Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0054-0686
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-07-16T04:00Z

1
1
EPA'S
PROPOSED
REGULATIONS
FOR
ZINC
FERTILIZERS
MADE
FROM
RECYCLED
HAZARDOUS
WASTES
2
3
4
5
__________________________________________
6
7
8
PART
A
PUBLIC
HEARING
9
EPA
HEARING
November
29,
2001
10
11
12
13
­
­

14
15
16
BE
IT
REMEMBERED
THAT,
pursuant
to
the
Washington
17
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure,
the
hearing
of
the
18
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
re:
Proposed
19
Regulations
for
zinc
fertilizers
made
from
recycled
20
hazardous
wastes
was
taken
before
Cassandra
E.
Ellis,
a
21
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter,
and
a
Notary
Public
for
22
the
State
of
Washington,
on
November
29,
2001,

23
commencing
at
the
hour
of
1:
00
p.
m.,
the
proceedings
24
being
reported
at
Town
Hall,
1119
8th
Avenue,
Seattle,

25
Washington.
2
1
APPEARANCES
2
USEPA
HEADQUARTERS
3
DAVID
FAGAN
4
SPECIAL
ASSISTANT
5
5301
W
6
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
7
(703)
308­
0603
8
Appearing
on
Behalf
of
the
Director
of
Solid
Waste
9
.

10
EPA
REGION
10
11
JACKSON
FOX
12
HEARING
OFFICER
13
1200
6th
Avenue
14
Seattle,
Washington
98101
15
(206)
553­
1073
16
Appearing
on
Behalf
of
the
Seattle
EPA
Office,

17
Region
10
18
.

19
EPA
REGION
10
20
JEANNE
O'DELL
21
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
COORDINATOR
22
1200
6th
Avenue
23
Seattle,
Washington
98101
24
(206)
553­
1073
25
Appearing
on
Behalf
of
the
Seattle
EPA
Office,
3
1
Region
10
2
.

3
.

4
.

5
.

6
.

7
.

8
.

9
.

10
.

11
.

12
.

13
.

14
.

15
.

16
.

17
.

18
.

19
.

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.
4
1
Seattle,
Washington;

2
Thursday,
November
29,
2001
3
1:
00
p.
m.

4
MR.
FOX:
Hello,
everyone,
I'm
Jackson
5
Fox.
I'm
regional
counsel
for
EPA
Region
10,
and
also
6
the
hearing
officer
for
this
hearing.

7
It's
my
responsibility
to
insure
that
8
the
hearing
is
run
properly
and
that
anybody
who
chooses
9
to
provide
testimony
this
afternoon
has
the
opportunity
10
to
do
so.

11
First,
I
would
like
to
introduce
Ms.

12
Cassandra
Ellis,
over
here
on
my
left.
She's
the
court
13
reporter,
and
because
she's
taking
down
everything
14
that's
said
please
speak
fairly
slowly
and
clearly
so
15
that
she
can
get
your
words
verbatim.

16
This
hearing
is
being
held
on
November
17
29th,
2001,
at
the
Town
Hall
here
in
Seattle.
The
18
purpose
of
this
public
hearing
is
to
receive
public
19
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
regulations
for
recycling
of
20
hazardous
wastes
in
the
manufacture
of
zinc
in
21
fertilizers.

22
These
proposed
regulations,
which
were
23
developed
by
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
at
EPA
24
headquarters,
were
published
in
the
federal
register
on
25
November
28th,
2000.
5
1
Public
notice
of
this
hearing
was
2
published
in
the
Seattle
Times
and
the
Seattle
Post
3
Intelligencer
on
November
16th,
2001.

4
This
public
hearing
has
been
called
5
with
two
objectives
in
mind.
We
would
like
to
give
all
6
interested
parties
an
opportunity
to
express
their
views
7
on
the
proposed
regulations,
and
we
are
interested
in
8
obtaining
as
much
relevant
new
information
as
possible
9
to
assist
the
agency
in
developing
the
final
ruling.

10
As
Mr.
Fagan
mentioned
previously
the
11
agency
received
a
substantial
number
of
written
comments
12
during
the
initial
comment
period
that
ended
on
February
13
26th
of
this
year.

14
This
hearing
is
an
additional
15
opportunity
to
offer
comments
on
the
proposal.
The
16
comments
received
at
this
hearing
will
become
part
of
17
the
formal,
administrative
record
for
this
rule
making.

18
We
will
take
both
oral
and
written
19
comments
here
this
afternoon.
If
you
want
to
provide
20
oral
testimony
you
will
need
to
put
your
name
on
the
21
sign­
in
sheet,
which
I
have
here
now.
Those
who
wish
22
to
make
a
statement
will
be
called
in
the
order
they
23
signed
in.
The
only
exceptions
for
this
are
for
24
individuals
who
represent
government
agencies
who
will
25
be
allowed
to
speak
first.
6
1
If
you
would
like
to
provide
written
2
comments
this
afternoon
we
have
comment
sheets
you
can
3
fill
out
at
the
registration
table.
When
you've
4
completed
your
written
comments
you
can
either
place
5
them
in
the
box
provided
at
the
registration
table
or
6
leave
them
with
Ms.
O'Dell,
that's
Jeanne,
who
was
7
talking
earlier.

8
If
you
don't
want
to
make
a
9
statement,
but
want
to
be
put
on
EPA's
mailing
list
for
10
the
final
rule,
you
can
indicate
that
on
the
comment
11
sheet.

12
The
oral
and
written
comments
received
13
at
this
hearing
will
be
reviewed
by
EPA
and
will
be
14
responded
to
fully
in
the
final
rule
document.

15
Now,
let's
get
started
with
the
16
hearing.
If
there's
anybody
in
the
audience
who
wishes
17
to
testify,
but
has
not
yet
signed
up
to
do
so,
please
18
sign
up
at
the
registration
table.
You
can
do
that
19
now.

20
Testimony
will
be
limited
to
three
21
minutes,
and
I
have
a
timer
here.
Given
this
limitation
22
you
may
need
to
summarize
your
comments
and
perhaps
23
submit
additional
comments,
in
writing,
for
the
record.

24
I
will
call
each
speaker
up
to
the
25
microphone.
As
you
begin
your
testimony
please
state
7
1
your
name
clearly
for
the
record,
and
include
the
2
organization
you
represent,
if
any.
To
insure
that
3
everyone
has
an
opportunity
to
testify
please
limit
your
4
comments
to
three
minutes.

5
I
have
a
­­
a
little
card
that
tells
6
you
when
you
have
30
second
left,
so
I
will
hold
that
7
up
so
you
can
see
that
you
better
wind
down.

8
To
keep
things
moving
I
will
also
9
call
out
the
name
of
the
following
speaker,
the
one
on
10
deck,
and
so
if
you're
the
one
on
deck
please
move
up
11
into
the
front
so
you
can
assume
a
position
by
the
12
microphone
right
after
the
previous
­­
the
speaker
13
before
you.

14
In
the
interests
of
time,
if
you
have
15
testimony
that
is
similar
to
a
previous
speaker's
16
testimony,
you
may
wish
to
simply
state
that
you
support
17
and
want
to
second
what
was
said
previously.
Make
sure
18
you
identify
the
name
of
the
speaker
with
whom
you
19
agree.

20
Before
we
begin
with
testimony
I
would
21
like
to
emphasize
that
the
specific
purpose
of
this
22
hearing
is
to
receive
comments
on
this
regulatory
23
proposal
developed
by
EPA.

24
While
you
may
have
concerns
or
views
25
on
other
issues,
and
I
have
heard
that
some
of
you
do,
8
1
that
relate
in
some
other
way
to
fertilizers
please
2
focus
your
comments
on
this
particular
proposed
rule.

3
I
also
appreciate
that
there
are
some
4
strong
feelings
and
different
points
of
view
among
some
5
of
you
in
the
room.
We
are
not
here
to
resolve
those
6
difference,
but
rather
to
receive
input
on
this
7
important
matter.

8
I
hope
we
can
have
a
civil
proceeding
9
and
be
respectful
of
the
various
points
of
view
that
10
will
be
expressed
this
afternoon.

