. An
epidemiologic investigation was done. A number of horses referred to the University were found to have the drug
resistant salmonella strains from several locations in Illinois and Wisconsin. They also found several other drug resistant
strains of enteric bacteria, including E. Coli. According to the study,  "After may 1991, several horses from which S
anatum was isolated were admitted at various time from various geographic locations, suggesting S anatum may have
been endemic in the horse population in the area surrounding the veterinary medical teaching hospital and private
veterinary clinic. Extensive bacteriological surveys of horses in the area would be require to document this  possibility."
(Control of an outbreak of salmonellosis caused by drug-resistant Salmonella anatum in horses as a veterinary hospital
and measures to prevent future infection. (August 1. 1996)  JAVMA Vol 209, No. 3, p. 629.)

It is also strange that infectious disease organism are not a priority pollutant!

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified Priority Pollutants in regulations that deal with municipal and
industrial wastewater (EPA, 1984) due to their toxicity to humans and the aquatic environment. These Priority Pollutants
are divided into four classes; (1) heavy metals (oftentimes referred to as trace elements or trace metals) and cyanide,
(2) volatile organic compounds, (3) semivolatile organic compounds, and (4) pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). In addition, nontoxic organic compounds in wastewater can be transformed into potential toxic chlorinated
compounds, such as trihalomethanes, when chlorine is used for disinfection purposes (National Research Council,
1980)." (National Research Council Study, Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production. 1996)

According to an EPA report in 1988, when root crops such as carrots, potatoes and onions are grown in contaminated
soils, they can develop dioxin levels that equal or exceed those already in the soil. EPA said, the greatest danger to
humans from PCB or dioxin  contamination is not from eating contaminated plants but from eating animals who have
grazed on sludge-amended soil, particularly those who have pulled up the plants by the roots with the sludged soil
adhering.

New York City had a  problem under the proposed regulation with organics: 1) the sludge was so contaminated that 11
of the 14 plants failed on PCBs because they could not get a clean sample. The test equipment detection levels were
well above the proposed regulated level in part 503; 2) the same was true for Toxaphene at 4 of the 14 plants; 3) 1
plant failed on  Diemethyl Nitrosamine because of the detection level; 4) 9 of 14 plants failed on DDT/DDE/DDD levels
because of high equipment detection limits.

In a special report entitled "Organic Toxicants and Pathogens in Sewage Sludge and Their Environmental Effects"
(December, 1981) Babish, Lisk, Stoewsand and Wilkinson, members of the Subcommittee on Organics in Sludge of
Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, cites several studies showing that plants have become
contaminated with PCBs. The PCB contaminated plants were corn and grass (Curry, 1977), soybeans (Weaver, et al.,
1981), spruce trees (Buckley, 1979), carrots (Iwata and Gunther, 1978). Although there is some uptake of PCBs by
certain crops, these researchers say that plants usually become contaminated by volatilization of the PCBs.

In a presentation, National Update and Trends in Biosolids Management in the U.S.,December 7, 2005, Robert K.
Bastian (84) (EPA),
  • "Less active EPA oversight, but continued program support,"

[EPA is going to ignore the danger of toxic chemicals, allowing foodcrops to be harvested after 30 days with document
evidence that bacteria and viruses can live in the soil for one year and both may be viable (infectious), but non-
culturable after that - but EPA will suport the program]

  • Increase the resources devoted to EPA's biosolids program,

[EPA is going to pour more money and time into protecting the sludge marketing rule, as well as turn manual over to the
regulated community]

  • Addressing areas of growing interest, (e.g., Odors, Dioxins, Radiation, Bioaerosols, Bioassay),
[
EPA and outside scientists agree they have little knowledge, but EPA did acknowledge in the manual, Control of
Pathogens and Vectors,  which it revised in 2003, that bioaersols could be dangerous, and the part 503 marketing rule
did not cover fungi aerosols, which EPA claims only affected immune compromised individuals]

  • Seven states are formally delegated (UT, OK, SD, WI, TX, AZ & OH) and another ~15 actively seeking
    delegation,  

[To be delegated, the State's Attorney General has to assure EPA that state solid waste rules have been revised to
comply with the self-permitting part 503 sludge marketing rule]

  • There have been anecdotal allegations of disease, and many scientific advances have occurred since the Part
    503 rule was promulgated.
[
EPA's part 503.9 states that exposure to the pollutants in sludge will cause death, disease, cancer, etc., therefore the
1994 debunking program will continue]

  • Establish a framework for an approach to implement human health investigations, RFP issued in July'05 for
    developing protocol for Investigating Reports of Alleged Health Impacts Associated with Biosolids,

[A regional sludge coordinator is not the proper health investigator. Health Departments already have the framework for
investigating human health investigations. However, they do not have the statutory authority to investigate complaints
associated with sludge/biosolids sites, unless the investigation is first approved by the environmental departments and
they are invited to investigate]

  • Participate in an Incident Tracking Workshop Aimed at Development of Response Mechanism.

