To All Members of the TAC
Alan Rubin has emailed his response to Rhonda Bowen's email of March 12, 2009, and asked that I make it available to
all Members of the TAC. Dr Rubin's response is set forth below.
Henry Staudinger
From: A RUBIN [mailto:rubinhial@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:49 PM
To: Henry Staudinger
Subject: Re: Information Distribution needed for TAC meeting
To All Members of the TAC:
This is in response to Ms. Rhonda Bowen's E Mail of March 12, 2009, to all members of the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) in which Ms. Bowen asserts that "Dr. Rubin is very inconsistent on his stance regarding biosolids and
their safety." To support her assertion, Ms. Bowen attached a Power Point presentation that I have given many times
and from this Ms. Bowen states: "Throughout the presentation, Rubin states that BIOSOLIDS POSE NO PUBLIC
HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK."
First, I stand by my statements and conclusion that biosolids pose no public health or environmental risk in the Power
Point presentation. However, if Ms. Bowen carefully studied this presentation, she would discover that this presentation
and, therefore, my statements and conclusion applied only to detected (and yet to be detected) inorganic constituents
(metals) and organic constituents in biosolids. In addition, a more careful review of the presentation would show that my
statements and conclusions are additionally narrowed to soil, crop, grazing, groundwater, and surface water exposure
pathways with regard to my conclusion of no public health or environmental risk from the land application of biosolids.
Those of you who attended the Expert Panel meetings saw me engage and dispute Dr. Robert Hale on Dr. Hale's
assertion that the presence of refractory organic constituents in biosolids such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), presented a potential human health and environmental risk for biosolids land application. The bottom line on
this issue is that there is virtually no risk to public health and the environment from the presence of any and all chemical
constituents in biosolids for the above identified exposure pathways as long as all Federal, State, and local regulations
are followed. This statement applies both to the general population as well as more highly exposed populations that live
in the vicinity of biosolids land application projects and would also include "pollutant sensitive" individuals.
Second, I have a long history of defending the land application of biosolids as an environmentally compatible method of
managing this material while utilizing its macro- and micro- nutrient content to increase crop yield, increase other
vegetative biomass, and improve soil characteristics as long as all applicable regulations and standards are met. This
history started while I was employed at USEPA for 28 years, 21 years of which was devoted as the lead staff person in
charge of developing the Federal 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Biosolids. In the four years
since I retired, I am still a supporter of land application of biosolids but I now have a significant concern about one
aspect of a human health impact that land application can have on certain pollutant sensitive individuals in communities
hosting biosolids land application projects. Failure to adequately address this aspect of a human health impact will
continue to pose challenges to the long term viability of this biosolids management practice in the Commonwealth of
Virginia and perhaps in other areas of the US as well.
While I was employed at USEPA, I received and reviewed hundreds of media reports as well as direct complaints from
citizens who claimed adverse human health impacts as well as "quality of life" (aesthetic) impacts which they attributed
to their exposure to biosolids as a consequence of residing in close proximity to biosolids land application and biosolids
storage sites. Follow up or investigation of these complaints by USEPA Headquarters and/or regional permitting and
enforcement personnel were minimal and can be explained as follows.
An analysis of these reported incidences indicated that they were originating from a relatively small number of States
and even within these States, the reported incidences were confined to a "few" communities in which a small portion of
the community's population was involved. Of the 16,000 wastewater treatment plants operating in the US and
producing biosolids, USEPA judged complaints were being received from at most 100 communities either generating
biosolids and land applying in their communities or more likely from communities that were hosting biosolids projects
where non-local biosolids were being land applied. Subsequently, USEPA made no determination on either the validity
or severity of the potential health consequences of these complaints. This was based on USEPA's position that this
issue was not a National issue but more of a locality by locality site-specific issue that should be addressed more
appropriately by either State or local governments. Furthermore, the internal EPA position was that it was possible that
the land application of biosolids could generate a mixture of volatile substances (volatile organic chemicals, bioaerosols,
allergens, dusts, etc.) that could impact local populations residing adjacent to land application sites either as a human
health effect or as a minimum a quality of life effect (odor, etc.) via an air transmission route. However, at the time that
the National Part 503 Standards for Biosolids were promulgated, USEPA did not possess the means to scientifically
evaluate this potential exposure pathway and resultant human health impact and, therefore, was unable to add
protective requirements to the Part 503 Standards to resolve this issue. As stated above, USEPA expected the States
and local jurisdictions to develop additional regulations to afford the needed protection for this transmission pathway
and these pollutant sensitive individuals. As for the other exposure pathways enumerated above, USEPA's position at
the time of Part 503 promulgation was that the Part 503 rule was "protective of public health and the environment".