11
So,
with
that,
let's
get
started.

12
The
first
speaker
is
Greg
Sorlie.

13
MR.
SORLIE:
Is
using
this
microphone
14
okay?

15
MR.
FOX:
That's
fine.

16
MR.
SORLIE:
So,
audience
is
to
my
17
back
today.
I
will
look
to
you
because
you
have
the
18
card.
My
name's
Greg
Sorlie.
I'm
a
manager
for
the
19
hazardous
waste
program
at
the
State's
Department
of
20
Ecology.
I'm
here
to
testify
in
favor
of
this
proposal.

21
The
governor,
in
February,
wrote
a
22
letter
to
EPA
expressing
his
support
for
the
steps
you
23
are
moving
forward
on,
and
I
wanted
to
quickly
summarize
24
the
points
made
in
that
letter.

25
First,
the
reason
why
we
­­
we
think
9
1
this
rule
is
at
least
the
first
step
in
the
right
2
direction
is
that
it
eliminates
the
KO61
exception
of
3
the
steel
milled
fluid
dust,
which
is
what
Washington
4
State
did
a
couple
of
years
ago.

5
And
we
think
that
closing
that
6
regulatory
loophole
and
having
an
even
playing
field
for
7
the
rest
of
the
country
makes
a
lot
of
sense.

8
We
also
like
the
fact
that
these
are
9
technology
based
standards.
We
originally
had
supported
10
risk
based
standards,
but
it's
our
understanding
given
11
the
current
risk
models
used
by
EPA
is
that
they
could
12
actually
allow
more
metals
and
contaminants
in,
and
that
13
didn't
make
sense
to
us,
especially
if
the
industry
can
14
meet
these
lower
amounts.

15
Thirdly,
dioxin,
we
are
very
pleased
16
to
see
that
there
are
some
dioxin
standard
here.
We
17
just
have
not
seen
that
from
the
federal
government
18
before
we
had
done
testing
here
in
Washington
in
our
19
fertilizers.
We
did
find
them,
in
some
cases,
to
be
20
very
high.

21
So
this
non­
degradation
standard
that
22
you've
proposed,
we
think,
is
a
good
step
and
we
would
23
like
to
see
that
stay
in
the
rule.

24
And,
lastly,
mining
wastes,
the
25
proposed
rule
eliminates
the
exclusion
for
­­
that
10
1
exempts
mining
waste.
We
did
not
adopt
that
in
2
Washington,
years
ago,
it's
called
the
bevel
amendment.

3
We
haven't
seen
any
adverse
impacts
to
our
agricultural
4
community
or
soil
because
of
that
not
being
here.

5
And
we
think
that,
again,
this
is
an
6
even
playing
field.
We've
done
that
in
Washington,
it
7
should
be
done
elsewhere.

8
A
couple
of
other
reasons
why
we
9
think
at
least
that
this
step
going
forward
makes
sense,

10
when
the
law
in
Washington
was
passed
we
required
11
testing
of
fertilizers
that
were
by
producers.

12
And
in
one
case
we
found
that
a
zinc
13
fertilizer
that
was
tested
had
very
high
amounts
of
14
cadmium
in
it,
this
is
from
an
offshore
source,

15
thousands
of
thousands
of
parts
per
million
of
cadmium.

16
And
once
we
found
that
we
kind
of
17
blew
the
whistle.
And
with
EPA's
assistance
that
was
18
taken
off
the
market
all
across
the
country.

19
And
had
that
not
happened
it
would
20
have
been
here
now.
So
I
think
this
points
out
the
21
example
of
having
these
kinds
of
standards
in
place.

22
And
in
Washington
we
also
have
about
23
50
fertilizers
now
that
were
either
denied
registration
24
or
reconfigured
because
we
have
some
standards
in
place
25
and
we're
much
better
off
because
of
that.
11
1
So,
again,
we
would
like
to
support
2
this.
We
are
concerned
that
what's
being
proposed
could
3
be
weakened.
We
would
just
like
to
encourage
EPA
to
4
have
the
most
stringent
standards
as
we
go
through
this
5
process.

6
And,
finally,
Oregon
Department
of
7
Equality
has
asked
me
to
indicate
in
a
letter
that
was
8
submitted
that
they
also
support
moving
head
in
getting
9
something
on
the
books
to
have
some
regulatory
control.

10
Thank
you.

11
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
And
I
broke
one
12
of
my
own
rules
immediately
by
not
calling
the
on
deck
13
speaker.
The
next
speaker
is
Catherine
Roper.
And
14
following
Catherine
will
be
Elizabeth
Gentala.

15
MS.
ROPER:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
16
Catherine
Roper.
I
represent
the
Well
Mind
Association
17
of
Seattle.
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
Green
Party.
The
18
Well
Mind
Association
is
an
educational
organizational
19
focusing
on
the
nutritional
and
environmental
causes
of
20
mental
and
emotional
illness.
We
provide
advocacy,

21
information
and
referral.

22
Among
other
factors
documented
in
23
research
we
have
found
that
food
allergies,
multiple
24
chemical
sensitivity,
impaired
immune
function,
fibrosis,

25
nutritional
imbalance
and
toxicity
are
important
causes
12
1
of
most
so­
called
mental
disorders.

2
We
request
that
the
EPA,
together
with
3
the
FDA,
label
toxic
waste,
what
it
is,
poison.
We
4
request
that
dumping
of
hazardous
waste
that
is
poison
5
on
the
farms
be
stopped
immediately.
Laws
requiring
6
labeling
have
been
finessed
by
powerful
companies.

7
The
Well
Mind
Association
requests
8
that
the
EPA
protect
our
environment
by
taking
all
9
action
necessary
to
begin
a
soil
cleanup
program,

10
beginning
with
outlawing
toxic
waste
and
fertilizer.

11
Soil
is
the
start
of
the
food
chain.

12
Poisoning
people
is
a
crime,
whether
it's
done
by
a
13
company
or
an
individual.

14
The
book,
Faithful
Harvest,
by
Duff
15
Wilson,
lists
toxins
found
in
soil
and
fertilizer.

16
Doctors
can
list
the
heavy
metals
found
in
their
17
patients
in
ever
increasing
amounts,
in
reference
to
18
your
presentation
perhaps
you
put
down
percentages,
but
19
I
think
what
doctors
are
finding
in
people's
bodies
are
20
witness
that
they
are
finding
their
ways
into
their
21
bodies
no
matter
what
percentages
you're
finding.

22
Well
Mind
has
found
that
successful
23
treatment
of
so­
called
mental
illness
often
starts
with
24
detoxification,
if
this
step
is
skipped
and
a
person
is
25
medicated
the
toxic
load
becomes
serious.
13
1
There's
no
such
thing
as
a
deficiency
2
of
Prozac
or
Ritalin.
However,
over
seven
billion
is
3
spent,
seven
billion
dollars,
is
spent
each
year
on
4
antidepressants.

5
According
to
the
US
Center
of
Disease
6
Control
over
seven
million
children
are
on
Prozac
and
7
Ritalin.
When
food
doesn't
nourish
and
heal
drugs
sell.

8
The
April
issue
of
the
Townsend
Letter
9
for
patients
and
doctors
gives
the
behavioral
10
abnormalities
associated
with
various
heavy
metal
11
toxins.

12
Mercury:
Social
deficits,
social
13
withdrawal.

14
Arsenic,
copper,
lead,
mercury:

15
Depression,
mood
swings,
flat
affect,
impaired
facial
16
recognition.

17
Mercury:
Schizoid
tendency,

18
hallucinations
delirium.

19
Copper,
mercury:
Suicidal
behaviors.

20
Aluminum,
arsenic,
cadmium,
copper,

21
lead,
mercury,
thallium:
Chronic
fatigue
syndrome,

22
weakness,
malaise.

23
Lead,
mercury:
Attention
deficit
24
disorder,
lacks
eye
contact.

25
And
I
have
three
pages
of
the
effects
14
1
of
heavy
metal.
You
can
do
the
research,
and
that's
2
very
important
as
part
of
what
you're
doing.

