ANSWER.  The name came from a Milwaukee paper.
Much of the original science showing sludge could very dangerous was done at Cornell
University in the early 1980s. Rubin received his advanced degree from Cornell so he
should have known about the science. However, he has chosen to promote sludge
dumping as a fertilizer knowing that
pathogens can not be detected after the stress of
certain treatment processes.

Date: 8/29/2004 10:41:31 PM EDT

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

CC: john.bak[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
sha[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
ohanian.edw[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
wentsel[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
keehner.d[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Fd380

EPA Office of Water                                                               Hard copy follows


CERTIFIED __________________________________________


Mr. Alan Rubin:

Help For Sewage Victims sponsored a paper, "SLUDGE DISPOSAL: Sanitary
Landfill--Open Dump--Superfund Site" at the September 1992 New  Mexico
Governor's Conference on the Environment.  Both the paper and the part 503
were published in February 1993.  Now, the public and sludge victims would like answers
to the following questions:

1. Have you stated under oath, "I consider it [503] to be my major professional

2. Did you testify under oath that your  professional reputation, to a large extent, is based
on your association with biosolids  - 503 and its technical basis and that
you feel  your reputation would be somewhat disparaged if the basis of the rule and the
scientific findings were shown to be in error?

3. Isn't it true that in § 503.4  you state, "Disposal of sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill unit, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, that complies with the requirements in 40
CFR part 258 constitutes compliance with section 405(d) of the CWA?"

4. Isn't it true that § 258.1(a) was to establish minimum national criteria under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or the Act), as amended, for all
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) units and under the Clean Water Act, as amended,
for municipal solid waste landfills that are used to dispose of sewage sludge?

Wasn't these minimum national criteria created to ensure the protection of  human health
and the environment?

5. From a legal and scientific perspective, isn't it true that the infectious characteristics of
sludge make it a hazardous waste under the RCRA?

6. Isn't it a scientific fact that you say in 503.9(t) "Pollutant is an organic substance, an
inorganic substance, a combination of organic and inorganic substances, or a pathogenic
organism that, after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation
into an organism either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through the
food chain, could, on the basis of information available to the Administrator of EPA, cause
death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological
malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction), or physical deformations in either
organisms or offspring of the organisms"?

7. What was the scientific basis for your statement, "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?

Has 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)

8. What was the scientific basis for you to remove the list of 25 primary pathogens  in
sewage sludge from the final 503?  Federal Register FR), 54, P.5829

9. What was the scientific basis for adding "food crops" to the 30 day "feed crop"  
restriction clause of the final 503?

10. Are you aware that government figures show food contamination poisoning  jumped
from 6.5 million incidents to 81 million incidents between 1990 and 1997 with the
accompanying death rate of between 5000 and 10,000 annually?

11. What was the scientific basis for you to remove the list of twenty-one   carcinogens
(cancer causing agents) in sludge from the final 503?        (FR 54,p. 5777).

12. What was the scientific basis for removing the statement from the final 503 that  five of
those twenty-one carcinogens in sludge are carcinogenic when inhaled --  Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium IV and Nickel? (FR 54, p. 5777).

13. Isn't  it true that a riskassessment was not done for those same toxic metals in  sludge
because EPA stated it did not consider them to be carcinogens?

14. Isn't it true that the federal court did not order EPA to remove chromium from the  land
application section of 503 as stated in an EPA publication?

15. Isn't it true that EPA told the federal court that it did not have any creditable  studies
on uptake of chromium in crops?

16. What is the technical or scientific basis for assuming that applying 3,000+ ppm  of
chromium on lawns, gardens and food crops is safer than placing less than  600 ppm of
chromium on a 503 surface disposal site?

17. Isn't it true that you stated that "The (proposed rule) assessment does not  quantify
ecological effects or farm economic losses caused by plant or animal  toxicity, even
though some numerical limits in today's proposal are based on  animal and plant toxicity

Did you also state that "Methodologies and data are not yet available to  accurately
estimate the ecological impacts from the use and disposal of  Sludge"? (FR 54, p. 5780).

18. Are you aware of the study, "Neurotoxicity from Municipal Sewage Sludge", Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 160; Singer, R. (1998). Which was Presented at the 18th
Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Washington, D.C.,
November 6, 1998?

19. Are you aware of Dr. David Lewis' study on "Interactions of pathogens and irritant
chemicals in land-applied sewage sludges (biosolids)" in which he found "A   prevalence
of Staphylococcus aureus infections of the skin and respiratory tract   (Approximately 1 in
4 of 54 individuals were infected, including 2 mortalities   (septicaemia, pneumonia))?" (
BMC Public Health 2002 2:11)

20. Are you aware that studies Canada and Australia as well as U.S. Recognize that
sewage sludge (including compost & heat dried) causes Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis --
better known in America as (COPD) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

21. Are you aware that the pollutants in sewage sludge also cause cardiovascular

22. Isn't it true that "Congress' "Overriding concern"--the safe handling of hazardous  
waste (H.R. Rep. at 3) and the elimination of "the last remaining loophole" in
environmental regulation (H.R Rep at 4) --must prevail"? (FR 45-33092).

