National Sludge Alliance
Charlotte Hartman, National Coordinator
180 Boston Corners Road
Millerton, NY 12546
(518) 329-2120 (phone/fax)
email: chartmannsa@taconic.net
NSA Public Fact Sheet 133
A New God Is Created — Regulation Authorize Lying to Public and Courts
5/4/2002
When the sludge hit the fan and activists alerted Congress, EPA Headquarters
decided to take a neutral stance on sludge. This means that EPA Office
of
Water would no longer take a public position promoting sludge
use as a fertilizer. The neutral position also stopped the EPA’s debunking
campaign which had ensured there would be no EPA enforcement and compliance
involvement.
EPA Headquarters had to do something to protect municipalities and sludge
disposal contractors from the sludge exposure liability. To do this, EPA
Headquarters had to create a godlike position with more potential power
than
the Headquarters staff had. Of course it had to break a few rules, then
change a few rules, environmental definitions and terms first. By regulation,
EPA field personal now have the authority to lie to us and the courts.
EPA’s first attempt to cover up the environmental damage was subtler. It
victimized the victims.
“–in a memo dated October 17, 1994, EPA’s Robert E. Lee was promoting a
grant request for WEF and suggested to EPA’s John Walker and Bob Bastin that
uses for the grant money include fact sheets to debunk the “Sludge Horror
stories” of people harmed by the use of sewage sludge as well as
“PCB’s in
biosolids” and as he says, “What about one with a watershed twist
–ways to
utilize biosolids in watersheds to mitigate other environmental problems.
Give it to a group like Score in NJ.” He continued, “Bob
B. maybe we should
put one or some $ in for the wetlands work in watersheds also.”
The WEF announced the receipt of the $650,000 grant in their Water
Environment WEB March 15, 1996. Contact persons listed in the announcement
were Nancy Blatt and Dave Trouba. While the announcement did mention a number
of research projects, according to a memo from John Walker, EPA Project
Officer, to Nancy Blatt and Tim Williams, Co Project Leaders with WEF, it
appears the primary purpose of the grant was to debunk the sludge horror
stories of people harmed by the use of sludge/biosolids. Dave Trouba was
mentioned in a memo dated 12-29-94, by John Walker and Bob Bastin, as the
“Potential WEF Writer/Coordinator for this effort.” “CANDIDATES
FOR THE REST
OF THE STORY”
According to John Walker’s memo, the EPA is controlling the public relations
campaign to debunk the sludge horror stories of people harmed by the use of
sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Walker writes, “I have attached an updated
list of candidate cases for which “The Rest of the Story” needs to
be told.
The target audience may be the municipalities, contractors, WEF spokespersons
and other wastewater professionals, and maybe the general public depending on
the case. If the cases were (1) Merco/NYC, (4) Prime Time Torres Martinez,
(9) Pathogen regrowth, and (15) Citizens irate over purchase; then one
audience would be the municipality. The write up would tell municipalities
what went wrong and what to do with respect to control and management
oversight [even where contractors are employed] to maximize public acceptance
and minimize negative publicity and rejection of the recycling that is
planned or underway.”
The stories referred to in Walker’s 12-29-94 memo,”(1) Merco/NYC
biosolids expose-TV Nations production -Law suit by TX Attorney General
-Merco Lawsuit- Claims ..marital status. own something. (4) Pending Prime
Time TV story on Torres Martinez (Thermal, Ca.)–corrupt contractor,
biosolids mountain, and composting. (9) Pathogen regrowth during
shipment–Merco. (15) Citizens irate over purchase of farmland for biosolids
use–how land ought to be used is big issue–private developer
conflicts–NIMBY- personality clashes–often does not involve health
concerns.”