3
However,
we
see
in
people
that
are
4
coming
to
us
and
are
seen
by
the
doctors
that
they
are
5
collecting
these
heavy
metals
in
their
bodies.

6
So
you
can
do
the
research,
and
I
7
appreciate
everything
you're
doing,
and
I
agree
with
8
anything
he
said
before
in
terms
of
the
Department
of
9
Ecology,
but
please,
and
I'll
submit
this
list
to
you,

10
there's
a
lot
of
people
are
picking
up
this.
And
we
11
are
all
going
to
be
toxic
waste
sites
if
Congress
12
doesn't
take
even
more
action.

13
So,
tell
us
what
we
can
do
to
reach
14
Congress,
too.
Thank
you.

15
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
Next
is
16
Elizabeth
Gentala,
on
deck
is
Steve
Erickson.

17
MS.
GENTALA:
I'm
Elizabeth
Gentala,

18
with
Well
Mind
Association.
I
­­
I
am
in
favor
of
what
19
the
previous
spokes
people
said,
but
my
concern
is
that
20
though
a
small
amount
of
toxic
metals
and
other
toxins
21
are
allowed
that
these
could
accumulate
in
the
soil.

22
I
happen
to
be
a
gardener,
even
if
23
I'm
a
bit
disabled,
and
I
am
concerned
that
I
should

24
could
be
able
to
eat
food
that
doesn't
have
toxic
25
materials
in
it.
15
1
But
we're
finding
toxins
now
in
our
2
rivers,
besides
our
­­
our
soils.
And
I
don't
know
how
3
we're
going
to
reduce
all
of
these
toxins
that
­­
so
4
that
we
can
have
healthy
people,
because
we
­­
the

5
the
toxic
minerals
and
chemicals
are
producing
a
lot
6
more
disabled
people.

7
We're
finding
illnesses
that
should
be
8
coming
­­
be
arriving
when
you're
an
adult
that
in
9
children.
And
so
that's
my
concern
is
that
we
don't
have
10
toxins
that
are
­­
are
increasing
in
all
of
the
­­
the
11
soils
and
the
waters.

12
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
Steve
Erickson
13
on
deck
Jon
Stier.

14
MS.
ERICKSON:
Thank
you.
I'm
Steve
15
Erickson.
I
do
not
have
a
group
affiliation,
and
I
am
16
responding
only
to
the
presentation,
so
I'm
perhaps
not
17
as
organized
as
I
should
be,
but
I
recognize
the
18
distinction
between
the
roles
of
Congress
and
the
roles
19
of
EPA.

20
However,
I
would
hope
that
the
public
21
can
cause
Congress
to
give
a
primary
interest
to
the
22
greater
good
over
the
economic
interests
of
small
23
segments
of
society.

24
Besides,
a
personal
opinion,
I
believe
25
that
the
recognition
of
hazardous,
hazardous
wastes
16
1
should
cause
us
to,
as
you
try
to
do,
promote
recycling,

2
but
to
keep
it
out
of
the
food
chain.

3
I
detected
an
incongruity
between
two
4
statements
that
you
made
on
regulation.
One
was,
if
I
5
quoted
you
hopefully
correctly,
that
you
don't
intend
to
6
regulate
hazardous
waste
if
industry
makes,
quote,

7
unquote,
common
sense
approaches,
versus
another
comment
8
that
­­
that
what
the
key,
quote,
unquote,
the
key
to
9
this
is
the
good,
strong
state
regulation.

10
Now,
I
do
recognize
the
difference
11
between
federal
and
state
regulation.
However,
I
feel
12
that
EPA
does
have
a
regulatory
rule
­­
role
to
play
13
for
two
reasons:
One,
in
this
area
of
products
and
14
food
chain
that
they
typically
and
normally
do
cross
15
state
borders,
if
not
national
borders.
And
then,

16
secondly,
as
a
personal
philosophy
I
believe
that
third
17
party,
namely
government,
is
needed
as
a
regulatory
18
agent
to
assure
the
­­
the
common
good
is,
indeed,
met.

19
Another
belief
of
mine
is
that,
and
I
20
would
hope
that
Congress
would
accept
this
and
hope
that
21
EPA
would,
that
public
policy
should
be
predicated
on
22
the
avoidance
of
risk
and
not
waiting
for
the
23
requirement
of
scientific
provability
of
risk.

24
The
item
that
I
did
not
understand,

25
and
I'm
not
asking
for
an
explanation
here,
but
was
how
17
1
this
would
­­
the
heavy
metals
would
be
tied
to
zinc,

2
your
statement,
to
lower
the
zinc
to
lower
the
heavier
3
metals,
and
how
you
could
necessarily
presume
that
the
4
zinc
level
would
be
indicative
of
the
other
metals.

5
And,
as
a
final
conclusion,
I
­­
I
do
6
support
your
proposals
in
that
they
are
increasing
7
regulatory
influence
over
what
already
exists.

8
However,
I
don't
feel
they're
adequate
9
for
the
purposes,
as
I
mentioned.

10
And
I
thank
you
for
your
time.

11
MR.
FOX:
Lauren
Braden.
On
deck
12
Melinda
Gladstone.

13
MR.
TAKARO:
My
name
is
Tim
Takaro.

14
Steve
has
agreed
to
let
me
take
his
place
and
he
will
15
take
mine
later
in
the
testimony.

16
I
am
a
physician,
faculty
at
the
17
University
of
Washington
in
the
School
of
Public
Health
18
and
Medicine.
I
am
representing
the
Washington
19
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
today.

20
However,
my
research
interests
are
in
21
genetics,
susceptibility,
profusion,
in
part,
on
metals
22
and
susceptibilities
to
metals.
I
also
am
very
23
interested
in
occupational
exposures.
And
so,
in
24
addition
to
being
concerned
about
children
and
the
25
general
public,
I
am
concerned
about
workers
who
may
be
18
1
exposed
during
the
processing
of
these
toxic
wastes.

2
The
proposed
rule
does
not
go
far
3
enough
to
protect
children
and
other
susceptible
4
individuals.
While
science
has
been
the
foundation
of
my
5
career
I
have
grown
to
recognize
more
and
more
the
6
limits
of
our
science.

7
And
it
is
very
clear
to
me
that
8
despite
the
safety
factors
that
have
been
built
into
9
much
of
our
regulations
these
safety
factors
do
not
10
address
all
of
the
uncertainty
that
remains
in
our
11
science.

12
It
is
important
that
we
recognize
a
13
manifestation
of
this
uncertainty
and
that
all
of
the
14
regulation
almost
invariably
has
levels
being
driven
15
down
over
time
by
science.

16
You
rarely
see
a
protective
level
17
raised
in
­­
in
the
history
of
regulation.
Although
18
that
does
occur
it's
an
extremely
rare
event.

19
And
there
is
a
lesson
here.
We
­­
we
20
must
recognize
that
in
the
limits
of
our
science
we
may
21
be
risking
the
future
generations.
And
we
may,
in
fact,

22
be
endangering
our
own
health,
particularly
for
those
23
individuals
who
are
susceptible.

24
For
this
reason
we
supported
25
Washington
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
and
the
19
1
National
Organization,
the
precautionary
principal,
this
2
is
a
very
simple
idea,
better
safe
than
sorry
when
you
3
don't
know
everything.

4
And
we
certainly
don't
know
everything
5
about
genetic
susceptibility.
We
only
recently
have
a
6
rough
draft
of
the
human
genome.
And
it
is
incumbent
7
upon
us
to
slow
down,
use
common
sense
approaches,
and
8
not
endanger
future
generations.

9
I
would
bring
just
one
example
to
the
10
floor
today,
based
on
the
Washington
Survey
of
11
Fertilizers,
in
1995.
One
of
the
constituents
is
12
beryllium.
Beryllium
is
a
highly
toxic
metal,
very
13
clearly
can
cause
disease
at
the
regulated
levels,
and
14
this
is
why
the
Department
of
Energy
and
EPA
and
OSHA
15
have
been
reviewing
this
particular
standard.

