HELP FOR SEWAGE VICTIMS
10/1/2008
Help for Sewage Victims
A Washington, nonprofit
Fecal coliform test study 6/4/2009
Help for Sewage Victims is a 20 year old organization dedicated to factual sludge research and dissemination of that information to
those in need. The organization was formed by farmers who were damaged early on by the EPA policy of disposing of bacterial
contaminated sewage effluents (sludge and Water) on food crops as recycling for beneficial use. They found no legal recourse --
and -- found that major environmental organizations actually signed a consent decree not to sue EPA over this policy.
Where did Congress lose its way in the last 40 years and decide it was OK for EPA to use exclusions in federal law to poison our
farmland, food, groundwater, drinking water and public health by claiming toxic sewage sludge is a commercial fertilizer? In 1991,
EPA removed sewage sludge from the RCRA's 40 CFR Part 257 Solid Waste Regulation. The sludge solid waste disposal
regulation, Part 257 et.al., (Part 258) was created in 1991 under RCRA and CWA Section 405. The sludge open dumping policy
regulation, Part 257 et al. (Part 503) was created in 1993 with the notation that only compliance with Part 258 indicated compliance
with Section 405 of the CWA. Part 503 fails the basic test of the:
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to
improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may --
- 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
- 2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
- 3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or
safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
- 4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain,
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
- 5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living
and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
- 6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources.
In 1993, "EPA concluded that adequate protection of public health and the environment did not require the adoption of standards
designed to protect human health or the environment under exposure conditions that are unlikely and where effects were not
significant or widespread." (58 FR p. 9252) Examples are isolated farms because there are not many people there and your lawn.
On Monday, September 29, 2008, House Speaker Nancy "Pelosi assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic
policies. "They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no
discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is
over," Pelosi said."
While Pelosi was discussing the 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street, the party is not over for Congress, the Environmental
Protection Agency and it's partners who will go out with golden parachutes while the sewage victims suffer from EPA's sludge
dumping policy. The EPA has actually promoted the use of toxic sewage sludge on lawns, gardens and food crops: by statement
(1981), by policy (1984), and by fraudulent regulation (1993). (EPA report SW905, WH-595, 40 CFR 257 et al./503)
On February 7, 2007, before Senator Boxer's Committee, EPA Administrator "Johnson defended the Bush administration's record
on the environment, saying his agency had pursued policies aimed at cutting the costs of regulation and giving companies incentives
to reduce their pollution."
Cutting the cost of sludge regulation and giving companies incentives to reduce their pollution simply means EPA is allowing the
regulated municipalities and contracting companies to transfer the pollution liability to individual farmers and home owners.
When Senator Boxer attempted to schedule a September 11, 2008 Senate Oversight Hearing on sludge, EPA and the GOP boycotted
the Hearing. The name was then changed to a Briefing: "Oversight on the State of the Science and Issues Associated with the
EPA's Sewage Sludge Program" That was canceled without warning the morning of the briefing. "A spokeswoman for the
committee said the hearing was canceled out of concern that the private litigation would distract from the main issue of sludge
safety. She said Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., plans to reschedule the session."
It is much more likely that Boxer was afraid of the private litigation that would result with a Committee finding that there was no
sludge safety. Senate researchers would have reported to Boxer that EPA's Sewage Sludge Program violated Congressional intent,
scientific principals and at least three federal laws. EPA's Sewage Sludge Program is based on the Domestic Sewage Exclusion in
RCRA, Agricultural Stormwater Runoff Exclusion in CWA and Commercial Ferilizer Exclusion in the CERCLA (Superfund Act).
The researchers would also have reported to Boxer that EPA officials lied about the science and law used to promulgate the
fraudulent Part 503 regulation and that the Oversight Committee responsible for monitoring EPA had abdicated that responsibility.
EPA states "Section 405 of the CWA regulates the land application and land disposal of sludge- the solid, semisolid or liquid
untreated residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility."
On February 19, 1993, EPA released the final 40 CFR 257 et al. (Parts 257, 403 and 503) sludge regulation which only addressed
10 metals for which pre-treatment removal credits for land application were allowed under Part 403. (Federal Register Vol. 58, No.
32, Pages 9248 - 9415)
However, EPA neglected to retain the RCRA Definitions.