[EPA knows it can not allow a public incident tracking system. Moreover, since the 1994 debunking program began we
can be assured EPA/WEF is keeping track of all incidents it needs to cover up]

  • results of Biennial Review Cycle 2003 published in Dec'2003; ID'd 15 pollutants (out of >800) for further
    evaluation;


[Since EPA on included the pollutants approved for removal credits under part 403 without any scientific risk
assessment, for what purpose is the evaluation of the 15 pollutants out of 800 plus pollutants? Will they be approved for
removal credits under the part 403 pretreatment standards?]

  • Methods Development, Optimization, and Validation for Microbial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge … Fecal coliform
    and Salmonella spp. methods validation studies completed – reports issued Sept'04;

[EPA has claimed the previous methods were validated for non-detection of bacteria which is documented to live in the
soil for one year and on plants for six months. But does the method validated method detect viable, but non-culturable
bacteria(VBNC) or the spore forming bacteria]

  • improved enteric virus methods studies underway, and validation studies will be conducted when methods are
    available;
[
[EPA intents to continue its dangerous program with documented evidence that virus can live in the soil for one year and
on plants for 2 months without acknowledging any scientific support for virus inactivation - or viable (infectious), but non-
culturable virus.]

  • improved viable helminth ova methods and validation studies yet to be initiated,

[EPA has documented evidence that helminth ova can live in the soil for seven years and on plants for 5 months - does
it need to be any better?]

WEF's Ned Beecher explains to EPA and sludge handlers why citizens are so concern about the part 503
sludge marketing rule.

Ned Beecher, et al., (14)  2005, (the New England Biosolids and Residuals Association, NEBRA) said "An individual's
perception of risk develops from his or her values, beliefs, and experiences. Social scientists have identified factors that
affect perceptions of risk, such as whether the risk is knowable (uncertainty), voluntary (can the individual control
exposure?), and equitable (how fairly is the risk distributed?). There are measurable differences in how technical
experts and citizen stakeholders define and assess risk. Citizen knowledge and technical expertise are both relevant to
assessing risk; thus, the 2002 National Research Council panel on biosolids recommended stakeholder involvement in
biosolids risk assessments."

"During the 90s", Beecher said, "Emphasis was placed on education of the public about the scientific basis and
experiences supporting biosolids recycling from the industry perspective (e.g., Powell Tate, 1993) Some concepts from
social science research was brought into the field to improve public perceptions of biosolids. For example, the invention
of the term "biosolids" was predicated on the understanding, verified by social science surveys, that it evokes a lesser
negative response in many people than the word "sludge" (Powell Tate, 1993: Beecher, et al. 2004).

What EPA and its partners have found is that the first and second phase of risk communication hasn't worked very well.
The first phase was ignore the public. The second phase was the "Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) approach." Now
they are entering the third stage, "Engage in dialogue, the sharing of information and understanding", to accomplish the
fourth stage, "Affect change in individual and/or organizational values and culture."

All of this is intended to undermine the publics "rage factors". Beecher outlines some of the sludge victims facts as "rage
factors. Some of the "rage factors" he outlined are: 1) "involuntary" exposure to sludge/biosolids"; 2) "potentially
catastrophic in time and space"; 3) "not reversible (persistent pollutants are permanent additions to soil)"; 4) "having
delayed effects (some effects from biosolids may not be evident immediately)"; 5) "affecting children and mothers
(because they may happen to play around biosolids and/or consume foods grown on biosolids-amend fields)"; 6
"affecting future generations (because there is some uncertainty about long-term effects)"; 7) "having identifiable victims
(reported cases of harm to cows and people)"; 8) "potentially affecting them such that they have a personal stake
(neighbors who believe they are affected)"; 9) "moral and/or ethical objectionable (if biosolids are seen as a potential
threat, then it can be perceived as morally wrong for powerful cities to foist biosolids on a rural community)"; and 10)
"associated with untrustworthy people (social science surveys have most often shown that government officials, people
from out of town, and those who have a financial interest are perceived as less trustworthy"

EPA has documented that it has no science. EPA claims it has no information on most chemicals - even though EPA is
required by Congress to have that information. EPA's  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  has refused to
get involved in th program. EPA claims it can not afford to update its 26 year old sludge treatment and disposal manual.
The only thing EPA has is a limited survey of a few selected treatment plants with unreliable analytical methods and
data, and a limited risk assessment based on unknown assumptions by unknowing individuals who refuse to
acknowledge any responsibility for the harm to human health and environment.