16
Beryllium
is
present
in
much
of
these
17
toxins.
A
single
exposure
can
produce
disease
in
18
susceptible
individuals.
These
people,
of
course,
don't
19
know
who
they
are.
That
means
that
we
need
to
protect
20
the
entire
population.

21
And,
in
doing
so,
I
think
we
should
22
be
following
precautionary
principals,
it
doesn't
make
23
sense
to
use
toxic
wastes
in
materials
that
are
going
to
24
go
into
our
soils,
accumulate
in
the
soils,
have
25
multiple
exposures,
perhaps
have
synergistic
effects
20
1
that
we
don't
understand.
Toxic
waste
makes
no
sense
2
being
placed
back
on
the
soils.

3
Use
of
the
background
level
as
some
4
kind
of
standard
also
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
logistical
5
sense
at
­­
okay,
background,
that's
what
we
have
to
6
live
with.
So
why
would
you
want
to
increase
anything
7
over
that
background.

8
Their
regulations
usually
follows
a
9
single
compound,
and
that's
not
the
way
the
real
world
10
works,
particularly
it's
not
the
way
these
toxic
waste
11
deposits
are.
They're
multiple
compounds
with
multiple
12
effects,
some
of
them
synergistic.

13
Thank
you.

14
MR.
FOX:
Who
do
you
speak
on
behalf
15
of.

16
MR.
TAKARO:
Washington
Physicians
for
17
Social
Responsibilities.

18
MR.
FOX:
And
whose
position
did
you
19
take
on.

20
MR.
STIER:
He
took
mine.
I'm
Jon
21
Stier,
and
I'm
going
to
take
Lauren
Braden's
position,

22
because
she
had
to
go.
I
think
she
had
a
doctor's
23
appointment.

24
MR.
FOX:
All
right.
After
Jon
is
25
Melinda
Gladstone.
21
1
MR.
STIER:
Thank
you.
So,
my
name's
2
Jon
Stier.
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
National
3
Environmental
Law
Center
in
Seattle,
and
I
represent
the
4
Sierra
Club
and
the
Washington
Toxic's
Coalition
in
the
5
lawsuit
that
resulted
in
today's
modest
ruling
that's
6
the
reason
we're
going
forward
here
today.

7
My
clients
have
already
submitted
8
detailed
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
some
of
it
okay,

9
some
of
it
not
so
okay.

10
And
so
I
just
would
like
to
take
a
11
minute
or
two
to
just
step
back
and
look
at
some
policy
12
issues.

13
Turning
toxic
waste
into
fertilizer
14
not
only
poses
a
health
threat
as
described
in
Duff
15
Wilson's
excellent
new
book,
a
faithful
harvest,
but
16
it's
a
bad
environmental
policy,
as
well.

17
And
EPA's
waste
to
fertilizers
18
loopholes
offer
polluting
industries
a
cheap
waste
19
disposal
option.
Why
where
is
it
cheap,
because
if
EPA
20
regulated
these
wastes
as
the
hazardous
substances
that
21
they
really
are
then
they
would
have
to
be
disposed
of
22
in
specially
built
hazardous
waste
landfills,
away
from
23
people
and
far
away
from
the
food
supply.

24
But
instead,
with
EPA's
blessing,
the
25
polluters
give
away
or
sell
their
waste
to
fertilizer
22
1
makers
claiming
the
waste
has
plant
nutrients
in
it,
but
2
ignoring
the
lead,
arsenic,
mercury,
cadmium,
the
3
dioxins
and
other
industrial
poisons
that
make
them
4
hazardous
wastes
in
the
first
place.

5
They
then
profit
by
trafficking
the
6
wastes
to
unwitting
farmers
and
consumers.
By
making
7
toxic
waste
disposal
in
plant
food
cheap
and
even
8
profitable
this
twisted
system
discourages
investment
9
into
cleaner
technologies.

10
This
contradicts
a
cardinal
purpose
of
11
our
hazardous
waste
laws,
which
is
to
retain,
reduce
and
12
prevent
pollution.

13
The
original
idea
of
industrial
waste
14
recycling
was
to
reuse
chemicals
in
a
closed­
loop
15
manufacturing
process,
not
to
dump
those
chemicals
into
16
the
stream
of
commerce,
and
certainly
not
onto
the
food
17
supply.

18
It
is
a
gross
distortion
of
our
19
hazardous
waste
laws
to
use
recycling
as
a
pretext
for
20
cheap
toxic
waste
dumping,
all
the
more
so
given
the
21
known
health
risks
posed
by
the
chemicals
involved,
some
22
of
which,
like
dioxin
and
lead,
have
no
safe
exposure
23
levels.

24
Look,
folks,
we
got
lead
out
of
house
25
paint,
we
got
led
out
of
gasoline,
by
forcing
those
23
1
industries
to
invent
cleaner
products
and
cleaner
2
manufacturing
processes.
We
should
do
the
same
with
the
3
industries
that,
today,
dump
their
waste
down
the
4
fertilizer
loopholes.

5
What's
worse,
consumers
and
farmers
6
today
have
no
meaningful
choice,
whatsoever.
Washington
7
State
maintains
an
obscure
web
site
that
lists
some
8
levels
of
some
contaminants
in
some
fertilizers,
but
in
9
reality
most
people
won't
ever
know
about
that
web
site.

10
The
contaminants
and
their
levels
must
11
be
listed
right
on
the
labels
so
consumers
can
12
comparison
shop
right
at
the
store
and
so
farmers
can
13
take
informed
steps
to
protect
themselves
if
they
choose
14
to
use
these
contaminated
products.

15
MR.
FOX:
Thirty
seconds,
Jon.

16
MR.
STIER:
We
do
have
a
right
to
17
know.
To
EPA
I
say
the
following
things
with
respect
18
to
this
rule:
Keep
toxic
waste
out
of
our
food
supply
19
by
banning
toxic
wastes
in
fertilizers,
especially
20
wastes
containing
dioxin.

21
As
an
interim
step,
adopt
stringent
22
standards
for
metals
and
fertilizers,
and
close
23
loopholes
that
give
special
treatment
to
mining
waste
24
and
steel
mill
waste.

25
All
fertilizers
should
be
fully
24
1
labeled
with
the
actual
levels
of
contaminants.
And
EPA
2
should
establish
a
comprehensive
tracking
system
for
all
3
waste
going
into
fertilizers.

4
Once
we've
gotten
toxic
waste
out
of
5
fertilizers
EPA
should
support
standards
for
all
6
fertilizers
based
on
keeping
our
nation's
soils
clean
7
for
future
generations.

8
Turning
toxic
wastes
into
fertilizers
9
is
a
bang
your
head
against
the
wall
stupid
idea,
it
is
10
unfathomable
that
we
should
actually
have
to
explain
11
that
to
our
government.
Thank
you.

12
MR.
FOX:
Melinda
Gladstone,
David
to
13
follow.

14
MS.
GLADSTONE:
My
name
is
Melinda
15
Lark
Gladstone.
And,
Dave,
I
am
a
green
zealot.

16
My
testimony
represents
the
values
and
17
believes
of
Green
Wings,
the
Environmental
Group,

18
Whidbey
Environmental
Action
Network,
Pilchuck
Audubon
19
Society,
and
Northwest
Ecopsychology
Institute.

20
I
speak
for
friends
and
colleagues
who
21
could
not
attend
today,
and
I
am
also
a
voice
for
the
22
natural
world
and
our
home
planet.

23
The
health
of
the
individual
is
24
inextricably
linked
to
the
health
of
our
earth.

25
Thank
you
Patty
Martin,
thank
you
Duff
25
1
Wilson,
thank
you
Washington
Toxic's
Coalition,
thank
2
you
members
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
and
3
thank
you
for
the
person
or
persons
who
made
the
4
decision
to
hold
this
important
national
meeting
in
the
5
City
of
Seattle.

6
The
City
of
Seattle
has
an
7
international
reputation
as
a
place
of
protest,
power
8
and
change
making.
EPA,
I
say
to
you,
We
The
People
9
will
take
to
the
streets
if
our
voices
are
not
heard
10
today.