23. Isn't it true that several legislative mandates (RCRA, HSWA) were already in  place in
the Federal regulations when sludge dumping was proposed under 503,  primarily under
subtitle D of the RCRA and Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act  (CWA) codified in 40
CFR 257?

24. Isn't it true that Domestic sewage is not regulated under the RCRA because it  refers
only to the waste in the sewer lines between residential housing and the treatment works?

25. Isn't it true that Section 405(d)(5) also provides that nothing in this section is  intended
to waive more stringent requirements in the CWA or any other law? (FR 54, p.5758).

26. Isn't it true that to comply with section 405(e)of the CWA the owner or operator of  any
publicly owned treatment works must not violate these criteria in the disposal of sludge on
the land?

Does the legal definition of "Disposal" mean the discharge, deposit, injection,  dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into  or on any land or
water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any  constituent thereof may enter
the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any water, including ground

27.  Isn't it true that the preamble to the revised regulation reiterates the point that  a
facility or practice that meets the criteria of Part 257 is classified as a  "sanitary landfill"  
while a facility that fails to meet the criteria is considered an  "open dump" for purposes of
State solid waste management planning?

Do practices which fail to meet the criteria constitute "open dumping"?
(FR 56, p. 50979).

Thank you for your time in answering these important questions in a timely manner.


Linda Zander, Director
Help For Sewage Victims
803 East Main
Everson, Wa. 98247
Subject: Your precarious predicament
Date: 9/10/2004 10:06:04 AM Central Daylight Time
From: BynJam
To: [email protected]
CC: environmen[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
grumbles.b[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
hanlo[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
swietli[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
boornazian.lin[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
heare.ste[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Fd380, Rlmzander

Mr. Rubin:

After reading Linda Zander's  8/29/2004 FOIA request (1) I can't decide if I admire you
for becoming the lightening rod for EPA's bad sludge dumping policy or sympathize with
the precarious predicament you've gotten yourself into. We went to war  over the deaths
of less than 3,000 people, yet, according to government figures, you bad sludge policy
is killing 3 times that many people every year.

I don't think you can dodge the stink of your 503 sludge dumping policy by letting
someone else charge Zander for non-answers. You appear to be the only one left that
has all the answers.

As you are aware, I wrote the paper "Sludge Disposal: Sanitary Landfill --Open Dump --
Superfund Site" which was published in February 1993 by the New Mexico
Environmental Department.(2)  The paper was based on your rather conservative 1989
proposed part 503. It would appear that it is still as relevant today as it was in
September of 1992 when it was present at the New Mexico Governor's Conference on
the Environment. The final 503, also published in February 1993, was a killer of the first
order. More farms are being destroyed and more people are dying from contaminated
food and water than I could have imagined. Primarily, because you removed all
references to pathogens, carcinogens and toxic pollutants from the final regulation.
Then put together a program to blame the victims because you knew it was unlikely a
connection could be made to sludge that can kill without leaving a trace marker in the
body. (5)

It is highly unusual that an individual would step forward at any Agency and take the
credit, as you have, for creating environmental problems, such as open sludge dumps
(non-point source environmental pollution) on farmland, etc. Particularly, when it is
causing so much environmental and human health damage.

As an example, EPA, USDA, FDA report to the President "Food Safety, From the Farm
to the Table" (May 1997) showed a dramatic increase of pathogenic food contamination
incidents between 1990 to 1994, from 6.5 million to 34 million with 9,000 annual deaths.
It specifically stated that among the causes were "poor farming practices, including
production and harvesting activities, or disposal of solid waste on land."

Furthermore, it noted a few of the health effects that could be expected from a few of
the deadly pathogenic disease organisms: "These microbial pathogens may give rise to
diseases that are far more serious than the uncomfortable but relatively temporary
inconvenience of diarrhea and vomiting, which are the most common symptoms of
so-called "food poisoning." Foodborne infections can result in very serious immediate
consequences, such as spontaneous abortion, as well as long-lasting conditions such
as reactive arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (the most common cause of acute
paralysis in adults and children), and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can lead
to kidney failure and death, particularly in young children." (3)

By 1996, Ralph Touche, Chief Sanitarian for the Public Health Department stated the
pathogenic disease contamination of food was up to 80 million incidents annually. The
GAO raised the number of pathogenic disease contaminated food incidents to 81 Million
in 1997. More recently, the CDC has lowered the number to 76 million.