Walker’s instructions to WEF’s Nancy Blatt continued, “If the cases were
(2) Zander, (4)Miami-Dade, (5) Tree Kill, (6) Miniature horses, (7) Bioaerosols,
(10) AIDS, (11) Lou Gehrig’s Disease, (12) Turf grass loss, (13) Dead cattle
in NC; then the audience might be the general public who various anti groups
tell the “horrors” of these cases and to which we would tell the
rest of the
story. The audience might also be WEF biosolids spokesperson and/or the
wastewater professionals who would be working with the general public to tell
the authoritative truth. Some of the cases may be written up for more than
one audience, (i.e., differently for each different audience.)”
The stories referred to here, according to Walker’s 12-29-94 memo are,
“(2)
Linda Zander case – sick & dead cattle, worker health -Farm Bureau and
Dairy Today stories. (5) Tree kill in Washington State with King Co METRO biosolids
on Weyerhauser land. (6) Miniature horse deaths in Oklahoma. (7) Biosolids —
claim need for 2 to 5 mile barrier in NYC. (10) Biosolids a cause of AIDS,
(11) Biosolids used on ball fields causing Lou Gehrig’s Disease -what it took
to debunk this claim. (12) Maryland turf grass grower crop loss due to
biosolids use – involved grower’s use of a highway roller on his fields. (13)
Raleigh, NC– dead cattle from nitrate poisoning due to forage with high
nitrogen content. Forage was not mixed with other low-nitrate fodder as
advised by the POTW.”
Walker’s memo makes a major point, “Interestingly, many of use (sic) in
the
regulatory and municipal arena do not have credibility with the local
citizens. We need to get those who do supplied with the “Rest of the
Story”.”
Walker’s memo did not explain to WEF’s Nancy Blatt how to handle “(14)
BLM
policy opposing use of biosolids on Federal lands: equating it(s) use to
hazardous waste dumping and landfilling raising SUPERFUND liability
concerns.”” (NSA Fact Sheet #101)
A number of debunking fact sheets were published. They included no science
and little truth. With multiple damage claims and wrongful death lawsuits
piling up against sludge, the Water Environment Federation’s victim
debunking campaign was given a low profile.
By May of 2000, EPA decided to take a more direct approach that it could
control.
The potential saving grace for municipalities and sludge contractors is now
the EPA Regional Administrators. No matter how terrible the situation
gets,
how many deaths are involved, the Regional Administrator may simply declare
that the polluter is in compliance with part 503. That authority is vested in
the new revised definition for a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
treating industrial and domestic sewage.
The new definition is “Treatment works treating domestic sewage” and
municipal sewage. EPA acknowledges that most municipalities and sludge
contractors who accept municipal and domestic sewage for disposal don’t meet
the profile: “For purposes of this definition, “domestic
sewage” includes
waste and waste water from humans or household operations that are discharged
to or otherwise enter a treatment works” (NPDES part 122.2 Definitions.)
While the EPA has issued few, if any, sludge disposal permits as promised in
the final 1993 regulations, it would appear that it has given its Regional
Administrators the ultimate power to arbitrarily declare that anyone is in
compliance with the part 503 by simply saying it/they are “treatment
works treating domestic sewage”.
The Regional Manager doesn’t have to issue a permit. He doesn’t have to
inspect. He doesn’t have to enforce. He can excuse the violator by declaring
— “this is a treatment works treating domestic sewage — and so it
shall be”. EPA spells it out: “In States where there is no approved State
sludge
management program under section 405(f) of the CWA, the Regional
Administrator may designate any person subject to the standards for sewage
sludge use and disposal in 40 CFR part 503 as a “treatment works treating
domestic sewage,” where he or she finds that there is a potential for
adverse
effects on public health and the environment from poor sludge quality or poor
sludge handling, use or disposal practices, or where he or she finds that
such designation is necessary to ensure that such person is in compliance
with 40 CFR part 503″. (NPDES part 122.2 Definitions.)