11
My
commitment
to
drive
three
hours
to
12
speak
for
three
minutes
brings
me
to
the
essence
of
why
13
I
am
here.
I
am
angry.
I
am
outraged.
I
am
fighting
14
for
my
life,
fighting
against
an
agency
whose
original
15
purpose
was
to
offer
protection.
I
am
fighting
against
16
the
legality
of
allowing
corporations
to
place
hazardous
17
wastes
covertly
in
fertilizers
used
to
grow
our
food.

18
This
is
a
life
and
death
matter
to
me.

19
In
an
age
of
terrorism
I
find
the
20
terrorists
alive
and
well
within
our
own
borders.

21
In
an
age
of
terrorism
EPA
is
22
eliminating
personal
freedoms,
freedom
to
know,
for
23
example,
specifically
what
the
contents
of
a
fertilizer
24
contains,
what
is
in
the
food
supply,
water,
soil,

25
etcetera,
and
freedom
to
self
protect.
Poisoning
the
26
1
food
supply
is
non­
consensual
battery.

2
I
reiterate,
I
am
speaking
for
myself
3
and
those
who
were
unable
to
attend
today.
We
are
4
fighting
for
our
lives,
our
health,
and
our
quality
of
5
life.

6
Health
and
quality
of
life
is
measured
7
by
degrees.
Does
our
world
end
with
a
bang
or
a
8
whimper.
I,
for
one,
will
not
allow
myself
to
be
a
9
victim
due
to
decisions
made
by
governmental
agency.

10
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
I
am
11
requesting
an
immediate
ban
of
dioxin
in
all
12
fertilizers.

13
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
admit
14
you
are
unaware
of
the
extent
of
the
systemic
damages
15
being
done
to
the
human
health
and
the
health
of
the
16
natural
world.

17
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

18
create
stringent
standards,
especially
for
thorough
19
labeling
for
industrial
wastes
added
to
fertilizers.

20
I
ask
the
people
in
the
audience,

21
those
of
you
who
are
concerned
about
our
collective
22
health,
to
continue
to
awaken
and
educate
all
friends,

23
colleagues,
neighbors,
coworkers
and
extended
family
24
members.
Let
your
outrage
be
your
motivation.

25
Hazardous
wastes
covertly
placed
in
27
1
fertilizers
are
an
issue
that
will
not
go
away.

2
I,
We
The
People,
want
disclosure
and
3
change
now.
EPA,
I
say
to
you,
get
the
led
out
and
put
4
the
"P",
for
protection,
back
in
EPA.

5
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
6
speak.

7
MR.
FOX:
Next
is
David
Gladstone,

8
after
David
is
Bruce
Bzura.

9
MR.
GLADSTONE:
My
name
is
David
10
Gladstone.
I
also
drove
three
hours
to
speak
for
a
11
very
short
period
of
time.

12
I've
been
listening
to
what
Dave,
what
13
you
had
to
say,
and
to
some
of
the
speakers,
and
I've
14
read
some
material
in
the
past.

15
This
is
one
of
those
issues
that,

16
again,
you
just
have
to
step
back
from
and
take
a
close
17
look
at
what's
really
going
on.

18
If,
indeed,
these
fertilizers
19
represent
less
than
one
half
of
one
percent
of
all
the
20
fertilizers
in
the
United
States
why
screw
around.
Why
21
take
the
risk.
The
precautionary
principal,
which
has
22
been
espoused
all
over
the
world
relative
to
issues
just
23
like
this,
says
wait
a
minute,
our
lives
are
at
stake,

24
our
health's
at
stake.
Don't
mess
around
with
this.

25
Ban
all
these
fertilizers.
28
1
And
if
you
can't
go
that
far
at
least
2
ban
dioxin
and
require
labeling.
Don't
lighten
the
load
3
for
these
companies.
There's
no
reason
to
take
away
4
their
responsibility
to
get
rid
of
any
hazardous
wastes
5
that
they
produce.
It's
a
very
simple
issue.

6
And
don't
kowtow
to
the
company's
in
7
Washington
that
have
these
huge
lobbying
budgets
to
8
spend
money
to
try
and
soften
the
standards.

9
At
least
take
the
standards
that
you
10
have,
tighten
them
up,
get
rid
of
dioxin
and
label
them.

11
Thank
you.

12
MR.
FOX:
Bruce.
And
after
Bruce
is
13
Aisling
Kerins.

14
MR.
BZURA:
Dave,
I
agree
with
you
15
fully
on
the
need
to
recycle
hazardous
waste,
if
it's
16
done
properly.
I
think
it's
very
important
to
recycle
it
17
rather
than
put
it
in
a
dump
or
on
land.

18
But
you
stated
in
your
proposals
here
19
that
the
regulations
are
unnecessarily
strict,
and
that,

20
I
don't
agree
with.

21
If
they're
so
strict
then
why
are
you
22
allowing
such
high
levels
of
various
heavy
metals.
The
23
example
I
used
before
was
lead.
You're
proposing
a
24
hundred
parts
per
million
lead
when
you
know
that
25
technology
is
available
and
economical
to
make
a
much
29
1
purer
product.

2
As
I
stated
before,
you
know
you
can
3
manufacture
less
than
five
parts
or
even
less
than
two
4
parts
per
million
lead.

5
So
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
believe
6
in
recycling
hazardous
wastes.
If
you're
going
to
7
recycle
it,
though,
make
the
best
possible
product
with
8
it
that
is
environmentally
safe.

9
MR.
FOX:
Okay.
Ms.
Aisling
here?

10
Christina
Logsdon?

11
MS.
LOGSDON:
I
meant
to
sign
up
for
12
the
evening.

13
MR.
FOX:
What?

14
MS.
LOGSDON:
I
meant
to
sign
up
for
15
the
evening.
I
think
we
weren't
aware
that
it
was
a
16
sign
in
sheet
for
speaking.

17
MR.
FOX:
All
right.
Sarahjoy
18
VanBoven.

19
MS.
VANBOVEN:
That's
me.

20
MR.
GLADSTONE:
You
get
two
for
one.

21
MS.
VANBOVEN:
Hi,
sorry
for
the
22
disruptive,
happy
child.
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
say
23
that
this
rule
is
really
obvious
to
me,
it
seems
like
24
it
should
have
been
done
a
while
ago,
it
touches
on
25
what
we
call
civilized
behavior
as
in:
You
don't
shit
30
1
where
you
eat.
And
most
animals
really
understand
that.

2
And
so
I
was
hoping
we
could,
you
know,
even
have
the
3
sense
of
most
horses
and
dogs
to
do
that.

4
But
the
mining
companies
and
steel
5
mill
corporations
are
trying
to
force
us
to
put
their
6
toxic
wastes
on
our
food
crops
and
yards,
and
thus
7
turning
our
fields
and
our
yards
into
toxic
dumps,
and
8
maybe
eventually
into
super
fund
sites.

9
So
that
sounds
a
little
ridiculous
to
10
me,
you
know,
rather
than
take
care
of
it
and
deal
with
11
it
themselves,
at
their
expense,
they
want
us
to
do
it.

12
And
they
are
going
to
fight
you
guys
all
the
way,

13
because
they
make
a
lot
of
money
doing
this,
selling
14
this
to
us.

15
And
if
they
have
to
put
on
labeling,

16
I
mean
no
one
in
their
right
mind
is
going
to
go
put
17
dioxins
in
their
garden,
that's
just
not
feasible.

18
So
if
you
do
the
labeling
they
are
19
going
to
be
upset,
because
they're
going
to
lose
a
lot
20
of
money.
And
so,
yeah,
and
it's
hazardous
waste
for
a
21
reason.
I
mean,
it's
hazardous,
that's
why
we
call
it
22
hazardous
waste.
So
that
seems
really
obvious
to
me,
as
23
well.

24
So
it
seems
obvious
in
anyone
with
25
good
sense,
you
know,
that
you
don't
put
dioxins
on
your
31
1
food
stuffs,
but
the
corporations
are
just
stupid
with
2
greed
and
they're
just
­­
they
­­
they
aren't
people.

3
They
don't
have
families,
they
don't
have
friends,
and
4
corporations
don't
get
sick.
I
mean,
their
main
goal
is
5
to
make
money.