"The definitions set forth in section 1004 of the Act apply to this part. Special definitions of general concern to this part are
provided below, and definitions especially pertinent to particular sections of this part are provided in those sections."
This was a far cry from the EPA's position in 1986.
In 1986, The United States Supreme Court stated, "EPA has consistently interpreted the [CWA] Section 307(b) requirement that
removal credits not prevent the use or disposal of sludge to mean that whatever use or disposal the POTWs make of their sludge,
they must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements, not just whatever guidelines EPA may have explicitly
promulgated under Section 405(d). See 43 Fed. Reg. 27749 (1978); 40 C.F.R. 403.7(a)(3)(iv).
Boxer's Committee would not have wanted you to know that sludge used on food crops and your lawn may be generated from a
combination of domestic sewage and industrial waste entering a municipal treatment facility under 503.9(aa) "Treatment works is
either a federally owned, publicly owned, or privately owned device or system used to treat (including recycle and reclaim) either
domestic sewage or a combination of domestic sewage and industrial waste of a liquid nature."
Very few treatment facilities would meet the legal or regulation requirement of generating sludge/biosolids from domestic sewage
because: "Domestic sewage is waste and waste water from humans or household operations that is discharged to or otherwise
enters a treatment works." (40 CFR 503.9(g)).
However, retired EPA sludge expert Alan Rubin claims, "This is a key definition, because the standards in the part 503 regulation
apply to sewage sludge generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. When domestic sewage is in the
influent to a treatment works, even if the influent also contains industrial wastewater, sewage sludge is generated during the
treatment of the domestic sewage." (FR. 58, p. 9326 - 40 CFR 257 et al. (503))
However, that is not how the law reads. RCRA Sec. 6903 is emphatic when it states:
"(26A) The term ``sludge'' means any solid, semisolid or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial
wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar
characteristics and effects."
"(27) The term ``solid waste'' means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include
solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges
which are point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of title 33, or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) [42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.].
While solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage from residents are statutory exclusions while in the pipeline to the treatment
plant, sludge from a pollution control facility is a solid waste under RCRA.
"(26) The term ``sanitary landfill'' means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which meets the criteria published under section
6944 of this title."
When we look at part 503, we find that it does not meet Section 405 requirements 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. These
minimum national criteria ensure the protection of human health and the environment"
Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act (WA) to be the primary enforcement tool for the regulation of sludge:
"(1) Purpose - This section was not intended to be [the] primary source of regulation of sludge but was intended
as [a] cautionary measure to provide additional protection against dangers to navigable waters caused by disposal
methods unregulated by section 1311 of this title, i.e. careless land disposal and deep ocean dumping of
sludge from vessels. ---" (Title 33, part 1345, note 1)
In fact Part {§ 503.4 doesn't claim to meet Section 405 requirements.
"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.)"
Even the landfill section, Part 503.23, does not meet the Section 405 requirements as it only requires monitoring of three toxic
metals, including Chromium, which was removed from the land application section, Part 503.13.
Under Section 405(d) of the CWA, the Part 258, sludge co-disposal regulation lists 62 constituents for monitoring out of a total of
list of 220 Hazardous Inorganic and Organic Constituents. The legal definition for sludge and solid waste are retained from the
RCRA.
In 1991, Part 258 municipal sludge co-disposal landfill regulation identified eight metals to be analyzed by the POTWs during the
first phase of ground water monitoring: Arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. -- copper,
nickel and zinc were added as well as antimony, beryllium, cobalt, thallium, and vanadium ---because the Agency believes that the
metals pose serious threats to human health and the environment.
While EPA claimed Part 503 was created under CWA Section 405, it did not retain the legal CWA definitions.
Part 503 currently lists only 9 pollutants in sludge. Are they hazardous? The definition of a pollutant in Part 503.9(t) is not a legal
CWA definition, but it states the nine metals, and infectious disease organisms are very hazardous to organisms -- which includes
humans.
Yet, in 1995 EPA stated "Section 405(d) of the CWA requires EPA to establish management practices and numerical limits adequate
to protect public health and the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects of toxic pollutants in sewage sludge."