Recognizing this potential deficiency in the Part 503 Rule, USEPA added a provision in the rule that not only allowed but
should have encouraged the States and even local governments to deal with and resolve this issue. "Section 503.5
Additional or More Stringent Requirements (a) On a case-by-case basis, the permitting authority may impose
requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge in addition to or more stringent than the requirements in this part
when necessary to protect public health and the environment from any adverse effect of a pollutant in the sewage
sludge (b) Nothing in this part preclude a State or political subdivision thereof or interstate agency from imposing
requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge more stringent than the requirements in this part or from
imposing additional requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge." In effect, by this provision, USEPA was
assuring that States and/or local jurisdictions were empowered to provide the needed protection to those citizens being
adversely impacted by their residing in close proximity to biosolids land application and/ storage sites.
I believe that the land application of biosolids resulting in exposure of volatile biosolids constituents to "pollutant
sensitive" individuals residing in close proximity to biosolids land application and storage sites can result in either
adverse health impacts or as a minimum in "quality of life" (aesthetic) impacts. My position is informed by four points:
- While at USEPA, I reviewed hundreds of media reports as well as direct complaints from citizens who claimed adverse
human health impacts as well as "quality of life" (aesthetic) impacts which they attributed to their exposure to biosolids
as a consequence of residing in close proximity to biosolids land application and biosolids storage sites.
- As a member of The Virginia Biosolids Expert Panel, I listened to the compelling testimony of several Virginia citizens
that described their health impacts which they attributed to exposure to biosolids.
- A respected member of the wastewater treatment and biosolids profession who formerly was in charge of the biosolids
management program in Philadelphia, PA has published several papers linking adverse human health and/or aesthetic
impacts for some people to their residing in close proximity to biosolids land application sites.
- In a more personal case, I observed my two sons experiencing a feeling of "sickness" when we visited a biosolids
processing facility many years ago. Their reaction continued for several hours after we left the facility.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) already has in place the regulatory tools (extended buffers,
biosolids incorporation into the soil where necessary, etc.) to adequately provide the needed protection to those
pollutant sensitive individuals that reside in close proximity to biosolids land application and storage sites. All it takes to
resolve this crucial issue is for DEQ to find the "political will" to objectively and consistently implement these provisions
in permit issuance.
I believe that if DEQ executes their statutory (as well as moral) responsibility to protect the health and well being of all
citizens in the Commonwealth by agreeing to the request of the preceding paragraph, the sustainability of biosolids land
application as well as the public acceptance of this practice in Virginia will be significantly enhanced without accrual of
significant costs to the wastewater treatment and biosolids professions. On the other hand, failure of DEQ to implement
the needed regulatory provisions to protect the health and well being of all citizens will have the opposite effects:
continuing contention during the permit issuance process, neighbor pitted against farmer, endless bills being introduced
into the General Assembly each year, and perhaps the most important attention getter for the wastewater treatment and
biosolids profession, the significant threat of litigation.
In closing, I believe that the land application of biosolids is an environmentally compatible management practice that can
be sustainable as long as its performed under regulations that provide adequate human health protection for all
citizens. What I have suggested in this response to Ms. Bowen's E Mail can accomplish this goal with very little
disruption to the biosolids generating and land application industry.
Sincerely,
Alan B. Rubin, Ph.D.