6
And
that's
why
we
have
organizations
7
like
your
organization,
which
is
supposed
to
help
8
protect
people
from
this
ideology
of
straight
money,
we
9
need
more
money,
we
need
to
grow
bigger
and
let's
see
10
how
much
we
can
sell.

11
And
so
­­
I
mean
your
job
as
an
12
organization,
as
I
see
it,
is
to
protect
us
from
these
13
machines
of
money
making
machines.
I
mean,
they're
not
14
people.
They
don't
have,
like,
long­
term
CEO's
or
15
anything
that
are
even
responsible.

16
They're
just
­­
so
­­
so
I
would
ask
17
that
you,
you
know,
say
no
to
this
stupidity
and
enact
18
this
law.
I
think,
you
know,
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
19
other
people
here
that
all
toxins
should
be
banned
from
20
fertilizers,
period.
But,
you
know,
if
that's
not
21
possible,
which
it
is
possible,
but
­­
so
I
would
like
22
to
ask
you,
the
EPA,
to
be
an
agent
of
protection
for
23
the
environment
and
for
all
who
depend
upon
it,
namely
24
myself,
as
well
as
you
and
your
coworkers
depend
upon
25
the
cleanliness
of
our
food,
and
so
I
would
ask
that
32
1
you
take
this
step
in
the
right
direction.

2
MR.
FOX:
Next
is
Tim
Takaro,

3
followed
by
Cassie
Marshall,
is
Tim
here.

4
THE
AUDIENCE:
Tim
spoke
earlier.

5
MR.
FOX:
Oh,
he
did.
Cassie
6
Marshall.

7
MR.
FOX:
Following
Cassie
is
Holly
8
Forrest.

9
MS.
MARSHALL:
Hi,
my
name
is
Cassie
10
Marshall,
and
I
came
here
today
­­
I
also
made
a
three
11
hour
trip
to
come
here
today,
because
­­
because
I
just
12
happened
to
stumble
across
this
information,
actually
13
through
Duff
Wilson's
book,
primarily.
Thank
you
for
14
that
information.

15
And
­­
and
my
feeling
is
that
the
16
general
public
isn't
aware
of
this
issue
at
all.
And
17
I'm
always
­­
I've
always
been
concerned
about
food
18
safety
issues,
and
I've
fought
hard
on
other
battles,

19
but
this
was
news
to
me
and
that
was
scary
to
me,

20
because
most
people
just
aren't
aware
of
it.

21
And
I
guess
we're
kind
of
placing
our
22
trust
in
the
system
that
we
will
be
protected
from
these
23
kind
of
things.

24
And
it's
shaken
my
trust
a
little
25
bit,
I
guess,
that
just
this
was
allowed
to
happen,
you
33
1
know,
accidentally,
intentionally,
whatever,
that
it
is
2
a
problem
and
a
danger.

3
I
think
that
the
practice
of
calling
4
hazardous
waste
or
of
the
practice
of
turning
it
into
5
fertilizer
or
calling
that
recycling
is
just
not
quite
6
right.

7
You
know,
most
people
associate
8
recycling
with
the
good
use,
with
the
good
reuse
of
9
something,
and
­­
and
toxic
wastes
being
reapplied
10
somewhere
else
doesn't
seem
to
me
like
most
people
would
11
think
that
is
a
good
use
of
it,
to
reuse
it
in
any
way.

12
Sorry,
I
wasn't
quite
ready
to
come
13
up
here.

14
I
would
just
say
that,
you
know,
most
15
people
would
say
that
applying
lead,
cadmium,
arsenic,

16
dioxins
to
our
food
crop
is
not
good
recycling.

17
It
seems
to
me
from
the
information
18
that
I
have,
which
I
admit
is
limited,
that
the
19
industries
that
create
these
wastes
have
found
that
it
20
is
so
much
cheaper
to
pay
the
fertilizer
companies
to
21
take
these
materials
and
to
dispose
of
them
safely.

22
And
so
our
need
for
a
better
tracking
23
and
regulating
of
these
by­
products
is
­­
is
­­
is
very
24
big.
We
really
do
need
this.

25
The
part
that
I
found
disturbing
in
34
1
Mr.
Wilson's
book
was
how
I
think
he
calls
it
the
magic
2
silo
effect.
A
hazardous
waste
is
transported
into

3
into
an
area,
and
all
of
the
sudden
it
becomes
a
4
fertilizer
product,
and
it's
no
longer
regulated
by
any
5
of
the
restrictions
that
hazardous
waste
is
required
to
6
­­
to
­­
how
it's
required
to
be
handled.
And
that's
7
kind
of
a
scary
thought,
it
is
the
same
hazardous
waste,

8
it's
just
called
a
different
name
and
allowed
to
be
9
applied
that
it
really
scares
me,
it
really
bothers
me.

10
I'm
the
mother
of
two
young
daughters,

11
and
it
scares
me
for
the
future.
I
have
a
lot
of
fear
12
about
this
actually
killing
our
farm
land,
our
­­
the
13
precious
land
that
we,
you
know,
we
­­
we
need
to
be
14
feeding
our
future
generations.
This
really,
really
15
frightens
me.

16
After
kind
of
being
­­
becoming
a
17
little
bit
informed
about
this
I
did
a
little
­­
a
18
little
looking
into
some
things.

19
And
I
found
that
the
mostly
empty
box
20
of
fertilizer
in
my
garage
that
I
had
used
to
plant
21
flowers
with
my
daughter,
and
she
was
really
young
at
22
the
time
and
I
can
remember
her
putting
it
into
the
23
flower
bowls,
and
I
looked
it
up
and
it
has
16
times
24
the
background
levels
of
cadmium
levels
in
it.

25
And,
you
know,
reading
what
cadmium
35
1
can
do,
especially
exposure
in
young
children,
just
2
really
frightened
me.

3
So
I'm
just
here
as
a
concerned
4
parent,
and
I
am
just
urging
you
to
ban
all
the
toxic
5
waste
in
any
fertilizer
products
just
to
protect
us.

6
I
totally
agree
with
the
comments
made
7
by
the
Washington
Toxic
Coalition
spokesperson,
and
the
8
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
I
would
like
those
9
to
be
supported
in
my
­­
my
testimony,
also.

10
And
just
­­
just
to
keep
working
to
11
get
these
dangerous
things
out
of
our
system.

12
Thank
you.

13
MR.
FOX:
Holly
Forrest,
next
is
Lisa
14
Ramirez.

15
MS.
FORREST:
Hi,
I'm
Holly
Forrest,

16
and
up
till
this
point
the
most
hazardous
waste
that
17
I've
had
to
deal
with
has
been
this
one
and
her
18
brother's
diapers,
but
the
reason
that
I'm
here
today
is
19
because
I'm
aghast
that
hazardous
wastes
are
in
20
fertilizer,
fertilizer
that's
not
just
put
on
grass,
but
21
on
our
food.

22
And
one
thing
I
do
want
to
start
off
23
with,
though,
is
thanking
you
for
holding
this
hearing,

24
because
I'm
happy
that
the
EPA
plans
to
regulate
certain
25
fertilizers
made
from
hazardous
waste.
36
1
I
am
a
member
of
Sierra
Club
in
2
Southwest
Washington,
in
Vancouver.
So,
like
Cassie,
I
3
traveled
three
hours
for
three
minutes
and
will
have
a
4
three
hour
drive
back.
Fortunately,
this
one
is
a
good
5
traveller.

6
When
I
told
family
and
friends
what
I
7
was
doing
today,
where
I
was
going,
they
thought
that
I
8
was
joking.

9
The
notion
that
fertilizer's
used
to
10
grow
our
food
as
a
dumping
ground
for
toxic
substances
11
is
so
bizarre.
Physicians
and
scientists
will
give
and
12
have
given
you
detailed
information
about
the
harms
of
13
this
practice.

14
I
am
here
to
support
and
reinforce
15
that
the
EPA
regulate
this
or,
as
my
Dad
would
say,

16
make
them
knock
it
off.

