8/22/22
From the Archives – Flashback to 1997, Could Be 2022
A recent review of NEBRA’s library and historical documents has revealed some treasures. NEBRA has nearly 100 documents, reports, and books in its library! One set of documents in particular, dating back to 1997, the year NEBRA was established, could have been written in 2022. Back in 1997, the Part 503 regulations were still fairly new and there were a lot of detractors out there. In particular, the Cornell Waste Management Institute (WMI) in New York came out with a “working paper” titled The Case for Caution: Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludges and an Appraisal of the USEPA Part 503 Sludge Rules in August 1997. The working paper raised many questions about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s risk assessment process, causing consternation for the public and New York State regulators.
In addition to a copy of the brief WMI working paper, NEBRA’s library includes several rebuttals to the Cornell WMI report. The report generated a lot of letter writing. Of particular interest was a letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Assistant Administrator Robert Perciasepe to David Sterman, Deputy Commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) dated October 31, 1997. That letter pulled together all the comments and concerns about The Case for Caution. In the letter, Perciasepe refers to an assessment done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) with a point-by-point rebuttal of The Case for Caution after a cover letter from USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger. Perciasepe’s letter also included a one-page fact sheet about USEPA’s enhanced program for oversight and management of the biosolids program which indicates increases in funding and full-time equivalents (FTEs) are being considered for fiscal year 1998.
Citing the ARS evaluation, Perciasepe writes “the potential risk from biosolids utilization are small in comparison with the risks from other natural processes and everyday agricultural practices.” Perciasepe wrote something similar in a letter to NYDEC’s Sterman back in July of 1997: “I believe that both the risks and the benefits of various recycling activities need to be put in perspective.” He sites numerous of the benefits of biosolids including their use to help remediate problems in New York state soils such as high lead and arsenic in apple orchards and potato fields from past pesticide applications. Perciasepe goes on to argue that the “undue focus” on biosolids can divert attention from other more serious environmental and public health issues due to the use of manures and commercial fertilizers.
The October 31st letter to NYDEC includes a copy of another letter written by Bob Perciasepe to Ellen Harrison, the Director of Cornell WMI at the time. In that letter, Perciasepe encloses a copy of USEPA’s A Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessment for the EPA Part 503 Rule. Perciasepe also comments that “biosolids’ qualities have continued to increase”.
Also reviewing and commenting on The Case for Caution was NYDEC’s Director of Solids and Hazardous Materials, Norman H. Nosenchuck, P.E. with a report by his team in November 1997. That report provides an extensive discussion of the exhaustive peer review study the USEPA went through in developing the risk assessment for biosolids land application resulting in the Part 503 standards. The report details the 14 exposure pathways studied by USEPA, pointing out that the Part 503 standards came from the lowest value resulting from the risk assessment of the 14 pathways, which was the biosolids for direct human consumption, a child ingesting 200 milligrams of biosolids per day (11.3 pounds per year) over a lifetime, considered a “highly exposed individual”. If you are really interested in USEPA’s science, you can check out the Part 503 Technical Support Documents from 1992-93 available on the USEPA’s Biosolids Program website library — it’s in 2 volumes and nearly 1,000 pages. NEBRA has a hard copy of Volume 1 in its library.
Another associated report in NEBRA’s library came from CPF Associates, Inc. as presented at the New York Water Environment Association (NYWEA)’s 74th annual meeting in February 2002. CPF was hired by Synagro to review the science behind The Case for Caution. This paper (also in the NEBRA archives) is a very detailed analysis, a scientific peer review of sorts. The CPF paper calls The Case for Caution a “polemic advocating alternative views of biosolids rather than a scientific document.” The CPF analysis found deficiencies in two major areas: failure to adhere to generally accepted standards for publication of scientific research, and drawing conclusions that were erroneous and misleading. The authors admit there are too many problems with WMI’s working paper to be discussed in a single peer review.
This flashback shows just how much time and effort went into rebuffing The Case for Caution which was more of a policy paper with no scientific basis for its recommendations. However, the working paper caught the attention of the public, especially farmers and home gardeners, causing consternation and extra effort all around. USEPA and the USDA had made special effort to work Cornell University faculty members, even organizing a series of ten “Biosolids Roundtables” meetings over a one-year period across New York State.
All these historic documents and more are available to NEBRA members. The library catalogue is now in spreadsheet format and will be available on the member website soon. Also, if you haven’t seen it yet, check out the NEBRA Lunch & Learn webinar from back in April, all about the history of biosolids management in the United States.