indefensible from a public health standpoint

                                                people will die from the rule
"Sludge disposed of in a sanitary landfill will not harm anyone, nor will it contaminate the food
or water supply". (Federal Register (FR.) 58, 32, p. 9375).

Under laboratory conditions the biological agents in sludge requires Biosafety level Two

"Laws today protect the welfare of research animals, and scientists must comply with strict
animal care guidelines", according to the Federal Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. A federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Why would EPA and the States' decide to kill some of the farmers, their neighbors
and their customers by creating open dumps out of farms, home laws and gardens?

The State of Washington Courts have found that the State has no responsibility to protect the
lives and health of individuals under the public duty doctrine or the law. (Zander Case, 1995).

Sludge Disposal: Sanitary Landfill--Open Dump--Superfund Site?  
This (1992) paper examines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy of
sanctioning the beneficial use of sewage sludge on farmland as a cheap fertilizer and soil
conditioner in light of recent revelations of human and animal health problems associated with
the use of sludge. (caused by the 21 cancer causing agents and 25 groups of biological
agents and:)

The paper concludes that sludge can not be safely disposed of on farmland because: 1) only
28 out of 400 toxic pollutants are proposed for regulation, 2) 15 out of 25 toxic inorganics on
the superfund list are not included, 3) Thirty-three pollutants considered hazardous for land
disposal are not included.

This is no longer just a farmer's problem. It effects the most basic needs of each and every
one of us -- our need for uncontaminated food, clean water and clean air. Although Congress
has passed the laws to control the use and disposal of sewage sludge and given EPA a solid
waste statute to implement and enforce, the EPA has not adequately addressed the problem.
Therefore, it is time that we as concerned citizens do address the problem before more
damage is done to the health of those who work on or live around these sites and those of us
who consume the food raised there.

EPA decided to use hazardous waste rules for sludge disposal. By 1983, the EPA decided, "-
to avoid conceivable stigmatization, we are willing to re-name recycled hazardous wastes
"regulated recyclable materials." () And, in 1985, the "regulated recyclable materials" title was
shortened to "recyclable material"." () Not only that, but "---commercial hazardous waste
derived fertilizers [which] would not have to undergo chemical bonding to be exempt." from the
law. ()  FR 45, No. 98, Monday, May 19, 1980, p. 33207.  FR 48, No. 65, Monday April 4,
1983, p. 14485.  FR 50, No. 3, Friday January 4, 1985 p. 646.

This final rule removes chromium in sewage sludge that is land-applied from the list of
regulated pollutants for which a removal credit may be available and adds it to the list of
unregulated pollutants that are eligible for a removal credit.

EPA has no chromium limit in sludge/biosolids "fertilizer" yet,
For hazardous waste derived fertilizer, "The EPA set its chromium exclusion level at 21.3 ppm
for fertilizer with 35.5% zinc content, 67 Fed. Reg. at 48,403/3. Of the twenty commercial virgin
fertilizer samples reported by the EPA, six included test results for chromium. Of these six, one
had a chromium concentration of 8 ppm; the other five all had chromium concentrations of less
than 1 ppm. Data Summary. The EPA's chromium exclusion level thus appears to be more
than double the highest virgin commercial sample, ten times the commercial sample mean, and
twenty times the commercial sample median." (lawsuit)

House Science Committee Hearing held March 22, 2000.         EPA operated true to form
during the hearings. Rubin help write a hastily assembled Inspector General's (IG) report
which pleaded EPA did not have the people, the money or the power to monitor the sludge
disposal program, enforce its guideline, or do any recordkeeping. Nor could it assure the
Committee that the public health and the environment was being protected. Not only that, but
the report noted GAO had reported these same problems existed in 1990. The report also
reiterated the EPA policy of limiting sludge dumping liability by stating that any improper or
misapplied sludge use which harmed public health or the environment would be treated as an
unknown source of pollution (nonpoint source). This was old news, Including: DR. ROSEMARIE
RUSSO of EPA: "EPA failed to conduct research in six areas vitally important to determining
the public health risks associated with sludge." DR. JIM SMITH, EPA EXPERT ON
PATHOGENS: "conceded that the 503 sludge rule never was subjected to a vigorous risk
assessment based on the harmful health effects which may arise from bacteria in the sludge."
Attorney Kohn told the Commission Joseph Cocalis of the CDC testified under oath that the
503 sludge rule is indefensible from a public health standpoint ...and that under oath the EPA
director of the Ecological Research System said the 503 sludge rule is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY
DEFENSIBLE ...people will die from the rule!