17
I
am
here
as
a
daughter,
a
wife,
a
18
mother,
a
friend
and
a
citizen,
to
tell
you
that
I
want
19
protection
from
the
greed
that
threatens
our
health.

20
In
this
time
of
growing
economic
21
uncertainty
it
is
not
acceptable
that
we
reduce
22
regulations,
rather,
I
think
we
need
to
maintain
or
even
23
increase
it
in
order
to
protect
that
which
is
so
much
24
more
important
than
our
wealth,
and
that
is
our
health.

25
Each
evening
I
am
thankful
for
the
37
1
fact
that
my
family
is
healthy,
but
when
I
hear
about
2
practices
like
this
I
wonder
how
much
longer
they're
3
going
to
be
healthy.

4
Going
specifically
to
what
you
have
5
proposed
and
what
you
are
suggesting
doing
I
would
like
6
to
make
a
few
specific
comments.

7
First,
I'm
glad
to
see
that
you
have
8
several
things
in
your
proposal,
the
technology
based
9
limits
on
metals
and
zinc
fertilizer
made
from
hazardous
10
waste.

11
I
maybe
should
even
preface
that
by
12
saying
that
ultimately
I
think
the
solution
is
to
ban
13
hazardous
waste
in
fertilizer,
but
let's
deal
with
what
14
you're
talking
about.

15
Certainly
a
prohibition
on
wastes
from
16
dioxin
polluting
industries
that
are
being
used
for
17
fertilizer,
the
elimination
of
the
loopholes
that
18
provide
for
special
treatment
for
steel
mill
waste
when
19
it's
used
for
fertilizer,
as
well
as
the
mining
waste,

20
and
full
reporting
and
tracking,
including
product
21
labeling
of
the
use
of
hazardous
waste
in
fertilizer.

22
Ultimately,
you've
heard
a
lot
of
good
23
comments
from
a
number
of
people.
And
I
certainly
24
support
Cassie's
and
the
folks
that
she
supported,
but
I
25
­­
I
just
would
encourage
you
to
keep
that
protection
38
1
up,
because
far
more
than
being
afraid
of
getting
on
a
2
hijacked
plane
I'm
concerned
about
what
happens
when
I
3
go
to
the
grocery
store
and
when
I
prepare
meals
for
my
4
family.

5
So
I'm
counting
on
your
agency
to
6
protect
our
families.

7
Thank
you.

8
MR.
FOX:
Okay.
Next
is
Lisa
9
Ramirez,
following
her
is
Nancy
Dickeman.

10
MS.
RAMIREZ:
Hi,
I'm
Lisa
Ramirez.

11
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
Friends
of
the
Earth.
Friends
12
of
the
Earth
is
a
national,
non­
profit
environmental
13
organization.
We
have
over
20,000
members
nationwide.

14
And
I'm
here
representing
everyone.

15
I
would
also
like
to
second
the
16
comments
made
by
Toxic
Coalition,
Sierra
Club,
and
the
17
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
and
thank
you
for
18
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
speak,
as
well
as
thanking
19
everyone
that
came
out
today,
especially
the
people
that
20
made
a
six
hour
round
trip
journey,
that
is
incredible
21
so,
I'm
just
going
to
keep
this
short.

22
Friends
of
the
Earth
is
just
calling
23
on
the
EPA
to
ban
all
toxic
waste
in
fertilizer,
to
24
require
labeling
of
all
fertilizer
contents,
and
require
25
fertilizers
to
be
ecologically
safe.
39
1
When
we
find
toxins
like
lead,

2
cadmium,
arsenic,
dioxin
in
our
food
supply
we
know
this
3
is
a
problem.
And
it's
shameful
where
this
problem
is
4
stemming
from.
And
it
is
shameful
that
we're
allowing
5
polluting
industries
to
put
short
term
profit
ahead
of
6
human
safety
and
environmental
health.

7
Now
it's
time
to
end
this
cycle
that
8
not
only
allows
toxic
waste
to
show
up
in
our
food
9
disposal,
but
also
encourages
it,
as
a
cheap
means
of
10
disposal
for
these
polluting
corporations.

11
We
can't
allow
­­
we
can't
continue
12
to
allow
corporations
to
turn
their
toxic
by­
products
13
into
fertilizers
and
clean
out
their
smoke
stacks
on
our
14
farms.
It's
ridiculous
that
I
even
have
to
say
this.

15
What
good
is
a
pollution
control
16
device
on
a
smoke
stack
if
we
just
end
up
spreading
it
17
all
over
our
agricultural
fields.
I
don't
see
the
point
18
in
that.

19
Maybe
this
industry
should
find
ways
20
to
perhaps
even
eliminate
all
of
the
pollution
that
21
they're
emitting,
but
in
the
meantime,
we
just
can't
22
continue
putting
our
children
at
risk
by
exposing
them
23
to
the
toxins
that
they
eat,
every
time
they
eat.
And
24
we
can't
continue
to
harm
the
environment
by
25
irresponsibly
dumping
toxins
on
our
fields.
40
1
So,
again,
we
have
to
support
the
2
precautionary
principle,
obviously
that
should
be
3
applied
here,
we
have
to
ban
toxic
wastes
in
4
fertilizers,
require
labeling
of
all
fertilizer
5
contents,
and
to
require
fertilizers
to
be
ecologically
6
safe.

7
Thank
you
very
much.

8
MR.
FOX:
Nancy
Dickeman,
Troy
Prouty
9
is
next.

10
MS.
DICKEMAN:
Hi,
I'm
Nancy
Dickeman.

11
I'm
with
the
Environment
and
Health
Committee
for
12
Washington
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
and
I'm
13
also
speaking
as
a
parent
and
for
myself.

14
I
believe
it
is
imperative
that
15
industries
are
stopped
from
using
our
fields
as
dumping
16
grounds
for
their
toxic
waste,
this
is
not
a
form
of
17
recycling,
it
is
paying
industry
to
allow
them
to
18
dispose
of
their
toxins
into
our
farmlands,
our
food,

19
and
into
our
bodies.

20
These
wastes,
including
dioxin
and
21
arsenic,
are
associated
with
serious
health
problems.

22
Dioxin,
linked
to
cancers
and
other
illnesses,
has
23
recently
been
found
to
be
far
more
hazardous
than
we
24
thought,
hazardous
in
minuscule
amounts.

25
I'm
requesting
that
the
EPA
strengthen
41
1
and
enforce
regulations
prohibiting
toxic
wastes
in
2
fertilizers.
There
is
no
acceptable
reasons
to
allow
3
these
toxic
wastes
to
jeopardize
the
health
of
anyone
in
4
this
country,
it
is
time
to
prohibit
the
practice
now.

5
Thank
you.

6
MR.
FOX:
Troy
Prouty,
and
Sally
7
Goodwin
is
next.

8
MR.
PROUTY:
Hi.
Yes,
sir,
my
name
9
is
Troy
Prouty,
and
on
this
proposal
the
only
main
10
question
I
had
I
would
prefer
no
hazardous
waste
at
all,

11
but
that's
not
going
to
happen,
and
I
see
this
loophole,

12
conditional
exclusion,
and
there's
­­
Dave,
I
listened
13
to
you
speak,
and
conditional
exclusion
can
mean
14
anything.

15
And
knowing
that
companies
have
16
influence
over
our
government
I
would
kind
of
question
17
having
that
loophole
in
any
type
of
a
proposal.
So
I
18
just
wanted
to
make
that
statement
clear.

19
Thank
you.

20
MR.
FOX:
Sally
Goodwin.
Jeanne
21
Shank
is
after
Sally.

22
MS.
GOODWIN:
Hello,
I'm
Sally
23
Goodwin.
I'm
a
family
doctor,
and
I
would
like
to
24
speak
for
the
public
health
for
my
patients
and
for
my
25
family.
I'm
concerned
that
steel
mills,
paper
mills
and
42
1
other
major
polluting
industries
are
turning
their
waste
2
into
fertilizer,
which
is
spread
onto
food
producing
3
lands.

4
I
urge
the
EPA
to
take
leadership
in
5
guiding
health
promoting
regulations.
Public
policies
6
should
promote
public
health,
not
wait
until
risk
is
7
manifest
or
overwhelming.

