WASTE INDUSTRY AND U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SLUDGE
USE OR DISPOSAL IS A LOCAL DETERMINATION (I have documents cited below) . . .
2007 – WEF/EPA issue report on Microconstituents in sewage sludge “biosolids” . . . Page 27 of the 52
page document reiterates US EPA’s position that sludge use of disposal is a local decision:
“U.S. EPA supports the reuse of wastewater and the beneficial reuse of biosolids as viable options
available to communities, but firmly believes that any decisions regarding those choices are
local decisions subject to meeting state regulations in addition to federal regulations. “
- EPA sludge office tells EPA Office of Inspector General investigation of health impacts from sludge is
NOT an EPA responsibility, but the responsibility of NIOSH, CDC AND LOCAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS.
EPA sludge office tells EPA Office of Inspector General to revise their report to include the
following statement:
“The Agency does support beneficial reuse of biosolids, but IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS REGARDING USE AND
DISPOSAL OPTIONS . . . “
- Nov. 2001 - EPA sludge office tells Wisconsin Sludge/Biosolids Coordinator “ . . . it is the responsibility of
LOCAL GOVERNMENT to make LOCAL DECISIONS regarding use and disposal options (of sewage sludge)
that are consistent with the Part 503 rule.”
I have this email: June 26, 2002 - Robert Bastian of US EPA agrees “IT WAS ALSO CLEARLY STATED THAT .
. . LOCAL COMMUNITIES REMAIN FREE TO IMPOSE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS . . . “
- National Research Council - “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices” - July 2,
2002 - Page 18 - Reiteration of 1996 NRC Recommendations:
“ . . . local units of government (should) have the necessary REGULATORY
AUTHORITY to take corrective actions against parties who have violated rules
and guidance.”
Water Environment Federation October 29, 2003, letter to CBS News says “The regulations allow each
LOCAL COMMUNITY to make its own choices about management of biosolids “
– July 10, 2003 – G. Tracy Mehan, EPA Ass’t Administrator – letter to Virginia Senator John Warner – “The
decision of which use or disposal practice to use is a local decision. Once that local decision is made, the
biosolids must be managed to comply with EPA regulations.”
New York Times – Jan. 3, 2004: – EPA won’t say sludge is “safe” – supports local control – acknowledges
need for more scientific research and no longer promotes land application over other disposal methods
“"We are not promoting one approach over another," Ben Grumbles, the acting assistant administrator of
the agency's office of water, said of the various choices. "We are promoting local choice. We believe the
current sewage sludge regulations are adequately protective of human health in the environment."
Pages 20 – 22 July – Oct. 2004 – EPA reaffirms to state sludge biosolids coordinators that it supports
local control and no longer promotes land application over other disposal methods such as incineration or
landfilling – see item (I) below . . .
Page 23 - Sept. 30, 2004 – Email: Dr. Alan Rubin, self described author of federal 40CFR Part 503 sludge
rules reaffirms that localities are free to impose more stringent requirements over sludge biosolids - see
item (II) below . . . .
– Nov. 2003 – EPA to Greg Kester, State sludge/biosolids Coordinator – “Biosolids management option
used remains a matter of LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHOICE.”
– Solano County, California – January 22, 2003 – “The Reporter.com” -- EPA Regulator Alan Rubin says
counties have power to control sludge spreading
– OFFICE OF EPA INSPECTOR GENERAL http://biosolids.policy.net/relatives/23201.pdf
March 28, 2002 - pg. 6 – “support State and local decision-making”
– Dr. Rufus Chaney, USDA, sludge proponent – July 4, 2002: enforcement rests with LOCAL
governments – not US EPA
Item (I)
Here is the link to the National Biosolids Partnership web site, along with 4 recent letters . . . two from
Wisconsin sludge biosolids officials to US EPA and two replies from US EPA.
http://www.biosolids.org/news.asp?id=1786
WI State Biosolids Coordinator Greg Kester 7-30-04 Letter to EPA OWM Director James Hanlon
WI DNR Secretary Scott Hassett 9-13-04 Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt http://biosolids.
org/docs/hassett_091304_leavittltr.pdf
EPA OWM Director James Hanlon 9-20-04 Letter to Greg Kester
EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Ben Grumbles 10-7-04 Letter to Scott Hassett
7/30/04 letter from Greg Kester, Wisconsin DNR to Jim Hanlon, US EPA –
"The policy shift that occurred at EPA in early 2000, was significant and very disconcerting to the
implementers of the regulations in the field." (Kester is referring to the EPA position of "neutrality" on
the use or disposal of biosolids that was adopted at US EPA internally in early 2000 when EPA discontinued
promoting land spreading of sewage sludge over landfilling or incineration.)
Kester goes on to say: "It appears that upper management in EPA believes that no preferred disposition alternative
should be stated and is reluctant to defend its own regulations."
Kester concludes: " . . . as regulators believe that the Agency has officially shifted from a confirmed position of
promoting beneficial use as a sustainable environmental solution to one of neutrality, we appeal to you to reverse that
position back to promoting beneficial use. This does not mean that EPA or a State would mandate decisions at
the local level.”