In reality, no state has an approved sludge management plan under CWA section
405(f) or under 40 CFR 256). In effect, the EPA’s Regional Manager now gets
to play god to protect those municipalities and contractor who have misused
and abused the farmer’s trust and the environmental laws. Yet, according to
part 403.7(ii) “Sludge requirements shall mean the following statutory
provisions and regulations or permits issued there-under (or more stringent
State or local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act; the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (including title II more commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and State regulations contained
in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to subtitle D of
SWDA)); the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substance Control Act; and the marine
protection Research and Sanctuaries Act.” (NSA Fact Sheet #107)
However, the sludge management plan under part 122.3 is simple, there are no
laws to protect the environment after toxic/hazardous sludge is dumped on
farms: “The following discharges do not require NPDES permits: (e) Any
introduction of pollutants from non point-source agricultural and
silvicultural activities, including storm water runoff from orchards,
cultivated crops, pastures, range lands, and forest lands,” (NPDES part
122.2
Definitions.)
“Now EPA is starting to shift the blame for open dumps to the states,
“EPA’s
role in the management of industrial non hazardous Waste [sludge] is very
limited. Under RCRA Subtitle D, EPA issued minimal criteria prohibiting
“open
dumps” (40 CFR 257) in 1979. The states, not EPA, are responsible for
implementing the “open dumping criteria,” and EPA has no back-up
enforcement
role.” (FR. 62, 19, p. 4284, January 29, 1997)” (NSA Fact Sheet
#100)
Furthermore, Assistant Administrator Mehan claims, “EPA’s responsibility
under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act is to develop management practices
and numerical criteria for biosolids that will protect public health and the
environment. WE BELIEVE that Part 503 Rule provides protective criteria
for
the three use and disposal options covered by that rule; land application,
incineration, and land disposal.”
Few, if anyone in EPA believe that, but as a past Director of Missouri’s
Department of Natural Resources, Mehan knows better. “As an
example, in a
letter to Kansas City, Missouri, the State Department of Natural Resources
attempted to wash its hands of the open dumping problem, “These
(wastewater
treatment plant) inspections did not address compliance with EPA sludge
regulations under 40 CFR 503. These regulations are self-implementing and
directly enforceable [by who?] without being included in your state operating
permit.” (Dettman, June 23, 1994).” (NSA Fact Sheet #100)
A NEW APPROACH FOR DISEASE CONTAMINATED SLUDGE ON THE FARM
Congress has lost control of the EPA. State and Federal Health
Departments do not have the statutory authority to investigate any health complaints
associated with sewage sludge without environment department approval. . The
State of Kansas’s Department of Health may have shown us the best
solution,
a Bioterrorism Bill.
SESSION OF 2002
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 395
As Amended by Senate Committee of the Whole
Brief*
SB 395 would create a new crime of endangering the food supply which would
become a severity level 9, nonperson felony. Endangering the food supply
would be a severity level 3-nonperson felony, if done with the intent to
cause damage to plants or animals or to cause economic harm or social unrest.
Endangering the food supply is a severity level 3, person felony, if done
with the intent to cause illness, injury or death to a human being or beings.
Any of these offenses would be considered to be an inherently dangerous
felony under KSA 21-3436.
Under the bill endangering the food supply is knowingly:
- Bringing into this state any domestic animal which is affected with any
contagious or infectious disease or any animal which has been exposed to any
contagious or infectious disease; - Exposing any animal in this state to any contagious or infectious disease;
- Bringing or releasing into this state any plant pest or exposing any plant
to a plant pest, except as permitted under current law; or - Exposing any raw agricultural commodity, animal feed or processed food to
any contagious or infectious disease.
This Bioterrorism Law could effectively eliminate the use of sludge on the
farm. However, the defense could be that it was not the intent municipality
or sludge contractor to harm anyone. The intent was to dispose of sewage
sludge as cheaply as possible.
The Bioterrorism Law would not help the homeowner who buys infectious
disease contaminated biosolids sludge for lawn and garden use.
http://www.kslegislature.org/cgi-bin/fulltext/bills.cgi/supp/2002/elmiJRmO7fTr
RaTvQUbkqg/SN0395.HTM -LSI-