8
I'm
glad
that
the
EPA
has
decided
to
9
tighten
regulations
with
certain
fertilizers
made
from
10
hazardous
waste,
but
the
proposed
rule
does
not
go
far
11
enough,
especially
when
we
focus
on
public
health
and
12
the
protection
of
our
children.

13
I
urge
you
to
strengthen
the
proposed
14
fertilizer
rule
in
the
following
ways:
Keep
toxic
waste
15
out
of
our
food
supply
by
banning
toxic
waste
in
16
fertilizer,
especially
wastes
containing
dioxin;
as
an
17
interim
step,
adopt
stringent
standards
for
metals
and
18
fertilizers,
and
close
loopholes
that
give
special
19
treatment
to
mining
waste
and
steel
mill
waste;
all
20
fertilizers
should
be
fully
labeled
with
the
actual
21
levels
of
contaminants;
and
EPA
should
establish
a
22
comprehensive
tracking
system
for
all
wastes
going
to
23
fertilizer.

24
I
encourage
you
to
follow
the
25
precautionary
principal
and
look
critically
at
possible
43
1
dangers.
The
American
people
want
and
expect
the
EPA
to
2
regulate
and
to
protect.
Sending
this
dilemma
to
the
3
states
is
only
going
to
complicate
the
situation.

4
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
Jeanne
Shank.

5
MS.
SHANK:
Hi.
Before
I
begin,
you
6
talked
about
the
percentages
of
one
half
of
one
percent
7
was
what
you
were
using
for
the
amount
of
micronutrient
8
hazardous
fertilizer,
I
think.

9
On
your
web
site
for
the
EPA
it
10
stated
one­
tenth
of
one
percent,
and
that
­­
so
my
11
calculations
go
with
that.
So,
actually,
it
would
12
probably
be
higher.
Anyway.

13
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
providing
14
us
with
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
most
important
15
issue.
I
firmly
believe
a
total
ban
on
hazardous
waste
16
being
added
to
fertilizer
is
the
only
intelligent
17
direction
to
take.

18
Common
sense
tells
us
we
must
protect
19
the
environment
where
we
produce
our
food.
We
all
have
20
to
eat.

21
As
of
now
we
are
treating
our
22
farmlands
as
a
dumping
ground
for
dangerous
materials
23
that
are
considered
too
hazardous
for
the
landfills.

24
In
a
conversation
with
the
EPA
last
25
week
I
was
informed
that
the
amount
of
fertilizers
44
1
contained
­­
containing
recycled
hazardous
waste
was
2
insignificant,
just
one­
tenth
of
one
percent
of
the
110
3
billion
pounds
of
fertilizers
supplied
annually
on
4
commercial
fields
and
orchards
in
the
US.

5
I
did
the
math.
One­
tenth
of
one
6
percent
of
110
billion
pounds
is
110
million
pounds
of
7
dangerous
fertilizer,
that
sounds
significant
to
me.

8
The
EPA
claims
that
the
­­
excuse
me
9
­­
the
EPA
claims
that
the
proposed
regulations
will
10
save
the
industry
seven
million
dollars
a
year.
I
think
11
that
number
pales
when
compared
to
the
future
health
12
care
costs
from
illness
and
disease
related
to
exposure
13
and
ingestion
of
these
recycled
hazardous
materials.

14
Didn't
we
learn
anything
from
the
environmental
15
destruction
we
caused
when
we
embraced
DDT
decades
ago.

16
A
paragraph
from
the
EPA
background
17
report
on
fertilizer
use
contaminants
and
regulations,

18
July
1999,
executive
summary
reads,
and
I
quote,
and
19
this
is
from
the
395
page
report,
and
I
read
it
all:

20
To
simplify
calculations,
soil
type
and
chemical
nature,

21
plant
uptake,
leaching,
erosion
and
other
removal
22
mechanisms,
were
not
considered
in
these
calculations.

23
All
input
of
heavy
metals
was
assumed
24
to
remain
with
the
soil
and
is
therefore
presumed
to
be
25
an
overstatement
of
soil
metals
over
a
long
period
of
45
1
time,
end
of
quote.

2
This
means
there's
actually
less
3
amounts
of
heavy
metals
from
applied
fertilizers
4
remaining
in
the
soil
than
when
first
applied
due
to,

5
and
I'll
use
your
three
standards:
Plant
uptake,
and
6
that
means
some
of
the
hazardous
materials
have
left
the
7
soil
and
are
now
in
our
food
chain.
Leaching,
some
of
8
the
hazardous
materials
have
left
the
soil
and
are
9
heading
into
our
ground
water.
Erosion,
some
of
the
10
hazardous
materials
have
left
the
soil,
via
irrigation,

11
run
off,
and
are
in
our
local
water
ways
or
they
have
12
left
the
soil
through
field
cultivation
and
are
being
13
distributed
into
the
air
we
breathe.

14
I
feel,
since
we
are
not
able
to
15
completely
control
these
toxic
substances
once
we
16
release
them
onto
the
ground,
that
is
reason
enough
not
17
to
allow
them
to
be
mixed
in
with
the
fertilizers
that
18
cover
so
much
of
our
farmlands.

19
Thank
you.

20
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
All
right.

21
Everyone
who's
signed
up
has
had
an
opportunity
to
22
speak,
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
who
23
has
not
yet
signed
up?
Okay,
come
forward.

24
MR.
DUIM:
My
name's
Larry,
and
I've
25
had
a
lot
of
contact
with
these
products
all
my
life.
46
1
I
was
raised
on
a
farm
in
Eastern
Washington,
where
we
2
got
products
from
such
places
as
Bay
Zinc,
over
in
3
Yakima,
who
took
toxic
sludge
and
converted
it
into
4
fertilizer.

5
One
of
the
places
that
creates
sludge
6
is
in
Whatcom
County,
that
place
is
up
north
there,
it's
7
called
­­
let
me
get
my
notes
here,
I'm
sorry
about
8
this
­­
but
it's
very
poisonous.

9
And
toxic
waste
sludge
that
they
10
produce
it
actually
eats
the
tires
off
of
the
heavy
11
equipment,
this
stuff
is
so
toxic.
And
we
all
have
it
12
in
us
now,
because
it's
in
all
the
food
that
we
eat.

13
We
raise
peas,
corn,
carrots,
all
14
these
things
you
find
on
the
produce
shelf
have
these
15
chemicals
on
them
now.
And
they've
assimilated
into
the
16
produce.

17
I
have
been
detoxing
now
for
years
18
trying
to
get
this
stuff
out
of
my
system.
Well,
I
19
found
that
there
are
certain
products
out
there
on
the
20
market
that
can
actually
help
you
detox
these
things
out
21
of
your
system.

22
One
of
the
things
I
found
that
works
23
really
well,
and
this
is
for
everybody,
I
highly
24
recommend
this,
it's
the
essential
oils.
Lavender
25
actually
eats
these
products
right
out
of
your
system.
47
1
Gary
Young
is
one
of
the
largest
2
producers
of
essential
oils,
of
pure
essential
oils,
in
3
the
country.
I
highly
recommend
it.
This
guy
can
­­
he
4
uses
a
­­
a
spectral
analysis
to
make
sure
these
are
of
5
the
highest
quality
essential
oils.
Therefore,
they
6
actually
do
the
job.
They're
not
poisonous.
They
7
actually
eat
the
poisons.

8
So
if
anybody's
interested
I
can
hook
9
them
up
with
a
direct
dealer
for
Gary
Young,
and
I
10
highly
recommend
it.
It's
helping
me.
I'm
sweating
11
right
now
because
the
toxins
are
sweating
out
of
me
just
12
with
the
use
of
essential
oils.

13
So
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
Thanks.

14
MR.
FOX:
Okay.
Is
there
anyone
else
15
who
would
like
to
speak?
Well,
thank
you
all
for
16
coming
and
giving
your
remarks
and
comments.
And
this
17
meeting
is
now
adjourned.

18
(Whereupon,
the
hearing
was
adjourned
19
at
3:
00
p.
m.)

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.