As I understand your position, you seem to be accepting the blame for 50,000 to
100,000 food contamination deaths over the past 10 years, because as the sludge
expert at EPA:

1.    you removed the list of 25 primary pathogens known to be in sewage sludge
  from the final  503.  Federal Register FR), 54, P.5829

2.          you to removed the list of twenty-one acknowledged carcinogens (cancer   
causing agents) in sludge from the final 503. (FR 54,p. 5777).

3.          you removed the statement from the final 503 that  five of those twenty-one    
carcinogens in sludge are carcinogenic when inhaled --  Arsenic, Beryllium,         
Cadmium, Chromium IV and Nickel. (FR 54, p. 5777).

4.          you removed Chromium from the land application section of the regulation     
because you think applying 3,000+ ppm of chromium on lawns, gardens and         food
crops is safer than placing less than  600 ppm of chromium on a 503         surface
disposal site.

5.          you stated "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". (FR. 58, 32, p. 9327)

6.          you also stated "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)

7.          you deliberately added the term "food crops' to the 30 day "feed crop"         
harvest restriction clause in the 1993 final 503.32(b)(5)(iv) to get around the 14 month
harvesting restrictions for plants with harvested parts that are totally above the land
surface" in 503.32(b)(5)(i).

8.          In a December 1999 email you also wrote that, that if a person was exposed   to
the pollutants in sludge, through the air, water or food as stated in 503.9(t), a person
could expect to see death, cancer, disease or mental or physical problems, including
birth defects.

9.          you have stated many times that if the regulations were followed, sludge         
was safe. Apparently, according to the 503.4 policy, you meant the real sludge
regulation 40 CFR 258 which meets the requirements of  the RCRA as amended by
Section 405(d) of the CWA.

10.        in stating that the part 258 solid waste landfill regulation under the Clean         
Water Act is the only method of complying with Section 405(d) , it is clear that the 503
sludge policy violates the CWA and RCRA.

11.        you give a municipality a simply choice. Either properly dispose of sludge       as
a permitted solid waste as required by the CWA/RCRA or consider sludge to be a
fertilizer under the 503 policy.

12.        you apparently developed the concept of the 503 policy so that if the         
quality of sludge makes it impossible to be put in a landfill that complies with the CWA &
RCRA, then it can be disposed of under some part of the 503 policy at the uninformed
farmers expense.

13.  You have given the municipalities 4 choices under 503:

  1). If the quality of the sludge makes it impossible to be incinerated,
        which  can cause environmental air quality health hazards, it can be disposed
        of as a fertilizer.

  2). If the quality of the sludge makes it impossible to be disposed of in
         a   surface disposal site, which can cause environmental groundwater
        health   hazards, then it can be disposed of as a fertilizer.

  3)  If the quality of the sludge makes it impossible to sell or be giving
        away  as a fertilizer for home lawns & gardens or parks, which can cause
       environmental health and pathogenic disease health hazards,  it can
       be  given to farmers as a fertilizer.

  4)  If it cost to much money to raise the quality of sludge so it can be
       placed in a CWA/RCRA landfill, or incinerated, or placed in a surface
        disposal site, or sold to home owners, it can be given to farmers as
        a  fertilizer.

14.        your concept appears to be that if EPA considers the worse quality sludge     to
be a fertilizer disposed of as a nonpoint source of pollution on farmland, it will not cause
air quality health hazards or groundwater health hazards or pathogenic disease health
hazards when disposed of  directly on food crops or grazing land.

15.        You also appear to have much more power than the Administrator of the         
EPA or the EPA OIG to prevent laws from being enforced. It would appear that you can
suspend the laws associated with these sludge dump sites. As an example, in a January
28, 1992 letter from the EPA OIG, that office found that the City of Kansas City, Missouri
was not in compliance with the federal  laws concern the taking of property for its sludge
site, but claimed it had not authority to enforce the EPA contract requirements. Kansas
City was also failing to enforce the site restrictions.  That has been an open complaint
with  the EPA OIG since 1991.

Sometimes back you filed a complaint with John Baker of the GSA police
department implying at the least, that I was some type of threat that needed to be
contained. Baker was a nice guy and that was a complement to an old man who only
wants to see the killing stopped.(4)  Since 1992, my purpose has been to see if there is
any way to make the laws associated with these sludge dump sites work. At some point,
the RCRA/CWA laws will work.

At that point, there is going to be a lot of pissed off state legislators, scientists as well as
major scientific and environmental organizations. That will add fire to the 70+
organizations that are already outraged, who are trying to work within the laws.

I wouldn't want to be in your precarious predicament when the public finally understands
that neither you or the Agency has any concern for their health or the environment.
Especially, now that studies have shown that SIDS is caused by a virus.

Personally I know you were not totally responsible for the sludge policy. Its just a game.
But I believe this would be a good time for you to help turn this situation around before
the public assess' blame and you become the only scapegoat available.


Jim Bynum
PO Box 682
Smithville, Mo. 64089

(1)    Http://
(3) Safety Initiative (Strategy to                 
     Prevent Foodborne Disease)