COMMITEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING CHARTER
This hearing will 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. The hearing will explore allegations that EPA scientists who disagree with EPA’s science associated with the sludge rule were ignored or, worse, subjected to harassment. Even more disturbing are documented reports of intimidation directed at private citizens who express concerns about EPA sludge policies and the science behind those policies.
Bold sections show why this Hearing was a public relations stunt with no regard for sound science. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee on Science March 22, 2000
EPA’s Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate
Testimony of Jane Beswick Following that event, Dr. Rubin wrote a threatening letter to me and Carolyn Richardson, an attorney for California Farm Bureau. He objected to two specific items in my paper, “Some Misconceptions Concerning Sludge.” The first was the distinction I made between manure and biosolids; while the second concerned the transfer of liability to the landowner who applies sludge. He said, “I do not mean this as a threat.” However, I took that to mean, Jane, just in case you hadn’t thought about it, this is a threat. He then went on to ask, “Jane, when was the last time either a Federal or State inspector was out at your farm to inspect your dairy manure lagoon for integrity and to measure nitrate levels in your groundwater and surface waters adjacent to your land? When was the last time that a regulatory official asked for a determination of pathogen levels in either your manure or soils?” Further, he said, “...continued presentations like yours can only focus the public’s and eventually the regulators’ attention on . . . traditional agricultural practices such as the use of manures and fertilizers.” This was the first of ten unsolicited mailings I received from Dr. Rubin. To me, he was saying that if I didn’t stop speaking out about the risks of using sludge, there would be closer scrutiny of animal manure by Federal and State inspectors--which has happened.
The National Academies July 2, 2002 NEWS Committee on Toxicants and Pathogens in Biosolids Applied to Land Sewage Sludge Standards Need New Scientific Basis
"There is a serious lack of health-related information about populations exposed to treated sewage sludge," said committee chair Thomas A. Burke, professor, department of health policy and management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. "To ensure public health protection, EPA should investigate allegations of adverse health effects and update the science behind its chemical and pathogen standards."