Why did EPA lie in 1993 and state, "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. 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." ( 40 CFR 257 et al. (part 503) FR. 58, 32, p. 9327)
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 (humans) or offspring (children) of the
organisms."
Why would EPA fail to use the CWA statutory definitions for pollutant and toxic pollutant in Part 503?
Under CWA Sec. 1362,
(6) The term ``pollutant'' means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
(13) The term ``toxic pollutant'' means those pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease-
causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism,
either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information
available to the Administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or
their offspring.
Organism: any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism; [EPA]
Why would EPA state in it scientific risk assessment that these 126 Priority Toxic Pollutants are not dangerous?
Part § 131.36 (b)(1) EPA's Section 304(a) criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants includes: [1.Antimony; 2. Arsenic; 3. Beryllium; 4.
Cadmium; 5. Chromium (III) - Chromium (VI); 6. Copper; 7. Lead; 8.Mercury;9.Nickel; 10. Selenium; 11. Silver; 12. Thallium; 13.
Zinc; 14. Cyanide; 15. Asbestos; 16. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)]
EPA has admitted (1989) that five of the admitted twenty-one carcinogens in sludge are carcinogenic when inhaled in dust --
Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium IV and Nickel. (FR 54, p. 5777)
EPA claims sludge is considered to be a commercial fertilizer under the Superfund Act. Yet:
Under CERCLA (Superfund Act) Section § 9601
(29) The terms “disposal”, “hazardous waste”, and “treatment” shall have the meaning provided in section 1004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6903].
(33) The term “pollutant or contaminant” shall include, but not be limited to, any element, substance, compound, or mixture,
including disease-causing agents, which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation
into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their
offspring;
Under RCRA Sec. 6903 chemical wastes and biological materials in sludge (solid waste) are hazardous open dumps on farmland
and lawns.
(5) The term ``hazardous waste'' means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may--
(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
(14) The term ``open dump'' means any facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets
the criteria promulgated under section 6944 of this title and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste.
Industrial chemical wastes
List of 21 known carcinogens pollutants in sludge in the 1989 preamble to the Part 503 sludge rule as it appeared in the Federal
Register Vol. 54, No. 23, p. 5777.
biological materials
TWENTY-FIVE PRIMARY PATHOGENS ASSOCIATED WITH A HIGH INCIDENCE OF DISEASE IN THE1989 PREAMBLE
TO THE PART 503 SLUDGE RULE as it appeared in the Federal Register Vol 54, No. 23, p. 5829.
As noted earlier, agricultural waste discharged into water is a pollutant. However, agricultural stormwater discharges loaded with
toxic pollutant are considered to be non-regulated nonpoint sources of pollution. The magic in sewage sludge to biosolids is the
transporting it from a point source (treatment plant) to a nonpoint source (agricultural land).
That is not what Congress had in mind.
Under CWA SEC. 101
(7) it is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an
expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
(b) It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration,
preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the
exercise of his authority under this Act.
CWA Section 1362
(12) The term ``discharge of a pollutant'' and the term ``discharge of pollutants'' each means
(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,
(B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or
other floating craft.
(14) The term ``point source'' means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This
term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.
"According to Ken Arnold of the Missouri DNR, stormwater runoff from the Kansas City sludge site is a federal, not a state
problem. In a letter dated December 18, 1997, he states:
The Kansas City Birmingham permit does not require
monitoring or limitations of the storm water runoff from
the agricultural crop land fields where biosolids
(sludge) are being spread at beneficial use rates. Storm
water runoff from these agricultural crop fields is
considered a non-point source under State rules as is
the storm water runoff from agricultural fields where
commercial fertilizers and pesticides are applied.
2002, The EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) officially released its report on EPA's sewage sludge rule, "e.. EPA has taken a
position that "investigating health impacts from biosolids [i.e. sludge] is not an EPA responsibility."" http://deadlydeceit.
com/Human-health.html
Now EPA is starting to shift the blame for RCRA solid waste open dumps to the states, "EPA's role in the management of industrial
nonhazardous 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)
This brings up an interesting point. Under 40 CFR 256, all states are required to have an EPA approved Solid Waste Management
Plan. Yet, when I last checked, no state had every submitted a Solid Waste Management Plan to EPA for approval. This indicates
that the regulations have very little meaning-- EPA claims the regulations are only guidance anyway.