Proud Citizen of Virginia
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Staudinger <mailto:hjs@shentel.net>
To: 'A RUBIN' <mailto:rubinhial@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: FW: Information Distribution needed for TAC meeting
From: Bowen, Rhonda [mailto:RBOWEN@HRSD.COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:55 PM
To: Henry Staudinger; Wilmer N. Stoneman III; Chris Nidel; Darrell R. Marshall; Greg Evanylo; Jacob Powell; Jim Burns,
M.D., M.B.A.; Jo Overbey; Karl Berger; Katie Kyger Frazier; Larry Land; Lloyd Rhodes; Ray York; Ruddy Rose; Timothy
G. Hayes; Helentjaris, Diane (VDH); Trey Davis - Alternate for Wilmer Stoneman; Michele Monti (VDH); Nicklas, Sharon;
Tripathi, Ram (VDH)
Cc: Zahradka,Neil; Berndt,Cindy; Cauthorn,Bryan; Gilinsky,Ellen; Golden,James; Neilan,Angela; Norris,William;
Swanson,Charlie; Wood,Christina
Subject: RE: Information Distribution needed for TAC meeting
To All Members of the TAC,
I am attaching a PowerPoint presentation recently prepared and presented by Dr. Alan Rubin. As you can see Dr.
Rubin is very inconsistent on his stance regarding biosolids and their safety. Throughout the presentation Rubin states
that "BIOSOLIDS POSE NO PUBLIC HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK". I would suggest the TAC focus on the
recommendations provided by the full Expert Panel and those recommended by the Health experts currently serving on
the TAC.
Respectfully,
Rhonda L. Bowen
----------------
From: Henry Staudinger [mailto:hjs@shentel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:10 PM
To: 'Wilmer N. Stoneman III'; 'Chris Nidel'; 'Darrell R. Marshall'; 'Greg Evanylo'; 'Henry J. Staudinger'; 'Jacob Powell'; 'Jim
Burns, M.D., M.B.A.'; 'Jo Overbey'; 'Karl Berger'; 'Katie Kyger Frazier'; 'Larry Land'; 'Lloyd Rhodes'; 'Ray York'; Bowen,
Rhonda; 'Ruddy Rose'; 'Timothy G. Hayes'; 'Helentjaris, Diane (VDH)'; 'Trey Davis - Alternate for Wilmer Stoneman';
'Michele Monti (VDH)'; Nicklas, Sharon; 'Tripathi, Ram (VDH)'
Cc: 'Zahradka,Neil'; 'Berndt,Cindy'; 'Cauthorn,Bryan'; 'Gilinsky,Ellen'; 'Golden,James'; 'Neilan,Angela'; 'Norris,William';
'Swanson,Charlie'; 'Wood,Christina'
Subject: Information Distribution needed for TAC meeting
To All Members of the TAC
Following receipt of the Agenda and other information from Bill Norris for the March 20th TAC meeting, I was surprised
to find that key Expert Panel Information related to health was not forwarded. Much of that information was in two
documents prepared by Panel Members Alan Rubin and myself. They include specific recommendations that we made
in an effort to move the panel to develop consensus language for the report. Some members of the Panel did not want
to discuss specific health recommendations and urged that those recommendations be sent to the TAC for evaluation.
I contacted Neil and he asked that I send those memos directly to TAC members so they can be considered in advance
of the March 20th meeting. I am therefore attaching to this email the Objections to the Expert Panel Report that needs
to be read in conjunction with the Panel report itself. The second document consists of 37 pages provided to the Panel
on October 22, 2008. It sets forth recommendations to be considered by the TAC. In order to comply with Neil's
request, I have had to rescan that document. Because of its size I had to scan pages 1-18 and pages 19-37
separately. Because of the size, they will be sent to you in emails that will follow this email. To save a lot of time during
the March 20th meeting, it is important that panel members take the time to review that information.
Henry Staudinger
From: Henry Staudinger [mailto:hjs@shentel.net]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 5:52 PM
To: 'nrzahradka@deq.virginia.gov'
Subject: Information Distribution needed for TAC meeting
Neil
During the Expert Biosolids Panel Alan Rubin and I submitted either separately or together a number of memos related
to health issues. Indeed we made a number of specific recommendations. We were told that due to lack of expertise on
the panel, those recommendations should be considered by the TAC. However, in the materials sent out today by Bill
Norris, none of those recommendations have been sent to the TAC. They weren't even referenced. Why have they not
been sent?
Henry
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date: 03/12/09 10:38:00