9/13/04 letter from Scott Hassett, Wisconsin to Michael Leavitt, EPA administrator:
"We are also requesting that you reissue an official statement that beneficial use of biosolids through land application
or public distribution is preferable as a sustainable environmental solution, all other things being equal, to
disposal in a landfill or incinerator combustion."
"We should be clear that we are not asking that any regulatory agency interfere with local decisions , but that
a general preference be articulated as preferred policy."
Letter 9/20/04 from EPA to Greg Kester, Wisconsin
"In the letter, you stated your concern and opinion that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should abandon a
position of neutrality on the methods for biosolids use or disposal."
"EPA supports the reuse of wastewater and the beneficial reuse of biosolids as viable options available to communities,
but firmly believes that any decisions regarding those choices are local decisions subject to meeting State
regulations in addition to Federal regulations."
"The NRC report issued in July 2002 concluded that, although there is no documented scientific evidence that the 503
regulations have failed to protect public health, further scientific work is needed to reduce persistent
uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids."
Letter dated October 7, 2004, EPA Benjamin Grumbles to Scott Hassett, Wis DNR:
"The Part 503 regulations outline the use and disposal practices that publicly owned treatment works may select in
their management of biosolids: land application - land filling or surface disposal - and incineration. Based on
the technical and scientific record, and as explained in the response to Greg Kester's letter, EPA believes that the 40
CFR Part 503 regulations are protective of public health and the environment."
[Please note Mr. Grumbles is referring to ALL THREE 40 CFR Part 503 disposal options: (1) Land application – (2)
landfilling or surface disposal; and/or (3) Incineration. ]
"As to the request that EPA should issue a statement favoring the beneficial reuse of biosolids over other uses, we do
not believe that EPA should be involved in determining the biosolids management options most suitable for a
particular community." "Just as EPA does not require or expressly recommend that communities treat their
wastewater to reuse standards and reuse it, or require particular technologies of municipal or industrial
permittees to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits, we do not require or
expressly recommend that communities choose beneficial reuse of biosolids."
"EPA supports the reuse of wastewater and the beneficial reuse of biosolids as viable options available to communities,
but firmly believes that any decisions regarding those choices are local decisions subject to meeting State
regulations in addition to Federal regulations."
Here are some points that should be made to state regulators -- particularly those in states such as Maine, Florida,
Pennsylvania and Virginia where the waste industry has sued localities and encourages officials to preempt unwilling
communities and bully them into being disposal sites for toxic/pathogenic sludge from urban and industrial sources:
- The US EPA has very specifically stated its “neutrality” and does NOT favor land spreading of sewage sludge
biosolids over other disposal options such as surface disposal, land filling and/or incineration.
- The US EPA supports the right of LOCAL communities to make decisions as to the use or disposal of sewage
sludge biosolids within their boundaries.
- (3) The US EPA is finally acknowledging the National Research Council findings in 2002 which say there is
persistent uncertainty about potential for adverse health effects from sludge spreading and a great deal
more scientific research is needed before sludge can be pronounced “safe”. This is in stark contrast
to claims by the waste industry and some state officials that studies " prove" land spreading of sewage
sludge biosolids poses no risks to human health and the environment.
EPA REAFFIRMS TO STATE SLUDGE COORDINATORS THAT IT SUPPORTS
LOCAL CONTROL AND NO LONGER PROMOTES LAND APPLICATION OVER
OTHER SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS
item (II):
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rubin.Alan@epamail.epa.gov>
To: "US Composting Council Compost Discussion List" <compost@compostingcouncil.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: [USCC] Suggestion on Modifying Part 503 Standards toAccomodateComposts
Frank:
Composters and State/Local regulatory authorities are free to impose
more stringent requirements on biosolids, biosolids processing/treatment
such as composting, and finished biosolids composts. Less stringent
measures are considered not to be in compliance with the part 503
Standards and is not allowed.
As I said before, any amendments to the part 503 Standards must be done
by EPA in Notice and comment rulemaking.
Cheers
Alan B. Rubin, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Biosolids Team
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: 202-566-1125
Fax: 202-566-1139
http://epa.gov/waterscience/
DR. ALAN RUBIN, SELF-DESCRIBED AUTHOR OF THE US EPA 40 CFR PART
503 SLUDGE REGULATIONS SAYS LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE FREE TO
IMPOSE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS ON SLUDGE BIOSOLIDS
item (III)
WEFTEC National Biosolids Issues (Part II) Seminar 1
September 29, 2002
SYNAGRO’S LAWYER, ATTORNEY JAMES SLAUGHTER – acknowledges Clean Water Act provides for “local
control” – and counsels waste industry on how to get around it:
“The CWA’s detailed coverage of biosolids uses and applications may 16
preempt local attempts to restrict biosolids
- However, the CWA has a “Savings Clause” that expressly reserves the manner of
Disposal or use of sludge to local determination
- The Savings Clause stresses that EPA’s regulations do not preclude or deny a
locality’s right to adopt more stringent standards or requirements
Challenges of anti-biosolids ordinances under the CWA must argue 17
that the authority granted to local governments to be “more stringent” is not
tantamount to an authority for a complete “ban”