There are only six states that have received delegation of the EPA Sludge disposal program under 40 CFR 501 requirement. To get
delegation of the sludge disposal program, the state solid waste statutes on sludge and open dumping had to be revised to reflect
EPA's Part 503 open dumping sludge program policy. WHY WOULD THE STATE IMPOSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES ON
ITS COUNTIES, AS WELL AS ILLNESS AND DEATH ON ITS CITIZENS, BASED ON THE 138 YEAR OLD LEGAL OPINION
OF IOWA'S JUDGE DILLON AND A TWENTY-FIVE YEAR OLD EPA SLUDGE DUMPING POLICY?
As Clay L. Writ, Virginia Town and City, wrote, Judge Dillon was a man who greatly distrusted local governments and local
government officials. He is quoted as saying that "those best fitted by their intelligence, business experience, capacity and moral
character' usually did not hold local office and that the conduct of municipal affairs was generally "unwise and extravagant."
"Judge Dillon had a basis for being so harsh on local officials. He lived during what was probably the lowest point in the history of
America's cities. Many of our cities' governments were sodden with corruption and inefficiency, and political machines and bosses
controlled the day, particularly in the big cities. Graft was shamelessly accepted in the many new public work projects and public
utility franchises brought about by changing technology and rapidly expanding growth."
"Dillon's doctrine on municipal incorporation law was challenged in his day. A contemporary on the Michigan Supreme Court,
Judge Thomas M. Cooley, articulated a very different view. Cooley argued for the inherent right of local self-governance and his
view was adopted by Supreme Courts in several states including Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and notably, Texas." " In response to
practical challenges presented by Dillon's Rule and encouraged by Cooley's logic, the "Home Rule" movement quickly spread. As an
antithesis of Dillon's strict constitutional construction, constitutional amendments cropped up to protect the autonomy of local
governments."
The may in fact be the lowest point in the history of America's cities and state government.
Judge Dillon could not have contemplated that his law would be used by 39 states to poison farmland, food, groundwater, drinking
water and destroy public health with a complete disregard for humanity or the future of our children. He could not have imagined
that federal and state agencies would become the subject of his contempt.
EPA and WEF pollute farmland with sludge and blame farmers for water pollution.
The implied threat to the California farmer was contained in the WEF letter sent to each member of Congress. WEF was asking for
Congress to place the blame for water pollution on farmers and their operations, because, "Water Quality 2000 found that "polluted
runoff from agricultural activities...is a major cause of impairment of our nation's waters. Congress must make a clear statement
that agriculturally derived water pollution problems is a national priority." Current Farm Bill provisions have produced some
progress in water quality. But future improvements will require a new way of thinking about these problems. Agricultural
conservation and environmental protection programs
should be re-oriented to make pollution prevention the primary focus."
The EPA Journal of April, 1984 reported that "National studies suggest that agricultural nonpoint source pollution
adversely affects portions of over two-thirds of the nation's river basins." According to the article:
About 63 percent of non-federal land in the United
States is used for agricultural purposes, including crop
and livestock production. It is not surprising,
therefore, that agricultural activities constitute the
most pervasive cause of water quality problems from
nonpoint sources. Indeed, it is considered the most
serious cause in most EPA regions." (p. 28)
Still it is EPA's opinion that, "If the placement of sludge on land were considered to be "the normal application of fertilizer," that
placement could not give rise to liability under CERCLA." --- "Under CERCLA, protection from liability is also provided when there
is a release of a CERCLA hazardous substance and the release occurs pursuant to Federal authorization. (FR. 58, p. 9262 - 40 CFR
257 et al.(Part 503))
However, there is a major problem with this, in the preamble to the 1991 Part 257 et al. (part 258) sludge co-disposal regulation, the
EPA acknowledges that a legally permitted sanitary landfill is subject to the liability provisions of the CERCLA (FR. 56, p. 51091-2)
2005 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 104 (i), as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), requires ATSDR and the EPA to prepare a list, in order of priority,
of substances that are most commonly found at facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) and which are determined to pose the
most significant potential threat to human health due to their known or suspected toxicity and potential for human exposure at these
NPL sites. CERCLA also requires this list to be revised periodically to reflect
additional information on hazardous substances
1. ARSENIC, 2. LEAD, 3. MERCURY, 8. CADMIUM, 18. CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT, 28. CYANIDE, 40. BERYLLIUM,
50. COBALT, 55. NICKEL, 66. CHROMIUM(VI) OXIDE, 74. ZINC, 77. CHROMIUM, 147. SELENIUM., 218
CHROMIUM, TRIOXIDE, 222. ANTIMONY, 227. ARSENIC TRIOXIDE, 244. SODIUM ARSENITE, 244. CALCIUM
ARSENATE, 244. MERCURIC CHLORIDE,
Risk assessment
EPA claims to have done a scientific 14 pathway risk assessment. Even wrote a book about it. A Guide to the Biosolids Risk
Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule. However, on Page 110, EPA admitted the risk assessment did not include any chemicals
and EPA did not consider any toxic heavy metals to be cancer causing agents even though it listed cancer causing agents in the
1989 preamble. Nor did it do a risk assessment for pathogens.
