[USCC] US House Science Committee Hearing (3-22-00) on Biosolids

[McNelly, Patrick]

If anyone would like to read the testimony on biosolids  from the US House
of Representatives Science Committee on 3-22-00, it is available at the
following link.

http://www.house.gov/science/106_hearing.htm#Full_Committee.  

The following is the hearing charter:

COMMITEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARING CHARTER

EPA's Sludge Rule:  Closed Minds or Open Debate?

March 22, 2000
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building

1.0    PURPOSE

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.

 The hearing will take testimony from researchers, scientists, their
representatives and private citizens regarding EPA's response to concerns
raised about the science associated with the Part 503 Sludge Rule.

 2.0   BACKGROUND

EPA's Mission
President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency on
December 2, 1970.  EPA's stated mission is to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment-air, water, and land-upon which life
depends.  EPA's purpose is to ensure that all Americans are protected from
significant risks to human health in the environment where they live, learn
and work.  To accomplish this mission EPA has established 10 goals described
in its 1997 five-year strategic plan.  One of those goals is "sound
science."  To achieve this goal, EPA states it will develop and apply the
best available science for addressing current and future environmental
hazards, as well as new approaches towards improving environmental
protection. Another stated goal of EPA is to expand Americans' "Right to
Know" about their environment.  According to EPA, increased information
exchange between scientists, public health officials, businesses, citizens
and all levels of government will foster greater knowledge about the
environment and what can be done to protect the environment.

Sludge 
The Part 503 Sludge Rule has been called into question because of EPA's
alleged treatment of its scientist as well as private citizens who question
the science behind the rule.  The 503 Sludge Rule allows land application
(spreading) of sewage sludge (also known as biosolids) as to fertilizer or
condition the soil.  The passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972 helped to
ensure that municipal wastewater was treated.  In 1988, the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act was enacted amending the 1972 Clean Water Act.  The ban prohibited
all dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste into the ocean after 1991,
leaving three main options (each with limitations) to dispose of wastewater
and sludge: landfilling, incineration, and landspreading. Incineration
requires high capital investment, and is limited because of potential air
pollution and the production of toxic ash.  Landfilling is very expensive
and politically difficult for environmental and societal reasons.  EPA has
focused on promoting the use of sludge for land application.  In 1993, the
EPA published the 503 Sludge Rule setting standards for the use or disposal
of sewage sludge.

The Concern with Sludge
EPA's standards have generated controversy in the scientific and
agricultural communities, as well as with the general public.  Although the
503 Sludge Rule establishes minimum quality standards for sludge to be land
applied, some scientists, including scientists at EPA, question the adequacy
of these standards.  Some have also proposed more stringent standards,
additional source separation and greater pretreatment of contaminants.  Some
scientists, both in and out of EPA, have questioned whether the science in
the 503 regulations is actually complete.  Some have expressed concerns
about the effects on humans from contaminants concentrated in the sludge
during treatment.  Some private citizens that either work with, or live
near, sludge have vocalized these same concerns.

National Academy Study

In 1993, at the suggestion of the EPA's Office of Wastewater Compliance and
Enforcement, the National Research Council's Water Science and Technology
Board undertook a study of public health and public perception issues
associated with the use of treated municipal wastewater and sludge in the
production of crops for human consumption.  The NRC set up a committee to
conduct the study.  The study reviewed the issues surrounding the use of
treated municipal wastewater effluents and treated sludge in food crop
production.  The study concluded in 1996 that sludge could be applied safely
to land use, but recommended early involvement of local officials and the
public and additional study of the long-term impact of such application. 

EPA's Alleged Reaction to the Scientists and Citizens Questioning Rule 503
Despite the NRC report, citizens and scientists have continued to raise
concerns about land application of sludge.  EPA has dismissed these concerns
and has allegedly taken what appears to be overly aggressive actions against
those that raise concerns.  According to a number of researchers, scientists
and private citizens involved in the sludge rule debate, EPA has: 

·        sent hostile letters to private citizens who spoke against sludge
in public meetings;

·        sent unsolicited emails to and made unsolicited calls to these
private citizens at home;

·        attempted to discredit scientists outside EPA who have published
papers questioning the 503 Sludge Rule;

·        filed unfounded ethics violations, denied promotions, and attempted
to discredit the scientists concerned who specifically questioned the Sludge
Rule.

 This hearing will review these allegations to determine if EPA or its
employees have resorted to inappropriate tactics and destroyed public
confidence in the science underlying the 503 rule making process.

 3.0   WITNESSES 

Anticipated witnesses for the hearing include:  (1) Stephen Kohn, Chairman
of the Board of Directors for the National Whistleblower Center; (2) Jane
Beswick, California Farmer; (3) Ellen Harrison, Director of Cornell Waste
Management Institute; (4) Dr. Lue-Hing, Former Director of Research and
Development, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago; and
(5) Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Patrick McNelly, M.S.
Sr. Administrative Analyst
Orange County Sanitation District
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127
714-593-7163 (phone)
714-962-2591 (Fax)
714-810-3905 (pager)
> mailto:pmcnelly@ocsd.com
Visit our Web Page: http://www.ocsd.com