Leather Industries of America et al v. EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also found that the 503 Regulation was not
scientifically risked based as claimed by the EPA. The Court noted that, "while EPA "may `err' on the side of
overprotection," it "may not engage in sheer guesswork (p.408)." According to the Court, EPA did not adequately
defend the science behind the chromium limits in Part 503. They ruled due to, "(4) the lack of data to support the
risked-based cap on chromium (3,000 ppm), we remand those parts of the regulation to the EPA for modification or
additional justification." (p. 394)
What the Court also found was that EPA had failed to fulfill the statutory requirement of the law to create
regulations "adequate to protect public health and the environment from any reasonable adverse effects."
The Court noted that there are two forms of Chromium (hexavalent and trivalent) and that EPA had "delisted'
chromium (removed it from the hazardous waste list) in the tanning industry because this chromium is in the trivalent
form." (p.406) The Court also noted, "there are several studies cited in the record showing that trivalent chromium
can oxidize to hexavalent chromium." ( (40 Federal Reporter, 3d series p.406)
Evidently John Walker and EPA have a problem with understanding what the court meant by the words remand and
modification. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, The word Remand means to send back. The word Modification
means to alter or change. Neither one of these means drop. What the court wanted them to do was either revise or justify their
position based on the fact that hexavalent tannery chromium was being dumped into the treatment plants at 30,000 ppm. It did not
order EPA to drop chromium from the regulation as John Walker claimed in the 1995 Guide to the Part 503 Risk Assessment. He
lied when he wrote: The court stated that EPA should drop chromium from the Part 503 rule because the biosolids risk assessment
did not identify any chromium level associated with risk to
public health or the environment. EPA agrees and plans to delete all chromium limits for land-applied biosolids
from the Part 503 rule. (p. 56)
EPA did so on October 25, 1995
EPA said,
"Congress directed EPA to establish categorical pretreatment standards for industrial discharges of toxic pollutants to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs). Congress also authorized POTWs in defined circumstances to provide relief from categorical
pretreatment standards in the form of a removal credit to indirect dischargers"
"Section 405(d) of the CWA requires EPA to publish regulations specifying management practices for sewage sludge containing
toxic pollutants and to establish numerical limitations for the toxic pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge in
concentrations that may adversely affect public health and the
environment."
However, EPA did not evaluate human health exposure to chromium and lied in the Federal Register.
"the D.C. Circuit concluded that the statute requires risk-based regulation and that the Agency lacked the
data to support risk-based regulation of chromium to prevent plant injury. " "As a result, the chromium land application pollutant
limits must be withdrawn."
"The D.C. Circuit agreed that EPA is authorized to protect against plant injury and that EPA properly determined a plant toxicity
threshold associated with chromium in sewage sludge. However, the court decided that EPA lacked adequate data to support the
3,000 kg/hectare chromium cumulative loading rate because EPA had no data that showed plant injury at soil levels of 3,000
kg/hectare or any other cumulative load."
"EPA has reaffirmed its determination that chromium in sewage sludge appears predominantly in the trivalent form for which the
likelihood of plant injury is substantially lower than the likelihood of plant injury
from chromium in the hexavalent form. See 58 FR 9248, 9297"
SLUDGE TREATMENT
EPA promotes lime as the treatment of choice for converting sludge to pathogen free biosolids. However, in 1973, USDA and EPA
testing proved lime treatment only inactivated Salmonella for about 30 days.
Lime treatment of sludge at high pH converts trivalent chromium (3) to cancer causing hexavalent chromium (6).
"Hexavalent chromium is produced by three methods, high-lime, low-lime, and lime-free processes. In 1975, most of the
chromite ore came from the Republic of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the USSR. No chromite ore has been
mined in the United States since 1961."
Chromium which was removed from the beneficial sludge/biosolids use section of part 503. EPA has no limits for
restrictions on the amount of chromium in sludge/biosolids sprayed on farmland or use as a soil amendment.
According to a 1991-93 Canadian Government study (8/97), "Airborne Hexavalent Chromium in Southwestern Ontario",
approximately 20% of the routinely monitored ambient airborne chromium (Cr) was in the hexavalent form." In addition,
the range of carcinogenic health risks attributed to airborne Cr(vi) was determined to be between 1.4 (in 100,000) and
3.0 (in 10,000) for people living in the Winsor area." For people spending all of their time outdoors the range increased
to between 3.6 in 100,000 and 5.5 in 10,000. This estimate was based on potency factors developed by our own EPA,
the California Department of Health Services and the World Health Organization. [23]
Sludge Testing
EPA bases the safety of sludge on testing for a few gram negative bacteria (primarily E. coli) that survive at the highest temperature
range of possible growth 44.5° C. (112.1° F). Since 1919, scientists have known, "The maximum temperature for the pathogenic
bacteria is about 45°C. Their optimum temperature is about 37.5°C."
Civil Action
The EPA Part 503 sludge policy is unique in that there is no provision mentioned in the "regulation" or the preamble to the
"regulation" for a civil action for any violation of the Part 503 limitations such as there is in the Part 258 sludge regulation.. This is
not so strange since Part 503 states that Part 258 regulation is the only regulation to meet the Section 405(d) requirements and gives
authority for civil suits.
"Under section 505 of the CWA, any person may commence a civil action against any person alleged to be in
violation of an effluent standard or limitation under the CWA. "Effluent standard or limitation" is defined to include a regulation
under section 405(d) of the CWA. [section 505(f), 33 U.S.C 1365(f).] Because the part 258 Criteria are also standards for sewage
sludge uses and disposal promulgated under section 405(d) of the CWA, citizen enforcement action in Federal court is authorized
against non-complying facilities accepting sewage sludge. (FR 56, p. 50995)"
Some may not be aware that a civil action under CWA requires a 60 day advance notification of the action under 40 CFR Part 135.
A failure of notice is an automatic loss.
Summary:
EPA has created two sludge regulations. The first sludge disposal regulation, Part 258 is made as protective of public
health as possible by attempting to contain toxic hazardous chemicals in a designated confined landfill situation. The
second sludge regulation, Part 503 is based of exclusions in environmental law and implies there are no toxic hazardous
chemicals or deadly human pathogens in the sludge dumped as a fertilizer or soil amendment. EPA admits the Part 503
was not designed to protect public health where the effects were not significant or widespread. A farmer and his
neighbors are not a significant part of the public at large and the health effects would be contained within the community
so they are not widespread.
The states have revised their RCRA solid waste laws to comply with EPA's fraudulent Part 503 regulation, based on the
assurance that EPA actually did a scientific risk assessment, which it has since admitted was a lie. The EPA lies have put
farmers, the food supply, groundwater, drinking water, the air, the justice system and public health at risk. Worse of all
Congress has aided and abetted this criminal activity.
This is a low point in American history when Congress refuses to hold Public Hearings effecting public health because it
might affect a lawsuit. It is a shame when a policy regulation replaces enacted law. Not only that but it is inhuman when
many states change the solid waste statutes to poison its people and hide behind a 138 year old state judge's opinion
(who never saw a sewage treatment plant, or heard of a toxic pollutant), to prevent local subdivisions from protecting the
health of their constituents.
This is no longer a legal problem. This is a political problem which will effect each and every one of us as we experience
more and more contaminated food, air and water. Our children and the elderly are the canary experiencing the first
damage from toxic pollutants.
803 E. Main, Everson, Washington 98247-9521
Linda Zander, President (360) 966-2500